Beamer wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 23:51:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 22:44:
Beamer wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:58:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:48:
Beamer wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 07:00:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 02:50:
So is the inane rambling of someone who would be quick to call anyone a racist, bigot or misogynist just because they have conservative values. Throw around phrases like"cognitive dissonance" , but never realising they have ad hominem rants . . . Making their points look like a joke
Hopefully that spelled out for you better
Quboid wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 00:46:
Nofactor97 wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 22:40:
That's got to be the most inane word around these days. Way to make your point look like a joke.
Dammit now I'm triggered
I mean, a lot of "conservative values" are racist, bigoted, and misogynist.
Preserving the sanctity of marriage is a conservative value, and one of the most bigoted values people are open about in the US.
That is religious value and calling it bigoted is simply an effort to attack another persons value's with ad hominem attacks. It is/was a fight over what the word "marriage" means. The debate on equal treatment under government laws (tax, health) was not cared about for the most part. The change needed to be dictated through religious doctrine, instead it was forced through laws, which only widened the divide.
Applying heated words like "bigoted, misogynist, racist" on anything that does not fit a liberal's agenda is always an attempt to deflect the topic. When it is done, the debate is over because they cannot see anything else beyond that. Similar to trying to convince a Born Again Christian the earth is not 4000 years old. The end answer is always "because god says so"
Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a legal and tax one.
So no, it isn't a religious value, and believing that others don't deserve the same legal and tax rights that you deserve because they were born differently is, by definition, bigotry.
That it "wasn't cared about" doesn't mean it isn't bigotry. Sorry, any attempt to deprive others of rights you enjoy, due solely to the way they were born, is bigotry.
Whatever the origin of the word Marriage, in America, it has been associated with the union of Man and Woman and strongly correlated to the Bible. The government at some point added the tax benefits and legal protections to this Union. So while the term "Marriage" may be centuries old, it took on a specific meaning in the US, which is the nature of culture.
And you misunderstood my point. The battle was over the word "marriage" and what it meant, it was never against the equal rights under law against same sex unions . . .which are now called marriage also. Religious organizations where battling the definition, they were never battling the rights under law, just the meaning of what marriage is. That is NOT bigotry.
So, the definition of bigotry is to deprive people of rights you may enjoy? Welcome to the world, I enjoy rights because of my position and training. You enjoy rights and privileges because of your training and education that I should NOT be able to enjoy. Want to join the Navy SEALS . . guess what .. . if you are not born with that strength and mentality you should not be able to join. That is not bigotry. Not allowing a women to join the SEALS that can make all the requirement is bigotry. Your definition is WAY too general and is a large part of the problem.
"Strongly correlated to the Bible" is as incorrect as essentially everything in the Bible.
It has significant tax benefits. And legal benefits. Do you know who can be in the hospital room of a dying individual? Family. Who can make decisions on things such as when to pull the plug? Family. In states where gay people can't marry, do you know who this excludes? Lifelong partners.
But fine, let's just make it religious. That'll be great. Because the religions that don't want gays to marry can, y'know, keep not marrying gays, as everyone feels they should. And the religions that are ok with marrying gays can marry gay people. As everyone except for the bigots think they should.
There are, you know, religions out there perfectly alright with gay marriage. And the ones that aren't ok with it in their religion but ok with it outside their religion is fine.
But if you believe you should be able to force your religion on others, well, you're a bigot. Sorry. If you do not think gay people should marry you're a bigot. And buddy, with your whole 10 posts here, I'm already pretty certain you're a bigot. I mean, hell, comparing marriage to joining the SEALS? A bigot, and not a particularly bright one (are there bright ones?)
Ad Hominem much?
Read back closely to my last posts and open your mind a bit. If you are unable to even comprehend what the Religious group had issue with than you are part of the problem.
Point to where I said same sex partners should not have the same tax and legal rights? In fact, I said the debate was NOT about tax and legal rights, but about calling the union between same sex couples a "Marriage." The religious majority wanted same sex relations to be called a Union that provided the same benefits of Marriage, but that wasn't good enough for the LGBT community. The rage and idiocy applied to both sides, surprise surprise.
Also, point to where I quoted what I believe in that debate or what my religion is? You just made the typical liberal mistake of attacking the person, not the subject, because you seem so enraged about the term marriage, not the real issue which was equal treatment under the law. What would it have mattered if the LGBT achieved the goal of fair treatment under the law, but didn't call it "Marriage"? The argument was really moot for both sides though, as you could get "Married" by a Justice of the peace which is not necessarily a priest.
The SEAL example was a response to your inane definition of bigotry and I quote:
"Sorry, any attempt to deprive others of rights you enjoy, due solely to the way they were born, is bigotry. "
We ALL have limitations because of the way we were born, and NONE of us enjoy the same rights because of it. Your definition sucked was the point. We all deserve the same opportunities and rights under law, but you have no right to succeed at it. That idea seems to be lost on the extreme left.