NationStates Jolt Archive

no same sex marriage its not right you people are crazy

Ok stop the thread, this guy's arguement just ended-all.

But srsly, an hero. And take your genetically inferior genes with you.

Is having a strip club in your neighborhood harmless? It's 100% consensual after all. No one is forced to work or visit there. Liquor stores are also consensual. But many people feel that these establishments harm the moral fabric of society. I'll be the first to admit that I can't draw an exact cause-and-effect chain to show HOW they harm society, but casual observation tells me that I don't want to live in a neighborhood with lots of liquor stores and strip clubs.
Strip clubs being in bad neighborhoods, in my experience, is usually because of them not being allowed in better areas due to the unreasoning fear of seeing girls titties.
Personally, I don't agree that legalizing gay marriage would harm society. But that's me. I DO know that prohibiting gay marriage is the traditional practice. Tamper with tradition at your peril.
"Because we've always done it this way" is never a good argument.
Ever since the 1960's it has become increasingly popular to attack traditional thought. Granted, in some cases it was about time! Racial segregation and allowing male bosses to grope their female employees were also traditions, and they were bad, and good riddance to them!
So tradition is only a good thing if you agree with it?
But other traditions, such as regarding casual sex as a Bad Thing, might have been good ideas. Femminists and homosexuals have long attacked the traditional "nuclear family" as being oppressive. But since the 1960's we have witnessed a dramatic increase in divorce rates, illegitimate children, single-parent households, and violent crime. So maybe we should have left the nuclear family alone?
lets see...
Divorce rates: meh, this is, I believe, more because of too many people getting married for the sake of getting married.
Illegitimate children: Again, meh.
Single-parent households: depends upon the situation. Two parents isn't always better than one.
Violent crime: yeah, this is bad. However, I do not see how there is a causal link.
Or maybe not. Maybe these things are unrelated. Maybe they would have happened anyway. Maybe we didn't attack the traditional family enough to prevent this from happening. I don't know.
Care for some waffles? :p

Consider that, with the fall of sexism (don't take that too literally, there's still a lot of destroying of the concept less to do) the nuclear family is starting to fall apart because families started getting into -relationships- not owner/property concepts before. Further, the nuclear family concept was birthed and deathed in the 1960s. It never existed before or after. families in the late 19th century, rather were vast and sprawling affairs where the parents had as many children as conceivably possible so that they would be looked after in old age. the wife in this affair was not a 'partner' so much as she was chattel of the husband, domestic abuse was rife. Violence still happened, don't let people with rose tinted glasses tell you otherwise. But it wasn't illegal or criminal. it was a husbands privelige to his wife. and it was a whole lot easier to take it out on her than it would be to pick a fight at a bar and maybe even lose it. Once women had an escape from such a relationship, they took it. But there was still the evil tug of 'tradition' that bound many of them to their situation, miserable and powerless, so many of them remained in abusive situations long after they had gone sour and should have been ended.

That's just one reason why families have begun to collapse. Another reason is the lack of education. Families start now because the past generations were so damned scared of sex that when their children started becoming adults and actually having it, that was that. 'You had sex with someone? Well, welcome to mr and mrs whoever, because she's pregnant'. And this situation is getting WORSE. As a response to children not being married off to their partners at young ages and having the freedom to explore, prior generations have reflexively reacted to crush and destroy any information that might help them make informed choices (see: abstinence only for further information). Of course casual sex causes misery when you consider the diseases that might spring forth from it, never mind the lifetime commitment of a child.

Now look at a counterexample where sex is somewhere that's actually pursued with a modicum of intelligence, without the stupid screaming hysteria of thousands of old men and women fearful that 'having fun will unravel society'. Holland! Holland is a society where parents will actually talk with their children about things like sex in a mature way (by and large). That's why children there will actually wear a condom and use other forms of contraceptive -at the same time- and correspondingly things that tend to start unhappy families like SURPRISE KIDS between casual partners are fairly low.

Infact, one of the prime reasons, more than any other thing in my opinion now, as to why families are breaking up with increased regularity is simple. You can end them now without the social stigma that forced people to stay together before. being divorced isn't considered a terrible thing, and nor should it be. people will get together in the throes of love and passion where all they can see in others is the perfection that shines back and then when it all wears off and they find out they can't really stand the sight of each other they just end it. And there are some who, when that passion wears off finally, don't end it, but find they still rather enjoy each others company and last as families for a long time. And another group that whilst not having hate or like for their partners find out that really, the only reason they were interested in their partner was their sexual skills, and part with no real feeling.

So yeah. I have nothing really to say to the rest of your argument because I've no interest in getting involved with it - but please don't blame sex for the collapse of society - its peoples fearful reactions around it, the increase of peoples (especially womens) freedom both in general and to actually try things out without HAVING to make a lifetime commitment all the time, that's leading to the disintegration of permanent families being everywhere. And don't even get me started on the silly argument that humans were meant to just have one partner for 80 years. More families would last if people got over the mad jealousy and stupid anger that comes with outside of relationship sex. Nobody is genetically wired to spend their entire life just being in a relationship with a single person. other people will continue to be attractive on multiple levels even after the point of commitment. I'm going to stop there. I apologise for the rambling.
tl;dr
*stops blaming sex for the downfall of society*
*starts blaming Jordy*
In all seriousness I did actually read it and very well stated

Huzzah! One more step for America towards rationalism and enlightenment! :)

no same sex marriage its not right you people are crazy

Por qué no te callas?

well, I said at the time it was my cat but...let's be honest. I mean, Poli and I walked in, together, 45 minutes late.

The whole "cat" story...wasn't really fooling anyone was it?
Oh, no, we weren't fooled at all because we all know:

The problem wasn't so much the lawyer as the lawyer's cat, and, well, NA may claim to be a dom, but he's totally his cat's bitch.

There is really nothing else do do in Maine except have sex so i think everyone just wants to keep their options open.

Por qué no te callas?

Did you ask in Spanish? That's the devil's language you know.

I'm back. <snip bloodbath>
Stupid sleep. I missed another party.

But then, feh -- what can I do with a person like you? I read your long posts, and every single point you made in them is fallacious. Do I have nothing but time to waste picking through your Whole Earth Catalogue of Crappy Arguments? It's too much. Anyway, you'd just ignore what I say, just as you've ignored every other counter argument posted to you so far.

So instead I'm going to tell you exactly what you are doing wrong and see if that clues you that you are never going to get anywhere unless you improve your technique.

1) UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS OF FACT. Throughout this thread, you have made categoric statements about things or conditions you claim exist. Yet you have provided no links to any sources of information that would make us think you are not just making it all up.

You make statements about what religious people think, yet you show us neither scripture nor the doctrine of any church nor poll numbers, nothing to show which religious people you are talking about and what they actually think.

You make statements about how and why society denies rights to one group or another, yet you link no references to any legal or governmental source, no philosophical articles, nothing to show that rights are in fact denied to any group and, if so, where, why, by whom, under what conditions, etc.

You make claims about abolition and the Civil War, and you claim that you have recently studied it, yet you fail to link us to any historical or analytical source to back up your claims about how much more effective it is to be nice and cooperative with oppressors than to just enforce the law upon them. One would think that if you had just recently studied this subject, you would be able to back that one up.

Tell us why we should take your word for anything, since when challenged, you fail to back up your claims. Yet when your claims are dismissed because they are unsupported, you cry foul.

2) DEMONIZING THE SUBJECT. Throughout this thread, you have compared homosexuals and homosexuality to a variety things in setting up analogies for why it is okay to deny gays marriage rights. All of your comparisons have been insulting. You have likened homosexuality to murder, to child molestation, to bestiality, to alcoholism/addiction, and most recently to the sex/porn industry. You have claimed that gays seeking equal rights are "attacking" traditional society and being "obnoxious" and "intolerant." All of this has but one effect -- to cast homosexuals in such an overwhelmingly negative light that there is no positive way to discuss the issue. You seek to force supporters of gay rights into a defensive position, trying to make us defend against such slanders instead of positively address the issue of legal equality. And to pull this trick, you express a disturbing extreme of hostility against gays.

3) DEMONIZING YOUR OPPONENTS. Rather than address and pursue the debate as it develops through point and counter-point, you instead choose to denounce your opponents with accusations that we are personally attacking you whenever a counterargument is posted, whenever one of your own arguments is accurately critiqued. This is a trick of deflection, trying to change the subject from being about the thread topic to being an interpersonal fight over tactics and procedures. It is an attempt to avoid address points you clearly cannot win. It is related to:

4) APPEALS TO EMOTION. Your persistant victim act, in which any opposition to your argument is treated as an attack against you personally, is glazed over heavily with a lot of "Poor me! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" bullshit. Do you think that if you act pitiful enough, we'll feel guilty about taking apart your lousy arguments, and conceded the debate to you, just to make you feel better?

This is similar to your arguments that it's more effective to be nice to oppressors, that if we just let them keep on oppressing people until they work it out of their system somehow, we'll do better than if we just enforce the law that already exists. At the same time that you push such arguments, you also assert that any who would opt for the law instead are being cruel somehow to oppressors. You've gone on and on about the suffering of the poor little dears no longer permitted to be shits towards others, as if you think society should feel so bad for them that we allow them to strip us of our rights, make our lives hell, just so they'll feel better about their own lot.

5) IGNORING THE ACTUAL DEBATE. You post an argument. Others post counter-arguments. What you should do then is defend your argument by attacking the counter-argument, showing by example and/or logic/analysis how the counter-argument fails to really counter your points. You do not do that.

Instead, you throw little hissy fits over how mean everyone is to you. Then you go away to commute or watch a movie or whatever. Then you come back and post the same crap all over again, without any reference to the counter-arguments that have gone before.

This is not debating. This is a one-person act going on next to the debate. This is a demonstration of how long you can chase yourself in circles.

6) INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. Your transparently false claims of playing Devil's Advocate are perhaps the most annoying part of your performance.

A person who is really playing Devil's Advocate, i.e. arguing a position they don't really agree with:

(A) would not keep it up as long and as repetitively as you are doing; they would make their points, engage the counter-points, finish presenting the argument, and sit down; and

(B) would not blame their opponents for defeating their arguments, nor complain of being personally attacked because of the way they are defeated; they would not take it personally because they are not arguing their own personal views.

Of course, a person who was playing Devil's Advocate would, presumably, know how to do that, and how to debate in general, and would not have committed any of the other errors listed herein, either.

The fact is that, taken in the context of your clear hostility towards gays, your refusal to engage the debate properly, your ridiculous accusations against your fellow posters, etc., it is clear that you are only claiming to be a Devil's Advocate and to really support gay marriage rights in an effort avoid being tagged with the Bigot label, as would be required by your arguments. It is typical of bigots that they hate being called for what they are.

I believe you are just trying to avoid personal responsibility for your own beliefs, probably because you know perfectly well that your arguments are false and that you cannot justify your real position because it is really motivated on nothing but prejudice. You want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to be able to freely present bigoted views, but never be in the uncomfortable position of being called a bigot.


And in the meantime, with all that in your repertoire, you have yet to present any argument in re gay marriage that is anything but a shallow recitation of anti-gay talking points. Can we give someone else a chance to fail at opposing gay marriage now?

Can we give someone else a chance to fail at opposing gay marriage now?

Well....i suppose I could try, My Superior Failing abilities are world renown http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif...

And don't even get me started on the silly argument that humans were meant to just have one partner for 80 years. More families would last if people got over the mad jealousy and stupid anger that comes with outside of relationship sex. Nobody is genetically wired to spend their entire life just being in a relationship with a single person. other people will continue to be attractive on multiple levels even after the point of commitment.

Oh, man, you were doing so well right up to this point! I agree with everything else you said, but it's silly to argue that NOBODY functions best in one long-term monogamous relationship. It's absolutely true that some people don't, and I see no discernible reason to try to force them to do so, but, y'know, my very devoutly Catholic grandparents were married for 60 years, and were still very much in love with each other until the day my grandmother passed away, and I find it kinda insulting to suggest that they were just stupid and didn't know that they weren't really happy that way. Some people work better in poly relationships, and that's cool. Some people, including me, prefer monogamy, and that's cool too, and not being okay with sex outside one's relationship doesn't make us stupid, any more than not wanting to have sex with women makes gay guys stupid. :)

Oh, man, you were doing so well right up to this point! I agree with everything else you said, but it's silly to argue that NOBODY functions best in one long-term monogamous relationship. It's absolutely true that some people don't, and I see no discernible reason to try to force them to do so, but, y'know, my very devoutly Catholic grandparents were married for 60 years, and were still very much in love with each other until the day my grandmother passed away, and I find it kinda insulting to suggest that they were just stupid and didn't know that they weren't really happy that way. Some people work better in poly relationships, and that's cool. Some people, including me, prefer monogamy, and that's cool too, and not being okay with sex outside one's relationship doesn't make us stupid, any more than not wanting to have sex with women makes gay guys stupid. :)

I am stunned by the amazingness of this statement. If it weren't so long I would make that my signature.

Oh, man, you were doing so well right up to this point! I agree with everything else you said, but it's silly to argue that NOBODY functions best in one long-term monogamous relationship. It's absolutely true that some people don't, and I see no discernible reason to try to force them to do so, but, y'know, my very devoutly Catholic grandparents were married for 60 years, and were still very much in love with each other until the day my grandmother passed away, and I find it kinda insulting to suggest that they were just stupid and didn't know that they weren't really happy that way. Some people work better in poly relationships, and that's cool. Some people, including me, prefer monogamy, and that's cool too, and not being okay with sex outside one's relationship doesn't make us stupid, any more than not wanting to have sex with women makes gay guys stupid. :)

My apologies. Often when I make huge posts like that I misphrase some things or just plain get them wrong. This was in the latter camp and I know better. Actually, since my whole peer group is -very- poly and so on I'm one of the few people who defend that sometimes one partner is all a person is equipped for. Hasty sidestep from my blatant mistake made, allow me to clarify - this may sound totally different to what I said originally though because that's how I roll. Nobody is set up to just find one perfect person. they may find a person that they want to and -will- spend the rest of their lives with, but they will never stop finding other people attractive. it's almost a cast iron guarantee that they will at one point feel very strongly for other people. But it's not certain. If I ever speak of certainties it's not because I believe in certainty, I believe everything is variable and so I find it easy to believe they were really happy that way. And finally, if your grandparents first and only partners were each other, you must admit that is a highly unusual situation. Even people who can only handle one partner tend to have just one -at a time-, which is what I probably should have said in the first place. I don't really know why I said (in effect) nobody is capable of a lifetime commitment because I don't even believe that. Anyway, rambles aside, I hope that clarifies my final comment in the way that I -actually intend-. I'm sorry if you felt I was demeaning both yourself and those close to you.

My apologies. Often when I make huge posts like that I misphrase some things or just plain get them wrong. This was in the latter camp and I know better. Actually, since my whole peer group is -very- poly and so on I'm one of the few people who defend that sometimes one partner is all a person is equipped for. Hasty sidestep from my blatant mistake made, allow me to clarify - this may sound totally different to what I said originally though because that's how I roll. Nobody is set up to just find one perfect person. they may find a person that they want to and -will- spend the rest of their lives with, but they will never stop finding other people attractive. it's almost a cast iron guarantee that they will at one point feel very strongly for other people. But it's not certain. If I ever speak of certainties it's not because I believe in certainty, I believe everything is variable and so I find it easy to believe they were really happy that way. And finally, if your grandparents first and only partners were each other, you must admit that is a highly unusual situation. Even people who can only handle one partner tend to have just one -at a time-, which is what I probably should have said in the first place. I don't really know why I said (in effect) nobody is capable of a lifetime commitment because I don't even believe that. Anyway, rambles aside, I hope that clarifies my final comment in the way that I -actually intend-. I'm sorry if you felt I was demeaning both yourself and those close to you.

Hehe, fair enough. Sounds like we have similar friends, since it's a running gag among my friends that I'm the perverted freak of the group, seeing as I'm into both heterosexuality and monogamy. :p

I do think it's entirely possible to find a partner who just fits well enough that you never really feel any serious attraction for anyone else - I mean, as I said, that certainly seemed to be the case for my grandparents, and, for that matter, it pretty much seems to be the case for my parents. Barring a couple of girls my father took to school dances in high school, neither of them has ever been involved with anyone else, and 37 years in they show every sign of being content that way. They probably are unusual, but I have no problem with "unusual." Being smart is unusual too, after all. ;)

My apologies. Often when I make huge posts like that I misphrase some things or just plain get them wrong. This was in the latter camp and I know better. Actually, since my whole peer group is -very- poly and so on I'm one of the few people who defend that sometimes one partner is all a person is equipped for. Hasty sidestep from my blatant mistake made, allow me to clarify - this may sound totally different to what I said originally though because that's how I roll. Nobody is set up to just find one perfect person. they may find a person that they want to and -will- spend the rest of their lives with, but they will never stop finding other people attractive. it's almost a cast iron guarantee that they will at one point feel very strongly for other people. But it's not certain. If I ever speak of certainties it's not because I believe in certainty, I believe everything is variable and so I find it easy to believe they were really happy that way. And finally, if your grandparents first and only partners were each other, you must admit that is a highly unusual situation. Even people who can only handle one partner tend to have just one -at a time-, which is what I probably should have said in the first place. I don't really know why I said (in effect) nobody is capable of a lifetime commitment because I don't even believe that. Anyway, rambles aside, I hope that clarifies my final comment in the way that I -actually intend-. I'm sorry if you felt I was demeaning both yourself and those close to you.

Though I agree with the gist of what you said. Monogamous relationships can cause tension and are probably responsible for love falling apart.

Being smart is unusual too, after all. ;)

Deviant. being smart is a lifestyle choice and it's a none too bright one if y'ask me. People like you start marrying and breeding and you'll dismantle polite society!

Deviant. being smart is a lifestyle choice and it's a none too bright one if y'ask me. People like you start marrying and breeding and you'll dismantle polite society!

Wait till you hear my longterm life plan - it involves marriage, kids, a house in the suburbs, a pet dog or two... BAN THIS SICK FILTH. :D

*snip TOTAL ANNIHILATION of opponent*

You know, you keep shredding people in intelligent, sexy arguments like this, and then somehow we're to blame when our hormones run wild? You're a tease, Ms. Mur'v. :(

Though I agree with the gist of what you said. Monogamous relationships can cause tension and are probably responsible for love falling apart.

This is a total throw-away statement without an argument to back it up. Give.

Though I agree with the gist of what you said. Monogamous relationships can cause tension and are probably responsible for love falling apart.

I disagree. Monoamorous relationships will only cause tension in and of themselves if one or the other partner is unhappy being monoamorous or sexually exclusive.

You know, you keep shredding people in intelligent, sexy arguments like this, and then somehow we're to blame when our hormones run wild? You're a tease, Ms. Mur'v. :(
What? I deny that I have ever blamed anyone for their hormones running wild over me. And if I have, I take this opportunity to declare that I didn't mean it. ;)

I disagree. Monoamorous relationships will only cause tension in and of themselves if one or the other partner is unhappy being monoamorous or sexually exclusive.
Or if one or the other partner is insecure in the exclusivity. I think the two things that kill love most often between two people are dishonesty and insecurity. Dishonestly leads someone to try to stay with or stay exclusive with someone they're really not into enough. Insecurity leads to jealousy and distrust.

But I have seen both of those affect non-monogamous relationships, too. I have known people in "open" relationships that were nowhere near as "open" as they claimed, at least in the mind of one of the partners.

Actually, I have seen that kind of dishonesty and insecurity plague even non-sexual relationships. It's a problem of personal interaction. Sex and emotional attachment intensify the effect, but they are not the cause.

This is a total throw-away statement without an argument to back it up. Give.

Affairs often destroy relationships, for one.

Do you need a source for that?

Affairs often destroy relationships, for one.

Do you need a source for that?

Affairs can destroy poly relationships, too. So?

Affairs often destroy relationships, for one.

Do you need a source for that?

Wouldnt that be a fault for the individual committing the act, rather than Monogamy itself...

In fact, had the individual stuck with Monogamy, rather than cheating, would not the relationship have been spared?...

Wouldnt that be a fault for the individual committing the act, rather than Monogamy itself...

In fact, had the individual stuck with Monogamy, rather than cheating, would not the relationship have been spared?...

Silly question. If the individual wanted to do that, then -not- doing that would have been a source of tension possibly causing the resentment of the partner who is 'stopping' them (perhaps simply by being there at all) from finding sex and/or companionship elsewhere. This does not lead to happyfuns.

Silly question. If the individual wanted to do that, then -not- doing that would have been a source of tension possibly causing the resentment of the partner who is 'stopping' them (perhaps simply by being there at all) from finding sex and/or companionship elsewhere. This does not lead to happyfuns.
Well, isn't it a kind of duh-obvious point that, if one partner wants the relationship to work differently than the other partner, that's not going to be good for the future of the relationship?

Silly question. If the individual wanted to do that, then -not- doing that would have been a source of tension possibly causing the resentment of the partner who is 'stopping' them (perhaps simply by being there at all) from finding sex and/or companionship elsewhere. This does not lead to happyfuns.

Well, isn't it a kind of duh-obvious point that, if one partner wants the relationship to work differently than the other partner, that's not going to be good for the future of the relationship?

True, The point is that the act would be the fault of the Individual rather than the practice of Monogamy itself...

Well, isn't it a kind of duh-obvious point that, if one partner wants the relationship to work differently than the other partner, that's not going to be good for the future of the relationship?

it entirely depends on the ability of the people involved to negotiate. One partner could be naturally very polyamorous but be willing to be monoamorous for a relationship to work or vice-versa. they -want- it to work another way but aren't willing to sacrifice the relationship for the sake of it. It might be a periodic source of tension but if they're willing to negotiate in the first place then there is hope that the commitments they agree on, even if they are not innate to the people agreeing, will succeed.

True, The point is that the act would be the fault of the Individual rather than the practice of Monogamy itself...

Indeed. It is very silly to argue that two people being incompatible is the "fault" of any of the traits that make them incompatible. If a Democrat and Republican get together, then discover that they fight too much about politics to be happy, this is not somehow the fault of either political ideology. If there is a fault at all, it lies with the actual individuals being unable to stop fighting about their views, not with the views for existing.

It's even sillier to imply that affairs not being okay is somehow exclusive to monogamy, unless one redefines polyamory as "you can fuck absolutely anyone, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances, and I will never ever ever object no matter what." Seeing as I have yet to meet any poly person who would be okay with their partner having sex with their entire family, and then with a random hooker who gave them AIDS, and then with a four-year-old girl, this is utter and complete nonsense.

Affairs often destroy relationships, for one.

This is true. However your apparent impression that "polyamorous" means "go ahead and fuck/suck/beat/kiss anyone you want" suggests that you have no real experience with polyamorous relationships.

or any relationships at all, for that matter.

This is true. However your apparent impression that "polyamorous" means "go ahead and fuck/suck/beat/kiss anyone you want" suggests that you have no real experience with polyamorous relationships.

Beat you to it. (Role reversal?) ;)

It's even sillier to imply that affairs not being okay is somehow exclusive to monogamy, unless one redefines polyamory as "you can fuck absolutely anyone, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances, and I will never ever ever object no matter what." Seeing as I have yet to meet any poly person who would be okay with their partner having sex with their entire family, and then with a random hooker who gave them AIDS, and then with a four-year-old girl, this is utter and complete nonsense.

This is true. However your apparent impression that "polyamorous" means "go ahead and fuck/suck/beat/kiss anyone you want" suggests that you have no real experience with polyamorous relationships.

or any relationships at all, for that matter.

I can see why it works for you guys, :p

It's even sillier to imply that affairs not being okay is somehow exclusive to monogamy, unless one redefines polyamory as "you can fuck absolutely anyone, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances, and I will never ever ever object no matter what."

I mean nothing of the sort; such relationships would spread STD's like wildfire.

In a monogamous relationship, permission is denied as far as sex with outside parties go. I think these relationships are not the best thing for many persons, but that does not mean monogamy is "unnatural" or does not "work"--I just think it would better if more persons tried polyamory.

1) UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS OF FACT. Throughout this thread, you have made categoric statements about things or conditions you claim exist. Yet you have provided no links to any sources of information that would make us think you are not just making it all up.

I'm sorry if you're unimpressed. I hadn't originally come here prepared for a formal debate, hence no research. Most of my points come from things that I have read and observed over the years. But I don't have the books/articles handy.

You make statements about what religious people think, yet you show us neither scripture nor the doctrine of any church nor poll numbers, nothing to show which religious people you are talking about and what they actually think.

You make statements about how and why society denies rights to one group or another, yet you link no references to any legal or governmental source, no philosophical articles, nothing to show that rights are in fact denied to any group and, if so, where, why, by whom, under what conditions, etc.


OK, you can fault me for not citing my sources if you like. I originally came here simply to ask people to be polite; I've already devoted far more time to this thread then I had intended! Forgive me if I don't have research assistants combing LexisNexis as I type.

Tell us why we should take your word for anything, since when challenged, you fail to back up your claims. Yet when your claims are dismissed because they are unsupported, you cry foul.

No, I cry foul when THIS happens...

YOU: Give me ONE good reason why...
ME: OK, here you go.
YOU: That's NOT a good reason!
OTHERS: Yeah, what's the matter? Can't you provide ONE good reason that we haven't heard before? No, you can't! God you're such an idiot! Why do we have to deal with people like you?
ME: Could you tell me WHY it's not a good reason?

At this point I get a variety of responses. Granted, each of my points is denied in turn, but rarely with a good counter-argument. For example: If I say "Some people feel that homosexual marriage harms the moral fabric of society" you can't simply respond with "Well, it doesn't!" or "Only bigots think that way!" When using an analogy, people respond with "That's different, because..." OF COURSE it's different! It's an analogy!

2) DEMONIZING THE SUBJECT. Throughout this thread, you have compared homosexuals and homosexuality to a variety things in setting up analogies for why it is okay to deny gays marriage rights. All of your comparisons have been insulting. You have likened homosexuality to murder, to child molestation, to bestiality, to alcoholism/addiction, and most recently to the sex/porn industry. You have claimed that gays seeking equal rights are "attacking" traditional society and being "obnoxious" and "intolerant." All of this has but one effect -- to cast homosexuals in such an overwhelmingly negative light that there is no positive way to discuss the issue. You seek to force supporters of gay rights into a defensive position, trying to make us defend against such slanders instead of positively address the issue of legal equality. And to pull this trick, you express a disturbing extreme of hostility against gays.

From my post#50 (emphasis added): "I want to be clear that I'm not trying to put same-sex couples who want to get married in the same category as child-molesters. I'm simply trying to make the point that society regulates behavior."

Look, I've made multiple statements such as these, all of which were ignored. I was challenged to make my points, and did so with analogies. Naturally, these anaologies will be negative...I'm trying to show you why someone WOULDN'T want same-sex marriage.

And - for the record - I never said that gays were intolerant. I said that certain pro-same-sex-marriage activists (some of whom have posted here) were intolerant. I also never said that gays were obnoxious. I said that polarized debates can lead to obnoxious protests. Notice, that I didn't mention which protests?

3) DEMONIZING YOUR OPPONENTS. Rather than address and pursue the debate as it develops through point and counter-point, you instead choose to denounce your opponents with accusations that we are personally attacking you whenever a counterargument is posted, whenever one of your own arguments is accurately critiqued. This is a trick of deflection, trying to change the subject from being about the thread topic to being an interpersonal fight over tactics and procedures. It is an attempt to avoid address points you clearly cannot win. It is related to:

People used foul language, insulting descriptions, and durrogatory labels. If I'm guilty of demonizing the subject with my analogies, then why aren't they guilty of demonizing me? I felt attacked. No one said anything like "OK, I see where you're coming from, but let me ask you this...". THAT'S a debate. "Oh God, not this lame-ass tired, bigoted argument again!" is inflammatory and insulting.

4) APPEALS TO EMOTION. Your persistant victim act, in which any opposition to your argument is treated as an attack against you personally, is glazed over heavily with a lot of "Poor me! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" bullshit. Do you think that if you act pitiful enough, we'll feel guilty about taking apart your lousy arguments, and conceded the debate to you, just to make you feel better?

This is similar to your arguments that it's more effective to be nice to oppressors, that if we just let them keep on oppressing people until they work it out of their system somehow, we'll do better than if we just enforce the law that already exists. At the same time that you push such arguments, you also assert that any who would opt for the law instead are being cruel somehow to oppressors. You've gone on and on about the suffering of the poor little dears no longer permitted to be shits towards others, as if you think society should feel so bad for them that we allow them to strip us of our rights, make our lives hell, just so they'll feel better about their own lot.

I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me. I DO expect people to mind their manners and maintain some civility.

You have comepletely misstated my argument. The people who oppose same-sex marriage are currently in the majority (at least in California). Therefore, any attempt to circumvent this majority will ultimately fail. When the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22, Prop 8 re-wrote the constitution. And so, if our goal is to legalize same-sex marriage, we must convince at least part of the majority to either see things our way, or at the very least to not oppose us. If we keep treating them like the enemy, we will alienate them and make our job harder.

5) IGNORING THE ACTUAL DEBATE. You post an argument. Others post counter-arguments. What you should do then is defend your argument by attacking the counter-argument, showing by example and/or logic/analysis how the counter-argument fails to really counter your points. You do not do that.

Instead, you throw little hissy fits over how mean everyone is to you. Then you go away to commute or watch a movie or whatever. Then you come back and post the same crap all over again, without any reference to the counter-arguments that have gone before.

Sorry, I have a life. I've spent hours on this post already. I can only devote so much of my time to rehashing the same old arguments.

When I give an argument, and it's dismissed with "that's not a good argument". How would you like me to respond to that?

"Um...yes it is."
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"Nu-uh!"
"uh-huh!"


6) INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. Your transparently false claims of playing Devil's Advocate are perhaps the most annoying part of your performance.

A person who is really playing Devil's Advocate, i.e. arguing a position they don't really agree with:

(A) would not keep it up as long and as repetitively as you are doing; they would make their points, engage the counter-points, finish presenting the argument, and sit down; and

(B) would not blame their opponents for defeating their arguments, nor complain of being personally attacked because of the way they are defeated; they would not take it personally because they are not arguing their own personal views.

Of course, a person who was playing Devil's Advocate would, presumably, know how to do that, and how to debate in general, and would not have committed any of the other errors listed herein, either.

The fact is that, taken in the context of your clear hostility towards gays, your refusal to engage the debate properly, your ridiculous accusations against your fellow posters, etc., it is clear that you are only claiming to be a Devil's Advocate and to really support gay marriage rights in an effort avoid being tagged with the Bigot label, as would be required by your arguments. It is typical of bigots that they hate being called for what they are.

I believe you are just trying to avoid personal responsibility for your own beliefs, probably because you know perfectly well that your arguments are false and that you cannot justify your real position because it is really motivated on nothing but prejudice. You want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to be able to freely present bigoted views, but never be in the uncomfortable position of being called a bigot.


And in the meantime, with all that in your repertoire, you have yet to present any argument in re gay marriage that is anything but a shallow recitation of anti-gay talking points. Can we give someone else a chance to fail at opposing gay marriage now?

I've debated for years...I know how to play the Devil's Advocate, thank you very much. And yes, I DO indeed support legalize same-sex marriage.

But my father doesn't.

My father is a good man. A hardworking, self-sacrificing pillar of his community. Regular churchgoer, military veteran, the works. He opposes same-sex marriage because he has this vague feeling that it would harm society's moral fabric. He does not hate gay people. He does not think they suffer from some sort of sickness. But he DOES think we would all be better off if they kept their lifestyles to themselves in the privacy of their own homes. To be fair, he feels the same way whenever he sees a heterosexual couple making out in public.

I have attempted to persuade my father to see things from our point of view for many years now, and I believe I'm having some limited success. But when activists on the news vandalize a church in response to Prop 8...you lose his any chance of convincing him (and people like him) not to oppose what you want. Instead, you become a mob of whining, name-calling losers throwing a tantrum because you can't have everything your way and my dad thinks "And THESE people want ME to something nice for THEM?".

There are millions of guys like my dad out there that can make or break your cause. Maybe try being nicer to them?

So if I refuse to leave this forum, if I keep posting, it's because I don't want to see guys like my dad called "bigots". It's an unfair, loaded, negative word, and he doesn't deserve it. That doesn't mean that I'm insincere when I say that I - personally - support same-sex-marriage. And how dare you accuse me of lying to avoid taking responsibility for my own beliefs?

ME: Could you tell me WHY it's not a good reason?

If you will review my previous posts, you will noticed that I have done so.

No, I cry foul when THIS happens...

YOU: Give me ONE good reason why...
ME: OK, here you go.
YOU: That's NOT a good reason!
OTHERS: Yeah, what's the matter? Can't you provide ONE good reason that we haven't heard before? No, you can't! God you're such an idiot! Why do we have to deal with people like you?
ME: Could you tell me WHY it's not a good reason?

At this point I get a variety of responses. Granted, each of my points is denied in turn, but rarely with a good counter-argument. For example: If I say "Some people feel that homosexual marriage harms the moral fabric of society" you can't simply respond with "Well, it doesn't!" or "Only bigots think that way!" When using an analogy, people respond with "That's different, because..." OF COURSE it's different! It's an analogy!




No, an analogy is http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

a⋅nal⋅o⋅gy
   /əˈnælədʒi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -gies.
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics.
a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.
5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Beyond that, believing that "homosexual marriage harms the moral fabric of society" is not a valid reason why not, despite how many times you like to repeat it, repetition, a fact does not make...

You cannot prove that it does in fact "harm the moral fabric of society" therefore you cannot use it as a reason to justify your arguments...

and being that you cannot come up with another, then there is no reason that Gays should not be allowed to marry...

(oh, and btw, it did not take me a research team to provide me with a source for that definition)

This is true. However your apparent impression that "polyamorous" means "go ahead and fuck/suck/beat/kiss anyone you want" suggests that you have no real experience with polyamorous relationships.

or any relationships at all, for that matter.

What is a "polyamorous" person? I haven't run across this term before.

"Some people feel that homosexual marriage harms the moral fabric of society"

You never gave a reason as to why they do. You said that certain persons felt homosexual marriage was like a liquor store, and I would like to know how it is.

What is a "polyamorous" person? I haven't run across this term before.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polyamory

Main Entry: polyamory
Part of Speech: n
Definition: participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships

although this is more informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Polyamory (from Greek πολύ [poly, meaning many or several] and Latin amor [literally “love”]) is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved. The term polyamory is sometimes abbreviated to poly, and is sometimes described as consensual, ethical, or responsible non-monogamy. The word is sometimes used more broadly to refer to any sexual or romantic relationships that are not sexually exclusive, though there is disagreement on how broadly it applies.

What is a "polyamorous" person? I haven't run across this term before.

It means "polygamous", it is just more precise, since polygamy is generally used to mean marriage to multiple persons.

I've debated for years...I know how to play the Devil's Advocate, thank you very much. And yes, I DO indeed support legalize same-sex marriage.

But my father doesn't.

My father is a good man. A hardworking, self-sacrificing pillar of his community. Regular churchgoer, military veteran, the works. He opposes same-sex marriage because he has this vague feeling that it would harm society's moral fabric. He does not hate gay people. He does not think they suffer from some sort of sickness. But he DOES think we would all be better off if they kept their lifestyles to themselves in the privacy of their own homes. To be fair, he feels the same way whenever he sees a heterosexual couple making out in public.

I have attempted to persuade my father to see things from our point of view for many years now, and I believe I'm having some limited success. But when activists on the news vandalize a church in response to Prop 8...you lose his any chance of convincing him (and people like him) not to oppose what you want. Instead, you become a mob of whining, name-calling losers throwing a tantrum because you can't have everything your way and my dad thinks "And THESE people want ME to something nice for THEM?".

There are millions of guys like my dad out there that can make or break your cause. Maybe try being nicer to them?

So if I refuse to leave this forum, if I keep posting, it's because I don't want to see guys like my dad called "bigots". It's an unfair, loaded, negative word, and he doesn't deserve it. That doesn't mean that I'm insincere when I say that I - personally - support same-sex-marriage. And how dare you accuse me of lying to avoid taking responsibility for my own beliefs?

What if I said "It's not fair to call people who think black people should be allowed to vote racist. I personally support their right to vote, but my father doesn't. He doesn't hate black people or think they're unevolved chimps or anything. My father is a good man, because he was in the military and goes to Church (the implication here being that people who go to Church are better people than those who do not). He just doesn't think black people should be allowed to vote, because he has a feeling that allowing that would damage society's moral fabric."

Does that mean that people who think blacks should not be allowed to vote are not racist?

Beyond that, believing that "homosexual marriage harms the moral fabric of society" is not a valid reason why not, despite how many times you like to repeat it, repetition, a fact does not make...

You cannot prove that it does in fact "harm the moral fabric of society" therefore you cannot use it as a reason to justify your arguments...

and being that you cannot come up with another, then there is no reason that Gays should not be allowed to marry...

(oh, and btw, it did not take me a research team to provide me with a source for that definition)

Whether you agree with it or not, it's how the people opposed to gay marriage feel. From experience I can tell you that they're not going to be convinced to see things your way if you keep repeating that they're wrong. Instead, I would recommend attempting to address their concerns as (apparently) author Jonathan Rauch did in his book "Gay Marriage: Why It's Good For Gays, Good For Straights, and Good For America".

Now, I haven't actually read that book yet, just the description and sample on Amazon.com, but from what I can pick up he provides statistical evidence to back up his claim that the fear of moral collapse is - in fact - unfounded.

It means "polygamous", it is just more precise, since polygamy is generally used to mean marriage to multiple persons.

I think its more than that, because Polygamous relationships dont require consent...

but Polyamorous ones would require the parties to be at an equal footing...

Whether you agree with it or not, it's how the people opposed to gay marriage feel. From experience I can tell you that they're not going to be convinced to see things your way if you keep repeating that they're wrong. Instead, I would recommend attempting to address their concerns as (apparently) author Jonathan Rauch did in his book "Gay Marriage: Why It's Good For Gays, Good For Straights, and Good For America".

Now, I haven't actually read that book yet, just the description and sample on Amazon.com, but from what I can pick up he provides statistical evidence to back up his claim that the fear of moral collapse is - in fact - unfounded.

Youre problem is, this isnt a poll, its a debate, you have to back up your arguments...

Agreement is not a factor, if you cannot prove that "Gays harm the moral fabric of Society" then it is not a valid argument...

regardless of how the proponents feel about it...

Whether you agree with it or not, it's how the people opposed to gay marriage feel. From experience I can tell you that they're not going to be convinced to see things your way if you keep repeating that they're wrong. Instead, I would recommend attempting to address their concerns as (apparently) author Jonathan Rauch did in his book "Gay Marriage: Why It's Good For Gays, Good For Straights, and Good For America".

Now, I haven't actually read that book yet, just the description and sample on Amazon.com, but from what I can pick up he provides statistical evidence to back up his claim that the fear of moral collapse is - in fact - unfounded.

No, if they think that giving people equal rights will lead to the collapse of morality, they should have to provide evidence for that view. The burden of proof is on them, not us. A gut feeling alone is not a good basis for law.

Polyamorous ones would require the parties to be at an equal footing...

Source?

Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Polyamory is the desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved

I have attempted to persuade my father to see things from our point of view for many years now, and I believe I'm having some limited success. But when activists on the news vandalize a church in response to Prop 8...you lose his any chance of convincing him (and people like him) not to oppose what you want.

Again, the use of "our" side. You are not on the side of people who demand to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Stop pretending otherwise.

You decry those who paint all Christians with the same brush (even when it has been patiently, repeatedly explained that "fundamentalist" applies only to a group of Christians who describe themselves that way), yet you feel that the LGBT community should bear some sort of collective shame for the actions of a few people. That's called hypocrisy.

Instead, you become a mob of whining, name-calling losers throwing a tantrum because you can't have everything your way and my dad thinks "And THESE people want ME to something nice for THEM?".

Who's name-calling, again?

This statement characterizes many of the downfalls of your "argument". The LGBT community does not want your dad to "do something nice for" us. We want the government to recognize our constitutional rights. Your father's sympathy is of absolutely no concern to me. If your father does not hate blacks but thinks they should not marry white people, and something a protester does annoys him, it has no impact whatsoever on the 14th amendment.

There are millions of guys like my dad out there that can make or break your cause. Maybe try being nicer to them?

"Please, sir, if it isn't too much trouble, could you please consider voting to allow me my constitutional rights as an adult, tax-paying member of society? We promise not to make any noise or disrupt anyone's quiet Christian life!"

So if I refuse to leave this forum, if I keep posting, it's because I don't want to see guys like my dad called "bigots". It's an unfair, loaded, negative word, and he doesn't deserve it.

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

"I don't hate gays, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry," while certainly an improvement on "let's string 'em up by theirs necks!" is not tolerance. I respect your father's right to enter into a heterosexual Christian marriage. He does not respect my right to enter into a homosexual marriage. We may not agree with each other's beliefs, but he doesn't want to change my beliefs--he wants to change my RIGHTS. I don't know how many different ways this can be hammered home.

What if I said "It's not fair to call people who think black people should be allowed to vote racist. I personally support their right to vote, but my father doesn't. He doesn't hate black people or think they're unevolved chimps or anything. My father is a good man, because he was in the military and goes to Church (the implication here being that people who go to Church are better people than those who do not). He just doesn't think black people should be allowed to vote, because he has a feeling that allowing that would damage society's moral fabric."

Does that mean that people who think blacks should not be allowed to vote are not racist?

Actually, in this case, yes. It would depend on your reason for not wanting blacks to vote.

A "racist" is someone who believes that one particular race has some sort of genetic superiority to others. This is irrational, because science has proven it to be untrue. Therefore, if a white person wanted to ban blacks from voting because "everyone knows they're not as smart as us" he/she would be a racist.

If - however - the entire black population of the United States behaved in a manner that offended the rest of the population, then you're making your decisions based on a group's behavior. It may still be a bad decision, it may still be an unfair decision, but it's not one based on an irrational racist hatred of another group based purely on skin color.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's how the people opposed to gay marriage feel.

I understand that's how they feel. And feeling that way makes them bigots. And anyone who feels that way, by definition, is a bigot.

I'm sure your father is a very nice man with many redeaming qualities. But that doesn't make him not a bigot.

From experience I can tell you that they're not going to be convinced to see things your way if you keep repeating that they're wrong.

I don't care about convincing them. I couldn't give a good god damn about convincing them. I don't need, desire, or expect people to like it. In fact, the entire design of our constitution is predicated on the fundamental idea that people have rights, no matter how other people feel about it.

I don't give a damn if suddenly tomorrow your father or any of the other bigots are suddenly ok with giving people basic rights. What I do care about is that they, in accordance with the constitutional principles this country is founded upon, do what every other bigot does when confronted with the fact that people they don't like get rights. Suck it up and fucking deal with it.

Now, I haven't actually read that book yet, just the description and sample on Amazon.com, but from what I can pick up he provides statistical evidence to back up his claim that the fear of moral collapse is - in fact - unfounded.

When you want to deny someone equal rights, you generally have to come up with evidence that it IS harmful. Your entire premise of "there are more of them, so you have to convince them you're not all perverts and deviants" is flawed from start to finish. We BEGIN with equal rights. They should only be modified when, like in the case of child molesters, a proven danger to someone specific--not the "moral fabric of society"--is demonstrated. No one should have to "petition" for their human rights and beg the majority to bestow them.

Youre problem is, this isnt a poll, its a debate, you have to back up your arguments...

Agreement is not a factor, if you cannot prove that "Gays harm the moral fabric of Society" then it is not a valid argument...

regardless of how the proponents feel about it...

All I'm saying is, we'd be better off addressing this concern of the other side then dismissing it. People have irrational beliefs. Pointing out to them that they're being irrational is not likely to win you any friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

That is more accurate in relation to what we are talking about, but not necessarily "equal footing".

So if I refuse to leave this forum, if I keep posting, it's because I don't want to see guys like my dad called "bigots". It's an unfair, loaded, negative word, and he doesn't deserve it.

Bigots deserve to be called bigots. If your father doesn't believe in extending equal rights to all people due to irrational fears, then he is a bigot.

If you don't want him to be called a bigot, then perhaps you should do a better job at convincing him not to be one. Personally, I couldn't care less. It's his right to be a bigot.

All I'm saying is, we'd be better off addressing this concern of the other side then dismissing it. People have irrational beliefs. Pointing out to them that they're being irrational is not likely to win you any friends.

Quiet consideration is not what freed the slaves.

Quiet consideration is not what freed the slaves.

You must have missed the part of the debate where he claimed that it is, in fact, what freed the slaves.

No, if they think that giving people equal rights will lead to the collapse of morality, they should have to provide evidence for that view. The burden of proof is on them, not us. A gut feeling alone is not a good basis for law.

In a court of law, you'd be correct. In the court of public opinion, however, gut feelings often dictate action.

Logically you are correct, the burden of proof should be on them. But they simply don't want to hear that. Therefore, we can either stop trying to convince them or we can try to draw them into discussion.

Actually, in this case, yes. It would depend on your reason for not wanting blacks to vote.

A "racist" is someone who believes that one particular race has some sort of genetic superiority to others. This is irrational, because science has proven it to be untrue. Therefore, if a white person wanted to ban blacks from voting because "everyone knows they're not as smart as us" he/she would be a racist.

If - however - the entire black population of the United States behaved in a manner that offended the rest of the population, then you're making your decisions based on a group's behavior. It may still be a bad decision, it may still be an unfair decision, but it's not one based on an irrational racist hatred of another group based purely on skin color.
That is not the only definition of racism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist
In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment. Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, even though anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic differences.

And doing so, regardless of whether the group 'offends' you or not, is a Bigoted Act...

And the same applies to the rights you are denying to Homosexual Individuals...

All I'm saying is, we'd be better off addressing this concern of the other side then dismissing it. People have irrational beliefs. Pointing out to them that they're being irrational is not likely to win you any friends.


Logically you are correct, the burden of proof should be on them. But they simply don't want to hear that. Therefore, we can either stop trying to convince them or we can try to draw them into discussion.

and, once again, you mistake the goal. The cause of human rights has never, ever, been advanced by "winning friends". We call beliefs "irrational" for a reason. It's because they don't respond to logic, don't respond to rationality, don't respond to argument. I don't want need or desire to make friends with bigots. Irrational people can not be "drawn into the discussion" by the very definition of "irrationality".

He and all the other bigots can go on being afraid of gays or blacks or women or asians or jews or hispanics. I don't care. I have no desire to change their views. All I desire is that they do what all bigots have to do in the end. Recognize that they live in a country that protects the rights of all, and learn how to deal with it.

He doesn't like gays getting married? He doesn't have to like it. He just has to learn to live with it. Because in time, the only option he'll have left is to learn to live with it.

You must have missed the part of the debate where he claimed that it is, in fact, what freed the slaves.

I think there was alot more to it than that...something about guns and stuff...

or, as General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

You must have missed the part of the debate where he claimed that it is, in fact, what freed the slaves.

Ah, well. He repeats his arguments so many times--I suppose I missed it in the monotony.

In a court of law, you'd be correct. In the court of public opinion, however, gut feelings often dictate action.

Logically you are correct, the burden of proof should be on them. But they simply don't want to hear that. Therefore, we can either stop trying to convince them or we can try to draw them into discussion.

Well tough shit for them if they don't want to hear it. When it comes to trying to gain equality, sure, I'm open to any strategy that seems like it will be useful, even if it means not telling bigots they're bigots.

But when it comes to debate on the merits of the law, I'm going to be honest, not say "well it's what they truly believe, therefore it's not bigotry."

In a court of law, you'd be correct. In the court of public opinion, however, gut feelings often dictate action.

Logically you are correct, the burden of proof should be on them. But they simply don't want to hear that. Therefore, we can either stop trying to convince them or we can try to draw them into discussion.

Y'know, calling your own argument "irrational" is poor form for a Devil's Advocate.

Who here would agree that irrational hatred of a group of people is bigotry?

Who here would agree that irrational hatred of a group of people is bigotry?

I would expand it to "Taking irrational Offense at a group as well" if for no other reason than to include our friend here's acquaintances, lol...

Again, the use of "our" side. You are not on the side of people who demand to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Stop pretending otherwise.

Umm...yes I am.

You decry those who paint all Christians with the same brush (even when it has been patiently, repeatedly explained that "fundamentalist" applies only to a group of Christians who describe themselves that way), yet you feel that the LGBT community should bear some sort of collective shame for the actions of a few people. That's called hypocrisy.

OK, that's fair. I'm guilty of generalizations too. I meant to specifically criticize the actions of radical advocates who use inflammatory rhetoric and action.

There has been a misunderstanding about the term "fundamentalist". They way you use it and the way I was brought up using it are two entirely different things.


Who's name-calling, again?

I wasn't calling anyone names, I was explaining the mindset of some of your opponents.

This statement characterizes many of the downfalls of your "argument". The LGBT community does not want your dad to "do something nice for" us. We want the government to recognize our constitutional rights. Your father's sympathy is of absolutely no concern to me. If your father does not hate blacks but thinks they should not marry white people, and something a protester does annoys him, it has no impact whatsoever on the 14th amendment.

I can only see three options here:

1. Each side continues to hold protests, write letters to their congressman, etc. Heated online debates continue. Politicians make this a campaign issue. Society polarizes into two different groups, each one accusing the other of being awful people. Eventually, through a series of controversial, heavily-contested procedures (either legislative or judicial) gays win the right to marry. The gays crow about their victory, while the other side complains loudly about "activist judges" or "special interests". Gay and straight relations are badly strained.

2. Same as #1, but the anti-gay-marriage people win. And instead of activist judges or special interests, the defeated party complains about "systemic prejudice" or "Christian domination".

3. Pro-same-sex people patiently address the concerns of the opposition. They convince them that "See? We're not so scary after all. Most of us are a lot like you." More and more of the opposition agree to (at least) NOT oppose you in the next election. Pretty soon, the number of voters who favor your cause outnumber those who are dead-set against it, even if your group is still a minority. I believe that this is the best possible solution.


"Please, sir, if it isn't too much trouble, could you please consider voting to allow me my constitutional rights as an adult, tax-paying member of society? We promise not to make any noise or disrupt anyone's quiet Christian life!"

Honestly, why not? If we re-assure someone that granting what we want won't disrupt their life they're more likely to give it to you. I'm not saying that we should grovel and kiss their shoes, but leaving out some of the heat normally found in this debate would help our cause. Flies and honey and vinegar, and all that.

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

"I don't hate gays, but they shouldn't be allowed to marry," while certainly an improvement on "let's string 'em up by theirs necks!" is not tolerance. I respect your father's right to enter into a heterosexual Christian marriage. He does not respect my right to enter into a homosexual marriage. We may not agree with each other's beliefs, but he doesn't want to change my beliefs--he wants to change my RIGHTS. I don't know how many different ways this can be hammered home.


It's up to you to determine what sort of behavior qualifies someone as a "bigot" or a "racist". However, if you're trying to convince a racist to change his ways, you probably shouldn't call him a racist.

I don't give a damn if suddenly tomorrow your father or any of the other bigots are suddenly ok with giving people basic rights. What I do care about is that they, in accordance with the constitutional principles this country is founded upon, do what every other bigot does when confronted with the fact that people they don't like get rights. Suck it up and fucking deal with it.

OK, if that's how you feel. But bear in mind that - regardless of what the courts have decided - the majority wields the power to change that. If you push them too hard, they're going to turn against you. I really think you'd be better off convincing them that you're not the threat they think you are.

It's up to you to determine what sort of behavior qualifies someone as a "bigot" or a "racist". However, if you're trying to convince a racist to change his ways, you probably shouldn't call him a racist.

And why is that the goal at all anyway? Dr. King didnt just come by and convince the Segregationists they were wrong, it didnt work that way...

The issues were settled in a Court of Law, not through popular, or even individual opinion...

OK, if that's how you feel. But bear in mind that - regardless of what the courts have decided - the majority wields the power to change that. If you push them too hard, they're going to turn against you. I really think you'd be better off convincing them that you're not the threat they think you are.

Um, no, I dont think so, Wallace was very popular, and he still failed, ;)

When you want to deny someone equal rights, you generally have to come up with evidence that it IS harmful. Your entire premise of "there are more of them, so you have to convince them you're not all perverts and deviants" is flawed from start to finish. We BEGIN with equal rights. They should only be modified when, like in the case of child molesters, a proven danger to someone specific--not the "moral fabric of society"--is demonstrated. No one should have to "petition" for their human rights and beg the majority to bestow them.

Regardless of whether or not you should HAVE to ask for what's rightfully yours, the point is: you don't have it.

If a criminal steals something of yours, and he's bigger and stronger then you, an there are no police around, what do you do? You can demand your property back and say that it's rightfully yours. You can call him a dirty crook and point out that he's breaking the law. You can try to take it back by force. Or you can accept that it's gone and move on.

OR...you can ask him "Hey, what did I ever do to you? Why would you do that to me?"...if he has a conscience, he may feel guilty, realize that what he's done is wrong, and return your property with an apology.

This last option is how I would characterize Martin Luther King's success.

You must have missed the part of the debate where he claimed that it is, in fact, what freed the slaves.

Actually, I said that it ended segregation, not that it freed the slaves.

3. Pro-same-sex people patiently address the concerns of the opposition. They convince them that "See? We're not so scary after all. Most of us are a lot like you." More and more of the opposition agree to (at least) NOT oppose you in the next election. Pretty soon, the number of voters who favor your cause outnumber those who are dead-set against it, even if your group is still a minority. I believe that this is the best possible solution.

Yeah, because this time it's bound to work. Not like all those other times.

It's up to you to determine what sort of behavior qualifies someone as a "bigot" or a "racist". However, if you're trying to convince a racist to change his ways, you probably shouldn't call him a racist.

Again, you seem to miss the point where I have no desire to make the racist not a racist.

The fact is, history is on our side here. Every single battle for civil rights has been won. Slavery has ended, women and blacks can vote, interracial couples can marry, segregation has ended.

Every battle has been won. And they have been won not by being polite and cowtowing to the opposition with a humble "please sir, can I have some more?" That tactic has always failed. The tactic that has worked, is working, and will continue to work is to take it to the courts, take it to the legislatures, and unceasingly, unyieldingly trying over and over again until we win. It worked in Loving, it worked in Brown, it worked in Roe, it worked in Lawrence, it worked in Tinker, it worked in Hamden, it worked in Griwald, it worked in Casey, it worked in Goodrich, it worked in Lewis and it worked in Kerrigan.

Of course the bigots and haters come out and say "well if you just tried to be NICER we might listen to you!" Of course they say that. They know it's a lie. They know that this tactic hasn't worked, and won't work. You can't change a mind of a bigot by talking to them. The only way you can change is it by changing things around them and showing them, unequivocally, that they are wrong. So of course they say that if we weren't so confrontational and just tried to be nicer, we'd get our way. They say that because they know it's a lie, and the more time we spend being nice and humble, the less time we spend doing the things that have actually worked for human rights movements in the past.

So no, as someone who has studied the constitutional history of this nation, forgive me if I won't take the advice of some internet guy who tells me that I should abandon the tactics that have done more to advance the civil rights movement more than anything else in favor of tactics that have demonstrably shown to not work at all.

I have no desire to play nice to bigots. And history is on my side.

Actually, I said that it ended segregation, not that it freed the slaves.

For some reason, I thought the Supreme Court had something to do with it......

Regardless of whether or not you should HAVE to ask for what's rightfully yours, the point is: you don't have it.

If a criminal steals something of yours, and he's bigger and stronger then you, an there are no police around, what do you do? You can demand your property back and say that it's rightfully yours. You can call him a dirty crook and point out that he's breaking the law. You can try to take it back by force. Or you can accept that it's gone and move on.

OR...you can ask him "Hey, what did I ever do to you? Why would you do that to me?"...if he has a conscience, he may feel guilty, realize that what he's done is wrong, and return your property with an apology.

This last option is how I would characterize Martin Luther King's success.

Amusingly, however, even in your example, the first recourse is to use the law of the land as your leverage.

See the irony?

Amusingly, however, even in your example, the first recourse is to use the law of the land as your leverage.

See the irony?

Thats what Im getting, Im like, the police (or in this case, courts/lawyers) are here and on our side in these Civil Rights issues...

so why discount your primary option to begin with? The one thats proven to work?

Regardless of whether or not you should HAVE to ask for what's rightfully yours, the point is: you don't have it.

If a criminal steals something of yours, and he's bigger and stronger then you, an there are no police around, what do you do? You can demand your property back and say that it's rightfully yours. You can call him a dirty crook and point out that he's breaking the law. You can try to take it back by force. Or you can accept that it's gone and move on.

OR...you can ask him "Hey, what did I ever do to you? Why would you do that to me?"...if he has a conscience, he may feel guilty, realize that what he's done is wrong, and return your property with an apology.

This last option is how I would characterize Martin Luther King's success.

So you are conceding that there is no reasonable argument against homosexual marriage?

OR...you can ask him "Hey, what did I ever do to you? Why would you do that to me?"...if he has a conscience, he may feel guilty, realize that what he's done is wrong, and return your property with an apology.

This last option is how I would characterize Martin Luther King's success.

It's patently clear you don't know a damned thing about Martin Luther King. King never advocated being polite to his oppressors. He advocated being better than them. And that's a difference. King spent a very long time in jail because he refused to cowtow to the oppressors. He very much advocated standing up to them.

King respected the sanctity of human life, and believed that no cause should go so far as to spread itself with violence. But he in no way advocated we should be nice about it. He orchestrated protests, he planned rallies that paralyzed cities. He took issues to the courts. Peaceful protest is still protest. You don't know a damned thing about him, his methods, or his legacy. This bullshit cheapens the memory of a great man. You should be ashamed.

And why is that the goal at all anyway? Dr. King didnt just come by and convince the Segregationists they were wrong, it didnt work that way...

The issues were settled in a Court of Law, not through popular, or even individual opinion...

Dr. King recognized that he had no chance at convincing die-hard Segregationists, true. But he DID focus on winning the support of the majority who had been talked into supporting the Segregationist's agenda simply because "that's how things have always been done". And he was successful. However, he was only successful because he enjoyed the support (or at least the tolerance) of the majority.

If the majority of the country had hated blacks and were firmly convinced that they deserved to be segregated, then nothing Dr. King could have done would have helped. All the constitutional or legal opinions in the world wouldn't save them, because the constitution can be altered, judges' rulings can be overturned, and - in an extreme case - the government could be overthrown in a violent uprising and replaced with a Nazi-esque Apartheid regime.

Not that any of this would happen realistically, but it IS possible. Therefore, I think we stand to gain a lot if we focus on convincing the majority to give us a chance.

Actually, I said that it ended segregation, not that it freed the slaves.

Being nice and polite ended segregation? Not Brown v. Board of Education? Not the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Not Eisenhower federalizing the national guard and forcing the Arksansas governor to stand down by force?

Do you know anything about our nation's history?

Dr. King recognized that he had no chance at convincing die-hard Segregationists, true. But he DID focus on winning the support of the majority who had been talked into supporting the Segregationist's agenda simply because "that's how things have always been done". And he was successful. However, he was only successful because he enjoyed the support (or at least the tolerance) of the majority.

If the majority of the country had hated blacks and were firmly convinced that they deserved to be segregated, then nothing Dr. King could have done would have helped. All the constitutional or legal opinions in the world wouldn't save them, because the constitution can be altered, judges' rulings can be overturned, and - in an extreme case - the government could be overthrown in a violent uprising and replaced with a Nazi-esque Apartheid regime.

Not that any of this would happen realistically, but it IS possible. Therefore, I think we stand to gain a lot if we focus on convincing the majority to give us a chance.

All I have to say is this, its much better than I wouldve put:
It's patently clear you don't know a damned thing about Martin Luther King. King never advocated being polite to his oppressors. He advocated being better than them. And that's a difference. King spent a very long time in jail because he refused to cowtow to the oppressors. He very much advocated standing up to them.

King respected the sanctity of human life, and believed that no cause should go so far as to spread itself with violence. But he in no way advocated we should be nice about it. He orchestrated protests, he planned rallies that paralyzed cities. He took issues to the courts. Peaceful protest is still protest. You don't know a damned thing about him, his methods, or his legacy. This bullshit cheapens the memory of a great man. You should be ashamed.

If the majority of the country had hated blacks and were firmly convinced that they deserved to be segregated, then nothing Dr. King could have done would have helped. All the constitutional or legal opinions in the world wouldn't save them, because the constitution can be altered, judges' rulings can be overturned, and - in an extreme case - the government could be overthrown in a violent uprising and replaced with a Nazi-esque Apartheid regime.

Let me make sure I understand this. We should be nice to bigots, because if not, they might get angry at us and overthrow the government? This is your argument?

Let me make sure I understand this. We should be nice to bigots, because if not, they might get angry at us and overthrow the government? This is your argument?

Thats how they freed the slaves remember?




.....oh, wait, lol...

Thats what Im getting, Im like, the police (or in this case, courts/lawyers) are here and on our side in these Civil Rights issues...

so why discount your primary option to begin with? The one thats proven to work?

Right.

There's an official organ (the Constitution) above ALL others, that is specifically designed to provide a framework deal with this kind of issue, through the legal system.

I'm not sure why you're supposed to CHOOSE to ignore the primary instrument... except, apparently, it might offend someone.

As a wise philosopher once said: "boo fucking hoo".

I still can't see any good reason as to why the majority has to be convinced (edit: in order) to do anything.

I still can't see any good reason as to why the majority has to be convinced to do anything.

They don't. That's what's great about having a Supreme Court.

I still can't see any good reason as to why the majority has to be convinced to do anything.

Because they aren't convinced, yet... duh?

Yeah, because this time it's bound to work. Not like all those other times.


It worked with me. It's how I was convinced to abandon my anti-same-sex-marriage position and argue in favor of same-sex marriage.

The fact is, history is on our side here. Every single battle for civil rights has been won. Slavery has ended, women and blacks can vote, interracial couples can marry, segregation has ended.

Every battle has been won. And they have been won not by being polite and cowtowing to the opposition with a humble "please sir, can I have some more?" That tactic has always failed. The tactic that has worked, is working, and will continue to work is to take it to the courts, take it to the legislatures, and unceasingly, unyieldingly trying over and over again until we win. It worked in Loving, it worked in Brown, it worked in Roe, it worked in Lawrence, it worked in Tinker, it worked in Hamden, it worked in Griwald, it worked in Casey, it worked in Goodrich, it worked in Lewis and it worked in Kerrigan.

History is on your side...in this country. In other countries (Nazi Germany, for example) groups which enjoyed civil rights were suddenly stripped of them and persecuted because the majority decided that they didn't like them.

There's a big difference between standing up to a foaming-at-the-mouth bigot (i.e. Wallace) and stating that "all people who agree with denying equal rights to homosexuals are bigots". I have already apologized for criticizing the entire LGBT community for the actions of it's more despicable members. Couldn't you, maybe, accept that my dad is not your enemy? He's a guy doing what he thinks is best based on how he was brought up. If you attempt to win his trust, rather then label him (he doesn't like being compared to Wallace, even if you think it's accurate) you could win him to your side.

Of course the bigots and haters come out and say "well if you just tried to be NICER we might listen to you!" Of course they say that. They know it's a lie. They know that this tactic hasn't worked, and won't work. You can't change a mind of a bigot by talking to them. The only way you can change is it by changing things around them and showing them, unequivocally, that they are wrong. So of course they say that if we weren't so confrontational and just tried to be nicer, we'd get our way. They say that because they know it's a lie, and the more time we spend being nice and humble, the less time we spend doing the things that have actually worked for human rights movements in the past.

So no, as someone who has studied the constitutional history of this nation, forgive me if I won't take the advice of some internet guy who tells me that I should abandon the tactics that have done more to advance the civil rights movement more than anything else in favor of tactics that have demonstrably shown to not work at all.

I have no desire to play nice to bigots. And history is on my side.


History is also full of bomb-throwers claiming that "the only way to get things done is to FORCE them!" If that's the tactic you choose to adopt..well...good luck with that. While I'm sure there's some sort of cathartic pleasure in calling people bigots, I believe that this will hurt you come next election.

History is also full of bomb-throwers claiming that "the only way to get things done is to FORCE them!"

They've often been right, too. But the bombs aren't intrinsic.

For some reason, I thought the Supreme Court had something to do with it......

The Supreme Court did it, yes. However, that decision was not later challenged by the majority.

The opposite happened in California. The Supreme Court granted the right of gay-marriage. The majority rewrote the constitution, trumping the Supreme Court's decision.

That's why it's important to have the majority on your side.

Amusingly, however, even in your example, the first recourse is to use the law of the land as your leverage.

See the irony?

I'm sorry, I don't see what you're getting at.

The opposite happened in California. The Supreme Court granted the right of gay-marriage.


No, they didn't.

They ruled that the Constitution allows it. They 'granted' nothing.

The fact is, history is on our side here. Every single battle for civil rights has been won... segregation has ended.


Segregation has not ended. If it had ended, then everybody who went to the airport would be strip-searched, not just those with Middle Eastern appearances. Also, if it had ended, there would be no such things as bigots who would treat others with disrespect or obvious preferential treatment.

Look around you, segregation is evident everywhere! While it may not be as blatantly obvious as before the creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when only whites could use this bathroom, and blacks could only sit here, etc. But it does still exist.

History may be on your side, but the present is on mine.

I'm sorry, I don't see what you're getting at.

Your elegant example about how things maybe 'should be done' starts with clearly laying out the fact that the normal legal recourses aren't available.

Because, if they were, you'd call the cops - not stand there pleading with the couple of guys fucking off with your DVD player.

Well, the reality you're reflecting has the SAME siuation - there IS already a recognized mechanism for redress.

Maybe they don't understand that granting gays the right to marry will not affect them at all? Honestly I don't understand why some christians would be opposed when they are told to be nice to everyone.

So you are conceding that there is no reasonable argument against homosexual marriage?

I'm conceding that I have not heard a reasonable argument against gay marriage. I'm conceding that the argument "it could destroy the moral fabric of society" is - to me - unreasonable.

But my very first post was "There are a lot of reasons why a reasonable person might be opposed to legalized same-sex marriage, that doesn't make them a Nazi." (emphasis added).

I did not say their arguments were reasonable, I said that the people themselves were. Lots of otherwise-reasonable people do irrational things or have irrational beliefs. It doesn't mean that every belief they have is unreasonable or irrational.

There are a lot of reasons why a reasonable person might be opposed to legalized same-sex marriage
Name one.
I did not say their arguments were reasonable, I said that the people themselves were. Lots of otherwise-reasonable people do irrational things or have irrational beliefs. It doesn't mean that every belief they have is unreasonable or irrational.
The belief behind an action isn't relevant to the action itself.

It worked with me. It's how I was convinced to abandon my anti-same-sex-marriage position and argue in favor of same-sex marriage.

Yeah, you're a real credit to the cause :rolleyes:



History is on your side...in this country. In other countries (Nazi Germany, for example) groups which enjoyed civil rights were suddenly stripped of them and persecuted because the majority decided that they didn't like them.

I see your failure to understand history doesn't just extent to US history. Hitler's "undesirables" were never equal citizens. They were always disliked. That's the reason he was so successful. We have a word for people who argue that we should do what they want, or face consequences. That word is "terrorist".

And I don't negotiate with terrorists.

There's a big difference between standing up to a foaming-at-the-mouth bigot (i.e. Wallace) and stating that "all people who agree with denying equal rights to homosexuals are bigots".

People who agree with denying equal rights to homosexuals are bigots. By definition. That's what a bigot is.

I have already apologized for criticizing the entire LGBT community for the actions of it's more despicable members. Couldn't you, maybe, accept that my dad is not your enemy?

are he and I on opposite sides of an issue? If so, then on that issue, he is my enemy. I want equal rights for gays. He does not. How does that not make us opposed?

He's a guy doing what he thinks is best based on how he was brought up.

I'm sure he is. The doesn't make it right however.

If you attempt to win his trust, rather then label him (he doesn't like being compared to Wallace, even if you think it's accurate) you could win him to your side.

Here's the thing. I presume your father is a reasonably intelligent man with reasonable capacities. As such I presume that he has that information already available to him. At this point he has made the conscious choice to ignore it.

You advocate treating people like your father as children. I advocate treating them like the adults they are who are capable of making their own decisions. You think I disrespect him? I posit that it is you who disrespects him in the implication that if we only sat down with him and explained to him how he's wrong, like one would to a child, that he might "get it". He's a grown man, who has made his own decisions. I will treat him as such.

History is also full of bomb-throwers claiming that "the only way to get things done is to FORCE them!" If that's the tactic you choose to adopt..well...good luck with that.

When you are able to address the arguments as made, and not the strawmen you wish to construct, you might be worthy of discussing this with. Since you seem incapable, I don't see why you're worth my time.

Your elegant example about how things maybe 'should be done' starts with clearly laying out the fact that the normal legal recourses aren't available.

Because, if they were, you'd call the cops - not stand there pleading with the couple of guys fucking off with your DVD player.

Well, the reality you're reflecting has the SAME siuation - there IS already a recognized mechanism for redress.

Oh, I see. You are correct. But those mechanisms can be controlled by the majority. If enough people were sufficiently convinced that a groups right should be taken away, that can happen. Constitutions can be changed. The laws that the police and courts enforce can be changed.

That's why I eliminated the police in my hypothetical.

Name one.

The belief behind an action isn't relevant to the action itself.

Fine. I'm defending a group of people from being called names. I'm not trying to justify their actions.

If enough people were sufficiently convinced that a groups right should be taken away, that can happen. Constitutions can be changed. The laws that the police and courts enforce can be changed.
If you don't fight it (the above), you're supporting it.

Fine. I'm defending a group of people from being called names.

You want bigots to not be called bigots. You're not "defending a group of people", you're trying to change the English language because you don't like facing the truth of what your father is, by your own admission.

Fine, I won't call your father a bigot. I'll call him a lilac, as long as we agree that "lilac" means the same as "bigot". Would that make you happier?

Fine. I'm defending a group of people from being called names. I'm not trying to justify their actions.

They werent "Being called names" they were being told what they were, then when you protested it, you were told through documented sources, why you were wrong...

you simply refuse to accept it...

I'm conceding that I have not heard a reasonable argument against gay marriage. I'm conceding that the argument "it could destroy the moral fabric of society" is - to me - unreasonable.

But my very first post was "There are a lot of reasons why a reasonable person might be opposed to legalized same-sex marriage, that doesn't make them a Nazi." (emphasis added).

I did not say their arguments were reasonable, I said that the people themselves were. Lots of otherwise-reasonable people do irrational things or have irrational beliefs. It doesn't mean that every belief they have is unreasonable or irrational.

Reasonable is as reasonable does.

It's patently clear you don't know a damned thing about Martin Luther King. King never advocated being polite to his oppressors. He advocated being better than them. And that's a difference. King spent a very long time in jail because he refused to cowtow to the oppressors. He very much advocated standing up to them.

King respected the sanctity of human life, and believed that no cause should go so far as to spread itself with violence. But he in no way advocated we should be nice about it. He orchestrated protests, he planned rallies that paralyzed cities. He took issues to the courts. Peaceful protest is still protest. You don't know a damned thing about him, his methods, or his legacy. This bullshit cheapens the memory of a great man. You should be ashamed.

I'm sorry friend, but I think maybe you're the one who doesn't understand Dr. King. Yes, he advocated being better then his oppressors. He did so by NOT lashing out in response to their insults, humiliations, and torments. Instead, he responded with patient wisdom. And even if he couldn't win the people actually tormenting him to his side, he succeeded in winning the people who - up until that point - had supported his tormentors to his side.

You do agree, don't you, that there is a difference between politely asking for something, and begging and grovelling for it? I'm not suggesting that anyone kowtow.

Fine. I'm defending a group of people from being called names. I'm not trying to justify their actions.

You seem to think that "bigot" is just a nasty name. Well, it can be, like "retard"--somebody could still be literally retarded, though. Those that oppose same-sex marriage are bigoted; they have an irrational dislike for a group of people.

They werent "Being called names" they were being told what they were, then when you protested it, you were told through documented sources, why you were wrong...

you simply refuse to accept it...

If a person opens a fortune cookie, does that make him a believer in mysticism?
If a person has one bigoted belief, does that make them a bigot?

.

You do agree, don't you, that there is a difference between politely asking for something, and begging and grovelling for it? I'm not suggesting that anyone kowtow.

If you think Martin Luther King Jr. just "asked politely", then, quite frankly, You dont know a damned thing about Dr. King...

You seem to think that "bigot" is just a nasty name. Well, it can be, like "retard"--somebody could still be literally retarded, though. Those that oppose same-sex marriage are bigoted; they have an irrational dislike for a group of people.

Yes, I believe that bigot is a nasty name, similar to racist.

If a person opens a fortune cookie, does that make him a believer in mysticism?
If a person has one bigoted belief, does that make them a bigot?

Only if he believes the Fortune Cookie...

and, yes, yes it does...

Same has having only "one racist belief" makes you a Racist...

You do agree, don't you, that there is a difference between politely asking for something, and begging and grovelling for it? I'm not suggesting that anyone kowtow.
I don't think people should ask, beg, or grovel for equality under the law. They should demand it.

If you think Martin Luther King Jr. just "asked politely", then, quite frankly, You dont know a damned thing about Dr. King...

I believe that Dr. King appealed to the better natures of his countrymen, and encouraged them to live up to the ideals they espoused but had not followed through on.

If a person has one bigoted belief, does that make them a bigot?

Um....yes. A bigot is one who holds bigoted beliefs.

History is also full of bomb-throwers claiming that "the only way to get things done is to FORCE them!" If that's the tactic you choose to adopt..well...good luck with that. While I'm sure there's some sort of cathartic pleasure in calling people bigots, I believe that this will hurt you come next election.

So now you're claiming Neo Art's "tactic" of calling a bigot a bigot is somehow comparable to throwing bombs?

That's got to be the most textbook case of a strawman fallacy I've seen on this board.


And that's saying something.

Yes, I believe that bigot is a nasty name, similar to racist.

Some persons are actually bigoted, some are actually racist, and some are actually retarded.

The difference between mentally challenged persons and bigots: bigots choose to be the way they are, which makes them contemptible.

I believe that Dr. King appealed to the better natures of his countrymen, and encouraged them to live up to the ideals they espoused but had not followed through on.

as well as organizing protests, challenging laws in the courts, as well as willingly breaking the law. Yes, he engaged people. As one part of an overall strategy. There's nothing wrong with engaging people, but to base your system of change on it entirely is foolish.

I believe that Dr. King appealed to the better natures of his countrymen, and encouraged them to live up to the ideals they espoused but had not followed through on.

Yeah, through protests, court cases, activism, etc...In short, the same tactics currently being employed by the Gay Rights groups...

Not by trying to convince the Segregationists that it "wasnt nice" or some rubbish...

I believe that Dr. King appealed to the better natures of his countrymen, and encouraged them to live up to the ideals they espoused but had not followed through on.

He also called prejudice prejudice when he saw it. He called bigotry out as bigotry when he saw it. Check into some of his books and speeches.

If a person opens a fortune cookie, does that make him a believer in mysticism?
If a person has one bigoted belief, does that make them a bigot?

That is a horrible analogy. Passively opening a cookie and reading it vs. actively holding an opinion.

Yes, holding even one bigoted belief makes you a bigot.

I love Jews. I love Christians. I love gays and Asians and Blacks. But I can't stand Gypsys. Guess what? I'm a bigot.

Only if he believes the Fortune Cookie...

and, yes, yes it does...

Same has having only "one racist belief" makes you a Racist...

OK, I disagree. If a person does one silly or stupid thing, that doesn't make them a silly or stupid person. People make mistakes.

People who routinely make silly or stupid decisions on a variety of issues, now THOSE people I would say can accurately be described as being "stupid" or "silly" people.

I believe the same is true for bigoted actions.

So now you're claiming Neo Art's "tactic" of calling a bigot a bigot is somehow comparable to throwing bombs?

That's got to be the most textbook case of a strawman fallacy I've seen on this board.


And that's saying something.

"bomb-thrower" is an expression used in political science. It doesn't describe someone actually throwing bombs.

OK, I disagree. If a person does one silly or stupid thing, that doesn't make them a silly or stupid person. People make mistakes.

People who routinely make silly or stupid decisions on a variety of issues, now THOSE people I would say can accurately be described as being "stupid" or "silly" people.

I believe the same is true for bigoted actions.

NO.

Doing the same stupid thing, over and over again, makes one stupid.

OK, I disagree. If a person does one silly or stupid thing, that doesn't make them a silly or stupid person. People make mistakes.

People who routinely make silly or stupid decisions on a variety of issues, now THOSE people I would say can accurately be described as being "stupid" or "silly" people.

I believe the same is true for bigoted actions.

doing one stupid action is a mistake. Actively holding on to racist and bigoted ideals is quite different.

OK, I disagree. If a person does one silly or stupid thing, that doesn't make them a silly or stupid person. People make mistakes.

People who routinely make silly or stupid decisions on a variety of issues, now THOSE people I would say can accurately be described as being "stupid" or "silly" people.

I believe the same is true for bigoted actions.

And you believe wrong, Bigoted beliefs about any group of people make you a Bigot...

doing something stupid =/= holding a belief...

"bomb-thrower" is an expression used in political science. It doesn't describe someone actually throwing bombs.

When used in this context:

History is also full of bomb-throwers claiming that "the only way to get things done is to FORCE them!"

...a more emphatic and literal force can clearly be implied.

Either way, if "force" consists of using the legal system and seeking lawful redress, then I guess your "bomb throwers" include pretty much the entire civil rights movement.

As for it "hurting us" in the elections, you might want to check Neo Art's historical argument a little more closely. Despite set backs here and there, the persistent trend isn't "hurting us".

That is a horrible analogy. Passively opening a cookie and reading it vs. actively holding an opinion.

Yes, holding even one bigoted belief makes you a bigot.

I love Jews. I love Christians. I love gays and Asians and Blacks. But I can't stand Gypsys. Guess what? I'm a bigot.

To be fair, there was that gypsy that cursed your manhood.

"bomb-thrower" is an expression used in political science. It doesn't describe someone actually throwing bombs.

Calling something what it is, isnt "Bomb-throwing" even in political science...

How many groups must one hate to be bigoted?

How many groups must one hate to be bigoted if one will not do it?

At least 42, I feel this is the appropriate number, seeing as how it is the answer to life, the universe, and everything...;)

OK, I disagree. If a person does one silly or stupid thing, that doesn't make them a silly or stupid person. People make mistakes.

People who routinely make silly or stupid decisions on a variety of issues, now THOSE people I would say can accurately be described as being "stupid" or "silly" people.

I believe the same is true for bigoted actions.

So, is the person in question bigoted in this way as a matter of belief? Does he or she continue to hold this bigoted belief, day after day?

Does he/she apply her belief uniformly, without hypocrisy?

Because if he/she believes it, continues to believe it, and acts on their beliefs with any consistency, then they can be described in part by that belief.

At least 42, I feel this is the appropriate number, seeing as how it is the answer to life, the universe, and everything...;)

You found the Ultimate Question!

You found the Ultimate Question!

http://softwarecreation.org/images/2007/deep-thought.jpg

Why do you think I built this planet? :p

(And, i think it may be Ironically, I just realized I said that on the 42nd page of the thread, lol)

You found the Ultimate Question!
Oh crap.:eek2:

Yeah, through protests, court cases, activism, etc...In short, the same tactics currently being employed by the Gay Rights groups...

Not by trying to convince the Segregationists that it "wasnt nice" or some rubbish...

No, not trying to convince the segregationists at all. He challenged them directly. He was trying to convince the people who had been previously convinced by the segregationists.

Look at it this way. You have a small group of nasty, hate-filled racists saying things like "Everyone knows that black people are no good and shouldn't be allowed to mix with decent white folks!" They're the segregationists. You also have a large body of white people who don't necessarily think this way, in fact most have them have never met a black person. But no one is arguing against the segregationists, so their view becomes "common knowledge". This system perpetuates itself largely because "that's how things have always been".

Now Dr. King shows up. He challenges the segregationists to defend themselves, all while articulating his vision of a better future where whites and blacks live together in peace, and exposing the abuses that blacks had been historically subjected to.

Naturally, the segregationists respond, in some cases with police dogs and fire hoses. Along with the segregationists are large numbers of those supporters I mentioned earlier. These supporters witness their own leaders attacking unarmed men with dogs and clubs, men who aren't hurting anybody. The segregationists may preach that allowing blacks equality will destroy society, but from what the supporters can see, the only people being anti-social are their own leadership.

The supporters are disillusioned with their own cause. They feel ashamed at having been a part of it. Maybe they're not quite willing to go all the way and embrace integration, but they're definitely not interested in defending segregation anymore.

So when Dr. King and his people convinced the courts to outlaw segregation, the people COULD have demanded that their congressmen rewrite the constitution to bring segregation back (similar to what happened with prop 8 in California). But they didn't do that. They'd seen the ugly face of the side they had once supported, and they had no desire to be a part of that again.

How many groups must one hate to be bigoted?

We should make a scale.

Hating different groups is worth points, and when you reach 100 points, you're a bigot.

"Them Blacks" 50
"Jews" 45
"Mexicans" 40
"Those People" 35
"Orientals" 22
"Honkeys" 44
"Women Folk" 43
"Italians (pronounced 'Eye-talians') 33
Pollacks 35
Cat'lics 32

Note that combos are cumulative. If you can' stand Black Jewish Mexican Women, you done it.

http://softwarecreation.org/images/2007/deep-thought.jpg

Why do you think I built this planet? :p

(And, i think it may be Ironically, I just realized I said that on the 42nd page of the thread, lol)

You just blew my mind! This planet was built to develop bigots.

We should make a scale.

Hating different groups is worth points, and when you reach 100 points, you're a bigot.

"Them Blacks" 50
"Jews" 45
"Mexicans" 40
"Those People" 35
"Orientals" 22
"Honkeys" 44
"Women Folk" 43
"Italians (pronounced 'Eye-talians') 33
Pollacks 35
Cat'lics 32

Note that combos are cumulative. If you can' stand Black Jewish Mexican Women, you done it.

This is why you are awesome, Hammurab. :D

Regardless of whether or not you should HAVE to ask for what's rightfully yours, the point is: you don't have it.

If a criminal steals something of yours, and he's bigger and stronger then you, an there are no police around, what do you do? You can demand your property back and say that it's rightfully yours. You can call him a dirty crook and point out that he's breaking the law. You can try to take it back by force. Or you can accept that it's gone and move on.

OR...you can ask him "Hey, what did I ever do to you? Why would you do that to me?"...if he has a conscience, he may feel guilty, realize that what he's done is wrong, and return your property with an apology.

This last option is how I would characterize Martin Luther King's success.

Not only is that a complete mischaracterization of MLK's tactics, but it's also exceedingly obvious you've never been mugged before.

Actually, I said that it ended segregation, not that it freed the slaves.

No, you said that it "forced the South to secede" because the abolitionist movement was "so close to winning".

No, not trying to convince the segregationists at all. He challenged them directly. He was trying to convince the people who had been previously convinced by the segregationists.

Look at it this way. You have a small group of nasty, hate-filled racists saying things like "Everyone knows that black people are no good and shouldn't be allowed to mix with decent white folks!" They're the segregationists. You also have a large body of white people who don't necessarily think this way, in fact most have them have never met a black person. But no one is arguing against the segregationists, so their view becomes "common knowledge". This system perpetuates itself largely because "that's how things have always been".

Now Dr. King shows up. He challenges the segregationists to defend themselves, all while articulating his vision of a better future where whites and blacks live together in peace, and exposing the abuses that blacks had been historically subjected to.

He also calls out prejudice and bigotry as prejudice and bigotry, which by your own previous logic, makes him a "bomb thrower" who supposedly was hurting his own cause. Not being very consistent, are you?


Naturally, the segregationists respond, in some cases with police dogs and fire hoses. Along with the segregationists are large numbers of those supporters I mentioned earlier. These supporters witness their own leaders attacking unarmed men with dogs and clubs, men who aren't hurting anybody. The segregationists may preach that allowing blacks equality will destroy society, but from what the supporters can see, the only people being anti-social are their own leadership.

The supporters are disillusioned with their own cause. They feel ashamed at having been a part of it. Maybe they're not quite willing to go all the way and embrace integration, but they're definitely not interested in defending segregation anymore.

So when Dr. King and his people convinced the courts to outlaw segregation, the people COULD have demanded that their congressmen rewrite the constitution to bring segregation back (similar to what happened with prop 8 in California). But they didn't do that. They'd seen the ugly face of the side they had once supported, and they had no desire to be a part of that again.

Courts don't "outlaw" anything, they interpret the law. The courts decided that violations of civil rights were already "outlawed" by the various civil rights legislations, and interpreted it as so.

This is why you are awesome, Hammurab. :D

Not at all. Its because I'm from a nuclear family.

If I'd been raised by lesbians, I'd barely be literate.



Its true, I read it in a chick pamphlet.

No, you said that it "forced the South to secede" because the abolitionist movement was "so close to winning".

Which is also a complete miss characterization, since the Abolitionists were never close to winning in the South, not a single time...

Which is also a complete miss characterization, since the Abolitionists were never close to winning in the South, not a single time...

At first I thought you typoed with "miss characterization" instead of mischaracterization...

...but then I saw you were writing it as a "complete miss" characterization, which is still a very apt way to describe Mustoria's attempts at parallel.

Not at all. Its because I'm from a nuclear family.

If I'd been raised by lesbians, I'd barely be literate.



Its true, I read it in a chick pamphlet.

And I thank Jesus every day that he taught you to read and write and use the interwebs.

Oh, I see. You are correct. But those mechanisms can be controlled by the majority. If enough people were sufficiently convinced that a groups right should be taken away, that can happen. Constitutions can be changed. The laws that the police and courts enforce can be changed.

That's why I eliminated the police in my hypothetical.

And if you're a cashier and don't give a customer correct change, that customer could become enraged and return to gun everyone down. That's why it's important to learn basic math.

Someone find me a telescope, I can't even find the goalposts anymore.

At first I thought you typoed with "miss characterization" instead of mischaracterization...

...but then I saw you were writing it as a "complete miss" characterization, which is still a very apt way to describe Mustoria's attempts at parallel.

lol, well, every now and then, Jolt gives you something unintentionally witty...

I thought i was spelling mischaracterization correctly, but it was telling me I wasnt anyway, so, I changed it, lol...

If a person believes that fortune cookies predict the future, does that make him a believer in mysticism?
If a person has one bigoted belief, does that make them a bigot?

Yes, and yes.

And I thank Jesus every day that he taught you to read and write and use the interwebs.

I wanted my next nation to be "Ghost of Jesus for Christ with a Goattee", but its too long.

If you think Martin Luther King Jr. just "asked politely", then, quite frankly, You dont know a damned thing about Dr. King...

And I'm betting someone from Biloxi would know a smidge about MLK, unlike our good friend here, who apparently grew up in the first Garden.

And if you're a cashier and don't give a customer correct change, that customer could become enraged and return to gun everyone down. That's why it's important to learn basic math.

Someone find me a telescope, I can't even find the goalposts anymore.

Wait...There were goalposts?...

I thought this was "randomly refute things bigots like to say"....

My bad, lol...

So, is the person in question bigoted in this way as a matter of belief? Does he or she continue to hold this bigoted belief, day after day?

Does he/she apply her belief uniformly, without hypocrisy?

Because if he/she believes it, continues to believe it, and acts on their beliefs with any consistency, then they can be described in part by that belief.

OK, I have to go to work, so this will be my last post for awhile. Feel free to respond, I will read them later.

I find that many people hold one or two irrational beliefs while considering themselves to be extremely rational people. This is usually born from inexperience (I don't like to say "ignorance" because of the negative connotations). For example: A person might be genuinely horrified at the thought of racial discrimination, but see nothing wrong with sexism. If you engage him, and point it out the relationship, he may begin to doubt himself.
My dad would loudly denounce anything he felt was racially discriminatory, but he's OK with denying same-sex marriage because he doesn't see the connection.

Ever seen the movie "G.I. Jane"? There's a great scene where a guy is making nasty remarks about Demi Moore's character because he resents that she's a woman who has forced herself into an all-male military unit. Then the black guy tells a story about how his grandfather was told that he couldn't serve his country in WW2 for racial reasons. The first guy - who a moment ago was being a real jerk - says "Oh man, that sucks! Thank God times have changed!". The black guy gives the first guy a sideways look and asks "have they?"

Sure, it's just a fictional story (and the writing is a bit ham-fisted) but it illustrates the point that I'm trying to get at.

See, if a person considers himself to be a fair and non-discriminatory person (who is against gay marriage, but he doesn't see any hypocrisy there) then if you call him a "bigot" he's going to get defensive. Reasonable or not, nobody likes to be called names, and thanks to the civil rights movement "bigot" is one step above "Klansman".

Maybe I'm being too forgiving of other people, but I don't believe that one bad character trait makes someone a bad person.

And I'm betting someone from Biloxi would know a smidge about MLK, unlike our good friend here, who apparently grew up in the first Garden.

God: I can't believe you ate the fruit. That fruit was really important to me, and I asked you not to eat it.

Adam: Sorry...guess you're going to throw us out?

God: No, I don't want to be a bomb thrower or FORCE you to do things...but that apple was really valuable, it meant a lot to me...what did I ever do to you?

Eve: Oh, man, Lord, we're really sorry...we'll leave...

God: No, no, that's fine, you can stay, I mean, I created this whole planet with a garden, and all these animal companions for you, you might as well stay...even though you couldn't honor one tiny little request...

Adam: Okay, fuck this shame shit, we're out.

Not only is that a complete mischaracterization of MLK's tactics, but it's also exceedingly obvious you've never been mugged before.

Actually, I have been mugged 3 times. Twice at knife-point, and once while getting gang-jumped by about 6 people who nearly strangled me to death.

I kept trying to demand that they respect my rights, but I was having a hard time getting the words out past the bandanna around my throat :)

OK, I have to go to work, so this will be my last post for awhile. Feel free to respond, I will read them later.

I find that many people hold one or two irrational beliefs while considering themselves to be extremely rational people. This is usually born from inexperience (I don't like to say "ignorance" because of the negative connotations). For example: A person might be genuinely horrified at the thought of racial discrimination, but see nothing wrong with sexism. If you engage him, and point it out the relationship, he may begin to doubt himself.
My dad would loudly denounce anything he felt was racially discriminatory, but he's OK with denying same-sex marriage because he doesn't see the connection.

Ever seen the movie "G.I. Jane"? There's a great scene where a guy is making nasty remarks about Demi Moore's character because he resents that she's a woman who has forced herself into an all-male military unit. Then the black guy tells a story about how his grandfather was told that he couldn't serve his country in WW2 for racial reasons. The first guy - who a moment ago was being a real jerk - says "Oh man, that sucks! Thank God times have changed!". The black guy gives the first guy a sideways look and asks "have they?"

Sure, it's just a fictional story (and the writing is a bit ham-fisted) but it illustrates the point that I'm trying to get at.

See, if a person considers himself to be a fair and non-discriminatory person (who is against gay marriage, but he doesn't see any hypocrisy there) then if you call him a "bigot" he's going to get defensive. Reasonable or not, nobody likes to be called names, and thanks to the civil rights movement "bigot" is one step above "Klansman".

Maybe I'm being too forgiving of other people, but I don't believe that one bad character trait makes someone a bad person.

But having the trait of bigotry makes one a bigot.

Its like saying of your mugger example, "Don't call him a mugger, he'll feel bad and get all defensive".

Discriminating against people is harmful, and in many instances, is a crime. Somebody who mugs gets called a mugger. Somebody who discriminates from impetus of bigotry is a bigot.

If it bothers you that people get "defensive" about the truth, you should think about what that means about how much you value truth.

Or am I being a "bomb thrower" like Martin Luther King, Jr, who by your logic, was hurting his own cause by calling bigotry by its name?

Actually, I have been mugged 3 times. Twice at knife-point, and once while getting gang-jumped by about 6 people who nearly strangled me to death.

I kept trying to demand that they respect my rights, but I was having a hard time getting the words out past the bandanna around my throat :)

So I guess your own advice wasn't very good then, since your guilt trip method would be equally impared by the bandanna.

Are you ever consistent with your arguments?

Wait...There were goalposts?...

I thought this was "randomly refute things bigots like to say"....

My bad, lol...

Stop being an anti-bigot bigot. It'll make me get all defensive.

Actually, I have been mugged 3 times. Twice at knife-point, and once while getting gang-jumped by about 6 people who nearly strangled me to death.

I kept trying to demand that they respect my rights, but I was having a hard time getting the words out past the bandanna around my throat :)

If you had gun you could have just shot them. :)

If you had gun you could have just shot them. :)

Don't call it a gun. It will become all defensive.




Wait...

Stop being an anti-bigot bigot. It'll make me get all defensive.

WHAT!

look, just because I hold one belief that Bigots are wrong, doesnt make me a Bigot, because one bigotted action doesnt make a silly stupid, ga-http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/protestwarriors/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

Ever seen the movie "G.I. Jane"? There's a great scene where a guy is making nasty remarks about Demi Moore's character because he resents that she's a woman who has forced herself into an all-male military unit. Then the black guy tells a story about how his grandfather was told that he couldn't serve his country in WW2 for racial reasons. The first guy - who a moment ago was being a real jerk - says "Oh man, that sucks! Thank God times have changed!". The black guy gives the first guy a sideways look and asks "have they?"

This is, of course, why all members of a minority group that has faced discrimination are always supportive of other minority groups facing discrimination. All black people support gay rights, all Jews are feminists, etc.

See, if a person considers himself to be a fair and non-discriminatory person (who is against gay marriage, but he doesn't see any hypocrisy there) then if you call him a "bigot" he's going to get defensive. Reasonable or not, nobody likes to be called names, and thanks to the civil rights movement "bigot" is one step above "Klansman".

That damn civil rights movement, making people feel bad about themselves for being bigots!

Maybe I'm being too forgiving of other people, but I don't believe that one bad character trait makes someone a bad person.

And the goalposts retreat another yard! Being too critical doesn't make someone a bad person. Holding irrational beliefs about people based on an arbitrary categorization makes someone a bigot.

I'd like to ask you a question, though. You've repeatedly said that your dad is a good, reasonable guy. You've also claimed you support gay marriage. Assuming you have an amicable relationship with your father, why is it that, despite all his reasonableness and goodness and all your efforts, you've failed to convince him that gay marriage isn't wrong or evil? And why do you expect complete strangers trying to live their lives to accomplish a goal you, his son, can not?

I'd like to ask you a question, though. You've repeatedly said that your dad is a good, reasonable guy. You've also claimed you support gay marriage. Assuming you have an amicable relationship with your father, why is it that, despite all his reasonableness and goodness and all your efforts, you've failed to convince him that gay marriage isn't wrong or evil? And why do you expect complete strangers trying to live their lives to accomplish a goal you, his son, can not?

Actually, I've made quite a bit of progress with him. Originally he didn't want to hear anything I said on the issue. He just kept repeating "Well, I think that it harms society as a whole, and that's that." Of course I asked him how it hurt society, and he admitted that he didn't have a clear cut answer. Over the years I've tried various tactics, such as "Wouldn't unwanted children be better off being raised by a happily-married gay couple then the state?" and "Isn't a happy gay marriage better for a community then an unhappy, dysfunctional heterosexual one?". I have not compromised my belief that gay marriage is right, but I have also never called him a bigot.

The last conversation we had about this (about 3 weeks ago) I asked him "So what, specifically makes you want to not allow gay marriage?" He paused for a long time, thinking...finally he said "I don't know. But I hate the fact that it's so political now. You either wholeheartedly agree with gay marriage, or you're a bigot.". I think he is (grudgingly) willing to admit that he was wrong, but he doesn't want to give people who's tactics he feels are nasty the satisfaction of "winning". It's just stubborn pride at this point. If the LGBT community were to (somehow) tell him "Look, we don't blame you. We realize that was just how you were brought up. But even though that's understandable, it's also unfair. The time has come to do what's right and allow us to have the rights we've been denied for so long."

And so I entered this forum asking for the pro-same-sex marriage crowd to extend an olive branch to the other side. Not to compromise on their issues, agree to settle for less, or grovel or plead. Simply to offer to work together to do what's right. Give them a chance to join the right team.

Instead, I have encountered many people who simply feel that "The law is on my side, we don't need them! Screw 'em! They're all just a bunch of no-good bigots anyway! I'll either get what I want or we'll make their lives hell until I do!" Instead of making friends and allies, folks here seem to revel in making enemies.

This antagonistic approach will antagonize people like my dad. God knows how many millions of people like my dad might be out there, millions that COULD be convinced to legalize gay marriage tomorrow.

Well...good luck with that.

I'm sorry if you're unimpressed. I hadn't originally come here prepared for a formal debate, hence no research. Most of my points come from things that I have read and observed over the years. But I don't have the books/articles handy.
There's this thing. It's called the internet. Maybe you've heard of it. It lets you do at least superficial instant research, as needed. NSG is not a peer-reviewed journal, but it does have its standards. You don't have to present formal citations, but any effort at all not to appear as if you're just spouting bullshit would be welcome. If you can't be bothered to make that effort, then don't be surprised if no one takes your word for anything.

OK, you can fault me for not citing my sources if you like. I originally came here simply to ask people to be polite; I've already devoted far more time to this thread then I had intended! Forgive me if I don't have research assistants combing LexisNexis as I type.
You say you came here just to ask for politeness, but what you actually did was call for people to let bigots get away with bigotry. And your claim that you are only interested in politeness becomes just another level of insult considering the way you've been characterizing gays in this thread.


No, I cry foul when THIS happens...

YOU: Give me ONE good reason why...
ME: OK, here you go.
YOU: That's NOT a good reason!
OTHERS: Yeah, what's the matter? Can't you provide ONE good reason that we haven't heard before? No, you can't! God you're such an idiot! Why do we have to deal with people like you?
ME: Could you tell me WHY it's not a good reason?

At this point I get a variety of responses. Granted, each of my points is denied in turn, but rarely with a good counter-argument. For example: If I say "Some people feel that homosexual marriage harms the moral fabric of society" you can't simply respond with "Well, it doesn't!" or "Only bigots think that way!" When using an analogy, people respond with "That's different, because..." OF COURSE it's different! It's an analogy!
So, in other words, you get annoyed when other people dismiss your reasons as not good reasons, and then you turn around and dismiss their reasons and arguments as not good reasons/arguments.

I see.

Oh, that reminds me of another error you have been guilty of through this entire thread:

7) APPLYING A DOUBLE STANDARD. Holding others to a set of rules or expectations that you do not apply to yourself.

From my post#50 (emphasis added): "I want to be clear that I'm not trying to put same-sex couples who want to get married in the same category as child-molesters. I'm simply trying to make the point that society regulates behavior."

Look, I've made multiple statements such as these, all of which were ignored. I was challenged to make my points, and did so with analogies. Naturally, these anaologies will be negative...I'm trying to show you why someone WOULDN'T want same-sex marriage.

And - for the record - I never said that gays were intolerant. I said that certain pro-same-sex-marriage activists (some of whom have posted here) were intolerant. I also never said that gays were obnoxious. I said that polarized debates can lead to obnoxious protests. Notice, that I didn't mention which protests?
You can split that hair as fine as you like, it changes nothing. You have repeatedly claimed that you are not trying to insult anyone, at the same time that you post insult after insult. Your little disclaimers mean nothing. You have been told that such remarks are not valid arguments and are offensive, yet you persist in repeating them. I do not believe your disclaimers because if you really did not intend to be offensive, you would stop doing the offensive thing.

People used foul language, insulting descriptions, and durrogatory labels. If I'm guilty of demonizing the subject with my analogies, then why aren't they guilty of demonizing me? I felt attacked. No one said anything like "OK, I see where you're coming from, but let me ask you this...". THAT'S a debate. "Oh God, not this lame-ass tired, bigoted argument again!" is inflammatory and insulting.
They are not guilty of demonizing you because they have not characterized you as being similar to criminals etc.

You were called a bigot on the grounds that you presented the argument of a bigot and used the language of a bigot. Truth is an absolute defense. If you speak and act like a bigot, it cannot be called "demonizing" to call you a bigot.

Now show us how gays act like murderers, child molesters, etc. Explain to us how claiming that you never meant to put gays into such a negative class justifies you constantly putting them into that class through the whole thread. The fact that the comparison is not an accurate description of what gays do or what they are like is what makes your statements "demonizing" and while your critics' are not.

I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me. I DO expect people to mind their manners and maintain some civility.[/quote
Well, why don't you try setting an example and retract your insulting comments about gays, instead of continuing to bitch at us for calling you on them?

[quote]You have comepletely misstated my argument. The people who oppose same-sex marriage are currently in the majority (at least in California). Therefore, any attempt to circumvent this majority will ultimately fail. When the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22, Prop 8 re-wrote the constitution. And so, if our goal is to legalize same-sex marriage, we must convince at least part of the majority to either see things our way, or at the very least to not oppose us. If we keep treating them like the enemy, we will alienate them and make our job harder.
And here you are once again IGNORING THE ACTUAL DEBATE. This claim of yours has already been addressed and debunked in this thread. I am not going to pretend this had not already been shot down, just because you prefer to repeat yourself over and over.

Sorry, I have a life. I've spent hours on this post already. I can only devote so much of my time to rehashing the same old arguments.
And whose fault is that? You're the one who keeps posting the same claims over and over. Try being substantively responsive (instead of just peevish) and maybe some new points will come up.

When I give an argument, and it's dismissed with "that's not a good argument". How would you like me to respond to that? <snip>
By coming up with a better one.


I've debated for years...
No, it only feels like years, but it's just been a couple of days.

I know how to play the Devil's Advocate, thank you very much.
Then I wish you'd do it right.

And yes, I DO indeed support legalize same-sex marriage.

But my father doesn't.

<snip sad story>

There are millions of guys like my dad out there that can make or break your cause. Maybe try being nicer to them?
Yes, we are aware of the existence of bigots. Your question has already been addressed several times. You continue to IGNORE THE ACTUAL DEBATE.

So if I refuse to leave this forum, if I keep posting, it's because I don't want to see guys like my dad called "bigots". It's an unfair, loaded, negative word, and he doesn't deserve it. That doesn't mean that I'm insincere when I say that I - personally - support same-sex-marriage. And how dare you accuse me of lying to avoid taking responsibility for my own beliefs?
How dare I? Oh, easily. I dare in the manner and for the reasons I told you in the post in which I said that.

In a court of law, you'd be correct. In the court of public opinion, however, gut feelings often dictate action.

Logically you are correct, the burden of proof should be on them. But they simply don't want to hear that. Therefore, we can either stop trying to convince them or we can try to draw them into discussion.
The law is what this issue is about. Therefore, public opinion is irrelevant.

Actually, I've made quite a bit of progress with him. Originally he didn't want to hear anything I said on the issue. He just kept repeating "Well, I think that it harms society as a whole, and that's that." Of course I asked him how it hurt society, and he admitted that he didn't have a clear cut answer. Over the years I've tried various tactics, such as "Wouldn't unwanted children be better off being raised by a happily-married gay couple then the state?" and "Isn't a happy gay marriage better for a community then an unhappy, dysfunctional heterosexual one?". I have not compromised my belief that gay marriage is right, but I have also never called him a bigot.

The last conversation we had about this (about 3 weeks ago) I asked him "So what, specifically makes you want to not allow gay marriage?" He paused for a long time, thinking...finally he said "I don't know. But I hate the fact that it's so political now. You either wholeheartedly agree with gay marriage, or you're a bigot.". I think he is (grudgingly) willing to admit that he was wrong, but he doesn't want to give people who's tactics he feels are nasty the satisfaction of "winning". It's just stubborn pride at this point. If the LGBT community were to (somehow) tell him "Look, we don't blame you. We realize that was just how you were brought up. But even though that's understandable, it's also unfair. The time has come to do what's right and allow us to have the rights we've been denied for so long."

And so I entered this forum asking for the pro-same-sex marriage crowd to extend an olive branch to the other side. Not to compromise on their issues, agree to settle for less, or grovel or plead. Simply to offer to work together to do what's right. Give them a chance to join the right team.

Instead, I have encountered many people who simply feel that "The law is on my side, we don't need them! Screw 'em! They're all just a bunch of no-good bigots anyway! I'll either get what I want or we'll make their lives hell until I do!" Instead of making friends and allies, folks here seem to revel in making enemies.

This antagonistic approach will antagonize people like my dad. God knows how many millions of people like my dad might be out there, millions that COULD be convinced to legalize gay marriage tomorrow.

Well...good luck with that.
I don't care why he, or anyone else, holds their ideals. I don't even particularly care that they do hold them at all.

It is strange, however, that you point to us and say we are the ones who will make their lives hell. We aren't withholding their rights. We aren't threatening to remove their rights. We never stormed their clubs in New York. We never beat them. We never harassed them. We never ostracized them. We never even asked them for a damn thing but to be given the same exact rights they already have. If they are unwilling to accept that my boy and I are both humans, and as such, deserve equal protection under the law, then that is fine...I don't particularly care, as I don't interact with those that hold that opinion. I acknowledge that they are bigots on this issue, and move on. In the end, their opinion doesn't really matter...the US constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, and that is extended to the states via the 14th amendment. At some point, this nation will move a step closer to realizing the ideals it was established upon. With or without majority approval.

It's up to you to determine what sort of behavior qualifies someone as a "bigot" or a "racist". However, if you're trying to convince a racist to change his ways, you probably shouldn't call him a racist.
The goal is not to change the way people think, only the way the law treats citizens.

If a person opens a fortune cookie, does that make him a believer in mysticism?
If a person has one bigoted belief, does that make them a bigot?
Having a bigoted belief = bigot.

Yes, I believe that bigot is a nasty name, similar to racist.
Having racist belief(s) = racist.

These are descriptive terms. When applied accurately according to their meanings, they are not "nasty names," like calling someone an "asshole," but rather correct descriptions of the person and/or their belief.

Simply to offer to work together to do what's right. Give them a chance to join the right team.

People have that choice anytime they want, and it doesn't require an invitation.


Instead, I have encountered many people who simply feel that "The law is on my side, we don't need them! Screw 'em! They're all just a bunch of no-good bigots anyway! I'll either get what I want or we'll make their lives hell until I do!" Instead of making friends and allies, folks here seem to revel in making enemies.

Way to completely rewrite what was said. Like I said, you are a master of applying the text-book straw man fallacy, in a way that clearly demonstrates not only the fallacy itselt, but why its unconvincing.

Odds are long on changing your father's bigotry, but either way, illustrating and being honest about your father's bigotry makes it likely more people will see that bigotry and reject it. Thus, it has nothing to do with "making enemies", but with calling out discrimination for what it is.

Its called honesty, and if your family doesn't use it or subscribe to it, that's your business.


This antagonistic approach will antagonize people like my dad. God knows how many millions of people like my dad might be out there, millions that COULD be convinced to legalize gay marriage tomorrow.

Well...good luck with that.

If things like reason or logic don't convince them, why should humoring their bigotry convince them to reject it?

If that's the kind of "convincing" they need, people like that aren't really an asset to whatever belief system they subscribe to. They are, by definition, obstacles to civil rights, and will only change when they choose to, not because we play along with their bigotry.

It's my impression that, inorder to get equality under the law, Mustoria thinks people should allow themselves to be hosed/police/ect over other methods, so as to not disturb the comfort of those who have no basis for their beliefs. But maybe I just misunderstood.

The goal is not to change the way people think, only the way the law treats citizens.

Stop calling it "the law", that will make it get all authoritarian and defensive.

It's my impression that Mustoria thinks people should allow themselves to be hosed/police/ect over other methods, inorder to get equality under the law, for the comfort of people who have no basis for their beliefs. But maybe I just misunderstood.

Stop advocating that we refrain from avoiding the restraint of not failing to antagonize prejudiced people by applying a word that means prejudiced person




Be like you are bad for language!


Bad.

Oh fine, I edited.

It's my impression that Mustoria thinks people should allow themselves to be hosed/police/ect over other methods, inorder to get equality under the law, for the comfort of people who have no basis for their beliefs. But maybe I just misunderstood.
Nah, I think you're pretty much up to speed.

Stop calling it "the law", that will make it get all authoritarian and defensive.
At this rate, I'm going to have to think up a new word for my C A T, because everytime I say the word "cat" he yells (meows) at me.

Nah, I think you're pretty much up to speed.


At this rate, I'm going to have to think up a new word for my C A T, because everytime I say the word "cat" he yells (meows) at me.

And you'll notice, he hasn't stopped being a cat.



Thus, proving the logic of Mustoria's method.


Now, let us begin the traditional heaping of acrimony upon Neo Art for his catsuited lawyerlyiness.

Also, Mur, remember that you may not marry your cat. Evidently that's important.

Because it means you shouldn't be able to marry another woman.

S'like "a mouth is a mouth" maxim, except it goes "pussy's pussy".

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony, and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state... We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage, married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements, and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays. (A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.) I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony, and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state... We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage, married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements, and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays. (A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.) I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.
There are other religions, which would have no problem with it, which are just as valid. Because they are belief. Meaning they have no validity. If I made up a religion right now, that would be just as valid.

Can you hear me? Can you even comprehend that? Are you insane?

I can't believe, after 2 days and 45 pages you are all still aruging about the word bigot.
If a person has one bigoted belief, does that make them a bigot?
erm....yes?

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony, and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state... We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage, married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements, and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays. (A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.) I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.

So, you've never heard of a civil ceremony marriage, like the millions that have happened, or the fact that civic law effects marriage and its dissolution in the United States, not ecclesiastic law?

You're sorry, but you will have no regrets. Should've just said that, it made the most sense.

Senor Poe Poe.

I can't believe, after 2 days and 45 pages you are all still aruging about the word bigot.

erm....yes?

Stop using the word "aruging". It will make us all comabtive.

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony, and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state... We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage, married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements, and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays. (A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.) I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.

Marriage is first and foremost a legal document. Hence why you don't have to be religious to get married. Christianity did not create marriage. Judaism did not create marriage. Marriage existed long before the modern concept of organized religion, and has never been owned by any religion.

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony, and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state... We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage, married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements, and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays. (A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.) I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.

You are angering the liberals. You made Baby Castro cry...wait....

Marriage is first and foremost a legal document. Hence why you don't have to be religious to get married. Christianity did not create marriage. Judaism did not create marriage. Marriage existed long before the modern concept of organized religion, and has never been owned by any religion.

Nuh-uh! 'Cause Adam and Eve were Christian, they got married in an Assemblies of God Church by their pastor!

We just don't hear a lot about it because he later got caught buying meth from a male prostitute while getting a rusty trombone behind a Popeye's Chicken and Biscuits in Assyria.

He repented, though, so its okay.

Marriage is first and foremost a legal document. Hence why you don't have to be religious to get married. Christianity did not create marriage. Judaism did not create marriage. Marriage existed long before the modern concept of organized religion, and has never been owned by any religion.

yeah back in the days when i could have several wives.

yeah back in the days when i could have several wives.

And they were your property.

And they were your property.

Your women. We wish to buy them.

And they were your property.

yep if her parents came to visit too often I could load them up and move farther away from her family.

And they were your property.
And they were children.

Why not just give everybody civil unions. That way, the fundamentalists are pissed AND the homos are pissed, and everybody else can have a sexy time.

Why not just give everybody civil unions. That way, the fundamentalists are pissed AND the homos are pissed, and everybody else can have a sexy time.
Nice generalization.

Someone find me a telescope, I can't even find the goalposts anymore.
I saw something around Jupiter. Might be a teapot though.
I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony,
No, it isn't. Weddings can be religious ceremonies, but not always. Marriage is a legal relationship.
and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state... We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage,
Marriage is a matter of law. Makes it the government's business.
married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements,
Except that's what makes them married couples and not just two people who love each other and have sex.
and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays.
Not really anything you can do about it. Freedom of religion and all
(A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.)
Yes, they do.
I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.
Unsurprising. If you regretted your stance I expect you'd change it.
And they were children.

Ah the good old days.

Your women. We wish to buy them.

http://media.80stees.com/images/extraLarge/BLUES012_LG2.jpg

http://media.80stees.com/images/extraLarge/BLUES012_LG2.jpg

We probably shouldn't call them women. They might get all menstrual.

We probably shouldn't call them women. They might get all menstrual.

You shouldn't call it menstruation, it might get all bloody.

I cried,

Good!

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state...

Marriage is a civil institution.

We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage, married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements, and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays. (A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.)

That part of the post is pure BULLSHIT. The part in brackets doubly so.

I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.

Oh, there's literally nothing to be sorry about. Your group is losing relevance by the minute. I mean it. Your group is dead and forgot to lie down. Nothingness demolished its self, shattered its soul and devoured its sanity. Your group is nothing. It no longer exist. Your group is dead, Reavani.

Oh, there's literally nothing to be sorry about. Your group is losing relevance by the minute. I mean it. Your group is dead and forgot to lie down. Nothingness demolished its self, shattered its soul and devoured its sanity. Your group is nothing. It no longer exist. Your group is dead, Reavani.

Dying, certainly. But they are not dead, which is clearly demonstrated by Proposition 8. His group is still the majority in the United States.

Dying, certainly. But they are not dead, which is clearly demonstrated by Proposition 8. His group is still the majority in the United States.

Cut me some slack and allow me some anime-style banter. I deserve after that Time Stream post. :p

Cut me some slack and allow me some anime-style banter. I deserve after that Time Stream post. :p

*give pass*

http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00000/70/36/506307_l.gif

"Femminists and homosexuals have long attacked the traditional "nuclear family" as being oppressive. But since the 1960's we have witnessed a dramatic increase in divorce rates, illegitimate children, single-parent households, and violent crime. So maybe we should have left the nuclear family alone?

I'm sure this point has been thoroughly trashed already, but I find it so outrageously amusing I must comment further.

When exactly did the "nuclear family" become traditional? Hmmm? It is actually a fairly recent and largely fictional notion.

Divorce rates haven't "dramatically increase[d]" since the 1960s. In fact, divorce rates are down and relatively stable.

Similarly, violent crime hasn't "dramatically increase[d]" either. Reporting of violent crime increased in the 1970s, but actual crime is down.

Teen pregnancy is also down, fwiw.

As for illegitimate children and single-parent households, you'll forgive me if I'm unimpressed.

I'm sure this point has been thoroughly trashed already, but I find it so outrageously amusing I must comment further.

When exactly did the "nuclear family" become traditional? Hmmm? It is actually a fairly recent and largely fictional notion.

Divorce rates haven't "dramatically increase[d]" since the 1960s. In fact, divorce rates are down and relatively stable.

Similarly, violent crime hasn't "dramatically increase[d]" either. Reporting of violent crime increased in the 1970s, but actual crime is down.

Teen pregnancy is also down, fwiw.

As for illegitimate children and single-parent households, you'll forgive me if I'm unimpressed.

Violent crime rates are down, divorce is down, teen pregnancy is down. God, what a disgusting world the filthy gays are forcing on us.

Violent crime rates are down, divorce is down, teen pregnancy is down. God, what a disgusting world the filthy gays are forcing on us.

I think it is rather fabulous.

Oh, I see. You are correct. But those mechanisms can be controlled by the majority. If enough people were sufficiently convinced that a groups right should be taken away, that can happen. Constitutions can be changed. The laws that the police and courts enforce can be changed.

That's why I eliminated the police in my hypothetical.

Right. If 2/3 of the population (effectively) want the Constitutional law changed, theoretically it can happen. (As I said, theory - in reality - it would likely have to be far more than two-thirds of the population, because you'd actually need two-thirds of the representatives to support)

But it's a slippery slope. People don't tend to enter into Constitutional Amendment lightly, because you run the risks of a) devaluing the core document, and b) experiencing a rebound reaction.

The nearest to a 'flippant' amendment was Prohibition, which was fairly rapidly re-amended.

I think it is rather fabulous.

http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/fabulous-dude.jpg

*snip

:D

That very image shouts: "Violent crime rates are down, divorce is down, teen pregnancy is down."

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony.

It was okay as far as "I cried".

Marriage is not a religious ceremony - it is a contractual legal arrangement.

A wedding CAN be a 'religious ceremony'.

A wedding =/= marriage.

I think it is rather fabulous.

Almost as fabulous as the rather jaunty hat in your avatar.

Almost as fabulous as the rather jaunty hat in your avatar.

Why, thank you, I think it is dandy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_y0KZso-pFEo/ScUhJM2jsyI/AAAAAAAAHyQ/ZaBpEzQlhSc/s400/Melone-Cesare-Borgia-BR600++CESAR.jpg

Why, thank you, I think it is dandy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_y0KZso-pFEo/ScUhJM2jsyI/AAAAAAAAHyQ/ZaBpEzQlhSc/s400/Melone-Cesare-Borgia-BR600++CESAR.jpg

Darn tootin'.

Also, this topic is insane. How many times do newbies turn up to argue this? How the hell does one topic get so many repeats?

When the hell will you lot just legalise it federally so that each time a state legalises it we don't have to go through these shenanigans again and again?

When can MY backwards country legalise it?

Why am I asking so many questions?

Darn tootin'.

Cesare, quite so.

Also, this topic is insane. How many times do newbies turn up to argue this? How the hell does one topic get so many repeats?

When the hell will you lot just legalise it federally so that each time a state legalises it we don't have to go through these shenanigans again and again?

When can MY backwards country legalise it?

Why am I asking so many questions?

I wait. So far, none of has been nominated for Justice of the Supreme Court.

Cesare, quite so.



I wait. So far, none of has been nominated for Justice of the Supreme Court.

I've heard they were considering LG, but that was at a kegger.

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony, and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state... We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage, married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements, and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays. (A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.) I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.

...my mind, it is blown.

http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/fabulous-dude.jpg

Is that Emmett? I LOVE Emmett!

I'm sorry friend, but I think maybe you're the one who doesn't understand Dr. King. Yes, he advocated being better then his oppressors. He did so by NOT lashing out in response to their insults, humiliations, and torments. Instead, he responded with patient wisdom. And even if he couldn't win the people actually tormenting him to his side, he succeeded in winning the people who - up until that point - had supported his tormentors to his side.

You do agree, don't you, that there is a difference between politely asking for something, and begging and grovelling for it? I'm not suggesting that anyone kowtow.


...
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

...
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

...

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

...

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.



Please stop dishonoring Dr. King's memory by lying and claiming he "politely asked" rather than telling bigots "we WILL win, and you WILL not stop us," that he thought calling racists racists was mean and icky. Maybe you think kissing ass is the way to get what you want, but he didn't, so please stop pissing on his memory by trying to cast him as being on your side.

Please stop dishonoring Dr. King's memory by lying and claiming he "politely asked" rather than telling bigots "we WILL win, and you WILL not stop us," that he thought calling racists racists was mean and icky. Maybe you think kissing ass is the way to get what you want, but he didn't, so please stop pissing on his memory by trying to cast him as being on your side.

thread = asploded.

(A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.)

Erm, yes, actually, they kinda do. It's almost like you, Random Guy on the Internet, are not the ultimate arbiter of what religions "count"! Go figure!

Wow. Some of you hold views so repugnant, I don't even think Ron Jeremy would have sex with you.

Please stop dishonoring Dr. King's memory by lying and claiming he "politely asked" rather than telling bigots "we WILL win, and you WILL not stop us," that he thought calling racists racists was mean and icky. Maybe you think kissing ass is the way to get what you want, but he didn't, so please stop pissing on his memory by trying to cast him as being on your side.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes -- and thank you for saying this. :hail:

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes -- and thank you for saying this. :hail:

Well, NA pretty much said it first. I just added the quotations. :)

Well, NA pretty much said it first. I just added the quotations. :)
True, but the quotations added so much. And I like your style better. It's sweeter. Like watching Mustoria get hit in the head with a sledgehammer that's been dipped in honey.

True, but the quotations added so much. And I like your style better. It's sweeter. Like watching Mustoria get hit in the head with a sledgehammer that's been dipped in honey.

souds deliciously painful...

Wow. Some of you hold views so repugnant, I don't even think Ron Jeremy would have sex with you.

That IS repugnant...

Rick Santorum would still lay 'em though.

I saw something around Jupiter. Might be a teapot though.

Freaking win. And in such style, too.

Usually I'd not waste such a move on a two-post wonder, but today you find me bored.
...
Through time, you existed. Through time, you said this. And in the future...
And so it goes.

:eek2:

I'm really quite impressed with that complete and total ass-kicking. In a perfect world, the battle would have ended here, but...

...well I guess we're dealing with less of a man and more of a force of nature.


Yes, it's exactly like that. Refer to the notes you took then. ;)

Could I get a copy of those notes? I have an exam coming up. :tongue:

...and, you know, while this WAS a tangent, it actually reminds me of an on-topic point. It was argued earlier in the thread that acceptance of gay marriage is part of some overall societal descent into immorality, as evidenced by things like promiscuity and drug use.

Like I said, I spent a couple of years in a madrigal choir, singing songs composed several hundred years ago. If you stripped away all the poetic language from those songs, do you know what nearly every one boiled down to? "Hey, you know what's awesome? Fucking my girlfriend! And then maybe getting drunk, and fucking her again!" There are variations on this theme ("It's spring! That means we should fuck a lot!" and "Woe! I am not currently being fucked!" are both popular ones), but the general theme is pretty much a constant.

MARK but this flea, and mark in this,
How little that which thou deniest me is ;
It suck'd me first, and now sucks thee,
And in this flea our two bloods mingled be.
Thou know'st that this cannot be said
A sin, nor shame, nor loss of maidenhead ;
Yet this enjoys before it woo,
And pamper'd swells with one blood made of two ;
And this, alas ! is more than we would do.

Frankly, I'd say we've gotten more subtle.

Well. If you take Revelations serious*, God loves only a very, very small number of his creations. So...

* Of course, no major theologican outside the fringe groups does. They hate it with a passion, and it just barely made it into the bible at all. But, in theory... :-p

Well, if you actually take Revelations seriously, you end up with something quite different than the fringe groups do. Major theologians don't usually hate the book, but they read it as something far more sensible.

I think it is rather fabulous.

And with such wonderful taste in fashion too!

Yay for gay lobsters, I suppose? Who the fuck else lives in Maine?

I used to. Damn stereotype. :rolleyes:

I'm new to this forum, so I don't know how to do the multiple-quote thingy, but I went back and excerpted the following from earlier today...

You can't click a simple button? How sad. You click the multi-quote button, and it changes color. Once you've done that to every post to which you wish to reply, you then hit reply, and poof! All the posts you selected with multi-quote are in your reply-to-thread screen in the order you clicked them. THe fact that you couldn't be bothered to even try to figure that out says something about you.

And by the way, you found almost nothing:

Because they're a bigot? Oh wait...

Not an insult to you.

And who are they (i.e. probably you) to refuse equal rights to anyone?

If you have to add emphasis to a post to make it a POSSIBLE insult, it's not an insult. Nice try, though.

...your bigotry...

Not an insult. Bigoted behavior is called bigotry. Denotation. Refute it if you can, but it's not an insult.

People that oppose same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed to be called 'human'. They should still get all the same rights, but they should be called 'scum'.

You're on record in this thread as not opposing same-sex marriage. Not an insult to you. Also, it's a reflection of an anti-gay-marriage argument using that side's logic. As such, it's not even an insult to them. Swing and another miss.

Obviously you are either an idiot or you are being intentionally obtuse

Again, are you an idiot or are you being intentionally obtuse?

Observation. Brings up the possibility that you may be an idiot, but doesn't call you one. However, this is as close to being insulted as you've posted so far. Not very impressive.

(all emphasis mine)

The need for your emphasis, and the fact that none of it helped, reinforces the notion that you've not really been insulted.

As for the idea that some have said around here, about my being insincere about being pro-gay-marriage or that I only claimed to be playing the DA after people started jumping on me, I offer you one of the few posts that I read from someone who actually seemed to be listening to what I said...

"Well, he did say he was a supporter of same sex marriage. It just seems you started quibbling over the constitution and then started throwing things. Oh, and for what it's worth, he has a point, if a weak one: Everyone has a right to say things, even if we don't like it, and we can't label them bigots just becuase we don't agree. It's really only because they are an ever shrinking minority these days that people call them bigots."

I first stated that I was pro-gay-marriage in post #54

Too little, too late.

In this case, the use of the phrase "in spite of" is inaccurate. Had there not been civil rights groups advocating the use of violence, King likely would not have succeeded as quickly as he did. Chaos is a powerful motivator. The establishment dislikes change, but it dislikes insecurity even more. If presented with two movements advocating for the same changes, one of which is peaceful and one of which is potentially violent, those in power will accede to the former to avoid dealing with the latter.
The situation is similar to the idea of the carrot and the stick, although the carrot is initially unpalatable. The carrot is taken not because it is desirable, but because eating it will remove the threat of the stick.
A peaceful movement alone is ignored. A violent movement alone is crushed. Operating in tandem, they make progress towards their goal.
And, perhaps most importantly, the establishment will always give credit entirely to the peaceful movement, because the establishment does not like changing.

Well said.

Please stop dishonoring Dr. King's memory by lying and claiming he "politely asked" rather than telling bigots "we WILL win, and you WILL not stop us," that he thought calling racists racists was mean and icky. Maybe you think kissing ass is the way to get what you want, but he didn't, so please stop pissing on his memory by trying to cast him as being on your side.

Absolutely, positively, fan-damn-tastic shredding. Thank you for doing what was going to be my job, and doing it far better than I would have.

I've debated for years...I know how to play the Devil's Advocate, thank you very much. And yes, I DO indeed support legalize same-sex marriage.
Still don't believe you.
But my father doesn't.
Which makes him a bigot.
My father is a good man.
Bigots aren't good people.
A hardworking, self-sacrificing pillar of his community. Regular churchgoer, military veteran, the works. He opposes same-sex marriage because he has this vague feeling that it would harm society's moral fabric. He does not hate gay people. He does not think they suffer from some sort of sickness.
So why deny them the same rights as everyone else?
But he DOES think we would all be better off if they kept their lifestyles to themselves in the privacy of their own homes. To be fair, he feels the same way whenever he sees a heterosexual couple making out in public.
So he's a prude. You know what, if he doesn't like seeing people "make-out" in public too fucking bad.
I have attempted to persuade my father to see things from our point of view for many years now, and I believe I'm having some limited success. But when activists on the news vandalize a church in response to Prop 8...you lose his any chance of convincing him (and people like him) not to oppose what you want. Instead, you become a mob of whining, name-calling losers throwing a tantrum because you can't have everything your way and my dad thinks "And THESE people want ME to something nice for THEM?".
Vandalizing churches is wrong, but then again so is denying rights to people for no reason.
And no, I am not saying that the vandalism is ok by any stretch of the imagination.
There are millions of guys like my dad out there that can make or break your cause. Maybe try being nicer to them?
I stop calling someone a bigot when they stop being one.
So if I refuse to leave this forum, if I keep posting, it's because I don't want to see guys like my dad called "bigots".
Sorry, but your dad is a bigot.
It's an unfair, loaded, negative word, and he doesn't deserve it.
Yes, he does, because he holds a bigoted position.

Who here would agree that irrational hatred of a group of people is bigotry?

*raises hand*

Being nice and polite ended segregation? Not Brown v. Board of Education? Not the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Not Eisenhower federalizing the national guard and forcing the Arksansas governor to stand down by force?

Do you know anything about our nation's history?

He knows as much about it as he knows about the Constitution...

Well, I had this epically massive post, and then my computer went all bitchy, so I lost it, but everyone else has pretty much said what I was gonna say, but better. Also Mustoria, if you read this, don't mess with Dyak. He's fucking solid and pretty much runs the Russian Mafia.

*raises hand*

Alright, but does holding bigoted ideas and acting in a bigoted manner make one a bigot? I think not! It is very rude to call a bigoted person a bigot, because bigots are bad persons, and a bigoted person can be good.

If a person opens a fortune cookie, does that make him a believer in mysticism?
No, unless they actually believe that the fortune therein is true / will come true, then the answer is yes.
If a person has one bigoted belief, does that make them a bigot?
Yes

Stupid sleep. I missed another party.

*snip the evisceration*

And in the meantime, with all that in your repertoire, you have yet to present any argument in re gay marriage that is anything but a shallow recitation of anti-gay talking points. Can we give someone else a chance to fail at opposing gay marriage now?

Game, Set, and motherfucking MATCH.

If a person opens a fortune cookie, does that make him a believer in mysticism?
If a person has one bigoted belief, does that make them a bigot?

For the love of all that's lovable,

YES!

How is that hard to understand? Yes! That person is bigoted with regard to that topic! Your father is therefore a bigot -- and a clever one, because he's convinced you that "bigot" is an insult rather than a statement of fact.

I believe that Dr. King appealed to the better natures of his countrymen, and encouraged them to live up to the ideals they espoused but had not followed through on.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Get your money back on your education, mate.

OK, I disagree. If a person does one silly or stupid thing, that doesn't make them a silly or stupid person. People make mistakes.

People who routinely make silly or stupid decisions on a variety of issues, now THOSE people I would say can accurately be described as being "stupid" or "silly" people.

I believe the same is true for bigoted actions.

Of course people make mistakes. Bigotry, however, is a consistent mistake in the face of all evidence that contradicts the mistake. You're equating bigotry with locking one's keys in one's car, and that's just pathetic.

*snip the repetitive tripe*

Maybe I'm being too forgiving of other people, but I don't believe that one bad character trait makes someone a bad person.

Nobody has said that having one character trait makes them bad. You've addressed a point that nobody has made, and that didn't need to be made. Like the Asian character sings in Avenue Q, "everyone's a rittle bit lacist."

Nobody said your father was a bad person. We said he's a bigot with regard to gay marriage. The sooner you get a mental crowbar and separate those two concepts, the wiser you'll be.

Forgiving bigotry is something you may want to revisit. Or is "hate the sin, love the sinner" only good to use against gays?

Nobody has said that having one character trait makes them bad. You've addressed a point that nobody has made, and that didn't need to be made. Like the Asian character sings in Avenue Q, "everyone's a rittle bit lacist."

Man, can you imagine if one bad trait did make you a bad person? I think the pool of "good people" would narrow considerably.

Man, can you imagine if one bad trait did make you a bad person? I think the pool of "good people" would narrow considerably.

If by that, you mean "dwindle down to nothing", then I agree completely.

If by that, you mean "dwindle down to nothing", then I agree completely.

That's what I was getting at. I love hyperbole and understatements, but not so much accuracy. :tongue:

I cried, Marriage is a religious ceremony,
No, it isn't. It can be, but isn't automatically. For example I am married, however "the church" had absolutely nothiung to do with it.

and this kinda goes against the seperation of church and state... We shouldn't be having any sort of Government votes on marriage, married couples shouldn't be allowed to have any "Special" entitlements, and more importantly, Gay folks should not be allowed to partake in a religious ceremony which was founded by religions that do not ACCEPT gays. (A small church of homosexuals who call themselves Christian do NOT count.) I'm sorry if I don't fit into your Liberal Democratic Agenda, but then again... I will have no regrets about my stance.
Yay!? You're proud of being a bigot.

Bigots aren't good people.

I want to disagree on this one point. Being bigoted is not good, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that every bigot is intrinsically a bad person overall. I have yet to meet anyone who's entirely good or entirely bad, and I really don't have a problem with saying that someone who rescues puppies, volunteers at the homeless shelter, is kind to their family, gives money to beggars, and so forth, but also thinks women are inferior to men is MOSTLY a good person. That doesn't excuse their bigotry or make it acceptable, but if doing one bad thing were enough to render someone an utterly and unequivocally Bad Person, well, we wouldn't have a lot of good people left. Mustoria's father may very well be a generally good guy. He's still a bigot, and he doesn't get a Get-Out-of-Being-Called-Accurate-Terms card for being nice in other ways.

ETA: ...and I see Intangelon and Geniasis beat me to it. This is what happens when I get distracted mid-reply and wander away from my computer for a bit. :p

Well, I had this epically massive post, and then my computer went all bitchy, so I lost it, but everyone else has pretty much said what I was gonna say, but better. Also Mustoria, if you read this, don't mess with Dyak. He's fucking solid and pretty much runs the Russian Mafia.

Lol

I want to disagree on this one point. Being bigoted is not good, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that every bigot is intrinsically a bad person overall. I have yet to meet anyone who's entirely good or entirely bad, and I really don't have a problem with saying that someone who rescues puppies, volunteers at the homeless shelter, is kind to their family, gives money to beggars, and so forth, but also thinks women are inferior to men is MOSTLY a good person. That doesn't excuse their bigotry or make it acceptable, but if doing one bad thing were enough to render someone an utterly and unequivocally Bad Person, well, we wouldn't have a lot of good people left. Mustoria's father may very well be a generally good guy. He's still a bigot, and he doesn't get a Get-Out-of-Being-Called-Accurate-Terms card for being nice in other ways.

ETA: ...and I see Intangelon and Geniasis beat me to it. This is what happens when I get distracted mid-reply and wander away from my computer for a bit. :p

My bad. You are right, a bigot can have other redeeming qualities

My bad. You are right, a bigot can have other redeeming qualities

But, what if he/she maintains those good qualities just to prove the point that they are better? :p

My bad. You are right, a bigot can have other redeeming qualities

Certainly. I know a number of bigots who are loaded with redeemable qualities. Hell, even Hitler had redeemable qualities.

But, what if he/she maintains those good qualities just to prove the point that they are better? :p
Then they're annoying, pretentious bigots... ;)
Certainly. I know a number of bigots who are loaded with redeemable qualities. Hell, even Hitler had redeemable qualities.
okay, already, I admitted I was wrong...

...and I see Intangelon and Geniasis beat me to it. This is what happens when I get distracted mid-reply and wander away from my computer for a bit. :p

Being beaten to it is usually better than being beaten with it. Of course, that depends on what it is, who's doing the beating, and how you feel about being beaten. Right, Neesika? ;)

Hell, even Hitler had redeemable qualities.

I agree. He was quite incompetent when it came to strategy, which is partly why Nazi Germany lost the war (thank God). That's certainly redeemable. And he did do one really good thing: Namely, kill himself.

Then they're annoying, pretenTious bigots... ;)

okay, already, I admitted I was wrong...

Inveterately fixed.

Being beaten to it is usually better than being beaten with it. Of course, that depends on what it is, who's doing the beating, and how you feel about being beaten. Right, Neesika? ;)

As a certain wooden spoon learned the hard way, I am not altogether opposed to beatings. ;)

Freaking win. And in such style, too.
I do what I can.
As a certain wooden spoon learned the hard way, I am not altogether opposed to beatings. ;)

I expect the spoon was more concerned with exactly how much of a beating it takes before you become opposed to it. Poor Spoony, I mourn him every day. :(

I expect the spoon was more concerned with exactly how much of a beating it takes before you become opposed to it. Poor Spoony, I mourn him every day. :(

I still wish I'd kept the spoon-pieces as a souvenir. :tongue:

Inveterately fixed.

So I was typing quickly and not paying enough attention... :(

I still wish I'd kept the spoon-pieces as a souvenir. :tongue:

Drill a hole in one of them and wear it around your neck. Great conversation starter at parties.

"Why are you wearing a piece of a wooden spoon"
"Well........"

So he's a prude. You know what, if he doesn't like seeing people "make-out" in public too fucking bad.

To tell you the truth I don't particularly like seeing a couple making out with the guy's hand up her skirt while I am sitting down to lunch either.