"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[Edwardo Piet]

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

In your opinion.

Absolutely not it's absolute fact that being anti equal rights is bigotry. How can you argue that excluding an entire group from having equal rights isn't bigoted?

You may as well say it's my opinion that a square isn't circular. You're against giving homosexuals equal rights, therefore you're bigoted, it's basic logic.

You're either being dishonest now or denying reality. Most likely the latter considering as a theist you're an expert at the latter.

[Divinity]

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.

You can't just go around changing people's minds on their bigotry.  If logic worked against bigotry, there'd be no bigotry in the world.  Bigots aren't just waiting for someone to come up to them and explain "Gay people are people too!"  People aren't logical creatures.  Why do you think religion is so popular?  Religion is illogical (and I say that as a semi-Deist who believes there may be something out there greater than all of us, which itself isn't logical.)  If people followed logic, then there'd be a point to trying to change people's minds.

[GrandizerII]

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.

Except that my wish for my value system to be reflected in civil law does not extend misery to those oppressed and continue to deprive them of their rights.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

What is all this shit about ulterior motives or end goals all the time. I just speak my mind honestly regardless of how it turns out. I trust that honesty is the best policy and it's not like I could live with myself if I had other motives anyway.

When most people speak I normally assume that they are saying X because they believe X, not that they say X because saying X achieves Y.

It's starting to piss me off that everyone assumes ulterior motives. Like if you say something provocative it's not because you have an opinion that happens to be provocative it's because you're trying to be provocative. All that bullshit. Not fucking everyone has to have a stupid fucking ulterior motive. I don't have any motive when I swear like that either other than to tell it like it is.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Except that my wish for my value system to be reflected in civil law does not extend misery to those oppressed and continue to deprive them of their rights.

Just because some people with specific sexual proclivities don't want to enter the only kind of on-going commitment that includes the potential to produce offspring,...that personal reluctance doesn't mean they're being denied any specific right.

[Crossless2.0]

Except that my wish for my value system to be reflected in civil law does not extend misery to those oppressed and continue to deprive them of their rights.

Just because some people with specific sexual proclivities don't want to enter the only kind of on-going commitment that includes the potential to produce offspring,...that personal reluctance doesn't mean they're being denied any specific right.

In the "good old days" gay couples were denied a lot of specific rights: hospital visitations, child custody, adoption, parenting rights, medical decision-making power, automatic inheritance, standing to sue for wrongful death of a partner, spousal and child support, access to family insurance policies, exemption from property tax upon death of a partner, immunity from being forced to testify against one’s partner, domestic violence protections, etc.

But you knew that. You also know that elderly heterosexual couples who marry are not going to produce offspring but we never denied them the right to marry, so that's a non-starter. I suppose you have no problem with "civil unions" for gay couples. But that seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Language and institutions change and not always for the worse.

[The Valkyrie]

I generally don't use terms like that unless it's been started by an individual on the other side of the "discussion" first.

"Libtard" is one I encounter frequently.

[Edwardo Piet]

You probably mostly encounter it from the republicunts

[Amarok]

Just because some people with specific sexual proclivities don't want to enter the only kind of on-going commitment that includes the potential to produce offspring,...that personal reluctance doesn't mean they're being denied any specific right.

Ah a tired re hatch of the " But they can get married to another person of the same sex" Here's a hint never use an argument who's reversal you would never accept nor could be used to push other discrimination's  . They don't want to marry just anyone they want to marry the person they are in love with . And love how you push the notion that this is about sex and ignore the fact it's about love. And modern marriage has dick all to do with having kids that's a feature marriage not it's point .

---

As for civil unions blacks ,women, and natives did not have to settle for a separate institution on voting even thou it offended bigot morons . Why should gays have to settle for less in marriage ?

---

In your opinion

Nope by fact

---

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.

Only if you view it as a problem . In this case social conservatism is neither reasonable and earns it's title of bigoted. And you confuse tolerate with accept .

[Whateverist]

Not a big fan and I regret the polarization but Min is like a favorite uncle who cusses like a sailor and sprinkles salt into everything he says. Since we share many perspectives I don't object. I'm like the guy who isn't racist but doesn't say anything to confront his klan uncle. =(

---

You probably mostly encounter it from the republicunts

I wonder if they're prone to repuliclamidia?