Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Should Chris Culliver apologize?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:


    You aren't very bright,

     

    Any man in America - every single one of them has the right to marry a woman.

    Any woman in America, every single one of them has the right to marry a man.

    If people choose to pursue the happy gay funloving lifestyle of homosexuality - they can't be married because those two things are mutually exclusive.  this is called in life "making choices."

    Grown ups do this.  Children and narcissists do not make choices.  they demand the world accomodate their insatiable desire to be spoiled.

    Homosexuals are the most acute form of this extreme version of narcissism.  mainly, because homosexuality by definition is narcissism.

    narcissism - look it up.  Narcissus fell in love with his opwn image - which is homosexuality in a nutshell.

     



    Your exact same argument could be applied to interracial couples who wanted to get married before it was legal.  Every white person had the right to marry a white person and vice versa.  Unfortunately for you that is not the way the legal system in this country works.

    The reason I brought religion/morality into the debate in my original post is that is the only explanation that I have ever seen anyone give for why they actually care about gays getting married.  Otherwise why would they actually care.  Of course those are not legal arguments and are therefore irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    Again you are conflating the institution of marriage (the religious tradition etc.) with the legal institution.  The state can define marriage however it wants in legal terms.  It cannot obligate a church to marry gay people.  This isn't that hard.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    actually most advanced democracies adopt the standard of innocent until proven guilty. and that standard goes back centuries, to well before america even existed. 

     



    So it's kind of like marriage - defined as man and woman - a standard that goes back centuries, to well before America existed?

     

     

     

     

    Some old things are good. Some are bad.  You need to use your judgment.  As far as I can tell, people marrying people of the same sex does no harm to anyone.  I believe in freedom.  If something you want to do causes no harm to anyone, it should be legal.  Hence, people should be free to marry any consenting adult they choose.  

    I don't know why freedom scares you so much.  Maybe you should join Hamas? 

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to jri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

     

     dude you are so random. when did i say anything about wanting palestinian homosexuals executed? 

     



    It seems random because you are a typical confused resident of Massachusetts. 

     

    Think.  Think for yourself and stop repeating liberal slogans.

    You are simultaneously posting under an Avatar demanding that the world should "Free Gaza" from the yoke of Israel AND you are posting in favor of homosexual marriage.

    I am simply pointing out how those positions are ridiculous side by side - since a "free"  Palestine (you need to work on your understanig of freedom, but I digress) - a "Free" Palestine not only bans gay marriage, but executes and jails homosexuals.

    This is the confused state your mind is in.  This is why you think mutually exlusive aspects of human life (homosexuality and marriage for example) are to be reconclied by changing the meaning of words.

    This is the state of reason in Massachusetts:  If the liberal masters in politics and education declared "Asparagus is meat" - about two thirds of the citizens would start arguing that asparagus was a better cut than London Broil.

     

     

     

     



    Can you document the execution of homosexuals in Gaza or the West Bank by the Palestinian authorities? Methinks you're just talking out your backside. 

     

     

     




     

    Don't mean to speak for anyone but...

    not sure about executions but certainly there is an issue.

    Palestinian gays flee to Israel - BBC - Homepage



    There are issues with homosexuality in any society still heavily under the influence of traditional beliefs.  Remember it was illegal (and homosexuals persecuted) in most of the Western world, too, until quite recently.  It's just that some of us think it's time to move forward and some like Schumpter seem to want to stay a bit closer to the traditional religious attitude (which is pretty much the same in Islam and Christianity).  Funny how Schumpter is all up in arms about Hamas while maintaining a position himself that is, in some ways, as atavistic as theirs. 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    As far as I can tell, people marrying people of the same sex does no harm to anyone.  I believe in freedom.  If something you want to do causes no harm to anyone, it should be legal.  Hence, people should be free to marry any consenting adult they choose.  

     

     



    So you are for polygamy and incestuous marriage I see. Lots of worm can opening from your oh so objective mind today.

     

    You are all hopped up about freedom it seems, unless of course it's about the freedom to bear arms.



    Those may cause harm . . . incest for sure.  Polygamy . . . not quite so sure.  And of course, in terms of legal rights, a relationship of two is easier to manage than a relationship of three or more.  So there's a practical reason to limit marriage to two persons rather than multiple. Just think of the complex estate issues one could have with two or three disputing surviving spouses.  One spouse is far more practical . . . 

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    Oh, and the freedom to bear arms clearly can result in harm, regardless of what you and Wayne LaPierre say. 

    Again, as a hunter and gun owner myself, I don't want gun ownership banned.  I just want sensible laws that make weapons designed primarily for killing people difficult to acquire. Limits on freedom where freedom causes harm make sense.  Limits on freedom where freedom causes no harm (as in gay marriage) is just catering to some people's prejudice. 

     

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts