I supported gay marriage, but the slippery slope we were warned about is happening!!!

[pismoe]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

The Supreme Court didn't make anything the 'law of the land'- they overturned unconstitutional State laws.

Christians in a large portion of the United States are free to deny service to gays just for being gay- but gays cannot deny services to Christians- for being Christian.

In states where it is illegal for a business to deny service to a customer because of their sexual orientation- such as Oregon and Colorado- the law applies to all business's- whether they are Christian or Muslim or Jewish or atheists.

You are just wrong- and ignorant and alarmist.

--------------------------------------- religion is a Constitutionaly protected Right while being homosexual is not supposed to be a protected status Syriusly .

Freedom of worship- freedom of religion absolutely is.

But there is no Constitutional right for a Christian to be served by a business- Christians- and Jews and every other religion got that protection in 1965 by the Civil Rights Act- which is a public accommodation law exactly like the laws States have passed to protect people from denial of service because of their sexual orientation.

Christians are protected from denial of service by public accommodation laws in all 50 states.
Gays are protected from denial of service by public accommodation laws in some 20 odd states.

So of course- Christians feel persecuted.

------------------------------------------ the discussion is not about Christians being served by homos , the discussion is about Christians having to serve homos if it is against their religion . Sounds like you are trying to change the subject Syriusly .

 

[Syriusly]

Suppose you open a new bar & grill. You're building a great clientele but then a group of skin heads (or insert any other group here) starts hanging out there & driving off all your clients with money & class.
Should you not have the right to tell them to get the fuck out just because your opposition to them is politically or socially motivated?
Likewise I would not allow my bar to be overrun with freaks like cross dressers or transgenders. It's my business & I know who my target client is.

No law prevents you from ejecting skin heads.

But you can't evict that group of Orthodox Jews despite how much you think they might offend your target clientelle.

 

[Syriusly]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

The Supreme Court didn't make anything the 'law of the land'- they overturned unconstitutional State laws.

Christians in a large portion of the United States are free to deny service to gays just for being gay- but gays cannot deny services to Christians- for being Christian.

In states where it is illegal for a business to deny service to a customer because of their sexual orientation- such as Oregon and Colorado- the law applies to all business's- whether they are Christian or Muslim or Jewish or atheists.

You are just wrong- and ignorant and alarmist.

--------------------------------------- religion is a Constitutionaly protected Right while being homosexual is not supposed to be a protected status Syriusly .

Freedom of worship- freedom of religion absolutely is.

But there is no Constitutional right for a Christian to be served by a business- Christians- and Jews and every other religion got that protection in 1965 by the Civil Rights Act- which is a public accommodation law exactly like the laws States have passed to protect people from denial of service because of their sexual orientation.

Christians are protected from denial of service by public accommodation laws in all 50 states.
Gays are protected from denial of service by public accommodation laws in some 20 odd states.

So of course- Christians feel persecuted.

------------------------------------------ the discussion is not about Christians being served by homos , the discussion is about Christians having to serve homos if it is against their religion . Sounds like you are trying to change the subject Syriusly .

Sounds like you are rather desperately not wanting to address the 'poor persecuted Christians' who have actually persecuted homosexuals for 200 years in America.

Let us review:
Christians pass laws to jail homosexuals.
Christians break laws which forbid ALL business from discriminating against Christians or Jews or Blacks or Homosexuals.

Christians feel persecuted.

 

[pismoe]

"First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on."

Wrong.

Not all states have public accommodations laws, and not all states have public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation.

Oregon has such a provision, Michigan not – and it was in Michigan where the Muslim business owner refused to accommodate a gay patron.

If a Muslim baker were to refuse to accommodate a gay patron in Oregon, he’d be subject to the same lawsuit as that of a Christian baker.

Nope, you would bend over backward for the muslim baker because you're terrified of them.

No- it is you poor right wing nut jobs who are terrified of every Muslim in America.

You show me an American Muslim baker refusing to sell to a Christian for being Christian or to sell to an American because he is gay- and I will be exactly as outraged. Unlike you I am don't care about the religion of bakers.

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

The Supreme Court didn't make anything the 'law of the land'- they overturned unconstitutional State laws.

Christians in a large portion of the United States are free to deny service to gays just for being gay- but gays cannot deny services to Christians- for being Christian.

In states where it is illegal for a business to deny service to a customer because of their sexual orientation- such as Oregon and Colorado- the law applies to all business's- whether they are Christian or Muslim or Jewish or atheists.

You are just wrong- and ignorant and alarmist.

--------------------------------------- religion is a Constitutionaly protected Right while being homosexual is not supposed to be a protected status Syriusly .

Freedom of worship- freedom of religion absolutely is.

But there is no Constitutional right for a Christian to be served by a business- Christians- and Jews and every other religion got that protection in 1965 by the Civil Rights Act- which is a public accommodation law exactly like the laws States have passed to protect people from denial of service because of their sexual orientation.

Christians are protected from denial of service by public accommodation laws in all 50 states.
Gays are protected from denial of service by public accommodation laws in some 20 odd states.

So of course- Christians feel persecuted.

------------------------------------------ the discussion is not about Christians being served by homos , the discussion is about Christians having to serve homos if it is against their religion . Sounds like you are trying to change the subject Syriusly .

Sounds like you are rather desperately not wanting to address the 'poor persecuted Christians' who have actually persecuted homosexuals for 200 years in America.

Let us review:
Christians pass laws to jail homosexuals.
Christians break laws which forbid ALL business from discriminating against Christians or Jews or Blacks or Homosexuals.

Christians feel persecuted.

-------------------------------------------- traditional Western recognition of homoness as a perversion and deviation Syriusly , probably mimics laws from OLDER western society . No matter what though , religion is a Constitutionaly protected Right while homo perversion is a lifestyle choice Syriusly .

 

[pismoe]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.

Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.

Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.

Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.

I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!

------------------------- anyway , good opening post , lets put'er up again so we stay on track ehh ??

 

[the_human_being]

 

[wjmacguffin]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.

Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.

Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.

Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.

I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!

Slippery slope =/= changes.

No Christian is being persecuted because of their belief. It's their anti-American and bigoted discrimination that's been persecuted. If a Christian baker really was applying her Christian beliefs, she would also refuse cakes for non-Christians, people who believe in a different Christian sect like Catholicism, anyone who lied, had sex before marriage, or people who are getting married after a divorce. Show me one time when a "Christian" asked a wedding cake customer about their virginity and sexual history.

As for the bathroom issue, are you really saying all men are potential rapists? Let one slip in, and children get raped, right? And women can't rape their own gender? It's been happening for decades without a problem. Seriously, link some evidence that a male-to-female transgender has molested women. I'll wait.

You do realize you're not fooling anyone with your claim to support marriage quality, right? That the very fact you use terms like "gay marriage" and "fag" show that you're lying through your teeth, and you're trying to cry wolf here?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Will the LGBT be forced to drop support for transgenders is the next question?

If courts find that transgenders have the right to either bathroom/shower/locker room, but straight males do not, even though they are simalarily situated to the Male Lesbian types (Bruce Jenner and our very own Renae), they create a legal paradox.

That is; if the law can discriminate against similarily situated groups in one case, they will be able to in others as well and the States will be able to Ban gay marriage again.

Stay tuned folks, this will be both fun and ugly at the same time.

Your error is in supposing that when faced with such an obvious contradiction within their own ideology, that the wrong-wing will recognize that paradox, and adjust their positions, as necessary, to mitigate it. This is an ideology that has already quite solidly proven that it is either completely oblivious to such contradiction, or that it doesn't care about such contradiction; an ideology that appears to be almost completely taken over by what Orwell described and defined as “doublethink”.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

 

[the_human_being]

You gotta love it!!!

 

[Pop23]

Will the LGBT be forced to drop support for transgenders is the next question?

If courts find that transgenders have the right to either bathroom/shower/locker room, but straight males do not, even though they are simalarily situated to the Male Lesbian types (Bruce Jenner and our very own Renae), they create a legal paradox.

That is; if the law can discriminate against similarily situated groups in one case, they will be able to in others as well and the States will be able to Ban gay marriage again.

Stay tuned folks, this will be both fun and ugly at the same time.

Your error is in supposing that when faced with such an obvious contradiction within their own ideology, that the wrong-wing will recognize that paradox, and adjust their positions, as necessary, to mitigate it. This is an ideology that has already quite solidly proven that it is either completely oblivious to such contradiction, or that it doesn't care about such contradiction; an ideology that appears to be almost completely taken over by what Orwell described and defined as “doublethink”.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

They are indeed their own worst enemies. Sociopath kinda fits

 

[Syriusly]

"First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on."

Wrong.

Not all states have public accommodations laws, and not all states have public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation.

Oregon has such a provision, Michigan not – and it was in Michigan where the Muslim business owner refused to accommodate a gay patron.

If a Muslim baker were to refuse to accommodate a gay patron in Oregon, he’d be subject to the same lawsuit as that of a Christian baker.

Nope, you would bend over backward for the muslim baker because you're terrified of them.

No- it is you poor right wing nut jobs who are terrified of every Muslim in America.

You show me an American Muslim baker refusing to sell to a Christian for being Christian or to sell to an American because he is gay- and I will be exactly as outraged. Unlike you I am don't care about the religion of bakers.

The Supreme Court didn't make anything the 'law of the land'- they overturned unconstitutional State laws.

Christians in a large portion of the United States are free to deny service to gays just for being gay- but gays cannot deny services to Christians- for being Christian.

In states where it is illegal for a business to deny service to a customer because of their sexual orientation- such as Oregon and Colorado- the law applies to all business's- whether they are Christian or Muslim or Jewish or atheists.

You are just wrong- and ignorant and alarmist.

--------------------------------------- religion is a Constitutionaly protected Right while being homosexual is not supposed to be a protected status Syriusly .

Freedom of worship- freedom of religion absolutely is.

But there is no Constitutional right for a Christian to be served by a business- Christians- and Jews and every other religion got that protection in 1965 by the Civil Rights Act- which is a public accommodation law exactly like the laws States have passed to protect people from denial of service because of their sexual orientation.

Christians are protected from denial of service by public accommodation laws in all 50 states.
Gays are protected from denial of service by public accommodation laws in some 20 odd states.

So of course- Christians feel persecuted.

------------------------------------------ the discussion is not about Christians being served by homos , the discussion is about Christians having to serve homos if it is against their religion . Sounds like you are trying to change the subject Syriusly .

Sounds like you are rather desperately not wanting to address the 'poor persecuted Christians' who have actually persecuted homosexuals for 200 years in America.

Let us review:
Christians pass laws to jail homosexuals.
Christians break laws which forbid ALL business from discriminating against Christians or Jews or Blacks or Homosexuals.

Christians feel persecuted.

-------------------------------------------- traditional Western recognition of homoness as a perversion and deviation Syriusly , probably mimics laws from OLDER western society . No matter what though , religion is a Constitutionaly protected Right while homo perversion is a lifestyle choice Syriusly .

Religion is a lifestyle choice.

The only reason why Christians are protected by law- and must be served- even if the Jewish or Muslim baker does not approve of Christianity or Christians is because of the 1965 Civil Rights Act- a public accommodation law.

This law protects Christians(a lifestyle choice) from discrimination based upon their faith- which is not a Constitutionally protected right.
Similar public accommodation laws protect homosexuals(another 'life style choice) from discrimination based upon their sexual orientation in some states.

Christians argue that they should not have to follow the same laws which protect them.

Why do you think that Christians should get special treatment?

 

[Syriusly]

Will the LGBT be forced to drop support for transgenders is the next question?

If courts find that transgenders have the right to either bathroom/shower/locker room, but straight males do not, even though they are simalarily situated to the Male Lesbian types (Bruce Jenner and our very own Renae), they create a legal paradox.

That is; if the law can discriminate against similarily situated groups in one case, they will be able to in others as well and the States will be able to Ban gay marriage again.

Stay tuned folks, this will be both fun and ugly at the same time.

Your error is in supposing that when faced with such an obvious contradiction within their own ideology, that the wrong-wing will recognize that paradox, and adjust their positions, as necessary, to mitigate it. This is an ideology that has already quite solidly proven that it is either completely oblivious to such contradiction, or that it doesn't care about such contradiction; an ideology that appears to be almost completely taken over by what Orwell described and defined as “doublethink”.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

They are indeed their own worst enemies. Sociopath kinda fits

That does describe most of the homophobes and right wing nut jobs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.

Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.

Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.

Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.

I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!

Neither you nor anyone else has established a cause and effect relationship between the legalization of same sex marriage and any of the other issues. While you claim to have been in favor of marriage equality, you are now railing against matters of an entirely different nature and blaming gay marriage. In other cases, you yourself are sounding the slippery slope alarm about things that have not happened at all. I find it hard to believe that you were ever really that much in favor of marriage equality since you are now taking the initiative to say “see, I told you so” The fact that you refer to “fags” here tell me a lot about just how disingenuous you are being. You didn’t become a bigot overnight as you would have us believe.


As far as the bogus “persecution of Christians” goes, certain ones have broken the law. Plain and simple. They are acting like assholes and have a warped view of what religious liberty is by using it as an excuse to discriminate. If the issue was not about wedding cakes, photography, flowers and marriage licenses, they would find other ways to discriminate such as in public accommodations. There would still be lawsuits and Christians would still be whining about persecution. The fact that the lawsuits and criminal actions (Kim Davis) came about because gays won the right to marry does not make it the fault of gays or gay marriage. You can’t blame the victims.


As far as Muslims being “free to deny service” That is just plain stupid and I don’t know where your getting that from. The issue is discrimination and the violation of laws that prohibit discrimination. Everyone is subject to the same laws. We don’t know why there have not been any high profile cases involving Muslims so please don’t make up shit to try to explain it. Maybe Muslims understand that their jobs and their faith are separate matters.


As for you second point in which you allude to politically correct speech, you still have the same rights to free speech including bigoted speech as you did before. If there is more of a backlash now, it’s because people are evolving and social norms and standards are changing. The acceptance and legalization of same sex marriage is a result of those changes, it did not cause them.


Then you go on to bitch about transgender in bathrooms. That in and of itself is a stupid issue for many reasons which I won’t go into because it would be off topic. I will say that Transgender folks may have been inspired to assert their rights as the result of the advancements of gays. But do you actually think that the issue would not have come up if it were not for same sex marriage?


As far as “child marriage” goes, allow me to point out that the legal age of consent varies considerably among the states and in some of the southern yahoo states- that age, at least with the permission of a parent or a judge- is quite young. However, that has been the case since long before marriage equality. Furthermore, there has not been any push to lower that age any more, or to loosen any restriction on them. In addition, there has not been any push to lower it in other states and there is no reason to think that there will be. The courts and the legislatures are not going to bow to any creeps who claim they have the right to marry a child, whether is based on religion or anything else. This is just a bunch of bogus made up bovine excrement.


Bigamy? I’m surprised that you didn’t say polygamy like most of the slippery slope nut jobs say. You might also want to throw in polyandry and polyamory. Again there is no serious movement to bring these things about. In addition, they are separate issues that involve much different legal and social implications. If we were to move in that direction, it would be due to changing norms and values and ideas about family and sexuality- the same forces that brought about same sex marriage. It would not be the fault of marriage.


In conclusion, your OP is a major fail wrought with logical fallacies and strange ideas, and grossly dishonest as well.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.

Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.

Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.

Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.

I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!

Neither you nor anyone else has established a cause and effect relationship between the legalization of same sex marriage and any of the other issues. While you claim to have been in favor of marriage equality, you are now railing against matters of an entirely different nature and blaming gay marriage. In other cases, you yourself are sounding the slippery slope alarm about things that have not happened at all. I find it hard to believe that you were ever really that much in favor of marriage equality since you are now taking the initiative to say “see, I told you so” The fact that you refer to “fags” here tell me a lot about just how disingenuous you are being. You didn’t become a bigot overnight as you would have us believe.


As far as the bogus “persecution of Christians” goes, certain ones have broken the law. Plain and simple. They are acting like assholes and have a warped view of what religious liberty is by using it as an excuse to discriminate. If the issue was not about wedding cakes, photography, flowers and marriage licenses, they would find other ways to discriminate such as in public accommodations. There would still be lawsuits and Christians would still be whining about persecution. The fact that the lawsuits and criminal actions (Kim Davis) came about because gays won the right to marry does not make it the fault of gays or gay marriage. You can’t blame the victims.


As far as Muslims being “free to deny service” That is just plain stupid and I don’t know where your getting that from. The issue is discrimination and the violation of laws that prohibit discrimination. Everyone is subject to the same laws. We don’t know why there have not been any high profile cases involving Muslims so please don’t make up shit to try to explain it. Maybe Muslims understand that their jobs and their faith are separate matters.


As for you second point in which you allude to politically correct speech, you still have the same rights to free speech including bigoted speech as you did before. If there is more of a backlash now, it’s because people are evolving and social norms and standards are changing. The acceptance and legalization of same sex marriage is a result of those changes, it did not cause them.


Then you go on to bitch about transgender in bathrooms. That in and of itself is a stupid issue for many reasons which I won’t go into because it would be off topic. I will say that Transgender folks may have been inspired to assert their rights as the result of the advancements of gays. But do you actually think that the issue would not have come up if it were not for same sex marriage?


As far as “child marriage” goes, allow me to point out that the legal age of consent varies considerably among the states and in some of the southern yahoo states- that age, at least with the permission of a parent or a judge- is quite young. However, that has been the case since long before marriage equality. Furthermore, there has not been any push to lower that age any more, or to loosen any restriction on them. In addition, there has not been any push to lower it in other states and there is no reason to think that there will be. The courts and the legislatures are not going to bow to any creeps who claim they have the right to marry a child, whether is based on religion or anything else. This is just a bunch of bogus made up bovine excrement.


Bigamy? I’m surprised that you didn’t say polygamy like most of the slippery slope nut jobs say. You might also want to throw in polyandry and polyamory. Again there is no serious movement to bring these things about. In addition, they are separate issues that involve much different legal and social implications. If we were to move in that direction, it would be due to changing norms and values and ideas about family and sexuality- the same forces that brought about same sex marriage. It would not be the fault of marriage.


In conclusion, your OP is a major fail wrought with logical fallacies and strange ideas, and grossly dishonest as well.

It's not a fail at all, you're just too ignorant to connect the dots. It's an agenda but this time the freaks went too far. Normal people are not going to allow this shit

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.

Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.

Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.

Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.

I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!

Neither you nor anyone else has established a cause and effect relationship between the legalization of same sex marriage and any of the other issues. While you claim to have been in favor of marriage equality, you are now railing against matters of an entirely different nature and blaming gay marriage. In other cases, you yourself are sounding the slippery slope alarm about things that have not happened at all. I find it hard to believe that you were ever really that much in favor of marriage equality since you are now taking the initiative to say “see, I told you so” The fact that you refer to “fags” here tell me a lot about just how disingenuous you are being. You didn’t become a bigot overnight as you would have us believe.


As far as the bogus “persecution of Christians” goes, certain ones have broken the law. Plain and simple. They are acting like assholes and have a warped view of what religious liberty is by using it as an excuse to discriminate. If the issue was not about wedding cakes, photography, flowers and marriage licenses, they would find other ways to discriminate such as in public accommodations. There would still be lawsuits and Christians would still be whining about persecution. The fact that the lawsuits and criminal actions (Kim Davis) came about because gays won the right to marry does not make it the fault of gays or gay marriage. You can’t blame the victims.


As far as Muslims being “free to deny service” That is just plain stupid and I don’t know where your getting that from. The issue is discrimination and the violation of laws that prohibit discrimination. Everyone is subject to the same laws. We don’t know why there have not been any high profile cases involving Muslims so please don’t make up shit to try to explain it. Maybe Muslims understand that their jobs and their faith are separate matters.


As for you second point in which you allude to politically correct speech, you still have the same rights to free speech including bigoted speech as you did before. If there is more of a backlash now, it’s because people are evolving and social norms and standards are changing. The acceptance and legalization of same sex marriage is a result of those changes, it did not cause them.


Then you go on to bitch about transgender in bathrooms. That in and of itself is a stupid issue for many reasons which I won’t go into because it would be off topic. I will say that Transgender folks may have been inspired to assert their rights as the result of the advancements of gays. But do you actually think that the issue would not have come up if it were not for same sex marriage?


As far as “child marriage” goes, allow me to point out that the legal age of consent varies considerably among the states and in some of the southern yahoo states- that age, at least with the permission of a parent or a judge- is quite young. However, that has been the case since long before marriage equality. Furthermore, there has not been any push to lower that age any more, or to loosen any restriction on them. In addition, there has not been any push to lower it in other states and there is no reason to think that there will be. The courts and the legislatures are not going to bow to any creeps who claim they have the right to marry a child, whether is based on religion or anything else. This is just a bunch of bogus made up bovine excrement.


Bigamy? I’m surprised that you didn’t say polygamy like most of the slippery slope nut jobs say. You might also want to throw in polyandry and polyamory. Again there is no serious movement to bring these things about. In addition, they are separate issues that involve much different legal and social implications. If we were to move in that direction, it would be due to changing norms and values and ideas about family and sexuality- the same forces that brought about same sex marriage. It would not be the fault of marriage.


In conclusion, your OP is a major fail wrought with logical fallacies and strange ideas, and grossly dishonest as well.

It's not a fail at all, you're just too ignorant to connect the dots. It's an agenda but this time the freaks went too far. Normal people are not going to allow this shit

Thank you for confirming again how mentally disturbed and moronic you people are.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Most state public accommodation laws that protect gays predate last June's ruling. Perhaps all of them, I am not sure.

Again, I think all public accommodation laws are bullshit and businesses should be free to serve or not serve any person for any reason they see fit.

Have you thought that through?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thank you for confirming again how mentally disturbed and moronic you people are.

Says the scumbag who's all in favor of allowing creepy male perverts into women's restrooms.

 

[Pop23]

Will the LGBT be forced to drop support for transgenders is the next question?

If courts find that transgenders have the right to either bathroom/shower/locker room, but straight males do not, even though they are simalarily situated to the Male Lesbian types (Bruce Jenner and our very own Renae), they create a legal paradox.

That is; if the law can discriminate against similarily situated groups in one case, they will be able to in others as well and the States will be able to Ban gay marriage again.

Stay tuned folks, this will be both fun and ugly at the same time.

Your error is in supposing that when faced with such an obvious contradiction within their own ideology, that the wrong-wing will recognize that paradox, and adjust their positions, as necessary, to mitigate it. This is an ideology that has already quite solidly proven that it is either completely oblivious to such contradiction, or that it doesn't care about such contradiction; an ideology that appears to be almost completely taken over by what Orwell described and defined as “doublethink”.

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”​

They are indeed their own worst enemies. Sociopath kinda fits

That does describe most of the homophobes and right wing nut jobs.

You'll never get better until you agree you have a problem.

I pity you cuz you are in complete denial

 

[mdk]

Most state public accommodation laws that protect gays predate last June's ruling. Perhaps all of them, I am not sure.

Again, I think all public accommodation laws are bullshit and businesses should be free to serve or not serve any person for any reason they see fit.

Have you thought that through?

I sure have. We've had this discussion before, you and I. We agree to disagree.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:

First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.

Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.

Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.

Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.

Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.

I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!

Neither you nor anyone else has established a cause and effect relationship between the legalization of same sex marriage and any of the other issues. While you claim to have been in favor of marriage equality, you are now railing against matters of an entirely different nature and blaming gay marriage. In other cases, you yourself are sounding the slippery slope alarm about things that have not happened at all. I find it hard to believe that you were ever really that much in favor of marriage equality since you are now taking the initiative to say “see, I told you so” The fact that you refer to “fags” here tell me a lot about just how disingenuous you are being. You didn’t become a bigot overnight as you would have us believe.


As far as the bogus “persecution of Christians” goes, certain ones have broken the law. Plain and simple. They are acting like assholes and have a warped view of what religious liberty is by using it as an excuse to discriminate. If the issue was not about wedding cakes, photography, flowers and marriage licenses, they would find other ways to discriminate such as in public accommodations. There would still be lawsuits and Christians would still be whining about persecution. The fact that the lawsuits and criminal actions (Kim Davis) came about because gays won the right to marry does not make it the fault of gays or gay marriage. You can’t blame the victims.


As far as Muslims being “free to deny service” That is just plain stupid and I don’t know where your getting that from. The issue is discrimination and the violation of laws that prohibit discrimination. Everyone is subject to the same laws. We don’t know why there have not been any high profile cases involving Muslims so please don’t make up shit to try to explain it. Maybe Muslims understand that their jobs and their faith are separate matters.


As for you second point in which you allude to politically correct speech, you still have the same rights to free speech including bigoted speech as you did before. If there is more of a backlash now, it’s because people are evolving and social norms and standards are changing. The acceptance and legalization of same sex marriage is a result of those changes, it did not cause them.


Then you go on to bitch about transgender in bathrooms. That in and of itself is a stupid issue for many reasons which I won’t go into because it would be off topic. I will say that Transgender folks may have been inspired to assert their rights as the result of the advancements of gays. But do you actually think that the issue would not have come up if it were not for same sex marriage?


As far as “child marriage” goes, allow me to point out that the legal age of consent varies considerably among the states and in some of the southern yahoo states- that age, at least with the permission of a parent or a judge- is quite young. However, that has been the case since long before marriage equality. Furthermore, there has not been any push to lower that age any more, or to loosen any restriction on them. In addition, there has not been any push to lower it in other states and there is no reason to think that there will be. The courts and the legislatures are not going to bow to any creeps who claim they have the right to marry a child, whether is based on religion or anything else. This is just a bunch of bogus made up bovine excrement.


Bigamy? I’m surprised that you didn’t say polygamy like most of the slippery slope nut jobs say. You might also want to throw in polyandry and polyamory. Again there is no serious movement to bring these things about. In addition, they are separate issues that involve much different legal and social implications. If we were to move in that direction, it would be due to changing norms and values and ideas about family and sexuality- the same forces that brought about same sex marriage. It would not be the fault of marriage.


In conclusion, your OP is a major fail wrought with logical fallacies and strange ideas, and grossly dishonest as well.

It's not a fail at all, you're just too ignorant to connect the dots. It's an agenda but this time the freaks went too far. Normal people are not going to allow this shit

Thank you for confirming again how mentally disturbed and moronic you people are.

That's hilarious, a mentally disturbed fag calling anyone else mentally disturbed...and yes you are a fag, this is just too obvious