No, Actually, It's that the Economy is Falling Apart

[Heracles 417]

Are they in power? No. They are not. Again- who is imposing? Is some gay dude trying to hook up with you by force? Is amnesty something that is being supported? Is someone trying to force you to stop believing in God?

Nope. But there are plenty of douchebags that are most definitely interested in limiting gays from having the same rights in their relationships as you and your SO do. That is called imposition.

Now as for confusing a slippery slope argument in with this one... slip slip slip...

That is not the point. Marriage is between a man and woman. It has been the case for thousands of years. And not some post 80's liberal bandwagon. So why should the latest fad be allowed to walk all over a tradition held by humans for thousand of years. That is the issue I have with it.

When the 1 million gay individuals, or whatever of Crapfransicoites, are cheering on for protesting for gay marriage rights yet are allowed to disrespect, ridicule and mock the religion of over 2 billion people worldwide with garbage like the gay last supper picks, yeah that is a big problem for me. That is a disgrace. Same way no one should have the right to disrespect the Quran simply because the do not believe in it.

Hypothetically speaking, what happens when the next liberal bandwagon trend is for three individuals being allowed to marry. Should we then turn around and allow this because a growing minority feels this should be the norm. Should the majority of Americans simply be, once again, pushed aside to cater for the views of the minority.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Aficionado

[HAL 9000 96]

Are they in power? No. They are not. Again- who is imposing? Is some gay dude trying to hook up with you by force? Is amnesty something that is being supported? Is someone trying to force you to stop believing in God?

Nope. But there are plenty of douchebags that are most definitely interested in limiting gays from having the same rights in their relationships as you and your SO do. That is called imposition.

Now as for confusing a slippery slope argument in with this one... slip slip slip...

That is not the point. Marriage is between a man and woman. It has been the case for thousands of years. And not some post 80's liberal bandwagon. So why should the latest fad be allowed to walk all over a tradition held by humans for thousand of years. That is the issue I have with it.

When the 1 million gay individuals, or whatever of Crapfransicoites, are cheering on for protesting for gay marriage rights yet are allowed to disrespect, ridicule and mock the religion of over 2 billion people worldwide with garbage like the gay last supper picks, yeah that is a big problem for me. That is a disgrace. Same way no one should have the right to disrespect the Quran simply because the do not believe in it.

Hypothetically speaking, what happens when the next liberal bandwagon trend is for three individuals being allowed to marry. Should we then turn around and allow this because a growing minority feels this should be the norm. Should the majority of Americans simply be, once again, pushed aside to cater for the views of the minority.

Legally defined according to religious belief. Get over the double standard, BY. Imposition is imposition. Their unions have no effect on you other than an ego that is apparently prone to such sights... and one can only fathom what that means in Freudian terms.

You are confusing ridicule with imposition. If you actually noticed, it would be those doing the imposing that are ridiculing themselves for being so intolerant of others.

Again, your slippery slope is too slippery. One thing is sexual preferrence. Another is polygamy. Which coincidentally IS legally coded by religion (as well- no surprise) for thousands upon thousands of years. Go figure. And... nobody is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. You are merely imposing your view, that's all.

Edited September 8, 2008 by maviwaro

[IAMX 3,055]

That is not the point. Marriage is between a man and woman. It has been the case for thousands of years. And not some post 80's liberal bandwagon. So why should the latest fad be allowed to walk all over a tradition held by humans for thousand of years. That is the issue I have with it.

This may be new to you, since you're a foreigner, but we have a court which does interpret these things, and they have found indeed the LEGAL institution of marriage (legal a fancy word for "government run") has no basis for discriminating against gays, no less than people not being able to vote or drive a car being prohibited to gays.

As this trend is continuing, especially as more religious nuts try to impose their religion upon others, gay marriage will eventually be legal, since gay marriage was not explicitly put into the constitution.

And no, marriage is not between a man and woman. Marriage is between two people who decide to get married. You don't dictate who gets married. Sorry.

When the 1 million gay individuals, or whatever of Crapfransicoites, are cheering on for protesting for gay marriage rights yet are allowed to disrespect, ridicule and mock the religion of over 2 billion people worldwide with garbage like the gay last supper picks, yeah that is a big problem for me. That is a disgrace. Same way no one should have the right to disrespect the Quran simply because the do not believe in it.

It seems the disrespect is from your side, and yours alone. San Franciscans have no problem with religious people, plenty live in the city. They are simply tolerant of things that you are not. Gays getting married is not a big deal in the slightest since they aren't marrying you. So really it's not your business or place to tell them who they can or can't marry any more than it would be to tell them they can't drive because they're gay.

Hypothetically speaking, what happens when the next liberal bandwagon trend is for three individuals being allowed to marry. Should we then turn around and allow this because a growing minority feels this should be the norm. Should the majority of Americans simply be, once again, pushed aside to cater for the views of the minority.

Can't say for sure what the next "liberal bandwagon" would be, but I guarantee you more conservative rubbish which perpetuates the divide between America with radical religious nutcases who try to justify their extremist views of blocking marriages they don't agree with (as if their consent is needed anyways), will be headed our way, and of course conservatives will cry yet again about judicial activism when the constitution is properly interpreted to protect the minority from the infringing majority. It's oft happened in both federal courts (including Supreme Court) and Congress. Too bad.

Edited September 8, 2008 by SRVT

[Heracles 417]

...

SVRT what is your background? I am keen to hear the basis of this wisdom.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This topic has been done to death - but to point out once again that the "slippery" slope argument is incredibly disingenuous.

Polygamy is not analogous to gay marriage. Not even close.

[IAMX 3,055]

This topic has been done to death - but to point out once again that the "slippery" slope argument is incredibly disingenuous.

Polygamy is not analogous to gay marriage. Not even close.

Hah. I love the animal and polygamous marriage analogies.

Not only do they not involve gays, but in one case it isn't even human, and in the other case, it's more than two.

These crazy analogies take place because there is no logical or legal basis for banning gays from marriage, or overbearing religious people from defining marriage for others. Deal with your own marriage and stfu.

[Heracles 417]

This topic has been done to death - but to point out once again that the "slippery" slope argument is incredibly disingenuous.

Polygamy is not analogous to gay marriage. Not even close.

Dam straight this topic has been done to death.

We have people on a regular basis who basically post ####### about how stupid, naive, biased, close-minded anyone religious is; mainly Christians. Unlike themselves of course who are open-mined and intelligent. #######. Then ####### on about Christians forcing their views upon others.

When using the OT section of VJ as an example alone, there have been quite a few threads, let alone posts, from people with atheist views forcing their views onto others. I am yet to see one thread by someone religious created on the basis of stating how stupid atheists are let alone forcing their beliefs onto others.

[SteveLaura 0]

I can't believe we have come this far without a reference to lesbian poodles.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This topic has been done to death - but to point out once again that the "slippery" slope argument is incredibly disingenuous.

Polygamy is not analogous to gay marriage. Not even close.

Hah. I love the animal and polygamous marriage analogies.

Not only do they not involve gays, but in one case it isn't even human, and in the other case, it's more than two.

These crazy analogies take place because there is no logical or legal basis for banning gays from marriage, or overbearing religious people from defining marriage for others. Deal with your own marriage and stfu.

If you even think seriously about the logistics of polygamy - it becomes clear how ludicrous of an idea it is. We have an entire centuries old framework of laws around marriage as a monogamous partnership between two people. The gender of those partners might have been a given in the past - but it certainly isn't a barrier to those existing laws.

If you get into polygamy you end up crashing into a whole bunch of contradictory laws (i.e. equal rights for men and women to have as many partners as they wish - which in itself makes it unworkable, tax laws, inheritance, child custody etc etc etc.)

Certainly nothing that our society can cater towards... And the only model we have for polygamy comes from patriarchal, religious societies.

This topic has been done to death - but to point out once again that the "slippery" slope argument is incredibly disingenuous.

Polygamy is not analogous to gay marriage. Not even close.

Dam straight this topic has been done to death.

We have people on a regular basis who basically post ####### about how stupid, naive, biased, close-minded anyone religious is; mainly Christians. Unlike themselves of course who are open-mined and intelligent. #######. Then ####### on about Christians forcing their views upon others.

When using the OT section of VJ as an example alone, there have been quite a few threads, let alone posts, from people with atheist views forcing their views onto others. I am yet to see one thread by someone religious created on the basis of stating how stupid atheists are let alone forcing their beliefs onto others.

You aren't looking.

[HAL 9000 96]

This topic has been done to death - but to point out once again that the "slippery" slope argument is incredibly disingenuous.

Polygamy is not analogous to gay marriage. Not even close.

Dam straight this topic has been done to death.

We have people on a regular basis who basically post ####### about how stupid, naive, biased, close-minded anyone religious is; mainly Christians. Unlike themselves of course who are open-mined and intelligent. #######. Then ####### on about Christians forcing their views upon others.

When using the OT section of VJ as an example alone, there have been quite a few threads, let alone posts, from people with atheist views forcing their views onto others. I am yet to see one thread by someone religious created on the basis of stating how stupid atheists are let alone forcing their beliefs onto others.

I though you didn't want to use VJ or OT to act as representation for US society or international societies for that matter. You said this is not representative of the population as a whole. Your own logic comes to bite you in the #######.

####### is right.

Its not how stupid and closed minded religious people are. Its how stupid and closed minded people are that want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Deal with it mate.

[IAMX 3,055]

When using the OT section of VJ as an example alone, there have been quite a few threads, let alone posts, from people with atheist views forcing their views onto others. I am yet to see one thread by someone religious created on the basis of stating how stupid atheists are let alone forcing their beliefs onto others.

Probably because they can't name any way that atheists (you are forgetting some people, like agnostics, who make up around the same population) have suppressed religious people. Last I checked, the founding fathers were religious, and institutionalized secularism for this very reason. As it would be today, religious nuts think they have a mandate to stick their nose into other people's relationships and act like they are the the ones who get to judge the validity of two loving people. Of course they should expect a backlash.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This topic has been done to death - but to point out once again that the "slippery" slope argument is incredibly disingenuous.

Polygamy is not analogous to gay marriage. Not even close.

Dam straight this topic has been done to death.

We have people on a regular basis who basically post ####### about how stupid, naive, biased, close-minded anyone religious is; mainly Christians. Unlike themselves of course who are open-mined and intelligent. #######. Then ####### on about Christians forcing their views upon others.

When using the OT section of VJ as an example alone, there have been quite a few threads, let alone posts, from people with atheist views forcing their views onto others. I am yet to see one thread by someone religious created on the basis of stating how stupid atheists are let alone forcing their beliefs onto others.

I though you didn't want to use VJ or OT to act as representation for US society or international societies for that matter. You said this is not representative of the population as a whole. Your own logic comes to bite you in the #######.

####### is right.

Its not how stupid and closed minded religious people are. Its how stupid and closed minded people are that want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Deal with it mate.

Yeah really - what topics are we even talking about here? Creationism in schools? Officialisation of Religion? Abortion & Stem Cell research?

[Heracles 417]

I though you didn't want to use VJ or OT to act as representation for US society or international societies for that matter. You said this is not representative of the population as a whole. Your own logic comes to bite you in the #######.

You guys always ask for proof so the proof is here alone on VJ.

Its not how stupid and closed minded religious people are. Its how stupid and closed minded people are that want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Deal with it mate.

I agree. Like the many atheists who waste more time, even when compared to religious fanatics, trying to push their views.

[alienlovechild 75]

YES!

Precisely because you have religious-toned politicians that think they can impose their religiously-endowed beliefs upon others that do not share them. These politicians do not govern by decree although some think they do. They legislate.

Which is quite literally, quite contrary to what the constitution of the land states.

NO! There is nothing in the Constitution for banning actions which may have public policy implications simply because religious individuals speak for or against an issue. That violates freedom of speech, press and assembly. That why they are in the 1st Amendment. If the government forces you into a church, that would be unconstitutional because it's clearly promoting religion using the state as enforcer. Blue laws on alcohol sales may have their origins in religious belief but they serve secular purposes as well.

Lawmakers can try and pass laws but they can overturned by the courts if there is no secular merit behind the law so your argument that any religious element backing a law is unconstitutional.

Multicultural education is just reverse racism masquerading as education.

Baaaaaahahahahaha. I just could not help but laugh. I'd say your sentence is masquerading as racism. Multicultural education as reverse racism, hahahaha. Yes, because as you well know, understanding other cultures and races is reverse racism, since we should only teach about white things. Agreed!

In practice, multicultural education means kids have learn about how bad Western Civilization is and how great even the most inconsequential contribution by any minority is. Were you educated in the U.S.? It's always been ok to teach about other cultures in history but most of the original black, hispanic and women studies programs were created to cater to political pressure and not to advance education.

Poverty alone explains little. Most of East Asia was dirt poor but education and business orientation changed things for the better. The reality is Africans (like everyone else) are largely responsible for their own lot and blaming racism for everything achieves nothing.

Yeah, it sure was their own fault white people dragged their ### to another country and enslaved them. Their inability to die or defend themselves properly before coming here must mean it was their fault.

Did you ever take a history class before? A lot of the slave trade came from black Africans selling black Africans. Blaming everything on the Atlantic slave trade is moronic when the former slaves in America did far better than any the slave traders in Africa. Do know anything about international development either? Blaming whitey isn't the route to development. I also used East Asia as a modern comparison to show poverty can be overcome.

Try the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Also, it was with clear intent, as outlined by Jefferson, that secularism is what the first amendment had in mind for religion, and freedom of expression in religious terms, but not state sanctioned.

I already went over that, thanks.

Edited September 8, 2008 by alienlovechild

[Heracles 417]

When using the OT section of VJ as an example alone, there have been quite a few threads, let alone posts, from people with atheist views forcing their views onto others. I am yet to see one thread by someone religious created on the basis of stating how stupid atheists are let alone forcing their beliefs onto others.

Probably because they can't name any way that atheists (you are forgetting some people, like agnostics, who make up around the same population) have suppressed religious people. Last I checked, the founding fathers were religious, and institutionalized secularism for this very reason. As it would be today, religious nuts think they have a mandate to stick their nose into other people's relationships and act like they are the the ones who get to judge the validity of two loving people. Of course they should expect a backlash.

No I base that on science and evolution. Hence why human males cannot reproduce with males and so forth.