Gay Marriage OFFTOPIC Mike v Hyde

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike Cash
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
When did I ever say that you could find the "right to gay marriage" in the Bill of Rights? You can't.
Click to expand...

You didn't say that it isn't in there. But since all you did when I earlier mentioned neither the "right" to abortion nor the "right" to gay marriage are in the Constitution was to have something that bore a remarkable resemblance to what is vulgarly known as a "hissy fit", how was I to know?

This is what I've been trying to get across to you. You're not going to change any minds like that. Pointing me to the 9th Amendment, on the other hand....that would be a different story.

But here's the rub, the Bill of Rights was written a very, very, VERY LONG time ago and if we went by the rights and only the rights in the Bill of Rights then I know a few women and blacks who would be protesting right about now.
Click to expand...

Please see:

Article 5
9th Amendment
13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment
19th Amendment
24th Amendment


So, going by what you're saying, no right that is not in the Bill of Rights should stand as a human right.
Click to expand...

Please see:

9th Amendment


Tell me, have you ever been on the receiving end of homophobia?
Click to expand...

Not being homosexual myself, no.

Do you know what it is like to be objectifide and not even seen as something human?
Click to expand...

Since before you were born, dear friend. I'm a gaijin. Unlike sexual orientation, I can't hide it.

Have you ever had someone tell you that you are going to hell with all the rapists and pedaphiles?
Click to expand...

I have a policy of not allowing myself to be defined by the smallness of others.

Have you ever had people treat you as though you are no more human then the dirt in their yard?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I'm sorry, but after having gone through that myself it is a little difficult for me to smile pretty for the camera, so to speak. And here's the problem, why are Christians going to listening to a morally bankrupt homosexual who's gonig to Hell even if she does present her case in the manner you think she should? They don't hear us, no matter what we say they won't listen. Because in their eyes we are nothing but sinners and perverts on a fast track to Hell.
Click to expand...

I think that someday perhaps you will come to realize that Christians aren't a one-size-fits-all proposition.

No, sorry, that was completely lost on me. It's hard to think someone admires you when they're openingly bashing you. But hey, that could just be me. I'm sure there's lots of people who take insults as a way of showing admiration.
Click to expand...

I said I admire your passion. If you realize that isn't a blanket endorsement then you will see there is no inherent inconsistency or hypocrisy involved when and if I disagree on other aspects.

And, yes, I do think you've gotten your nose inordinately out of joint over our exchanges and see no real point in continuing them further.
 
You know, you're kind of annoying. Do people ever tell you that? 'Cause it's true, you are. I could keep trying to make sense to you but it's clear that unless I stoop to a pre-school level of explainnig things you're never going to get it.
We could keep battling our way around the Legal System all day and it won't get us anywhere 'cause we both know it too well and therefor can counter eachother perfectly.
But I still think the reason you insist I through hissy fits is because you can't stand the fact that someone might possibly think you're wrong. I didn't through a hissy fit in the incedent you're referring to, I just hit you with your own medicine. And if that classifies as a hissy fit maybe you should start looking inward instead of outward.
But I am sick of trying to get through to you and I am not gonig to waist anymore of my time on you.
 
The feeling is mutual, I assure you. I've tried to talk to you like an adult and now realize the folly of that. Right to the end I've tried to have a reasoned discussion with you, only to be met with combative juvenile replies and suspicions of my motives.

And don't flatter yourself into thinking you have "hit" me with anything. Nor should you think you know your way around the legal system any too well. You'll need a lot more trips around the sun before either of those come to pass.

Last bit of unsolicited advice on posting: Proofread.
 
Well, since we have a whole section to ourselves now (*roll of the eyes*)

The words "older" and "wiser" are not Synonyms for each other. Just because you have been around longer then someone does not mean you are any more mature or wise then they are and vise versa. Age and knowledge, wisdom, maturity etc don't go hand in hand. Matter of fact some of the most immature people I know are adults.

And you know, I said we BOTH knew our way around the system, that includes you. I credited you on your knowledge. But what did you do? Insult my knowledge and speak down to me. If I had done the same thing, well, I could just see the rant coming. But I didn't do that, now did I? You, on the other hand, went on a "I'm older then you so hahahahah!" ego trip.

Last bit of unsolicited advice on posting: Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind.
 
No. They got moved.
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
Last bit of unsolicited advice on posting: Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind.
Click to expand...

?̂???t???Ă???????Ԃ??܂?

I'm trying to understand how this rated breaking off into a new thread.

I especially don't appreciate that it makes it look as though I instigated the thread. No real reason, just that I normally don't start threads.
 
I think the reason why this was broken off was because the original 'homosexuality and gay marriage' thread had turned into something of a dualogue, so maybe someone thought that it might discourage other people from posting in the thread, so they decided to put your discussion in another thread.

I've forgotten what you were debating to begin with. Was it that Hyde thinks gay couples ought to be allowed (legally, I mean) to get married, and Mike doesn't? (Because I didn't get the impression that Mike is 'against' gay marriage... although I might be wrong... correct me if so. ^^) Or was it about a legal point relating to that? (I don't know the first thing about American/US laws... ><)
 
We're debating technicalities in the Legal System regarding Gay Marriage. As well as each other's core beliefs it would seem.
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
We're debating technicalities in the Legal System regarding Gay Marriage
Click to expand...

Oh, is that what we were doing? I thought I was doing that and you were avoiding debating technicalities in the legal system regarding gay marriage and telling me how much I annoy you.

As well as each other's core beliefs it would seem.
Click to expand...

And which core beliefs would those be?
 
Do you know the meaning of the word "petty"? 'Cause that's what you're being right now.

I am not avoiding anything, the fact that I think you're annoying and am not afraid to say so does not mean I am avoiding anything. On the contrary. And yes, we were debating the legal system, like it or not.

And I can't make up my mind if you're trying to take a low blow at me or were just being ignorant with that last comment.
 
Sure, I'm petty. What's your point?

I'm just at a loss to understand how we are "debating" the legal system when you very early on opted out of active discussion of it with me.

And the last comment (actually, it was a question) was sincere. Which core beliefs were we debating?
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
*sighs* Pointless.
Click to expand...

Ain't it, though? But we both keep on going to see who is going to get the last word in anyway.

Now getting back on topic:

I've noticed that the "strongest" anti-gay argument most people can make concerning Gay Marriage is that "legalizing same-sex marriages will undermine the institution of marriage." But this statement hinges on the argument that marriage is not a legal matter but a religious one. But as I said before, there are quite a few problems with this way of thinking. To take the above standing is to say that it's not about legal marriage in the secular or civil sense but Holy Wedlock, a Union of Two God-Fearing Members of the Opposite Sexes and this is putting the right to marriage in a religious category. So in essence, Christians are saying that the whole country should follow their ideals concerning marriage, that sounds an awful lot like an Established Church of America to me. To pass laws in America forcing citizens to follow a moral code based upon the Bible, 'the word of the Christian God', is in a sense establishing said church as the Church of America. And according to dear Mike Cash's own definition of the Bill of Rights, this is against the law.
Click to expand...

How did you manage to so completely misunderstand my words as to be able to arrive at that 180 degree out of phase mischaracterization of my opinion?

The reason laws forbidding murder, rape etc are expectable is because these are basic moral values found everywhere not just in Christianity. They're found in other religions as well as completely outside of religion. But the moral code dictating that homosexuality is immoral is found solely in religion and primarily in Christianity. Meaning by passing laws banning Gay Marriage that are blatantly based on Christianity the White House is all but officially naming that religion the religion of America. Matter of fact, President Bush used his religious convictions and therefore anti-standing on Gay Marriage as a campaign tool when running for office the second time. In his public speeches he talks as though he considers America to be entirely Christian with the exception of the Gay Community. "Our moral values", "America's moral values" again, that sounds an awful lot like America has an Established Church to me.
Another reason laws banning murder are different then laws banning Gay Marriage is this, murder is one person infringing on another person's rights by taking the other's life without their consent. That is violating another citizen's rights. However, Gay Marriage takes place between two consenting adults, they are not violating the other's rights in any way by marrying. To make an action wrong in the eyes of the State it has to be in violation of the rights of either a third party or the person in question themselves. Gay Marriage falls under none of those categories. Which means the only reason these laws stand is due to religion, which means the United States of America is going against its own Constitution because it is establishing Christianity as America's Religion.
Click to expand...

How is any of that on topic in this thread?
This is the OFFTOPIC: Mike vs Hyde thread....remember?
 
First comment: If you don't wish to be misunderstood then find more intelligible and clear ways of stating your points.

Second comment: Because anything I post in the original topic seems to get bumped here anyway *points to top of page* See? But I can post it there too if it'll make you happy. And besides this topic got started because we were disagreeing about Gay Marriage so shouldn't the GM discussion continue on here as well?
 
lol :D

And Mike Cash, I can post that one post here if you wish (actually I did but I'm editing) but I swear it'll just get deleted or moved if I do so yeah.
 
Hyde_is_my_anti-drug said:
First comment: If you don't wish to be misunderstood then find more intelligible and clear ways of stating your points.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could try reading above your grade level. I'm not in the habit of dumbing down my comments.

Second comment: Because anything I post in the original topic seems to get bumped here anyway *points to top of page* See?
Click to expand...

You are quite right. Like a man in orthopedic shoes, I stand corrected.

But I can post it there too if it'll make you happy. And besides this topic got started because we were disagreeing about Gay Marriage so shouldn't the GM discussion continue on here as well?
Click to expand...

This is another reason I don't think breaking the thread made any sense at all.

(Were we disagreeing about gay marriage?)
 
Mike- I can understand you perfectly, but I can't actually figure out what the focus of this offtopic thread must be. Perhaps if you two would start merciless slamming each other over eating meat or worshipping some other god, get really fringe strange conspiracy theory...or perhaps if you use the word nazi in some kind of new creative way-- we could understand why this has been moved here. It is not even clear why this is OffTopic or who moved it. I wish people would tell you why they do such things.
 
I just as puzzled as you are about why the thread got broken off.

Excuse my brevity, but I have to pin a swastika on my baby harp seal coat and go sacrifice a whale to Baal now.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top