Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[AchrisK]

Dude, I honestly don't have the time to respond to every post. There are a bunch of you and only one of me.

 

[skeptik]

Okay, well here are several of your most recent posts:

So what do you suggest I do? Change my views?

So you all suggest that I conform to your view?

Interesting that we are reading the book 1984 right now. This is very thought police of you all.

I feel I am. My beliefs are part of what shapes the way I see reality. What next?

So, you also think my best option is to conform to your view? Ok, Thought Police.

So...what should I do? The prop is on the ballot. Should I not vote? Should I vote against my own views?

Brainwashing? Who said I thought you were brainwashing me? You think I can't defend against your all-powerful arguments? Just because you are convinced by your arguments, doesn't mean I should be, and I am not. I don't need to defend my views, but it appears that with some of you I have to defend my right to have them.



I didn't say anyone was, but when I asked for what you all thought I should do, you basically said I should change my thinking to be like yours. You guys are great liberals! I didn't say you were thought police, I said you seem to be advocating conformance to your way of thinking. Obviously you cannot enforce that. But you are tending towards that type of thinking.

I have not once asked any of you to change your views, and I don't feel I should. You only tolerate free speech you agree with. You condemn those who oppose you. You think everyone who doesn't agree with you is a complete idiot.

I disagree that I suck at logic. I actually think I am pretty good at it. But I also don't forget that people come from different ideological places. You guys tend to think that other ideological places are invalid. That is very narrow minded.

Sometimes you shouldn't talk.

Man, you need to give these guys a class on discussing stuff. Though I do see it as somewhat threatening to marriage, your other points are very good.

I did notice this from you. I also must say that vihris-gari also said "That's up to you of course...", but then went on to tell me how dumb my views are. That's ok, though.

Good post!

EDIT: But do you know what I fear? I fear the liberals convincing everyone that my views are inherently wrong and damaging to our society, so that my freedom of choice will be limited, while their liberal agendas are promoted and embraced to the point where dissent is punished. I know that's not something that can happen swiftly, but I don't think it is that far-fetched of a concept. Especially based on how many liberals tend to strike me as very intolerant of other ideologies.

Dude, read Evil and Thoth's posts, and stop trying to control my mind.

Plus, I am good at logic.

I have addressed your points. You just can't see beyond your own ideas.




I feel it is more justified because of people like you who cannot fathom another ideology or perspective if it causes someone to disagree with you. It seems to me that you would prefer a country where your views are accepted as truth and opposing views like mine are silenced and eliminated.

Why don't you go read that article I posted called "What makes people vote republican".

I also notice that you didn't respond to my post:

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/7775181-post155.html

As you can see, your posts contain almost nothing of substance. I would appreciate it if you could address this post and my post prior to this one, and to do so with actual arguments that don't boil down to accusing me of intolerance.

 

[genocide roach]

Ironically when it comes to communication and citizenship, I can use that same arguement as to why all Americans 18-22 should be required to serve in the armed forces. Trust me, you get way more of the education you are referring too in the military than school.

no.
SrA Starr
~gR~

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

ownd

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Weakest comeback ever. Completely irrelavent.

It only seems weak because you fail to see the analogy tbh. Health care is important for everyone to have, just as education is. But having a private, optional system leads to the situation we have now where health insurance companies only cover people because they are profitable, and not because they care about them or recognise that everyone needs their service. The same thing would happen if we had a private, optional education system.

You didn't address any of my points. Yes, countries talk, but it isn't accomplishing anything. Their are many other organizations that accomplish way more.

Wikipedia:

A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as opposed to four out of eight US cases at peace. Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activism — mostly spearheaded by the UN — has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict since the end of the Cold War.

I also reiterate my earlier point, which you seem to have glossed over: the mere fact that virtually every country in the world has remained a part of the U.N. shows that those countries don't just regard it as a "waste of time".

If you think there are other organisations which do a better job at promoting world peace than the U.N., I'm curious to know what they are.

Obviously, but learning to able to conform to a acceptable clique in high school isn't education. At least not one worthwhile.

Okay... I'm not sure how we're going to argue the worthwhile-ness of out-of-home education in teaching communication and citizenship, but it seems pretty intuitive to me that having to deal with a lot of different people does more for teaching that than a parent coddling their child at home does. Even if high school age kids do nothing but clique up, that's not a failure of the system - just of the teachers for not organising more group activities and class discussions.

It's not even got to do with actually being in combat. It has to do with tiome spent [in]. 2-3 months of bootcamp will change very few people. 4 years will.

Okay, well I never said it should only be 2-3 months. 2-3 months of schooling doesn't do a whole hell of a lot either.

Perhaps "training" isn't quite the right idea here. What if it were actually mandatory service, but on the condition that you could opt out of any life-threatening missions? They could just keep those people around to do community service, research, or whatever else the military does outside of security/combat.

Also on the whole "forcing people together" bit, people from the same geographic location are only going to be so different, and in school most people generally [clan] with those like them.
You can't do that in the military at work. You can have 10-20 people you work with and all be from different states etc. And you HAVE to learn to work with them, and usually spend your free time with them too.
The travel opporunities provided in the military are also eye openers, and I am not talking about just going into a combat zone. Foreign duty stations in Europe and Asia, or in parts of the US you have never been etc.

Yes, all good points. This is also an advantage that college has over grade school - college tends to be a much more diverse and free-thinking environment, and many colleges require students to spend their first year in a dormitory in order to get heavy social immersion.

That was the case for my first year at VCU, and it really did make a huge difference in my life. I was an outcast in high school with maybe three or four total friends, but at college it was ridiculously easier to make friends, and people seemed much more accepting (largely because they'd all been removed from their own original social networks). There's definitely a cliquishness to high school which can easily be overcome in a college environment (and through military service as well, I'm sure).

I know you're probably going to hate this idea, but I am in favor of making a certain amount of college education free for everyone - at least one year, but ideally four. There's just so much that the college environment and classes give you that you don't get in high school, and if we really are in favor of funding "fluff" like education because it improves society, I'd say that a year in college provides at least as much return on investment in that regard as a year of grade school does.

 

[AchrisK]

@ Mr. Grav:
I am surprised you would go through all the trouble of making your post, and only go back far enough to conveniently NOT post any of the actual substance of my views. By the time the thread got to the place where you started quoting, I had been outnumbered MANY to one, and was riddled with abuse (not whining.). It is no wonder I switched gears to how I was being treated, and who was really being intolerant. If you wanted to know my position, you could have gone back and read it. And with it all here together you can really see how much I had to repeat myself because I was dealing with questions from all different people who may have missed something or the context of something.

Can't argue with some of these points. Still, I prefer to keep marriage and traditional family as "sacred" and as the cornerstone of our society.

But if I see marriage as a sacred institution, then how can I do both?

You saw my original reply, right? The one where I agreed with you.
Regardless of religion, the family unit where people have kids and raise them is the fundamental unit that makes this country strong. Yes, it is faltering, and society is feeling the effects. Doesn't mean it is time to change what it is.

I will not say my beliefs have nothing to do with my views, but even apart from that, the whole thing doesn't make sense. It's not natural. I am not saying that the love between two people is not real or genuine. But even evolution says male + female = survival. The outie goes into the innie, and it produces offspring. And don't reply with talk of overpopulation, because I am merely addressing the "natural" and "intended" design that we have before us (weather by nature or by Creator). So homosexuality is not the norm. Well, we are humans with free will, so of course people will not be limited by what the "norm" is, and that is their choice. But since the family is the cornerstone unit of a strong society, I believe it should have a special place. It should be what it is, and if something else comes along, it can be something else. There can be similarities, but it is not the same. There are things that I don't like about it becoming combined with norm. It will start to be viewed as an option that is just as acceptable as the normal, natural option. People will begin choosing it, not based on feeling they can't seem to deny, but because it is just one of their choices. I don't want my kid (or anyone's kid) being indoctrinated in school that homosexuality is one of two valid choices. If my kid comes home one day saying he is gay, I will still love and accept him. But that is not my desire for my kid. I am all for homosexuals being accepted as people, just like anyone else, but I am not for homosexuality being accepted as a norm, because I believe it is not a norm. I will not put my stamp of approval on a lifestyle I think is unnatural, and I prefer that my country not embrace this unnatural lifestyle as the same as the traditional family.
I know you're all going to FREAK OUT. I can hear the veins in your necks already bursting. But this is how I feel, and how I believe.

a) I am not asking anyone to "crack down" on homosexuality.
b) The part about gays not having kids is part of what separates homosexual relationships from being the same as marriage. I feel marriage should hold a special place.
c) I do believe that sex outside of marriage is a problem, and I do believe society is suffering because of it. But people have the right to do it, and you're not going to take that away from them. Just as homosexuals have the right to do what they want.
Yes, I would say that my morality is influenced by me beliefs. But just because the Bible says not to murder, doesn't mean that "state" should not have a law against murder. Moral principals are typically not arbitrary, and I believe a society that embraces strong morals is a stronger society.

How can you be so narrow minded? I mean, you guys think I am some kind of hateful bigot, but if you would read what I say, you would see I have no hate for people who I disagree with. I am not out there trying to beat up gays or call them names. I accept people as people. I will receive so much more hate for my views, which again do not include hate, than I will ever give. So what is important? How we treat our fellow man, or how much we agree with him? Get some balance!

Man + woman = kids. Kids raised by loving families = mostly healthy. Healthy boy kid + healthy girl kid = new family. On it goes. Even messed up people can get together and have a good marriage and raise good kids. Families taking care of each other is good for society. Parents caring for kids. Kids growing up and caring for their parents. These are good things.
What do studies show? That homosexual couples make more money, on average? That means little. But I don't doubt that some homosexual couples would raise kids better than many straight couples. But gays can't make kids, so that's not the typical, natural family unit. What percentage of gay couples say they want to, or strive to have kids? Is having kids the norm within gay couples? I would assume it is much more common in lesbian couples, since women have natural, biological desires towards motherhood (as opposed to men who have a more emotional desire toward fatherhood, or not).
Well, that is why in my other post I talked about it becoming more of a choice as it becomes more normal in society. I wasn't saying it was a choice for everyone who is homosexual. I know that it some people get those feelings from who knows where.

But it's not the norm. It's not how species stay around. It's not the way nature works. Yeah, some animals may attempt or have same-sex sex. But do they pair off as alternative lifestyle life partners? I don't mean an example of small percentages. I am talking norm.

Like I said (though I was typing as you posted this (I am slow). I don't doubt that some homosexuals, especially lesbians, would desire to have chillins. But do you see the word "artificial" in artificial insemination? It's not the natural, normal way.

Just because I accept people doesn't mean I am going to just change what I believe. Like I said, I see it as way more important how you treat people, than if you agree with them. Is that that foreign of a concept? Or maybe it's just not voiced very often. All I can do about any of this is cast one vote and raise one son. I am not raising him to hate, and my vote is no bigger than that of anyone else. You (directed at everyone) talk about being open minded, but that ends when someone disagrees with you. Come on!

All I am saying about normal and natural is that I prefer to keep marriage for the traditional, natural and normal (by nature's standards) family unit. I am not advocating oppressing or tormenting gays.

You are right. I agree with you that humans are not just animals and are infinitely more complex in most every way. My point about nature, once again, is that nature itself shows that male + female = the normal, natural way of a species. Based on this, that normal is different than alternative, I prefer that marriage be kept for the natural, and something else be for the alternative. That's all.

You can support them. You have a vote the same size as mine. And it's fine with me that you do. I am talking about being open minded enough to allow opinions you disagree with.

Dude, you're hilarious. How can I fail at expressing my opinion? How am I not expressing my opinion in a respectful way? I think I have been very clear and my point is simple. So, my communication and reasoning skills are a "train wreck" because you disagree with me? Get a life bro!

I disagree, and this is not a race issue. I have no hate.

That's cool. We're not gonna agree on everything.
I think calling me ignorant would be more appropriate. I don't feel I have been unclear or illogical.

True, not in every way. But the fact that we are having this conversation speaks libraries, on so many levels, about the difference between humans and ANY member of the non-human animal kingdom.

The fact that homosexual behavior exists in nature does not change that fact that it is not the norm by any stretch (especially when taking the animal kingdom as a whole) and is not the optimal situation for any species. It is counter-intuitive to nature, based on biology. But again, humans are different and more complex than animals, and we have rights. People can choose homosexuality. They have the right to, and I don't have the right to try and stop them.

Yes, those "parts" are clearly "designed" for each other. But as I said, humans are not just animals, and sex is not just procreation (preemptively, I am not implying that some animals don't have sex for reasons other than procreation). I do not believe that "what we do in the bedroom" should be subject to legislation until it crosses lines that infringe upon the rights or wellbeing of others (rape, etc).

Back to intolerance vs disagreement vs opposition.

The very idea of tolerance and intolerance is based in the fact that there is a disagreement. With no disagreement, tolerance and intolerance don't even exist. Opposition implies an active or passive action based on a disagreement, but also does not have to imply intolerance. Just action based on disagreement.
Let's look at the definition of intolerance:

I am not intolerant of homosexuality or homosexuals, but I disagree that homosexual relationships should share the same status as the traditional family. It is an alternative lifestyle. What homosexuals (and apparently all of you) want is for me put my stamp of approval on something I disagree with. Whether or not that is the real agenda of the gay marriage issue, I cannot judge for each person. But I believe that is the agenda of some. Regardless, I will not put my stamp of approval on it.

I feel the same way about sex outside of marriage. If there was a proposition that wanted to make a law that said, "Sex outside of marriage is a good thing and we approve it", I would vote no. I disagree with the statement, so I don't put my stamp of approval on it. I do not hate people who do it. I am not intolerant. They are not breaking laws. They have the right to do it. Many of them are nice people who contribute to society. They are all valuable individuals. I have no desire to control people. I think imposing my will on people is of no use and has absolutely no value. This applies to how I feel about homosexuals as well.

As long as I am presented with choices, I will make mine based on my views. This is America right? I have that right.

The intolerance comes most often from those who cry intolerance, like many of you, and many in the gay community. They see the disagreement and hate me for it. You feel I have no right to have this view. You may say I have the right to have any view I like, but how many of you would be willing to literally brainwash me to agree with you on this issue, if that was legal?

Where is the line between tolerance and agreement? Obviously there must be disagreement for their to be tolerance, correct? Must tolerance = approval?

No need to be stupid. It's not a parallel your making, it's a strawman.
I didn't say I wanted to shelter my child from homosexuality. He knows it exists, and what it is, and that people have the right to choose it. I don't oppose equal rights for any group of people. I oppose the redefinition of marriage.

Any more questions?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So I have to ask, which of those posts/points do you think have not been addressed by us here? You said earlier that I was not addressing your points, but you didn't respond when I asked you which points those were.

 

[AchrisK]

So I have to ask, which of those posts/points do you think have not been addressed by us here? You said earlier that I was not addressing your points, but you didn't respond when I asked you which points those were.

Actually, it was the other way around. You said I wasn't addressing your points. I said I was. But I am almost certain I missed some (of yours). I most certainly did not respond to every post or cover every aspect.

 

[skeptik]

AchrisK, I know what you said before, because I read the entire thread before I posted. The reason that I quoted those posts were because those were the ones that followed my post, which you didn't address, including points that I feel are important and were not brought up earlier. Since I posted, you've just called everyone Thought Police and intolerant. I addressed your usage of the word intolerant, among other issues that I'd like to have your response to.

 

[AchrisK]

Rather than reply point by point from specific posts, I will attempt to clarify my views and address issues. Just let me know if I forget anything. I will look over other posts and try to address other things I miss.

Ok, about intolerance. I probably overreacted to the opposition and overstated the issue regarding intolerance that was directed at me. Of course there will be a level of intolerance for other ideas and views. I can understand and appreciate the intolerance towards my views. I also hold a level of intolerance in my views. I am intolerant of the most basic essence of marriage being redefined as something other than how it has been traditionally defined in this country, and throughout history past: between a man and a woman. I will not personally sanction the movement to expand that definition to homosexual partners.

There is also intolerance directed at the actual people who hold views that oppose our own. This, I feel , is where real problems arise. I am not intolerant of homosexuals. I value and respect them as people. I respect their right to live their own life.

Whatever happens with these amendments and laws and decisions will happen. As long as I am asked my opinion, I will give it. Much to my chagrin, Obama won the election. But the people have spoken. I can disagree and wish it had a different outcome, but I will live with the people’s decision. The people of California and Arizona (and however many other states in the past or present) have spoken. The majority of us prefer to keep marriage as traditionally defined.

Some things that Thoth and Evil? And Dakryn said do have me thinking about it a little differently with my vote. And as I look back I see the theme in other people’s posts, but it didn’t quite strike me until Thoth said it a certain way. Our freedoms are precious, and compromise is a part of this society. But I am not sure to what extent this will affect my vote. I am thinking about it, though.

Nobody is taking anything away from or hurting homosexuals. Their lifestyle has been considered as alternative and has not been eligible for marriage. They have survived. Maybe there are some advantages afforded to married couples that will not be available if gays can’t marry. But in my view (and I am not alone by a long shot), the family is the most important unit in a strong society, and I think it warrants benefits. The family is precious and special and is worth encouraging. Besides, since most gay couples don’t have kids, they can both work and get their own insurance or whatever.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

omg

look

gay people deserve fucking rights. despite you being religious you have no right to deny them rights. there is no reason these propositions should even fucking be things people vote on. you are not allowing the country to progress with your stupid, religious, ridiculous way of thinking. you are old and narrow-minded. gays can have families. overpopulation is a problem. if anything (even though this argument sucks kinda) gays are helpful because they can not produce more people. regardless of this, you are contributing to a measure which stops a certain group of people from getting basic rights to things that matter. this is fucking wrong. you are fucking wrong.

 

[Valerie]

The Achrisk says: "I respect gay people, but no they can't have equal rights."
The Achrisk is an archaic creature with no place in modern society.

 

[skeptik]

I appreciate your effort to clarify your views. Two things I would like to point out

1) Again, homosexuality in itself is not a lifestyle. The only thing that fundamentally differentiates a homosexual from a heterosexual is his or her sexual orientation. I understand that there is a "gay lifestyle", but this is by far not the norm.

2) There are an estimated 26,000 gay couples raising children around the country, and studies have shown that they not only show no significant increase or decrease in intelligence or development, but they also are no more likely to be homosexual or bisexual.

3) I just thought it would be interesting to point out: not too long ago I read an article that explained how it will eventually be possible for a lesbian couple to have a baby of their own (obviously this only applies to women since men cannot bear children (yet zombie)). I forgot exactly how it's done, but they extract some type of something or other from one partner and inseminate the egg of the other partner.

edit: Everyone also please note that V5 is clearly more of a dick than I am.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Ok, about intolerance. I probably overreacted to the opposition and overstated the issue regarding intolerance that was directed at me. Of course there will be a level of intolerance for other ideas and views. I can understand and appreciate the intolerance towards my views. I also hold a level of intolerance in my views. I am intolerant of the most basic essence of marriage being redefined as something other than how it has been traditionally defined in this country, and throughout history past: between a man and a woman. I will not personally sanction the movement to expand that definition to homosexual partners.

Okay, first off: you assume that there is a single universal definition of marriage. Marriage is performed by churches, and various churches have differing views on homosexuality. If you redefine marriage as only between a man and a woman, you are essentially mandating the religious views of all churches.

And of course that's not the only problem. The other is that marriage is tied in with legal benefits when those benefits should really not be a matter of religion at all. I have yet to see you explain why a religious institution like marriage should be conflated with these legal benefits, because as far as I can tell that violates separation of church and state.

Nobody is taking anything away from or hurting homosexuals.

Okay seriously, how can you honestly say this and not realise how utterly false it is? People are taking away the right for homosexuals to have the legal benefits of marriage. We have made that clear by now, haven't we?

Their lifestyle has been considered as alternative and has not been eligible for marriage. They have survived. Maybe there are some advantages afforded to married couples that will not be available if gays can’t marry. But in my view (and I am not alone by a long shot), the family is the most important unit in a strong society, and I think it warrants benefits. The family is precious and special and is worth encouraging. Besides, since most gay couples don’t have kids, they can both work and get their own insurance or whatever.

This part I don't really feel a need to respond to, because it's mostly your religious ideology speaking and you have presented no evidence for any of these claims of yours. Why on earth should a family be considered "sacred"? How do you know that allowing gays to marry threatens this "sacredness" in any way? What makes you think most gay couples don't have kids, and why does that even matter?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I am sick of entertaining this logically. Logic cannot get through to religious-minded zealots. I am just more interested in lambasting him now because of his failure to remove himself from his flawed viewpoint to speak on accurate terms...if he were to speak on logical terms, this WOULD NOT EVEN BE A DEBATE.

 

[JontRevolting]

fuck the church..these people(gays) have their brains wired this way and if they wanna get married then let them,they don't bother anyone else,it would be bloody funny if they formed a posse and went around bashing heteros,live and let live

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I am sick of entertaining this logically. Logic cannot get through to religious-minded zealots. I am just more interested in lambasting him now because of his failure to remove himself from his flawed viewpoint to speak on accurate terms...if he were to speak on logical terms, this WOULD NOT EVEN BE A DEBATE.

Maybe you should shut up then. You're clearly not going to help this debate by throwing insults at him, and it's not like he's just flatly refusing to acknowledge the logic in our arguments. You are falsely presuming that he cannot be reasoned with in order to make it more convenient for you to be a dick.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

he's not entertaining the arguments from a perspective that allows a debate to exist. But enjoy anyway, I won't bother posting anymore.

 

[cookiecutter]

I got really frustrated and didn't read the last couple of pages but I thought of a good analogy that hopefully will resonate with people here.

Let's pretend that there was a ballot initiative to ban listening to metal music. It's certainly not the norm. Many people hate it. Many people do not want their children to have to deal with it. Some people don't mind it, but don't feel it should be legitimized by allowing people to listen to it. "Why not listen to traditional music?" they say

I assume everyone of you would be vehemently opposed to this. How dare people take away my freedom? It may not be normal but this is the music I love and I can't change that. Other people can listen to the music they love, why can't I?

Now I ask those opposed to gay marriage, how is something like this any different than the gay marriage issue?

 

[Satanstoenail]

Nobody is taking anything away from or hurting homosexuals. Their lifestyle has been considered as alternative and has not been eligible for marriage. They have survived.

How does 'surviving' have anything to do with this? Women 'survived' before they were allowed to vote, black people 'survived' when they weren't allowed to sit with white folk. In order for society to move forward, changes must be made, and traditional ideals must be challenged.

Maybe there are some advantages afforded to married couples that will not be available if gays can’t marry. But in my view (and I am not alone by a long shot), the family is the most important unit in a strong society, and I think it warrants benefits. The family is precious and special and is worth encouraging. Besides, since most gay couples don’t have kids, they can both work and get their own insurance or whatever.

This is a short-sighted view. The family isn't exclusively available to heterosexuals, and heterosexual families aren't automatically more worthy than homosexual families. Many gay people have children from previous relationships, and many gay people desire relatively normal family life. In order for these people to participate fully in this 'precious and special' union that is 'worth encouraging', surely marriage is an option that should be available to them?