One of the (many) problems with your posts is that you are very prone to assign a motive to others, and it is always one of malice.
You did it recently (you stupid fuck) when you lied about the circumstances of partial birth abortions, and then said (again) that the anti-abortion side was motivated by a desire to hurt women. Cite.
In other words, you are lying now, when you claim that you don’t care about motives. You do care, and you are given to lying about those motives.
Except, of course Communism isn’t an atheist agenda. Which is why it’s Communism and Communism alone that gets dragged in by dishonest people like you who falsely equate the two; you don’t have anything BUT a false equivalence to Communism to wave at us. Atheism, as has been pointed out over and over was just a minor component of Communism; Communism did what it did in the name of Communism, not atheism. Atheism doesn’t HAVE an agenda; it can’t.
Nonsense. You were clearly being dismissive.
Then unless you demand that ALL marriages be outlawed, you are a bigot. Because SSM doesn’t cost any more than any other marriage, therefore using economics to single them out is just an excuse for the underlying bigotry.
Again, and I swear I’m being patient here, it doesn’t make you a bigot to believe those things, rather, it makes your viewpoint a bigoted one. SSM IS a special case, as if you haven’t noticed. Interracial marriage according to our history in the US has always been between a man and a woman. ALWAYS. The idea is, especially regarding marriage, to have the participants go forth and create more faithful parishoners, more tax payers, more sheep in the flock to be fleeced. Black chicks and white dudes, asian dudes and jewish chicks, black dudes and mexican chicks whatever, can all make with the bebes. Not so much with the SSM crowd, at least not the typical way.
As I’ve said before, this argument is new to many people and those arguing for it MUST, absolutely MUST moderate their positions in order to gain what they are hoping to gain. You cannot shout someone down and expect them to come to your position willingly. It won’t happen.
I have little interest in the SSM debate and in whether those who oppose it are all bigots but, as has been noted, the overwhelming majority of the American people favor discrimination on the basis of nationality, which is even more untenable rationally thinking, and yet no one goes around calling those who oppose open borders “bigots”.
The history of mankind is one group trying to obtain and retain privileges it denies others and the denied groups trying to acquire them and as soon as they acquire them trying to keep the door closed to others.
If those opposed to SSM are and can only be, bigots then pretty much all Americans are bigots for denying other nationalities the privileges they grant themselves.
America today is all about trying to retain its situation of privilege in the world and trying to deny that to others so I really can’t get too worked up about something which is quite minor in comparison.
It may not make a person a bigot, per se, in the all sweeping sense of the word. But it would make them bigoted on this particular subject. I’ll agree with you in that respect. The argument has to be supportabe. I haven’t seen a single valid example of negative economic impact yet. No one has proven that there’s a difference between the economic impact of SS couples that the marriage of shacked up het couples wouldn’t surpass, times a gajillion. The sheer lack of numbers in the gay community seems to reduce this argument to little more than grasping at straws.
I don’t think anyone answered yet, so I’ll ask again: Can het couples get civil unions under California law or is this reserved for SS couples only?
You either care about whether we call my relationship with my wife a marriage, regardless of my lack of religion, or you don’t.
You apparently care about something, since you’re spending time and energy in this thread. All we know is that you certainly don’t care about anything resembling logical consistency.
Mostly I just want to flaunt in your face that we call ourselves married, our friends call us married, the state calls us married, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it!
Yes, this bigotted answer is completely devoid of meaning. The idea that Christianity has inflicted some grand harm on humanity is rank nonsense. People were killing each other before Christianity and they killed each other after Christianity. Yes, some people wore the cross and went to battle with it as their flag just as people went to war with the flag of their country. More people have been killed in the name of an atheist ideology (Communism) a pagan nationalist ideology (Nazism) or even a secular ideology (Democracy) than were killed in the name of Christianity throughout history. Christian crusaders were not half as bloody as Genghis Khan or Tamurlane who were their contemporaries. Alexander the Great was a greater tyrant by far than Charlemagne or Charles V. The ‘great scourge of Christianity’ argument is complete and total nonsense, a reading for easily swayed children and not worthy of the respect of real adults.
Well the fact is they are losing on pretty much every front. When it comes to real transhumanism Christian luddites are so far behind the curve that they don’t even know which labs to stage their protests outside of, so I think it’s pretty safe to say that transhumanism is a foregone conclusion.
I really don’t understand the need to pigeonhole and oversimplify my opponents’ objections to things in order to oppose them. One can understand the concepts sympathetically and still work in opposition to them. In fact knowing one’s enemy helps facilitate the process.
On the other hand, saying, “They are just a bigot.”, to me is a declaration that says, “I don’t know, I don’t want to know and I don’t care.”
Oh, please. Yet another argument that’s been discredited over and over. If that’s the reason, let’s see them try to outlaw all marriages between the infertile. They won’t, of course because it’s just a lie they use to cover up their actual motivation of bigotry.
Garbage. Standing up and demanding your rights is far more likely to get you your rights than trying to compromise with bigots. And I see no reason to think that they WILL come to the other side willingly.
Now there, there’s an idea. Seriously. I’m for that. Make all unions civil ones and give all the rights and privileges of the current marriage structure to all persons wishing to enter into the kind of agreement that marriage was…
No. What Jodi is saying is that the state shouldn’t be in the business of ratifying a religious relationship. If the state wants to treat certain couples differently, based upon some legal relationship into which they enter voluntarily, that’s fine. If a religion wants to treat certain couples differently, based upon some religious relationship into which they enter voluntarily, that’s fine. But the two should not be related to each other. The state should not be formalizing the religious relationship with a legal status.
So suppose we call the civil relationship bodrig. Jodi might be happy for you if you are married. But what she would like to see is that your marriage and your bodrig be two different things, such that you could be married and not bodriged, or bodriged and not married, or both or neither.
Avoids some interesting First Amendment issues that way, too.
It’s neither vague nor wild-eyed but fairly much a certainty.
Ok, so you don’t care that’s clear, so what? It’s an ongoing debate. The gay Christians and those who have a different interpretation will duke it out within the church.
I rather doubt that most people know what transhumanism is, but this is where you shortchange yourself with the, “They are just bigots.”, line of argument. You aren’t privy to polite discussion on transhumanism with Christians who ARE aware of it and have some interesting things to say on the topic.
I personally think you are incapable of knowing what is moral and what is not because you are incapable of comprehending an issue from multiple sides. So what is relevant and what is not is not a judgment you are qualified to make because you go irrationally with your gut judgement and then don’t budge. You are entirely swayed by emotion and thus incapable of making a sound intellectual decision regarding moral issues.
Won’t happen, since the point of civil unions is to create an inferior ghetto marriage where undesirables can be shoved. Which doesn’t work if everyone gets it.
This seems to be a meme going around, and it’s weird.
Their argument has to be logically supportable or it’s invalid and wrong, not bigoted. It doesn’t work that way. People are, in general, pretty damn stupid. They make stupid, emotionally based arguments that don’t stand up to factual scrutiny all the time. Some people may hold the (mistaken) view that SSM will somehow lead to societal erosion. They may not even be able to elaborate on why they think that is, other than that changing the definition of marriage is scary and their gut tells them bad things will happen.
But that doesn’t mean they making the argument because of bigotry. It does mean that they’re supporting a position that leads to unacceptable discrimination, and doing so with faulty rhetoric. It may mean that they hate gay people and are rationalizing their bigotry with a more acceptable cover story. But it might also mean that they’re just going on shitty intuition and emotion, and while they have nothing at all against gay people, their poor thought processes can have horrible consequences for the civil rights of gays. But they are not, by necessity, bigoted, homophobic, whatever.
