Ice-T
-
Lol the definition of marriage has changed tons of times through history. Go read your bible. Look at the definitions in their.
Also, find me a poll where "the vast majority" finds gay marriage offensive. I'm pretty sure the majority are pro gay marriage. It's just a matter of time until it's passed and the norm
-
"lol"
no, Adam Eve. Man Woman. Never changed.
Never was homosexual. Never.
And, I don't know if I can find a poll to show it. Didn't say I could. In my life experience, that's my estimation.
A poll is just an indicator of ...something; "should be legal" <> "offensive, perverted"
I figure most polls reflect the confusion between "civil unions" and "marriage".
It will never be the norm Only 1-3 % are gay. Hardly half? of those would consider something so stupid
as "marriage". Tyranny of the extreme minority is hardly the "norm" that will ever happen.
-
It's not a tyranny of the minority if the majority agree with it....
Also, using Adam and Eve to make a point basically throws away any if your credibility, lol. I guess you think hundreds of years on incest is normal too? And talking snakes? And fitting millions upon millions of sketches of animals on a man made boat? Lol ok.
Bible definition means if you rake a virgin you pay her dad and are forced to marry her. Did you due and leave your wife a widow? She's now your bros wife
-
I don't think we should get rid of pistols and the like. I wouldn't campaign for that.
Your first attempt at satire or a joke or whatever there didn't really work. Of course they want to ban the gay ones, that's the point.
I still see no reason to ban gay marriage.
We just have people desperately grasping onto their religious views that are, luckily, being eroded every day.
I don't think we should get rid of pistols and the like. I wouldn't campaign for that.
Your first attempt at satire or a joke or whatever there didn't really work. Of course they want to ban the gay ones, that's the point.
I still see no reason to ban gay marriage.
We just have people desperately grasping onto their religious views that are, luckily, being eroded every day.
That is the point its not satire. I am just changing around the argument, you say we just want to ban the "ridiculous" guns, the right says we just want to ban the "ridiculous" marriages. if you can argue one way you can argue the other. personally I think the the government has no business in marriage whatsoever but that just ticks off both sides.
also you do know that pistols are responsible for more deaths than rifles correct? and that cities like DC and Chicago with strict handgun bans are places where you are more likely to die by one?
-
Well we'll never ban guns completely, so it makes no sense to try.
Why do you think gay marriages are ridiculous? You argument revolves around the Bible and tradition. Not very compelling.... That's usually the type of arguments that dismesbt hold its ground for very long. Especially as religion works its way out of society as we become more educated
the earth is so the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us...
-
Well we'll never ban guns completely, so it makes no sense to try.
Why do you think gay marriages are ridiculous? You argument revolves around the Bible and tradition. Not very compelling.... That's usually the type of arguments that dismesbt hold its ground for very long. Especially as religion works its way out of society as we become more educated
the earth is so the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us...
Well we'll never ban guns completely, so it makes no sense to try.
Why do you think gay marriages are ridiculous? You argument revolves around the Bible and tradition. Not very compelling.... That's usually the type of arguments that dismesbt hold its ground for very long. Especially as religion works its way out of society as we become more educated
the earth is so the center of the universe and the sun revolves around us...
I don't think gay marriages are ridiculous I am simply taking your subjective non-point and rewording it as a right wing anti gay viewpoint. I am taking your point of view, ( no one needs a gun of insert your opinion here) and simply substituting in a viewpoint that you disagree with( gays don't get to marry). your subjective point has as much validity as an anti gay marriage point. At least the anti gay marriage community can make claims at first amendment abuses when the government forces gay marriage being that marriage is a religious institution. Meanwhile the anti gun crowd is fighting to remove constitutional rights rather than protect them.
I stated that I believe NO marriages have a place in government at all. marriage being a religious institution should not be regulated by government and should have all traces of it removed. let the churches have their way with it I care not.
please note that I am an atheist. just not the annoying in your face proselytizing kind I just nothing religion.
-
Lol, religious institution. If that were true you think more couples would take it more seriously.
If that were the case, only one religion would need to be fine with gay marriage and then they're golden.
You reversal of those points really doesn't make sense though. There are different levels of guns as far as lethally and killing power goes. Marriage is marriage and there are just some people but hurt about gays having equal rights. (ok, marriage isn't a right). There aren't different tiers of marriage.
Like I said, no good reasons for stopping gays from getting married.
Guns have evolved over the years. They become more powerful than our founding fathers could gave imagined. Marriage is still marriage.
It would be restricting your amendment in the sense you could still keep and bear arms just not enough to take out a small army. Allowing gay marriage is giving more rights to a group of citizens.
At least if you are an atheist I won't have to worry about you quoting the Bible or bringing up god when we argue.
-
Lol, religious institution. If that were true you think more couples would take it more seriously.
If that were the case, only one religion would need to be fine with gay marriage and then they're golden.
You reversal of those points really doesn't make sense though. There are different levels of guns as far as lethally and killing power goes. Marriage is marriage and there are just some people but hurt about gays having equal rights. (ok, marriage isn't a right). There aren't different tiers of marriage.
Like I said, no good reasons for stopping gays from getting married.
Guns have evolved over the years. They become more powerful than our founding fathers could gave imagined. Marriage is still marriage.
It would be restricting your amendment in the sense you could still keep and bear arms just not enough to take out a small army. Allowing gay marriage is giving more rights to a group of citizens.
At least if you are an atheist I won't have to worry about you quoting the Bible or bringing up god when we argue.
Lol, religious institution. If that were true you think more couples would take it more seriously.
If that were the case, only one religion would need to be fine with gay marriage and then they're golden.
You reversal of those points really doesn't make sense though. There are different levels of guns as far as lethally and killing power goes. Marriage is marriage and there are just some people but hurt about gays having equal rights. (ok, marriage isn't a right). There aren't different tiers of marriage.
Like I said, no good reasons for stopping gays from getting married.
Guns have evolved over the years. They become more powerful than our founding fathers could gave imagined. Marriage is still marriage.
It would be restricting your amendment in the sense you could still keep and bear arms just not enough to take out a small army. Allowing gay marriage is giving more rights to a group of citizens.
At least if you are an atheist I won't have to worry about you quoting the Bible or bringing up god when we argue.
look the religious can be as hypocritical as they want. don't care it's a religious matter they can have it.
All I am stating is that you are trying to make a point in almost the same fashion that they are. you are saying I don't think you need that and then trying to take something away using your opinion as the reason why. handguns are by far the leader in murders and typically of young male minorities typically gang and drug related. rifles are rarely used in crimes so your point is simply an opinion based on nothing. and rifles do absolutely serve a purpose including that of defending yourself if needed from our own government the founding fathers were using military weapons and forces to overthrow a government. They did not limit themselves to only knives or only blunderbuss' they were using as good as or better(Kentucky rifles)equipment as the British army.
Military weapons in the hands of civilians and state militias was the intent of the 2nd amendment. saying they thought otherwise or its different now is just nonsense, as much nonsense as saying that freedom of speech doesn't apply now because they did not know about the internet.
-
It's not that they don't apply anymore, I never said they didn't apply. It's outdated. We obviously are keeping freedom of speech. Some things could just be updated for the 21st century.
-
Little Stupid Pouty Poopy Jonnie Woodpecker translation:
**********************************
"I'm a flaming liberal, and I want all rules to be set by me, and not anybody else, and I get to decide everything,
or I will wet myself some more and make Heck change my diaper"
Every time Little Johnnie Hockeystick Woodpecker enters a thread, it goes downhill.
Can we vote Little Johnnie Woodpecker off the island ?
-
Maybe that's why Obamao wants 30,000 drones patrolling our skies.
So he can declare war on anybody who doesn't have the number, and who try to protect our Constitution from
being overthrown by him and the UN.....
financed by spooky dude Soros.
Really scary stuff. @@
Maybe that's why Obamao wants 30,000 drones patrolling our skies.
So he can declare war on anybody who doesn't have the number, and who try to protect our Constitution from
being overthrown by him and the UN.....
financed by spooky dude Soros.
Really scary stuff. @@
I really don't like the idea of unmanned drones flying around over our heads!
We're going down a slippery slope in this country! -
It's not that they don't apply anymore, I never said they didn't apply. It's outdated. We obviously are keeping freedom of speech. Some things could just be updated for the 21st century.
It's not that they don't apply anymore, I never said they didn't apply. It's outdated. We obviously are keeping freedom of speech. Some things could just be updated for the 21st century.
but why are they outdated. they didn't have phones, TV, Youtube, and satellites, then; now does that mean our current ability to communicate has made the meaning of the first amendment outdated? the ability to communicate has advanced farther then they could comprehend and so have firearms so by one being dated the other must be as well. should we start imposing restrictions on exactly what you can say in other forms of media because the founding fathers only knew of writing and face to face communication.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login