| 60 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
10/14/09 9:30:14 AM#26
Originally posted by outfctrl Dont start singling me out. I dont want that banned, just controlled.
Controlled? I hope we don't have the slippery slope argument. What I mean when I say controlled is, stop the exposure to young children in school. At least wait till they grow up a little, say high school? Keep marriage between a Man and a woman, but allow a civil union of some type. On a side note: Up, why do you keep flaunting your sexual preference around? I will never be convinced that homosexuality is normal. I will accept it in society to some extent, but that's it. We are all different. You have your views and I have mine.
Depends on what your definition of "normal" is. Also, if you were to stop exposure of homosexual ideas at school you would need to stop exposure of heterosexual ideas would you not? Since it seems you want to keep the classroom as unbiased as possible. Also, a civil union is fine with me. People can call it marriage, same difference. As long as they gain the same rights and benefits of a marriage. Sure you can hold your views but when you try and force them on others is when I step in. |
|
|
Briansho
 Novice Member
Joined: 3/05/06
Functionless Art is Simply Tolerated Vandalism...We Are The Vandals. |
10/14/09 10:19:21 AM#27
The thing I can't understand is this. If you are a conservative and you want less government in peoples lives how can you go around telling other people what to do with theirs? What difference does it make what another person does with their life? You can't pick and choose, if you are for the government to be all up in someones business but you say you are a conservative, then you are a closet socialist liberal. Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL! |
|
outfctrl
 Hard Core Member
Joined: 11/16/03
American by Birth |
10/14/09 10:35:10 AM#28
Originally posted by Briansho I am not in anyone's business, just stay out of mine. Plus, I am not telling anyone what to do. I am just tired of this crap being rammed down our throats.(figuratively speaking of course) NOHOMO ;-) "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." |
|
10/14/09 10:40:53 AM#29
Originally posted by outfctrl I am not in anyone's business, just stay out of mine. Plus, I am not telling anyone what to do. I am just tired of this crap being rammed down our throats.(figuratively speaking of course) NOHOMO ;-)
Yet you are supporting the idea of gays not being allowed to enter Marrage. Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981 |
|
|
outfctrl
Hard Core Member
Joined: 11/16/03
American by Birth |
10/14/09 11:03:11 AM#30
Originally posted by HYPERI0N
Yet you are supporting the idea of gays not being allowed to enter Marrage. Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore. It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand. "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." |
|
10/14/09 11:11:12 AM#31
Originally posted by outfctrl
Yet you are supporting the idea of gays not being allowed to enter Marrage. Yes i do
Glad you could admit this much [even though it was obviouse]. Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981 |
|
|
Briansho
Novice Member
Joined: 3/05/06
Functionless Art is Simply Tolerated Vandalism...We Are The Vandals. |
10/14/09 11:13:17 AM#32
Originally posted by outfctrl
Yet you are supporting the idea of gays not being allowed to enter Marrage. Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore. It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand.
Marriage is just a social legal contract between two adults. The two vow to each other and it might or might not include God depending on their preference. Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL! |
|
10/14/09 12:23:53 PM#33
Originally posted by outfctrl
Yet you are supporting the idea of gays not being allowed to enter Marrage. Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore. It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand.
Yep because as we all know donkeys and children are able to give consent. |
|
|
10/14/09 12:32:06 PM#34
Originally posted by Fishermage
Faxxer
I should have called that lol. (you really do love him, admit it)
Doh! you got me, lol. |
|
|
10/14/09 12:34:58 PM#35
Originally posted by outfctrl
Yet you are supporting the idea of gays not being allowed to enter Marrage. Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore. It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand.
But you still have 9 more begin to end complete thoughts of arguments to copy and paste and not attribute credit to. You're only on no. 2 and skipped the first! http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Please stop engaging people in debate here if all you're doing is copying and pasting entire paragraphs from blogs and sites like these without attributing any credit. At least then if anyone disagrees with the idea, they can comment on the blog or whatever. |
|
|
10/14/09 1:04:17 PM#36
Originally posted by Briansho
Hum, every definition of family I have read says nothing about the parents needing to be a man and woman? How come children need to be sheltered from same sex unions until they are older, i.e. high school? Is it because we need to wait until they are older before we teach tolerence? I am sure children will never meet a child of a same sex couple before they are in high school - don't we keep them on some remote island until they are 14 or 15? Maybe if they learn acceptance at too early an age then they are more likely to become gay? Food for thought: Children are not born with bias... this is something they learn. They should be able to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple and I don't care if you call it marriage or not... bottom line. |
|
|
outfctrl
Hard Core Member
Joined: 11/16/03
American by Birth |
10/14/09 3:28:25 PM#37
Originally posted by sepher Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore. It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand.
But you still have 9 more begin to end complete thoughts of arguments to copy and paste and not attribute credit to. You're only on no. 2 and skipped the first! http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Please stop engaging people in debate here if all you're doing is copying and pasting entire paragraphs from blogs and sites like these without attributing any credit. At least then if anyone disagrees with the idea, they can comment on the blog or whatever. Thats how I feel whether you like it or not. I dont give a shit where I got it, but I got you to look it up. LOL. I am not engaging in any debate about the Gay issue, because this subject can not be debated. It is always a dead end. Thats why I am not wasting my time typing out my views when someone nailed it (NOHOMO) on how I feel. "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." |
|
Briansho
Novice Member
Joined: 3/05/06
Functionless Art is Simply Tolerated Vandalism...We Are The Vandals. |
10/14/09 3:57:08 PM#38
Originally posted by outfctrl Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore. It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand.
But you still have 9 more begin to end complete thoughts of arguments to copy and paste and not attribute credit to. You're only on no. 2 and skipped the first! http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Please stop engaging people in debate here if all you're doing is copying and pasting entire paragraphs from blogs and sites like these without attributing any credit. At least then if anyone disagrees with the idea, they can comment on the blog or whatever. Thats how I feel whether you like it or not. I dont give a shit where I got it, but I got you to look it up. LOL. I am not engaging in any debate about the Gay issue, because this subject can not be debated. It is always a dead end. Thats why I am not wasting my time typing out my views when someone nailed it (NOHOMO) on how I feel.
Exactly, that's why people are free to live as they please in a free country. The more the government gets involved in personal issues between two consenting and private adults the less free we become. Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL! |
|
10/14/09 5:12:45 PM#39
Originally posted by outfctrl
Yet you are supporting the idea of gays not being allowed to enter Marrage. Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore. It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand. I'm not surprised you don't wannt to talk about it anymore because your arguments are laughably bad. Let's not pretend that the definition of marriage has never been changed before because this just isn't the case. Your other issues are all issues that have absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. There are all valid reasons why we don't allow adults to marry children or why we don't let people marry a donkey. Neither of those are capable of making responsible decisions. Neither of those reasons apply to gay marriage. I'm going to continue to wonder when anti gay marriage supporters are going to come out and be honnest. I wonder when they will finally drop the excuses which are all easily blown out of the water and just admit they have a religious belief and they want that enforced on everybody else. To say that this issue can't be debated is simply a lie. The real reason you don't want to debate this is because you know you're going to lose. Your reason for wanting a ban on gay marriage is not because of logical, well thought out reasons or because you believe in freedom. The reason you're against gay marriage is a religious motivation. By the way, there is no reason to protect this from children because there is nothing harmful here whatsoever. You're not complaining about kids being taught about marriage or interracial marriage either. You don't get to pick and chose what your child is taught in public school. |
|
|
10/14/09 5:17:11 PM#40
Originally posted by outfctrl Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore. It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand.
But you still have 9 more begin to end complete thoughts of arguments to copy and paste and not attribute credit to. You're only on no. 2 and skipped the first! http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Please stop engaging people in debate here if all you're doing is copying and pasting entire paragraphs from blogs and sites like these without attributing any credit. At least then if anyone disagrees with the idea, they can comment on the blog or whatever. Thats how I feel whether you like it or not. I dont give a shit where I got it, but I got you to look it up. LOL. I am not engaging in any debate about the Gay issue, because this subject can not be debated. It is always a dead end. Thats why I am not wasting my time typing out my views when someone nailed it (NOHOMO) on how I feel.
It's because I rather read how you feel about this and anything else on the boards is why I wish you'd stop posting others' complete thoughts without attributing credit. Then I'd know who I agree or disagree with. And you do this in a shocking amount of your threads, so its not just about this topic in particular. Stop doing it, please. |
|
|
10/14/09 5:18:41 PM#41
Originally posted by Gameloading Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights." Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. EDIT: I dont want to talk about this anymore. It is pointless. Sooner or later it will be passed and we will just have to live with it anyways, but if it comes up to vote again for it, you know where I many others stand. I'm not surprised you don't wannt to talk about it anymore because your arguments are laughably bad. Let's not pretend that the definition of marriage has never been changed before because this just isn't the case. Your other issues are all issues that have absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. There are all valid reasons why we don't allow adults to marry children or why we don't let people marry a donkey. Neither of those are capable of making responsible decisions. Neither of those reasons apply to gay marriage. I'm going to continue to wonder when anti gay marriage supporters are going to come out and be honnest. I wonder when they will finally drop the excuses which are all easily blown out of the water and just admit they have a religious belief and they want that enforced on everybody else. To say that this issue can't be debated is simply a lie. The real reason you don't want to debate this is because you know you're going to lose. Your reason for wanting a ban on gay marriage is not because of logical, well thought out reasons or because you believe in freedom. The reason you're against gay marriage is a religious motivation. By the way, there is no reason why to protect this from children because there is nothing harmful here whatsoever. You're not complaining about kids being taught about marriage or interracial marriage. You don't get to pick and chose what your child is taught in public school.
See? It creates confusion like this. Better suited for the guy's actual blog or whatever that was outfctrl lifted the words from. |
|
|
10/14/09 6:46:39 PM#42
Government needs to stay out of the marriage debate, or at least leave it up to the states where it Constitutionally belongs. Furthermore I support gay rights in so far as they should be treated the same as any other individual and if two of them want to join in to a civil union and receive the benefits of joint tax return, rights of heirship, etc, then they should be allowed to. I would have the federal government not recognize anything as 'marraige' and would simply rename it 'civil union.' The union of marraige is a religous one and should stay as such. If one sect wants to have gay marriage then thats their right. Do you support Liberty, Freedom and wish to Uphold the Constitution? Join the movement - http://CampaignForLiberty.com |
|
|
upallnight
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/08/06
I make my friends all laugh and smile, and never want to hate! |
Originally posted by outfctrl Dont start singling me out. I dont want that banned, just controlled.
Controlled? I hope we don't have the slippery slope argument. What I mean when I say controlled is, stop the exposure to young children in school. At least wait till they grow up a little, say high school? Keep marriage between a Man and a woman, but allow a civil union of some type. On a side note: Up, why do you keep flaunting your sexual preference around? I will never be convinced that homosexuality is normal. I will accept it in society to some extent, but that's it. We are all different. You have your views and I have mine.
I'm flaunting my desire to have equal rights. Not my homosexuality. -------------------------------------- |
|
upallnight
Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/08/06
I make my friends all laugh and smile, and never want to hate! |
Originally posted by smokemonsc My Christian church performs gay marriages. For it to be called anything other than that would be the government choosing one religion over another. I do agree with you though, the government should not be in the marriage recognition business. But it is. And if it chooses to do that and afford privileges and rights to go along with that label, then it needs to do it fairly. If my church performs marriages between same sex consenting couples then why is my church being disenfranchised? -------------------------------------- |
|
10/14/09 9:21:59 PM#45
In my state we passed a law making same sex marriage legal, it is now up on the November ballot to rescind the law. In my state this is the second time that this law has been brought up, first time it was barely defeated. Last November it passed and the chuch and marry lobbiest from Cali quickly desended upon our state and started spending money to overturn gays right to legally marry. The biggest argument put forward is the whole teaching gay marriage in public schools. I'll be damned if some liberal ass faggot loving teacher is going to teach my children tolerence and acceptence of others differences, they can learn this stuff when their older or when I decided to tell them about it. Shit one of the adds has a mother from Mass talking about her 7 yo son who is in second grade being told about how its ok for a man to marry a man. A fucking 7 yo being taught about accepence and tolerence and in fucking school no less! Thats fucking utterly outrageous and god damn gets my blood boiling! Not really, but it does make me wonder what folks have against their children learning tolerence for people who are different from them - homosexuallity is not a disease you can catch and educating your chidren about it wont make them gay. There is no research that supports that children who grow up in same sex couples have any higher incidence of homosexuality then those growing up in "traditional" homes.
|
|
|
upallnight
Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/08/06
I make my friends all laugh and smile, and never want to hate! |
Originally posted by kiddyno071 I wonder what would happen if a teacher told his 7 yo son nothing about gay people but just mentioned that there is homosexuality amongst animals all throughout nature? Never ever ever ever mentioned that it happens in humans, just mentioned it about animals. My guess is that he would still be just as upset and call it a "gay agenda". Which tells me it's something more than what he's letting on. -------------------------------------- |
|
10/14/09 10:43:55 PM#47
Originally posted by upallnight
I agree 100% which is why I'd hope government would get out of the marriage business and stick to "civil unions" which should be allowed between citizens. I'm not sure if my church would marry a gay couple if it were legal in Illinois, but I would support it if they did. I am an Episcopalian (spelling?) and we had a big hooplah over our first openly gay Bishop awhile back which you all probably read and heard about. My theological argument is this: Even if being gay or having gay sex is a sin (which I think is debatable, but that's not my point), we are sinful creatures and have no business in judging others for their sins. That responsbility resides with God and only God. Furthermore assuming gay sex is a sin (which I don't think it is, but again is not my point) it certainly is a victimless sin and does not compare to say murder or theft. It really is a small issue in the grander scheme of things and I'm convinced its a non-issue that's meant to distract us from real issues like Monetary Policy :) Do you support Liberty, Freedom and wish to Uphold the Constitution? Join the movement - http://CampaignForLiberty.com |
|
|
gnomexxx
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 2/26/06
"Every generation needs a new revolution." - Thomas Jefferson |
10/14/09 10:47:12 PM#48
Originally posted by outfctrl So only people deemed "normal" are given rights and equal treatment under the law in America? That's what our Constitution and Bill of Rights says?
=============================== |
|
10/14/09 10:48:35 PM#49
Maybe its just me, but when talking about tolerance and such, shouldn't we also have tolerance of others beliefs even if they go against your own? Seems fair to me. "The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand." |
|
|
10/14/09 10:53:49 PM#50
Originally posted by Scalebane
Yup, that's why I tolerate racists, sexists, and homophobes by kicking their ass with reason (Or the Bible if they are Christians). That's tolerance. I will fight for their right to their stupidity, though.
|
|
