Say what? When have I ever made an anti-christian rant? Most of my family is christian. I stated this in one of my posts in YOUR topic.

How was that an anti-christian rant? Please elaborate. No, I wasn't referring to how most people believe in God, so don't try to throw that bullshit out. Also, why not, just for once, try not flaming? Try not being straight out hypocritical. Just for one time. The only thing I have seen you do in every single topic I have read in this section is dodge legitimate questions and flame people constantly to distract from the actual topic.

If you still are in utter confusion, I was remarking how you think "majority makes right" is an excuse for anything, yet history shows us time and time again that this is not true.



So why not actually say why you are against it?

This post was edited by XxXHellFireXxX on Dec 24 2009 05:51am

Also,

I am open minded. If you, or anyone else wishes to believe in some sort of higher power, that is your choice. If people wish to discuss a matter of my or their religious beliefs, sure, I am all for it. I am not however hostile in any way to any religion. There is one exception to that, and that is to the religion that the united states recognizes as "Scientology". I feel that is a complete sham, and that if it was truly religious it would be open about its practices and not cost hundreds and thousands of dollars just to progress. This, I feel is a cult. That is to put it short.

So, if you can provide a link to any time in which I made an anti-christian rant, I will openly apologize.

This post was edited by XxXHellFireXxX on Dec 24 2009 06:12am

And most people hate them (the Fred Phelps of the world). Simply by putting the two together in this context implies that you believe he belongs to the group.



This comment alone seems worthy of it's own thread. Not that I'd consider it, but it seems a fantastic debate topic.



Here are a couple:

Life insurance benefits. If no beneficiary is specified (not so uncommon as you'd think) then the beneficiary(s) is determined "by law." This process almost universally excludes same sex partners, but instead looks for offspring, siblings, and parents instead, whereas a hetero marriage puts the spouse at the top of that list.

Legal disputes. For instance, say a gay couple split up and they had in-vitro children, the partner who didn't actually bear the children will have virtually no rights in a court of law to "her children."

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 24 2009 09:14am

Because that is the way it is, what else am I going to say?

Find a new argument I guess.

The "that's the way it is" argument, is an argumentative fallacy.

ad antiquitatem

People are always contradicting themselves in this argument.

They say that if government passed a law that stated "Every citizens has a right to choose martial status to anyone of any gender." that the government would be interfering with your life and that this is bad. Well on principle yes, it is bad that the government should be intervening in these matters, you can argue that our constitution stating you have the right to choose any religion you deem to be fit as long as it doesn't harm others would be the same as it telling you have the right to free marriage between whoever you want.

It's an argument that both sides have points but both of them make no fucking sense because they are arguing about shit that really has no relevance.

In the end, I just really don't care. If it came up on my ballot and it asked that marriage between any party of gender is legal, I would vote yes. Because there is only one rule I live with for myself, and that is "Treat people as you would want to be treated".

How is that government interference? They're removing restrictions on your daily life.

I didn't call it anything, I simply stated what everyone is arguing. Did you not get the conclusion I was hinting?

The whole thing with all the people saying that the government shouldn't choose what is correct in terms of marriage is irrelevant because at the same time they say you have the right to believe whatever religion you choose.

I guess you got my intentions mixed up. I was trying to point out the faults in the arguments of the people who are against it.

nope

No. I was simply stating that just because someone believes doesn't make them a good person.