Romy

It can be logically proven. Anything I, you, or anyone else for that matter does, has (at times along with none egoistical reasons) (an) egoistical reason(s) behind it. I disagree. It cannot be logically proven, nor do I believe it to be true. I know that most often puts me in the minority, but it is what I believe. Try to pose an example in which a person (could be you, could be someone else) does something, that you thank has 0 egoistical motives, and I'll prove you wrong. The reason I'm so confident in my ability to do that is not because I'm arrogant, but because I know for a fact that there is no such thing. You can't prove me wrong because no one has access to everyone's motives for anything. Sure you could make up a possible egotistical motive for anything that anyone would do, but that does not mean that that motive applies. Yep. There's not 1 action you have ever done that doesn't involve atleast *a* self-serving motive.

480.

It's not as tasty as choclate. It's not smart to decide not to be smart because...

I just don't... exist...

It can be logically proven. Anything I, you, or anyone else for that matter does, has (at times along with none egoistical reasons) (an) egoistical reason(s) behind it. I disagree. It cannot be logically proven, nor do I believe it to be true. I know that most often puts me in the minority, but it is what I believe. Try to pose an example in which a person (could be you, could be someone else) does something, that you thank has 0 egoistical motives, and I'll prove you wrong. The reason I'm so confident in my ability to do that is not because I'm arrogant, but because I know for a fact that there is no such thing.

It can be logically proven. Anything I, you, or anyone else for that matter does, has (at times along with none egoistical reasons) (an) egoistical reason(s) behind it.

Agreed! And yet If the people who campaign for homosexual rights are also the people who believe that by doing so they will force people into accepting their beliefs then its not really FUD...more FACT. (Fact, Accurate, Certain, True. Originally I left the A out but then its 1 letter away so) I have to go in about 6 minutes, and am in a hurry. I'll try my best at pointing most of what I wish to. * For the rapist, he knew he was wrong. Literally knew it. He felt that his biological and perhaps psychlogical pressures are to MAKE him do it regardless of whether or not he thinks what he's doing is right. I repeat, he *knew* all along, that what he is/was/about to do, is wrong. By support injustice I mean that the mere fact that person X is not doing anything to correct injustice(s) he's aware of, he unvolunteerly supports it. The hammer example is rather flawed- A. because at times the hammer will fix the problem, and B. because we're not using a "hammer" to fix a toaster, we're using it to handle injustice. I'm running out of time and will come back when I'm done. EDIT: I'm back now. As for me, not tolerating religion, I have much more to say than I'm about to, I hope what I do say would suffice. I don't believe taking people's right to believe in any deity is righteous in any way, and never have. I've had much experience with people who claim to do what they think is right and stipulate it by saying God is on their side. Whether God exists or not, I don't think anyone can firmly say- personaly, I've stopped believing in God (and unlike many others, not because I think God wouldn't exist in an unjust world, but because I tend to ask (some would say too many) questions, and when left unanswered I start to suspect. When the highest "echelon"s can't answer my questions, I suspect even further and reach new conclusions.) I never have said that all who do believe in God are against Homosexuality. What I did say is that most Orthodox ones are, and that they have a tendercy to project their beliefs about gays, to SOME other, none Orthofox believers (once again, not ALL of them, only SOME). I also disagree with you saying that an act of evil (I wouldn't call it that, but I'll go on here) can only lead to further evil acts, as this statement has no base. You surely agree that killing a person for his (not necessarily religious) beliefs is an act of evil, right? Well, I trust that Adolft Hitler's (obviously none religious) beliefs led him to do everything that he did. Well, I'm not the first to wish I had a time machine and kill him before he had the chance to even start anything. Here it is- an act of evil, that even cancels injustices.

Well that's quite cynical. 100% purely true though.

You might get tired of it. And being tired is no good for anyone! It's not smart to tell your boss/teacher to go examine it's own butthole because...

^ No? <No. VNo!

480.

Good to know :).

After reading that I'm very eager to answer everything. However, I'm too tired and busy and wil have to get to it by the weekend, probably. Just some headlines- * As an Atheist I believe the illogic behind God can also be explained to anyone by the same way I described on my last post. * if we're to go to the Philosophy of laws and such... You can't enfore a new rule/right and expect everyone to follow it without any problems. The only possible way to enforce a new rule, is by stiuplating failure of enforcement with rights being taken. *I turthfuly and firmly believe that if I were to tell everyone rape is good for 2 years, I would ATLEAST have doubts of whether or not it's bad. *What if you can't drain the swamp before building the house (for any reason). Would you rather not build the house? Currently the vast majoirty of orthodox people of all three main religions hate and denigrate 'Gayness" (mostly only gay men, not that it matters). And Orthodoxes obviously affect others who believe in God. *As a matter of fact, when (most of) mankind decided to sacrifice their freedom in the favour of confidence, etc, they also, automaticly, sacrificed anyone else's (obviously, only citizens of the country.) *Homosexuality IS talked about. Obviously not as much as should be, but it is talked about. Facts are, that talking isn't always enough and when injustice is served, IMO, it should be handled immediately with (almost) no regard to consequences. As for the 'almost' part, I only mean extreme cases in which handling injustice brings whole lots of new injustices that cannot be handled with ease. *Anti-Homosexuality exists just about everywhere, and when it's empowered by things like religion and a sense that you're right when you fight Homosexuality, who knows if we (not particularly me and you) will ever live to see it repress? *On # 8 I wasn't referring to any country in particular. I tried to simplify it by refering to the world as a whole but infact only meant each country on it's own. Sorry for that. *I can remention the example I gave on my last post (which you seemed to ignore even though you mentioned you can explain why every person thinks what he does is right). I know of a very specific case in which a rapist I know personaly raped a girl (which I also happen to know personaly). Eventually he turned himself in and when interrogated he admitted he KNEW what he did was wrong even before committing it, he also had thoughts of it right before he started (sorry for the very cold description, I'd rather no burst in tears), throughout the occurance, and since then, for the rest of his life. Unless you have completely different definitions of 'right' and 'wrong', you're wrong. Saying that he made a decision because he thought it was right at the moment would also be wrong- he admittedly said he regretted what he's doing, while he was doing it. * "Forcing a reality" you say that as if we'd be changing the world entirely the second we enforence gay marriage as a right. Well, 'forcing' the reality in which gay marriage is perfectly allowed will lead to both the cancellation of injustice made to gays, and the eventual accpetance of gays. It will also be a faster process, by the way, than propaganda. No one even knows if on its own propaganda is good enough here. * The right to hold marriage is NOT hurt. The definition of Marriage is changed, is all. The right to be represented is also left unhurt, both because of the real impact of implemention of gay marriage (much less harmfull than you seem to suggest), and because it's no different than so many other rules applied every day, and on every country, by the so-called representatives of ours. This will only be like throwing a tiny rock to a river of lava. The right to Free Speech is also still present if gay marraige is applied as a right. You can still criticize and you can still say "I think gay marriage is wrong.". The right to practice Religion is slightly hurt. However, that right collides with many others (I have the right to choose not to be a member of any religion, or the right not to follow any religion's rules [i can even eat ham to the face of any Jewish person, for example. Not a good example but considering how far away I've gone from being a religous person, I guess it's not too bad]). In a way, if you name 'Gay marriage implemention' as hurtful to the right to practice Religion, you also do to the right to be an Atheist or not follow any religion's rules. * As for # 14. Perhaps, but implemention of gay marriage as a right is not the first of the chain, and whether it would or would not be implemented, the chain wouldn't cease to exist. As I had already said, it's just like throwing (another) tiny rock to a river of lava. *As for #15. I doubt any of us will take the other's side. I believe that by not enforcing gay marriage we're creating and supporting injustice, you believe that by doing that we're creating injustice. *I think we can also go on with this forever, but considering what is written just above that sentence, I doubt we'll ever reach joint conclusions. Feel free to comment on any part of what I typed here, even though it's not what I would have if I had some more time on my hands. Hopefully I'll get to fully comment on your post on saturday.

490.

470!

I just figured, since this subforum is not that crowded anyway, that a bump wouldn't do much harm, and perhaps help me find what I want :). No harm was done IMO.

[hide] So...For example, it is the duty of every rapist to rape as many people as possible. It is the duty for every criminal to commit a crime and for every bigot to engage in bigotry. This is my other side. The part thays says you should be yourself, regardless of everyone around you. However this would involve me sticking my tounge rather far down one guys throat and I know that he, though being gay, would not be happy if I did so. Thus such action is directly bad...Even though it would probably make him only, say 65% uncomfortable, where as it would make me about 500% happier...Even ignoring the consequences of me probably never seeing him again when I left the area I stuck rigidly to the fact that I should not imping on his rights, merely because I felt completely overwhelmed. However I have been in numerous situations in which other people have very much impinged on my rights...But I CANNOT and WILL NOT judge them in the same way I judge myself. Only they can live their lives and thus I must accept, regardless of my personal feelings, that they are doing things for good reason. Thus for me, unless it requires me to take an active role in something, I will not oppose someone doing something merely because I disagree with it(unless, obviously, I am asked for my views) What was the point of that little romp though my life? I have logic and reason on my side, they have logic and reason their side and the people they oppress have logic and reason on their side too. We all have logic and reason on our side and so the idea which makes the most logical sense and the most reasonable sense will be the idea which most people believe in...Thus the majority. Naturally of course it is probably not the most logical or most reasonable or people would not change their minds. 2) So if a woman is naturally stupid then it is ok for man or woman to rape her, because she is only pretending to be in charge of her life... Sigh...My whole argument is about them accepting the change....But consider this, the North where in favour of the abolition of Slavery, but they still saw black people as inferior...They didn't want Blacks in their cities or schools or anything of that kind. How many gay rights activists have said they support it and then plastered a false smile on their face when they saw two men kiss? Looking for longer than was needed because they don't know how to react because their first instinct tells them it is wrong. In this country being gay, at least for me, is not something that is terribly dangerous...most people live by the 'Yeah, live your life, just don't come near or look at me.' These are also people who support gay marriage to your face, but who's first instict when they hear about it is 'Ruddy gays, never satisfied'. 3) Then the can of worms that you open with be much larger than the one I don't open....Since you are forcing it though regardless. In any case its more likely to continue to grow in the current situation...Straight people see gay people suffering and hear them complaining and make the logical jump from A to B that it is wrong and thus have their opinion formed by experiance, as opposed to having a situation forced on them. Wrote the book and brough the tee-shirt =P 4) You would be suprised how innaccurate that can be. When I 'came out' it was not something that people just accepted, it was the subject of constant jeering for probably 4 years of my life. Yet, because I was willing to look those people in the eye, to answer their questions and to be proud of my sexuality I discovered that actually they did want to know what was going on with me...It wasn't just jeering it was the only way they could actually ask questions...because who else can they turn to? Their parents? Unlikely, if you come from a background which hates gay people then asking the people who hate gay people probably isn't a good way to find out about them. Friends? Unlikely, wanting to know about it makes you gay....obvouisly Teachers? No, most of them feel unfortable about it...or better yet give the ever informative 'Its just the same as straight sex'...which it isn't(as far as I know) So they are left with 'gay people' as their sole source of information and the only way in which they can ask is in a jeering way, otherwise their friends might think they are gay too. I had numerous one to ones with people, trying to talk to them about homosexuality, which I barely understood myself...and I have already mentioned the meetings of 10 I had with people. Surrounded by probably the 'hardest boys' in Kent, where I lived, talking to them about homosexuality, in no uncertain terms, having them urghing and laughing and listening intently, we deeply unnerving for me...Imagine being asked about your sex life, asked to describe how your partner looks, how they feel and so on and so forth. Some of these people had families, even themselves, who had gone out gay-bashing...and here I was describing to them what it was to be gay... I think that those four years, despite the jeering of the idiots, were the best years of my life because I actually developed my personality during that period...I stopped being shocked by things and started to see the world as I see it now...In every sense that mattered I was changed from a deeply private person, to someone who was deeply private but had no problem talking about private stuff, if the conversation demanded it. Sounds petty, but perhaps if you tried it you would think differently....Anyway... I understand where you are coming from, but, in my opinion, this is going to happen anyway. The ability to live though it and get married is not going to make huge swathes of teenagers feel better....Nor will listening to their parents condemn how gay people are once against forcing their immoral hands on decent right thinking people(You know how people exaggurate) help them. 5) And? I know straight people who have developed mental illnesses...I know numerous people who had tried to commit sucicide and people who have succeeded. I know people who have been changed by bullying, for better and worse....I know an insane number of people who drink excessively anyway. I also know of a number of cases where they run away from home, I think one case permenantly. It is endemic of a society which forces people into catagories, not only forces people into catagories but into stereotypes....Are you a Gay hater or a Gay Lover or are you Gay...and if you answer the first or last I am gonna beat you up. 6) A rightous goal...but a flawed theory...Gay marriage is like a yorkshire pudding with a roast dinner...It is something that is wonderful and brilliant...but it is an extra. Gay consciencness has been progressing for almost 50 years now, always making slow progress. Or to put it another way....It is like Ice Cream....great on its own, but not so good while eating a roast....you need to finish eating the roast and then you can eat the ice cream. 7) Oh just that I gave the example of the popl and youy said something about the discussion you were having with your civil teacher 'actually being important'...thus I took to mean, that is a dig at Catholics...Thus I was honourbound to right that wrong if I could. 8) Well they always do...It is always their right to not give in or surrender. Just as it is the majorities right to do whatever the hell they want....The underlying principle is that rights do not exist unless they are taken and used in a state of anarchy...which is the world we live in...There are laws, but we choose to apply them, if we chose not to apply them then we would not get instantly killed or punished....some people manage to survive their whole lives without being punished... It is merely the matter that I believe that working with the majority is almost always better than working towards your own ends. 9) As above the minority is always right....Everyone is always right in anything that they do. That is taken as a fact, since people would not and could not do things if they were not right. A man could not rape a child if he did not believe it was the right thing to do...Either because his body tells him to, or because the gun to his head tells him to...or some other reason...he has made a reasoned decision and this is right in his actions....whatever they are. 10) And who decides if the minority is right? They must judge for themselves if they are right... Because rape is cruel and unusual as a punishment, has debatable effectiveness and is a corruption of the process which children are born. 11)Furthermore I agree, each case should be treated equally. However I am treating you and the other one who is arguing with me as the same person. 12) Pollution is thus only the landowners problem...by that logic...It was believed for a long time that, yes there was a problem, but it was each person's duty to himself to work for his own betterment...and thus he could ignore the suffering of others if he was profiting by it...Say you owned a mill which put out thick clouds ot pollution....however it also made important medical goods which saved hundreds of people's lives...Surely then it is ok for the people living around you to accept the situation...if not then tough, they can move. The same blaze idea is happening here... I want this, they want that, I don't care, they can suffer because I am getting married. 13) Exactly. They know they are supposed to team up with the opposite sex...almost everything on TV and in books is to do with the hetrosexual couple. With very little for the homosexual couple there is no code of conduct involved. Further more Boys tend to much stupided that Girls...Girls tend to just be stuck up....at that age, I mean. 14) Perhaps...But I think the idea of worldwide concensus is abhorant...All the culture that would have to be destroyed or mutilated for it to happen...It is not for us to decide how other people live their lives after all... For comfort, I numbered everything in your quote and numbered my answers the same way. 1) The most imporatant thing of that part of my answer is that they DO NOT have logic and reason on their side. They THINK they do, but they definetly do not. Proving that is easy- except for those who aren't open minded and wouldn't change their mind even if you were beating them logic with a bat, you can convince (albeit not so easily for everyone) anyone that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, IF you will use logic and explain yourself as should, and IF they will listen throughout your whole explenation. Surely, some would argue, surely some wouldn't understand it right away, surely at some cases you'd need months to convince them- but eventualy, if you really do talk sense into them, answer each and every question of theirs and make sure they listen to everything you say, they will be convinced, eventually. As for being yourself, it's a matter of cost, and I think that's where neither of us will be able to convince the other, as we're entitled to different opinions. The cost for a rapist to 'be himself entirely' is to rape as many people as possible. The cost, if we are to completely ignore the authorities (as in, they don't play a role in this example), is the suffering of many, not only at the time of action, but also for a long time after the rapist is done. The 'cost' of implementing gay marriage as a right, is perhaps a few offended people, who knows? Perhaps riots at the extreme. But in the end we will get the benefits of both: gay marriage rights implemented and the understanding of the public, in the end. History is there to prove it, eventually the public understands, and if you wish I will add in some examples in my next post. 2) A change in public opinion will be reached eventualy if laws were to enforce gay marriage. Other than that, what's your point here? Yes, people are phony, there's nothing we can do about it. However, I'd rather have a society of phony people who say they believe gays should be equal to heterosexuals and then be disgusted by the sight of two men kissing, rather than a society that declares it hates them simply for that. Not because I'd feel more comfortable, but because then: A. Gays will have their rights as should. B. Gays would have less problems with living as ordinary people. C. If a country's or the entire world's sociery was filled with a phony population who says it fights for gay rights, in the end, it will believe it aswell, and accept it. 3) So you're suggesting that if a world's society won't accept a change, a righteous change, then we should never be implementing it? If we kept that approach throughout history, western lands would still be considered as 'wild west' and people were killed in America by the tens of thousands each day for no reason (surely this is true for today aswell, but not in quantities as high as would have been, and also, those to kill were not to be punished (atleast as badly) for their actions). If we will keep that approach in the future, the world as we know it will probably never change, and considering the world we currently live in, that's horrible. If I were the most moral person I could be, I'd honestly have to shoot myself. Lastly for this part, if people did not sacrifice some of their freedom and set boundaries to themselves, in the favour of confidence, this world would be much greater chaos than it currently is. By sacrificing freedom I mean that- countries have geographical boundaries that mostly are worldwide accepted (except for some very specific problems in Africa and the Middle East), populations have rules to stop them from commiting certain deeds, and so can be said for jails, Hierarchy, govenors, governments, etc. 4) Your story is only one example, it doesn't make it the story of all others. You can take for certaincy that many Homophobes are really gays in denial. 5) And the facts are that said teenagers developed these problems because of the combination of them being gay, and their surroundings' hatred towards gays. I obviously don't expect the implemention of gay marriage rights to act as a magic spell that would suddenly make everyone largely accept gay people. However, I know from experience, observation and general knowledge that when a new reality is cast upon you, and you have no choice but accepting it, you eventualy deal with it and at times grow fond of it. The faster we start acting in the matter, the faster this very slow process of gays being accepted worlwide will beging, and the faster it will begin, the faster these problems will begin to disappear. 6) The comparisons you used are flawed. While we 'eat the roast' it's murdering (albeit small) parts of the icecream, who knows how far it will go by the time we're done eating it? Gays are being murdered in large quantities, everywhere, simply because they're gay. The ones killing them aren't only trying to kill them, but also kill the 'idea' of 'Gayness'. I'd like to repeat and expand on something here. Forcing a reality, as bad as it sounds, isn't really that bad. Ofcourse many wouldn't like the new reality, but they will get used to it, because they have no other choice. And their children are very likely to like the new reality, as they have known no other before it. Lastly, considering the 'new reality' we're talking about is infact not harming (perhaps offending, but in no way harming) anyone directly, and that if we are to simplify, rights are given, but none are taken away, the righteous goal also has a good theory behind it. 7) Call me dumb, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say here. 8) The majority doesn't have the right to do whatever the hell it wants.... It's true that many commit crimes or decide certain rules do not apply to them. And what of it :S? Implementing new rules not only makes more and more people apply to them, it also means the leaders of country X are aware of the problem/issue/case/etc and are trying to change things. 9) That's not true at all. A man could know and understand that raping a child is wrong, and do it anyway. You don't have to think something is right in order to do it. 10) It's not a matter of decision. If we take an hypothetical situation, you know what? Not even a situation just throw in the air that the minority of a certain population knows or understands a concept that the majority of the same population does not. Simply because they know of or understand the concept, their opinion, if picked objectively, is valid. The mere fact that the majority does not know of/understand the concept, invalidates their opinions. Another (rather sad) fact is, that the majority gets to 'vote' for what they think is right, even if they don't understand everything or anything in the matter. I'm not sure how it works in America, but (I'm pretty sure that) every democratic country has a certain age limit (usualy either 18 or 21). After that age, any individual has every right to vote for the leader he/she thinks is best, EVEN IF HE/SHE DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT POLITICS! If anyone voted for Obama for example, only because he is black, then their opinion is automaticly invalid, yet he had his right to vote for him. 11) Exactly, nothing to add here. 12) But in the matter of pollution lies a problem that does not when talking about gay marriage- gay marriage is simply a right (that may offend, and only offend) that is given, no other rights are taken. In the matter of that mill I'm the owner of, basicly if 1 person dies because of the pollution my mill spit, I took his right to live for the favor of others'. We can keep on debating on whether 1 person's right to live should be taken to consideration as opposed to serveral others', but it doesn't matter because the real issue we're discussing, gay marriage, doesn't have that 'dilemma' in it. 13) The fact that a certain situation is present, doesn't make it right. Who said the fact that TV and books show almost always a heterosexual couple is good/okay? 14) I agree, but there still is a worldwide (or atleast West&Europewide) consensus. Personaly, I don't believe any concesus, and it doesn't matter if worldwide, countrywide or even familywide is righteous. People should be entitled to different opinions, different ways of life, and shouldn't be judged only because they're not a part of the consensus (even in a family). But, once again, the consensus exists and unless mass media tried to do something about it (at the moment it's doing the opposite), we would have to stick with it. And if we are to stick with it, we could atleast try to change it as to accept more types of sexual orientations, ways of life, opinions, etc. [/hide] Sorry for the probably countless spelling errors and grammar mistakes I made.

480.

Then cows and goats will be soaked, LMAO. It's not smart to say ".בסך הכל, התרבות האסיסטינציאליסטית קיימת, בדרך זו או אחרת, בחברה המודרנית, על אף שקיימת סתירה מסוימת בין השניים" on here because...

Simply amazing.

Bump.

But it doesn't. It doesn't only effect gays. Its like saying 'Our pollution only effects us.' We live in a societally diverse world. Everything is interconnected and everything effects everything else. One gay wedding could create both a gunman and a maryta for which society flocks to. One errant kiss could lead to a child experimenting which(I don't know) his brother(we are talking 6 and 7 maybe...too young to know what they are doing but old enough to remember it when they grow up.)....We live in an extremely volatile world. One which we should not be haphazardly navigated by the compass of self interest, but by the steady heading of society...the path which does not cause the waves to crash over the bow of the ships, capsizing society...One only has to look at Weimar Germany to see the dangers of moving too far too fast.... I could just say 'Super Mod', post my views and lock the thread....thereby winning...but somehow I expect that wouldn't convince you I was right.....Odd that... 1) On *almost* any situation in which 4 people want something from 1 man/woman (not necessarily rape...), and the 4 decide they should take it by all means, they have the power to. That does not make it right, nor does it mean the 1 man/woman should accept the fact that she/he's a minority, and say... sacrifice his/her son for some religious ceremony the four deeply desire. I would like to add that, you probably can give an example in which the 1 man/woman should give away his/her son. However, that's not the point. The point is that since there could (and more than probably does) exist a situation in which a minority SHOULDN'T surrender to the majority's will. And if the minority has the power not to surrnder (executive power could be a good example), then by all means, the minority shouldn't surrnder. Bottom line of this paragraph- the possible fact that the majority has a power over the minority doesn't mean the minority should just accept it. If the minority has reason and logic on it's side, then the minority should fight for it's rights. 2) Who said the majority, in this case, even wants to 'learn to drive a car' (as in, learn about sexual orientation)? What if the majority has the wheel, and lets push it a bit, only pretends it wants to drive a car? If the minority noticed that, shouldn't it just drive the car itself? (Side note: considering the odds for a situation in which the majority will never accept gay marriage, aren't that bad, I think the minority should do it's best at taking the wheel to their hands. At some point, probably not as far as you may think, the majority would accept the change. Perhaps even understand it.) 3) What if said hundreds won't decrease in number? I'd also like to expand on a certain area here. Gay teenagers. Many gay teenagers live in a surrounding that does not accept "gayness", some even live in a surrounding that hates it and tries to block it and mock for it at any given time. Said teenagers may also hate gays themselvers- that's what they were taught throughout their lives. I don't know whether or not you know this, but this kind of teenagers exists everywhere, and not by small numbers. It's been proven that over 66% of these teenagers will either commit suicde, develop some sort of mental illness (an example could be staying away from society at any possible time, blocking even the closest relatives and friends), consume huge amounts of drugs/alcohol/both, basicly addict themselves, run away from home and completely "forget" about their families, become very violent or become a misantropist. The reason I added that information is, that legalizing gay marriage would automaticly begin a very, very slow process in which gays are accepted worldwide, and thus stop (at some point) situations like the ones I suggested from happening. Isn't that a righteous goal in itself? 4) I didn't quite get your point here. Why is it important to destruct the place (by your point of view)? 5) You may haven't noticed, but the mere fact that you said "In one example maybe...But in another example..." implies that in certain situations the minority has reason and logic on it's side, and shouldn't be giving in and surrender to the majority's power and opinions.The fact that you had to change my example to one in which the majority is supposedly right (as righteousness levels are VERY vague in that specific example), implies that on certain situation the minority is right, and shouldn't be 'quiet' about it. I'd like to clear that I do not mean all situations, only ones in which the minority has logic on it's side (and by logic I simply mean the minority is right). By the way, why shouldn't my opinions chage on the account of the factors changed? It makes all the sense that I would think one this is wrong, and change my mind under certain circumstances. Each case should be individually examined. Pollution is not a good example here, as it definetly directly and almost immediately affects anyone who is next to it, with directly being a very important part of the situation. In addition, the examples I gave you about teenagers imply that people are hurt no matter what the situation is, so it might aswell be one in which things are correct. The child example isn't a good one either, as the child could do the same thing if he saw a man and a woman kiss, to his sister. In addition, most of the world's 6 and 7 year old boys and girls already "know" (perhaps not accurately, or even moderately) that they're "supposed" to eventualy 'team up' with the opposite sex. Well, if at some very far away point gay relations will become a part of the worldwide accepted concensus, perhaps the 6 and 7 year olds would think two men kissing is nothing different than two women, or a woman and a man.

It's late at night and I guess I didn't quite explain myself as intended, seeing as you didn't understand half of what I said. 1) I was merely saying that the majority shouldn't dictate the minority over the majority's opinion, purely because they are the majority. 2) What I was trying to say here was, that the majority (and not necessarily only the majority, any individual aswell) may think 1 thing because he/she does not understand the concept behind it, or only partly understands it. I happen to know of too many people who don't understand that sexual orientaion is not a matter of choice, and perhaps for that reason, think it's wrong to be gay. 3) However, gay marriage does not affect those who don't wish to marry others of the same sex directly. Unlike 12 year old girls who obviously are affected by pedophile rapists directly. 4) I agree with you on it being flawed. However, that's the way things were supposed to be according to my civil teacher. In addition, the opinions I was talking about were only opinions regarding important matters. 5) What I was saying is that that specific woman wouldn't only suffer for those 4 hours, but infact carry it over. So, if we go to the scales and measure things, even though it's 4 men's "fun" as opposed to one woman's suffer, in cold terms, the woman 'lost' a lot more than the men gained. This is a very biazzare example Oo. What I'm trying to say though, is that you (not specificly you) shouldn't feel selfish for trying to legalize gay marriage, only because gays are a minority, especialy because gay marriage affects only gays directly.

Welcome to RuneScape. Let me rephrase that. Welcome to real life.

You might not remember everything you read, in which case you wasted your time for nothing. It's not smart to call your boss a smartass to his/her face because...