New Jersey legalizes medical marijuana...and bans gay marriage

[fakeitormakeit2]

My father says this was rather stupid, medically speaking, seeing as how there is a concentrated drug of the active ingredients of marijuana already legal in New Jersey. I can't help but agree.

 

I don't really see how medicinal marijuana legalization should be paralleled with the slashing down of legalization of homosexual marriage. I don't really see the problem with homosexuals being united but it should be restricted to something civil and stay away from religious congregations that detest such unions, as it is there right as a group separate from the government to be able to have criteria for members and they have a right to reject to marry those who are not up to their criteria, i.e. of the same sex.

 

By the way, to those who say people of religion are homosexual haters I say to you that you are rather ignorant. I understand homosexuality is a natural disposition and hate should not be warranted to any person so do not clump all people of religion together, because you point the finger at us for gay bashing, but you are being as bad as you claim of us by religion bashing because you were forced to go to mass or you think you're a rebel or something for not believing in God. And to those who are not affiliated with a religion but respect our right to practice our religion, I salute you and your intelligence and wisdom.

 

Homosexual marriage rights has never been about forcing religions that don't believe in it to do it. That is FUD spread by anti-homosexual marriage activists.

 

I was stating a conditional to what I would agree to. But note that I said union and you said marriage. I also advocate the avoiding of using that word seeing as how it would be a civil union and not a religious marriage.

 

Then again I contemplate now, if gays were given the right to have unions with the same benefits of marriage, they will then lobby for forcing churches and temples to marry them otherwise they'll sue for discrimination. And when ever you use the term discrimination in America unless it pertains to one who is white everyone panics and does whatever the person who pulled the discrimination card said. This is BS? I think not. It happened to the Boy Scouts, something with a gay scout leader I believe and since they advocate against homosexual relationships that booted him, then he sued for discrimination and was court ordered to be allowed back in. Even though one might say its a club with the right to be selective with their members.

[indy500fan]

My father says this was rather stupid, medically speaking, seeing as how there is a concentrated drug of the active ingredients of marijuana already legal in New Jersey. I can't help but agree.

 

I don't really see how medicinal marijuana legalization should be paralleled with the slashing down of legalization of homosexual marriage. I don't really see the problem with homosexuals being united but it should be restricted to something civil and stay away from religious congregations that detest such unions, as it is there right as a group separate from the government to be able to have criteria for members and they have a right to reject to marry those who are not up to their criteria, i.e. of the same sex.

 

By the way, to those who say people of religion are homosexual haters I say to you that you are rather ignorant. I understand homosexuality is a natural disposition and hate should not be warranted to any person so do not clump all people of religion together, because you point the finger at us for gay bashing, but you are being as bad as you claim of us by religion bashing because you were forced to go to mass or you think you're a rebel or something for not believing in God. And to those who are not affiliated with a religion but respect our right to practice our religion, I salute you and your intelligence and wisdom.

 

Homosexual marriage rights has never been about forcing religions that don't believe in it to do it. That is FUD spread by anti-homosexual marriage activists.

 

I was stating a conditional to what I would agree to. But note that I said union and you said marriage. I also advocate the avoiding of using that word seeing as how it would be a civil union and not a religious marriage.

 

Then again I contemplate now, if gays were given the right to have unions with the same benefits of marriage, they will then lobby for forcing churches and temples to marry them otherwise they'll sue for discrimination. And when ever you use the term discrimination in America unless it pertains to one who is white everyone panics and does whatever the person who pulled the discrimination card said. This is BS? I think not. It happened to the Boy Scouts, something with a gay scout leader I believe and since they advocate against homosexual relationships that booted him, then he sued for discrimination and was court ordered to be allowed back in. Even though one might say its a club with the right to be selective with their members.

 

Yes, you did say marriage in your second paragraph.

[archimage_a]

* 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.

 

See sense...

He did something. He consciencly did something. He did something which he deemed to be right. If he did not deem it to be right then he could not have done it. This is a FACT. Maybe he was influenced by his body but he made the choice to rape this person. No one else made the choice. He made the choice and he deemed it to be right for him to do it.

...I deem it wrong to rape someone and lo I don't rape someone. I deem it right to have sex with a guy, if we both want to, and lo I do it.

Its a very simple concept...Right and Wrong. I just take responsiblity for my actions as opposed to make excuses.

...If we accept your view then clearly it is wrong for us to punish him because he had no choice over the incident. He was an innocent bystander.

 

 

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.

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.

Or you go back in time, kill Hitler and Stalin invades Europe and over 50 million people die in the ensuing combat, followed by billions more in the eventual nuclear holocaust as nuclear weapons are discovered.

You don't cancel the injustice, you dwarf it.

Your reasoning is flawed because you have't thought out the implications.

All you have done is make a defacto statement 'I think Hitler is bad. Therefore killing Hitler is good.' and it's statements like that that really screw the world up because they forgo substative logical and pschyological process and instead rely on animal like instinct.

 

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.

I agree...There is a chance that things will turn out for the best. But its a gamble...and, like a vegas slot machine, the odds are stacked against you achieving the grand prize.

 

I believe it is better to take five generations of hard work and get the bounty at the end of that, than to make one heap of all our winnings and bet it on one turn of pitch and toss.

 

 

Yes, you did say marriage in your second paragraph.

I don't really see how medicinal marijuana legalization should be paralleled with the slashing down of legalization of homosexual marriage.

Its used to describe, not to explain....

[fakeitormakeit2]

My father says this was rather stupid, medically speaking, seeing as how there is a concentrated drug of the active ingredients of marijuana already legal in New Jersey. I can't help but agree.

 

I don't really see how medicinal marijuana legalization should be paralleled with the slashing down of legalization of homosexual marriage. I don't really see the problem with homosexuals being united but it should be restricted to something civil and stay away from religious congregations that detest such unions, as it is there right as a group separate from the government to be able to have criteria for members and they have a right to reject to marry those who are not up to their criteria, i.e. of the same sex.

 

By the way, to those who say people of religion are homosexual haters I say to you that you are rather ignorant. I understand homosexuality is a natural disposition and hate should not be warranted to any person so do not clump all people of religion together, because you point the finger at us for gay bashing, but you are being as bad as you claim of us by religion bashing because you were forced to go to mass or you think you're a rebel or something for not believing in God. And to those who are not affiliated with a religion but respect our right to practice our religion, I salute you and your intelligence and wisdom.

 

Homosexual marriage rights has never been about forcing religions that don't believe in it to do it. That is FUD spread by anti-homosexual marriage activists.

 

I was stating a conditional to what I would agree to. But note that I said union and you said marriage. I also advocate the avoiding of using that word seeing as how it would be a civil union and not a religious marriage.

 

Then again I contemplate now, if gays were given the right to have unions with the same benefits of marriage, they will then lobby for forcing churches and temples to marry them otherwise they'll sue for discrimination. And when ever you use the term discrimination in America unless it pertains to one who is white everyone panics and does whatever the person who pulled the discrimination card said. This is BS? I think not. It happened to the Boy Scouts, something with a gay scout leader I believe and since they advocate against homosexual relationships that booted him, then he sued for discrimination and was court ordered to be allowed back in. Even though one might say its a club with the right to be selective with their members.

 

Yes, you did say marriage in your second paragraph.

 

If you read the context though, I said the slashing down of the legalization of gay marriage and churches and temples having the right to reject marrying gays. I negated the term 'gay marriage' every time I referenced it. And as the person above me said, I'm using it in a descriptive case not explanatory.

[Romy]

* 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.

 

See sense...

He did something. He consciencly did something. He did something which he deemed to be right. If he did not deem it to be right then he could not have done it. This is a FACT. Maybe he was influenced by his body but he made the choice to rape this person. No one else made the choice. He made the choice and he deemed it to be right for him to do it.

...I deem it wrong to rape someone and lo I don't rape someone. I deem it right to have sex with a guy, if we both want to, and lo I do it.

Its a very simple concept...Right and Wrong. I just take responsiblity for my actions as opposed to make excuses.

...If we accept your view then clearly it is wrong for us to punish him because he had no choice over the incident. He was an innocent bystander.

 

 

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.

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.

Or you go back in time, kill Hitler and Stalin invades Europe and over 50 million people die in the ensuing combat, followed by billions more in the eventual nuclear holocaust as nuclear weapons are discovered.

You don't cancel the injustice, you dwarf it.

Your reasoning is flawed because you have't thought out the implications.

All you have done is make a defacto statement 'I think Hitler is bad. Therefore killing Hitler is good.' and it's statements like that that really screw the world up because they forgo substative logical and pschyological process and instead rely on animal like instinct.

 

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.

I agree...There is a chance that things will turn out for the best. But its a gamble...and, like a vegas slot machine, the odds are stacked against you achieving the grand prize.

 

I believe it is better to take five generations of hard work and get the bounty at the end of that, than to make one heap of all our winnings and bet it on one turn of pitch and toss.

 

 

Yes, you did say marriage in your second paragraph.

I don't really see how medicinal marijuana legalization should be paralleled with the slashing down of legalization of homosexual marriage.

Its used to describe, not to explain....

 

 

For the way you describe the Right and Wrong cases, as shown in many examples both of mine and yours, I can simply deduce that we have different definitions as to right and wrong. You believe that when someone decides anything, based on weighing the possibilities- whatever his decision is, is right for him.

I, however, believe (and the specific person to turn himself in believes like me) that Right and Wrong are terms of moral. According to my terms, one could perform an action he/she does not think is morally right. Each individual's moral degrees can guide him, but not choose for him.

 

That being said, we can conlude that further arguing in the matter is pointless, simply because our definitions don't match.

 

As for Hitler- It actualy did pop to my mind that killing him could bring more injustices (I didn't think it would be an act of the Soviet Union, more of something Hitler-alike to come from Germany, or some other country. not that it matters). I decided not to talk about these possibilities because I figured it's pointless.

First of all, because you can't know for sure whether or not Stalin would do that.

Secondly, because considering I do have that imaginary time machine, I could decide to kidnap Stalin. Here you may say that another leader would fulfill his role but, once again- A. That's not necessarily true, and B. There's a limited number of people who could take this role. With said time machine I could eventually rid the world of such deeds.

 

Other than that, I'd like to add that- efnrocing gay marriage is in no way the same as killing Hitler because it truthfuly wouldn't have as much impact. You're forgetting that it's simply a new right empowered with a formal frame, is all.

 

 

Also, it is not a gamble, and the odds are not against you. If you really want to name it, I'd call it an educated guess, even though I believe the name still doesn't quite hit the target.

For some reason, I have the impression that you expect the world to enrage itself over gay marriage implemention, that we'd see riots everywhere, people burning down governments and whatnot. If we don't add the dazzle around it, I doubt people would still talk about it in two weeks, and I think that time frame is still too much.

 

I also doubt the world would laregly and entiely accept gays as equals in any way in 5 generation, if we stick to our current approach.

 

 

 

To sum up- Injustice is standing straight. We could decide we want to try and bend it 1/10 of a millimeter at a time, and hope it won't fight back. Or we could simply make it disappear at a cost lower than you seem to think of.

Deminishing that injustice also does not create new injustices- gays are getting their right to marry, no other rights are taken away. Simply put.

[archimage_a]

For the way you describe the Right and Wrong cases, as shown in many examples both of mine and yours, I can simply deduce that we have different definitions as to right and wrong. You believe that when someone decides anything, based on weighing the possibilities- whatever his decision is, is right for him.

I, however, believe (and the specific person to turn himself in believes like me) that Right and Wrong are terms of moral. According to my terms, one could perform an action he/she does not think is morally right. Each individual's moral degrees can guide him, but not choose for him.

 

I agree. I see the objective truth and you see a subjective truth.

Even so someone may decide something is morally right at the time, as many Nazis did, but reneg later on. It sort of depends on if you can trust the person to tell the truth when they are under the emotional duress of being unable to change the past.

 

First of all, because you can't know for sure whether or not Stalin would do that.

Secondly, because considering I do have that imaginary time machine, I could decide to kidnap Stalin. Here you may say that another leader would fulfill his role but, once again- A. That's not necessarily true, and B. There's a limited number of people who could take this role. With said time machine I could eventually rid the world of such deeds.

 

We have no idea what the repercussions of doing something as drastic as enforcing a new law on 300 million people. It may go well or it may not go well.

Further removing Stalin and then someone else and so on and so forth, until we get a good timeline, could take hundreds of years....We couldn't just go back remove Hitler and then come back, realise Stalin did something and go back and then get rid of him...We would have to get a text book or something and find out what went wrong and each change we made would take time further and further away from our perspective....It could be that by removing Hitler the British Empire never crumbled and the USA remained in economic decline until the 1960s when finally it went bust and 140 million people died of starvation. In that timeline there is no 'one person' to remove.

In our 'executive power' machine we would do something and then have to wait maybe 5 years before we saw all the repercussions, and then we make another change and another 5 years pass...and this keeps happening, with matters getting more an more distorted until eventually we have lost sight of our goal.

I mean look at this debate, we have gone off on loads of tangents and it has only been a few days...We would be correcting the injustices of the injustices of the injustices and would probably be recreating the same injustices we originally set out to avoid.

 

Other than that, I'd like to add that- efnrocing gay marriage is in no way the same as killing Hitler because it truthfuly wouldn't have as much impact. You're forgetting that it's simply a new right empowered with a formal frame, is all.

Chaos theory...a small change at the start can lead to massive changes further down the line.

 

Also, it is not a gamble, and the odds are not against you. If you really want to name it, I'd call it an educated guess, even though I believe the name still doesn't quite hit the target.

For some reason, I have the impression that you expect the world to enrage itself over gay marriage implemention, that we'd see riots everywhere, people burning down governments and whatnot. If we don't add the dazzle around it, I doubt people would still talk about it in two weeks, and I think that time frame is still too much.

 

Actually I just see people resenting homosexuality...its not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things...But if you had the chance to stop one death in world war two then you would take it.

 

I also doubt the world would laregly and entiely accept gays as equals in any way in 5 generation, if we stick to our current approach.

Why? You have not seen the results I have seen. Within the space of only a couple of years I have have changed maybe 200 people's minds. Within the space of 50 years homosexuality has gone from evil to tolerated...

The path is slow and ardous, but it is not like we are not moving.

 

Injustice is standing straight. We could decide we want to try and bend it 1/10 of a millimeter at a time, and hope it won't fight back.

Hehe, I have this image of you hitting it with a hammer and having it spring back to smack you in the face.

Anyway.

Injustice is not standing straight. Injustice is at some degree and is constantly moving between the degrees depending on societies needs. It is a social injustice that people starve while other people waste food, but it would also be an injustice to take the food from those who have enough merely because they have enough...If people have worked for their food then they should have it.

Injustice will Always fight back and you just have to hope that the people around you will be on your side and that together you can overwhelm the injustices.

 

Or we could simply make it disappear at a cost lower than you seem to think of

Sigh. We could eliminate injustice by exterminating all the gay people too. That has a fairly low cost...Say 15% of the population, thats 1,050,000,000... Which seems like alot, but really thats only the privately owned firepower of the USA...200 million guns, assuming they are all handguns with 9 bullet clips that is 1,800,000,000 bullets. So really the cost is very low indeed, there is actually no government outlay at all. Further think of the food and housing and healthcare and all of the other things you could save...and, as we all know, gay people are hairdressers and fashion designers, so we are not making any loss in revenues. Hell you might even make a net gain.

Another reasoned(full of holes) and logical(With false premises) argument... Just to prove how very easy it is to make one when your views are subjective.

 

 

Deminishing that injustice also does not create new injustices- gays are getting their right to marry, no other rights are taken away. Simply put.

The right to practice Religion is slightly hurt.

Even by your own tongue you do not accept that no rights are damaged.

You are just doing what the people you proclaim to be stopping are doing...Ignoring the inconvinent facts in the hopes that people will blindly follow your utopian view of the world, down the road to injustice.

[Romy]

No offence, but most of what you said is nonesense.

 

However, I'm tired of that discussion and also think you're too arrogant to even have a 100% proper discussion.

 

I'm also aware of how unreliable it sounds. I don't care much for that though, both because I think we've come down to personal lines, and because I know (and assume you probably do aswell) that this discussion wouldn't lead to a change).

[archimage_a]

Sigh. I agree. You don't seem to be getting my points and, while I accept some of your points, most of them have flaws that I can see and you seemingly can't...or seem to think they are added bonuses, not flaws.

 

Shame about the arrogance part, it has actually made me want to write something, but I am not sure what...

On the one hand I don't see myself as arrogant, I see myself as confident.

On the other I can understand that you don't understand why I am confident and thus come to the conclusion that I am arrogant because I have 'unwarrented' confidence in my abilities.

Whereas I understand why you are confident, because I understand your points and so don't see you as arrogant.

Which I guess you will take as proof you are not arrogant, but consider that I have agreed with you more times than you have agreed with me, so which one of us is more prideful in our abilities...

 

 

Anyway, I enjoyed some of it and I have gained much(and it has definately changed my mind, though probably not the changes you wanted =P) so thank you for debating with me.

[Zierro]

but consider that I have agreed with you more times than you have agreed with me, so which one of us is more prideful in our abilities

 

Maybe he's she's just more convincing? :P

 

EDIT: Sorry, I always assume TIFers are guys.

[archimage_a]

Possibly.

Or we just happened to agree on things he said but not on the things that I said. :roll:

[Range_This11]

This has gone on for....4 pages? Hell, I'd have given up after 3 posts.

[Romy]

Sigh. I agree. You don't seem to be getting my points and, while I accept some of your points, most of them have flaws that I can see and you seemingly can't...or seem to think they are added bonuses, not flaws.

 

Shame about the arrogance part, it has actually made me want to write something, but I am not sure what...

On the one hand I don't see myself as arrogant, I see myself as confident.

On the other I can understand that you don't understand why I am confident and thus come to the conclusion that I am arrogant because I have 'unwarrented' confidence in my abilities.

Whereas I understand why you are confident, because I understand your points and so don't see you as arrogant.

Which I guess you will take as proof you are not arrogant, but consider that I have agreed with you more times than you have agreed with me, so which one of us is more prideful in our abilities...

 

 

Anyway, I enjoyed some of it and I have gained much(and it has definately changed my mind, though probably not the changes you wanted =P) so thank you for debating with me.

 

 

I still see it as arrogance, but meh.

 

 

 

I'm a girl by the way.

[archimage_a]

I had been wondering. Girls seem to have a much higher tendancy to call me arrogant. Guys are more likely to say they don't get it.

[Romy]

I had been wondering. Girls seem to have a much higher tendancy to call me arrogant. Guys are more likely to say they don't get it.

That's sexist :P.

 

 

Also, I could deduce from what you said that you think I don't get you, and is why I think you're arrogant. Wouldn't that further prove you are arrogant? (Lol, I just can't help arguing...)

[meol]

This has gone on for....4 pages? Hell, I'd have given up after 3 posts.

I tried to join in at the very beginning and failed miserably after the second post.

 

Anyway, archimage, you are failing to realise that homosexual marriage is already a reality in several countries in the world, and many more already have some kind of registered partnership or civil union, with large approval by the population. Also, the Church of Sweden itself was a promoter of marriage equality, if I'm not mistaken, so I'd say that there's no necessary link between it and the loss of freedoms you claim about. Unless your claim is that specifically the American culture is "not ready", then I see no basis for your fear and the necessity of working so slowly. After all, these movements have gathered strength for several decades now, at least in the West.

 

And I still don't understand what's the point with arguing about moral relativism.

[Romy]

This has gone on for....4 pages? Hell, I'd have given up after 3 posts.

I tried to join in at the very beginning and failed miserably after the second post.

 

Anyway, archimage, you are failing to realise that homosexual marriage is already a reality in several countries in the world, and many more already have some kind of registered partnership or civil union, with large approval by the population. Also, the Church of Sweden itself was a promoter of marriage equality, if I'm not mistaken, so I'd say that there's no necessary link between it and the loss of freedoms you claim about. Unless your claim is that specifically the American culture is "not ready", then I see no basis for your fear and the necessity of working so slowly. After all, these movements have gathered strength for several decades now, at least in the West.

 

And I still don't understand what's the point with arguing about moral relativism.

 

I think he stated he's from Britain somewhere along the argument, so I think he's talking about the British population?

 

As for the argument about righteousness... I said I think we should be fighting for what's right, Archimage asked who's to decide who is right... Tthat's about where it started.

[Emmentail]

Well... What do you expect. America isn't exactly the most liberal of countries even in the 21st century. Old generation democrats voted against their own presidential candidate because he was black!

 

Give it a good 50 years when all the old evangelical christian gits have died off and things 'might' start improving..

[meol]

Oh, my bad. I don't know why I assumed that everyone in the forums was American. :razz: The point still stands, though. There are countries embracing equality at the other side of the English Channel. But I now understand his point better. Progress will take much longer in England with the whole State Church.

[archimage_a]

Also, I could deduce from what you said that you think I don't get you, and is why I think you're arrogant. Wouldn't that further prove you are arrogant? (Lol, I just can't help arguing...)

 

You did say it was nonsence...which kind of implies you don't get it. Up until then I thought you simply differed in your view point...Which would kind of point to you not understanding (Its great isn't it)

 

@ Meol:

I am not arguing against gay marriage...

This thread is about New Jersey banning gay marriage. Romy thinks(or seems to think) that the moral minority should bypass the voting process and just force gay rights.

So my argument is that if the majority says 'no' then fair enough, it is not the right time.

 

Then we went off on alot of tangents trying to explain why I thought one thing and she thought another.

 

As for the CofE(Church of England) progress is going much more smoothly than you seem to imply.

While it is true that currently we don't allow gay people to marry it could quite simply be that gay people with a British background are not that bothered about getting married. I am not, probably 90% of my gay friends are not...And probably about 90% of my straight friends are not that bothered about getting married either...

"Find someone, move intogether, have a couple of kids and then some grandkids" seems to be the general gist of people's wants from life, in Britian(or at least the 12-21 and 30-60 brackets I seem to interact with).

Its just not, seemingly, a driving force in British Culture.

 

Course, a slightly sexist point, women seem more bothered about marriage than men. In my experiance British Males just see a marriage as a lot of effort with no reward, British Females see marriage as a life goal.

(Though I disagree with the notion that it is possible to be sexist, we embrace differences in sex, we don't ignore them...)

[Romy]

Also, I could deduce from what you said that you think I don't get you, and is why I think you're arrogant. Wouldn't that further prove you are arrogant? (Lol, I just can't help arguing...)

 

You did say it was nonsence...which kind of implies you don't get it. Up until then I thought you simply differed in your view point...Which would kind of point to you not understanding (Its great isn't it)

 

 

I said it was nonsense because, for instance-

 

 

 

Deminishing that injustice also does not create new injustices- gays are getting their right to marry, no other rights are taken away. Simply put.

The right to practice Religion is slightly hurt.

Even by your own tongue you do not accept that no rights are damaged.

You are just doing what the people you proclaim to be stopping are doing...Ignoring the inconvinent facts in the hopes that people will blindly follow your utopian view of the world, down the road to injustice.

 

Pointing out that I said a right is slightly hurt (alongst cutting off the part where I explained why it's still "okay"), is petty, and insignificant. That, along with the fact that reading through your post makes me a bit discomfort (because I feel that your points have come down to personal lines. Whether it's true or not, doesn't matter), led me to say that I think it's nonesense.

[archimage_a]

Cutting out the bit where you explain why it is still okay is extranous.

'One right is slightly damaged'

'No rights are damaged'

They contradict each other, no matter what arguement you give to justify the damage.

 

Yeah we have come down to personal lines.

We both strongly believe in the cause we are fight for and, while I maintain an objective distance, you are emotionally involved.

So I am more insensitve about things than you are... Its not a bad thing but you take the points to heart where as I take them in my stride.

[Romy]

Cutting out the bit where you explain why it is still okay is extranous.

'One right is slightly damaged'

'No rights are damaged'

They contradict each other, no matter what arguement you give to justify the damage.

 

Is why I said you're petty.

 

Yeah we have come down to personal lines.

We both strongly believe in the cause we are fight for and, while I maintain an objective distance, you are emotionally involved.

So I am more insensitve about things than you are... Its not a bad thing but you take the points to heart where as I take them in my stride.

I have not taken the points to heart. Perhaps the cause, but not the points...

[archimage_a]

Its hardly petty when you make a defacto statement...Merely expediant as it has already been shown that it is not true...

[Romy]

Its hardly petty when you make a defacto statement...Merely expediant as it has already been shown that it is not true...

 

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.

 

It's true that the 2 statements contrafict each other if you are to take them literally. It's petty to point it out because I proved that as much as the right to pracitce religion is slightly hurt, it's not something that should even be calculated in the final result... because of what's quoted 2 lines up.

 

 

Are you offended because I said I think you're arrogant? Is that it :S?

[archimage_a]

A little bit, I guess.

To be called arrogant is like being slapped in the face and told that trying to understand things is pointless, just accept what is.

When you are someone like me, who probably spends 40%-50% of their time humbly serving others, being told that you have unwarranted pride is unfathomably offensive.

When you are someone like me, who probably spends 20%-30% of their time reflecting on their experiences and the way other people act and the way the world works, being told that you are presumptuous, to an extreme, is mind-boggling.

 

I freely admit I am condescending. I know that I am domineering...but arrogance...arrogance is a weapon of a word, wielded at those who strive to help others when the help is resented or denied. For me, someone who waits to be asked their opinion or advice as oppose to proclaim the answer for all to hear, it just is a slap in the face....I really don't know how else to put it.

 

 

 

Oh, and your point... We have already agreed that my views are different from yours.

For me one small stone in the river of lava is one small stone too many.

I guess I thought you would understand.

I apologise for my arrogance.