![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,862
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Now Is The Time To Switch Back To Firefox
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,862
If that contradictory point of view entails proposing giving different people different rights, then it is reprehensible, and these people deserve the backlash they encounter.
Zarathustra[H];1040790008 said:
It's not different rights. You're proposing the establishment of rights that do not, and have never, existed. There is nothing reprehensible involved except your shameful attempts to paint all opposition as "evil".
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
No some one had twisted an earlier post of "same" + "sex"
look back in the posts. I thought it was disgusting and unnecessary too thus I pointed it out.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,862
Now, granted, I haven't tried Opera in about 10 years, but back when I did, I found it a horribly limiting experience, full of rendering errors.
It's funny how easily you just dismiss Operas biggest problem, the many webpages that simply don't render properly by saying you won't use them again. That usually isn't an option. Your online banking system doesn't work? Just not going to use it? Webpage for a company you want to buy something from doesn't render? Just not going to buy it? it's silly. A browser needs to work with just about every webpage out there, which is why I will never touch Opera.
In the age of $8/GB of decent RAM, how much memory the browser uses is mostly irrelevant. I'd pick the one that gets performance advantages by using more RAM every time, unless installing on obsolete hardware.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
Zarathustra[H];1040790008 said:
So bashing someone for a donation of their money on their private time is OKAY?
Maybe he saw it as preservation of a principle and not discrimination.
Either way, two wrongs does not make the Velvet Mafia right.
Some people have the rights, others do not. Seems pretty open and shut to me.
Some countries, hech even cities and counties have different civil/moral rights others do not...so open and shut it is not.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
This.
There are courts you can go to and get a JP to do the deed. Civil Unions should be recognized, Ill give you that. Don't try to force churches or any religion to accept it as a marriage when their fucking cannon explicitly says "NO."
Forcing a church to marry someone against their faith is bullshit.
Forcing a baker to make a gay cake for a gay wedding and it's not of their belief or custom is also BULLSHIT.
That was all the guys donation supported. Yeah, he should be deported
You want gay sex, fine. You want to be bound in a legal hassle, fine, get a Civil Union. You can even call it a marriage if you guys want. Just don't try to force your paradigm on others.
What rights are you referring to right now?
Right. We have gun rights. Felons do not. Better give them their guns right now.
This.
There are courts you can go to and get a JP to do the deed. Civil Unions should be recognized, Ill give you that. Don't try to force churches or any religion to accept it as a marriage when their fucking cannon explicitly says "NO."
Forcing a church to marry someone against their faith is bullshit.
Forcing a baker to make a gay cake for a gay wedding and it's not of their belief or custom is also BULLSHIT.
That was all the guys donation supported. Yeah, he should be deported
You want gay sex, fine. You want to be bound in a legal hassle, fine, get a Civil Union. You can even call it a marriage if you guys want. Just don't try to force your paradigm on others.
Replace gay with black, and then read it again and call it bullshit.
So gay people are = to felons?
No no, gay people are black people, because this is all about interracial marriage, and gay marriage opponents are racist. See? No matter what, whoever disagrees with you is evil! This is so much fun! Let's see if we can connect the opposition to child molestation next! For Social Justice!!!
He's already a Nazi, so it's probably not a big deal. I think it might have just been analogy, anyway.
No, you're mistaken. Someone mentioned this:
...so I applied the exact same logic to another situation. Felons do not have Second Amendment rights. Non-felons have theirs. Some people have the rights, others do not. So, like the gay marriage crowd, the answer must be that felons must be given gun rights, and anyone who opposes it is an evil racist homophobe and their opinion should not even be considered an opinion, but discrimination and hateful bigotry.
Social Justice Wins.
Careful with that. Social Justice Warriors hate Israel. Israel is full of people Nazis hate. So, you know...enemy of my enemy, and all that.
It is ok to revoke someone's rights if they have done something wrong. For instance if I murder you, then I do not deserve the same right of freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Instead I will rot in a jail cell or be put to death.
Do you feel homosexuals have done something wrong and thus dont deserve the same rights as heterosexuals?
I dislike some people that are gay, but not because they are gay. I have no problem with gay marriage, but I prefer the civil union model that eliminates the need to redefine the word "marriage" and just makes the concept anachronistic. Easiest way to satisfy everyone except those who really just want to fuck with the institution of marriage.
The act? Which act? Is there a single gay "act" that makes one gay?
Considering the number of people who have been imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit, people who have been sentenced to huge sentences for nonviolent offenses, and other cases of injustice, this simplistic view is incredibly worrisome.
You inferred that comparison which I did not imply. I merely compared two groups of people who do not have the same rights as their respective analogs. You apparently paint all felons with a broad brush.
There are courts you can go to and get a JP to do the deed. Civil Unions should be recognized, Ill give you that. Don't try to force churches or any religion to accept it as a marriage when their fucking cannon explicitly says "NO."
Forcing a church to marry someone against their faith is bullshit.
Forcing a baker to make a gay cake for a gay wedding and it's not of their belief or custom is also BULLSHIT.
That was all the guys donation supported. Yeah, he should be deported
You want gay sex, fine. You want to be bound in a legal hassle, fine, get a Civil Union. You can even call it a marriage if you guys want. Just don't try to force your paradigm on others.
Who wants to force churches to marry gay people?
A baker is a business. To operate a business you need a license. Licensed businesses are subject to regulations, including anti-discrimination legislation. One baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple isn't a huge problem. But if that's legal, what if all the businesses in an area feel the same way? Now you can't buy a cake. Now you can't buy groceries. Now you can't get medical care. That's why we have these laws. What does the sex of the people getting married have to do with the cake you sell to them anyway? How would you even know in general unless they made it obvious? Its not like there's writing on a wedding cake. Congrats Adam and Steve? Not on my watch!
Civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage. We have an institution that has the same rights as marriage. Its called marriage. Just let everyone do it and be done with it. Why should it matter to you what to people you don't even know do? You're the one forcing your paradigm on others.
Ok, I just wanted to make sure you werent biased and thus wasting a lot of time making a disingenuous argument. I still dont like the idea of redefining something based upon name only, because in doing so you are declaring that one is different from the other, that "civil unions" are somehow not the same as "marriage". When this is regurgitated long enough people start to actually believe one group is different from the other, which is dangerous. Thats how discrimination is born.
BiH115
Gif Guy
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 9,327
And all this (mostly) due to a book writen hundreds of years ago that says we should do things.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
Can someone please pass the popcorn? I wanna snackies for this until it's locked.
I fear that you see these very mild forms of discrimination as purely harmless, "it's just a name afterall", or some such things. I like to think I see the bigger picture though. That through some seemingly meaningless version of discrimination like what I see with you today, are the breeding grounds for total intolerance of homsexuals decades in the future. Or on the contrary, that the lack of discrimination we see today is a direct result of efforts to sensitive people to it from decades past. We want to reach a point in society where no one cares, and we're almost there. But when people decry their intolerance of others and claim it as merely an expression of their opinions, we take a tiny itty bitty step backwards again. If millions of people do this, then we take an entire step backwards, etc. So we try to squash all intolerance now to make sure we dont make the same mistakes we did before.
That's because whether you like it or not, marriage has always been between opposite genders. Changing it to include same-sex couples is a massive transformation. If you want to dramatically change the definition of an institution that is centuries old, show a little more patience, understanding, and compassion towards those who don't immediately say it's the greatest idea in the world. All that will happen if we establish a pattern of describing half the country as "evil" is that we speed our progress towards the next civil war. We avoid that by respecting each other's right to disagree without treating them like garbage for doing so. You want diversity? Learn tolerance.
Civil unions should be different from marriage licenses. The fact that existing civil unions confer fewer rights to a subset of the population is absolutely a problem. Federally recognized civil unions for all would tie up the loose ends.
I don't see that happening, because it gives both side what they're asking for, while ignoring what they really want. What is it they really want? To keep giving the other side grief while earning some bro-fists (and campaign contributions) from their fellow party members in return.
I don't see that happening, because it gives both side what they're asking for, while ignoring what they really want. What is it they really want? To keep giving the other side grief while earning some bro-fists (and campaign contributions) from their fellow party members in return.
I still have half a bag left if you wanna share.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
That's great and thanks! I'll try to stock up for the next thread since it'll be my turn.
And all this (mostly) due to a book writen hundreds of years ago that says we should do things.
Multiple books, really. Marriage has been an interfaith institution for millennia.
Which is why I say that the comparison to interracial marriage is stupid. Interracial marriage has been a reality of necessity since marriages began. Eventually some races need to mix if we're not going to have completely segregated societies. Gay marriage is a completely new concept, especially as it does not naturally lend itself to reproduction. It's a concept of convenience, only debatable in a society that has really established an environment of tolerance for the people involved. The United States has this level of national tolerance, but as some earlier in the thread indicated, Nazi lynch mobs were apparently roaming the streets, slaughtering homosexuals before we started discussing gay marriage. They consider the lack of gay marriage to be a crime, worthy of their constant attention and focus. Meanwhile, countries like Russia are outlawing homosexuality altogether through various legislation, and these same people care little.
When people are operating in such a twisted view of reality, how can rational debate be had?
BiH115
Gif Guy
- Joined
- May 12, 2011
- Messages
- 9,327
For sure, I was just generalizing. Bringing faith into it, at the moment, has a lot to do with the arguments, if not encompassing entirely.
Being an atheist, I don't give a shit about Bible quotes. Perhaps you should make less assumptions about people who disagree with you. In other words, less bigotry would be good.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
Okay, you chose the battle. You will also see there are not two men fucking in that comic.
Twisting a paradigm to fit your own needs and agenda. Nice.
Quit trying to force others to think it's NORMAL, when its explicitly queer in every sense of the word.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
Yes, I like the whole "Replace gay with blacks" on this.
Straw man tactics and call people a racist or imply that they are racists if they don't agree with you.
Seems to have worked well for liberals for the past 8 years.
The point is the "changing the definition of marriage" argument is bullshit because there is no standard definition of marriage, not even in the bible. We choose what words mean.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
So are lesbians okay? If so, that's a very good start to being more open minded.