4/9/2013 10:22 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/9/2013 12:11:00 AM (view original):
The main argument against it is the people dont want it. You can argue if their motivations are valid, but that is the reason.

Gay marraige has gotten its *** kicked in the ballot box.

And the movement now wants instant gratification. They want it all and they want it now.

Again with civil unions gays are not experiencing punitive discrimination.

So why are we deciding to make this a Federal issue?
"Again with civil unions gays are not experiencing punitive discrimination."

One could argue that they are.
4/9/2013 10:25 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 10:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/9/2013 12:11:00 AM (view original):
The main argument against it is the people dont want it. You can argue if their motivations are valid, but that is the reason.

Gay marraige has gotten its *** kicked in the ballot box.

And the movement now wants instant gratification. They want it all and they want it now.

Again with civil unions gays are not experiencing punitive discrimination.

So why are we deciding to make this a Federal issue?
"Again with civil unions gays are not experiencing punitive discrimination."

One could argue that they are.
One could argue that they aren't.
4/9/2013 10:26 AM
Mike - 

"Yeah, you're right(somewhat).  Both my marriages came because it was important to THEM.    The ring and the certificate were not important to ME."

Great. Marriage is important to many homosexuals.  So for people going "WHY ARE YOU DEMANDING IT BE CALLED MARRIAGE?!?" - that's why.

Again, if it's the same thing, what do you care?  The answer of course, is that it's NOT the same thing, and it bothers people for some reason.  Maybe people are homophobic.  Maybe people think that their own marriage would be lessened because we allow gays to be married (I don't understand this argument, still).  I don't know.  

Also, Mike, if we're allowing civil unions to gays, doesn't that already open the door for civil unions for polygamists?  Why hasn't this happened yet?

4/9/2013 10:33 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 10:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 10:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/9/2013 12:11:00 AM (view original):
The main argument against it is the people dont want it. You can argue if their motivations are valid, but that is the reason.

Gay marraige has gotten its *** kicked in the ballot box.

And the movement now wants instant gratification. They want it all and they want it now.

Again with civil unions gays are not experiencing punitive discrimination.

So why are we deciding to make this a Federal issue?
"Again with civil unions gays are not experiencing punitive discrimination."

One could argue that they are.
One could argue that they aren't.
Obviously.  It's what swamp is arguing.
4/9/2013 11:08 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Mike - 

"Yeah, you're right(somewhat).  Both my marriages came because it was important to THEM.    The ring and the certificate were not important to ME."

Great. Marriage is important to many homosexuals.  So for people going "WHY ARE YOU DEMANDING IT BE CALLED MARRIAGE?!?" - that's why.

Again, if it's the same thing, what do you care?  The answer of course, is that it's NOT the same thing, and it bothers people for some reason.  Maybe people are homophobic.  Maybe people think that their own marriage would be lessened because we allow gays to be married (I don't understand this argument, still).  I don't know.  

Also, Mike, if we're allowing civil unions to gays, doesn't that already open the door for civil unions for polygamists?  Why hasn't this happened yet?

If it were not an option, do you think it would have been somewhat less important to either of my wives?   If, in your magical world, my marriages had not been recognized in my state and my wife said "We gotta move" and I said "Uh, no", do you think they'd have left because of that?

I have no idea what the wording is for civil unions.   I assume "Two members of the same sex" is in there.  Maybe no bleeding heart do-gooders have gotten behind polygamy yet.  

4/9/2013 11:16 AM
I think you thinking the law shouldn't exist makes you an ***.  How do you know you don't like a person? Based on their sex, age, race?

Believing people should be free to make decisions based upon their own thoughts instead of what others tell them to think makes me an ***?  That's just ridiculous.

The government should not be telling you to like or dislike anyone - that should be up to you for whatever reason you want. That's called freedom.
I get why you think most people are bad people now.  You should realize not everyone is like you, though.

I don't think you get it at all.

I think most people are bad people because of what they say and do, not because of things like race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

However, I think people should have the freedom to think whatever the **** they want about others.

People judge others all the time, and certainly a large contingent of people on this board judge me and others harshly here just for speaking our minds. But I can think what I want and so can you, and I can decide who I like and who I don't like for whatever reason I want the same as you can.
When a bar promotes a "ladies night" you realize it's not because they hate men, right?
Obviously, but then this is beside the point.

It's discrimination if they are charging a different rate based upon gender regardless of WHY they are charging that different rate. In other words, it doesn't matter if they are doing it because they hate men or because they want to attract women to the bar or just for ***** and giggles - it is still pricing based upon gender, no matter the reason.

4/9/2013 11:31 AM
"Marriage" is a cultural thing.

If we were in Africa or the Middle East, polygamy is on.   No one there thinks anything of it.

We live in America.   "Marriage" is what a man and a woman does, culturally speaking, to "commit" themselves to their union.   The simple fact that SSM is an issue tells me that, culturally speaking, America is not ready for it.
4/9/2013 11:32 AM
Biz,

No, claiming that people are allowed to discriminate against various groups of people if they want to makes you an ***.

People ARE allowed to think whatever the **** they want about others.  When you decide to act on negative thoughts towards other people, that's when a line is crossed.  That's why there are laws.  You're affecting other people negatively.  As in, if I met you, I may think I want to punch you in the face.  But I probably wouldn't act on it.

Re: ladies night - if it's beside the point, fine.  I get the argument.  
4/9/2013 11:35 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Mike - 

"Yeah, you're right(somewhat).  Both my marriages came because it was important to THEM.    The ring and the certificate were not important to ME."

Great. Marriage is important to many homosexuals.  So for people going "WHY ARE YOU DEMANDING IT BE CALLED MARRIAGE?!?" - that's why.

Again, if it's the same thing, what do you care?  The answer of course, is that it's NOT the same thing, and it bothers people for some reason.  Maybe people are homophobic.  Maybe people think that their own marriage would be lessened because we allow gays to be married (I don't understand this argument, still).  I don't know.  

Also, Mike, if we're allowing civil unions to gays, doesn't that already open the door for civil unions for polygamists?  Why hasn't this happened yet?

If it were not an option, do you think it would have been somewhat less important to either of my wives?   If, in your magical world, my marriages had not been recognized in my state and my wife said "We gotta move" and I said "Uh, no", do you think they'd have left because of that?

I have no idea what the wording is for civil unions.   I assume "Two members of the same sex" is in there.  Maybe no bleeding heart do-gooders have gotten behind polygamy yet.  

I don't know your wife.  If she wanted to get married that badly, she may leave you.

Maybe polygamous civil unions won't happen, because it's not the same as same-sex civil unions, and we have the ability to separate the 2.
4/9/2013 11:37 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Mike - 

"Yeah, you're right(somewhat).  Both my marriages came because it was important to THEM.    The ring and the certificate were not important to ME."

Great. Marriage is important to many homosexuals.  So for people going "WHY ARE YOU DEMANDING IT BE CALLED MARRIAGE?!?" - that's why.

Again, if it's the same thing, what do you care?  The answer of course, is that it's NOT the same thing, and it bothers people for some reason.  Maybe people are homophobic.  Maybe people think that their own marriage would be lessened because we allow gays to be married (I don't understand this argument, still).  I don't know.  

Also, Mike, if we're allowing civil unions to gays, doesn't that already open the door for civil unions for polygamists?  Why hasn't this happened yet?

If it were not an option, do you think it would have been somewhat less important to either of my wives?   If, in your magical world, my marriages had not been recognized in my state and my wife said "We gotta move" and I said "Uh, no", do you think they'd have left because of that?

I have no idea what the wording is for civil unions.   I assume "Two members of the same sex" is in there.  Maybe no bleeding heart do-gooders have gotten behind polygamy yet.  

I don't know your wife.  If she wanted to get married that badly, she may leave you.

Maybe polygamous civil unions won't happen, because it's not the same as same-sex civil unions, and we have the ability to separate the 2.
If she'd leave under those circumstances, do you think I'd be better off not marrying her anyway?

Maybe they won't.   But "make people happy and equal" says they should.
4/9/2013 11:37 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 11:31:00 AM (view original):
"Marriage" is a cultural thing.

If we were in Africa or the Middle East, polygamy is on.   No one there thinks anything of it.

We live in America.   "Marriage" is what a man and a woman does, culturally speaking, to "commit" themselves to their union.   The simple fact that SSM is an issue tells me that, culturally speaking, America is not ready for it.
I wasn't there then, but I'm guessing many of the changes we've made in this country regarding rights of others were "issues" that were debated.  Just because there was debate doesn't mean that the government said "ahh, **** it, too many people don't want to change."
4/9/2013 11:45 AM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Mike - 

"Yeah, you're right(somewhat).  Both my marriages came because it was important to THEM.    The ring and the certificate were not important to ME."

Great. Marriage is important to many homosexuals.  So for people going "WHY ARE YOU DEMANDING IT BE CALLED MARRIAGE?!?" - that's why.

Again, if it's the same thing, what do you care?  The answer of course, is that it's NOT the same thing, and it bothers people for some reason.  Maybe people are homophobic.  Maybe people think that their own marriage would be lessened because we allow gays to be married (I don't understand this argument, still).  I don't know.  

Also, Mike, if we're allowing civil unions to gays, doesn't that already open the door for civil unions for polygamists?  Why hasn't this happened yet?

If it were not an option, do you think it would have been somewhat less important to either of my wives?   If, in your magical world, my marriages had not been recognized in my state and my wife said "We gotta move" and I said "Uh, no", do you think they'd have left because of that?

I have no idea what the wording is for civil unions.   I assume "Two members of the same sex" is in there.  Maybe no bleeding heart do-gooders have gotten behind polygamy yet.  

I don't know your wife.  If she wanted to get married that badly, she may leave you.

Maybe polygamous civil unions won't happen, because it's not the same as same-sex civil unions, and we have the ability to separate the 2.
If she'd leave under those circumstances, do you think I'd be better off not marrying her anyway?

Maybe they won't.   But "make people happy and equal" says they should.
I don't know, Mike.  I don't know anything about your wife.  I'm recently engaged, and I can tell you that getting married is a bigger priority to my future wife than it is to me.  I'm confident that's true of many (dare I say most?) couples.  If I insisted on not being married, she'd probably leave me.  It doesn't mean I want her to leave me.

OK.  So maybe we'll end up allowing it.  Maybe we won't.
4/9/2013 11:45 AM
No, claiming that people are allowed to discriminate against various groups of people if they want to makes you an ***.
You trying to tell people what to think seems far worse to me than telling people they have the freedom to think as they please.
When you decide to act on negative thoughts towards other people, that's when a line is crossed.
Unless you violate someone's rights, no line is crossed. I don't think it violates anyone's rights if you do not feel comfortable allowing someone into your home or business for whatever reason, and I fully support a business' right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
 As in, if I met you, I may think I want to punch you in the face.  But I probably wouldn't act on it.

Turning down business from someone is a far cry from punching them in the face.  If someone doesn't want your business, take it elsewhere and consider it their loss. It's that simple.

Don't threaten to sue because you don't like their reason for rejecting your business. That's being foolish and should never be allowed except in the ridiculously litigious society America has become.
Re: ladies night - if it's beside the point, fine.  I get the argument. 
If you get the argument about laides night, then you should understand that it IS discrimination against men. Yet you never hear the news going on and on about it, you don't hear of lawsuits surrounding it, etc. WHY?

Because people are willing to tolerate SOME forms of discrimination, but others are such hot-button issues that they would not only generate lawsuits but national attention almost immediately.

If you're black (or really, anything but white) you can get attention and generate a media circus by claiming that whatever happens to you is something to do with your race. If you're gay, you can do the same thing by claiming it is about your sexual preference.

If you're a white, straight man, no one cares if you are the victim of discrimination. You've got to be part of some minority group with an agenda to get attention and sympathy.
4/9/2013 11:48 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Mike - 

"Yeah, you're right(somewhat).  Both my marriages came because it was important to THEM.    The ring and the certificate were not important to ME."

Great. Marriage is important to many homosexuals.  So for people going "WHY ARE YOU DEMANDING IT BE CALLED MARRIAGE?!?" - that's why.

Again, if it's the same thing, what do you care?  The answer of course, is that it's NOT the same thing, and it bothers people for some reason.  Maybe people are homophobic.  Maybe people think that their own marriage would be lessened because we allow gays to be married (I don't understand this argument, still).  I don't know.  

Also, Mike, if we're allowing civil unions to gays, doesn't that already open the door for civil unions for polygamists?  Why hasn't this happened yet?

If it were not an option, do you think it would have been somewhat less important to either of my wives?   If, in your magical world, my marriages had not been recognized in my state and my wife said "We gotta move" and I said "Uh, no", do you think they'd have left because of that?

I have no idea what the wording is for civil unions.   I assume "Two members of the same sex" is in there.  Maybe no bleeding heart do-gooders have gotten behind polygamy yet.  

I don't know your wife.  If she wanted to get married that badly, she may leave you.

Maybe polygamous civil unions won't happen, because it's not the same as same-sex civil unions, and we have the ability to separate the 2.
If she'd leave under those circumstances, do you think I'd be better off not marrying her anyway?

Maybe they won't.   But "make people happy and equal" says they should.
I don't know, Mike.  I don't know anything about your wife.  I'm recently engaged, and I can tell you that getting married is a bigger priority to my future wife than it is to me.  I'm confident that's true of many (dare I say most?) couples.  If I insisted on not being married, she'd probably leave me.  It doesn't mean I want her to leave me.

OK.  So maybe we'll end up allowing it.  Maybe we won't.
Well, I'll give you some advice.   If your future wife says "If we're not married by August of this year, I'm leaving" let her go.   Being married is more important to her than being with you.  

Maybe we should discuss it before plowing ahead with changing the definition of marriage from "one man/one woman".
4/9/2013 11:51 AM

You trying to tell people what to think seems far worse to me than telling people they have the freedom to think as they please.

  • I didn’t say “think.”  Change think to "act."

Unless you violate someone's rights, no line is crossed. I don't think it violates anyone's rights if you do not feel comfortable allowing someone into your home or business for whatever reason, and I fully support a business' right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

  • Not allowing a group of people to use your business based on race, sex, or sexual orientation violates rights.

If you get the argument about laides night, then you should understand that it IS discrimination against men. Yet you never hear the news going on and on about it, you don't hear of lawsuits surrounding it, etc. WHY?

·         Because it doesn’t bother men.  It’s not hate towards men.  Allowing a discount to white people, because they are white, is hateful towards minorities.

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.