4 ms·

I'm not saying I have proved that I am right. I simply provided an argument for the position (which you have failed to do). I just said that homophobia ruins li

I'm not saying I have proved that I am right. I simply provided an argument for the position (which you have failed to do). I just said that homophobia ruins lives (and it does, ask a homosexual). Now, it is up to the other party to say "ah, but gay marriage is bad because the Bible says so." Then, when all arguments are done, it is up to the judge to say who is right and who is wrong. You can't just say "umm but no one is evil and everyone disagrees and everyone ruins someone else's life some way or another so what the heck? Let's just do whatever?" That leads nowhere.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
Were you expecting me to defend the religious zealots? I never said I agreed with them. All I'm saying is that they're normal humans who have jobs and lives. They don't get up in the morning and say, "geez, how can we make life hard for pilgrim689 today?" A lot of them honestly believe that they're acting in your interest by saving you from eternal damnation. >Then, when all arguments are done, it is up to the judge to say who is right and who is wrong. The judge is just a lawyer in a robe. The judge can be just as wrong as anyone else. (See e.g. Dred Scott.) And the judge doesn't get the final say anyway, we do. We The People get to appoint different judges or pass new laws or amend the constitution. So we have to decide somehow which of you is right or wrong. Isn't it better to treat one another as people acting in good faith and have a debate and try to convince each other than to wage a holy war where each side dismisses the other as a immoral and proceeds to partisan political maneuvering rather than mutual understanding?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    >it is in no way their place to dictate what is or is not in the previous poster's "best interest". That's the libertarian position. Which is fine, but know that you're now in the company of those who think it should be fine to sell methamphetamine or asbestos or expired food and medicine because people should be free to decide what's in their own interest. >When the radical theists do, I am fairly sure the rest of us will be amenable. I don't think the radicals are the real obstacle. They're just the loudest and the most obnoxious -- and they're the hardest to convince anyway. What you need are the moderates who are just on the other side of the line. They're the ones who you never see on television but you always see in the voting booth. Which is why condemning anyone who disagrees with you is a bad strategy. You don't want to fight against the middle, you want to convince them to fight for you.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

Were you expecting me to defend the religious zealots? I never said I agreed with them. All I'm saying is that they're normal humans who have jobs and lives. They don't get up in the morning and say, "geez, how can we make life hard for pilgrim689 today?" A lot of them honestly believe that they're acting in your interest by saving you from eternal damnation. >Then, when all arguments are done, it is up to the judge to say who is right and who is wrong. The judge is just a lawyer in a robe. The judge can be just as wrong as anyone else. (See e.g. Dred Scott.) And the judge doesn't get the final say anyway, we do. We The People get to appoint different judges or pass new laws or amend the constitution. So we have to decide somehow which of you is right or wrong. Isn't it better to treat one another as people acting in good faith and have a debate and try to convince each other than to wage a holy war where each side dismisses the other as a immoral and proceeds to partisan political maneuvering rather than mutual understanding?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  >it is in no way their place to dictate what is or is not in the previous poster's "best interest". That's the libertarian position. Which is fine, but know that you're now in the company of those who think it should be fine to sell methamphetamine or asbestos or expired food and medicine because people should be free to decide what's in their own interest. >When the radical theists do, I am fairly sure the rest of us will be amenable. I don't think the radicals are the real obstacle. They're just the loudest and the most obnoxious -- and they're the hardest to convince anyway. What you need are the moderates who are just on the other side of the line. They're the ones who you never see on television but you always see in the voting booth. Which is why condemning anyone who disagrees with you is a bad strategy. You don't want to fight against the middle, you want to convince them to fight for you.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]