• 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!

Is it bigotry when someone opposes SSM?

which ones are bigots?

  • Total voters
    65
chromium said:
It's because they (anti SSM) are the intellectual inheritors of the WBC, regardless how they try to mask it. They may as well be members. And yes, some of them have called for gays to be killed (in this thread even) or thrown around "perverts" "this is why i hate gays" and even sent me a message filled with "faggot". Hate is all the same

And the only reason they don't use "fag" in that context upstairs is they might get suspended. Doubtful, given it didn't happen to the asshole who messaged me, but you never know
Click to expand...

I suggest you keep you self-serving "fag" comments to yourself, and quit playing the victim role.
 
Opposing SSM is not bigoted.

There's nothing "bigoted" about having morals, ethics and standards.
 
Logicman said:
I suggest you keep you self-serving "fag" comments to yourself, and quit playing the victim role.
Click to expand...

How is it self serving, so i can expose you for being hateful? You've already accomplished that on your own, whether you use that word or not. And what victim? Equal rights is happening regardless of any opposition on this forum, that's for sure
 
Logicman said:
I have the preponderance of the evidence on my side.

You have knee-jerk denial.
Click to expand...

No you don't. You have a bunch of dead people who said some things thousands of years ago, that was then changed by multiple other people, and then that you believe translates to a God thinking a certain way. That isn't facts or evidence.
 
The Baron said:
Opposing SSM is not bigoted.

There's nothing "bigoted" about having morals, ethics and standards.
Click to expand...

Since "morals, ethics and standards" are all subjective and something every single person on this planet has, that means those things have absolutely nothing to do with whether opposing ssm is bigoted.
 
The Baron said:
Opposing SSM is not bigoted.

There's nothing "bigoted" about having morals, ethics and standards.
Click to expand...

are you suggesting that peoples morals, ethics and standards cant be bigoted?
that might be the on of the most dishonest and mentally inept suggestions i have ever heard

the klan lynchg black people because of thier morals ethics and standards . . . . i didnt know until now it wasnt bigotry, thanks!!!!!
 
AGENT J said:
links? proof? you have none
Click to expand...
You can't link to his proof, but when god shows up to bitch-slap the truth into you you'll know then, oh yes.



Sorry...:mrgreen:
 
roguenuke said:
Since "morals, ethics and standards" are all subjective and something every single person on this planet has, that means those things have absolutely nothing to do with whether opposing ssm is bigoted.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't really think that! IF that were the case, someone may come along and decide that it's morally etical and "okay" to kill gay people.

But, you're probably right. I mean, that would never happen (Nazism, Communism). Women would never have acid thrown in thier face simply for showing thier faces (Islam). Women couldn't be gang-raped only to be killed by thier own fathers and brothers for "dishonoring" the family (Islam). Women wouldn't have thier genitals cut-off simply for being female (Islam). Women wouldn't be considered of the same value as dogs (India). New mothers wouldn't have thier breast cut-off so they couldn't feed thier new born children (Darfur).

Again, your probably right. People should be able to choose thier own morals and ethics.

It's working wonderfully so far!
 
The Baron said:


I hope you don't really think that! IF that were the case, someone may come along and decide that it's morally etical and "okay" to kill gay people.

But, you're probably right. I mean, that would never happen (Nazism, Communism). Women would never have acid thrown in thier face simply for showing thier faces (Islam). Women couldn't be gang-raped only to be killed by thier own fathers and brothers for "dishonoring" the family (Islam). Women wouldn't have thier genitals cut-off simply for being female (Islam). Women wouldn't be considered of the same value as dogs (India). New mothers wouldn't have thier breast cut-off so they couldn't feed thier new born children (Darfur).

Again, your probably right. People should be able to choose thier own morals and ethics.

It's working wonderfully so far!
Click to expand...

People already do believe it is morally okay, ethical to kill gay people (Uganda anyone? laws we have had in the past regarding homosexuals). The key here is that we have the morals of the majority, the vast majority that feel it is wrong.

All said and done, that is what our laws come down to, what morals we are willing to uphold as law and enforce. It is possible that sometime in the future it may be viewed as morally wrong to have heterosexual sex and people having sex with each other will be put to death.

All your examples are proving that morality is subjective, morals and ethics are not universal.
 
chromium said:
How is it self serving, so i can expose you for being hateful? You've already accomplished that on your own, whether you use that word or not. And what victim? Equal rights is happening regardless of any opposition on this forum, that's for sure
Click to expand...

Tell it to somebody who buys into your folly.
 
Logicman said:
Tell it to somebody who buys into your folly.
Click to expand...
I could have responded to several of your posts with an exact quote of what you just said.



Yes, I am damn well saying that calling SSM bad is folly.
 
the mark said:
you can't link to his proof, but when god shows up to bitch-slap the truth into you you'll know then, oh yes.



Sorry...:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

lol :D
 
roguenuke said:
People already do believe it is morally okay, ethical to kill gay people (Uganda anyone? laws we have had in the past regarding homosexuals).
Click to expand...

So you’re making my argument?

Really?

roguenuke said:
The key here is that we have the morals of the majority, the vast majority that feel it is wrong.
Click to expand...

“Morals of the majority”?

Are you serious?

Oh, please tell me about the “morals of the majority” in Nazi Germany!

And I can’t wait to hear about the “morals of the majority” (or even the minority depending on the state) during the slavery days of the Old South!

“Morals of the majority”…laughably stupid.

roguenuke said:
All said and done, that is what our laws come down to, what morals we are willing to uphold as law and enforce.
Click to expand...

You better hit your knees and pray that our laws are based upon much more than that or we will end-up no better than Nazi Germany or the Old South.

roguenuke said:
All your examples are proving that morality is subjective, morals and ethics are not universal.
Click to expand...

Which is, once again, why you should hit your knees and pray that our laws be based upon something far greater than the “morals of the majority”.
 
The Baron said:


So you’re making my argument?

Really?

“Morals of the majority”?

Are you serious?

Oh, please tell me about the “morals of the majority” in Nazi Germany!

And I can’t wait to hear about the “morals of the majority” (or even the minority depending on the state) during the slavery days of the Old South!

“Morals of the majority”…laughably stupid.

You better hit your knees and pray that our laws are based upon much more than that or we will end-up no better than Nazi Germany or the Old South.

Which is, once again, why you should hit your knees and pray that our laws be based upon something far greater than the “morals of the majority”.
Click to expand...

This was a pointless post. Those places you mentioned from the past also go to show that moralities are different for different times and/or places.

And I don't need to "hit my knees" for anything. I know what set of morals I am willing to fight for and against. We are better than those places because enough people have changed those moralities of the past. It could happen again, but that is why people need to fight against it, and no one needs religion to keep their morals "straight". Religion helps some people, but also has been used against people as well. Look at the OT and see how many people it says should die due to various "sins". Look at Westboro Baptist group.
 
roguenuke said:
This was a pointless post. Those places you mentioned from the past also go to show that moralities are different for different times and/or places.
Click to expand...

An yet you’re ignoring my previous post which details many horrors that are happening today. Your failure to grasp that the “morals of the majority” can change so quickly that they simply do not exist.

And yet you prefer to cling to your own petty ideas about morality and do so at the expense of others. After all, what do you care if women have acid thrown in their face or are gang-raped only to be murdered by their own family for “dishonoring” them? What do you care if females have their genitals cut-off simply because they are female or have their breast cut-off so they can’t feed their newborns. These atrocities are happening today but you don’t want to recognize these horrors (from my post no. 287) because they prove that your “morals of the majority” are as petty and fundamentally stupid and your insistence on clinging to them.

If there is a not a standard for our morals then there are only opinions.
 
The Baron said:


An yet you’re ignoring my previous post which details many horrors that are happening today. Your failure to grasp that the “morals of the majority” can change so quickly that they simply do not exist.

And yet you prefer to cling to your own petty ideas about morality and do so at the expense of others. After all, what do you care if women have acid thrown in their face or are gang-raped only to be murdered by their own family for “dishonoring” them? What do you care if females have their genitals cut-off simply because they are female or have their breast cut-off so they can’t feed their newborns. These atrocities are happening today but you don’t want to recognize these horrors (from my post no. 287) because they prove that your “morals of the majority” are as petty and fundamentally stupid and your insistence on clinging to them.

If there is a not a standard for our morals then there are only opinions.
Click to expand...

Horrors have happened throughout history. We simply find out about more of them now. Do you think the past was full of peace and prosperity and everyone being treated so well and no one ever killed anyone?
 
roguenuke said:
Horrors have happened throughout history. We simply find out about more of them now. Do you think the past was full of peace and prosperity and everyone being treated so well and no one ever killed anyone?
Click to expand...

Vandalism comes from the Vandals and that is really unfair as the Vandals greeted the occupants of cities that they sacked with compassion and they planted lots of flowers too... then this term Vandalism becomes a negative thing?? UNFAIR.
 
roguenuke said:
Horrors have happened throughout history. We simply find out about more of them now. Do you think the past was full of peace and prosperity and everyone being treated so well and no one ever killed anyone?
Click to expand...

Of course not, so please continue to tell me about your "morals of the majority".
 
The Baron said:
Of course not, so please continue to tell me about your "morals of the majority".
Click to expand...

What do you wish to know about them? Owning slaves did not violate the morals of the majority in the past, which is why it was legal. Evidence that morals are subjective and change over time. We, as a country, have narrowed down legal morality to certain general principles, for the most part, based mainly on if something causes harm (although there are some exceptions to this). Harm can be relative though. And we certainly have some areas to work on.
 
roguenuke said:
What do you wish to know about them? Owning slaves did not violate the morals of the majority in the past, which is why it was legal.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why you never rely on the “morals of the majority”! In the1800s it was owning slaves, in the 1900s it was kill the Jews, gays, morons and / or anyone who opposed Socialism / Communism. Today it’s killing babies in the womb (although they possess all the qualities of life).

You believe that morality can be found within man.

In can’t because man is a flawed moral creature as history so amply demonstrates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom