I did some trolling on NOM's channel. Not something I usually do, but that felt good. I don't think I feel guilty for insulting those bigots.
How the fuck does the marriage of two people, regardless of their sexual orientation, in any way damage your rights? I find it mildly funny that throughout the commercial, they ramble on about feeling threatened without citing any actual "problems". Pathetic scum.
How the fuck does the marriage of two people, regardless of their sexual orientation, in any way damage your rights? I find it mildly funny that throughout the commercial, they ramble on about feeling threatened without citing any actual "problems". Pathetic scum.
Projects:
Random Stuff.
Random Stuff.
KermMartian wrote:
I was ironically disgusted by their appropriate of the phrase "a rainbow coalition". 
Yeah, noticed that too
Quote:
Being bigoted against bigots makes you a bigot.
I know I'm being a hypocrite... But I'll gladly make an exception for these guys.
Projects:
Random Stuff.
Random Stuff.
I am proudly bigoted against bigots.
I really dont give a flying f**K on this. No one cares about stupid people trying to get attention... imo gay people should have the exact same rights regarding marriage and life and etc...
these people are stupid and insignificant, the end
I really dont give a flying f**K on this. No one cares about stupid people trying to get attention... imo gay people should have the exact same rights regarding marriage and life and etc...
these people are stupid and insignificant, the end
qazz42 wrote:
I am proudly bigoted against bigots.... these people are stupid and insignificant, the end
All this remark does is show your own ignorance of a culture different from your own. By allowing yourself to dehumanize another group of human beings as "stupid insignificant bigots" you're falling prey to the same set of reasoning and propaganda that has been used to justify genocide throughout history. To quote O.S.C., "The difference between ramen and varelse is not in the creature judged, but in the creature judging. When we declare an alien species to be ramen, it does not mean that they have passed a threshold of moral maturity. It means that we have. " I'm not going to try and deny that there are bigots among those opposed to gay marriage, but they are in the extreme minority. When Westboro Baptist (of God hates fags infamy) showed up here in VT to protest the gay marriage bill, my conservative baptist Bible study and our pastor had long conversations about counter-protesting because the primary message of the Christian faith is about a loving God and that bigotry is inexcusable because we are all His image-bearers. You can believe that someone is living a spiritually and emotionally unhealthy lifestyle and be opposed to giving it official sanction or teaching that is healthy and fulfilling without hating the people who live it. And until you understand that you will never be able to engage in productive dialogue on this topic. The same goes for most of the rest of the remarks in this thread. Until you take the time to have a deep understanding the world-view of your opponents rather than condemning it out of hand, you're going to be doing nothing but stirring up bad feelings.
Quote:
I really dont give a flying f**K on this. No one cares about stupid people trying to get attention... imo gay people should have the exact same rights regarding marriage and life and etc...
I agree, but the government shouldn't be playing any role in regulating marriage, nor should it be dictating morals to its citizens through elementary school curricula.
"I don't believe my kids should be taught in school that niggers are equal to the white man"[/historical parallel]
elfprince13 wrote:
qazz42 wrote:
I am proudly bigoted against bigots.... these people are stupid and insignificant, the end
All this remark does is show your own ignorance of a culture different from your own. By allowing yourself to dehumanize another group of human beings as "stupid insignificant bigots" you're falling prey to the same set of reasoning and propaganda that has been used to justify genocide throughout history. To quote O.S.C., "The difference between ramen and varelse is not in the creature judged, but in the creature judging. When we declare an alien species to be ramen, it does not mean that they have passed a threshold of moral maturity. It means that we have. " I'm not going to try and deny that there are bigots among those opposed to gay marriage, but they are in the extreme minority. When Westboro Baptist (of God hates fags infamy) showed up here in VT to protest the gay marriage bill, my conservative baptist Bible study and our pastor had long conversations about counter-protesting because the primary message of the Christian faith is about a loving God and that bigotry is inexcusable because we are all His image-bearers. You can believe that someone is living a spiritually and emotionally unhealthy lifestyle and be opposed to giving it official sanction or teaching that is healthy and fulfilling without hating the people who live it. And until you understand that you will never be able to engage in productive dialogue on this topic. The same goes for most of the rest of the remarks in this thread. Until you take the time to have a deep understanding the world-view of your opponents rather than condemning it out of hand, you're going to be doing nothing but stirring up bad feelings.
Quote:
I really dont give a flying f**K on this. No one cares about stupid people trying to get attention... imo gay people should have the exact same rights regarding marriage and life and etc...
I agree, but the government shouldn't be playing any role in regulating marriage, nor should it be dictating morals to its citizens through elementary school curricula.
Well, there problem HERE is that when I was in elementary school and or middle school I learned math and stuff, there is not a single school I have seen, so far, that even talks about gay marriage. In all, these people probably will insist on believing false things they made in their paranoid minds, and probably nothing you can say will change their minds. I have seen people like this in my school, no matter what I try to explain or others try to explain, they insist that everyone is trying to "make them gay"
oh, and yes, I was learning how this 2 year old kid was beaten and killed because his mom's boyfriend predicted he was too gay, or some shit like that, that is a prime example of what happens when bigots are left unchecked.... and excuse me for saying I am a bigot against bigots, I really mean that I am intolerant of them to the point where I will just ignore them (keep in mind these are the people who no matter what you say, will not budge, the ones who have an open mind are ok with me because they have hope), not hating them in such a way I want to beat them and kill them because I am paranoid about them. my apologizes for that `-`
Dshiz, sadly, that is true and there are people still like that. America really isnt so tolerant as it claims, all throughout history there have been killings after killings because bigoted people get paranoid over different people time and time again.
DShiznit wrote:
"I don't believe my kids should be taught in school that niggers are equal to the white man"[/historical parallel]
I'm tempted to simply respond with this:
But I think you are genuine in believing that to be a parallel, which just leaves me to wonder at how someone who is so keenly interested in the American political scene is so out of touch with the beliefs of those driving it.
Quote:
Well, there problem HERE is that when I was in elementary school and or middle school I learned math and stuff, there is not a single school I have seen, so far, that even talks about gay marriage. In all, these people probably will insist on believing false things they made in their paranoid minds, and probably nothing you can say will change their minds.
That varies pretty widely from state to state and district to district.
Quote:
I have seen people like this in my school, no matter what I try to explain or others try to explain, they insist that everyone is trying to "make them gay"
My question for you is this: do these people seem like they hate gays? Or like they are terrified of them?
Quote:
oh, and yes, I was learning how this 2 year old kid was beaten and killed because his mom's boyfriend predicted he was too gay, or some a like that, that is a prime example of what happens when bigots are left unchecked....
I'm not saying you should allow bigotry to go unchecked, I'm saying that you shouldn't debase yourself to the level of being yourself a bigot.
Quote:
and excuse me for saying I am a bigot against bigots, I really mean that I am intolerant of them to the point where I will just ignore them (keep in mind these are the people who no matter what you say, will not budge, the ones who have an open mind are ok with me because they have hope), not hating them in such a way I want to beat them and kill them because I am paranoid about them. my apologizes for that `-`
Well spoken. Just remember not to be quick to judge the motives or character of other people without first understanding them.
elfprince13 wrote:
qazz42 wrote:
I am proudly bigoted against bigots.... these people are stupid and insignificant, the end
I'm not going to try and deny that there are bigots among those opposed to gay marriage, but they are in the extreme minority.
I wouldn't try to frame it this way, because most people are going to disagree with you. I mean, you're entitled to think that everybody is just exaggerating the issue, but you aren't going to convince most people that bigotry is a small occurrence among the religious community. People aren't spontaneously making these things up because they're largely inclined to hate religion - this bigotry is precedented over centuries of civil rights struggles.
I'm not trying to sound anti-religious. I don't really care what anyone believes in. That's entirely their prerogative. As long as they aren't trying to outlaw my expression, my right to be who I am, etc. I could care less. Pressing to forbid same-sex marriage is such a violation of my rights, because it entirely removes the option of marriage for me. I can't very well be wed to a member of the opposite sex when there is neither any attraction, nor any emotional connection. Further on the matter, marriage is not an institution which belongs to a single culture. It's not a Christian marriage just because it's occurring in the U.S. We're a melting pot of different cultural backgrounds without a single identity.
Even further into the matter, we are a country that strictly observes a separation of church and state affairs. If most Americans are going to say that marriage is a religious institution, then we need to completely remove the government from it. That means absolutely no state-recognition of marriages - no legal definition what-so-ever. Then it becomes a matter of finding a church to wed you, whether you're a heterosexual couple, a same-sex couple, an interspecies couple, a polyamorous party of some sort, etc. That kind of solves the issue for everybody, not withstanding some serious letdowns with the lack of tax benefits, visitation rights, and so forth...
Any institution offered by our government needs to be made available to everybody. We can't be a free country and simultaneously treat people like second-class citizens because of race, religion, sexuality, etc. So, this is my ultimatum to people opposed to same-sex marriage: Either leave it alone because it's an institution of the government, or altogether remove it from the government and sit back while churches of other religious beliefs and denominations perform whatever ceremonies they want, on whomever they want.
Well said.
Regarding marriage though, there is one question that has been bugging me for a while, and I can't really come up with an answer. In Mexico, the age of consent is 12. Let's say someone marries a 12-year-old in Mexico, and it's recognized by the Mexican government, etc. If that couple moves to the U.S., does the government then need to recognize a marriage between an adult man and a 12-year-old? If that marriage is then recognized, is it then right to press statutory rape charges when that relationship is consummated?
Regarding marriage though, there is one question that has been bugging me for a while, and I can't really come up with an answer. In Mexico, the age of consent is 12. Let's say someone marries a 12-year-old in Mexico, and it's recognized by the Mexican government, etc. If that couple moves to the U.S., does the government then need to recognize a marriage between an adult man and a 12-year-old? If that marriage is then recognized, is it then right to press statutory rape charges when that relationship is consummated?
DShiznit wrote:
Well said.
Regarding marriage though, there is one question that has been bugging me for a while, and I can't really come up with an answer. In Mexico, the age of consent is 12. Let's say someone marries a 12-year-old in Mexico, and it's recognized by the Mexican government, etc. If that couple moves to the U.S., does the government then need to recognize a marriage between an adult man and a 12-year-old? If that marriage is then recognized, is it then right to press statutory rape charges when that relationship is consummated?
Regarding marriage though, there is one question that has been bugging me for a while, and I can't really come up with an answer. In Mexico, the age of consent is 12. Let's say someone marries a 12-year-old in Mexico, and it's recognized by the Mexican government, etc. If that couple moves to the U.S., does the government then need to recognize a marriage between an adult man and a 12-year-old? If that marriage is then recognized, is it then right to press statutory rape charges when that relationship is consummated?
That's hard to say becuase then you'd have to consider the Full faith and credit clause and whether or not it applies to the situation. {ersonally I don't think they could press charges just because they are married after all legally. It's just like if you're married out of a country and you move to another country the marriage is still perfectly valid.
Zera wrote:
I wouldn't try to frame it this way, because most people are going to disagree with you. I mean, you're entitled to think that everybody is just exaggerating the issue, but you aren't going to convince most people that bigotry is a small occurrence among the religious community.
That would make most people wrong
Zera wrote:
People aren't spontaneously making these things up because they're largely inclined to hate religion
No, what they do instead is make sure the nutjobs (link) get all the attention.
Zera wrote:
This bigotry is precedented over centuries of civil rights struggles.
Allow me to call b.s. I'd cite more examples, but I ran out of words in that sentence to turn into links. But as far as bigotry goes, more Christians (>70 million) were killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century then the combined totals of the previous 19 centuries. Similarly Buddhists and Jews have been subject to some pretty well known massacres at the hands of the unreligious in the last 100 years.
Zera wrote:
Even further into the matter, we are a country that strictly observes a separation of church and state affairs. If most Americans are going to say that marriage is a religious institution, then we need to completely remove the government from it. That means absolutely no state-recognition of marriages - no legal definition what-so-ever. Then it becomes a matter of finding a church to wed you, whether you're a heterosexual couple, a same-sex couple, an interspecies couple, a polyamorous party of some sort, etc. That kind of solves the issue for everybody, not withstanding some serious letdowns with the lack of tax benefits, visitation rights, and so forth...
Welcome to life as a libertarian. We've been saying this for years. And have you covered on the tax issue as well. But you should know that, since we've discussed before (link).
elfprince13 wrote:
I'd cite more examples, but I ran out of words in that sentence to turn into links. But as far as bigotry goes, more Christians (>70 million) were killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century then the combined totals of the previous 19 centuries. Similarly Buddhists and Jews have been subject to some pretty well known massacres at the hands of the unreligious in the last 100 years.
Were those the result of religious persecution or political persecution? I think once you remove political Stalinism and the various other pseudo-communist regimes, you'll find that those numbers drop rather dramatically.
Qwerty.55 wrote:
Were those the result of religious persecution or political persecution? I think once you remove political Stalinism and the various other pseudo-communist regimes, you'll find that those numbers drop rather dramatically.
In what way are you differentiating those two? The group in power is employing political advantage to persecute another group on religious grounds. That's how it's always worked.
elfprince13 wrote:
No, what they do instead is make sure the nutjobs (link) get all the attention.
If you're saying there's some link between media portrayals of so-called religious people, (e.g., hate-groups like Westboro) and societal acceptance of religion in society, that's turning a blind eye to the fact that most people are religious. They aren't going to side against one another because of a few nut-jobs who get way too much air-time.
Groups like Westboro get attention because they're radical. That's what sells in our society. You can't say the media is responsible, or that they're intentionally trying to create some deviancy amplification spiral, when the media is only catering to the preferences of its audience. If this stuff didn't sell, they wouldn't cover it.
On the subject of Westboro - I don't even believe they are a hate group. I think they're using reverse psychology tactics and playing on reactance (see Wikipedia if you're not familiar with the psychological concept) to create sympathy for LGBT rights. They're creating this outlandish caricature of religion, and using it in the most vocal and disruptive manner possible to make LGBT people seem unfairly persecuted. People generally don't like to be told what to do, or what to believe. If you have all these crazies picketing funerals with signs reading, "You're going to burn in Hell for harboring fags," then you're likely going to be a lot friendly toward gay people just out of spite toward the crazies.
Zera wrote:
I'd cite more examples, but I ran out of words in that sentence to turn into links. But as far as bigotry goes, more Christians (>70 million) were killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century then the combined totals of the previous 19 centuries. Similarly Buddhists and Jews have been subject to some pretty well known massacres at the hands of the unreligious in the last 100 years.
I have no idea what you're talking about; and it looks like you're trying to derail us into a shouting contest that's going to involve a lot of revisionist history. Pass.
Quote:
Welcome to life as a libertarian.
Left-libertarian. We probably don't agree on many economic points.
I'm still glad that, despite whatever you might feel toward other people based on their religious beliefs or sexual orientation, you aren't going to try to control their lives... I think.
0rac343 wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
Well said.
Regarding marriage though, there is one question that has been bugging me for a while, and I can't really come up with an answer. In Mexico, the age of consent is 12. Let's say someone marries a 12-year-old in Mexico, and it's recognized by the Mexican government, etc. If that couple moves to the U.S., does the government then need to recognize a marriage between an adult man and a 12-year-old? If that marriage is then recognized, is it then right to press statutory rape charges when that relationship is consummated?
Regarding marriage though, there is one question that has been bugging me for a while, and I can't really come up with an answer. In Mexico, the age of consent is 12. Let's say someone marries a 12-year-old in Mexico, and it's recognized by the Mexican government, etc. If that couple moves to the U.S., does the government then need to recognize a marriage between an adult man and a 12-year-old? If that marriage is then recognized, is it then right to press statutory rape charges when that relationship is consummated?
That's hard to say becuase then you'd have to consider the Full faith and credit clause and whether or not it applies to the situation. {ersonally I don't think they could press charges just because they are married after all legally. It's just like if you're married out of a country and you move to another country the marriage is still perfectly valid.
My only problem with this is that it's still a grievous sex crime for anyone else to fork a 12-year-old, so why should foreign law take precedent?
To tie this in to the topic at hand, what if a gay couple gets married in Europe, moves to the U.S, and later Utah(or some other dumbf--kistan province) to get away from city life? Does the federal government, and the not-so-gay-friendly state government need to recognize their union? If their union is then recognized by a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, do you then have to recognize all same-sex unions in the state?
Register to Join the Conversation
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement