- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,449
- Reaction score
- 27,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I'm not only sure, but certain that the "fact" is that being in favor of something "equal" but not religiously ordained or sanctioned via a church can hardly be called denial. Unless you are just being "obstinate or intolerant" or in, well, denial. Yip, pretty sure about that.
If it is not equal then it is not equal... I have no idea why you think that anything that the "church" has to say about this is relevant in the slightest.
Care to explain?
I just looked back at this and seriously have to ask the obvious question! You actually know women that hold these views in 2013?
As they are alive and speaking... yes.
Aside from the fact that you are mixing these anecdotal relations about these women and sexism with bigotry, I do have to agree with you.
That is wise...
That is not a valid argument! Much less one that makes people who are for some form of "marriage" being permissible and recognized by the "government" that will satisfy both sides of the marriage argument, as "bigots" and close minded people in denial and practicing an obstinate intolerance. As I said earlier in the thread, the inflexible "activist" from both sides of this argument are IMO greatly responsible for the fact that this matter has not yet been resolved when it could be. Generalizing literally everyone that does not agree with your opinion as bigots is still IMO a HUGE part of the problem. Obstinance and intolerance in the name of supposedly calling out the same does not accomplish much. Or am I wrong? How so? I get that doing so in a forum such as this has its allure, but in reality is it your honest opinion that stance will ever accomplish anything much less sway opinion and influence others who don't agree with the obstinate stance?
How is recognizing othe's bigotry obstinate or intolerant? You keep saying this and it makes no sense to me.
You are creating some massive tangents... care to answer this? What valid, non-bigoted reson, does anybody have to be against SSM? Of course, they can make up some bogus reasons to appear (either to themselves or to others) as tolerant but just having legal reasons... but anybody with common sense knows that this is simply horse****.