[QUOTE="jshaas"]If I feel that my arguement is just as valid as yours, then who's to tell me who is imposing upon who? You make it seem as if any arguement opposing your own is invalid. That's just not right. Criticising them is one thing, name calling is completely different. A lot people feel as if the gay community is imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Teenaged

Personal morals dont stand on their own as arguments.

You can get any impression that makes you feel persecuted when actually you're not. It matters not.

Like I said earlier it is not important what they feel. The fact is that the gay community isnt imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Asking for your life to not be regulated by other people's subjective morals isnt imposing anything on anyone. It is a fair demand that any mistreated group can make, not only homosexuals. It is telling though that in this case it is seen as a special case by people like you.

It is also a fact that regulating other people's lives by lawisa form of imposing your views on said people.

Even after many posts towards each other, we're back to square one, with you being unable to realise that your equation of this to that is absolute bullsh?t, thanks to your persecution complex and a false belief that standing by your beliefs is noble (ie a PC relabeling of "being stubborn").

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

There's always a chance of change. People do change their opinions and consequently their beliefs. I wont use the word "morals" here because it serves to portray some beliefs as unchangeable and absolute. I'm not for baptising my own beliefs as unchangeable and absolute. And in case they are, I'd just call them facts.

However the "moral" that marriage should be between only a man and a woman isnt a fact. It doesnt describe an "is and always will be" situation but a "should (always) be".

I dont really aspire to change your beliefs but I just wanted to express my feelings about the "those are my beliefs and they cant change" attitude which is BS. And being consistent I will also tell you that you shouldnt applaud me simply for standing by my beliefs. This could be a sign of stubborness. Standing by your beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are, is not a commendable thing. It sounds like something a person that has crappy beliefs would support.

The people have the right to vote as they please, and others can criticise them for what they voted for. Sounds fair to me.

I never used the argument that you have to agree with it because in the end it will be legalised. That's very far from what I was saying. In fact I didnt even say you have to agree with it. I basically said that you shouldnt impose your views on others unless there's a good argument supporting your views in question.

In this case, since there is no argument you are reasonably labeled either "stupid" or a "bigot".

toast_burner

Oh noes you have to accept that they are human beings and that what they do has nothing to do with you, boy is your life hard.

[QUOTE="jshaas"]Bigoted religitardsfeel as if the gay community is imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Heisenderp

Fixed.

[QUOTE="jshaas"]If I feel that my arguement is just as valid as yours, then who's to tell me who is imposing upon who? You make it seem as if any arguement opposing your own is invalid. That's just not right. Criticising them is one thing, name calling is completely different. A lot people feel as if the gay community is imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Teenaged

Personal morals dont stand on their own as arguments.

You can get any impression that makes you feel persecuted when actually you're not. It matters not.

Like I said earlier it is not important what they feel. The fact is that the gay community isnt imposing their beliefs on everyone else. Asking for your life to not be regulated by other people's subjective morals isnt imposing anything on anyone. It is a fair demand that any mistreated group can make, not only homosexuals. It is telling though that in this case it is seen as a special case by people like you.

It is also a fact that regulating other people's lives by lawisa form of imposing your views on said people.

Even after many posts towards each other, we're back to square one, with you being unable to realise that your equation of this to that is absolute bullsh?t, thanks to your persecution complex and a false belief that standing by your beliefs is noble (ie a PC relabeling of "being stubborn").

[QUOTE="jshaas"]My morals, my beliefs, make me who I am. Just as yours do you. Because we differ at that point is no reason to call anyone stupid. I have my convictions, you have yours. You stand by yours, as I stand by mine. I applaud you for that. We'll never change each other's minds here. The people have a right to vote how they please. If it's overturned, and I expect it will be, then so be it. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.Teenaged

There's always a chance of change. People do change their opinions and consequently their beliefs. I wont use the word "morals" here because it serves to portray some beliefs as unchangeable and absolute. I'm not for baptising my own beliefs as unchangeable and absolute. And in case they are, I'd just call them facts.

However the "moral" that marriage should be between only a man and a woman isnt a fact. It doesnt describe an "is and always will be" situation but a "should (always) be".

I dont really aspire to change your beliefs but I just wanted to express my feelings about the "those are my beliefs and they cant change" attitude which is BS. And being consistent I will also tell you that you shouldnt applaud me simply for standing by my beliefs. This could be a sign of stubborness. Standing by your beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are, is not a commendable thing. It sounds like something a person that has crappy beliefs would support.

The people have the right to vote as they please, and others can criticise them for what they voted for. Sounds fair to me.

I never used the argument that you have to agree with it because in the end it will be legalised. That's very far from what I was saying. In fact I didnt even say you have to agree with it. I basically said that you shouldnt impose your views on others unless there's a good argument supporting your views in question.

In this case, since there is no argument you are reasonably labeled either "stupid" or a "bigot".

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

It's a moral issue for me that scientifically retarding our society based on a 2000 year old book is acceptable, so I guess we should ban religion.

nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="jshaas"]So, resorting to name calling is necessary? Agree or disagree, but let's at least be civil about it. In my experience, taking money away from policitians gets their attention quicker than anything else... other than holding a gun to their head. But, that's not going to win anyone to your cause. Again, you know nothing about me or my life... so, you cannot make presumptions on what has an effect on me. Or any other person here for that matter. I know you're so smart that you think you can... but, you can't. Well, I guess you can. But, you shouldn't. You can come down from your horse now sir. This is moral issue, and will effect one's moral values. Teenaged

The same thing could be advised to people like you but in your case you're a majority so you know you can impose your views on others through laws. So dont pretend that simply staying vs leaving is the only factor in these things, or even one of the most important.

Like I already said, I no longer actually want to know what affects you because you may be a drama queen (a common theme among people who yell "MY MORALS!!!!"). So in this case what does affect you or not, isnt really any indication about what is objectively important or trivial. That's why I specifically mentioned that who is in the right is shown from the arguments each side can use to support their position. And morals are not an argument. Merely a reason or justification, call it whatever you like.

I'm sitting comfortably on my high horse cause that's where I should be talking from. Unless a high horse is always reserved for those who wish to impose their bigoted views -which are disguised as "morals"- on others.

So I'll reiterate: asking merely to allow people to do something that does not tangibly affect you (ie the problem is created for you by you) is not the same as imposing your restrictive views by law. Do you want to make yourself feel better by stating that it's your morals dictating this or that? Go ahead. The thing is, morals are still simply views, and usually of the most subjective kind out there.

[QUOTE="jshaas"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Alright, then how does it effect you if they can marry?

Heisenderp

It's a moral issue for me that scientifically retarding our society based on a 2000 year old book is acceptable, so I guess we should ban religion.

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]The fact that you think that this is merely a difference of opinions is one indication that you are dreaming.

In the post of yours that I quoted, you equated asking for tolerance to deciding about someone else's life. The fact of the matter is, gay marriage has no tangible effect on you. If you dont like it, dont get married to someone of the same sex. That simple.

Voting on the choices someone else can make in his life though does have a tangible effect on that person. Their vote decides what another group of people can do about a specific thing that has no tangible effect on the population. It only "shatters" their stances on morality...

I dont know how easy it is for people like you to convince themselves that they're being attacked simply because they have different opinions, but it's downright idiotic.

You dont just have different opinions. Your opinions are being imposed by law and no good argument for that fact. Oh... perhaps "think of the children". >__>

Teenaged

Dude, get a grip.

I dont have to be somebody in order to rationally gauge what has an actual effect and what doesnt, especially comparatively between two certain issues. And at the end of the day, if you're a huge drama queen that likes to complain about the littlest of things that annoy you (example the decision of two consenting adults to get secularly married), then the problem is with you. So, in essence, I dont even want to know what may actually effect you and rephrasing my earlier comment: I know much better than you what shouldhave an effect on you and what shouldnt.

It's funny how you take the relativism path very easily when cornered, because in this case it only works to show how petty the people who vote against gay marriage are. Again, if we take the relativist approach you so quickly embraced.Because usually, we prefer laws to be based on as objective as possible concerns and problems. Not the fragile moral outcry of bigots.

Do you have to use the word "attack" in order for me to use it? If I'm not mistaken its a valid word to use when someone is being called names. And that's what your post was referring to. You're getting a bit defensive about things I said which dont even aim at making you feel bad.

The thing is, like I said to a person earlier in this thread, people dont just leave when they want change. They try to bring change. You dont want them to move supposedly because you think that is the most effective (for them) solution, because the thing is one way or another gay marriage will be legalised, sooner or later.

They did vote as they wish, and people will refer to them as they wish. Who is in the right, is determined by the arguments each has on their side. End of story.

[QUOTE="jshaas"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]The fact that you think that this is merely a difference of opinions is one indication that you are dreaming.

In the post of yours that I quoted, you equated asking for tolerance to deciding about someone else's life. The fact of the matter is, gay marriage has no tangible effect on you. If you dont like it, dont get married to someone of the same sex. That simple.

Voting on the choices someone else can make in his life though does have a tangible effect on that person. Their vote decides what another group of people can do about a specific thing that has no tangible effect on the population. It only "shatters" their stances on morality...

I dont know how easy it is for people like you to convince themselves that they're being attacked simply because they have different opinions, but it's downright idiotic.

You dont just have different opinions. Your opinions are being imposed by law and no good argument for that fact. Oh... perhaps "think of the children". >__>

DroidPhysX