U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:33 AM
 
17,288 posts, read 28,333,585 times
Reputation: 8676

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy;

So typical. I should know better than to expect a straight answer out of liberals who are bigoted against, intolerant of, and hateful toward those of us who PRACTICE (not just claim to follow) a conservative religion such as Christianity. (Your own medicine sure tastes bitter, doesn't it?)

Frankly, it's only a fluke of circumstance and history that we have decided to place religious protection along the other categories of things that people DO NOT CHOOSE.

Race, ethnicity, handicap, sexual orientation. All of these things are things people do not choose, so it's a far greater harm when someone is discriminated against for such reasons than because you have a certain belief: Republican, Christian, Democrat, Muslim....


Religion is a chosen affliction, yet you think it is of the same moral equivalence to an inherent characteristic of someone's being.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:36 AM
 
17,288 posts, read 28,333,585 times
Reputation: 8676
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Just FYI, that law does exist and has existed in the US for many decades.

... AND it's not changing anytime soon. If ever.


Because the majority of people see the value in anti-discrimination laws.


The laws have worked just fine for everyone except those who feel the need to discriminate.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:46 AM
 
1,519 posts, read 1,189,090 times
Reputation: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Thanks! I wouldn't want my username associated with anything he wrote.
Gosh, who would?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,223 posts, read 13,426,103 times
Reputation: 9847
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Conclusion: America is screwed.
Why?
Because you can't use your "religious beliefs" to discriminate?
OR
Because you can't use your "religious beliefs" to force others to live the way YOU want them to?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:52 AM
 
1,519 posts, read 1,189,090 times
Reputation: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Conclusion: America is screwed.
Absolutely. Who would want to live in a nation that acknowledges equality. It was so much better when you could just arbitrarily discriminate against people you don't like.

Religious freedom does NOT mean that you have the right to violate laws. Whoever gave you that stupid idea?

And yes, if you do something that society deems unacceptable, then hiding behind the guise of "religion" won't help you. There is no justification for irrational intolerance of any group - which is exactly what you express. There is, however, justification for intolerance of those who use their irrational thoughts to discriminate against others - this is what you experience. That has nothing to do with 'tasting your own medicine."

Sorry for you, but "my god tells me so" no longer flies. You can hide behind religion all you want - we all see you for what you are when you do that: A coward who can't even acknowledge that his horrible views are HIS, not those of some god.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-07-2013, 06:12 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,198,870 times
Reputation: 8792
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
And yet you STILL dodged my question, as did everyone else.
Actually, I didn't. I gave it the response it deserved; you just didn't like the manner of the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
So typical.
Yes it is typical of one expressing support for bigotry against homosexuals to refuse to acknowledge when their perspective is properly characterized in a negative manner.

Can we stop with the useless exhortations now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
I should know better than to expect a straight answer out of liberals who are bigoted against, intolerant of, and hateful toward those of us who PRACTICE (not just claim to follow) a conservative religion such as Christianity.
Oh look, it's Upside Down day, where right is left and green is orange. The truth that you're so unwilling to admit that you find yourself explicitly lying about it is that I'm not bigoted, intolerant or hateful against those who practice Christianity. Not in the slightest. The bigotry you are supporting isn't part of the practice of Christianity. Christianity arguably calls for not engaging in homosexual behavior (and even that assertion is on shaky ground, but let's assume for your sake that it is true); it doesn't preclude baking cakes for people who do, or taking photos for those who do. Only a gross, self-deceptive, scurrilous perversion of Christianity would draw the conclusion that it does. What you're doing is crafting a rationalization for your morally offensive perspective, so you can deceive yourself into thinking your support for petty actions taken against people you simply don't like are somehow justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
(Your own medicine sure tastes bitter, doesn't it?)
If my earlier comment tasted bitter to you, then perhaps that should inform you of your own instinct regarding the scurrilous nature of the perspective you support. Your comment directed at me tasted like it was a petulant effort to lamely strike back as righteous repudiation. It didn't taste bitter; it evoked a little pity in me, that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Some of us understand, some of us don't (and never will).
The magic of self-rationalizing perspectives.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-07-2013, 06:50 AM
 
Location: Ohio
2,801 posts, read 2,191,313 times
Reputation: 1652
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.

I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".

2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!

3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?

4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?

Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.

I am really late to this one but it seems you guys always bring up the same stuff when questioning same sex marriage(maybe that is a tell?).

1. Not usually, because there are genetics involved and there is usually some coercion involved with incest based relationships, not too long ago, first cousin marriages were common.

2. How does multiple spouses relate to two same sex persons getting married?

3. You guys have a thing for children don't you? Children are unable to consent.

4. Animals too I see ... AGAIN, animals can't consent.

5. You left out corpses ... They too can't consent.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-07-2013, 07:30 AM
 
Location: I live wherever I am.
1,935 posts, read 4,550,523 times
Reputation: 3308
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Just FYI, that law does exist and has existed in the US for many decades.
And I don't support it. I would support its repeal even if in so doing it subjected me to discrimination I do not presently experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Frankly, it's only a fluke of circumstance and history that we have decided to place religious protection along the other categories of things that people DO NOT CHOOSE.

Race, ethnicity, handicap, sexual orientation. All of these things are things people do not choose, so it's a far greater harm when someone is discriminated against for such reasons than because you have a certain belief: Republican, Christian, Democrat, Muslim....

Religion is a chosen affliction, yet you think it is of the same moral equivalence to an inherent characteristic of someone's being.
But most, if not all, truly religious people who understand their religions (and I mean REAL religions, not "do whatever you feel like doing as long as you're not infringing upon anyone else's rights" religions like Unitarian Universalism or Wicca) believe that deviate sexual orientations are chosen rather than inborn. Christians, at least, also believe that it's not always us choosing God - God chooses us. Therefore, our religious affiliation is often not as much "our choice" as you'd think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuselage View Post
Gosh, who would?
I hope you enjoy hot weather.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Why?
Because you can't use your "religious beliefs" to discriminate?
OR
Because you can't use your "religious beliefs" to force others to live the way YOU want them to?
Absolute freedom equals absolute tyranny. Y'ever heard of "anarchy"? There needs to be SOME restriction, SOME discrimination, SOME determination of "right" vs. "wrong", etc. Absent that, pandemonium would ensue as everyone did whatever he/she felt like doing regardless of how it would affect others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuselage View Post
Absolutely. Who would want to live in a nation that acknowledges equality. It was so much better when you could just arbitrarily discriminate against people you don't like.

Religious freedom does NOT mean that you have the right to violate laws. Whoever gave you that stupid idea?
My premise was that the law is set up wrong. You, and others, are saying, essentially, that the owners of that bakery were REQUIRED BY LAW to violate their religious beliefs if they wished to keep their businesses open. Let's say that you are a Unitarian Universalist and your beliefs are that "anything goes". America gets taken over by Muslims (you KNOW that the Islamic radicals would LOVE to do that) and now we're all under Sharia law, whereby you are REQUIRED BY LAW to discriminate in some ways - which violates your Unitarian Universalist beliefs. How would YOU feel in that situation? (Not like I expect an answer, as this would wreck the argument I've been getting. Dodge away. Deep down, you know I'm right.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuselage View Post
And yes, if you do something that society deems unacceptable, then hiding behind the guise of "religion" won't help you. There is no justification for irrational intolerance of any group - which is exactly what you express. There is, however, justification for intolerance of those who use their irrational thoughts to discriminate against others - this is what you experience. That has nothing to do with 'tasting your own medicine."

Sorry for you, but "my god tells me so" no longer flies. You can hide behind religion all you want - we all see you for what you are when you do that: A coward who can't even acknowledge that his horrible views are HIS, not those of some god.
Suppose it is YOU who is actually the one using irrational thoughts to discriminate against others. I could very easily argue that, though you probably wouldn't listen. What then?

And if you think my "horrible" views are mine, not those of "some god", compare them to what the Bible says. Bring it. Let's rumble.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-07-2013, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Deep Dirty South
5,190 posts, read 5,082,667 times
Reputation: 3860
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
And if you think my "horrible" views are mine, not those of "some god", compare them to what the Bible says. Bring it. Let's rumble.
If I recall correctly, this has already been addressed several times in this thread and you were made to look like a purple-veined, drooling mass of wrongness. But keep tilting at those windmills...
Rate this post positively
 
Old 09-07-2013, 10:08 AM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 10,132,098 times
Reputation: 4285
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy View Post
And I don't support it. I would support its repeal even if in so doing it subjected me to discrimination I do not presently experience.



But most, if not all, truly religious people who understand their religions (and I mean REAL religions, not "do whatever you feel like doing as long as you're not infringing upon anyone else's rights" religions like Unitarian Universalism or Wicca) believe that deviate sexual orientations are chosen rather than inborn. Christians, at least, also believe that it's not always us choosing God - God chooses us. Therefore, our religious affiliation is often not as much "our choice" as you'd think.



I hope you enjoy hot weather.



Absolute freedom equals absolute tyranny. Y'ever heard of "anarchy"? There needs to be SOME restriction, SOME discrimination, SOME determination of "right" vs. "wrong", etc. Absent that, pandemonium would ensue as everyone did whatever he/she felt like doing regardless of how it would affect others.



My premise was that the law is set up wrong. You, and others, are saying, essentially, that the owners of that bakery were REQUIRED BY LAW to violate their religious beliefs if they wished to keep their businesses open. Let's say that you are a Unitarian Universalist and your beliefs are that "anything goes". America gets taken over by Muslims (you KNOW that the Islamic radicals would LOVE to do that) and now we're all under Sharia law, whereby you are REQUIRED BY LAW to discriminate in some ways - which violates your Unitarian Universalist beliefs. How would YOU feel in that situation? (Not like I expect an answer, as this would wreck the argument I've been getting. Dodge away. Deep down, you know I'm right.)



Suppose it is YOU who is actually the one using irrational thoughts to discriminate against others. I could very easily argue that, though you probably wouldn't listen. What then?

And if you think my "horrible" views are mine, not those of "some god", compare them to what the Bible says. Bring it. Let's rumble.
You are so brainwashed by your bible that you think your god and your bible is fact, when it is not. Your bible does not give you the green light to discriminate against who ever you choose. One is not born with a religion, one is not born believing in a god. But one is born with their sexual orientation, it is not taught, it is not learned. Freedom of religion does not give one the right to discriminate and doing so is just hiding behind a black curtain of hate. Your religion does not rule all people and thus should not be used to influence laws affecting all people. What ever happened to judge not lest yea be judged, or do unto others as one would want done unto oneself.
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:38 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top