I understood why you brought it up, and the instruction remains in place. The problem is that whenever someone brings up polygamy or other types of marriage in a thread like this, the discussion always goes off track as people explain why they believe same-sex marriage is different from polygamy and the original point gets lost. I’d rather not see that happen yet again. If you want to explain why opposition to same-sex marriage is not hateful, you can do that because it’s relevant to the discussion. Leave out analogies to polygamy and other types of relationships so the thread doesn’t get hijacked.
I’m trying to explain my reasoning here. If you’d rather play games, I’ll stop explaining and start giving you warnings for ignoring moderator instructions. You can explain why opposition to same-sex marriage is not hateful, but steer clear of discussions of polygamy and other relationships so we don’t have to endure several more pages of SSM vs. polygamy. This thread is barely even about "hateful"ness, it’s about anti-Chick-Fil-A activism.
There isn’t. Simple as that. The anti-SSM people have been challenged again and again to come up with such reasons and failed. This is as one sided an argument as you are ever likely to find.
The news reports I read on the subject say that the shooting was condemned by the President, by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and by LGBT groups. Liberals appear to be right out in front saying that this was a heinous, despicable act.
What is the origin of the false accusation that they aren’t?
Indeed. Working on an analogy here, help me workshop it…
I’ve got plans to buy KFC, and I’ll run it as an atheist restaurant shop. Of course we’ll be open Sunday and Christmas, no doubt, and nobody’s gonna object to that. But my plans are bigger.
You see, I hate the convergence of church and state. So I’ll be donating millions to a nonprofit called The Wall. We’ll push to allow only state marriages. If your marriage was performed in a church, we’ll push to have it invalidated and ban you for life from getting married again. Don’t get me wrong, you can call yourself married, what do I care, but you’ll get no government recognition for your marriage if a church or a church official was involved in it.
That’s just, like, my opinion, man, and I know that Christians who might be affected by it won’t have any hard feelings about not being able to get married, and surely they won’t boycott KFC over it or anything.
That analogy actually doesn’t go far enough; you’d also have to be funding groups that call for Christian couples have their children taken away from them, and for Christianity itself to be declared a felony.
This is false. What you really mean is that I have offered no reasons that you think are good ones. That’s a different thing. But it is the game played by your crowd.
And don’t bother asking me yet again, "Well, what are these reasons, huh, huh, huh?Because I’ve supplied them before, more than once, yet people like you still peddle the bullshit that 1) I haven’t given reasons and even, 2) there is no rational reason to oppose SSM.
I don’t think lance strongarm is playing games. Pkease bear with me here…If one claims that all opposition to to traditional marriage is necessarily hateful, it seem completely within the bounds of the discussion to bring up another flavor of non-traditional marriage that is not SSM. It’s not about polygamy. It’s about marriage. I do agree thought that the discussion needn’t and shouldn’t turn into one about the particulars of polygamy. That’s certainly worthy of moderation. But forbidding even the mere mention of it deprives one of a direct challenge to the point being made. You’re telling one side they can’t challenge the statement with simple mention of polygamy. It’s not as is there are many other forms of non-traditional marriage.
Yes, I cherry picked these examples. But I did so for a reason. The words we use end up framing a debate. And our choice of words says something about how we view the opposition. If I choose words that are dismissive or a distortion of those who oppose my viewpoint I can more easily assign viewpoints to them that they may or may not hold.
What’s your interpretation of the “framing” in these two headlines? I don’t consider myself a “liberal,” but I think most liberals would prefer the first headline, the one about a vandal.
The second headline says to me “we found the guy responsible for the vandalism, and wouldn’t you know it, he’s a gay artist!”