Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

if you ride in a car with a person that doesn't wear a seatbelt, it's YOUR fault, not the driver's.

can't make this stuff up.

(the laws in many states also disagree)

not clear on how we're disagreeing here. You get in a car with someone who refuses to belt up he turns into a projectile and kills you, I'm not sure where the innocent victim is.

@ waco: so a solo driver with no belt is fine, right?

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

I have. They aren't strong in any moral, practical, or biological sense that I'm aware of.

How are they any different than the moral arguments against gay marriage? Besides gays not being able to have kids (w/each other ldo) and sibs that shouldnt?

 

Originally Posted by norcaljeff

How are they any different than the moral arguments against gay marriage? Besides gays not being able to have kids (w/each other ldo) and sibs that shouldnt?

Gays can have kids, see, e.g., surrogates, in vitro, etc etc etc. And even if it were true that gays can't have kids, that's a completely different argument than siblings shouldn't. Siblings having kids with each other imposes costs on their children by needlessly burdening them with genetic disease, it imposes costs on the society that has to deal with those diseased kids, etc. There are no such considerations with gays parents.

Sibs can't adopt?

 

Originally Posted by orgnalsooners

Fuck u Geoff,

pretty much this. i was reading this thread and wanted to post something smart but that fuck made it so i would just be repetitive.

 

Originally Posted by ECUgirl

No, there's not. This is one of the points I've tried to make with my friends and family who want to ban gay marriage. I think it's completely silly and a waste of time. As Christians, we should be spending our time and resources feeding the hungry, ministering to the sick and oppressed, loving and accepting people as they are, and all the other things Jesus said to do. It really upsets me that they seem to focus on this issue so much. Doesn't really align with Christ's message imo.

I think that if you were to ask these people, they would believe that this is what they are doing. They believe that the foundation of a good, Christian, society is the family. If you preserve the traditional family you will foster a community that will take care of feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick and oppressed. If you allow the family to deteriorate these problems will grow exponentially.

 

Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

lol brsavage got RAPED

His track record in religious threads is less than spectacular. Last time he posted either the watchmaker argument or a weak version of kalam, I forget which.

 

Originally Posted by ECUgirl

I think there's a difference between being "anti-gay" and being against legalizing gay marriage. They're not trying to outlaw homosexuality, they aren't saying people have no right to be gay, that gay people aren't welcome in their restaurants, that gay people are horrible people, or anything of the sort. They simply believe that a legally recognized marriage should be between one man and one woman only. I don't agree with their stance, but I do wish people would quit making it out to be something that it's not.

I think you're making it into something it is not. They do not believe that gay people should marry because being gay is wrong, it destroys the family, and hurts the community. How is it not hateful to basically say that (or support groups who actively do) what you do, and your expression of love, ruins the institution of family and destroys the community?

Even though his response didn't say exactly this, the organization that he clearly supports has made this perfectly clear (see LS's post).

I crashed going 85 miles a hour on a interstate last year and if I was wearing seatbelt and pretty sure I'd have at the very least serious injuries.

 

Originally Posted by VanceAce

Because siblings can't have kids via surrogates, in vitro, adoption etc. etc. etc ... hahaha

Did I say they couldn't? wtf.

So wtf does it have ti do with your argument then??

 

Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

I said smoking is a slippery one.

it's not about forcing people to stop smoking, it's about not forcing people to be around smokers, and pretty sure our society is in the middle of doing exactly that... people are not forced to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke almost anywhere nowadays (except children at home, and like I said, smoking in front of children should be illegal, which it is in cars in some states)

Can't you apply your argument across both issues? who FORCES someone to get in a car with a human projectile. Just like smoking maybe we should protect children who have to get in with a parent who may not wear a belt.

 

Originally Posted by Lord Supremo

Did I say they couldn't? wtf.

It's hard to really know what you're saying at this point ...

You cited "gays can't have kids" as a moral argument against gay marriage and equated it with "siblings shouldn't have kids." I was saying that "gays can't have kids" isn't a real argument because gays can in fact have children. So, if people are arguing that gays can't have kids and therefore shouldn't be married, that's not a strong argument because it's factually inaccurate. This is contrast with "siblings shouldn't have kids," which is a strong moral argument for the reasons I mentioned. I hope the reason that contrast is relevant is obvious.

 

Originally Posted by VanceAce

It's hard to really know what you're saying at this point ...

I'm completely unsurprised that you find it difficult to figure out what I'm saying

 

Originally Posted by whitealroker

the one by my target was mobbed all day and had reporters in it. They asked me about it and I say I like to get fucked by guys almost as much as this yummy chicken. They are a private company and they never told me I couldn't eat there and I go in gimp suit with Jerome all the time. Don't think they will air it.

dude

 

Originally Posted by snaggs

I think separation of church and state SHOULD cover this. You can't force a church to go against it's doctrine. will a JP have to perform a gay marriage? Absolutely. Will a clergy person from a religion that condones gay marriage have to perform one? Sure. But the clergy from any church that doesn't recognize gay marriage should be safe.

Yes, BUT, an argument could be easily made that the church should give up its tax exempt status.

the Masters can say no women members and that's fine. You can choose to boycott if you dont like it. But if the Masters was a tax exempt organization it would have a lot more criticism coming down on it.

The argument from the gays/liberals will be either marry the gays or give up your tax exempt status. and it will be a big fight

 

Originally Posted by ECUgirl

Oh yeah? You don't believe in birth control? Too bad. You have to pay for it for your employees. Abortion against your religious views? Sorry, you gotta pay for it anyway. Don't want to purchase health insurance? Sorry, no can do. Buy it, or pay. Our gov't seems to be eager to force people to pay for things they don't condone/don't want. I realize it's not exactly the same thing, but hopefully you see my point.

Medical procedures/coverage are not the same as marriage lolwtf. If that point had validity, I could sue to compel a Catholic church that refused to marry me because I haven't been baptized in their church/cohabited before marriage/am not abstinent/whatever other stupid reason. I can't.