NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American? [W:45]

Your Star said:

digs just.....:doh

Seriously, we are denied equal standing under the law, that is pure discrimination. The fact that you still can't see this makes me rather sad.

Click to expand...

LGBT or AMERICAN? what(?) South American or? .... Me, I'm from the Planet Earth .....whatever ......

Redress said:

Wrong. To allow an opinion to be expressed is not to tolerate it, tolerating it would be turning a blind eye to it, to accept it without criticism.

Click to expand...

So now, we're playing Haymarket-style games, twisting the definition of words in order to deny that you said what you clearly said, is that it?

Bob Blaylock said:

So now, we're playing Haymarket-style games, twisting the definition of words in order to deny that you said what you clearly said, is that it?

Click to expand...

No, I am not letting you interpret my words to mean other than what I meant. You do not get to make up meaning for my words.

Redress said:

No, I am not letting you interpret my words to mean other than what I meant. You do not get to make up meaning for my words.

Click to expand...

I think the word “tolerate” has a rather clear, universally-understood meaning. When you expressed an unwillingness to tolerate certain opinions that you find disagreeable, then I think it is clear enough what you meant. When called on it, your defense is to try to twist the word “tolerate” to mean something other than what it clearly means in the context in which you initially used it.

If what you said is not what you meant, then the fault is not mine for responding to what you said.

Bob Blaylock said:

I think the word “tolerate” has a rather clear, universally-understood meaning. When you expressed an unwillingness to tolerate certain opinions that you find disagreeable, then I think it is clear enough what you meant. When called on it, your defense is to try to twist the word “tolerate” to mean something other than what it clearly means in the context in which you initially used it.

If what you said is not what you meant, then the fault is not mine for responding to what you said.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but there is nothing in the word "tolerate" nor "intolerant" that suggests or implied or states censorship. That is something you made up.

Redress said:

I am sorry, but there is nothing in the word "tolerate" nor "intolerant" that suggests or implied or states censorship. That is something you made up.

Click to expand...

According to the Wiktionary…


If you say that you are unwilling to tolerate a particular belief, then that means that you are not willing to allow this belief to be expressed without interference. To interfere with one's right to express a belief that you do not want to be expressed meets the definition of censorship. To tolerate something is to allow that thing to exist or occur, even if you do not like it. This is what you said you were unwilling to do.

Bob Blaylock said:

According to the Wiktionary…

Verb

tolerate (third-person singular simple present tolerates, present participle tolerating, simple past and past participle tolerated)

1. To allow (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) to exist or occur without interference.

​

If you say that you are unwilling to tolerate a particular belief, then that means that you are not willing to allow this belief to be expressed without interference. To interfere with one's right to express a belief that you do not want to be expressed meets the definition of censorship. To tolerate something is to allow that thing to exist or occur, even if you do not like it. This is what you said you were unwilling to do.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Not being willing to tolerate does not mean interfere with expression. You can for example work to change beliefs, to expose the flaws in those beliefs, to educate and counter. The censorship bit is not necessary to intolerance, nor implied, nor suggested by it.

Redress said:

Wrong. Not being willing to tolerate does not mean interfere with expression. You can for example work to change beliefs, to expose the flaws in those beliefs, to educate and counter. The censorship bit is not necessary to intolerance, nor implied, nor suggested by it.

Click to expand...

If you get to redefine a word retroactively, to claim that it means whatever you meant it to mean, rather than what everyone understand sit to mean, then that word really means nothing at all.

I suppose we could continue this silly line of argument all night, but it will not change, nor even conceal, your obvious intent, which is to play silly semantic games now to deny that you said what you earlier clearly said.

Wouldn't it be better just to admit that you were mistaken with what you said before than to keep playing this game?

Bob Blaylock said:

If you get to redefine a word retroactively, to claim that it means whatever you meant it to mean, rather than what everyone understand sit to mean, then that word really means nothing at all.

I suppose we could continue this silly line of argument all night, but it will not change, nor even conceal, your obvious intent, which is to play silly semantic games now to deny that you said what you earlier clearly said.

Wouldn't it be better just to admit that you were mistaken with what you said before than to keep playing this game?

Click to expand...

I am not redefining the word, I am not letting you twist it to mean more than it is.

Captain Adverse said:

Actually, they did.

Click to expand...

Not even close.

They were beaten and lynched. They were denied jobs, and access to stores and other businesses. They were arrested and jailed simply for who they were or daring to hang out in bars together (that's what caused the Stonewall Riots). They were reviled in Churches as abominations. They were indentified as mentally ill, locked up in mental facilities and forced to undergo "experimental" techniques and electroshock "therapy."

Soooo, yeah I think they have a right to claim systematic oppression similar to any other historically oppressed groups in the good ole U.S. of A.

Click to expand...

Except for the fact that they, unlike blacks, had the option of concealing their homosexuality. Their oppression was not even close to what the blacks faced in severity or volume. The comparison is false, and insulting. They need to illustrate their own strifes, and make posters and memes specific to their own struggles, instead of constantly jumping on the coat tails of the black community.

Surtr said:

Not even close. Except for the fact that they, unlike blacks, had the option of concealing their homosexuality. Their oppression was not even close to what the blacks faced in severity or volume. The comparison is false, and insulting. They need to illustrate their own strifes, and make posters and memes specific to their own struggles, instead of constantly jumping on the coat tails of the black community.

Click to expand...

That's a matter of opinion. Perhaps you are Black and are somehow offended by this comparison? If so, did you forget all the Black Americans who could pass for white and "hid" in plain view in those long gone bad old days? Hid until something gave them away, like maybe having a child who couldn't pass for white? So what if many homosexuals could "hide," they hid to prevent being systematically abused and hiding was PART of their oppression.

If not, and you belong to some other oppressed minority I fail to understand your position. I'm Amerindian, and as a child I faced racial oppression. I have no problems listing homosexuals as among the oppressed.

Captain Adverse said:

That's a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

No, it's a matter of fact that the gays in this country have not endured the same hardships as American blacks. It's an insulting comparison, and it needs to stop.

Perhaps you are Black and are somehow offended by this comparison? If so, did you forget all the Black Americans who could pass for white and "hid" in plain view in those long gone bad old days? Hid until something gave them away, like maybe having a child who couldn't pass for white? So what if many homosexuals could "hide," they hid to prevent being systematically abused and hiding was PART of their oppression.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I am. this isn't about me, it's about a stupid comparison that needs to end. Gays have their own history, they don't need to ride the coat tails of black oppression. Somehow people still think it's relevant to draw that idiotic comparison, which shows a disturbing lack of historical knowledge.

If not, and you belong to some other oppressed minority I fail to understand your position. I'm Amerindian, and as a child I faced racial oppression. I have no problems listing homosexuals as among the oppressed.

Click to expand...

Being oppressed doesn't put them in the same clubhouse as native Americans and American blacks.

Surtr said:

Being oppressed doesn't put them in the same clubhouse as native Americans and American blacks.

Click to expand...

Oppression is oppression, it does not need a link to any other group to be validated. You are the one who originally posited a requirement for it to be "linked" to that of Black Americans because the OP used a couple of pictures showing similar protests by conservative (substitute "oppressors") in Washington.

Of course "oppressors" never recognize or admit their wrongdoing. It's aways justified by some claim of being a "God-given and natural" way of doing things.

All the rest of your comment is hyperbole and personal opinion.

Surtr said:

No, it's a matter of fact that the gays in this country have not endured the same hardships as American blacks. It's an insulting comparison, and it needs to stop.


It doesn't matter what I am. this isn't about me, it's about a stupid comparison that needs to end. Gays have their own history, they don't need to ride the coat tails of black oppression. Somehow people still think it's relevant to draw that idiotic comparison, which shows a disturbing lack of historical knowledge.


Being oppressed doesn't put them in the same clubhouse as native Americans and American blacks.

Click to expand...

Is all this supposed to justify oppression because I'm having trouble figuring out why you care so much about this.

The comparison is that the idiots holding the signs are going to be on the wrong side of history and 40 years from now people are going to look back at them and just shake their heads. You're reading way too much into some image macro on the internet. Relax, dude.

Deuce said:

Is all this supposed to justify oppression because I'm having trouble figuring out why you care so much about this.

The comparison is that the idiots holding the signs are going to be on the wrong side of history and 40 years from now people are going to look back at them and just shake their heads. You're reading way too much into some image macro on the internet. Relax, dude.

Click to expand...

The problem with this perspective is that granting marriage rights to homosexuals is no where near as historically significant as granting equal rights to everyone regardless of race. It's not even in the same building. If there had been some legal mechanism that allowed for open discrimination against them and that had been reversed then, yes, I would agree that the historical significance is the same. But that's not the case here, is it. We're talking about the right to marry. Nothing more. Hardly compares to the plight of African Americans. It is actually quite demeaning to even make that comparison, IMO.

Furthermore, in order to be granted that "right", the definition of a word needed to be changed. If it truly was the "right" that was the prize here, then that one could have been easily settled years ago by accepting civil unions. It offered the same "rights", just not the same "word".

This is not and has never been about "rights". It's about moral equivalency. Changing the definition of a word is never going to accomplish this. Maybe from a legal point of view it will but society can still think for themselves. We're going to need at least a couple of generations of indoctrination before this mission is complete.:roll:

Deuce said:

Is all this supposed to justify oppression because I'm having trouble figuring out why you care so much about this.

The comparison is that the idiots holding the signs are going to be on the wrong side of history and 40 years from now people are going to look back at them and just shake their heads. You're reading way too much into some image macro on the internet. Relax, dude.

Click to expand...

I would equate the whole issue to that which rises to the level of oppression that is tantamount to women not being allowed to go topless in most states. It is the same thing to me, as oppression claimed by homosexuals, re: Marriage, and special rights. One might argue that all women should be allowed to do what they want, and only breastaphobes would object, but they're antiquated, and on the wrong side of history. Men can go topless wherever they choose for the most part, why can't women? Is it immoral to have a society that allows women to expose their breasts? I dunno, I could get used to it on a selfish level, but I tend to agree that society has a right, and a duty to protect certain aspects of behavior that it feels obliged too. Homosexuals can be homosexuals in this country, and in most places they so choose. They're not denied any liberties to practice their sexual identity in most situations notwithstanding common decency also denied heterosexuals. Topless women doesn't cause anyone any material harm, not even children if it were to become a norm in society, however, collectively, women included, we've decided by way of a relative agreement that we shouldn't permit it. Is it right? Is it morally objective? Who knows, but society in their right to govern themselves, has a right and duty to decide the issue. Opinions may change, and they have in some places like San Fran, and in designated nude beaches, but mostly society has spoken on the issue. Nude beaches, and places like San Fran have made accommodation for women wishing to go topless, similar to accommodation offered RE: SSM, via civil union. Seems that most women are fine with the oppressive nature of making it illegal to go topless, and have come to terms with it. Gays on the other hand, not so much!


Tim-

Jack Fabulous said:

Furthermore, in order to be granted that "right", the definition of a word needed to be changed. If it truly was the "right" that was the prize here, then that one could have been easily settled years ago by accepting civil unions. It offered the same "rights", just not the same "word".

Click to expand...

Couple things:

Civil unions are an attempt at giving a "separate but equal" status. Separate but equal is inherently unequal, because it carries with it a government-approved stigma of being separate, not worthy of using the same word as the rest of us. (Don't try to derail that statement with the racial segregation straw man.)

Also, nobody ever really offered truly equal civil unions. Even in states that have tried to make equal civil unions, the results have never once actually been equal. In fact, until DOMA is fully repealed, it's literally impossible for civil unions to be equal. Finally, even when civil unions are "offered," the social regressives end up opposing them. They still show up holding up signs, they still say it's immoral, they say it's a slippery slope, yadda yadda. Don't give me this bull**** about equality being "offered." It has never been offered. And that's me skipping over how demeaning it is to "offer" someone their civil rights, as if that's something you have the moral or legal authority to grant or deny.

This is not and has never been about "rights". It's about moral equivalency. Changing the definition of a word is never going to accomplish this. Maybe from a legal point of view it will but society can still think for themselves. We're going to need at least a couple of generations of indoctrination before this mission is complete.:roll:

Click to expand...

Nobody really gives a crap whether you personally approve of gay people using the word marriage. This isn't about you or your moral equivalency. It's not about your definition or my definition of a word. It's about how the government treats its citizens.

Hicup said:

I would equate the whole issue to that which rises to the level of oppression that is tantamount to women not being allowed to go topless in most states. It is the same thing to me, as oppression claimed by homosexuals, re: Marriage, and special rights.

Click to expand...

Stopped right there. Marriage isn't a special right that homosexuals are asking for sole access to.

Deuce said:

Stopped right there. Marriage isn't a special right that homosexuals are asking for sole access to.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about sole access? Women aren't looking for a sole access to go topless either, hypothetically, they'd be looking for equal access, so your point is what exactly?

Tim-

Deuce said:

Couple things:

Civil unions are an attempt at giving a "separate but equal" status. Separate but equal is inherently unequal, because it carries with it a government-approved stigma of being separate, not worthy of using the same word as the rest of us. (Don't try to derail that statement with the racial segregation straw man.)

Click to expand...

Give it a rest with the civil rights movement comparison. Separate but equal? LMAO. Try as you will but there is no comparison to be made here. Nothing remotely similar at all. Blacks were discriminated against in virtually every possible way a person could be discriminated against and they had no protection under the law against such acts. The Civil Rights Act changed all of that. What is happening right now is ONLY about being able to marry. That's it. When you try to cast the plight to achieve marriage equality as one and the same with the plight to achieve racial equality, you are making a mockery of the civil rights movement. "We can't get married" is not even in the same ballpark with "we don't get paid as much", "our kids don't get a good education", "I can't get a decent meal at a restaurant", "I have to ride in the back of the bus", and finally....

"MY SON GOT LYNCHED AND NOBODY CARES!!!"

Your civil rights movement analogy sucks. Try that crap at a NAACP meeting sometime and see what kind of reception you get.

Deuce said:

Nobody really gives a crap whether you personally approve of gay people using the word marriage. This isn't about you or your moral equivalency. It's not about your definition or my definition of a word. It's about how the government treats its citizens.

Click to expand...

Bull****. When you break this down to it's root, it's all about being socially accepted. Acknowledging the obvious is not a crime, ya know...

Jack Fabulous said:

The problem with this perspective is that granting marriage rights to homosexuals is no where near as historically significant as granting equal rights to everyone regardless of race. It's not even in the same building. If there had been some legal mechanism that allowed for open discrimination against them and that had been reversed then, yes, I would agree that the historical significance is the same. But that's not the case here, is it. We're talking about the right to marry. Nothing more. Hardly compares to the plight of African Americans. It is actually quite demeaning to even make that comparison, IMO.

Furthermore, in order to be granted that "right", the definition of a word needed to be changed. If it truly was the "right" that was the prize here, then that one could have been easily settled years ago by accepting civil unions. It offered the same "rights", just not the same "word".

This is not and has never been about "rights". It's about moral equivalency. Changing the definition of a word is never going to accomplish this. Maybe from a legal point of view it will but society can still think for themselves. We're going to need at least a couple of generations of indoctrination before this mission is complete.:roll:

Click to expand...

Changing the definition of a word, has major implications. Look into the history of the meaning of the word homophobe for just one example.


Tim-

Hicup said:

Who said anything about sole access? Women aren't looking for a sole access to go topless either, hypothetically, they'd be looking for equal access, so your point is what exactly?

Tim-

Click to expand...

Then define "special right."

Hicup said:

Changing the definition of a word, has major implications. Look into the history of the meaning of the word homophobe for just one example.


Tim-

Click to expand...

What major impact on society did that have, exactly? Economic downturn? Locust swarms?

Deuce said:

What major impact on society did that have, exactly? Economic downturn? Locust swarms?

Click to expand...

It, along with a implicit media, allowed the homosexual agenda the ability to rhetorically bat their opponents over the head. Worked for a good amount of time, but less and less as we move on, and people become armed to defend themselves against it.

A special right is one where no right previously existed, and where no real need for the existence of said right was societal necessary. An example of this would be disability accommodations. They NOW have laws in place that mandate public and private institutions, and open to all individuals places to make room, and accessibility the law. However, Midgets don't have the same accessibility provisions because they are not deemed disabled. Homosexuals never had a right to marry, nor has any language ever included this possibility prior to the late 80's up until now. The very idea of such a thing wasn't even conceivable to society. As a result of the past 40 years, and present, we now as a society are contemplating the unthinkable, and for some, the absurd~!


Tim-

How many think like this old white guy?

Pat Robertson: Facebook Needs A ‘Vomit’ Button For Pictures Of Gay People

“You’ve got a couple of same-sex guys kissing, do you like that? Well that makes me want to throw up. To me I would punch ‘Vomit’ not ‘Like’ but they don’t give you that option on Facebook.”

Click to expand...