The Liberal Illusion of Equality and Tolerance: Homosexual Edition

[TemplarKormac]

He added three more.



I don't know, guy, why did black folks do sit-ins at the lunch counters of businesses in the Jim Crow South. Why did Rosa Park insist on sitting at the front of the bus? How dare she impose herself on unsuspecting strangers!

being black or a different race is not an action nor a choice nor a learned behavior... homosexual activity is

Yes? Because you tried being gay? You made that 'choice?'

I'm gonna have to call bullshit.

I remember how you chastised me about Phil Robertson, and how you said that my support for his views on homosexuality somehow directly injured you and your close friends.

Yeah, I call bullshit too. Have you ever tried to be tolerant of people who oppose homosexuality, or of opposing views in general? You ever make that choice? Nah.

 

[BDBoop]

being black or a different race is not an action nor a choice nor a learned behavior... homosexual activity is

Yes? Because you tried being gay? You made that 'choice?'

I'm gonna have to call bullshit.

I remember how you chastised me about Phil Robertson, and how you said that my support for his views on homosexuality somehow directly injured you and your close friends.

Yeah, I call bullshit too. Have you ever tried to be tolerant of people who oppose homosexuality, or of opposing views in general? You ever make that choice? Nah.

I wasn't talking to you, child.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Joe, your argument gets weaker and weaker. If you don't want the government to stick its nose into your bedroom, why are you asking them to condone the practice of homosexuality? Hmm? My faculties are just fine, it's yours I'm concerned about.

Given that my job is irrelevant to this discussion, that also makes your argument irrelevant, Joe. My employment has zero to do with this discussion, and it shows how intellectually bankrupt you are by having to stoop to such a level to argue with me.

And if I want your autobiography about YOUR sordid adventures with employment, I'll ask for it. Which will be never.

Your employment status is not relevant, but you might want to show a bit of reciprocal consideration by not trying to make everyone else's points some sort of hypocrisy issue.

By your logic, a religious person with religious convictions against homosexuality should be able to refuse to pay his taxes,

on the grounds that they go to a government that supports gay rights,

and defend his refusal on 1st amendment grounds. You can't really believe that, can you?

Like I said, why don't you scrutinize Muslims this way? Hmm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes? Because you tried being gay? You made that 'choice?'

I'm gonna have to call bullshit.

I remember how you chastised me about Phil Robertson, and how you said that my support for his views on homosexuality somehow directly injured you and your close friends.

Yeah, I call bullshit too. Have you ever tried to be tolerant of people who oppose homosexuality, or of opposing views in general? You ever make that choice? Nah.

I wasn't talking to you, child.

By all indications, you should have me on ignore, hence you shouldn't even be talking to me period. So why the change of heart?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Would you dare ask this question to a Muslim? Or they somehow untouchable? Is it for fear that unlike us, they will find a reason to hurt you for it? Your question is hypocritical. If a Muslim said he wanted to discriminate against Gays, Christians and Jews, I doubt you would question him in such a manner.

If I reverse the religions in my question, will you stop dodging it?

If you stop dodging, will you answer my OP? Why should I answer your question, given your proclivities to promote Islam over Christianity, giving them greater allowances to practice their faith and discriminate against women and homosexuals? I don't respond to inquiries conducted by hypocrites.

To lie about what I believe as a tactic to dodge debating your own topic with someone you know you'll lose the argument to is pretty feeble.

Didn't you once say you were studying to be a lawyer? How do think your tactic would fly in a courtroom?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I think the people most activistic against homosexuals are the ones who worry the most they're one of them. Not saying it as a 'gotcha' or chiding remark, but seriously, if you're not in any way shape or form gay, why spend ANY time at all worrying about it?

I have no interest whatsoever in shoe fetishism and consequently spend no time at all railing against it. But I do rail against hate and intolerance because I've suffered, and continue to suffer from it myself. But I recognize it as something I was raised to feel and so am hopeful I can teach myself out of it.

 

[Wildman]

Additionally,

oooh yes we do ! it has been the RIGHT of business owners for more years than most posters here have been breathing, "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"

is this clear enough for you liberfools ?

 

[BDBoop]

It is absolutely absurd to allow the intolerant to set 'the rules' of tolerance. Karl Popper wrote, "unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Should tolerant people tolerate intolerance? | Debate.org

 

[NYcarbineer]

Joe, your argument gets weaker and weaker. If you don't want the government to stick its nose into your bedroom, why are you asking them to condone the practice of homosexuality? Hmm? My faculties are just fine, it's yours I'm concerned about.

Given that my job is irrelevant to this discussion, that also makes your argument irrelevant, Joe. My employment has zero to do with this discussion, and it shows how intellectually bankrupt you are by having to stoop to such a level to argue with me.

And if I want your autobiography about YOUR sordid adventures with employment, I'll ask for it. Which will be never.

Your employment status is not relevant, but you might want to show a bit of reciprocal consideration by not trying to make everyone else's points some sort of hypocrisy issue.

By your logic, a religious person with religious convictions against homosexuality should be able to refuse to pay his taxes,

on the grounds that they go to a government that supports gay rights,

and defend his refusal on 1st amendment grounds. You can't really believe that, can you?

Like I said, why don't you scrutinize Muslims this way? Hmm?

For a guy who claims he can debate, you sure do put alot of time into avoiding debate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I reverse the religions in my question, will you stop dodging it?

If you stop dodging, will you answer my OP? Why should I answer your question, given your proclivities to promote Islam over Christianity, giving them greater allowances to practice their faith and discriminate against women and homosexuals? I don't respond to inquiries conducted by hypocrites.

To lie about what I believe as a tactic to dodge debating your own topic with someone you know you'll lose the argument to is pretty feeble.

Didn't you once say you were studying to be a lawyer? How do think your tactic would fly in a courtroom?

I have your liberal brain tied up into so many knots right now, its funny watching you trying to make sense of what I said.

Try debating at least one of the points I made in my OP, and I will answer your question. Not before. You will not get a cogent response from me until you do so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is absolutely absurd to allow the intolerant to set 'the rules' of tolerance. Karl Popper wrote, "unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Should tolerant people tolerate intolerance? | Debate.org

"But thus", I should reply "why do people demand tolerance, such as Homosexuals do? To demand unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of intolerance. To claim to be tolerant, yet give in to intolerance means that your own tolerance has also disappeared as well."

Checkmate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Additionally,

oooh yes we do ! it has been the RIGHT of business owners for more years than most posters here have been breathing, "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"

is this clear enough for you liberfools ?

I can reserve the right not to pay my taxes too; that won't make it legal.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

John Connor: "We're not gonna make it are we? People I mean."

Terminator: "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."

- "Terminator 2:Judgement Day"

Think about this the next time you feel the need to loose your venom on your fellows. Gay or straight, dem or republican, liberal or conservative, white or black...

"Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

John F. Kennedy

 

[TemplarKormac]

Additionally,

oooh yes we do ! it has been the RIGHT of business owners for more years than most posters here have been breathing, "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"

is this clear enough for you liberfools ?

I can reserve the right not to pay my taxes too; that won't make it legal.

Then, Carbine, you would be an evil tax evading rich guy, the class of person you have a deep seated hatred for and have no desire to be. You'd be Mitt Romney, who you accused of evading HIS taxes. Care to use a different analogy?

 

[Seawytch]

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1) If you truly believed in equality, you would believe in a balance of freedom. There is a two way street to equality. You have every right to your lifestyle, but you cannot force others to endorse it.

QUOTE]

The Bill of Rights forces Americans to endorse all sorts of lifestyles. If you disagree, tell us what definition of the word 'endorse' you're using.

I say endorse means to accept as equal under the law and therefore entitled to equal protection, and not subject to be discriminated against.

For example the 2nd amendment enables the legal pursuit of all sorts of 'lifestyles', including hunting, shooting sports, etc. We are required by law to 'endorse' them, whether or not we approve of them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) If you truly believed in equality, you would believe in a balance of freedom. There is a two way street to equality. You have every right to your lifestyle, but you cannot force others to endorse it.

The Bill of Rights forces Americans to endorse all sorts of lifestyles. If you disagree, tell us what definition of the word 'endorse' you're using.

I say endorse means to accept as equal under the law and therefore entitled to equal protection, and not subject to be discriminated against.

For example the 2nd amendment enables the legal pursuit of all sorts of 'lifestyles', including hunting, shooting sports, etc. We are required by law to 'endorse' them, whether or not we approve of them.

Thank you for answering one of my points, now I shall be true to my word and answer your question. After I address this most current response.

"Endorse," as the dictionary defines it, is to "declare one's public approval or support of." Which has zero to do with your definition.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can the law require a Christian to do business with a Muslim? Can the Christian businessman refuse to serve Muslims, claiming religious rights?

Or can the Muslim claim the right not to be discriminated against because of his religion?

What are you talking about?

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your claim that a business can discriminate against anyone they want by claiming their religious rights under the 1st Amendment.

What if they want to discriminate against another religion? What happened to the other party's religious rights?

Who says we already don't?

 

[rightwinger]

1) If you truly believed in equality, you would believe in a balance of freedom. There is a two way street to equality. You have every right to your lifestyle, but you cannot force others to endorse it.

You are still free to hate anyone you wish. You can no longer force the government to accomodate your hatred

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahh, stumped I see. Now that I have demonstrated yet another discrepancy in the liberal ideal of equality and tolerance, I would suggest to those of you liberals who opined:

Don't you dare ever lecture me or anyone else on equality when your party passed laws against interracial marriage. Or when you're willing to take the rights of the pious and sacrifice them all in the name of your version of tolerance. You know how The Crusades went, right? When people tried to force their beliefs down other peoples throats? They were destroyed. The campaign was ended. And so likewise, is this one.