Gay marriage salt thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Encourage? yes, but again not mandatory. And again, the vast majority of time, two people have sex with one another, they're not trying to make a kid. Nature's goal is to have a part of the population of a species procreate, not all of the population of a species, because it doesn't need all of that species to procreate for that species to continue.

Close, but a little off. The urge to have sex is a daily one because your specific genes are coded to give you that urge to maximize the potential chance to have offspring. So, y'know the individuals may not be consciously trying to procreate, but the chance they will is why the urge is there.
 

Ugh.

"First, consider the legal ramifications of Friday’s decision. By enshrining gay marriage as a “civil right,” the Court will be opening a floodgate of litigation against individuals and businesses that refuse to honor same-sex marriages because of religious convictions. After all, if gay marriage is a civil right, then anyone who opposes it is guilty of a civil rights violation. We have already seen bakeries, florists, and wedding chapels sued and, in some cases, put out of business because of their refusal to participate in gay wedding ceremonies. Expect these suits to accelerate exponentially now that progressives have been emboldened and armed with a Supreme Court decision."

"The reason for the drop in the heterosexual marriage rate is clear: if marriage can be redefined to include any and every relationship, then why bother to marry at all? Anytime you counterfeit something, you cheapen the value of the real thing, and gay marriage is “counterfeit marriage” (In fairness, heterosexuals have also been cheapening the value of marriage for years through adultery and divorce.)"
 
Fine
Andrew Bryniarski and Caroline Williams. James Woods on Twitter too. My favorite vampire hunter ever goddamn T_T
I love these three on screen, but goddamn.

just saw James Woods' mess...that's a shame. guess that comes with being old, for some.
 
So I went to my wife's church yesterday and saw a notice saying, "Pray that Australia does not allow homosexual people to marry." I was pretty appalled.

LOL too bad for them it's only a matter of time before it happens in Australia too. Sydney has one of the highest number of gay people in the world.
 
Fine
Andrew Bryniarski and Caroline Williams. James Woods on Twitter too. My favorite vampire hunter ever goddamn T_T
I love these three on screen, but goddamn.

Yeah, James Wood is a known asshole, and I'm not surprised one bit Andrew Bryniarski is as well. (...but that Michelle Obama shared link on his Facebook, along with the comments is just depressing)
 
This has been showing up on my Facebook feed

http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/

#WhosTheBigot #DeepThoughts #MakesYouThink

2015-06-05-bigot1.png

2015-06-05-bigot2.png

2015-06-05-bigot3.png

2015-06-05-bigot4.png

2015-06-05-bigot5.png

2015-06-05-bigot6.png
 
This has been showing up on my Facebook feed

http://adam4d.com/whos-the-bigot/

#WhosTheBigot #DeepThoughts #MakesYouThink

Well, that is the Webster's definition of bigotry, but Webster's is a proscriptive dictionary that maintains a static definition for words. Versus something like like the Oxford English Dictionary, which is descriptive, and changes definition to fit the words contemporary meaning.

Today, a bigot means a person intolerant of another person.

I still think it's not a good tactic for changing public opinion :P
 
Encourage? yes, but again not mandatory. And again, the vast majority of time, two people have sex with one another, they're not trying to make a kid. Nature's goal is to have a part of the population of a species procreate, not all of the population of a species, because it doesn't need all of that species to procreate for that species to continue.

I mean condoms exist and birth control exit for a reason XD
 
Well, that is the Webster's definition of bigotry, but Webster's is a proscriptive dictionary that maintains a static definition for words. Versus something like like the Oxford English Dictionary, which is descriptive, and changes definition to fit the words contemporary meaning.

Today, a bigot means a person intolerant of another person.

I still think it's not a good tactic for changing public opinion :P

Was Hillary Clinton a bigot in 2013? or Obama in 2012? Or Joe Biden in 2012?
 
Ugh.

"First, consider the legal ramifications of Friday’s decision. By enshrining gay marriage as a “civil right,” the Court will be opening a floodgate of litigation against individuals and businesses that refuse to honor same-sex marriages because of religious convictions. After all, if gay marriage is a civil right, then anyone who opposes it is guilty of a civil rights violation. We have already seen bakeries, florists, and wedding chapels sued and, in some cases, put out of business because of their refusal to participate in gay wedding ceremonies. Expect these suits to accelerate exponentially now that progressives have been emboldened and armed with a Supreme Court decision."

"The reason for the drop in the heterosexual marriage rate is clear: if marriage can be redefined to include any and every relationship, then why bother to marry at all? Anytime you counterfeit something, you cheapen the value of the real thing, and gay marriage is “counterfeit marriage” (In fairness, heterosexuals have also been cheapening the value of marriage for years through adultery and divorce.)"

Straights aren't marrying anymore cause of the gay infection!

LOL and then they'll get mad when they get called bigots.
 
We have a lot more different denominations than most other countries. Our Christian community is highly diverse. I actually think those who preach intolerance for gays are a really loud vocal minority. Biblical literalism has been on decline in the United States for almost a century, and really only holds out in rural communities where the religious and ethnic makeup is highly homogenized.
Not in my experience, I've heard plenty of biblical literalism in cities
 
Not in my experience, I've heard plenty of biblical literalism in cities

I mean it's not unheard of in cities, but the majority of the conservative Christians are concentrated in rural areas. The majority of metropolitan churches preach at least some form of a more progressive interpretation. Most of the churches in DC had rainbow banners out for Pride Week.
 
Welp..there it is!

I love this idea that as long as you politely want to deny people rights you can't be a bigot.

I don't hate gay people I just don;t think their unions should have any legal recognition.

I don't hate gay people I just don't think they should have the same rights I do.

Just my opinion, and you can't criticize me or accuse of bigotry because you have to accept that I can have this opinion, if you don't you're the intolerant one.

If you don't tolerate my desire to see gay folks denied rights you're the real bigot.

I love this bullshit, because they think it's a mic drop, and that man was Albert Einstein, I win moment.

Instead it's just another notch on that I am an incredibly stupid bigot cart.

So at the moment he said he was for gay marriage he transformed from bigot to non-bigot? We tend to believe bigotry is more permanent than that, I think.
Uhh no

You're a bigot until you stop holding bigoted beliefs.
 
So at the moment he said he was for gay marriage he transformed from bigot to non-bigot? We tend to believe bigotry is more permanent than that, I think.

I don't think anything about the word implies permanence. It's a word used in reaction to an individual's ideology, not an individual as being.
 
I don't think anything about the word implies permanence. It's a word used in reaction to an individual's ideology, not an individual as being.

It is absolutely used as an invective to an individual. The point i'm making is when two years ago people held the same views as people now described as retrograde bigots something is off. Clearly is a large swath of the country can change its mind so immediately on an issue the issue itself was more about the purpose and direction of an institution than about gay people as individuals.
 
it is interesting though. During the 1990s there was a movement to say gay marriage should be allowed and the vast majority said no, then there was an association with it being civil rights themed where it was presented as a civil rights issue, many said they agree it is a rights issue but the definition of marriage to many at that time was still between a man and a woman. Were people back then labelled as bigots then for not accepting gay marriage and did the definition of bigotry change along with the definition of marriage for those people along the way?
 
I'm going to let you in on a secret -- politicians will say whatever they think other people want to hear.

So they lied and pandered to bigotry to advance their political objectives. And that makes them better than say, Roman Catholics who really do believe marriage is between a man and a woman?
 
It is absolutely used as an invective to an individual. The point i'm making is when two years ago people held the same views as people now described as retrograde bigots something is off. Clearly is a large swath of the country can change its mind so immediately on an issue the issue itself was more about the purpose and direction of an institution than about gay people as individuals.

Well, I generally only see people applying the bigot label to people who are hostile to LGBT individuals generally, and not exclusively to people who are against gay marriage but not vocally hostile about it. Although I think people overuse the word and it's ineffective because it can be dismissed and reversed by invoking the definition in the comic above. Which is still a legitimate definition just not the common one.
 
So at the moment he said he was for gay marriage he transformed from bigot to non-bigot? We tend to believe bigotry is more permanent than that, I think.

He was never actually a bigot, he was just a cunning politician. The republicans won't ever have the White House again until they figure out what to say and when to say it, regardless of what they actually think. Obama knew what the hell he was doing when he said "My stance on same sex marriage is evolving." He was basically saying, listen, I've been with y'all from jump, but I needed to get in and now I need to stay in so I can get some shit done and this is what I have to say for right now.
 
This is so surreal to watch as a non-american. I mean, I already live in a country with an uncomfortably high amount of idiotic right wing supporters, but this kind of shit is on another level. Are these actual news running on TV?

Yes. Fox "News" does this kind of thing all the time and it's a genuine wonder they're still allowed to do this kind of thing.

I could feel my brain cells committing suicide as I read through that article. I had to stop for my own well-being.
 
He was never actually a bigot, he was just a cunning politician. The republicans won't ever have the White House again until they figure out what to say and when to say it, regardless of what they actually think. Obama knew what the hell he was doing when he said "My stance on same sex marriage is evolving." He was basically saying, listen, I've been with y'all from jump, but I needed to get in and now I need to stay in so I can get some shit done and this is what I have to say for right now.

Haha, there is no way you can assume that. How is it not equally possible that he wasn't for marriage equality and only said he was "evolving" to pander to gay marriage advocates? As opposed to saying he was "evolving" to pander to voters who didn't want to hear he was for marriage equality.
 
Haha, there is no way you can assume that. How is it not equally possible that he wasn't for marriage equality and only said he was "evolving" to pander to gay marriage advocates? As opposed to saying he was "evolving" to pander to voters who didn't want to hear he was for marriage equality.

I assuming it right now.

Nah, ne-nah, ne-nah nah.
 
He was never actually a bigot, he was just a cunning politician. The republicans won't ever have the White House again until they figure out what to say and when to say it, regardless of what they actually think. Obama knew what the hell he was doing when he said "My stance on same sex marriage is evolving." He was basically saying, listen, I've been with y'all from jump, but I needed to get in and now I need to stay in so I can get some shit done and this is what I have to say for right now.

The difference is I don't think people who oppose same sex marriage are bigots, which makes things a lot easier for me. George Wallace may not have been a racist, the fact that he used racism to try and get himself elected would prevent from from voting for him.

Many people here will be voting for Hillary Clinton, who only supported Gay Marriage when it was overwhelmingly popular and not a second before. Until that point she argued over and over again that the traditional definition should be maintained. And she's forgiven instantly? Please. Nobody here would have forgiven George Wallace in the same way, even though he recanted his views later in life.
 
So they lied and pandered to bigotry to advance their political objectives. And that makes them better than say, Roman Catholics who really do believe marriage is between a man and a woman?

Is this a serious question? Yes. Those Roman Catholics being against the civil rights of LGBT will most likely forever be on the wrong side of history. They will continue on celebrating intolerance, not equality.

Obama and his family aren't doing that.
 
I assuming it right now.

Nah, ne-nah, ne-nah nah.

Fair enough, lol. I should have said there's no way you could "know" that.

In general politicians take stances that are safe that will keep getting them and their party elected. We'll never really be sure what he thought or thinks now about gay marriage.

Is this a serious question? Yes. Those Roman Catholics being against the civil rights of LGBT will most likely forever be on the wrong side of history. They will continue on celebrating intolerance, not equality.

Obama and his family aren't doing that.

In public anyway. Dun dun dun......
 
The difference is I don't think people who oppose same sex marriage are bigots, which makes things a lot easier for me. George Wallace may not have been a racist, the fact that he used racism to try and get himself elected would prevent from from voting for him.

Many people here will be voting for Hillary Clinton, who only supported Gay Marriage when it was overwhelmingly popular and not a second before. Until that point she argued over and over again that the traditional definition should be maintained. And she's forgiven instantly? Please. Nobody here would have forgiven George Wallace in the same way, even though he recanted his views later in life.

There is no forgiving a politician. They're all ego maniacs by virtue of the fact they think they can run the world. But if you're going to be engaged in the political process these are the concessions you have to make. You vote on the issues and your best interests and you pick the least damaging choice at the time. You'll do more damage to yourself and the rest of us by holding a grudge over some shit she filp flopped on yesterday. Of course it's not ideal, but that's just how it is. I don't know what else to do.
 
There is no forgiving a politician. They're all ego maniacs by virtue of the fact they think they can run the world. But if you're going to be engaged in the political process these are the concessions you have to make. You vote on the issues and your best interests and you pick the least damaging choice at the time. You'll do more damage to yourself and the rest of us by holding a grudge over some shit she filp flopped on yesterday. Of course it's not ideal, but that's just how it is. I don't know what else to do.

He wants you to say she's a bigot.
 
So they lied and pandered to bigotry to advance their political objectives. And that makes them better than say, Roman Catholics who really do believe marriage is between a man and a woman?

Sure, of course it does. Obama's approach to big social issues has been to move the needle in the right direction, often slowly. Because he's a politician, he took a public policy position that was compatible with the prevailing views of the public. And then slowly, systemically worked for the normalization of gay rights throughout his presidency, from small actions like granting benefits to same sex partners of federal employees to working to end DADT. (It's a pretty long list, all in all.) When public opinion reached a tipping point, he tipped with it; his coming out in support of marriage equality had a large, measurable impact. And now here we are.

Was it political expediency? Probably, given what we know of his views of marriage before he ran for President. One could even call it cynical, or cowardly. Does Obama pushing for equality while falling short of calling for gays to be able to marry until it was politically tenable make him as bad as those fighting adamantly against it? Of course not. That's ridiculous.
 
Half the people on my facebook turned their profile pics to become rainbow, and there haven't been any prejudiced comments either way.

I just have liberal friends I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom