Prop H8 mostly upheld

[Autodidact]

If a person is not stupid or mean, and thinks before they post, how could you try to tell other people, the people whose rights you are denying, that they should be satisfied with utter inequality? Is it just a case of lack of empathy? Or what is the problem? Or are you saying, Weddy, that if you were denied the right to marry a person of your choosing, the one person in the world you want to marry, you'd be satisfied with that?

 

[Weddy]

Bigotry personified?

That's what they always say when someone doesn't agree with them.

 

[Autodidact]

The shoe would never be on the other foot so the point is moot.

That's what we refer to as a hypothetical question. It has nothing to do with whether it would ever happen. (I'm trying not to believe that your problem really is intellectual.) That's why we put the word "if" in it. The purpose is not to anticipate reality; it's a rhetorical device. The fact that you refuse to answer it tells me that you are unable or unwilling to treat others as you would want to be treated.

 

[themadhair]

That's what they always say when someone doesn't agree with them.

Anyone who opposes equal rights, and cannot bring themselves to imagine being on the side denied rights, is a bigot.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You need to go back and read. Autodidact is the one that brought up the word "stupid". I responded by saying that I'm not stupid.

I saw what Auto said, and I saw your response.

I am pointing out that your position betrayed your claim.

You don't like that, but the burden is on you, to show that you can grasp the fact that gay people do not have the same rights that heterosexual people do. As a matter of fact, you admitted as much when you said that you understand, but disagree based on what you read in the Bible.

That leads me to believe that you are now campaigning for the "callous" label, and are showing that the "stupid" or "obtuse" label doesn't fit. Your callousness is rooted in your religious beliefs. Not surprising, but bigotry is bigotry - whatever the justification used.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well, Rick Mestemia and VoR, it ain't gonna happen. If Gay people have to wait around for the legal institution of marriage to be abolished, we'll never have equal rights.

It also smacks to me of breaking your toy rather than share it with others.

Personally, I've been married for over 20 years (only one marriage). I find the entire concept of marriage to be nothing more than a social construct that, other than legal considerations (i.e. taxes, insurance, etc.), is without merit. I love my wife, and that paper on the wall has absolutely no effect on the that love, or my committment to her.

I realize that this isn't true for everyone, but is most definitely true for me. My wife feels just the opposite, and I have no problem with that.

In my opinion, if homosexual couples had the same rights (i.e. taxes, insurance, etc.) as everyone else, then personally, I couldn't care less what title is bestowed on the pairing. Just as long as it is equal - in ALL respects.

 

[Weddy]

That's what we refer to as a hypothetical question. It has nothing to do with whether it would ever happen. (I'm trying not to believe that your problem really is intellectual.) That's why we put the word "if" in it. The purpose is not to anticipate reality; it's a rhetorical device. The fact that you refuse to answer it tells me that you are unable or unwilling to treat others as you would want to be treated.

That would be like me asking you how you would feel if you were someone of the opposite sex, or someone that is a different religion, or a murderer, or a child molester, or a dog. You can't answer that because that's not who or what you are. To guess at how you would think as someone or something else is just ridiculous.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The shoe would never be on the other foot so the point is moot.

The point is not moot. You are intentionally avoiding the issue, in a shallow attempt to disavow your bigotry.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

if you were denied the right to marry a person of your choosing, the one person in the world you want to marry, you'd be satisfied with that?

I find this point an interesting one, which has been explored before. You see, marriage has this connotation of meaning the substance of a relationship, when in fact all that marriage is in this context is legal recognition of that relationship. By preventing marriage, you are not preventing relationships, or realistically hindering them in any way. In most places, you are not preventing the majority of the civil rights that give a relationship legal stability. Perhaps you do not intend to imply otherwise. In any respect I have said previously that I probably wouldn't bother getting legally married if it weren't a requirement for temple marriage and I don't think I would be worse off for it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

That's what they always say when someone doesn't agree with them.

That's what they always say, when they are confronted with their bigotry.

 

[Nanda]

That would be like me asking you how you would feel if you were someone of the opposite sex, or someone that is a different religion, or a murderer, or a child molester, or a dog. You can't answer that because that's not who or what you are. To guess at how you would think as someone or something else is just ridiculous.

She's not asking you to think as someone else, she's asking how YOU, PERSONALLY would feel if your only option in life was to marry someone of the same sex. You can't guess how you, personally, would feel about that?

 

[Autodidact]

That would be like me asking you how you would feel if you were someone of the opposite sex, or someone that is a different religion, or a murderer, or a child molester, or a dog. You can't answer that because that's not who or what you are. To guess at how you would think as someone or something else is just ridiculous.

And once again fails the Golden Rule test.

I'm not asking you to imagine you're someone else, Weddy. I'm trying to get you to imagine that you're Weddy. As Weddy, you don't get to marry Mr. Weddy. You're denied that right. You could marry Ms. Weddy if you like. Feel equal now?

 

[Autodidact]

The fact that Weddy has never tried or had to empathize with someone whose rights are denied in this way speaks volumes.

 

[Weddy]

The point is not moot. You are intentionally avoiding the issue, in a shallow attempt to disavow your bigotry.

Bigotry? That depends on what you mean by the word. I am devoted to my beliefs, and I don't think I should have to tolerate something I don't believe in. Just because I don't agree with same sex marriage doesn't mean that I hate homosexual people. I don't.

Are you bigoted against Christians? You seem devoted to your beliefs, and intolerate of Christians. What's the difference?

 

[Nanda]

Are you bigoted against Christians? You seem devoted to your beliefs, and intolerate of Christians. What's the difference?

You still have your civil rights.

 

[Mike182]

That would be like me asking you how you would feel if you were someone of the opposite sex, or someone that is a different religion, or a murderer, or a child molester, or a dog. You can't answer that because that's not who or what you are. To guess at how you would think as someone or something else is just ridiculous.

I think perhaps that the question could do with clarifying.

So, you are straight. You fall in love with a person of the opposite gender to your own. You want to form a family, and have that family recognised and protected by law.

In this scenario however, the law only recognises and protects same sex families, not opposite sex families. In that situation, would you feel that it is equal?

 

[darkendless]

Bigotry? That depends on what you mean by the word. I am devoted to my beliefs, and I don't think I should have to tolerate something I don't believe in. Just because I don't agree with same sex marriage doesn't mean that I hate homosexual people. I don't.

Are you bigoted against Christians? You seem devoted to your beliefs, and intolerate of Christians. What's the difference?

You're entitled to your beliefs. But don't expect us to tolerate them when they're having harmful affects on others. Because you deny others the same rights you enjoy, you are a bigot. I know exactly what your opinion is and my repsonse is think about others for a change, your selfish acts only make you and your religion look pathetic. This is the 21st century, bigotry doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[Weddy]

The fact that Weddy has never tried or had to empathize with someone whose rights are denied in this way speaks volumes.

Can you empathize with something you don't agree with? What about the mom that drowns her kids because she's stressed out? Can you empathize with her? Or the child molester that has a strong desire for little girls... can you empathize with him? You can't put yourself in the shoes of people that you will NEVER be.

 

[Weddy]

You're entitled to your beliefs. But don't expect us to tolerate them when they're having harmful affects on others. Because you deny others the same rights you enjoy, you are a bigot. I know exactly what your opinion is and my repsonse is think about others for a change, your selfish acts only make you and your religion look pathetic. This is the 21st century, bigotry doesn't cut it anymore.

I would suggest you take your own advice. It's okay for you to not tolerate my beliefs, but if I don't tolerate yours it makes me a bigot. Why does that not make you a bigot?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Are you bigoted against Christians? You seem devoted to your beliefs, and intolerate of Christians. What's the difference?

You give yourself far too much credit. I have no problem with Christians (or Christianity) per se.

My problem is with bigotry - whether the person engaged in it is of any given religious leaning is immaterial to me.

There are many Christians (here on this site) that are fully supportive of the rights of homosexuals to marry. They are not bigoted, and I consider many of them to be very good friends. Conversely, if an atheist or an agnostic is intolerant of homosexuals, then they are guilty of bigotry.

You want to portray yourself as a martyr - a Christian that is being persecuted for their belief. As long as you express a bigoted point of view, you will be called on it (at least, as long as I have posting rights on this board). If you don't like that, you could always consider being more compassionate. Or you could continue to wrap yourself in your martyrdom, and hope that others will come to your way of thinking - but I highly doubt that will happen.

Either way, I don't really care. If you express a bigoted point of view - get used to having it pointed out to you.