Progressives vs liberals

[Bigbrog]

35 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Because if a state sanctions marriages for some and civil unions for others, even if they are practically the same, it’s still discrimination on the basis of sex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's discrimination when both have the same rights???  My take is calling them different is an attempt to be inclusive of all beliefs...religious and non-religious.  Not everything has negative intent.

[jross]

2 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Funny how you called it a doozy when it is essentially the point of your last statement.  BUUUTTT....it works both ways!!   Why should others be imposing their beliefs on jross??

You understand the point.

For clarity, I support same-sex marriage.  My posts were to provide context as to why religious folks were and assumedly still might be against it.  

[Le duke]

It's discrimination when both have the same rights???  My take is calling them different is an attempt to be inclusive of all beliefs...religious and non-religious.  Not everything has negative intent.

Ever heard of the phrase “Separate but equal”? Yeah. That’s what this is. You create a second class of citizens who can’t have the same thing, a state-sanctioned marriage, as another group of people.

Everyone or no one. Pretty simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThreePointTakedown]

12 minutes ago, jross said:

You asked how a same-sex marriage affects one's non-same-sex marriage.  I answered that it does not impact one's rights, but that there can be an impact on people with religious beliefs.  And I explained it from a religious perspective.

Did I say that I am against people's rights?  (no)

More about religion in America.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

• 72% of Americans believe religion is important.  
• 70% of Americans are Christian.

Christians use the Holy Bible.  

The Holy Bible has a clear judgment on same-sex coupling.  

• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 > Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
• Leviticus 20:13 > If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
• Romans 1:26-27 > Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Note: A minority of Christians use biblical statements to support same-sex marriage.

So if 70% of Americans are Christians, and most marriages occurred in a church, is it feasible to believe that most US population perceived the word marriage primarily in a religious context?  Does it provide an understanding of how this population would be against updating the formal definition of marriage? 

Does this religious context imply that the religious group is against government rights afforded to a couple (same or not same)? (No!)  

How many thoughts/words are you going to keep projecting onto me?  

Going back a few steps... will you only consider your ideas wrong if you admit to them being wrong? 

and now for something completely diff... eh its the same ol stuff

'I answered that it does not impact one's rights, but that there can be an impact on people with religious beliefs' What does this mean? What is the impact? Give examples, say something of substance.  Seems like your purposefully evading the question so you don't have to answer "Nothing"  Because that's the only viable answer. They(religious people) become convinced of something(they/themselves cannot prove) and work to tie themselves into linguistic knots in order to keep equality from a group they find morally(you brought up the bible) repugnant. 

Also, before the bible is brought up at all. Prove its worth reading at all. Then you can use the bible. Because there are older, newer, and better books that convey better moral lessons than that book and you don't need to 'but its a parable or metaphor' your way around the bad parts.

Advocating for separate but equal is saying that you are against someone's rights. Because the group not in power will receive less, without exception.   

The question is how does same-sex marriage effect a non-same-sex marriage? If you're a bigot its not a stretch that feel attacked. Other then that, a contract with the state and someone's contract with the state have no effect on each other. That someone makes hay out of it is on them for proving which they can't without an imaginary sky daddy to point to. 

Percentages are dropping which scares religious people and makes them chip away at their beliefs either to be more inclusive or more fundamental. Either way the 'beliefs' are fluid and aren't really that important any way. Making this whole issue a moot point. Just change your beliefs(wouldn't be the first time) and be quiet. 

70% church marriage... Don't care. Its a rigid and discriminatory way of thinking. That does nothing but otherize a group(pick a group, christians are equal opportunity oppressors, ironically enough that's one of the few things they hand out evenly). Like I said before, that your religion has changed or been fractured into denominations means the word is not concrete and carries no actual weight and should be let go entirely for a 'Just be nice to people and not just OUR people' message. Which is funny, because that message is in that book and conveniently ignored when someone feels attacked for whatever reason(ie, the definition of marriage)

I don't feel as though I'm projecting. And you won't get me to stop typing. I am for equality. Seems like some of your ideas would indicate that you aren't. I think those ideas are wrong and for those reasons. If you want to wave me away. Fine, can't stop you. Other people read this and know where you stand and that people disagree with you. If you care to respond without rhetorical questions that don't really say anything, go right ahead. 

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, Le duke said:

 

Ever heard of the phrase “Separate but equal”? Yeah. That’s what this is. You create a second class of citizens who can’t have the same thing, a state-sanctioned marriage, as another group of people.

Everyone or no one. Pretty simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I guess that is how you look at it, and I disagree

[jross]

5 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Going back a few steps... will you only consider your ideas wrong if you admit to them being wrong? 

and now for something completely diff... eh its the same ol stuff

'I answered that it does not impact one's rights, but that there can be an impact on people with religious beliefs' What does this mean? What is the impact? Give examples, say something of substance.  Seems like your purposefully evading the question so you don't have to answer "Nothing"  Because that's the only viable answer. They(religious people) become convinced of something(they/themselves cannot prove) and work to tie themselves into linguistic knots in order to keep equality from a group they find morally(you brought up the bible) repugnant. 

Also, before the bible is brought up at all. Prove its worth reading at all. Then you can use the bible. Because there are older, newer, and better books that convey better moral lessons than that book and you don't need to 'but its a parable or metaphor' your way around the bad parts.

Advocating for separate but equal is saying that you are against someone's rights. Because the group not in power will receive less, without exception.   

The question is how does same-sex marriage effect a non-same-sex marriage? If you're a bigot its not a stretch that feel attacked. Other then that, a contract with the state and someone's contract with the state have no effect on each other. That someone makes hay out of it is on them for proving which they can't without an imaginary sky daddy to point to. 

Percentages are dropping which scares religious people and makes them chip away at their beliefs either to be more inclusive or more fundamental. Either way the 'beliefs' are fluid and aren't really that important any way. Making this whole issue a moot point. Just change your beliefs(wouldn't be the first time) and be quiet. 

70% church marriage... Don't care. Its a rigid and discriminatory way of thinking. That does nothing but otherize a group(pick a group, christians are equal opportunity oppressors, ironically enough that's one of the few things they hand out evenly). Like I said before, that your religion has changed or been fractured into denominations means the word is not concrete and carries no actual weight and should be let go entirely for a 'Just be nice to people and not just OUR people' message. Which is funny, because that message is in that book and conveniently ignored when someone feels attacked for whatever reason(ie, the definition of marriage)

I don't feel as though I'm projecting. And you won't get me to stop typing. I am for equality. Seems like some of your ideas would indicate that you aren't. I think those ideas are wrong and for those reasons. If you want to wave me away. Fine, can't stop you. Other people read this and know where you stand and that people disagree with you. If you care to respond without rhetorical questions that don't really say anything, go right ahead. 

YOU CANNOT BE HELPED WITH READING COMPREHENSION AND LOGIC.

Good day to you sir.

[Plasmodium]

40 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Funny how you called it a doozy when it is essentially the point of your last statement.  BUUUTTT....it works both ways!!   Why should others be imposing their beliefs on jross??

Crazy town!   Objecting to someone else imposing their religious beliefs on others is not the same as imposing religious beliefs on others.  Nobody is imposing anything on mr. awesome.  He is free to marry a woman in a religious ceremony, well mr. awesome’s wife might object - I can’t speak to that.  Mr. Awesome is also free to marry a woman outside of a religious ceremony or a man in a religious ceremony.  There are many permutations possible.
This and refusal to adopt the metric system might be the most conservative moves possible.  I can also imagine Mr. Awesome demanding the word ‘gay’ drop at least one of it’s definitions to return to its former glory.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

While I don't think what jross is saying is causing any sort of separatism/marginalizim, or any other 'ism, I can understand how someone else would feel that way.  But ultimately  I guess it isn't up to me to decide if it is called "marriage" or "civil unions"...zero impact on me.  But I am also confused why it would be a big deal for jross to feel the way he does...it has zero impact on same sex marriage/civil union...they can call it whatever they want to call it and jross, and anyone else, can call it whatever the heck they want to call it for whatever reason they want to...fair?   You know what I call it marriage/civil union...stupid!  LOL  

Probably all has to do with why some get so upset when someone has faith and base some of their beliefs off of that faith...who the heck cares??  It's funny to preach equality, diversity of thought, marginalization of groups, etc. then turn around and try and do the exact same thing to someone who has religious beliefs.  SMH

What are religious beliefs? For real what are they? Are they pretty arbitrary? Yes.

Are some of them absolutely atrocious? Yes. 

Can and have they been used to justify horrible actions in the past and present? Yes.

Can they prove to be accurate? Well, that's open to interpretation(which right there should be your indication that its crap). 

Can they be proven to be true? Nope. 

Community feels good. People who feel the same way about things as you. Religion can and does manipulate those parts of our brain to need it. We don't. Every single thing a religion can bring to your life something else can do just as well and you don't have to worry about demons or hell or eating shell fish or wearing fibers or planting crops(how many more examples do you want?) Religion do a great job of making us tribal against the other religions and other groups. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

15 minutes ago, jross said:

YOU CANNOT BE HELPED WITH READING COMPREHENSION AND LOGIC.

Good day to you sir.

Insults. The death rattle of a losing argument. 

Tip of the cap sir. 

[uncle bernard]

24 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I guess that is how you look at it, and I disagree

"What's the problem? They both have water fountains!"

[ThreePointTakedown]

20 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I guess that is how you look at it, and I disagree

What is the nature of the disagreement? 

Did someone work to create a new term, that means the same thing as an already existing term, but is specifically for a marginalized group and for the sole reason of keeping the groups separate in the eyes of the government? Yes. That's called being a bigot. You can rationalize it away but that's what it is. You disagreeing doesn't change that. 

[uncle bernard]

If you want to keep it a 100% religious institution, keep the state out of it. As long as you want to make it a legally recognized thing, you have to play by the rules. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Funny how you called it a doozy when it is essentially the point of your last statement.  BUUUTTT....it works both ways!!   Why should others be imposing their beliefs on jross??

Is that what you think this is? Trying to impose? 

Impose would imply force. Do you feel this is forcing you to adopt different ideas? 

If there are inconsistencies in your ideas, its good to figure them out. Makes them better, strong, faster. And they are also tools, to help do the same thing with other ideas you have. Work them out and make them better. Better things are better. Why put in effort to hold on to a thing if there is a better thing out there and it costs you nothing to get it?  That's all. 

If yours is better. Then it shouldn't be hard to determine(wishful thinking I know, but works in theory). 

No one is being attacked. Except those that are. Don't call people names. Be nice to everyone. I'm sure I heard that somewhere

[Bigbrog]

9 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Is that what you think this is? Trying to impose? 

Impose would imply force. Do you feel this is forcing you to adopt different ideas? 

If there are inconsistencies in your ideas, its good to figure them out. Makes them better, strong, faster. And they are also tools, to help do the same thing with other ideas you have. Work them out and make them better. Better things are better. Why put in effort to hold on to a thing if there is a better thing out there and it costs you nothing to get it?  That's all. 

If yours is better. Then it shouldn't be hard to determine(wishful thinking I know, but works in theory). 

No one is being attacked. Except those that are. Don't call people names. Be nice to everyone. I'm sure I heard that somewhere

Sorry..go read your posts to jross.  How about Plasi's??  How about uncle whatever?  You all are trying to impose beliefs on others...jross was merely trying to make a point that you aren't able to comprehend because you are hell bent on attacking religion.  We get it because you think it's all made up...fine...believe what you want and leave others to believe what they want...easy enough right??  By the way that is my point...period...doesn't have any other meaning or motive!!

Also, I refuse to fall into your game once again of twisting things people write to fit a narrative and then for you to try and preach to them like you have some moral high ground...all you have is an opinion just like everyone else.  And I learned long ago that someone who throws out words like "bigot" and "racist" at the drop of the hat are probably more likely to be those things versus the people they accuse of being those things.  

Bottom line is I am a person that doesn't try to find the boogey man in every single thing or topic out there...most of the time I assume positive intent...people can call things whatever they want to call things...but it has to work both ways.  I can't stand it when people do the very thing they claim to be against...you see it all the time in today's society..."I hate people being oppressed, but I am going to oppress people to fix it and make up for the unfortunate group that was originally oppressed."   "I can't believe they want to call marriage a civil union, it marginalizes groups so let's marginalize the group that calls it marriage."  Once again...call it whatever the heck you want to call it...done!

Equality is making sure everyone has the same rights and access to those rights....which I agree with 1000000%

 

[jross]

18 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Insults. The death rattle of a losing argument. 

Tip of the cap sir. 

I tell you I support same-sex marriage.  You project that I am against same-sex marriage.

I tell you religious people (that I once represented) support people's rights.  You project that those people are against rights.

I tell you I am not religious.  You project on me for being religious.

I answer your questions.  You ask the same question again.  

I tell you my experience.  You tell me I am wrong.  

I am disappointed in your idiocy but not in your views. 

Enjoy your win.  Tell me where to mail the plastic trophy. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 10/26/2023 at 4:01 PM, Bigbrog said:

Sorry..go read your posts to jross.  How about Plasi's??  How about uncle whatever?  You all are trying to impose beliefs on others...jross was merely trying to make a point that you aren't able to comprehend because you are hell bent on attacking religion.  We get it because you think it's all made up...fine...believe what you want and leave others to believe what they want...easy enough right??  By the way that is my point...period...doesn't have any other meaning or motive!!

Also, I refuse to fall into your game once again of twisting things people write to fit a narrative and then for you to try and preach to them like you have some moral high ground...all you have is an opinion just like everyone else.  And I learned long ago that someone who throws out words like "bigot" and "racist" at the drop of the hat are probably more likely to be those things versus the people they accuse of being those things.  

Bottom line is I am a person that doesn't try to find the boogey man in every single thing or topic out there...most of the time I assume positive intent...people can call things whatever they want to call things...but it has to work both ways.  I can't stand it when people do the very thing they claim to be against...you see it all the time in today's society..."I hate people being oppressed, but I am going to oppress people to fix it and make up for the unfortunate group that was originally oppressed."   "I can't believe they want to call marriage a civil union, it marginalizes groups so let's marginalize the group that calls it marriage."  Once again...call it whatever the heck you want to call it...done!

Equality is making sure everyone has the same rights and access to those rights....which I agree with 1000000%

 

How did you make this about you being a victim? Was it on purpose or just reflex? 

Impose is to do something by force. Convince is what I'm trying to do. Show you your implicit bias and hopefully you can see the error in your judgement. By feigning your victimized position your are allowing yourself to remain lazy in your thinking. In that, you don't have to think critically about your ideas or how came about them. 

If they would leave me alone to have my beliefs then I would leave them alone to have their beliefs. But their made up BS effects me and everyone else directly. By having 'sincerely held' made up beliefs that they can't prove, they lobby the government for tax breaks and tax money to fund their operations. Operations that have previous(and currently) revolve around; shaming women, punishing LGBTQ+ people, fighting against trans rights, and taking food out of the hands of people who need it through gov't assistance. If they left all that money alone and just used their donations, I'd be fine. But they don't. They have to pay off settlements from abuse cases. 

[Bigbrog]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

How did you make this about you being a victim? Was it on purpose or just reflex? 

Impose is to do something by force. Convince is what I'm trying to do. Show you your implicit bias and hopefully you can see the error in your judgement. By feigning your victimized position your are allowing yourself to remain lazy in your thinking. In that, you don't have to think critically about your ideas or how came about them. 

If they would leave me alone to have my beliefs then I would leave them alone to have their beliefs. But their made up BS effects me and everyone else directly. By having 'sincerely held' made up beliefs that they can't prove, they lobby the government for tax breaks and tax money to fund their operations. Operations that have previous(and currently) revolve around; shaming women, punishing LGBTQ+ people, fighting against trans rights, and taking food out of the hands of people who need it through gov't assistance. If they left all that money alone and just used their donations, I'd be fine. But they don't. They have to pay off settlements from abuse cases. 

Oh the irony of saying "feigning your victimized position" and then turn around with that doozy of a third paragraph...LOL  But keep on calling people bigots and using words like "implicit bias" and then claim others do not know how to use critical thinking....those are copout words because your feelings got hurt for some reason and you can't see the viewpoint of others because of your hate for all things religion... and who is playing the victim by the way??

I, nor jross once has played the victim but rather tried to express viewpoints, which your responses have resorted to name calling and lecturing (LOL).   

You hate religion...got it.  I personally am not religious but feel people have every right to be.  Just as I support anyone who wants to get married.  I support anyone who chooses to fall in love with someone of the same sex.  I support people that want to be a different sex then which they are biologically.  I support everybody equally and support equal rights for all!

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

25 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Oh the irony of saying "feigning your victimized position" and then turn around with that doozy of a third paragraph...LOL  But keep on calling people bigots and using words like "implicit bias" and then claim others do not know how to use critical thinking....those are copout words because your feelings got hurt for some reason and you can't see the viewpoint of others because of your hate for all things religion... and who is playing the victim by the way??

I, nor jross once has played the victim but rather tried to express viewpoints, which your responses have resorted to name calling and lecturing (LOL).   

You hate religion...got it.  I personally am not religious but feel people have every right to be.  Just as I support anyone who wants to get married.  I support anyone who chooses to fall in love with someone of the same sex.  I support people that want to be a different sex then which they are biologically.  I support everybody equally and support equal rights for all!

 

I'm sorry that you can't/don't link opinions to actions. But regardless of whether you believe it, it happens. People take their unfounded 'beliefs' and turn them into actions. Be those; supporting of an organization that calls for bans on abortion without exception, that one group of people is superior to another(morally or otherwise). These beliefs are not innocuous, as much as you might want to believe. They can lead to good, but also can be manipulated, by lack of critical thinking, to be harmful.   

There are no situations where these things can just be allowed to go unchallenged. That's how we got here in the first place. The SCOTUS is now allowing tax money to go to religious groups and properties for no other reason then, 'its been around for awhile and therefore has lost its religious iconography' which is BS plain and simple. 

And don't ever say that I 'hate' something. You do not know me. If you want a reason to hand wave me away and not engage, then just slink away. You are dishonest by saying something like that and makes it seem like you are losing a discussion and want a way to save face in your own mind. No one here cares about how you feel about yourself. But you chose to engage. You don't seem like a troll so you have thought through your opinions. That's more than can be said for some people. 

[jross]

 

 

[PortaJohn]

42 minutes ago, jross said:

 

 

That's every conversation with a Champagne Communist living in a free society

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, jross said:

 

 

Do you feel most Cubans are worse off now than before Castro's revolution?

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, jross said:

 

 

China isn't communist. Unbelieveable.

[Plasmodium]

2 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

China isn't communist. Unbelieveable.

What is communism and why do you think China fits that definition?

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

The SCOTUS is now allowing tax money to go to religious groups and properties for no other reason then, 'its been around for awhile and therefore has lost its religious iconography' which is BS plain and simple. 

For your edification.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/05/14/shifting-boundaries2/

[PortaJohn]

17 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

What is communism and why do you think China fits that definition?

China is a melting pot of communism, fascism, socialism, with a sprinkle of authoritarian capitalism.