Let me guess. And you think I live with my mother too ?
I really don’t know dude. But I think your insane and dangerous.
A rather amusing accusation, since that’s one of the standard arguments used by the anti-SSM people to condemn those who call them bigots.
You are simply ignoring the fact that calling me a bigot for condemning bigots requires you to say the same of those who condemn others who hold abhorrent beliefs. If, that is you have any interest in logical consistency, which you don’t.
I do think it’s a smoke screen for many, perhaps even for most. But unless he can say so definitively for all, the argument that “all opposition = bigotry” fails.
I can’t get too worked up over this thread anyway, and will probably wander off. I think both sides are right: I think Der Trihs is correct to assign the vast majority of SSM opposition to some level of intolerance of those who are “other” – even if for the religiously minded, they believe their intolerance is required. But I also believe that Der Trihs is hands down the biggest bigot on the Boards – not even a close race for second.
But just because he’s one, doesn’t mean they’re not too. And I’m no fan of “You don’t like X? Well, Y is worse!” I think it’s a bad argument.
Yes, he’s a bigot too. Yes, he’s arguably a worse one than they are.
Doesn’t mean he’s not mostly right here. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
It’s bigots all the way down!
Try being un-crazy for a tiny fraction of a second.
Try to realize that your fungible, comic-book worldview while allows you to spew undifferentiated hate is a sickness of your mind, your character and your perceptual facilities. That it is no different from any other form of bigotry (which, like racism, sexism, etc… is a profound damage of a person’s critical thinking facilities), in that you are unable to look at individuals or the defining characteristics of a group and instead make wild inferences to justify your irrational hatred.
Try to realize that even if you believe that all opponents of SSM are wrong, that some may, potentially, be wrong for reasons other than hating gay people. Try real hard to see individual human beings rather than your own deranged, hate-crazed mental froth.
Or talk more shit about how I don’t value logical consistency, Frothy McLooneypants.
P.S. Kudos to you for starting and staying in what’s most likely going to become yet another Der pitting. I know you tend to stay out of them.
Pretty much, according to my critics logic. If condemning people for holding beliefs you consider evil, that have caused objective harm is “bigotry”, is there anyone who isn’t a bigot ?
If it turns into another festival of lies and threats I’ll leave. I’m not interested in arguing with a dozen people who keep insinuating how they’d like to beat me up, or see me beaten up.
No no Frothy, condemning people who hold “evil” (funny term there, again you show us that you are what you hate) views is not bigoted. The problem is that you are insane and cannot tell evil beliefs from someone who holds different beliefs.
Sane person: "You, sir, preach the genocide of ethnicity which differ from yours. I hold you to be a practitioner of a morally repugnant ideology|
Frothy McLooneypants: “You evil doers are doing evil. Even if you believe that marriage should be governed by the laws of Christian sacraments or are cannot deal with societal change, or whatever… and you have nothing against gays, at all. I hate you, evil doers. I hate you all! You all look the same to me, evil doers!”
In before “See, that they’d want marriage to be based off the Christian definition of marriage just shows that Christianity = bigotry and all Christians are bigots and all religion is evil!!!”
P.S. I, for one, would not like to see you beaten up. Wise up, lighten up, sober up?
Sure.
But your mental problems seem like self flagellation enough that you don’t need an external tormentor, tbh.
But surely you see that the flip side also applies: The religious right also condemns YOU for hold beliefs they consider evil, that they believe have caused objective harm. So if you’re not a bigot under that definition, then neither are they.
As you judge them, so must you be judged. You stand and fall together: Either you’re both bigots, or neither of you are. Burns, don’t it?
That’s a silly claim. By that logic I’d be crazy for condemning as a bigot someone who rounds up and puts blacks or Jews or whomever in a ghetto just because his religion says so.
Not really, since they lack that “objective harm” part. You know, the harm that all over the boards people who support SSM are demanding evidence of from the anti-SSM people. Which they can’t produce, because they are bigots.
They do not believe they lack the objective harm part. They believe the harm is in the undermining of the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, and the institution of family as mother (female), father (male), and 2.5 children.
Now, YOU may not buy their arguments or find those arguments sufficiently “objective.” But many muh-anny people do not buy your personal brand of anti-religious nasty craziness for exactly the same reason: they don’t buy your arguments, nor do they find those arguments sufficiently objective.
So if they are bigots for failing the objective harm test, then so are you. Hoist on your own petard, so to speak.
I don’t see how that necessarily disqualifies them from being bigoted.
Frothy, Frothy, Frothy…
Every time you try to defend your bigotry you just display, again, how your hatred is based on irrational lunacy. Try to think, real hard, why equating people who believe that marriage should be based on religious laws but the state can set up some sort of lesser form of union are not the same thing as people who forcibly cram people into concentration camps.
Here is a visual aid.
They don’t have any proof that that would happen, or that it would be a bad thing. But proof (or more frequently the lack thereof) rarely bothers these people.
So how exactly are people who can’t tolerate any definition of marriage but their own, people who can’t tolerate anything they think is icky, and people intolerant of any other religious beliefs on marraige not bigots?
Sound like bigots by definition. Either pretty hateful, shallow, or stupid too considering the damage their (at best) foolishness is causing people.
I am a decedent of mixed race unions recent enough that I am only half white. I’d like to know what nonbigoted reason could be wrong with that. Keep in mind I’m healthy, and smart. As mixed race people tend to be just as much as any group. So any “scientific” reasons are pure bullshit.
Seriously, and just asking here, what positive objective do you expect to achieve with this thread? And if it gets up to six pages or so, as these things sometimes do, and you haven’t achieved that objective, will you be at all surprised?
No, I’m not. I can point to millions of people who have been hurt, or oppressed or killed in the name of religion. They can’t even come up with a rational reason WHY SSM would harm straight marriage, much less prove that it would do so. They just assert that some unspecified harm will occur in some unspecified fashion.
The only real difference is the level of extremism, and the freedom to act on their bigotry. Just as the people who supported slavery eventually turned to Jim Crow not because they were more enlightened, but because that’s all they could get away with.
I’ve already achieved my objective, of relieving my frustration by saying what I wasn’t allowed to say in GD.