- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Chick-fil-A sandwich too controversial for Cali High School
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:09 am to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:09 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Correct, it's a prominent point of attack. You de-legitimize any opposition by labeling them bigot, racist, sexist, etc. It's fairly effective, but people are catching on. The right has employed it many times as well, for what it's worth, just not to the constant degree of the left
If you disagree with something, it's now "hate."
1
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:47 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I will never understand how one can be accused of hating gay folks if he or she opposes their right to marriage.
Wow.
quote:
Does that mean I hate children?
So gay people can't marry - because children can't marry?
You could apply it to almost anything
quote:
"But Tuba, I will never understand how one can be accused of hating women if he or she opposes their right to vote. Does that mean I hate children?"
quote:
"But Tuba, I will never understand how one can be accused of hating black folks if he or she opposes their right to own property in their own name outright. Does that mean I hate children?"
quote:fifyfifyfify
"But Tuba, I will never understand how one can be accused of hating Mexican folks if he or she opposes their right to be in public unsupervised at any hour of the day. Does that mean I hate children?"
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 1:48 am
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:49 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
. If you disagree with something, it's now "hate."
No.
If you oppose equal rights for all Americans - its hate.
Its not "disagreeing with something" that makes it hate.
Do you honestly not get that? If so, I find that hard to believe. You don't really come off as a moron.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:51 am to genro
quote:
You de-legitimize any opposition by labeling them bigot, racist, sexist, etc
Really, actually, the position needs to be along the lines of not wanting a group of American citizens to have rights equal to the rest of us. You can't really do it to "any" position.
fricks sake you guys are hard to talk to tonight. If you hate gays you aren't the first, its no big deal. Just know those who think like you are getting fewer in number.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 1:52 am
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:51 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:If you see marriage as nothing more than a legal right, you are historically and culturally retarded.
If you oppose equal rights for all Americans - its hate
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:53 am to genro
quote:
If you see marriage as nothing more than a legal right
I don't.
Most of the rights I enjoy are more than legal rights. I fail to see how that makes it OK to deny gays rights.
quote:
you are historically and culturally retarded.
Wow. That would have been quite a good point - if only your premise had been true!
quote:
historically
historically marriage meant a man and a woman of the same race and religion, the woman cannot own her own property, and the man has limited legal right to beat her. So unless your marriage satisfies those criterion, sorry - its not a "traditional" marriage.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 1:56 am
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:54 am to genro
If marriage is a legal right, then it literally means that every single group that is currently barred from marrying is having their rights suppressed.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:56 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
If marriage is a legal right, then it literally means that every single group that is currently barred from marrying is having their rights suppressed.
A right can be suppressed when the gov't can prove that there's a compelling and public interest in suppressing it.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:57 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
If marriage is a legal right, then it literally means that every single group that is currently barred from marrying is having their rights suppressed
So owning property in your own name and in your own control (not in trust) isn't a legal right now?
Because not every single group has that right (children don't, in most cases at least).
Your argument is just dumb and you know it. You can do much better. Go to sleep. Try again tomorrow.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 1:59 am to Sentrius
quote:
A right can be suppressed when the gov't can prove that there's a compelling and public interest in suppressing it.
There is no compelling public interest to supressing the rights of gays to marry other than some members of the public hates gays. The idea that gay marriage "destroys marriage" is just plain stupid. Divorce destroys marriage. Cheating destroys marriage Dishonesty destroys marriage. Gays don't destroy marriage unless you've been a dishonest cheat and want someone to blame.
On the other hand there is great public interest in protecting that right. Marriage is part of what makes a stable home for rearing children.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 2:00 am
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:00 am to SpidermanTUba
I don't oppose gay marriage, and Sentrius is on the right track. I think gay marriage has proven itself to be fine and workable, but that DOES NOT make "marriage" a universal right.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:00 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:You understand that marriage predates history, exists in society outside government, has never been considered a civil liberty under the Constitution, is largely intertwined with the theology of our largest religion, and most religions worldwide.
Most of the rights I enjoy are more than legal rights. I fail to see how that makes it OK to deny gays rights.
See, this is where your "rights" analogy falls apart. Marriage has never been a right, it's always been an institution. Government has never controlled marriage, it's marginally attempted to regulate it sometimes.And the norms of the culture dictate the laws, not vice-versa. If two gays are forced into an arranged marriage in India, is that a right? It doesn't make any sense. Marriage has always been a cultural institution.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 2:06 am
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:02 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I don't oppose gay marriage
Fair enough, my bad.
quote:
, but that DOES NOT make "marriage" a universal
It is as much as right as the right to voluntarily enter into any form of contract.
Are you going to actually tell us that legally owning property, when you've got the funds to do so, isn't a "universal right"?
Come on man you're being ridiculous.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:03 am to genro
quote:THIS
Government has never controlled marriage, it's marginally attempted to regulate it sometimes.And the norms of the culture dictate the laws, not vice-versa.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:05 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:I've both gotten married and signed contracts. They were different.
It is as much as right as the right to voluntarily enter into any form of contract.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:05 am to Revelator
quote:CFA only stopped giving to anti gay rights orgs in late 2012. Let's not pretend the company itself wasn't involved. They were.
What's illogical about thinking its absurd to ban a chicken sandwich from a school event simply because the CEO of that company believes in traditional marriages?
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:08 am to genro
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:12 am to Sentrius
There's a huge professional industry built on activist judges using shitty rationalization to suit the Constitution to their views. We've reached the point where the Constitution is totally worthless, anyone with their own philosophy and enough support can "change" it. The professionals in this industry spend their lives mired in this utter bullshite, and from what I understand it's a highly loathed and miserable existence, from both the inside and outside perspectives.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:16 am to Sentrius
I want to know more about how marriage predates history. Please elucidate.
Posted on 9/14/14 at 2:23 am to BuckyBadger
It's quite simple. Human remains of societies living in family arrangements, along with many marital relics date prior to the first known surviving artifact containing writing. There is also a preponderance of mythical oral history regarding marriage from many known ancient cultures, indicative of prehistorical roots.
This post was edited on 9/14/14 at 2:26 am
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News