If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck.........mkosbie wrote:So, apparently, most of the people this message is targeted at won't ever see it... but...
You're following the most counter-productive line of reasoning I've ever heard. Rather than coming to the table with a "bigot" - one who has repeatedly emphasized that he thinks there's a solution agreeable to both parties (ie civil unions for all, marriage by religious institutions only) - you've all chosen to pretend his positions don't matter. I mean, wait "for us all to die off"? Really? That's mature.
If you're complaining about my moral arguments on homosexuality, then don't make the moral arguments. I'm quite capable of keeping my personal moral views out of the argument (you'll note I've only mentioned them when attacked). Are you?
Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
Moderators: malletphreak, Hostrauser
- JazzGeek
- Veteran
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:28 am
- Location: So Cal; Home of the Quake & the Wave
- Contact:
Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
No, we're just going to focus our efforts on people who will actually listen.
~twinmomma
Re: Big Ol' Can of Worms (aka California Propositions)
your "religious institution" has the right to choose to not marry same sex couples. The government should not.
Like I said, replace "gay" or "same sex" with black and see if it sounds reasonable to you.
your "solution" only compromises the rights of gays as equals. And from what I can see (protests in the streets) it is NOT agreeable to both parties.
QUACK QUACK
Like I said, replace "gay" or "same sex" with black and see if it sounds reasonable to you.
your "solution" only compromises the rights of gays as equals. And from what I can see (protests in the streets) it is NOT agreeable to both parties.
QUACK QUACK