griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
Sometimes Pro-Life friend.
If he hadn't been shot and killed, he could have lost his job, been harassed for exercising a freedom of speech.
![[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
Sometimes Pro-Life friend.
If he hadn't been shot and killed, he could have lost his job, been harassed for exercising a freedom of speech.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
So men and women that cannot produce children shouldn't marry either? My wife got her tubes tied with our third should I divorce her?
"Prosecutors said Mr. Fuoss was not involved in abortion protests and had no link to Mr. Pouillon. Mr. Drake, they said, was angry at him for another reason. They did not elaborate. "
Derp
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
Who didn't read?
Perhaps you need to go back to school. Or did you spend most of your time licking the windows in school?
From the article I linked...
"A man who had long opposed abortion and was known nationally among anti-abortion protesters was shot to death Friday morning while staging a protest outside a Michigan high school, the authorities said. "
"The protester, identified as James Pouillon, 63, was one of two people, the authorities said, who were shot dead Friday by the same man in Owosso, a city of fewer than 15,000 people about 10 miles west of Flint, Mich."
Murder of Jim Pouillon
Derp?
No, I am convinced of your intelligence now.
Zarathustra[H];1040790602 said:
Wow, you should be a lobbyist.
You can pay money to support the alteration of the definition of marriage, or you can pay to support the preservation of the definition of marriage.
That's all it is. It's not good and evil. It's not rights versus oppression. It's not a fucking movie and you are not the fucking hero. You are just some average, everyday person with strong feelings on a political issue...like everyone else. Your feelings do not make you the beacon of moral justice.
The quote I posted is from the article YOU linked. Abortion protestor was killed. He wasn't killed BECAUSE he was an abortion protestor. Just like, if he was an accountant, he wasn't killed because he was an accountant. He was killed for personal reasons. RTFA
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
I did read the article. You didn't, at least initially. He killed 2.
That's this many:
The guy who shot him said he wanted to kill the abortion protestor. The protestors SON said he was killed because he protested and its not a matter of contention. The court said he killed him because he was a protestor.
The other guy he killed (Mr. Fuoss) because the killer was maybe a bigot? I don't know, you have all the labels.
What I think a lot of people here underestimate is the power of planting the seed of hate. Look at present day Nigeria. Homosexuality itself is now illegal. How does something like this come to pass? It happens when the intolerance of one group of people grows to a point that it becomes common place. This could happen in the USA if it wasnt for kneejerk reactionary attitudes towards even the slightest hint of possible intolerance. We dont want to reach a point where we realize we've made a mistake and then have to undo it. What we see happening right now with the rejection of marriage for homsexuals is the kind of deep rooted disdain that can eventually grow into full blown discrimination and denial of human rights. This is how every blemish on society was established. It's not like the Nazi's just up and said "fuck the jews!" one day and then we had WWII. You really have to look back far into a nation's history to learn how something like slavery become accepted practice (or in that case world history). It all started with an idea, and that idea was usually seeing someone as less than yourself, which is what happens when you give one group of people rights and another group of people something else.
When you have people like griff with his "separate but equal" attitude towards homosexuals, that spreads to his kids, and to their kids. 50 years from now you end up with some retard like Cliven Bundy who will think that it's ok for you to do something (marry) but not ok for someone else (gay marriage). 40 years ago you could probably beat up an openly gay couple in public with nary a consequence. Why? Because people who "didnt think it was right" did not have to fear the kind of repercussions that they would today, event though it all stemmed from the exact same attitudes being expressed here.
When you have people like griff with his "separate but equal" attitude towards homosexuals, that spreads to his kids, and to their kids. 50 years from now you end up with some retard like Cliven Bundy who will think that it's ok for you to do something (marry) but not ok for someone else (gay marriage). 40 years ago you could probably beat up an openly gay couple in public with nary a consequence. Why? Because people who "didnt think it was right" did not have to fear the kind of repercussions that they would today, event though it all stemmed from the exact same attitudes being expressed here.
I did read the article. You didn't, at least initially. He killed 2.
That's this many:
"The guy who shot him said he wanted to kill the abortion protestor. The protestors SON said he was killed because he protested and its not a matter of contention. The court said he killed him because he was a protestor.
The other guy he killed (Mr. Fuoss) because the killer was maybe a bigot? I don't know, you have all the labels.
On September 30, 2009 Drake was deemed incompetent to stand trial and was remanded into the custody of the Michigan Department of Mental Health.[8] On April 22, 2010, Drake received life imprisonment and expressed no remorse for any pain caused to the families.[9] Drake himself said he should go to jail "forever.""
Bleh there was more to that post but it got deleted:
Pouillon's murder was evidently the first time an activist had ever been killed while protesting abortion.[3] Authorities said Fuoss was not connected to the pro-life movement.[3] Police said Drake was offended by pro-life material that Pouillon had displayed across from the school for the previous week.[1] A Center for Reproductive Rights spokesperson said the shooting did not seem to be tied to the abortion debate.[
Pouillon's murder was evidently the first time an activist had ever been killed while protesting abortion.[3] Authorities said Fuoss was not connected to the pro-life movement.[3] Police said Drake was offended by pro-life material that Pouillon had displayed across from the school for the previous week.[1] A Center for Reproductive Rights spokesperson said the shooting did not seem to be tied to the abortion debate.[
AceGoober
Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- Messages
- 25,540
Firefox is too buggy for my liking. Although, to be fair, Chrome isn't too far ahead either.
What the hell are you talking about?
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
Maybe you should use a better browser like Chrome or Opera my friend.
I actually never stopped using Firefox, because by the time I found out about this whole shebang this guy had already resigned
shrug
I do most of my browsing on my phone anyway. My PC is a steambox
Okay, here's an example of the myopia I'm talking about. Homosexuality itself used to be illegal in the USA. It no longer is. We are moving in the opposite direction of the comparison you're making. The fact that we are even debating gay marriage is evidence of that. The fact that gay people are suing private business owners for not wanting to get involved in a gay wedding is more evidence of that. The fact that people can lose their jobs over the goddamned debate because they upset your side is the cherry on top. Only the oblivious could sit in the middle of debating whether or not institutions should be changed in order to include people they were never intended for, and say that the society is actually just a ticking time bomb waiting to unleash their hatred for those people. If that were true, we wouldn't even be having the debate.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
I'm back to the bigot because I don't think you should force your views on others.
Yet here you are, forcing your view on others or else they are a bigot and quite frankly, it doesn't bother me.
I have gay family members I love them. They also respect other people's point of view.
They are not out to change someone's paradigm but there are those who are.
There are people who are quite frankly, assholes. People who want their rights and want everyone to bleed for them. I got the feeling that you think every homosexual is a nice, altruistic person. I have news for you: the ratio of asshole to nice, is equal to heteros.
There will be someone soon, when a national marriage equality law passes, who will find a rich church to sue. They will get money and the next church will get sued like people spilling hot coffee in their laps for $$ millions.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
He said Firefox is too buggy for him.
He's expressing his opinion. Are you getting upset yet? I notice you didn't call him a bigot, so maybe you were trying to get a little more info from him before giving him a label?
lol it was meant to be a joke that he suddenly started talking about browsers in an anti-gay marriage debate.
![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
If we allow having separate rights for separate people just because of the way they were born or their choice of religion to be "just a political opinion" then we lose our soul as the supposed land of the free.
I ask in all seriousness, do you think insisting people of color sit on separate benches, or being opposed to interracial marriage are "just political opinions" as well? This is not a straw man argument. What we are dealing with is exactly the same thing. Limiting the rights of people just because of who the are.
It is very much a moral stance of right and wrong, and good versus evil. It is a measure of the very soul of our nation, one might argue the very reason it was founded. If we do not push back vile behavior and statements like this we oppose everything the United States of America is supposed to stand for.
Land of the free, my ass.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
I'm glad you recognize this. Guess how we got here? By refusing to tolerate the intolerance of others. It's called progress, we are moving forward. What you see happening right now is just another step in the right direction. 100 years from now nobody will think anything of gay marriage, and nobody will ever speak negatively about it because it will be cleansed from our collective psyche.
Why? Because you said so?
This is an issue of human rights; not supporting them is unethical.
I'm not sure what you're getting at but all I'm trying to say is that tolerating homosexuals is not merely a "point of view". You seem like one of a few select people on here still trying to play this catch-22 that says we should tolerate your intolerance or else we're all hypocrites. I really dont have anything to say to that since it's so childish and stupid.
Zarathustra[H];1040790944 said:
Well, considering that homosexuality is not a religion, nor do we know whether homosexuality is something we're born with, then I'd say the title as land of the free, on that basis, would be just fine. Unfortunately, massive surveillance, law enforcement that can get away with murder, and the horrific debts we're accumulating are assuring that said title is complete and utter horse shit.
Because I'm not psychotic. You?
What does your mental state have to do with whether gay rights is a question of human rights?
Gay rights is certainly a question of human rights...in Russia, where homosexuality has been de facto outlawed and bands of Russians are targeting homosexuals for violence. Gay rights is certainly not a question of human rights in a country where people lose their jobs because they donated to one side of a heavily-contested debate over whether gay people could refer to themselves legally as "married" several years ago.
If you are viewing people who disagree with you on a highly contested political issue as evil, you're a goddamned fanatic, mentally unstable, and your opinions should be treated with great caution.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
Zarathustra[H];1040790944 said:
Then don't straw man the question and let it stand on it's own..
Such as "Are you opposed to homosexual marriage?"
Simple enough.
Why do people have to keep throwing race and slavery into the equation?
Are you trying to equate intolerance of homosexuality to that of racism? If so, are you trying to call someone who thinks they can have an "open" discussion on the topic a racist?
Its sexism at worst.
There's that lack of self awareness again
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,862
It's simple. It's because they are the same argument. Some eople are just too blinded by their gayrage to see it.
By bringing them up over and over again and equating the two, the argument is being made that X is just as bad as Y, and everyone knows Y is bad.
It's not a matter of creating a strawman, it's basic logical argument.
You were they one who used the word evil. I just said it was an ethical issue.
The fact that Russia is significantly more oppressive institutionally and culturally in no way diminishes the fact that gay rights remain an issue in the western world.
When did you decide to be straight?
Again I ask how do you think Russia reached this point? Probably because people felt it was ok to openly decry the intolerance of homosexual behavior as nothing more than a "point of view". Russia is just a few generations behind the USA right now. One day they'll be where we are today, and someone will cry foul when their bigoted point of view is not tolerated, meanwhile the USA will be orbiting in a floating city in the clouds.
Nobody thinks you're a racist, but the question demonstrates your double-standard thinking; you tolerate someone based on the color of their skin but not whom they are attracted to, two totally superficially and trivial points. How can that be?
Wow, you've got lies of omission down pretty good. I said it was not a matter of "good and evil". It may be a matter of legal ethics, but it is not a moral issue. One is not objectively good or bad for supporting either side.
The fact that gay rights remain an issue in the Western world does not make it a human rights issue. In places like Russia, gay rights is a human rights issue. Claiming that marriage is an equivalent right to not being beaten the fuck up by roving mobs or thrown in jail just for being gay is really fucking stupid.
I think all browsers should be segregated and not allowed to touch each other with their tabs and their cookies. That's not just my opinion, that's a fact. It's in the constitution.
Who knows what would happen if we let that shit get out of hand. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Who knows what would happen if we let that shit get out of hand. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
I never said people were evil. I don't believe they are evil. Don't characterize my argument as something it's not.
Says who? And why?
Gay rights are most certainly a moral and ethical issue.
I agree. I never made that claim though. I said that the state of gay rights in Russia has no bearing on the state of gay rights in the western world. Again, please don't characterize my arguments as something they're not.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I didn't say it was a choice. I said we don't know. Stop asking loaded questions based on your very, very wrong assumptions; that's called bigotry.
Yeah, I'm sure that's all it was. I'm sure they loved homosexuality in their heavily Orthodox and rather brutal society until someone said that one can have a "point of view" that they don't have the right to be married, and then all of a sudden the sky went black and every homosexual felt a pain in their bones and the homophobic moon rose and the pitchforks and torches came out. So, as Americans, we must unite in silencing all dissent with gay marriage before the unholy rituals begin and the culling ensues!
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,862
It is very much a human rights issue here as well. Here are just a few rights that same sex couples have to forgo because of narrow minded bigotry:
Can you imagine spending your life with someone you love, watching them get sick, and then not being able to visit them in the hospital, not being able to be there to comfort them on their deathbed, and then be kicked out on your ass because of the lack of inheritance between same sex couples means you lose your house?
This isn't just an academic exercise or a point of argument, it IS human rights. It is a matter of cruelty beyond belief, and it happens here in the U.S. EVERY DAY.
All this just because some bigot does't like the definition of a word? And what's funnier is, then they like to quote the bible as defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The only problem with this? It's not actually in the bible...
Bumped for importance and relevance to this thread.
I never claimed you said people were evil. Others have already done that in this thread. Don't accuse me of things I haven't said.
Gay marriage is a legal issue over the definition of a word. In the realm of gay rights, it's small potatoes with minimal impact. The major issues regarding gay rights have already been hashed out in the United States. Look elsewhere if you really want to worry about the rights of homosexuals in the world.
You continually conflate gay marriage in the United States with gay rights as an entire movement, like the whole world of homosexuality teeters on the outcome of whether or not they get to put their names on a government marriage certificate. It's fucking stupid. Stop playing coy about your own weasel words.
griff30
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2000
- Messages
- 7,209
Ding ding ding! Winner!
So, if you allow someone their opinion, even if its different than yours, its childish and stupid?
You keep painting ME as intolerant. I have said many times I DONT CARE IF TWO PEOPLE BUGGER EACH OTHER. How many times do I have to keep fucking saying that? Are you retarded? Ive said it a hundred times.
Now, I am not going to go rent a fucking video to watch two same sex people fuck as it would turn my stomach. Lesbians included. Its not my thing.
I don't care what they do. I don't care what you do.
I do care when people are forced to accept a lifestyle they disagree with.
Seems its OKAY if things go your way though. I remember earlier about the cake baker and someone got all pissed off that they refused service....
This look familiar?:
ZOMG they refused service!! But its on your side of the argument, so it's okay. No harm no foul. No legal fines either and it wont go to court like the evil cake baker. In fact it was a massive media fun time at Fluffington Post, Facebook et all.