SIAP but was suprised to not see a thread about Dabo and this Family Council
- Thread starter OculusTiger
- Start date
Do you realize black people were lynched, intimidated, segregated, imprisoned, their leader murdered and basically denied human rights? Dogs and hoses were common tactics and getting your ass kicked was the norm for speaking to a white girl or drinking out of a white fountain.
Yeah, that's the same as wanting to be recognized by the government that you are married. Give me a break.
This is how you repute their claim? Oh so they aren't currently being murdered in the streets, so therefore they don't have a large enough victim role to seek justice? What a ridiculous argument. It's real simple: Do you like the idea of oppressive legislation ruling a class of citizens and keeping them from their pursuit of happiness? If yes? Then take a seat over their with the other prejudiced citizens. Because I'm done trying to undo the ideologies your grandfather taught you.
Perhaps this wasn't a total apples to apples comparison but are you saying that gay guys don't get beat up, imprisoned, or killed just for being gay? Cuz that totally happened. It's like you're saying "Well shucks, they've got SOME government protection now. What else could they possibly want?"
Where did I state that I want to deny the right for gays to get married? Honestly I don't care. If a piece of paper makes a gay couple feel legitimized so be it. What I care about is somehow being cast as a "bigot" or "prejudiced" if I don't agree with it. It pisses me off that someone who will not embrace same sex marriage is somehow full of hate. And it pisses me off that you would somehow try to equate this struggle with the civil rights struggle.
Man I really enjoy these types of threads. I often find myself surprised at all the different opinions although by now that shouldn't be the case.
Hypothetical. If the leading religion in this country taught that being a white Christian was a sin and as such openly advocated for white Christians to not be able to marry, would they be bigots?
If they hated Christians, yes. If they simply didn't embrace or advocate their lifestyle, no.
You think that if a person is Christian that they automatically hate gays. Talk about being narrow minded.
Is it any wonder that the radical Islamists hate us? A liberal will seek to deny an American organization their free speech by suggesting that groups not get together and draw cartoons, and make jokes about the prophet Mohammed. They, the libs, go on and on about not offending the Muslims, because making fun of Mohammed is a religious taboo in Islam. Am I right? The problem here, for the libs, is that homosexuality is punishable by death in most places in the Muslim world, yet the libs will not only promote but flaunt homosexuality in the face of the Muslim world.
As a Christian living in this country, I am all for everyone's rights. There are no laws against sinning as long as you are not hurting your fellow man. I don't care if two dudes want to get married in a legal sense. God will never recognize their marriage anyway, at least the God of the Bible. He has spoken on the matter. I also don't believe anyone should force me to bake a wedding cake for anyone. I have a right to believe anything I want to believe, and if I don't want to condone particular behaviors or lifestyles, then neither you nor the gov't has any business forcing me. Notice I said behavior and lifestyles. Has nothing to do with race. As a Christian, I love all people as commanded. I will also say this. From my experience in conversing with my black friends and acquaintances, by and large, the Southern, Christian, Black community is not very "tolerant" of homosexuality and would definitely be offended by comparing the Civil Rights Movement to the gay rights movement.
As a Christian living in this country, I am all for everyone's rights. There are no laws against sinning as long as you are not hurting your fellow man. I don't care if two dudes want to get married in a legal sense. God will never recognize their marriage anyway, at least the God of the Bible. He has spoken on the matter. I also don't believe anyone should force me to bake a wedding cake for anyone. I have a right to believe anything I want to believe, and if I don't want to condone particular behaviors or lifestyles, then neither you nor the gov't has any business forcing me. Notice I said behavior and lifestyles. Has nothing to do with race. As a Christian, I love all people as commanded. I will also say this. From my experience in conversing with my black friends and acquaintances, by and large, the Southern, Christian, Black community is not very "tolerant" of homosexuality and would definitely be offended by comparing the Civil Rights Movement to the gay rights movement.
Lot of sinful behavior would have a majority in favor. Doesn't take away the fact that it is still sinful behavior. Dabo is standing up for his beliefs as a Christian. That is much more important than Clemson University or football.
Not what I asked. This religion thinks it's a sin to be a Christian and lobbies for Christian marriage to have no legal standing. Are they bigots? I said nothing of hate.
This argument always blows my mind. How many other laws are there in Leviticus and Deuteronomy? 612. People want to invoke the one that addresses same sex relationships, yet they ignore the fact that the large majority of those laws are no longer followed by most, including those of you ITT invoking Leviticus to prove your point.
No, they wouldn't be bigots. Much in the same way you are not a bigot just because you don't care for the Christian doctrine.
Liberals have somehow managed to brand anyone who doesn't align with their beliefs as bigots and racists. It's fascinating.
Fair enough. What word would you use for someone who thought it was appropriate to deny you what you considered to be a right?
I never said that I thought Christians on the whole were bigots. I don't know where I stand on that one but I feel people in general are more bigoted than they'd admit (myself probably included). I do feel that the belief that homosexuality is a sin, however, is bigoted. It's sort of a hate the sin not the sinner situation for me, though
Fair enough. What word would you use for someone who thought it was appropriate to deny you what you considered to be a right?
I never said that I thought Christians on the whole were bigots. I don't know where I stand on that one but I feel people in general are more bigoted than they'd admit (myself probably included). I do feel that the belief that homosexuality is a sin, however, is bigoted. It's sort of a hate the sin not the sinner situation for me, though
Everyone is intolerant. I will admit I am. Most liberals will not and that makes them hypocrites. But intolerance does not equal bigotry.
Didn't know that many Americans were so educated on the constitution. 63% of Americans have no idea what the constitution is.
This is because 91% of Americans think more than 5% of the population is gay and 53% believe more than 20% is gay and 33% believe more than 25% is gay. Literally 91 out of 100 people haven't got the first damn clue about what percentage of our population is gay. And for people like Transference, I am not saying that since it's a small number (under 4% if you include all LGBT types) that they don't matter. They matter as much as you or me or anyone reading this. The fact is that due to media brainwashing and the fact that people have no clue what they are fighting for, we have this issue. If people really knew (yes, we are now too damn stupid to know these things) they might realize this isn't some form of mass discrimination and there are a lot of ways we should be providing all the protections under our Constitution to ever citizen of this nation. Changing the definition of marriage will do little to fix that.
At any rate, people using polls to validate their views is just stupid. The intellectual capacity of most Americans would fit into a baby bottle. Their right to an opinion is something I would die to protect. Their opinions however... are quite a different story as they are based in fantasyland and not reality.
Last edited:
Just because people display a cognitive heuristic when answering survey questions doesn't mean that is the reason they support sweeping social change. To jump to that conclusion shows some pretty lazy cognitive abilities on your end (not your fault according to Kahneman).
In any case, Dabo can position himself with a bigoted policy group, I just don't think he has fully thought through the consequences. Very soon (June), people that hold yours and his views will no longer be able to deny equal rights to people wanting to marry (still more to do on the discrimination end, but that will come), so this is less of an issue in my eyes than it was just a few years ago.
Not to me it isn't. When he runs for office he can get involved...right now he represents Clemson University and I wish he would stay out of hot button social issues.
Which of these do you think is in his contract?
1. Beat FSU
2. Beat Gay Marriage
What does the percentage of gays have to do with it? I don't care if it's 2% or 50%, they should not be discriminated against. In fact, I'd argue that we should perhaps do more to protect the 2%.
All of you keep getting caught up in what someone's opinion is. No one gives a shit about others' opinions. You can have whatever opinion you want. If @Willence thinks being gay is a sin, that's fine. But when @Willence infuses his opinion into the legislative process in an effort to discriminate against a class of people, that is a serious problem.
And I assume you believe that the Constitution (you see, it's the foundation of the country and therefore is capitalized) allows the government to prohibit gay marriage. I missed that lecture.
I'm always surprised and dumbfounded why the two distinct types of marriage are never really discussed. Marriage in the eyes of the government vs marriage in the church. I'm 100% for marriage for legal rights for couples, etc, but I'm not for it in the church. There is a difference.
This is where you show your ignorance ClemsonJag. I protested DOMA when it was past. I believe Don't Ask, Don't Tell was discriminatory and I have said so since it started. I would fight tooth and nail against a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage. We should not make laws against people in this nation. I fully and completely support equal protection under the Constitution. While our nation has always had a hard time providing those protections, fortunately our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution so that we could strive to be a more perfect union.
What you aren't seeing is that this "equal rights" you refer to which marriage is not a "right" has seriously impacted some of my freedoms as well. It was advertised as "who cares, it won't affect you" but it is. It is infringing on my religious freedom in very significant ways. I want to provide all civic benefits to same sex couples... period. Every single one that I enjoy, they should also enjoy... period. But that isn't enough and this whole thing is about to go a bridge or two too far. You may have the best of intentions with your desires but the people behind this movement (most of which are not gay) have another agenda. Like the people of Pompeii, you've built your house next to an active volcano and it's going to blow if things continue on this course. We are way beyond equal rights as people call it. Folks like you are being played for a damn fool and you haven't figured that out yet... I pray you do soon because from what I've read, I have no issue with your statements but your perspective on the other side is almost completely wrong.
How the **** is allowing two women to marry, and have the same rights in the law as you and your wife, "infringing on your religious freedom"? Does it stop you from holding the belief that being gay is a sin? Is your marriage no longer considered "sacred" because Dan and Bob down the street have the same marriage certificate as you? Are you no longer able to pray about the shit that bothers you or take your kids to sunday school?
I honestly want to know how two people of the same sex being married is infringing on your "religious freedom".
Look up what happened at Still Waters UMC. Consider what Robert Gates said with the Scouts last week and how that would impact religious institutions. It's on the verge of splitting our church denomination. It didn't stop with civil recognition (to which I think there should be unimpeded recognition). Even in the Supreme Court case, the solicitor general admits that if the court finds for gay marriage (as I suspect it will) then with religious institutions, this is going to be a huge issue. You'd have to be willfully stupid not to see the wide ranging impact in redefining a word like marriage. How two people (gay or otherwise) live their lives has no impact whatsoever on my life. How they force the institutions upon which my religious freedoms rely upon to feel about how two people live absolutely has an impact on my life. Your sales pitch, Transference, as usually is about 1000 miles wide and half an inch deep. You're going to have to actually think here for once.
But hey, it's OK! I will start a movement after this to call all cows, sheep since sheep stay warmer in the winter time. They all have a right to be warm!
Equality doesn't come from redefinition. Equality comes from recognition and legal protection. I 100% support that. I do not support redefining marriage and all the complications that come with it. You're free to disagree (for now at least you're free) but there was another way to resolve this. This is simply a case of people on your side of the fence showing total disdain toward people who feel as I do and wishing to "shoot the wounded" to prove your point.
But hey, it's OK! I will start a movement after this to call all cows, sheep since sheep stay warmer in the winter time. They all have a right to be warm!
Equality doesn't come from redefinition. Equality comes from recognition and legal protection. I 100% support that. I do not support redefining marriage and all the complications that come with it. You're free to disagree (for now at least you're free) but there was another way to resolve this. This is simply a case of people on your side of the fence showing total disdain toward people who feel as I do and wishing to "shoot the wounded" to prove your point.
Should have known you would come back with no actual substance as to how your religious freedoms have been infringed upon.
So a church has an inner squabble about whether or not to recognize gay marriages. How does this infringe on anyone's freedoms? The boy scouts now have to allow gay troop leaders, and this means the boy scout troop that you are apart of will have a gay leader and that stops you from thinking he is a sinner?
There has been literally no changes in how you have/get to practice your religious beliefs. You trying to claim so is the most pathetic part of this pathetic thread...
It means the Scouts, which are a Christian based organization, under threat of a lawsuit, are being forced to do something that will cause them to be disbanded at our church. They have already been disbanded at many other churches but we were trying to hang in there. The Scouts are important part of our son's life. The squabbles you referred to affect how we are able to worship and cause tremendous issues within the church in terms of people trying to force me to believe something I simply do not believe. Further, if you can't see the writing on the wall with the Supreme Court case (I'm sure you can but you love it so you pretend it isn't there) then you're being a fool. I believe what I do and you are free to disagree. It has impacted my life in a lot of ways. I'd like our government to provide protection and then allow me to believe what I want and practice my faith as I have previously done. That's it. Hell, I agree with you on most of your points in this thread but that isn't good enough for you. That's what's pathetic because you won't take yes for an answer.
Once again, the scouts allowing gay scout leaders does not mean that you have to enroll your son in a troop that has a gay scout leader. If you don't like it, move him to a troop that doesn't have one, thats your right.
Your issue with churches reviewing their stances on gay marriage is a societal one, and not the government/someone "infringing upon your religious freedoms". Some churches used to hold a stance that black people couldn't join them, and I am sure as that changed people moved to other churches full of people who had similar belief systems. No one made them change their beliefs, but as society changed churches changed with it (churches after all are just groups of people with some, not all, shared beliefs).
The SCOTUS is 100% going to make restrictive marriage laws illegal. It is going to be a good day for America, and will go down as the defining social moment of this decade. Nowhere in their decision will you see "people have to now stop believing homosexuality is a sin and change all their beliefs so that they welcome them with open arms". You can be the same rural minded person you are today, nothing changes for you and nothing/no one is making you change your belief system.
Now, if other people disagree with you or think you are a bad person for holding those beliefs, then that is their right. If they actively create laws/incite violence to make you change your beliefs, then they are as much in the wrong as someone who thinks there should be laws banning gay marriage.
instead of stupid I should have said...displayed lazy cognitive ability.....Hey ATWE....GFY.
You demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge when you say stupid things like this. Marriage as you know and understand it is only a few hundred years old, and really is a 20th century phenomenon.
No, it really isn't and what I said isn't stupid. Marriage is a forever ago thing. Yes, there were times where men married multiple women and that was considered marriage. But a bit over 2000 years ago, a man named Jesus defined clearly what marriage was for us. If you don't chose to acknowledge that, it's your call. But what I said isn't stupid...
If you have two villages... one same sex couples and the other male/female couples and then wait about 100 years and come back. One will be there still, the other will not. That's because one follows the intent of the natural order and the other doesn't. It isn't a statement of judgment to say that. It's just a statement of fact.
Perhaps I misread but none of what you said is a first ammendment issue. BSA is changing due to societal pressure and your church doesn't like that. Churches are splitting becuase of the ever growing number of people who don't take exception with homosexuality. None of this is being forced by the government. What protections are not being received here? And again, no one is forcing churches to marry gay couples.
Would now be a bad time to mention that Swinney backed out of the engagement and turned the award down?
Similar threads
