Why are so many Republicans intolerant and hateful?

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
How does standing up for the traditional view of marriage make one hateful and intolerant?

Making laws based on christianity is wrong. We are a secular nation and it is time we act like it. To many repubs supporting Christian laws over the rights of humanity. Religious laws will never be compatible with democracy. Religious law are full of bigotry and hate.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

To any one who reads the Declaration of Independance, it has to be MUCH MORE THAN OBVIOUS that the Founding Fathers believed that WHATEVER rights we may have, we ONLY have them because they are granted to us by God.

Square that with total secularity.

Joe

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, I guess I dont care what people think about me *shrug* I'm pretty liberal on most issues; however, I do not support, in any way, marriage of gays, including civil unions. I dont support adoption by gay couples. I dont like the fact my company gives spousal benifits to gay couples. I dont like the lifestyle.

I do, however, think gays should not be discruiminated against because of their sexual orientation. I think they deserve the full protection under the law from crimes against them as any American should (and they already HAVE this protection under our Constitution, so we dont need NEW laws).

Call me what you want, I really dont care...intolerant, closed minded, bigoted, or a homophobe. I really dont care. Just be careful though...lest you find yourself equally as closed minded and intolerant of MY views. Dont be a hypocrite

You are perfectly within your rights to find gay relationships to be icky (or whatever). That's the great thing about living in a free country, at least in theory. People are free to do what they want, and you are free to find it offensive

Thats the funny thing...I dont necessarily find the lifestyle offensive or icky. I just dont think gay couples should have the same rights as married couples in regards to marriage. I have several very close friends who are in gay relationships, and they know well my view, and it doesnt matter to them. We are still very good and close friends. It's kind of like my best friend's perpencity to treating women like objects. Although I disagree with him, we are still friends. Disagreement doesnt always mean hatred -or- intolerance. I guess I dont have a problem accepting differences in others, and I respect THEIR decisions they make, whether I agree with them or not.

Like I said, whatever works for you. I think the line is where you think everyone else needs to be forced to follow your views on the topic. Not saying you are thinking along those lines, but that tends to be the real issue. "I think X is bad"...fine by me..."and I think we should ban doing X." Well that's another issue alltogether.

such a simple statement but so damn hard for people to understand..
:thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
...
You know this whole gay marriage thing is truly showing exactly how democracy works in this country. See the MAJORITY of people do not want it, therefore it is not so, but see what happens? When democracy is put into practice and the MAJORITY wins the MINORITY complains that the MAJORITY is nothing but a bunch of homophobes.

Nice to know that you guys are all for a democracy in this country as long as it goes your way.
...

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but that's not how democracy works. As civil libertarians love to say, democracy is more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. After all, if that were not the case, ANYTHING the majority approved would be acceptable. That is why we are not an unlimited democracy, because the founders recognized that the minority often needs protection from the majority.

And in any case, our system is constantly changing, we don't decide and issue for all time and then shut up about it. Right now, those in favor of gay marriage are the vocal minority...but one of these days enough people will agree with us to give us the power to actually change the rules. Now, if we are supposed to respect democracy, how would that ever change? For that matter, how would anything every change. If the minority
isn't allowed to think the majority is wrong about something or to try and do something about it, how is that democracy?

And one last thing, democracy does NOT determine the motives of the people, only their wishes. Democracy, at the moment, tells us that the majority of Americans in the states that voted on the issue are against gay marriage. The reasons are not speculated on, and nothing about democracy makes it impossible for wrong reasons to influence decisions. It is quite possible that the majority of Americans are ignorant homophobes. I'm not saying they are, but just because you guys win a vote doesn't make that any less possible.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
How does standing up for the traditional view of marriage make one hateful and intolerant?

Making laws based on christianity is wrong. We are a secular nation and it is time we act like it. To many repubs supporting Christian laws over the rights and humanity.

Hey genius, what do you think almost all of our laws are based off of? Our entire society is influenced greatly by Christianity, including YOU, the self proclaimed theist hater.

In the past this was true. But why should non christians be forced to comply to laws of bible today. There is no reason to even considure the god when making laws.

I know when I hear a repub or someone else quoting the bible mentioning god in support of a law, it makes me cring. Because such laws are also written by biggots for biggots.

I agree that God shouldn't be considered when making laws. However, the society we have today is the result of religion and it's influence on people. Religion gave us the morality that we have today (well most of us, you don't seem to have the same morality -- as evidenced by the thread in which you said you'd let a theist die if you could save them), and our laws are based off our morality.

actually no, it did not give us our morality today, it may have given some people, but many of us simply live a good life because we feel it is right and we dont have to explain it by saying that any superior being commanded it

But you can't say that... even secularly. You have no idea and no way to prove, what being brought up in a society which is based largely on Christian moral values has done to shape the person you are today. You say you live a good life because you feel it is right, but you don't reasonably apply the environment that you were brought up in as part of the reason that you are that way. Do you really think that if you had been brought up in Palestine you would think the same way you do right now?

Joe

 

[eits]

the same can be said about us democrats, dude... we're a nation divided and we're both intolerant and hateful of each other. the big difference is that democrats leave room for people who aren't in our ideal philosophy of what life should be like.... conservatives/republicans don't... they mainly live in the black-and-white world with no real gray area worthy of mention. because of that, republicans blast gray-area-policies like welfare, common sense, and open-mindedness.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: eits
the same can be said about us democrats, dude... we're a nation divided and we're both intolerant and hateful of each other. the big difference is that democrats leave room for people who aren't in our ideal philosophy of what life should be like.... conservatives/republicans don't... they mainly live in the black-and-white world with no real gray area worthy of mention. because of that, republicans blast gray-area-policies like welfare, common sense, and open-mindedness.

I'm not sure that's totally true, that is a rather black and white statement, you must admit. However, I will say that I feel I can say I'm a Democrat who does not think outsourcing is the end of the world, while I don't feel I could be a Republican who supports gay marriage. Perhaps that is a problem for me, and is no reflection at all upon our two big parties. But it makes me wonder...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: eits
the same can be said about us democrats, dude... we're a nation divided and we're both intolerant and hateful of each other. the big difference is that democrats leave room for people who aren't in our ideal philosophy of what life should be like.... conservatives/republicans don't... they mainly live in the black-and-white world with no real gray area worthy of mention. because of that, republicans blast gray-area-policies like welfare, common sense, and open-mindedness.

Really. The thread title is not exactly a good example of being open to others views.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, I guess I dont care what people think about me *shrug* I'm pretty liberal on most issues; however, I do not support, in any way, marriage of gays, including civil unions. I dont support adoption by gay couples. I dont like the fact my company gives spousal benifits to gay couples. I dont like the lifestyle.

I do, however, think gays should not be discruiminated against because of their sexual orientation. I think they deserve the full protection under the law from crimes against them as any American should (and they already HAVE this protection under our Constitution, so we dont need NEW laws).

Call me what you want, I really dont care...intolerant, closed minded, bigoted, or a homophobe. I really dont care. Just be careful though...lest you find yourself equally as closed minded and intolerant of MY views. Dont be a hypocrite

You are perfectly within your rights to find gay relationships to be icky (or whatever). That's the great thing about living in a free country, at least in theory. People are free to do what they want, and you are free to find it offensive

Sadly this is true. The best we can hope for is as society ages people like this decrease in number.

You are no different than what you claim me to be, DVK. YOU are intolerant of MY beliefs, yet you claim -I- am intolerant? YOU have stated clearly YOUR HATRED of anyone or anything religeous...how is that tolerant? More and more you are reminding me of Joseph Stalin. He was as intolerant of others, as you are, but unfortunately he had the power to kill them. Which you would do....if you could. Look in the mirror, then ask...who among us is intolerant....

What a sad, miserable, hate-filled heart you have, sir.

You are both intolerant to some degree, however, you are the worse of the two. Yes, he is intolerant of your beliefs, as am I, such is beyond doubt. At the same time though, our disaproval of your theocratic opinions translates into no harm of you.

The difference between you and I is that my opinion is one of freedom, yours is one of oppression. I am of the opinion that my will is not absolute, I do not have absolute truth, and therefore I am in no position to be issuing edicts that curtail the behaviors of others that cause no harm to anyone but possibly themselves. Call me a social libertarian if you will.

On the other hand, you have decided that not only should your holy book of choice run your life, but it should also run the lives of everybody else. Instead of attempting to do this through the forces of logic and persuasion, you have instead opted to have your beliefs enforced on everyone else through the power of law. Despite the fact that homosexual marriage has no negative impact on you or anyone else, at least on this side of hell, you have decided to place your judgement as superior to every other person on this planet and tell certain that they are forbidden to act in a way because you happen to disapprove of it.

You are not content to let any God that may exist be the final judge, you have chosen to issue your judgement now. You have decided you have the right to tell other people how to live their lives. You have claimed to be the ultimate arbitter of morality in this world.

That is why we are different. You have decided that you can choose for everyone else, I have decided that people can choose for themselves. We are perhaps both intolerant but my intolerance hurts only me.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eits
the same can be said about us democrats, dude... we're a nation divided and we're both intolerant and hateful of each other. the big difference is that democrats leave room for people who aren't in our ideal philosophy of what life should be like.... conservatives/republicans don't... they mainly live in the black-and-white world with no real gray area worthy of mention. because of that, republicans blast gray-area-policies like welfare, common sense, and open-mindedness.

Really. The thread title is not exactly a good example of being open to others views.

i meant politically... not obviously.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: eits
the same can be said about us democrats, dude... we're a nation divided and we're both intolerant and hateful of each other. the big difference is that democrats leave room for people who aren't in our ideal philosophy of what life should be like.... conservatives/republicans don't... they mainly live in the black-and-white world with no real gray area worthy of mention. because of that, republicans blast gray-area-policies like welfare, common sense, and open-mindedness.

Really. The thread title is not exactly a good example of being open to others views.

i meant politically... not obviously.

They leave room because they don't have a choice, they aren't in power and must accept compromises...you better believe if they were in power they'd be doing as they wished without regard for what anyone else wants.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Like I said, whatever works for you. I think the line is where you think everyone else needs to be forced to follow your views on the topic. Not saying you are thinking along those lines, but that tends to be the real issue. "I think X is bad"...fine by me..."and I think we should ban doing X." Well that's another issue alltogether.

But taking X="not banning Y" shows your position to be somewhat contradictory.

 

[Abraxas]

There is an inherent difference between banning something and not banning something that you seem to be ignoring. In the case of banning something, you substitute your judgement for everyone elses. By not banning something you let them use their own judgement. The former you impose your will on them, the latter they are free to choose for themselves.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
True enough, but society is not government. Society changes over time, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad ways. Perhaps our current changes will lead to a loss of moral basis (but I doubt it), but is that really something the government needs to do something about? The moral crusaders usually seem to make the jump between "society is going down the wrong path" and "the government needs to do something about it". This doesn't seem obvious to me, as there are many things that society simply needs to deal with on its own, and using government force to push change will almost certainly not work.

All things should promote the good, including governments, obviously insofar as they are capable. For us to be good is to be morally good, and so the government should promote this insofar as it is capable. To what extent the government is capable is an interesting and difficult question. If the answer is the government cannot affect these things at all either by acting or not acting then the government would have no moral responsibilities, which I don't think is the case.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: conjur
Wouldn't "sexual deviance" be something different from each person would consider normal? Such as...Male heterosexuals sexually abusing young boys?

No, it is not. For example, the example you have just given. It is deviant even if it is considered normal.

Deviant technically means nothing more than being different from normal standards. The fact that common usage has this being a negative word says a lot, IMHO, about the state of our society.

I meant it as deviant from what is normative, that is in its moral sense, as the word is generally used.

 

[Abraxas]

Which good? If you want a free society and not a totalitarian state (as your logic leads us to) you must let each individual decide their own private good life rather than have a government impsoe their view of the good life on the individual. As dedicated as you are to your view of morality, most people disagree (wordly), historically it has not always been the way you claim it to be, philisophically your position is virtually unsubstantiated outside of the Christian tradition, and scientifically your argument is simply wrong. If you are arguing that the US or the world should be a Christian theocracy in which christian law is imposed on everyone and the Christian view of the good shall trump every other person's individual preference and belief in the good, please say so now so I can stop wasting my time talking at you. If not and you want a free society where individuals can decide for themselves what the good is, you still have yet to justify your claim that the government should impose a ban on gay marriage based on your view of the good.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: AbraxasWhich good?

The good. I was not referring to anyone's opinion of it, to anyone's "own private good".

If you want a free society and not a totalitarian state (as your logic leads us to) you must let each individual decide their own private good life rather than have a government impsoe their view of the good life on the individual.

My logic doesn't lead in that direction necessarily. It is quite possible that in many and perhaps almost all circumstances compulsion is not the best means to make a person better.
You seem to have the erroneous view that a person should always benefit others by helping them achieve what they think best. Now if you are right, then you are wrong to try to persuade me. I think my views best and so you, if you hold the view you seem to, should help me maintain them.

As dedicated as you are to your view of morality, most people disagree (wordly), historically it has not always been the way you claim it to be

What historical claims am I making?

scientifically your argument is simply wrong.

What natural scientific claims am I making?

If you are arguing that the US or the world should be a Christian theocracy in which christian law is imposed on everyone and the Christian view of the good shall trump every other person's individual preference and belief in the good, please say so now so I can stop wasting my time talking at you.

You are "wasting your time" talking with yourself here.

you still have yet to justify your claim that the government should impose a ban on gay marriage based on your view of the good.

People choose views without constraint but are subject to all sorts of influences. In the USA particularly law is a big influence, very illogically, on people's views on what is right. The government should not give the wrong influences. It should not promote wrong views of marriage, and should promote, insofar as it is within its authority (and obviously insofar as in its power) right views.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: AbraxasWhich good?

The good.

What good? Show me this good. Prove to me this good is good. If you are going to legislate this, I should hope you have more to base this legislation on than your opinion of what is good.

I was not referring to anyone's opinion of it, to anyone's "own private good".

If you want a free society and not a totalitarian state (as your logic leads us to) you must let each individual decide their own private good life rather than have a government impsoe their view of the good life on the individual.

My logic doesn't lead in that direction necessarily. It is quite possible that in many and perhaps almost all circumstances compulsion is not the best means to make a person better.

Then demonstrate why this one is or other issues of moral diversity are not. Your logic so far holds that people will be good with proper legislation where you have yet to make this case.

You seem to have the erroneous view that a person should always benefit others by helping them achieve what they think best. Now if you are right, then you are wrong to try to persuade me. I think my views best and so you, if you hold the view you seem to, should help me maintain them.

That is not my position. My position is that you have no right to impose your personal version of the good on anyone else and that attempting to legislate your morality is doing just that. My opinion is that individuality is worthy of protection and that legislation that impinges on that should be fought.

As dedicated as you are to your view of morality, most people disagree (wordly), historically it has not always been the way you claim it to be

What historical claims am I making?

You mean you aren't claiming to be defending the traditional view of marriage, love, and relationships?

scientifically your argument is simply wrong.

What natural scientific claims am I making?

Your entire argument can be analyzed in a scientific manner and it fails. You ahve made no verifiable claims.

If you are arguing that the US or the world should be a Christian theocracy in which christian law is imposed on everyone and the Christian view of the good shall trump every other person's individual preference and belief in the good, please say so now so I can stop wasting my time talking at you.

You are "wasting your time" talking with yourself here.

I am speaking to you. Are you or are you not arguing for the position that Christian law should be enforced through the legal system?

you still have yet to justify your claim that the government should impose a ban on gay marriage based on your view of the good.

People choose views without constraint but are subject to all sorts of influences. In the USA particularly law is a big influence, very illogically, on people's views on what is right. The government should not give the wrong influences. It should not promote wrong views of marriage, and should promote, insofar as it is within its authority (and obviously insofar as in its power) right views.

Influence is not the same as imposition. I can pressure you and argue with you and scream at you all I like, ultimately I cannot force any kind of behavior in you either through action or inaction. That is influence. What you are proposing is using legal force to wrestle people into your moral mold. This is imposition. I am am arguing against the latter of the two, not the former.

Once again, I note, you are talking in circles. You have not established what you consider to be good is actual good. You have yet to justify why it is the role of the government to pick from all views of the good, choose yours, legislate it, and then enforce it. Simply repeating that the government should enforce it because it is good and it is good because it is good is not an argument.

 

[randym431]

It was intended to be the government's recognition of a family, to keep people together, and enforce some morality

Gawd
Turn off Rush and get your head out of your .......

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
How does standing up for the traditional view of marriage make one hateful and intolerant?

Making laws based on christianity is wrong. We are a secular nation and it is time we act like it. To many repubs supporting Christian laws over the rights and humanity.

Hey genius, what do you think almost all of our laws are based off of? Our entire society is influenced greatly by Christianity, including YOU, the self proclaimed theist hater.

Hey dumbass, ever heard of the following? Magna Carta, Rights of Man and Social Contract? Our laws don't have a damn to do with christianity or any religion. A overwhelming majority of our founding fathers said some extremely negative things about christianity and were Deists..

Read up about Thomas Paine, the author of the Rights of Man. His father was a Quaker, and it says right on wikipedia that he was influenced by the Quackers [which is CHRISTIAN religion, dumbass].

John Locke went to Christ Church college at Oxford...Jean-Jacques Rousseau was originally Catholic, and then converted to Calvinism. -- Both of these men are credited with influencing our founding fathers, and they were also Christian...Do you truely believe these men were not influenced in the slightest by their religion or their experience with religion?

I never stated nor did I imply religion doesn't have an impact on united states law, I just gave evidence that proves that the founding of the united states and its' laws don't rest upon christianity or any other religion.

Thomas Paine father was a quaker, thomas himself was not. My parents are religious, I am not. Members of my family teach at a local lutheran college campus, they are not religious. I am not sure if John Locke was religious, but the reasoning he used for works wasn't based upon religion.

By the way, "Quacker" isn't a religion dumbass.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
How does standing up for the traditional view of marriage make one hateful and intolerant?

Making laws based on christianity is wrong. We are a secular nation and it is time we act like it. To many repubs supporting Christian laws over the rights and humanity.

Hey genius, what do you think almost all of our laws are based off of? Our entire society is influenced greatly by Christianity, including YOU, the self proclaimed theist hater.

Hey dumbass, ever heard of the following? Magna Carta, Rights of Man and Social Contract? Our laws don't have a damn to do with christianity or any religion. A overwhelming majority of our founding fathers said some extremely negative things about christianity and were Deists..

Read up about Thomas Paine, the author of the Rights of Man. His father was a Quaker, and it says right on wikipedia that he was influenced by the Quackers [which is CHRISTIAN religion, dumbass].

John Locke went to Christ Church college at Oxford...Jean-Jacques Rousseau was originally Catholic, and then converted to Calvinism. -- Both of these men are credited with influencing our founding fathers, and they were also Christian...Do you truely believe these men were not influenced in the slightest by their religion or their experience with religion?

I never stated nor did I imply religion doesn't have an impact on united states law, I just gave evidence that proves that the founding of the united states and its' laws don't rest upon christianity or any other religion.

Thomas Paine father was a quaker, thomas himself was not. My parents are religious, I am not. Members of my family teach at a local lutheran college campus, they are not religious. I am not sure if John Locke was religious, but the reasoning he used for works wasn't based upon religion.

By the way, "Quacker" isn't a religion dumbass.

So you agree that our society and morality is influenced by Christianity then. That was really my whole point the entire time...

 

[nageov3t]

Freddy Mercury was gay.

Queen > any modern politician.

/thread

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

You know this whole gay marriage thing is truly showing exactly how democracy works in this country. See the MAJORITY of people do not want it, therefore it is not so, but see what happens? When democracy is put into practice and the MAJORITY wins the MINORITY complains that the MAJORITY is nothing but a bunch of homophobes.

Nice to know that you guys are all for a democracy in this country as long as it goes your way.

you have a really poor conception of the principles of our democracy. that is NOT how democracy works, or rather, not how democracy SHOULD work.

no one here is going to convince you, but maybe thomas jefferson will:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: conjur
Wouldn't "sexual deviance" be something different from each person would consider normal? Such as...Male heterosexuals sexually abusing young boys?

No, it is not. For example, the example you have just given. It is deviant even if it is considered normal.

Uh, if it's normal it's not deviant. Have you considered checking with Merriam-Webster?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Tab

I never stated nor did I imply religion doesn't have an impact on united states law, I just gave evidence that proves that the founding of the united states and its' laws don't rest upon christianity or any other religion.

Thomas Paine father was a quaker, thomas himself was not. My parents are religious, I am not. Members of my family teach at a local lutheran college campus, they are not religious. I am not sure if John Locke was religious, but the reasoning he used for works wasn't based upon religion.

By the way, "Quacker" isn't a religion dumbass.

Actually, our founding fathers were more Christian than anything else, and most who weren't Christian, respected the Bible. Reasoning things out doesn't prove anything. So yes, if you study the lives of the founding fathers, Chrisianity had a major role in our Constitution, though you are right to say that the Constitution was not founded upon any religion.

 

[blackangst1]

Well, ultimately we have to draw a line somewhere. We obviously cant cant have a society where anything goes. What our laws attempt to do is give everyone their own personal freedoms without trampling their individual rights as afforded by our constitution. By banning gay marriage, no one's rights under the constitution are being trampled. If you believe otherwise, please post your proof. Marriage is a social issue, not a constitutional one.

And while were at it, why not make beasiality legal? I mean really! Animals arent given rights under the constitution, are they?