Cheapass24
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
Am i the only one that clicked this because I thought it said Morons are homophobic?
Mormons are homophobes?
- Thread starter tweetjj
- Start date
sanderdaniels81
CAGiversary!
This is a bit of a tangent, but it was dripping so thoroughly with ignorance that I couldn't ignore it.
If you don't inherently distrust statistics, you've either never taken a course in statistics, or you slept through it.
Statistics can be and ARE used to support just about ANY position. This is why so many statistically-based studies reach completely opposite conclusions.
Statistics are essentially the "generalizations" of the data world. The data BEHIND the statistics (the metadata) is what is ACTUALLY of interest (when used in conjunction with the data, obviously). If you aren't looking at the demographics, sample size, personal biases of the statistician, etc... then you're not going to learn ANYTHING from the study. The statistics themselves are almost completely useless without the metadata.
This part in particular is what I find most ironic, because you CLEARLY lack the methodological and mathematical know-how to discuss statistics. Please, please, take a statistics course before you continue pretending that you're an expert. And if you plan to respond with "I already have", then PLEASE go take it again and pay some attention this time.
Richard Kain
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Sure, it's "inherently different." So are interracial marriages, and partners of different faiths, ages, et cetera.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but then dogs are different from cats, grass is different from the sky, and a snow-globe is not the same thing as an alarm clock. Throwing out obvious "differences" is not a compelling rebuttal. And all of the examples you offer don't even come close to the obvious disparity between "male" and "female."
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And since I already said it, I'm mildly annoyed that you asked me to repeat myself.
You would be wrong. I am always up to the challenge. And I'm amused that in all of that you still failed to address my question. Turning a question around on the person who asked it is only effective if they have no response.
Women and men are different from each other, on a fundamental level. If this is true, then it stands to reason that a relationship between two members of the same sex, will be different from two members of the opposite sex. A heterosexual relationship will not be the same as a homosexual relationship.
The institution of marriage was established to address heterosexual relationships. It is intended to support stable families. Why should it be applied to homosexual relationships, when they are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships? You don't just blindly apply the same rules to different circumstances. That's a bit short-sighted.
People like to bandy around the term "equal." But few stop to think about what it really encompasses. Men don't actually treat women equally, and vice versa. I don't treat children equally to adults, for very obvious reasons. Generally speaking, such standards are understood on a social level. People learn through experience what society accepts and what it doesn't, even if it isn't written down.
Homosexual marriage is an example of an extreme minority group attempting to buck that trend. Given the nature of the U.S. government, there is nothing wrong with their attempt. But they do face an uphill battle against the majority of their fellow citizens. If homosexuals weren't in the minority, than these sorts of laws would have already been passed, and the argument would be moot.
And here you are simply repeating something I already pointed out.
I genuinely don't think I'm bigoted. I do object to homosexuality on a religious and personal basis, but I have never allowed that to affect how I treat homosexuals specifically. I have more real-life experience with homosexuals than most people. I've worked with them before, and even spent two years of college living in the same room as one. I found we were able to be quite friendly, despite the disparity in our lifestyles.
So I'm not a bigot, I just have no faith in humanity. Regrettably, the flagging quality of the arguments here haven't sparked any fresh hope. Claiming to be open-minded is useless if you don't actually put your mind to good use.
Yes, but then dogs are different from cats, grass is different from the sky, and a snow-globe is not the same thing as an alarm clock. Throwing out obvious "differences" is not a compelling rebuttal. And all of the examples you offer don't even come close to the obvious disparity between "male" and "female."
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. And since I already said it, I'm mildly annoyed that you asked me to repeat myself.
You would be wrong. I am always up to the challenge. And I'm amused that in all of that you still failed to address my question. Turning a question around on the person who asked it is only effective if they have no response.
Women and men are different from each other, on a fundamental level. If this is true, then it stands to reason that a relationship between two members of the same sex, will be different from two members of the opposite sex. A heterosexual relationship will not be the same as a homosexual relationship.
The institution of marriage was established to address heterosexual relationships. It is intended to support stable families. Why should it be applied to homosexual relationships, when they are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships? You don't just blindly apply the same rules to different circumstances. That's a bit short-sighted.
People like to bandy around the term "equal." But few stop to think about what it really encompasses. Men don't actually treat women equally, and vice versa. I don't treat children equally to adults, for very obvious reasons. Generally speaking, such standards are understood on a social level. People learn through experience what society accepts and what it doesn't, even if it isn't written down.
Homosexual marriage is an example of an extreme minority group attempting to buck that trend. Given the nature of the U.S. government, there is nothing wrong with their attempt. But they do face an uphill battle against the majority of their fellow citizens. If homosexuals weren't in the minority, than these sorts of laws would have already been passed, and the argument would be moot.
And here you are simply repeating something I already pointed out.
I genuinely don't think I'm bigoted. I do object to homosexuality on a religious and personal basis, but I have never allowed that to affect how I treat homosexuals specifically. I have more real-life experience with homosexuals than most people. I've worked with them before, and even spent two years of college living in the same room as one. I found we were able to be quite friendly, despite the disparity in our lifestyles.
So I'm not a bigot, I just have no faith in humanity. Regrettably, the flagging quality of the arguments here haven't sparked any fresh hope. Claiming to be open-minded is useless if you don't actually put your mind to good use.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Richard Kain']Yes, but then dogs are different from cats, grass is different from the sky, and a snow-globe is not the same thing as an alarm clock. Throwing out obvious "differences" is not a compelling rebuttal. And all of the examples you offer don't even come close to the obvious disparity between "male" and "female."[/quote]
And you don't even come close to offering an compelling explanation for why homosexual couples, different from heterosexuals they may be, are so fundamentally less capable of building stable families, than hetero couples, that they don't even deserve the same opportunities.
Yes, I
ing agree, homosexuals are different from heterosexuals. No shit. That is no longer the question. The question is how you can sit there and tell me that there is any justification for homosexuals not having access to the same institutions that supposedly "promote stable families," that hetero couples, in all their demonstrable degrees of failure and success, have. The world is up to it's neck in disastrous and dysfunctional families with hetero parents.
And no, I don't think that all homosexual unions would automatically be shining examples of perfect parents and all raise perfect families, so don't try to "gotcha" me with that. I don't give a shit if statistically they resulted in 20% more or 20% less stable, functional families. The bottom line, is that they deserve the same opportunity.
And you don't even come close to offering an compelling explanation for why homosexual couples, different from heterosexuals they may be, are so fundamentally less capable of building stable families, than hetero couples, that they don't even deserve the same opportunities.
Yes, I
ing agree, homosexuals are different from heterosexuals. No shit. That is no longer the question. The question is how you can sit there and tell me that there is any justification for homosexuals not having access to the same institutions that supposedly "promote stable families," that hetero couples, in all their demonstrable degrees of failure and success, have. The world is up to it's neck in disastrous and dysfunctional families with hetero parents.And no, I don't think that all homosexual unions would automatically be shining examples of perfect parents and all raise perfect families, so don't try to "gotcha" me with that. I don't give a shit if statistically they resulted in 20% more or 20% less stable, functional families. The bottom line, is that they deserve the same opportunity.
As stated above, yes. As also stated above, this is no longer the question.
Women are fundamentally different from men, so why should we have applied to them the same voting rights as men? Because most certainly, there were plenty of explanations out there for why women being able to vote would be "unstable," 150 years ago.
Yeah, and black people in the United States used to be a minority who wanted to be able to "buck the trend" of not being able to vote.
Hah! The old "some of my best friends are gay" cop-out. Mercy me.
to Coffeeedge and others - i don't agree with Richard Kain, but he's probably been the most diplomatic one in this thread, despite the fact that his pov is largely offensive to those who believe otherwise.
in any case, responding with an undignified air of condescension really doesn't serve productively in the long run. yeah, he's being a bigot (from my definition of bigot, although he probably doesn't agree). but by saying "yeah try to talk yourself out of that one, BIGOT" etc. will serve to further polarize the two sides, rather than form any sort of conclusive agreement.
in any case, responding with an undignified air of condescension really doesn't serve productively in the long run. yeah, he's being a bigot (from my definition of bigot, although he probably doesn't agree). but by saying "yeah try to talk yourself out of that one, BIGOT" etc. will serve to further polarize the two sides, rather than form any sort of conclusive agreement.
sanderdaniels81
CAGiversary!
If you believe in God, do you believe that he's a bigot?
Why did God design human bodies so that only a male and a female could procreate?
If you don't believe in God, why did evolution do so?
Medical science still hasn't come up with a way to let gay couples have a child that is genetically related to both partners. And it probably never will. Because God didn't design the system to work that way.
What would you call something in the human body that prevented cells from multiplying before they died?
If homosexuality were universally practiced, the earth would be de-populated in a single generation. It would be the societal and evolutionary equivalent of apoptosis.
(You can talk about how there are some heterosexual couples who are unable to have children, but they are unequivocally the exception, not the rule - which is why we still have plenty of people on earth).
While homosexuality is accepted by individuals, it cannot be embraced by societies as a whole without disastrous consequences. So it should come as no surprise when there is great societal resistance to the attempts to create equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
Different people have all sorts of different inclinations. Does that make it good and healthy to indulge in them?
Often I hear people referring to homosexuality with a list of other sins, such as stealing, lying, cheating, etc... This is often objected to by gays on the basis that their behavior, between two consenting adults of the same sex, doesn't affect anyone but themselves.
How about obesity? It has been generally proven that obesity is a self-destructive behavior. It's symptoms typically manifest themselves quite obviously early on, but the harmful effects are often not seen for decades. Obesity has been shown to be the cause of NUMEROUS other disorders in the body, harmful to the individual.
Interestingly, society, and even the government, have seen obesity as significant enough to launch a campaign AGAINST it. Why? It's that individual's choice to be obese if they want to, right? They aren't hurting anyone else with their behavior.
Similarly, gays and lesbians have an increased risk for a host of diseases as a result of the lifestyle they've chosen to live (notice that I didn't say they chose their DESIRES, rather their LIFESTYLE).
The desires are not sinful, but the behaviors are. The person who craves food with an insatiable appetite isn't sinful until they choose to become obese through the act of gluttonous eating. The person who craves homosexual sex isn't sinful until they choose to actually engage in homosexual sex.
Does this mean I think less of people who have adopted a gay lifestyle? Absolutely not - neither would I think less of an overweight person who has decided there's no escape from being obese and stops trying. All of us give into our vices at times, and we should try to help each other overcome those vices rather than embracing them and making them a part of our lifestyle. It's when we EMBRACE our vices as normal that there's a serious problem, and that we need help to escape from them.
We should be universally concerned for those around us who have given in, and embraced these unhealthy vices - especially when it's to the point where their individual identity DEPENDS on it.
I have yet to meet a heterosexual person who is constantly identifying themselves as a "heterosexual" rather than just as a person. I have, however, met obese people who see their obesity as a part of their identity (as "a fat person"), and alcoholics who see their alcoholism as a part of their identity ("i'm an alcoholic"), and gay people who see their homosexuality as a part of their identity.
Feel free to disagree, or call me whatever you'd like, but I believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe that God created men and women for the purpose of having families together, and having joy as families. I understand that some people are born without the desire for sex with the opposite gender, and these individuals have a great struggle if they choose to fight their desires. But I believe that God expects them to do so.
Truth is not always easy to accept, but truth is true regardless of how many arguments are "won" against it.
Once again, these are my beliefs, and I'm entitled to them, just as you're entitled to yours. I have several gay friends who are quite aware of where I stand, and they respect my right to my beliefs just as I respect theirs, even though our views are at odds.
Why did God design human bodies so that only a male and a female could procreate?
If you don't believe in God, why did evolution do so?
Medical science still hasn't come up with a way to let gay couples have a child that is genetically related to both partners. And it probably never will. Because God didn't design the system to work that way.
What would you call something in the human body that prevented cells from multiplying before they died?
If homosexuality were universally practiced, the earth would be de-populated in a single generation. It would be the societal and evolutionary equivalent of apoptosis.
(You can talk about how there are some heterosexual couples who are unable to have children, but they are unequivocally the exception, not the rule - which is why we still have plenty of people on earth).
While homosexuality is accepted by individuals, it cannot be embraced by societies as a whole without disastrous consequences. So it should come as no surprise when there is great societal resistance to the attempts to create equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
Different people have all sorts of different inclinations. Does that make it good and healthy to indulge in them?
Often I hear people referring to homosexuality with a list of other sins, such as stealing, lying, cheating, etc... This is often objected to by gays on the basis that their behavior, between two consenting adults of the same sex, doesn't affect anyone but themselves.
How about obesity? It has been generally proven that obesity is a self-destructive behavior. It's symptoms typically manifest themselves quite obviously early on, but the harmful effects are often not seen for decades. Obesity has been shown to be the cause of NUMEROUS other disorders in the body, harmful to the individual.
Interestingly, society, and even the government, have seen obesity as significant enough to launch a campaign AGAINST it. Why? It's that individual's choice to be obese if they want to, right? They aren't hurting anyone else with their behavior.
Similarly, gays and lesbians have an increased risk for a host of diseases as a result of the lifestyle they've chosen to live (notice that I didn't say they chose their DESIRES, rather their LIFESTYLE).
The desires are not sinful, but the behaviors are. The person who craves food with an insatiable appetite isn't sinful until they choose to become obese through the act of gluttonous eating. The person who craves homosexual sex isn't sinful until they choose to actually engage in homosexual sex.
Does this mean I think less of people who have adopted a gay lifestyle? Absolutely not - neither would I think less of an overweight person who has decided there's no escape from being obese and stops trying. All of us give into our vices at times, and we should try to help each other overcome those vices rather than embracing them and making them a part of our lifestyle. It's when we EMBRACE our vices as normal that there's a serious problem, and that we need help to escape from them.
We should be universally concerned for those around us who have given in, and embraced these unhealthy vices - especially when it's to the point where their individual identity DEPENDS on it.
I have yet to meet a heterosexual person who is constantly identifying themselves as a "heterosexual" rather than just as a person. I have, however, met obese people who see their obesity as a part of their identity (as "a fat person"), and alcoholics who see their alcoholism as a part of their identity ("i'm an alcoholic"), and gay people who see their homosexuality as a part of their identity.
Feel free to disagree, or call me whatever you'd like, but I believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe that God created men and women for the purpose of having families together, and having joy as families. I understand that some people are born without the desire for sex with the opposite gender, and these individuals have a great struggle if they choose to fight their desires. But I believe that God expects them to do so.
Truth is not always easy to accept, but truth is true regardless of how many arguments are "won" against it.
Once again, these are my beliefs, and I'm entitled to them, just as you're entitled to yours. I have several gay friends who are quite aware of where I stand, and they respect my right to my beliefs just as I respect theirs, even though our views are at odds.
Last edited by a moderator:
dubbfoolio
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
it all comes down to equality, and no matter how much you think your god loves you and hates homosexuals we're all people. And people can do whatever the they want and we should all just live and let be. The crux of all these religious peoples' arguments is that 'I'm ing better than these people cause my church told me so'. Well your church, just because you have a little cult with lots of friends that tell you what you want to hear in exchange for money doesn't mean you are entitled to more rights than anyone else. Believe whatever you want to believe but don't stand in the way of other peoples' rights, that's the ing line you crossed when you became a bigoted homophobic asshole.
they want and we should all just live and let be. The crux of all these religious peoples' arguments is that 'I'm ing better than these people cause my church told me so'. Well your church, just because you have a little cult with lots of friends that tell you what you want to hear in exchange for money doesn't mean you are entitled to more rights than anyone else. Believe whatever you want to believe but don't stand in the way of other peoples' rights, that's the ing line you crossed when you became a bigoted homophobic asshole.[quote name='dubbfoolio']it all comes down to equality, and no matter how much you think your god loves you and hates homosexuals we're all people. And people can do whatever the they want and we should all just live and let be. The crux of all these religious peoples' arguments is that 'I'm ing better than these people cause my church told me so'. Well your church, just because you have a little cult with lots of friends that tell you what you want to hear in exchange for money doesn't mean you are entitled to more rights than anyone else. Believe whatever you want to believe but don't stand in the way of other peoples' rights, that's the ing line you crossed when you became a bigoted homophobic asshole.[/QUOTE]
I see people do this sort of thing all the time, and I just have to ask.
Do you not understand the inherent rhetorical problem in combining mocking derision of religion with grand statements about universal rights? Whose mind do you think you're changing with a statement like this?
Moreover, do you realize how much easier it is to agree with your opposition when you sound like this?
they want and we should all just live and let be. The crux of all these religious peoples' arguments is that 'I'm ing better than these people cause my church told me so'. Well your church, just because you have a little cult with lots of friends that tell you what you want to hear in exchange for money doesn't mean you are entitled to more rights than anyone else. Believe whatever you want to believe but don't stand in the way of other peoples' rights, that's the ing line you crossed when you became a bigoted homophobic asshole.[/QUOTE]I see people do this sort of thing all the time, and I just have to ask.
Do you not understand the inherent rhetorical problem in combining mocking derision of religion with grand statements about universal rights? Whose mind do you think you're changing with a statement like this?
Moreover, do you realize how much easier it is to agree with your opposition when you sound like this?
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Yeah, sorry, dubbfoolio, but I don't agree with your methods, there.
No one is more opposed to people using beliefs derived from religion, or really, anything, as an excuse to justify anything but full-parity treatment for all people than I am, but I wouldn't say it the way you did.
No one is more opposed to people using beliefs derived from religion, or really, anything, as an excuse to justify anything but full-parity treatment for all people than I am, but I wouldn't say it the way you did.
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']While homosexuality is accepted by individuals, it cannot be embraced by societies as a whole without disastrous consequences.[/QUOTE]
Can you elaborate a little on this? It's true that if everybody suddenly turned homosexual and stopped reproducing, human civilization would come to an abrupt end. But I can't really see how allowing gay marriage would lead to everybody turning gay overnight.
Can you elaborate a little on this? It's true that if everybody suddenly turned homosexual and stopped reproducing, human civilization would come to an abrupt end. But I can't really see how allowing gay marriage would lead to everybody turning gay overnight.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='blaked569']Can you elaborate a little on this? It's true that if everybody suddenly turned homosexual and stopped reproducing, human civilization would come to an abrupt end. But I can't really see how allowing gay marriage would lead to everybody turning gay overnight.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even going to start with sanderdaniels81, myself. Wouldn't touch that shit with a 10 foot pole.
But since you asked, I suppose I would like to hear his homosexual apocalypse theory.
I'm not even going to start with sanderdaniels81, myself. Wouldn't touch that shit with a 10 foot pole.
But since you asked, I suppose I would like to hear his homosexual apocalypse theory.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Poor guy got muted. 
dubbfoolio
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
What's the point of arguing with anyone who doesn't believe in the principle of equality. Anyone who believes their race, sex, religion, gender, sexuality is better is simply a terrible person.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
A phobia is actually an irrational and unexplainable fear of something. It's a type of anxiety..
dubbfoolio
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Magus8472']I see people do this sort of thing all the time, and I just have to ask.
Do you not understand the inherent rhetorical problem in combining mocking derision of religion with grand statements about universal rights? Whose mind do you think you're changing with a statement like this?
Moreover, do you realize how much easier it is to agree with your opposition when you sound like this?[/QUOTE]
I think your aing bigot, and that there's probably no changing your mind. So I think a statement like this sort of doesn't matter.
Do you not understand the inherent rhetorical problem in combining mocking derision of religion with grand statements about universal rights? Whose mind do you think you're changing with a statement like this?
Moreover, do you realize how much easier it is to agree with your opposition when you sound like this?[/QUOTE]
I think your a
ing bigot, and that there's probably no changing your mind. So I think a statement like this sort of doesn't matter.
dubbfoolio
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Magus8472']What have I said that was bigoted?[/QUOTE]
sorry, I apologize. let me restate that. I think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, and you have not specified where you stand on this issue. I just get so pissed about this argument because there shouldn't be anything to argue about.
I see no difference in the question of should gay people be allowed to be married than should black people be allowed to be married. I think we should strive for a government that see us all as equals, and rights should be the same for all people who are doing no harm to others. And I wish people would vote accordingly regardless of their own personal moral decisions.
I respect religious people who choose to spread their moral code through their own example. I despise religious people that try to impose their will on others.
sorry, I apologize. let me restate that. I think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, and you have not specified where you stand on this issue. I just get so pissed about this argument because there shouldn't be anything to argue about.
I see no difference in the question of should gay people be allowed to be married than should black people be allowed to be married. I think we should strive for a government that see us all as equals, and rights should be the same for all people who are doing no harm to others. And I wish people would vote accordingly regardless of their own personal moral decisions.
I respect religious people who choose to spread their moral code through their own example. I despise religious people that try to impose their will on others.
[quote name='dubbfoolio']sorry, I apologize. let me restate that. I think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, and you have not specified where you stand on this issue. I just get so pissed about this argument because there shouldn't be anything to argue about.[/QUOTE]
It's not a problem. I support gay marriage as well; I was trying to make a point about how adopting an insulting and/or sardonic tone makes you really, really easy to marginalize, particularly when your opposition doesn't. The point isn't to convince the person you're arguing against; they have their mind made up, so it's probably not going to happen. Rather, you need to think about the uncertain or indifferent members of the audience.
EDIT: And yeah, what Coffee said too.
It's not a problem. I support gay marriage as well; I was trying to make a point about how adopting an insulting and/or sardonic tone makes you really, really easy to marginalize, particularly when your opposition doesn't. The point isn't to convince the person you're arguing against; they have their mind made up, so it's probably not going to happen. Rather, you need to think about the uncertain or indifferent members of the audience.
EDIT: And yeah, what Coffee said too.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
dubbfoolio, you need to calm the down, brah.
down, brah.
dubbfoolio
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']dubbfoolio, you need to calm the down, brah.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to lie, this issue obviously infuriates me.
The intolerance and selfishness of people just completely appalls me. I don't think we need to tip toe around the issue, this is bigotry. I think we should be angry and I don't see the point in having debates with bigots. The whole argument that gay people are unfit parents is moot, because people, everyone, should be allowed to make their own decisions.
I wish all the rights and implications of marriage could be stripped from government completely, so the Christians could keep their "religious institution", but the fact of the matter is that married people are afforded many advantages, and you have to make these advantages available to everyone.
down, brah.[/QUOTE]I'm not going to lie, this issue obviously infuriates me.
The intolerance and selfishness of people just completely appalls me. I don't think we need to tip toe around the issue, this is bigotry. I think we should be angry and I don't see the point in having debates with bigots. The whole argument that gay people are unfit parents is moot, because people, everyone, should be allowed to make their own decisions.
I wish all the rights and implications of marriage could be stripped from government completely, so the Christians could keep their "religious institution", but the fact of the matter is that married people are afforded many advantages, and you have to make these advantages available to everyone.
Religious people tend to be homophobic. Just as they tend to want to persecute anyone who doesn't share their views. Not making babies means you aren't creating more followers for your god of choice. Infertility and contraception are as equally bad as homosexuality in their eyes.
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']However, as a religious person myself, I believe marriage is a union created by God to be between a man and a woman - and the fact that such a union, when carried out properly (with proper treatment of spouse and children) creates a safe environment for the continuance of the human species tells me that it's a good thing.[/QUOTE]
You and your religion have absolutely no right defining any terms whatsoever. Get your religion out of your politics. They have absolutely no place in politics (or anything). If a man and a man love each other, they have every right to be married. Get the over yourself.
[quote name='dubbfoolio']I'm not going to lie, this issue obviously infuriates me.
The intolerance and selfishness of people just completely appalls me. I don't think we need to tip toe around the issue, this is bigotry. I think we should be angry and I don't see the point in having debates with bigots. The whole argument that gay people are unfit parents is moot, because people, everyone, should be allowed to make their own decisions.
I wish all the rights and implications of marriage could be stripped from government completely, so the Christians could keep their "religious institution", but the fact of the matter is that married people are afforded many advantages, and you have to make these advantages available to everyone.[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%, only anything relating to religion infuriates me.
You and your religion have absolutely no right defining any terms whatsoever. Get your religion out of your politics. They have absolutely no place in politics (or anything). If a man and a man love each other, they have every right to be married. Get the
over yourself.[quote name='dubbfoolio']I'm not going to lie, this issue obviously infuriates me.
The intolerance and selfishness of people just completely appalls me. I don't think we need to tip toe around the issue, this is bigotry. I think we should be angry and I don't see the point in having debates with bigots. The whole argument that gay people are unfit parents is moot, because people, everyone, should be allowed to make their own decisions.
I wish all the rights and implications of marriage could be stripped from government completely, so the Christians could keep their "religious institution", but the fact of the matter is that married people are afforded many advantages, and you have to make these advantages available to everyone.[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%, only anything relating to religion infuriates me.
to dubbfoolio - i understand that you might be infuriated by the apparent irrationality of certain people in the world, but stop for a moment and think. in regards to this thread, the Mormon community as a whole is opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality. do you think the entire Mormon community consists of nobody but idiots? i'm sure a good percentage of them are well meaning, intelligent people. so why do they hold steadfastly to their beliefs? to get to the crux of the matter and to form an agreeable solution requires careful consideration and diplomacy, not "you're a ing idiot; you."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen
ing idiot; you."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen
dubbfoolio
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='blaked569']to dubbfoolio - i understand that you might be infuriated by the apparent irrationality of certain people in the world, but stop for a moment and think. in regards to this thread, the Mormon community as a whole is opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality. do you think the entire Mormon community consists of nobody but idiots? i'm sure a good percentage of them are well meaning, intelligent people. so why do they hold steadfastly to their beliefs? to get to the crux of the matter and to form an agreeable solution requires careful consideration and diplomacy, not "you're a ing idiot; you."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to single out mormons. I've lived with a mormon who was one of the biggest pricks I've ever met in my entire life. I took a guitar class with a mormon guy who was one of the kindest, coolest people I've ever met. I think mormons are people, I think we are all people, but I find the mromon organization (and most western religion) in itself to be somewhat self serving to a degree of intolerance. And I don't like what it's done to the political landscape of the country.
ing idiot; you."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to single out mormons. I've lived with a mormon who was one of the biggest pricks I've ever met in my entire life. I took a guitar class with a mormon guy who was one of the kindest, coolest people I've ever met. I think mormons are people, I think we are all people, but I find the mromon organization (and most western religion) in itself to be somewhat self serving to a degree of intolerance. And I don't like what it's done to the political landscape of the country.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
I wish church and state were ACTUALLY seperated. :lol:
dubbfoolio
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='PhrostByte']I wish church and state were ACTUALLY seperated. :lol:[/QUOTE]
They're not because Christians throughout the history of our nation have implemented religion into government as it was convenient to them. And now that it's there I think they lose their rights to maintain that marriage is solely a religious institution. Churches don't need to recognize gay marriage. Government does.
They're not because Christians throughout the history of our nation have implemented religion into government as it was convenient to them. And now that it's there I think they lose their rights to maintain that marriage is solely a religious institution. Churches don't need to recognize gay marriage. Government does.
[quote name='dubbfoolio']I'm not trying to single out mormons. I've lived with a mormon who was one of the biggest pricks I've ever met in my entire life. I took a guitar class with a mormon guy who was one of the kindest, coolest people I've ever met. I think mormons are people, I think we are all people, but I find the mromon organization (and most western religion) in itself to be somewhat self serving to a degree of intolerance. And I don't like what it's done to the political landscape of the country.[/QUOTE]
you didn't read anything i wrote. you don't take in anything that anyone tells you. you blindly plow forward with a blatant disregard of responsibility not only to yourself, but to others. and in that regard, you're no better than those you condemn.
you didn't read anything i wrote. you don't take in anything that anyone tells you. you blindly plow forward with a blatant disregard of responsibility not only to yourself, but to others. and in that regard, you're no better than those you condemn.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
blake brought Max Weber all up in this shit.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Page 4 score so far: 2 out of 10.
dubbfoolio
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='blaked569']you didn't read anything i wrote. you don't take in anything that anyone tells you. you blindly plow forward with a blatant disregard of responsibility not only to yourself, but to others. and in that regard, you're no better than those you condemn.[/QUOTE]
Like I said this really pisses me off. I suppose your right there is no point in blindly ranting about it.
Like I said this really pisses me off. I suppose your right there is no point in blindly ranting about it.
sanderdaniels81
CAGiversary!
This is certainly putting words in my mouth. I never once said that God hates homosexuals. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I do believe that homosexual acts are sinful, but I also believe that Jesus died for SINNERS (which includes *everyone*). His forgiveness comes as we give up our sins, not as we embrace them (forgiveness won't come until we let go of our sins).
I recognize that not everyone shares these beliefs. But the law entitles EVERYONE to vote according to *their own* beliefs.
Anger and hatred are definitely no way to go about resolving things, though. I don't have any bad feelings towards you, though it seems you do towards me.
Let me ask you this, is your hatred based on the fact that I believe what I do? Is it based on the fact that I have the right to freely speak what I believe? Is your anger based on the fact that you can't force me to agree with you, or vote the way you want me to?
Do you believe it would be better to force people to fall in line with your views and force them to enact laws that reflect your own personal views, or the views of groups that you sympathize with?
These are some pretty serious and important questions that you really ought to consider.
I have no homosexual apocalypse theory. My point was that IF the behavior was universally practiced (which it almost certainly won't be) it would bring disaster upon our species. Knowing this, it would logically introduce the idea that it's not a good thing, since at the individual level it results in the termination of the genetic line (unless reproductive genetic material is obtained from a willing third party, assuming that there is one).
First I'd like to respond to the second half of that. When a person goes to the polls and votes according to their conscience and beliefs, are they imposing their will on others? In other words, is voting a form of imposing your will? Have you yet, or do you plan to vote at any point in the future? Do you believe that by so doing you will be imposing your will upon society? Or do you believe that just by speaking their mind, a person is therefore imposing their will on others?
You are perfectly entitled to believe that you know better than the majority, and speak your mind as a result of that belief. But the moment you decide that it's okay to *force* everyone else to fall in line with your beliefs, or that it's okay to use violence to enact the laws you want, that's the moment that you become truly evil.
If gay marriage were voted in tomorrow, I wouldn't start a violent uprising to oppose it. I would continue speaking my mind in an attempt to help others see the merits of my beliefs, and I would seek legislation through the proper legal channels. Anger and violence against those who disagree with you, however, are not the answer, and are truly evil.
When you make statements like - "I wish people would vote accordingly regardless of their own personal moral decisions" - it leads people to wonder how badly you wish that you could enforce your personal will upon the rest of us.
Since you brought it up - black people don't have a choice in the matter of what color their skin is, and neither do white people, or asian people, or any other race of people on earth. Skin color is an inherited characteristic.
You might argue that sexual preference is also inherited. And I would likely even agree with that. However, when you have consensual sex with another person, you're making a choice (the very word "consensual" contains this fact, and if it wasn't a choice for EITHER party, it's called rape). So clearly, the act of engaging in consensual sex is a choice, NOT an inherited characteristic.
I believe that we are all equal. And I believe that God sees us as equals, too. But that doesn't mean that all behaviors are acceptable.
What is truth? Is truth dictated by the will of the people? Is truth dictated by equality? Are peoples' views of equality synchronized enough that they form the basis for a universal truth?
Is truth a self-existent tautology? Personally, I believe that it is. Do I believe that all of my views are in harmony with the tautology of truth? Of course not. To say that would imply that I believe I'm omniscient, which I don't. But like yourself, I feel strongly about my personal views, and I speak and vote accordingly.
But anger and violence are not the way. Open discussion and an attempt to understand one another are the only way we're ever going to reach an acceptable arrangement as a society.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
You sound kind of nuts. There really is no discussion to be had on this because your religion doesn't really allow you to change your mind. You couldn't be part of the religion if you did change your mind, correct?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']Let me ask you this, is your hatred based on the fact that I believe what I do? Is it based on the fact that I have the right to freely speak what I believe? Is your anger based on the fact that you can't force me to agree with you, or vote the way you want me to?[/quote]
sorry, hombre. genteel, polite bigotry that comes wrapped in a cross and bearing a toothy grin and a firm handshake is still bigotry and thus hatred.
Two things:
1) You're talking about something that is as unlikely to occur as...well, as unlikely as the second coming of Christ. Or, if you take offense to that metaphor, as unlikely as a Chicago Cubs World Series. So what's the point of saying something is bad given everyone does it, if, in fact, everyone does not do it?
2) You're also assuming that a population of6 close to 7 Billion people, who've been ing and reproducing as long as we've been here, will suddenly stop ing and reproducing. Homosexual relationships, pregnancies, and parenthood are independent events, by and large. If nothing else, the modern era has shown just how detached the idea of "marriage" can be from "parenthood." This all more or less renders your point moot.
But I'm not done yet.
3) If you choose to ignore #1, let us entertain the inverse of your universal homosexuality means we'll all die out after one generation oversimiplified nonsensical juvenile theory. Why is this relevant if, given the institution we have globally now (let's call it the " and have as many kids as possible") lead to extinction on a mass level when we reach a population threshold where we can no longer maintain a balance between the planet's resources and providing persons with adequate resources to survive? In short, I'm pointing out that exponential population growth is a path to environmental disaster, and disaster for the human race as well.
So your argument fell apart quite a while back.
Irrelevant. When my will is "hey, let those people do what they want," and your will is " those queers, they can't have what I have," then our wills aren't parallel. They aren't equal. My will is more righteous than yours. You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others. Sinner.
Some people don't deserve to be debated with. In my view, wanting to curtail the behaviors of other people who have no effect on your life puts you in a position where you don't deserve to be debated with. The level of folly underlying your claims, and the ease with which they were taken apart, is something else that shows you don't belong here.
sorry, hombre. genteel, polite bigotry that comes wrapped in a cross and bearing a toothy grin and a firm handshake is still bigotry and thus hatred.
Two things:
1) You're talking about something that is as unlikely to occur as...well, as unlikely as the second coming of Christ. Or, if you take offense to that metaphor, as unlikely as a Chicago Cubs World Series. So what's the point of saying something is bad given everyone does it, if, in fact, everyone does not do it?
2) You're also assuming that a population of
ing and reproducing as long as we've been here, will suddenly stop ing and reproducing. Homosexual relationships, pregnancies, and parenthood are independent events, by and large. If nothing else, the modern era has shown just how detached the idea of "marriage" can be from "parenthood." This all more or less renders your point moot.But I'm not done yet.
3) If you choose to ignore #1, let us entertain the inverse of your universal homosexuality means we'll all die out after one generation oversimiplified nonsensical juvenile theory. Why is this relevant if, given the institution we have globally now (let's call it the "
and have as many kids as possible") lead to extinction on a mass level when we reach a population threshold where we can no longer maintain a balance between the planet's resources and providing persons with adequate resources to survive? In short, I'm pointing out that exponential population growth is a path to environmental disaster, and disaster for the human race as well. So your argument fell apart quite a while back.
Irrelevant. When my will is "hey, let those people do what they want," and your will is "
those queers, they can't have what I have," then our wills aren't parallel. They aren't equal. My will is more righteous than yours. You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others. Sinner.Some people don't deserve to be debated with. In my view, wanting to curtail the behaviors of other people who have no effect on your life puts you in a position where you don't deserve to be debated with. The level of folly underlying your claims, and the ease with which they were taken apart, is something else that shows you don't belong here.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
That's what ugly people are for, boo.
Richard Kain
CAGiversary!
[quote name='docvinh']You sound kind of nuts. There really is no discussion to be had on this because your religion doesn't really allow you to change your mind. You couldn't be part of the religion if you did change your mind, correct?[/QUOTE]
That's kind of harsh, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence. This holds true for every defined system of belief. Even those who aren't religious have something that they place their faith in. Due to the limits of human perception and experience, it is impossible for any one person to know and understand everything. At some point, everyone has to place their faith in something. Without this, the world becomes a rather bleak place.
Is it really all right for the mind to be mutable on any subject? Is there no merit for making a stand on a decision you have already made? If a person chooses to adopt a defined belief system, you would expect him/her to turn against his/her own faith just so that they can agree with your position?
The scientific method would have us question and test everything. But humans can't actually live that way. That is the path of madness. We are built to believe.
That's kind of harsh, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence. This holds true for every defined system of belief. Even those who aren't religious have something that they place their faith in. Due to the limits of human perception and experience, it is impossible for any one person to know and understand everything. At some point, everyone has to place their faith in something. Without this, the world becomes a rather bleak place.
Is it really all right for the mind to be mutable on any subject? Is there no merit for making a stand on a decision you have already made? If a person chooses to adopt a defined belief system, you would expect him/her to turn against his/her own faith just so that they can agree with your position?
The scientific method would have us question and test everything. But humans can't actually live that way. That is the path of madness. We are built to believe.
sanderdaniels81
CAGiversary!
Does *your* religion of humanistic thought allow you to change your mind? What will you do if it turns out that there is actually a God, and that He actually did forbid homosexuality? Would you be willing to change your mind and try to understand why He forbid it, and why/how it was detrimental? Or would you believe that you know better than an omniscient being and choose to hate Him?
My right to change my mind about ANYTHING is not granted by, nor repealed by, my religion. That right is given me of God, and is inherent to all people. And likewise, no human mind can be changed by force - only by persuasion, discussion, and experience.
johnnyrocker360
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 85 (100%)
why hasn't this thread been moved or deleted by now?
sanderdaniels81
CAGiversary!
Apparently your religion of humanism allows you to discriminate on the basis on opposing views.
My religion allows me to hear you out, give you a chance to speak, and asks that I treat you with respect, now matter how abhorrent I believe your statements to be.
Your religion tells you that since I disagree in a way that is abhorrent to you, you should alienate me with statements like "you don't belong here" and telling me that it's worthless to listen to what I have to say, because you already have all of the answers.
Your approach assumes your own omniscience, to such a degree that all points of view that differ from your own are completely shut out.
I'm willing to hear what you have to say and consider it thoughtfully.
Which of these approaches is more open minded?
The desire and attempt to silence your opposition is not the way of democracy. It is the way of dictatorship.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']Does *your* religion of humanistic thought allow you to change your mind? What will you do if it turns out that there is actually a God, and that He actually did forbid homosexuality? Would you be willing to change your mind and try to understand why He forbid it, and why/how it was detrimental? Or would you believe that you know better than an omniscient being and choose to hate Him?
My right to change my mind about ANYTHING is not granted by, nor repealed by, my religion. That right is given me of God, and is inherent to all people. And likewise, no human mind can be changed by force - only by persuasion, discussion, and experience.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't your "God" just strike me down for not believing him? I have nothing against religion, I just believe your interpretation of your religion is wrong. I actually have had fairly in depth discussion about homosexuality with religious folk, and surprise, they're okay with homosexuality. So either your interpretation is wrong, or their interpretation is wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're going to say they're wrong.
[quote name='Richard Kain']That's kind of harsh, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence. This holds true for every defined system of belief. Even those who aren't religious have something that they place their faith in. Due to the limits of human perception and experience, it is impossible for any one person to know and understand everything. At some point, everyone has to place their faith in something. Without this, the world becomes a rather bleak place.
Is it really all right for the mind to be mutable on any subject? Is there no merit for making a stand on a decision you have already made? If a person chooses to adopt a defined belief system, you would expect him/her to turn against his/her own faith just so that they can agree with your position?
The scientific method would have us question and test everything. But humans can't actually live that way. That is the path of madness. We are built to believe.[/QUOTE]
I place my faith in here and now. My life isn't looking to be filled up by something. I don't expect them to turn against their faith, I'm just saying the tenants of their religion don't allow them to question anything within it. Well, his/her religion anyway. I stand by my opinion of him/her being nuts.
My right to change my mind about ANYTHING is not granted by, nor repealed by, my religion. That right is given me of God, and is inherent to all people. And likewise, no human mind can be changed by force - only by persuasion, discussion, and experience.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't your "God" just strike me down for not believing him? I have nothing against religion, I just believe your interpretation of your religion is wrong. I actually have had fairly in depth discussion about homosexuality with religious folk, and surprise, they're okay with homosexuality. So either your interpretation is wrong, or their interpretation is wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're going to say they're wrong.
[quote name='Richard Kain']That's kind of harsh, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence. This holds true for every defined system of belief. Even those who aren't religious have something that they place their faith in. Due to the limits of human perception and experience, it is impossible for any one person to know and understand everything. At some point, everyone has to place their faith in something. Without this, the world becomes a rather bleak place.
Is it really all right for the mind to be mutable on any subject? Is there no merit for making a stand on a decision you have already made? If a person chooses to adopt a defined belief system, you would expect him/her to turn against his/her own faith just so that they can agree with your position?
The scientific method would have us question and test everything. But humans can't actually live that way. That is the path of madness. We are built to believe.[/QUOTE]
I place my faith in here and now. My life isn't looking to be filled up by something. I don't expect them to turn against their faith, I'm just saying the tenants of their religion don't allow them to question anything within it. Well, his/her religion anyway. I stand by my opinion of him/her being nuts.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']Apparently your religion of humanism allows you to discriminate on the basis on opposing views.
My religion allows me to hear you out, give you a chance to speak, and asks that I treat you with respect, now matter how abhorrent I believe your statements to be.
Your religion tells you that since I disagree in a way that is abhorrent to you, you should alienate me with statements like "you don't belong here" and telling me that it's worthless to listen to what I have to say, because you already have all of the answers.
Your approach assumes your own omniscience, to such a degree that all points of view that differ from your own are completely shut out.
I'm willing to hear what you have to say and consider it thoughtfully.
Which of these approaches is more open minded?
The desire and attempt to silence your opposition is not the way of democracy. It is the way of dictatorship.[/QUOTE]
Two things:
1) I did consider your arguments, and I did point out multiple fatal flaws in them. I don't have to do it politely. You choose to ignore that I pointed out the folly in all of your claims, instead cherry picking the last line of my post to attack that, as if it is the only thing I said to you. Should I assume you have nothing to say in response to my retort of your original claims?
2) I just noticed your telling me to go back and take statistics classes above. You have yet again misread something to make an argumentative point. What I said was that lazy people "instinctively distrust statistics." I am referring, of course, to people who are not capable of thoughtful refutation or deep questioning of theory, of methodology, or of statistics; I am referring to people who offer no deeper a refutation of data than "I don't believe that." There is a huge difference between that and informed skepticism, that considers the study and argues against it. But a flippant disregard of data is a vote in favor of anti-intellectualism and a vote in support of uninformed ideology. Given the religious foundation of your belief system, I'm not at all surprised that you are afraid of empiricism. But being religious is not something that goes hand in hand with illiteracy. If you are going to continue to respond to my posts, please have a grasp of what I'm saying first. I'm a bit tired of responding to refutations of things I did not say, and refutations of cherry-picked and misinterpreted statements in my posts.
It's particularly insidious when you opt to not include the parts of my posts where you are disarmed of the "logic" of your argument.
My religion allows me to hear you out, give you a chance to speak, and asks that I treat you with respect, now matter how abhorrent I believe your statements to be.
Your religion tells you that since I disagree in a way that is abhorrent to you, you should alienate me with statements like "you don't belong here" and telling me that it's worthless to listen to what I have to say, because you already have all of the answers.
Your approach assumes your own omniscience, to such a degree that all points of view that differ from your own are completely shut out.
I'm willing to hear what you have to say and consider it thoughtfully.
Which of these approaches is more open minded?
The desire and attempt to silence your opposition is not the way of democracy. It is the way of dictatorship.[/QUOTE]
Two things:
1) I did consider your arguments, and I did point out multiple fatal flaws in them. I don't have to do it politely. You choose to ignore that I pointed out the folly in all of your claims, instead cherry picking the last line of my post to attack that, as if it is the only thing I said to you. Should I assume you have nothing to say in response to my retort of your original claims?
2) I just noticed your telling me to go back and take statistics classes above. You have yet again misread something to make an argumentative point. What I said was that lazy people "instinctively distrust statistics." I am referring, of course, to people who are not capable of thoughtful refutation or deep questioning of theory, of methodology, or of statistics; I am referring to people who offer no deeper a refutation of data than "I don't believe that." There is a huge difference between that and informed skepticism, that considers the study and argues against it. But a flippant disregard of data is a vote in favor of anti-intellectualism and a vote in support of uninformed ideology. Given the religious foundation of your belief system, I'm not at all surprised that you are afraid of empiricism. But being religious is not something that goes hand in hand with illiteracy. If you are going to continue to respond to my posts, please have a grasp of what I'm saying first. I'm a bit tired of responding to refutations of things I did not say, and refutations of cherry-picked and misinterpreted statements in my posts.
It's particularly insidious when you opt to not include the parts of my posts where you are disarmed of the "logic" of your argument.
sanderdaniels81
CAGiversary!
There was nothing to refute. I already stated in my initial post that it would never be universally practiced, but that the fact that it would be cataclysmic if it were should act as an indicator that it isn't good. You really didn't pick ANYTHING apart here. All you did was say "this will never happen, so it isn't bad."
The claim that I made is a fact. If it were universally practiced it would be the end of man. That part is simple fact, so there's nothing to refute. Your argument was based on the premise that since it will never happen, my conclusion was false. If you understand the mechanics of implication, you understand that when A implies B, ~A does NOT imply ~B. Therefore the logic upon which your assertion is based is flawed.
Your accusations against overpopulation came completely out of left field, since I never advocated unrestrained, unplanned pregnancy, to the point of overpopulation. In the world of logical fallacies, this is what is known as a straw-man argument. You've attributed an assertion to me which I never made, and then attacked this assertion in an attempt to discredit me. Unfortunately for you, I never made any such assertion.
For starters, you put words in my mouth here. Secondly, this entire statement is essentially you professing that your beliefs are better than mine. You aren't making any points to refute here other than attempting to say that what you have to say is more correct than anything I have to say.
"You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others."
dubbfoolio
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']
I recognize that not everyone shares these beliefs. But the law entitles EVERYONE to vote according to *their own* beliefs.[/QUOTE]
This is where you're wrong. I think as an American it's you responsibility to vote for what's best for the country and your countrymen. And while gay marriage in no way benefits you or your beliefs, it certainly does not stand in your way. How would you feel if laws were put in place that limited the legal privileges of mormons?
I recognize that not everyone shares these beliefs. But the law entitles EVERYONE to vote according to *their own* beliefs.[/QUOTE]
This is where you're wrong. I think as an American it's you responsibility to vote for what's best for the country and your countrymen. And while gay marriage in no way benefits you or your beliefs, it certainly does not stand in your way. How would you feel if laws were put in place that limited the legal privileges of mormons?
sanderdaniels81
CAGiversary!
I think it's safe to say that you don't understand democracy. Under a democracy, people are entitled to vote according to their conscience and beliefs, and are not bound by any external forces or regulations to vote in any specific way. The fact that you used the words "I think" qualify your statement as your opinion. You are perfectly entitled to vote according to that opinion, but no one else is required to do so. They are entitled to vote according to THEIR opinion.
Firstly, I find it odd that you seem to be making the assumption that I'm a Mormon, since I never identified myself as such, and since there are numerous other religions that openly and vocally oppose gay marriage, including Catholics, Muslims, and MANY others.
Regarding the "limited legal privileges" - I think it's safe to say that Mormons know something about this, since they are one of only THREE groups of people in the USA whose wholesale murder was sanctioned by governmental authority.
Africans were brought to the USA as slaves, and were often killed by those who had enslaved them, with the governmental approval to do so. Native Americans also had MANY orders issued by the government for their slaughter. In the 1800's, there was an extermination order issued in the state of Missouri for the legal murder of Mormons. A possible fourth group could be Japanese Americans, who while there was never an explicit order for their murder, were placed in internment camps during World War II, and many of them died.
And what was the cause for the issuing of this extermination order against Mormons? Sadly, it was because of differing political views. See, Mormons didn't believe that slavery was acceptable, and they voted accordingly. The residents of Missouri didn't like that so much, and they convinced the governor to sign an extermination order against Mormons.
They essentially threw democracy to the wind, and decided that what THEY wanted was more important than democracy, to the extent that they sought the MURDER of their political opponents. This is what I like to refer to as pure evil, and the antithesis of democracy.
There's pretty much no way to deprive someone of more rights than by murdering them.
The constitution requires that ALL people be guaranteed the right to LIFE. There's really no debating that one, since the word "life" is mentioned SPECIFICALLY by name.
There is no such mention of "marriage" as a right.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
Well, we can agree on that. The government shouldn't recognize any type of marriages at all, they should only be recognizing civil unions for legal reasons. I have no idea how this evolved into a talk about dictatorship.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']
But back to the point at hand - you have continued to make accusations that essentially say "i'm better than you, and my point of view is more valid."
Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.[/QUOTE]
Wait, what? He spoke his mind, he thought your opinion was stupid. Isn't he allowed to think his opinion is superior, I mean you certainly think your opinion is correct, right? I'm confused at what you're trying to say here.
But back to the point at hand - you have continued to make accusations that essentially say "i'm better than you, and my point of view is more valid."
Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.[/QUOTE]
Wait, what? He spoke his mind, he thought your opinion was stupid. Isn't he allowed to think his opinion is superior, I mean you certainly think your opinion is correct, right? I'm confused at what you're trying to say here.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']Perhaps you would be more comfortable in the company of dictators who share your disdain for people who speak their mind when it conflicts with their position, such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.[/QUOTE]
I get it now.
1) You're intolerant of homosexuals sharing the same rights as heterosexuals. This is ok.
2) I'm intolerant of your intolerance. That's not ok.
3) You're intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance. This is ok.
And yet somehow you think you're above value judgments.
Christ.
I get it now.
1) You're intolerant of homosexuals sharing the same rights as heterosexuals. This is ok.
2) I'm intolerant of your intolerance. That's not ok.
3) You're intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance. This is ok.
And yet somehow you think you're above value judgments.
Christ.
bread's done