Rush Limbaugh concedes conservatives 'lost' marriage debate - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40107297]Ideally, Christians really ought to hold themselves to the Gospels and nothing more in the Bible. Especially the Old Testament which was attached to it for political reasons.[/QUOTE] Uh no, people actually believe that stuff, alot of people. The party has secured these people as voters through it's insane legislation. This old testament stuff has been popular since the Great Awakening's and 1930s.

Golden mean fallacy all up in this thread.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106339] Christians define marriage in a way we don't. For them it's defined as between a man and a woman. It's a religious thing. Not a political thing. They don't want the word 'marriage' attached to something counter to their beliefs. Completely understandable.[/QUOTE] except it's not and it's pure stupidity to think that one religion should define marriage for everyone else [quote]It's analogous to asking for an atheist christmas or gay passover. They don't, and shouldn't, happen in the views of the religious party.[/quote] no it's not [quote]No doubt people will misinterpret this and rate me dumb, but that will really just reinforce the point for the people who get what I'm saying.[/quote] sure

[QUOTE=Mingebox;40109317]Golden mean fallacy all up in this thread.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"The fact that one is confronted with an individual who strongly argues that slavery is wrong and another who argues equally strongly that slavery is perfectly legitimate in no way suggests that the truth must be somewhere in the middle."[/QUOTE] Yep that's about it.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40109255]Uh no, people actually believe that stuff, alot of people. The party has secured these people as voters through it's insane legislation. This old testament stuff has been popular since the Great Awakening's and 1930s.[/QUOTE] Learn the difference between "ought" and "is".

[QUOTE=Mingebox;40109317]Golden mean fallacy all up in this thread.[/QUOTE] Except nobody's saying that the middle ground is the absolute answer. I'm all for LGBT rights. I still think it's shitty to just piss all over Christians because they don't agree with you. That's not an argument to moderation. I still hold that my opinions on gay marriage are better. I'm not saying that we should compromise. I'm saying that people should stop flinging shit and hating everyone who doesn't hold the same opinions. That's all I ever do in these sorts of threads and yet people think I'm trying to argue to moderation. No. Gays should be able to get married, end of. My argument is that people actually harass and act spitefully and hatefully towards people who hold an opposing position. Nobody in here has made an argument to moderation as far as I can see. It's stupid to think that the middle ground is the absolute answer in something like LGBT marriage rights. Threads like these are just people arguing whether or not you have the right to be a hateful cunt to somebody else because they hold differing, old-fashioned beliefs. The answer is no. You can't expect tolerance and not give it too.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;40109596] I still think it's shitty to just piss all over Christians because they don't agree with you.[/QUOTE] nobody is pissing all over christians, they are just stopping christians from pissing all over the concept of marriage. [QUOTE=.Isak.;40109596] I still hold that my opinions on gay marriage are better. I'm not saying that we should compromise. I'm saying that people should stop flinging shit and hating everyone who doesn't hold the same opinions. That's all I ever do in these sorts of threads and yet people think I'm trying to argue to moderation. No. Gays should be able to get married, end of. My argument is that people actually harass and act spitefully and hatefully towards people who hold an opposing position. Nobody in here has made an argument to moderation as far as I can see. It's stupid to think that the middle ground is the absolute answer in something like LGBT marriage rights. Threads like these are just people arguing whether or not you have the right to be a hateful cunt to somebody else because they hold differing, old-fashioned beliefs. The answer is no. You can't expect tolerance and not give it too.[/QUOTE] none of this happened in this thread though, you are just trying to be needlessly superior.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;40109596]Except nobody's saying that the middle ground is the absolute answer. I'm all for LGBT rights. I still think it's shitty to just piss all over Christians because they don't agree with you. That's not an argument to moderation. I still hold that my opinions on gay marriage are better. I'm not saying that we should compromise. I'm saying that people should stop flinging shit and hating everyone who doesn't hold the same opinions. That's all I ever do in these sorts of threads and yet people think I'm trying to argue to moderation. No. Gays should be able to get married, end of. My argument is that people actually harass and act spitefully and hatefully towards people who hold an opposing position. Nobody in here has made an argument to moderation as far as I can see. It's stupid to think that the middle ground is the absolute answer in something like LGBT marriage rights. Threads like these are just people arguing whether or not you have the right to be a hateful cunt to somebody else because they hold differing, old-fashioned beliefs. The answer is no. You can't expect tolerance and not give it too.[/QUOTE] You do this in a lot of threads, acting above the issues and other posters, acting above "labels" and what not claiming to be less childish for it, but I don't think so. You're failing to confront hard truths. Life has moments where people are going to get offended, and people who are in the wrong in terms of equality are going to get shit on by other reasonable people, and they deserve to be shit on for that. There's no need to just hate someone for their opinion, but when that opinion affects and oppresses others in it's own manner I see no reason to respect that. People who have emotional reactions to things like gay marriage are not here to talk, they're not around to argue or discuss, they're there to be emotional and state opinions. Of course this is true of the other side, but the other side isn't trying to live in a world that negatively affects anyone else in a realistic sense.

to people who are extremely offended by gay marriage and think gays are just all perverted monsters [video=youtube;FfnYJdT9fAo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfnYJdT9fAo[/video] I don't care about your stupid opinion and think you're a dick because I think just because you're "offended" shouldn't mean you have the right to take away other peoples rights. yet you still have the right to have an opinion to people who hate gays and are progay regardless because you believe that isn't grounds for taking away rights... you make the best of people, because you're against something yet still accept it. You're better than people who both like and accept gay marriage. To people who are gay and want to ban gay marriage... please fuck yourself with a 37'' pipe wrench and get dyssantary.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106339]God you guys are so left it's sad.[/QUOTE] it annoys me more than it should when people use left and right to describe events which are not at all on the left/right spectrum edit: what i'm getting at is you're dumb

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;40109195]if my point was that blacks and whites shouldn't interracial marriage because of my beliefs, would you consider my viewpoint? exactly, we already listened to the opposite's side opinion and deemed it completely shit[/QUOTE] Exactly my point! What I was saying was the people posting earlier in the thread had an air of blind moral superiority about them that was the same type of moral superiority christians and right wing conservatives use to argue their point, i.e. "I'm right because I am." I was simply saying, like you are, that by considering their points in an objective way, we see that they're wrong.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40110645]Exactly my point! What I was saying was the people posting earlier in the thread had an air of blind moral superiority about them that was the same type of moral superiority christians used to argue their point. I was simply saying, like you are, that by considering their points in an objective way, we see that they're wrong.[/QUOTE] they aren't equally bad What if you understand the other side of the argument and they are wrong why would you respect that? not everyone gets to be right, so i find it really stupid that we have to act like everyone is

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40110720]they aren't equally bad What if you understand the other side of the argument and they are wrong why would you respect that? not everyone gets to be right, so i find it really stupid that we have to act like everyone is[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter, because they were using the same type of blind support, anybody opposed to gay marriage would easily be able to refute them as being ignorant. All I'm saying is to look at it in a way that gay marriage opponents could not refute. Look up the literary definition of "Rebuttal" You cannot have any sort of persuasive argument without conceding some ground (I concede that the christians have a religious version of marriage they wish to protect) and then refuting it (That the christian viewpoint shouldn't be considered due to the secular nature of the country's laws and the fact that they are keeping people from being happy making them morally wrong)

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40110736]It doesn't matter, because they were using the same type of blind support, anybody opposed to gay marriage would easily be able to refute them as being ignorant. All I'm saying is to look at it in a way that gay marriage opponents could not refute.[/QUOTE] And that is? People who are opposed to it on grounds that are unreasonable and based on lies or emotional reactions are not going to be refuted by logic or anything else. He brought up the black and white segregation issues, a good analogue to the gay issues going on today. People believed with all their heart and emotional reactions that the other side was bad because they were them. It really isn't possible to be on the other side of the argument saying "They deserve rights" and being unreasonable in that process.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40110645]Exactly my point! What I was saying was the people posting earlier in the thread had an air of blind moral superiority about them that was the same type of moral superiority christians and right wing conservatives use to argue their point, i.e. "I'm right because I am." I was simply saying, like you are, that by considering their points in an objective way, we see that they're wrong.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that's what people have been doing

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40110736] You cannot have any sort of persuasive argument without conceding some ground (I concede that the christians have a religious version of marriage they wish to protect) and then refuting it (That the christian viewpoint shouldn't be considered due to the secular nature of the country's laws and the fact that they are keeping people from being happy making them morally wrong)[/QUOTE] Uh, some, if not most of the religiously minded people you're arguing with do not feel that the US is a secular nation, regardless of that being true, in the face of purposeful stubborness, why should there be respect? I understand the point, don't insult those you intend to educate, but often times, there is no chance of educating anyone on the other side.

I think this debate has reached the end, It's just going to get to the point where we just repeat what we've already said. Let's just agree that gay marriage = good, rush limbaugh = idiot If we really want to continue this discussion I think the proper place would be mass debate. I'm sorry for sparking this whole thing and I might not be conveying what I feel in my head in my writing.

[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40106339]God you guys are so left it's sad. You bandwagon so hard you can't consider other viewpoints. Think for yourselves sometimes. No doubt people will misinterpret this and rate me dumb, but that will really just reinforce the point for thr people who get what I'm saying.[/QUOTE] wow such an individual i cant even read your post it hurts my small drone mind [editline]31st March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;40110966]That seems odd to me because moral superiority unless you're a theist (assume a majority of the people here are not) cannot possibly exist since there would be no basis for Objective reality. If anyone here thinks they have a moral highground, they're kidding themselves.[/QUOTE] i think morality can be objective because actions have consequences. suffering and happiness are objective, we can scientifically test for them. so you can have an objective morality based on what makes people the happiest and suffer the least.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40111393]I toyed around with that idea for a long time, though it stopped seeming coherent after a while. Saying a moral has [I]consequences[/I] presupposes ideals or goals. (This is why I prefer to use to term implications)[/QUOTE] gggrr semantics [QUOTE=Vodkavia;40111393]These goals and ideals may but common, but they're not universal or based on anything other than opinion. Applying a fact does not make a moral objective. A moral Might state "You should not eat a lot of chocolate (moral) because it will contribute to America's Obesity epidemic(goal)" but this assumes I have an actual concern for either A. My health or B. I care about the collective health of the country. I'm only doing something wrong in the eyes of those who hold that moral and the goals that it hopes to achieve. [/QUOTE] well thats where the concept of free agency would come in. if you want to eat a lot of chocolate then thats just you doing that. i dont think morality matters or exists unless theres more than one person affected by an action

[QUOTE=J!NX;40110509]to people who hate gays and are progay regardless because you believe that isn't grounds for taking away rights... you make the best of people, because you're against something yet still accept it. You're better than people who both like and accept gay marriage.[/QUOTE] I dislike the idea of abortion unless it's to save the woman's life or if it's rape related. But I'm still pro-choice. With emphasis on [I]choice[/I]. I don't get what's so difficult to grasp when it comes to things like that.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;40111619]I dislike the idea of abortion unless it's to save the woman's life or if it's rape related. But I'm still pro-choice. With emphasis on [I]choice[/I]. I don't get what's so difficult to grasp when it comes to things like that.[/QUOTE] exactly that after all, just because you think gays are icky, what makes you so above them that you can say they aren't allowed to be happy?

Federal and state marriage licensing is up to the government. Not much I can do about it. If gays want tax breaks and last visitation rights, whatever straight couples get, then by law they should because of America's Constitution forbidding discrimination. All I am concerned about is that churches should not be forced to marry those it doesn't want to, and I am allowed to have my opinions wherever they may lie.

no one's trying to stop people from having opinions or to mandate that they can't have those opinions however, if you express a stupid opinion I don't see what makes your opinion unassailable.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40111058]suffering and happiness are objective, we can scientifically test for them. so you can have an objective morality based on what makes people the happiest and suffer the least.[/QUOTE] This assumes happiness as an objective good and suffering as an objective bad. For example, IQ is also objectively measurable... yet you don't seem to base morality on increasing IQ. The fact that something is objective doesn't at all mean it's related to morality.

People seem to think that having an opinion makes them immune to criticism. That saying "This is my opinion!" means they can't be called out for the fallacies they spout or have their ideas rejected.

[QUOTE=sgman91;40113186]This assumes happiness as an objective good and suffering as an objective bad.[/QUOTE] all morality is based on assumptions

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;40105985]i got a cigar limbaugh can puff on[/QUOTE] Why is that post made 1000 times better because of your avatar?

[QUOTE=thisispain;40113328]all morality is based on assumptions[/QUOTE] Than no morality is objective. The assumptions mentioned are completely relative.

I want to gay marry Rush Limbaugh.