Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dingdongs

Marriage Equality

Should Same Sex Marriage be legal or illegal?  

509 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Same Sex Marriage be legal or illegal?

    • It should be legal
      364
    • It should be illegal
      124


Recommended Posts

bobgtafan

Hey have you guys ever noticed that in histories eyes conservatives are always wrong? The pro slavery guys wrong, anti women rights wrong, free market wrong, racist agenda wrong, pro segreatation wrong, anti interracial marriages wrong, now anit gay marraigers will be deemed idiots by history once more what a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony
Hey have you guys ever noticed that in histories eyes conservatives are always wrong? The pro slavery guys wrong, anti women rights wrong, free market wrong, racist agenda wrong, pro segreatation wrong, anti interracial marriages wrong, now anit gay marraigers will be deemed idiots by history once more what a shame.

I don't know if you've noticed, but these things aren't a case of "all conservatives take one side, all liberals take another". It's not black and white. What I mean by this, is that not all conservatives oppose gay marriage and not all liberals are for it, same goes for all of the other things you mentioned.

 

Oh, and it was the Democrats who were pro slavery, not the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lloydo

 

I don't think it should be legal, religiously, politically and scientifically i think it's just wrong. I think here is a link between religion and science, here society has broken down so far that the structure of human survival is halted.

 

 

 

How is it scientifically wrong? How does homosexuality break down the structure of human survival?

 

 

 

Nontheless, the human mind is complex, it is natural that a matter such as same-sex feelings become more than friendly and much more serious.

 

 

 

So what? Who are you to dictate what two people do privately?

 

 

 

I think each human has the right to express their feelings,

 

 

Then why are you against gay marriage?

 

 

 

In health terms, same-sex intercourse is just not meant to happen, it leads to infections and diseases.

 

Who says it's not meant to happen?

 

So does male-female unprotected sex. Please backup what you're saying instead of making ludicrous claims.

 

 

 

Although male-female intercourse can cause the same problems in health terms, it too has been degraded.

 

 

How?

 

 

Marrriage should be kept for men and women, it's much more than tradition, it's the way of life.

 

 

How is it a way of life? Let me restate what I said before: Who are you to dictate how people live their life? And who are you to decide the so called " way of life " ?

Scientifically, in terms of evoloution, the male and female of the species like any other has evolved to connect in order to reproduce the next generation and so on. Thereby ensuring the survival of the human. Homosexuality on the other hand allows the same sex to come together and block the reproduction system, laboratory babies are simply not natural.

 

Why should I dictate? I am not dictating, i'm only stating my opinion in the hope of influencing others. I don't care what people do privately, that's their own concern, but i see homosexuality as negative and destructive on humanity. The female and male bodies were created specifially to connect, when male-male connect, there is obviously something going wrong.

 

I do believe each human has the right to express their feelings, that's part of democracy. But marriage for same-sex relationships is just too far, the male and female are meant to create a family, they are meant to create a father influence and a mother influence. Thus the child can grow into an enviroment safely with the feeling of family influence. I know many come across natural problems such as becoming attracted to the same sex, the sole cause is unknown for sure, maybe it's being in the same sex's company for too long, nobody knows. What i do know is that there is a problem which needs to be dealt with.

 

The structure of the male and female bodies are clearly made for sexual intercourse, i don't know how much more clear 'gay-sex' shows that it simply is not natural. A man sticking his penis into another man's ass simply is not right. Studies have shown that 'gay-sex' is a sure way to create infections and diseases which are uncontrolable. Yes the same can be said for male-female relationships, but that is only because of the indivuals being over sexually active and picking up God knows what along the way from multiple partners. Religiously i believe God created the male and female to reproduce, the fact that individuality was also given to us, implies a test of somesort.

 

Marriage is a way of life, it is a bond to prevent such humans from navigating around multiple partners, it is an invisible trust to prevent society becoming so degraded it relies on sexual lust for entertainment. If it is carried out correctly, then the youth can look at it and work their way towards it also. Again i can give my opinion any way i please, you fail to see the reality of the human mind, the way it takes advantage of every freedom given to it. If there were more people like myself, maybe then society could be more orderly and mature.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Considering there are already 6 billion humans, a few people having gay sex won't harm any body. Need I remind you plenty of heterosexuals who choose not to have children. And if it's so religiously unnatural, why did God make some naturally homosexual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnia sunt Communia

 

Scientifically, in terms of evoloution, the male and female of the species like any other has evolved to connect in order to reproduce the next generation and so on. Thereby ensuring the survival of the human. Homosexuality on the other hand allows the same sex to come together and block the reproduction system, laboratory babies are simply not natural.

 

Contraception blocks the reproductive system. Are you against that too? Sexual intercourse has evolved beyond the point where it was used solely for creating off-spring. A small percentage of people actually have sex with the purpose of impregnation. Sex has become something so much more than just reproduction; it has become a way of expressing love (for some) and lust (for others). That applies to everyone and not just heterosexuals.

 

 

Why should I dictate? I am not dictating, i'm only stating my opinion in the hope of influencing others. I don't care what people do privately, that's their own concern, but i see homosexuality as negative and destructive on humanity. The female and male bodies were created specifially to connect, when male-male connect, there is obviously something going wrong.

 

While that may be true, it isn't necessarily the case anymore. Masturbation, oral sex, anal sex - all of which are common sexual practices - go against the way the human body was meant to connect. I don't think we were designed to insert our penises into someone's mouth or our fingers into someone's orifices. These are all practices that go against what we were 'designed' to do.

 

 

I do believe each human has the right to express their feelings, that's part of democracy. But marriage for same-sex relationships is just too far, the male and female are meant to create a family, they are meant to create a father influence and a mother influence. Thus the child can grow into an enviroment safely with the feeling of family influence. I know many come across natural problems such as becoming attracted to the same sex, the sole cause is unknown for sure, maybe it's being in the same sex's company for too long, nobody knows. What i do know is that there is a problem which needs to be dealt with.

 

Marriage is not about creating a family, it is meant to be about expressing your love for another person. Who said that male-female couples who marry will produce children? Who said they will create a family? Who said same-sex couples will? Just because you are married does not mean you are obligated to start a family; that is an outdated way of thinking.

 

Not to mention the fact that most same sex couples will already have predetermined gender roles. One partner will act as the "father" or "male" and the other will act like the "mother" or "female." Just because a child is being raised by two males does not mean that he will lack an female influence; this role is usually filled by one of the two partners. Sometimes heterosexual couples will not stick to their usual gender roles; sometimes the male will fill the role of the "mother" while the female fits the "father" role much better.

 

Stating that homosexual parents will lead to homosexual children is absurd. There is no scientific evidence to back that up; not to mention the fact that plenty of heterosexual couples produce homosexula children. How do you explain that? Most homosexuals come from heterosexual parents, as a matter of fact.

 

Nobody knows the cause of homosexuality; whether it is genetic or whether it is to do with our lifestyle. I do take offence at you calling it an "problem" though.

 

 

The structure of the male and female bodies are clearly made for sexual intercourse, i don't know how much more clear 'gay-sex' shows that it simply is not natural. A man sticking his penis into another man's ass simply is not right. Studies have shown that 'gay-sex' is a sure way to create infections and diseases which are uncontrolable. Yes the same can be said for male-female relationships, but that is only because of the indivuals being over sexually active and picking up God knows what along the way from multiple partners. Religiously i believe God created the male and female to reproduce, the fact that individuality was also given to us, implies a test of somesort.

 

If we're going to state something as 'not natural' just because you can catch an disease and/or infection from it then you better add heterosexual intercourse to that list. Sexual intercourse can lead to sexually transmitted infections regardless of sexuality. You don't need to sleep around to get one either. Anyone can catch them, even virgins who've just had sex for the first time. Notice how there are no differences between the diseases caught by heterosexuals and homosexuals; both groups of people can catch the same ones (accept AIDS, if you believe right-wing propaganda). There are no 'straight diseases' or 'homosexual diseases', there is only 'sexually transmitted diseases.'

 

 

Marriage is a way of life, it is a bond to prevent such humans from navigating around multiple partners, it is an invisible trust to prevent society becoming so degraded it relies on sexual lust for entertainment. If it is carried out correctly, then the youth can look at it and work their way towards it also. Again i can give my opinion any way i please, you fail to see the reality of the human mind, the way it takes advantage of every freedom given to it. If there were more people like myself, maybe then society could be more orderly and mature.

 

I do adore how you start off by saying that gay sex is wrong because 'it's not natural' then go on to say how we should all stick to one sexual partner. That is not natural. We, as animals, are designed to have multiple partners. Lust is a bi-product of that, created to make us want to do what we're supposed to do. Religion created these rules and traditions to suppress our natural feelings in order to gain control. Half of what religion speaks out about goes against what is natural. Therefore don't try and use it in your defence.

Edited by Jacky Fiend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Jacky, I 100% agree.

 

While personally heterosexual, if homosexuality is so wrong for "religious reason", why the HELL did God make it in the first place, and then make people gay through no choice of their own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
Hey have you guys ever noticed that in histories eyes conservatives are always wrong? The pro slavery guys wrong, anti women rights wrong, free market wrong, racist agenda wrong, pro segreatation wrong, anti interracial marriages wrong, now anit gay marraigers will be deemed idiots by history once more what a shame.

I don't know if you've noticed, but these things aren't a case of "all conservatives take one side, all liberals take another". It's not black and white. What I mean by this, is that not all conservatives oppose gay marriage and not all liberals are for it, same goes for all of the other things you mentioned.

 

Oh, and it was the Democrats who were pro slavery, not the Republicans.

See I knew you'd just take the bait. I knew it. First off the democrats that were pro slavery and pro segreation left teh Democratic partyin the 60's to guess who? The southern Replubicains! Aren't you proud! And also I know things aren't just black and white...there are latinos too. Lol but seriously I never said that. And the last thing is not every conservative is against gay marragie but the majority is. tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

Hey have you guys ever noticed that in histories eyes conservatives are always wrong? The pro slavery guys wrong, anti women rights wrong, free market wrong, racist agenda wrong, pro segreatation wrong, anti interracial marriages wrong, now anit gay marraigers will be deemed idiots by history once more what a shame.

I don't know if you've noticed, but these things aren't a case of "all conservatives take one side, all liberals take another". It's not black and white. What I mean by this, is that not all conservatives oppose gay marriage and not all liberals are for it, same goes for all of the other things you mentioned.

 

Oh, and it was the Democrats who were pro slavery, not the Republicans.

See I knew you'd just take the bait. I knew it. First off the democrats that were pro slavery and pro segreation left teh Democratic partyin the 60's to guess who? The southern Replubicains! Aren't you proud! And also I know things aren't just black and white...there are latinos too. Lol but seriously I never said that. And the last thing is not every conservative is against gay marragie but the majority is. tounge.gif

Pretty much. Social conservatives tend to be against gay marriage. Fiscal only conservatives are usually socially progressive.

 

Classic Republicans ( Lincoln, T.R. ) were for civil liberties and more centre left on social policy. Classic Democrats, were more center right on social policy.. Now it's flip flopped- Republicans want to restrict civil rights and liberties because it goes against " traditional values " and Democrats believe in a live and let live policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

Now it's flip flopped- Republicans want to restrict civil rights and liberties because it goes against " traditional values " and Democrats believe in a live and let live policy.

Yeah Irviding, that's exactly what's happening. sarcasm.gif I'm gonna say this again, politics isn't just black and white. I find it rather petty that you always try and use every single debate thread to bash Republicans/conservatives. Honestly, what does that have to do with whether or not gay marriage should be legal?

 

Actually, looking at all your debate threads at the moment, it appears as if they all have the same underlying intention - to bash conservatives. How about making a debate thread without all the partisanship?

Edited by Mad Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

 

and Democrats believe in a live and let live policy.

No they f*cking don't, the sooner everybody realizes this the sooner we everybody will stop voting Democrat (or Republican). Democrats are all about creating a nanny state like The UK, which isn't working out so well for most British. They are fairly selective about which rights they'll let you live with (some speech, some gay rights), why can't we vote someone into office who is all for civil liberties. Not just ignorant pricks who think that only some rights matter. It's just like that Bobgta guy who was all in favor of extremely enforced civil rights, breaking them was under pain of death (kind of defeats his own purpose) and then writes off the second amendment like that doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

Now it's flip flopped- Republicans want to restrict civil rights and liberties because it goes against " traditional values " and Democrats believe in a live and let live policy.

Yeah Irviding, that's exactly what's happening. sarcasm.gif I'm gonna say this again, politics isn't just black and white. I find it rather petty that you always try and use every single debate thread to bash Republicans/conservatives. Honestly, what does that have to do with whether or not gay marriage should be legal?

 

Actually, looking at all your debate threads at the moment, it appears as if they all have the same underlying intention - to bash conservatives. How about making a debate thread without all the partisanship?

What can I say? I don't like conservatives ( I have a strong hatred for family values/social conservatives.. fiscals don't bother me that much though smile.gif

 

Gay marriage is a civil liberty, and I was simply clearing up what you said in a previous post-- at least we can agree that the government is keeping tabs on us biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

 

 

 

No they f*cking don't, the sooner everybody realizes this the sooner we everybody will stop voting Democrat (or Republican). Democrats are all about creating a nanny state like The UK, which isn't working out so well for most British. They are fairly selective about which rights they'll let you live with (some speech, some gay rights), why can't we vote someone into office who is all for civil liberties. Not just ignorant pricks who think that only some rights matter. It's just like that Bobgta guy who was all in favor of extremely enforced civil rights, breaking them was under pain of death (kind of defeats his own purpose) and then writes off the second amendment like that doesn't matter.

 

 

What are you talking about? I don't know what democratic party you're looking at but I don't think we're for creating a nanny state and being selective in civil liberties.. if you have a problem with democrats and republicans, vote Libertarian smile.gif

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
and Democrats believe in a live and let live policy.

No they f*cking don't, the sooner everybody realizes this the sooner we everybody will stop voting Democrat (or Republican). Democrats are all about creating a nanny state like The UK, which isn't working out so well for most British. They are fairly selective about which rights they'll let you live with (some speech, some gay rights), why can't we vote someone into office who is all for civil liberties. Not just ignorant pricks who think that only some rights matter. It's just like that Bobgta guy who was all in favor of extremely enforced civil rights, breaking them was under pain of death (kind of defeats his own purpose) and then writes off the second amendment like that doesn't matter.

Sir I'm sorry to tell you this but you carrying a M-16 in your car is not a "civil right" my freind. Also we Liberals beleive in full freedom of everything! unless your freedom impedes on someone esles like shooting them 15 times in the head or lowing there wages to unbearable or something like that. If you take away someone elses freedom ( there life is the largest, thens there's religion, speech, etc..) then you don't deserve to have yours. O and the Eu's policies are great. I wish we had more programs like theres, ( gun controls, larger penisons, more regulation, more legalistion of drugs in some areas.) but don't worry one day I'm going to open American's eyes to the beauty of not a larger government but a more attative government for THEM. Not a company that doesn't give a ratsass.

 

Back on subject. Let the gay's marry already it's there RIGHT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

Thank you for proving Mike Tequeli's point. You believe in full freedom yet you're for economic regulation and not respecting the 2nd Amendment? It wouldn't be sod bad if you didn't go on about how much you supposedly love freedom, but the fact that you do makes what you're saying look all the more ridiculous. dozingoff.gif Not only that but you just lumped all gun owners together as murders, despite the fact that the large majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
if you have a problem with democrats and republicans, vote Libertarian smile.gif

I would if I could.

 

@Bob - Who says I'm going to shoot anybody with my gun? It isn't the government's right to assume what I'm going to do with my firearms.

 

On Topic - Have you ever resisted something a friend or family member wanted to do, only to realize once it happens it never really changed anything? That happens to me all the time, the moment you realize hardly anything will be different the sooner you can stop wasting your time worrying. This applies to gay marriage, we legalized it ages ago, nobody even cares anymore, even homophobes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asimov

I don't have a problem with gay people, if they want to commit to each other like straight people do in a legal binding way, that's fine, who are we to judge? it's not like legalising it will really change anything, aside from making millions of people happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

Thank you for proving Mike Tequeli's point. You believe in full freedom yet you're for economic regulation and not respecting the 2nd Amendment? It wouldn't be sod bad if you didn't go on about how much you supposedly love freedom, but the fact that you do makes what you're saying look all the more ridiculous.  dozingoff.gif Not only that but you just lumped all gun owners together as murders, despite the fact that the large majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.

 

Liberals believe in liberty and full personal choice. Big business have proven over and over that they cannot regulate themselves- therefore government needs to ensure that they are regulated. There's many different interpretations of the 2nd amendment- some say that " Bear Arms " means all guns should be allowed, some say that it means only certain weapons should be allowed, some say there should be a limit, or some say it means people can hang Bear Arms on their fire mantle ( Family Guy biggrin.gif ) You're interpretation of " respect " is not right or wrong, it's your opinion, as is mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

 

Thank you for proving Mike Tequeli's point. You believe in full freedom yet you're for economic regulation and not respecting the 2nd Amendment? It wouldn't be sod bad if you didn't go on about how much you supposedly love freedom, but the fact that you do makes what you're saying look all the more ridiculous.  dozingoff.gif Not only that but you just lumped all gun owners together as murders, despite the fact that the large majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens.

 

Liberals believe in liberty and full personal choice. Big business have proven over and over that they cannot regulate themselves- therefore government needs to ensure that they are regulated. There's many different interpretations of the 2nd amendment- some say that " Bear Arms " means all guns should be allowed, some say that it means only certain weapons should be allowed, some say there should be a limit, or some say it means people can hang Bear Arms on their fire mantle ( Family Guy biggrin.gif ) You're interpretation of " respect " is not right or wrong, it's your opinion, as is mine.

Irviding here is very smart. Yes I beleive in Personal freedom ( I.e drug usage, sexual, religion, whatever). But remember how a liberal's ideas of freedom works. You can have as much freedom as you want as long as your freedom doesn't impede on other's freedoms. Owning a gun, crime, full economic freedom ( which can led to the impede met of freedoms of workers and consumers) aren't freedoms that should be given to citizens because as I have said they impede on your rights. Two gay's marrying isn't going to hurt you so they should be allowed to be married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

But how is my ownership of a firearm restricting your freedom? It's presumptive of you, I would say I have the same philosophy of freedom that you claim to have, anything that doesn't interfere on others right to life, liberty and property is fine. You still seem to think the state knows best, and that is the problem. If it were up to me, there would be no gay marriage issue because the state would never have gotten in the way in the first place.

 

Tell me, do you think Cocaine and Heroin should be legalized? I do, simply because it was never the state's responsibility to regulate it. You seem to believe that the state should have a monopoly on power in the world, but it should be benevolent and dole out freedoms when possible, it's sort of an enlightened despotism of the modern age. What you fail to realize is that the government is not benevolent and is highly prone to knee jerk reactions to everything. They simply can't be trusted to protect our freedoms all on their own, they should never be given the power to license our marriages or ban guns. If the Chinese Government started giving everybody more freedom of speech and press, their existence would still not be acceptable because they have the power to take it all away again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Statutory Ray

Marriage never was exclusively defined by the church and was never exclusively related to religion in any way. It's a lie made up by the religious right to give them any point other than "we hate gays cuz the bible says so" to deny equal rights to a group they find icky.

 

Marriage was almost always a business arrangement between families, with no romantic or religious connotations involved. The very fact that marriage is at the same time a state-defined and legal union and also restricted based on religious beliefs in America directly opposes the idea of separation of church and state.

 

If you oppose gay marriage or think it's okay if they just get "civil unions" you're pretty much a horrible person and would probably support the same "separate but equal" crap they tried for decades to justify denying blacks equal rights. Any "separate but equal" situation is inherently NOT equal, by virtue of being separate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan
But how is my ownership of a firearm restricting your freedom? It's presumptive of you, I would say I have the same philosophy of freedom that you claim to have, anything that doesn't interfere on others right to life, liberty and property is fine. You still seem to think the state knows best, and that is the problem. If it were up to me, there would be no gay marriage issue because the state would never have gotten in the way in the first place.

 

Tell me, do you think Cocaine and Heroin should be legalized? I do, simply because it was never the state's responsibility to regulate it. You seem to believe that the state should have a monopoly on power in the world, but it should be benevolent and dole out freedoms when possible, it's sort of an enlightened despotism of the modern age. What you fail to realize is that the government is not benevolent and is highly prone to knee jerk reactions to everything. They simply can't be trusted to protect our freedoms all on their own, they should never be given the power to license our marriages or ban guns. If the Chinese Government started giving everybody more freedom of speech and press, their existence would still not be acceptable because they have the power to take it all away again.

You my friend need to take a chill pill with your dislike and mis trust for a DEMOCRACTIC government which is the main problem with your little China agrument. And if the government didn't regulate or even do that much like you are saying these things would happen

 

: Low taxes? Low pubilc services. No education, safety, fire, food standards. Nothing keeping a company from ripping you off.

: No regulation? No limits on how distorted the ecomony could get like the Great Ressccion we are in now.

: No real strong federal government? Employees ripped off from pay standards, Stock holders ripped off more frequently from scams, states fighting and even going to war.

 

Also without the government you would not have

 

Freedom and Democracy across the whole continent

Interstate Highway which has boosted or economy

Health and Safetly standards that make us one of the safest nations of all time.

 

Also as long as you keep Democracy the people can want as much government as they want. If they want less they will vote for less.

 

Back on subject

 

I'm thinking that my parents and even friends will be called 30 years from now homo phobics by history and cast into the same light as segretionaist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

 

You my friend need to take a chill pill with your dislike and mis trust for a DEMOCRACTIC government which is the main problem with your little China agrument. And if the government didn't regulate or even do that much like you are saying these things would happen

 

: Low taxes? Low pubilc services. No education, safety, fire, food standards. Nothing keeping a company from ripping you off.

: No regulation? No limits on how distorted the ecomony could get like the Great Ressccion we are in now.

: No real strong federal government? Employees ripped off from pay standards, Stock holders ripped off more frequently from scams, states fighting and even going to war.

 

Also without the government you would not have

 

Freedom and Democracy across the whole continent

Interstate Highway which has boosted or economy

Health and Safetly standards that make us one of the safest nations of all time.

 

Also as long as you keep Democracy the people can want as much government as they want. If they want less they will vote for less.

 

Back on subject

 

You realize democracy isn't some catch-all solution for all of society's problems, right? Democracy in no way ensures stability and is hardly and excuse to become complacent . Democracies can be infiltrated by the same old corruptions and agendas that have always plagued human society. Also, the majority does not make right. The majority is very capable of poor judgement.

 

The Weimar Republic was democratic. Look what happened there, and everyone just kinda let it happen. Complacency. Oh and hey... Belarus holds elections, so does Moldova, and Turkmenistan(except there's only one candidate). That's democracy, you might fit in there because no one questions anything. Or else they get shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

You my friend need to take a chill pill with your dislike and mis trust for a DEMOCRACTIC government which is the main problem with your little China agrument. And if the government didn't regulate or even do that much like you are saying these things would happen

 

: Low taxes? Low pubilc services. No education, safety, fire, food standards. Nothing keeping a company from ripping you off.

: No regulation? No limits on how distorted the ecomony could get like the Great Ressccion we are in now.

: No real strong federal government? Employees ripped off from pay standards, Stock holders ripped off more frequently from scams, states fighting and even going to war.

 

Also without the government you would not have

 

Freedom and Democracy across the whole continent

Interstate Highway which has boosted or economy

Health and Safetly standards that make us one of the safest nations of all time.

 

Also as long as you keep Democracy the people can want as much government as they want. If they want less they will vote for less.

 

Back on subject

 

You realize democracy isn't some catch-all solution for all of society's problems, right? Democracy in no way ensures stability and is hardly and excuse to become complacent . Democracies can be infiltrated by the same old corruptions and agendas that have always plagued human society. Also, the majority does not make right. The majority is very capable of poor judgement.

 

The Weimar Republic was democratic. Look what happened there, and everyone just kinda let it happen. Complacency. Oh and hey... Belarus holds elections, so does Moldova, and Turkmenistan(except there's only one candidate). That's democracy, you might fit in there because no one questions anything. Or else they get shot.

I'm sorry to tell you this but you would need to ban freedom of speech and press and for that you would need a majority of votes and no one is going to ruin ther political future over that because uless there was a coup they would be kicked out of office the next election. Also with the internet it's almost impossible to hide a different point of view. Even China can't stop it all. So you my friend need to give up your little argument which you have lost and get back on topic. I'm not going to argue this anymore.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

You my friend need to take a chill pill with your dislike and mis trust for a DEMOCRACTIC government which is the main problem with your little China agrument. And if the government didn't regulate or even do that much like you are saying these things would happen

 

: Low taxes? Low pubilc services. No education, safety, fire, food standards. Nothing keeping a company from ripping you off.

: No regulation? No limits on how distorted the ecomony could get like the Great Ressccion we are in now.

: No real strong federal government? Employees ripped off from pay standards, Stock holders ripped off more frequently from scams, states fighting and even going to war.

 

Also without the government you would not have

 

Freedom and Democracy across the whole continent

Interstate Highway which has boosted or economy

Health and Safetly standards that make us one of the safest nations of all time.

 

Also as long as you keep Democracy the people can want as much government as they want. If they want less they will vote for less.

 

Back on subject

 

You realize democracy isn't some catch-all solution for all of society's problems, right? Democracy in no way ensures stability and is hardly and excuse to become complacent . Democracies can be infiltrated by the same old corruptions and agendas that have always plagued human society. Also, the majority does not make right. The majority is very capable of poor judgement.

 

The Weimar Republic was democratic. Look what happened there, and everyone just kinda let it happen. Complacency. Oh and hey... Belarus holds elections, so does Moldova, and Turkmenistan(except there's only one candidate). That's democracy, you might fit in there because no one questions anything. Or else they get shot.

I'm sorry to tell you this but you would need to ban freedom of speech and press and for that you would need a majority of votes and no one is going to ruin ther political future over that because uless there was a coup they would be kicked out of office the next election. Also with the internet it's almost impossible to hide a different point of view. Even China can't stop it all. So you my friend need to give up your little argument which you have lost and get back on topic. I'm not going to argue this anymore.

You know you can't just declare a victory and leave. I mean really, what the f*ck are you on about? Who said anything about banning freedom of speech? In fact I wasn't even knocking democracy, I said big governments blew, to which you responded by saying that my distrust of our democratic government was anti-democracy. That's retarded any way you put it, I'm criticizing the current form of government, which I intend to fix using democracy.

 

A systematic deconstruction of the post in response to mine would probably be taking things too off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

 

Hey have you guys ever noticed that in histories eyes conservatives are always wrong? The pro slavery guys wrong, anti women rights wrong, free market wrong, racist agenda wrong, pro segreatation wrong, anti interracial marriages wrong, now anit gay marraigers will be deemed idiots by history once more what a shame.

I don't know if you've noticed, but these things aren't a case of "all conservatives take one side, all liberals take another". It's not black and white. What I mean by this, is that not all conservatives oppose gay marriage and not all liberals are for it, same goes for all of the other things you mentioned.

 

Oh, and it was the Democrats who were pro slavery, not the Republicans.

Yes, people must realize that the democrats used to be the bad guys for 95% of their existence and the republicans the good guys..

 

Democrats have been popular most of their time in the South (nowadays people associate rednecks with republican voters, funny, isn't it?), it's the neocon bullsh*t that changed the GOP for the worse. But it's not like either party was too good to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shaboobala

 

 

You realize democracy isn't some catch-all solution for all of society's problems, right? Democracy in no way ensures stability and is hardly and excuse to become complacent . Democracies can be infiltrated by the same old corruptions and agendas that have always plagued human society. Also, the majority does not make right. The majority is very capable of poor judgement.

 

The Weimar Republic was democratic. Look what happened there, and everyone just kinda let it happen. Complacency. Oh and hey... Belarus holds elections, so does Moldova, and Turkmenistan(except there's only one candidate). That's democracy, you might fit in there because no one questions anything. Or else they get shot.

I'm sorry to tell you this but you would need to ban freedom of speech and press and for that you would need a majority of votes and no one is going to ruin ther political future over that because uless there was a coup they would be kicked out of office the next election. Also with the internet it's almost impossible to hide a different point of view. Even China can't stop it all. So you my friend need to give up your little argument which you have lost and get back on topic. I'm not going to argue this anymore.

 

Ok, you win. Democracy makes everything better. There's no way anything bad could ever happen thanks to democracy. How could I be so blind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

A fair democracy is, in my opinion, the best (it allows freedom, the ability to change rulers and such), but it isn't perfect.

 

Two quotes by Winston Churchill sum this up perfectly:

 

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

 

The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little-Jacob

I have no problems with homosexuals, so i vote "Legal"...

But i'm not homosexual...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

You my friend need to take a chill pill with your dislike and mis trust for a DEMOCRACTIC government which is the main problem with your little China agrument. And if the government didn't regulate or even do that much like you are saying these things would happen

 

: Low taxes? Low pubilc services. No education, safety, fire, food standards. Nothing keeping a company from ripping you off.

: No regulation? No limits on how distorted the ecomony could get like the Great Ressccion we are in now.

: No real strong federal government? Employees ripped off from pay standards, Stock holders ripped off more frequently from scams, states fighting and even going to war.

 

Also without the government you would not have

 

Freedom and Democracy across the whole continent

Interstate Highway which has boosted or economy

Health and Safetly standards that make us one of the safest nations of all time.

 

Also as long as you keep Democracy the people can want as much government as they want. If they want less they will vote for less.

 

Back on subject

 

You realize democracy isn't some catch-all solution for all of society's problems, right? Democracy in no way ensures stability and is hardly and excuse to become complacent . Democracies can be infiltrated by the same old corruptions and agendas that have always plagued human society. Also, the majority does not make right. The majority is very capable of poor judgement.

 

The Weimar Republic was democratic. Look what happened there, and everyone just kinda let it happen. Complacency. Oh and hey... Belarus holds elections, so does Moldova, and Turkmenistan(except there's only one candidate). That's democracy, you might fit in there because no one questions anything. Or else they get shot.

I'm sorry to tell you this but you would need to ban freedom of speech and press and for that you would need a majority of votes and no one is going to ruin ther political future over that because uless there was a coup they would be kicked out of office the next election. Also with the internet it's almost impossible to hide a different point of view. Even China can't stop it all. So you my friend need to give up your little argument which you have lost and get back on topic. I'm not going to argue this anymore.

HAHAHAHA, yeah.

 

Because it's not the executive branch of the government that passes laws and holds monopoly on violence, it's "the people", right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

You my friend need to take a chill pill with your dislike and mis trust for a DEMOCRACTIC government which is the main problem with your little China agrument. And if the government didn't regulate or even do that much like you are saying these things would happen

 

: Low taxes? Low pubilc services. No education, safety, fire, food standards. Nothing keeping a company from ripping you off.

: No regulation? No limits on how distorted the ecomony could get like the Great Ressccion we are in now.

: No real strong federal government? Employees ripped off from pay standards, Stock holders ripped off more frequently from scams, states fighting and even going to war.

 

Also without the government you would not have

 

Freedom and Democracy across the whole continent

Interstate Highway which has boosted or economy

Health and Safetly standards that make us one of the safest nations of all time.

 

Also as long as you keep Democracy the people can want as much government as they want. If they want less they will vote for less.

 

Back on subject

 

You realize democracy isn't some catch-all solution for all of society's problems, right? Democracy in no way ensures stability and is hardly and excuse to become complacent . Democracies can be infiltrated by the same old corruptions and agendas that have always plagued human society. Also, the majority does not make right. The majority is very capable of poor judgement.

 

The Weimar Republic was democratic. Look what happened there, and everyone just kinda let it happen. Complacency. Oh and hey... Belarus holds elections, so does Moldova, and Turkmenistan(except there's only one candidate). That's democracy, you might fit in there because no one questions anything. Or else they get shot.

I'm sorry to tell you this but you would need to ban freedom of speech and press and for that you would need a majority of votes and no one is going to ruin ther political future over that because uless there was a coup they would be kicked out of office the next election. Also with the internet it's almost impossible to hide a different point of view. Even China can't stop it all. So you my friend need to give up your little argument which you have lost and get back on topic. I'm not going to argue this anymore.

HAHAHAHA, yeah.

 

Because it's not the executive branch of the government that passes laws and holds monopoly on violence, it's "the people", right?

Now is anyone here still against gay's marrying? Because as far as I can tell it would seem they have given up there argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Statutory Ray
Because it's not the executive branch of the government that passes laws

It's not?

 

Seriously it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.