"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some people really are pieces of shit, and some of the views people hold tend to reflect the kind of people they are. People against same sex marriage, for example, tend to be homophobic or, at best, selfish people lacking empathy for people different from themselves.

This type of attitude is part of the problem. It is very disingenuous for a liberal/progressive type to pose as accepting of "reasonable" social conservatives...just so long as said social conservatives don't have socially conservative opinions. It the lib/prog has already decided that people who believe marriage is defined by the traditional union of one man and one woman are bigots then the lib/prog has basically eliminated any space for discussion.

[Divinity]

People against same sex marriage, for example, tend to be homophobic 

You can't be against same sex marriage, and not be a homophobe.  I mean wanting to deny people their rights for your own religious purposes?  That's homophobic in and of itself.  Social Conservatives are just shitbags, and there's no reason to dance around that fact.

[Amarok]

Or KKK?

Nope if your aligning with them and espousing there views you deserve the title .

[Edwardo Piet]

It the lib/prog has already decided that people who believe marriage is defined by the traditional union of one man and one woman are bigots then the lib/prog has basically eliminated any space for discussion.

That is bigoted. It's extremely anti equal rights.

---

People against same sex marriage, for example, tend to be homophobic 

You can't be against same sex marriage, and not be a homophobe.  I mean wanting to deny people their rights for your own religious purposes?  That's homophobic in and of itself.  Social Conservatives are just shitbags, and there's no reason to dance around that fact.

Well, all 3 of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) are homophobic religions, so that's no surprise.

Not all religions are homophobic. There's some nutty stuff in Buddhism, for example, but there's nothing about Buddhism that espouses homophobia.

[Amarok]

It the lib/prog has already decided that people who believe marriage is  restricted by the traditional union of one man and one woman are bigots then the lib/prog has basically eliminated any space for discussion.

Yup because their is nothing to discuss . It's bigotry plain and simple .

[Neo-Scholastic]

It the lib/prog has already decided that people who believe marriage is defined by the traditional union of one man and one woman are bigots then the lib/prog has basically eliminated any space for discussion.

That is bigoted. It's extremely anti equal rights.

In your opinion.

[Amarok]

Nope by inception said position is bigoted

[CapnAwesome]

People against same sex marriage, for example, tend to be homophobic 

You can't be against same sex marriage, and not be a homophobe.  I mean wanting to deny people their rights for your own religious purposes?  That's homophobic in and of itself.  Social Conservatives are just shitbags, and there's no reason to dance around that fact.

Even if all that is true, do you think about your end goal? What are you trying to accomplish? If it's changing someone's mind, calling them a shitbag is just going garden them in their position. If it's changing the mind of a third party observer, it's not doing much for your case either.

Ultimately what you are left with is that it makes you feel good to do it. Which is the oldest reason anybody insults anybody.

[GrandizerII]

Some people really are pieces of shit, and some of the views people hold tend to reflect the kind of people they are. People against same sex marriage, for example, tend to be homophobic or, at best, selfish people lacking empathy for people different from themselves.

This type of attitude is part of the problem. It is very disingenuous for a liberal/progressive type to pose as accepting of "reasonable" social conservatives...just so long as said social conservatives don't have socially conservative opinions. It the lib/prog has already decided that people who believe marriage is defined by the traditional union of one man and one woman are bigots then the lib/prog has basically eliminated any space for discussion.

Well, that's not the bigoted part. You can have your own personal views on something without wanting it enforced on others for your own satisfaction. The bigotry occurs beyond that, when you show prejudice towards non-heterosexual people or when you don't want same sex couples to get married.

[Neo-Scholastic]

This type of attitude is part of the problem. It is very disingenuous for a liberal/progressive type to pose as accepting of "reasonable" social conservatives...just so long as said social conservatives don't have socially conservative opinions. It the lib/prog has already decided that people who believe marriage is defined by the traditional union of one man and one woman are bigots then the lib/prog has basically eliminated any space for discussion.

Well, that's not the bigoted part. You can have your own personal views on something without wanting it enforced on others for your own satisfaction. The bigotry occurs beyond that, when you show prejudice towards non-heterosexual people or when you don't want same sex couples to get married.

The same applies to you. Your own personal views on something does not mean everyone else has to go along with it. As I've said elsewhere, nearly everyone wants to see their value-system, regardless of its basis, reflected in civil law.