america is full of bigots

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='helava']The sad thing is, we'll look look back at this in the future, and homophobia will basically be exactly the same as racism. Some people will have been right all along, some people will deny ever having been bigots, some people will have actually learned that bigotry is bad, and other people will be members of the KKK. I expect that when that time comes, people like BigNick will be members of the KKK-equivalent.

seppo[/quote]

The problem is, to most of the country homosexuality is considered a) a choice or b) a birth defect. Until that is changed it will be ok to hate.[/quote]

The problem is the leaders that are hungry for power twisting the words of the crucified one for their own ends. The people I pity are those that fail to think for themselves, and the victims that they harm.

But that should be beside the point. The fact is, we live in a country that espouses a separation of church and state. Yet many fanatics don't understand that this ideal is one of the pillars that made America great.[/quote]

And yet it says "In God We Trust" on our money.[/quote]

And yet on the dollar bill it quotes the Aeneid, a Roman poem about the founding of Rome under the guidance of pagan gods.

"Annuit Coeptis" comes from "Jupiter omnipotens, audacibus annue coeptis." English: All-powerful Jupiter (Zeus is the Greek equivelent) favor my daring undertakings.

The Romans were a republic-turned-militaristic empire that was done in by corruption, their inability to stabilize the vast scope of land under their control, and the smothering influence of a strange religion that started in a small province in south Judea. Sound familiar?

Oh, and btw:
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion."
- George Washington
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='helava']The sad thing is, we'll look look back at this in the future, and homophobia will basically be exactly the same as racism. Some people will have been right all along, some people will deny ever having been bigots, some people will have actually learned that bigotry is bad, and other people will be members of the KKK. I expect that when that time comes, people like BigNick will be members of the KKK-equivalent.

seppo[/quote]

The problem is, to most of the country homosexuality is considered a) a choice or b) a birth defect. Until that is changed it will be ok to hate.[/quote]

The problem is the leaders that are hungry for power twisting the words of the crucified one for their own ends. The people I pity are those that fail to think for themselves, and the victims that they harm.

But that should be beside the point. The fact is, we live in a country that espouses a separation of church and state. Yet many fanatics don't understand that this ideal is one of the pillars that made America great.[/quote]

And yet it says "In God We Trust" on our money.[/quote]

Yeah, right next to the all-seeing-eye.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='helava']The sad thing is, we'll look look back at this in the future, and homophobia will basically be exactly the same as racism. Some people will have been right all along, some people will deny ever having been bigots, some people will have actually learned that bigotry is bad, and other people will be members of the KKK. I expect that when that time comes, people like BigNick will be members of the KKK-equivalent.

seppo[/quote]

The problem is, to most of the country homosexuality is considered a) a choice or b) a birth defect. Until that is changed it will be ok to hate.[/quote]

The problem is the leaders that are hungry for power twisting the words of the crucified one for their own ends. The people I pity are those that fail to think for themselves, and the victims that they harm.

But that should be beside the point. The fact is, we live in a country that espouses a separation of church and state. Yet many fanatics don't understand that this ideal is one of the pillars that made America great.[/quote]

And yet it says "In God We Trust" on our money.[/quote]

Yeah, right next to the all-seeing-eye.[/quote]

Yes, a symbol of the Ancient Egyptians, the eye of illumination, the "eye of Horus". From another religion that had no love for dogmatic Judeo-Christian values. Yet there they are, on our dollar bill.
 
[quote name='camoor']I have to laugh every time I see bigotted racist trash with a "Cartman" avatar. You DO know that Cartman is the one being lampooned, right?[/quote]

I have to laugh everytime one of you believes you can hold your own against me in this discussion.

"bigoted racist trash" - I was unaware sexual orientation was a race. Yet another example of mindless comments made by the uneducated.

CTL
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
Unlike some states, we do not legislate our religious and ideological beliefs. I guess Republicans only like states rights when it helps them.[/quote]

No you have them hoisted upon you by judicial decree.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='camoor']I have to laugh every time I see bigotted racist trash with a "Cartman" avatar. You DO know that Cartman is the one being lampooned, right?[/quote]

I have to laugh everytime one of you believes you can hold your own against me in this discussion.

"bigoted racist trash" - I was unaware sexual orientation was a race. Yet another example of mindless comments made by the uneducated.

CTL[/quote]

bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
See Also: antifeminist, chauvinist, homophobe, partisan, racialist, racist, sectarian, segregationist, segregator, zealot

Get a dictionary, and get a clue.
 
No you have them hoisted upon you by judicial decree.
Click to expand...
More than 60% of Mass residents support civil unions at a minimum for gays. This wasn't "hoisted" (I think you mean "foisted") on anyone. There is a difference between legislating your ideology to deny rights to a group of people based on your religion, and simply allowing people to live as equals.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='camoor']I have to laugh every time I see bigotted racist trash with a "Cartman" avatar. You DO know that Cartman is the one being lampooned, right?[/quote]

I have to laugh everytime one of you believes you can hold your own against me in this discussion.

"bigoted racist trash" - I was unaware sexual orientation was a race. Yet another example of mindless comments made by the uneducated.

CTL[/quote]

bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
See Also: antifeminist, chauvinist, homophobe, partisan, racialist, racist, sectarian, segregationist, segregator, zealot

Get a dictionary, and get a clue.[/quote]

Please. There is a difference between not opening up the gravy train of social and financial entitlements and bigotry.

Why don't you learn some of the tolerance you preach for alternative opinions.

CTL
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
No you have them hoisted upon you by judicial decree.
Click to expand...
More than 60% of Mass residents support civil unions at a minimum for gays. This wasn't "hoisted" (I think you mean "foisted") on anyone. There is a difference between legislating your ideology to deny rights to a group of people based on your religion, and simply allowing people to live as equals.[/quote]

No I meant hoisted.

And as I have repeatedly said - unmarried heterosexuals are treated just as unmarried gays. There is no difference.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And as I have repeatedly said - unmarried heterosexuals are treated just as unmarried gays. There is no difference.[/quote]

Except that unmarried hetrosexuals have the right to marry the person they love ("Pursuit of Happiness"), and unmarried homosexuals don't.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='CTLesq']And as I have repeatedly said - unmarried heterosexuals are treated just as unmarried gays. There is no difference.[/quote]

Except that unmarried hetrosexuals have the right to marry the person they love ("Pursuit of Happiness"), and unmarried homosexuals don't.[/quote]

And? This is about equal treatment of unmarried people.

Nothing stops gays from loving one another without being married.

It does stop the tide of financial entitlement.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='CTLesq']And as I have repeatedly said - unmarried heterosexuals are treated just as unmarried gays. There is no difference.[/quote]

Except that unmarried hetrosexuals have the right to marry the person they love ("Pursuit of Happiness"), and unmarried homosexuals don't.[/quote]

And? This is about equal treatment of unmarried people.

Nothing stops gays from loving one another without being married.

It does stop the tide of financial entitlement.

CTL[/quote]

Funny how we're flushing billions and billions of dollars down the toilet trying to force democracy on a country that doesn't want it, and you're concerned about the "financial entitlements" of marriage.

PS Since you are advocating government-provided privileges based on sexual orientation, you are a homophobic bigot. Just as if you advocate government-provided privileges based on race, you are a racist bigot. It's too bad that it disturbs you, it's just the facts.
 
No I meant hoisted.

And as I have repeatedly said - unmarried heterosexuals are treated just as unmarried gays. There is no difference.

CTL
Click to expand...
No, I think you mean foisted. Look it up.

And? This is about equal treatment of unmarried people.

Nothing stops gays from loving one another without being married.

It does stop the tide of financial entitlement.

CTL
Click to expand...
If you're treated equally when you're unmarried, what is wrong with seeking equal rights and protection under the law when you want to be married? Why is it right to treat them equally in the one case and unequally in the other? Yes, in part it is because of the specific rights that marriage grants. You say "financial entitlement" as if they just want free government money. They want to see their spouses if they're hospitalized, they want to have spousal insurance coverage, they want to have the legal rights granted to married people. But you know what? It goes beyond that. They want to be married because they love each other. They're no different than any other couple that wants to marry. Why is it right to deny them the benefits of marriage?

You just don't want to think that two gay people can lead a happy, monogamous, married life. You don't want them to have equal rights and protections, you want to keep them marginalized, outside of society, as 2nd class citizens. And the thought of two men kissing probably sickens you. But get used to it, because its only a matter of time before it comes a part of normal, everyday life.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And? This is about equal treatment of unmarried people.[/quote]
Exactly. Gay and straight unmarried couples are not treated equally. Straight unmarried couples have the right to marry. Gay unmarried couples do not. You've just denied gay couples a right, therefore, gay couples are inherently treated unequally from straight couples.

It does stop the tide of financial entitlement.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of rights that come with marriage that have nothing to do with finaces. They're such basic rights that most people don't even realize they exist. Anyway, if you're so much against financial entitlement, why don't we just take that away from straight married couples? There's a whole lot more of them than there will ever be gay married couples...
 
Yes, it is NOT just about financial entitlement. Hospital rights, especially where death/euthanasia is concerned, are a huge deal.
 
PS: CTL it is good to see you back on the boards. I feel like we can hold an intelligent discussion, even though we disagree on many things. You are one of the few people on the right on this board that generally refrains from pointless invectives.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What's that you say? America, Full of bigots?! Who ever would have thought that?[/quote]

Whats a bigot? i hope its not another word for those awfull gay people...if it is im moveing
 
I Just started reading this again and it's a quite interesting debate.

As to the first charge that my statements are inconsistent that is frankly untrue. At no time have I said that this is not about the legal protection of homosexuals. If I had made such a statement, and then changed that position, it would be an inconsistent statement. If CTL truly believes my position is inconsistent he's mistaken. There is nothing inconsistent in my posts.

He is further mistaken in his argument that unmarried homosexuals are treated no differently from unmarried heterosexuals. It depends on what state you live in. Unmarried heterosexuals are treated differently from homosexuals through common law marriage. Many judges will not acknowledge a common law marriage between homosexuals where they will between heterosexuals. Now, I do understand that common law marriage is a grey area, but allow me to use two specific examples and again explain my objection to the Ohio ballot initiative.

Ohio is one of the fifteen states of the nation that allow common law marriages. Individuals that behave as if they are married for an extended period of time can be recognized by a judge as married. That recognition is not automatic. It must be proven in court that the couple is action in a method that is the equivalent of marriage and that the couple intends to be viewed as married by society.

My objection to the specific initiative is that it strips that legal right away from Ohioans. It eliminates all common law marriages. Now in Ohio, Homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated equally where they were not previously. This equality was created by stripping rights from the citizens of Ohio. Which is my first contention with CTL's argument. If you believe that unmarried couples homo/hetero should be treated equally under the law that's fine. But there is a huge difference between giving heterosexuals a right that already existed and removing that right from the entire population of Ohio just to prevent homosexuals from being a party to it.

It is my belief that most individuals who voted for the ballot initiative did not even realize this fact. Why remove a legal right from thousands of heterosexual citizens to prevent homosexuals from being treated equally under the law. That's my personal objection to the initative.

My second example is the alternative. Montana is one of the fifteen states that allows common law marriage. Yet they also passed a Homosexual Ballot amendment that bans gay marriage, but allows common law marriage betwen heterosexuals to continue. There is an example where unmarried heterosexual couples have different rights than unmarried homosexual couples.

You may argue if it's right or wrong, but you can't deny the fact that the two are treated differently under the law in that state and in others. Now in states that don't have common law marriage his argument has merit. The vast majority of states don't acknowledge common law marriage. But I have made no comments on those other states, I have only shown objection to Ohio.

Technically CTL is right that in those most states unmarried homosexuals are not being denied the same rights as unmarried heterosexuals. But he's avoiding the argument in general. The question is if unmarried homosexuals should be denied the right of marriage that unmarried heterosexuals have access to. Not if Unmarried couples, either homosexual or heterosexual, have the same rights. He's not arguing about homosexuals or heterosexuals, he's arguing about unmarried couples.

This is where it's a grey area. Because you have a right to marry your neighbor but not the right to marry your sister. There are those that view homosexuals like two neighbors having an affair or those that see it like kissing your sister. Personally while I don't support the sexual paractice of homosexuality I view it as the former and not the latter.

I believe this is a states rights issue, and if a state wishes to deny homosexual union, it is the right of the population of that state to do so. Think of it more like obscenity. This is a large nation. with diverse cultural centers. The basic guideline of what is obscene and what isn't depends on the people living in those areas. What will be found obscene in Manhattan, Kanas might be allowable in Manhattan, New York. I think people living in those areas have a right to weigh in on the issue.

Personally, If my state had a ballot initiative I would vote for giving homosexuals equal legal opportunity to the rights of marriage. Ethically, my quandry is this. I believe that homosexuals have the right to exist. But you cannot say they then have right to exist and then deny them all recognition under the law. Because then you are effectively denying them the right to exist. Which, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm mistaken in my assertion, is the fundamental argument that CTL is making. If that's his belief he's certainly entitled and it has some merits. But I cannot in good faith accept a homosexuals right to exist yet deny them the basic legal protection entitled to heterosexuals. That's just me.
 
Marriage is, at it's core, a religious thing and it really shouldn't be touched at all by the government. Afterall, you don't get anything from them for confirmation or bar mitzvah or baptism.

The solution to this problem is simple: do away with any and all marriage benefits and make them all "civil union" benefits instead. Why no one wants that is a mystery. You'd still be able to get married and feel a moral superiority over homosexuals in that way, but everyone would have the same rights under the law. If anything it would increase the sanctity of marriage, I think. You wouldn't have to actually get married for the rewards, so if you did choose to get married it would be because you're totally devoted to your spouse. There wouldn't be any other reason for it, then; no marriages of convenience, so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top