I am having a little trouble reconciling this.
I specifically asked you if my arguments are bigoted.
You specifically responded:
There is some sexism inherent in them calling up traditional sex roles that are called into question from the get go.
So, it appears that you said there is inherent sexism in making those points when I specifically asked you "Are my comments regarding civil-unions and marriages bigoted and idiotic?"
So, I'm trying to figure out how your response is "I'm not arguing that the position is sexist, merely informing you that there are many who do." can be reconciled with saying some sexism is inherent in my arguments.
Just looking for clarification...
I apologize, that wasn't exactly worded the way I would like it to be now. Don't take this from my personal views, think of it more as a devil's advocate kind of thing. I try to explain this in post previous to this one.
I'm trying to explain how the baseline for your argument could be construed in such a way. The argument shouldn't have been presented as it was, however, coming across as ad hominem. However, I was trying to assist by making it clear where the other position was coming across, not that I agreed. You were sort of, kind of, almost... VERY hot at the time, so I think you misread me. I have communicated my point poorly at the same time.
However, I still don't see the point in this discussion in this particular thread. What does it have to do with religion?
Doug Greer commented that he felt it difficult to explain his position without coming off in a bigoted manner (or something similar to that) and that he would back out. Samnell responded and added that it was similar to how he had never seen an argument counter to gay marriage that was not bigoted and idiotic. Since I had engaged in such conversation with Samnell, I knew that I was being insulted.
Here is one of the originating quotes:
But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot.I shall accept your preferred term for yourself. You ought to know. I've observed the same about every opponent of same-sex marriage. I do not consider this a coincidence.
Not only did Samnell stoop to bashing someone stepping out in a polite and self-derogatory manner with respect to the religion discussion he went on to bash others. Samnell has no intentions of treating people who disagree with him civilly in this discussion. He never has and he never will. That is this relation to the civil religious discussion. It is a discussion about the lack of civility being perpetrated by one person. Two, if you count my entry simply to answer the insult. But, other than that, I have remained a non-participant.
OK then, without trying to hide behind "love the sinner, hate the sin" male bovine fecal matter, explain to me how christians are not bigots when it comes to homosexuals? Christians are not willing to give them the same rights that christians have all because some guy said it was bad 2000 years ago.Variation of the same thing. It does not change a thing.oh and so we know
Bigot: –noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.An alternate definition is:
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Rights are not being denied.
No one has a right for the state to step in and determine how their assets should be when they divorce. No one has the automatic right to collect their dead spouse's social security. Those are laws (not rights) passed to fix problems that are widespread in heterosexual unions. Etc.
Just flag him if he's insulted you. I personally didn't know he was trying to insult anyone specific. My issue has been and will remain the tone and nature of the argument you guys are rehashing.
I don't have hard feelings toward anyone. I hope the same is true of both of you.
The powers that be don't seem to have a problem with people calling others bigots but do have a problem with cursing another poster. So, I merely responded in like manner.
But, hey, I'm done with this. He has completely ignored posts where I explicitly explained what he claimed I had not addressed.
Samnell is just trolling for the sake of insulting me. Same with Bugleyman.
Not saying I support or not.
I read the first page and got fertility and tradition. Not too promising. Skipped ahead to the conclusion. More fertility and tradition, with vague fears of calamities to arise in a changing conception of marriage. Oh yes, and considerable waving of hands about symbolism.
|
Rights are not being denied.
No one has a right for the state to step in and determine how their assets should be when they divorce. No one has the automatic right to collect their dead spouse's social security. Those are laws (not rights) passed to fix problems that are widespread in heterosexual unions. Etc.
There are things that may not have started as basic rights, but as the laws hit the books and their use becomes commonplace they become rights. Argue it however you like, but any person who is not mentally incompetent can go to the courthouse and get married (as long as they have non-matching genitalia). Denying homosexuals this right is no different than denying interracial couples the right to marry.
If that doesn't float your boat, then look at the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you are married, then you know that being denied the ability to marry your husband/wife is definitely denying you the right to live your life and be happy while doing it. Are only straights allowed that?
gp
Rights are not being denied.
No one has a right for the state to step in and determine how their assets should be when they divorce. No one has the automatic right to collect their dead spouse's social security. Those are laws (not rights) passed to fix problems that are widespread in heterosexual unions. Etc.
There are things that may not have started as basic rights, but as the laws hit the books and their use becomes commonplace they become rights. Argue it however you like, but any person who is not mentally incompetent can go to the courthouse and get married (as long as they have non-matching genitalia). Denying homosexuals this right is no different than denying interracial couples the right to marry.
If that doesn't float your boat, then look at the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you are married, then you know that being denied the ability to marry your husband/wife is definitely denying you the right to live your life and be happy while doing it. Are only straights allowed that?
No one is being denied the abilty to marry. They can go to their or some other priest to do it.
The state is simply saying that it has passed laws to take care of some problems that are really common in heterosexual relationships and that they don't see a need to apply these laws to a different type of union.
It is a case of the state not applying the same contractual laws to contracts that are not the same (contract 1: man to woman, contract 2: man to man, contract 3: woman to woman). Because these contracts are not the same, they do not necessitate the application of the same laws.
Your argument is making a case for why someone is not happy about their contract not being recognized as the same but fails to ADDRESS the (il)legitimacy of not applying the same laws.
My argument does address that point.
Now, I'm done with this. :)
|
|
Rights are not being denied.
No one has a right for the state to step in and determine how their assets should be when they divorce. No one has the automatic right to collect their dead spouse's social security. Those are laws (not rights) passed to fix problems that are widespread in heterosexual unions. Etc.
There are things that may not have started as basic rights, but as the laws hit the books and their use becomes commonplace they become rights. Argue it however you like, but any person who is not mentally incompetent can go to the courthouse and get married (as long as they have non-matching genitalia). Denying homosexuals this right is no different than denying interracial couples the right to marry.
If that doesn't float your boat, then look at the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you are married, then you know that being denied the ability to marry your husband/wife is definitely denying you the right to live your life and be happy while doing it. Are only straights allowed that?
No one is being denied the abilty to marry. They can go to their or some other priest to do it.
The state is simply saying that it has passed laws to take care of some problems that are really common in heterosexual relationships and that they don't see a need to apply these laws to a different type of union.
It is a case of the state not applying the same contractual laws to contracts that are not the same (contract 1: man to woman, contract 2: man to man, contract 3: woman to woman). Because these contracts are not the same, they do not necessitate the application of the same laws.
Your argument is making a case for why someone is not happy about their contract not being recognized as the same but fails to ADDRESS the (il)legitimacy of not applying the same laws.
My argument does address that point.
Now, I'm done with this. :)
So basically you are advocating for seperate but equal? Essentially it boils down to this: two people love each other and want the same rights (or benefits if you prefer) that are afforded to people who are in the same situation (they love each other and want to form a binding contract that grants X benefits and rights).
Samnell is just trolling for the sake of insulting me. Same with Bugleyman.
You have a grossly overdeveloped sense of self importance.
Samnell is just trolling for the sake of insulting me. Same with Bugleyman.
I don't care enough about your reaction to be trolling, really. I didn't get any visceral thrill out of classifying you. Nor am I delighted by the flood of posts in response. I just honestly said what I think.
I spent years torturing myself over how other people would react to me, all wasted. People are adept enough at pushing their reactions into your awareness. They hardly need help. There are so many more important things to think about.
|
I think whats majorly happening (besides the vulgar attack speach). Is that people are reading the intent behind your defense. As in why is it so important to you that there not be homosexual marriage? 1) You have a hidden self-moral objection to homosexuals, and the gay movement. 2) You really really dislike samnell and are willing to argue til your blue in the face so you don't have to give any ground to him 3) Your just plain stubborn or contrary and in a bad mood, and need to vent it in some form. Or any combination of the above. I think that is why people are reacting badly too you.
The state is simply saying that it has passed laws to take care of some problems that are really common in heterosexual relationships and that they don't see a need to apply these laws to a different type of union.
Do you honestly believe that homosexual monogamous relationships don't encounter the same issues as heterosexual monogamous relationships*?
(*excepting natural fertility issues, of course.)
People like to say there is no right to marriage.
But not only is that deliberately obtuse, it's also incorrect. We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights are inviolate, except where their exercise threaten to interfere with the rights of others. So to show that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry, once must show that such marriage would materially harm the rights of others. Which of course, no one can do. And yet people still advocate treating homosexuals like second-class citizens, jumping through all sorts of tortured logic to avoid admitting (even to themselves) that they're bigots. It's b+#%*$#&.
That's why I'm "reacting badly."
I think whats majorly happening (besides the vulgar attack speach). Is that people are reading the intent behind your defense. As in why is it so important to you that there not be homosexual marriage? 1) You have a hidden self-moral objection to homosexuals, and the gay movement. 2) You really really dislike samnell and are willing to argue til your blue in the face so you don't have to give any ground to him 3) Your just plain stubborn or contrary and in a bad mood, and need to vent it in some form. Or any combination of the above. I think that is why people are reacting badly too you.
The vularity of my attack was specifically in response to Samnell's claims of bigotry (and Bugleyman's defense of them) before I ever entered this discussion. So, that is not a reason for receiving a bad reaction from them. They exhibied it before I entered the conversation.
I have never made any indication that it is important that there not be same-sex marriage. I have explicitly stated that non-bigoted reasons for not extending the application of the laws of marriage to a same-sex couple exist and explained what those are. I even explicitly stated that as society continues to change those differences may (will?) shrink to the point that there will no longer be a reason to have differing laws for unions and marriages. How is that arguing that it is important to me that there not be same-sex marriage?
1) You have a hidden self-moral objection to homosexuals, and the gay movement.
1. I have given no evidence whatsoever that I have some hidden self-moral objection to homosexuals and the gay movement. As above, I have stated that as things continue to change it will be best to re-evaluate and have one set of rules. I even specifically stated that the number of children in their relationships alone may make this change important. Further, in other posts I have explicitly expressed my support for the adoption of children into homosexual couples.
Such an accusation is ridiculous. (Note: I recognize this is not an explicit accusation coming directly from you but you are implying it is being made.)
2) You really really dislike samnell and are willing to argue til your blue in the face so you don't have to give any ground to him.
Samnell has a habit of continually throwing dispersions and insults at those who disagree with him. Here is what started these posts with emphasis added by myself:
But getting back the subject at hand. I just feel like I can't discuss my opinions on this with out sounding like a bigoted idiot.I shall accept your preferred term for yourself. You ought to know. I've observed the same about every opponent of same-sex marriage. I do not consider this a coincidence.
It was a nasty comment and one that called out someone speang of himself in a self-derogatory manner when bowing out. It was also an insulting jab at anyone and everyone (myself) who had ever taken an opposing argument to Samnell regarding gay-marriage. He couldn't back up his claim. He resorted to trolling because he was stating that he could not find where I had specifically answered a question when I had explicitly done so. It was blatantly obvious.
You state that I am arguing hard so as to not give any ground. The only argument I have made is that my arguments are not idiotic or based upon bigotry. You seem shocked that someone would argue hard against that point. This I don't understand. Please explain.
3) Your just plain stubborn or contrary and in a bad mood, and need to vent it in some form. Or any combination of the above. I think that is why people are reacting badly too you.
Why is it shocking that I will not give in when someone calls me a bigot? Why is it shocking that I will not idly accept such an accusation?
Who is reacting badly to me?
Samnell, who called me a bigot and an idiot before I entered this conversation...
Bugleyman, who stated Samnell was abrasive but echoed his agreement before I entered the conversation...
Xpletivedeleted, who continually goes off in a similar manner calling everything he disagrees with a case of bigotry...
I was expicitly called a bigot by both Samnell and Bugleyman. So, why should I not be indignant? Why should I not be indignant when I state argument after argument that is not based on bigotry and yet they continue to make such an accusation without showing these arguments to be bigoted?
Please explain this, Jeremy.
The state is simply saying that it has passed laws to take care of some problems that are really common in heterosexual relationships and that they don't see a need to apply these laws to a different type of union.Do you honestly believe that homosexual monogamous relationships don't encounter the same issues as heterosexual monogamous relationships*?
(*excepting natural fertility issues, of course.)
I never stated that.
Reread what I stated about generalities.
We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.Declaration of independence, not actually anything guaranteed by the constitution.
The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to be all inclusive. Or are you really arguing that I can shoot you, since you have no "right" to your life as specifically enumerated in a Constitutional Amendment?
Get serious.
I was just explaining possibl reasons why they may be reactin badly to your posts. But obviously there is a history between you and samnell.
Fair enough. I am asking them for justification of their claims and they cannot provide it.
|
As far as the question on Hate goes:
Religiously the church teaches thus.
In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill," and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.
as well as
By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill," our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice." If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."
Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."
just so we can get the convo back on track...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.Declaration of independence, not actually anything guaranteed by the constitution.The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to be all inclusive. Or are you really arguing that I can shoot you, since you have no "right" to your life as specifically enumerated in a Constitutional Amendment?
Get serious.
I agree with CJ, particularly since, at best, you're appealing to the right to happiness in the claim that marriage is a right. I don't think it's a right, but (a) it's off topic and (b) I don't feel like typing it up again.
And, I could give two s!$*s if that makes me a bigot. It sure isn't based on religious reasons.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thing, you need to grow up. You aren't capae of participating in any thread about politics or religion without making personal attacks. I know you think they hit you back first, but that really underlines why you shouldn't be in these types of threads.
I don't know how it is that you haven't gotten a time out for your behavior, but hopefully they'll see all the flags your earning on this thread and ask that you behave like an adult. This thread has gone over 100 pages on a contentious topic, and yet you sem hellbent on finally getting it locked.
Get over yourself and grow up. Just because you think some meanie on the Internet insulted you doesn't excuse this type of behavior.
|
|
Thing, you need to grow up. You aren't capae of participating in any thread about politics or religion without making personal attacks. I know you think they hit you back first, but that really underlines why you shouldn't be in these types of threads.
I don't know how it is that you haven't gotten a time out for your behavior, but hopefully they'll see all the flags your earning on this thread and ask that you behave like an adult. This thread has gone over 100 pages on a contentious topic, and yet you sem hellbent on finally getting it locked.
Get over yourself and grow up. Just because you think some meanie on the Internet insulted you doesn't excuse this type of behavior.
huh? i have no idea who this is directed at...some context would be nice. There are a lot of people in this thread (recently that is) who seem to be taking and making things personal.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
huh? i have no idea who this is directed at...some context would be nice. There are a lot of people in this thread (recently that is) who seem to be taking and making things personal.Thing, you need to grow up. You aren't capae of participating in any thread about politics or religion without making personal attacks. I know you think they hit you back first, but that really underlines why you shouldn't be in these types of threads.
I don't know how it is that you haven't gotten a time out for your behavior, but hopefully they'll see all the flags your earning on this thread and ask that you behave like an adult. This thread has gone over 100 pages on a contentious topic, and yet you sem hellbent on finally getting it locked.
Get over yourself and grow up. Just because you think some meanie on the Internet insulted you doesn't excuse this type of behavior.
Yeah, I know, I've been flagging a lot. I like this thread, I don't want to see it brought down like this.
But, to save you some confusion, you are part of the problem. I called the biggest problem poster out by name (hint: begins with Thing), but you've been talking a fair amount of trash too.There are lots of politics threads for this level of discourse. This thread is something better.
|
|
huh? i have no idea who this is directed at...some context would be nice. There are a lot of people in this thread (recently that is) who seem to be taking and making things personal.Thing, you need to grow up. You aren't capae of participating in any thread about politics or religion without making personal attacks. I know you think they hit you back first, but that really underlines why you shouldn't be in these types of threads.
I don't know how it is that you haven't gotten a time out for your behavior, but hopefully they'll see all the flags your earning on this thread and ask that you behave like an adult. This thread has gone over 100 pages on a contentious topic, and yet you sem hellbent on finally getting it locked.
Get over yourself and grow up. Just because you think some meanie on the Internet insulted you doesn't excuse this type of behavior.
Yeah, I know, I've been flagging a lot. I like this thread, I don't want to see it brought down like this.
But, to save you some confusion, you are part of the problem. I called the biggest problem poster out by name (hint: begins with Thing), but you've been talking a fair amount of trash too.There are lots of politics threads for this level of discourse. This thread is something better.
Ah, i missed the first word in your post. And as for my part--fair enough. The problem with threads such as these is they have a tendency to cause emotions to run high, and an overabundance of emotions does not readily lend itself to a civil discussion.
I agree with CJ, particularly since, at best, you're appealing to the right to happiness in the claim that marriage is a right. I don't think it's a right, but (a) it's off topic and (b) I don't feel like typing it up again.
You're the lawyer; I'm not going to argue semantics. Plus, as you have pointed out, it's beside the point.
And, I could give two s!&*s if that makes me a bigot. It sure isn't based on religious reasons.
I've really no idea where that came from.
There are lots of politics threads for this level of discourse. This thread is something better.
I'm sorry for my part in letting this go on as long as it has.
But, to save you some confusion, you are part of the problem. I called the biggest problem poster out by name (hint: begins with Thing), but you've been talking a fair amount of trash too.
Are you accusing me of being an inferior specimen of insulting? I am insulted! :)
|
If no one can fathom God, then how do you know he exists? He's beyond human comprehension with logic by your assertion above. If you're feeling God's existence, then what made you feel that and decide to connect it to God? Where is knowledge of God actually derived?
Your assertions have proven to be quite thought provoking for me. :P
Well, it's a quandary and I'll be the first to admit it. In fact it's become such a paradox that today's Christians thump the bible as their proof when even that alone is not a proof.
If I were to try and describe to you in words why I believe so fervently it might not be enough to satisfy you, because God interacts with everyone as an individual and not as a boiler plate person.
I was not brought up in a Christian household for starters. At best my parents were nominally Christian in that everyone was nominally something when I was a kid. But as a kid I just had a knowledge that God or a higher power was out there. Don't ask me to explain how I knew because I don't know. I guess God made it his intent that I knew despite my upbringing. The only time my family went to church was for baptisms, weddings and funerals.
I had many experiences as a child and found that when I prayed fervently to God about something that was upsetting me He always seemed to come through. This got me wondering but not believing per se.
Over the years I just knew He was taking care of me, but for what reason I have no idea. There is nothing particularly good or special about me that I can see. I'm as big a sinner (according to the fundamentalist interpretation) as everyone else.
Anyway I don't want to go into details about why my belief grew in God on this forum because it isn't the place, but over the years a lot of strange and wonderful things happened to me that went beyond coincidence and the Person of God revealed himself to me as the God whose Son works in the world by the Person of the Holy Spirit.
But this God was exactly like Jesus, he was kind and compassionate and has always been so with me. I fear him only because of his power, but not like someone would fear a vicious monster.
Sometimes when I did evil or mean spirited things, he would chide me in such a way that I felt empowered by him. If I mentioned a past sin He had forgiven me he would simply say "I don't remember it". God has been good to me, but my life has been no easy ride either. But I do not attribute worldly trials to be punishments from God. The world is neutral and crap happens to everyone.
I use the bible as a guide to prayer and persevere to do what is right even though each day I fail in some way. That's how this Grace is. It's unconditionally free, and I believe the Holy Spirit of God moves people who strive and persevere to do what is right regardless of their upbringing.
So my faith is strengthened by revelation and it takes each person to make a step into the unknown. But I promise that though this faith is a journey, it reaps spiritual rewards and changes the heart in good ways, and brings a sense of peace that is powerful when the vicissitudes of day to day life become unbearable. It's like a treasure, and one that can be shared. But you don't force it on other people, you leave it available for people to take if they would like it.
Anyway, that's the best explanation I can give you at the moment.
|
Since I have seen other posters questioning my comments but not questioning Samnell's comments that mine are bigoted and idiotic, I want someone else to state whether or not they think such comments (Samnell's) are justified because mine are bigoted and idiotic (Samnell's words).
Well?
Ok fine. The real problem is that in the end we are arguing about a definition that is at the heart of the matter. And who the f~~~ cares?
From a political standpoint -- gay people and gay couples should be offered the same rights that I am entitled to. Period. End of story. Especially since (regardless of what people may think) America is a secular country.
From a religious standpoint -- it doesn't really matter what I think. (And truthfully I'm undecided about it.) In the end it's not up to what I think. If the person in question feels that what they are doing is wrong, then they should work to change their ways -- like just about anything I can think of. i.e. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As for being called a "bigot" -- I've been called worse. If it's true, then you've got a problem. If it's not, then Samnell has a problem.
There are lots of politics threads for this level of discourse. This thread is something better.
I had an amusing reply full of thread innuendos, but for once decided against throwing gasoline on the fire.
Let me just say this, then: Thank you, Sebastian.