World Events
Topic: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned by CA Supreme Court

#	Author	Message
251	Kar2oonMan Mon 5/26/2008 11:34a	>>skip the insults<< Well, see, you are arguing in favor of bigotry. If you find it insulting to be considered a bigot, then I suggest you reconsider your position on the matter.
252	DouglasDubh Mon 5/26/2008 12:15p	<Well, see, you are arguing in favor of bigotry.> No, I'm not. But keep up the demonizing and distortions. I'm sure it will help you win the argument.
253	Kar2oonMan Mon 5/26/2008 12:19p	>>I'm sure it will help you win the argument.<< People seeing bigotry for what it is is what will win the argument. Make all the arguments you like against gay marriage -- nothing new there, just dust off the playbook for the things people said about interracial marriage. It should make you feel great discomfort lining up on that side.
254	mele Mon 5/26/2008 12:34p	<<It should make you feel great discomfort lining up on that side.>> No, haven't you heard? Doing things that make you feel good is the immoral way. You should be worried about your soul and the fact that you might be...Canadian someday?
255	DouglasDubh Mon 5/26/2008 12:41p	<People seeing bigotry for what it is is what will win the argument.> But claiming that people are bigots when they are not will not. <It should make you feel great discomfort lining up on that side.> My only allegiance is to the truth. If I'm wrong, you could show where I'm wrong. That instead you attack, distort, and dismiss, shows that I'm not.
256	bubsmom Mon 5/26/2008 12:56p	For fear of being blasted out of this topic, I can't just sit by and say nothing. I can not fathom the argument that it's "ok" to discriminate against a sector the of the population. Rgardless of what some may think; We as a nation did this with inter-racial marriage; we did this with segragation-we couldn't get past it; and the supreme court stepped in to help us along the way over 60 years ago. The "majority" of the population kicked and bucked; but we came through it- as a better country and some were changed in their mind set. It opened our hearts and minds. Any time we treat seperate, but equal, it equates to discrimination. Period. We're not talking about the ridiculous concepts of marrying cousins, brothers and sisters; tri-marriages, etc... So please- don't run down that path- If anyone had someone gay close to them; someone they cared about and loved; and they were in a monogomous relationship and just wanted to show their love and comittment as others are able...they may change their minds. That was my 2 cents...
257	gadzuux Mon 5/26/2008 12:59p	>> The bigots I was refering to are the guys in the right wing noise machine that have demonized this issue and "gays" in general. << The difference is that their bigotry is somehow based in logic. They're demagoguing and pandering to fears based on ignorance in an effort to influence votes. While it's appalling, it's at least understandable. It's the ignorant folks that they're pandering to that's the real problem. These people are given 'safe harbor' for their beliefs and shown that it's still acceptable to demonize a segment of society. >> As I've mentioned to you before, this isn't strictly a legal matter. The law can, and quite likely will, be changed. << It already has been changed. What you're advocating for is to revert back. Why? Do you even live in california? What's it to you anyway? You've got no horse in this race, but you still want to actively deny equality for me and countless others. You say it's out of concern for "the children" and yet you don't have any. You're already married to a woman, so you already have all the rights and benefits of a state recognized marriage - the same ones you seek to deny to same-sex couples, because they don't procreate. How is this different from YOU! This is all just some academic exercise hypocrisy for you. And yet you're quick to point the finger of "distortion, dismissal and demonization" at others.
258	gadzuux Mon 5/26/2008 1:03p	>> ... and the supreme court stepped in to help us along the way over 60 years ago. The "majority" of the population kicked and bucked; but we came through it - as a better country and some were changed in their mind set. << Overall, I'd agree. But an unintended consequence was to morph the republican party into champions of regressive policy. All those disaffected southern white voters flocked to the GOP, who were only too happy to assimilate their ignorance and fears into their political platform. And look where we are today.
259	Kar2oonMan Mon 5/26/2008 1:06p	>>If I'm wrong, you could show where I'm wrong.<< I have, numerous times, explained the flaw in your beloved study of the Netherlands, and you dismiss it all, naturally. I have directed you to several sources that have unraveled the whole thing, and you, naturally, dismiss them. I could link to them all again, but you'd naturally dismiss them. You believe that correlation = causation. You have said "there is simply" nothing else that could possibly be at work there to explain the marriage rates, which means your allegiance to "truth" is pretty subjective. >>But claiming that people are bigots when they are not will not.<< People who argue in favor of bigotry are bigots, whether the term causes them discomfort or not. People who do not wish to be bigots alter their behavior and attitudes so as not to argue in favor of perpetuating bigotry. You don't get to just say you're not a bigot, and then go ahead and argue for more bigotry. It just doesn't work like that. And that's your problem, not mine. But don't expect me not to point out when someone is a bigot. I'm tired of it.
260	DouglasDubh Mon 5/26/2008 1:25p	<You believe that correlation = causation.> No, I don't. And neither does the author of the articles I linked to. Repeating this canard doesn't make it true. <You don't get to just say you're not a bigot, and then go ahead and argue for more bigotry.> Just because you don't agree with a position doesn't mean it's bigotry. I could argue that not giving social security benefits to everyone under 65 is violating their rights, and that everyone who is against expanding social security benefits to everyone is a bigot against the young. That doesn't make it so.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-190	191-200
	201-210	211-220	221-230	231-240	241-250
	251-260	261-270	271-280	281-290	291-300
	301-310	311-320	321-330	331-340	341-350
	351-360	361-370	371-380	381-390	391-400
	401-410	411-420	421-430	431-440	441-450
	451-460	461-470	471-480	481-490	491-500
	501-510	511-520	521-530	531-540	541-550
	551-560	561-570	571-580	581-590	591-600
	601-610	611-620

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
This week on the LPP - Disney's 2008 Thea awards, Disney's Imax and 3D announcements, Bolt walkarounds and the crew's favorite Animal Kingdom attractions plus reader mail, Brent's Corner, the Captain's Challenge, Stump the Crew and 50 words or less on the new Bond.

What's on
The Latest
Group RCI and Disney Vacation Club Members to Receive Benefit of New Multi-Year Relationship
NetDragon and Disney to Launch First MMORPG 'Disney Fantasy Online'
Disneyland Thanksgiving Day Parade pictures
New Disneyland Resort Video and Audio podcasts available
Video of dogs visiting Santa Paws at WDW's Downtown Disney
Tokyo Disneyland and Tokyo DisneySea Schedule for Fiscal Year 2009
TCM Presents: The Family Classics With All-New Original Special and Nostalgic Holiday Festival
Kids go free to Disney on Broadway
Innoventions Dream Home featured on MSN.com
Disney Store Responds to Inaccurate Information in Widely Circulating Email

Click here for The Latest