Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 12 of 68 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 1013
  1. #166
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cape May, NJ
    Posts
    9,872
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The A Team View Post
    Clearly you're referencing 9/11 and Islam, but would you make the distinction of Wahhabism or is Islam good enough?
    Quote Originally Posted by sexicano31 View Post
    Well if you are going to say that, then you should look up the Crusades
    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...r_voter_r.html

    Basically my exact sentiments on the issue. I am personally opposed to it, but if it's the will of the people I will abide and be happy for my gay friends.

    As to my comment on religion, it is reductionist at best, but succinctly sums up my feelings. The modern West and those countries founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs do a lot less of flying planes into buildings than other religions.

    The Crusades? Bad. But also happened 500 years ago. It is my belief that never again will Christianity/ Catholocism be warped in this way. It was called the Dark Ages for a reason.
    PROUD CHARTER MEMBER: Phillies PSD HAll of Fame, Class of '08.
    [

    ALL YOUR ACE ARE BELONG TO US.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    30,830
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Now I have no problem if a man wants to **** a duck, but to try to make it the equivalent of what my wife and I have is wrong and cheapens the whole thing. Now, you may not care for the institution of marriage and so this wouldn't bother you and you and many others like you might find it funny. But to those of us who do believe in the sanctity of the institution it is an affront.

    Is gay marriage the same a duck marriage? Certainly not. But you make the argument for me. "Hey, these 2 guys got married, why can't I marry my sheepdog?"

    And so forth.

    Obama inherited an economy in decline after many years of prosperity followed by several years of stability, just like happens every 20 years or so. Doubling down on Bush's dumb idea is not the way I would have gone.

    But again, I digress, economics are not my forte.
    Then we're back to square one, you're against institutionalizing gay marriage because of religion, or am I not correct?

    Agreed on the last part (about the economy), and I think A Team also agrees on this point. Candidates promise and promise and then don't have the balls to do anything radical once they get up there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...r_voter_r.html

    Basically my exact sentiments on the issue. I am personally opposed to it, but if it's the will of the people I will abide and be happy for my gay friends.

    As to my comment on religion, it is reductionist at best, but succinctly sums up my feelings. The modern West and those countries founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs do a lot less of flying planes into buildings than other religions.

    The Crusades? Bad. But also happened 500 years ago. It is my belief that never again will Christianity/ Catholocism be warped in this way. It was called the Dark Ages for a reason.
    Maybe not to the point where they (christians/catholics) will go around killing people, but you have to admit that one of the biggest motivators in this war on terror thing is the fact that they are Islamic and as the land chosen by God (Bush's word, If I remember correctly) we can't allow this.

    Props.LgnD.

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cape May, NJ
    Posts
    9,872
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Havoc_Wr3aker View Post
    Then we're back to square one, you're against institutionalizing gay marriage because of religion, or am I not correct?

    Agreed on the last part (about the economy), and I think A Team also agrees on this point. Candidates promise and promise and then don't have the balls to do anything radical once they get up there.

    Maybe not to the point where they (christians/catholics) will go around killing people, but you have to admit that one of the biggest motivators in this war on terror thing is the fact that they are Islamic and as the land chosen by God (Bush's word, If I remember correctly) we can't allow this.
    I cannot state strongly enough that my misgivings on gay marriage are NOT religion-based. Rather, as you proved in an earlier post, it is my fear of the institution being hijacked by all types of people who want to legitimize their extreme fetishes.

    Am I calling homosexuality an extreme fetish? No, I am not.

    Am I saying homosexuality is not "normal"? Yes, but before you get the pitchforks and torches, let me explain.

    By "normal" I literally mean the norm or accepted as a regular part of a society. I do not think it is "wrong", just not the norm. I don't think it is "evil", just not the norm. I'm not sure if you're born that way or if it's choice or some combination of the two, but it's not the norm. There is nothing controversial in that statement.

    I believe the statistic is somewhere around 1% of people are gay. Wonderful. Awesome. I applaud them. But I don't believe an institution as bedrock to our society and as old and entrenched as traditional marriage needs to be completely overturned to appease a vocal 1%.

    You want to guarantee me that a new Marriage Amendment would be limited to marriage between 2 consenting humans? I'm all for it. But we all know this is fallacy.

    I know you're all going to think I'm being oppressive and close-minded and homophobic and yada yada yada, when nothing could be further from the truth. My position is, as it always has been, if given a choice I'd oppose it. If given a vote I'd oppose it. If it goes to vote and passes I will happily abide by it and go on with my life unperturbed.

    And this whole thing has become about 1000x more involved than it should be for a guy who would basically shrug his shoulders and say, "Okay" if gay marriage became a thing. I'm not a frothing, bible-beating sadist, just a guy that believes traditional marriage deserves a little defense.

    Now, one thing I would 100% get behind is some sort of movement to allow longtime companions legal rights as a spouse, because I think it's stupid and Draconian that gays can't visit each other in the hospital or get right of attorney for their partners.

    So, if all of the above does not clearly state my feelings on the topic, you'll just have to keep reading it over because I'm not sure there's that much more for me to say on the topic.
    PROUD CHARTER MEMBER: Phillies PSD HAll of Fame, Class of '08.
    [

    ALL YOUR ACE ARE BELONG TO US.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,733
    vCash
    1500
    Ender, you're going off the deep end a little bit here. We should have nipped this talk of weird fetishism in the bud at the first mention. It's unreasonable, nobody is going to champion the idea of legalized goat marriage/whatever. For one, marriage requires two consenting parties in American culture and it's legally established that animals cannot give consent. If it happens, we're talking hundreds of years from now in a remarkably more liberal society.

    Your defense of the tradition and sanctity of marriage is very much a religious argument. Sanctity (which I'm pretty sure you've used multiple times, but correct me if I'm wrong) is itself a religious term used to describe things that are both holy and immutable. So while your motivations may not be based in religion, your argument is. You might not be applying whatever branch of Christianity you follow - at least not directly - but you are in essence forming your own personal religious canon to support your position.

    The tradition of institutional marriage is both weak and ill-defined. And it's not the least bit sacrosanct - you walk into a courthouse and sign some **** with a witness and a notary present.

    Nobody is asking ANY religion to accept gay marriage, just state governments who have already bastardized the institution hundreds of years ago.
    Now writing for FanGraphs, RotoGraphs, The Hardball Times, and The Fake Baseball

    Follow me on Twitter for article updates @baseballATeam

  5. #170
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    35,381
    vCash
    1500
    Add to that: legalizing gay marriage hurts 0 people

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    30,830
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The A Team View Post
    Ender, you're going off the deep end a little bit here. We should have nipped this talk of weird fetishism in the bud at the first mention. It's unreasonable, nobody is going to champion the idea of legalized goat marriage/whatever. For one, marriage requires two consenting parties in American culture and it's legally established that animals cannot give consent. If it happens, we're talking hundreds of years from now in a remarkably more liberal society.

    Your defense of the tradition and sanctity of marriage is very much a religious argument. Sanctity (which I'm pretty sure you've used multiple times, but correct me if I'm wrong) is itself a religious term used to describe things that are both holy and immutable. So while your motivations may not be based in religion, your argument is. You might not be applying whatever branch of Christianity you follow - at least not directly - but you are in essence forming your own personal religious canon to support your position.

    The tradition of institutional marriage is both weak and ill-defined. And it's not the least bit sacrosanct - you walk into a courthouse and sign some **** with a witness and a notary present.

    Nobody is asking ANY religion to accept gay marriage, just state governments who have already bastardized the institution hundreds of years ago.
    Pretty much this.

    I hope you don't think we're trying to troll you or whatever. We understand your point and, I, for one, respect it, even though I don't agree with it. But you've been saying in every post that it's not religion that's forming your opinion when in fact it is. I mean, how do you know that a "normal" marriage is between a man and a woman? Where does it say that besides the bible?

    *Notice I put normal in parenthesis because I dislike the use of it when in these arguments. Using the world normal to describe a man/woman marriage implies that homosexuals are abnormal and that is just NOT true.
    Last edited by Havoc Wreaker; 01-25-2012 at 12:34 PM.

    Props.LgnD.

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    R.D
    Posts
    16,395
    vCash
    1500
    In Argentina they have a figure called "parterinato" which is basically the same as marriage with all the legal effects but not named marriage and I support such a thing, I wish they would not be that religion based on my country.

    BTW I'm making A-Team's last post my sig
    Last edited by papirico52; 01-25-2012 at 10:26 AM.


    Authentic Phillies, Eagles , Sixers and Man City fan
    - I love Ray Lewis.

    "Do not scorn a weak cub, he may become a brutal tiger"

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,733
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by havoc_wr3aker View Post
    pretty much this.

    I hope you don't think we're trying to troll you or whatever. We understand your point and, i, for one, respect it, even though i don't agree with it. But you've been saying in every post that it's not religion that's forming your opinion when in fact it is. I mean, how do you know that a "normal" marriage is between a man and a woman? Where does it say that besides the bible?

    *notice i put normal in parenthesis because i dislike the use of it when in these arguments. Using the world normal to describe a man/woman marriage implies that homosexuals are abnormal and that is just true.
    ahahahaa

    BIGOT!
    Now writing for FanGraphs, RotoGraphs, The Hardball Times, and The Fake Baseball

    Follow me on Twitter for article updates @baseballATeam

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,733
    vCash
    1500
    And ditto what Havoc said. I know I've been my usual abrasive self, but I also used to be mildly homophobic so I have a sort of born-again perspective on the topic. To me, what you're presenting has a bunch of internal inconsistencies. I just want you to pause and question them.
    Now writing for FanGraphs, RotoGraphs, The Hardball Times, and The Fake Baseball

    Follow me on Twitter for article updates @baseballATeam

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    23,530
    vCash
    1500
    OTT: Srs bsns.

  11. #176
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    35,381
    vCash
    1500
    BTW, can someone PM me KJ's email?

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    23,530
    vCash
    1500

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    30,830
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The A Team View Post
    ahahahaa

    BIGOT!
    wth are you talking about? Stop twisting everything I say

    Props.LgnD.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NE Penna (God's Country)
    Posts
    26,476
    vCash
    1500
    ladies and gentlemen? I give you: The Ninja Edit Master

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cape May, NJ
    Posts
    9,872
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by The A Team View Post
    Ender, you're going off the deep end a little bit here. We should have nipped this talk of weird fetishism in the bud at the first mention. It's unreasonable, nobody is going to champion the idea of legalized goat marriage/whatever. For one, marriage requires two consenting parties in American culture and it's legally established that animals cannot give consent. If it happens, we're talking hundreds of years from now in a remarkably more liberal society.

    Your defense of the tradition and sanctity of marriage is very much a religious argument. Sanctity (which I'm pretty sure you've used multiple times, but correct me if I'm wrong) is itself a religious term used to describe things that are both holy and immutable. So while your motivations may not be based in religion, your argument is. You might not be applying whatever branch of Christianity you follow - at least not directly - but you are in essence forming your own personal religious canon to support your position.

    The tradition of institutional marriage is both weak and ill-defined. And it's not the least bit sacrosanct - you walk into a courthouse and sign some **** with a witness and a notary present.

    Nobody is asking ANY religion to accept gay marriage, just state governments who have already bastardized the institution hundreds of years ago.
    Well, you say that... and yet you have institutions like NAMBLA and the KKK all legitimized in some form or another in our society, so to say it would NEVER happen that men would sue to marry their lamps is slightly more naive than my saying they will.

    We can certainly HOPE they don't, but if the ACLU has taught us anything it's that no weird subsect of of our population shall go without pro bono representation in court. All it takes is one sympathetic judge...

    But yeah, generally I could give a **** who wants to get married. All I 'm saying is, given a chance to defend traditional marriage, I would. That's it. That's my argument. Remove all religious/ political philosophy, and this is what it boils down to for me.
    PROUD CHARTER MEMBER: Phillies PSD HAll of Fame, Class of '08.
    [

    ALL YOUR ACE ARE BELONG TO US.

Page 12 of 68 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •