Would you rather...

From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)23 May 2013 19:04
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 73 of 104
quote:
Where I get angry is the government telling me I can or can't do anything, I don't care what it is. As long as I'm not harming anyone they shouldn't have a say in what I do.
quote:
There should only be laws against things that harm other people.


You can't actually mean those things and be against gay marriage, you realise that, right?

So which is the lie?

From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)23 May 2013 19:05
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 74 of 104
Hunting rifles and shotguns (hunting shotguns, not combat shotguns) are fine. We have those here, too. I don't think anyone here is particularly bothered about those.

We're talking about the handguns, SMP/SMGs and assault rifles.

All of your guns are handguns, aren't they?
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 19:09
To: ANT_THOMAS 75 of 104
That's just my opinion on it. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. The whole purpose, IMO, of a marriage is to have and raise children.
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 19:10
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 76 of 104
I'm not "against" gay marriage, I just don't think it's right. Right as in a natural thing. 
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)23 May 2013 19:11
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 77 of 104
Literally no credibility.

Witness dismissed. Case closed.

Guns are now illegal and gay marriage is mandatory.
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)23 May 2013 19:11
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 78 of 104
Are blowjobs, BDSM and vibrators natural? Should they be illegal too? Are cars natural? How about hats?
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 19:13
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 79 of 104
I have 3 handguns and about 10 rifles and shotguns.
From: ANT_THOMAS23 May 2013 19:14
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 80 of 104
What right should gay couples have?

Is there any form of legal recognition for gay couples in the US?
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 19:16
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 81 of 104
What are you talking about?
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 19:20
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 82 of 104
I don't see anything wrong with blowjobs, or any sexual activity if you are both in agreement.

I don't follow you on the other examples.  A car was made to drive, try to sail across the ocean in one and it doesn't quite work. Hats are just badass and can be worn whenever you feel like it, especially if you have a gun.
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 19:21
To: ANT_THOMAS 83 of 104
There are some states that have made marriage legal, other than that they have the same rights as any other unmarried person.
From: ANT_THOMAS23 May 2013 19:26
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 84 of 104
But what rights do a gay couple have? Do you think a gay couple shouldn't have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

Ignore the religious and reproduction side of things for a minute. Shouldn't two people who want to be in a permanent legally recognised relationship be able to do so?
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 19:30
To: ANT_THOMAS 85 of 104
If I ignore that then yes sure.  And really I'm haven't been assigned a judge so people can do what they want, doesn't matter what I think does it?
From: Manthorp23 May 2013 19:38
To: ANT_THOMAS 86 of 104
Gay and lesbian couples are often adopters of those unwanted children who would otherwise grow up unloved and in care.That seems to me as socially useful a role as any other couple.
EDITED: 23 May 2013 19:39 by MANTHORP
From: ANT_THOMAS23 May 2013 20:07
To: Manthorp 87 of 104
I honestly couldn't agree more.

In 10 years I would like to see the divorce rates of homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples. My guessing is that it will probably be lower.
From: JonCooper23 May 2013 21:36
To: ALL88 of 104
I don't agree with the difference being because we don't have guns

hand guns were only banned here after the Hungerford incident in 1987

before that they were legal, and shotguns / rifles still are for licensed people

the difference seems to be a deeply ingrained cultural thing

even when we could have guns with very little issues, we didn't really want them
From: milko24 May 2013 09:28
To: JonCooper 89 of 104
I thought handguns were banned even more recently, after Dunblane? I may be mistaken. But yes, primarily cultural for sure - so nations like Canada that also have quite a lot of guns don't have USA-style murder stats.
From: Monsoir (PILOTDAN)24 May 2013 09:36
To: milko 90 of 104
The Hungeford aftermath was primarily rifles and shotguns. Dunblane prompted the handgun ban.
From: Monsoir (PILOTDAN)24 May 2013 09:40
To: milko 91 of 104
Went to check, and Wikipedia had the following in the Dunblane bit:

quote:
162,000 pistols and 700 tons of ammunition and related equipment were handed in by an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in every 960 persons.[57]
I think that says quite a lot about our attitudes towards firearms. Even when they were legal, it just wasn't something most people wanted.
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)24 May 2013 12:37
To: koswix 92 of 104