Rainbows over the Natural State! Federal judge strikes down Arkansas' gay marriage ban - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Bazsil;44784132]soon the plan will be complete and we will have ALL the god-fearing white christian americans enslaved!!! muahahaha[/QUOTE] Yessss, excellent! *rubs pennies together and strokes gayblackjewmuslim-beard*

We are fifteen years in to the 21st century. Views like his and those of that decrepit Donald Sterling fuck have no place in modern society and should have died long ago. And I'm more than happy to push that aggressively.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44796205]Not really. I'm intolerant of people who are needlessly intolerant. He's the root problem by being intolerant of gays (don't say he isn't, he is and is just covering it up with "Well its just [I]gay marriage[/I]!") and therefore I am intolerant of him. He can change his views and stop being a bigot, gay people will always be gay and cannot and should not have to change that. There is zero obligation to be tolerant of intolerance.[/QUOTE] Except you are still being the bigot, just listen to yourself, you basically just described yourself as what a bigot is. Plus, disagreeing with it does not mean he is intolerant, as he clearly has no problems with gay people living how they want. So why does it matter if he isn't actively against them?

[QUOTE=jackteam54;44796668]Except you are still being the bigot, just listen to yourself, you basically just described yourself as what a bigot is. Plus, disagreeing with it does not mean he is intolerant, as he clearly has no problems with gay people living how they want. So why does it matter if he isn't actively against them?[/QUOTE]Yes, he is intolerant. Like, how hard is that to understand? He does have a problem with gay people living how they want because he is intolerant of them being allowed to marry. His crap about "It shouldn't be illegal." has nothing to do with him being tolerant and everything to do with his libertarian "The gubment shouldn't get to say what I can and can't do! (Unless it is abortion, then the government should say tell people they can't get abortions.)" He's first of all a hypocrite and second of all a liar. I'm not attacking him for some unchangeable characteristic of his being like his race or orientation or gender. I'm attacking him for holding a view that is intolerant of an unchangeable characteristic of a person's being. The core of the issue is that [B]gay[/B] people are getting married. And he is intollerant of that. If it was "I disagree with people getting married." it'd be arguably dumb for a different reason, but at least that is one with an arguable, defensible point "No one should get married." His problem is "Gay people shouldn't marry." Which is a way of trying to obscure the fact that he is intolerant of people who are gay. The crux of the entire dilemma is that its about gay people.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44796777]Yes, he is intolerant. Like, how hard is that to understand? He does have a problem with gay people living how they want because he is intolerant of them being allowed to marry. His crap about "It shouldn't be illegal." has nothing to do with him being tolerant and everything to do with his libertarian "The gubment shouldn't get to say what I can and can't do! (Unless it is abortion, then the government should say tell people they can't get abortions.)" He's first of all a hypocrite and second of all a liar. I'm not attacking him for some unchangeable characteristic of his being like his race or orientation or gender. I'm attacking him for holding a view that is intolerant of an unchangeable characteristic of a person's being. The core of the issue is that [B]gay[/B] people are getting married. And he is intollerant of that. If it was "I disagree with people getting married." it'd be arguably dumb for a different reason, but at least that is one with an arguable, defensible point "No one should get married." His problem is "Gay people shouldn't marry." Which is a way of trying to obscure the fact that he is intolerant of people who are gay. The crux of the entire dilemma is that its about gay people.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;_f50nRBIApo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f50nRBIApo#t=260[/video] this is basically what you sound like right now any support is good support. stop shoving your beliefs down others throats

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44796777]Yes, he is intolerant. Like, how hard is that to understand? He does have a problem with gay people living how they want because he is intolerant of them being allowed to marry. His crap about "It shouldn't be illegal." has nothing to do with him being tolerant and everything to do with his libertarian "The gubment shouldn't get to say what I can and can't do! (Unless it is abortion, then the government should say tell people they can't get abortions.)" He's first of all a hypocrite and second of all a liar. I'm not attacking him for some unchangeable characteristic of his being like his race or orientation or gender. I'm attacking him for holding a view that is intolerant of an unchangeable characteristic of a person's being. The core of the issue is that [B]gay[/B] people are getting married. And he is intollerant of that. If it was "I disagree with people getting married." it'd be arguably dumb for a different reason, but at least that is one with an arguable, defensible point "No one should get married." His problem is "Gay people shouldn't marry." Which is a way of trying to obscure the fact that he is intolerant of people who are gay. The crux of the entire dilemma is that its about gay people.[/QUOTE] Tolerance doesnt mean you like something. Tolerance means you accept it and dont let it bother you. Hes not intolerant. If he was intolerant his attitude would be more like yours. The fact that you're attacking Him for his beliefs is intolerant. The 21st Century belief isnt one of accepting everything, its of tolerating other peoples beliefs when they dont interfere with your own.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44796777]Yes, he is intolerant. Like, how hard is that to understand? He does have a problem with gay people living how they want because he is intolerant of them being allowed to marry. His crap about "It shouldn't be illegal." has nothing to do with him being tolerant and everything to do with his libertarian "The gubment shouldn't get to say what I can and can't do! (Unless it is abortion, then the government should say tell people they can't get abortions.)" He's first of all a hypocrite and second of all a liar. I'm not attacking him for some unchangeable characteristic of his being like his race or orientation or gender. I'm attacking him for holding a view that is intolerant of an unchangeable characteristic of a person's being. The core of the issue is that [B]gay[/B] people are getting married. And he is intollerant of that. If it was "I disagree with people getting married." it'd be arguably dumb for a different reason, but at least that is one with an arguable, defensible point "No one should get married." His problem is "Gay people shouldn't marry." Which is a way of trying to obscure the fact that he is intolerant of people who are gay. The crux of the entire dilemma is that its about gay people.[/QUOTE] Except he never said that he was opposed to being gay or to gays themselves, just that his opinion is that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Furthermore, he said that he has no right, or intent, to force other people to conform to his beliefs and opinions. That doesn't sound too "intolerant" to me. Really, you have no ground to stand on in this argument. You're arguing against his opinions, which you can not, and never will be able to control. Your ad-homiem attacks are childish at best since abortion and gay marriage are two completely different topics. All you're doing is throwing a temper tantrum over what somebody "thinks". But your opinion, just like his, doesn't make a difference to me at all. I don't care about either one....

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44796872][video=youtube;_f50nRBIApo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f50nRBIApo#t=260[/video] this is basically what you sound like right now any support is good support. stop shoving your beliefs down others throats[/QUOTE]No. Also, good job needing a crap video to argue for you. [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=darkrei9n;44796890]Tolerance doesnt mean you like something. Tolerance means you accept it and dont let it bother you. Hes not intolerant. If he was intolerant his attitude would be more like yours. The fact that you're attacking Him for his beliefs is intolerant. The 21st Century belief isnt one of accepting everything, its of tolerating other peoples beliefs when they dont interfere with your own.[/QUOTE]I never said he had to like it. But he isn't tolerant of it either. He is opposed to gay marriage because it is gays getting married. That is objectively intolerance. And not all beliefs are equal or deserving of respect or tolerance because most beliefs and opinions are in most cases derived from some form of reasoning (and those that are not are even worse) involving facts. So if someone says it is their belief that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe, that is an objectively wrong belief.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44796965]No. Also, good job needing a crap video to argue for you. [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] I never said he had to like it. But he isn't tolerant of it either. He is opposed to gay marriage because it is gays getting married. That is objectively intolerance. And not all beliefs are equal or deserving of respect or tolerance because most beliefs and opinions are in most cases derived from some form of reasoning (and those that are not are even worse) involving facts. So if someone says it is their belief that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe, that is an objectively wrong belief.[/QUOTE] Never said he had to be tolerant of it? So what is the entire point of your argument if it doesn't matter? You are making this drag on way too long and you should of stopped a while ago.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44796926]Except he never said that he was opposed to being gay or to gays themselves, just that his opinion is that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Furthermore, he said that he has no right, or intent, to force other people to conform to his beliefs and opinions. That doesn't sound too "intolerant" to me.[/QUOTE]Let me make this as plainly, simply clear so even a turnip could understand it. He does not have a problem with straight marriage. He has a problem with gay marriage. He does not have a problem with straight people getting married. He only has a problem with gay people getting married. His problem is with [I]gay people[/I], not [I]straight people[/I]. If some how someone cannot understand this even still, there is no capability to reason with them. As far as him not trying to force others to conform to his views, that just because he knows he can't get very far with it. He said almost the exact same thing in the thread about abortion. [QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;43095813]That's the thing, I don't agree with it being legal. Since there is a slim chance of it being illegal I have to take what I can. Making abortion is illegal is what I believe in, however with the current state of it I'd rather see it not be covered by insurance and have it cost more.[/QUOTE] The language is almost identical to what he has used here. He disagrees with abortion being illegal. He wants it illegal. But since he is aware he is unlikely to get that, he defaults to an easier goal. Since then, perhaps learning from that thread, he has again realized that just saying something like isn't respected so he had to dial it back further and tries to use libertarian thought ("The government shouldn't have a say in it.") to make the overall issue sound reasonable. "Well, I disagree with it. But I don't think it should be illegal. But I still have a problem with it and want people to know such." And again, there is absolutely zero obligation to be tolerant of an intolerant belief such as his. [QUOTE]Really, you have no ground to stand on in this argument. You're arguing against his opinions, which you can not, and never will be able to control. Your ad-homiem attacks are childish at best since abortion and gay marriage are two completely different topics. All you're doing is throwing a temper tantrum over what somebody "thinks".[/QUOTE]I have more ground than him and anyone defending him. And given how the entire argument is over whether he is a bigot or not and the nature of his views, its hardly ad-hominem to use his views, expressed in a very identical manner about similarly contentious topics as part of an argument. If we were arguing about, say, economics and he's talking about the merits of laissez-faire and I brought up him being against abortion, that would be an ad-hominem because it has no bearing on the argument and is only an attack. But comparing his views on two subjects and pointing out that they are hypocritical is different. And no, I may not be able to control his views, but he can certainly face repercussions for them. And unfortunately opinions do not exist in a vacuum where they have no tangible effects on the world, when they most definitely do. [QUOTE]But your opinion, just like his, doesn't make a difference to me at all. I don't care about either one....[/QUOTE]Then why post? [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=jackteam54;44797031]Never said he had to be tolerant of it? So what is the entire point of your argument if it doesn't matter? You are making this drag on way too long and you should of stopped a while ago.[/QUOTE]You can read, right? "I never said he had to like it. But he isn't tolerant of it either." Darkrei said "Tolerance doesnt mean you like something. Tolerance means you accept it-" I never said he had to like it, which clearly he doesn't. But he is not accepting, IE: tolerant, of it either as I've explained in the most simplistic language possible. Why should one stop and allow even the vaugest hint that someone might think he is agreeable to exist? Also, there is a certain catharsis you get not long after you are able to just unload on bigots.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44797108] [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] You can read, right? "I never said he had to like it. But he isn't tolerant of it either." Darkrei said "Tolerance doesnt mean you like something. Tolerance means you accept it-" I never said he had to like it, which clearly he doesn't. But he is not accepting, IE: tolerant, of it either as I've explained in the most simplistic language possible. Why should one stop and allow even the vaugest hint that someone might think he is agreeable to exist? Also, there is a certain catharsis you get not long after you are able to just unload on bigots.[/QUOTE] Except that he literally said that he accepts gays?? Yeah he said "I personally believe gay marriage is wrong" but he also said that he thinks lgbt people should be allowed to get married. I'm not sure what exactly you're up in arms about. He doesn't have to think being gay is the greatest thing on earth to also be able to accept it he was also respectful and polite about his opinion, unlike you.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44797108]Let me make this as plainly, simply clear so even a turnip could understand it. He does not have a problem with straight marriage. He has a problem with gay marriage. He does not have a problem with straight people getting married. He only has a problem with gay people getting married. His problem is with [I]gay people[/I], not [I]straight people[/I]. If some how someone cannot understand this even still, there is no capability to reason with them. As far as him not trying to force others to conform to his views, that just because he knows he can't get very far with it. He said almost the exact same thing in the thread about abortion. The language is almost identical to what he has used here. He disagrees with abortion being illegal. He wants it illegal. But since he is aware he is unlikely to get that, he defaults to an easier goal. Since then, perhaps learning from that thread, he has again realized that just saying something like isn't respected so he had to dial it back further and tries to use libertarian thought ("The government shouldn't have a say in it.") to make the overall issue sound reasonable. "Well, I disagree with it. But I don't think it should be illegal. But I still have a problem with it and want people to know such." And again, there is absolutely zero obligation to be tolerant of an intolerant belief such as his. I have more ground than him and anyone defending him. And given how the entire argument is over whether he is a bigot or not and the nature of his views, its hardly ad-hominem to use his views, expressed in a very identical manner about similarly contentious topics as part of an argument. If we were arguing about, say, economics and he's talking about the merits of laissez-faire and I brought up him being against abortion, that would be an ad-hominem because it has no bearing on the argument and is only an attack. But comparing his views on two subjects and pointing out that they are hypocritical is different. And no, I may not be able to control his views, but he can certainly face repercussions for them. And unfortunately opinions do not exist in a vacuum where they have no tangible effects on the world, when they most definitely do. Then why post? [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] You can read, right? "I never said he had to like it. But he isn't tolerant of it either." Darkrei said "Tolerance doesnt mean you like something. Tolerance means you accept it-" I never said he had to like it, which clearly he doesn't. But he is not accepting, IE: tolerant, of it either as I've explained in the most simplistic language possible. Why should one stop and allow even the vaugest hint that someone might think he is agreeable to exist?[/QUOTE] Or maybe, just maybe if you weren't so condescending(which you so beautifully display in this post by basically calling everyone who disagrees with you idiots) you would realise that people can change (the abortion situation happened a year ago ffs) and that perhaps you are overthinking this. From what he has posted, he clearly is tolerant of this (hell, he basically said he doesn't like it, but he is willing to be tolerant of it, which is what you've been saying is fine, so??) even if he wasn't tolerant of abortion, that situation doesn't apply here.

You dont need to have a problem with gays to be against gay marriage. I knew a few gays in high school who were against gay marriage. They did support legal status similar to marriage though.

Wow, that is funny. None of you have even basic reading comprehension. I broke it down to its most basic form why going "Gay Marriage is wrong." (Or that you "disagree" with it) is intolerant of gay people and you [B]still[/B] don't get it. Trying to argue with people who can't even understand the arguments presented to them means they'll never understand the overall point. And before you try it, I've addressed every facet of your arguments and why they are crap, so don't act like I'm not comprehending, its just that I keep having to repeat myself because you don't get it. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44797208]He doesn't have to think being gay is the greatest thing on earth to also be able to accept it he was also respectful and polite about his opinion, unlike you.[/QUOTE]Repeating myself, again, but I never said he has to like it or think it is the greatest thing on Earth. Also, I don't give a fuck that he may have been respectful or not, doesn't make him any less wrong. [QUOTE=jackteam54;44797225]Or maybe, just maybe if you weren't so condescending(which you so beautifully display in this post by basically calling everyone who disagrees with you idiots)[/QUOTE]Well, there are very few reasons someone would keep defending his viewpoint. And since there is not as much information about those defending it as he himself, I apply Hanlon's Razor ("Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.") Also, [I]ohh god[/I] I'm condescending. I'll have to remember to hate myself for it later. [QUOTE]you would realise that people can change (the abortion situation happened a year ago ffs) and that perhaps you are overthinking this.[/QUOTE]Sure, but there is no evidence of that here. Also, it was six months ago. And how can you overthink a subject such as bigotry? [QUOTE]even if he wasn't tolerant of abortion, that situation doesn't apply here.[/QUOTE]Not his specific view on abortion, but his mentality does.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44795804]personally i believe blacks should not be able to marry whites, but i don't think the government should be allowed to mandate it. just a reasonable opinion nothing wrong here[/QUOTE] I don't think you're following my point. In no way am I forcing my opinion(s) onto anyone; however, if this is a discussion about a controversial civil rights topic then of course I'm going to express why I feel my opinion is correct. What do you expect me to do? At least I'm backing my points up with something other than, "Oh no, I can't accept that because mummy and daddy told me gay relations are unnatural." I think the whole points of such debates are to expand one's understanding and views. If you honestly feel that you are so deeply seated in such backwards beliefs that you give no leeway to possibly evolve that view then you're doing the human experience wrong; and I honestly find that to be one of the largest problems today. No one is willing to budge and for what reason? There's been many a times where someone has presented a legitimate well thought explanation on their opinion or views that made me rethink my own views. Even in this case, if someone could point out a valid reason as to why inter-gender and inter-racial relations are wrong I may change my view. That's the inherent problem with this topic though; no one can express any reason outside of "It's just how I was raised." I want to hear a reason outside of the typical arm crossed response, "I just don't agree with it." Well why? "Because I was raised to believe that." Ok; so how does that make it wrong or unnatural? "Just because it's my opinion and you have to accept that." No, I refute that idea because the continuation of such bigoted ideas has stagnated our cultural progression as a species.

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;44797234]I knew a few gays in high school who were against gay marriage. They did support legal status similar to marriage though.[/QUOTE]And it makes no sense unless you approach it from the angle of religions which is that marriage is somehow a thing that have domain over and is "traditional" to them. Which its not. And that typically arises from growing up in a household that pushes that idea. Bigots pushing bigotry on their children, causing them to internalize it and adopt it themselves even to their own detriment. (This is a pretty common occurence not just with sexuality but many, many other issues.) [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Bredirish123;44797480]I don't think you're following my point. In no way am I forcing my opinion(s) onto anyone; however, if this is a discussion about a controversial civil rights topic then of course I'm going to express why I feel my opinion is correct. What do you expect me to do? At least I'm backing my points up with something other than, "Oh no, I can't accept that because mummy and daddy told me gay relations are unnatural." I think the whole points of such debates are to expand one's understanding and views. If you honestly feel that you are so deeply seated in such backwards beliefs that you give no leeway to possibly evolve that view then you're doing the human experience wrong; and I honestly find that to be one of the largest problems today. No one is willing to budge and for what reason? There's been many a times where someone has presented a legitimate well thought explanation on their opinion or views that made me rethink my own views. Even in this case, if someone could point out a valid reason as to why inter-gender and inter-racial relations are wrong I may change my view. That's the inherent problem with this topic though; no one can express any reason outside of "It's just how I was raised."[/QUOTE]Real quick, I just want to clarify, you understand that Lachz0r is being sarcastic, right? I just want to make sure because it seems like you might be thinking he's serious about that.

Do you understand that you can't hope to change someone's attitude by jamming your metaphorical cock down their throat, Zedacon? This is thoughtcrime.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44797494]And it makes no sense unless you approach it from the angle of religions which is that marriage is somehow a thing that have domain over and is "traditional" to them. Which its not. And that typically arises from growing up in a household that pushes that idea. Bigots pushing bigotry on their children, causing them to internalize it and adopt it themselves even to their own detriment. (This is a pretty common occurence not just with sexuality but many, many other issues.) [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] Real quick, I just want to clarify, you understand that Lachz0r is being sarcastic, right? I just want to make sure because it seems like you might be thinking he's serious about that.[/QUOTE] My mistake :v: I meant to quote redsoxrock.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44797525]Do you understand that you can't hope to change someone's attitude by jamming your cock down their throat?[/QUOTE]Maybe I won't change their mind then. But it will at least shut them up for the time being. [QUOTE]This is thoughtcrime.[/QUOTE]I know. ;( Double plus ungood.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44797525]Do you understand that you can't hope to change someone's attitude by jamming your cock down their throat, Zedacon? This is thoughtcrime.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's the case. It's more or less trying to get a reason as to why someone holds such an opinion outside of, "It's just how I was raised." Generally when you hold a valid opinion you should be able to back it up with evidence or other information that at least presents why you feel a certain way in a coherent and educated matter. That's my big problem with this issue; I want reasons and evidence as to how gay relations socially impacts society around you (Wakeboarder) in a negative way that justifies such an opinion. Hell, we're expected to present such information when discussing our political alignment. I'm sure many of you would jump on someone if they said, "I am a far right conservative because it's how my parents raised me." In fact I'm sure most of us would be bewildered because to have such a political opinion you should be able to bring forth evidence or reasons as to why you have such views. Anything else would be considered nonsense. [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] Again, I have no problem with someone having an opinion that opposes gay marriage/relations; but if you're going to have such an opinion at least justify it with something that actually makes sense.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;44797566]I don't think that's the case. It's more or less trying to get a reason as to why someone holds such an opinion outside of, "It's just how I was raised."[/QUOTE] Okay, before post #25 in the thread, that's what was going on, and while I felt it was perhaps a bit unfair, it's certainly fair game to ask someone for the reasons behind their opinion and to feel that "it was how I was raised" is a cop-out answer. I'm not going to argue with you. Zedacon, on the other hand, is here to bully anyone posting who won't unconditionally accept gay marriage and is openly saying so. Are you reading the same posts as me, Bredirish?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44797595]Zedacon, on the other hand, is here to bully anyone posting who won't unconditionally accept gay marriage and is openly saying so. Are you reading the same posts as me, Bredirish?[/QUOTE]That's because I've been through these so many times and its so obvious by now that there is no defense for it, and no reason to continue holding that view. Compounded by the fact he smugly asserts that he can "disagree" with someone being a different orientation or race from him, I'm not going to be kind. If somehow someone can actually provide even a rudimentary reason that hasn't been debunked previously for why there is a problem with someone being gay or black or whatever, then that opens an new avenue for discussion. But he didn't do that, his only defense was to proudly claim "Because its my opinion!" So I went after him for that. He gave his reason, and I tore in to it.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44797618]That's because I've been through these so many times and its so obvious by now that there is no defense for it, and no reason to continue holding that view. Compounded by the fact he smugly asserts that he can "disagree" with someone being a different orientation or race from him, I'm not going to be kind. If somehow someone can actually provide even a rudimentary reason that hasn't been debunked previously for why there is a problem with someone being gay or black or whatever, then that opens an new avenue for discussion. But he didn't do that, his only defense was to proudly claim "Because its my opinion!" So I went after him for that. He gave his reason, and I tore in to it.[/QUOTE] Alright, you sound more understandable now, perhaps it's the way you worded it. However, I still don't quite the see the reason to go so deep into it, as it was basically a lost cause as soon as he said it was just his opinion. You just kept going on when there is nothing to argue about except for the same point over and over like a broken record.

[QUOTE=jackteam54;44797707]Alright, you sound more understandable now, perhaps it's the way you worded it. However, I still don't quite the see the reason to go so deep into it, as it was basically a lost cause as soon as he said it was just his opinion. You just kept going on when there is nothing to argue about except for the same point over and over like a broken record.[/QUOTE]I have a hang up about people not understanding something that should be fairly easy to understand. It just confounds me and because I'm not one to quit or give up, I keep trying. And not just with this, but with virtually anything, even if its not something I care about or even like or agree with. I wasn't expecting him to understand or change, it was for everyone else. But people kept going on about it and not understanding, and so I kept going on because of that. Now that people are understanding it seems, I can actually let it go. This is why I can't be a teacher. If anyone of my students were to not understand the subject, I'd go over it again, and again, and again, and so on. And before long anyone would get frustrated, I just don't let that stop me. Hell it makes me more determined because, with all the effort put in thus far, it'd be wasted if I gave up early.

[QUOTE=jackteam54;44797707]Alright, you sound more understandable now, perhaps it's the way you worded it. However, I still don't quite the see the reason to go so deep into it, as it was basically a lost cause as soon as he said it was just his opinion. You just kept going on when there is nothing to argue about except for the same point over and over like a broken record.[/QUOTE] I think the reason I have pursued the discussion is because it truly is an interesting topic to debate. After all, that's the point of these forums. To add to Zedacon's point; I think Wakeboarding would like to use his religion and its doctrine as reason to hold such opinions; however, we all know that if he outright said that Facepunch would jump all over it simply due to the fact that the religion you follow does not make your point any more valid. sure it's an explanation as to why you have those opinions, but it doesn't present a valid reason as to why it is more correct. I think many of us would agree that such a way of thinking is actually unproductive and even dangerous. For example, look at the Catholic Church's history in regards to accepting many modern scientific discoveries. It wasn't until the early 90's that the heliocentric theory was officially accepted. Even more recently the theory of evolution is just now starting to break ground in terms of clearing up many of the misconceptions and negativity surrounding it. The reason it took so long is because people perpetuated the idea that their opinion or faith in religion was more correct than the scientific community's. [B]Edit: [/B]I would like to express a quote by Martin Niemölle: [QUOTE][I]First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.[/I] [I][I]Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- [I]Because I was not a Trade Unionist.[/I][/I][/I] [I][I][I][I]Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- [I]Because I was not a Jew.[/I][/I][/I][/I][/I] [I][I][I][I]Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. [/I][/I][/I][/I][/QUOTE] The point of this quote is that it is imperative to speak up for others, even if you don't necessarily come from that background or lifestyle. I'm not gay myself; however, I want to defend the rights of my fellow man from the persecution and perpetuation of dangerous backwards opinions. I'm not saying vilify religion and those affiliated with it; but don't sit back and allow for nonsensical oppressive views to be accepted on the same level as someone who is actually providing evidence and reasoning grounded in reality.

Barring the total collapse of society occurring within our lifetimes, the non-binary equality fight has reached a point in America where I don't think we'll see a reversal for at least fifty years. Ideologies have a lifespan measured in the lifetimes of the people who believe in it, and the majority is now supporting same-sex marriage. The Federal opinion on the matter is now, by the decision to dismantle DOMA, in favour of same-sex marriage, which means it's going to be to states to opt out by fighting the trend and passing new laws as Federal judges start tearing them apart like the thread OP. The youth of today are going to be brought up in an America that is, on the whole, fine with same-sex marriage, and the old bigots are going to die off, as slow as it may be in places. The message is changing, and it's pulling society over into the sunlight with it. This momentum is going to take decades of work to stop and reverse, just as it has taken decades of concentrated work to change the national opinion on homosexuality. And, frankly speaking, if we don't manage to achieve the dream and go sliding back into oppression and pervasive systemic inequality for who you love or who you are, I'll be listing people like Zedacon at the top of the list of who to blame for being needlessly aggressive and provocative. Do you understand that Zedacon walked in here with the intent of persecuting, bullying, and shouting down any opposition? Does SH support censorship and groupthink? I wish wakeboarder would have a different opinion, but I understand that change comes as a gradual weakening of tensions as tolerance eases fears. The transition is one that takes time and care, because if you make the person feel uncomfortable, they tense up, and their position is retrenched and strong again. If you wish to change hearts and minds, you show them that their world is not hurt by what you want, and humans tend not to notice gradual cange, adapting to it naturally. We notice abrupt change: A slap in the face, the massive temperature transition of falling naked into arctic waters, people screaming that you're wrong and they will shout you down if you dare say it again. I am Canadian, and I was raised to believe in equality. When Canada passed gay marriage, I was beyond ecstatic and feared that Stephen Harper would make good on his promise to reopen the debate and try and take it down. I was relieved when he then recognized that would be a retarded idea and has left it alone ever since. I believe Canada is for the better today, and I support the rapid shifts in opinion towards supporting same-sex marriage and same-sex equality that we're seeing in America now. But those didn't happen by acting like a rabid SJW. Zedacon is now in the RC, claiming to have done absolutely nothing wrong and acted reasonable. :v:

It's amazing how someone who keeps flaming other people for not "understanding something so obvious" just can't seem to grasp the meaning of the word "tolerance". [QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44794596]I know people don't respect my opinion. I don't expect everyone to. I don't expect everyone to respect any of my opinions. This discussion is obviously going nowhere. I'm going to stop posting about it, now.[/QUOTE] Ridiculously late to the party, I know. But I just wanted to say that as a gay man, I am completely respectful of your opinions and that not all of us are as unreasonable as Zedacon.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44797525]Do you understand that you can't hope to change someone's attitude by jamming your metaphorical cock down their throat, Zedacon? This is thoughtcrime.[/QUOTE] really? jamming your metaphorical cock down someones throat to change someones attitude is thoughtcrime? i thought it was when you're prosecuted for having thoughts the state disagreed with

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44797525] This is thoughtcrime.[/QUOTE] I wish someone shoved Eric Arthur Blair into a toilet. [editline]13th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44800453] But those didn't happen by acting like a rabid SJW.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah I remember, the few rights that LGBT people have in the world was won by having them granted by the majority; LGBT people have never in history demanded or even died for the principle of having rights given to them.