When did I suggest that? While I don't necessarily believe that protesting people or businesses for participating the democratic process is appropriate, I think there's a lot of anger over this, so I certainly understand it.
To go off topic and troll a bit, where were you during the Dixie Chick embargo? Or any of the other Republican-led protests? It goes both ways, you know.
My thoughts exactly. Boohoo, the gays didn't get what they wanted, so instead of trying to make a cause for themselves and try to actually educate people on their plight and issues, they will shun and punish people for believing differently than them.
You know if all the gays want to get married or do what ever, here's an idea, why don't all the gays move somewhere and become the majority in that state so they can vote their way and win instead of trying to force others to change and capitulate to the minority.
ok were in agreement here. protect both sides right to protest , vote and voice thier opinions.
each has in thier mind a legimate concern.
yes, it does work both ways.Because thier opinion differs does not make either bigoted.
re: Dixiechicks....I don't listen to them so was probably disinterested when I saw the topic.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
First off, you guys can stop with the ridiculous nested quote tree. Second, we're not playing cards. But here's some insight that might help you: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's the opening line of the Bill of Rights. Now, when you use religion as a justification for a law, you are violating the First Amendment. It says it plain as day: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means that all your back and forth bickering about religious versus non-religious views is completely meaningless in the context of California's Constitutional Amendment; religion can not be used to justify any law in our country unless it respects all religions equally. And, as there are religions that recognize gay marriage, this doesn't. What's your next justification?
You will not stop gay marriage. You will not oppress homosexuals forever. It will be legal in our generation, and by the time my children are grown it will be as unremarkable as a black man sitting at the table next to you in a restaurant. You are no different than the bigots who tried for so long to hold back the inevitable tide of the civil rights movement. You claim your motives are to "preserve marriage", or even just the definition of the word. You are not linguists, and many of you are divorced yourselves. These motives are spurious and transparent. You are on the wrong side of history. You can't stop gays from getting married before the eyes of God as they perceive Him/Her/It/Them.
listen up: I've got a secret to tell you....
People are buttfucking in your neighborhood, right now!. Guys are sucking guys' dicks. Women are banging their clits together. Balls are slamming balls. Maybe in the house next to you. Not 30 feet away in your safe, cookie-cutter suburban paradise. It could be your friend, it could be your neighbor, it could be your family member or your kid's teacher. It could be your senator. It could be your preacher.
And you know what else they're doing? They're holding hands. They're telling each other I Love You and heading off to work. They're balancing check books and planning Thanksgiving. They're training for that 10k run next month, they're visiting elderly family members in the hospital. They're teaching their nieces and nephews how to ride a bike. They're reading the bible, or a John Grisham book, or giving to charity, paying their taxes. They're doing the same things you and I are doing.
And you begrudge them for what? A word? That word is so precious to you that you would deny them what is a foregone conclusion for yourself?. Ride high on your horse of hate. Ride high but don't look to the future, because it's bleak for your outdated worldview.
Prop 8 was bankrolled primarily by the Mormon church and the Catholic church, and one of the major arguments for it was that same-sex marriage would compromise the religious freedom of Christians, which (1) was a lie and (2) essentially meant that the state should declare Christianity its official religion and ignore the rights of those religions which do believe in same-sex marriage, like Tao Buddhism.
A lot of self-righteous people who do express themselves, even when they are not religious, just find the Bible and the cover of religion in general a convenient and pre-conceived talking point to reject something they fear and/or don't understand. People who never read the bible, never go to church, but do cheat on their spouses, taxes, etc, will suddenly get religious when cornered on gay issues. Unfortunately, religion knows how to play these people like a fiddle.
Well that's where we disagree then. The beliefs of the pro-8 crowd ARE very much bigoted. It's not because they disagree, but rather WHY those who wish to discriminate against gay people believe what they do.
The anti-gay stance of the pro-8 supporters and financiers is textbook bigotry. Their intolerence of a lifestyle differing from their own, led them to try and change the state constitution to discriminate against the specific group they are intolerent against. Everyone is entitled to marry, their beliefs suggest, with the exception of gay people. Thus, they are bigoted when it comes to gay people.
Honestly, there's no argument that can really stand up to this. The word "bigot" has a definition that's very specific. When that definition applies to a person or group of people, it fits. End of story. You may not like it, but that hardly changes anything here.
your notion that because they hold a religious view that originates from the bible, not themselves, that they are a bigot
Is ludicrous.
They believe that there are absolute values in the universe and therefore they are simply defending what They see as truth.
Because they are "religious" gives them no more or less right to hold a belief then any other segment of the population.
They express , vote, and stand for what they see as being important.
There ability and right to do that in our society should be no less or more then anyone elses.
By your own definition many people here are
" intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, "
they are intolerant of Christians, Mormons, Catholics etc... expressing thier views.
voting thier conscience, preserving values and institutions such as mairrage.
Have you heard me say once that you have no right to demonstrate for gays? Or that you have no right to vote your conscience? Or trumpet values you deem as important to this country?
Of course not because to do so would be unamerican.
One persons argument of seperation of church and state above is just the type of canard I refer to.
Being religious is not grounds for a person to abdicate thier views, votes, or opinions.
Which is essentially what his argument boils down too.
Jschmuck2
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2005
- 5,623
- 3
- 81
No, it isn't. The argument boils down to this:
One group of people isn't letting another group of people do something because THEY believe it is wrong and it is contradictory to THEIR beliefs.
That is what the argument boils down to. Simply because they "feel" or "believe" that it is "right," doesn't make it so.
One group of people isn't letting another group of people do something because THEY believe it is wrong and it is contradictory to THEIR beliefs.
That is what the argument boils down to. Simply because they "feel" or "believe" that it is "right," doesn't make it so.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
Are you arguing that you aren't a bigot because other people on an internet forum are intolerant of Christianity? Their bigotry cancels yours out? Or are you accepting that you are a bigot when it comes to this issue?
Moving on from that, when was the last time the anti-religious bigots tried to stop Christians from being allowed to marry via Constitutional amendments in states across the country? It seems to me that the bigot who insults me to my face is significantly less offensive than the bigot that attempts to take away my rights through the passage of laws based around his bigotry.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
You miss the point.
I can personally believe gay marriage is wrong based on my feelings or desires, you can believe it's right based on your feelings or desires. But I should not be able to deprive someone of a right simply because of my feelings or desires. I need to have more than that if I want to deprive a group of people of a right. I need a reason. The law demands a reason.
"The law is reason unaffected by desire" - Aristotle
Thinking that guys kissing is gross is not a reason, sorry.
I'll type slowly so you can understand.
1)I am not a bigot because I believe the word of God.
2)I guess I just get tired of real bigots like the ones in this forum using that phony canard.
3) they are simply attempting to preserve what mairrage is. No one is taking anyones rights away. Those right are available to them through thier civil unions.
Do I expect you to change your view or opinion or vote because of what I wrote here?
No.
Will you change mine through your brow beating techniques. No.
/debate
or we could argue all day about it, but frankly I have more impotant things to do.
I'm sorry you will need to point me to the part of the constitution that guarantees the right of Gays to change the definition of what mairrage is.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
Gotcha. Everyone who is intolerant of your viewpoint is a bigot, but you couldn't possibly be a bigot because your view is endorsed by the Christian interpretation of God. And you have the nerve to insult my intelligence? You sad, pathetic, spiteful little man. I hope your Heaven is full of people just like you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter