News paper releases names of all those who donated to Prop 8.

[FiddleDD]

What about abortion..some people think it is right..some think it is wrong...

Majority of believers on many different topics have made the rules...that doesn't mean that just because one group of people lose a certain topic that they should be on the defensive...

 

[BoomerD]

Anyone else find it ironic that the Catholic Church, home of so many pedophile homosexual priests over the centuries, is against gay marriage?

Are they trying to maintain their monopoly on buttsecks?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: FiddleDD
What about abortion..some people think it is right..some think it is wrong...

Majority of believers on many different topics have made the rules...that doesn't mean that just because one group of people lose a certain topic that they should be on the defensive...

Why do people think abortion is right or wrong? Only because god or the bible said so? Or is it that people can have reasonable arguments about whether a woman's rights trumps that of the life inside her? Whether abortion will result in a child not being born is not a 'feeling', it is a cold fact that people can debate the merits of.

Once again, WHO LOSES if gay marriage is legalized? WHO is hurt or damaged? WHAT NEGATIVE results occur? No one, no one, none. We've now had more than 5 threads on this and still, hundreds of posts later, not one empirical fact that shows harm. Just expressions of uncomfortableness. Your discomfort doesn't give you the right to deprive others of equal treatment under the law.

 

[FiddleDD]

you missed the point...people are saying...that people shouldn't be able to vote Yes on Prop 8 because of their personal belief or feelings...and I was just pointing out that all along the way things are decided on personal belief or feelings...abortion is another issue that is voted on by personal belief. The Vote "No" Side had just as much opportunity to run a fair campaign unfortunately it has been analyzed and has been noted...the "No" side made some crucial mistakes in their campaigning...its not fair to blame the Mormons because the No side made some politically incorrect moves during the campaign.

 

[Thump553]

Gay marriage became legal in my state Wednesday. This morning there was a brief story of the wedding of a couple that had been together 46 years.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel49
ok were in agreement here. protect both sides right to protest , vote and voice thier opinions.
each has in thier mind a legimate concern.
yes, it does work both ways.Because thier opinion differs does not make either bigoted.

Well that's where we disagree then. The beliefs of the pro-8 crowd ARE very much bigoted. It's not because they disagree, but rather WHY those who wish to discriminate against gay people believe what they do.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind.

The anti-gay stance of the pro-8 supporters and financiers is textbook bigotry. Their intolerence of a lifestyle differing from their own, led them to try and change the state constitution to discriminate against the specific group they are intolerent against. Everyone is entitled to marry, their beliefs suggest, with the exception of gay people. Thus, they are bigoted when it comes to gay people.

Honestly, there's no argument that can really stand up to this. The word "bigot" has a definition that's very specific. When that definition applies to a person or group of people, it fits. End of story. You may not like it, but that hardly changes anything here.

your notion that because they hold a religious view that originates from the bible, not themselves, that they are a bigot
Is ludicrous.

Where did I say that? You may have inferred it, but I never said the word "religion" anywhere in my reply to you.

They believe that there are absolute values in the universe and therefore they are simply defending what They see as truth.

They're not defending anything, they're discriminating. A huge difference.

Let's examine tolerance next:

Toleration and tolerance are terms used in social, cultural and religious contexts to describe attitudes and practices that prohibit discrimination against those practices or group memberships that may be disapproved of by those in the majority. Conversely, 'intolerance' may be used to refer to the discriminatory practices sought to be prohibited.

Do you get it yet? Tolerance means your attitude and practices PROHIBIT discrimination against those practices or group members that may be disapproved of by those in the majority.

Prop 8 is precisely this. Intolerance. Discrimination.

And yet you don't see this in reverse. No one, not even the gay people affected by prop 8 are attempting to discriminate against religious people. No one, not one single person is saying that religious people cannot practice their religion. You don't see propositions on the CA ballot that attempt to stop religion, or attempt to prohibit it.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you don't understand the words you're using. You don't understand what bigotry is and you don't understand what intolerance is.

Get back to me when there are mobs of people screaming for the prohibition of Christianity, the ability to worship and/or placing propositions that ban your religion into the state constitution.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: FiddleDD
you missed the point...people are saying...that people shouldn't be able to vote Yes on Prop 8 because of their personal belief or feelings...and I was just pointing out that all along the way things are decided on personal belief or feelings...abortion is another issue that is voted on by personal belief. The Vote "No" Side had just as much opportunity to run a fair campaign unfortunately it has been analyzed and has been noted...the "No" side made some crucial mistakes in their campaigning...its not fair to blame the Mormons because the No side made some politically incorrect moves during the campaign.

If you are against gay marriage because you "feel" it's wrong or because you "feel" it's a sin or because you "feel" it is gross, that's not a valid legal reason to discriminate.

Conpare: if you don't want convicted pedophiles to be able to adopt children because you have read various studies about recidivism among that group and because of those studies you now KNOW that to allow such an act to occur is to endanger those children, you can express that as "It is my feeling that we should not allow pedophiles to adopt." But such a "feeling" is based on KNOWLEDGE, not personal bias.

That is the difference. If there were empirical evidence that gay marriage was a wrong, and your "feelings" were based on that, then that's fine. But you cannot discriminate against a group when the "feelings" are based solely upon personal bias without a valid reason.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Gay marriage became legal in my state Wednesday. This morning there was a brief story of the wedding of a couple that had been together 46 years.

Please keep us updated on the fire and brimstone that is sure to follow. Also, find out how long it takes for all the straight marriages in your state to become defunct or switched over to gay marriages. It should only take a few months from what I understand.

Finally, if you could maybe just do a head count of the children in your neighborhood and see how long it takes for them to all turn gay too. Thanks in advance!

 

[FiddleDD]

Maybe its something like this...For instance

There is a "gay pride" parade...maybe some people might think it infringes on their rights to have the fact that 2 men (or women) have sex with each other...thrown in their face...

Because really the whole argument is about sex...

I don't walk around with a t-shirt that says..I'm having sex with my husband..lets all have a parade in the middle of San Fran to show our pride of having sex and loving each other...

Would the gay population in San Fran be amlicable to that? I doubt it...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: FiddleDD
Maybe its something like this...For instance

There is a "gay pride" parade...maybe some people might think it infringes on their rights to have the fact that 2 men (or women) have sex with each other...thrown in their face...

Because really the whole argument is about sex...

I don't walk around with a t-shirt that says..I'm having sex with my husband..lets all have a parade in the middle of San Fran to show our pride of having sex and loving each other...

Would the gay population in San Fran be amlicable to that? I doubt it...

I've been to a lot of gay pride parades, and I have yet to see one where gay couples were actively copulating in public. And you know what? If they were, we have laws against that. We have laws against straight couples copulating in public too...

And since when is a relationship only about sex? I know a very large group of elderly lesbian women; I don't doubt they have sex, but I refuse to believe they have sex regularly. Are they no longer in a relationship if the sex dries up? Isn't the whole point of a relationship to be with someone you love? Sex is a bonus, it's not the sole reason to get together. So celebrating relationships in public isn't just about sex; it's about celebrating the rights of anybody to fall in love with whoever they please.

And on that note, I've been to a lot of gay pride celebrations, several with my girlfriend. I didn't have people tell me to leave because I was straight; people were glad that I was able to support their relationship and they supported mine. It's not like gay people are out there trying to turn everyone gay; they merely want recognition that their relationships have just as much validity as everyone else's. If you threw a straight march that had equality as an underlying principle, I don't know a single gay person that would hold it against you. If, on the other hand, you held a straight march because "those queers are corrupting the youth and this is what real love is"... well, then you'd probably be met with some hostility.

 

[FiddleDD]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: FiddleDD
Maybe its something like this...For instance

There is a "gay pride" parade...maybe some people might think it infringes on their rights to have the fact that 2 men (or women) have sex with each other...thrown in their face...

Because really the whole argument is about sex...

I don't walk around with a t-shirt that says..I'm having sex with my husband..lets all have a parade in the middle of San Fran to show our pride of having sex and loving each other...

Would the gay population in San Fran be amlicable to that? I doubt it...

I've been to a lot of gay pride parades, and I have yet to see one where gay couples were actively copulating in public. And you know what? If they were, we have laws against that. We have laws against straight couples copulating in public too...

And since when is a relationship only about sex? I know a very large group of elderly lesbian women; I don't doubt they have sex, but I refuse to believe they have sex regularly. Are they no longer in a relationship if the sex dries up? Isn't the whole point of a relationship to be with someone you love? Sex is a bonus, it's not the sole reason to get together. So celebrating relationships in public isn't just about sex; it's about celebrating the rights of anybody to fall in love with whoever they please.

And on that note, I've been to a lot of gay pride celebrations, several with my girlfriend. I didn't have people tell me to leave because I was straight; people were glad that I was able to support their relationship and they supported mine. It's not like gay people are out there trying to turn everyone gay; they merely want recognition that their relationships have just as much validity as everyone else's. If you threw a straight march that had equality as an underlying principle, I don't know a single gay person that would hold it against you. If, on the other hand, you held a straight march because "those queers are corrupting the youth and this is what real love is"... well, then you'd probably be met with some hostility.

good well thought out non-hostile argument...

But you are not being real with yourself if you don't believe that it doesn't start out with the object of having sexual relations with a person of your same sex...

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: daniel49
we could argue all day about it, but frankly I have more impotant things to do.

sigworthy

haha that is a pretty funny typo

 

[FiddleDD]

To me...this is still ridiculous to target the Mormons...when it was a political campaign that favored the No side, with Money, Celebrity endorsements, etc. The No side made some critical errors in their campaign..which resulted in a loss of votes...

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: FiddleDD
Maybe its something like this...For instance

There is a "gay pride" parade...maybe some people might think it infringes on their rights to have the fact that 2 men (or women) have sex with each other...thrown in their face...

This is a joke, right?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: FiddleDD
good well thought out non-hostile argument...

But you are not being real with yourself if you don't believe that it doesn't start out with the object of having sexual relations with a person of your same sex...

It starts out with an attraction to a person who happens to be of your same sex. If the other person finds you attractive, perhaps sex can occur. The only difference between that and straight couples is that both partners happen to be of the same sex. So if the only hang-up is in your perception of homosexual sex as icky because you do not personally want to engage in it, well, then that strikes me as your problem, not theirs. Maybe if you thought about them as loving couples instead of thinking about them having sex, you'd do better.

How do you handle being around family members? I'm assuming you aren't just thinking about them having straight sex...

 

[FiddleDD]

Hey I'm not talking on a personal level dude...I'm just talking...lol...Don't make it so personal...

My kids better not be having sex lol

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: FiddleDD
Hey I'm not talking on a personal level dude...I'm just talking...lol...Don't make it so personal...

My kids better not be having sex lol

I didn't mean to make it personal, just trying to compare the thought of gay sex, which you find icky, to thoughts of straight sex that you might find icky. No one wants to imagine their parents having sex, for example, so it's rare that we look at our parents and think about them copulating. Yet for some reason this sex filtering isn't in place when you think about gay people. Try interacting with a gay couple without focusing on their sex life and I think you'll find them very similar to yourself. So they like things differently in the bedroom than you; so what?

As for your children, how old are they? My 12-year-old nephew was talking to me about sex last week and it shocked the hell out of me. I told him he better wait until he's 17 or I'm kicking his ass. Kids these days...

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Are you arguing that you aren't a bigot because other people on an internet forum are intolerant of Christianity? Their bigotry cancels yours out? Or are you accepting that you are a bigot when it comes to this issue?

Moving on from that, when was the last time the anti-religious bigots tried to stop Christians from being allowed to marry via Constitutional amendments in states across the country? It seems to me that the bigot who insults me to my face is significantly less offensive than the bigot that attempts to take away my rights through the passage of laws based around his bigotry.

I'll type slowly so you can understand.
1)I am not a bigot because I believe the word of God.
2)I guess I just get tired of real bigots like the ones in this forum using that phony canard.
3) they are simply attempting to preserve what mairrage is. No one is taking anyones rights away. Those right are available to them through thier civil unions.

Do I expect you to change your view or opinion or vote because of what I wrote here?
No.
Will you change mine through your brow beating techniques. No.
/debate
or we could argue all day about it, but frankly I have more impotant things to do.

Gotcha. Everyone who is intolerant of your viewpoint is a bigot, but you couldn't possibly be a bigot because your view is endorsed by the Christian interpretation of God. And you have the nerve to insult my intelligence? You sad, pathetic, spiteful little man. I hope your Heaven is full of people just like you.

My you certainly seem confused about what it is you do believe.
If there is a heaven and a God. Perhaps you should believe his word.
If there isn't a heaven or a God, then your statement makes as little sense as the rest of your argument.
And really try and just have a conversation for once without all the name calling.
It just makes you sound juvenile. For instance I disagree with what much of what monkey guy said, but I respect the way he said it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: daniel49
My you certainly seem confused about what it is you do believe.
If there is a heaven and a God. Perhaps you should believe his word.
If there isn't a heaven or a God, then your statement makes as little sense as the rest of your argument.
And really try and just have a conversation for once without all the name calling.
It just makes you sound juvenile. For instance I disagree with what much of what monkey guy said, but I respect the way he said it.

I'm not confused about what I believe. You might be, but I'm not. Perhaps you simply don't understand the rhetorical devices I have used to get my point across, but I'll simply say that referring to it as "your" Heaven was not a typo. I don't ascribe to your idea of Heaven. Wishing your Heaven to be filled with people like you was a further rhetorical device designed to illustrate that only after you have had the opportunity to be surrounded by people as seemingly bullheaded as you will you actually understand why engaging in a debate with you is comparable to smashing one's face repeatedly into a concrete embankment.

And the name calling? Oh, I'm sorry, I tend to leave courtesy by the wayside when someone opens up a rebuttal to me with the phrase "I'll type slowly so you can understand." My initial post to you was nothing but courteous; I merely asked if you considered yourself a bigot on the same level as anti-religious bigots (who I am even acknowledging are bigots, unlike most everyone else arguing on my side in this debate). Your response showed me that you are an arrogant ass who thinks he is smarter than me, who has to use condescending and downright insulting digs at my intelligence as a way to make a nonexistent point, and who thinks that his bigotry is excused because it was penned in a two thousand year old book.

Are you keeping up? I tend to type quickly when I get riled up by such blatant displays of stupidity.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: daniel49
My you certainly seem confused about what it is you do believe.
If there is a heaven and a God. Perhaps you should believe his word.
If there isn't a heaven or a God, then your statement makes as little sense as the rest of your argument.
And really try and just have a conversation for once without all the name calling.
It just makes you sound juvenile. For instance I disagree with what much of what monkey guy said, but I respect the way he said it.

I'm not confused about what I believe. You might be, but I'm not. Perhaps you simply don't understand the rhetorical devices I have used to get my point across, but I'll simply say that referring to it as "your" Heaven was not a typo. I don't ascribe to your idea of Heaven. Wishing your Heaven to be filled with people like you was a further rhetorical device designed to illustrate that only after you have had the opportunity to be surrounded by people as seemingly bullheaded as you will you actually understand why engaging in a debate with you is comparable to smashing one's face repeatedly into a concrete embankment.

And the name calling? Oh, I'm sorry, I tend to leave courtesy by the wayside when someone opens up a rebuttal to me with the phrase "I'll type slowly so you can understand." My initial post to you was nothing but courteous; I merely asked if you considered yourself a bigot on the same level as anti-religious bigots (who I am even acknowledging are bigots, unlike most everyone else arguing on my side in this debate). Your response showed me that you are an arrogant ass who thinks he is smarter than me, who has to use condescending and downright insulting digs at my intelligence as a way to make a nonexistent point, and who thinks that his bigotry is excused because it was penned in a two thousand year old book.

Are you keeping up? I tend to type quickly when I get riled up by such blatant displays of stupidity.

zzzzzzzzzzz yada yada yada
Your not one of those annoying people who feel they have to get the last word in are you.