I'm not preaching tolerance of all opinions.
Obviously.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not preaching tolerance of all opinions.
Obviously.
Do you preach tolerance of *all* opinions?
Can I join in the answering of questions with questions?Are all of your opinions the *correct* ones?
Having one's opinion not intellectually agreed with is not intolerance. Doesn't mean that opinion is free from being possibly intolerant.Do you preach tolerance of *all* opinions?
You completely ignored my question.
Can I join in the answering of questions with questions?
You've still avoided answering my question, and then additional thrown out a handful of your own. I guess you are somehow under the impression that I am going to answer them even though you haven't afforded me the same courtesy. Interesting.
I agree with both of your statements.Having one's opinion not intellectually agreed with is not intolerance. Doesn't mean that opinion is free from being possibly intolerant.
We're talking about two completely subjective opinions, that's right. I'm glad you see sense, and you're not trying to claim that your subjective opinion is objective fact and that anyone who opposes you is therefore malicious, evil, or some other ridiculous fanatical notion.
What evidence is there that restricting gay couples from marriage is beneficial? What moral justification is there for it?
What evidence is there that gay couples getting married is a benefit to society? What moral justification is there for redefining the term?
Answer to all questions: immaterial. It's two subjective opinions. Yours is not objectively correct, no matter how much you may want it to be. Neither is, and you are evidently one of the people who is intellectually incapable of comprehending that.
Don't be a part-time populist.
What evidence is there that gay couples getting married is a benefit to society?
Because "civil union" acknoledgement from the government somehow is so devestatingly different than using the term "marriage", which is at its root:There's plenty of evidence that marriage between heterosexuals tends to strengthen their financial positions and increases their overall happiness and well being.
Since when do we need "feel good" legistlation enacted by government?Little can be of more benefit to society than self-sufficient and happy individuals.
Gay couples could get "married" under civil unions, but that wasn't good enough, because the actual goal was to force the acceptance of homosexuality upon society as a whole with a stamp that says there is no difference between a stereotypical union of a man and a woman getting married and having kids, and two guys pounding butts monogomously.
If he's been a chunky butt for a long time, especially during puberty, that can happen. Obesity combined with low exercise causes low testosterone and higher estrogen levels, and that can affect bone development. Having the androgynous name of "Chris" doesn't help.I read about this on CNET yesterday and someone made a funny comment that it's a little freaky that Chris Beard looks so "androgynous".
Because "civil union" acknoledgement from the government somehow is so devestatingly different than using the term "marriage", which is at its root:
1) A religious ceremony
2) A contract designed around the nuclear family with the implication they will foster the next generation and produce children together.
Since when do we need "feel good" legistlation enacted by government?
Which a lot of people aren't comfortable with either. We don't allow a grown man to adopt a 14 year old vietnamese girl. Why do you think that is? But we allow grown men to adopt a 14 year old vietnamese boy. Interesting. In any case, the point is about the norm, not a requirement. Homosexual couples are not the nuclear family norm around which the institution was created. Why is polygamy illegal again, I forgot... I think it was based on moral objections of the majority, right? Interesting.There are plenty of gay couples that I know that have children that they feed, cloth and love like any hetero couple I know.
No, the implication is that a civil union is nothing more than a contract between individuals enforced by the government, and marriage is a ceremony with strong religious overtones that is strongly rooted in traditions. The government shouldn't be involved with the latter, their responsibility is just to the former... but that was the problem, the gay couples didn't care about the contract, they want the government to say on behalf of society that "Its OK to be gay". It was all about forcing acceptance/blessing, not about practical legal concerns since those would have been covered under civil unions.This is the problem with civil unions. The implication is that marriage is real and a civil union isn't.
And that probably explains why Beard probably can't even grow one.If he's been a chunky butt for a long time, especially during puberty, that can happen. Obesity combined with low exercise causes low testosterone and higher estrogen levels, and that can affect bone development. Having the androgynous name of "Chris" doesn't help.
Just so you know, when you actively argue against the rights of others that have essentially no impact on your life and would make many others happy, people will assume you are either ignorant or being intentionally discriminatory or some combination of.[snip]
Why is polygamy illegal again, I forgot... I think it was based on moral objections of the majority, right? Interesting.
No, the implication is that a civil union is nothing more than a contract between individuals enforced by the government, and marriage is a ceremony with strong religious overtones that is strongly rooted in traditions.
One of the better comments there:
"A company that supports freedom wouldn't pressure anyone to step down for exercising it."
No that's not my definition.
Just so you know, when you actively argue against the rights of others that have essentially no impact on your life and would make many others happy, people will assume you are either ignorant or being intentionally discriminatory or some combination of.
Civil unions if you're gay but real marriage if you're straight is the state granting different protection under the law based on religious beliefs.
Agreed. I'd just as soon make them all civil unions, with the state defining the legal and financial obligations of such a contract. Anyone would be free to then add any religious element as they wished.
pigster said:So someone who doesn't share your values is a bigot by definition?
Sure it is, as you seem to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage is a bigot.
As an Atheist:Which then begs many questions. How can a majority vote something ok that is based on religious teachings when they would be of such different faiths and beliefs? Don't hetero atheists get married and call it married?
Same reason guys still drop to a knee and buy diamonds and give the woman his name. A value of respecting tradition for a sense of continuity.heatlesssun said:that is strongly rooted in traditions.
That would be the ideal outcome for everyone, but they don't want people free to add religious elements to anything. They want religion constrained so that it adheres to their worldview. Neuter religion so that it cannot comment on sexuality, and suddenly they have obliterated the ability to discuss the morality of sexuality. If no one is allowed to judge, then one never has to feel bad. Then everyone feels good. Utopia achieved. Hurt feels abolished. Free Dr. Pepper for everyone.
pigster, these are different propositions; be careful not to conflate them as you have done. We have:
1) anyone who disagrees with my values is a bigot
2) anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot
Please note the difference. Number 2 is at best a subset of number 1.
Which is fine, but doesn't really address the question
Looking at it from the standpoint of the Christian Bible it's easy to get caught up in the ancillary issues. None of those really matter if one doesn't believe in the one and only true God and that his son Jesus Christ died on the Cross at Calvary so that all can be washed of their sins and have eternal life through Him. What neuters Christianity more than anything are supposed believers of Christ who look at the specks in others' eyes but can't see the tree branches sticking out of their own. And those who preach Christian morality without the salvation of Jesus.
I don't claim to be the most moral or most powerful witness to His testimony, but I know that the laws of man aren't the source of my or anyone else's salvation. That's already been taken care of for those who believe.