Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

"Q"

my interactions / experience with people of the above mentioned persuasion use the Q word amongst themselves much like people a colored persuasion often use the "N" word.

Amongst themselves

The Q Crowd.
 
NinersSBChamps said:
Depends on the opinion. In this day and age the business owner's opinion was the wrong one.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that always be true?

There was a time where the business owner thought and it was accepted to treat black people as a 2nd class citizen

This isn't any different
 
sturg33 said:
I really don't know what you're talking about.

I'm waiting for the religous right to start threatening to burn down Starbucks because they support SSM
Click to expand...

They don't have to threaten those businesses

They have the Republican Party to put their views in law

Which is the whole point of our conversation that you can't follow for some absurd reason
 
goldfly said:
Wouldn't that always be true?

There was a time where the business owner thought and it was accepted to treat black people as a 2nd class citizen

This isn't any different
Click to expand...

Except this business owner didn't treat these people any less than anyone else.
 
NinersSBChamps said:
Except this business owner didn't treat these people any less than anyone else.
Click to expand...

He put up a sign attacking them. If made a deposit with a jeweler, and then afterwards they put up a sign that said "Meta is an asshole who poops his pants" I'd probably want my money back too.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to keep liking you after you speak.
 
Metaphysicist said:
He put up a sign attacking them. If made a deposit with a jeweler, and then afterwards they put up a sign that said "Meta is an asshole who poops his pants" I'd probably want my money back too.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to keep liking you after you speak.
Click to expand...

"Attacking" - oh, well. If that's "attacking" then what are the threats? I mean if you start with calling that statement an "attack" you aren't leaving yourself much verbal wiggle room for anything more egregious. I understand the use of hyperbole, but when people use it constantly it leaves little room for real discussion.
 
goldfly said:
They don't have to threaten those businesses

They have the Republican Party to put their views in law

Which is the whole point of our conversation that you can't follow for some absurd reason
Click to expand...

The point of your posts but not of the conversation. And you seem to always miss this - our laws have up until recently all codified the traditional view of marriage. Those advocating a change of that understanding are the ones who have pushed changes in the law or the striking down of existing statutes. The sort of examples you give are countermoves. To couch them as you do is disingenuous.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't quite understand what everyone gets so upset about though. The LGBT crowd is NOT looking for equality - they are looking for submission - which makes it really hard for me to defend them.

And this is coming from a guy who supports SSM
Click to expand...

Like I've said... Or to give myself some verbal wiggle worth, I'd say it is psychologically all about approval. No one likes for folks to view them as being morally in the wrong.
 
BedellBrave said:
The point of your posts but not of the conversation. And you seem to always miss this - our laws have up until recently all codified the traditional view of marriage. Those advocating a change of that understanding are the ones who have pushed changes in the law or the striking down of existing statutes. The sort of examples you give are countermoves. To couch them as you do is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

"it's always been that way" isn't a good enough reason to continue doing something a way

but pushing your religious views into law to try to strengthen your stance isn't a countermove when all you are doing is trying to treat people as 2nd class citizens.
 
goldfly said:
but pushing your religious views into law to try to strengthen your stance isn't a countermove when all you are doing is trying to treat people as 2nd class citizens.
Click to expand...

You say that the religious are 'pushing' an agenda of hatred, but it seems to me like they are just defending a fundamental tenet of their faith. Nothing has changed about their stance in, well, ever.

It's not like they are actively out there attempting to perpetuate gay hate.
 
Hawk said:
You say that the religious are 'pushing' an agenda of hatred, but it seems to me like they are just defending a fundamental tenet of their faith. Nothing has changed about their stance in, well, ever.

It's not like they are actively out there attempting to perpetuate gay hate.
Click to expand...

their faith isn't supposed to be pushed or approved by law in our gov't

so, it's irrelevant
 
Hawk said:
It's not really irrelevant if it's already law. You'd have a point otherwise.

Law that has existed since, well, before either of us existed.
Click to expand...

again, "it's always been that way" isn't a good enough excuse

and just cause people didn't do what they were sworn to do (not promote one religions views) doesn't mean we should just do nothing and just accept it

You say that the religious are 'pushing' an agenda of hatred, but it seems to me like they are just defending a fundamental tenet of their faith.
Click to expand...

this is what irrelevant to the conversation you asked. you changed your stance with this comment:

It's not really irrelevant if it's already law. You'd have a point otherwise.
Click to expand...

that's 2 different points that you are trying to roll into one

also, since when is not allowing same sex marriage a fundamental tenet of christianity?
 
goldfly said:
again, "it's always been that way" isn't a good enough excuse

and just cause people didn't do what they were sworn to do (not promote one religions views) doesn't mean we should just do nothing and just accept it

this is what irrelevant to the conversation you asked. you changed your stance with this comment:

that's 2 different points that you are trying to roll into one

also, since when is not allowing same sex marriage a fundamental tenet of christianity?
Click to expand...

Lol, way to grossly oversimplify (and really, misinterpret) the Bill of Rights.

I never said that 'because it has always been that way' is an excuse, just highlighted that your point about the religious being the 'pushers' was invalid. They are the 'pushees' if you will.

Also, I have no idea what you are getting at trying to say I'm conflating points. What I'm saying is pretty straight forward.

also, since when is not allowing same sex marriage a fundamental tenet of christianity?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Christianity. I'm talking about religion and how marriage has been traditionally defined. Find me a religious text that clearly approves of homosexual union.

This is not to make any commentary other than trying to understand where both sides are coming from and dropping the, "I'm aghast at the bigotry!" charade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top