View Poll Results: which ones are bigots?

Voters
84. You may not vote on this poll
  • when Obama opposed SSM

    2 2.38%
  • when Republicans oppose SSM

    1 1.19%
  • both

    34 40.48%
  • neither

    47 55.95%
Page 25 of 32 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 315

Thread: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

  1. #241
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:03 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    64,000

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    I don't give a crap about he *wants*, which is to resolve it so he doesn't have to hear of it, which must be an unbearable burden indeed, extreme selfishness notwithstanding

    But go ahead, misconstrue what i said and don't give a crap, and i promise not to give a crap in turn
    I don't give a crap if you think that I misconstrued your crap... so go ahead and don't give a crap in return. I assure you sir, that I will not be giving a crap... at . all .
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  2. #242
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Because it shows that the SCOTUS was not just referring to restrictions that brought on criminal penalties, and that they in fact affect the laws of recognition of marriage, that equal protection applies to such laws that only deal with marriage recognition by a state.

    And although I believe first cousins will be the next major battle we see when it comes to marriage, I do see the "reasoning" given for restricting marriage for first cousins and closer as possibly being related to a government interest, which would be not encouraging relationships that are most likely to come from undue influence and to prevent the births of children when there is an absolute known increase (particularly for relations as close as parent/child or siblings) of risk of children born with genetic defects known to be true for just their blood relation. I honestly could care less if these restrictions are maintained or not, but I doubt anyone pushing for these things are likely to make a good argument for them like is made for same sex marriage.

    Limiting the number of spouses a person can have to only one is easily shown to further a government interest in the economy, in avoiding conflictions when it comes to medical decisions or recogntiion of legal next of kin, and some other areas.

    I doubt the SCOTUS will not strike down same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional under the 14th. They have already established the precedence for doing so, reaffirming that it is likely with their latest decision to not grant cert against decisions that struck down same sex marriage bans in so many states.
    Just as you did before, and as I have seen other people do many times, you are grasping at anything you think might justify continuing to deny these other people the rights you insist it unconstitutional to deny to homosexuals. It's easier to sell people on the notion that there is some constitutional right to same-sex marriage, if you can convince them the constitutional right would only extend to homosexuals--and no further. But it would not stop there.

    The supporters of incestuous marriages--especially between same-sex partners--would have a strong argument. What conceivable legitimate government interest would be served, for example, by a law that allowed two people of the same sex to marry each other if they were second cousins, but not if they were first cousins? What basis would there be for the argument about preventing genetic defects in offspring, when the incestuous marriage partners were the same sex?

    I don't see any reasonable basis for thinking marriages between first cousins, for example, are likely to be the result of some earlier undue influence. In most cases, they would not even have been raised in the same household. And even if people--siblings, for example--are raised in the same household, no undue influence would need to be involved to make them want to marry each other at some point. Here's one of many possible hypotheticals.

    Each of two sisters might have had some homosexual inclinations without any incestuous contact of any kind ever taking place in their home. One of both might then have experimented independently with lesbian sex after leaving home without ever telling the other. Hardly unheard of. One or both might very well have put that aside and gone on to get married or have exclusive relationships with men. Hardly unheard of either.

    Now, say in their fifties, the sisters find themselves divorced or unattached, their paths cross, and as they spend time together talking intimately, they for the first time develop a romantic attraction to each other. This grows until they eventually want to marry each other. No undue influence at all would ever have occurred in their case, and yet you would deny them the marriage they want because it might occur in some cases.

  3. #243
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Just as you did before, and as I have seen other people do many times, you are grasping at anything you think might justify continuing to deny these other people the rights you insist it unconstitutional to deny to homosexuals. It's easier to sell people on the notion that there is some constitutional right to same-sex marriage, if you can convince them the constitutional right would only extend to homosexuals--and no further. But it would not stop there.

    The supporters of incestuous marriages--especially between same-sex partners--would have a strong argument. What conceivable legitimate government interest would be served, for example, by a law that allowed two people of the same sex to marry each other if they were second cousins, but not if they were first cousins? What basis would there be for the argument about preventing genetic defects in offspring, when the incestuous marriage partners were the same sex?

    I don't see any reasonable basis for thinking marriages between first cousins, for example, are likely to be the result of some earlier undue influence. In most cases, they would not even have been raised in the same household. And even if people--siblings, for example--are raised in the same household, no undue influence would need to be involved to make them want to marry each other at some point. Here's one of many possible hypotheticals.

    Each of two sisters might have had some homosexual inclinations without any incestuous contact of any kind ever taking place in their home. One of both might then have experimented independently with lesbian sex after leaving home without ever telling the other. Hardly unheard of. One or both might very well have put that aside and gone on to get married or have exclusive relationships with men. Hardly unheard of either.

    Now, say in their fifties, the sisters find themselves divorced or unattached, their paths cross, and as they spend time together talking intimately, they for the first time develop a romantic attraction to each other. This grows until they eventually want to marry each other. No undue influence at all would ever have occurred in their case, and yet you would deny them the marriage they want because it might occur in some cases.
    I have said consistently that I actually wouldn't care if there were exceptions made for siblings who wish to get married. I think a major exception to incest laws now should be those siblings who are separated until teenage years or adulthood and who want to be married, an exception that has been made in the past (although I think it was in another country).

    I've said many times that there is no reasonable basis of undue influence over first cousin marriages and that that is a very good reason why such restrictions need to go away, even be struck down, because the states' case would be very weak for first cousin and further out restrictions when it comes to marriage.

    I honestly wouldn't care if any close relations were able to get married. I wouldn't fight for it. I would fight against siblings and parent/child marriages (allowing for exceptions like the example) but would keep my argument solely to the harm that such relationships can cause. If that isn't enough, it isn't enough. Doesn't harm me. I just don't see it really getting much support overall in the first place, which really is a major factor here. Same sex couples would still be struggling against these laws if support for such relationships being recognized was not as high.

    But the reason that it would extend for same sex couples is going to be different for why it might extend for other couples, because a Constitutional challenge under equal protection requires arguments for why something should or should not be restricted for those groups. And the arguments are different (at least to an extent) for why marriage should or should not be restricted by sex/gender than it is for why it should or should not be restricted by close relations that already exist or number of people involved or to any person/thing that cannot enter into other contracts or consent to sexual relationships.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #244
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,693

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry.
    Well that's great. We'll put you down, then, for being a proud supporter of pedophilia rights!! They are a minority, correct?
    Last edited by Logicman; 11-11-14 at 11:12 AM.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  5. #245
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,815

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    Well that's great. We'll put you down, then, for being a proud supporter of pedophilia rights!! They are a minority, correct?
    what does child rape have to do with equal rights?
    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

  6. #246
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,575

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    Well that's great. We'll put you down, then, for being a proud supporter of pedophilia rights!! They are a minority, correct?
    I know you think homosexuality is synonymous with child rape but you're pretty much the only person who thinks that. Keep hating.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  7. #247
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,693

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I know you think homosexuality is synonymous with child rape but you're pretty much the only person who thinks that. Keep hating.
    Well, they're both sins, but that's not the point.

    Your original fulmination was:

    RabidAlpaca: "People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry."
    So, are you a supporter of (minority) pedophilia rights or not?

    If you are then you code of morality is bankrupt.

    If you aren't then that falsies your statement above.

    So which is it? Answer the question?
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  8. #248
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,693

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    what does child rape have to do with equal rights?

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1063967002
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  9. #249
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,815

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    Your original fulmination was:

    "People who oppose SSM want to deny rights to minority groups they don't like. This is pure, spiteful bigotry."

    So, are you a supporter of (minority) pedophilia rights or not?

    If you are then you code of morality is bankrupt.

    If you aren't then that falsies your statement above.

    So which is it? Answer the question?

    thats still illogical since you are comparing child rape to equal rights
    focus on the word RIGHTS which totally destroys your mentally retarded, inaccurate and inane comparison

    since child rape isnt a right and marriage is your dishonest post completely fails, your mistake
    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. #250
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,815

    Re: Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

    so nothing, got it, another failure like your other dishonest claim, thanks
    again facts win and your dishonest comparison is illogical and complete fails
    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

Page 25 of 32 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... 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
  •