Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
First of all, I would like to commend your typing technique. It must be quite a trick to reach the keyboard while looking down your nose from that far  . Maybe instead of regurgitating whatever line you have been brainwashed with, you would try to read what I was saying and not just jump over 2 carefully selected lines. My point was that the way many liberals frame the gay marriage issue is wrong, and they do not appreciate when they have the same tactics used against them. They try to say how anti-gay marriage legislation are "hate laws" and bigoted, giving the impression they are morally superior. I was taking an issue that they could be seen to fall on the other moral side of (abortion) and framing it in their same way they view gay marriage, as a discrimination issue and something that is morally abhorrent. |
if you're point was that liberals don't like it when their argument is taken out of context, has arguments irrelevant and unrelated to the issue used as strawmen against it, then you're right. liberals aren't framing the question wrong. we're saying 'why deny these rights/privliges that everyone else has?' and outside of religion or hate or fear, there are no reasons. it is discrimination. if using the bible and jesus saying 'love thy neighbor' while telling them that they can't get married is morally superior to allowing them, then i guess i'm misinterpreting the jesus.
abortion isn't a discrimination issue. to frame it that way is logically incorrect. or maybe it's not. in which case it's discrimination either way... you either discriminate against the mother by giving the father control of her body, or you discriminate agasint the father by letting the mother control her own body. so i dont' think you really want to try to use that as an example.
Quote:
|
You also made alot of assumptions about my child murder views (as well as labeling me "insecure" which seems to have no logical justification, and was made by jumping to many conclusions that could not rationally be seen in the couple of lines I typed on the subject of child murder) so I will elaborate on those so you won't be as misinformed. You seem to think that males are largely pro-child murder, do you have any evidence for this? The whole right to abortion arises from a legal decision, and was not voted on. It was based purely on the opinions of 9 people who happened to be positions of power at the time. And it could easily be overturned by 9 people who are currently on the bench. Many laws have been passed in the states restricting the womens right to unilaterally murder their offspring, some of which have been overturned by various state courts. I don't personally care, as I have no desire to have children and make sure to use protection. But where I find inequality is that women can choose to carry a baby to term or kill it, with the father having no say in a decision which could greatly effect his life. Around 2 months ago, a woman won a paternity judgement against Sean "Puffy" Combs where I think he was ordered to pay approx. $50,000 per month in child support (can't remember the figure, but it was high and I don't feel like checking it exactly). Now, this child arose from a one-night stand. There was no reason to believe that either desired a child, yet she was able to cash in off his wealth, and he had no recourse. This is where I feel an inequality comes in. It has nothing to do with whatever you were trying to say. And unlike most liberals, I'm willing to work through the system to change these rules, and accept defeat if they don't change.
|
uhm... how have liberals not worked through the system for change? was there a hostage crisis that lead to change that i don't know about?
Quote:
|
[More on topic, I think the quoted post shows how many liberals think, namely that because they think a view is correct that the majority hold it to be the truth and anyone who doesn't is a "bigot" or "redneck" or "fundamentalist" or whatever the buzzword is. They don't acknowledge that a differing view can have the same merit and think anyone who disagrees is automatically inferior. That is why you can have some in the media still thinking that the election was stolen, or that it's result is somehow invalid. I couldn't personally stand Clinton, but when he was re-elected in 1996 I didn't run around crying, throwing fits, or threatening to leave the country. I accepted it, and took a long term view.
|
i've already posted the definition of bigot in this thread. and based on it's definition, it's a very accurate word to describe most people who are anti-gay marriage. fundamentalist is used to describe people who vote based on the bible and 'morals.' again, an accurate buzz word that i have yet to see used improperly (whether or not argumet has had merit, the use of the word has). and you don't hear 'redneck' too much anymore. we prefer the term 'white trash.'