Originally posted by: Merovingian
wOOt! All beta males now rise in protest.
Who's to say that polygamy would have to be multiple wives? Might end up multiple husbands. 7 men to one woman. Then we only have one day a week that we have to do anything!
Did any of you see the story of why polygamy wouldn't work with multiple husbands instead? It's a woman with 5 men in the living room, all eating and watching football, and she's screaming, "CAN'T ANY OF YOU TAKE OUT THE TRASH!!!!!!!"
Something to think about.
Can you even read?
That can be changed to something like...
Bigostry is not "intolerance", but "unreasonable intolerance". For example, some athiests maybe intorerant of Christians enforcing their personal beilefs amoung people; that doesn't necessarily make athiests anti-christian bigots.
Do you see what I am getting at?
You're a bigot if you hate someone *SOLEY* because of gender, sexsual perference, race, skin color, religion, nationality and/or age.
You're a bigot, and it's nothing to be proud of.
mmm, sperm wars.Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: Merovingian
wOOt! All beta males now rise in protest.
Who's to say that polygamy would have to be multiple wives? Might end up multiple husbands. 7 men to one woman. Then we only have one day a week that we have to do anything!
Did any of you see the story of why polygamy wouldn't work with multiple husbands instead? It's a woman with 5 men in the living room, all eating and watching football, and she's screaming, "CAN'T ANY OF YOU TAKE OUT THE TRASH!!!!!!!"
Something to think about.
A book you should read, the red queen. Perhaps we are not a monogamous species. Little (zero) reason to have sperm wars in an age of DNA testing and child support. Therefore, little reason to have a woman with mulitple men but good reason to have alpha males.
Bigot=Intolerant+belief
Intolerant=me
belief=only heterosexual marriage
Therfore, Bigot=me
Intolerant=you
belief=marriage for homosexual and heterosexual
Therfore, Bigot=you
The story is still the same. Deny or justify it however you want. You're as guilty as I am.
As for hating people, I have never, ever, used the word hate. That was you. Something about hating Christians, I think. I don't hate gays at all. If you had read my last section, you would see that I have actually fought, yes fought, to try a give them more rights. When was the last time you fought for a Christian cause? Since you're the one who hates, I'd say that makes you an even bigger bigot.
As for me being a bigot because I want to take away their rights, whatever. Gays have the right to get married. Nothing, nothing, oh, and by the way, nothing, is stopping them. Heck, if marriage isn't a religious institution, why don't they simply have their friend do a ceremony and pronounce them married. It simply won't be recognized by the government. Period. And that, is not a violation of ANY constitutional right. However, denying them other rights, such as those I've listed previously, is a violation of the constitution. And I'll stand by you and anyone else who want to fight for those rights for gay people, because they are entitled to them. But again, not recognizing their union is NOT a violation.
And from now on, why don't we just drop the bigot crap. We can just agree to disagree.
No, it's not the same story.
Intolerance
You're the one is not willing to tolerate gay marriage, not me.
At best you could say I am intolernt towards the idea of having only having hetrosexsual marriages, however this doesn't make me a bigot.
My intolerance is not "unreasonable intolerance" your intolerance is unreasonable unless you have more agruements to show that keeping gay marriage illegal is reasonable.
I never said I hated Christians, I said I hate the things they've done. When was the last time a I fought for a Christian cause? Explain to me how me answering that question is revalent to the discussion at hand.
Nothing is stopping is stopping them from going to a church and getting a religous marriage, currently my state decided to illegalize gay civil marriage.
There are plenty of other things in the way as well...
Defense of Marriage Act
Same Sex marriage in the United States
Actually, it is unconstiutional... Massachusetts and California have both reached this decision.
Massachusetts
California
If you stop being a bigot, yes.
Look, no one in the world is telling you have to approve of gay marraige or homosexsual activities. What we are telling you that it is not right and that it is not possible to justify to keep rights and privlidges away from homosexsual couples who wish to get married by the state. Notice, I said that state this has absolutely nothing to with religion.
You don't have to like gay marraige, but you will have to live with it.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
no valid reasons exist. religion is not a valid reason. its valid for YOU not engaging in gay marraige, but thats about as far as it goes. but apparently some aren't happy with just that amount of freedom, they gotta impose their religious belief on everyone else.
as for america not being ready for it or the majority not being for it. blah blah blah, invalid. the majority of the south was not ready to give blacks civil rights. it doesn't mean we should have waited until they got more comfortable with the idea at the expense of blacks. f*ck your comfort when it comes to the rights of others.
as for america not being ready for it or the majority not being for it. blah blah blah, invalid. the majority of the south was not ready to give blacks civil rights. it doesn't mean we should have waited until they got more comfortable with the idea at the expense of blacks. f*ck your comfort when it comes to the rights of others.
Ok Tab, since you won't believe my words, here are yours. 3 of your quotes.
That's a good question. Can you read? "I hate them," meaning Chrisitan. You hate me soley based on my religion, because I'm christian, therefore making you a bigot by YOUR OWN WORDS. End of story. You said it. There is your absolute proof. Congratulations, bigot.
But let me guess, you didn't mean it that way. Sure you didn't. Now that it incriminates you. And as a matter of fact, it clears me of being a bigot, because I don't hate anyone. My belief in marriage has no bearing on my personal feelings towards and individual alive. So thanks for clearing me, that was very nice of you.
And the reason that I asked you when you last fought for a Christian belief is because you are accussing me of be a gay-hating bigot and yet I have fought for gay rights. It doesn't add up. You're claim makes absolutely no sense. "Yeah, that man over there fighting for gay rights is a gay-hating bigot." Can you really think that makes any sense? And don't even try to say that the fact that I won't fight for gay marriage is what makes me a bigot. Defining that as bigotry would be pathetic. I have no responsibility or obligation to side with homosexuals on EVERY idea they have. You, on the other hand, have never, to my knowledge, shown that you have any thing but hate for Christians. THAT is why I asked you when was the last time you did something for Christianity. If you have, it only makes sense that you probably aren't a bigot either.
That's a good question. Can you read? "I hate them," meaning Chrisitan. You hate me soley based on my religion, because I'm christian, therefore making you a bigot by YOUR OWN WORDS. End of story. You said it. There is your absolute proof. Congratulations, bigot.
But let me guess, you didn't mean it that way. Sure you didn't. Now that it incriminates you. And as a matter of fact, it clears me of being a bigot, because I don't hate anyone. My belief in marriage has no bearing on my personal feelings towards and individual alive. So thanks for clearing me, that was very nice of you.
And the reason that I asked you when you last fought for a Christian belief is because you are accussing me of be a gay-hating bigot and yet I have fought for gay rights. It doesn't add up. You're claim makes absolutely no sense. "Yeah, that man over there fighting for gay rights is a gay-hating bigot." Can you really think that makes any sense? And don't even try to say that the fact that I won't fight for gay marriage is what makes me a bigot. Defining that as bigotry would be pathetic. I have no responsibility or obligation to side with homosexuals on EVERY idea they have. You, on the other hand, have never, to my knowledge, shown that you have any thing but hate for Christians. THAT is why I asked you when was the last time you did something for Christianity. If you have, it only makes sense that you probably aren't a bigot either.
Thank you. I couldn't have proven my point any better than you just did for me. Did your read the links? It does not "prevent" gay marriages. I allows state to decide whether or not to "RECOGNIZE" gay marriages. You keep talking about how their rights and priviledges are being taken away, but you yet to show any right that has been taken away. State wide approval IS NOT A RIGHT.
The second link even proves my other point. That is, as stated previously, that there are actually "real rights and priviledges" that are being denide them, such as those stated in the "Same Sex marriage in the United States" acticle, mainly health insurance, hospital visitation and social security survivor benefits. Do you even read other peoples quotes before you start arguing with them? Theses restriction DO NEED TO BE ABOLISHED!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND????? These are actually right that gay people are entitled to that they are being denide. And yes, that needs to be fixed.
Would you please, please, read an entire quote before you start ripping into it? All you are doing is making your argument look ready ignorant. You're agruing about things that no one disagree with you on.
And last of all, the last time I checked there were 50 states. Two states deciding that something is unconstitution overrules the other 48 states how? Although not all 48 states have banned marriage, there are far more who have and believe it is NOT unconstitutional to do so. Again, try to present real agruments.
[/quote]
Well, it's obvious you don't read any of the previous threads either. No, the country did not wait for the south to be "comfortable" with black civil rights. The country, or more specifically Pres. Lincoln, waited for the entire country(as a majority), not the south, to be "comfortable" with black civil rights. If you don't believe that, go back and read the the previous threads. There is a link to the historical document backing that up.
And you, like all others before you, have still not shown anywhere that homosexual couple are not allowed to be married. All you've shown is that states, and parts of the government, are not willing to recognize their marriage. Homosexual are not being denide the right to get married. They are being denide other rights, as I have stated, and that should be fixed, as I have stated.
You have no agrument. The only thing you can say is that it is unconstitutional for the government/states/what have you, to not recognize the marriage of homosexual couples. And again, since you can not "force" people to recognize anything, because that would be a violation of rights, you have no argument. Please try again later.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
lol right. lincoln just waited until the polls showed enough civil rights support and then he declared war on the south right....
and right... black people before freedom and civil rights could "vote" but their vote wouldn't be recognized by the states or federal government
but they could still vote!! just as good!! its a non issue! fantasy voting is just dandy
as for forcing people to recognize things, it has nothing to do with that. just because the government recognized the right of couples to marry people of other races didn't violate the rights of others who still believed in the need for antimisegination laws to keep the races pure. those people still had the right to NOT engage in interracial marriage. its like saying letting blacks vote was a violation of the rights of racist whites. its absurd. personal rights and freedom take precedent over the comfort of bigots and their need to impose by force their beliefs on others. gays only want free access to marriage as heteros do. its a free choice. they aren't forcing heteros into gay marriages.
for an "engineer" you should think more logically
right....and right... black people before freedom and civil rights could "vote" but their vote wouldn't be recognized by the states or federal government
but they could still vote!!
just as good!! its a non issue! fantasy voting is just dandyas for forcing people to recognize things, it has nothing to do with that. just because the government recognized the right of couples to marry people of other races didn't violate the rights of others who still believed in the need for antimisegination laws to keep the races pure. those people still had the right to NOT engage in interracial marriage. its like saying letting blacks vote was a violation of the rights of racist whites. its absurd. personal rights and freedom take precedent over the comfort of bigots and their need to impose by force their beliefs on others. gays only want free access to marriage as heteros do. its a free choice. they aren't forcing heteros into gay marriages.
for an "engineer" you should think more logically
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,359
- 4,639
- 136
All quotes are from engineereeyore
That is what this entire topic is about, per the United States Government gays are not allowed to be married to each other. You are saying that they can get married in a non-civil union, but the government will still claim they are not married, and deny to them the rights and privileges of a heterosexual couple in the same union. There is actually now laws forbidding the marriage of gays in some states, and although this is not the Federal Government, it is nonetheless being supported by the Federal Government. Therefore I must conclude that the United States Government is indeed disallowing gays to marry.
Having read your posts I think what you are really arguing here is that a union by gays can not fit your definition of a marriage, and so it is actually impossible for them to marry. Personally, I would tell you that you are welcome to that opinion, and it is probably the correct one for your belief system.
That is what this entire topic is about, per the United States Government gays are not allowed to be married to each other. You are saying that they can get married in a non-civil union, but the government will still claim they are not married, and deny to them the rights and privileges of a heterosexual couple in the same union. There is actually now laws forbidding the marriage of gays in some states, and although this is not the Federal Government, it is nonetheless being supported by the Federal Government. Therefore I must conclude that the United States Government is indeed disallowing gays to marry.
Having read your posts I think what you are really arguing here is that a union by gays can not fit your definition of a marriage, and so it is actually impossible for them to marry. Personally, I would tell you that you are welcome to that opinion, and it is probably the correct one for your belief system.
No one is arguing that the government will try to force you to recognize any marriage of any kind (ok, maybe Tab is, but who can really figure out what he is arguing.) I ask only that the government recognize their rights. The government recognizes many things that I do not, and I am sure that it already recognizes things that you disagree with. This does not force you to change your personal beliefs about marriage at all, and so there would be no violation of your rights.
No, you cleary don't understand what I am trying to tell I suggest you goto Wikipedia's site and read what they have desciribed as "Discrimination", "Bigotry" and "Intolrance".
I hate Christian's for their actions, NOT because of the fact they are simply Christian. It's the same thing with Jews, they don't hate Nazi simply because they are Nazi's. They hate them because they killed a couple million Jews who had done nothing wrong other than simply being Jewish.
Your actions make you a bigot, your denial of same sex marriage because people are simply homosexsual makes you a bigot.
The rest of your first response is a strawman agruement, a logical falllacy. I am an athiest, I have nothing to do with promoting Christian causes.
Of course, it prevents gay marriages. It defines marriage as "1 man 1 women" not allowing for any marriage of homosexsual couples.
The rest of your posts were unreadable, maybe you could transfer from an enginnering major to an english major. I think that would help you out greatly.
I hate Christian's for their actions, NOT because of the fact they are simply Christian. It's the same thing with Jews, they don't hate Nazi simply because they are Nazi's. They hate them because they killed a couple million Jews who had done nothing wrong other than simply being Jewish.
Your actions make you a bigot, your denial of same sex marriage because people are simply homosexsual makes you a bigot.
The rest of your first response is a strawman agruement, a logical falllacy. I am an athiest, I have nothing to do with promoting Christian causes.
Of course, it prevents gay marriages. It defines marriage as "1 man 1 women" not allowing for any marriage of homosexsual couples.
The rest of your posts were unreadable, maybe you could transfer from an enginnering major to an english major. I think that would help you out greatly.
Sorry, if my posts have been getting a little un-organized. If not me, myself and Moonbeam can understand my posts.
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,359
- 4,639
- 136
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
You seem to be devoted to your preconceived judgments and opinions.
Most of us have some bigottry and prejudice in us. We can't help it, our brains are made to fit things into catagories, and those catagories collect preconceived judgments and opinions. The key is to accept that you might be wrong. Anytime you denounce a group (e.g. christians) as a whole for the actions of a few, then you are being a bigot. You state that you hate Christians for their actions, but you are blaming the group for the actions of a few. Hate the individual if you must, but for the most part Christians are a right jolly lot. I have met plenty of them that I would call my friend.
My parents are Christian and I would say my mother is a very devout Christian. Yes, I will agree that what I said is a bit misleading. Yes, there are plenty of us that have some kind of bigotry and prejudice in us, however it becomes a problem when you let your personal beilefs affect the lives of other people.
Yes, bigotry is intolerance but it is "unreasonable intolerance", am I bigot simply because I am a intolerant of bigots, no.
The only reason why gay-marriage is not being offered is simply because people don't like homosexsuals, this is discrimination and bigotry. Can we agree on this?
ROFL!!!!! Well, I have to give you this. You're persistent. However, it was not my words, or my "unreadable post" that condemn you to being a bigot. Those where your post, and you're own words. The reason you hate Christian is irrellovant. Now where in your own definition did it say anything about what I suppose you would call "justified hatred." It just said hate. Just admit it. You called yourself a bigot. Your own words betrayed you.
I would try listening to Smogzinn. We don't agree on everything and we're not expected to . We agree that every couple, homosexual or heterosexual, should be allowed the "benefits of marriage," or the "rigths of marriage." We just disagree as to whether they should actually be allowed marriage, or more specifically, whether their marriage should be recognized.
The other reason I would listen to him is because he knows how to have what civilized people call a "discussion." He accepts peoples opinions and their right to have them. Doesn't mean he agrees with them, and he doesn't have to. He also doesn't call people bigots because they don't agree with them. Why? Because their not bigots. I don't think he, nor I, would have even thought of you as a bigot until your post. And even now, I'm not calling you a bigot, I'm just agreeing with what you yourself have already said. You're calling yourself a bigot, not me.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
lol right. lincoln just waited until the polls showed enough civil rights support and then he declared war on the south
and right... black people before freedom and civil rights could "vote" but their vote wouldn't be recognized by the states or federal government
but they could still vote!!
as for forcing people to recognize things, it has nothing to do with that. just because the government recognized the right of couples to marry people of other races didn't violate the rights of others who still believed in the need for antimisegination laws to keep the races pure. those people still had the right to NOT engage in interracial marriage. its like saying letting blacks vote was a violation of the rights of racist whites. its absurd. personal rights and freedom take precedent over the comfort of bigots and their need to impose by force their beliefs on others. gays only want free access to marriage as heteros do. its a free choice. they aren't forcing heteros into gay marriages.
for an "engineer" you should think more logically
Are you serious??? The Civil War was not fought completely over slavery! Slavery was a secondary issue. The Civil War was fought because southern states left the union due to high import taxation and the desire of the Union, at that time, to close down trade with European countries in an attempt to become self sufficient. This was happening because of much larger representation of northern ideal due to a much higher population in the north. South Carolina succeeded in 1860, two years before Lincoln even drafted the Preliminary Proclamation.
Second, I never said blacks could vote and have it not counted. I have no idea where you pulled that one from. Blacks, before voting rights, would have in most places been shot, north or south. And even after the change from the voting rights act of 1865, they had to be able to pass a literacy test. And due to the treatment of slaves, few of them knew how to read. So what are you even talking about?
And personally, I do plenty of "logical thinking." You however, may want to start with the basics, like just "thinking," and you can work your way up from there.
He is saying he doesn't hate them because of who they are, but what they've done.
How hard is that to understand?
And the reason for the hatred matters, because? Hatred is hatred. It doesn't matter why. There are numerous other culture that have done things just as awful as the "Christians" of the Middle Ages. Does he hate them too? Matter of fact, who here hasn't ever done something that hurt someone else? Oh, but let me guess, it's different. It doesn't matter that we hurt someone else because we didn't hurt them as much as those people did. What an absolutely ignorant idea.
How hard is that to understand?
I would suggest that it is hard to explain bigotry to a bigot. That is why we have the saying, "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much."
You are a bigot, not because you hate in the hate frothing kind of hate but because you believe in the validity of hateful ideas. You would deny the happiness of union in the sight of God to a class of people because you carry the absurd notion that the act of homosexuality is sin. You do not know it is sin. You can point to no rational reason why it is sin. But you believe it is sin as a result of brainwashing into your particular faith. You take the words in an old bigoted book above the knowledge that should be in your heart. But the point that makes you a bigot is a belief in a prejudice without anything to support you but your religion. You cannot think or reason logically on the subject because of your preconceived conviction that the homosexual act is sin. No sane person not trained to be a bigot would come to that conclusion based on today's real world scientific evidence. The absolute certainty that the homosexual act is sinful colors everything you think and say on this topic. You cannot conceive of the possibility that you are wrong because you fear the loss of certainty in your faith. You place your belief above the life of others and it is there that we see your hate. You are selfishly more interested in yourself then they. Yet you can see in the faith of millions of others not of the same faith as you that their faith is simply untrue.
I concede to your point. It is true that I believe in the validity of what some consider to be a "hateful idea." Question though. Who defines what a hateful idea is? Personally, abortion seems pretty hateful. To kill an infant and deprive it of its rightful chance to live (so long as it being born will not endanger the life of the mother) sound pretty hateful. Does that therefore make everyone that believes in abortion a bigot? But then again, there are many who believe that not allowing abortion is a "hateful idea." So I guess they're bigots too?
As SMOGZINN stated, "Most of us have some bigottry and prejudice in us." I'm sure you believe in some idea that people find hateful, so that would make you a bigot also, correct?
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter