Tolerance

This is another conversation from Facebook where I felt like my addressing of issues were being called out by another person so I went to defend them. What started out as a few exchanges of words turned into a discussion with a person who couldn't compartmentalize the acceptance of ALL people. The mentality here is that you're either for or against Christianity. The concept that you are for acceptance, but against hate and discrimination toward anyone doesn't compute.

Putting them in that situation here makes them rage, but they still can't connect the two. If it's not them, it doesn't matter.

DZ: I've discovered something interesting about Facebook: if you're a liberal, you can post anything you want and everyone will like your posts. If you are a conservative and post what's on your heart and mind, everyone and their grandma will attack you and call you a bigot. Hmm... Now that's open-minded progressiveness.

TS: It's called the intolerance of intolerance. Back up your facts and I will respect you. 
 

AH: Facebook wars booooo :P I like you too much to say anything snarky if an opportunity presented itself. And you know I'm a raging heathen. ;)

CvT: Shut up BUD!

DZ: I'm just tired of hypocrites on both sides of the board. There are equal amounts of self-absorbed people on ends of the spectrum. I know many Conservatives put themselves in a bad light, and I loathe defending them, but for me, there's nothing worse than arrogant, self-righteous, so-called progressives, who are also extremely intolerant themselves. But hypocrites will be hypocrites and a douchebag by any other name would smell as foul.

 

DZ: AH, I know we differ on many things, but I was not thinking of you when I wrote this. You're a great person and truly my favorite heathen. :) CvT, I will do as you say, since I respect my elders (that and you give practical, helpful advice on a volleyball court).

TS: I figure this is directed at me. If not, sorry I wasted my breath. But understanding the definition of "bigotry" is important.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group. Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, political alignment, age, economic status or disability. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

Not allowing gay marriage is intolerance aimed at a single group. Tonight Christians in North Carolina stood up and affirmed that they hate a select group of people. There's no other way to define it. I understand that you take offense with the blanket statement of "Christianity" being defined as intolerant, but if you look in the Bible there are several passages that condemn homosexuality with death.

There are Christians, and I understand this, who look beyond this and see that people should actually love and accept anyone for whoever they are. These people I applaud. But Christianity is far too often used under the first amendment as a viable means to hate people. This I despise. However, I appreciate that you are not one of these people and I am sorry that I offended you. I should have been more explicit and labeled it as "Fundamental Christianity", since this is actually the major offender and what is today holding back the conservative right.

AH: Oh I know you weren't, I was just sayin. ;) 

TS: Close-mindedness would be me telling you that you can't be a Christian, just like some Christians are telling homosexuals that they basically shouldn't exist or "don't count". THAT is intolerance. Their existence and ability to get married in no way affects anybody who does not want to live that lifestyle. Live and let live. 

DZ: TS, my post wasn't directed at you either. I should have specified. I understand your issues with right wing hypocrites. I posted my post after someone on Facebook said that "all Christians are intolerant assholes." Well, I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that's like saying "all car sales people are sleazy dirt-bags." Generalizing is never good.

TS: Both are perceived stereotypes that people who do not fit that mold need to prove wrong.

DZ: Man, is this ever a hot button topic! But open dialogue is good. Too often people aren't willing to listen to opposing views and that hinders understanding. I myself don't hate anyone. I actually try my hardest to get along with people, to serve others and show the quality of my character through action, instead of talking about it non-stop. That is why I work where I work, because it is so rewarding to help change lives. We definitely live in a broken world, and I'd rather see it fixed then continue to live amongst the debris.

TS: You may not hate, but the 61%/39% vote in North Carolina (in which I was a recent resident) shows that people do. You are lucky to live in a environment which is mostly tolerant. Living in the South is much, much different. There are things you are faced with there that I didn't even know existed anymore. It may happen in the PNW, but I don't think it's as prevalent.

With that said, I also do my work for the benefit of others. I have former coworkers who live in Anchorage and North Carolina whose lives are currently being affected by the recent legislation that has been to the detriment of the homosexual community. I don't blame you for being frustrated/tired about people going on and on about it, however, I find myself faced with this very real issue in two of the three places that I've called "home". I choose to speak out about it. I choose to educate and promote dialogue. 

ML: Not just Facebook. The internet. I'm a liberal and I hate that we are represented by a bunch of people just looking for a fight.

ES: DZ, its the area you live in. I am with you though dude.

BP: Meh... I think it goes both ways. I've seen liberals called socialists for their opinions and conservatives called fascists for theirs. People have a tough time hearing someone elses' point of view.

JB: DZ, i just want to point out and defend 'douchebags'. You said they smell bad by any other name, but technically they are a key part in a cleansing process, thus most likely aid in a garden fresh scent reminiscint of a fine evening, in the summer perhaps. Im just saying ;)

DZ: JB... That was poignant and thoughtful. Thanks for making me laugh buddy.

TS: Actually douchebags are detrimental to women's health and it is highly advised that they not be used. Inform yourself before making analogies. That's the whole point of this. Today's society believes that ignorance is a view point. Where it is, it's only going to end up at the detriment of the people. For example, the North Carolina vote on gay marriage not on hurts same-sex partners, but now anyone who is not in a legal marriage, meaning a civil union. This means that children who previously had health care are no longer going to be covered because of the hate and bigotry associated with homosexuality.

Coming on facebook and saying "facebook discussions are dumb" is just promoting that ignorance. You can have opinions, but nobody can dispute facts. http://womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/douching.cfm#d

Is douching safe? - Douching fact sheet | womenshealth.gov

ML: ‎"Since a douchebag is a sanitary product, I will take that as a compliment." - Nerdy kid, Wet Hot American Summer

TS: And then they realized: lysol + vaginas = cervical cancer  

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbill/37804458/

Lysol Ad #5

‎"Why does she spend the evenings alone?"

JK: So explain why it is "hateful" to vote on something such as the right to marriage. They are voting which is their right. You are stating that ALL of those folks in North Carolina are therefore "hating"? THAT is bigotry, in my opinion. You can say you disagree, but to call them ignorant or hateful or any other derogatory term is more hateful than what they are doing. If you think people that are in a gay relationship should have the right to marriage, then vote your mind, and leave it to the democratic process. I think abortion is wrong but I don't call those who don't douche bags and such.

TS: OK. Say you want to get married. Say I don't like your lifestyle and I make it a law that JK cannot marry. How is imposing law that has NOTHING to do with myself and EVERYTHING to do with you, who I'm pretty sure I don't know, mean that I'm not explicitly hating on you? I'm making choices for your life that you find unfair. These choices have no affect on me, I just don't like you. I think you represent everything that's evil in this country.

And you're not listening. Ignorance is people voting for this law, which contrary to the understanding of the amendment, in my ridiculous scenario here and correlating to the NC vote, would actually means that in my voting for it that all TSs would lose health care, simply because I didn't bother to inform myself about the amendment. I'm shooting myself in the foot just because I have this ominous distaste for JKs. THAT is ignorance and really, sheer stupidity. Harming yourself in spite of somebody else...

I don't think that basic civil rights are something that people should need to vote on. The mentality you're describing was once the majority with respect to race and gender. The majority once thought that black people were not worthy of living without a master, and that women should not be allowed to vote. These are basic rights. These took years to overcome because of people who don't realize that everyone else deserves a basic level of respect. That is intolerance, and to me, that is hate. That is bigotry. My insistence in that people respect other people is not me hating. That is me being frustrated with the hate that other people harbor.

I didn't bring douchebags into this conversation. There's a big difference between labeling someone as a douchebag and a bigot. I defined bigotry above. Read it and tell me how this doesn't apply to this situation here.

JK: Your meaning of hate is different than what DZ and I have experienced. I was called a "Homophobe" by a mutual liberal acquaintance the first time they met me and found out I was a Christian. I have the right to marry so you would have to rewrite the law to enforce your opinion. What is your reasoning? In your scenario, if that is all the reasoning behind the law then I would agree with you that such a vote would be hateful. However, you cannot speak for everyone who voted! You cannot lump them all into the same boat - THAT is what DZ and I are arguing against! THAT is wrong! It is not American! There are numerous reasons to vote against gay-marriage. Just so you know, I would be fine with same sex relationships having the same legal rights as they would if they were married. The thing that I don't agree with is calling what they have a marriage. Marriage is derived from the Bible and that is one man for one woman - PERIOD. That is what it says and that is why I defend such a definition. Does that make me hateful for such a stance? It has nothing to do with "liking" a person or thinking they are "evil" or whatever you want to try to paint. I am for what is best for America and causing polarization is NOT what is best. Eventually, it will lead to either: A) a complete collapse of this country or B) anther civil war.

JK: Like it or not, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principals. Such state that you are created equal and gives you the right to your opinion. But biting the hand that feeds you is the worst kind of hate. It is not a smart thing to do. You cannot have it both ways.

TS: Why is it that the Bible gets to dictate the definition of marriage? I thought we had a government that believed in the separation of church and state. Let's say, for instance, that Obama was a Muslim. Would you be OK with him saying that the definition of "High Holidays" is now Ramadan? Oh, wait, now you're telling me that you don't like it when somebody else tells you that what you feel is wrong is right? Sorry, it's now a law, the people have spoken. Maybe now that you're forced to pray toward Mecca you're wondering about how imposing laws on people who are different than you might not be the best suggestion you've ever made. This tradition though, is founded on religion, so it must be true. At least that's what we tell ourselves with Christianity. It has supernatural backing... And if you use supernatural backing to formulate laws, people who are not under that ideology get screwed. Why not just allow people to live their lives in happiness ESPECIALLY when it doesn't affect anyone else's lives.

You're talking polarization? You're saying that people can't do what they want to do, and I'm the one who is creating polarization. Think about that for a minute. Say you're playing basketball. I am team captain, and oh, I forgot to mention I don't like JK. My best friend is the other team captain and has my back. We choose teams and leave JK out. Sorry. You can't play. Those are the rules. My ball. Suck it, JK.

JK: Wow - now YOU are not reading everything! This country was founded on the Bible! IF you don't like it then leave.

TS: Actually. It wasn't.

JK: Well, since I am bigger than you and stronger and tougher, I would make the rules! Is that what you want? Is might right? That is where you are heading. If it is not God who decides then it is whoever has power - be it the rich or the strong.

TS: What? You don't like being left out? You only like it when you're part of the cool crowd? You don't like being marginalized? Hm. Imagine that.

TS: No. I think fairness involves everyone. I think if I had some compassion, and even though JK isn't my favorite person, I would still allow him to play because I know he would enjoy being included. That is what I'm saying. You're the one who is bullying. That scenario with basketball is what you're doing to people. See what you resort to? Violence.

JK: So now you are rewriting history! So what is your answer, Mr know-it-all? You tell me what needs to be done for peace - you tell me what needs to be done for us to coexist! All you are doing is causing angst. Great job!

TS: Acceptance, compassion, understanding, and most importantly education.

I know. I'm causing you angst because I'm mentally putting you in the position that you put these people in by not accepting them.

JK: Violence is NOT what i am resorting to otherwise I would ask that you and I have a little pow-wow to discuss this in person, dude ;-)‎

TS: "JK: Well, since I am bigger than you and stronger and tougher, I would make the rules!"

TS: If not violence then intimidation. 

JK: These people? I accept everyone but that doesn't mean I allow them to do whatever they want. There are millions of people who want to steal, kill, destroy, rape, be pedophiles, etc, so I am hating on them too? 

TS: Here again is the difference. What these people want hurts no one. All those things in your list does.

JK: I was just going to what you are leading to. If God doesn't decide then might is right. That is what we had before America. That is what a dictatorship is, or having a king or a communistic country. They use violence! There are estimates that say that there are over 100 million Christians in China who are imprisoned for their beliefs. Yet somehow you cry FOUL over people in NC using their right to vote but not on those who are REALLY suffering! What about those in Darfur or Nigeria or Indonesia who are being raped, pillaged and killed for their beliefs?

TS: This is not China. If this were China I would be outraged. Just as if Obama imposed Muslim rule or if I was forced to believe in Christianity. People in NC who are same-sex couples now have no right to joint insurance, cannot visit each other in the hospital because they are not related, they don't have any rights over property of the other person if there is no will enacted and one was to die. Yes. They do suffer because of the hatred of others.

I detest anyone who is being harmed because of their beliefs. How would you be harmed if you allowed homosexuals to get married?

   
JK: Just don't call it marriage - such people can have all the aforementioned rights! Can you not compromise?

TS: I'm sure many people would be fine with that. I can't speak for the LGBT community in that respect, but I'm sure many of them would be fine with that kind of arrangement.

JK: I am trying to work this out, and I apologize for my passion in this endeavor - but I do want unity; I do want peace, bro!

TS: Then allow for acceptance. You don't have to like it, but you should tolerate it.

JK: I guess we would need to define acceptance. ;-) If I can accept without denying what I believe to be true: that homosexuality is very problematic and not what is best for those involved, then fine. But from what i have heard, the LGBT community wants everyone to say that they are perfectly right and that the Bible is wrong. Not only that, many seem to want all Christianity to be abolished. That i cannot say is good, but whether I like it or not, I know that many will come to that viewpoint and I may have to die for my faith. Do I want to have to suffer and die? Not really. But if that is what happens, then so be it. 

 

TS: I think just many don't want to have to associate with the church because of their intolerance. Do you tell Muslims what they can and can't do? It says in the Bible that they're of the "wrong" faith. Impose laws on them that restrict their rights as human beings.

I think you're wrong in your assertion that they want to destroy Christianity. I think they just want Christians to leave them alone. Christianity is the one badgering them when they're just trying to live a peaceful lifestyle. Wasn't that you that was talking about the ills of making blanket statements?

I'm fairly confident you're not going to die for your faith in this country. Quit being so melodramatic.

JK: I'm fairly confident you're not going to die for your faith in this country. Quit being so melodramatic. - that is not conducive for this, dude. And I have heard from many who say that they want to abolish Christianity! YOU cannot tell me what I have or have not experienced! Now you are just being argumentative; unwilling to work things out. Again, you are acting like mr-know-it-all and I don't like such attitudes so touche!

TS: Fine. You've heard it. I've also heard Christians say "all fags should burn". But in both instances I think those are fringe subpopulations of a larger entity. How is that being unwilling to work things out? Oh, right. I forgot that "people hate the smartest man in the room" -- Sarah Palin.

Here is where JK decided to block me. I don't know if blocking me removes all comments visible to me or if he took the time to remove them. But I followed up with the only peace offering I could think of.

TS: I'm not completely sure, but I think blocking me and deleting all comments is not working things out....

Sorry, DZ. You can choose to do the same to me if you'd like. I just think that whether or not Christianity is true is irrelevant. It still shouldn't be able to dictate how people choose to peacefully live their lives. And I think that's a worth cause for discussion.

Bigotry

Once again, the only thing that makes it to my blog are discussions on Facebook. This one talks about supporting gay marriage and how it relates to the Preamble of the Constitution. LK starts off the convo, actually with a tweet. I'm TS.

What I just don't get is how people who are against allowing gay marriage don't see how they're being bigots. They have no explanation for not wanting it other than they think it's "not right", but would be damned if someone took their rights away. Apparently it's "OK" if the right doesn't already exist. Here it is:

LK Retweet @GuyEndoreKaiser: “I hate when the government tells me what to do… I just want it to tell everyone else what to do.” –rich white men

DS ‎"Bettering myself is too hard, so I'mma just stay on welfare and line up for some free Obama money. Don't know where it comes from, don't care either, it's free Obama money and that's why I love him" -lazy black people

DS ‎"I hate that I can't get what I want for free, so I'll just ask the government to force other people to fund what I want." -selfish Fluke types

LK Is your tv permanently stuck on Fox News? Because I'm pretty sure that was running on the ticker this morning.

DS ‎"I can't believe a fair and open election decided against my personal interests, so I'll just bitch until some court overturns a democratic vote." -whiny lesbian couples

LK Okay DS, let's get some things straight. Everyone on welfare is not on welfare because they are lazy. Ethics are not based on economic situation (thanks TS). Second, by saying things like "anyone can work hard and get a job" you are implying that everyone can work hard and get a job, and it is just downright stupid to believe that's true. And if you don't think that the "personal interests" of gays and lesbians are valid human concerns, then I don't know how you can call yourself an American. Fair and open elections also came up with segregation of blacks and whites in schools, and if you ask me I think it's a damn good thing that someone "whined" enough until that was overturned.

GM Haha I love you LK. I agree with you on each and every point you made from 1st hand xperience.

DS I don't actually watch the news. I get all my info from my phone, and my three news apps are HuffingtonPost, BBC, and China Daily. I am offended that you would stereotype me.

You're right; ethics are not based on economic situation. I'm completely certain that I did not say "anyone can work hard and get a job" (thanks for putting words in my mouth). Technically, on that point, you are wrong. Anyone CAN work hard and anyone CAN get a job because our society allows people the opportunity to apply as much elbow grease as they want to any employment they have.

Personal interests of gays and lesbians are not "human" concerns because they have nothing to do with fundamental aspects of our species; one's personal interests are just that- a personal interest. To say that only those who sympathize with homosexuals are Americans is indeed stupid.

I have no idea what "fair and open elections" made blacks and whites segregated in schools (references do help one's case from time to time), but segregation was forcibly overturned because blacks had protection guaranteed by the Constitution and the United States Code. Gay marriage "rights" do not.

I have no personal interest or religious persuasion for either side in that argument. I see the issues as A and B. The Golden State put the issue to the people in a fair and democratic election and a majority chose A; in response, those who wanted B bitched and moaned and cried foul because they didn't get what they wanted. Had the people chosen B, and those who wanted A done the same, I would bet an entire year's pay the Gay community would say something to the effect of "We won, you lost, shut up and sit down." What I dislike about the issue is hypocrisy, and no one should ever stand for that.

DS I support A because A was chosen by the people. If the people had chosen B I would support that instead. To whine to the courts when the people don't democratically decide what you want is what's un-American here.

GM ‎^majority shouldn't be alowed to vote for the minority on civil rights ... that's my main issue with the whole fiasco tha was Prop8 .... it's hard for many Americans (and people in general) to sympathize and understand with others on issues that they don't personally deal with, which is why it's totally understandable that marraig equality was shut down/delayed.

TS ‎"I am unaware of my white male privilege" - DS

TS ‎"The people chose Gore so I took it to the Supreme Court" - G W Bush

LK So you're saying you'll support whatever the majority vote is, regardless of its moral or ethic substance? What does that say about you as a person? The majority also used to believe that women shouldn't vote. Good thing someone out there didn't just take that to be gospel truth since it's what the majority decided.

DS Moral and ethical substance are relative. When someone does not have a personal stake in an issue, the wisest course of action to think logically. Because we don't have an authoritarian government to tell us what to do, the most ethical way to decide an issue is to let the people vote. The result of that vote should be upheld until such a time that the majority of the people believe differently enough to change the statute.

To claim the ethical high ground and cry tyrrany of the majority seems to be a tactic of the bitter (and, increasingly, the Left). I can only imagine what you'd say if gay marriage had been legalized and the fundamentalist Christian right claimed that the majority voted enact an unethical law.

Again, hypocrisy...

LK So... Just to recap, you agree that it's fine to deny people rights based on their sexual orientation just because you are not personally affected, and because that's what everyone else is doing.

DS You do the same thing. And essentially, yes, I do; and I do so because while I believe gay marriage to be illogical I have no true personal stake in the issue. As such, it is more ethical for me to uphold the tennet of democracy over the "morality" of one side's argument...ESPECIALLY since both sides claim to be morally correct.

DS2 ‎"I'm too drunk to taste this chicken." - Col Sanders

TS Well, one side is denying basic rights for other people's pursuit of happiness based on their religious beliefs. The other side would likely stimulate the economy by leaps and bounds to express their happiness (think of all the money being thrown around for weddings all at once). But I think the real issue is that insurance companies have no desire to have that many more dependents.

DS ‎...and therein lies your fundamental fallacy: we have the right to the PURSUIT of happines, not the right of a GUARANTEE to happiness. Because the government is not denying gay groups the ability to petition, lobby, or vote the right to pursuit is indeed being exercised and upheld. A right to play the game is not a right to win the game.

Gay weddings would not stimulate an economy any more than the stimulus bill did. The insurance company argument may or may not be accurate, but I highly doubt that's the reason why people continue to vote no.

TS Pursuit at what stage? That's rather ambiguous and differs per your and my perspective. Pursuit in the sense of striving for equality, or pursuit starting from a baseline of that equality having already been established -- "All men [people] are created equal"....? That's like trying to play a game of chess without all the pieces. "Oh Billy, don't worry, you don't need a queen."

But where does propaganda money come from? Do you really think that the religious industry isn't influenced by those with money? Religion is brainwashing at its finest.

DS There isn't a "level" in the pursuit clause. Life, liberty, and the pursuit. Life, in that the gov't can't kill you without due process. Liberty in that the gov't can't take your freedom without due process. Pursuit in that the gov't can't keep you from trying to achive a state that makes you happy. The created equal clause was a statment of political equality to counter the concept of unchecked power through kingship by divine right. It did not mean blacks and whites were equal under the law (for they clearly weren't when the document was signed). It did not mean that homosexuals are to be treated as equal candidates for their own brand of marriage. The phrase meant what it meant within the context of its time. To claim it means something to the contrary because we think differently today is dangerous.

The right to pursuit means you have to right to unfettered pursuit of what you want, it doesn't mean that everyone has the right to get what they want.

Propaganda money (on BOTH sides) comes from interested parties, and because such parties have a vested interest in the outcome of an issue they are exercising their right to pursuit by donating funds. Organized religion has been influenced (both positively and negatively, speaking relative to it's position) by outside money just like other groups.

TS ‎"There isn't a "level" in the pursuit clause."
According to you? A lack of definition doesn't mean that there isn't room for interpretation. Obviously that's the biggest problem with that document.

"Liberty in that the gov't can't take your freedom without due process."
What if those liberties aren't already afforded? This is apparently "the constitution according to DS". I'm glad your fundamental rights are not being infringed upon. Weren't we talking about hypocrisy earlier?

"Organized religion has been influenced (both positively and negatively, speaking relative to it's position) by outside money just like other groups."
Except they should have no say in the matter. Having exclusionary rights from paying any taxes they shouldn't be allowed to influence the vote. If they truly were a non-profit, not a capitalist venture disguised as one, I might think differently.

DS ‎"...and the pursuit of happiness." I honestly can't understand how you could think that to be an open ended, interperatable phrase. You have the right to pursue that which makes you happy. You do no have the right to have what makes you happy given to you, especially at any expense to others. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

The biggest threat to what the framers viewed as liberty during their era was unjustified imprisonment. Liberty to them meant freedom (as in not imprisoned), not the ability to do what you want. And no, this isn't the constitution according the me, it's the constitution according to several constitutional history classes. Your arguments lead me to believe that you've never had one.

Stating that organized religion has been influenced by outside money is a non-partisan fact. I'm amused that you're taking a simple statement and using it as a segue to an opinionated argument (even though I happen to agree with you).

However, as a counterpoint, the separation of church and state clause (as butchered and misinterpreted as it has become) would apply to organized religion, thereby making religious exception from taxes logical. As citizens of the United States members of organized religion have the right to pursue what they see as happiness by exercising fiscal power just like non-profit political organizations have the ability to exercise fiscal power.

TS ‎"You do no have the right to have what makes you happy given to you, especially at any expense to others."
EXPENSE OF OTHERS?! Who is hurting from straight bigots finding it "unsavory" for gay people to marry? I don't think that's at the expense of the bigots. Please explain yourself here.

I'm just wondering how you can't see your white male STRAIGHT privilege. Look at the rights you have. Look at the rights these people don't have. Did you fight for yours? Were they given to you just because of how you were born? Let me help you on that last question: Yes.

"I'm amused that you're taking a simple statement and using it as a segue to an opinionated argument"
Religion in this instance (where the money is coming from) is promoting hate, intolerance, and bigotry.

"However, as a counterpoint, the separation of church and state clause (as butchered and misinterpreted as it has become) would apply to organized religion, thereby making religious exception from taxes logical."
So it means that the government can't mess with the church but the church can influence the government? That is not "separation". We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

LK Ok, so say I'm gay. I want to get married, something which does not affect you as a straight person. My happiness does not impede your happiness. However, your decision to prevent me from marrying the person I love DOES impede my happiness. So, pursuing the thing that makes you happy (for whatever reason) does come at the expense of my happiness. This is not a question of "well more people voted this way so that means we all need to just be happy with it." If that were the case you wouldn't have a problem with anything Obama has done since he was elected by the majority.

DS ‎@Shinabarker:

The church is not influencing the government. The church is influencing the people, and the people are, in turn, influencing their constitution (assuming we are still using Prop 8 as a reference point). Now, if the church had the power to veto legislation outright then we would have an instance of religion influencing government, but we do not. And as we've seen in recent years the federal government has and is messing with organized religion. Tit for tat, I suppose some might say.

There is no limitation on either the church's or the government's or political organization's ability to persuade people.

My original statement, had you read it correctly (and it's becoming obvious that you are hard pressed to see a sentence free from your politically biased lense) is that organized religion *has* been influenced by outside funds in the past. It's just a statement of fact. There is no bent or slant to that statement. As for "religion promoting hate, intolerance, and bigotry" liberal organizations also promote hate for conservative values, intolerance for those who oppose them, and bigotry against traditionalists. Both sides use the same tactics. Why are you incensed at this?

Any pivileges I have were granted to me because the were the standing privileges based on the laws of the country. Don't like them? Change them legally. I dare not say change them legally AND fairly, because fairness is both relative and something I see the Left oft misconstruing.

Again, for what feels like the umpteenth time, the right to pursuit lets you pursue. If getting what makes you happy makes someone else happy you have no right to government intervention so that what you want is simply *given* to you in a way that is detrimental to others.

If the government should put the proverbial gun to the other side's head to give you what makes you happy then the government should be able to put the proverbial gun to YOUR head to give your opponents what makes them happy. That leaves us with a stalemate and right back where we started. The only way to settle such a dispute is to through the democratic process, and then to respect and enforce the will of the people. When the will of the people changes, change the law.

Congrats on your racist, heterophobic, bigoted arguments. I'm afraid I'll have to stop replying to your posts because any hope of a serious, levelheaded debate has devolved to one of one sided arguments countered by volleys of emotional outbursts and name calling. I'd chuckle at how stereotypically liberal this is, but it's honestly not funny to me any more.

DS ‎@LK:
The only thing I have problems with (with respect to Obama) are the actions he's taken that are unconstitutional. I have logical cause to be opposed to those actions because I have a legal starting point on which to base my decisions. The Prop 8 issue was trying to creat a legal starting point because there isn't one.

I don't have a problem with states that do allow gay marriage after legalizing legislation being passed by either the people or their duly elected representatives...because that is the perogative of the people.

Because I don't care to have a dog in the fight I have to look at the big picture. This picture has three sides: A, B, and The Process. I don't care to support A for the reasons A believes A is right; the same can be said for B. Therefore, it is both logical and ethical for me to support The Process because The Process is fundamentally American. As an extension of said process, I am thereby required to support the outcome, and that's what I'm doing.

Just because I don't agree with the opposition doesn't mean i'm reasonably or morally obligated to support you.

TS ‎"And as we've seen in recent years the federal government has and is messing with organized religion."
Where? And I'd also like to add that these megachurches use federal dollars to have police provide for parking management. How is this a separation? The church doesn't contribute to this at all.

"organized religion *has* been influenced by outside funds in the past."
Present and future? Why is it that religious affiliation is such a big issue within politics? So people who are blind to making their own decisions know who to follow. "He's such a good, Christian fellow."

"Don't like them? Change them legally. I dare not say change them legally AND fairly, because fairness is both relative and something I see the Left oft misconstruing."
People are trying to change them, but it's assholes like you who think they know better than the people who are being affected by your prejudice.

"Any privileges I have were granted to me because the were the standing privileges"
To quote you earlier "There isn't a 'level' in the pursuit clause." Obviously, there is. You can be happy with what you have, but you feel like it makes you happier (I'm assuming, because you won't answer this) to have other people not be afforded the same rights. And it is a right. What else would you call it, a privilege? You didn't earn it.

The issue, it seems, is that some majorities feel a certain way at the expense of others. If they bothered to think of how they might feel in that situation, then maybe they wouldn't be such assholes about it.

Yes. I'm heterophobic. I was the one stating that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married... Your rhetoric is the hate-filled one.

TS I see what's going on here. You think that the opposite of your homophobia is heterophobia. It doesn't work that way, dude.

LK I think it's hilarious that I was just called a racist bigot by an angry conservative who is opposed to gays having the right to marry like the rest of us.

TS And I appreciate that you likely purposefully misspelled my name. But I suppose I don't really have to mess with DS, do I? [DS's last name is a reference someone might make if you smelled something foul.]