I am impressed as is, utah is probably the most conservative state in the U.S.
That being said I am waiting for Alabama to legalize it to be amazed.
Advertisement

by Socialist Austrian Empire » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:12 am

by Dyakovo » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:13 am
Pratse wrote:I have a question for you, my good sirs - what happens to kids who are adopted into growing in a gay household? I'm just curious.

by Dalluria » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:13 am
Fascist Russian Empire wrote:Democracy ain't a basic right. It's a terrible, massively flawed ideology that should have died with the Athenians.


by Luveria » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:15 am
Fascist Russian Empire wrote:Nevanmaa wrote:Why the hell should anyone care what the people of Commiefornia/Vermont/[insert blue hellhole here] want? If they want gay marriage, that's a nope! Can't let them decide stuff like that.
Your attitude towards Utahns is disgusting. Apparently supporting political ideologies that you don't like makes it okay to deny Utahns their right to democracy.
Democracy ain't a basic right. It's a terrible, massively flawed ideology that should have died with the Athenians.

by Grenartia » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:16 am
New Molsona wrote:Grenartia wrote:
1. That's what basically EVERY church says. Doesn't mean its true.
2. Good for you. I'm not leaving TN unless its to go back to Louisiana or to visit a friend out of state. And I shouldn't have to do so just to be treated with the basic fucking dignity I deserve.
3. Mistranslated.
1. No protestant Church says it was founded by the apostles
2. Just wondering, how is it to live in Tennessee, I was thinking about moving there.
3. In every English translation, it says basically the same thing, just with different wording.

by New Molsona » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:18 am
Grenartia wrote:New Molsona wrote:2. The feeling is mutual
3. Just don't talk about that stuff outside your porn blog
4. So you're saying, everything that God said before Jesus was born should be thrown out the window. Looks like I can kill people and steal now and it wouldn't be a sin.
3. No, because its not actually against the rules, any more than a woman showing her ankles and elbows.
4. Not really, because those things deprive people of their rights without informed consent. Which is arguably the highest ethical law there is, and is a corollary to the Golden Rule that Jesus preached.

by Kelinfort » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:20 am
New Molsona wrote:Grenartia wrote:
3. No, because its not actually against the rules, any more than a woman showing her ankles and elbows.
4. Not really, because those things deprive people of their rights without informed consent. Which is arguably the highest ethical law there is, and is a corollary to the Golden Rule that Jesus preached.
Just because it's not against the rules it doesn't mean you should do it. Do you flip off old women or burp in a veteran's face.

by Grenartia » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:20 am
Pratse wrote:Grenartia wrote:
1.
This obviously means that the Founding Fathers believed in freedom, at least until one's actions deprive others of their rights (or else there'd be no point, because then it would be an exercise in futility). All one would have to do is convince them of the known facts about being LGBT, and in conjunction with little more than that one sentence, you can convince them that SSM is ok.
4. Molsona isn't allowing for an "abstain" option for my human rights.
1. That phrase is extremely open-ended. Don't you have a more concrete example?
4. And I am the culprit of Molsona's actions? Hey, just like those kids I talked about earlier.
That sentence is almost literally the culmination of Enlightenment-era thought on the subject. 
by Dyakovo » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:22 am
New Molsona wrote:Grenartia wrote:
3. No, because its not actually against the rules, any more than a woman showing her ankles and elbows.
4. Not really, because those things deprive people of their rights without informed consent. Which is arguably the highest ethical law there is, and is a corollary to the Golden Rule that Jesus preached.
Just because it's not against the rules it doesn't mean you should do it. Do you flip off old women or burp in a veteran's face.

by Ifreann » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:23 am
Pratse wrote:(Hint: Think school, think a place in society.)

by Arglorand » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:23 am
New Molsona wrote:Grenartia wrote:
3. No, because its not actually against the rules, any more than a woman showing her ankles and elbows.
4. Not really, because those things deprive people of their rights without informed consent. Which is arguably the highest ethical law there is, and is a corollary to the Golden Rule that Jesus preached.
Just because it's not against the rules it doesn't mean you should do it. Do you flip off old women or burp in a veteran's face.

by Mavorpen » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:25 am

by Grenartia » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:28 am
Mavorpen wrote:Siaos wrote:I'll only be truly amazed when Texas legalizes it.
...Why?
I really wonder about you people who make these comments about Texas. Have you ever been here? A distinct majority of younger voters approve of gay marriage here and among Hispanics in general the numbers are reaching a majority, despite how conservative it currently is. I would be amazed if Texas didn't legalize it within the next 20 years or so.

by Kelinfort » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:31 am
Grenartia wrote:Mavorpen wrote:...Why?
I really wonder about you people who make these comments about Texas. Have you ever been here? A distinct majority of younger voters approve of gay marriage here and among Hispanics in general the numbers are reaching a majority, despite how conservative it currently is. I would be amazed if Texas didn't legalize it within the next 20 years or so.
Mainly because the perception is that despite those facts, many of the most prominent anti-LGBT icons are Texan.

by Mavorpen » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:32 am
Grenartia wrote:Mavorpen wrote:...Why?
I really wonder about you people who make these comments about Texas. Have you ever been here? A distinct majority of younger voters approve of gay marriage here and among Hispanics in general the numbers are reaching a majority, despite how conservative it currently is. I would be amazed if Texas didn't legalize it within the next 20 years or so.
Mainly because the perception is that despite those facts, many of the most prominent anti-LGBT icons are Texan.

by The Scientific States » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:34 am
Pratse wrote:I have a question for you, my good sirs - what happens to kids who are adopted into growing in a gay household? I'm just curious.

by Arglorand » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:35 am

by Kelinfort » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:35 am
Pratse wrote:I have a question for you, my good sirs - what happens to kids who are adopted into growing in a gay household? I'm just curious.

by Grenartia » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:36 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Duvniask, Maineiacs, Ostroeuropa
Advertisement