Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Whatever happened to...
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 2510938" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>That's the great thing about gays. If you don't want to be one, you don't have to. However, what you're doing isn't a lack of support, it's opposition. Look at it this way: </p><p></p><p>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."</p><p></p><p>That was so important that it was enshrined in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. While we all may differ in what that means exactly, I don't think it's unrealistic to say that if someone feels the ability to bind themselves to another in a legal sense, will allow them to feel their liberty and pursuit of happiness will be fulfilled by doing so, who is another person to say they shouldnt be allowed to? How does it injure you when you arent a party to that contract? </p><p></p><p>Taken another way, we always lament when anti-gun people try to tell us gun owners what we should or should not legally be allowed to have. How does it injure them when I happen to have a certain type or number of guns in my possession? Simple, it doesnt. Theyre being busybodies who assume that they can interfere with my liberty and pursuit of happiness to suit their feelings. When you say that gays should not be allowed to legally marry, how is that any different? </p><p></p><p>Look, I used to feel the same way. My viewpoints changed when I realized it was hypocritical for me to assume that my opinion should have any binding effect on what made someone else happy in their own life. My rights end where their nose begins, so I no longer oppose gay marriage. I dont have to support it, because it doesnt have any effect on me whatsoever. I might support it if I felt that my support would lead many gays to support my rights to own whatever made me happy. </p><p></p><p>Ultimately, whatever anyone does that does not harm others should be allowed. No one has to like it beyond those who partake in that endeavor. Only when it becomes harmful to society at large should steps be taken. Still yet, in most cases those steps should be directed at the individual(s) responsible for the harm, and not restrictions on society as a whole. JMO, YMMV</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 2510938, member: 1132"] That's the great thing about gays. If you don't want to be one, you don't have to. However, what you're doing isn't a lack of support, it's opposition. Look at it this way: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That was so important that it was enshrined in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. While we all may differ in what that means exactly, I don't think it's unrealistic to say that if someone feels the ability to bind themselves to another in a legal sense, will allow them to feel their liberty and pursuit of happiness will be fulfilled by doing so, who is another person to say they shouldnt be allowed to? How does it injure you when you arent a party to that contract? Taken another way, we always lament when anti-gun people try to tell us gun owners what we should or should not legally be allowed to have. How does it injure them when I happen to have a certain type or number of guns in my possession? Simple, it doesnt. Theyre being busybodies who assume that they can interfere with my liberty and pursuit of happiness to suit their feelings. When you say that gays should not be allowed to legally marry, how is that any different? Look, I used to feel the same way. My viewpoints changed when I realized it was hypocritical for me to assume that my opinion should have any binding effect on what made someone else happy in their own life. My rights end where their nose begins, so I no longer oppose gay marriage. I dont have to support it, because it doesnt have any effect on me whatsoever. I might support it if I felt that my support would lead many gays to support my rights to own whatever made me happy. Ultimately, whatever anyone does that does not harm others should be allowed. No one has to like it beyond those who partake in that endeavor. Only when it becomes harmful to society at large should steps be taken. Still yet, in most cases those steps should be directed at the individual(s) responsible for the harm, and not restrictions on society as a whole. JMO, YMMV [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Whatever happened to...
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom