5/1/2013 6:29 PM
You don't think it's close minded to oppose gay marriage? I'm pretty sure it's the exact definition. You said you oppose it because it would change how marriage is defined. You've never said what the harm would be in allowing the change, just that it is a change. Blanket refusal to accept a harmless change seems rather close minded to me. Not necessarily an insult, just an adjective.
5/1/2013 6:40 PM
You don't have to agree with somebody to respect their ability to form and have their own strongly held beliefs.

You also don't have to brand them as "close minded" and "intolerant" if their strongly held beliefs don't align with yours.
5/1/2013 6:50 PM
Sure. But that only goes so far.

You're trying to stop someone else from doing something that you admit has zero effect on you. Without some pretty strong reasoning, that respect is lost.
5/1/2013 7:16 PM
Who are you to decide what does and does not have an effect on me? 

If I have a deep seated respect for values and tradition, and something new and "trendy" comes along to change that, how can you say that I'm not affected?

If the New York Yankees decided to do away with blue pinstripes for their home uniforms, and instead replaced them with red polka dots, would you argue to anybody who objected to it "What's the big deal, it doesn't affect you?"

Shouldn't values and tradition mean something?
5/1/2013 7:31 PM
You said it didn't effect you.

Values and radiations are personal. 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?
5/1/2013 7:40 PM
It harms the idea of tradition.

Again, would you "bah!" anybody who was offended by the Yankees changing their home uni's from blue pinstripes to red polka dots?  Or would you say "Gee, that's just not right!"?
5/1/2013 7:45 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/1/2013 7:40:00 PM (view original):
It harms the idea of tradition.

Again, would you "bah!" anybody who was offended by the Yankees changing their home uni's from blue pinstripes to red polka dots?  Or would you say "Gee, that's just not right!"?
You can't harm an idea, sorry. If the Yankees wanted to change their uniforms, they could. They're a private business. You couldn't file suit to stop it. You don't have standing, it's none of your business.
5/1/2013 7:52 PM (edited)
Sorry I've taken a while to respond to this.
  
Sexuality is defined by who you choose to be with in romantic and/or sexual relationships or encounters.

I think you're missing the point.  Obviously who you choose to be with is a choice.  The real issue is whether a person can choose who they are attracted to.  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?
5/1/2013 8:18 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/1/2013 7:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/1/2013 7:40:00 PM (view original):
It harms the idea of tradition.

Again, would you "bah!" anybody who was offended by the Yankees changing their home uni's from blue pinstripes to red polka dots?  Or would you say "Gee, that's just not right!"?
You can't harm an idea, sorry. If the Yankees wanted to change their uniforms, they could. They're a private business. You couldn't file suit to stop it. You don't have standing, it's none of your business.
Again, who are you to decide how a change in tradition affects me?

I'm not arguing this again.  I've said my piece 120+ pages ago.  I'm just offended that you have taken responsibility for deciding what should or should not affect me.
5/1/2013 8:25 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 3/29/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Was illegal in parts of the US before 1967.
Has the U.S. been around for tens of thousands of years?

I'm talking about human history, not U.S. history.
Is that really relevant, though? And does it matter that the definition of marriage will change? It won't change for your marriage. Or mine. Or any other heterosexuals. The only people this change will affect are homosexuals.
It doesn't affect me personally, no.  Does that mean that I cannot have or express an opinion?  if it doesn't affect you, they should you be expressing your opinion?

Abortion doesn't affect me either.  Should I not have an opinion on that?

Am I only allowed to have opinions on things that affect me personally?
"It doesn't affect me."
5/1/2013 9:33 PM
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.
5/2/2013 3:59 AM
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.
The cry of "being offended" doesn't work when it comes from the right.

Sorry.
5/2/2013 6:24 AM
I'm not "the right".

Sorry.
5/2/2013 7:24 AM
Anyone against the agenda(s) of the left qualifies enough as "the right" to not matter enough to get to be offended.
5/2/2013 7:26 AM
Oh.  Perspective makes all the difference.
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.