Not supporting same sex marriage does NOT make someone a bigot.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That's why. It's not hard to understand. No offense intended.

ShadowMoses900

As I stated before:

I believe marriage is an important instution in our soceity and one of the building blocks of good families. Now I am NOT saying that gays are bad parents or anything, I know a gay couple that raise their kids fine and love them, but marriage is still an important social institution that I feel needs to stay in place.

It's against my religious values. God made a man and a woman for a reason, but by no means do I believe in forcing my religious views on others. Seperation of Church and State (though most people that throw out that term don't know what it actually is referring to or where it comes from). But regardless if you like it or not, many of our social values and laws are influenced by some religious values. Nothing is truly "secular".

I don't agree with the gay lifestyle.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"] Why, though? That's what everyone's getting at. There has to be a specific reason for the change in terminology that causes you to care enough to go into a voting booth and vote against it. LJS9502_basic

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That's why. It's not hard to understand. No offense intended.

It doesn't bother me if they make a commitment, if my state did decide to allow same sex marriage it wouldn't really effect me. I just don't want the term marriage to be used but whatever.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That's why. It's not hard to understand. No offense intended.

ShadowMoses900

As I stated before:

I believe marriage is an important instution in our soceity and one of the building blocks of good families. Now I am NOT saying that gays are bad parents or anything, I know a gay couple that raise their kids fine and love them, but marriage is still an important social institution that I feel needs to stay in place.

It's against my religious values. God made a man and a woman for a reason, but by no means do I believe in forcing my religious views on others. Seperation of Church and State (though most people that throw out that term don't know what it actually is referring to or where it comes from). But regardless if you like it or not, many of our social values and laws are influenced by some religious values. Nothing is truly "secular".

I don't agree with the gay lifestyle.

2) So not only are you bigoted about people's sexuality but also religion.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That's why. It's not hard to understand. No offense intended.

ShadowMoses900

As I stated before:

I believe marriage is an important instution in our soceity and one of the building blocks of good families. Now I am NOT saying that gays are bad parents or anything, I know a gay couple that raise their kids fine and love them, but marriage is still an important social institution that I feel needs to stay in place.

Mosey, will you please, pretty please address the question I've posted to you a couple of times about this?

[QUOTE="dave123321"]Shadow, who are some users who you suspect are trying to fit in by pretending to be against your argument ?ShadowMoses900

As I said they know who they are and I'm going to value their privacy. It's not anyone who is still posting in this topci right now though, when I brought that up they kind of "backed away" a bit.

Don't worry, we'll win in the end. Rich3232

[QUOTE="Rich3232"]Don't worry, we'll win in the end. MrPraline

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="dave123321"]Shadow, who are some users who you suspect are trying to fit in by pretending to be against your argument ?DroidPhysX

As I said they know who they are and I'm going to value their privacy. It's not anyone who is still posting in this topci right now though, when I brought that up they kind of "backed away" a bit.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That's why. It's not hard to understand. No offense intended.

ShadowMoses900

It doesn't bother me if they make a commitment, if my state did decide to allow same sex marriage it wouldn't really effect me. I just don't want the term marriage to be used but whatever.

[QUOTE="dave123321"]Shadow, who are some users who you suspect are trying to fit in by pretending to be against your argument ?ShadowMoses900

As I said they know who they are and I'm going to value their privacy. It's not anyone who is still posting in this topci right now though, when I brought that up they kind of "backed away" a bit.

Uh-huh.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] As far as social constructs go....it doesn't matter what people do in a secular government institution. If you are opposed due to religious reasons....then nothing has changed in that case. Does it really matter if two dudes (or females) make a commitment to each other?LJS9502_basic

It doesn't bother me if they make a commitment, if my state did decide to allow same sex marriage it wouldn't really effect me. I just don't want the term marriage to be used but whatever.

If it's just a word than they can call it something different.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

It doesn't bother me if they make a commitment, if my state did decide to allow same sex marriage it wouldn't really effect me. I just don't want the term marriage to be used but whatever.

ShadowMoses900

If it's just a word than they can call it something different.

[QUOTE="dave123321"]Shadow, who are some users who you suspect are trying to fit in by pretending to be against your argument ?ShadowMoses900

As I said they know who they are and I'm going to value their privacy. It's not anyone who is still posting in this topci right now though, when I brought that up they kind of "backed away" a bit.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That's why. It's not hard to understand. No offense intended.

ShadowMoses900

As I stated before:

I believe marriage is an important instution in our soceity and one of the building blocks of good families. Now I am NOT saying that gays are bad parents or anything, I know a gay couple that raise their kids fine and love them, but marriage is still an important social institution that I feel needs to stay in place.

It's against my religious values. God made a man and a woman for a reason, but by no means do I believe in forcing my religious views on others. Seperation of Church and State (though most people that throw out that term don't know what it actually is referring to or where it comes from). But regardless if you like it or not, many of our social values and laws are influenced by some religious values. Nothing is truly "secular".

I don't agree with the gay lifestyle.

As I stated before:

I believe marriage is an important instution in our soceity and one of the building blocks of good families. Now I am NOT saying that gays are bad parents or anything, I know a gay couple that raise their kids fine and love them, but marriage is still an important social institution that I feel needs to stay in place.

It's against my religious values. God made a man and a woman for a reason, but by no means do I believe in forcing my religious views on others. Seperation of Church and State (though most people that throw out that term don't know what it actually is referring to or where it comes from). But regardless if you like it or not, many of our social values and laws are influenced by some religious values. Nothing is truly "secular".

I don't agree with the gay lifestyle.

ShadowMoses900

2. Your second paragraph is contradictory. You say it's against your religious values but you don't believe in forcing your views on others...yet you said earlier that you voted "No" on your state's ballot. wtf

3. What's the gay lifestyle"? A lot of gay people are 100% the same as you and I.

YOU KNOW

if mosses doesn't post the PMs he's like that one guy that goes through this dialogue:

Shadowmosses: "Hey guys, i have a great story to tell"

OT: "cool, what is it?"

Shadowmosses: "nevermind, im not telling anymore"

if you're not going to post it, dont say people PM'd you

DroidPhysX

Shadowmoses can't post those PMs because he made those up to get attention, just like everything he does around here. If anyone visits System Wars they'd know that Shadowmoses is a chronic liar. He is probably the most despised and rejected poster on that board. What a sad individual. :lol:

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

As I said they know who they are and I'm going to value their privacy. It's not anyone who is still posting in this topci right now though, when I brought that up they kind of "backed away" a bit.

MrPraline

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That's why. It's not hard to understand. No offense intended.

ShadowMoses900

As I stated before:

I believe marriage is an important instution in our soceity and one of the building blocks of good families. Now I am NOT saying that gays are bad parents or anything, I know a gay couple that raise their kids fine and love them, but marriage is still an important social institution that I feel needs to stay in place.

It's against my religious values. God made a man and a woman for a reason, but by no means do I believe in forcing my religious views on others. Seperation of Church and State (though most people that throw out that term don't know what it actually is referring to or where it comes from). But regardless if you like it or not, many of our social values and laws are influenced by some religious values. Nothing is truly "secular".

I don't agree with the gay lifestyle.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states

please go fvck yourself you awful, awful troll

Aljosa23

I find it pathetic that people actually care what their reputation is on a god damn video game website's forum. Holy $hit your life must suck.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

YOU KNOW

if mosses doesn't post the PMs he's like that one guy that goes through this dialogue:

Shadowmosses: "Hey guys, i have a great story to tell"

OT: "cool, what is it?"

Shadowmosses: "nevermind, im not telling anymore"

if you're not going to post it, dont say people PM'd you

MozartXVI

Shadowmoses can't post those PMs because he made those up to get attention, just like everything he does around here. If anyone visits System Wars they'd know that Shadowmoses is probably the most despised and rejected individual on that board. What a sad individual. :lol:

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

YOU KNOW

if mosses doesn't post the PMs he's like that one guy that goes through this dialogue:

Shadowmosses: "Hey guys, i have a great story to tell"

OT: "cool, what is it?"

Shadowmosses: "nevermind, im not telling anymore"

if you're not going to post it, dont say people PM'd you

MozartXVI

Shadowmoses can't post those PMs because he made those up to get attention, just like everything he does around here. If anyone visits System Wars they'd know that Shadowmoses is probably the most despised and rejected individual on that board. What a sad individual. :lol:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

It doesn't bother me if they make a commitment, if my state did decide to allow same sex marriage it wouldn't really effect me. I just don't want the term marriage to be used but whatever.

ShadowMoses900

If it's just a word than they can call it something different.

Hell while you're at it why not stop calling them people? it's just a word.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That's why. It's not hard to understand. No offense intended.

ShadowMoses900

It doesn't bother me if they make a commitment, if my state did decide to allow same sex marriage it wouldn't really effect me. I just don't want the term marriage to be used but whatever.

and the shop keeper said "You're a Jew! Jews aren't allowed to call them apples, you have to call them red spherical edible kablubla's" would you not have a problem with that?toast_burner

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I laughed, that's a terrible chart. Looking at the places which "have no rights for gays, boohoo" in detail reviels (and the chart actually uses these words.) "No EXTENDED RIGHTS" Great, they have the same rights as everyone else, but no bonus rights for being homos. "Hate crimes" do not have to have the word homosexuality to include them... "Protection from school bullying" Dont schools do that already, regardless of the student's sexuality?Nibroc420

[QUOTE="MozartXVI"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

YOU KNOW

if mosses doesn't post the PMs he's like that one guy that goes through this dialogue:

Shadowmosses: "Hey guys, i have a great story to tell"

OT: "cool, what is it?"

Shadowmosses: "nevermind, im not telling anymore"

if you're not going to post it, dont say people PM'd you

MrPraline

Shadowmoses can't post those PMs because he made those up to get attention, just like everything he does around here. If anyone visits System Wars they'd know that Shadowmoses is probably the most despised and rejected individual on that board. What a sad individual. :lol:

We can't help it. Nobody takes a liar seriously.

This is what happened when his lies backfired on him. Now people just respond with this picture whenever he makes a topic.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="MozartXVI"]

Shadowmoses can't post those PMs because he made those up to get attention, just like everything he does around here. If anyone visits System Wars they'd know that Shadowmoses is probably the most despised and rejected individual on that board. What a sad individual. :lol:

MozartXVI

We can't help it. Nobody takes a liar seriously.

This is what happened when his lies backfired on him. Now people just respond with this picture whenever he makes a topic.

Now people just respond with this picture whenever he makes a topic.MozartXVI

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="MozartXVI"]

Shadowmoses can't post those PMs because he made those up to get attention, just like everything he does around here. If anyone visits System Wars they'd know that Shadowmoses is probably the most despised and rejected individual on that board. What a sad individual. :lol:

MozartXVI

We can't help it. Nobody takes a liar seriously.

This is what happened when his lies backfired on him. Now people just respond with this picture whenever he makes a topic.

F*cking lol.

1.) Hate crimes are investigated by FBI, not by state police, Federal law is what matters. 2.) Most schools try to stop bullying, i haven't encountered a school that didn't. Regardless of the nature of the bullying. I also love how the chart uses the same color for "no laws defending gays" and "We're unsure of the laws/the law is unclear" It's a very biased chart.Nibroc420

I don't think ANYONE should have the "right" to marry, under the current definition of "marriage". And that's because I don't feel that the government should be involved. If marriage is about love, why do you need a licence, and approval from the government, and why does it get you tax advantages? That's why this is an issue in the first place. The government gives people economic incentives to get married, because the hope is that the married couple will have children, providing another crop of future taxpayers. Since homosexual couples don't procreate, the government is hesitant about letting them "marry", since basically it means that the couple isn't holding up their end of the bargain. The way I see it, the government shouldn't be giving anyone incentives to marry, and shouldn't be involved in the institution, in any way. If that were the way it was, it wouldn't even be an issue because, what's to stop a pair of homosexuals from buying each other rings, and living together in a loving relationship? Absolutely nothing, that's what. And when you take the government and their tax incentives out of the equation, that's all marriage is. As for the religious and/or "traditional" types, who don't care about the tax incentives, and just don't want the institution "corrupted" (or whatever crazy sh!t they think)... don't worry about it. If you're really that pious, just sit back and relax, knowing those queers still aren't getting into heaven.

We can't help it. Nobody takes a liar seriously.

This is what happened when his lies backfired on him. Now people just respond with this picture whenever he makes a topic.

funny pic

MozartXVI

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="MozartXVI"]

Shadowmoses can't post those PMs because he made those up to get attention, just like everything he does around here. If anyone visits System Wars they'd know that Shadowmoses is probably the most despised and rejected individual on that board. What a sad individual. :lol:

MozartXVI

We can't help it. Nobody takes a liar seriously.

This is what happened when his lies backfired on him. Now people just respond with this picture whenever he makes a topic.

LMAO

So long, Shadowmoses. :lol:

well played MozartXVIMrPraline

I don't think ANYONE should have the "right" to marry, under the current definition of "marriage". And that's because I don't feel that the government should be involved. If marriage is about love, why do you need a licence, and approval from the government, and why does it get you tax advantages? That's why this is an issue in the first place. The government gives people economic incentives to get married, because the hope is that the married couple will have children, providing another crop of future taxpayers. Since homosexual couples don't procreate, the government is hesitant about letting them "marry", since basically it means that the couple isn't holding up their end of the bargain. The way I see it, the government shouldn't be giving anyone incentives to marry, and shouldn't be involved in the institution, in any way. If that were the way it was, it wouldn't even be an issue because, what's to stop a pair of homosexuals from buying each other rings, and living together in a loving relationship? Absolutely nothing, that's what. And when you take the government and their tax incentives out of the equation, that's all marriage is. As for the religious and/or "traditional" types, who don't care about the tax incentives, and just don't want the institution "corrupted" (or whatever crazy sh!t they think)... don't worry about it. If you're really that pious, just sit back and relax, knowing those queers still aren't getting into heaven.

the_bi99man

well played MozartXVIMrPraline

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] 1.) Hate crimes are investigated by FBI, not by state police, Federal law is what matters. 2.) Most schools try to stop bullying, i haven't encountered a school that didn't. Regardless of the nature of the bullying. I also love how the chart uses the same color for "no laws defending gays" and "We're unsure of the laws/the law is unclear" It's a very biased chart.Aljosa23

Also, a little reading materal for you.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
A hate crime is not a distinct federal offense. However, the federal government can and does investigate and prosecute crimes of bias as civil rights violations, which do fall under its jurisdictionThe FBI works closely with state/local authorities on investigations, even when federal charges are not brought. The FBI initiates a hate crime investigation when an allegation is received from a reliable source. Most complaints are received from the victim, a witness, or a third party.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]well played MozartXVILJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

I don't think ANYONE should have the "right" to marry, under the current definition of "marriage". And that's because I don't feel that the government should be involved. If marriage is about love, why do you need a licence, and approval from the government, and why does it get you tax advantages? That's why this is an issue in the first place. The government gives people economic incentives to get married, because the hope is that the married couple will have children, providing another crop of future taxpayers. Since homosexual couples don't procreate, the government is hesitant about letting them "marry", since basically it means that the couple isn't holding up their end of the bargain. The way I see it, the government shouldn't be giving anyone incentives to marry, and shouldn't be involved in the institution, in any way. If that were the way it was, it wouldn't even be an issue because, what's to stop a pair of homosexuals from buying each other rings, and living together in a loving relationship? Absolutely nothing, that's what. And when you take the government and their tax incentives out of the equation, that's all marriage is. As for the religious and/or "traditional" types, who don't care about the tax incentives, and just don't want the institution "corrupted" (or whatever crazy sh!t they think)... don't worry about it. If you're really that pious, just sit back and relax, knowing those queers still aren't getting into heaven.

MrPraline

Exactly. As long as it is state sponsored, and I'm all for full equality. But I just don't think giving full "marriage rights" to homosexuals does anything to solve the real problem. Eliminating "marriage rights" altogether is the way to go. There's no reason that stuff needs to be between anyone else, besides the couple, and whatever God they may or may not believe in.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

I don't think ANYONE should have the "right" to marry, under the current definition of "marriage". And that's because I don't feel that the government should be involved. If marriage is about love, why do you need a licence, and approval from the government, and why does it get you tax advantages? That's why this is an issue in the first place. The government gives people economic incentives to get married, because the hope is that the married couple will have children, providing another crop of future taxpayers. Since homosexual couples don't procreate, the government is hesitant about letting them "marry", since basically it means that the couple isn't holding up their end of the bargain. The way I see it, the government shouldn't be giving anyone incentives to marry, and shouldn't be involved in the institution, in any way. If that were the way it was, it wouldn't even be an issue because, what's to stop a pair of homosexuals from buying each other rings, and living together in a loving relationship? Absolutely nothing, that's what. And when you take the government and their tax incentives out of the equation, that's all marriage is. As for the religious and/or "traditional" types, who don't care about the tax incentives, and just don't want the institution "corrupted" (or whatever crazy sh!t they think)... don't worry about it. If you're really that pious, just sit back and relax, knowing those queers still aren't getting into heaven.

the_bi99man

Exactly. As long as it is state sponsored, and I'm all for full equality. But I just don't think giving full "marriage rights" to homosexuals does anything to solve the real problem. Eliminating "marriage rights" altogether is the way to go. There's no reason that stuff needs to be between anyone else, besides the couple, and whatever God they may or may not believe in.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="MrPraline"] Good post. Definitely in agreement with you. Would rather have no state sponsored marriage at all. But as long as we have "straight marriage" approved by the government, I'm going to be arguing for equality for gay couples.Nibroc420

Exactly. As long as it is state sponsored, and I'm all for full equality. But I just don't think giving full "marriage rights" to homosexuals does anything to solve the real problem. Eliminating "marriage rights" altogether is the way to go. There's no reason that stuff needs to be between anyone else, besides the couple, and whatever God they may or may not believe in.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

Exactly. As long as it is state sponsored, and I'm all for full equality. But I just don't think giving full "marriage rights" to homosexuals does anything to solve the real problem. Eliminating "marriage rights" altogether is the way to go. There's no reason that stuff needs to be between anyone else, besides the couple, and whatever God they may or may not believe in.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MrPraline"]well played MozartXVIMrPraline

Even better.