starcraft said:
nojustno said:
wfz said:
Pics?
Anyways, that's pretty lame that she was booed off and called such names by people who are insecure and/or overly sensitive freaks.
It's her opinion and she's entitled to it, everyone else can **** off. |
True, entitled 100%. She's still a bigot for having that opinion though and certainly didn't deserve to win.
|
I am going to do this as politely as possible. With the sole exception of you, everyone in this thread has refrained from making personal attacks. Cut it out, now, or I will report you.
Excuse me? How is someone a bigot for agreeing with the majority of Americans and the VAST majority of humans worldwide?
Because the amount of people who support something has nothing to do with it's validity? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? You're using one, it's called ad populum. It doesn't matter how many people believe it.
I am familiar with both concepts. Neither are applicable to this post. I fully agree that someone who wishes to deny homosexuals economic and social rights is a bigot. Someone who simply recognises that something has always been defined as something, and that that something and its definition are of great importance to the vast majority of people on this planet, is not a bigot. They, unlike those who call them intolerant, are attempting to find a reasonable way to grant everyone their rights without defiling an insititution that for all its good and bad means a great deal to a great many people and has done for millenia.
Ad populum isn't applicable? But you tried to use it to defend her! How does calling marriage between a man and a woman accomplish anything but satisfying ignorant bias? I don't care if an institution is getting eradicated. Equal rights are more important than silly concepts.
I have a serious, SERIOUS problem with governments anywhere that persecute gays, attack gays, or dont offer gays the same legal and economic entitlements that are offered to heterosexual couples. But marriage is an entirely different beast. For MILLENIA it has been the union of a man and a woman.
Who cares? I don't. There's no reason to inhibit gay marriage just to protect someone elses flawed concept.
Defeated above.
Deafeated? No, defended. There's a difference.
There is no sense in pretending that it has always been pretty. There have been marriages for war, diplomacy, money and sex. But at it's core marriage is and has always been about a man and a woman loving eachother formally recognising that fact before their peers and in many cases before their religion.
No. At 'it's core' marriage, was and always has been, a way to bind people legally, socially, or religiously. In our country it's a legal thing, so it should be defined as such. There's no secular argument against gay marriage that makes sense, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed. They deserve equal right to marry someone they are attracted to, either both gay and straight marriages are called marriages, or they're both called civil unions.
I beg your pardon? For millenia the vast majority of marriages were for love, or strong affection. Just because the nobles, kings and tyrants you read about in history books married for power, greed and diplomacy doesnt mean the peasants they governed did. Even where the marriages were for convenience, they were between a man and a woman. Your intolerant nature makes you incapable or realising just how much that means to so many billions of people.
You're not getting my pardon, I don't care if you beg. You keep calling me intolerant. What am I intolerant of? Not wanting people to deny homosexuals equal rights just because they have a silly notion that marriage should only be between a man and a women?
I might add, that marriage exists largely because of the support of religious infrastructure of all creeds, the same infrastructures that proponents of gay marriage are now attempting to silence and label as bigots.
Marriage exists because it's of benefit to people who are married. Gay people want the same benefits, and they want it to have the same name. It's only fair. As for people who are against that, they are bigots. Or maybe I should use a different word? Is assholes better? Douchebags? No, I'll stick with bigot.
Lets take your simple argument for a moment. You completely defile the massive majority of people who would be greatly insulted by labelling a gay union a marriage and call them intolerant. You say this is because they get benefits homosexuals dont. But if they ask homosexuals to have every right they have, but have a different name for it, supporters of gay marriage are somehow being tolerant by demanding the same name? Why is that only fair? Where is the secular argument that says that people that argue this can change the way something has been defined for all of civilisation when it is so important to the majority? Are they not bigots? Is assholes better? Douchebags? No I'll stick with bigots.
Don't you see? You're doing exactly what HappySquirrel accussed the gay-marriage movement of. You cannot construct an arguement. You're right because you're right and anyone that disagrees with you is intolerant.
I'm right because there's NO REASON TO DENY GAYS THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED, OTHER THAN PEOPLES STUPID PRECONCEPTIONS OF MARRIAGE. Marriage is a legal contract, and should be allowed to gays, and it should be called marriage. This is my argument, constructed. Now, instead of calling me intolerant, why don't you construct an argument of your own that tells me that harm gay marriage will do. Mental harm to illogical people with flawed concepts of marriage does not count, they can just get over it and move on with the rest of society into a future where we all have equal rights. DEFINITIONS DO NOT MATTER, THEY CAN BE CHANGED AND THEY SHOULD BE CHANGED IF THEIR CURRENT DEFINITION IS UNFAIR.
I have every support for civil unions or equivelant economic and social contracts for gay and lesbian couples. We as a society should not deny those benefits too people simply because of their sexual orientation.
Good.
But in my opinion, anyone that simply cannot understand why supporters of marriage as it has always been find the idea of gay marriage wrong or offensive needs to make an effort to re-examine the many perspectives of this issue.
I understand them, but their postition is illogical. They're trying to protect silly ideas, and there's no need to.
Silly ideas like wanting to call a spade a spade even though not doing so spares billions of people offense, sadness and a sense of loss within their own marriages?
They can get over their silly cultural ideas of what marriage is, and deal with gays having equal rights. A sense of loss? If someone's marriage is degraded because gays are allowed to marry, it says more about their relationship than it does about gay marriage being a bad thing.
Anyone that feels they DO understand why supporters of gay marriage are offended and feel that it is simply because they are bigots, needs to realise their hypocracy,
I disagree. I'll call a bigot a bigot. You, just like the bigots you are supporting and defending, are doing so based on illogical reasons.
|
