but only after they are born
toldailytopic: Gay-marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
but only after they are born
They got gay people in Iran.
how do you know?
No, it's just very important that you don't like gay people. Because then you're automatically wrong. See, people who don't like gay people are especially incapable of logic, reason or objectivity on any issue involving gay people (even tangentially). They can't be correct on anything they say on such issues, even by accident. This then would firmly establish that, however true anything you say might seem to be, it cannot possibly, actually, be true.
Pretty sure there's some fancy phrase for this very clever and insightful method of argument, but I can't quite remember. :think:
Lolwut? :kookoo:
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
Ahmadinejad says there are no gay people in Iran. :idunno:
He's wrong.
Fixed it for yah, foo!
:chuckle:
eameece
New member
Republicans uphold "human rights" before birth; but not after birth.
As liberals understand the term "rights", yes. Not our fault you don't know what you're talking about here.
organiccornflake
New member
As i said, Perversion is a gradual process. Of course a minor and an adult getting married seems perverted to you; just as two grown men getting married seemed perverted to everyone three generations ago (and is still viewed as such by many today).
We are on a downhill slope; so Let's see where marriage rights are fifty years from now.
That would make you "bi-friendly" Jack.
On a serious note:
The "Poster couple for homosexual make-believe marriage" in CA decided that 3 years of matrimony was just too much for them.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...arriage-california-divorced-article-1.1019213
As I said earlier: Invest in divorce law firms.
The "Poster couple for homosexual make-believe marriage" in CA decided that 3 years of matrimony was just too much for them.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...arriage-california-divorced-article-1.1019213
As I said earlier: Invest in divorce law firms.
Homosexual divorces rates are notably higher in Norway and Sweden, lower in Denmark. I continue to predict we'll see significantly higher divorce rates in the US. I also predict it'll be a long time before we see reliable stats on this because no one wants to. In fact, we won't see them until no one cares what they are.
I was wondering about Denmark. Being that a gnat's lifespan is longer than the average homosexual relationship, that surprises me. There must be more to the story (juggling statistics I suppose).
Well said.
PureX
Well-known member
When we hold negative ideas and beliefs about a group of people we don't know, that's called bigotry. When this bigotry is based on race, it's called racial bigotry, or 'racism' for short. An example of racial bigotry would be the belief that black people are not as intelligent as people of other races. That they tend to be lazy, sexually promiscuous, and more inclined toward immoral and/or criminal behavior.
When these kinds of bigoted beliefs include a desire to oppress, restrain, punish, or otherwise harm the people they are being applied to because of their negativity, then it becomes a hateful expression of that bigotry. For example, the desire to deliberately oppress black people because one believes they are especially ignorant, lazy, promiscuous, immoral, and given to criminal behavior, is an expression of, and would rightly be referred to as 'racial hatred'. The idea, for example, that we would need a special law forbidding a black man to associate with white girls, unsupervised, because we fear he would not be able to control his lust, would be an expression of racial hatred.
The current bigotry being held and expressed toward homosexuals is no different than the racial bigotry of the past except that it's based on a person's sexual orientation rather than on one's skin color. Just as with racial bigotry, it's based on falsely held negative ideas and beliefs about a whole group of people that the bigot doesn't actually know. The belief that homosexuals are inordinately immoral, promiscuous, disease-ridden (or at least disease-prone), anti-social, and even criminal, are examples of contemporary bigotry against homosexuals. Homosexuals are no more immoral, promiscuous, diseased, anti-social or criminal than anyone else is in our society, just as black people are no more ignorant, lazy, promiscuous, immoral, or criminal than people of any other race, are. Yet these bigoted beliefs persist, nevertheless.
And when this sexual bigotry finds expression in a desire to oppress, restrain, punish, or otherwise harm homosexuals, it becomes a form of hatred. The fact that the bigot believes that a homosexual can choose not to be homosexual and a black person cannot choose not to be black, has nothing to do with anything. The bigotry is in thinking that homosexuals are inherently bad, not in whether or not one can choose to be homosexual or not. And the hatred is in the desire to harm homosexuals for being homosexuals, not in whether or not they can choose not to be what the bigot believes them to be.
Reading this, the bigots and haters will, of course, try to defend their hateful beliefs using facts which they imagine apply to all homosexuals, and on conclusions they imagine to be based on what's good and necessary for the health of society. But this is no different than the racial bigots and haters of years past who also argued with their facts about how dark-skinned people really are less intelligent, more promiscuous, morally weak, and given to criminal behavior than people of other color skin, and so for the good and safety of society, needed be legally and socially more intensely restrained.
But these facts will have been 'cherry-picked' by the bigot to support the negative beliefs they already hold, and when they're presented with facts that contradict their bigotry, these will be ignored, denied, and refuted in favor of the bigots beliefs. And it's exactly this defensiveness, rather than a balanced, logical, and open-minded reaction, that gives the bigotry away. Bigots believe as they do because they want their negative beliefs to be true. And so they will defend these beliefs whenever they're challenged, rather than re-examine them as a reasonable, unbiased, person would do.
When these kinds of bigoted beliefs include a desire to oppress, restrain, punish, or otherwise harm the people they are being applied to because of their negativity, then it becomes a hateful expression of that bigotry. For example, the desire to deliberately oppress black people because one believes they are especially ignorant, lazy, promiscuous, immoral, and given to criminal behavior, is an expression of, and would rightly be referred to as 'racial hatred'. The idea, for example, that we would need a special law forbidding a black man to associate with white girls, unsupervised, because we fear he would not be able to control his lust, would be an expression of racial hatred.
The current bigotry being held and expressed toward homosexuals is no different than the racial bigotry of the past except that it's based on a person's sexual orientation rather than on one's skin color. Just as with racial bigotry, it's based on falsely held negative ideas and beliefs about a whole group of people that the bigot doesn't actually know. The belief that homosexuals are inordinately immoral, promiscuous, disease-ridden (or at least disease-prone), anti-social, and even criminal, are examples of contemporary bigotry against homosexuals. Homosexuals are no more immoral, promiscuous, diseased, anti-social or criminal than anyone else is in our society, just as black people are no more ignorant, lazy, promiscuous, immoral, or criminal than people of any other race, are. Yet these bigoted beliefs persist, nevertheless.
And when this sexual bigotry finds expression in a desire to oppress, restrain, punish, or otherwise harm homosexuals, it becomes a form of hatred. The fact that the bigot believes that a homosexual can choose not to be homosexual and a black person cannot choose not to be black, has nothing to do with anything. The bigotry is in thinking that homosexuals are inherently bad, not in whether or not one can choose to be homosexual or not. And the hatred is in the desire to harm homosexuals for being homosexuals, not in whether or not they can choose not to be what the bigot believes them to be.
Reading this, the bigots and haters will, of course, try to defend their hateful beliefs using facts which they imagine apply to all homosexuals, and on conclusions they imagine to be based on what's good and necessary for the health of society. But this is no different than the racial bigots and haters of years past who also argued with their facts about how dark-skinned people really are less intelligent, more promiscuous, morally weak, and given to criminal behavior than people of other color skin, and so for the good and safety of society, needed be legally and socially more intensely restrained.
But these facts will have been 'cherry-picked' by the bigot to support the negative beliefs they already hold, and when they're presented with facts that contradict their bigotry, these will be ignored, denied, and refuted in favor of the bigots beliefs. And it's exactly this defensiveness, rather than a balanced, logical, and open-minded reaction, that gives the bigotry away. Bigots believe as they do because they want their negative beliefs to be true. And so they will defend these beliefs whenever they're challenged, rather than re-examine them as a reasonable, unbiased, person would do.
:doh:
You're being more bigoted with this statement than anyone here has been toward homosexuals. By far.
I can't believe you even wrote this without realizing that.
Do you hold negative ideas and beliefs about those that oppose homosexuality?
I'm seeing that right here in this post. Seen it elsewhere even more strongly.
Do you have a desire to oppress, restrain, punish, or otherwise harm them?
Apparently. You certainly want them to shut up about it, at the least. Pretty sure you've expressed more forceful desires elsewhere, too.
Do you defend your beliefs (right here in this post), using facts which you imagine apply to all who oppose homosexuality, and on conclusions you imagine to be based on what's good and necessary for the health of society?
Yup. There it is.
I imagine, having been confronted with this, that you'll ignore, deny, and refute it favor of your beliefs about those who oppose homosexuality.
"Yur a bigot!" is a very easy card to play. It's good that you're in the game, don't get me wrong. I'm glad you're at the table, taking the time to hash these things over. But if you're going to just assume from the start that everyone who opposes homosexuality is a hateful bigot, and defend that belief all throughout this discussion, despite any evidence to the contrary, then you are certainly being far more bigoted than the worst anti-homo bigot around here.
There's another component to bigotry that you failed to mention. Every behavior has a reward. Bigotry likewise. It allows one to feel superior to those inferior people you're bigoted toward. That's why bigotry is typically defended so zealously. Do you feel superior to those that oppose homosexuality? Know better than they do? See yourself as defending society from those dangerous folks? Ignore, deny, reject any evidence to the contrary?
Because, well... :idunno:
PureX
Well-known member
MaryContrary,
To point out bigotry, is not bigotry. To point out hatred, is not hatred. No more than to point out foolishness is foolish, or to point out an expression of anger is itself an expression of anger.
And even if somehow it were foolish to point out foolishness, that wouldn't in itself negate the validity of the observation. So your criticism, here, is ... well ... foolish.
To point out bigotry, is not bigotry. To point out hatred, is not hatred. No more than to point out foolishness is foolish, or to point out an expression of anger is itself an expression of anger.
And even if somehow it were foolish to point out foolishness, that wouldn't in itself negate the validity of the observation. So your criticism, here, is ... well ... foolish.
I'm not suggesting you're being bigoted by pointing out bigotry. I'm suggesting your definition of bigotry applies more firmly to you than to the vast majority of those you would apply it to.
You can go and sharpen up your definition of bigotry, if you like.