5 ms·

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who

by eeky 13y ago

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reactionary swing to the left in the 1960/70's, there could very well be a reactionary swing back to the right that is emerging. (I'm using the archaic "left/right" metaphors just for sake of argument)

Karunamon 13y ago
>You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Ah, the old "tolerance means accepting intolerance" card. Nope, totally haven't heard that tired old fallacy from the far right ever before. >Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples. I had a more conciliatory message here a moment ago. I'm just now noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points (i.e. "traditional marriage" is a nebulous term that means whatever its speaker is advocating for), so it is my full belief that you are just a troll.
- eeky 13y ago
  >"tolerance means accepting intolerance" That is not at all what I said. He suggested that he supports me going away and dying out, and I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant. >Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples. I agree it's not relevant. I was responding to an equally irrelevant comment. >I'm justice noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points I'm responding very frequently. >"traditional marriage" is a nebulous term Somewhat. But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. So it's pretty obvious that the "traditional" meaning is the original and longest standing one.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant. That is not what intolerance means. Saying that I find the fact, that you want to deny same sex couples rights, to be downright reprehensible is not oppressive to you or anybody else. The same cannot be said of your views.. >But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Really. I'd appreciate it if you were to quote that definition verbatim, because quite honestly I do not believe you. I also feel I must point out that "appeal to tradition" is a straight up logical fallacy.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. Marriages that are not between a man and a woman (judging both by biological sex), varying in both the number of partners of either sex and whether, among the partners, are not even remotely unprecedented before the modern debate over the current restrictions of marriage to opposite-sex partners. Its notable that in many cases these were well-established traditional practices that were pushed aside by the advance of Christianity in the effected regions, so that the Christian model of marriage was the one that was redefining marriage away from the its existing "traditional" form.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
salgernon 13y ago
You know, there's something I've been thinking about in relation to people like you. As part of my job, from time to time I'm asked to look at resumes of people fresh out of college (for software engineering jobs), and sometimes they'll list extra-cirricular activities like band or whatever, and I've lately seen resumes where the candidate explicitly and proudly lists gay-and-lesbian related advocacy groups. I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups. So I wonder, if you were involved in such a group, say, the Prop 8 group in California, would you advertise that fact? If not, why not?
- eeky 13y ago
  >I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups. This very fact should concern people. You rarely see people advertising their support for traditional marriage (especially in california/new york. There is a common misconception that supporting gay marriage is somehow a proud rebellious cause against the status quo. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth - virtually the entire media and up to the president support gay marriage. Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. There is something seriously wrong with that. So no, I would not put any political organizations on my resume for a software engineering job. I rarely discuss politics/religion at work. I hope you wouldn't hire such people who jump on the bandwagon issue de jour.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. Stop couching your views in pseudo-PC language and call it what it is. You do not "support traditional marriage" because that is a meaningless phrase. Nobody is campaigning for traditional marriage to go away - you can go have one right now! You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else. What you ACTUALLY support is that people who happen to love someone of the same sex should not be able to marry. That they should not receive the same spousal and tax benefits as couples who love someone of the opposite sex.
jackmaney 13y ago
By the same idiotic line of reasoning, there should hardly be any infertile people alive at all! Oh, wait...
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Where do Nuns come from if they don't have babies?!?! /s
jlgreco 13y ago
I am not calling for your execution in the streets, I am merely expressing glee at the fact that the American Taliban are dying of old age and heart disease faster than you can replenish your ranks. If you think that makes me a bigot, then consider Karl Popper: " Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." You should crack a book or two. You're only 19, your brain isn't fully formed yet. There is still hope that the damage is not irreversible. On second thought... > "Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better." Words cannot express how shocked I am by this comment. I thought people as stupid as you were hyperbolic strawmen... Christ.

by eeky 13y ago

Karunamon 13y ago

>You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Ah, the old "tolerance means accepting intolerance" card. Nope, totally haven't heard that tired old fallacy from the far right ever before. >Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples. I had a more conciliatory message here a moment ago. I'm just now noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points (i.e. "traditional marriage" is a nebulous term that means whatever its speaker is advocating for), so it is my full belief that you are just a troll.

eeky 13y ago
>"tolerance means accepting intolerance" That is not at all what I said. He suggested that he supports me going away and dying out, and I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant. >Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples. I agree it's not relevant. I was responding to an equally irrelevant comment. >I'm justice noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points I'm responding very frequently. >"traditional marriage" is a nebulous term Somewhat. But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. So it's pretty obvious that the "traditional" meaning is the original and longest standing one.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant. That is not what intolerance means. Saying that I find the fact, that you want to deny same sex couples rights, to be downright reprehensible is not oppressive to you or anybody else. The same cannot be said of your views.. >But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Really. I'd appreciate it if you were to quote that definition verbatim, because quite honestly I do not believe you. I also feel I must point out that "appeal to tradition" is a straight up logical fallacy.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. Marriages that are not between a man and a woman (judging both by biological sex), varying in both the number of partners of either sex and whether, among the partners, are not even remotely unprecedented before the modern debate over the current restrictions of marriage to opposite-sex partners. Its notable that in many cases these were well-established traditional practices that were pushed aside by the advance of Christianity in the effected regions, so that the Christian model of marriage was the one that was redefining marriage away from the its existing "traditional" form.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

salgernon 13y ago

You know, there's something I've been thinking about in relation to people like you. As part of my job, from time to time I'm asked to look at resumes of people fresh out of college (for software engineering jobs), and sometimes they'll list extra-cirricular activities like band or whatever, and I've lately seen resumes where the candidate explicitly and proudly lists gay-and-lesbian related advocacy groups. I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups. So I wonder, if you were involved in such a group, say, the Prop 8 group in California, would you advertise that fact? If not, why not?

eeky 13y ago
>I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups. This very fact should concern people. You rarely see people advertising their support for traditional marriage (especially in california/new york. There is a common misconception that supporting gay marriage is somehow a proud rebellious cause against the status quo. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth - virtually the entire media and up to the president support gay marriage. Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. There is something seriously wrong with that. So no, I would not put any political organizations on my resume for a software engineering job. I rarely discuss politics/religion at work. I hope you wouldn't hire such people who jump on the bandwagon issue de jour.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. Stop couching your views in pseudo-PC language and call it what it is. You do not "support traditional marriage" because that is a meaningless phrase. Nobody is campaigning for traditional marriage to go away - you can go have one right now! You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else. What you ACTUALLY support is that people who happen to love someone of the same sex should not be able to marry. That they should not receive the same spousal and tax benefits as couples who love someone of the opposite sex.

jackmaney 13y ago

By the same idiotic line of reasoning, there should hardly be any infertile people alive at all! Oh, wait...

jlgreco 13y ago
Where do Nuns come from if they don't have babies?!?! /s

jlgreco 13y ago

I am not calling for your execution in the streets, I am merely expressing glee at the fact that the American Taliban are dying of old age and heart disease faster than you can replenish your ranks. If you think that makes me a bigot, then consider Karl Popper: " Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." You should crack a book or two. You're only 19, your brain isn't fully formed yet. There is still hope that the damage is not irreversible. On second thought... > "Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better." Words cannot express how shocked I am by this comment. I thought people as stupid as you were hyperbolic strawmen... Christ.