Presidential Debate

ohmrs2014

themosthappy91 said:

Okay as someone else already pointed out, as soon as you start saying "The dictionary definition is..." I tune out because that is just being obnoxious and obtuse. Obviously no one here is referring to homophobia in the sense that you literally have a phobia of homosexuals. 

And yeah, when you are 1) yourself willing to forego the legal benefits of having a marriage that is recognized by the government to make a point about how the government shouldn't be involved in marriage and 2) refusing to support any politician who does not also exclusively advocate for the government getting out of the business of recognizing marriage and simultaneously in support of recognizing heterosexual and homosexual PARTNERSHIPS the exact same way, then I will say you may be against gay marriage but you're not homophobic. Until then, kindly GTFO.

That being said, it seems like I might be in the minority here but I care about fiscal issues significantly more than social issues (which I realize is a privileged perspective because many hot button social issues do not directly impact me). My biggest pet peeve in the world is people who describe themselves as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." There's no such thing and you are beyond naive if you think it it. 

To quote an article (linked below) that sums it up nicely:

"You can't separate fiscal issues from social issues. They're deeply intertwined. They affect each other. Economic issues often are social issues. And conservative fiscal policies do enormous social harm. That's true even for the mildest, most generous version of "fiscal conservatism" -- low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market. These policies perpetuate human rights abuses. They make life harder for people who already have hard lives. Even if the people supporting these policies don't intend this, the policies are racist, sexist, classist (obviously), ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise socially retrograde. In many ways, they do more harm than so-called "social policies" that are supposedly separate from economic ones." 

From: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/7-things-people-who-say-theyre-fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal-dont

I also realize that a lot of people like to go around saying "I don't vote on party lines, I vote based on the candidate" but I will go ahead and just declare I'd rather die than vote for any Republican, honestly. 

And the bolded is what's wrong with this country.  We should be voting based on candidate and not party.  My neighbors were Democrats all the way and supported Hilary Clinton the first time she ran against Barak Obama.  They didn't agree with anything that President Obama wanted to do and voted Hilary all the way in the primaries, donating to her campaign.  When President Obama won the nomination, they voted for him in the Presidential election because they vote on party lines, even though they trash talked him the whole way through, because like you, they couldn't vote Republican even if the Republican viewpoints aligned more with their views.

HeatherKat

ohmrs2014 said:

themosthappy91 said:

Okay as someone else already pointed out, as soon as you start saying "The dictionary definition is..." I tune out because that is just being obnoxious and obtuse. Obviously no one here is referring to homophobia in the sense that you literally have a phobia of homosexuals. 

And yeah, when you are 1) yourself willing to forego the legal benefits of having a marriage that is recognized by the government to make a point about how the government shouldn't be involved in marriage and 2) refusing to support any politician who does not also exclusively advocate for the government getting out of the business of recognizing marriage and simultaneously in support of recognizing heterosexual and homosexual PARTNERSHIPS the exact same way, then I will say you may be against gay marriage but you're not homophobic. Until then, kindly GTFO.

That being said, it seems like I might be in the minority here but I care about fiscal issues significantly more than social issues (which I realize is a privileged perspective because many hot button social issues do not directly impact me). My biggest pet peeve in the world is people who describe themselves as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." There's no such thing and you are beyond naive if you think it it. 

To quote an article (linked below) that sums it up nicely:

"You can't separate fiscal issues from social issues. They're deeply intertwined. They affect each other. Economic issues often are social issues. And conservative fiscal policies do enormous social harm. That's true even for the mildest, most generous version of "fiscal conservatism" -- low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, a free market. These policies perpetuate human rights abuses. They make life harder for people who already have hard lives. Even if the people supporting these policies don't intend this, the policies are racist, sexist, classist (obviously), ableist, homophobic, transphobic, and otherwise socially retrograde. In many ways, they do more harm than so-called "social policies" that are supposedly separate from economic ones." 

From: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/7-things-people-who-say-theyre-fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal-dont

I also realize that a lot of people like to go around saying "I don't vote on party lines, I vote based on the candidate" but I will go ahead and just declare I'd rather die than vote for any Republican, honestly. 

And the bolded is what's wrong with this country.  We should be voting based on candidate and not party.  My neighbors were Democrats all the way and supported Hilary Clinton the first time she ran against Barak Obama.  They didn't agree with anything that President Obama wanted to do and voted Hilary all the way in the primaries, donating to her campaign.  When President Obama won the nomination, they voted for him in the Presidential election because they vote on party lines, even though they trash talked him the whole way through, because like you, they couldn't vote Republican even if the Republican viewpoints aligned more with their views.

**TK, how can you run a multi-million dollar company and not get your fucking quote boxes to work??????***

Find me a pro-union, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality Republican committed to ending social injustices, closing the wage gap, fixing the student debt crisis and working towards universe healthcare and I'd be happy to vote for them.

kkitkat79

STARMOON44 said:

HeatherKat said:

kkitkat79 said:

Look, people are allowed to be homophobic, racists, whatever. That has nothing to do with their belief regarding justice. It is just to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And if civil unions grant couples  the same legal rights as marriage does  then justice is done, nothing more is needed. However, as I said before, I think it would be wise  (short of cancelling the state marriage license all together) to have total separation between state and church and have civil unions required for everyone and then whoever wants a church ceremony can find a church to meet their needs.  

Isn't that how it already works? I don't have to (and didn't) go to a church to get married. We had a civil ceremony. Are you arguing purely on semantics?

I don't think this is how it works. It is true that you don't have to go to church, but couples that marry at the church don't have to have a civil ceremony. So there is no complete separation between church and state because the church also has legal standing. For separation to be complete religious institutions should not have any legal authority. 

I do agree with you that this argument over whether it should be called marriage or not is semantic. I think that as long as everyone has identical legal rights it doesn't matter what it's called, marriage, civil union, partnership, whatever. But for some reason it matters to people. I can understand why it might be important to religious people, but for the life of me I don't get the insistence of the non-religious crowd. 

"Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition. It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a “civil right.”" Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. If you can read that and still not "get" why marriage is important to people who aren't religious, you're not trying to understand.

Explain to me how any of this changes if you put "civil union" instead of "civil marriage"? I understand why that level of commitment is important to any one, religious or not; I am married. What I don't understand is why it matters what word we use to describe it. And nothing in the above has anything to do with state mandated marriage licenses. Again, in my view the only reason why gay marriage was ever an issue is because the government is allowed to say who gets to get married. Take the government out of it and there is no problem. No one gets any benefits. However, as long as that is not the case everyone gets the same deal.

themosthappy91

And the bolded is what's wrong with this country.  We should be voting based on candidate and not party.  My neighbors were Democrats all the way and supported Hilary Clinton the first time she ran against Barak Obama.  They didn't agree with anything that President Obama wanted to do and voted Hilary all the way in the primaries, donating to her campaign.  When President Obama won the nomination, they voted for him in the Presidential election because they vote on party lines, even though they trash talked him the whole way through, because like you, they couldn't vote Republican even if the Republican viewpoints aligned more with their views.

Yep, I was just waiting for that comment. People like to throw that one around.

I'm sorry but your neighbors sound like morons. There is not enough different between Obama and Clinton to like one and hate the other (unless you are a racist... hmm). There is not enough difference between any of the major candidates in the same party for that to make sense. They were lacking a fundamental understanding of the issues if they somehow agreed the most with Clinton, the second most with McCain and the least with Obama in that election cycle. It does not logically make sense.

People who "vote candidates not parties" are naive and don't understand how our government system really works. There is a clear line between left and right, and even if you personally straddle that line with your beliefs for reasons I can not begin to understand, you need to be aware that when you vote for a Republican or Democrat, whatever they say their positions are, their actions are going to reflect the party they are a part of. They will appoint Supreme Court Justices on that basis, for example. So your neighbors were liberal enough to like Hilary but you think they should have considered voting for McCain so he could have appointed another Scalia or Thomas to our nation's high court? Makes no fucking sense.

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

STARMOON44 said:

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

kkitkat79 said:

Look, people are allowed to be homophobic, racists, whatever. That has nothing to do with their belief regarding justice. It is just to allow gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And if civil unions grant couples  the same legal rights as marriage does  then justice is done, nothing more is needed. However, as I said before, I think it would be wise  (short of cancelling the state marriage license all together) to have total separation between state and church and have civil unions required for everyone and then whoever wants a church ceremony can find a church to meet their needs.  

Isn't that how it already works? I don't have to (and didn't) go to a church to get married. We had a civil ceremony. Are you arguing purely on semantics?

I don't think this is how it works. It is true that you don't have to go to church, but couples that marry at the church don't have to have a civil ceremony. So there is no complete separation between church and state because the church also has legal standing. For separation to be complete religious institutions should not have any legal authority. 

I do agree with you that this argument over whether it should be called marriage or not is semantic. I think that as long as everyone has identical legal rights it doesn't matter what it's called, marriage, civil union, partnership, whatever. But for some reason it matters to people. I can understand why it might be important to religious people, but for the life of me I don't get the insistence of the non-religious crowd. 

"Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.
It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a “civil right.”" Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

If you can read that and still not "get" why marriage is important to people who aren't religious, you're not trying to understand.





Explain to me how any of this changes if you put "civil union" instead of "civil marriage"? I understand why that level of commitment is important to any one, religious or not; I am married. What I don't understand is why it matters what word we use to describe it. And nothing in the above has anything to do with state mandated marriage licenses. Again, in my view the only reason why gay marriage was ever an issue is because the government is allowed to say who gets to get married. Take the government out of it and there is no problem. No one gets any benefits. However, as long as that is not the case everyone gets the same deal.

Marriage is a contract between two parties, with a marriage license comes certain protections and rights of spouses to claims of property.

Do you understand that marriage is not required to be performed in a religious setting to be a proper marriage? That the original reason to get married was to join properties and assets of families? Marriages were around long before "the church" was.

HeatherKat

What I don't get is why you care what it's called? If you're all for equal rights, why not just call it marriage? Who's it hurting? By insisting on a different name, you're denying that all these relationships are equal. That's what's homophobic about insisting on it not being called marriage all the way around.

kkitkat79

TrixieJess said:

Explain to me how any of this changes if you put "civil union" instead of "civil marriage"? I understand why that level of commitment is important to any one, religious or not; I am married. What I don't understand is why it matters what word we use to describe it. And nothing in the above has anything to do with state mandated marriage licenses. Again, in my view the only reason why gay marriage was ever an issue is because the government is allowed to say who gets to get married. Take the government out of it and there is no problem. No one gets any benefits. However, as long as that is not the case everyone gets the same deal.

Marriage is a contract between two parties, with a marriage license comes certain protections and rights of spouses to claims of property. Do you understand that marriage is not required to be performed in a religious setting to be a proper marriage? That the original reason to get married was to join properties and assets of families? Marriages were around long before "the church" was.

Do you think it is possible for two parties to enter a private contract without needing to obtain a license from the state? 

kkitkat79

HeatherKat said:

What I don't get is why you care what it's called? If you're all for equal rights, why not just call it marriage? Who's it hurting? By insisting on a different name, you're denying that all these relationships are equal. That's what's homophobic about insisting on it not being called marriage all the way around.

I don't care what it is called. I am not religious. However, apparently it does bother some religious people. Why would you want to offend them?

On a serious note, as I already argued, the way around it is a complete separation between church and state. This way everyone will get the same legal title; both religious and not religious, gay and straight, black and white, people with blond hair and people with polka-dot hair. Then if anyone wants to have a religious ceremony they can have one. I guess we can have a debate about what the legal title should be. I propose "pure awesomeness". I think it describes it perfectly:

"Pure Awesomeness is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, Pure Awesomeness is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and with whom to be Purely Awesome is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.
It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that Pure Awesomeness has long been termed a “civil right.”" Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

HeatherKat

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

What I don't get is why you care what it's called? If you're all for equal rights, why not just call it marriage? Who's it hurting? By insisting on a different name, you're denying that all these relationships are equal. That's what's homophobic about insisting on it not being called marriage all the way around.

I don't care what it is called. I am not religious. However, apparently it does bother some religious people. Why would you want to offend them?

On a serious note, as I already argued, the way around it is a complete separation between church and state. This way everyone will get the same legal title; both religious and not religious, gay and straight, black and white, people with blond hair and people with polka-dot hair. Then if anyone wants to have a religious ceremony they can have one. I guess we can have a debate about what the legal title should be. I propose "pure awesomeness". I think it describes it perfectly:

"Pure Awesomeness is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, Pure Awesomeness is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and with whom to be Purely Awesome is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.
It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that Pure Awesomeness has long been termed a “civil right.”" Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

What I don't get is why you care what it's called? If you're all for equal rights, why not just call it marriage? Who's it hurting? By insisting on a different name, you're denying that all these relationships are equal. That's what's homophobic about insisting on it not being called marriage all the way around.

I don't care what it is called. I am not religious. However, apparently it does bother some religious people. Why would you want to offend them?

On a serious note, as I already argued, the way around it is a complete separation between church and state. This way everyone will get the same legal title; both religious and not religious, gay and straight, black and white, people with blond hair and people with polka-dot hair. Then if anyone wants to have a religious ceremony they can have one. I guess we can have a debate about what the legal title should be. I propose "pure awesomeness". I think it describes it perfectly:

"Pure Awesomeness is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, Pure Awesomeness is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and with whom to be Purely Awesome is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.
It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that Pure Awesomeness has long been termed a “civil right.”" Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

What I don't get is why you care what it's called? If you're all for equal rights, why not just call it marriage? Who's it hurting? By insisting on a different name, you're denying that all these relationships are equal. That's what's homophobic about insisting on it not being called marriage all the way around.

I don't care what it is called. I am not religious. However, apparently it does bother some religious people. Why would you want to offend them?

On a serious note, as I already argued, the way around it is a complete separation between church and state. This way everyone will get the same legal title; both religious and not religious, gay and straight, black and white, people with blond hair and people with polka-dot hair. Then if anyone wants to have a religious ceremony they can have one. I guess we can have a debate about what the legal title should be. I propose "pure awesomeness". I think it describes it perfectly:

"Pure Awesomeness is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.” Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, Pure Awesomeness is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and with whom to be Purely Awesome is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition.
It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that Pure Awesomeness has long been termed a “civil right.”" Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

Because I don't particularly care if I offend bigots?

Some people are offended that black people can drink out of the same water fountain. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to humor them.

chibiyui

\

Yeah, as long as the Republican party is sucking the Religious Right's dick I pretty much will only vote Democrat, even if I think that Democrat sucks, because I can stand idily by and watch my rights and bodily autonomy get rolled back. You want to be pro-life as a individual? Cool, I respect your beliefs. You want to be pro-life and tell me what to do with my body and medical descions? You can fuck right off.

kkitkat79

HeatherKat said:

Because I don't particularly care if I offend bigots? Some people are offended that black people can drink out of the same water fountain. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to humor them.

I am sorry, but holding certain beliefs does not imply that one is a bigot. A bigot is one who acts on those beliefs to the exclusion of others. For example one who insists that it should be legal to separate public water fountains along racial lines is a bigot. One who privately chooses to only drink at home because he doesn't like drinking out of the same fountain as people of a different race is not. For sure he holds some messed up beliefs, but that is his right.  

With respect to what to call a civil partnership between consenting adults I think our society can come to a consensus without infringing on anyone's beliefs. 

jacques27

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

Because I don't particularly care if I offend bigots? Some people are offended that black people can drink out of the same water fountain. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to humor them.

I am sorry, but holding certain beliefs does not imply that one is a bigot. A bigot is one who acts on those beliefs to the exclusion of others. For example one who insists that it should be legal to separate public water fountains along racial lines is a bigot. One who privately chooses to only drink at home because he doesn't like drinking out of the same fountain as people of a different race is not. For sure he holds some messed up beliefs, but that is his right.  

With respect to what to call a civil partnership between consenting adults I think our society can come to a consensus without infringing on anyone's beliefs. 

Nope.

That's not even a little bit correct.

Bigot is a noun, not a verb.  One does not need to engage in outward acts of bigotry to be a bigot.  Being a bigot, the noun, merely means one who is intolerant of opinions and others who differ.  If you hold prejudiced beliefs that you are superior and are intolerant of others who differ, you are, in fact, a bigot - no further action required.  And if you really, really want to stick by that "bigots are only bigots if they verb it" stance, then let's just consider holding the beliefs to be an act in and of itself.  In fact, one could argue that your very poorly conceived example of only drinking water at home is actually an act of bigotry - I am ACTIVELY drinking (verb) my water at my home and ACTIVELY avoiding (verb) water fountains where there may be people I ACTIVELY believe (verb) are different and inferior to me.  It may be the dumbest and most ineffective way to let your bigot flag fly since people may not even realize the reasoning for you doing it or that you even are doing it unless they are paying very close attention, but that doesn't mean that you aren't a bigot - you're just a quiet, ineffectual one.

The only thing you have even half right in that paragraph is that yes, people indeed do have the right to hold bigoted beliefs.

kkitkat79

jacques27 said:

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

Because I don't particularly care if I offend bigots? Some people are offended that black people can drink out of the same water fountain. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to humor them.

I am sorry, but holding certain beliefs does not imply that one is a bigot. A bigot is one who acts on those beliefs to the exclusion of others. For example one who insists that it should be legal to separate public water fountains along racial lines is a bigot. One who privately chooses to only drink at home because he doesn't like drinking out of the same fountain as people of a different race is not. For sure he holds some messed up beliefs, but that is his right.  

With respect to what to call a civil partnership between consenting adults I think our society can come to a consensus without infringing on anyone's beliefs. 

Nope.

That's not even a little bit correct.

Bigot is a noun, not a verb.  One does not need to engage in outward acts of bigotry to be a bigot.  Being a bigot, the noun, merely means one who is intolerant of opinions and others who differ.  If you hold prejudiced beliefs that you are superior and are intolerant of others who differ, you are, in fact, a bigot - no further action required.  And if you really, really want to stick by that "bigots are only bigots if they verb it" stance, then let's just consider holding the beliefs to be an act in and of itself.  In fact, one could argue that your very poorly conceived example of only drinking water at home is actually an act of bigotry - I am ACTIVELY drinking (verb) my water at my home and ACTIVELY avoiding (verb) water fountains where there may be people I ACTIVELY believe (verb) are different and inferior to me.  It may be the dumbest and most ineffective way to let your bigot flag fly since people may not even realize the reasoning for you doing it or that you even are doing it unless they are paying very close attention, but that doesn't mean that you aren't a bigot - you're just a quiet, ineffectual one.

The only thing you have even half right in that paragraph is that yes, people indeed do have the right to hold bigoted beliefs.

Just because one holds the belief that black people are inferior to white people does not mean that one does not respect or intolerant of others belief that they are not. A belief is not bigoted, intolerance is. 

chibiyui

kkitkat79 said:

jacques27 said:

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

Because I don't particularly care if I offend bigots? Some people are offended that black people can drink out of the same water fountain. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to humor them.

I am sorry, but holding certain beliefs does not imply that one is a bigot. A bigot is one who acts on those beliefs to the exclusion of others. For example one who insists that it should be legal to separate public water fountains along racial lines is a bigot. One who privately chooses to only drink at home because he doesn't like drinking out of the same fountain as people of a different race is not. For sure he holds some messed up beliefs, but that is his right.  

With respect to what to call a civil partnership between consenting adults I think our society can come to a consensus without infringing on anyone's beliefs. 

Nope.

That's not even a little bit correct.

Bigot is a noun, not a verb.  One does not need to engage in outward acts of bigotry to be a bigot.  Being a bigot, the noun, merely means one who is intolerant of opinions and others who differ.  If you hold prejudiced beliefs that you are superior and are intolerant of others who differ, you are, in fact, a bigot - no further action required.  And if you really, really want to stick by that "bigots are only bigots if they verb it" stance, then let's just consider holding the beliefs to be an act in and of itself.  In fact, one could argue that your very poorly conceived example of only drinking water at home is actually an act of bigotry - I am ACTIVELY drinking (verb) my water at my home and ACTIVELY avoiding (verb) water fountains where there may be people I ACTIVELY believe (verb) are different and inferior to me.  It may be the dumbest and most ineffective way to let your bigot flag fly since people may not even realize the reasoning for you doing it or that you even are doing it unless they are paying very close attention, but that doesn't mean that you aren't a bigot - you're just a quiet, ineffectual one.

The only thing you have even half right in that paragraph is that yes, people indeed do have the right to hold bigoted beliefs.

Just because one holds the belief that black people are inferior to white people does not mean that one does not respect or intolerant of others belief that they are not. A belief is not bigoted, intolerance is. 

justsie

kkitkat79 said:

jacques27 said:

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

Because I don't particularly care if I offend bigots? Some people are offended that black people can drink out of the same water fountain. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to humor them.

I am sorry, but holding certain beliefs does not imply that one is a bigot. A bigot is one who acts on those beliefs to the exclusion of others. For example one who insists that it should be legal to separate public water fountains along racial lines is a bigot. One who privately chooses to only drink at home because he doesn't like drinking out of the same fountain as people of a different race is not. For sure he holds some messed up beliefs, but that is his right.  

With respect to what to call a civil partnership between consenting adults I think our society can come to a consensus without infringing on anyone's beliefs. 

Nope.

That's not even a little bit correct.

Bigot is a noun, not a verb.  One does not need to engage in outward acts of bigotry to be a bigot.  Being a bigot, the noun, merely means one who is intolerant of opinions and others who differ.  If you hold prejudiced beliefs that you are superior and are intolerant of others who differ, you are, in fact, a bigot - no further action required.  And if you really, really want to stick by that "bigots are only bigots if they verb it" stance, then let's just consider holding the beliefs to be an act in and of itself.  In fact, one could argue that your very poorly conceived example of only drinking water at home is actually an act of bigotry - I am ACTIVELY drinking (verb) my water at my home and ACTIVELY avoiding (verb) water fountains where there may be people I ACTIVELY believe (verb) are different and inferior to me.  It may be the dumbest and most ineffective way to let your bigot flag fly since people may not even realize the reasoning for you doing it or that you even are doing it unless they are paying very close attention, but that doesn't mean that you aren't a bigot - you're just a quiet, ineffectual one.

The only thing you have even half right in that paragraph is that yes, people indeed do have the right to hold bigoted beliefs.

Just because one holds the belief that black people are inferior to white people does not mean that one does not respect or intolerant of others belief that they are not. A belief is not bigoted, intolerance is. 

Are you arguing that people who believe that another race is inferior should be tolerated. Because Fuck. That. 

(general you) Your belief is shitty and people will call you out on that belief. No one should have to "tolerate" being thought of as inferior. The fact that this is even being suggested is blowing my mind. 

jacques27

I don't feel like quoting, though I would love to see David Tennant's face twice in row as I scroll.

How, pray tell, is believing you (general) are inferior to me (general) respectful?  The mere act of believing you are inferior is having a lack of respect for you as a human being.  They cannot co-exist.

I may choose to not outwardly put a burning cross on your lawn or paint a swastika on your garage or throw a Molotov cocktail through your window, but the mere act of me choosing in that moment to not be a hateful, law-breaking asshole doesn't mean that I respect you.

kkitkat79

jacques27 said:

I don't feel like quoting, though I would love to see David Tennant's face twice in row as I scroll.

How, pray tell, is believing you (general) are inferior to me (general) respectful?  The mere act of believing you are inferior displays a lack of respect for you as a human being.  They cannot co-exist.

I may choose to not outwardly put a burning cross on your lawn or paint a swastika on your garage or throw a Molotov cocktail through your window, the be mere act of me choosing in that moment to not being a hateful, law-breaking asshole doesn't mean that I respect you.

So what? Whether you (general you) respect me or not is of no interest to me. As long as I have the same legal rights as you do you are free to think that I am inferior to you. I am not the thought police.

ETA: By choosing not to be a violent, hateful, asshole one shows their tolerance toward those who they believe are inferior. 

STARMOON44

kkitkat79 said:

jacques27 said:

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

kkitkat79 said:

kkitkat79 said:

Because I don't particularly care if I offend bigots?

Some people are offended that black people can drink out of the same water fountain. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to humor them.

I am sorry, but holding certain beliefs does not imply that one is a bigot. A bigot is one who acts on those beliefs to the exclusion of others. For example one who insists that it should be legal to separate public water fountains along racial lines is a bigot. One who privately chooses to only drink at home because he doesn't like drinking out of the same fountain as people of a different race is not. For sure he holds some messed up beliefs, but that is his right.  

With respect to what to call a civil partnership between consenting adults I think our society can come to a consensus without infringing on anyone's beliefs. 

Nope.

That's not even a little bit correct.

Bigot is a noun, not a verb.  One does not need to engage in outward acts of bigotry to be a bigot.  Being a bigot, the noun, merely means one who is intolerant of opinions and others who differ.  If you hold prejudiced beliefs that you are superior and are intolerant of others who differ, you are, in fact, a bigot - no further action required.  And if you really, really want to stick by that "bigots are only bigots if they verb it" stance, then let's just consider holding the beliefs to be an act in and of itself.  In fact, one could argue that your very poorly conceived example of only drinking water at home is actually an act of bigotry - I am ACTIVELY drinking (verb) my water at my home and ACTIVELY avoiding (verb) water fountains where there may be people I ACTIVELY believe (verb) are different and inferior to me.  It may be the dumbest and most ineffective way to let your bigot flag fly since people may not even realize the reasoning for you doing it or that you even are doing it unless they are paying very close attention, but that doesn't mean that you aren't a bigot - you're just a quiet, ineffectual one.

The only thing you have even half right in that paragraph is that yes, people indeed do have the right to hold bigoted beliefs.



Just because one holds the belief that black people are inferior to white people does not mean that one does not respect or intolerant of others belief that they are not. A belief is not bigoted, intolerance is. 




The fuck? That's fucking racists as all hell. If one believes black people are inferior, one is a racist fucking bigot.

hellohkb

......What just happened, guys?

kkitkat79

justsie said:

 

Are you arguing that people who believe that another race is inferior should be tolerated. Because Fuck. That. 

(general you) Your belief is shitty and people will call you out on that belief. No one should have to "tolerate" being thought of as inferior. The fact that this is even being suggested is blowing my mind. 

Unless you suggest that we should have laws against certain kinds of thoughts and a thought police to enforce these laws you have to tolerate it. Tolerate meaning recognizing their right to those thoughts and their right to express it verbally.  

chibiyui

Look I get English isn't your first language, but believing someone is inferior to you because of their skin color, orientation, etc is pretty freaking bigoted. 

No, I'm not interested in policing anyones thoughts, but the idea that someone should get a cookie because they don't call black people the N word to their face is fucked up.

STARMOON44

hellohkb said:

......What just happened, guys?

Someone decided to spend her afternoon speaking up for racist homophobic bigots. It's hard being them ya know!

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

TrixieJess said:

Explain to me how any of this changes if you put "civil union" instead of "civil marriage"? I understand why that level of commitment is important to any one, religious or not; I am married. What I don't understand is why it matters what word we use to describe it. And nothing in the above has anything to do with state mandated marriage licenses. Again, in my view the only reason why gay marriage was ever an issue is because the government is allowed to say who gets to get married. Take the government out of it and there is no problem. No one gets any benefits. However, as long as that is not the case everyone gets the same deal.

Marriage is a contract between two parties, with a marriage license comes certain protections and rights of spouses to claims of property.

Do you understand that marriage is not required to be performed in a religious setting to be a proper marriage? That the original reason to get married was to join properties and assets of families? Marriages were around long before "the church" was.




Do you think it is possible for two parties to enter a private contract without needing to obtain a license from the state? 

Once everyone can obtain a license from the State, everyone is on an even playing field. Private contracts still answer to public laws. Do you understand that?

photokitty

If the church wants to have a monopoly on a word they should make one up, not use an existing one and decide only God can define a word already in practice. Like transubstanciation...pretty safe to say no one was off using that word before the Catholics came up with it.

The state has defined the civil union of marriage as just marriage, hence marriage licence. The church defines it as a sacramental marriage. If you want to say you have a sacramental marriage, by all means add the extra word. But own the fact that you think of makes you superior to me and my civil marriage.

**spoiler alert - it doesn't. And pride is still one of the 7 deadly sins.**

snowywinter

kkitkat79 said:

HeatherKat said:

What I don't get is why you care what it's called? If you're all for equal rights, why not just call it marriage? Who's it hurting? By insisting on a different name, you're denying that all these relationships are equal. That's what's homophobic about insisting on it not being called marriage all the way around.

I don't care what it is called. I am not religious. However, apparently it does bother some religious people. Why would you want to offend them?

Because frankly, I don't give a damn that special little snowflakes are offended that the word "marriage" can be applied to couples they don't approve of. The universe does not revolve around them and their oh-so-sensitive feelings. They need to put on their big boy and big girl panties, build a bridge, and get the hell over it. And yes, I most certainly would say this to their face. In fact, one of my good friends and I don't speak anymore because of the homophobic "protect marriage" rants of her husband.

kkitkat79

TrixieJess said:

TrixieJess said:

Explain to me how any of this changes if you put "civil union" instead of "civil marriage"? I understand why that level of commitment is important to any one, religious or not; I am married. What I don't understand is why it matters what word we use to describe it. And nothing in the above has anything to do with state mandated marriage licenses. Again, in my view the only reason why gay marriage was ever an issue is because the government is allowed to say who gets to get married. Take the government out of it and there is no problem. No one gets any benefits. However, as long as that is not the case everyone gets the same deal.

Marriage is a contract between two parties, with a marriage license comes certain protections and rights of spouses to claims of property. Do you understand that marriage is not required to be performed in a religious setting to be a proper marriage? That the original reason to get married was to join properties and assets of families? Marriages were around long before "the church" was.

Do you think it is possible for two parties to enter a private contract without needing to obtain a license from the state? 

Once everyone can obtain a license from the State, everyone is on an even playing field. Private contracts still answer to public laws. Do you understand that?

What is the obsession with needing governmental approval for what should be a private deal between consenting adults?

To answer your question, of course I understand that once everyone can obtain a license everyone is on the same playing field. What I am saying is that there should be no need for that type of license. Why do you think it should be necessary to get a marriage license?

photokitty said:

If the church wants to have a monopoly on a word they should make one up, not use an existing one and decide only God can define a word already in practice. Like transubstanciation...pretty safe to say no one was off using that word before the Catholics came up with it. The state has defined the civil union of marriage as just marriage, hence marriage licence. The church defines it as a sacramental marriage. If you want to say you have a sacramental marriage, by all means add the extra word. But own the fact that you think of makes you superior to me and my civil marriage. **spoiler alert - it doesn't. And pride is still one of the 7 deadly sins.**

This is very very reasonable and thank you for educating me that there is actually a separate definition that is used by the church. I did not know that. I then don't understand the objection on the part of religious people to using the word marriage. 

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

TrixieJess said:

kkitkat79 said:

TrixieJess said:

Explain to me how any of this changes if you put "civil union" instead of "civil marriage"? I understand why that level of commitment is important to any one, religious or not; I am married. What I don't understand is why it matters what word we use to describe it. And nothing in the above has anything to do with state mandated marriage licenses. Again, in my view the only reason why gay marriage was ever an issue is because the government is allowed to say who gets to get married. Take the government out of it and there is no problem. No one gets any benefits. However, as long as that is not the case everyone gets the same deal.

Marriage is a contract between two parties, with a marriage license comes certain protections and rights of spouses to claims of property.

Do you understand that marriage is not required to be performed in a religious setting to be a proper marriage? That the original reason to get married was to join properties and assets of families? Marriages were around long before "the church" was.

Do you think it is possible for two parties to enter a private contract without needing to obtain a license from the state? 

Once everyone can obtain a license from the State, everyone is on an even playing field. Private contracts still answer to public laws. Do you understand that?


What is the obsession with needing governmental approval for what should be a private deal between consenting adults?

To answer your question, of course I understand that once everyone can obtain a license everyone is on the same playing field. What I am saying is that there should be no need for that type of license. Why do you think it should be necessary to get a marriage license?

photokitty said:

If the church wants to have a monopoly on a word they should make one up, not use an existing one and decide only God can define a word already in practice. Like transubstanciation...pretty safe to say no one was off using that word before the Catholics came up with it.

The state has defined the civil union of marriage as just marriage, hence marriage licence. The church defines it as a sacramental marriage. If you want to say you have a sacramental marriage, by all means add the extra word. But own the fact that you think of makes you superior to me and my civil marriage.

**spoiler alert - it doesn't. And pride is still one of the 7 deadly sins.**

This is very very reasonable and thank you for educating me that there is actually a separate definition that is used by the church. I did not know that. I then don't understand the objection on the part of religious people to using the word marriage. 

What's your obsession with religion being a part of marriage? All government does is provide a guideline under which all laws are followed and a way to enforce. Without such, there is anarchy. If you would like to live in anarchy, there are several communes in which you can live that subscribe to that lifestyle. No judgement.

kkitkat79

TrixieJess said:

What's your obsession with religion being a part of marriage? All government does is provide a guideline under which all laws are followed and a way to enforce. Without such, there is anarchy. If you would like to live in anarchy, there are several communes in which you can live that subscribe to that lifestyle. No judgement.

There are two parts to this. With respect to religion and marriage, I have no dog in this fight. I was under the impression that the word marriage carries a religious connotation.  I think the belief is that marriage originated from God or something like that. So I can understand the objection to calling civil unions (any civil unions not just gay) a marriage. However, as @photokitty has pointed out the church already has a separate name that can be used so now I really don't understand why people who are religious are making such a big deal.

With respect to marriage license. If I am not mistaken a marriage license is a document that authorizes a couple to marry. My question is why do I need authorization from the state to marry? 

HeatherKat

kkitkat79 said:

TrixieJess said:

kkitkat79 said:

What's your obsession with religion being a part of marriage? All government does is provide a guideline under which all laws are followed and a way to enforce. Without such, there is anarchy. If you would like to live in anarchy, there are several communes in which you can live that subscribe to that lifestyle. No judgement.

There are two parts to this. With respect to religion and marriage, I have no dog in this fight. I was under the impression that the word marriage carries a religious connotation.  I think the belief is that marriage originated from God or something like that. So I can understand the objection to calling civil unions (any civil unions not just gay) a marriage. However, as @photokitty has pointed out the church already has a separate name that can be used so now I really don't understand why people who are religious are making such a big deal.

With respect to marriage license. If I am not mistaken a marriage license is a document that authorizes a couple to marry. My question is why do I need authorization from the state to marry? 

There are over 1000 rights and privileges afforded to married couples, from tax benefits to making medical decisions. If you want to take advantage of these benefits from the government, the government needs to know that you hold yourselves as a married couple. Hence, a marriage license.

kkitkat79

HeatherKat said:

There are two parts to this. With respect to religion and marriage, I have no dog in this fight. I was under the impression that the word marriage carries a religious connotation.  I think the belief is that marriage originated from God or something like that. So I can understand the objection to calling civil unions (any civil unions not just gay) a marriage. However, as @photokitty has pointed out the church already has a separate name that can be used so now I really don't understand why people who are religious are making such a big deal.

With respect to marriage license. If I am not mistaken a marriage license is a document that authorizes a couple to marry. My question is why do I need authorization from the state to marry? 

There are over 1000 rights and privileges afforded to married couples, from tax benefits to making medical decisions. If you want to take advantage of these benefits from the government, the government needs to know that you hold yourselves as a married couple. Hence, a marriage license.

I don't think this is right. A marriage license authorities you to marry, it gives you a permission to marry. If the only thing the government wanted is to know that a couple holds themselves as a married couple the only thing the couple would need to do would be filling out some kind of a form saying "hi, government, we are married now, give me benefits." As of now what happens is you say to the government "hi government, would it be ok if I marry this person?" and the government says "sure, go ahead." or "nope, I don't think so". Why should I have to ask anyone whether it is ok for me to marry whoever I want.