was that sarcasm?



------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
Jon`C:Irony is spelling 'quality' poorly.
Spork:Well I think 'Irony is spelling grammar poorly'
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)-@%

Sort of. Just like any debate, there ate two sides.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

... What do you mean?

Mexican or Italian?

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

He meant that people wants to keep religion out of the government, yet expect laws against homosexuality because it goes against their religion... which, I might add, is not necessarily the sole reason.

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

------------------
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
OSC Returns!!
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On

[This message has been edited by Yecti (edited April 05, 2004).]

Damn those street mimes!!

As for this subject...where to begin. I don't like homosexuality for religious reasons. I've been around gay people before though. And...they're not bad. In fact, one of them used to frequent my good friend's house (no, my rriend is not gay, he does music editing for said person) and he cracks us all up.

As for marriage, I don't support it. Marriage has been, by definition, a life-long union of a man and a woman for a LONG TIME. Now a relatively small minority of the populous wants to redefine marriage for the rest of us. It's akin to someone getting the losing percentage of an election yet getting the elected position. Call it a civil union or something else. Just not marriage or until the majority is ok with marriage being redefinied. I just want to note: The mayor of SF acted wholly inappropriately by allowing gay "marriages." The citizens of California decided that marriage is between man and woman. He broke the law and should be held to consequences.

2nd point. If homosexuals are going to live together, fine. I don't care. Government need not do this. Waste of time and resources. But just don't flaunt it! I think gay pride parades are ridiculous. They all look like fools anyway in their rather odd clothing. Sexual matters (hetero/homo) are best kept IN PRIVATE!! Do you see me flaunting my "straight pride?" How many women I have scored? Yeah.

That is all.

[clarification]
------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

[This message has been edited by Gandalf1120 (edited April 05, 2004).]

I don't see how it hurts anybody to allow them to be married. Marriage doesn't have to be a religous thing, though it /can/ be carried out in churches.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights grants freedoms, but it should never take them away.

The entire thing seems silly to me. We're in the middle of an insane gas price hike (s?), the economy could be better, there are many terrorist groups making threats against the US, the Hubble is falling apart, there's a presidential election coming up, and what is the US focusing on? Gay marriages.

------------------
MadQuack on Military school: Pro's: I get to shoot a gun. Con's: Everything else.
"I'm going to beat you until the laws of physics are violated!!" ! Maeve's Warcry

RIP -MaDaVentor-. You will be missed.

"Sole reason"? You mean there's more to the argument against gay marriage than religion? Explain.



Appeal to tradition fallacy. Slavery has been around for a LONG TIME as well. Does that make it valid?



Appeal to popular opinion fallacy. Saying "most of the population doesn't agree" doesn't make them right. Most people don't believe in evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. Besides, the Constitution was designed to protect the minority from popular opinion.


-Fox

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited April 05, 2004).]

------------------
*landfish 'splodes*
7 of 14

If two people want a certificate to show they love each other, I have no problems about it. And as for homosexual couples adopting, I have no problems with that either. The "traditional" family was thrown out long ago. Now, most marriage result in divorce and custody battles. Being raised in a stable gay marriage is surely better than weeks with one parent and weekends with another.

The arguement that children raised with gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves is bull. All it will do is create more understanding for them. For example, my parents are Mormon, something I don't really care to be. But when ever there's an arguement or discussion about Mormonism, I'm in there backing them up. I myself have no desire to be Mormon, but I still understand where they're coming from.

------------------
All the prism in the world couldn't make hue.

Firefox, you have seriously stupid ideas.
"Appeal to tradition fallacy. Slavery has been around for a LONG TIME as well. Does that make it valid?"
Oh wow, what an argument! We got a regular debate king here! Especially with the fancy "Appeal to blah blah fallacy" you put before every ridiculous bit of rhetorical bullcrap. You compare the tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman to slavery, just because they have been around a long time!??! Could you please tell me which fallacy that is?

The fallacy is that, simply because something has been done a certain way for [x] amount of time doesn't mean that that's the way it should still be done.

------------------
"To believe in God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter."
"Egotist: a person more interested in himself than in me."
"And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up."

Agreed on both counts.

------------------
0101001001100001011011100110010001101111011011010010000001000001010100110100001101001001010010010010000001110011011010000110100101110100

Thankyou.

I have decided that I prefer you to firefox now.
(In arguments that is)

------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
Jon`C:Irony is spelling 'quality' poorly.
Spork:Well I think 'Irony is spelling grammar poorly'
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)-@%

shuttles come back some time in september.

------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
Jon`C:Irony is spelling 'quality' poorly.
Spork:Well I think 'Irony is spelling grammar poorly'
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)-@%

Very ironic, that statement is. Wolfy put it best.



Earliest expected launch is March '05. The HST is dead as a doornail, as far as NASA is concerned with regard to shuttle servicing missions, too.


-Fox