8 ms·

> Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist. Oh, just ask any hardcore religious right-winger why they think women sho

> Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist. Oh, just ask any hardcore religious right-winger why they think women should have no birth control or why gays shouldn't marry. The world is filled with these brain dead crazies who can't put 1 + 1 together if their life depend on it. We just don't see them too much during our day-to-day, if we're too busy inside our work routine on our little tech bubble. That we tend to forget about them. But they're all over the place.

gms7777 14y ago
Haha, you raise a valid point. And as an lgbt female, I can't say that I ever forget about them. And yes, its that same exact feeling of complete disbelief when someone that closed-minded speaks to me. However, its a bit more difficult to write it off as an elaborate hoax.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Sadly, even those these people are outliers, they still exist. One need only visit the topix message boards or the anonymous comments section of a national web site to see it. It is one of the less useful aspects of the Internet that it amplifies the small crazy voices along with the small useful ones.
cookiecaper 14y ago
I don't believe gay persons should marry and I can put 1+1 together even when my life doesn't depend on it. I'm not really sure what social conservatism has to do with launching flagrantly frivolous legal complaints and comparing satirical writers to Jared Loughner, though...
- urbanjunkie 14y ago
  Then you should be both embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. It's not social conservatism, it's bigotry.
  - lightyrs 14y ago
    Seems like the intolerance of ideas you disagree with is something you struggle with as well.
    - urbanjunkie 14y ago
      Would you have said that it's acceptable for black people to be forced to ride the back of a bus? Or perhaps that women should not be allowed to vote. The idea that all ideas have merit is complete shite. Some ideas and attitudes are reprehensible - the more so when being cloaked in language like "social conservatism"
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." -Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
      - cookiecaper 14y ago
        And whose tolerance is the right tolerance? Shall we defend against the "intolerant" who attempt to force their sexual-interpersonal ideals upon the public despite repeated referenda that demonstrate the public rejects those concepts, or did you mean the "intolerant" who do not believe that new types of relationships are necessarily automatically entitled to hetero-identical encouragement from the state? It seems "intolerant" is basically an empty ad hominem, usable by any side.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        The issue should be unambiguous to all not blinded by hatred. Now kindly knock this shit off.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  I am of the belief that the government should not be saying who is and isn't married. Marriage is a religious institution, and should be used for the religions that use that. That would also mean if a 'Church of Reformed Satanism' had a marriage, is to let them. The problem is we have a system that looks towards 'ordained' religious positions for our tax record. So this country mixes up person rights with religious gunk. The legal question then, after removing religious stuff: do GLBT people have the right to have a relationship respected for tax and governmental reasons? I see no justification for taking rights away because of their brain chemistry.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    Marriage is not a right and it is not a default state. (Legal) marriage can only exist when a government explicitly defines the relationship and then issues privileges based on that definition. Marriage is a positive action. There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone, they're asking that we explicitly expand our definition to include their relationships. As above, it is not a forgone conclusion that the incentives for encouraging the citizenry to engage in permanent heterosexual relationships are applicable to homosexual relationships. It is a matter that must be considered separately. Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it. That is what is happening here -- heterosexual and homosexual relationships are DIFFERENT and deserve independent consideration. Most communities have decided they want to offer an incentive for permanent heterosexual coupling; the same reasoning can NOT necessarily automatically be extrapolated and applied to homosexual coupling, just as I may offer friend X some money because he is poor or I owe him one or something like that, but that reasoning doesn't always automatically include friend Y. No right is being denied here. Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible) that exist through no personal or direct fault. We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling. Such coupling is an independent affirmative action that does not involve one's brain chemistry.
- gms7777 14y ago
  Because "social conservatism" is often just thinly veiled hate and bigotry and intolerance. I have yet to see a sound argument on why two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to marry. I'll eagerly and openly listen to what you have to say on the matter.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    Marriage is not a natural right, so first of all, no one has a "right" to marry. From the context of a debate about legalization of marital relationships, it's a privilege and a certification given by the government to a couple because the government feels there is a special social interest served by awarding that privilege and status to certain groups. Marriage is NOT and has never been a "love certificate". It serves a real function. Historically, that group has always been heterosexual pairings (and in some cases heterosexual groups). It is not simply a forgone conclusion that the interest of the state in granting marriage privileges to heterosexual couples automatically extends to homosexual couples -- there are important differences between the nature of these pairings, regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of homosexual activity. The question, then, is "is it in the interest of the community to promote homosexual pairing by providing special privileges to homosexual couples?" In my opinion, it's not in the community's interest to do so. There are many reasons. One is that homosexuality is considered immoral by large swaths of the population, and that official sanction and promotion of homosexual pairing will anger this significant segment. Most of this segment is, however, at least less opposed to civil unions and the granting of certain default privileges that decent persons believe ought to be granted to persons who live as a couple, regardless of their affiliation or activity. If the most vital privileges can be granted with a "lesser" legal status, and we can strike a reasonable compromise that promotes peace and civil discourse, isn't that better than choosing the more divisive, incendiary method? I believe if the debate really were about basic privileges related to emergency medical notification, etc., gay rights activists would wait to push the "marriage" terminology. I think that the debate is actually more about validation; homosexuals demand the government grant them and their relationships equal standing and promotion as it grants heterosexual relationships. Gay rights activists are thereby attempting to use the government as a weapon to cram their concept of the equality of homosexual relationships down the throats of an otherwise skeptical public; over and over again referenda have shown that majorities in most states DO NOT want this to happen. There are many other implications that flow from state equivocation of hetero and homo pairings. Religious groups may be censured for preaching doctrine that the state has deemed illegal; they may also be censured for exercising that doctrine, i.e. excluding practicing homosexuals from the clergy on grounds of unworthiness. In Massachusetts, we've already seen the complete withdrawal of Catholic Charities, as the courts attempted to force them to adopt to gay couples. This trend will become broader as gay marriages are legalized, recognized, and normalized, and may culminate in the denial of many religious services to the residents of many states. Whether you think the religious are right or wrong in their assessment of the morality of homosexuality, you should be willing to protect their privilege to exercise and proclaim their beliefs that do not directly result in the termination of life or the loss of right and control of property, just as you expect the same privilege for yourself. It's worth noting here that the attachment of negative attributes to homosexual practice need not be strictly associated with religion. An independent observer may likewise rule homosexuality irregular, abnormal, or otherwise not something worthy of active state promotion via marriage. Homosexuals cannot bear natural children. Homosexual couplings cannot provide the duality of permanent male-female parental role models, which I believe most of the West now wrongly considers worthless since so many were raised in single-parent homes. You may think this trivial now, but the fact is a huge component of the organization and legal recognition of marriage was the effect of parental partnership on children. Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")? I could go on; as I said, there are many angles to take on this, and many sides from which it appears negative. I understand that some people are eager to use the government to enforce their particular vision of equality on everyone else, and probably mean well, but that is not how a free society operates; you must convince people on your own merits, you don't just go and get the government to endorse your beliefs and then attempt to intimidate otherwise unwilling participants with that endorsement.

gms7777 14y ago

Haha, you raise a valid point. And as an lgbt female, I can't say that I ever forget about them. And yes, its that same exact feeling of complete disbelief when someone that closed-minded speaks to me. However, its a bit more difficult to write it off as an elaborate hoax.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Sadly, even those these people are outliers, they still exist. One need only visit the topix message boards or the anonymous comments section of a national web site to see it. It is one of the less useful aspects of the Internet that it amplifies the small crazy voices along with the small useful ones.

cookiecaper 14y ago

I don't believe gay persons should marry and I can put 1+1 together even when my life doesn't depend on it. I'm not really sure what social conservatism has to do with launching flagrantly frivolous legal complaints and comparing satirical writers to Jared Loughner, though...

urbanjunkie 14y ago
Then you should be both embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. It's not social conservatism, it's bigotry.
- lightyrs 14y ago
  Seems like the intolerance of ideas you disagree with is something you struggle with as well.
  - urbanjunkie 14y ago
    Would you have said that it's acceptable for black people to be forced to ride the back of a bus? Or perhaps that women should not be allowed to vote. The idea that all ideas have merit is complete shite. Some ideas and attitudes are reprehensible - the more so when being cloaked in language like "social conservatism"
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." -Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
    - cookiecaper 14y ago
      And whose tolerance is the right tolerance? Shall we defend against the "intolerant" who attempt to force their sexual-interpersonal ideals upon the public despite repeated referenda that demonstrate the public rejects those concepts, or did you mean the "intolerant" who do not believe that new types of relationships are necessarily automatically entitled to hetero-identical encouragement from the state? It seems "intolerant" is basically an empty ad hominem, usable by any side.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        The issue should be unambiguous to all not blinded by hatred. Now kindly knock this shit off.
TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
I am of the belief that the government should not be saying who is and isn't married. Marriage is a religious institution, and should be used for the religions that use that. That would also mean if a 'Church of Reformed Satanism' had a marriage, is to let them. The problem is we have a system that looks towards 'ordained' religious positions for our tax record. So this country mixes up person rights with religious gunk. The legal question then, after removing religious stuff: do GLBT people have the right to have a relationship respected for tax and governmental reasons? I see no justification for taking rights away because of their brain chemistry.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  Marriage is not a right and it is not a default state. (Legal) marriage can only exist when a government explicitly defines the relationship and then issues privileges based on that definition. Marriage is a positive action. There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone, they're asking that we explicitly expand our definition to include their relationships. As above, it is not a forgone conclusion that the incentives for encouraging the citizenry to engage in permanent heterosexual relationships are applicable to homosexual relationships. It is a matter that must be considered separately. Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it. That is what is happening here -- heterosexual and homosexual relationships are DIFFERENT and deserve independent consideration. Most communities have decided they want to offer an incentive for permanent heterosexual coupling; the same reasoning can NOT necessarily automatically be extrapolated and applied to homosexual coupling, just as I may offer friend X some money because he is poor or I owe him one or something like that, but that reasoning doesn't always automatically include friend Y. No right is being denied here. Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible) that exist through no personal or direct fault. We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling. Such coupling is an independent affirmative action that does not involve one's brain chemistry.
gms7777 14y ago
Because "social conservatism" is often just thinly veiled hate and bigotry and intolerance. I have yet to see a sound argument on why two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to marry. I'll eagerly and openly listen to what you have to say on the matter.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  Marriage is not a natural right, so first of all, no one has a "right" to marry. From the context of a debate about legalization of marital relationships, it's a privilege and a certification given by the government to a couple because the government feels there is a special social interest served by awarding that privilege and status to certain groups. Marriage is NOT and has never been a "love certificate". It serves a real function. Historically, that group has always been heterosexual pairings (and in some cases heterosexual groups). It is not simply a forgone conclusion that the interest of the state in granting marriage privileges to heterosexual couples automatically extends to homosexual couples -- there are important differences between the nature of these pairings, regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of homosexual activity. The question, then, is "is it in the interest of the community to promote homosexual pairing by providing special privileges to homosexual couples?" In my opinion, it's not in the community's interest to do so. There are many reasons. One is that homosexuality is considered immoral by large swaths of the population, and that official sanction and promotion of homosexual pairing will anger this significant segment. Most of this segment is, however, at least less opposed to civil unions and the granting of certain default privileges that decent persons believe ought to be granted to persons who live as a couple, regardless of their affiliation or activity. If the most vital privileges can be granted with a "lesser" legal status, and we can strike a reasonable compromise that promotes peace and civil discourse, isn't that better than choosing the more divisive, incendiary method? I believe if the debate really were about basic privileges related to emergency medical notification, etc., gay rights activists would wait to push the "marriage" terminology. I think that the debate is actually more about validation; homosexuals demand the government grant them and their relationships equal standing and promotion as it grants heterosexual relationships. Gay rights activists are thereby attempting to use the government as a weapon to cram their concept of the equality of homosexual relationships down the throats of an otherwise skeptical public; over and over again referenda have shown that majorities in most states DO NOT want this to happen. There are many other implications that flow from state equivocation of hetero and homo pairings. Religious groups may be censured for preaching doctrine that the state has deemed illegal; they may also be censured for exercising that doctrine, i.e. excluding practicing homosexuals from the clergy on grounds of unworthiness. In Massachusetts, we've already seen the complete withdrawal of Catholic Charities, as the courts attempted to force them to adopt to gay couples. This trend will become broader as gay marriages are legalized, recognized, and normalized, and may culminate in the denial of many religious services to the residents of many states. Whether you think the religious are right or wrong in their assessment of the morality of homosexuality, you should be willing to protect their privilege to exercise and proclaim their beliefs that do not directly result in the termination of life or the loss of right and control of property, just as you expect the same privilege for yourself. It's worth noting here that the attachment of negative attributes to homosexual practice need not be strictly associated with religion. An independent observer may likewise rule homosexuality irregular, abnormal, or otherwise not something worthy of active state promotion via marriage. Homosexuals cannot bear natural children. Homosexual couplings cannot provide the duality of permanent male-female parental role models, which I believe most of the West now wrongly considers worthless since so many were raised in single-parent homes. You may think this trivial now, but the fact is a huge component of the organization and legal recognition of marriage was the effect of parental partnership on children. Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")? I could go on; as I said, there are many angles to take on this, and many sides from which it appears negative. I understand that some people are eager to use the government to enforce their particular vision of equality on everyone else, and probably mean well, but that is not how a free society operates; you must convince people on your own merits, you don't just go and get the government to endorse your beliefs and then attempt to intimidate otherwise unwilling participants with that endorsement.