Active Users:343 Time:17/06/2025 06:44:44 AM
Re: *Shakes Head* Cannoli Send a noteboard - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM
You don't get it, do you? You cannot see that the things you do to hurt others could just as easily be used to hurt you.
Look who's talking! You don't see that granting a special privilege and a novelty institution is a dagnerous precedent, much less compelling others to render artificial respect and legal obligations to said institution, just because you perceive an iniquity where none exists. Because of the aberrant behavior and choices of homosexuals exclude them by their own choice from certain social constructs and lifestyles, they demand that a pointless institution be created and legally empowered, even forced down the throats of those who do not share their beliefs. This is not a case of inequality or discrimination - the status quo applies equally to both sides. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the exact same rights of marriage. Neither may marry a person of the same sex and either may marry any eligible person of the opposite sex. The personal choices of homosexuals to abstain from such arrangements does not entitle them to special privileges, anymore than the refusal of Catholics to eat meat on Fridays entitles them to legally compell restaurants to serve meatless dishes.

Instead, you point to the ridiculous parts of the case as applied to you while failing to see how ridiculous the arguments against the group that happens to scare you are.
In what manner do they scare me, and why don't you demonstrate some evidence of that? You are the one making illogical, unreasoned and unsupported arguments. You draw parallels where none exist and compare completely unrelated institutions and practices. You are excoriating people for making a decision that affects their lives and communities because it is at odds with your aesthetic sensibilities.

Its not that you are conservative. Your way of thinking would be equally damaging regardless of ideology.
You are the one trying to do damage, by insisting that people make changes they will have to live with and do not want to, according to your ideals, while showing absolutely no evidence of having considered the ramifications beyond an artificial abstract notion of false equality.

You are a shallow, thoughtless and selfish demagogue, regardless of ideology.
Cannoli
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1635 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1035 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1063 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1104 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 954 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1096 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 618 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1272 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1089 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1024 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 984 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1141 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 507 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1074 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1074 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 983 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 508 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 947 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 541 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1044 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1011 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 957 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 464 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 996 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 940 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1215 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1323 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 928 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 968 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 513 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1084 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1002 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 955 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 943 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1057 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 917 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1047 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 911 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1065 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1084 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 961 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1095 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 902 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1029 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 907 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 782 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1077 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 952 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1075 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 834 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1109 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 938 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1066 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1246 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 927 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 940 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 930 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 951 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 860 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1307 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 883 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 491 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 496 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1123 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1008 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1090 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 808 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1173 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 801 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1058 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 925 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1036 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 925 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1047 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1049 Views

Reply to Message