Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks I think you just proved my point. The pro gay lobby on here does not tolerate or respect contrary viewpoints, which makes them the bigots IMO.
Maybe because you have absolutely no logic behind your viewpoint and your viewpoint is more that just a viewpoint, it negatively affects OUR lives which should never happen.
If you hate gays for no reason, fine but your viewpoint shouldn't negatively affect my life and prevent my equal rights and protections.
I also don't tolerate racism based on the Bible.
Guess I'm a bigot for not accepting bigoted views, right?
Don't hate anyone, just don't agree with them that's all. Do people understand the difference between "hate" and "disagree"?
I can sum up the position of many in this thread with a quote: "My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." Benjamin Disraeli
This makes a great deal of sense coming from a person who said, "Everyone's view is equally 'valid'"?
Newsflash ... just because you have a POV doesn't make it "valid".
Validity requires logic, reason and sound judgement. You seem to believe that these qualities come by default, while others here understand that they come through mental discipline and intellectual exercise.
That may help explain why some here don't seem very tolerant of your views.
How does my viewpoint negatively affect your life? Just curious.
----------
Who makes that decision? You? I don't think so.
Because you want to not hire/fire them just on the basis of being gay. You don't want them to get married at the government level, etc.
If you use your viewpoint to make laws that negatively affect his life, tun you did. Also, yes, a viewpoint can be wrong. Who decides? Well, that depends. If it's something empirical, then science. If it's something that can't be proven or disproven... like say "the gays are wrong and evil", then it's for each and every one of us to decide.
Because morality is not an empirical thing, it's an opinion-based thing for the most part.
Yes. I make the decision myself that I don't believe your POV is valid.
I then apply whatever logic and reasoning I have in response to your argument.
We then go back and forth in a thread of posts countering or agreeing with one another—sometimes with other members joining in, and sometimes without.
We each make these decisions for ourselves and then test our concepts in the cauldron of the discussion. In then end there's no final decision, as there is no authority in charge of coming down with a verdict.
You are instead left with an impression of the person behind the keyboard and the quality of their reasoning and intellect as well as a reputation that is built over the course of time.
That is essentially how an internet forum works.
The first amendment assures that you will not be legally prosecuted for merely expressing your point of view. It doesn't protect you from any and all criticism. Especially since said criticism is itself an expression of one's point of view.
I love this argument. It's not even the first time we've heard it in this thread.
Essentially, you're saying "You're a bigot because you're calling me out on my bigotry."
Yeah, you're free to say whatever want and hold whatever beliefs you want. But if they are bigoted beliefs, don't complain when you are called out on it.
What exactly is there to "agree with"? It's their life and they can do whatever they damn well please.
There's only one thing to agree to, and that's is this little sentence in the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
In that respect, it breaks down quite simple: You either agree that all men are created equal and therefore deserve all the same rights regardless of sex, race, sexuality, religion, etc., or you don't.
I have posted this at least twice before, but I will do it again.:roll eyes:
You can have any viewpoint you like, so long as it does not negatively impact other peoples lives, the second that happens, the full force of the law will be used against you.
The same way any state regulated "marriage" currently screws over the individual: it entitles a "married" person to a whole litany of special perks, handouts and special "protections" that are intentionally made unavailable to those who choose to remain single or who are in relationships but choose not to be involved in the "marriage" scam.
Guess who pays for all those bullcrap perks and handouts? Mostly single people and unmarried people; more often males than females. Single men and women already subsidize married people and their increased consumption by accepting lower salaries so their employers can subsidize married couples. The products of the labor of single people and unmarried people are also disproportionately harvested via the levy of increased income taxes, social security taxes and medicare taxes that are used to subsidize the "married." Why on earth does this situation need to be worsened? Just because we have yet another special interest group who wants in on the ever-ballooning government-forced bonanza of wasted money and labor?
OK, so now there is an even larger group of greedy individuals (gay couples who marry) scraping for handouts from the government and from employers. This makes an already bad situation worse. Individuals get royally screwed.
Some married people pay in a different way: because the government promotes the legitimacy of one bullcrap one-size-fits all notion of what marriage should be, those who have other legitimate different notions on what kind of relationship they would want to have are generally screwed. Others make off like bandits.
Last edited:
The bolded is key here. Straight people can choose whether or not to get married. The problem is in many places gay couples don't have that choice. That's what people are trying to change. All people deserve the right to marry whomever they love regardless of if they are gay or straight.
Great. Problems regarding the economics of marriage aren't an excuse deny the right to marriage to a specific demographic group based on their own personal decisions.
You want to fix those types of problems? I'd guess most people do too as to make it more fair for all. But it's a completely separate issue altogether.
Why don't you just say you hate gays for no logical reason. That would put an end to this.
A wise man once said "Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt".
The answers in this thread are wildly indicative of the accuracy of that quote.
Your issue is with marriage in general then. That's a whole other issue.
Let's say all of your issues with it are fixed or didn't exist at all. Would you still have an issue with granting gay couples the same opportunity as straight couples to get married(again at the government level)?
No, that's irrelevant. Choose not to be gay then. BFD who cares it's the same thing.
Fix it right, or don't fix it at all.
----------
I have no problem with marriage. Go to Chuck E. Cheese if you want. Have a great party.
I have a problem with idiots who think this entitles them to a whole host of government mandates and social benefits.
Should the government honor contracts between individuals? Yes. Is that anyone else's business? No.
So people wanting equal rights are idiots…I see…
Did it ever occur to you that we want equal rights because we pay taxes? Or want to visit our spouse if they're in the hospital? Or be treated as equal human beings?
Gay is not a choice. Please tell me, when did you choose to be straight? You didn't, just like I didn't choose to be gay. When you started noticing girls boobs I was noticing guys facial hair. Why is this so hard to grasp?
EDIT: Its not hard to grasp, you just don't want to because you need a veil for your hate, nothing more. Every argument you post has absolutely no logic behind it.
Your problem isn't with marriage, but with the fact that marriage entitles people to pay fewer taxes than an unmarried couple. It's a perfectly legitimate complaint, and it's an interesting issue.
Why are married couples taxed less than single individuals (or individuals whose relationship isn't formally declared with the government)? My guess is that it's a factor to encourage and help with child-rearing. Children are an expensive endeavor and, expenses aside, raising children and maintaining a committed relationship is difficult for many. One could also say that having children is performing a service to society, as it fuels growth by providing individuals with new needs and who will keep that society going as the older generations age. Providing reduced tax rates as a form of aid and reward for this recognition makes sense, and I'd imagine that most people wouldn't have a major problem with it.
The issue comes to light with "gay marriage" because homosexuals can't have children together. Why give them a tax break if they're not reproducing, when the tax break is designed around children? This brings up two interesting points:
1) Homosexual couples can still raise children through methods such as adoption. If this fact isn't overlooked, it's often derided as being harmful to children. Thus, it's worth mentioning here that thus far there is no evidence that children brought up with homosexual parents suffer any ill effects from the environment that they were raised in (however, there is good evidence that children brought up in single-parent or abusive households fare worse than their peers from family environments that are more stable). Our available data on child-rearing outcomes will increase as homosexuality and homosexual couples become more widely accepted, and it will be interesting to see if this fact changes.
2) Heterosexual couples that do not produce children are still given tax benefits.
Point #2 is the more interesting one to consider, in my opinion. Should the tax break only be given once a couple has at least one child? It might alter the incentive behind the tax break a bit, but it's an interesting change to consider. (The other interesting consideration is that whenever "gay marriage" and tax break complaints come up, you don't hear any complaints about childless heterosexual marriages...)
Because the law sees the married couple as one person. Why divorces are such a mess because then you have to split everything up.
With so many kids in foster homes and orphanages you'd think it would be easier for gay couples to adopt.
I can't tell you how awesome of a life a kid would have in my house having two dads into snowboarding, kayaking, biking, travel, technology, who are smart and have multiple degrees and can help with school work and set them onto the right path to a good future and provide them and their siblings all the love they could ever want.
Sadly people for some reason are so blind that they think what I wrote above is child abuse. Unreal.
I can't tell you how awesome of a life a kid would have in my house having two dads into snowboarding, kayaking, biking, travel, technology, who are smart and have multiple degrees and can help with school work and set them onto the right path to a good future and provide them and their siblings all the love they could ever want.
Sadly people for some reason are so blind that they think what I wrote above is child abuse. Unreal.
Honestly have you ever considered moving to a state that doesn't treat you like a second class citizen? You shouldn't have to, but unfortunately that's currently the case. NJ is only one state over from you, gay adoption was explicitly legal here even before gay marriage. And we have a flourishing gay community here that took Asbury Park from the nasty ditch of a city that is once was and transformed it into a prime tourist spot on the Jersey Shore. You might be happier here.