I was just asking because you had admittedly incorrect/skewed interpretations of other politically hot american current events earlier in the thread. The term Sanctuary City refers to a wide range of policies and cities and I was curious what your interpretation was. No need for name calling.
Do you agree with giving committed gay couples the same rights as straight couples, and leaving marriage for âtge churchâ to decide?
Iâm from NYC too. Saw gay couples all the time. Just never saw them kissing in person til college somehow. I only brought up my reaction because I think people use religion, tradition, and a million other excuses to justify denying gays rights when it usually just comes down to that initial feeling of disgust from seeing something different.
I hadnât seen your post before responding to Ottawa, I was referencing what he had said was the reaction of people. I guess you canât control what your initial reaction is, but you can control how you proceed afterwards. I just donât see why someoneâs sexual preference bothers others so much. Aside from feeling grossed out, it has no affect on you whatsoever. If no one is being harmed or manipulated, just let them be. Iâm siding with you on this one Flip
1 Like
The only freedom your average leftist cares about is the freedom to be as degenerate and irresponsible as pleases their hedonistic lifestyle. So-called conservatives are often no better. The freedom you and many leftists advocate is little more than the freedom to do what you want, when you want. It snubs responsibility. We cannot use simpleminded slogans, such as, âwe are a free peopleâ or âdiversity is our strengthâ to reach meaningful conclusions about how we ought to live. Not to mention the fact that atrocities are often carried out under such simpleminded slogans.
Now that Iâve pissed off the homophilic crowd, letâs piss off some Christians.
Iâm not Christian. Iâm anti-Christian. The only firmly held beliefs I have about Christianity are all negative. I donât think of Christianity as good, moral, or, just, and I donât think of America as such either.
If anything, a poor reading coupled with your own biases led you to the conclusion that someone who doesnât uncritically accept gay marriage must be a Christian. The way I see it, the left expects nothing more than uncritical acceptance of its agenda. If you donât, you are a racist, bigot, homophobe, etc.
I was very clear that marriage being founded on love is not entirely new and I never excluded Christians from it. I think the majority of Christians are full of shit.
Many churches have cowtowed to the gay issue.They fly the rainbow flag and perform gay marriages. This only validates my belief that Christianity doesnât stand for anything. At the end of the day itâs only trying to retain membership.
Moral values certainly didnât originate with Christianity. If anything, it originated 2000 years of corrupting European peoples and whoever else it came into contact with.
So much insanity and bloodshed, and Iâll add, the senseless persecution and murder of people who didnât conform to its strict tenets or those who had different beliefs and gays.
Thatâs right, I donât support the persecution of gays and I doubt many people do.
Ottawa already made great points. I would caution you against using the veneer of enlightenment ideals and American patriotism, i.e., muh freedom, in order to advance arguments that donât have to anything do with âfreedomâ in that sense. Anyhow, thatâs how it comes off when your answer is simply âfreedom.â
2 Likes
You are borderline incoherent, not just here, in general. In order to humor you, no, I donât support gay marriage under any condition. Gays already have as many ârights,â if not more, than everyone else. I donât see why being a special snowflake, liks gays or transgenders, means you should get more rights and special protection.
While I donât agree with any mainstream political ideas, contemporary liberalism is particularly out of touch with reality. I cannot get down with its anti-reality, anti-truth perspective. Most of all, I cannot stand the hypocrisy of the left.
As I already stated, I donât give a damn about the church . The churches will do as they please to remain relevant, even if that means sanctioning gay marriage, abortion, or giving an okay on the migrant invasion of Europe and North America.
1 Like
As a student of politics (undergrad and graduate), Iâd be VERY interested in hearing the rights that these individuals have that others donât. Could you elaborate?
The right to be fabulous?
10 Likes
I donât think you understand how your arguments can be used to advocate things very different than what you would like.
@chris_ottawa already made it clear how what youâre saying can be used to justify, e.g., pedophilia or zoophilia. Oh, youâre disguised? Too bad, youâre just a bigot whoâs not used to seeing something different. That, in essence, is your argument. Some people just want to fuck children or dogs. Are you going to deny them the right to do so?
The problem, something I tried to express in a much earlier post, is the consequences for society. There are societal consequences for normalizing anything, in this case, homosexuality.
You question why so many people have a problem with it. I question why, over such a short period of time, we did an aboutface a and wholesale accept homosexuality as a norm, and weâre not supposed to even question it.
Anything that remains beyond question can be dangerous. Certainly, thatâs how liberals would like to keep it because they donât want debate, they want to shut down debate. But I give everyone credit for keeping it cordial and not calling me a âbigotâ or use another popular ad hominem.
I donât have an interest in the sex lives of others. My point is that I donât believe gay marriage should be uncritically and wholesale accepted by society. I think there are greater consequences for society and for family when homosexuality is normalized.
What gay people do in privacy is their business, but I donât think homosexuality or unfettered freedom to do whatever you want deserves moral sanction.
Believe it or not, when I was younger, I was the prototypical liberal. Aging has allowed me to realize that everything isnât so black and white or ideal as liberals make it out to be. At this point, I donât support any part of the liberal political program. The political ideology of liberalism is one of the most corrosive influences in society.
1 Like
Why the personal insult over a nuetral, easy to answer clarifying question?
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein remarked on the tendency of debates towards arguing over semantics. âRights,â âfreedoms,â âtradition,â âliberalism,â âmoral.â All these terms and many more, get cloudy during a debate. We encounter this in Platoâs dialogues over andover again, i.e. âthe good,â âthe just,â âlove,â ârighteousness.â
For people who say, e.g., âWe need to get out and vote for gay rights,â I honestly donât know what theyâre talking about. Gay marriage is legal in the US. What more rights are expected or needed?
To give you a partial answer to your question, I think that gays are given special protection that heterosexual / white / males do not receive. I think hate crimes rarely happen but hate crimes are, for some reason, considered more heinous than crimes against, e.g. heterosexual / white / male.
I donât think criminal charges should be harsher if you attacked someone who isnât a white / heterosexual / male. I think if something was premeditated, the charges are harsh enough if it can be demonstrated someone premediatedly attacked someone.
To me, hate crime laws serve a legislative function of enforcing the cultural Marxist agenda, i.e. oppressors vs. oppressived. Liberals tend to support these laws. So-called rightwingers are often against them.
Should a man happens to use a gay slur against a gay man when he is in the process of whooping ass be charged with a hate crime if this was a spontaneous, unpremeditated event? I donât think so. Yes, the attacker should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law. But I donât think itâs necessary or fair to make this a more serious crime because someone happens to use a gay slur or racial slur.
Of course this is where your NPC liberal steps in and lectures me about âa history of oppressionâ or something like that. Ironic, given the left doesnât care for history or truth at the end of the day.
I digress.
Yes, I think some persecution of gays and ethnic minorities still occurs in the US. At this point, the paradigm has been so flipped in favor of the âoppressedâ that you have white / heterosexual / males apologizing and prostrating themselves for their âhistory of oppression.â
Whites apologizing for being white. Men apologizing for for actions they never took part in. The whole thing is very pathetic and unmanly, and I view this paradigm shift as more problematic than the world before when gays had to remain in the closet.
My views arenât going to win me many followers, and thatâs okay. I am alive in the wrong age. I donât like the trajectory of the modern world and I occasionally challenge it as an act of leisure, but I donât expect to change anything. Thank you for entertaining me!
1 Like
You have a low threshold for what you consider an insult. Saying you are âborderline incoherentâ is an insult? I didnât mean it as an insult. Itâs an observation. I answered your question in my reply to you and in my other replies.
Gotchya. So you, as you said in a previous post, you appreciate people keeping the discussion civil and not calling you names, but you feel comfortable calling other folks names.
Here is a question- what in your life made you change from having a left leaning outlook to having what seems to be an extreme right leaning outlook? Do you have thoughts on any âwatershed momentsâ?
In contrast though, others, like Hans-Georg Gadamer, might counter that language is simply understanding and agreement between two people, and so far as we make the contract to use the same terms to mean the same things, the language can perpetuate.
In this instance, I donât view protections as rights. As an example, children are afforded MANY more protections under the government than adults are, yet many would argue that children actually have far fewer rights than adults.
My understanding is that they are cities that have refused to cooperate with ICE in detaining and turning over illegal immigrants. Like if the police there arrest someone who ICE wants in some places they wonât notify ICE or send the person to them.
Yup that is the popular definition. Itâs not quite that simple though because they are not (supposed to be) actively thwarting ICE. Instead their policy is to not check immigration status of folks arrested⊠Because of the innocent till proven guilty thing, and because it takes additional time and money to search a database and detain someone for a week or more when theyâd normally be let go that night.
Iâm not a fan of the policy but i also understand the financial and logistical burden of checking every arrestee, and then holding folks for a while until ICE can show up and deport them. Nothing about the feds is fast or cheap.
Maybe youâre just desensitized. For a long time I lived in downtown Ottawa, gays were a regular sight around there. Where I live now they are few and far in between, and donât go around flaunting their nastiness so I donât see it anymore. I donât think anyone has ever mistaken me for a homosexual, that is the least of my concerns. Itâs just offensive to see that, like if you saw a guy picking his nose and eating his snot you would be disgusted. Thatâs just gross and unhygienic, add some immorality into the mix and its even worse.
This is essentially the same thing, they either refuse to enforce immigration laws or simply neglect to do so with the same end result.
Itâs not like I hate people who want to illegally enter another country, it just doesnât make sense that the government has laws on the books and doesnât enforce them. Instead they give welfare, refugee benefits (way more that welfare, govât pension, etc. in many places), medical care (maybe not in the US though) and those who are willing and able to get jobs end up driving down the cost of labour for the rest of us.
Itâs actually the feds job to enforce immigration laws, hence ICEâs existence. So its more like the sanctuary City isnât doing ICE a solid haha. That is my abbreviated general understanding of it.
The constituents want the sanctuary City. It saves the city money. The social impact is a wash. And the feds canât really do anything about it. Seems like a nice case of states rights, and an underperforming federal agency getting pissed.
As has been said many times before. The jobs the illegals are taking are shit work for shit pay. Not taking any decent work nor depressing wages at decent paying jobs.
Do you think being gay is a choice or a learned behavior that can be unlearned?
Just seems odd for a person in an interracial marriage (you said that right?) to be saying nearly verbatim the same things about gay couples the Jim crow south said about interracial couples.