In that entire rant, you didn't once mention how the kids with the glassies and the steelies suffered because some other game existed with the same name.
In that entire rant, you didn't once mention how the kids with the glassies and the steelies suffered because some other game existed with the same name.
well, in fact, bestiality has been a "norm" in some areas, as well as cannibalism and murder. loosely speaking some cultures have toyed pretty close to necrophilia in cannibalism that was thought to vest the eater with the former spirit/powers of the deceased, making the rituals associated pretty heady stuff psychologically, worthy of song and dance.
Pretty much it has always required some thoughtful and determined effort to achieve any elevation in society along any line of "development" or preference. That's always been the role of "taboo" and imputing shame on others in any way.
shame on you "liberals" who can't tolerate other people for having ideals you don't think are for the best. Who made you the Gods we have to obey????
I'm sorry, but I just can't take it seriously when one of the privilege-soaked starts whining about the "victim mentality" and "word games" because they have no real argument to offer. Your examples of a Catholic adoption agency and a Muslim lecturer were ill-founded and false. That's not my fault. So quit whining about the big, bad liberal throwing the ball too fast, and learn to swing faster. Or find a different playground. or stay home. Or don't do any of that, and keep striking out and whining if you really want to. I'm not changing how hard I throw.
The term "marbles" continues to mean something different form breaking bottles with slingshots and rocks, too. You seem unable to be intellectually honest about even the point of my comment. I clearly set it up so kids who play one game can have their own perfectly unique rules and all the fun the game can afford, while others can play their games as well, without necessarily having to get approval from "teach" or being told everything they are allowed to do by the government, or society.
I think the insistence on seeking government validation for gays while degrading the meaning of marriage is divisive and unproductive, and the agenda as being pushed is actually destructive of all human rights because it turns our government into an agent of tyranny more than it already is. There is way to go with all this that will decrease the role of government and laws regulating personal behaviours and beliefs. Why not go that way?????
Hartsock
Banned
Its pretty simple really, I'm assuming these ****** are literate, most of them are actually. The law says that a public business cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc .... They probably assumed that since they were lesbians that they would fit into the "sexual orientation" category and therefore would be protected. That being said, go get a different photographer!!!
Sorry, but I just didn't see the point as relevant (perhaps I misread). I used to play pinochle with a group that used a double-deck but no nines (so, four each of A-10-K-Q-J in each suit). Occasionally, some people would play with single deck with 9s. It never bothered me that they called that game pinochle. If someone wishes to call their game Chess when the queen only moves two spaces, it doesn't change the game of chess I play, and their use of that term "chess" makes no difference in the game I play. Similarly, if some else wants to take a game where they break bottles with slingshots and call it "marbles", that does nothing to to detract from my game. So, I see the insistence that 'only people who use a thumb to shoot a glass sphere into a circle will be permitted to call their game "marbles"' as unfair, pointless, pendantic, and in some cases, spiteful.
Did that cover your point? If not, what do you think I missed?
FIDE specifies chess rules; so if you don't play by FIDE rules, you can't play in FIDE. Similarly, when the government makes rules that say committed gay relationships are not marriage, that excludes gays from participating in marriage.
To refer to gay marriage as a "degrading" is a nakedly bigoted statement. It doesn't bother me that you hold a nakedly bigoted opinion, of course. I'll just call you on it when you pretend it is otherwise.
If you wqant to get government out of all marriages, entirely (I'm not sure you meant that), that cause is orthogonal to the cause of gay marriage, not parallel to it.
You're wrong. Few if any of the arguments I made can be applied to interracial marriage.
One Brow said:
How exactly is it factually correct to call me a bigot?
Here's Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
I'm no more a bigot by that definition than you are.
So, you have no reason to think that this particular couple expected to be discriminated against by this particular studio before they visited? I must have misunderstood you.
Would you feel the same if it were a restaurant? How about if the religious objections were over an interracial relationship?
Hartsock
Banned
Maybe I just dont like spending a lot of money to prove a point, I would be annoyed and would move on. Mayb'e I'd write him a bad yelp review or something.
They all were, back in the 1960s, to the degree that you can often just substitute a word here and there.
You believe in a separate status that has no functional or practical purpose, over a condition most people have a choice in or control over.
The decision to deny the ability to marry based on same-sex attraction is intolerant and is based on your prejudices.
I don't think other victims need to be held to your standard of the proper behavior for victimhood.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
There is no difference between a black man and a white man. But some believe there are differences between a man and a woman. Not identical arguments, unless you believe that a male/female set of twins can be identical.
Hartsock
Banned
Why shouldn't they be held to my standard for proper behavior of victimhood? I am a man after all, and they are gay women, a far inferior species.
Untrue. In fact, the differences are large enough that medications can be indicated for white people and generally less effective in black people, or vice-versa. However, I'm sure you meant that these differences are completely irrelevant for deciding who should be able to marry whom, and I agree completely with that.
Actually, 50 years ago it was remarkably common to say that the differences between whites and black were so large that interracial marriage should be banned, just like you are now saying the differences between men and women are so large that same-sex marriage should be banned (or, if you are not saying this, I'm not sure what your point is). The differences between being black and white have not changed significantly in the last 50 years, but the importance we have attached to those differences has changed. Similarly, I suspect that 50 years from now, the differences between being male and female will seem less relevant in who should be able to marry whom.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
Point is: most people now believe that differences in race should be rendered obsolete in our society. Obviously we don't want to dismiss those medications that work on Timmy, but won't work on Jamaal. However, a lot of people aren't so sure that we should render genders obsolete. I'm still not sure where I stand on this, but I'm saying that people who are attempting to preserve the current definition of marriage are not all "Chicken Littles". A lot of them are just not sure that rendering genders obsolete may not bring about unforseen consequences that, brace yourselves, may not be beneficial. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this, but if needs be, feel free to lump me into the "bigot" column with Colton. Or maybe I would be better suited with the mysogynists?
Sorry, this is incorrect.
Sorry, this is incorrect (talking about the first part, not the second).
Sorry, this is incorrect.(*)
Basically, I conclude that you have no idea what I believe or what my arguments are. Granted I've only posted a couple of times in the thread, but one would think you'd read/understand them before calling me a bigot.
(*) Later edit - unless you're just saying it's intolerant by definition, your definition, in which case I'll just say you're free to define things the way you want.
Did you read the Spazz/Brow conversation at all?
margodydek
Well-Known Member
People like One Brow have completely undermined the meaning of words like: bigot, racist, mysogynist, xenophobe, homophobe, etc. Those are mighty strong words that are now thrown out there without even batting an eye.