• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Rules for Republican and Democrats

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Woody1968 said:
So, because some old lesbian couple gets married in San Francisco, you are being forced to become a homosexual? I don't get your point here? I also didn't know we started feeding the Christians to the lions again...
Click to expand...

No, but I am forced to accept homosexuality as a lifestyle that should get government protection(or at least it is forced upon everyone that the government will do so, whether they like it or not). That is against my beliefs. If I use my beliefs to express my opposition to this, I am accused of being "intolerant" and "trying to impose my beliefs on others." But the gays getting married are not being "intolerant" of my views and are not "trying to impose their beliefs on me", even though, by getting the government to sanction them, that's exactly what their doing.

The other poster who talked about "live and let live"--that's HIS belief system. He's imposing that on everybody else. But that's tolerant, because you've defined "live and let live" as the tolerant belief.

So that's the game. They get to decide what's tolerant. Affirmative action is tolerant. Gay marriage is tolerant. That's why I don't care if I am "tolerant" or not. I don't see tolerance as a virtue.

Your talk about throwing Christians to the lions is a strawman. I am talking about how "extreme leftists" react to Christianity and their level of "tolerance" for it as a belief, not saying that they want to burn down churches.

Jesse Ventura, hardly an extreme leftist, once said that "organized religion is for weak-minded people". That's not very tolerant of organzied religion, now is it? But did the leftist groups get all up in arms about that? No. If me or Rush Limbaugh or Bush or Mel Gibson said "homosexuality is for weak-minded people", those same people would be furious.

So the point is...I don't care about "tolerance". I don't care if you don't tolerate my beliefs. If you want to say that opposing gay marriage is immoral, or mean-spirited, or whatever, go right ahead. But don't be surprised when the same is said about you from the other side. If you pretend as if it is ok for you to say that about me but not for me to say that about you, that is implicitly saying that you are "right", and that your belief system is superior to mine. And now that wouldn't be very "tolerant", now would it?
 
Upvote 0
I guess I forgot the other lib game, labeling people with whom they disagree with "frightening" and illogically unrelated labels.
Click to expand...
LOL As if 'libs' have a corner on the market of this strategy.

The other poster who talked about "live and let live"--that's HIS belief system. He's imposing that on everybody else. But that's tolerant, because you've defined "live and let live" as the tolerant belief.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? I'm 'imposing' the idea that you have the rights to think/say/do as you wish so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights? Gee, aren't you downtrodden.

So, I'm curious, what exactly is the tolerant belief? How would you define it, Nixon?
 
Upvote 0
Are you kidding me? I'm 'imposing' the idea that you have the rights to think/say/do as you wish so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights? Gee, aren't you downtrodden.
Click to expand...

Implicit in this is the idea that marriage is a right, and that any two people should be able to get married. That's not my belief, but it appears to be yours. And whose belief is the "tolerant" one--surprise, it's yours!
 
Upvote 0
The whole 'traditional marriage is under siege' idea is pretty funny to me. I can't help but picture the Cleavers peeking out of their front picture window into the world saying something like 'keep an eye out for those gay married folk, Jean, they're coming!'.

Do I feel my rights have been infringed upon if I am 'forced' to recognize a gay union? And what does 'recognize' the union mean anyway? That I grant spousal health care through employer insurance? Seems fair to me. That I throw rice on the wedding day?

I guess what it boils down to in my mind, is that if gays want to be married, let 'em. I guess I feel it doesn't effect me.

And I apologize if my opinion that you be able to think/say/do what you please so long as another's rights are not infringed has somehow marginalized you. That certainly is not my intent! :)
 
Upvote 0
"And I apologize if my opinion that you be able to think/say/do what you please so long as another's rights are not infringed has somehow marginalized you."

Marriage is not a right, it is a privlege granted by the people through their elected representatives. I personally believe that the government should not be involved with marriage at all, but if government is going to be involved in marriage, I have every right to express my opinion about who that privlege should be extended to. And the fact that that makes me "intolerant" is exactly why "tolerance" as used by the left is a stupid concept.
 
Upvote 0
The problem with Nixon is that he believes that he is right and everyone who thinks different is absolutely wrong. He also doesn't see the difference between being "free to think/say/do what he pleases so long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights" and being told what he can and can't think/say/do by somebody else. This is because his whole belief system involves infringing on other people's rights, or more accurately, ignoring the fact that their rights exist.
 
Upvote 0
"The problem with Nixon is that he believes that he is right and everyone who thinks different is absolutely wrong."

If I didn't believe that I was right, I wouldn't have any beliefs, now would I? I

"He also doesn't see the difference between being "free to think/say/do what he pleases so long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights" and being told what he can and can't think/say/do by somebody else."

You don't see the difference between what you percieve to be rights and what are Constitutional rights. You think marriage is a right. That is YOUR belief. I have a different belief. You are entitled to your belief.

"This is because his whole belief system involves infringing on other people's rights, or more accurately, ignoring the fact that their rights exist."

Yeah, since I don't believe in the same list of "rights" that you believe in(such as marriage), I don't believe in any rights. Um-hmm.

This coming from someone who believes that I shouldn't have the right to run a health insurance company. I believe that free enterprise is an absolute, essential right, just as basic as freedom of speech. But it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, so that absolute right to free enterprise that I would like to see is nothing more than a belief and an ideal of mine, not a foundation of the American system of government. Exactly as your belief that marriage is a right is.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Woody1968 said:
It is racist to assume that all illegal immigrants come from Latin America.
Click to expand...

Although I don't necessarily assume that all illegal immigrants come from Mexico, I don't think that anyone that assumes that is racist. There isn't an ounce of racism in that twisted version of the term.
 
Upvote 0
"the left wing has its extremists also. They are the ones who are intollerant to " [...] " movie popcorn lovers"

Could somebody please explaine this one to me. This sounds like something you'd hear from the Michigan Militia. Some of you people are in real need of some prozac. Perhaps with Dubya's new prescription give away you'll be able to get some.
 
Upvote 0
I'm jumping into this mid thread (page four)...

What does it matter if bi folks can be considered a legal couple? It doesn't hurt anybody... because they like folks of the same sex, they should be treated differently, and they should not be allowed to the rights other legal couples are allowed to...???

I guess my point is that it doesn't effect me at all, so what do I care...?
 
Upvote 0
It does affect you, indirectly at least. If gays are married and their insurance covers their spouse, that's going to increase the cost of insurance. What's to stop two straight guys from getting "married" to enjoy the benefits?

Why even have this government-sanctioned marriage? What buisness is it of the government what anybody does, and why should couples be giving some benefits that single people don't have(this would seem to be the logical conclusion to 'get out of my life'...yet it seems like people always want the benefit of government programs and designations and statuses all while they decry others for trying to control their lives...whatever).
 
Upvote 0
"Does this even pass the laugh test?"

You think that there aren't any straight couples who get married at least partly to enjoy the benefits? I'm sure they exist...heck, what else are gold digging women?

"Please explain what you mean by this"

You're the one always talking about how you don't like people telling you what to do. Why do you need the government to sanction your relationship?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top