Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well Caddy you just keep repeating the same old song. One opinion is as good as another. But it isn't so. You can be of the opinion that I'm a bigot and I of the opinion that you are, but you fit the definition and I don't. That is where fact comes in.
Yes, you seem adept at repeating one word over and over and over - "bigot". Who is repeating the same old song?
In YOUR OPINION "it isn't so."
It is YOU OPINION that certain people are bigots and that you are not. It is opinion nothing more- nothing less.
If you don't like being a bigot get a new opinion, one not based on irrational feelings about those who believe in God.
CkG
Hehe, yes on the level that I'm saying one and one is two and you are saying that one and one can be anything you want to call it. And what irrational feelings about people who believe is God do you refer to especially since what you believe in appears to be irrational insanity, not God. I think you believe in the Debble because you worship one of his favorite tools.
No, this isn't a math issue - this is an opinion issue which because of YOUR intolerance - you can't see it is based soley on one's opinion and what they believe to be truth. Your irrational hatred of those who believe in God is no different than what you percieve other's basis for opinion to be.
Yes, I believe there is a devil because I worship God. However God is not a tool of the devil.
*******
TechJunkie95242 -
Originally posted by: Gaard
Should the 'non-response' policy be implemented for this post?
CkG
You don't have anyway around what I had to say, so you just want to tell me to shut up? This is a new low for you CkG, there is NO GOOD REASON why gay marriage should not be legal, it doesn't hurt anyone so I fail to see any reason why it should be illegal.
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
Anyone who is against gay marriage is unamerican.
Life, liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
keep saying that phrase over and over. Pursuit of Happiness. Pursuit of Happiness.
NOT a guarantee to be happy.
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
You don't have anyway around what I had to say, so you just want to tell me to shut up? This is a new low for you CkG, there is NO GOOD REASON why gay marriage should not be legal, it doesn't hurt anyone so I fail to see any reason why it should be illegal.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
C: "No, this isn't a math issue"
M: It's the same thing as a math issue; just logic and definition. Logic and definition are mathematical -
C: this is an opinion issue which because of YOUR intolerance - you can't see it is based soley on one's opinion and what they believe to be truth.
M: I showed you your irrational assumptions and how they were religiously based, but all you do is make accusations. You do I guess because you are insincere and childish.
C: Your irrational hatred of those who believe in God is no different than what you percieve other's basis for opinion to be.
M: Don't you know it's a sin to bare false witness. Please show me where I hate people who believe in God or am trying to pass an amendment to outlaw religion.
C: Yes, I believe there is a devil because I worship God. However God is not a tool of the devil.
M: What you worship above all else, it would seem, is irrational thinking.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Moonbeam's opinion is not one of discriminating against a group of people. Therefore, he is more open-minded.
Those opposed to gay-marriage seek to discriminate against them out of irrational fears. That is the definition of bigotry.
There's no hiding or spinning that fact, CkG.
No, that is YOUR opinion. In MY opinion he is just as bad as the people he claims are "bigots". YOU hold the opinion that he is open-minded but others do not. But let me guess...they are wrong and you are right...because YOU and moonbeam say so.:roll:
Those opposed to gay-marriage might be seeking to protect something they feel is being broken down...but I don't expect the "open-minded" among us to understand that because anything they don't believe or believe in is "irrational".:roll:
IMO your continuous usage of the word "fact" instead of "opinion" shows you are not as "open-minded" as you try to claim.
CkG
Just four months after an alliance of conservative Christians was threatening a churchgoer revolt unless President Bush championed an amendment banning same-sex marriage, members say they have been surprised and disappointed by what they call a tepid response from the pews.
Most of the groups supporting the proposed federal constitutional amendment concede that it appears all but dead in Congress for this election year.
As Massachusetts prepares to become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage on Monday, several high-profile conservatives say they are now pinning their hopes mainly on reaction to events there, betting that scenes of gay weddings in Provincetown may set off a public outcry.
In a last effort to publicize their cause before the impending wave of same-sex marriages, conservative Christian groups are organizing an emergency telecast to churches around the country, bringing African-American clergy members to Washington to lobby the Congressional Black Caucus, and sending members of a group for people who say they are formerly gay to make the rounds of Capitol Hill as well.
Still, the opponents of gay marriage say they are puzzling over why such a volatile cultural issue is not spurring more rank-and-file conservative Christians to rise up in support of the amendment. They are especially frustrated, they say, because opinion polls show that a large majority of voters oppose gay marriage.
hmmm...could it be people are tired of the rhetoric from the far-right and realize it's not that big of a deal compared to the horrors being committed by the current administration?
"Our side is basically asleep right now," Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage, which helped draft the proposed amendment, said in an interview last week.
The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said: "I don't see any traction. The calls aren't coming in and I am not sure why."
Some conservatives warn that the Christian leaders rallying behind the amendment may now face a loss of credibility. Their influence with evangelical believers is a subject of keen interest in Washington, in part because the Bush campaign has made ensuring their turnout at the polls a top priority.
"The danger from the beginning was that if you make your stand on the amendment and you don't win, then you may have undercut your position," said Richard Lessner, the executive director of the American Conservative Union and a former official of the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative group. "They have staked so much on it, they have put all these eggs in one basket and now they are going to lose."
Gay rights groups argue that social conservatives in Washington overestimated the level of anxiety about gay marriage among their supporters. "Other issues are far more important to most Americans, including evangelicals ? issues like the economy, jobs, health care, the war in Iraq," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
The amendment's backers contend that the reason people are not responding more vocally is that many grass-roots conservatives do not yet understand how same-sex marriages affect them personally. Although gay groups argue that same-sex marriages involve only the couple marrying, many Christian conservative leaders argue that recognizing such marriages will undermine cultural support for traditional families.
The amendment's backers say that they always knew approval by Congress would be difficult, but that they had expected to get far enough that every candidate in the country would have to take a position on it in the fall. But although the amendment is bogged down, some opponents of same-sex marriage say they see evidence of support for their cause at the state level.
Some noted that Ohio, a traditional swing state, recently passed a law blocking not only same-sex marriage but civil unions. And five states that are considered reliably conservative ? Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah ? have put state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage on the November ballot.
"The thing that we keep focusing on is, there is no place that people have voted for same-sex marriage," said Gary Bauer, a social conservative who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. Mr. Bauer, the founder of the organization American Values, noted that it was a court that ordered Massachusetts to recognize same-sex marriage.
Conservatives are also trying to put state constitutional amendments on the ballot in several states that are considered pivotal swing states in the presidential election: Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, North Carolina and Arkansas. Missouri's Legislature voted Friday to add a ballot measure, too. The ballot questions could help motivate traditionalists to go to the polls, which would be a boon for President Bush and lower-level conservative candidates.
Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, called the ballot initiatives a political stunt, which she said was "all about the president energizing his base and dividing and conquering in this election," adding, "Gay and lesbian people are just being used as pawns."
But Mr. Bauer said that if conservative candidates receive a boost, it will not be by design. "It wasn't conservative judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court that forced this issue; it wasn't a pro-Bush mayor of San Francisco who forced the issue," he said. "We didn't pick the timing. The gay rights movement picked the timing. Obviously our side is going to respond, and it happens to be an election year."
Although the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the federal marriage amendment last week, staff members said the committee was unlikely to have time to vote on a bill by the end of the year. And several prominent social conservatives said Republican leaders of the House had indicated that they do not want to bring the measure up for a vote unless it appears likely to pass the Senate, which is more moderate.
Both conservatives and gay rights groups say there is not enough support to approve the amendment, although that might change if its text were somehow revised.
In an interview, Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who supports the amendment, put the chances that the Senate might try to bring it up for a vote at "better than 50-50."
"I think people are in shock," Senator Cornyn said. "I think people are still having a hard time believing this is real. One of the most common responses I hear is, `This is just in Massachusetts, why does it concern us in other states?' "
Like most of the amendment's supporters, Senator Cornyn is betting that the spread of Massachusetts marriage licenses will drive the issue home. "When people understand that there are same-sex couples that will get married under Massachusetts law and then move to other states and demand that those marriages are recognized by the laws of other states, that is when people will understand this," he said.
But Mr. Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force suggested that watching gay weddings in Massachusetts would make people more accepting, not less.
"The minute you pose the question to somebody, `How will this hurt you?,' they never have an answer," he said. "As this discussion has gone on and people have seen these images of regular people thrilled to be married, it has dispelled the myth and a lot of the fear around same-sex marriage."
Not that the opponents of gay marriage are giving up on the amendment. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the amendment's supporters wanted votes in Congress so they could work to replace anyone who voted against it.
For months, Dr. Land has told President Bush's political adviser Karl Rove and members of Congress that no issue has upset ordinary evangelical Christians as much as the threat of gay marriage. Last week he stood by that view, but he acknowledged that parishioners around the country might not have voiced their opinions to elected officials as loudly as he had expected.
"We need to do a better job of educating our base," Dr. Land said, "although I don't think we can do better than Massachusetts is going to do for us."
Originally posted by: conjur
Because what I, moonbeam, and others are stating IS fact.
You just cannot accept the FACT that you are a bigot. That would destroy your image of yourself.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
C: Yeah, keep trying to hide behind your mirror moonie.
M: This is not a mirror issue and I haven't brought up the mirror with regards to bigotry. You sound irrational and paranoid like maybe afraid I'll show you yourself or something. Please try to deal in concrete example. It will help you keep your head out of the clouds. When did I mention mirror and bigotry?
C: I'm not the one running around calling everyone a "bigot"
M: My my. we really are loosing it aren't we. I'm not running around calling everybody a bigot either. I'm calling the bigots bigots though.
C: I'm just saying that you aren't as "open-minded" as you claim to be.
M: Again, please provide me whit the specifics of my claim to be open minded. Maybe it's you who think I'm open minded and just think I make that claim. But I'll try to be open minded if you can show me some examples of where I made that claim.
C: You can keep trying though. Just because YOU may not believe in God doesn't mean someone who does is "irrational"
M: Typical Cadidicy here. Create an irrelevant non issue to divert attention to. Please show me where I've said I don't believe in God. Please show me too where I've said that someone who does is irrational. I have confined my use of the term 'irrational' in this debate specifically to the feeling that homosexual marriage is bad based on an irrational feeling inculcated by religion. Millions of religious people don't have that irrational feeling probably because they think. What I've done is show you where you employ it and properly named it bigotry.
C: It is just YOUR opinion. Just because you SAY you are "tolerant" doesn't make it so.
M: I don't say I'm tolerant and I demonstrate rather than say. I take the words you and other bigots utter and demonstrate how they always have as the underlying unexamined assumption the irrational feeling, usually of religious doctrinal origin, that homosexuality is bad. You just get pissed off at that because you can't refute it.
C: You seem to be mightily intolerant of those who have religious views and/or believe in God because you claim that views(based on faith in God) are "irrational".
M: There you go again imagining your paranoia is coming from me. I already explained that it isn't religious views per say that make a mind irrational, it's having an irrational negative reaction to say homosexuals because you've become a religious bigot. It's how you manifest your religion with hatred and the intention to prevent others from having freedom that makes you a bigot. You use faith to kill. That's very dangerous for the rest of us humans you have to share the planet with. You mistake my intention to illuminate the darkness in your mind for the safety of the world with intolerance. Bigotry is evil and I speak truth to it and rationally.
C: Like I said - this is nothing more than an opinion issue.
M: Like you always say but never demonstrate with any real examples.
C: Yes, some may be bigots, but to claim anyone who doesn't hold your opinion is a bigot is asinine.
M: Hehe, you keep calling me a bigot against bigots. You must be asinine. It would, of course, be asinine to call anyone who disagrees with me a bigot, but I don't do that. I restrict my use of the word to where it applies. We see it in spades regarding homosexuality.
C: You might ask your shrink about this whole wall(which you seem to think has a mirror on the other side) issue you have. It can't be healthy to only look at and blame other people.
M: Yes yes, I know, still trying to deflect the realization that you're a bigot. Maybe if you showed me the way by dealing with your bigotry you could help me by example.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
sorry, the rule of critical thought is that while all are entitled to opinions, not all opinions are valid. if the premises you use to reach your conclusion are invalid and or you use fallacy, your opinion is invalid. this is why we judge racists and such as we do today.
Oh, that's right...it's not - but then again you and conjur have told yourself that it isn't "opinion" well... keep wallowing in your ignorance then...have a good day.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
sorry, the rule of critical thought is that while all are entitled to opinions, not all opinions are valid. if the premises you use to reach your conclusion are invalid and or you use fallacy, your opinion is invalid. this is why we judge racists and such as we do today.
Yes, that may be true but it doesn't equally apply here. If the premise used to reach your opinion is the belief in God's teachings in a contextual manner then one's opinion is a valid opinion. It seems here though that some don't accept spiritual reasoning for whatever reason that may be. So those who "invalidate" an opinion based on their opinion of "religion" and/or spiritual teachings could be equally as "invalid" due to their intolerance of "religious" or spiritual teachings.
CkG
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
opinions based on religion cannot be used to force religious opinion on others. premises based on tenuous faith can at best be applied only to the individuals that hold them.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
opinions based on religion cannot be used to force religious opinion on others. premises based on tenuous faith can at best be applied only to the individuals that hold them.
No, I did didn't say they could. Some here are trying to say that holding the opinions based on religion/spirituality(in the correct context and true to teachings) is bigotry but that is based on their opinion of religion/spirituality -which they are trying to say the reasoning from is "irrational"(which again is their opinion).
So my whole point here is the passing off of "opinion" as "fact" is indeed wrong and that dismissing reasoning based on religion/spirituality isn't very "open-minded"
Maybe the gov't shouldn't "ban" it(as it looks like society has accepted the change in definition of marriage and have accepted abnormal behavior), but that doesn't mean those that believe it is wrong are bigots.
Can anyone seperate this issue or do people like lumping everything into one question? There are plenty of issues that go into the bigger issue, and people are entitled to having opinion on each level. Some here seem to think that others who hold differing opinions are bigots...how open-minded of them...
CkG
Originally posted by: Spencer278
their is nothing wrong with calling a bigiot a bigiot.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LunarRay
The USSC should not interfere with a State granting marriage licenses. I say this simply because it furthers the accepted notion of the 14th Amendment. Rights are individual thingi... they belong to the individual. This is the key to the entire argument. IF the USSC agrees with the Federal Law regarding the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause not having to be honored by non consenting States it will be an illogical application of the standing theory that supports all the prior decisions. Equality among the population. Black, white, girl, boy, old, young, heck even the military had to argue against female combat folks... nah... every one is the same with the same rights.. and that is the way it should be.
What Ammendments???
They've all been replaced with the new Regime mandate, where have you been???
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Spencer278
their is nothing wrong with calling a bigiot a bigiot.
I never said there is something wrong with calling a bigot a bigot. However the flawed reasoning used by some to label bigots is wrong. Calling someone a bigot for not supporting gay marriage because they use "religious" or spiritual resoning is laughable. Just because YOU may not believe in God doesn't mean that those who do are "bigots" or have "irrational" reasoning.
There are religious bigots, I understand that, but to say anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a "bigot" is asinine and only based on opinion.
CkG
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Spencer278
their is nothing wrong with calling a bigiot a bigiot.
I never said there is something wrong with calling a bigot a bigot. However the flawed reasoning used by some to label bigots is wrong. Calling someone a bigot for not supporting gay marriage because they use "religious" or spiritual resoning is laughable. Just because YOU may not believe in God doesn't mean that those who do are "bigots" or have "irrational" reasoning.
There are religious bigots, I understand that, but to say anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a "bigot" is asinine and only based on opinion.
CkG
Would you say that the KKK isn't bigiots because they claim to be chiristians. Religion is not a valid reason to deny equal rights to people.