Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it amusing that once all the arguments collapse, everyone always goes to "well ...well ...you're not being forced to marry a person of the same sex." That's an observation, not an argument.
The only arguments collapsing are those of the people who don't support gay marriage and try to think of ways to justify their beliefs.
You don't have to like it but you also don't get to say it's not allowed. Gay marriage DOESN'T harm you or anyone else who supports it. You don't have to marry a person of the same sex, attend gay weddings, or be friends with gay people. You don't have to like it. But you DON'T get to say that it can't or shouldn't happen just because you don't like it or it's against your religion (as if that matters) or whatever else you or others say.
The people who are saying it should be allowed to happen despite you not liking it aren't the ones imposing their beliefs on you and oppressing you because OUR beliefs aren't actually harming anyone. YOURS are when you say gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. If we had it your way, thousands maybe millions of people wouldn't be allowed the same happiness and rights that straight people have. If we have it our way... you're just mad and bitter while people have the equality and rights and happiness that others do. See the difference?
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 11-25-2016 at 10:47 PM..
The normalization of the abnormal and destruction of societal standards -- which is what liberalism always aims for -- harms everyone by deconstructing society -- which is the liberal goal. I'm happy to elaborate if you want.
The normalization of the abnormal and destruction of societal standards -- which is what liberalism always aims for -- harms everyone by deconstructing society -- which is the liberal goal. I'm happy to elaborate if you want.
People here on the this forum screw up terms, most do... liberalism inherently isn't bad, go google it. You're talking about extreme far left progressives. Liberalism is fine, the implementation of it is the problem.
The irony of the far far left is that they are supposedly in for free speech, yet you say something against what the PC police deem to be "unworthy" and the labels comes out, bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe.
These are all done in a manner to control speech. Something that is inherently against what pure true liberalism is about.
We need an awakening in the country on our terms, because our terms have morphed into a pile of dog poo......
Granted this is a Wikipedia description but it's pretty accurate. The first couple of paragraphs is all you need to read.
The normalization of the abnormal and destruction of societal standards -- which is what liberalism always aims for -- harms everyone by deconstructing society -- which is the liberal goal. I'm happy to elaborate if you want.
Societal standards change all the time. Is it only okay when it's something you support?
The world and views change. Societies are not stagnant. And historically in ancient societies homosexuality was accepted and regularly practiced. In ancient Rome men used to have sexual relations with teenage boys. Seriously. That's hitting both same sex AND underage relationships (what would now be the very controversial in some situations statuatory rape).
Women got out of the house and into school and professional careers. Major societal change. Now more women are enrolled in college than men. In the late 40s over 70% of college students were men. Now about 55% are women. In 1930 only about 4 women graduated from what's now Rutgers Law School, out of probably 50 students, maybe more. Now over 40% of the graduating classes are women. Do you not support these societal changes either? There was a time when we had no women in government, especially notable at federal levels (Congress, Supreme Court). Every election cycle this changes and more and more women, and minorities as well, come into positions of power. This current Congress is the most diverse ever. Major societal change. For the first time, a woman just ran a successful presidential campaign - Trump's. The Civil Rights Movement and Act was a major societal change - giving black people equality. No more separate schools and water fountains based only on skin color. Giving women the right to vote was a major societal change. Outlawing marital rape finally in the very last states that still had it in the books in the 90s. No longer making adultery a crime. Want ME to elaborate more?
If you agree with the other guy (I assume you do, since you referred to my response to him), then you demand that I follow your belief of acceptance, which contradicts my belief, which means you are forcing your belief on me and also contradicts your claim of acceptance of other beliefs. It's very simple.
No, it's just stupid....Nobody is making demands on you...Believe whatever you want and I'll do the same.
People here on the this forum screw up terms, most do... liberalism inherently isn't bad, go google it. You're talking about extreme far left progressives. Liberalism is fine, the implementation of it is the problem.
No, "classical liberalism" is fine. Unfortunately, "classical liberalism" is modern conservatism, which is what confuses most people. Therefore, to be a liberal, in the classical or historical sense, is great. But to be a "modern liberal" is to be opposed to classical liberalism.
Societal standards change all the time. Is it only okay when it's something you support?
I have no problem with societal standards changing. I mind how they are changed.
For example, with homosexuality, it was as follows:
- Liberals within media aggressively pushed a pro-homosexual message. Homosexuals appeared disproportionately on television and almost universally in positive and protagonist roles. People who were not accepting of homosexuality were portrayed as criminals and evil.
- Liberals within schools began to indoctrinate students to accept homosexuality and to teach that anyone opposed to it was in the wrong.
- Meanwhile, people repeatedly defeated gay marriage at the ballot box, even in blue states. This was not reported. Instead, news stories focused solely on people "celebrating" when liberals broke the law and permitted gay marriage before the government would step in to stop it.
- Simultaneously, gays, who had never cared about getting married, pretended that it was the most important "right" that they desperately needed. They also co-opted the black civil rights movement, which offended a large segment of blacks, who also opposed gay marriage.
- Finally, liberal politicians got tired of losing referendums repeatedly and just enacted gay marriage, claiming they were "representing the will of the people" while they were defying it. The media then dutifully reported that now a majority of the country supported gay marriage and everyone was in agreement with almost nobody opposed.
- Next, liberals started trolling around every city to try to find anyone who disagreed with gay marriage, at which point they would launch lawsuits intended to bankrupt and cripple anyone who they found. In all cases, they actively avoided dozens of businesses which were happy to help with their gay weddings and in almost all cases they weren't actually intended to get married at all.
- Then, they moved to demand normalization of trans-genders, including demanding the "right" to fully funded sex changes, bathroom choice, and more lawsuits against anyone who would cause "mental anguish" by not referring to them by whatever gender they wanted.
But, yeah, that doesn't affect anyone. You're right.
No, "classical liberalism" is fine. Unfortunately, "classical liberalism" is modern conservatism, which is what confuses most people. Therefore, to be a liberal, in the classical or historical sense, is great. But to be a "modern liberal" is to be opposed to classical liberalism.
I agree to a point. I still think that you're missing the point of what I'm talking about. These self proclaimed liberals aren't liberals They are extreme far leftist. Progressives.
Go watch a few YouTube vids of Sam Harris, he's right on the money with his assessment. He's an atheist, if you can get past that part, but he's pretty fair in terms of how he deals with most subjects.
I don't have a problem with his atheism, I don't subscribe to it, but I'm "liberal" enough to allow him his right to his views... see what I'm talking about here??? So many people don't allow others to have differing views... that is the "poison" that is seeping into our young people... we've lost many of them to this sickness as I call it.
The PC police brigade of not allowing open dialog of subjects that are sensitive.....that stuff needs to stop, now, yesterday. Intellectually curiosity where ever that takes the subject needs to be explored......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
