I see, after I left, that badluck has decided his opinion of "harmless" and "non-offensive" is the obvious correct opinion.    Will he be writing a dictionary too?

Seems a bit "close-minded" to me.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2013 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Sure. Just as free as the racists in 1967 who opposed interracial marriage. Great thing about this country, you are free to be a bigoted *******. I just hope you know how stupid you'll look in the relatively near future.

Do you understand the difference between interracial and same sex as it pertains to marriage?     If so, explain the difference.    Just to humor me.

Are you so enlighted that your personal beliefs are "correct" and anybody who opposes you is wrong? 

If so, then you sound just like bistiza.  Congrats.

I've never felt that way and it's absolutely ridiculous to say that I have.

Just because I defend my beliefs well doesn't mean I think anyone who opposes me is wrong. In point of fact, it is others who continually attempt to tell me that I'm wrong because their beliefs are "correct", so I'm rather the opposite of what you state here.

You get yours but you shouldn't get to stop other people from creating their own. Allowing gays to marry (as they are now) changes nothing in anyone else's marriage. It's harmless. Unless you have a specific harm in mind?

I do.

When I say "I'm married", I don't want anyone to mistakenly think it's a homosexual relationship. I want the term "marriage" to have an inherent meaning of a heterosexual union, and I feel harmed if that distinction changes.

 The real issue is whether a person can choose who they are attracted to.

Since who you are attracted to is only a factor in the decision of who you are with and is NOT something that by itself defines your sexuality, in a very real sense it doesn't matter whether you can choose it or not, as you could always choose not to be with the gender you are most attracted to if that's what you want to do.

Having said that, I believe you CAN choose who you are attracted to, at least to some extent and that extent differs as much as people do.

 For example, there are many people who are attracted to their same sex, but who take part in heterosexual relationships because that's just easier in our society.  According to your definition, would those people be straight?

First, it's not "my" definition - it's the definition supported by logical reasoning. I didn't create it, nor did I ever assume ownership of it, so let's not call it "mine".

Second, you are the sexuality based upon your action. So if you are only with those of the opposite gender in romantic and/or sexual situations, then you are heterosexual. For the purposes of defining your sexuality, it doesn't matter why you with that gender, only that you are.

Anyone against the agenda(s) of the left qualifies enough as "the right" to not matter enough to get to be offended.

This has to be satirical, and if it is, it makes a great point, which is that everyone has the right to be offended about things unless they are conservative and don't want to accept or tolerate the agendas of the left.

I also think it's hilarious that bad_luck has decided he is once again Czar of Everything and therefore has the right to tell others what is and is not "harmless" or "offensive". The laughs never stop coming when conversing with you, BL.

"When I say "I'm married", I don't want anyone to mistakenly think it's a homosexual relationship."

Posted by tecwrg on 5/1/2013 9:33:00 PM (view original):
SSM itself does not affect me directly, no.

Having a change in the long-standing traditional concept of marriage being shoved down my throat because it's trendy offends me.  If I am offended, then I am affected.

Interracial marriage itself does not affect me directly, no.

Having a change in the traditional concept of marriage being shoved down my throat because it's trendy offends me. If I am offended, then I am affected.

I'm sorry you're offended but that's really not a good enough reason to take rights away from someone else.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/2/2013 9:20:00 AM (view original):
"When I say "I'm married", I don't want anyone to mistakenly think it's a homosexual relationship."

I'm not going to continue the argument, but I'll admit I'm curious - why do you feel that way?

He's a homophobe.

 For example, there are many people who are attracted to their same sex, but who take part in heterosexual relationships because that's just easier in our society.  According to your definition, would those people be straight?

First, it's not "my" definition - it's the definition supported by logical reasoning. I didn't create it, nor did I ever assume ownership of it, so let's not call it "mine".

Second, you are the sexuality based upon your action. So if you are only with those of the opposite gender in romantic and/or sexual situations, then you are heterosexual. For the purposes of defining your sexuality, it doesn't matter why you with that gender, only that you are.



Biz used 79 words to say "yes."

Do you see live ******* on network TV?   I assume "no".

Do you know why?   Probably not so I'll tell you.   A large number of people would find that offensive.    Should I not have the "right" to watch some hot sex on NBC?  Why is that "right" taken away from me?   Can't people just watch CBS?   Or just NOT watch NBC?

I HEARBY GRANT EVERYONE THE RIGHT TO NOT WATCH LIVE SEX ON NBC AND TO NOT GET GAY MARRIED!!!

LET'S GIT 'ER DONE!!!

TO QUOTE THE GREAT PHILOSPHER, LOUIS CK, "IT AIN'T MY JOB TO RAISE YOUR ******* KIDS.  DON'T LET THEM WATCH NBC!!!!!!"

CK, I ASSUME THIS APPLIES TO PORN ON NBC!!!!

**** YEAH!!!!   NO RULES, NO GUIDELINES, NO LAWS!!!!   ANARCHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  **** YEAH!!!!!!

WHO THE **** IS HARMED IF I'M WATCHING SOME PORN ON NBC!??!!??!?!!?

NOFUCKINGBODY!!!!!  THAT'S WHO!!!!!!!

I'm not going to continue the argument, but I'll admit I'm curious - why do you feel that way?

I want there to be a distinction so there is no confusion.

I also don't want the word to lose its meaning regarding defining only heterosexual relationships. I like it that way and want it to stay that way.

I'm sorry you're offended but that's really not a good enough reason to take rights away from someone else.

So give everyone equal rights - just don't call the homosexual unions marriage. Call it something else, like a civil union.

Biz used 79 words to say "yes."

No, I explained the answer so he would understand and so that if people like you try to twist what I said into something it isn't (as you frequently try to do) then I can crush that attempt more easily.

If you'd like me to use less words, maybe you shouldn't have started with trying to twist what I've said into what it isn't. Then it wouldn't be necessary to explain things to you a hundred times before you realize you were wrong about what I said and give it up.

DOWN WITH THE FCC!!!!!!!!!