Youtube's Theme Today is #ProudToLove (Homosexual)

[Regnum Dominae]

Except that it is due to people like those that things like Prop 8 get proposed and nearly put in motion. Someone who is against gay marriages would instantly jump on the occasion to prevent them, I would guess.

And regardless of the motives for why one is against them, the end result is still the restriction of thhe marriage rights of an individual, be it for religious motives or not.

Motives definitely matter, if you can't acknowledge that then there is no point in debating any idea in general. Not everyone who is against gay marriage is going to do something like propose prop 8. The only people you can accuse of restricting rights are those that actually try to, and even then you can't accuse them of restricting rights for the sake of restricting rights or because they think gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people. Stupid assumptions are stupid.

If they don't think that gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people, then why do they propose things that would take away rights from gay people, leding them to have less rights than straight people?

[Divair]

And you'd like what? A third apology? Getting greedy.

No, just for you to admit you had an oversimplified argument.

Deducing from apologies too much?

[Agritum]

Except that it is due to people like those that things like Prop 8 get proposed and nearly put in motion. Someone who is against gay marriages would instantly jump on the occasion to prevent them, I would guess.

And regardless of the motives for why one is against them, the end result is still the restriction of thhe marriage rights of an individual, be it for religious motives or not.

Motives definitely matter, if you can't acknowledge that then there is no point in debating any idea in general. Not everyone who is against gay marriage is going to do something like propose prop 8. The only people you can accuse of restricting rights are those that actually try to, and even then you can't accuse them of restricting rights for the sake of restricting rights or because they think gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people. Stupid assumptions are stupid.

They can pop out any justification they want for wanting to ban gay marriage. The end result is still that someone's marriage rights get restricted, and no amount of moral or religious justifications is going to change it.

[Disserbia]

Motives definitely matter, if you can't acknowledge that then there is no point in debating any idea in general. Not everyone who is against gay marriage is going to do something like propose prop 8. The only people you can accuse of restricting rights are those that actually try to, and even then you can't accuse them of restricting rights for the sake of restricting rights or because they think gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people. Stupid assumptions are stupid.

If they don't think that gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people, then why do they propose things that would take away rights from gay people, leding them to have less rights than straight people?

Because their morality dictates that is the right thing to do. Also not everyone who is against gay marriage thinks it's even their business to get involved in the political side. It's not because they think gay people are less of a person. These stupid assumptions prevent open dialog and just make this issue a worse one.

[The IASM]

That is pretty much my reaction.

Didn't you post the same words 2 pages ago?

Yep, but they still hold the same value.

[Enadail]

So when google supports gay marriage it is the best thing ever,

Who's saying its the best thing ever?

yet when chick fil a comes out against gay marriage it's homophobia and Dan Cathy is a bigot.

Definitionally, yes, it is. Being intolerant of someone without sound reasoning is bigotry.

Two companies give there opinions on an issue. Why when you guys agree is it okay but when you disagree it's the end of the world?

Did anyone try to stop Chick-Fil-A from presenting their opinion?

Is not one of the morals the gay movement is trying to elaborate is that we should accept everyone?

Again, who tried to stop Chick-Fil-A?

These posts show must of the people here are no better than the " homophobic bigots" YouTube is attempting to change the hearts of. Just saying.

You seem to have confused intolerance with disagreement. No one stopped Chick-Fil-A from making the statement, nor said that the company should not take a political stance. Instead, people reacted to the stance itself, as is within their rights. You are completely within your right to disagree with Google, and boycott Google, as many people did Chick-Fil-A. But don't confuse bigotry with disagreement.

[Ceannairceach]

Didn't you post the same words 2 pages ago?

Yep, but they still hold the same value.

So because you don't like what is being said, it should be burned down?

Very nice of you.

[Disserbia]

Motives definitely matter, if you can't acknowledge that then there is no point in debating any idea in general. Not everyone who is against gay marriage is going to do something like propose prop 8. The only people you can accuse of restricting rights are those that actually try to, and even then you can't accuse them of restricting rights for the sake of restricting rights or because they think gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people. Stupid assumptions are stupid.

They can pop out any justification they want for wanting to ban gay marriage. The end result is still that someone's marriage rights get restricted, and no amount of moral or religious justifications is going to change it.

No, but maybe if people stop making stupid assumptions about the other side of the issue these issues would not be so hotly contested and we could have a calm, open dialog about it. Those who support gay marriage are just as guilty of turning this into a flame war as those who are opposed to it.

[Regnum Dominae]

Yes, a "morality" which states that gays are inferior and must be restricted.

Oh really? Where?

Maybe an analogy will help.

Let's say that someone proposed a bill stripping Jews of the right to marry.

Does it really matter whether their reasoning is (1) or (2)?

(1) Jews should have no right to marry because Jews should have their rights restricted.
(2) Jews should have no right to marry because they are EVIL JESUS DENIERS.

Either way, they still want to restrict the rights of Jews.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you seriously just not get it?

[Regnum Dominae]

Didn't you post the same words 2 pages ago?

Yep, but they still hold the same value.

[Disserbia]

No, just for you to admit you had an oversimplified argument.

Deducing from apologies too much?

So you have no actual response to mine that has to do with the topic of the thread?

[Regnum Dominae]

If they don't think that gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people, then why do they propose things that would take away rights from gay people, leding them to have less rights than straight people?

Because their morality dictates that is the right thing to do. Also not everyone who is against gay marriage thinks it's even their business to get involved in the political side. It's not because they think gay people are less of a person. These stupid assumptions prevent open dialog and just make this issue a worse one.

So they think that gay people should be stripped of their rights because their morality tells them so.
As long as the italicized is true, it doesn't matter what their reasoning (the underlined) is.

[Divair]

Deducing from apologies too much?

So you have no actual response to mine that has to do with the topic of the thread?

Enough apologies for now? Very well. Then may I point out that your post was indeed very irrelevant to mine. What I said:

It's very simple. One supports the restrictions of rights. The other supports the expansion of rights.

What you said:

Being against gay marriage is not restricting anyone's rights.

No connection.

[The IASM]

Yep, but they still hold the same value.

So because you don't like what is being said, it should be burned down?

Very nice of you.

I'm not a very nice person to those I see completely ruinous.

[Disserbia]

Oh really? Where?

Maybe an analogy will help.

Let's say that someone proposed a bill stripping Jews of the right to marry.

Does it really matter whether their reasoning is (1) or (2)?

(1) Jews should have no right to marry because Jews should have their rights restricted.
(2) Jews should have no right to marry because they are EVIL JESUS DENIERS.

Either way, they still want to restrict the rights of Jews.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you seriously just not get it?

Yes, there reasoning does matter, reasoning always matters.

Also, you're the one making assumptions here, about other people's views you're implying a hive mind and that they think, as a hive mind, that gay people are "inferior" which is what I was responding to in your post.

[Euroslavia]

Coolios.

Have the conservatives blown up yet?

That is pretty much my reaction.

We got it the first time. Now it's just looking like pic spam.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Didn't you post the same words 2 pages ago?

Yep, but they still hold the same value.

None at all?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

So because you don't like what is being said, it should be burned down?

Very nice of you.

I'm not a very nice person to those I see completely ruinous.

Do explain how it is that people in consenting relationships are "completely ruinous".

[Disserbia]

So you have no actual response to mine that has to do with the topic of the thread?

Enough apologies for now? Very well. Then may I point out that your post was indeed very irrelevant to mine. What I said:

It's very simple. One supports the restrictions of rights. The other supports the expansion of rights.

What you said:

Being against gay marriage is not restricting anyone's rights.

No connection.

One who is against gay marriage does not necessarily support the restriction of rights.

[Zweite Alaje]

Ok, so it's just a bunch of people coming out of the closet. This is important why?

[Ceannairceach]

So because you don't like what is being said, it should be burned down?

Very nice of you.

I'm not a very nice person to those I see completely ruinous.

Oh, your tough guy anti-"ruin" talk is so adorable. Do go on.

[Divair]

One who is against gay marriage does not necessarily support the restriction of rights.

If you don't consider marriage a right. I do.

[Ceannairceach]

Enough apologies for now? Very well. Then may I point out that your post was indeed very irrelevant to mine. What I said:


What you said:




No connection.

One who is against gay marriage does not necessarily support the restriction of rights.

That is the restriction of rights.

[Ceannairceach]

Ok, so it's just a bunch of people coming out of the closet. This is important why?

...Because is a celebration of the win for the right to marry who one pleases. What better day to do it than today?

[Regnum Dominae]

If they don't think that gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people, then why do they propose things that would take away rights from gay people, leding them to have less rights than straight people?

Because their morality dictates that is the right thing to do. Also not everyone who is against gay marriage thinks it's even their business to get involved in the political side. It's not because they think gay people are less of a person. These stupid assumptions prevent open dialog and just make this issue a worse one.

There is no need for an open dialog in this case. One side is right, the other is wrong. There is no need to "compromise" with people who oppose equal rights.