NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American? [W:45] (1 Viewer)

[TheDemSocialist]

The anti-LGBT group the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) sent a fundraising email to supporters late Wednesday asserting that Americans must choose between supporting LGBT rights and or supporting their country. According to Metro Weekly’s Poliglot blog, the email offerred a choice of an LGBT rights rainbow flag or a U.S. flag, asking, “Which banner will you choose?”
“We’re a republic founded on the principles of religious liberty, freedom and democracy, endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. We’re a nation where citizen rights come from God, not from government, and where the people are sovereign, not politicians or judges,” wrote NOM’s Brian Brown. “But those principles are under siege, by the culture, by our federal government and, increasingly, by the US Supreme Court.”

Read more @: NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American? | The Raw Story

Ohhh silly hate groups.. They will be on the wrong side of history..

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ohhh silly hate groups

Nothing new or surprising about the claim that standing up for basic morality and decency makes one a “hate group”. That's how far our society has degraded.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Nothing new or surprising about the claim that standing up for basic morality and decency makes one a “hate group”. That's how far our society has degraded.

Oh how did i forget denying people rights is "moral":doh

 

[Fiddytree]

NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American?

Alienating minorities from their cultural and intellectual heritage has long been the ploy of those who want to make sure they stay powerless and unaccepted.

 

[Deuce]

Nothing new or surprising about the claim that standing up for basic morality and decency makes one a “hate group”. That's how far our society has degraded.

Tell us more about how we can't support LGBT rights and support our country at the same time. Please explain to me why you agree with this premise. I am very interested to hear it.

 

[Paschendale]

Nothing new or surprising about the claim that standing up for basic morality and decency makes one a “hate group”. That's how far our society has degraded.

And why exactly should anyone believe the claim by the religious right to have a special understanding of morality? It's certainly not reflected in their actions.

Sexual orientation is not a moral issue. Discrimination is.

 

[digsbe]

This comparison seriously needs to stop. Those that support traditional marriage are not denying anyone their rights and are acting according to their beliefs just like the pro-SSM crowd.

You can compare SSM to Jim Crow when homosexuals are forced into separate schools, separate establishments, sit in the back of the bus, and all the other things minorities suffered through. It's such a disgrace to drag the civil rights movement down by comparing it to people being unhappy that some don't want to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

It's as absurd as comparing SSM to polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and the many other things that some illogical people will argue when discussing SSM. It's a shame so many in the pro-SSM crowd refuse to see this and instead want to compare their opposition to the racists during Jim Crow and insult everyone as if their beliefs are rooted in hatred while flinging around the "bigot, homophobe, hater" mantra. Really, the extremists are two sides of the same coin. It's a shame so few are willing to call out that behavior and will even endorse it.

 

[nota bene]

Kinda ironic how fundamentally intolerant those are who push SSM. It's not enough for them to hold their own view, you're wrong and hateful and should probably die if you don't agree.

 

[digsbe]

Kinda ironic how fundamentally intolerant those are who push SSM. It's not enough for them to hold their own view, you're wrong and hateful and should probably die if you don't agree.

I just think it's funny that they (those that fling the anti-SSM people are bigoted homophobes and equal to racists in the 60's) push a meme of "love, tolerance, and freedom" yet are intolerant of other views, have hatred for those that hold those views, are quick to judge and slander everyone that disagrees with a bigoted attitude, and deny them the freedom to vote and have their voice heard on issues. That's what happens when people grow so delusional and self righteous in their thinking. They need to believe that the other side is evil, that they themselves are morally superior, and degrade the position of others that disagree with them.

And as previously clarified, this only applies to those that judge anti-SSM individuals and hurl around the insults, not everyone that supports SSM (as I myself do).

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Nothing new or surprising about the claim that standing up for basic morality and decency makes one a “hate group”. That's how far our society has degraded.

Morality is relative. You don't seem to understand this, Bob. I guess I'll just have to keep reminding you.

 

[ChuckBerry]

Sexual orientation is not a moral issue. Discrimination is.

They are both moral issues. The Constitution is there to protect rights, not as an arbiter of morality.

Lawyers have become 21st century priests and the Constitution the Bible for morally insipid people.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Morality is relative. You don't seem to understand this, Bob. I guess I'll just have to keep reminding you.

Repeating the lie over and over again will never make it true.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Repeating the lie over and over again will never make it true.

Then stop saying it, so I don't have to keep correcting you.

 

[digsbe]

The statement that all morality is relative is in itself an absolute statement and self defeating.

I think laws are created largely based on societal morals, but there exists an absolute moral code as given by God that governs all people whether they accept it or not. The fact of the matter is that everyone dies and gets judged by God according to His standards, not ours.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The statement that all morality is relative is in itself an absolute statement and self defeating.

The statement that all morality is relative transcends the issue and is accurate. It's an accurate paradox like saying the only constant is change.

I think laws are created largely based on societal morals, but there exists an absolute moral code as given by God that governs all people whether they accept it or not. The fact of the matter is that everyone dies and gets judged by God according to His standards, not ours.

YOU think. That makes it relative. Laws are created based on morals, but one can both have different morals but choose to follow the laws, or have different morals, NOT follow the laws and get consequences. Neither of these examples require acceptance of any moral code, though the first requires the desire to not receive consequences.

 

[digsbe]

The statement that all morality is relative transcends the issue and is accurate. It's an accurate paradox like saying the only constant is change.

I disagree. When it comes to moral codes the belief that all morality is relative is itself a relative belief professing an absolute moral.

YOU think. That makes it relative. Laws are created based on morals, but one can both have different morals but choose to follow the laws, or have different morals, NOT follow the laws and get consequences. Neither of these examples require acceptance of any moral code, though the first requires the desire to not receive consequences.

No, I accept that because it is fact. I think that gravity exists, someone else may disagree but in the end it is absolute fact that gravity exists, it's not relative. I believe it because it is true, I accept it because it is fact. Regardless of what people believe they will be judged by God according to His standards, what they believe about it is irrelevant. There is an absolute moral code, but laws and society may chose to adopt a relative moral system where what is acceptable by human standards deviates. However, God's standards do not and they remain the highest and ruling moral code.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I disagree. When it comes to moral codes the belief that all morality is relative is itself a relative belief professing an absolute moral.

No it's not. It's rejecting the entire concept of of any universal morality. It's absence of belief, similar to atheism. Atheism isn't the non-belief of God, it's the absence of belief.

No, I accept that because it is fact.

It's not a fact. It's your moral position which is relative.

I think that gravity exists, someone else may disagree but in the end it is absolute fact that gravity exists, it's not relative. I believe it because it is true, I accept it because it is fact.

Gravity is a scientific concept that can be measured in a constant fashion. Morality is not science and it's measurement is relative to the individual. You are comparing apples and airplanes.

Regardless of what people believe they will be judged by God according to His standards, what they believe about it is irrelevant.

And this includes you since your concept of God is part of your personal moral code and is irrelevant to anyone else.

There is an absolute moral code, but laws and society may chose to adopt a relative moral system where what is acceptable by human standards deviates.

There is no absolute moral code. Morals are individual-specific. This is evidenced by the different morals between different persons. You have no evidence of any universality.

However, God's standards do not and they remain the highest and ruling moral code.

To you.

 

[Peter King]

Nothing new or surprising about the claim that standing up for basic morality and decency makes one a “hate group”. That's how far our society has degraded.

I am sorry, but in the past basic morality and decency had no problem with racist views, had no problem with slavery, had no problem with lynching innocent black people, had no problem with putting burning crosses in the homes of people, etc. etc. etc.

Basic morality is often a nice word for conservatives who have an issue with the progressing time and reality. Conservatives who would like it to force their points of view on a society that is passing them bye with the passing of each day.

For some time now the pro-gay wedding people have been polling well ahead of the anti-gay wedding people.

And the other issue is that while people who are standing up for "their views of basic morality and decency" are people who are out of touch somewhat, this does not make them hate-groups, it makes them conservatives.

What makes these "basic morality and decency conservatives" into hate groups is that they do not decently stand up for their basic morality but that they use hateful remarks and points of view that make them hate groups. They start becoming hate groups when they want to force their basic morality upon the entire nation and forbid any other points of view that are not part of their "basic morality".

 

[instagramsci]

Ohhh silly hate groups.. [/FONT][/COLOR]

You need to stop doing this.

 

[disneydude]

I just think it's funny that they (those that fling the anti-SSM people are bigoted homophobes and equal to racists in the 60's) push a meme of "love, tolerance, and freedom" yet are intolerant of other views, have hatred for those that hold those views, are quick to judge and slander everyone that disagrees with a bigoted attitude, and deny them the freedom to vote and have their voice heard on issues. That's what happens when people grow so delusional and self righteous in their thinking. They need to believe that the other side is evil, that they themselves are morally superior, and degrade the position of others that disagree with them.

And as previously clarified, this only applies to those that judge anti-SSM individuals and hurl around the insults, not everyone that supports SSM (as I myself do).

Sorry...but tolerance does not require embracing the intolerant. Bigots ARE bigots. The bigots of the 60's felt that they were morally justified in their views the same way that the bigots of the 2013 think that they are. Bigotry couched in religion is still bigotry.

 

[Fiddytree]

NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American?

The statement that all morality is relative is in itself an absolute statement and self defeating.

I think laws are created largely based on societal morals, but there exists an absolute moral code as given by God that governs all people whether they accept it or not. The fact of the matter is that everyone dies and gets judged by God according to His standards, not ours.

Or you could view morality as something largely created and enforced by social customs, expectations, and government. You wouldn't want someone to be a nihilist-you would want them to buy into some sort of social convention.

Now that is what eventually happens in this situation. Unabashedly, the best mechanism for change is to enforce it, to make the contrary taboo at best.

 

[Zyphlin]

The fact of the matter is that everyone dies and gets judged by God according to His standards, not ours.

fact
/fakt/Noun
1.A thing that is indisputably the case.

Your arguments are decent, unfortunately they get lost as you try to push your OPINION and BELIEF as something it's not. You can try to stand on your high horse lecturing how others are acting, but all you're doing is acting like other wolves but trying to hide it behind sheeps clothing.

 

[Redress]

I just think it's funny that they (those that fling the anti-SSM people are bigoted homophobes and equal to racists in the 60's) push a meme of "love, tolerance, and freedom" yet are intolerant of other views, have hatred for those that hold those views, are quick to judge and slander everyone that disagrees with a bigoted attitude, and deny them the freedom to vote and have their voice heard on issues. That's what happens when people grow so delusional and self righteous in their thinking. They need to believe that the other side is evil, that they themselves are morally superior, and degrade the position of others that disagree with them.

And as previously clarified, this only applies to those that judge anti-SSM individuals and hurl around the insults, not everyone that supports SSM (as I myself do).

There is a large, unsubtle difference between being against SSM and the message NOM put out. I can respectfully disagree with the former, the latter is just being an ass. If that makes me a hater and intolerant, so be it. Some things should not be tolerated.

 

[Tucker Case]

The statement that all morality is relative is in itself an absolute statement and self defeating.

Saying all morality is relative is not the same thing as saying no absolutes exist, so how in the world could it be called self-defeating? What do you think the statement "all morality is relative" means if you think it relates to absolute statements in some way?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is a large, unsubtle difference between being against SSM and the message NOM put out. I can respectfully disagree with the former, the latter is just being an ass. If that makes me a hater and intolerant, so be it. Some things should not be tolerated.

And who is going to decide which opinions should be tolerated, and which should not?

It is certainly notable that those of you on the far wrong are all for “tolerance”, until it comes to opinions that you do not like, at which point you are the first to call for those opinions to be silenced.