A sad day for bigots...DOMA defeated

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, some people feel that its unnatural (please dont try the animals are gay argument) , some people oppose it on moral grounds, etc etc, but even when presented with reasons one should not need to resort to hate speech even if one does not think those reasons valid.

Eh, what is 'hate' speech anyway? Not a big fan of that term. Then again, most of this debate isn't working for me. You have woodypusher over there with the usual watered-down 'bigot' term (it's not just for people with prejudices anymore, but also for people who are merely political opposition) and the whinge about imposing morality (of course we impose morality all the time...what are laws if not that?).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why is someone who opposes gay marriage a bigot? It appears to me that in terming those who oppose it as bigots you are engaging in hate speech yourself, which is ironic, perhaps even hypocritical considering the nature of the accusation. It appears to me that people oppose it for all kinds of reasons, it does not necessitate that they are bigots for doing so.

It absolutely does mean you are bigoted! It is the equivalent of racism. It's time for religion to step down and justice to come in. I live in the gay capital of the world, Cape Town. 10% of people here are gay. You just have to get used to it be less judgemental.

Maybe I am about to out me as a bigot...

Marriage was as far as I know in most cultuures the instrument to ensure that the children have a save and sound environment.
There won't be children from a gay marriage, so ...

In fact marriage in itself is not what it has used to be: reliable, responsible, faithful. So one could argue it's just the same for everyone.

Oh and of course there are hetero marriages without children in mind, or even strictly opposing that. Then we could as easily abandon the 2whole concept.

Originally posted by woodypusher
Because they ARE. Just like those that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were racists. Any time someone denies equal rights to anyone, that is bigotry/racism. Why are you taking it so personal?

Of course bigots will try and twist it as taking away their 'right' to discriminate.

The Supreme Court now sees it as it really is. Someday, maybe you will too.

Bravo, well said.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Bravo, well said.

We are all human beings. Why care about the colour of your skin or your sexual preference (which is not a choice just like you can't chose your skin colour). Bigots and racists it's time to get serious about these issues and move forward. You ain't going to change it and you shouldn't even try. We all bleed red.

Originally posted by Tygert
It absolutely does mean you are bigoted! It is the equivalent of racism. It's time for religion to step down and justice to come in. I live in the gay capital of the world, Cape Town. 10% of people here are gay. You just have to get used to it be less judgemental.

First of all, the thread is not about me, that is logical fallacy number one, its termed an ad hominem, whereby you seek to justify your argument on the basis of attacking the proposer of that argument, namely me. Second fallacy, racism is not equivalent to sexuality, sexuality is not immutable, it can and frequently does change. Third fallacy, simply because you proffer an assertion does not make that proposition valid. You have made a truth claim that by opposing same sex marriage people are bigoted, while providing not a shred of evidence to demonstrate that they are displaying hatred by doing so. Now while I am sure that your opinions are valid to you they do not constitute evidence for the veracity of the statements that you make in themselves otherwise we would have to believe you were a second world war submarine commander if you said it was true. Lastly I have judged no one, instead I am simply seeking to understand why people think that by labelling others as bigots, of homophobes or judgemental they are not engaging in hate speech themselves, which is not only slightly ironic, but evidently hypocritical.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, some people feel that its unnatural (please dont try the animals are gay argument) , some people oppose it on moral grounds, etc etc, but even when presented with reasons one should not need to resort to hate speech even if one does not think those reasons valid.

Okay, I won't use the '[some] animals are gay' argument (even though it's been proven as true - whether you accept it or not) if you don't use the out-dated ignorant 'unnatural' argument and the morals layed out by a pre-educated society.

Hate does not have to be used in speech to be hateful, although I do see hatred in your speech too. It is even more hateful to discriminate and deny equal rights of others by actions. Feel free to ignorantly express those hate-filled reasons you use to 'justify' your bigotry. But don't deny the pursuit of happiness to others just because you apply your own standards of morality on them. I would never deny you the right to marry and love who you chose simply because I find you and your views repulsive...and yes, immoral too.

Originally posted by Great Big Stees
We are all human beings. Why care about the colour of your skin or your sexual preference (which is not a choice just like you can't chose your skin colour). Bigots and racists it's time to get serious about these issues and move forward. You ain't going to change it and you shouldn't even try. We all bleed red.

you term it a sexual preference and then state that people cannot choose? would you like to rephrase that assertion?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
First of all, the thread is not about me, that is logical fallacy number one, its termed an ad hominem, whereby you seek to justify your argument on the basis of attacking the proposer of that argument, namely me. Second fallacy, racism is not equivalent to sexuality, sexuality is not immutable, it can and frequently does change. Third fallacy, simp ...[text shortened]... gaging in hate speech themselves, which is not only slightly ironic, but evidently hypocritical.

Really? Sexual orientation does change? And frequently? Talk about FALLACY! Talk about 'proffering' an assertion!

The orientation does not change. You can place such extreme guilt on that some will SAY they changed, even attempt to enjoy sex with members opposite their attraction. But you will never change their orientation, whether it be straight, gay, or bisexual. The ignorance of those who think they can change that is astounding. For instance, can YOU change YOUR orientation? Talk about HYPOCRITICAL.

I feel sorry for Tim Tebow, Senator Larry Craig, and Marcus Bachman (Michelle's husband), etc. etc. People like you have shamed them into denying their own orientation.

One day, people like you will be looked back at like the racists who denied civil rights to blacks and women. The smarter we as a society become, the less ignorance such as yours will remain. History backs this up.

Originally posted by woodypusher
Okay, I won't use the '[some] animals are gay' argument (even though it's been proven as true - whether you accept it or not) if you don't use the out-dated ignorant 'unnatural' argument and the morals layed out by a pre-educated society.

Hate does not have to be used in speech to be hateful, although I do see hatred in your speech too. It is even mor ...[text shortened]... o you chose simply because I find you and your views repulsive...and yes, immoral too.

more logical fallacies than a logical fallacy factory could produce.

To term others who may be religious and who do not share your views as uneducated is hate speech. Many religious people are highly educated. I am uninterested in what constitutes evidence for gayness, i am interested in why you feel the necessity to label people who oppose your perspective with hate speech.

The thread is not about me, why you feel the necessity to attack me personally in this regard is perhaps an expression of your own bigotry towards those who do not share your perspective. I could not care less what the government does, I could not care less who is allowed to get married or for what reasons, all I have done is make an enquiry into why you feel it necessary to label people who oppose your perspective with hate speech as you are evidently doing here as well. I should really thank you, i could not have proved my point without your assistance, so thanks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you term it a sexual preference and then state that people cannot choose? would you like to rephrase that assertion?

My choice of words may have been a mistake but I'm pretty sure my meaning was understood or do you need further explanation? OK here ya go, you are who you are...maybe bigots and racists should take the issues with their Gods? Because some beleive that we are His/Her creation. Did He/She make some boners?

I have never heard a bigot admit they were a bigot. I know that won't change here, either. History backs this up too. 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you term it a sexual preference and then state that people cannot choose? would you like to rephrase that assertion?

There's nothing wrong with that assertion. We do not choose many of our preferences. I mean, yeah, I can still choose to drink Coke instead of Mountain Dew, but I cannot choose to like Coke better.

Originally posted by woodypusher
Really? Sexual orientation does change? And frequently? Talk about FALLACY! Talk about 'proffering' an assertion!

The orientation does not change. You can place such extreme guilt on that some will SAY they changed, even attempt to enjoy sex with members opposite their attraction. But you will never change their orientation, whether it be straight, g ...[text shortened]... we as a society become, the less ignorance such as yours will remain. History backs this up.

predisposition is not causation, please educate yourself on the implications of what that means within the context of this discussion.

Once again this thread is not about me, i will be pleased if you refrained from further personal attacks, your necessity to do so is a reflection of the weakness of your arguments and your bigotry, please stop it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There's nothing wrong with that assertion. We do not choose many of our preferences. I mean, yeah, I can still choose to drink Coke instead of Mountain Dew, but I cannot choose to like Coke better.

you still have a choice whether to drink coke or pepsi regardless of which one you prefer, to say that you do not have a choice in the matter is ludicrous.