Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 247
  1. #101
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    which is that they want to be left alone and free to exercise their consciences as they see fit.

    How are they not allowed to do that?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #102
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The problem with inserting the comparison to black rights is that it simply derails the conversation into a morality play where one side tries to win its argument by demonizing the other side.
    I have to say that this does not sound like a coherent point.

    One can forward the comparison without demonizing the other side.

    Perhaps you giving a hypothetical "sample argument" would help. Show us an argument breaking down after the comparison is made for example.

    For example (and you may consider this facetious)

    Person 1: "Gay civil rights is comparable to black civil rights"
    Person 2: "Well, I disagree with gay marriage"
    Person 1: "Then you are racists scum!"

  3. #103
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    If that's all you think feminism is, you haven't paid very close attention. But if that's all you're talking about, then we agree. Now whether we agree on what the definition of "equality" is and whether it exists in given spheres or not is a different matter. I'll bet you'll eventually get around to deciding I'm RWA even though I agree that women should have equal rights if I disagree with you on the facts of the matter, though. That seems to be your MO.

    I have made note in other threads about some of the injustices perpetrated against straight people and people of faith who don't agree with the idea of homosexual marriage. I'm not talking about conspiracies; I'm talking about honest-to-God facts. Prominent leaders in the gay rights movement have been very explicit in their aims to marginalize Christians and to impose their views upon society to the exclusion of other viewpoints... all in the name of tolerance. It's not a matter of conspiracy theories; it's a matter of record.

    I have watched you rant for page after page on multiple threads about how so-called RWA value nothing except power, that RWA hate Jews/gays/blacks/Muslims/whoever, and how they want to subjugate, repress, or kill people who disagree with them or whom they find inconvenient or undesirable. I've seen you rant about how they are incapable of seeing reason and value only force and violence to settle disputes. I've watched you, even on this thread, talk about how RWA want (insert group here) to suffer. Is it really a stretch to go from there to killing? I wasn't citing a specific example; I was using the very same pattern of accusations you make against a group with whom you disagree to make a point. If you believe that there are people who enjoy watching gay people suffer and who want to subjugate and repress them and who sees violence as an acceptable solution to what they believe are problems, how long do you honestly think it would take before such an evil person would decide that the best option is to kill the people to whom he objects? Don't be coy... say what you mean.

    If someone doesn't think that x groups should have "the same rights under the law" as you interpret those rights and those laws to be, then they're a bigot and a RWA. Gotcha. You've characterized pretty much every substantive disagreement with your position, whether it be from a perspective of policy, Constitutionality, public health, religious freedom, or any other platform, as RWA bigotry. I have never seen you once admit that there is a single valid objection to any position you have espoused, no matter how it's structured or what other positions are taken alongside it. So, you tell me.... how is this not characterizing anything outside your orthodoxy as RWA?

    So the use of rhetorical techniques to illustrate a point, the accurate observation of real events that have actually happened, and a justified sense of outrage at what I believe is an injustice perpetrated by the group you defend makes me more likely to be RWA. Gotcha.

    See? You're saying that there's only one way to solve the problem, and people that disagree with your One True Way are bigots. You are doing it again.

    If I think that it's good that government "excludes homosexuals from equality" as you understand it, I'm RWA. Right. As far as I can tell, Ibelsd is right. Your position excludes any possibility of meaningful dialogue, because you have automatically characterized any deviation from your position as nothing but bigotry and hatred. Debating you with your current set of positions is therefore useless and a total waste of time.

    So, despite any validity to any point that cstamford has made - and I'm not making an argument either way - you have just written him off as nothing but RWA, which necessarily entails, by your own accusations, that he is a hate-filled, bigoted sociopath who actively desires to repress, control, and cause to suffer the minority group about which he disagrees with you. You seem to think that you can now safely write off everything he has said without addressing any of it, because it's all hate-filled nonsense that doesn't deserve a response except to call him a hateful bigot. It doesn't matter why he feels that way, whether or not he has a good reason to have the opinions he has, or whether there are flaws in the position you have taken... all that's gone now, because it comes from someone you have labeled as a RWA.

    What you've done is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy. So is every single instance of your invocation of this ill-defined, intentionally nebulous group of people you call RWA.

    You really need to examine whether or not you are capable of having a meaningful discussion with someone with whom you disagree. If you resort to calling everyone who disagrees with you on any matter of real substance a RWA, then I argue that the answer is "no, you aren't capable of discussing things rationally and meaningfully."

    The two situations don't have parity in a meaningful sense, because there are extensive laws and social groups who provide support and legal standing to gays as a group that the black people in America did not have. In fact, gay people use these laws on a regular basis to punish dissent against their social ideals by prosecuting people who disagree with them. There is no segregation or Jim Crow for gays... no inability to vote. No poll taxes, no slavery. None of the terrible injustices that the blacks in this country once endured are being foisted upon the gay community, except perhaps the occasional hate crime, which is aggressively prosecuted and the perpetrator's name so blackened that their lives are ruined... and we've seen several instances where those were hoaxes perpetrated by people hoping to drum up sympathy for the cause. This is nothing like the civil rights movement, and I think that making the comparison should be taken as an affront by every black person who went through that struggle.

    You are making a faulty assumption by presuming that people who disagree with gay marriage are doing it to maintain some kind of power, instead of the real reason, which is that they want to be left alone and free to exercise their consciences as they see fit. This question is loaded and biased on its face and distorts the entire discussion into something meaningless.

    How many RWA do you think there are? One minute you are talking about RWA being only composed of fascists, bigots, persecutors, and sadistic psychopaths. The next, you're talking about whole groups that can claim political authority, power and relevance. This is the problem with your ill-defined term. Until you start speaking in specifics, please stop referring to this concept which you still refuse to adequately define in clear, unambiguous terms.

    ---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 PM ----------

    So, to restate: "if you think blacks or gays don't deserve equal protection and benefits as you understand them to exist, then he is a bigot. Is this right?
    OK so by your standards the kkk just have a disagreement about how to understand rights and don't want government to force tolerance on them. They aren't RWA or bigots.

    That is just silly logic. To seek a group to be treated unequivocally under the law for an innate characteristics is bigotry.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

  4. #104
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    OK so by your standards the kkk just have a disagreement about how to understand rights and don't want government to force tolerance on them. They aren't RWA or bigots.

    That is just silly logic. To seek a group to be treated unequivocally under the law for an innate characteristics is bigotry.
    Straw man. I didn't say anything about the KKK. If I believe that Affirmative Action is wrong, does that make me a bigot?

    ---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have to say that this does not sound like a coherent point.

    One can forward the comparison without demonizing the other side.
    So far, the track record is pretty bad on this debate. Even now, we have at least one of our interlocutors in this very thread who has degenerated into coyly implying that everyone who disagrees with his viewpoint is a hateful, bigoted, sadistic psychopath. The point sounds very coherent to me.

    ---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    How are they not allowed to do that?
    Several churches, both here and in Canada, have been prosecuted for refusing to allow a gay marriage to be performed on premises, since it contravenes the doctrines of those faiths. Multiple bakers, photographers, and other private business owners have been prosecuted in court for refusing to participate in a gay wedding as a matter of conscience, even though their services were not exclusive or difficult to obtain. In Canada, a Christian minister who spoke straight from the Bible against homosexuality was prosecuted under that country's hate speech laws. These lawsuits were purely punitive in nature, and they were done to make a point. If you dissent... if you refuse to acknowledge us.... we will use the law to force you to do so, or we will bury you under a mountain of debt and public ridicule in the process.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  5. #105
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    That's because it is a morality play. When the opposition's arguments aren't lies (eg conflating it with pedophilia or putting forward debunked research) then the reasons are religious. In that sense it is fair to weigh the apparent moral harm done being gay vs the moral harm done legislating against it. Social conservatives feel one way and progressives feel another. It's the same story throughout all the social struggles.
    You may or may not have noticed that I suggested those against gay marriage remove their own hyperbole from the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Gay people are already demonized and their sexuality is demonized. That's why there are these restrictions in the first place. The argument isn't to give gay people more rights , it is to give them equal rights.
    This is not, or does not need to be, an argument about the morality of homosexuality. Outside of that, I am not going to be sucked into a side debate about whether same-sex marriage is a form of equality.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    But you didn't say not necessary, I did. You said it was invalid, which I argue is wrong.
    Frankly, it is invalid. It is invalid since it is not a necessary condition of an argument for same-sex marriage. It is invalid as an objective statement. Obviously, you can hold any opinion you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Social conservatives have a habit of consistently being on the wrong side of these battles. It's not that they're necessarily racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-Islam (though some certainly are) but that they are stalling social progress towards human equality. This is factually what they have done and are doing. The implications you want to draw from that is another argument altogether.
    This is your opinion. If you wish to inject this opinion into every argument you make, on just about every subject you participate, you'll find you rarely engage in a decent discussion on anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    As Gemini pointed out in the OP, there is a severe lack of rational reasoning to begin with. The conservatives don't want to point out that they really want their religious preferences imposed on others and instead offer lies and obfuscations and outdated and bad research. That's all I see.
    People have their reasons. There are objective reasons and subjective reasons. If you wish to engage the opposition, however you label them, with conflicting subjective arguments (often antagonistic), then you'll get nothing but the same in return. If that is your idea of a reasonable dialogue, then so be it. I doubt it ever gets you anywhere.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Scratch that. Talthas has an impractical solution to slow down progress.
    I don't even know what this means.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Yes, but here's the rub: you're missing that in order for the AFA argument to work, you have to agree that their religious preferences override gay rights. Whereas in both the gay and black right struggles it is seeking equal rights.
    You can certainly make an argument about gays seeking equality. It is when you inject black civil rights into the discussion that you turn the debate into nothing more than a diatribe. A dispersion against those with whom you disagree. If your goal is to change people's minds, then it would seem the last thing you'd want to do is call them names.

    Interestingly, in your previous post you stated a fairly moderate and reasonable position. Very quickly, taking the side of gay movement == black movement, you began the exact same personal attacks which MD took. It is just the natural end point that such an argument leads to whether that is your intention or not.

    ---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have to say that this does not sound like a coherent point.

    One can forward the comparison without demonizing the other side.

    Perhaps you giving a hypothetical "sample argument" would help. Show us an argument breaking down after the comparison is made for example.

    For example (and you may consider this facetious)

    Person 1: "Gay civil rights is comparable to black civil rights"
    Person 2: "Well, I disagree with gay marriage"
    Person 1: "Then you are racists scum!"
    Just look at how this discussion has gone down between MD, JJ, myself and others where MD and JJ have both labeled people against gay marriage as, essentially, bigoted based on how they perceive it is equivalent to a black civil rights issue. It was inferred that I was a bigot for simply refusing to accept the premise.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #106
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    So far, the track record is pretty bad on this debate. Even now, we have at least one of our interlocutors in this very thread who has degenerated into coyly implying that everyone who disagrees with his viewpoint is a hateful, bigoted, sadistic psychopath. The point sounds very coherent to me.
    Just because one has the option of replying that way does not mean that one must respond that way and therefore no rational discussion can be had with someone who forwards the comparison.

    I've forward the comparison and all I get is the claim that he can't have a rational discussion with me. I think one has to at least try to have such a discussion before they can make any reasonable claim that it's futile or that I will demonize them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Several churches, both here and in Canada, have been prosecuted for refusing to allow a gay marriage to be performed on premises, since it contravenes the doctrines of those faiths.
    In the US? Give me an example. And assuming we are debating the prospect of legalizing gay marriage in the US, we should stick to what's happening in the US.

    I recall having this debate before but I forget the details so I will need to see support for this event although I'm sure you are referring to something specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Multiple bakers, photographers, and other private business owners have been prosecuted in court for refusing to participate in a gay wedding as a matter of conscience, even though their services were not exclusive or difficult to obtain.
    And they would have run into the same problem if they refused services based on the race or religioun of the clientele. So they aren't being singled out because of their religious beliefs. They are violating the state's non-discrimination rules and it so happens that violating it based on religious principle is still a violation.

    And the service being available elsewhere isn't really a factor. Assuming you agree with non-discrimination rules in general (and to disagree is really to take the debate in another direction entirely) it doesn't make much sense to give some business a license to discriminate based on the fact that there is a certain percentage of businesses in the area that won't discriminate. I mean are we going to come up with an acceptable percentage of companies that can discriminate within a certain radius? We can allow one restaurant to not allow blacks and/or gays and/or jews to eat there as long as there are X number of alternative non-discriminating restaurants with an X mile radius?

    ---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Just look at how this discussion has gone down between MD, JJ, myself and others where MD and JJ have both labeled people against gay marriage as, essentially, bigoted based on how they perceive it is equivalent to a black civil rights issue. It was inferred that I was a bigot for simply refusing to accept the premise.
    Just because one CAN imply that you are a bigot for taking a certain position, it does not mean that one cannot engage the point without inferring that you are a bigot.

    If one just cannot address someone who disagrees with them, then you should not be able to disagree with me without me calling you a bigot.

    So go ahead and disagree with me. Let's see what happens.

  7. #107
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Just because one has the option of replying that way does not mean that one must respond that way and therefore no rational discussion can be had with someone who forwards the comparison.

    I've forward the comparison and all I get is the claim that he can't have a rational discussion with me. I think one has to at least try to have such a discussion before they can make any reasonable claim that it's futile or that I will demonize them.
    Unfortunately, it does not matter whether you personally make the argument. Anyone you debate, where you introduce this comparison, it will immediately be assumed that you are either implying they are bigots are that you are leading to that conclusion. Why? Because that is the common conclusion which is made by those who introduce this premise. While you may believe it is somehow unjustified based on your own personal experience, in the wider scope of things, your personal experience is irrelevant. Again, I am making a suggestion to allow for a civil and meaningful discussion. Introducing this premise is corrosive to this discussion based on the general perception of the argument and how the premise is commonly used.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. Thanks cstamford thanked for this post
  9. #108
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Unfortunately, it does not matter whether you personally make the argument. Anyone you debate, where you introduce this comparison, it will immediately be assumed that you are either implying they are bigots are that you are leading to that conclusion. Why? Because that is the common conclusion which is made by those who introduce this premise.
    Support, please.

    By which I mean explain how that conclusion is necessitated by forwarding the comparison.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    While you may believe it is somehow unjustified based on your own personal experience, in the wider scope of things, your personal experience is irrelevant.
    Actually, it's a simple matter of logic.

    Either an argument has innate factors that to disagree with means one is a bigot or they don't. If they don't, then one can disagree with the argument without earning the "bigot" title from the presenter of the argument.

    So what innate factor does the comparison argument have that to disagree with earns one the title of "bigot"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Introducing this premise is corrosive to this discussion based on the general perception of the argument and how the premise is commonly used.
    Support or retract.

  10. #109
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Straw man. I didn't say anything about the KKK. If I believe that Affirmative Action is wrong, does that make me a bigot?

    ---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

    So far, the track record is pretty bad on this debate. Even now, we have at least one of our interlocutors in this very thread who has degenerated into coyly implying that everyone who disagrees with his viewpoint is a hateful, bigoted, sadistic psychopath. The point sounds very coherent to me.

    ---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 PM ----------

    Several churches, both here and in Canada, have been prosecuted for refusing to allow a gay marriage to be performed on premises, since it contravenes the doctrines of those faiths. Multiple bakers, photographers, and other private business owners have been prosecuted in court for refusing to participate in a gay wedding as a matter of conscience, even though their services were not exclusive or difficult to obtain. In Canada, a Christian minister who spoke straight from the Bible against homosexuality was prosecuted under that country's hate speech laws. These lawsuits were purely punitive in nature, and they were done to make a point. If you dissent... if you refuse to acknowledge us.... we will use the law to force you to do so, or we will bury you under a mountain of debt and public ridicule in the process.


    I guess it serves your purpose to take a simple concept and act like it is really complex

    If you think gays, blacks, women Asians etc should not be treated equally under the law with the same privileges than you are a bigot.

    For example thinking women should not have the right to own property or they should be forced to marry their rapist or gay or interracial marriage should be against the law you are a bigot.

    If you own a business and want to discriminat based on race or sex or sexuality than sorry no. A grocery store can't refuse to sell to white people or gays or women. If someone thinks we should that person is a bigot.

  11. #110
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Just because one has the option of replying that way does not mean that one must respond that way and therefore no rational discussion can be had with someone who forwards the comparison.

    I've forward the comparison and all I get is the claim that he can't have a rational discussion with me. I think one has to at least try to have such a discussion before they can make any reasonable claim that it's futile or that I will demonize them.
    Reasonable. However, I can see why there would be cause for concern when one's interlocutor appears to make overtures toward "playing the bigot card" against him, whether those materialize or not. If every time someone mentions that they think that the government is being repressive of Christians' rights by forcing them to do X regarding gay marriage, someone else brings up racism and then says that the situations are equivalent, it's not a very hard leap to begin to believe that any dissent will be met with being called a bigot, which shuts down debate instantly. Certainly you can see the cause for concern here, yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    In the US? Give me an example. And assuming we are debating the prospect of legalizing gay marriage in the US, we should stick to what's happening in the US.
    First off, the reason I brought up Canada is that they have a legal system very similar to ours and, not so long ago, enacted many similar laws to the ones that are being proposed in the US. I find this very instructive, because it provides a likely near-future scenario in the case that those laws are enacted here. So, while I respect the idea that maybe we ought to keep things in one country, I wasn't just offering a non-sequitur. I find the example quite relevant to our own country because of the many similarities between the two situations, which makes comparisons both easy and very salient to the points I am making.

    That aside, though, there was a Methodist Church in New Jersey... I think it was called Sea View or something like that.. that was taken to court and successfully sued for their refusal to allow a homosexual marriage ceremony to take place on their premises, in their sanctuary. For simply upholding the tenets of their faith and refusing to acknowledge or facilitate a gay union, the law was used to punish them. To me, that's a very clear case of religious persecution.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    And they would have run into the same problem if they refused services based on the race or religioun of the clientele. So they aren't being singled out because of their religious beliefs. They are violating the state's non-discrimination rules and it so happens that violating it based on religious principle is still a violation.
    So, say a black man moved from the South in the 1960's to New York City to escape the Klan because they were burning crosses in his yard and constantly making racist comments and slurs at him. He opens a restaurant. A shaved-headed white man sporting Klan tattoos and looking somewhat derisively at the black clientele - yet saying nothing offensive - walks in and asks for a menu. Would the black man be a bigot for refusing to serve the klansman? Would a Jewish deli owner be a bigot for refusing to serve someone who espoused Nazi beliefs and expressed his admiration of Hitler and his work?
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  12. Thanks cstamford thanked for this post
  13. #111
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    While the definition of "perverse" is indisputable, whether a relationship is actually perverse is disputable. All you are really saying is that in your OPINION, their relationship is "perverse" or "improper".
    No that's not all, or even what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no such thing as a biologically "proper" homosexual sexual relationship. That is not an opinion. It's a fact.

    Now, are you going to force me to get graphically explicit so as to demonstrate for you what is blindingly obvious to every human being on the planet, not in the throes of prejudice, or is this going to be business as usual? Because if it's the latter, you can have the last word.

    ---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have to say that this does not sound like a coherent point.

    One can forward the comparison without demonizing the other side.
    The underlying problem with the comparison is not that it leads to accusations of bigotry, but that it's wrong! There is no comparison between being black and being homosexual. You can't name a single common point the two share, unless you happen to be talking about a black homosexual!

    So the person who wants to compare "gay rights" to "Black rights" is already demonstrating they are operating on bias instead of reason. They don't add bigotry to the discussion if they start charging their opponents with it. They add irony.

  14. #112
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The two situations don't have parity in a meaningful sense, because there are extensive laws and social groups who provide support and legal standing to gays as a group that the black people in America did not have. In fact, gay people use these laws on a regular basis to punish dissent against their social ideals by prosecuting people who disagree with them. There is no segregation or Jim Crow for gays... no inability to vote. No poll taxes, no slavery. None of the terrible injustices that the blacks in this country once endured are being foisted upon the gay community, except perhaps the occasional hate crime, which is aggressively prosecuted and the perpetrator's name so blackened that their lives are ruined... and we've seen several instances where those were hoaxes perpetrated by people hoping to drum up sympathy for the cause. This is nothing like the civil rights movement, and I think that making the comparison should be taken as an affront by every black person who went through that struggle.
    [
    I'm not talking about parity in those terms though. I am saying they are equivalent in the sense that one particular group, the social conservatives, are attempting to thwart or slow the gaining equal rights of those groups. The details obviously differ - the Gay being a choice for example has been argued by some, whereas clearly being Black isn't.

    ---------- Post added at 12:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You may or may not have noticed that I suggested those against gay marriage remove their own hyperbole from the argument.
    I did. But the way you put it, to make it an invalid comparison is what is causing the issue.

    This is not, or does not need to be, an argument about the morality of homosexuality. Outside of that, I am not going to be sucked into a side debate about whether same-sex marriage is a form of equality.
    I have no idea what other objections there are that underpin the arguments against gays.

    Frankly, it is invalid. It is invalid since it is not a necessary condition of an argument for same-sex marriage. It is invalid as an objective statement. Obviously, you can hold any opinion you want.
    Just because it's not necessary, it doesn't make it an invalid argument. It's perfectly fine to draw lessons from other struggles. No one is saying that just because you're against the gay that you're also a racist!

    This is your opinion. If you wish to inject this opinion into every argument you make, on just about every subject you participate, you'll find you rarely engage in a decent discussion on anything.
    It happens to be fact since being 'conservative' by definition is to resist changes that are seen as too drastic.

    People have their reasons. There are objective reasons and subjective reasons. If you wish to engage the opposition, however you label them, with conflicting subjective arguments (often antagonistic), then you'll get nothing but the same in return. If that is your idea of a reasonable dialogue, then so be it. I doubt it ever gets you anywhere.
    I'm just summarizing the arguments I've been reading here and not engaging in them.


    You can certainly make an argument about gays seeking equality. It is when you inject black civil rights into the discussion that you turn the debate into nothing more than a diatribe. A dispersion against those with whom you disagree. If your goal is to change people's minds, then it would seem the last thing you'd want to do is call them names.
    Some minds cannot be changed - you'll notice it is only a certain kind of people that happen to be peddling a certain set of arguments. The issue is such an old hat now, maybe 30 decades, that if you're still on the wrong side then it is likely that your religion is at issue. To change those minds would require them changing their religion practically, I would imagine.

    Interestingly, in your previous post you stated a fairly moderate and reasonable position. Very quickly, taking the side of gay movement == black movement, you began the exact same personal attacks which MD took. It is just the natural end point that such an argument leads to whether that is your intention or not.
    They're not equal in the way that you're thinking though.

    Just look at how this discussion has gone down between MD, JJ, myself and others where MD and JJ have both labeled people against gay marriage as, essentially, bigoted based on how they perceive it is equivalent to a black civil rights issue. It was inferred that I was a bigot for simply refusing to accept the premise.
    I haven't called you anything. I'm just saying that you're wrong, not bigoted.

  15. #113
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    No that's not all, or even what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no such thing as a biologically "proper" homosexual sexual relationship.
    As YOU have CHOSEN to define "proper", that is.

    If I am incorrect about the dividing line between proper and improper to be based on something other than how you have chosen to define it, then you should be able to back up your definition with some kind of outside source.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Now, are you going to force me to get graphically explicit so as to demonstrate for you what is blindingly obvious to every human being on the planet, not in the throes of prejudice, or is this going to be business as usual?
    Ah, so to disagree with you is to be in the "throes of prejudice". You really should refrain from personal attacks. But anyway...

    You don't need to get graphically explicit but I think we need to narrow down what you are referring to.

    Are you talking about "improper" relationships as sexual relationships that can't result in procreation?

    Or are you referring to couples who engage in certain sexual acts like oral sex and anal sex?


    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    The underlying problem with the comparison is not that it leads to accusations of bigotry, but that it's wrong! There is no comparison between being black and being homosexual. You can't name a single common point the two share, unless you happen to be talking about a black homosexual!
    If that were true, you would have a point. But of course I can find similarities between the two.

    1. Their were laws restricting their ability to marry (if we include laws against interracial marriage)
    2. Companies could legally refuse to hire them because they were black/gay.
    3. Businesses could refuse to serve them because there were black/gay.
    4. They could not hold public office (there was time when neither could be elected).
    Last edited by mican333; March 14th, 2014 at 02:43 PM.

  16. #114
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I'm not talking about parity in those terms though. I am saying they are equivalent in the sense that one particular group, the social conservatives, are attempting to thwart or slow the gaining equal rights of those groups. The details obviously differ - the Gay being a choice for example has been argued by some, whereas clearly being Black isn't.
    Social conservatives as a group don't want the government forcing them to acknowledge groups that would require them to redefine what marriage is, since marriage is a sacred part of their faith. It's not about refusing some group "equal rights" (and what that means, exactly, is up for debate); it's about stopping governmental intrusion upon religious liberties.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  17. #115
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,704
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Certainly you can see the cause for concern here, yes?
    Concern, yes. But he's saying that no reasonable conversation can be had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    First off, the reason I brought up Canada is that they have a legal system very similar to ours and, not so long ago, enacted many similar laws to the ones that are being proposed in the US. I find this very instructive, because it provides a likely near-future scenario in the case that those laws are enacted here.
    If we abolish the first amendment THEN those kinds of things can happen here. But I see no reason to have any concern that such a thing will happen in my lifetime.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    So, while I respect the idea that maybe we ought to keep things in one country, I wasn't just offering a non-sequitur. I find the example quite relevant to our own country because of the many similarities between the two situations, which makes comparisons both easy and very salient to the points I am making.
    But I won't ignore the difference that that cannot legally happen here currently and there's no reason to think that is likely to change.

    It would take a legal upheaval of historical proportions to remove the fist amendment or to ignore it to the extent where that could happen here. So I will definitely need to be presented with a solid, supported argument before I can take that notion seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    That aside, though, there was a Methodist Church in New Jersey... I think it was called Sea View or something like that.. that was taken to court and successfully sued for their refusal to allow a homosexual marriage ceremony to take place on their premises, in their sanctuary. For simply upholding the tenets of their faith and refusing to acknowledge or facilitate a gay union, the law was used to punish them. To me, that's a very clear case of religious persecution.
    Again, you will need to support this. I believe I had this debate before and successfully argued (had the last word anyway) that they were not punished for refusing to acknowledge a gay couple but some issue with how they used their property which would have been an illegal use even if it was done for non-religious reasons.

    If someone commits a crime for religious reasons and are punished for it, it does not mean that they were being punished for their religious beliefs. They were probably being punished for the crime.

    But either way, you will have to provide some support concerning this scenario before we can analyze what exactly it is about. So I cannot accept your assertion as is.



    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    So, say a black man moved from the South in the 1960's to New York City to escape the Klan because they were burning crosses in his yard and constantly making racist comments and slurs at him. He opens a restaurant. A shaved-headed white man sporting Klan tattoos and looking somewhat derisively at the black clientele - yet saying nothing offensive - walks in and asks for a menu. Would the black man be a bigot for refusing to serve the klansman? Would a Jewish deli owner be a bigot for refusing to serve someone who espoused Nazi beliefs and expressed his admiration of Hitler and his work?
    I don't know. But neither of these scenarios are the same thing as refusing to serve someone based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

    In other words, maybe the black owner can throw out the Klansman because he's a Klansman (or maybe he can't - again, I don't know). But the black owner cannot throw out the Klansman just because he's white.
    Last edited by mican333; March 14th, 2014 at 03:38 PM.

  18. #116
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Social conservatives as a group don't want the government forcing them to acknowledge groups that would require them to redefine what marriage is, since marriage is a sacred part of their faith. It's not about refusing some group "equal rights" (and what that means, exactly, is up for debate); it's about stopping governmental intrusion upon religious liberties.
    They don't have to redefine anything. The state is simply extending the laws that protect and benefit heterosexual couple to homosexual couples. That is exactly what equal rights is. That is not debatable any more than saying equal rights for women, or Latinos is debatable. If you think Latinos should be treated differently under the law you are a bigot.

  19. #117
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Social conservatives as a group don't want the government forcing them to acknowledge groups that would require them to redefine what marriage is, since marriage is a sacred part of their faith. It's not about refusing some group "equal rights" (and what that means, exactly, is up for debate); it's about stopping governmental intrusion upon religious liberties.
    I don't understand what religious liberties are infringed if someone that is not part of their religion marries another. Gay people also 'eat' food but that has zero impact on both the food that social conservatives eat nor on the how they eat it nor is the definition of eating changed because gay people do it or not do it or forbidden to do it or given explicit permission to do so.

    It's quibbling over the use of a word which religious people do not 'own' anyway since non religious heterosexuals are also allowed to use the same term with impunity.

    Indeed it is religious conservatives forcing other people to use their meanings. Or rather they have been and now we want it to stop.

  20. #118
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Concern, yes. But he's saying that no reasonable conversation can be had.
    I have been trying in earnest for 3 pages to have a reasonable conversation with Mdougie, and he has repeatedly demonstrated that this is not really possible with him, because any substantial or meaningful deviation from his beliefs is immediately dismissed as hate-filled, sadistic, psychopathic bigotry. For my conversation so far with Mdougie, I'd say that Ibelsd is right.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican33
    If we abolish the first amendment THEN those kinds of things can happen here. But I see no reason to have any concern that such a thing will happen in my lifetime.
    The Canadians didn't think it would happen in their lifetimes, either, but it did. There are already "hate speech" laws on the books. All it takes is one activist judge to agree with a lawyer that the Bible's take on homosexuality constitutes "hate speech" and you've got the very same thing here. It's not really that hard to imagine.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Again, you will need to support this. I believe I had this debate before and successfully argued (had the last word anyway) that they were not punished for refusing to acknowledge a gay couple but some issue with how they used their property which would have been an illegal use even if it was done for non-religious reasons. If someone commits a crime for religious reasons and are punished for it, it does not mean that they were being punished for their religious beliefs. They were probably being punished for the crime.
    The Sea View Methodist incident is hardly the first, and it won't be the last. Let's take it to the hypothetical. Do you think that any church should be required to allow a gay couple to get married in their building if they don't believe that marriage can exist between two men and believe that homosexual relationships are morally wrong?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    I don't know. But neither of these scenarios are the same thing as refusing to serve someone based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

    In other words, maybe the black owner can throw out the Klansman because he's a Klansman (or maybe he can't - again, I don't know). But the black owner cannot throw out the Klansman just because he's white.
    If the black man ejects the Klansman because of his beliefs, then it *is* the same as someone being ejected because they are Muslim or Jewish or (by some arguments) homosexual. No difference. You yourself just said that it would be a problem if people refused service to someone based on their religious beliefs. Why are some beliefs not as valuable as others in this scenario? Certainly the Klansman holds to his belief in "White Power" or whatever as strongly as a Christian does to his faith. Both are a matter of choice and of lifestyle. There are even some good arguments to be made that the Ku Klux Klan, for all its dogma, doctrine, trappings, rituals and ceremonies, constitutes a religion of its own. Why would this be any different from refusing service to someone because of a religious belief?
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  21. #119
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I have been trying in earnest for 3 pages to have a reasonable conversation with Mdougie, and he has repeatedly demonstrated that this is not really possible with him, because any substantial or meaningful deviation from his beliefs is immediately dismissed as hate-filled, sadistic, psychopathic bigotry. For my conversation so far with Mdougie, I'd say that Ibelsd is right.
    Not true. Bigotry is what bigotry is. You want my to change the the definition of Bigot from one who regards members of a group with hatred or intolerance. Per Websters 2012 collegiate dictionary, but it is what it is. You are intolerant of gays having equal rights and privileges of the government institution of marriage. That is by definition bigotry. Own your beliefs, and you can debate them. If you hide from them we dance around. You don't want to tolerate homosexual legal equality in at least the government institution of marriage and perhaps others, but we are talking about marriage. Perhaps you think homosexuals should lose custody of their kids if they decide to come out later in life I don't know. That would be bigotry too. I am willing to debate. What I am not willing to do is not call discrimination discrimination or acknowledge discrimination based on being gay or black or female is bigotry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The Sea View Methodist incident is hardly the first, and it won't be the last. Let's take it to the hypothetical. Do you think that any church should be required to allow a gay couple to get married in their building if they don't believe that marriage can exist between two men and believe that homosexual relationships are morally wrong?
    Anyone can sue anyone for anything. A jury can decide to award damages if they are convinced harm was done. I am sorry you don't like that, but you can always try to get rid of the 7th amendment like many right wingers tend to do. Why does the right wing hate the 7th amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    If the black man ejects the Klansman because of his beliefs, then it *is* the same as someone being ejected because they are Muslim or Jewish or (by some arguments) homosexual. No difference. You yourself just said that it would be a problem if people refused service to someone based on their religious beliefs. Why are some beliefs not as valuable as others in this scenario? Certainly the Klansman holds to his belief in "White Power" or whatever as strongly as a Christian does to his faith. Both are a matter of choice and of lifestyle. There are even some good arguments to be made that the Ku Klux Klan, for all its dogma, doctrine, trappings, rituals and ceremonies, constitutes a religion of its own. Why would this be any different from refusing service to someone because of a religious belief?
    The KKK is classified as a terrorist organization. One may refuse to serve them or Nazis or Al Quida and feel fine. They can't refuse for skin color, sex, religion etc.

  22. #120
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    Not true. Bigotry is what bigotry is. You want my to change the the definition of Bigot from one who regards members of a group with hatred or intolerance. Per Websters 2012 collegiate dictionary, but it is what it is. You are intolerant of gays having equal rights and privileges of the government institution of marriage. That is by definition bigotry.
    Challenge to support a claim.Support or retract that I hate or am intolerant toward homosexuals.

    My disagreement with the laws regarding marriage and how they are applied has nothing to do with my feelings about homosexuality or the rights of homosexual people. I don't believe that the government should be telling anybody whether their marriage is valid, least of all forcing one group to acknowledge something they believe is morally wrong is the same as one of their sacred rites. I have not demonstrated bigotry in any sense of the word except your own narrowly defined and totally misapplied interpretation.

    If you will not provide a direct quote from me that shows that I hate homosexuals, I demand that you retract your statement. You really need to watch your mouth here. Bigotry isn't exactly a light charge to throw around at people, and I resent your accusation. I take pride in being an open-minded, fair-minded person who relates to people of all faiths, colors, creeds, and backgrounds well. You have no idea who I am or what I believe, and yet you seem to think you have me all figured out based on the fact that I disagree with you on the matter of gay marriage.

    I cite your above statement as Exhibit A that it is impossible to have a reasonable debate with you. Until you retract your accusation and apologize, I refuse to engage with you further. I have reported your post and will await further ruling from the rest of the staff regarding your inflammatory and incredibly rude treatment of not only myself but other members on this thread.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

 

 
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 05:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 06:43 AM
  3. Marriage better for children
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: July 5th, 2009, 05:19 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 1st, 2007, 08:27 PM
  5. Do you have, or want children?
    By Jamie in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 24th, 2005, 06:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •