StarGateWars Forums

LMAO!

Politically: No

Why?: Because homosexuals are gay.

I only support Lesbian couples...

Gays is a

Mister Sandman wrote:Politically: No

Why?: Because homosexuals are gay.

Not only homosexuals are gay...otherwise it would be a sad world, if only gays were gay. Would mean us straight people would be sad (or unhappy or whatever).

*thinks people should see a play on words*

Mister Sandman wrote:*thinks people should see a play on words*

Well, many straight people are gay and many gays aren't gay.

Leg Apophis wrote:

Brdavs wrote:

Leg Apophis wrote:You cannot compare discrimination against African American (or South Africans) in past and homosexuals of nowadays (I mean not in countries like Iran ofc).
Do the homosexuals are forbidden to go in some restaurants? No
Are they forbidden to practice jobs they want because it's too "good" for their status? No
Do they have an education seperated from other people (white people in apartheid)? No
And I could carry on the list.

What is this, kindergarden? How is that supposed to make a difference lol?

Via that reasoning people could say
"Are african amercians being burned in furnaces? No.
Are they being worked to death in work camps? No.
Is their land being stolen and them stuffed in reservations whre they`re doomed to slow cultural extintion? No.
And the list goes on.
So Rosa should STHU and get to the back of the bus cos she can be happy she isnt a jew in the 20th century or a native american in the 19th or whatever."

Come to think of it, why did the us brake away from the british empire? Were they treated like the black slaves they kept? No. What gives then? Totally uncalled for eh?

I mean wth lol? We are talking about universal principles. You gonna tell your kid when he gets beaten up at school that he should be happy in his place cos while he did get a weggie, he got to keep his lunchmoney unlike someone else? I dont think so lol.

Oh yes I forgot it's the racing to which minority earns the most demands. Doesn't matter whether those demands are valid or ridiculous, it's just a matter of being even free-er than the "majority" in the end. As your post shows, there is apparently NO difference between apartheid and asking for gay mariage while civil union is available, between death camps of extermination and possibility to adopt a child for gay couples. My my... My God, what world are we living into?

I don't have anything else to say but facepalm at this post of yours.


"Racism", "discriminating", "homophobia", "freedom [of speech]", "stigmatization", "fascism", "socialism", "seculiraty", "democracy" and "human rights" are among the most wrongly used and sense-twisted words nowadays. One can wonder whether people they realize that they use it that wrongly, or not. I hope they do realize it...

There were people like you at all stages of hostopric developlent of affording respect without discrimination to every fellow man. There were people who thought women voting was insane and against the natural order of things etc. etc.

History has swept them by and your great great grandchildren may wake up in a world where facpalming is done @ the likes of you.

And yes, ultimatly the right to net get killed and the right to have the same cultural, social & economic rights recognised is a step on the same ladder for a group to climb.

Seriously, can we dispense with the kindergarden rationalle, "lolz", pleas to some imaginary beings in the sky and smileys? Just write "I have no rational argument brdavs" instead.

,

& @ "the likes of you" part.

I suppose the "likes of you" as you define me, is composed from the ones agreeing with current state of things like me (civil union only), to the ones in favour of killing all homosexuals in world (whoever they are)...in other words, all those who don't agree with you, nomatter whether they are in favour of extermination, or, keeping the current system like I think (civil union). (I don't have a word in mind to describe this, so I will just use this smiley: )

The reality of "supertolerance-champions" being totally UNtolerant to ANY disagreeing level to their stance, cannot be more obvious than here.
Ah well, we are all fascist racist discriminating homophobic monsters, when we don't agree with the almighty rational unique position from "supertolerance champions" (here mariage for homosexuals being legal), aren't we?

And you dare to say I don't have rational arguements?

Leg Apophis wrote::smt015 ,

& @ "the likes of you" part.

I suppose the "likes of you" as you define me, is composed from the ones agreeing with current state of things like me (civil union only)

plesse answe me this:
if it walks like marriage, talks like marriage, smells like marriage, why not call it marriage?
it is for fear of certain religious extremists?

Hitchkok wrote:

Leg Apophis wrote::smt015 ,

& @ "the likes of you" part.

I suppose the "likes of you" as you define me, is composed from the ones agreeing with current state of things like me (civil union only)

plesse answe me this:
if it walks like marriage, talks like marriage, smells like marriage, why not call it marriage?
it is for fear of certain religious extremists?

It's not exactly like mariage.
By that I don't mean name is different, but content isn't same.

Leg Apophis wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Leg Apophis wrote::smt015 ,

& @ "the likes of you" part.

I suppose the "likes of you" as you define me, is composed from the ones agreeing with current state of things like me (civil union only)

plesse answe me this:
if it walks like marriage, talks like marriage, smells like marriage, why not call it marriage?
it is for fear of certain religious extremists?

It's not exactly like mariage.
By that I don't mean name is different, but content isn't same.

then, how is it not discrimination?

Hitchkok wrote:

Leg Apophis wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Leg Apophis wrote::smt015 ,

& @ "the likes of you" part.

I suppose the "likes of you" as you define me, is composed from the ones agreeing with current state of things like me (civil union only)

plesse answe me this:
if it walks like marriage, talks like marriage, smells like marriage, why not call it marriage?
it is for fear of certain religious extremists?

It's not exactly like mariage.
By that I don't mean name is different, but content isn't same.

then, how is it not discrimination?

The point is that they could be able to live officially in couple, right?
Civil union enables it.
Mariage is mariage, union between a man and a woman.
Civil union can be union between a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman.

@everyone talking about discriminations:
If we enable homosexuals to marry, why couldn't we allow marriages with animals as well? Or inside close family ones just like they did in old time (like during Roman Empire)? There are countries where such practices aren't forbidden by law...so it could be applied there...and where would we put the limit? What would mariage mean then? Would we have same definition as those countries have? Those are questions to consider. Because you know...if you say it's different case, then you contradict yourself from your arguements to counter mines when I said that apartheid is different from this issue. While this arguement I just brought is less different than two different issues. In absolute, there shouldn't be limits for some people's thoughts, but we have to find where the limits are. Not too strict, not too loose. And with different opinions about those limits, it's hard to find out best one, because different opinons think differently.


I prefered not commenting about women not allowed to vote arguement because it was ridiculous to be compared with the issue here. Homos & heteros can vote and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Leg Apophis wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Leg Apophis wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Leg Apophis wrote::smt015 ,

& @ "the likes of you" part.

I suppose the "likes of you" as you define me, is composed from the ones agreeing with current state of things like me (civil union only)

plesse answe me this:
if it walks like marriage, talks like marriage, smells like marriage, why not call it marriage?
it is for fear of certain religious extremists?

It's not exactly like mariage.
By that I don't mean name is different, but content isn't same.

then, how is it not discrimination?

The point is that they could be able to live officially in couple, right?
Civil union enables it.

no. the point is they should be able to marry.
remember my "no such thing as "mere semantics"" comment?
they think so too.

Leg Apophis wrote:Mariage is mariage, union between a man and a woman.

why?
doesn't france pride itself on it's liberalism?
to the point of opressing religious beliefs in it's sake?
then why not allow same sex marriege?

Leg Apophis wrote:@everyone talking about discriminations:
If we enable homosexuals to marry, why couldn't we allow marriages with animals as well? Or inside close family ones just like they did in old time (like during Roman Empire)? There are countries where such practices aren't forbidden by law...so it could be applied there...and where would we put the limit? What would mariage mean then? Would we have same definition as those countries have? Those are questions to consider. Because you know...if you say it's different case, then you contradict yourself from your arguements to counter mines when I said that apartheid is different from this issue. While this arguement I just brought is less different than two different issues. In absolute, there shouldn't be limits for some people's thoughts, but we have to find where the limits are. Not too strict, not too loose. And with different opinions about those limits, it's hard to find out best one, because different opinons think differently.


I prefered not commenting about women not allowed to vote arguement because it was ridiculous to be compared with the issue here. Homos & heteros can vote and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

as for animals:
as long as there is no way to show consent on part of the animal, i can't see how can they marry.
as for family members:
totally irrelevent.
as for the meaning of marriage:
how exactly would that change?
as for all of the above:
"because then we will have to allow it for everyone" has to be the worst excuse ever to deprive someone of his happinnes.

as for the voting argument:
i'm stomped. i can't defeat vulontary ignorance.

Leg Apophis wrote:

Mariage is mariage, union between a man and a woman.

why?
doesn't france pride itself on it's liberalism?
to the point of opressing religious beliefs in it's sake?
then why not allow same sex marriege?

I only see it as a definitional problem the very definition is marriage between a man and a woman, thus you would need to redefine the essence of what it is, but in doing so would you take away the very meaning of marriage?

Leg Apophis wrote:@everyone talking about discriminations:
If we enable homosexuals to marry, why couldn't we allow marriages with animals as well? Or inside close family ones just like they did in old time (like during Roman Empire)? There are countries where such practices aren't forbidden by law...so it could be applied there...and where would we put the limit? What would mariage mean then? Would we have same definition as those countries have? Those are questions to consider. Because you know...if you say it's different case, then you contradict yourself from your arguements to counter mines when I said that apartheid is different from this issue. While this arguement I just brought is less different than two different issues. In absolute, there shouldn't be limits for some people's thoughts, but we have to find where the limits are. Not too strict, not too loose. And with different opinions about those limits, it's hard to find out best one, because different opinons think differently.


I prefered not commenting about women not allowed to vote arguement because it was ridiculous to be compared with the issue here. Homos & heteros can vote and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

as for animals:
as long as there is no way to show consent on part of the animal, i can't see how can they marry.
as for family members:
totally irrelevent.
as for the meaning of marriage:
how exactly would that change?
as for all of the above:
"because then we will have to allow it for everyone" has to be the worst excuse ever to deprive someone of his happinnes.

as for the voting argument:
i'm stomped. i can't defeat vulontary ignorance.

Like that point about animals they are not consciousness to choose to be married or not it would be more instinctual..

Leg Apophis wrote:

Mister Sandman wrote:Politically: No

Why?: Because homosexuals are gay.

Not only homosexuals are gay...otherwise it would be a sad world, if only gays were gay. Would mean us straight people would be sad (or unhappy or whatever).

Leg Apophis wrote:

Mister Sandman wrote:*thinks people should see a play on words*

Well, many straight people are gay and many gays aren't gay.

You still dont get it.

Edit: On a serious note

Marriage is legally defined as union between a man and a woman.
I see no reason to change the law for the minority. It is a fair law.