Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Some of the Same points could be raised about blacks, etc.
He added three more.
I don't know, guy, why did black folks do sit-ins at the lunch counters of businesses in the Jim Crow South. Why did Rosa Park insist on sitting at the front of the bus? How dare she impose herself on unsuspecting strangers!
being black or a different race is not an action nor a choice nor a learned behavior... homosexual activity is
Yes? Because you tried being gay? You made that 'choice?'
I'm gonna have to call bullshit.
It is absolutely absurd to allow the intolerant to set 'the rules' of tolerance. Karl Popper wrote, "unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Should tolerant people tolerate intolerance? | Debate.org
It is not hypocritical for an advocate of tolerance to also advocate intolerance of the intolerant. What would you have otherwise? It's not about 'defending people who are similar' at all. It's about defending beliefs and standards of behavior that promote the universal respect of individuals without a thought to measuring the worth of their identities.
Germany is a relatively tolerant society today. They have banned Naziism and Holocaust denial. Allowing those ideals to flourish in public would leave the door open for Germany to revert to a state of extreme intolerance, as they have experienced in the past. It's natural not to tolerate intolerance when you know the real-world result of institutionalized intolerance.
Respecting free speech is another question. If you are free to speak about your belief in racial hatred, for instance, I am free to call your speech hateful idiocy, and abuse your evil opinions. My exercise of free speech in response to yours does not impinge on your right.
Yes? Because you tried being gay? You made that 'choice?'
I'm gonna have to call bullshit.
I remember how you chastised me about Phil Robertson, and how you said that my support for his views on homosexuality somehow directly injured you and your close friends.
Yeah, I call bullshit too. Have you ever tried to be tolerant of people who oppose homosexuality, or of opposing views in general? You ever make that choice? Nah.
I wasn't talking to you, child.
1) If you truly believed in equality, you would believe in a balance of freedom. There is a two way street to equality. You have every right to your lifestyle, but you cannot force others to endorse it.
The Bill of Rights forces Americans to endorse all sorts of lifestyles. If you disagree, tell us what definition of the word 'endorse' you're using.
I say endorse means to accept as equal under the law and therefore entitled to equal protection, and not subject to be discriminated against.
For example the 2nd amendment enables the legal pursuit of all sorts of 'lifestyles', including hunting, shooting sports, etc. We are required by law to 'endorse' them, whether or not we approve of them.
Thank you for answering one of my points, now I shall be true to my word and answer your question. After I address this most current response.
"Endorse," as the dictionary defines it, is to "declare one's public approval or support of." Which has zero to do with your definition.
The Bill of Rights forces Americans to endorse all sorts of lifestyles. If you disagree, tell us what definition of the word 'endorse' you're using.
I say endorse means to accept as equal under the law and therefore entitled to equal protection, and not subject to be discriminated against.
For example the 2nd amendment enables the legal pursuit of all sorts of 'lifestyles', including hunting, shooting sports, etc. We are required by law to 'endorse' them, whether or not we approve of them.
Thank you for answering one of my points, now I shall be true to my word and answer your question. After I address this most current response.
"Endorse," as the dictionary defines it, is to "declare one's public approval or support of." Which has zero to do with your definition.
Then your claim is irrelevant. You are not required to endorse the gay lifestyle, by your selected definition. But you are required, on pain of penalty, to obey laws that establish and protect the civil rights of gays.
1) If you truly believed in equality, you would believe in a balance of freedom. There is a two way street to equality. You have every right to your lifestyle, but you cannot force others to endorse it.
The Bill of Rights forces Americans to endorse all sorts of lifestyles. If you disagree, tell us what definition of the word 'endorse' you're using.
I say endorse means to accept as equal under the law and therefore entitled to equal protection, and not subject to be discriminated against.
For example the 2nd amendment enables the legal pursuit of all sorts of 'lifestyles', including hunting, shooting sports, etc. We are required by law to 'endorse' them, whether or not we approve of them.
Thank you for answering one of my points, now I shall be true to my word and answer your question. After I address this most current response.
"Endorse," as the dictionary defines it, is to "declare one's public approval or support of." Which has zero to do with your definition.
Ahh, stumped I see. Now that I have demonstrated yet another discrepancy in the liberal ideal of equality and tolerance, I would suggest to those of you liberals who opined:
Don't you dare ever lecture me or anyone else on equality when your party passed laws against interracial marriage. Or when you're willing to take the rights of the pious and sacrifice them all in the name of your version of tolerance. You know how The Crusades went, right? When people tried to force their beliefs down other peoples throats? They were destroyed. The campaign was ended. And so likewise, is this one.
The Bill of Rights forces Americans to endorse all sorts of lifestyles. If you disagree, tell us what definition of the word 'endorse' you're using.
I say endorse means to accept as equal under the law and therefore entitled to equal protection, and not subject to be discriminated against.
For example the 2nd amendment enables the legal pursuit of all sorts of 'lifestyles', including hunting, shooting sports, etc. We are required by law to 'endorse' them, whether or not we approve of them.
Thank you for answering one of my points, now I shall be true to my word and answer your question. After I address this most current response.
"Endorse," as the dictionary defines it, is to "declare one's public approval or support of." Which has zero to do with your definition.
Just to be clear:
1. Am I forced to endorse the shooting sports? (I do anyway but that is beside the point in this hypothetical)
2. Am I forced by law to accept the legality of the shooting sports?
3. Are 1. and 2. separable?
Thank you for answering one of my points, now I shall be true to my word and answer your question. After I address this most current response.
"Endorse," as the dictionary defines it, is to "declare one's public approval or support of." Which has zero to do with your definition.
Then your claim is irrelevant. You are not required to endorse the gay lifestyle, by your selected definition. But you are required, on pain of penalty, to obey laws that establish and protect the civil rights of gays.
If I weren't required to endorse them, then why are you arguing with me their merits? Why so much insistence that people tolerate homosexuals? Why call people who don't all sort of names? Why would the government prevent me from making determinations based on my religious beliefs; including those of homosexuality, if I weren't required to endorse them? Hmm?
Looks like you made another fail argument, Carbine.
These groups don't want equal treatment, they want special treatment.
Every time. Every.Single.Time.
Read this.
Read it...
LGBT Activist Declares: ?We Need to Start Making Their Lives a Living Hell? : The Other McCain
Thank you for answering one of my points, now I shall be true to my word and answer your question. After I address this most current response.
"Endorse," as the dictionary defines it, is to "declare one's public approval or support of." Which has zero to do with your definition.
Just to be clear:
1. Am I forced to endorse the shooting sports? (I do anyway but that is beside the point in this hypothetical)
2. Am I forced by law to accept the legality of the shooting sports?
3. Are 1. and 2. separable?
All three of those points are red herrings.
Then your claim is irrelevant. You are not required to endorse the gay lifestyle, by your selected definition. But you are required, on pain of penalty, to obey laws that establish and protect the civil rights of gays.
If I weren't required to endorse them, then why are you arguing with me their merits? Why so much insistence that people tolerate homosexuals? Why call people who don't all sort of names? Why would the government prevent me from making determinations based on my religious beliefs; including those of homosexuality, if I weren't required to endorse them? Hmm?
Looks like you made another fail argument, Carbine.
Because although you implied otherwise, you chose your definition of 'endorse' to be merely a personal opinion,
with no attachment to the law or civil rights, etc.
But your argument has been based on the law. You want the right to extend your 'non-endorsement' of the gay lifestyle beyond just a personal opinion;
you want it codified to enable actual legal discrimination against gays.
Thank you for answering one of my points, now I shall be true to my word and answer your question. After I address this most current response.
"Endorse," as the dictionary defines it, is to "declare one's public approval or support of." Which has zero to do with your definition.
Just to be clear:
1. Am I forced to endorse the shooting sports? (I do anyway but that is beside the point in this hypothetical)
2. Am I forced by law to accept the legality of the shooting sports?
3. Are 1. and 2. separable?
All three of those points are red herrings.
Just to be clear:
1. Am I forced to endorse the shooting sports? (I do anyway but that is beside the point in this hypothetical)
2. Am I forced by law to accept the legality of the shooting sports?
3. Are 1. and 2. separable?
All three of those points are red herrings.
No they are not....they are simply popping out the term "gay" and putting in "shooting sports".
Just to be clear:
1. Am I forced to endorse the shooting sports? (I do anyway but that is beside the point in this hypothetical)
2. Am I forced by law to accept the legality of the shooting sports?
3. Are 1. and 2. separable?
All three of those points are red herrings.
Red herring is not some magical spell that you can use every time you're losing an argument.
Prove that the shooting sports or hunting cannot be classified as a lifestyle. I can't believe you can say you're from Georgia and then pretend there are no such sub-cultures around.
If I weren't required to endorse them, then why are you arguing with me their merits? Why so much insistence that people tolerate homosexuals? Why call people who don't all sort of names? Why would the government prevent me from making determinations based on my religious beliefs; including those of homosexuality, if I weren't required to endorse them? Hmm?
Looks like you made another fail argument, Carbine.
Because although you implied otherwise, you chose your definition of 'endorse' to be merely a personal opinion,
with no attachment to the law or civil rights, etc.
But your argument has been based on the law. You want the right to extend your 'non-endorsement' of the gay lifestyle beyond just a personal opinion;
you want it codified to enable actual legal discrimination against gays.
No, my version of "endorse" is my freedom to approve and disapprove of anything and anyone I wish.
By these public accommodation laws, they (congress) have passed a law which in regards to religion, "prohibits the free exercise thereof" as put by the First Amendment. By forcing someone to serve you because you are gay and they have a religious opposition to it, you are therefore "prohibiting the free exercise" of this persons faith by arbitrarily dismissing their beliefs and rights to act on them for the sake of equal treatment.
Ahh, stumped I see. Now that I have demonstrated yet another discrepancy in the liberal ideal of equality and tolerance, I would suggest to those of you liberals who opined:
Don't you dare ever lecture me or anyone else on equality when your party passed laws against interracial marriage. Or when you're willing to take the rights of the pious and sacrifice them all in the name of your version of tolerance. You know how The Crusades went, right? When people tried to force their beliefs down other peoples throats? They were destroyed. The campaign was ended. And so likewise, is this one.
I have a personal question
As a young person, why do you care?
I was raised to be repulsed by homosexuality. It was a given. As I got older, I realized it really was no big deal and didn't hurt me or affect me in anyway. Live and let live
Why do you care? How does homosexual marriage affect your ability to live your life as you want to?
All three of those points are red herrings.
Red herring is not some magical spell that you can use every time you're losing an argument.
Prove that the shooting sports or hunting cannot be classified as a lifestyle. I can't believe you can say you're from Georgia and then pretend there are no such sub-cultures around.
Equality is not some magical spell that you can use every time someone has the guts to say they don't approve of homosexuality either.
However, prove that shooting sports have any correlation with gay rights. Then again, I was never losing this argument. I've taken down four of you already in this thread.
Moving on.
Because although you implied otherwise, you chose your definition of 'endorse' to be merely a personal opinion,
with no attachment to the law or civil rights, etc.
But your argument has been based on the law. You want the right to extend your 'non-endorsement' of the gay lifestyle beyond just a personal opinion;
you want it codified to enable actual legal discrimination against gays.
No, my version of "endorse" is my freedom to approve and disapprove of anything and anyone I wish.
By these public accommodation laws, they (congress) have passed a law which in regards to religion, "prohibits the free exercise thereof" as put by the First Amendment. By forcing someone to serve you because you are gay and they have a religious opposition to it, you are therefore "prohibiting the free exercise" of this persons faith by arbitrarily dismissing their beliefs and rights to act on them for the sake of equal treatment.
Okay, then perhaps now you can acknowledge that my reference to Reynolds v United States was relevant to your topic.
Polygamy (or precisely bigamy) was outlawed. A Mormon challenged the law on the grounds that polygamy was a religious exercise. The Court ruled against him and upheld the law.
Was that decision wrong? Did that decision arbitrarily dismiss Mormon beliefs and rights?
