5/2/2013 12:29 PM
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. 

You can compare it to whatever you want.

Gay marriage doesn't compare to broadcast porn:

Porn is illegal for broadcast for everyone. There isn't a law allowing some people to watch it but prohibiting it for others.

It's legal for straight couples to marry but not gay couples. Like laws banning interracial marriage, this law serves no purpose and violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.
5/2/2013 12:47 PM
Posted by bistiza on 5/2/2013 12:00:00 PM (view original):
Why is it important to you that it's clear whether a marriage is heterosexual or homosexual? 

I want to be able to understand what genders are involved when I hear others reference a marriage, and I want others to be able to understand me when I reference my own. I don't want to think someone is in a real marriage if they are really in a homosexual union, and I don't want anyone else thinking I may be in a homosexual union. I don't want anyone to be confused as being of a sexuality they are not choosing to be a part of.
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.

Your last sentence is interesting though.  Eventually I'd like to get to the point where it really just didn't matter what your sexuality was.  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.  There's no judgements, no being upset about being confused for something you're not.  
5/2/2013 12:52 PM
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.
5/2/2013 1:07 PM
It's legal for straight couples to marry but not gay couples.

It is legal for EVERYONE  to marry someone of the opposite sex. The law applies equally.
5/2/2013 1:18 PM
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.
5/2/2013 1:58 PM
So as much as you protested you weren't homophobic earlier in the thread, I guess you've totally blown that cover now?
5/2/2013 2:03 PM
 "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."

Homosexuals don't demand that everyone gets gay married.  Homosexuals would never ask that everyone be open to having gay sex, just like they wouldn't ask every restaurant to have a vegetarian option.  Although I'm sure you can get a salad at most steakhouses.

5/2/2013 2:04 PM
"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."

You're smart enough to know that's a poor analogy.  
5/2/2013 2:15 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/2/2013 2:04:00 PM (view original):
"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."

You're smart enough to know that's a poor analogy.  
You're giving bis WAAAAY too much credit here.
5/2/2013 2:25 PM
So as much as you protested you weren't homophobic earlier in the thread, I guess you've totally blown that cover now?

I'm not sure if you're talking to me, but I'm not homophobic.
Homosexuals don't demand that everyone gets gay married.

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.
You're smart enough to know that's a poor analogy. 

I'll let it stand and let you try to pick it apart if you disagree with it.
You're giving bis WAAAAY too much credit here.
Says the guy who can't hold his own in virtually any debate and when he gets his *** handed to him he calls everyone a troll and runs away.
5/2/2013 2:35 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2013 12:29:00 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. 

You can compare it to whatever you want.

Gay marriage doesn't compare to broadcast porn:

Porn is illegal for broadcast for everyone. There isn't a law allowing some people to watch it but prohibiting it for others.

It's legal for straight couples to marry but not gay couples. Like laws banning interracial marriage, this law serves no purpose and violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.
So what?  That's just your opinion.

Here's the difference between traditional marriage and SSM.   One has one dick, one vagina.   The other has matching naughty bits.     Doesn't compare to interracial marriage at all as interracial still has the one dick/one vagina dynamic. 

As it stands, SSM is illegal in some states.   Broadcast porn is illegal in some states(about 50).    Same ******* thing. 
5/2/2013 2:37 PM
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.

5/2/2013 2:46 PM
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?
5/2/2013 2:50 PM
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. 
5/2/2013 2:53 PM

BL is arguing out of his *** as usual. Funny that its MikeT23 who is pointing it out this time rather than me doing it.

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.