Ban On Gay Marriage Struck Down

This is the start of the end of the world. All them homo's are gonna move to California after they legalize this. Then Cali is gonna fall into the ocean.


Problem Solved!

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with it. Just my opinion. And that's all I am going to say.

How many threads are going to end today with an argument involving SamauraiKing/Spic(not gunna lie I lol'd)?

That video is just, wow.

You want some of this ***?

Just move to Canada.

that guy is my favorite part of jon lajoie videos

It's hilarious isn't it? lol@ banning instant oatmeal, it's unnatural too

"All that you can handle bro~"

I liked this :D

Also, this: http://www.fallwell.com/selective%20quotation.html

God damn it, I couldn't find that pic, it's what I was looking for. :/

I made an everyday normal guy reference in another thread earlier too.

Your statement shows, at worst, a complete lack of understanding about the subject are are attempting to attack or, at best, a purposeful misrepresentation of the truth to suit your preexisting bias.

First of all, not all Religions treat homosexuality the same, so you need to specify which one(s) are you speaking about.
I think its safe to assume in this context you are referring to Christianity, so I will it address it from this point of view, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this point.

You state that religion (Christianity) preaches acceptance. Wrong, at least in the way in which you are attempting to portray it. What it actually instructs its believers to do is to accept that everyone has a choice. The choice to live in a "Godly" way or the choice not to. It also instructs its believers to love their fellow man regardless of the choice each person makes. At this point, no further "acceptance" is required. Therefore the illusion of hypocrisy that you are attempting to create does not actually exist.

Secondly, you state that religion (C) "condemns someone for being gay". While this conclusion can be extrapolated from the belief system, the condemnation that you speak of is not limited to just the homosexual but to all men, and more specifically to the "sin" that every man has inside them.
Sin is condemned > Homosexuality is a sin > Those who practice homosexuality are condemned. But the statement is true for all sin, not exclusively homosexuality.
(Now before you begin to argue about if homosexuality is a sin or not etc, it is irrelevant to this exchange.)
The sin is condemned and by extension the person is, and while this may seem trivial it is important to make the distinction, as this is how the saying "love the sinner but hate the sin" is realized.

For the TLDR crowd: You need to understand what you are talking about more thoroughly before making asinine statements that make no sense when broken down.

See that's the problem. To the government, it should ALL be considered something like that. I say, leave any talk of marriage, ceremonies, beliefs, whatever, to the actual people involved. But whatever, when have you actually been pleased with the government?

For those still interested, quotes from the actual judge's ruling:

Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification [to ban gay marriage]. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.

But [anti-gay marriage] witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well if not better as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would equally benefit the families of gays and lesbians.

I stopped reading after the bolded part. When you make yourself try to seem too smart, you come off as a conceited jackass. Speak normally, this isn't a presidential debate here. You have a *** transformers avatar for *** sake.

I actually fixed your grammar for you too.

I'm not trying to make myself seem anything. People who have been here long enough know I'm a jackass, so congratulations on learning that for yourself.

Now go back and read it and tell me where I'm wrong.

(Yes, Please) Its 4:20 somewhere

It's 4:12 somewhere. (At the time of this post)

I don't have time to read all your *** since it's all opinions. Nothing about any religion is fact, it's all made up stories that can't be proven. Why would I waste time debating over religions with you?

It's also painful to read what you type, it's like reading an autobiography about a person who is a, once again as I have already said, conceited jackass. So I'll pass.

Peaceful religions and being a jackass don't go to together, so turn the other cheek and stfu like a good sheep, or write a response to this and prove my point.

Eh legalizing marihuNa brings other bad things. Lets adults smoke around children with out gettin in trouble, you want that around kids? Alcohol is bad enough when it gets out of control.

Your first point, the "choice" point.
Christianity gives you a choice of:
A)Comply(in a Godly way) and go to Heaven.
B)Do not Comply(in a not Godly way) and go to Hell.
Christianity=all about compliance, not choice.
edit: on that note, I do mean the perspective of Christianity as a whole...not all Christians I know deal in such absolutes.
On to part 2.
I actually agree with you on this point, but to add on to this.
Most people do not practice the "love the sinner but hate the sin", most practice "Love the sinner when they comply to my belief system"
I agree with the idea of not legalizing it, atleast to the extent of making it on the same level as tobacco and alcohol.
I think your reason is a bit silly.
I'm all for decriminalization though.
Decriminalize it but dont' commercialize it!

For the record, the California proposition to legalize marijuana, under the same laws as alcohol, is polling way ahead and is expected to pass in November.

Yeah except cali will never fall into the ocean

I agree with you about the compliance part, but compliance follows the initial choice. The choice to believe or not to believe is there for everyone.

I also agree with you on your 2nd statement as well. But this is why it is important to seperate what the religion actually teaches and what people actually end up doing.

In the original post that I quoted, there was an attack on the religion itself when it should have been an attack on its followers.

'Roll out', before you give us more of a headache.