What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ron Paul 2008 Revolution

  • Thread starter zappafan
  • Start date
  • #101
We're not talking about perception here, we're talking about legal equality! Thanks for confirming my premise that it is about being accepted more than having the same rights.

The perception develops that they are unequal. With that, they become unequal. Equality is nothing more than a perception. You can choose to not accept them as loving people even if they're "married." Although, I hope that some day, you finally realize that it's just better if you accept people for who they are.
 
  • #102
re not talking about perception here, we're talking about legal equality! Thanks for confirming my premise that it is about being accepted more than having the same rights.

I feel that legal equality cannot be separated from perception, because everything a person does is affected by their own perceptions of the matter. We can minimize it and almost eradicate it if we try enough, but it will rarely be eliminated. How many time have you found people show a sudden case where they let their biases get the better of them? Even if the know better, even if they said differently? Laws must go through people.

On the same stream, I feel being accepted as such is inseparable and inherently a part of having the same rights. I feel this is backed up in history many times.
 
  • #103
As far as the comment of why we compare our movement to the AA's fight for their rights, it's because, while it pales in comparison, it's similar enough to compare it to. If you believe it's not appropriate for gays to raise a child, do you believe it's inappropriate for a single parent to raise a child? Neither have both sexes involved. Do you believe it's better for a child to be bounced from foster home to foster home, than to be adopted into a loving family by a gay couple?

PS: I'm still working on not getting angry lol. So far I think I'm doing OK!
 
  • #105
The perception develops that they are unequal. With that, they become unequal. Equality is nothing more than a perception.

So you're suggesting that for self-esteem reasons that we should lie and pretend that the two unions are the same? They're not the same and some gays actually prefer civil union because they can recognize what they have is different. Not everything has to be the SAME, and that doesn't mean they AREN'T EQUAL.

You can choose to not accept them as loving people even if they're "married." Although, I hope that some day, you finally realize that it's just better if you accept people for who they are.

I hope that someday you would stop assuming to know how I feel about gays because you're completely wrong. They have the free will to do what they please and I would advocate for them to have the same legal rights, HOWEVER I don't think it should be called "gay marriage" because marriage is defined as one man and one woman, not only legally, but historically and spiritually and has since the beginning of man.
 
  • #106
So you're suggesting that for self-esteem reasons that we should lie and pretend that the two unions are the same? They're not the same and some gays actually prefer civil union because they can recognize what they have is different. Not everything has to be the SAME, and that doesn't mean they AREN'T EQUAL.

Separate but equal is a lie.

I hope that someday you would stop assuming to know how I feel about gays because you're completely wrong. They have the free will to do what they please and I would advocate for them to have the same legal rights, HOWEVER I don't think it should be called "gay marriage" because marriage is defined as one man and one woman, not only legally, but historically and spiritually and has since the beginning of man.

It is foolish to follow tradition for tradition's sake. Change can be good. In this case, it would be great.
 
  • #107
And using anything spiritual to make an argument for a decision, no matter what it may be, in the public sector is absurd. It's irrelevant. If marriage was all that spiritual, the divorce rate wouldn't be 50% What is this, Saudi Arabia?

Why is it that so many support a ban on gay marriage, yet so few propose a ban on divorce? Why is it that some of the same supporters of a federal marriage amendment have been divorced themselves? Where is this "sanctity"? I think marriage lost any "sanctity" as soon as the government stepped in in the first place. It then became a legal contract. Now I don't know about you guys, but nothing says turn off like a prenup!
 
  • #108
Ron Paul.

While you may not agree with everything he stands for, if you put him side by side with the rest of the candidates, he really is our last chance to restore the republic.
 
  • #109
I dont know if i could keep as cool as Outsiders71 is being in this case. Lets try not to make assumptions.
You can choose to not accept them as loving people even if they're "married." Although, I hope that some day, you finally realize that it's just better if you accept people for who they are.
People can accept all these and still come to different conclusions
 
  • #110
I HAVE to give credit where credit is due. This is not the first time Outsiders has been in a debate against several members at once, but he definitely conducts himself in a respectful manner and holds his ground on his positions (no matter how much I disagree with them) and I have to respect that. Many would feel cornered and lash out in a position like that, but he has indeed always remained more or less calm.
 
  • #111
As far as the comment of why we compare our movement to the AA's fight for their rights, it's because, while it pales in comparison, it's similar enough to compare it to.

The AA's got their rights, but their acceptance wasn't handed to them in the law. They went through some pretty hard times. What makes you think that gay couples deserve anything more than rights legally?

If you believe it's not appropriate for gays to raise a child, do you believe it's inappropriate for a single parent to raise a child? Neither have both sexes involved.

Yes, I believe that kind of scenario is lacking too.

Do you believe it's better for a child to be bounced from foster home to foster home, than to be adopted into a loving family by a gay couple?

I agree with what xvart said that gay couples will have the same problems as married couples. That means divorce and an unhappy family are also possible outcomes for gay couples.

Here's a read on some of the potential dangers of same-sex adoption:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZSSADOPT.HTM

PS: I'm still working on not getting angry lol. So far I think I'm doing OK!

I know a lot of what is being discussed may effect you personally and I'm sorry for any anger it has caused, however I think you understand my issue is not with gay couples.
 
  • #112
Separate but equal is a lie.

This isn't 1960 and this is not relevant to "separate but equal" which dealt with segregation of race in schools.

It is foolish to follow tradition for tradition's sake. Change can be good. In this case, it would be great.

I agree lets allow murdering to be legal, it's time for change.
 
  • #113
I don't think two men or women getting married is nearly the same as murder.
I skimmed that website and I saw a statement that said some studies found that 50% of men who have sex with other men will contract HIV by age 50. This seems a bit high to me.... Then a little further down it implied that if a gay couple adopts, one or both people will have mental issues or a substance abuse problem... come on. Further down it says that the parents will be in denial of the dangers they have caused the child by adopting him/her, and the kid could have mental problems because they don't know why they are attracted to the opposite sex. Please. I'll be honest. I didn't read it in it's entirety. A cursory glance let me know all I suspected before I went there.

I knew I shouldn't have clicked on a link starting with EWTN :) That material was just as silly as some of the stuff in their programming. Maybe the people at EWTN should adopt the children themselves instead of refusing to use birth control and having one after another the old fashioned way?
 
  • #114
This isn't 1960 and this is not relevant to "separate but equal" which dealt with segregation of race in schools.



I agree lets allow murdering to be legal, it's time for change.

This is relevant. It's a civil rights issue.

I said it's not right to go by tradition for tradition's sake. Murder is illegal for the sake of order.

I'm not even going to touch on the article you referenced. It's possibly one of the worst skews of gay marriage ever written. It is extremely offensive.
 
  • #115
Rattler: Do you believe men are different from women or are we all the same?

her's a question.......................how many women do you intimatly know? i do not me in a sexual way either. i mean how many women do you know on a very personal level? how many guys?

i can think of two women i know very intimatly personally, out of the half dozen ill say i do know very well, one is my wife, one is a good friend i helped through a very difficult time just being a good friend and a shoulder to cry on. these two women are damn near polar opposites. anatomically they are the same sure.....psychologically speaking they are as different as men and women. both are quite capable parents and their kids show it. one is a very prissy lady the other will knock you on your rear when and if the mood strikes her, she acts more like one of the guys than one of the girls. infact has very few women friends cause she cant stand the catty BS that goes on in most womens circles.

by and large your reasoning makes no sense Outsiders. by your reasoning single parents should not be allowed to keep their kids unless the immediately remarry. face it you are letting your personal religious beliefs cloud your judgments. i dont have any beef with your religious beliefs....i know they are extreamly important to some ppl and thats fine. i have no problem. but your trying to force your ideals on a world thats f'ed up and they are not going to work for every situation. my best advise to you is to know your beliefs, practice your beliefs but all in all gay marriage is not going to affect you.....it might affect your sensibilities but it will not affect you personally
 
  • #116
Damnit Rattler, and here I was beginning to think I had found my antagonist.
 
  • #117
whats that mean?
 
  • #118
Well, 2nd amendment argument got rather heated, but we're on the level here.

Really, gay marriage is my biggest issue, so you're alright in my book.
 
  • #119
you want a no BS take on me? all i care about are individual freedoms..........i hate wellfare states. i am not gay but i know gay ppl i have no issue about what goes on in someones house so long as they are of the age of consent and no one gets hurt. by the same token i dont want someone telling me i cant smoke a funny smellin cigarette or that i cant have what guns i want. i am perfectly capable of making moral desitions that affect me and mine and dont need some goon in Washington DC or Helena for that matter, telling me what i can and cant do in my own house if no one is getting hurt or if the only person being hurt is me. the very foundation all these beliefs are built on is the right to bear arms. if i do not have the means to protect me and mine from from goons from the government who take offence to my liking to bang my head against the wall be cause if i die from it they cant collect taxes or protect my family from the psycho who moved in down the street that decideds he has a fetish for a 12 year olds middle toe on a necklace. without firearms there is no freedom. if you cant make a stand and decide your willing to die for your freedom and actually do something about it, you just have the illusion of freedom...............thats why i get worked up over the 2nd amendment.....above all the others it means freedom
 
  • #120
And using anything spiritual to make an argument for a decision, no matter what it may be, in the public sector is absurd. It's irrelevant. If marriage was all that spiritual, the divorce rate wouldn't be 50% What is this, Saudi Arabia?

You're right and that's why I listed it last but it still can be used in this argument and I'll tell you why. Regardless if you believe in Jesus, or marriage in God's eyes, there are many people who do as I. To us it is something sacred and something God instituted, it's the covenant of a man and woman who are put together by God, for the glory of God. Marriage is one of the best things God's given us. Now there's a contemporary gay movement that wants to alter the definition of marriage, something many people hold sacred and not just some kind of legal contract or document for legal rights. You betcha there's going to be a little opposition. Yet the gays are completely blind to the fact that they are assaulting an institution of God, but the believers are the bad guys for standing up for something they believe in.

Why is it that so many support a ban on gay marriage, yet so few propose a ban on divorce? Why is it that some of the same supporters of a federal marriage amendment have been divorced themselves? Where is this "sanctity"? I think marriage lost any "sanctity" as soon as the government stepped in in the first place. It then became a legal contract. Now I don't know about you guys, but nothing says turn off like a prenup!

I fully agree with all of this.
 
Back
Top