|
SubponticatePoster posted:Unless it involves trans fats or drinking 68 quarts of soda in a single sitting. But I guess that's covered by the "we think it's bad" part. Ah, but you're forgetting "Trans fats and ten liters of soda in one sitting is good for you, because gently caress liberals! Pour some motor oil into a storm drain on Earth Day!"
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Liberty Counsel sees a GAY PANDEMIC if Michigan okays gay marriage Yes, the sweet sweet tears! Please continue to make the case that same sex marriage should remain illegal because animus. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
I read an extremely insightful comment on NPR's website:quote:You can tell a social attitude is on its last legs by the quality of the arguments of those defending it. I feel like I could have pointed out the logical holes in anti-gay marriage arguments when I was 12.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
So do people opposing gay marriage really think that there are a substantial amount of gay people who are waiting for equal marriage before having sex with their partner? I mean, I'm sure some do, but if the negative stigma towards homosexual males is that they're promiscuous anyway, I can't make the jump the opposition is making that allowing for equal marriage will increase same-sex marriage (and thus std's, etc) by that much more  .
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Morter posted:So do people opposing gay marriage really think that there are a substantial amount of gay people who are waiting for equal marriage before having sex with their partner? I mean, I'm sure some do, but if the negative stigma towards homosexual males is that they're promiscuous anyway, I can't make the jump the opposition is making that allowing for equal marriage will increase same-sex marriage (and thus std's, etc) by that much more It's (in their minds) a "better" way to say gays are icky.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Morter posted:So do people opposing gay marriage really think that there are a substantial amount of gay people who are waiting for equal marriage before having sex with their partner? I mean, I'm sure some do, but if the negative stigma towards homosexual males is that they're promiscuous anyway, I can't make the jump the opposition is making that allowing for equal marriage will increase same-sex marriage (and thus std's, etc) by that much more No no, you see, there's an untapped pool of straight people just waiting to be lured into the gay lifestyle by virtue of it becoming more mainstream and conventional when same-sex marriage becomes legalized. Because god wants them to have children in heterosexual marriage and as raising children is both difficult and a commitment, they'll just choose the gay lifestyle and not bother with any of that. I have literally heard that last sentence used as an argument against gay marriage before.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
A lot of people do believe most other people simply don't have sex outside of a marriage, and thus gay marriage will mean way more people having gay sex than do now.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:No no, you see, there's an untapped pool of straight people just waiting to be lured into the gay lifestyle by virtue of it becoming more mainstream and conventional when same-sex marriage becomes legalized. Because god wants them to have children in heterosexual marriage and as raising children is both difficult and a commitment, they'll just choose the gay lifestyle and not bother with any of that. Based on my experience with evangelicals it's exactly this. No part of this is an exaggeration in any way. It reminds me most of the abstinence only movement. Even though birth control, sex education, and plan b could, say, greatly reduce the amount of abortions and single mothers, that's not the point. Just as the point of bringing up STDs among homosexuals does not have anything to do with wanting to lower this rate (in fact, to many evangelicals these STDs are a manifestation of god's wrath). It is all about stamping out a perceived moral evil from society.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Saying "We want to ban gay marriage to PROTECT gays from getting STDs!" reminded me of the Onion video, "Gays too precious to risk in combat." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Wouldn't the spread of gays staying virgins until their gay marriage (to other gay virgins) slow the spread of STDs going by fundy logic? Or do they believe in spontaneous generation for STDs? Is the next step gay mice being born from gay wheat?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:Wouldn't the spread of gays staying virgins until their gay marriage (to other gay virgins) slow the spread of STDs going by fundy logic? Or do they believe in spontaneous generation for STDs? Is the next step gay mice being born from gay wheat? I certainly know that there are people who believe that certain STDs are caused by "sodomy", like they think that anal and oral sex spread infections that literally can't exist in any other way. So yeah, I think gay wheat is the next thing, followed by gay basil and gay bricks making gay scorpions.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
One of Jack Chick's tracts, "Angels?" (about a Christian rock group, tract's message is all rock is from Satan) has a bit in it where two of the band members say they're gay and going to get married while "Lewis Siffer" silently says "Then I'll give you a wedding present...some AIDS!" So apparently there are people who think that gay sex just creates AIDS somehow.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Religious people think there's an invisible man in the sky that you can communicate with by thinking while sitting in a certain way and who influences the world through undefined magic. Logic is not their strong suit.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:So apparently there are people who think that gay sex just creates AIDS somehow. GRID was a thing for a brief moment.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:So apparently there are people who think that gay sex just creates AIDS somehow. e: it would explain why lesbians have the lowest incidence of AIDS, anyway!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
AYC posted:I read an extremely insightful comment on NPR's website: I have definitely noticed the quality of defenses of gay bigotry has gone down dramatically. I recall a time during Bush's second term where comments on NPR and CNN stories had almost cogent arguments. Part of the issue, though, aside from changing public opinion, is that actual loving scientists have tested the claims of gay marriage opponents, and found them bullshit. Fewer people argue being gay is a choice because it's scientifically unsupported.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:Religious people think there's an invisible man in the sky that you can communicate with by thinking while sitting in a certain way and who influences the world through undefined magic. Logic is not their strong suit. I always find it fascinating that there are people who think this brand of righteous  rhetoric helps advance social causes, especially in a society where a large majority of the people identify as religious. Its existence, in a movement that's trying to promote tolerance and love, is baffling. Doubly so when one considers the history of so many of the civil rights movements in America which gained critical mass by galvanizing support among religious moderates.
Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 19:00 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:I have definitely noticed the quality of defenses of gay bigotry has gone down dramatically. I recall a time during Bush's second term where comments on NPR and CNN stories had almost cogent arguments. Part of the issue, though, aside from changing public opinion, is that actual loving scientists have tested the claims of gay marriage opponents, and found them bullshit. Fewer people argue being gay is a choice because it's scientifically unsupported. Not to mention that LGBT parenting has gained approval from the psychological and sociological community. In other words, there isn't a rational reason to oppose gay marriage anymore. Not that there ever was in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:I always find it fascinating that there are people who think this brand of righteous Didn't think it was. You're reading more into my post than there was. Lutha Mahtin posted:Its existence, in a movement that's trying to promote tolerance and love, is baffling. I support using facts and logic to arrive at the best conclusion. This results in a pretty strong defense of people being harmed for reasons founded in pure bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
AYC posted:Not to mention that LGBT parenting has gained approval from the psychological and sociological community. Ha! You forget the other side's insistence that being gay is still a mental disease and only political pressure led to it being reclassified.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
staticman posted:The bigots are coming full circle! A female pastor bashing homosexuality. I wonder if the fellow in the New Testament who (might have) condemned homosexuality ever said anything about womens role in the church? NAAAAH.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:Didn't think it was. You're reading more into my post than there was. I'm directing this at the guy you quoted as well; please do not have this argument, as it will only end with a billion posts no-one wants to read.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Has the Full Faith and Credit Clause been mentioned in any arguments either pre- or post-Windsor? Have any post-Windsor rulings mentioned the FFCC? I'm trying to figure out how it is that DOMA never violated the FFCC, which says quote:Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Marriage is considered a public record, isn't it? I mean, the FFCC is the reason that hetero marriages are federally recognized, right? I guess DOMA tried to get around this by giving marriage a federal definition, but then at the same time it said that states can choose how they define marriage, but don't have to recognize marriages from other states that aren't recognized in their state. But now the part of DOMA that federally defined marriage has been struck down, so I'm not seeing how the remaining part doesn't violate the FFCC unless it's also now okay for a state to decide not to recognize a hetero marriage from another state.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
katium posted:Has the Full Faith and Credit Clause been mentioned in any arguments either pre- or post-Windsor? Have any post-Windsor rulings mentioned the FFCC? There's a gadget called the public policy exception.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
katium posted:Has the Full Faith and Credit Clause been mentioned in any arguments either pre- or post-Windsor? Have any post-Windsor rulings mentioned the FFCC? I could be wrong, but from what I've read it's because the allowance of/bans on same-sex marriage laws are considered to be laws that each state is allowed to decide for themselves, and the supreme court has decided that states don't have to recognize those types of laws made in other states.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Full faith and credit is a basic principle that all laws start at, but doesn't have to be strictly followed. Among other things, interracial marriages from other states were not recognized in about a dozen states until the supreme court stuck down all interracial marriage restrictions.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Gun permits for carrying in public also don't have to be recognizes across state lines, though several states have agreements that make it possible in 30 or so of the states.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
FFCC is more akin to a Maxim of Equity, because the public policy exemption allows states to demand a higher regulatory standard for licenses/contracts rather than being whatever the lowest/cheapest of the 49 neighbors demands- as long as the license/contract has a public interest / rational basis for the state to care about it. (See guns, marriages/family, construction permits, insurance permits, etc.)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:I support using facts and logic to arrive at the best conclusion. This results in a pretty strong defense of people being harmed for reasons founded in pure bullshit. This coming from someone who lives in a place without an anti-SSM amendment due to the reasoned beliefs of a large coalition of secular and religious groups. It's disappointing a fellow Minnesotan feels it is appropriate to spew this type of vitriolic bigotry, but then again here I am arguing about religious tolerance on the Internet. With a goon. 
Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Ooh, name calling. Nice one
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:This coming from someone who lives in a place without an anti-SSM amendment due to the reasoned beliefs of a large coalition of secular and religious groups. Yes, thank you that your reasoned religious beliefs have led you to not actively supporting the introduction of hate laws. After centuries of denial of dignity and basic human rights to anybody who doesn't fit the narrow, backwarded morals of your religion people now have to be thankful because you are not actively prosecuting them 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Please do not do this nobody wants to read it
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Fewer people argue being gay is a choice because it's scientifically unsupported. (not saying it is a choice, just that it's not being a choice is a bad point for gay rights advocates to use to defend gay rights)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:This is a point that always upsets me. Let's suppose that homosexuality was a product of upbringing, or even a choice. That should be irrelevant to whether we should support gay rights or same-sex marriage, because we should do that anyway. Only if we think that homosexuality was wrong should its being a choice even be relevant. It's a lot easier to argue something is bad if it's a choice though (at least since the  types stopped being popular).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Lagotto posted:Yes, thank you that your reasoned religious beliefs have led you to not actively supporting the introduction of hate laws. After centuries of denial of dignity and basic human rights to anybody who doesn't fit the narrow, backwarded morals of your religion people now have to be thankful because you are not actively prosecuting them If pro-LGBT Christian denominations deserve to be shunned for sins of the past, doesn't virtually every institution that has existed for more than a few decades deserve to be shunned? Also "not actively prosecuting (persecuting?) them" is downplaying their role, he was referring to pro-LGBT Christian groups that actively fought against the amendment right there beside all of the LGBT groups. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:This coming from someone who lives in a place without an anti-SSM amendment due to the reasoned beliefs of a large coalition of secular and religious groups. It's disappointing a fellow Minnesotan feels it is appropriate to spew this type of vitriolic bigotry, but then again here I am arguing about religious tolerance on the Internet. With a Lutha Mahtin, I love and support you, but there are so many better places to have this argument. Y'all could even make a thread for it. No one wants to read this here.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If pro-LGBT Christian denominations deserve to be shunned for sins of the past, doesn't virtually every institution that has existed for more than a few decades deserve to be shunned? I had a whole post typed out, but I'll just keep it to my short personal opinion to minimize further derail. This is not the thread to whine about more tolerance for religion.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:This coming from someone who lives in a place without an anti-SSM amendment due to the reasoned beliefs of a large coalition of secular and religious groups. It's disappointing a fellow Minnesotan feels it is appropriate to spew this type of vitriolic bigotry, but then again here I am arguing about religious tolerance on the Internet. With a Others have said this already, but a SSM thread is really not the place to talk about how tolerant one's faith is. Yes, you got to the finish line, we're all very proud, but it took you two thousand years to run the race. Talk about reparations, talk about how the faith has changed for the better of everyone, but nobody's impressed by Christians who accept gay people. I know you're coming from a good place, but you're going to encounter a lot of completely justified resistance to this topic. Edit: vvvv Also that; well said. vvvv mdemone fucked around with this message at 22:03 on May 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If pro-LGBT Christian denominations deserve to be shunned for sins of the past, doesn't virtually every institution that has existed for more than a few decades deserve to be shunned?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
twodot posted:I would say that people and organizations that actively encouraged the denial of civil rights have a duty to actively/publicly repudiate those beliefs and acknowledge that they were wrong and responsible for substantial harm. They should also offer some reasoning on why their stance changed, especially religious organizations, since it's not clear to me what change could occur that would convince a religious person to change their mind (absent a new revelation from their god of choice). Silently moving your opinion to agree with the majority is not sufficient. Ignorance is a pretty easy one.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 22:14
|
|