View Poll Results: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant one?

Voters
70. You may not vote on this poll
  • Gays

    19 27.14%
  • Straights

    51 72.86%
Page 28 of 53 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 526

Thread: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

  1. #271
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    This isn't an "equal rights" issue.

    It's a definitive propriety issue.

    For example, is it an equal rights issue that cat-owners aren't allowed to enter their cats in a dog show?

    Of course not, because definitive propriety is always the foundational test to resolve an issue, and a cat is simply not a dog, and thus cat-owners have no right to enter their cats in a dog show.

    Definititive propriety is tested first, and only if its conditions are satisfied do rights and equality come into play as the next questions.

    The same is true with respect to topical relevance.

    A marriage has always been, for over 12,000 years, from just before the agricultural revolution, predating religion, predating modern history, up to the present, between a man and a woman as husband and wife, the definition of marriage, isolated pocketed violations being meaningless with respect to the definition, just like people calling their cats dogs is meaningless, obviously.

    So, is it an equal rights issue that SS couples aren't allowed to enter into a marriage, a marriage having always been between a man and a woman as husband and wife, the definition of marriage?

    Of course not, because definitive propriety of what marriage is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- excludes SS couples right off the bat.

    Thus the matter, logically, rationally, never moves to the next question of equal rights, as the matter was solved by the foundational appeal to definitive propriety.

    50 years ago, gay activists realized this reality, and so they began the oxymornic brainwashing campaign of simply using the phrase "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage" for three generations, until it as a phrase is now so engrained in the minds of many that, instead of thinking rationally and reasoning for themselves, people have simply been psychologically seduced to accept these terms as if they were true, when, obviously, they are not, and the seduction is to the ideological degree, with an emotional underpinning and effect, and a pre-conceived ideological seed has thus been planted in the minds of the seduced.

    When we think reasonably, rationally, according to the general guidelines for problem resolution in such matters, this matter is solved at the first and foundational test of definitive propriety, and thus there's no need to even consider the secondary tests of rights and equality.

    But those brainwashed by the generations of hearing and reading the aforementioned oxymoronic phrases, their rational reasoning ability has been compromised.
    "Straight" people kind of lost the whole argument when, after the flurry of sociological, historical, "hygienic", "morality" et al points, they played their ace in the hole: "Our collective imaginary friend thinks homosexuality is nasty too".......................

  2. #272
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Also...its interesting that you always try to run away from the logical comparisons between inter-racial marriage bans and gay marriage bans. Here is what Mildred Loving, the black female plaintiff in Loving v. Virgina has to say on the issue:


    “ I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. "

    Inter racial is male female........SSM is not the same.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  3. #273
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Again, they are seeking the removal of government force. You are requesting that government force remain applied. I guess I'll never understand you big government communists.
    I don't want federal gov. involved in SSM. You want that because its the only way you could ever win.
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  4. #274
    Professor
    Mathematician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    09-22-17 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,147

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Let's let nature (or God) decide which pairs of organisms were meant to screw each other. The simple answer is those who can procreate. This includes interracial couples, or a labrador and poodle, but not a same-sex pair for any type of organism.
    "With me everything turns into mathematics."
    "It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well."
    "It is truth very certain that, when it is not in one's power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is more probable." -- Rene Descartes

  5. #275
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathematician View Post
    Let's let nature (or God) decide which pairs of organisms were meant to screw each other. The simple answer is those who can procreate. This includes interracial couples, or a labrador and poodle, but not a same-sex pair for any type of organism.
    Problem is that nature continually asserts that isn't the case. For example, male lions in multi-male prides engage in intercourse in order to develop emotional bonds that prevent them from killing each other for control of the pride, as their instincts compel them to.

    Among mammals in particular, sex is as much a matter of developing a lasting emotional impression to facilitate social interaction as a means of creating offspring.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  6. #276
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    This isn't an "equal rights" issue.

    It's a definitive propriety issue.
    It absolutely is an equal rights issue and all the semantic bull**** in the world isn't going to change that the basic premise of your argument is that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. It doesn't matter how you try to justify it, it is absolutely still bigotry and it should absolutely still be called out as bigotry whenever we encounter it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    A marriage has always been, for over 12,000 years, from just before the agricultural revolution, predating religion, predating modern history, up to the present, between a man and a woman as husband and wife, the definition of marriage, isolated pocketed violations being meaningless with respect to the definition, just like people calling their cats dogs is meaningless, obviously.
    In other words, discounting all of the cases that don't support your trumped-up argument. Ignoring the history of all of the marriages between one man and multiple women, the handful of cultures that allowed marriage between one woman and multiple men, and the marriage rites that various cultures have practiced between members of the same sex throughout human history. You are basing your entire argument on sophistry and semantics and then falsifying the historical record in order to prop it up. This is inexcusable. If you are going to insist on advocating against gay marriage, at least have the common decency and intellectual honesty to admit that you are deliberately and specifically denying them that privilege and excluding them from that institution. And then make an argument that justifies that instead of pretending that the very concept of a "same sex marriage" is a logical impossibility.

  7. #277
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    why don't you go for it? I condemn out of marriage sex. God will punish those that do it.
    Care to point out the part where God asked you help, condemn or judge in the interim?
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  8. #278
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    It absolutely is an equal rights issue and all the semantic bull**** in the world isn't going to change that the basic premise of your argument is that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. It doesn't matter how you try to justify it, it is absolutely still bigotry and it should absolutely still be called out as bigotry whenever we encounter it.
    No, your presentation is in error.

    The "semantic bull****" you falsely accuse me of is simply a reflection of the assumptions in your own ideological position, nothing more.

    And resorting to calling my accurate analysis of the situation "bigotry" is ideologically similar in decadence to calling those opposed to amnesty and legalization for multi-count law-breaking illegals "racists" -- it's erroneous and incendiary rhetoric, not valid at all.

    But play the LCD victim card if you like .. it's meaningless .. but it will provide debaters good information for the future.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    In other words, discounting all of the cases that don't support your trumped-up argument. Ignoring the history of all of the marriages between one man and multiple women, the handful of cultures that allowed marriage between one woman and multiple men, and the marriage rites that various cultures have practiced between members of the same sex throughout human history. You are basing your entire argument on sophistry and semantics and then falsifying the historical record in order to prop it up. This is inexcusable. If you are going to insist on advocating against gay marriage, at least have the common decency and intellectual honesty to admit that you are deliberately and specifically denying them that privilege and excluding them from that institution. And then make an argument that justifies that instead of pretending that the very concept of a "same sex marriage" is a logical impossibility.
    Of course we discount cases that reflect erroneous representation of reality.

    You can't reference people in history calling a cat a dog and then say "see, look, a cat belongs in a dog show".

    You can't call something that is simply not a marriage a marriage simply because people in history called what was clearly not a marriage a marriage.

    There is no "sophistry and semantics" in my argument, nor "false historical record" as you falsely allude.

    I mean, we all know what marriage was from the get-go, 12,000 years ago, and always has been: "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    Thus SS couples cannot, rationally, reasonably, avail themselves of marriage.

    Sure, they can avail themselves of a civil union domestic partnership, recognized by government and private enterprise, even call it homarriage to properly and accurately distinguish that union, like all such fundamentally different unions are distinguished, they just can't call it a marriage, obviously.

    As I previously accurately stated, definitive propriety renders the ideological spin "privilege", "rights", "equality", and the like, simply inapplicable: SS couples simply are not nor have they ever been subject to marriage.

    And, as I previously accurately stated, the oxymoronic brainwashing performed by SS activists over the past five decades has seduced many into thinking that historical erroneous reference to marriage wasn't erroneous at all.

    This is the challenge we face today, in accurately respecting our species, our human history, to shake off the ideological mindsets that dumb us down to the truth about our past and our present.

    Do we call a man wearing a wig a woman simply because some men in the past wore wigs to look like women?

    Do we call green brown simply because we're looking through rose colored glasses?

    Do we call Jesus a God simply because no one found where his body was laid?

    Do we call American citizens who are separatist survivalists the citizens of "New America" simply because they say that's the country they now are citizens of somewhere in Oklahoma?

    No.

    Not if we don't suffer from a brainwashed ideological mindset.

    And neither do we call anything other than a man and a woman as husband and wife a marriage, as that's the only thing a marriage has ever been: between a man and a woman as husband and wife .. and always will be.

    Obviously.
    Last edited by Ontologuy; 04-04-13 at 01:56 AM.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  9. #279
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    The people who are opposed to equal rights for gays-- and yes, that includes marriage-- are the intolerant ones. Period, full stop. It's stupid this is even a question.
    had to qoute this and reply to it because its the only common sense and truthful answer needed
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #280
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: When the issue is gay marriage who are the intolerant ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Of course we discount cases that reflect erroneous representation of reality.
    In other words, you ignore historical reality when it doesn't suit your pre-existing biases. I'm done with this nonsense.

Page 28 of 53 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •