5/2/2013 3:01 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/2/2013 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):
And I think SSM compares to porn on network television.   "harms no one", "makes people happy" and the ol' "no one is forced....."

If you'll stop saying the marriage between two different races is the same as the marriage between two same sex individuals, I'll stop comparing SSM to publicly broadcast porn.    Because, in my mind, they are equally silly comparisons. 

FWIW - My opinion is I'd be ok with NBC showing porn as long as it was easily "blocked."  As in, it's not Channel 4 (where I live), it's on a channel that's harder to stumble upon on accident.  Or, have each cablebox have an easy, well-understood option to block the channel once porn is being shown.  Otherwise, there isn't anything too bad with that.

Can't "block" SSM.   Both "harm no one else", "makes people happy" and "no one will be forced....."

Same thing being treated unequally.    If we're going to be fair, let's be fair.

If broadcast porn truly harms no one, allow it. I don't care. Who's arguing that it should stay banned?
I'm glad you asked.   Seems the FCC is considering "loosening up" the restraints on language and sexual content.    Seems that it's a very unpopular consideration.    I assume you know how to look things up on the internet.   Have at it.   

Get back to me when you're more current.    Thanks in advance. 
I know you're holding that up as some sort of example, "see look, another law that prohibits something completely harmless!" Ok. If broadcast porn is harmless, then the ban is a stupid law. I'm sure you'll agree that we shouldn't try to write MORE stupid laws just because there are stupid laws already on the books.
5/2/2013 3:03 PM
Fair enough.   Get started on eliminating that stupid law.   Once you've accomplished that, you and I will stand side by side while demanding the legalization of gay marriage everywhere.    Looking forward to our future endeavor.
5/2/2013 3:07 PM
The gay marriage ban is a stupid law. But don't worry, supreme court's got it.
5/2/2013 3:11 PM
Then why have you spent 100 pages attempting to convince biz?tec?somebody?

Don't think the SC is moving fast enough?
5/2/2013 3:20 PM
Because it's interesting.
5/2/2013 3:35 PM
Yes, for some reason BL likes it when I whoop his *** in debate. Now you're doing it too. He must be enjoying himself quite a bit.
5/2/2013 3:36 PM
"No, but they demand that gay marriage be allowed, and most of them demand that no one is allowed to disagree with their choice to be homosexual."

Yes.  And vegetarians have the same rights as meat eaters.  In my "everything is rosy and great and everyone loves each other" world we treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same way we treat vegetarians and meat eaters.  They're different, and there's nothing wrong with that.  Marry anyone you want.

I know you're going to pick apart my sentences one by one.  My thoughts are generally in paragraph form.
5/2/2013 3:36 PM
Is it?    What "new" development has occurred in the last 20-30 pages?   Other than NBC porn=SSM?

Anyway, the point I was making was simple.  You told tec that some people finding SSM offensive wasn't a good enough reason to prevent it.   That's exactly why porn is not shown on network TV.  Too many find porn offensive.   Religious right, ultra-conservative, Tea Party, whatever label you want to put on them.   But there are enough to stop it.    Of course, that has a $$$ factor that SSM, I assume, does not.  But my guess it's the same group(s) that would object.   More or less.  
5/2/2013 4:15 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Is it?    What "new" development has occurred in the last 20-30 pages?   Other than NBC porn=SSM?

Anyway, the point I was making was simple.  You told tec that some people finding SSM offensive wasn't a good enough reason to prevent it.   That's exactly why porn is not shown on network TV.  Too many find porn offensive.   Religious right, ultra-conservative, Tea Party, whatever label you want to put on them.   But there are enough to stop it.    Of course, that has a $$$ factor that SSM, I assume, does not.  But my guess it's the same group(s) that would object.   More or less.  
Again, there are differences. The porn law applies equally to everyone. One group isn't being singled out. Also, porn is readily available in other formats. States that ban gay marriage leave gays that want to marry without any options.
5/2/2013 4:17 PM
Posted by bistiza on 5/2/2013 1:18:00 PM (view original):
You're against gay marriage, so you don't want to consider that as an option when talking to people about your marriage or other marriages.  If that's correct, ok.

I'm against calling unions between homosexuals marriage.

I'm fairly neutral on whether the government should sanction those unions at all. I think the law already treats everyone equally, and personally I would rather the government not sanction anyone's relationships at all, but those are only loosely-related issues that really don't reflect on the debate we've had here.
 To the point where if someone thought you were a different sexuality than you actually were, it would be like "No, I wouldn't like that steakhouse, I'm a vegetarian" and everyone moves on.
That's all well and good so long as the vegetarian doesn't demand that the entire group must only go to vegetarian restaurants because they are vegetarian. Or that all restaurants should be forced to serve vegetarian food.

Similarly, homosexuals shouldn't demand that everyone cater to their needs or be accepting or tolerant of their choices.
There's no judgements, no being upset about being confused for something you're not. 
I don't want to be confused for anything I'm not. That's true whether someone thinks I'm a flower, an astronaut, or a homosexual. Generally speaking, I'm in favor of things that help prevent any confusion surrounding what I am or am not, so that people do not think I am something I am not.
FWIW - My opinion is I'd be ok with NBC showing porn as long as it was easily "blocked."  As in, it's not Channel 4 (where I live), it's on a channel that's harder to stumble upon on accident.  Or, have each cablebox have an easy, well-understood option to block the channel once porn is being shown.  Otherwise, there isn't anything too bad with that.
I'll use your reasoning here:

I'm in favor of homosexual relationships as long as they can be easily "blocked" - or rather, they aren't public. I don't want to stumble on a homosexual public display of affection by accident. Otherwise, there isn't anything too bad with that.
Bistiza is absolutely NOT homophobic.

He has no problem with gays.

As long as he doesn't have to see them.  Or think about them.  Or God forbid be confused for one.

5/3/2013 8:36 AM
Yes.  And vegetarians have the same rights as meat eaters.  In my "everything is rosy and great and everyone loves each other" world we treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same way we treat vegetarians and meat eaters.  They're different, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, vegetarians have the same right as anyone else  to eat meat if they choose, and the right not to eat meat if they choose.  In the same way, homosexuals have the same right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite gender if they choose, and the right to not marry someone of the opposite gender if they choose. The rights are ALREADY EQUAL.

Asking for same sex marriage is like a vegetarian asking the government to mandate that every restaurant be required to serve vegetarian offerings. While many do that already, it wouldn't be right for the government to make such a mandate just because the vegetarians may want it to happen. Everyone already has the same right to eat or not eat meat. In the same way, the government shouldn't be considering mandates to allow same sex marriage, as everyone already has the same rights to marry someone of the opposite gender or not to do so.
Bistiza is absolutely NOT homophobic.

He has no problem with gays.

As long as he doesn't have to see them.  Or think about them.  Or God forbid be confused for one.
 
I am not homophobic, correct. I have no problem with gays, correct.

I have every right to not want to see anyone's displays of affection as I see fit. I'm also free to think about or not think about whatever I'd like. I also have a right to desire clarity wherever possible about what I am and am not.

There is nothing wrong with any of those things, so get off your high horse and stop acting like their is.

5/3/2013 10:16 AM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Is it?    What "new" development has occurred in the last 20-30 pages?   Other than NBC porn=SSM?

Anyway, the point I was making was simple.  You told tec that some people finding SSM offensive wasn't a good enough reason to prevent it.   That's exactly why porn is not shown on network TV.  Too many find porn offensive.   Religious right, ultra-conservative, Tea Party, whatever label you want to put on them.   But there are enough to stop it.    Of course, that has a $$$ factor that SSM, I assume, does not.  But my guess it's the same group(s) that would object.   More or less.  
Again, there are differences. The porn law applies equally to everyone. One group isn't being singled out. Also, porn is readily available in other formats. States that ban gay marriage leave gays that want to marry without any options.
SSM is new to the US.   There is no precedent that gay couples do, or should, have the same rights to marriage.   That's the debate.   Like it or not, the reason for the debate is that a rather large sub-set of society finds homosexuality an affront to their beliefs.  IOW, they find it offensive.

Homosexuality has come a long way in the last 20-30 years.   It's not yet "mainstream" as evidenced by all the hoopla over the NBA player who came out this week.   The fact that someone has to "come out" speaks volumes.  Collins likely won't have a job next year, not because he's openly gay, but because he's just not that good.  However, the gay community will use that to promote their cause(edited).  "Collins was blackballed because he's gay!!!"    That, in itself, wil cause those who object to homosexuality, at it's core, to push back even harder.   So, despite coming a long way, there's still a long way to go.    People just need to recognize this. 

Some things take time.   Next year, maybe 5 years, maybe 10, no one will care about SSM.   However, by demanding it NOW!!!, they are strengthening the resolve of those who oppose it.   Maybe it's worth the fight today for some but I think it's actually setting back the eventuality of SSM.
5/3/2013 10:11 AM
It's not yet "mainstream" as evidenced by all the hoopla over the NBA player who came out this week.   The fact that someone has to "come out" speaks volumes.

This gets WAY more attention than it deserves, too.

So what if he's gay? Why does the media have to make a huge deal about it?

Why does everyone who supports him have to make a pubic declaration stating as much?

What about people who are against him coming out - why is it not okay for them to declare that?
Collins likely won't have a job next year, not because he's openly gay, but because he's just not that good.  However, the gay community will use that to promote their agenda(not the word I'm seeking but I can't think of the proper wording).  "Collins was blackballed because he's gay!!!"
 
Agenda IS the proper word here, because that's exactly what they will do.

If you're gay and anyone does anything you don't like, you can blame it on the hate for being gay and cause an issue. It's like how some people treat being black - if anyone does anything they don't like, they cry racism and cause an issue even if it makes no sense.
5/3/2013 11:37 AM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2013 10:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Is it?    What "new" development has occurred in the last 20-30 pages?   Other than NBC porn=SSM?

Anyway, the point I was making was simple.  You told tec that some people finding SSM offensive wasn't a good enough reason to prevent it.   That's exactly why porn is not shown on network TV.  Too many find porn offensive.   Religious right, ultra-conservative, Tea Party, whatever label you want to put on them.   But there are enough to stop it.    Of course, that has a $$$ factor that SSM, I assume, does not.  But my guess it's the same group(s) that would object.   More or less.  
Again, there are differences. The porn law applies equally to everyone. One group isn't being singled out. Also, porn is readily available in other formats. States that ban gay marriage leave gays that want to marry without any options.
SSM is new to the US.   There is no precedent that gay couples do, or should, have the same rights to marriage.   That's the debate.   Like it or not, the reason for the debate is that a rather large sub-set of society finds homosexuality an affront to their beliefs.  IOW, they find it offensive.

Homosexuality has come a long way in the last 20-30 years.   It's not yet "mainstream" as evidenced by all the hoopla over the NBA player who came out this week.   The fact that someone has to "come out" speaks volumes.  Collins likely won't have a job next year, not because he's openly gay, but because he's just not that good.  However, the gay community will use that to promote their cause(edited).  "Collins was blackballed because he's gay!!!"    That, in itself, wil cause those who object to homosexuality, at it's core, to push back even harder.   So, despite coming a long way, there's still a long way to go.    People just need to recognize this. 

Some things take time.   Next year, maybe 5 years, maybe 10, no one will care about SSM.   However, by demanding it NOW!!!, they are strengthening the resolve of those who oppose it.   Maybe it's worth the fight today for some but I think it's actually setting back the eventuality of SSM.
Should blacks have just chilled out a little bit and let the civil rights movement just happen? Maybe women would have an easier time today if they hadn't fought so hard for the right to vote and just accepted that fighting for equal rights just made people fight harder against them?

Asking gays to just wait for equal rights is ridiculous. The expansion of liberty is a good thing and I have zero interest in telling someone else how they get to live their life.
5/3/2013 11:35 AM
Should black have just chilled out a little bit and let the civil rights movement just happen? Maybe women would have an easier time today if they hadn't fought so hard for the right to vote and just accepted that fighting for equal rights just made people fight harder against them?

 

Those are biological differences, not different lifestyle choices. It's not an accurate comparison.

Asking gays to just wait for equal rights is ridiculous. The expansion of liberty is a good thing and I have zero interest in telling someone else how they get to live their life.


So you're okay with the welfare mom of three spending money on beer but not on those kids? You're fine with people who can't afford the five kids they have creating another one so they can get even more government aid?

Because you don't want to tell anyone how they get to live their life, you know.

of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.