• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

wolfie said:
And why would that be..

Bigotry..

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of sexual preferences/race/ etc..
Click to expand...

Your are not being treated in any certain way because of sexual orientation race etc.
 
wolfie said:
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

But having said that..are not gay people Bigots for not accepting the Ant-Gay point of view??
Click to expand...

Tolerance does not require the embracing of intolerance. Just sayin....
 
roguenuke said:
No. We don't accept the "anti-gay point of view" out of logic and reason, not an attempt to harm or take rights away from those who do not agree with same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

So..it is all about you..**** anyone else's point of view..
 
wolfie said:
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

But having said that..are not gay people Bigots for not accepting the Ant-Gay point of view??
Click to expand...
Really....the oppressed are bigots.....because they do not accept others bigotry?

That is some weird logic you got there.
 
Cable said:
We all promote discrimination of others based on our personal moral code. This is how we create any law. You seem to assume that those who would vote against a man marrying a man are somehow bigoted.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Most laws have an additional component of some sort of harm done to others.

I don't speak for the pro family crowd, just myself. I do believe that same sex choices harm the individual, and society, but that is my opinion. To articulate that harm would take considerable time. You can begin to search it yourself. If you haven't, it would seem incumbent on you to do so prior to your voting it either way.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. If you want to use the government of the United States of America to enforce your moral code onto the rest of us, you need to articulate a reason. If I think going to church harms you, it's up to me to prove it before the police kick down your church door and drag you out.

There are a thousand legal things people can do that harm themselves and society.
It's just the way it is. God gave us free will. Let the circus begin.
Click to expand...

Many things harm ourselves, and are legal. Many things harm others, and are not.
 
wolfie said:
And why would that be..

Bigotry..

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of sexual preferences/race/ etc..
Click to expand...

Pro-ssm people do not start (for the most part) from the position of prejudice against any particular people on the anti-ssm side. In order for those on the anti-ssm side to come under any sort of "hatred, contempt, or intolerance", their position on the issue of same sex marriage and/or gays must be expressed first. Therefore their position is based on the position of another, not the inherent traits of another. When you deny rights to someone based solely on their gender/sex or sexual preference, then your position is coming from one of "hatred, contempt, or intolerance" for a specific trait, such as sexuality. If you had some other, valid reason for denying access to marriage that doesn't revolve around "it isn't right" in some way, shape, or form, then you can be said to hold a position not based on bigotry. But the majority of positions from anti-ssm people revolve around a belief that homosexuality/same sex relationships are wrong.
 
wolfie said:
So..it is all about you..**** anyone else's point of view..
Click to expand...

Not true at all. You get to have your opinion. Express it all you want. And we get to express our opinion of your opinion.

What you do not get to do is use the authority of the US government to enforce your moral code.

And what do you think you're doing anyway? You're not only say "**** anyone else's point of view," you're saying "**** anyone else's rights. I decide who gets to marry who."
 
Last edited:
Cable said:
Certainly some could be explained thus, but to insinuate this on every dissenting opinion would be, well, terrible.
Click to expand...
"The VAPORS...the VAPORS!....I'm fainting!!"
 
wolfie said:
So..it is all about you..**** anyone else's point of view..
Click to expand...

No. It's all about giving more rights, more freedoms to people who you cannot show do harm, nor interfere with any legitimate state interest.
 
Deuce said:
So you support the right of homosexuals to marry?




Is quibbling over semantics your idea of a compelling argument for denying people rights?
Click to expand...

Yes..I do accept that homosexuals have the right to ''marry''

Two people who love each other should have the right..

However..I can't help feeling uncomfortable about it..
 
Deuce said:
It is not up to me to disprove the existence of harm. Even if it were, I cannot prove a negative. You have to prove the positive.

You have to show a reason why someone else's rights should be restricted. The Prop 8 supporters had a chance to do this on a national stage before the Supreme Court. They failed. Asked directly what harm was caused by two dudes getting married, their lawyer was unable to articulate a reason.



Not entirely true. In the United States, our constitutional framework is designed specifically to prevent a "tyranny of the majority."


Not really relevant. We live in America, not this theoretical construct of yours.
Click to expand...




I am not asking you to prove a negative. Your statement of fact indicates you have reviewed studies that attempted to show harm caused, with negative results.

Preventing "tyranny of the majority" is not an action based on what some large group of people believe to be a bad thing?

The Godless World I mentioned is not our physical world, it is a description of the state of mind for those to which it would apply.
 
wolfie said:
Yes..I do accept that homosexuals have the right to ''marry''

Two people who love each other should have the right..

However..I can't help feeling uncomfortable about it..
Click to expand...

Good for you. You acknowledge that your personal belief isn't enough to decide someone else's rights. You are not someone I place in the "bigot" category, because you are not advocating that the US government treat homosexuals differently solely based on your personal moral opinion.

You should, however, do a little self-analysis on why you are uncomfortable about it. You've said it doesn't affect you in any way. So why care?
 
Cable said:
I am not asking you to prove a negative. Your statement of fact indicates you have reviewed studies that attempted to show harm caused, with negative results.

Preventing "tyranny of the majority" is not an action based on what some large group of people believe to be a bad thing?

The Godless World I mentioned is not our physical world, it is a description of the state of mind for those to which it would apply.
Click to expand...

I have reviewed such studies, yes. The results show positive impacts on society. But that's irrelevant, because it's not up to me to prove why someone should have a right, it's up to you to prove why someone shouldn't. That's the America I believe in.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, in our country, the beliefs of the supermajority are truly the authority on any issue. If an issue is strong enough to win the support of the supermajority to get a Constitutional Amendment put into place, then that belief comes to being part of our most protected laws. This is why our Constitution has generally been used to expand the rights of individuals, not suppress them, because our most largely held beliefs revolve around individual freedom and rights to not be suppressed by the government, aka the simple majority. It hasn't gone well when our nation made basic morality a part of that law. Prohibition was one of the biggest mistakes in our country and there was nothing anyone could do about it because it was in our Constitution. So until the supermajority agreed that Prohibition was wrong, the law of the land was Prohibition.
Click to expand...

Your response to my statement appears to be in agreement, but your lead-in seems to indicate otherwise. "largely held beliefs revolve around individual freedom and rights..." For now, right? It's what most folks think is right currently. That was my point.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Really....the oppressed are bigots.....because they do not accept others bigotry?

That is some weird logic you got there.
Click to expand...

''The oppressed??''

Just keep your junk inside a bedroom..

So gay people cannot be bigots then??
 
Cable said:
"largely held beliefs revolve around individual freedom and rights..." For now, right? It's what most folks think is right currently. That was my point.
Click to expand...
So tell us, in what direction has the trend gone for SSM?
 
wolfie said:
''The oppressed??''
Click to expand...

Yes. They are denied a basic civil right.

Just keep your junk inside a bedroom..
Click to expand...
Are you still mad about Lawrence v. Texas? Because this is about marriage, not about sex. Ask any married man, they aren't the same thing at all! Why do you keep bringing up gay sex all the time?

So gay people cannot be bigots then??
Click to expand...
Nobody said that. But they aren't bigots for not accepting bigotry from others.
 
wolfie said:
''The oppressed??''
Click to expand...
When you are discriminated against, are you not the oppressed?

Just keep your junk inside a bedroom..
Click to expand...
[snark] stifle yourself and get back in the kitchen, and get me a sandwich and a beer, and make it snappy[/snark]

So gay people cannot be bigots then??
Click to expand...
Straw, try again.
 
roguenuke said:
No. It's all about giving more rights, more freedoms to people who you cannot show do harm, nor interfere with any legitimate state interest.
Click to expand...

Come on..they don't want equal rights..they want superiority..
 
wolfie said:
Come on..they don't want equal rights..they want superiority..
Click to expand...

Horse****. Name one thing they want to have that they don't want you to have.
 
Deuce said:
Wrong. Most laws have an additional component of some sort of harm done to others.
Click to expand...

Whether the component "harm to others" is good or bad is a decision we make as individuals, and then codify in the law based on some majority. Without absolute Truth or authority all of these items, even this one that seems so fundamental to us today, become a choice or decision of the individual and eventually of "the Gang."


Deuce said:
Nonsense. If you want to use the government of the United States of America to enforce your moral code onto the rest of us, you need to articulate a reason. If I think going to church harms you, it's up to me to prove it before the police kick down your church door and drag you out.
Click to expand...

Yes, currently that is probably how it would work. But this says nothing about how it might work at some point in the future. See history and other countries currently and their tolerance levels for Christianity. It's a matter of what most people think at a given time. The "reason" articulated may be solid or faltering, but it's actions are based on what people believe at the time to be best, not necessarily based on any fact.
 
Deuce said:
Good for you. You acknowledge that your personal belief isn't enough to decide someone else's rights. You are not someone I place in the "bigot" category, because you are not advocating that the US government treat homosexuals differently solely based on your personal moral opinion.

You should, however, do a little self-analysis on why you are uncomfortable about it. You've said it doesn't affect you in any way. So why care?
Click to expand...

Well..basically because I don't feel it is natural..
 
Cable said:
Whether the component "harm to others" is good or bad is a decision we make as individuals, and then codify in the law based on some majority. Without absolute Truth or authority all of these items, even this one that seems so fundamental to us today, become a choice or decision of the individual and eventually of "the Gang."




Yes, currently that is probably how it would work. But this says nothing about how it might work at some point in the future. See history and other countries currently and their tolerance levels for Christianity. It's a matter of what most people think at a given time. The "reason" articulated may be solid or faltering, but it's actions are based on what people believe at the time to be best, not necessarily based on any fact.
Click to expand...

Your hypothetical persecution complex is not something I'm going to discuss in this thread.
 
Deuce said:
Nobody said that. But they aren't bigots for not accepting bigotry from others.
Click to expand...

Of course they are..not accepting other peoples point of view and calling them bigots...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom