• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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


Who has called for any opinion to be silenced? Who do you have to make **** up? Why is their opinion sacred, but mine not? Hypocrisy much?
 
Redress said:
Who has called for any opinion to be silenced? Who do you have to make **** up? Why is their opinion sacred, but mine not? Hypocrisy much?
Click to expand...
—————
—————
 
Redress said:
Odd, no one is calling for any one to be silenced there. Nice try tho...Well, not really.
Click to expand...

What, then,did you mean, by saying that “Some things should not be tolerated”? Nothing was being discussed, other than opinions and beliefs and the expression thereof, so it makes no sense to claim that it was not an opinion, belief, or expression thereof that you intended to include among the things which “should not be tolerated”. And to not tolerate an opinion, belief, or expression thereof, what can that mean other than to call for the silencing of that expression? To allow a belief or opinion to be expressed, no matter how disagreeable it might be to you, is to tolerate it.
 

In order to claim a moral code is divine in nature you have to first prove divinity. That has two parts that have yet to even come close to being proven. The first is to prove there is some sort of divine power and rules, and the second is to prove that a specific set of rules in accordance with a specific religion is the right one. A lot of people believing in something does not make it true or moral as history is littered with areas where many people have believed in false things, and in moral values that we find immoral today. I am assuming you tend towards the moral values specified in the bible. First, the bible doesn't even come close to being the word of god as it is clearly admitted to be the word of man that might have been inspired by god. We will also note that the bible does give clear advocation of practices we find immoral today. It does give moral rules for keeping slaves. keeping slaves is something we find completely immoral today, so the divinity and absolute correctness of the bible and christian religions would not be considered infallible as admitted by many christians themselves.

Societal morals are in many cases wrong at times due to the fallibility of man. However, in the absence of regular communication from the divine to clear up misunderstandings the adaptability of societal morals over time becomes far superior to those of a divine nature. Man learned that slavery was wrong and man fought against the practice and freed the slaves in many areas of the world. God did not come down and perform miracles or command we stop using slaves, we did. Certain laws are easy to see through societal contract. laws against murder, theft, assault, and other laws protecting the sovereignity of life, physical safety, and of property make sense to religious and non-religious alike. None of us want to be assaulted, killed, or have our stuff taken so we agree that we will not do those things, and that the law will be present to punish those who do so and remove them from society for not abiding by such social contracts. I can even see the argument against abortion by the idealists who truly believe in the sanctity of life under those guidelines, though they often resort to a piss poor religious argument which has no basis in truth because they cannot prove god exists or that their religion is the religion of said overlord of the universe.

Morality becomes subjective when you start dealing with laws that are not gotten through social contract. gay marriage is one of those. there has been no proof at all, and even proof to the contrary, that gay marriage is harmful to anyone but those who happen to willingly participate in it. Unlike something like assault your life is not directly effected by gay marriage. Yet it is claimed as being something moral based upon divinity which has no basis in truth. That is a moral value relative to the person making it. Those are moral choices a person makes on an individual basis as they are the only people harmed or benefitting from those choices.

This is why morals are relative. We see that at different points in time and different places even society declares different values for laws. It was legal to own slaves. it is legal to assault some people, or to kill at times. Those positions are relative to the situation and environment you happen to be in. Even religious moral values are relative to the religion you practice or do not practice. It is moral for a muslim woman to wear a hijab, but a christian woman is not concerned with that morality or even finds it to be moral at all. Until your prove god, and you prove a specific god and set of rules your claims that morals are divinely sanctified are just spouting at best. if it is truly moral like no murder you can make an argument without the use of god or divine inspiration which you cannot prove. If you need to use god to prove your moral stance remove the relativity in your stance and prove god and what it wants to us.
 

Wrong. To allow an opinion to be expressed is not to tolerate it, tolerating it would be turning a blind eye to it, to accept it without criticism.
 
Surtr said:
Because gays totally endured the level of hardships as American blacks.
Click to expand...

If "gay" was a visibly obvious characteristic, they absolutely would have.

But you know what? Irrelevant. That isn't the point of this image.

I am so sick of these whiny ass social conservative types screeching about how we wont intolerate their intolerance. **** you, of course we aren't going to tolerate your intolerance. Digsbe? You're wrong. NOM absolutely positively has been working to deny rights to homosexuals. They actively participate in political lobbying to do exactly that.

Look, nobody is saying gay people have endured the same hardships as black people. So quit bringing up that straw man. The comparisons to the civil rights movement aren't making that comparison. The comparison is that the anti-gay crowd is making the same types of arguments, holding up the same types of signs, and for what? Upholding "traditional marriage?" All this effort devoted to blocking other people from signing a legal contract, denying them the right to have the government recognize that contract. Don't give me this crap about just wanting to protect yourselves and your beliefs. It's bull****. None of you are affected in any way if two other dudes get married. But you want to stop it anyway, because you think it's icky.

That makes you intolerant and I have no obligation to tolerate that.
 

You have a right to say all these idiotic things you say. And I have a right to call you out for it.

Nobody said anything about gagging you. You're buying into way too much of NOM's rhetoric.
 

What about the "tolerance" of those who vilify gays as being un-American?

Look, I know plenty of people who are against SSM, and many of them are very nice people. I don't have anything against them though I disagree with them. However, if your organization pushes the idea that you can't be gay and American at the same time, that IS hateful rhetoric. If you don't want to be branded as "hateful" don't say hateful things.

Ironically, the same people who rally to this divisive rhetoric go on and on about Obama being divisive. If you want to be divisive fine, but if you engage in that kind of rhetoric, you are at best the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to Obama's "divisiveness."
 
Deuce said:
If "gay" was a visibly obvious characteristic, they absolutely would have.

But you know what? Irrelevant. That isn't the point of this image.
Click to expand...
It's making a clear comparison, like they've done in the past. Instead of using obvious hyperbole, just stick with actual facts.

Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Relax. Nobody cares about your dramatic outrage for effect. Yelling and crying about it won't do you any good.
 

Tone fallacy. Predictable. Often used when one has nothing to say against the actual argument being made. Similar to ad hominem in that regard.

Bottom line: Gay people getting married does not negatively impact you or society in any measurable way. But some people want to ban it anyway, because they think it's wrong. This is not at all in line with the fundamental principles this country is built on.

No, NOM, you are the ones fighting against real American values.
 
Deuce said:
Tone fallacy.
Click to expand...
That only works when you present something of value.

Predictable. Often used when one has nothing to say against the actual argument being made. Similar to ad hominem in that regard.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what you're doing right now. I'm for same sex marriage. I'm against stupid twats using arguments that damage their own cause. Yelling and crying, and telling people "**** you" does absolutely nothing to progress this cause.

No, NOM, you are the ones fighting against real American values.
Click to expand...

Are you done?
 
Surtr said:
That only works when you present something of value.
Click to expand...

Because NOM here has presented something of value to counter? They'll deserve reasonable debate when they try it themselves.


Which is exactly what you're doing right now. I'm for same sex marriage. I'm against stupid twats using arguments that damage their own cause. Yelling and crying, and telling people "**** you" does absolutely nothing to progress this cause.
Click to expand...

What did you just call me?


Are you done?
Click to expand...

Tone fallacy again.
 

Society decides what opinions and norms apply. Laws are based on the societal morality of the time.
 
Surtr said:
Because gays totally endured the level of hardships as American blacks.
Click to expand...

It's almost like we're forgetting gay black people exist.
 
Deuce said:
Because NOM here has presented something of value to counter? They'll deserve reasonable debate when they try it themselves.
Click to expand...
You have provided nothing of value so far.


What did you just call me?
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about you, but if the shoe fits, lace that bitch up and take a stroll.



Tone fallacy again.
Click to expand...
And now you've made it clear that you don't know what a tone argument is.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks, people.
 
Surtr said:
Same thing gay black people has to do with what I said.
Click to expand...

Well yeah. They had to deal with homophobia and racism. Things intersect
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American? | The Raw Story

Ohhh silly hate groups.. [/FONT][/COLOR]They will be on the wrong side of history..
Click to expand...

Surtr said:
Because gays totally endured the level of hardships as American blacks.
Click to expand...

Actually, they did.

They were beaten and lynched. They were denied jobs, and access to stores and other businesses. They were arrested and jailed simply for who they were or daring to hang out in bars together (that's what caused the Stonewall Riots). They were reviled in Churches as abominations. They were indentified as mentally ill, locked up in mental facilities and forced to undergo "experimental" techniques and electroshock "therapy."

Soooo, yeah I think they have a right to claim systematic oppression similar to any other historically oppressed groups in the good ole U.S. of A.
 
Last edited:

digs just.....:doh

Seriously, we are denied equal standing under the law, that is pure discrimination. The fact that you still can't see this makes me rather sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…