Hawkeye446's forum posts

#1 Posted by Hawkeye446 (3940 posts) - - Show Bio

@satyrgod said:

@Batnandez: Granted I could argue that a developmentally delayed black kid in Africa would almost certainly be a better actor than Brad Pitt, I don't think that answers your query. From a humanistic perspective, yes, they are equal; all life is sacred. The delayed child offers unconditional love and brings joy to the community, not just play-acting in multi-million dollar flops spewed out by the Hollywood machine and vapidly consumed by a public so bored and unimaginative that they fail to even conceive how much good they could potentially do within the context of a global society. All of us have the same basic rights for happiness, health, hope. Even Brad Pitt.

This is quite possibly the greatest thing I have ever read, for a varied multitude of reasons.

@Batnandez said:

@satyrgod: What? That's a stretch, what about the girl who was forcefully raped everyday in her dads basement. What because she have him orgasms her life was as worthwhile as someone elses? Was Hitler's life as valuable as Gandhi's? Not all life is worth the same and it's certainly not equally as sacred.

People are NOT equal. My skill set may be more useful in the world then others. If some people disappeared from the earth no one would notice. Others play a major role in world events. Some people by their choices choose to downgrade themselves and some people choose to upgrade themselves. Regardless of that, marriage is a basic right that all should have.

Mhmhmhm, what are your points trying to establish? How does one's accomplishments equate to their worth? People are inherently equal. A life is a life. We are all human beings at our core, we don't deserve to be mistreated for any trivial reasons like our race, gender or sexual preference, or even religion.

#2 Edited by Hawkeye446 (3940 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@soduh2 said:

Disclaimer: I've mentioned this here before, but i want to get this point out. Politically I stay out of the same sex marriage debate. My religious viewpoint primarily dictates my view on the issue (against) but I don't believe in using religion to force people to live a certain way. I'm betting Same sex marriage will be legalized this year or at least the near future. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that it's necessary from a secular standpoint either.

@lykopis: It's not a "preference" to love someone of your own gender. Right there is where your argument falters. It's biased from the get go.

Biased towards what? The definition of marriage wasn't formulated at the expense of same sex attracted people. Even a lot of cultures throughout history that have/had same sex relationships had a seperate union for them. Unless the same sex union metaphorically fulfulled the male and female roles (native American two-spirits come to mind). If anything, opening the definition of marriage is biased in favor of same sex individuals. Its disingenuous to say that "love" is the only factor here, another one of those tactics used to oversimplify the situation.

Two consenting adults -- it covers everything

For now. But like I said before, historically we tend to overlook the far reaching consequences of social changes. As I said to King Saturn, Seperate but equal was formulated to prevent Blacks and Whites living together (a predicted consequence of ending slavery), two consenting adults works like seperate but equal here. Same Sex marriage does not exist in a sociopolitical vacuum.

Tactics used to oversimplify what situation? It IS simple. It's those who are against same-sex marriage who make it complicated with convoluted religious and/or social "reasons." Again, I put to you as I have others, what is the problem with marriage being defined as between two consulting adults? What is the problem with redefining the word? What will this effect? I cannot fathom why anyone would object to any of this --- frankly this is none of anyone's business but for the people who choose to marry each other.

Who claimed love is the only factor here? There are many, many reasons for marriage -- children (yes, homosexuals have children and furthermore, preference is put towards married couples for adoption), property, benefits (health and others) which are exclusive to spouses. There are couples who have been together for years -- and when one is in the hospital, important decisions are out over to the next of kin -- which is NOT their partner ---property is not inherited by the surviving partner because of other relatives contesting wills --- so when you posit that things are oversimplified tactically, it further undermines your stance.

Change the definition of marriage from a union between a man and a woman to between two consenting adults. A simple, long overdue revision. What's complicated is why there is any noise made towards the use of the word marriage --- it is not exclusive to religion -- there are rights and privileges assigned to those who choose to marry outside of any religious worth placed onto it and for that alone, it's a legal term. Separate marriage from the government and call every union a civil one.

The word does not belong to anyone -- it belongs to everyone.

As for slavery -- separate but equal was wrong. This is the same. Anything that excludes a group of people from the freedoms and protections afforded others is discriminatory and archaic.

I do agree with you about same sex marriage not existing in a sociopolitical vacuum. Human rights is not a political movement -- hence why countries around the world are recognizing as such. Insisting on something as silly as a word is equivalent to a sulking child who discovers the new student in class shares the same birthday and so no longer feels unique.

Get over yourselves.

Bang, zoom, straight to the moon! I like your style, kid.

@lykopis said:

@soduh2:

I suggest you read through this thread again when you do have the time to do so, considering your contributions to it. There have been an incredible amount of information in regards to same sex marriage -- not a subjective and short-sighted habberdash of comments. The elaboration is there -- you choosing to ignore it is on you. Each post does not need to be a regurgitation of detailed posts peppered throughout this thread -- to most people on this thread same-sex marriage being right is obvious. Right and wrong --- it's that identifiable.

Power of attorney can only go so far --- you have not addressed my points in regards to adoption and child-support. Any relative of any person can challenge a power of attorney or will when someone outside of a spouse is a beneficiary or is identified in a power of attorney. These type of litigation is in itself a travesty and a road traveled by malicious and vindictive relatives who more likely than not, disapproved of the homosexual relationship.

Wanting to support same sex marriage but stating your perspective due to your religion makes you unable to plainly reflects your bigotry. Your stance speaks for itself.

Do you agree slavery is wrong?

Do you agree segregation is wrong?

Do you agree racial discrimination is wrong?

The law does and so supports the above three statements. Regardless whether abolitionists intended for the law to only support the eradication of slavery -- equality of all people -- all human beings -- would have been reflected in time. Do you believe had the abolitionists been aware former slaves would be afforded the same rights as them they would have never supported President Lincoln? Do you believe President Lincoln would never end slavery had he been aware kidnapped Africans and their descendants would become American citizens themselves with the same rights as he and his descendents?

Now, let's consider the sentence below:

Pedophilia is wrong.

The law reflects its agreement with that position - pedophilia is against the law. How is adjusting a law to be inclusive of groups who were previously excluded for no reason other than their sexual orientation infer pedophilia could become legal? How would the argument pedophilia be considered legal possibly mirror those presented by same sex marriage advocates? One is an abhorrent practice -- the other rectifies an injustice.

Are you drawing a parallel between segregation and pedophilia? Are you suggesting should the definition of marriage be changed to reflect the union of two consenting adults, pedophilia being legal could be a reality? This is the direction you see the law diving into should same sex MARRIAGE be allowed? To break it down even further for you -- are you suggesting slavery ending and the ensuing fallout of continued human rights recognizance because of it should be held up as an example of citizens' true intent to change law being able to turn into something modern society does not want -- something as abhorrent as pedophilia?

It doesn't make sense -- not at all. I am addressing your suppositions only because you have brought them up repeatedly but sincerely, I really don't need to. Common sense and a sincere sense of right and wrong precludes any possibility of what you claim as becoming a reality. This is why:

Sex with children is illegal. It will remain illegal. Please put forward an argument which would support its possibility based on the changing of the definition of marriage. If you can't (outside of trite, non-binding opinions about other religions which allow such practices) then don't hold it up as a road which can be traveled down. A young girl who is physically developed enough to become pregnant through sexual intercourse does not mean she is ready for a sexual relationship. Emotional and mental maturity is required -- usually acquired by the time they become the age society and law considers adult. Yes, there are countries which allow child marriage -- not just between children, but between full grown adult men and young girls. It's disgusting, revolting and should be reviled and recognized by the world as the abomination it is. Why do you think this is? Do you think these societies sat down and after much discussion in which all segments of their populace participated -- determined child marriage was acceptable? Or do you think religion might have played a part in it?

I will let you guess -- but here's a big hint: Women and children are not exactly sought out for their positions in matters of the state in countries where this practice is allowed.

I have no idea why you would bring up such topics --- do you think a Muslim will come to the United States and expect his religious "right" to marry his eight year old daughter to a sixty year old man be unchallenged? Because of same sex marriage being accepted into law? Since your perspective is guided by your religion, will you support this individual's religious perspective to be protected, his traditional practices to be safeguarded just as yours is? Will you stand in solidarity with parents who insist their children adhere to arranged marriages? There is more -- but ultimately my point is -- will you support religious practices which involve the abuse and subjucation of children? Women? Young men forced to marry girls they never met before? This is not exclusive to extreme Islam or Hinduism (and others). Fringe Mormon groups frequently have young, underage girls "married" to much older men, joining their sister-wives. This is in their gospel -- why not, right?

I am very heartened to hear marriage is on the decline. I don't believe in it (outside of the protection it provides in a legal sense which I resent but that's for another thread). But hey, maybe those numbers will rise again because of same-sex marriage and children will continue to be raised in homes where the parents love each other and them -- children will grow up knowing mommy and mom are married and recognized by society as a true, married couple and that Dad and Poppa won't have to defer to a lover's parent when a tragedy occurs because the society they live in refuses to identify them as their significant other. I have yet to see an argument put forward by you proving changing the meaning of marriage to two consenting adults is in any way detrimental to society outside of irrelevant comments about past greek practices and whether sex should/could be determined by physical rather than mental/emotional maturity.

Discussion is great. I will always want to partake in it -- opposing viewpoints should be encouraged, there will always be something of worth to be learned. Whether its a true exchange of knowledge, or the awareness of ignorance -- the experience will always be worth it in my opinion.

This is so great as well.

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@satyrgod:

Only Christians? Ever see what the Aztecs did to non-believers?

Or how about how the Romans used Christ following Jews into living lanterns by setting them on fire and keeping them lit during the night on the major road ways.

Emperor Nero leveled a city in order to place the blame on Christians, with legends stating he played an instrument while the city of Rome was burning behind him.

Oh yeah, Christians are so freaking evil. It's probably why so many of them are being butchered like cows in the Middle East in places like Egypt.

Keep in mind your bringing up a dense history which is completely irrelevant. The Ancient Greeks and Azteks have no role in protesting to gay marriage.

You make the assumption all Christians deny civil liberties involving gays. Not true. Most simply don't care if you're straight or gay as long as it isn't paraded in front of them and their children (ex. Do people HAVE to make out in public when people are watching?). They really do start caring when MARRIAGE is involved, because MARRIAGE has always been about men and women until this day and age.

What about straight folks kissing in public? Why bring up something like gays kissing in public as a reason to complain about homosexuals? Heteros do it too. As would Christians. You are generalising.

Too, the very way you structure the last sentence is archaic. They are angry because something is changing? Change is natural, inevitable and healthy. Many aspects of life have changed since the bible was written, again focusing on a minute and specific example as gay marriage is unreasonable.

These may not even be your views, but then speaking on behalf of a majority of Christians and how they view gays does not in any way rectify such a situation.

And I just saw this:

You want to rant about how gays get nothing?

No one has or was doing that.

#3 Posted by Hawkeye446 (3940 posts) - - Show Bio

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: What's your opinion on homosexuals?

#4 Posted by Hawkeye446 (3940 posts) - - Show Bio

@Batnandez said:

@Hawkeye446: people aren't equal though, but it's more complicated than gender or race

you can even make moral arguments for one life being worth more than another

.. OR sexual preference. Yet people get discriminated against for it. I'm saying people should be treated equally and fairly.

#6 Posted by Hawkeye446 (3940 posts) - - Show Bio

Each day on this planet affords me more and more understanding that this futile debate is ridiculous. Equality is the only correct answer. Nothing should impeach on the individual rights of a person when they do nothing but feel and love in their own right. In years to come people will be disgusted with the mistreatment of LGBT folks and all the other minorities who receive unfair judgement and criticism for who they are.

Grow up.

Yay for Gay!

@Batnandez said:

Marriage is archaic

Intolerance, more so (but I agree).

#7 Posted by Hawkeye446 (3940 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jokergeist: Haha, well unfortunately I bought it from an Opportunity/Thrift Shop. One off type thing.

#8 Posted by Hawkeye446 (3940 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis said:

@Project_Worm said:

@Decoy Elite said:

I should mention almost the entire art forum. Nicest section on CV.

DEFINITELY!! I could draw a poop and call it Cyclops and at least a handfull will say something like "Well you have good pencil strokes, keep practicing you have some real potential."...

LOL --- aww, it's true and I love it. Art Forums for the win. :)

@ragdollpurps said:

@Hawkeye446 said:

@ragdollpurps

You must have shared whatever Sera was smoking. :p

He's a mooch.

Sex God*.

#9 Posted by Hawkeye446 (3940 posts) - - Show Bio

@ragdollpurps said:

@Hawkeye446 said:

@ragdollpurps

You must have shared whatever Sera was smoking. :p

Hehe :P

#10 Edited by Hawkeye446 (3940 posts) - - Show Bio

~