Allright we have seen these terms used over and over again on these here forums, and I thought it would be interesting to actually discuss what those terms mean, because it seems to me, that there is a lot of hypocrisy and "Holier than Thou" comments made by certain posters, because they lack a basic understanding of what it means to be bigoted or intolerant.
Lets start with the basics:
Dictionary.com for Bigot big·ot [big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
World english dictionary for Bigot
bigot (ˈbɪɡət)
— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
Miriam Webster. com for Bigot big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Now lets look at Intolerant
Miriam Webster. com for Intolerant in·tol·er·ant
adj \-rənt\
Definition of INTOLERANT
1
: unable or unwilling to endure
2
a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
3
: exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>
Dictionary.com for Intolerant
n·tol·er·ant
[in-tol-er-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2.
unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure (usually followed by of ): intolerant of very hot weather.
World english dictionary for Intolerant intolerant (ɪnˈtɒlərənt)
— adj (foll by of )
1. lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own
2. not able or willing to tolerate or endure: intolerant of noise
So to break it down a Bigot can be described as someone that is utterly intolerant of a differing creed, belief or opinion. You can be a bigot if you are intolerant to racial or ethnic groups especially if it is accompanied by hatred.
From what I see, Intolerance is basically a synonym of Bigot.
So from those definitions a lot of people on these forums that talk about bigots and intolerance are themselves intolerant bigots.
Here are some examples of what I call bigotry.
A member of a racial superiority group sees someone of a different race and starts to yell out insulting racial epitaphs= bigot
A member of a group sees someone of the LGBT community and starts to yell out insulting epitaphs= bigot
KKK chases down and beats up a member of a racial minority group( just because of their race) = bigot
KKK chases down and beats up a member of the LGBT community(just because of their orientation) = bigot
A person with a religious viewpoint (or non religious opinion) that doesn't accept the view that LGBT were born that way does not = bigot
A person with a religious viewpoint (or non religious opinion) that doesn't accept the view that LGBT marriage is equivalent to traditional marriage does not = bigot
It's possible that they are wrong or mistaken sure..but it doesn't automatically mean they are a bigot.
You could have a person that is perfectly willing to help someone who is LGBT by helping them when they are sick, by giving them food if they were hungry, by praying for them if they asked for it, by giving them shelter if they were homeless. But that same person draws a line in the sand when it comes LGBT marriage and they get labeled as a bigot.
Corpsesarefun wrote:I think you're an adequate example of both.
Can we stop with the immediate insult? I didn't insult you.
GG
generalgrog wrote:So from those definitions a lot of people on these forums that talk about bigots and intolerance are themselves intolerant bigots.
The difference is that I didn't call out anyones name specifically what i did was make a general statement...it's not the same thing as what COF just did.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
purplefood wrote:World english dictionary for Bigot
bigot (ˈbɪɡət)
— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
By this definition anyone claiming religious reasons for opposing gay marriage is a bigot...
By that logic anyone opposing, anyone opposing gay marriage on religious grounds, is also a bigot.
It says that a person who is intolerant of any ideas..the key word is intolerant.
It didn't say a person that disagrees. Disagreement and intolerance are different things.
GG
With respect, I can tolerate you by allowing you to have your opinion and respectfully disagreeing, and not resorting to pejorative or ad hominem or insult. There is a big difference.
Avatar 720 wrote:So what you're saying is that it's okay for you to insult half the forum because you didn't use specific names?
No what I'm saying is that I didn't insult anyone because I didn't use any names.
GG
All gays are morally wrong and should be killed.
What? I didn't use any names so it's ok right?
RIGHT?
I'm sure there is some logical fallacy there..but don't what it is.
GG
The fallacy is your original statement, names are not required to insult. In fact I think you'll find that I haven't actually used any name for you in this thread.
Frazzled wrote:By this definition 95% of the persons posting on this forum, yourself included, are bigots.
Fraz, we tolerate you. We don't AGREE with you, but we tolerate you. Cause of your fluffy wonderful Wiener Dogs!
I've been called bigot many many times here. Greatness is never appreciated (unless it is forced upon them!!!). People misinterpret being an donkey-cave for being a bigot.
On the wiener dog fornt. yes they are cute. Since a fajita party Saturday Rodney has begun collecting old charcoal briquets. The wife found a partially complete bed of them in his kennel. She thinks he was trying to purify the kennel from the Overlord known as TBone (he won't go in it). Plus he ate an entire bird yesterday even when the wife was trying to pull a claw out of his mouth (jokes about the claw coming out the other end ensued). Thats one crazy sumbitch.
Avatar 720 wrote:So what you're saying is that it's okay for you to insult half the forum because you didn't use specific names?
No what I'm saying is that I didn't insult anyone because I didn't use any names.
GG
All gays are morally wrong and should be killed.
What? I didn't use any names so it's ok right?
RIGHT?
I'm sure there is some logical fallacy there..but don't what it is.
GG
The fallacy is your original statement, names are not required to insult. In fact I think you'll find that I haven't actually used any name for you in this thread.
Avatar 720 wrote:So what you're saying is that it's okay for you to insult half the forum because you didn't use specific names?
No what I'm saying is that I didn't insult anyone because I didn't use any names.
GG
You can quite easily insult people without using names...
You did it for instance.
I disagree with you..does that make me intolerant?
GG
Your disagreement is based on a perception of how insults work not in a particular set of ideology. So no it doesn't...
Though it does make you wrong... go figure...
Bigotry and intolerance are simply a result of individuals' fear and lack of understanding, coupled with human tendency towards herd mentality. Nothing more.
Even simpler, they are actions made towards innocent people/groups by either ignorance toward something, fear of something that is not understood, or the normal human fear of standing out. Usually a combination of more then one of those, or all three.
Humans are experts at hiding fear with violence or misdirection of attention away from themselves.
If it was truly justified (which it almost never is), it wouldn't be bigotry at all.
AegisGrimm wrote:Bigotry and intolerance are simply a result of individuals' fear and lack of understanding, coupled with human tendency towards herd mentality. Nothing more.
Even simpler, they are actions made towards innocent people/groups by either ignorance, or a feeling to not stand out.
If it was truly justified (which it almost never is), it wouldn't be bigotry at all.
Of course the CHinese gent who refused to move from in front of the lie of tanks was pretty intolerant. Gandhi was an intolerant SOB as well towards oppressors. Churchill was pretty damned intolerant of those nazi dudes. I guess they were both bigots too.
I like this game. No matter who wins, we lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Well...I haven't been label a bigot...a murderer yes but not a bigot
You'll always be that lovable killing machine in our eyes Jihadin!
Miriam Webster. com wrote:one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Miriam Webster. com wrote:unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights
I think these are the definitions we're working with when we talk about (for example) laws which prevented black people and white people from intermarrying, or gay people from marrying each other.
The question invited by this thread is "Is it bigoted to be intolerant of bigots?" Is it bigotry to be intolerant of a bigoted opinion?"
I think we have to conclude that no, it isn't. We have to be able to oppose bigoted and harmful ideas. Bigotry itself is inherently harmful, so by opposing it we are serving weal.
We do have to discriminate between this and censorship. In America we have a very strong right to freedom of expression, and bigots and their hateful and harmful ideas are protected forms of expression. The proper response to harmful speech is more speech, in its opposition. Not governmental suppression of that speech.
AegisGrimm wrote:Bigotry and intolerance are simply a result of individuals' fear and lack of understanding, coupled with human tendency towards herd mentality. Nothing more.
Even simpler, they are actions made towards innocent people/groups by either ignorance, or a feeling to not stand out.
If it was truly justified (which it almost never is), it wouldn't be [u]bigotry at all.
Of course the CHinese gent who refused to move from in front of the lie of tanks was pretty intolerant. Gandhi was an intolerant SOB as well towards oppressors. Churchill was pretty damned intolerant of those nazi dudes. I guess they were both bigots too.
I like this game. No matter who wins, we lose.
You missed the Underlined part. The nameless Chinese man, Ghandi, and Churchill were standing out against bigotry and intolerance. NOT performing it. Churchill was damned by the fact that to stand up to bigotry and intolerance, he was forced to use violence, because sometimes you have to use violence to protect those who can't protect themselves.
The problem of course is the definition. If you're bigoted towards a bigot then you bigoted against a defined group.
Of course the OP proffers that he does not view groups with hatred and intolerance. I can take him at his word. Of course - despite my personal view- I can also see why people would disgaree with same sex marriage without being evil homophobic breeder bigots.
Its a term used to shut down the conversation and bandied about way too much nowdays.
AegisGrimm wrote:Bigotry and intolerance are simply a result of individuals' fear and lack of understanding, coupled with human tendency towards herd mentality. Nothing more.
Even simpler, they are actions made towards innocent people/groups by either ignorance, or a feeling to not stand out.
If it was truly justified (which it almost never is), it wouldn't be [u]bigotry at all.
Of course the CHinese gent who refused to move from in front of the lie of tanks was pretty intolerant. Gandhi was an intolerant SOB as well towards oppressors. Churchill was pretty damned intolerant of those nazi dudes. I guess they were both bigots too.
I like this game. No matter who wins, we lose.
You missed the Underlined part. The nameless Chinese man, Ghandi, and Churchill were standing out against bigotry and intolerance. NOT performing it.
Oh contraire mon fraire they hated and were intolerant towards a specific group - oppressors and / or nazis (but not space nazis). If its a group you don't like they are bigots. if its a group you like they aren't.
Mannahnin wrote:Maybe in the case of Ghandhi, Churchhill and the Chinese guy facing down the tank, their bigotry was not harmful or evil.
In practice, though, most bigotry is.
it was evil as hell for the Nazis. I have the sudden desire to clutch a Papashah tightly and climb onto the back of a T-34. To Berlin!!! er what were talking about?
Frazzled wrote:
Its a term used to shut down the conversation and bandied about way too much nowdays.
Bingo!!
Xole also hit the nail on the head earlier by calling it a meaningless insult, which I think is a real shame, because it used to actually mean something to call someone a bigot.
Mannahnin wrote:Okay, so then we just have harmful bigotry (like racism and homophobia) and we have useful bigotry (like anti-Naziism).
I think in general practice the latter is more rare and not a particularly useful application of the term.
I'm kind of likin your definition there yankee boy (I just found out yankee came from an Indian word yangeese - most cool).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Its a term used to shut down the conversation and bandied about way too much nowdays.
Bingo!!
Xole also hit the nail on the head earlier by calling it a meaningless insult, which I think is a real shame, because it used to actually mean something to call someone a bigot.
GG
Its not meaningless though. Say it to my face when no one's around and its not going to go well for you.
There probably is a debate to be had upon what counts as bigotry and intolerance. But I'm not having it with someone who defends their 'disgust' of gay people and says things like...
I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.
And then cries bigot at people who label him intolerant. Just for example.
generalgrog wrote:
Xole also hit the nail on the head earlier by calling it a meaningless insult, which I think is a real shame, because it used to actually mean something to call someone a bigot.
That it so true, I've been called a bigot for just living in the south. I had an Afrocentric call me a racist because I was White (I found that funny as hell). I have a tattoo of the cartoon character Calvin urinating on the word terrorists on my arm, a woman said I was being intolerent toward Muslims and that my tattoo offends her, to which I replied "Good".
I've been called a racist, a bigot, and intolerent so many times in my life for just being myself. political correctness is bullgak. the charge of racism and bigotry should be a serious, and not thrown around everyday.
MrDwhitey wrote:Nice, comparing homosexuality to paedophilia.
Comparison..In that they are considered sexual perversions.
Yes..Mr. Treesong always likes to bring that little ditty up, but he always forgets the part about where I said that I didn't equivocate homosexuality to pedophilia...but it gets him short term shock value points so he keeps bringing it up. Quite unfairly, because he uses it out of context, in my opinion.
Again it's another shot at me, not at the topic at hand.
Please keep to the topic, no matter how tempting it may be to turn this into an "attack Grog" thread.
Step 1: Redefine bigotry so that it only means active KKK members who are actively burning crosses in front of African American churches.
Step 2: Call anyone that disagrees with your bigoted world view a bigot or otherwise intolerant of your bigotry that is deeply rooted in a flawed and ridiculous understanding of Christianity.
Step 3: Back political platforms that actively hurt non-whites.
Step 4: Pretend that it is just a coincidence that voter ID laws hurt African Americans, that immigration laws target Latinos, attacking a woman's ownership of her own body, denying homosexuals equal rights and protection, and fear mongering against Muslims all look like a coordinated attempt to go after anyone not straight, white, male, and Christian.
Step 5: Get upset because Vice President Biden said something about chains? Complain about the New Black Panther Party standing in front of a polling place. Talk about how white Christians are the real oppressed people.
TheHammer wrote:Step 1: Redefine bigotry so that it only means active KKK members who are actively burning crosses in front of African American churches.
Step 2: Call anyone that disagrees with your bigoted world view a bigot or otherwise intolerant of your bigotry that is deeply rooted in a flawed and ridiculous understanding of Christianity.
Step 3: Back political platforms that actively hurt non-whites.
Step 4: Pretend that it is just a coincidence that voter ID laws hurt African Americans, that immigration laws target Latinos, attacking a woman's ownership of her own body, denying homosexuals equal rights and protection, and fear mongering against Muslims all look like a coordinated attempt to go after anyone not straight, white, male, and Christian.
Step 5: Get upset because Vice President Biden said something about chains? Complain about the New Black Panther Party standing in front of a polling place. Talk about how white Christians are the real oppressed people.
TheHammer wrote:Step 1: Redefine bigotry so that it only means active KKK members who are actively burning crosses in front of African American churches.
Step 2: Call anyone that disagrees with your bigoted world view a bigot or otherwise intolerant of your bigotry that is deeply rooted in a flawed and ridiculous understanding of Christianity.
Step 3: Back political platforms that actively hurt non-whites.
Step 4: Pretend that it is just a coincidence that voter ID laws hurt African Americans, that immigration laws target Latinos, attacking a woman's ownership of her own body, denying homosexuals equal rights and protection, and fear mongering against Muslims all look like a coordinated attempt to go after anyone not straight, white, male, and Christian.
Step 5: Get upset because Vice President Biden said something about chains? Complain about the New Black Panther Party standing in front of a polling place. Talk about how white Christians are the real oppressed people.
Step 6: Win elections?
U high bro?
Ultimately, bigotry and intolerance is decided by society at large. So when desegregation was painfully working its way through the US, those opposed to it were at the time not generally considered bigoted. Of course, the lens of history does not cast them as such. One may say that gay rights are not the same as black rights, but then one would be wrong. The similarities far outweigh the differences.
GG, it is really how you are perceived on this forum. No matter how much you don't like it, your intolerance of gays based on your beliefs is considered bigotry by this society at large.
Intolerance is when people don't give me what I want/deserve.
And this me that I am referring to is me, Bromsy, not some philosophical point I am trying to make. The sooner we quit pretending I am not the protagonist of this particular world, the better.
Bromsy wrote:And this me that I am referring to is me, Bromsy, not some philosophical point I am trying to make. The sooner we quit pretending I am not the protagonist of this particular world, the better.
You're not the protagonist. You're the plucky sidekick.
Melissia wrote:Claiming that disagreeing with bigots makes one a bigot seems like it's a cheap cop-out to try to avoid talking about one's bigotry.
Now you're just being a bigot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
TheHammer wrote:Step 1: Redefine bigotry so that it only means active KKK members who are actively burning crosses in front of African American churches.
Step 2: Call anyone that disagrees with your bigoted world view a bigot or otherwise intolerant of your bigotry that is deeply rooted in a flawed and ridiculous understanding of Christianity.
Step 3: Back political platforms that actively hurt non-whites.
Step 4: Pretend that it is just a coincidence that voter ID laws hurt African Americans, that immigration laws target Latinos, attacking a woman's ownership of her own body, denying homosexuals equal rights and protection, and fear mongering against Muslims all look like a coordinated attempt to go after anyone not straight, white, male, and Christian.
Step 5: Get upset because Vice President Biden said something about chains? Complain about the New Black Panther Party standing in front of a polling place. Talk about how white Christians are the real oppressed people.
TheHammer wrote:Step 1: Redefine bigotry so that it only means active KKK members who are actively burning crosses in front of African American churches.
Or have people use the word correctly and not just as a personal attack to win debates.
Step 2: Call anyone that disagrees with your bigoted world view a bigot or otherwise intolerant of your bigotry that is deeply rooted in a flawed and ridiculous understanding of Christianity.
Question: Why is the Chistian the bigot? Is this just a single example with many more unmentioned examples or are you say Chistans are the only group to commit bigotry?
Step 3: Back political platforms that actively hurt non-whites.
I sense an Afrocentric in the force.
Step 4: Pretend that it is just a coincidence that voter ID laws hurt African Americans,
OMG, it's such an inconvienence to go get an ID to vote. Tell me how going to get an ID is such an inconvienence ecspecially in states like South Carolina where ID's are FREE.
that immigration laws target Latinos,
Well an anology, If you have a problem of car rim thefts, where do you put the police survalience unit? Beverly Hills? or LA? (For British London? or Liverpool?)
attacking a woman's ownership of her own body,
I'm sorry, I'm stupid, what are you getting at?
denying homosexuals equal rights and protection,
Hold on, rights and protection? Tell me where a Homosexual is denied the right to religion, speech, private property, do process, etc...?
and fear mongering against Muslims
I take it he forgot what racial demograph alqida recruits from.
Complain about the New Black Panther Party standing in front of a polling place.
Come on, you and I both know that if the KKK had stood infront of a poll with a bat saying "If you vote, you better vote white", that gak would be all over the nows and wouldn't be dismissed. The Black Panthers are a racist group and should be afforded the same disrespect.
A hybrid resulting from the cross of an donkey-cave and an ignoramus, closely related to both the gak-head and the dick. While this adaptable and prolific creature can be found most anywhere and can be most anyone, they have particular tendency to congregate around buildings containing ancient texts. The bigot is less typically found in and around institutions of higher education but remain wary as they are far from absent in those places. A bigot can easily be identified by it's call, a shrill grating sound that typically sounds like "Moral Superiority" though it varies. Bigots identify their prey almost entirely by traits that the victim has no control over and that present no threat to the bigot. As pack hunters bigots rarely target anything bigger than them, and never anything with more institutional power. The bigot reproduces prolifically both via typical sexual reproduction, and by lying.
Remember if you find an infestation of bigots in your area, there are steps you can take. While it's extremely difficult to change a bigot, information and reality both prove to be wonderful measures for preventing a bigot colony from growing.
TheHammer wrote:Step 1: Redefine bigotry so that it only means active KKK members who are actively burning crosses in front of African American churches.
Or have people use the word correctly and not just as a personal attack to win debates.
If a person is expressing a bigoted position, and consistently does so, and won't be reasoned out of it, then it makes sense to call them a bigot. We absolutely should be cautious not to overuse and misuse the word just to insult people with whom we disagree. But neither should we allow bigots to play the victim by pretending that being called out on their bigotry is itself a form of bigotry.
broodstar wrote:
Step 2: Call anyone that disagrees with your bigoted world view a bigot or otherwise intolerant of your bigotry that is deeply rooted in a flawed and ridiculous understanding of Christianity.
Question: Why is the Chistian the bigot? Is this just a single example with many more unmentioned examples or are you say Chistans are the only group to commit bigotry?
They're not. That's not what he said. He said bigots are often people who have a deeply flawed understanding of Christianity. Most publically-visible bigots in this country seem to justify their bigotry in reference to Christianity. This is offensive to tolerant and nice Christians, as well as to the rest of us.
broodstar wrote:
Step 4: Pretend that it is just a coincidence that voter ID laws hurt African Americans,
OMG, it's such an inconvienence to go get an ID to vote. Tell me how going to get an ID is such an inconvienence ecspecially in states like South Carolina where ID's are FREE.
Yes, it is a significant inconvenience, if you don't have a car and you have to go a DMV many miles away to get an ID. Especially if you have a poor-paying job which doesn't offer you vacation days, and you are living paycheck to paycheck.
broodstar wrote:
attacking a woman's ownership of her own body,
I'm sorry, I'm stupid, what are you getting at?
Making laws to deny women the right to make choices about their own reproductive care and health.
broodstar wrote:
denying homosexuals equal rights and protection,
Hold on, rights and protection? Tell me where a Homosexual is denied the right to religion, speech, private property, do process, etc...?
How about the right to visit your spouse in the hospital when they're critically-injured? How about the right to inherit their Social Security benefits? And it's "due process".
broodstar wrote:
Complain about the New Black Panther Party standing in front of a polling place.
Come on, you and I both know that if the KKK had stood infront of a poll with a bat saying "If you vote, you better vote white", that gak would be all over the nows and wouldn't be dismissed. The Black Panthers are a racist group and should be afforded the same disrespect.
Please don't be so ignorant. Read something. The Black Panther Party WAS an old political group. The New Black Panther Party is a current-day group with about three members. How many crimes do you think they've committed? How many millions of people have they intimidated? The KKK committed thousands and thousands of murders and acts of terrorism against American citizens. The idea that you can equate one tiny insignificant group whose influence and threat has been almost entirely fabricated, with a massive and murderous organization which commited crimes for decades, is appalling.
They're not. That's not what he said. He said bigots are often people who have a deeply flawed understanding of Christianity. Most publically-visible bigots in this country seem to justify their bigotry in reference to Christianity. This is offensive to tolerant and nice Christians, as well as to the rest of us.
That's not what I was asking. From what I see the bigot is always linked with Christianity. Why is bigotry not linked to misuses of other teachings?
Yes, it is a significant inconvenience, if you don't have a car and you have to go a DMV many miles away to get an ID. Especially if you have a poor-paying job which doesn't offer you vacation days, and you are living paycheck to paycheck.
You know what the revolutionary soldiers and so on went through in order to procure that right. Walking through the snow of Valley Forge no boots, no clothes, suffering malnutrition, disease, etc.. and they do that gak for free. Tell me how strapping on some Timberlands and walking an hour or two to a DMV and at most pay 30 bucks for an ID. Tell me how you look that valley soldier in the eye and tell him what your ask to do is too much to ask?
Making laws to deny women the right to make choices about their own reproductive care and health.
I don't want to go off topic with this. So the child, without commiting a single crime, is going to pay the death penalty for the woman's choice. How is it bigotted to protect the right to life of the child?
How about the right to visit your spouse in the hospital when they're critically-injured? How about the right to inherit their Social Security benefits? And it's "due process".
First off, Social Security is not your property, if you have to sue the government to get it...it's not yours. You are sueing to seize assets from the government. Yes, I do believe the patient should be consulted for visitors. But if the patient is unconcious, how do the hospitol protect the patient's right to confidencallity? the hospitol needs it's right to private property, that way they can stop just anyone from walking in there.
Please don't be so ignorant. Read something. The Black Panther Party WAS an old political group. The New Black Panther Party is a current-day group with about three members. How many crimes do you think they've committed? How many millions of people have they intimidated? The KKK committed thousands and thousands of murders and acts of terrorism against American citizens. The idea that you can equate one tiny insignificant group whose influence and threat has been almost entirely fabricated, with a massive and murderous organization which commited crimes for decades, is appalling.
So these are the rallying cries of heroes?
I'm sorry that sounds like racism to me. I don't give a damn how small an organization is right now, it shouldn't be allowed to grow. Do not be so ignorant as to confuse the new black pathers with the black pather. They are nowhere near their namesake. They spew hate speech against whites, jews, and law enforcement. What are you waiting for the first body to turn up before you realize the threat? Any group that goes around spewing hate is appalling. I sapose the multipe weapons charges and the bounty on Zimmerman means nothing? right?
chromedog wrote:Intolerance isn't a synonym for bigot.
Intolerance is a synonym for bigotRY.
Yes, pedantry. Then again, in English, your meaning often depends on the very placement of the right words and punctuation.
If there's one thing I just cannot tolerate, it's bigotry.
EVERYONE is bigoted against something. It's part of the human condition.
You're good. you're real good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xole wrote:I wonder if there is anything Dakka will ever agree on.
I think we can all agree that a vote for Frazzled (Wiener Dog Party candidate for Presidency) is a vote for a very entertaining future Presidency.
"If a man can't have a good rum and Coke at 8.30 in the morning, then the terrorists have already won."
-Frazzled on a proper breakfast.
Yes, it is a significant inconvenience, if you don't have a car and you have to go a DMV many miles away to get an ID. Especially if you have a poor-paying job which doesn't offer you vacation days, and you are living paycheck to paycheck.
You know what the revolutionary soldiers and so on went through in order to procure that right. Walking through the snow of Valley Forge no boots, no clothes, suffering malnutrition, disease, etc.. and they do that gak for free. Tell me how strapping on some Timberlands and walking an hour or two to a DMV and at most pay 30 bucks for an ID. Tell me how you look that valley soldier in the eye and tell him what your ask to do is too much to ask?
This is pretty out there. So the "Revolutionary Soldiers" walked through Valley Forge (uphill both ways no less) in the snow so that all Americans could have Voter ID's? I'm not sure that's what they were walking for.
Frazzled wrote:
I think we can all agree that a vote for Frazzled (Wiener Dog Party candidate for Presidency) is a vote for a very entertaining future Presidency.
"If a man can't have a good rum and Coke at 8.30 in the morning, then the terrorists have already won."
-Frazzled on a proper breakfast.
I'd vote for the Wiener Dog Party. However, rum and coke at 8.30? What sort of drunken fiend are you? Thats Vodka and orange time. Coke is far to sweet for 8.30.
I think for this debate we must now define the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
dictionary.com
acceptance
noun
1. the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2. favorable reception; approval; favor.
3. the act of assenting or believing: acceptance of a theory.
dictionary.com
tolerance
noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
Question: What is the difference between asking one to be permissive of one's activities and asking one to approve of one's activities?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whitedragon wrote:
broodstar wrote:
Yes, it is a significant inconvenience, if you don't have a car and you have to go a DMV many miles away to get an ID. Especially if you have a poor-paying job which doesn't offer you vacation days, and you are living paycheck to paycheck.
You know what the revolutionary soldiers and so on went through in order to procure that right. Walking through the snow of Valley Forge no boots, no clothes, suffering malnutrition, disease, etc.. and they do that gak for free. Tell me how strapping on some Timberlands and walking an hour or two to a DMV and at most pay 30 bucks for an ID. Tell me how you look that valley soldier in the eye and tell him what your ask to do is too much to ask?
This is pretty out there. So the "Revolutionary Soldiers" walked through Valley Forge (uphill both ways no less) in the snow so that all Americans could have Voter ID's? I'm not sure that's what they were walking for.
broodstar wrote:
That's not what I was asking. From what I see the bigot is always linked with Christianity. Why is bigotry not linked to misuses of other teachings?
Most people who post on Dakka are christian and live in predominantly christian communities, so they will be more familiar with the bigotry commonly attributed to christians. However, we have many threads about bigoted behaviour from other groups, for example muslims and sometimes atheists and so on.
You know what the revolutionary soldiers and so on went through in order to procure that right. Walking through the snow of Valley Forge no boots, no clothes, suffering malnutrition, disease, etc.. and they do that gak for free. Tell me how strapping on some Timberlands and walking an hour or two to a DMV and at most pay 30 bucks for an ID. Tell me how you look that valley soldier in the eye and tell him what your ask to do is too much to ask?
Well, why do you have to ask? Why can't people vote?
First off, Social Security is not your property, if you have to sue the government to get it...it's not yours. You are sueing to seize assets from the government. Yes, I do believe the patient should be consulted for visitors. But if the patient is unconcious, how do the hospitol protect the patient's right to confidencallity? the hospitol needs it's right to private property, that way they can stop just anyone from walking in there.
Why does one kind of couple get treated differently by the government than another kind? It's very easy to find out what rights and so on are denied to homosexual couples due to the fact that they cannot marry. If you are too lazy to find out, I wonder at the potential for this exchange to be productive.
I'm sorry that sounds like racism to me. I don't give a damn how small an organization is right now, it shouldn't be allowed to grow. Do not be so ignorant as to confuse the new black pathers with the black pather. They are nowhere near their namesake. They spew hate speech against whites, jews, and law enforcement. What are you waiting for the first body to turn up before you realize the threat? Any group that goes around spewing hate is appalling. I sapose the multipe weapons charges and the bounty on Zimmerman means nothing? right?
He's not confusing them. He stated clearly that they are not the same group, but rather, a very small extremist group who should be despised and ignored, much like fringe neo nazi groups and so on.
On the main topic, the dictionary definition of words is often not helpful. People consider that denying others rights based on religious views is a form of bigotry, that's really the end of the story. And GG, if you don't want that quote to be thrown back at you, then consider your words more carefully in future. Putting paedophilia and homosexuality together like that could easily be seen as conflating them, showing them as being related.
As to your talk of sexual perversion, well, I dunno. You're awful touchy about your way of life being criticised, if I were to label your brand of christianity a heresy or intellectual perversion, how would you feel?
You do realize you're whole opening statement applies to you as well right? So lets hear you say "I'm GG and I'm a bigot" Then the healing can begin.
Do you tolerate the LGBT community? or are you so intolerant of them you feel the need to vote against them having the same government granted rights of marriage?
Not born that way eh? any chance you are wrong about that?
I didn't like that video, because I reckon the science is really dodgy any of those scientific answers could be wrong- the stats are really dodgy to me and the language used by the narrator is
heavily biased.
Not saying there isn't a genetic component mind you, but that doesn't mean there's not any choice involved or that environment doesn't also play a role.
Sorry to poop on that often contested point, I just don't think the evidence is strong enough either way.
Of course, since I see nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, I don't think it matters if it's a choice or not- homosexuals should get equal rights as far as possible, anyhow.
Da Boss wrote:I didn't like that video, because I reckon the science is really dodgy any of those scientific answers could be wrong
The "gay gene" is a misnomer. It's a complex series of genes which code for far more than sexuality. But it IS part of genetics.
Effectively, most of the population carries some or most of the genes for homosexuality. It's only in a rare few (around 2-7% of the population depending on what metric you use, but 4-5% is the median) in which the genes mix in just the right way that they are entirely homosexual. Most people are to some extent bisexual instead. It varies from gender as well, to some extent, with women having an even greater tendency towards bisexuality.
In fact, more and more research is showing that many of the most virulent homophobes are actually themselves highly repressed homosexuals, with the most common cause for their repression parental disapproval by extremely strict parents. Quite a few self-identified strongly heterosexual males become very aroused at the sight of gay porn in tests, indicating bisexual or homosexual, but their minds are trained in such a way by their parents that they repress this and viciously attack those who they perceive as gay.
I'd agree with most of what you're saying, but I'd say that I would place less faith in current studies than you are, tbh. I think it's likely that the gene complexes that code for homosexuality are likely (like most gene complexes) to require complex environmental cues to be fully activated in at least some cases. I think there is probably a segment of the population that could be "genetically gay" but I also think there's enough fuzzyness in the spectrum of sexuality to mean that there are probably a few who could be "genetically straight" who are "environmentally gay". Anything to do with brain activity is colossally complex and multivariate, most of the time, and most studies involving humans have a fairly weak statistical basis if they're not tracking a simple mechanism or using insanely large data sets which don't rely on "self identification".
You probably have some pretty ugly issues and views of race if you complain about how awful the New Black Panther Party is, AND are in favor of voter ID laws that are done to lower African American voter turn out.
As a white guy I'm constantly distressed by how other white men see any attempt to create equality and diminish white privilege as "racism" against white folk.
But, seriously, if you think we live in a racially equal society there's a pretty good chance you have some really serious and ugly issues involving race.
And, yes, it probably isn't an accident that there exists a large political party in this country that only attempts to do things that favor straight, white, Christian, men. There's no ideology schizophrenic enough to call for limited government when it's advantageous to white men in certain situations while also calling for bigger government in situations where it only hurts non-whites.
Da Boss wrote:I also think there's enough fuzzyness in the spectrum of sexuality to mean that there are probably a few who could be "genetically straight" who are "environmentally gay".
Probably, but they are a very, very tiny minority even amongst the already small gay population.
There are far, far more people who are genetically gay or bisexual who happen to be socially "encouraged" (IE coerced) in to being "straight".
I understand why people try to argue the science of homosexuality, although it seems silly to argue science to homophobes who are most likely against science in every other political conversation ever, but it shouldn't matter.
If someone says they're gay, great. If someone says they're straight, great. Who cares? What's wrong with respecting someone as long as they don't do anything that harms the world or its people?
I imagine there is a strong correlation between people who believe evolution is a lie, climate change is a fraud, and homosexuality is evil so why even bother arguing science with those folks?
Well, why do you have to ask? Why can't people vote?
Now we have something, why don't we let people vote, hell why not let people vote four or five times. Is there something wrong with asking you to prove you are who you say you are in order to perserve the right to vote for another person?
Why does one kind of couple get treated differently by the government than another kind? It's very easy to find out what rights and so on are denied to homosexual couples due to the fact that they cannot marry. If you are too lazy to find out, I wonder at the potential for this exchange to be productive.
Oh no, I know, they are all financial, of which I agree government should be blind and that taxation and benefits should be equal for all people engaging in the same activity. However, I don't think anything finnancial can be discribed as a right. Here's a question do you have a right to be married? It's one thing to ask to be permissive of one's activities, it's another to ask for acceptance. It's one thing to ask me to tolerate one sexual preferance, it's another thing to ask me to accept it.
He's not confusing them. He stated clearly that they are not the same group, but rather, a very small extremist group who should be despised and ignored, much like fringe neo nazi groups and so on.
He did say they not the same group, he did not say they were extremist. IMO he show favor of them, saying the fact that I would equate them with the KKK is appaling. As to your comment, I will have to respectfully disaggree, I don't think they should be ignored, they should be shown for what they are.
TheHammer wrote:I understand why people try to argue the science of homosexuality, although it seems silly to argue science to homophobes who are most likely against science in every other political conversation ever, but it shouldn't matter.
If someone says they're gay, great. If someone says they're straight, great. Who cares? What's wrong with respecting someone as long as they don't do anything that harms the world or its people?
I imagine there is a strong correlation between people who believe evolution is a lie, climate change is a fraud, and homosexuality is evil so why even bother arguing science with those folks?
You're right, mostly you can't change those peoples views, but the reason to post the proper science is to refute them for anyone else who is reading this.
broodstar wrote:Now we have something, why don't we let people vote, hell why not let people vote four or five times. Is there something wrong with asking you to prove you are who you say you are in order to perserve the right to vote for another person?
I have a voter registraiton card. That proves who I am as well as any driver's license.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:Here's a question do you have a right to be married?
According to the Supreme Court of hte United States, yes.
Oh no, I know, they are all financial, of which I agree government should be blind and that taxation and benefits should be equal for all people engaging in the same activity. However, I don't think anything finnancial can be discribed as a right. Here's a question do you have a right to be married? It's one thing to ask to be permissive of one's activities, it's another to ask for acceptance. It's one thing to ask me to tolerate one sexual preferance, it's another thing to ask me to accept it.
Amendment #14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Also, you should probably read a book before you click-clack on your keyboard.
TheHammer wrote:I understand why people try to argue the science of homosexuality
Genetics is interesting?
That's the reason I argue it
It really is. Logically, it should clear up the whole debate. Sadly it does not.
Additionally, I recall there being some small part of the brain that is different in gay/lesbian folks. It's more feminine than it's supposed to be in gay people and more masculine than it's supposed to be in lesbians.
I'd look it up but I lack the time.
I wouldn't even argue the environment is significant for the gay people themselves, I would argue it is significant for their parents. Stress may have some role to play in the development of a gay person.
TheHammer wrote:
Amendment #14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Also, you should probably read a book before you click-clack on your keyboard.
You're really going to try that? OK, how is that depriving someone of life, liberty, or property?
I don't get what the video was about. People walking, whistle blowing, people shouting "shame on you". Did people run the police out of town?
I don't think you watched the whole thing then.
The people being escorted by police were Christians. If you look closely one lady is having to cover her infant while she is being protected from the mob of angry gays
Melissia wrote:I have a voter registraiton card. That proves who I am as well as any driver's license.
I sappose, touche, I don't carry my voter registraition card so I just show my driver's license. You do agree that you should prove who you are, right?
I don't mean to blame the victim here, but you know, perhaps she shouldn't have taken her baby to a an anti-gay rally in a predominantly gay district if she didn't want to be shouted at by gay people while holding her baby.
TheHammer wrote:This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You probably have some pretty ugly issues and views of race if you complain about how awful the New Black Panther Party is, AND are in favor of voter ID laws that are done to lower African American voter turn out.
If you assume voter ID laws are there to lower African American voter turnout then I agree, you have some issues
Melissia wrote:I have a voter registraiton card. That proves who I am as well as any driver's license.
I sappose, touche, I don't carry my voter registraition card so I just show my driver's license. You do agree that you should prove who you are, right?
Yes, but the voter registration card is more than enough.
Frazzled wrote:If you assume voter ID laws are there to lower African American voter turnout
What's to assume?
Republican politicians have repeatedly and consistently said that's PRECISELY why they're putting the laws in. There's no assumption. They admitted it. On national news even.
I find it amusing that the same people who are allegedly not capable of going to the DMV to acquire a form of ID are more than capable of making their way to an abortion clinic or wherever the hell they go to pick up welfare checks.
And if these people can't make it to the DMV to to get some ID how are they going to get to a hospital to make use of their free healthcare?
Frazzled wrote:
Its a term used to shut down the conversation and bandied about way too much nowdays.
Bingo!!
Xole also hit the nail on the head earlier by calling it a meaningless insult, which I think is a real shame, because it used to actually mean something to call someone a bigot.
I agree, it is used to shut down conversation, but some conversations simply aren't worth having after a certain point; those being the ones in which one participant might properly be called a bigot. The word means just as much as it always has, and has been misused frequently given that it generally only comes up in emotionally sensitive conversations. Indeed, I tend to think that it was used even more freely during the 60's.
Also, I suspect the degree to which you feel the word is overused correlates directly with the frequency with which its used to refer to you, much as is the case with all contentious descriptors.
Melissia wrote:I don't mean to blame the victim here, but you know, perhaps she shouldn't have taken her baby to a an anti-gay rally in a predominantly gay district if she didn't want to be shouted at by gay people while holding her baby.
I completely agree. She vastly underestimated how intolerant those gay bigots could be.
broodstar wrote:
Or have people use the word correctly and not just as a personal attack to win debates.
That's actually the proper way to use the word, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Personal attacks are perfectly acceptable in the course of argument, so long as they're relevant to the subject.
broodstar wrote:
OMG, it's such an inconvienence to go get an ID to vote. Tell me how going to get an ID is such an inconvienence ecspecially in states like South Carolina where ID's are FREE.
Would you also then say that its acceptable to require ID to purchase a gun?
TheHammer wrote:and fear mongering against Muslims
broodstar wrote:
I take it he forgot what racial demograph alqida recruits from.
Its interesting that you would refer to Muslims as a race, seeing as one could argue that the tendency to view Islam as monolithic is the direct result of the manner in which that religion has been demonized by many.
generalgrog wrote:
Melissia wrote:I don't mean to blame the victim here, but you know, perhaps she shouldn't have taken her baby to a an anti-gay rally in a predominantly gay district if she didn't want to be shouted at by gay people while holding her baby.
I completely agree. She vastly underestimated how intolerant those gay bigots could be.
And certainly the decision to, essentially, bait the homosexual community is not at all an issue.
Moreover, bringing a child to any political protest is profoundly stupid.
GeneralGrog apparently still can't comprehend the idea that many homosexuals are Christians as well... therefor in his eyes the counter-protest, where all they did was say "shame on you" a lot, was bigotry against Christians.
Melissia wrote:I don't mean to blame the victim here, but you know, perhaps she shouldn't have taken her baby to a an anti-gay rally in a predominantly gay district if she didn't want to be shouted at by gay people while holding her baby.
I completely agree. She vastly underestimated how intolerant those gay bigots could be.
GG
Problem is, like others, you cry victim frequently between your very public bouts of prejudiced thinking. You seem to think that people strongly opposing someone expressing some very nasty opinions about gay people, is equivalent to people being intolerant towards someone for actually being gay, not for doing anything nasty or dangerous, but just because of their sexual orientation. The two just aren't equivalent.
If someone partook in an anti-black rally in an area predominantly made up of black people, and they got some abuse, you probably wouldn't be so quick to blame the locals for being unreasonably upset and bigoted.
generalgrog wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:Nice, comparing homosexuality to paedophilia.
Comparison..In that they are considered sexual perversions.
Yes..Mr. Treesong always likes to bring that little ditty up, but he always forgets the part about where I said that I didn't equivocate homosexuality to pedophilia...but it gets him short term shock value points so he keeps bringing it up. Quite unfairly, because he uses it out of context, in my opinion.
Again it's another shot at me, not at the topic at hand.
It's quite difficult to tackle this subject without addressing the specific views of those involved. You seem very keen to say what you like about others or entire demographics of society, but never have any accountability for saying it.
I don't need to make a prolonged 'attack' against you for you to increasingly satisfy yourself that are the victim. Frequently when the topic of homosexuality comes up on Off Topic you say exactly the same things, and then cry that people are being bigoted against *you* when you're challenged. You claim that I've taken your quote 'out of context', but I could produce masses of similar comments that you have made over a couple of years, if I so chose, but I won't choke the thread with them. Anyone looking over your posting history can see them all.
But 'context' as you say is important. And when someone starts a thread about how overused terms like 'bigotry' and 'intolerance' are, and how unfairly they are labelled as such, it's absolutely fair to analyse where the person is coming from to get this impression of the world around them in which such terms are apparently being thrown around so unfairly.
dogma wrote:
Moreover, bringing a child to any political protest is profoundly stupid.
1) they looked like they were just walking down the street. Mel says it was some political rally, how does she know that?
2) it doesn't matter, that angry mob of gay people and the way acted towards what appeared to be peacefull Christians was a disgrace. For all I know all they did was sing amazing grace.
dogma wrote:
Moreover, bringing a child to any political protest is profoundly stupid.
1) they looked like they were just walking down the street. Mel says it was some political rally, how does she know that?
2) it doesn't matter, that angry mob of gay people and the way acted towards what appeared to be peacefull Christians was a disgrace. For all I know all they did was sing amazing grace.
Again it's a perfect illustration of my OP.
GG
It illustrates how you have no idea what was going on there, you just assume the christians must have been the victims in it. Those peacefull christians were probably being arrested for something, which is why the cops were escorting them.
dogma wrote:
Moreover, bringing a child to any political protest is profoundly stupid.
1) they looked like they were just walking down the street. Mel says it was some political rally, how does she know that?
2) it doesn't matter, that angry mob of gay people and the way acted towards what appeared to be peacefull Christians was a disgrace. For all I know all they did was sing amazing grace.
Again it's a perfect illustration of my OP.
GG
I've watched thousands of videos of Christians being ridiculously vicious and intolerant. I reckon for every incident of a gay mob being aggressive towards a Christian there are ten for what you and your ilk get up to.
But.. what's this.. some gays shout at someone and its "Christian Victim Time"
Its common bloody sense as well lets be honest. The majority doesn't NEED protecting, popular speech doesn't NEED protecting.. its the gak that's in the minority that needs looking after because everyone agrees with all the other stuff!
And there are a couple hundred million of you and your pals in the USA. gak, the mother fethers in suits used to knock on my bastard door three days a week in Pasadena and harass me, how many times has a gay bloke come dressed in assless chaps and a leather baseball cap come and interrupted your Sunday morning and demanded you think about switching to cock? I've never once been harassed by a gay, I've had LOADS of gak from Christians.
As always, you are playing the victim and you are being a hypocrite. Its an obvious fact that gays need protecting from Christians, and not the other way around.
generalgrog wrote:
1) they looked like they were just walking down the street. Mel says it was some political rally, how does she know that?
For one, they had a police escort, which should immediately tell you they weren't simply walking down the street.
If that's not good enough, here's the background:
In San Francisco's Castro District, people on both sides of the same-sex marriage controversy confronted each other on Friday night, as police tried to keep the peace. Proposition 8 passed in a close vote and eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Members of the gay community said that almost every Friday night, a Christian group meets at the corner of Castro and 18th Streets. They try to convert gays and lesbians into a straight lifestyle.
This Friday night, the message didn't go over well. Some gays and lesbians reacted by trying to chase the group out of the Castro.
"Their rights were respected," said Joe Schmitz, an opponent of Prop 8. "They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood."
San Francisco Police officers in riot gear formed a line and escorted the religious group into a van to safely get them out of the area.
generalgrog wrote:
2) it doesn't matter, that angry mob of gay people and the way acted towards what appeared to be peacefull Christians was a disgrace. For all I know all they did was sing amazing grace.
I sincerely doubt that's the case, you don't generate that much attention for simply singing Amazing Grace. You might get a few people being donkey-caves, but not a few hundred, especially seeing as Amazing Grace is a fairly generic Christian song.
Is it disgraceful? Not really. I think that if you make your personal beliefs a matter of public spectacle (and praying on a street corner, and trying to convert passers by is a public spectacle) you open yourself up to being accosted in public. This applies to gay pride events as well, especially those that effectively either by intention or otherwise, bait conservative groups. The "Kiss In" event staged at several Chik-fil-As being a great example.
Ultimately, though, you have to remember that this is a sociopolitical conflict in which there isn't a whole lot middle ground to be had. Once you get two sides that cannot compromise, not only due to the absence of willingness but the absence of options, volatility follows.
generalgrog wrote:
Again it's a perfect illustration of my OP.
I think any reasonable definition bigotry would include both of the groups portrayed in the video. Though I think that repeatedly staging an anti-gay event in a predominantly gay neighborhood is essentially asking for some level of confrontation (If the intention was "conversion", then it pretty much has to be definition.), and that putting a child into that environment is profoundly irresponsible.
I also think that the homosexual community has a far better justification for the intolerance it expresses than the conservative community does. One is essentially angry over being denied a privilege that would be extended directly to them. The other is mildly offended by the prospect of having to cope with the existence of that privilege, which has no direct effect on them.
Then, of course, there's that whole bit about the historical persecution of homosexuals.
TheHammer wrote:
Amendment #14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Also, you should probably read a book before you click-clack on your keyboard.
You're really going to try that? OK, how is that depriving someone of life, liberty, or property?
That's the more relevant passage with regard to the conversation at hand.
Moreover, gay marriage cannot be denied on religious reasons because that would violate freedom of religion-- not every religion, and indeed, not even every church within Christianity, is against gay marriage.
So if one wants to claim that marriage is a religious thing, then they've already lost the fight against gay marriage in the first place.
So the argument instead becomes a civil liberties issue.
That thing about Left handedness cracked me up. My grandpa went to a religius school where they would tie up his left hand to force him to write with his right hand and beat him with a ruler if he did.
But Ontopic, i think something we need to realize is this, anti gay sentiment is going down each year, the more and more society evolves, the more we accept those with differences. There is no reason to hate GG, pity him, for he has let his hate cloud his love of his fellow man.
TheHammer wrote:It's gross that many people are trying to hide their bigotry and lies with outrage over being accuses of being bigoted liars.
Indeed, its also gross that many people are trying to hide their bigotry and lies with outrage that others are trying to hide their bigotry and lies with outrage over being accused of being bigoted liars.
I too have been called a bigot on this forum by people who don't know me. Fortunately for me I view their opinions and well their existence in general, as an overall waste of skin so it doesn't bother me.
Cheesecat asserts that those that homophobia is bigotry.
Frazzled response is to ask if homosexuals who call heterosexuals "breeders" is also bigotry, as if they were somehow equal.
Yes, because obviously denying marriage rights, equal protection, and otherwise trying to shame and make it difficult to be homosexual is the same exact thing as the strawman uppity gay guy calling a hetero dude a "breeder".
Straight, Christian, white male privilege is the absolute worst and those that cling to it are awful.
Can't we accept that the people who yell "[see forum posting rules]!" and the people who yell "breeder!" are both gakheads?
My dad always used to say you should never pack an eejit, because there'd always be one there waiting for you, wherever you went. Well, actually he said something a little less family friendly than eejit, but you get my meaning.
Aye the point is boss, sure it pisses us off, It certainly does me, when you see double standards.. I mean, you remember when those two Somalian chicks were beating that lass up and shouting "Kill the white slag!" but they got off with a slapped wrist?
Of course it does annoy me that minorities can expect to be far better treated with regards to "racism" but at the end of the day, it DOES kinda make sense doesn't it?
The minorities are the ones that have took alot of gak.. well.. their ancestors anyway. The majority never needs looking after because everyone sees things their way!
Ergo, I do find it annoying yes, but it is less of a deal if a black bloke calls me a white bastard than if I start throwing racial slurs at him, and the same goes for that whole breeder thing.
Does that make sense? I'm not saying I don't get irritated by the fact that clearly a Somalian bloke would get away with racially abusing me.. and he clearly would lets have it right.. but, well.. he does have more of a right to have a chip on his shoulder than me doesn't he?
Im not saying people that are proper militant gays aren't douche bags.. and I especially hate angry lesbians as I had to throw one down some stairs in a nightclub once after she hit me with a bottle of WKD.....
But... you know.. it IS less of a deal isn't it!?
And white, straight Christian majorities really have no place claiming otherwise as far as I'm concerned.. are we such big babies that we cant take a little gak?!
mattyrm wrote: Aye the point is boss, sure it pisses us off, It certainly does me, when you see double standards.. I mean, you remember when those two Somalian chicks were beating that lass up and shouting "Kill the white slag!" but they got off with a slapped wrist?
Of course it does annoy me that minorities can expect to be far better treated with regards to "racism" but at the end of the day, it DOES kinda make sense doesn't it?
The minorities are the ones that have took alot of gak.. well.. their ancestors anyway. The majority never needs looking after because everyone sees things their way!
Ergo, I do find it annoying yes, but it is less of a deal if a black bloke calls me a white bastard than if I start throwing racial slurs at him, and the same goes for that whole breeder thing.
Does that make sense? I'm not saying I don't get irritated by the fact that clearly a Somalian bloke would get away with racially abusing me.. and he clearly would lets have it right.. but, well.. he does have more of a right to have a chip on his shoulder than me doesn't he?
Im not saying people that are proper militant gays aren't douche bags.. and I especially hate angry lesbians as I had to throw one down some stairs in a nightclub once after she hit me with a bottle of WKD.....
But... you know.. it IS less of a deal isn't it!?
And white, straight Christian majorities really have no place claiming otherwise as far as I'm concerned.. are we such big babies that we cant take a little gak?!
What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.
I don't want to go off topic with this. So the child, without commiting a single crime, is going to pay the death penalty for the woman's choice. How is it bigotted to protect the right to life of the child?
Melissia wrote:Moreover, gay marriage cannot be denied on religious reasons because that would violate freedom of religion-- not every religion, and indeed, not even every church within Christianity, is against gay marriage.
So if one wants to claim that marriage is a religious thing, then they've already lost the fight against gay marriage in the first place.
So the argument instead becomes a civil liberties issue.
Well, that argument can be used to generate support for opposing gay marriage, but the law as written cannot include explicit mention of religion.
Basically, a law stating that the US is a Christian nation, and that gay marriage is illegal because Christianity forbids it is unconstitutional. But a law that defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman without mention of religion would not be.
The biggest sticking point is that many people, on both sides of the debate, have difficulty clearly separating the idea of marriage as a religious concept from marriage as a legal concept. In part this is due to the emotive nature of the issue, and in part its due to either side attempting to stick it to the other. On the conservative side this takes the form of basic unwillingness to see homosexual unions granted the same standing as heterosexual ones; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance. On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance.
Melissia wrote:Moreover, gay marriage cannot be denied on religious reasons because that would violate freedom of religion-- not every religion, and indeed, not even every church within Christianity, is against gay marriage.
So if one wants to claim that marriage is a religious thing, then they've already lost the fight against gay marriage in the first place.
So the argument instead becomes a civil liberties issue.
Well, that argument can be used to generate support for opposing gay marriage, but the law as written cannot include explicit mention of religion.
Basically, a law stating that the US is a Christian nation, and that gay marriage is illegal because Christianity forbids it is unconstitutional. But a law that defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman without mention of religion would not be.
The biggest sticking point is that many people, on both sides of the debate, have difficulty clearly separating the idea of marriage as a religious concept from marriage as a legal concept. In part this is due to the emotive nature of the issue, and in part its due to either side attempting to stick it to the other. On the conservative side this takes the form of basic unwillingness to see homosexual unions granted the same standing as heterosexual ones; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance. On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance.
That whole statement is laced with intolerance. How dare they want the 1000's of benefits the government grants to married couples. And the funny part is the christians gave up the "marriage is a religious thing" back when they were trying to keep inter racial marriages from happening. That's when they gave the government the right to decide who can marry with the marriage license. As it is today, religions have no say in who can and can't get married, you can get your license from the government, and get married in the court house. As the government now runs marriages as even if you get married in a church you still need the governments license. The government can not discriminate against anyone, ergo its only a matter of time before anyone can marry anyone.
"Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.?"
its about smaller government and allowing any American the same rights to choose who they want to marry. The only ones trying to force the issues are the christians who think america is a christian nation, and should pass laws based on their holy book. Because for some reason the majority of christians in the US can not Live and let live.
So either remove all government rights granted to married couples, or allow anyone to marry anyone they can get to say yes.
Frazzled wrote:What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.
Which ones?
The gay marriage debate really does boil down to one simple concept: social control.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The Christian churches generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.
There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.
or...
2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse", which is something we have in Canada. It grants all the rights that a traditionally-married couple get, except you only need to be co-habiting for at least 1 year with a person of whom you share a conjugal relationship.
I like solution #2. It let's the fundamentalists smile while they shut up, and it grants all legal rights to those who should have them (but perhaps currently don't in the US system)
It's bigoted to point out that straight white men hold a disproportionate amount of power? It isn't just political, but in business, finance, civil society, religious institutions, the military, and every other facet of society where this is true.
But, as long as you can feel good about the strange accident that leads you to have political views that hurt nonwhites, homosexuals, and women!
It would almost be like the Family Research Council calling the Southern Poverty Law Center bigoted. Oh.... :(
Frazzled wrote:What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.
Which ones?
The gay marriage debate really does boil down to one simple concept: social control.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The Christian churches generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.
There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.
or...
2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse", which is something we have in Canada. It grants all the rights that a traditionally-married couple get, except you only need to be co-habiting for at least 1 year with a person of whom you share a conjugal relationship.
I like solution #2. It let's the fundamentalists smile while they shut up, and it grants all legal rights to those who should have them (but perhaps currently don't in the US system)
Problem solved.
This I can agree with... (but prefer option 1)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Nobody wrote:If gay marriage is allowed, can polygamy be aloud?
Yup and it should be...
But, why the feth would a dude want more than one wife at the same time is beyond me.
dogma wrote:
That's actually the proper way to use the word, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Personal attacks are perfectly acceptable in the course of argument, so long as they're relevant to the subject.
Ad hominem - short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Fallacies are something that everyone does on accident, They're most commonly found in the media and politics and it's easy to understand why, fallacies aspecially Ad Hominem is just fething entertaining.
Would you also then say that its acceptable to require ID to purchase a gun?
Acquiring from dealers
An individual 21 years of age or older may acquire a handgun from a dealer federally licensed to sell firearms in the individual's state of residence.
An individual 18 years of age or older may purchase a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer in any state. However, the applicant may not purchase a pistol gripped long gun that does not have a shoulder stock until he or she is 21 years of age.
It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm unless the federal firearms licensee receives notice of approval from a prescribed source approving the transfer.
Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the ATF. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1000 and one year's imprisonment.
An individual holding a Curio and Relics License (officially a Type 03 Federal Firearms License (FFL); also called a C&R) may directly purchase firearms that are 50 or more years old from anyone AND any firearm officially recognized by the ATF as a Curio and Relic (C&R).
Sales between individuals
In a private transaction, federal law prohibits the transfer or the sale of a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to individuals under 18 years of age. Although, there are certain exceptions in federal law, that if met, would allow an individual to transfer a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to someone under 18 years of age.
There is no federal law concerning minimum age for the transfer or sale of a firearm that is not defined as a handgun, such as rifles, semiautomatic rifles, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, short-barreled shotgun, machineguns, etc., for transactions that don't involve federal firearms licensees.
An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a modern firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser's state. Firearms received by bequest or intestate succession are exempt from those sections of the law which forbid the transfer, sale, delivery or transportation of firearms into a state other than the transferor's state of residence. Likewise, antique firearms are exempt from these sections of the law in most states. (Antique firearms are defined as those manufactured pre-1899 by US federal law, or modern replicas thereof that do not use cartridges. State law definitions on antique firearms vary considerably from state to state.)
Its interesting that you would refer to Muslims as a race, seeing as one could argue that the tendency to view Islam as monolithic is the direct result of the manner in which that religion has been demonized by many.
As far as refering to Muslims as a race, that was a slip. As far as the religion being demonized, you got me there dude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Moreover, gay marriage cannot be denied on religious reasons because that would violate freedom of religion-- not every religion, and indeed, not even every church within Christianity, is against gay marriage.
So if one wants to claim that marriage is a religious thing, then they've already lost the fight against gay marriage in the first place.
So the argument instead becomes a civil liberties issue.
That's to say the exception disproves the rule. Does a Preacher who refuses to perform get sued for refusing the religious service? Where is that line drawn?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote:I am assuming you never use birth control, then?
You are correct, Sir. This is off topic let's end this now.
Frazzled wrote:What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.
Which ones?
The gay marriage debate really does boil down to one simple concept: social control.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The Christian churches generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.
There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.
or...
2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse", which is something we have in Canada. It grants all the rights that a traditionally-married couple get, except you only need to be co-habiting for at least 1 year with a person of whom you share a conjugal relationship.
I like solution #2. It let's the fundamentalists smile while they shut up, and it grants all legal rights to those who should have them (but perhaps currently don't in the US system)
Problem solved.
Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Thats a fact now. Its fine by me but this majority bs is trully bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Nobody wrote:If gay marriage is allowed, can polygamy be aloud?
I don't know about aloud, but definitely allowed.
There is no limit. As a libertarian who thinks government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, fine by me.
Don't use phrases when you don't know what they mean.
Does a Preacher who refuses to perform get sued for refusing the religious service?
They are not legally required to do anything, stop scaremongering.
They could be. Churches have been sued for not renting out their facilities to parties they don't like. Photographers who didn't want to do same sex weddings on religious grounds were sued (and lost) for discrimination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote:
The religius institutions generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.
Corrected your typo.
There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.
or...
2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse"
Bongo! Give the man a CeeGar!
Actually I'm down with the state creating a simple civil union status for ease of use. "Marriage" is a personal thing. You can call yourself married, hitched, or whatever, its irrelevant as the laws are found in the civil union contract.
Melissia wrote:Separate but equal still remains... not equal.
That solution simply won't work.
What separate but equal? Think before you type boyo er girlo!
No one gets marriage under the state. Everyone gets the civil license treatment. You can call it what you want-marriage, hitched, Sklarged, whatever. Have whatever or no ceremony that you want.
The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.
Errr the solution they're presenting LITERALLY makes everyone the same though and removes the condition of "marriage" from federal purview. It becomes a religious matter that you and your partner of choice can chose to make a legal matter of under a civil union with your local government.
Edit: Or at least that's what Frazz is saying from what Azarel said.
The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.
Errr the solution they're presenting LITERALLY makes everyone the same though and removes the condition of "marriage" from federal purview. It becomes a religious matter that you and your partner of choice can chose to make a legal matter of under a civil union with your local government.
You say that as though reasonable discourse and compromise are something that can be achieved on this topic on this board.
The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.
Errr the solution they're presenting LITERALLY makes everyone the same though and removes the condition of "marriage" from federal purview. It becomes a religious matter that you and your partner of choice can chose to make a legal matter of under a civil union with your local government.
Edit: Or at least that's what Frazz is saying from what Azarel said.
The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.
Errr the solution they're presenting LITERALLY makes everyone the same though and removes the condition of "marriage" from federal purview. It becomes a religious matter that you and your partner of choice can chose to make a legal matter of under a civil union with your local government.
You say that as though reasonable discourse and compromise are something that can be achieved on this topic on this board.
Hope springs eternal I suppose. If not for reasonable discourse then reading comprehension and not jumping to conclusions after skimming for buzz words.
sirlynchmob wrote:
That whole statement is laced with intolerance. How dare they want the 1000's of benefits the government grants to married couples.
Read what I wrote again. There is perfectly valid compromise present, and that is pushing for the elimination of the word "marriage" from legal parlance. I further gave general explanations for why that position isn't popular with either side. I'm not besmirching the claim made by supporters of gay marriage at all, in fact you'll note up thread I stated that their position is superior. I'm simply explaining why the acceptance of my proffered compromise isn't wide spread.
sirlynchmob wrote:
As it is today, religions have no say in who can and can't get married, you can get your license from the government, and get married in the court house.
No, they don't, but religious people do have a say in what laws are passed, and they can support certain laws for religious reasons if they choose to do so. That doesn't mean those reasons are good, but it does mean they exist separate from the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
Ad hominem - short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Fallacies are something that everyone does on accident, They're most commonly found in the media and politics and it's easy to understand why, fallacies aspecially Ad Hominem is just fething entertaining.
I'm well aware of how fallacies work. Ad hominem is not generally accepted as being universally fallacious because, as an informal fallacy, it requires that the conclusion be unsupported by the available premises. This means that if I attack you personally so long as the premises of my argument support the attack on your person (and the attack is relevant to the argument, such as calling someone a bigot in argument regarding the nature of bigotry, or the moral acceptability of homosexuality*), it isn't a fallacy despite being ad hominem in the broadest sense of the term.
*The second applies because moral arguments are fundamentally aesthetic arguments, which means circumstance and disposition are valid sources of criticism.
Would you also then say that its acceptable to require ID to purchase a gun?
Yeah, you do.
I didn't say that you didn't. Read my question again.
sirlynchmob wrote:
That whole statement is laced with intolerance. How dare they want the 1000's of benefits the government grants to married couples.
Read what I wrote again. There is perfectly valid compromise present, and that is pushing for the elimination of the word "marriage" from legal parlance. I further gave general explanations for why that position isn't popular with either side. I'm not besmirching the claim made by supporters of gay marriage at all, in fact you'll note up thread I stated that their position is superior. I'm simply explaining why the acceptance of my proffered compromise isn't wide spread.
sirlynchmob wrote:
As it is today, religions have no say in who can and can't get married, you can get your license from the government, and get married in the court house.
No, they don't, but religious people do have a say in what laws are passed, and they can support certain laws for religious reasons if they choose to do so. That doesn't mean those reasons are good, but it does mean they exist separate from the law.
.
Ok lets look at what you wrote again. Your whole statement is horribly wrong. The libral side is trying to force conservatives to accept it? Really? Take off the tinfoil hat. it is not either side trying to stick it to the other, its one side discriminating against the other. They can support any laws they want, but if the laws violate the equal protection clause, then it is unconstitutional. You're side might have a problem separating the idea's, but the side for allowing all marriages just want equal rights from the government as due all americans. You can fight it all you want but in the end, all those laws denying people the right to marry will be thrown out in court.
dogma wrote:
The biggest sticking point is that many people, on both sides of the debate, have difficulty clearly separating the idea of marriage as a religious concept from marriage as a legal concept. In part this is due to the emotive nature of the issue, and in part its due to either side attempting to stick it to the other. On the conservative side this takes the form of basic unwillingness to see homosexual unions granted the same standing as heterosexual ones; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance. On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance.
.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Ok lets look at what you wrote again. Your whole statement is horribly wrong. The libral side is trying to force conservatives to accept it? Really? Take off the tinfoil hat. it is not either side trying to stick it to the other, its one side discriminating against the other.
Dude, I've been around this debate for the better part of a decade, don't attempt to talk down to me with that "tinfoil hat" garbage. There is a very real, and prominent component within gay marriage activism that absolutely takes certain positions explicitly because they are unpopular with conservatives, rather than any appeal to equality of privilege. This is why you still see extensive efforts to overturn legislation that affords homosexuals civil unions that are marriages in all but name. Sure, people will try to cite the issue of "separate but equal" however this doesn't apply in a case where the equality is a matter of the letter of the law, rather than the quality of available facilities.
Sure, the liberal side of the debate is attempting to secure equal privileges for homosexual couples, but that isn't all they're doing. Just as the conservative side of the debate isn't just trying to "protect marriage". For what its worth, I think the liberal side is justified in their vindictive attitude considering the circumstances, but that doesn't change the fact that its there.
sirlynchmob wrote:
They can support any laws they want, but if the laws violate the equal protection clause, then it is unconstitutional.
Sure, but most legislation that forbids homosexual marriage does not do so. It instead defines marriage as between a man and a women, a homosexual man is still fully capable of marrying a woman. If it actively denied homosexuals the ability to marry at all, that would violate equal protection, though it would also be unenforceable in any non-malicious sense.
sirlynchmob wrote:
You're side might have a problem separating the idea's, but the side for allowing all marriages just want equal rights from the government as due all americans. You can fight it all you want but in the end, all those laws denying people the right to marry will be thrown out in court.
My side? I'm extremely supportive of gay marriage, I simply detest many of the arguments made in favor of it because many of them are awful. I'm also, unlike a lot of people on either side, willing to admit that there is a degree of vindictiveness that permeates the debate.
Dogma and I are on different sides of these issues, but what he just said deserves respect from everyone. He reasserted his position, but did so in an intelligent and honest way.
We need more honesty in all of this.
I will (sheepishly) thank Dogma for his efforts today.
My side? I'm extremely supportive of gay marriage, I simply detest many of the arguments made in favor of it because many of them are awful. I'm also, unlike a lot of people on either side, willing to admit that there is a degree of vindictiveness that permeates the debate.
Then why are you using those arguments? your arguments for both sides, sound like they come from the conservative camp. Or do you support gay marriage because you think "On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future"?
Sure there's vindictiveness, you have one side using the same arguments they made against allowing inter racial couples to marry, and now using them against same sex couples.
Then you have the other side who just want to be treated as equals in society and not as second class citizens.
shouldn't the argument go: The liberal side wants "To secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity, at the state and federal level through grassroots organizing, education, action and partnerships"
http://www.marriageequality.org/about-meusa
But then again its odd you draw the line between liberals and conservatives. wouldn't the line actually be more: those for equality for all americans and those opposed to equality for all americans?
IMO, Everyone should have the same rights, to choose between a man, a woman, yourself, robots, cyborgs, an amusement park ride, a car, a pet, a wall, a corpse, a rock, a cartoon character, etc. Any laws being passed to define what a marriage should be is discriminating against all other forms of marriages. The bolded ones already happened, and might as well get the robots in now just to avoid those same people who oppose equality getting all bent out of shape latter on.
xole wrote:What would be wrong with marrying a cyborg under the current system?
D cell usage would be tremendous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:
dogma wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
My side? I'm extremely supportive of gay marriage, I simply detest many of the arguments made in favor of it because many of them are awful. I'm also, unlike a lot of people on either side, willing to admit that there is a degree of vindictiveness that permeates the debate.
Then why are you using those arguments? your arguments for both sides, sound like they come from the conservative camp. Or do you support gay marriage because you think "On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future"?
Sure there's vindictiveness, you have one side using the same arguments they made against allowing inter racial couples to marry, and now using them against same sex couples.
Then you have the other side who just want to be treated as equals in society and not as second class citizens.
shouldn't the argument go: The liberal side wants "To secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity, at the state and federal level through grassroots organizing, education, action and partnerships"
http://www.marriageequality.org/about-meusa
But then again its odd you draw the line between liberals and conservatives. wouldn't the line actually be more: those for equality for all americans and those opposed to equality for all americans?
IMO, Everyone should have the same rights, to choose between a man, a woman, yourself, robots, cyborgs, an amusement park ride, a car, a pet, a wall, a corpse, a rock, a cartoon character, etc. Any laws being passed to define what a marriage should be is discriminating against all other forms of marriages. The bolded ones already happened, and might as well get the robots in now just to avoid those same people who oppose equality getting all bent out of shape latter on.
Thats not having a polite argument. Thats biasing the terms such that you can follow on and then shout "BIGOT!!!"
Here's some easier arguments:
Pro:
* Equal rights -contract law argument
* Lack of harm
* Historically marriage was a contract
* Historically marriage evolved depending on time and culture.
* Religion counter argument. Different religions view "marriage" in different ways (if can be supported)
Con
*Religion argument
- -- C: different religiions. Freedom of religion. C3 My religion, the Holy Order of Noodle Bugs, is just fine with it. Do you want sharia law telling YOU what to do?
*History argument
----C: different depending on history and society.
*Impugns sanctity of marriage argument
---C: How? Your marriage is as strong as you make it. What I do doesn't impact your marriage. C2: lots of things impact you. Thats part of the US society. You don't have the freedom to not be offended by others' speech or behavior.
*Children argument
---C:Same argument as mixed race adoption. There are more children in need of good homes than good homes. As long as its a good home its better.
-Define the governmental form of marriage as a civil union between two consenting adults.
-The religious form of marriage can be whatever that particular church/religion wants it to be defined as, provided it doesn't conflict with the Governmental form. (so they can't marry children, etc)
Under this gay marriage would be perfectly legally binding when done by a Justice of the Peace, and could even be done at a church if the church was consenting, but the church doesn't have to. But the main point is that at the same time no religion should be able to use their personal doctrine to control what the government should be able to do.
If there is a nice gay couple that wants to get married at the town hall, then they should be safe from the limitations of "the church". They are consenting adults who are entering a legally binding contract and should get the same rights from the government they monetarily support as every other tax-paying adult in America.
Here's one for the churches....if I have to put up with the parts of Government that are Church-based, then the other way around gets to happen as well. If a marriage at a non-church property must be performed a certain way because the Church says so, then anything the Church does that is discrimination should be prosecuted as discrimination/bigotry because the government says so.
Marriage 2.0 is a very unequal contract where the legal power balance both within the marriage and after the divorce is heavily biased against the primary breadwinner. Given that this is today’s legal reality why would you want to sign such a one sided contract? There are simply no benefits in marriage for the primary breadwinner under these Marriage 2.0 rules. None whatsoever. Ask yourself now: “What is in it for me?”. If the above hasn’t yet convinced you to avoid this mutated institution that has become a a giant legal trap, then you owe it to yourself to keep learning more about the risks of saying “I do”.
Not likely. And ethnic minorities are always more likely to be underrepresented as well. But generally, census data will have a dark figure of less than 5% if it wants to be considered in any way meaningful.
TheHammer wrote:It's bigoted to point out that straight white men hold a disproportionate amount of power? It isn't just political, but in business, finance, civil society, religious institutions, the military, and every other facet of society where this is true.
Maybe it has something to do with probability and that 72% of the US population is white.
Thats not having a polite argument. Thats biasing the terms such that you can follow on and then shout "BIGOT!!!"
What wasn't polite?
I asked him to clarify his remark.
I offered an alternative statement.
Then stated my opinion on what equality should look like.
I agree with your statements and it sounds like you understands the debate going on. You also didn't say anything about forcing anyone to accept anything, and you even listed Equality first.
I'm just not used to having such a huge cross culture of people to argue with, but I was considerable more polite then what was considered polite in the previous sub culture I belonged to
When I think of cyborgs I think of something that starts as a robot then had human parts added to it. The human parts being grown in a tube and not taken from someone who used to live. But ya I guess we do have people around who could be classified as cyborgs.
Melissia wrote:Separate but equal still remains... not equal.
That solution simply won't work.
What separate but equal? Think before you type boyo er girlo!
No one gets marriage under the state. Everyone gets the civil license treatment. You can call it what you want-marriage, hitched, Sklarged, whatever. Have whatever or no ceremony that you want.
I actually think thats a good idea frazz, make it, in the eyes of the govt its nothing more then tow people who share income, if you want to get married you go to a church.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Then why are you using those arguments? your arguments for both sides, sound like they come from the conservative camp.
I'm using those arguments because they're descriptively neutral, which is how I always aspire to argue. As a matter of course I attempt to look at the world as it is, rather than as I want it to be. I suspect they sound conservative to you because they're critical of the gay marriage movement, despite my nominal support for the cause (conversely, they often sound liberal to conservatives). The telling part here being how you ignored the part of my original post where I effectively stated that many people on the conservative side really are trying to oppress homosexuals.
To simplify: I don't pick sides and then commit myself to that side on an emotional level. I evaluate situations, attempt to discern why there is a situation, and then decide who has a better case in as honest a manner as possible.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Or do you support gay marriage because you think "On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future"?
I support gay marriage because there is no objectively discernible reason that they should not be allowed to marry, at least so long as we're assuming equality is something to aspire to. In that vein, the conservative side has not been able to produce a cogent argument to deny equality (in the loose sense) to homosexuals, with most of their positions amount to little more than "This makes us uncomfortable."
And yes, I put religious arguments firmly in that category.
As alluded to above, I do not think all gay marriage advocates are vindictive, nor do I think vindictiveness is the heart of the movement, but I do think that vindictiveness (on both sides) is the main reason compromise is not accepted. The main reason for this is that the leaders in both camps are often guilty of using rhetoric that is designed to stir emotions, though that is arguably necessary.
sirlynchmob wrote:
wouldn't the line actually be more: those for equality for all americans and those opposed to equality for all americans?
Not with respect to this single issue. I'm not referring to liberals and conservatives in general, I'm referring to liberals and conservatives relative to this single issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote:
-Define the governmental form of marriage as a civil union between two consenting adults.
-The religious form of marriage can be whatever that particular church/religion wants it to be defined as, provided it doesn't conflict with the Governmental form. (so they can't marry children, etc)
That would be a simple solution were either side willing to accept it. The vindictiveness I mentioned plays a part, but the larger issue is that campaigning on a platform of removing "marriage" from the legal lexicon would instantly be turned into "Candidate X wants to destroy marriage!"
Oh, I fully admit to being vindictive. But I also would argue that having two separate definitions of marriage (marriage and civil unions) will result in inequality.
And let's face it, that's much more likely than removing marriage but getting civil unions.
Melissia wrote:But I also would argue that having two separate definitions of marriage (marriage and civil unions) will result in inequality.
Possibly, but I can't imagine it being worse than the present situation. At some point one has to recognize that equality is unlikely to happen overnight, DADT is a good example of that.
I have the sudden desire to clutch a Papashah tightly and climb onto the back of a T-34. To Berlin!!! er what were talking about?
