|
Post by Merge on Feb 8, 2016 3:21:33 GMT
Basic civil rights should not be up for a vote. Period. No one's opinions, religious beliefs or deeply held convictions should be used to deprive another human being of equality under the law as our constitution guarantees.
Justice is supposed to be blind, and rightly so. Justice isn't swayed by religious belief, sexuality, or any other difference. Justice based on the rule of law, not anyone's opinion, is the foundation of a free and just society.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 5:22:36 GMT
I have this saved on my computer: By Brandon Vogt With the recent Chick-fil-A controversy, I now realize modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between these four things: 1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you're viciously antagonist toward another (i.e. "anti-" the opposite.) If Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, that doesn't mean he ipso facto "hates gay people" or is "anti-gay." 2. Disagreeing and Hating. I disagree with ideas all the time. This does not necessitate hating the person who proposed them. Your beliefs are not your identity. 3. Beliefs and People. This is somewhat similar to #2. Rejecting a belief does not equal rejecting a person. You can reject the validity of same-sex marriage on philosophical and social grounds while still profoundly loving people with same-sex attraction. I reject at least some opinions or actions from each of my friends (such as "double-rainbows are boring" or "playing the lottery is wise." They in turn reject plenty of my own. But we don't hate each other. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our relationship is grounded on a communion of persons, not a symmetry of beliefs. 4. Bigotry and Disagreement. The definition of bigot is "one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own"--not "someone who disagrees with me." Toleration doesn't require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of "bigot." ) The solution to these failures is not more dialogue. It's better philosophy, logic, and reason. Unfortunately, until two people are capable of making these distinctions, healthy, productive dialogue about same-sex marriage (or any other topic) is almost impossible. Ironically, some of the Peas who declare themselves to be the most open-minded are the ones that keep coming at you and chase you down in thread when your opinions are different than their own. They cannot separate your opinion, beliefs,and ideas from your person. If I understand the OP correctly, this topic was not about gay rights, it was about any topic. For the last 7 years, how many Peas have been called racists whenever they disagreed with Obama? How many Peas have been called bigots because they support gay rights AND support religious rights? How many Peas have been called bigots because they didn't understand men dressed as women being allowed to use the women's locker room at the gym? How many Peas have been labeled as "hating brown people" because they took in the facts of "Clock Boy" Ahmed Mohamed's case and came to a different conclusion than their initial outrage at the police and school? How many Peas have been labeled as "less than human" when they didn't trust ISIS being mixed in with the refugees?
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Feb 8, 2016 5:36:25 GMT
Basic civil rights should not be up for a vote. Period. No one's opinions, religious beliefs or deeply held convictions should be used to deprive another human being of equality under the law as our constitution guarantees. Justice is supposed to be blind, and rightly so. Justice isn't swayed by religious belief, sexuality, or any other difference. Justice based on the rule of law, not anyone's opinion, is the foundation of a free and just society. What do you consider basic civil rights? I'm curious as to what people believe as a basic civil right.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Feb 8, 2016 5:46:09 GMT
Regarding tolerance and intolerance, I stand by my signature, a line from The West Wing
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 6:11:45 GMT
If I understand the OP correctly, this topic was not about gay rights, it was about any topic. For the last 7 years, how many Peas have been called racists whenever they disagreed with Obama? How many Peas have been called bigots because they support gay rights AND support religious rights? How many Peas have been called bigots because they didn't understand men dressed as women being allowed to use the women's locker room at the gym? How many Peas have been labeled as "hating brown people" because they took in the facts of "Clock Boy" Ahmed Mohamed's case and came to a different conclusion than their initial outrage at the police and school? How many Peas have been labeled as "less than human" when they didn't trust ISIS being mixed in with the refugees? And how many times have Peas been called morons because they dare support President Obama or that they are ridiculed because they don't "see" things the same way as conservatives and so on and so on. Why is it you and others always act as its one sided as its always the other guys fault when in fact you and others on the right instigate the discord just as much as you claim those on the left do. I guess you feel if you lead the charge on the perceived actions of those of us on the left no one will notice you are doing the very thing you are accusing others of doing. Well it's been noticed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 7:02:15 GMT
If I understand the OP correctly, this topic was not about gay rights, it was about any topic. For the last 7 years, how many Peas have been called racists whenever they disagreed with Obama? How many Peas have been called bigots because they support gay rights AND support religious rights? How many Peas have been called bigots because they didn't understand men dressed as women being allowed to use the women's locker room at the gym? How many Peas have been labeled as "hating brown people" because they took in the facts of "Clock Boy" Ahmed Mohamed's case and came to a different conclusion than their initial outrage at the police and school? How many Peas have been labeled as "less than human" when they didn't trust ISIS being mixed in with the refugees? And how many times have Peas been called morons because they dare support President Obama or that they are ridiculed because they don't "see" things the same way as conservatives and so on and so on. I don't know, I haven't seen that. As most of what I see from some of those on the left (for lack of a better classification), that will attack first and then what you see is the pushback of THAT coming from the right (for lack of a better classification). I acknowledge that isn't ALWAYS the case, but more often than not, it is. Then add to it, the left will have many people pile on and back up the person who attacked first. The response from the right is often to back out of the thread, go into private discussions with those involved and if they're the victim of the pile on, they often just don't come back. THAT'S what I've seen. I don't call people morons, racists, bigots, ignorant and the like. Um, no I am not. I don't know what you've noticed me doing, but if you noticed me doing that, you're seeing things.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 7:08:04 GMT
How many Peas have been called bigots because they didn't understand men dressed as women being allowed to use the women's locker room at the gym?] Who wants men dressed as women in women's locker rooms?? You must mean transgender women, who are not men dressed as women, but people whose brains are hard wired for female gender, despite what genitals they grew. I understand that. I was making the statement coming from the viewpoint of those that don't understand it yet. That was the entire point.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,375
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Feb 8, 2016 7:15:20 GMT
And cyc, that is precisely why we have a Supreme Court. Unlike Canada, our system of government is one of checks and balances. There are three equal branches (Executive, legislative and Judicial) so that all, theoretically, are protected. The court protects the minority against the whims of the majority, but the majority still has a say and unless something violates our constitution, the will of the majority should rule. Since your system of government is different than ours, it makes it difficult to discuss because you look at things through the lens of how they are done in your country rather than how they are done in ours. Well... no. Not entirely. *We have a Supreme Court, too. Both at the provincial & federal level. *We have branches of government, too. Again - the government wasn't allowed to send it to a referendum because the court ruled that the lack of marriage rights for same sex couples violates our Constitution.
Certainly, there are differences in our governments - but not in this area. @dali Mama or one of the other Canadians, can you help me out?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 7:27:29 GMT
And how many times have Peas been called morons because they dare support President Obama or that they are ridiculed because they don't "see" things the same way as conservatives and so on and so on. I don't know, I haven't seen that. As most of what I see from some of those on the left (for lack of a better classification), that will attack first and then what you see is the pushback of THAT coming from the right (for lack of a better classification). I acknowledge that isn't ALWAYS the case, but more often than not, it is. Then add to it, the left will have many people pile on and back up the person who attacked first. The response from the right is often to back out of the thread, go into private discussions with those involved and if they're the victim of the pile on, they often just don't come back. THAT'S what I've seen. I don't call people morons, racists, bigots, ignorant and the like. Um, no I am not. I don't know what you've noticed me doing, but if you noticed me doing that, you're seeing things. I wish I was seeing things but unfortunately I'm not. No where in your little rant above did you acknowledged that it happens on both sides. Instead you were very quite on the subject. I believe its referred to as "you can hear the crickets" or some such nonsense. You do what you always do. Wait until someone on the right starts their little rant about how the left is mean to me chant and you jump right in to pile on. Just like you did tonight. In fact that is your modus operandi.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 7:38:01 GMT
I don't know, I haven't seen that. As most of what I see from some of those on the left (for lack of a better classification), that will attack first and then what you see is the pushback of THAT coming from the right (for lack of a better classification). I acknowledge that isn't ALWAYS the case, but more often than not, it is. Then add to it, the left will have many people pile on and back up the person who attacked first. The response from the right is often to back out of the thread, go into private discussions with those involved and if they're the victim of the pile on, they often just don't come back. THAT'S what I've seen. I don't call people morons, racists, bigots, ignorant and the like. Um, no I am not. I don't know what you've noticed me doing, but if you noticed me doing that, you're seeing things. I wish I was seeing things but unfortunately I'm not. Show me where I call anyone any of that. You should read more carefully, and it wasn't a rant, I was only responding to you. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by Drew on Feb 8, 2016 8:31:15 GMT
Just as all drains lead to the ocean, all threads lead to Gia and Krazy fighting.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 8:36:16 GMT
Just as all drains lead to the ocean, all threads lead to Gia and Krazy fighting. I'm not fighting, I'm just talking.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Feb 8, 2016 10:01:40 GMT
Just as all drains lead to the ocean, all threads lead to Gia and Krazy fighting. Indeed.....call it fighting or anything else.....it's the same thing in effect.
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Feb 8, 2016 10:49:22 GMT
And cyc, that is precisely why we have a Supreme Court. Unlike Canada, our system of government is one of checks and balances. There are three equal branches (Executive, legislative and Judicial) so that all, theoretically, are protected. The court protects the minority against the whims of the majority, but the majority still has a say and unless something violates our constitution, the will of the majority should rule. Since your system of government is different than ours, it makes it difficult to discuss because you look at things through the lens of how they are done in your country rather than how they are done in ours. Well... no. Not entirely. *We have a Supreme Court, too. Both at the provincial & federal level. *We have branches of government, too. Again - the government wasn't allowed to send it to a referendum because the court ruled that the lack of marriage rights for same sex couples violates our Constitution.
Certainly, there are differences in our governments - but not in this area. @dali Mama or one of the other Canadians, can you help me out? Upthread. While the Supreme Court ruled it violated our Charter, it was still put to a vote twice in the House as Bill C-38 to amend the Marriages Act to include same-sex marriages - once under our 38th Parliament (Martin Liberal minority) and again under our 39th Parliament (Conservative minority) when Harper decided we needed a 'do-over'. It passed both times.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 8, 2016 11:47:20 GMT
Basic civil rights should not be up for a vote. Period. No one's opinions, religious beliefs or deeply held convictions should be used to deprive another human being of equality under the law as our constitution guarantees. Justice is supposed to be blind, and rightly so. Justice isn't swayed by religious belief, sexuality, or any other difference. Justice based on the rule of law, not anyone's opinion, is the foundation of a free and just society. What do you consider basic civil rights? I'm curious as to what people believe as a basic civil right. Simply put, equality under the law. Legal definition of civil rights
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 8, 2016 12:07:14 GMT
This is a fallacy. One who has strong beliefs acts in accordance with those beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this. By insisting that people who have strong beliefs on issues (religius or otherwise) not voting in accordance with their beliefs you are hurting them and holding them to a standard you yourself won't follow. You will continue to vote in accordance with your own beliefs yet insist they do not. And it all stems from the idea you have that your beliefs are the RIGHT ones. "Freedom" means standing up for the rights of people who's beliefs you don't agree with" as much as for those who's beliefs you do agree with. To me, it's a bit hypocritical to speak of the rights and freedoms of one group while looking to take those things away from another. And by stating what you did, it just comes back around to the same exact thing! There are people voting to squash the rights of others because they don't believe in something that does not affect them. Which brings me back to this and a few other issues should not be political platforms for the government to decide on what happens (my post above ^^ ) Sorry if I sound scattered, killer headache going on right now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 13:22:11 GMT
By the same token, krazyscrapper, how about you acknowledge that just because people are conservative with conservative/traditional views and beliefs and vote in accordance with them doesn't make them haters, ignorant or any other name. But all conservatives who own guns are murderers in waiting, according to Krazy. So excuse me if I don't buy the line that she doesn't hate conservatives/republicans/anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line. The reason I have never been able to "support" gay marriage is because I knew exactly what was going to happen - that the right to marry was going to be used by gay rights groups to impose THEIR beliefs on people who disagree based upon their religious beliefs. That is a distinct form of hatred. To drive another human being out of business because they decline to accept the business of participating in your gay wedding is wrong and hateful. You can not deny that there is been a lot of hatred spewed at Christian business owners who find themselves in the sights of gay rights groups, can you? We have had many discussions about this over the years, and the vehement pro-SSM peas, for the most part, have been totally okay with the persecution and prosecution of those business owners. This is where their hypocrisy shows. They believe everyone should mind their own business, that gay marriage isn't being forced on anyone, yet they are applauding when gay marriage is indeed forced upon those who don't want to be a part of it. You can't have it both ways. If you want and believe that SSM should be accepted, you should stand up for the rights of those who disagree with it as well. Because something is only a right when it doesn't impose upon the rights of, and does not require participation of, another human being. And when you prosecute a Christian for not taking your pictures, you are imposing on their freedom of conscience- and freedom of conscience is our most basic human right, after the right to life.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 13:37:10 GMT
Just as all drains lead to the ocean, all threads lead to Gia and Krazy fighting. It is true the Gia and I will never agree on anything. But there us a difference between "Disagreeing" and "Fighting". One can have a spirited disagreement without fighting. You may want to learn the difference because it makes life so much easier if you understand "Disagreements" aren't always "Fights.
|
|
Nicole in TX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,951
Jun 26, 2014 2:00:21 GMT
|
Post by Nicole in TX on Feb 8, 2016 14:01:48 GMT
I have this saved on my computer: By Brandon Vogt With the recent Chick-fil-A controversy, I now realize modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between these four things: 1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you're viciously antagonist toward another (i.e. "anti-" the opposite.) If Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, that doesn't mean he ipso facto "hates gay people" or is "anti-gay." 2. Disagreeing and Hating. I disagree with ideas all the time. This does not necessitate hating the person who proposed them. Your beliefs are not your identity. 3. Beliefs and People. This is somewhat similar to #2. Rejecting a belief does not equal rejecting a person. You can reject the validity of same-sex marriage on philosophical and social grounds while still profoundly loving people with same-sex attraction. I reject at least some opinions or actions from each of my friends (such as "double-rainbows are boring" or "playing the lottery is wise." They in turn reject plenty of my own. But we don't hate each other. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our relationship is grounded on a communion of persons, not a symmetry of beliefs. 4. Bigotry and Disagreement. The definition of bigot is "one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own"--not "someone who disagrees with me." Toleration doesn't require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of "bigot." ) The solution to these failures is not more dialogue. It's better philosophy, logic, and reason. Unfortunately, until two people are capable of making these distinctions, healthy, productive dialogue about same-sex marriage (or any other topic) is almost impossible. Ironically, some of the Peas who declare themselves to be the most open-minded are the ones that keep coming at you and chase you down in thread when your opinions are different than their own. They cannot separate your opinion, beliefs,and ideas from your person. If I understand the OP correctly, this topic was not about gay rights, it was about any topic. For the last 7 years, how many Peas have been called racists whenever they disagreed with Obama? How many Peas have been called bigots because they support gay rights AND support religious rights? How many Peas have been called bigots because they didn't understand men dressed as women being allowed to use the women's locker room at the gym? How many Peas have been labeled as "hating brown people" because they took in the facts of "Clock Boy" Ahmed Mohamed's case and came to a different conclusion than their initial outrage at the police and school? How many Peas have been labeled as "less than human" when they didn't trust ISIS being mixed in with the refugees? Exactly. It was about any topic. Thank you for elaborating with all of those additional points.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 8, 2016 14:04:27 GMT
By the same token, krazyscrapper, how about you acknowledge that just because people are conservative with conservative/traditional views and beliefs and vote in accordance with them doesn't make them haters, ignorant or any other name. But all conservatives who own guns are murderers in waiting, according to Krazy. So excuse me if I don't buy the line that she doesn't hate conservatives/republicans/anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line. The reason I have never been able to "support" gay marriage is because I knew exactly what was going to happen - that the right to marry was going to be used by gay rights groups to impose THEIR beliefs on people who disagree based upon their religious beliefs. That is a distinct form of hatred. To drive another human being out of business because they decline to accept the business of participating in your gay wedding is wrong and hateful. You can not deny that there is been a lot of hatred spewed at Christian business owners who find themselves in the sights of gay rights groups, can you? We have had many discussions about this over the years, and the vehement pro-SSM peas, for the most part, have been totally okay with the persecution and prosecution of those business owners. This is where their hypocrisy shows. They believe everyone should mind their own business, that gay marriage isn't being forced on anyone, yet they are applauding when gay marriage is indeed forced upon those who don't want to be a part of it. You can't have it both ways. If you want and believe that SSM should be accepted, you should stand up for the rights of those who disagree with it as well. Because something is only a right when it doesn't impose upon the rights of, and does not require participation of, another human being. And when you prosecute a Christian for not taking your pictures, you are imposing on their freedom of conscience- and freedom of conscience is our most basic human right, after the right to life. "And when you prosecute a Christian for discriminating against you in their business dealings, you are holding them to the same standard as everyone else under the rule of law." There, fixed that for you. News flash: operating a business outside the rule of law is not a right. If you don't like that, you are free to not operate a business where your conscience might preclude you from following the law.
|
|
|
Post by Drew on Feb 8, 2016 14:09:47 GMT
Just as all drains lead to the ocean, all threads lead to Gia and Krazy fighting. It is true the Gia and I will never agree on anything. But there us a difference between "Disagreeing" and "Fighting". One can have a spirited disagreement without fighting. You may want to learn the difference because it makes life so much easier if you understand "Disagreements" aren't always "Fights. Ok, 'disagreeing', whatever. Makes me wonder why you so consistently and feverishly engage someone you'll 'never agree with'. It doesn't read like you're having fun. Doesnt really sound "spirited" either, gotta say. But like I said, whatever. The hyperquoting and retort contest you guys are so fond of is when many peas tap out, just so you know.
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on Feb 8, 2016 14:14:39 GMT
By the same token, krazyscrapper, how about you acknowledge that just because people are conservative with conservative/traditional views and beliefs and vote in accordance with them doesn't make them haters, ignorant or any other name. But all conservatives who own guns are murderers in waiting, according to Krazy. So excuse me if I don't buy the line that she doesn't hate conservatives/republicans/anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line. The reason I have never been able to "support" gay marriage is because I knew exactly what was going to happen - that the right to marry was going to be used by gay rights groups to impose THEIR beliefs on people who disagree based upon their religious beliefs. That is a distinct form of hatred. To drive another human being out of business because they decline to accept the business of participating in your gay wedding is wrong and hateful. You can not deny that there is been a lot of hatred spewed at Christian business owners who find themselves in the sights of gay rights groups, can you? We have had many discussions about this over the years, and the vehement pro-SSM peas, for the most part, have been totally okay with the persecution and prosecution of those business owners. This is where their hypocrisy shows. They believe everyone should mind their own business, that gay marriage isn't being forced on anyone, yet they are applauding when gay marriage is indeed forced upon those who don't want to be a part of it. You can't have it both ways. If you want and believe that SSM should be accepted, you should stand up for the rights of those who disagree with it as well. Because something is only a right when it doesn't impose upon the rights of, and does not require participation of, another human being. And when you prosecute a Christian for not taking your pictures, you are imposing on their freedom of conscience- and freedom of conscience is our most basic human right, after the right to life. You are making an argument not based on facts. Businesses do not have the legal right to refuse service to individuals based on certain characteristics - where sexual orientation is a protected class business owners do not have the right to refuse service to them on that basis. Individuals who are opposed to gay marriage have now and have always had the right not to enter into a gay marriage. Businesses whose owners are opposed to gay marriage do not necessarily have the right under the law to declined service to gay people on that basis. The reason is that the rights of the business and the rights of the individual are necessarily different. I am grateful to the civil rights movement that in our society today we are moving away from the idea that any person could be treated as a second-class citizen due to particular characteristics. I hope that our children's generation continues down that path.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,978
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Feb 8, 2016 14:27:46 GMT
How long after the civil rights movement happened do you think people were still whining that just because they disagreed didn't mean they were haters? Or business owners complaining that public accommodation laws were an infringement on their sincerely held religious beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by farmdpea on Feb 8, 2016 15:09:05 GMT
I understand that Elaine. However, I stand by my post. You believe you are right and so do people who believe differently and each of you vote based upon your own set of beliefs for legislators and legislation that will fight for your beliefs. Neither one of you is a "hater" or "ignorant" and calling people by those names is simply an attempt to shut the other side down and prevent them from voicing their beliefs. It doesn't change anyone's mind and it doesn't change how they vote or how they much they fight for their beliefs. If anything, it harden their position.
And this is why only a small percentage of the board members participate in political discussions. Anyone interested in true discussion or who has a moderate opinion doesn't want to have to wade through the sewage. It's also fascinating that there are certain peas who get a pass on calling names, labeling, and hurling insults. Some are vilified while others are still well though of peas. It would probably be an interesting study for a psychologist!
|
|
mallie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,253
Jul 3, 2014 18:13:13 GMT
|
Post by mallie on Feb 8, 2016 15:28:13 GMT
It reminds me of that saying, "We just ourselves by our intentions and we judge others by their actions."
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Feb 8, 2016 15:49:25 GMT
My opinion:
Used to be opinions were just opinions. We could talk about them, discuss them, have differences in them...and now? It seems to me that there is this trend that people think they can say any old thing and hide behind the 'well, that's my opinion and I am entitled to it' argument. It doesn't matter how hateful, ugly, divisive, and mean spirited that opinion is, it will be argued until people are blue in the face that they are perfect entitled to say whatever they want because it is an 'opinion.'
Maybe I am old, maybe I grew up around to many hippy dippy types...but whatever it is, I think we have lost all sense of decorum and respectful disagreement has flown out the window. Opinions are fine, but whatever happened to being respectful in sharing them and respectful in allowing others to have them?
|
|
|
Post by Dori~Mama~Bear on Feb 8, 2016 16:11:10 GMT
It would depend on what the person was involved in. I can disagree with people and be perfectly fine with it but there are those things that I can't go with. and that is affairs and hurting children or other people or abusing animals. now if anybody is doing that than I couldn't be their friend. and I would have to deal with them on that. And yes I have dropped people even family members out of my life because of and of the above listed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 12:21:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 16:25:02 GMT
If I understand the OP correctly, this topic was not about gay rights, it was about any topic. For the last 7 years, how many Peas have been called racists whenever they disagreed with Obama? How many Peas have been called bigots because they support gay rights AND support religious rights? How many Peas have been called bigots because they didn't understand men dressed as women being allowed to use the women's locker room at the gym? How many Peas have been labeled as "hating brown people" because they took in the facts of "Clock Boy" Ahmed Mohamed's case and came to a different conclusion than their initial outrage at the police and school? How many Peas have been labeled as "less than human" when they didn't trust ISIS being mixed in with the refugees? 1. You "Show me where I'm instigator". To do that I would have to go on your profile site and read past posts. I won't because while I know there open to all there is something kind of stalky about it. However what I will do is the next time I run across you only come on a thread to "pile on" and you will, I will call you on it. So you will have your proof. 2. You "Read more carefully." This was to my comment that when you listed all the the nastiness done by those on the left you neglected to in any way shape or form to make the any sort of comment that it is being done on both sides. My comment was directed to your , I believe, first post on this thread which is the one above. Where does it say anything about this stuff happening from both sides of the political spectrum? From what I'm reading here this is your idea of responses the left gives to the right on certain topics. Sort of one sided I would say and far from the truth. The reality is both sides contribute to the discord on this board when it comes to hot topics. I acknowledge my contribution to the discord whether that is my intention or not. So if you and others would stop trying to come off as holier than thou and acknowledge your (general) contribution to the discord maybe just maybe there will be a lot less. Something to ponder.
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Feb 8, 2016 17:04:58 GMT
I really shake my head at people who when you say that something they said or did is wrong or dumb or whatever, they get outraged and indignant that you called them wrong or dumb or whatever. No. I said what you *said* or *did* was wrong or dumb. (not usually about opinions being wrong, but concrete things like you followed the directions wrong or forgetting your passport when you went to the airport was kinda dumb) I'm not *calling* you a name or saying that *you* are wrong or dumb. We all do wrong and dumb things. I see this more than you'd think online. I love the quote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" Aristotle and Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." Sir Winston Churchill. As far as the discussion about gay marriage, I am a conservative Christian and believe that God ordained marriage as a sacred covenant between a man and a woman. However, in our country there are economical and social rights afforded to married people that aren't afforded to others. I think that those rights should be available to everyone. There are also a lot of non Christians that don't believe what I believe about marriage. They can still get married even though they don't believe the way I do. I can separate my specific religious beliefs from the rights that our country should provide for citizens. I want all citizens to have these rights, so I vote accordingly. I think the heterosexual/gay issue is clouding the issue that there are some citizens that are being denied rights because of a matter that is personal and should be private. I really wish that the US would do what other countries have done. Everyone who wants to get married goes to court, fills out a license, and has a civil marriage ceremony. Then they get married in a church of their choice or not, their choice. I just think that all adults should have the economic and legal rights that married people enjoy. You shouldn't be able to be banned from your sick or dying loved one's side because you're unable to be their legal next-of-kin and so intolerant family can ban you from the bedside of the person you love most because that person is not able to communicate their desire for that person to be present. Or the family legally fought a legal document naming their gay spouse as next of kin because the government doesn't recognize gay marriage. That really was the key for me to see this matter in a different light. I don't want to deny other American citizens the rights that I am afforded as an American. With abortion, it's scary to let the government regulate a person's medical rights. That's a slippery slope. There are lots of people that don't just want to ban abortion. They would like to see ALL birth control banned. As someone who had to go through a Catholic hospital deny them a hysterectomy to remove a cancerous uterus because I hadn't had children, I got a taste of what can happen. The catholic church refusing to allow women in countries that are at high risk for the Zika virus is scary. I am against abortion, but I think that instead of trying to legislate this issue, we should strive to make adoption and prenatal care more appealing so women have other choices available. Well said. I too agree that all people who want to get joined should all have the same rights. I can also see why some are against using the word marriage. Marriage, at least to Catholics" is a very sacred thing and is between one man and one woman (once divorced and re-married you are no longer supposed to receive communion)so I can see why they have an issue with the word marriage being used. So change everyone to something else and then everyone has the same rights and then if you want to get "married" you have the religious ceremony. But when I have said this in the past I was screamed down.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 8, 2016 17:15:11 GMT
Well said. I too agree that all people who want to get joined should all have the same rights. I can also see why some are against using the word marriage. Marriage, at least to Catholics" is a very sacred thing and is between one man and one woman (once divorced and re-married you are no longer supposed to receive communion)so I can see why they have an issue with the word marriage being used. So change everyone to something else and then everyone has the same rights and then if you want to get "married" you have the religious ceremony. But when I have said this in the past I was screamed down. I'm not going to "scream you down," but I AM going to say that the concept and practice of marriage has been around a lot longer than the Christian church, and that Christians don't have any unique rights to the institution. I for one would not want to give up the right to be "married," even though I'm not a Christian. My marriage was a civil ceremony and it WAS an actual marriage.
|
|