Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[Normandywe]

Once again, I don't watch films, as I don't indulge fictitious media. I support realism in its entirety, never to depart.

Why won't you answer my questions?

A better system can be set in place, similar that which is found in "The Giver", except childrearing will be treated differently. It seems to best.
I think that we should try it, at least.

[Liriena]

If you believe that the Federal Government should directly control the lives of the people, then I recommend moving to somewhere like North Korea.

Seriously?

[Zweite Alaje]

He needs to stop watching shitty films and reading silly scripts.

Once again, I don't watch films, as I don't indulge fictitious media. I support realism in its entirety, never to depart.

This is so rich, you must be a real snore. Seriously, stop with the charade, do you honestly believe humanity would be "better" off emotionless?

Why won't you answer my questions?

A better system can be set in place, similar that which is found in "The Giver", except childrearing will be treated differently. It seems to best.
I think that we should try it, at least.

You do know that The Giver is a DYStopia novel, right?

[Neutraligon]

Don't like same-sex marriage? Don't get one. Problem solved.

The problem comes when people have to put up with others who are openly gay. I believe it is best put by the nation of Frisivisia:

Elipida wrote:what's wrong with homosexuality? What have homosexuals ever do to you? If it isn't being thrown into your face, you shouldn't have to worry about other's sexual orientation, gay or straight

Frisivisia wrote:
They leave behind a trail of fabulousness. You know how hard fabulousness is to clean up?

If you can't tell, that was a joke. But nonetheless, you can't just ignore someone who is gay. You inevitably have to put up with them, and not everyone will accept that. Don't say that they should be made to accept though, otherwise its a violation of freedom, and rights, and morals, etc.

You are aware people will be openly affectionate with or without marriage right? The legalization of marriage will have no affect on what you do or do not see. More than that I am disgusted when I see heterosexual couples be affectionate, so heterosexual marriage should be banned.

[Normandywe]

Once again, I don't watch films, as I don't indulge fictitious media. I support realism in its entirety, never to depart.

This is so rich, you must be a real snore. Seriously, stop with the charade, do you honestly believe humanity would be "better" off emotionless?

Max Weber said it is inevitable. My opinion is irrelevant, as I merely intend to express the objective side.

[Individuality-ness]

Don't like same-sex marriage? Don't get one. Problem solved.

The problem comes when people have to put up with others who are openly gay. I believe it is best put by the nation of Frisivisia:

Elipida wrote:what's wrong with homosexuality? What have homosexuals ever do to you? If it isn't being thrown into your face, you shouldn't have to worry about other's sexual orientation, gay or straight

Frisivisia wrote:
They leave behind a trail of fabulousness. You know how hard fabulousness is to clean up?

If you can't tell, that was a joke. But nonetheless, you can't just ignore someone who is gay. You inevitably have to put up with them, and not everyone will accept that. Don't say that they should be made to accept though, otherwise its a violation of freedom, and rights, and morals, etc.

You have the right to free expression. You don't have the right to not be offended.

[Neutraligon]

Why won't you answer my questions?

A better system can be set in place, similar that which is found in "The Giver", except childrearing will be treated differently. It seems to best.
I think that we should try it, at least.

You are aware people felt emotions in the giver, right?

[Normandywe]

A better system can be set in place, similar that which is found in "The Giver", except childrearing will be treated differently. It seems to best.
I think that we should try it, at least.

You are aware people felt emotions in the giver, right?

I am merely referencing the reproduction faculties that were in place, not whether or not the characters felt emotion.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This is so rich, you must be a real snore. Seriously, stop with the charade, do you honestly believe humanity would be "better" off emotionless?

Max Weber said it is inevitable. My opinion is irrelevant, as I merely intend to express the objective side.

And L. Ron Hubbard invented a religion. It doesn't mean that what he said about that religion bares any weight in reality (unless you're Tom Cruise). The same thing applies to Weber.

[Neutraligon]

You are aware people felt emotions in the giver, right?

I am merely referencing the reproduction system that was in place, not whether or not the characters felt emotion.

Still haven't answered how you would remove emotions from humans, or whether humans would be capable of surviving and how.

[Normandywe]

Max Weber said it is inevitable. My opinion is irrelevant, as I merely intend to express the objective side.

And L. Ron Hubbard invented a religion. It doesn't mean that what he said about that religion bares any weight in reality (unless you're Tom Cruise). The same thing applies to Weber.

Weber was the most important sociologist of the 19st century--the Einstein of his field.

[Ainin]

Don't like same-sex marriage? Don't get one. Problem solved.

The problem comes when people have to put up with others who are openly gay. I believe it is best put by the nation of Frisivisia:

Elipida wrote:what's wrong with homosexuality? What have homosexuals ever do to you? If it isn't being thrown into your face, you shouldn't have to worry about other's sexual orientation, gay or straight

Frisivisia wrote:
They leave behind a trail of fabulousness. You know how hard fabulousness is to clean up?

If you can't tell, that was a joke. But nonetheless, you can't just ignore someone who is gay. You inevitably have to put up with them, and not everyone will accept that. Don't say that they should be made to accept though, otherwise its a violation of freedom, and rights, and morals, etc.

Well simple. People who hate gays should A) GTFO of places where there are gays -or- B) tolerate them.
/end

[Neutraligon]

And L. Ron Hubbard invented a religion. It doesn't mean that what he said about that religion bares any weight in reality (unless you're Tom Cruise). The same thing applies to Weber.

Weber was the most important sociologist of the 19st century--the Einstein of his field.

So? You are aware we are well beyond the 19th century right?

[Normandywe]

I am merely referencing the reproduction system that was in place, not whether or not the characters felt emotion.

Still haven't answered how you would remove emotions from humans, or whether humans would be capable of surviving and how.

They'll simply have to adopt this philosophy, and I think that they should.

[Normandywe]

Weber was the most important sociologist of the 19st century--the Einstein of his field.

So?

So the comparison to Hubbard was terribly wrong, as it would be better to compare Weber to Einstein.

[Neutraligon]

Still haven't answered how you would remove emotions from humans, or whether humans would be capable of surviving and how.

They'll simply have to adopt this philosophy, and I think that they should.

So you believe human emotion is simply a philosophy, rather than something intrinsic to humans. Source?

[Neutraligon]

So?

So your comparison to Hubbard was terribly wrong, as it would be better to compare Weber to Einstein.

Please not I did not make the comparison. Also please note that people do not feel Einstein or his theories were perfect.

[Normandywe]

So your comparison to Hubbard was terribly wrong, as it would be better to compare Weber to Einstein.

Please not I did not make the comparison. Also please note that people do not feel Einstein or his theories were perfect.

I already fixed the attribution before you posted.

[Republic of Wreptzle]

Well first off, doesn't love always find a way? But on a serious note, if its not up to vote, then that just violates America's beliefs and morals. If we are forced to do something that we do not accept, then we have lost our freedom and all that we have fought and died for will be lost. The moving solution is more of a joke than an actual solution. But a state-wide vote will allow the majority of the citizens who live in a state feel like their views are represented. This cannot be done at a national level for two reasons: 1) The Federal Government's only job is to protect the nation from outside threats and manage the iterations between states, not to determine what a person can or cannot do. 2) By working at a stat level, the majority of people will be satisfied.If you believe that the Federal Government should directly control the lives of the people, then I recommend moving to somewhere like North Korea.

Funny, we managed to do this with slavery, and again with Civil Rights. You know, maybe equality before the law is more important than people's beliefs. as for number 2, the federal government already directly affects our day to day life. What do you think programs like Medicare, as well as the interstate roads, as well as the regulations on business are?

Medicare and programs like it are an infringement on state's rights. Look up why the Federal Government was made. It didn't come into being when America was created, it was only after states couldn't come to agreements on their own.

Interstate highways eh? OK lets break down the word interstate. inter____state (That means between states.)

Slavery. The majority of the South's population was Black and the majority of the North was white. Majority (and the Civil War) rules that slavery is outlawed. Also note that before the civil war, states chose if they allowed slaves or not. It wasn't until after the Federal Government started to call for a complete ban of slavery that they rebelled.

Civil Rights. Well, if society didn't agree with Civil Rights, then how did we end up with them today? Here's a hint: the majority of the politicians that passed Civil Rights laws were racist against blacks and other "minorities". All they wanted was their votes. As LBJ puts it: "I'll have those n***** voting Democrat for the next 200 years." So says the man who relieved himself on the leg of a Secret Service Agent. He's a major Racist scumbag, but boy did he have an impressive ego.

[Republic of Wreptzle]

If you believe that the Federal Government should directly control the lives of the people, then I recommend moving to somewhere like North Korea.

Seriously?

Oh yes I did.

[Neutraligon]

Please not I did not make the comparison. Also please note that people do not feel Einstein or his theories were perfect.

I already fixed the attribution before you posted.

That's nice. You have yet to show me that humans can so easily disregard emotions as well as yet to show me why doing so is a good thing, since emotion allows us to innovate, as well as to desire to perform tasks.

[Republic of Wreptzle]

The problem comes when people have to put up with others who are openly gay. I believe it is best put by the nation of Frisivisia:

Elipida wrote:what's wrong with homosexuality? What have homosexuals ever do to you? If it isn't being thrown into your face, you shouldn't have to worry about other's sexual orientation, gay or straight

Frisivisia wrote:
They leave behind a trail of fabulousness. You know how hard fabulousness is to clean up?

If you can't tell, that was a joke. But nonetheless, you can't just ignore someone who is gay. You inevitably have to put up with them, and not everyone will accept that. Don't say that they should be made to accept though, otherwise its a violation of freedom, and rights, and morals, etc.

You are aware people will be openly affectionate with or without marriage right? The legalization of marriage will have no affect on what you do or do not see. More than that I am disgusted when I see heterosexual couples be affectionate, so heterosexual marriage should be banned.

Well I'm not saying any form or mirage should be banned, all I'm saying is that we let the people of a state decide for themselves. That way the maximum of people will be happy, but you can never make everyone happy. Who knows, if states choose their stance on marriage, maybe it will become nationwide.

[Neutraligon]

You are aware people will be openly affectionate with or without marriage right? The legalization of marriage will have no affect on what you do or do not see. More than that I am disgusted when I see heterosexual couples be affectionate, so heterosexual marriage should be banned.

Well I'm not saying any form or mirage should be banned, all I'm saying is that we let the people of a state decide for themselves. That way the maximum of people will be happy, but you can never make everyone happy. Who knows, if states choose their stance on marriage, maybe it will become nationwide.

Equality before the law should not be up for a vote.

[Republic of Wreptzle]

The problem comes when people have to put up with others who are openly gay. I believe it is best put by the nation of Frisivisia:

Elipida wrote:what's wrong with homosexuality? What have homosexuals ever do to you? If it isn't being thrown into your face, you shouldn't have to worry about other's sexual orientation, gay or straight

Frisivisia wrote:
They leave behind a trail of fabulousness. You know how hard fabulousness is to clean up?

If you can't tell, that was a joke. But nonetheless, you can't just ignore someone who is gay. You inevitably have to put up with them, and not everyone will accept that. Don't say that they should be made to accept though, otherwise its a violation of freedom, and rights, and morals, etc.

Well simple. People who hate gays should A) GTFO of places where there are gays -or- B) tolerate them.
/end

THANK YOU. I was worried I was the only one who thought that here.

[Enadail]

You are aware people will be openly affectionate with or without marriage right? The legalization of marriage will have no affect on what you do or do not see. More than that I am disgusted when I see heterosexual couples be affectionate, so heterosexual marriage should be banned.

Well I'm not saying any form or mirage should be banned, all I'm saying is that we let the people of a state decide for themselves. That way the maximum of people will be happy, but you can never make everyone happy. Who knows, if states choose their stance on marriage, maybe it will become nationwide.

Except marriage is a matter of interstate commerce. If one state allows homosexual marriage, where they can live and do business, as a couple, is limited by that marriage, by stats that do not allow that marriage.

Plus, civil liberties are not up to choice. Equality is not up for a vote.