Why are people so against gay marriage?

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Do we see that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much?

The bigot is totally blind to his bigotry.


I absolutely agree. I can't believe there are so many people out there that would oppose my right to view marriage as it has always been viewed since its inception in the most primitive form. That is,,,,the spiritual union between a Man and a Woman. Perhaps, if goverment wasn't involved in regulating marriage, it wouldn't be an issue.

You're honest enough to put your huge ignorance of the history of the definition of marriage on display, and your inability to ratioanally address homosexuality.

Too bad that honesty in this case is the best that can be said about the negative facts about you.



Huh?????? Show me something different.

You can't show a bigot anything. Please try to understand that in this area you can't see anything.

What you can do is show them that the particular excuse they have chosen to defend their bigotry with is factually inaccurate. However, that has no effect on them; they virtually never change their position in response, but instead abandon the issue as unimportant after all and come up with a new excude for their position. The funny thing is that they themselves don't seem to realize what they are doing or why.

The only thing I know that works is to get them to shift their thinking from the question being 'defend your position', for which they can find 1000 excuses, to the whole different way of looking at the issue, which typically involves recognizing the humanity of the person they are dehumanizing in some way, and when they are dehumanizing the other person because of their own lack of development, getting some payoff for their own self worth from the bigotry, that's next to impossible to do.

It's why we so often see only in the strongest cases, such as when a beloved family member or close friend, in in the target group that bigots can make that change in view.

So, we can show Ozoned how his facts on the history of marriage are wrong, but it's pointless for our time or his, since the response will not be "oh, then he changes his position on gay marriage". It serves *some* purpose for going through the exercise to show my statement about how he won'tchange his position is true, but that's been done so many times with posters, it's pointless to keep repeating it.

And the other thing is, that *it doesn't matter* if he were right - the issue on the right and wrong of gay marriage is not what the historical tradition has been any more than the right and wrong of slavery was what the traditional system had been, and so arguing the facts of the historical definition has the harmful effect of appearing to agree that that's a legitimate issue for deciding gay marriage, instead of the real issue, the immorality of treating people born gay as second-class citizens who are ok to deny equal marital rights.

Are gays similarly adult human beings to straights? Yes. Do they have similar needs for love, relationships, long-term commitments, societal respect? Yes.

Is there any rationals justification for denying them the same rights, as there is with, say, pedophiles? No. Therefore, it is *immoral harm* to discriminate.

But unfortunately, nothing compels Ozoned and others to act morally, to not be cretins who casually inflict harm on others as the tyrany of the bigoted majority.
Any voting citizen, is not required to exclude their belief system when it comes down to supporting or opposing any issue. Any voting citizen is not required to exclude their belief system to make a rational decision on what they view as moral or immoral. If you can't entertain the notion of letting religion into the debate on this issue, then you are just as bigoted as those you claim should make all of their decision based only upon factual information. Just so you know, I am quite neutral on this issue. I am looking from the outside and seeing the entire issue of opposition to gay marriage being defended by a charge of bigotry. If government is going to regulate marriage, then government needs to define marriage. If the majority of people decide that gay marriage is acceptable or unacceptable, so be it. It doesn't matter how the issue is decided. The tyrany of the bigoted majority will casually inflict harm on the minority. It is nearly exactly like the abortion issue.
 

Oceandevi

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2006
3,085
1
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: ebaycj
religion.

Proudly holding back progress for two millennia and counting.

Your math skills aren't doing anything for progress either. Or do you think religion has only been around since Christianity started? You're as ignorant as those you mock.

In this case it is correct to reference the age of Christianity as that's what causes the majority of our issues in this country.

Christians had no real problems killing off other faiths. Now it is their turn to die off.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: ebaycj
religion.

Proudly holding back progress for two millennia and counting.

Your math skills aren't doing anything for progress either. Or do you think religion has only been around since Christianity started? You're as ignorant as those you mock.

In this case it is correct to reference the age of Christianity as that's what causes the majority of our issues in this country.

Christians had no real problems killing off other faiths. Now it is their turn to die off.

See look Christian Bashing Bigots. doesn't take long around here to prove my theories right. I know I could count on AT forums for hate.

Funny thing is they live in a country that was largely colonized by Christians looking to freely practice thier faith in peace and then found it with its priciples.

Tragically some dumbass will refute this in no time and have a circle jerk with the other Christianophobes.


 

Oceandevi

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2006
3,085
1
0
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: ebaycj
religion.

Proudly holding back progress for two millennia and counting.

Your math skills aren't doing anything for progress either. Or do you think religion has only been around since Christianity started? You're as ignorant as those you mock.

In this case it is correct to reference the age of Christianity as that's what causes the majority of our issues in this country.

Christians had no real problems killing off other faiths. Now it is their turn to die off.

See look Christian Bashing Bigots. doesn't take long around here to prove my theories right. I know I could count on AT forums for hate.

Funny thing is they live in a country that was largely colonized by Christians looking to freely practice thier faith in peace and then found it with its priciples.

Tragically some dumbass will refute this in no time and have a circle jerk with the other Christianophobes.

Look what sunday school does kids....
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I used to think he was intelligent and for the most part respectful but lately he's gone the way of the BDS crowd like harvey.

Leave it to a Bushwhacko loser like CAD to be so lost and out of touch that he dosen't even understand that BDS is a bogus term coined by another neocon jackass, Charles Krauthammer, in a futile attempt to discredit those of us who were smart enough to recognize the tragic criminality of his Traitor In Chief and his entire administration.

Leave it to a BIGOTED Bushwhacko loser like CAD to try to distract attention from his own BIGOTED support for banning gay marriage by referring to the correct understanding of and disgust with his Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals by "the BDS crowd."

Personally, Im proud of my BDS. Thanks for the compliment. :beer: :laugh:

Maybe you'd like to explain why knowing that George W. Bush is the worst criminal ever to hold the office of President has anything to do with your BIGOTRY against gays. :roll:

Wow.. you are an 'Elite Senior Moderator' here? Yikes..
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Any voting citizen, is not required to exclude their belief system when it comes down to supporting or opposing any issue. Any voting citizen is not required to exclude their belief system to make a rational decision on what they view as moral or immoral.

Any citizen is free to choose how they think and how they vote. But the laws and Govt cannot discriminate among citizens.

The tyrany of the bigoted majority will casually inflict harm on the minority.

And that is exactly what our republic system in the US is designed not to do.


 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,235
6,338
126
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Any voting citizen, is not required to exclude their belief system when it comes down to supporting or opposing any issue. Any voting citizen is not required to exclude their belief system to make a rational decision on what they view as moral or immoral.

Any citizen is free to choose how they think and how they vote. But the laws and Govt cannot discriminate among citizens.

The tyrany of the bigoted majority will casually inflict harm on the minority.

And that is exactly what our republic system in the US is designed not to do.

That will become a bit clearer to these butt-heads when we ban Christian marriage along with their churches to stamp out bigot mills.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Estrella
If one doesn't want gay marriage, then one should not get one. /thread

What a shame how simple this really is, but so many want to complicate it.

Do you write fortune cookie fortunes, by chance? :)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's easy to blame religion for so many being against gay marriage but it's not quite that simple. Sure, your everyday bible thumper is going to be against gay marriage. But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

Looking at the demographic breakdown of voters on that issue it's pretty clear there were other reasons Prop 8 passed. Blacks and Hispanics voted heavily in the "Yes" category. That's an indication of cultural influences in addition to religion. Neither the Black or Hispanic cultures are very accepting of homosexuality. In fact, if you look around the world at cultures that are very male dominant - iow, cultures where machismo and being a man's man rule the day - you'll notice that homosexuality is not well received.
.

As explained by many black leaders and spokespeople: DL Hughly, Oprah, NAACP, etc, the reason blacks are against homosexuality is because they are very religious.

These prejudices come mainly from this brand of religion. And it's openly admitted, and pretty much goes along with the knowledge of most black's very conservative social values.

Hell, on election day, the local news was showing voter opinion at the polls, and they had one black couple commenting about why the voted yes on 8: "b/c God made Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve."

yes....very clever.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

It was 70% of blacks voting yes. I think that's where he's confused. Again, it's pretty well known that socially conservative blacks are so b/c they are very religious. Maybe not Bible thumpers per se, but they do wear it on their sleeves.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: Harvey
Please tell us what harm does it do you to allow mongamous gay couples the same happiness you wish you could find for yourself in a heterosexual marriage? :confused:
The question becomes what is your line you don't cross for marriage?

Same Sex is okay, but how about brother/sister? What about a man and his sheep?

Why should the line be redrawn somewhere else but still not allow some groups to share the happiness of a heterosexual marriage?

Or should we not have a line at all, everyone can be married to everyone simultaneously (we don't want to leave out those polygamists from enjoying the freedom of marriage).

I hope you realize the slippery slope is a logically invalid argument. Have you a real defense, or must you resort to playground thought patterns?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.
Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of some of the other states, like Florida, where similar amendments won by 60%+ of the vote.

Still, for Prop 8 to pass at all in a highly liberal state like CA is pretty unbelievable and it wasn't all bible thumpers voting Yes. An interesting tidbit rom the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8nov06,0,2331815.story

The campaign against Proposition 8 also did relatively poorly in Los Angeles County, where voters were divided almost evenly. By contrast, on the other high-profile social issue on the ballot, Proposition 4 on abortion, the liberal side carried Los Angeles by a margin of almost 200,000 votes.

I doubt it was the bible thumpers voting No on Prop 4 then turning around and voting Yes on Prop 8.

CA is NOT a highly liberal state. It's funny that the rest of the country thinks that CA, the most populous state, the 7th largest economy in the world, is only composed of Hollywood and the Bay Area.

The vast majority of the state is rural farm land. Huge hispanic population, farmers, good 'ol country folk everywhere.

This is the state that cursed the country with Reagan, lest you forget.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

That plus you do not need to be a bible thumper in order to be a homophobe. Homophobia that is strong enough to the point that you will vote to deny the rights of others like that is no better than racism and sexism. It is exactly the same. The only difference is how it makes one "feel" during today's day and age, but just remember that how one feels today about it is probably very similar to how people viewed and felt about racism in the past.
That's kind of the point I'm making. There are those in here claiming it was religion that caused Prop 8 to pass. I disagree with that. While it was surely an influence, there were other large influences as well.

...why did the Mormon church pump some $25mill into the campaign?

Hell, I had two mormons show up at my door some 4 days before the election. I didn't know what they were there for at the time, b/c that part of the "yes" campaign was poorly advertised by the "no" campaign at that point.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sure. Eventually the entire country will catch up too, in time. We're moving towards that day but it's not here now, which is why all the footstomping and sour grapes seems like a lot of wasted energy. It doesn't seem to be contributing anything beneficial to the situation. If anything, it's detrimental in the short run. If we want people to be fair and open-minded shouldn't we demonstrate that quality ourselves?

I just don't think there's any reason to be "fair and open-minded" when it comes to bigoted and ignorant minds attempting to limit the rights of others.

You're right, it's extremely difficult to change people's minds, especially such deep-seeded prejudices. Which is why you can't expect that to happen, much less wait for it.

People need to know that they are infringing on others. A shit-load of people were pissed off when schools were de-segregated, but they were forced against their will to effing deal with it. And plenty of that hate still persists, though in smaller pockets.

Such will (and must) be the case with gay marriage.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
...
Equal rights are conferred upon us based on specific qualities like race, sex (as in male or female), and religion. I don't believe that sexual preference is a consideration because that would open up a can of worms that nobody truly wants to see opened.

You want to expand on that, or just make vaguely menacing sounding noises about it?

There's really nothing for him to expand upon, as I stated CA already provides equal protection in nearly every facet of public life for gays so there no pandoras box waiting to be opened by gay marriage. CA has already conferred protection based on sexual orientation. Has MA collapsed yet? What about Canada? Belgium? It's another slippery slope fallacy.

no no no, he thinks people will want to marry ducks. the same BS they spout when they run out of legal arguments to mask the fear and hatred.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I used to think he was intelligent and for the most part respectful but lately he's gone the way of the BDS crowd like harvey.

Leave it to a Bushwhacko loser like CAD to be so lost and out of touch that he dosen't even understand that BDS is a bogus term coined by another neocon jackass, Charles Krauthammer, in a futile attempt to discredit those of us who were smart enough to recognize the tragic criminality of his Traitor In Chief and his entire administration.

Leave it to a BIGOTED Bushwhacko loser like CAD to try to distract attention from his own BIGOTED support for banning gay marriage by referring to the correct understanding of and disgust with his Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals by "the BDS crowd."

Personally, Im proud of my BDS. Thanks for the compliment. :beer: :laugh:

Maybe you'd like to explain why knowing that George W. Bush is the worst criminal ever to hold the office of President has anything to do with your BIGOTRY against gays. :roll:

Wow.. you are an 'Elite Senior Moderator' here? Yikes..

When you don't see him acting as a moderator he's just a regular poster, shut the fuck up and learn how things works before you start whining.

What you did is a callout of a moderator, read the fucking rules, that shit will get you banned if you keep it up.

Cheers Harvey, and thanks. ;)
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sure. Eventually the entire country will catch up too, in time. We're moving towards that day but it's not here now, which is why all the footstomping and sour grapes seems like a lot of wasted energy. It doesn't seem to be contributing anything beneficial to the situation. If anything, it's detrimental in the short run. If we want people to be fair and open-minded shouldn't we demonstrate that quality ourselves?

I just don't think there's any reason to be "fair and open-minded" when it comes to bigoted and ignorant minds attempting to limit the rights of others.

You're right, it's extremely difficult to change people's minds, especially such deep-seeded prejudices. Which is why you can't expect that to happen, much less wait for it.

Zin is a textbook case of His logic trumps others rights/beliefs that he does not agree with. Do as Zin says, not as he does. Eletist attitudes turn people off irregardless of party.

No it is a "traditional belief" not "prejudices" that marriage is a man and a woman. Once again another Lib packages all those against his way of thinking as Bigoted and ignorant. Damn dude this talking point has been rehashed so many times. LoL

 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I used to think he was intelligent and for the most part respectful but lately he's gone the way of the BDS crowd like harvey.

Leave it to a Bushwhacko loser like CAD to be so lost and out of touch that he dosen't even understand that BDS is a bogus term coined by another neocon jackass, Charles Krauthammer, in a futile attempt to discredit those of us who were smart enough to recognize the tragic criminality of his Traitor In Chief and his entire administration.

Leave it to a BIGOTED Bushwhacko loser like CAD to try to distract attention from his own BIGOTED support for banning gay marriage by referring to the correct understanding of and disgust with his Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals by "the BDS crowd."

Personally, Im proud of my BDS. Thanks for the compliment. :beer: :laugh:

Maybe you'd like to explain why knowing that George W. Bush is the worst criminal ever to hold the office of President has anything to do with your BIGOTRY against gays. :roll:

Wow.. you are an 'Elite Senior Moderator' here? Yikes..

When you don't see him acting as a moderator he's just a regular poster, shut the fuck up and learn how things works before you start whining.

What you did is a callout of a moderator, read the fucking rules, that shit will get you banned if you keep it up.

Cheers Harvey, and thanks. ;)

yup and this is a Mod in training!
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I used to think he was intelligent and for the most part respectful but lately he's gone the way of the BDS crowd like harvey.

Leave it to a Bushwhacko loser like CAD to be so lost and out of touch that he dosen't even understand that BDS is a bogus term coined by another neocon jackass, Charles Krauthammer, in a futile attempt to discredit those of us who were smart enough to recognize the tragic criminality of his Traitor In Chief and his entire administration.

Leave it to a BIGOTED Bushwhacko loser like CAD to try to distract attention from his own BIGOTED support for banning gay marriage by referring to the correct understanding of and disgust with his Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers and war criminals by "the BDS crowd."

Personally, Im proud of my BDS. Thanks for the compliment. :beer: :laugh:

Maybe you'd like to explain why knowing that George W. Bush is the worst criminal ever to hold the office of President has anything to do with your BIGOTRY against gays. :roll:

Wow.. you are an 'Elite Senior Moderator' here? Yikes..

As JOS said, I'm a member of these forums with the same posting privileges as anyone else. House rules are only that, except under exigent circumstances, I cannot moderate in a thread in which I am posting.
  • Do you see me moderating in this thread?
  • Was my post not in direct response to CAD's attempt to side track the thread away from discussing gay marriage by calling me out, personally, by name, when he posted this failed attempt to demean my contempt for his Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush?

    Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

    I used to think he was intelligent and for the most part respectful but lately he's gone the way of the BDS crowd like harvey.
  • Did my post not ask CAD directly how HIS reference to "BDS" had anything to do with gay marriage, the topic of this thread?
  • When CAD replied that he is not bigoted against gays, did I not reply to acknowledge that?
Didn't think so. Exactly what part of my post is a problem for you? :confused:

Originally posted by: EXman (referring to JOS)

yup and this is a Mod in training!

Nah! JOS is busy moderating a battlefield far more dangerous than P&N. He's somewhere in the middle of Afghanistan ducking high velocity lead poisoning in the war against the real enemies who actually hit us on 9-11, the war the Bushwhackos forgot to finish before drifting off to murder 4,204 American troops (as of 11/21/08) and wound tens of thousands more in their war of LIES in Iraq.
rose.gif
:(

No it is a "traditional belief" not "prejudices" that marriage is a man and a woman.

You're entitled to your own beliefs. You are NOT entitled to use civil law to impose your own wadded panty beliefs on the lives of others. That is legislated bigotry.

Once again another Lib packages all those against his way of thinking as Bigoted and ignorant. Damn dude this talking point has been rehashed so many times. LoL

And once again, you fail to make the case that imposing the "beliefs" of one group of citizens on another is anything but bigotry. The fact that you laugh at it strongly suggests that you are one of the ignorant bigots. :thumbsdown:
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
Hey now, don't be attacking us polyamorous people ^_^

Honestly, like I said before, prop 8 isn't about gays or gay marriage.

It's about a group of people wanting to "prove" or "show" that they are better than another group of people.

Has NOTHING to do with gays and whether or not they can get married. It has to do with people trying to convince themselves and others that they are superior to some other arbitrary (in this case, gays) group of people. It's the SAME THING as when whites viewed themselves as superior to blacks, etc. SAME THING.

And honestly I may agree with about half of what harvey writes but i've never seen him abuse his moderator status in any way. I know, it's hard to believe that there are people out there who can express their views without forcing them on others, isn't it??? And if you wish to talk about the moderators of this forum there is a specific forum to do that in, don't clog this forum with it.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Any voting citizen, is not required to exclude their belief system when it comes down to supporting or opposing any issue. Any voting citizen is not required to exclude their belief system to make a rational decision on what they view as moral or immoral.

Any citizen is free to choose how they think and how they vote. But the laws and Govt cannot discriminate among citizens.

The tyrany of the bigoted majority will casually inflict harm on the minority.

And that is exactly what our republic system in the US is designed not to do.

That will become a bit clearer to these butt-heads when we ban Christian marriage along with their churches to stamp out bigot mills.

that would be ludicrous and such an idea does no service in supporting gay marriage.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

That will become a bit clearer to these butt-heads when we ban Christian marriage along with their churches to stamp out bigot mills.

that would be ludicrous and such an idea does no service in supporting gay marriage.

But it goes a long way to support the forum sarcasm index. :cool:
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sure. Eventually the entire country will catch up too, in time. We're moving towards that day but it's not here now, which is why all the footstomping and sour grapes seems like a lot of wasted energy. It doesn't seem to be contributing anything beneficial to the situation. If anything, it's detrimental in the short run. If we want people to be fair and open-minded shouldn't we demonstrate that quality ourselves?

I just don't think there's any reason to be "fair and open-minded" when it comes to bigoted and ignorant minds attempting to limit the rights of others.

You're right, it's extremely difficult to change people's minds, especially such deep-seeded prejudices. Which is why you can't expect that to happen, much less wait for it.

Zin is a textbook case of His logic trumps others rights/beliefs that he does not agree with. Do as Zin says, not as he does. Eletist attitudes turn people off irregardless of party.

No it is a "traditional belief" not "prejudices" that marriage is a man and a woman. Once again another Lib packages all those against his way of thinking as Bigoted and ignorant. Damn dude this talking point has been rehashed so many times. LoL

ah yes, the "You call me a bigot, therefore you're Elitist" argument. I've never said that bigots are expected to understand their prejudices as such, that's the point. The "tradition" argument is nothing more than clinging to this populist, archaic thought process that allows you to feel superior to others. keep trying.

BTW, is the poor grammar and spelling intentional? Are you simply trying to show that you are in no way the educated elitist that you so viciously deride?

Mama must be proud.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

That will become a bit clearer to these butt-heads when we ban Christian marriage along with their churches to stamp out bigot mills.

that would be ludicrous and such an idea does no service in supporting gay marriage.

But it goes a long way to support the forum sarcasm index. :cool:

this is moonbeam we're talking about.....
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Sure. Eventually the entire country will catch up too, in time. We're moving towards that day but it's not here now, which is why all the footstomping and sour grapes seems like a lot of wasted energy. It doesn't seem to be contributing anything beneficial to the situation. If anything, it's detrimental in the short run. If we want people to be fair and open-minded shouldn't we demonstrate that quality ourselves?

I just don't think there's any reason to be "fair and open-minded" when it comes to bigoted and ignorant minds attempting to limit the rights of others.

You're right, it's extremely difficult to change people's minds, especially such deep-seeded prejudices. Which is why you can't expect that to happen, much less wait for it.

Zin is a textbook case of His logic trumps others rights/beliefs that he does not agree with. Do as Zin says, not as he does. Eletist attitudes turn people off irregardless of party.

No it is a "traditional belief" not "prejudices" that marriage is a man and a woman. Once again another Lib packages all those against his way of thinking as Bigoted and ignorant. Damn dude this talking point has been rehashed so many times. LoL

ah yes, the "You call me a bigot, therefore you're Elitist BIGOT" argument. I've never said that bigots are expected to understand their prejudices as such, that's the point. The "tradition" argument is nothing more than clinging to this populist, archaic thought process that allows you to feel superior to others. keep trying.

I don't have to. You're the only one trying to be better than the next guy. ;) I guess you need to feel superior. You've won the internet badge of honor. I couldn't care less about being better than some one else on the internet. In the end you are just ones and zeros to me. That's where you and I differ smarty pants. :thumbsup:

So are you a bigot?
Noun 1. bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

I'm tolerant of others opinions, but I could see where since the meaning of the word bigot seems so watered down now it could include me as well. You're not being tolerant of my opinion and some here have suggested that since we are so wrong in our thinking that we should not be entitled to have an opinion. It is when some pompous know-it-all schmuck states that his logic trumps my right to have an an opinion. That is when I want to grab and shake you, but then again it is the internet so I just laugh at your lack of wisdom and my poor typing skills.