Catholics are victims of marriage equality (apparently)

[Whateverist]

[rexbeccarox]

Good find, w'ist!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'll take "False Equivocations" for a true Daily Double, Alex.

[robvalue]

So is this final proof that praying doesn't do shit? Crying and screaming persecution is the new praying, it seems.

[Dystopia]

Do you think that someone who is against interracial marriage is a bigot? And is so against it that they wish for it to be illegal?

This may be of help; here is the definition of "bigot":

You are assuming being against something means you think it must be illegal. I am against heavy drug consumption for the most part because it leads to addiction and tears people's lives apart, but I don't support criminalizing it or anything like that. Is someone against interracial marriage a bigot? Well, it's a tricky question because the majority of opponents to interracial marriage are white nationalist, white supremacist and neo-nazi organizations, not your average local church, so for the most part my answer would be yes. Does this person oppose interracial marriage because they hate other races? Or do they simply think mixing different cultures is a bad idea because it leads to conflicts between different "tribes" and it may not work? Do you know that there are black people who refuse to inter-racially date, specially white people, because they've had bad experiences and the cultural divergences don't allow it? If so, would you label these people as bigots? What if someone just thinks it's a bad idea to marry someone from another race because you're not preserving our phenotype but doesn't want to impose it on others? It may be wrong, but is this a high intolerance towards other viewpoints, as stated in the dictionary definition?

Now, what would you call someone who wants to impose his or her view on others by law, preventing them from marrying someone they wish to marry? Is that being tolerant of others' opinions, or is it being intolerant of them?


Now, if the same-sex marriage supporters were insisting that all marriages must be same-sex by law, then, that, too, would be intolerant of others. But I have not encountered such a person yet. Some times one side of an issue is full of bigots, and the other side is not. Pretending otherwise does not change the facts.

1 - As explained above, being against something and wanting to make it illegal are two different things. The video seems to be focusing on people's right to believe marriage is between a man and a woman (biological sex) - Obviously some Catholics truly want to make it illegal, but some may be happy with just opposing it on moral and religious grounds - After all gays are going to hell anyway so why should they care?

2 - Someone who hates gays and wants gays to be executed is clearly a bigot, but someone who simply doesn't agree with gay marriage isn't (automatically), as long as they're not openly intolerant of other viewpoints. My stepfather is a strong anti-theist, a lawyer and he is against same-sex marriage mostly because he believes legally it is an "unworthy" institution because the legal privileges that exist solely for married people stop making sense - He is very pragmatic and doesn't care that it makes people unhappy (to not be able to marry same sex people), but I wouldn't call him a bigot because he says human rights apply to gays as well.

3 - Some people are simply against marriage - This is the communist proposal - Abolishing marriage as an institution - And naturally those people will be mad with the legalization of gay marriage because they think we are going the wrong way about it - I don't think these people are bigots. In fact, I think you are only a bigot if you're openly and clearly intolerant of diverse ideas

4 - Pyrrho, don't we all impose our ideas on society? Just think about it, laws are based on morality (partially at least) - The question is not if all morality will be legislated, but who's morality - Usually the majority's morality (don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, don't beat people to death, etc.) - I never understood this argument that one group are "imposing" their view just because they want something illegal, that's just idiotic - Legal or illegal, decriminalization or legalization, any legislative measure that is approved will inevitably impose something on someone. The fact you are broadening the legal definition of marriage does not mean it's ok because every law approved affects someone, at least indirectly. When you approve gay marriage, you are imposing on everyone the viewpoint that gays getting married is valid and acceptable, otherwise it wouldn't be legalized, right? The question is not if it's an imposition, but if it's a right imposition - I think it is, just like we impose people the prohibition of murder.

5 - Since you are an American and America has this broader definition of religious freedom I'm curious to know what do you think about religious objections? Usually, freedom of religion means the right to believe and the right to live your life according to what you believe, for as long as you don't disturb public order, peace and reveal classified information or just go out murdering people - So what's your take on it? Do you think religious freedom should be restricted? Why or why not? As usual, I enjoy our conversations, keep it going

[Longhorn]

Dys, the biggest problem with this video is that it portrays the largest religious group in the US acting like victims of persecution because they themselves want to persecute others. They knowingly and deliberately made the parallel to being gay-'I'm different', 'I might lose friends when they find out about this video', etc.-when their situation is absolutely incomparable to the discrimination LGBT individuals face. It's a gross display of hypocrisy and a devaluation of the struggle homosexuals endure. Saying they have gay friends and nobody should be looked down upon means nothing when in the same breath they want to deny them their basic rights for no reason other than simple closed minded intolerance. It's the same as the famous 'I'm not racist, but <racist remark>. Personally, I think it's distasteful.

[Dystopia]

Aren't Catholics the second largest religious group next to protestants? I think any group promotes their interests, it's a natural behavior in human societies - You can find all sorts of groups promoting an ideological agenda. Since they can't ban gay marriage, they need to find alternatives, and the first is ensuring being against gay marriage is seen as a valid ideological position. They're also playing the reverse-oppression card - This is what happens when one group who was traditionally oppressed revolts against the oppressor and becomes the latter itself - It isn't what is happening right now, but people don't care about facts so their message will stick.

[Regina]

Omg woman in that video

She talking about Islamic extremists but how is she any better? Extremism is ok as long as it's a Christian? Girl bye.

[Longhorn]

YL she's not talking about extremists tho. She's going on about some extremlists, whatever that means

[LastPoet]

Omg woman in that video

She talking about Islamic extremists but how is she any better? Extremism is ok as long as it's a Christian? Girl bye.

Leave britney alone popped into my mind. For some odd reason