Re: Presidential Race

by **Rotaretilbo** Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:23 pm

Tylertlat wrote:For reasons Civ pointed out in the appropriate thread there is disagreement on that point.

So at this point, it looks like you have a political contention with the other party and so are making a sweeping personal attack.

by Nocbl2 Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:25 pm

Nocbl2 wrote:
Tylertlat wrote:I'm hearing a lot of un-cited claims in this thread.
Yeah.

Hold on, I'll be back.

Get

DID NO ONE SEE THIS?

by **Tylertlat** Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:35 pm

Nocbl2 wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Tylertlat wrote:I'm hearing a lot of un-cited claims in this thread.
Yeah.

Hold on, I'll be back.

Get

DID NO ONE SEE THIS?

I saw it, and tried to find the origin of a citation. I went through 4 opinion pages before I found the source, which was based on what seemed like a semantic correction, and gave up Razz

by **CivBase** Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:51 pm

Lord Pheonix wrote:If a group is willing to openly discriminate then I just can not stand behind them.

Except nobody is discriminating, so.... yah. As multiple people have said, the details of same-sex marriage can be discussed its own thread.

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:10 pm

Gay people can't marry because they are gay is rather discriminating.

by **CivBase** Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:22 pm

Strangely enough, LP, gay people can marry. Anywhere. They just don't receive government benefits. Homosexuals are subject to the same exact laws as everyone else, they just don't qualify for legal benefits.

You can claim the current laws are stupid and I would probably agree with that to some extent, but they are not discriminatory.

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:29 pm

If you single out a group of people based on their differences and treat them differently because of those differences that is the fucking DEFINITION of discriminatory.

dis·crim·i·na·tion [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

by **Tylertlat** Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:31 pm

Lord Pheonix wrote:If you single out a group of people based on their differences and treat them differently because of those differences that is the fucking DEFINITION of discriminatory.

Except that, as stated already, Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have the exact same rights regarding marriage.

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:34 pm

Well Black people were allowed to use bathrooms back in the 40's but as long as they used their own and leaved the "normal" people bathrooms alone.

I'm sure that was okay though huh?

They still had the same right to use the bathroom. Just had to use their own. Is fair right?

by **Tylertlat** Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:41 pm

Lord Pheonix wrote:Well Black people were allowed to use bathrooms back in the 40's but as long as they used their own and leaved the "normal" people bathrooms alone.

<sigh> Homosexuals are not barred from "normal" marriages. They just aren't likely to want one. So your metaphor doesn't match up.

Lord Pheonix wrote:
I'm sure that was okay though huh?

They still had the same right to use the bathroom. Just had to use their own. Is fair right?

No. Racism is wrong. Shame on you for thinking that way.

Edit: This is getting off topic. Can someone steer us back to the candidates please?

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:43 pm

Well as long as they got their own separate version of what everyone has and they stick to it and not use the version that everyone else is allowed to then it's okay.

by Nocbl2 Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:45 pm

Tylertlat wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Tylertlat wrote:I'm hearing a lot of un-cited claims in this thread.
Yeah.

Hold on, I'll be back.

Get

DID NO ONE SEE THIS?

I saw it, and tried to find the origin of a citation. I went through 4 opinion pages before I found the source, which was based on what seemed like a semantic correction, and gave up

Ah, crap. Just checked it and it was not what I thought it was.

I'm trying to find the OP but I can't. DAMN YOU GOOGLE!!!!

by **CivBase** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:09 pm

Lord Pheonix wrote:If you single out a group of people based on their differences and treat them differently because of those differences that is the fucking DEFINITION of discriminatory.

Right, but you just ignored my whole point. Homosexuals aren't being singled out. Period. They are subject to the exact same laws as we are.

Saying that homosexuals are discriminated against by homosexual marriage being illegal is like saying serial killers are discriminated against because murder is illegal. Of course, I'm not trying to imply any connotation between serial killers and homosexuals - it's just an extreme example to show my point.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Well Black people were allowed to use bathrooms back in the 40's but as long as they used their own and leaved the "normal" people bathrooms alone.

I'm sure that was okay though huh?

They still had the same right to use the bathroom. Just had to use their own. Is fair right?

In this case, the law applied differently based on skin color. Your example would be discrimination.

Keep in mind that I'm not defending the current law. I'm just sick of this being a civil rights movement when it clearly isn't.

by **Rotaretilbo** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:16 pm

I'm tired of P repeatedly making sweeping generalizations about an entire party because a handful of people don't like gay people. I'm not calling the entire left side socialist baby killers vegetarians, so please take your sweeping personal attacks elsewhere.

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:36 pm

I was not aware that Republicans are against Gay Marriage is a sweeping generalization and not just one of the issues that they stand by.

by **Rotaretilbo** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:40 pm

Look, P, there's no audience here. There's no third party watching us go back and forth. We all know what you said, and we all know that "Republicans are against gay marriage" was not all you said, nor was it what I was referring to as a sweeping attack. Using fallacies intended to mislead neutral third parties, such as that obvious straw man, is basically worthless here.

by **Kasrkin Seath** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:40 pm

Tylertlat wrote:
Lord Pheonix wrote:Then fuck you faggy.

I'm just gonna point this out, you would not hear Romney or a Romney support say that (with exception for the fringe evident in any large political party).

Really, the only people I hear using sexist, racist, or homophobic slurs are when people (generally democrats or Obama supporters) attempt to put in their own word what they see as Romney's position.

I've heard my fair share of insults from both sides. If you are going to complain about someone applying a sweeping generalization to one party don't try and take the moral high ground by trying the same thing against the other party. Don't turn this into an "us" and "others".

Tylertlat wrote:
Lord Pheonix wrote:Well Black people were allowed to use bathrooms back in the 40's but as long as they used their own and leaved the "normal" people bathrooms alone.
<sigh> Homosexuals are not barred from "normal" marriages. They just aren't likely to want one. So your metaphor doesn't match up.

"In 2004, voters approved a constitutional amendment, Michigan State Proposal - 04-2, that banned same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state. It passed with 58.6% of the vote. The Michigan Supreme Court later ruled that public employers in Michigan would not be legally allowed to grant domestic partnership benefits based on the recently passed measure."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Michigan

Not barred from normal marriage, eh? Know anything about your home state, Tyler? Razz

Yes, I know "THERE IS A TOPIC FOR THIS!"
If you guys really want to avoid this kind of conundrum you should really set up a post with a list of stances that each candidate holds instead of bickering about generalized party policies/beliefs.

by **CivBase** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:40 pm

LP, you said they were racist and discriminated against homosexuals, not that they were against gay marriage. Those are entirely different accusations.

Also, seath, I don't see how that law bars "normal" (heterosexual) marriage for anyone. I also don't think he was trying to imply that democrats were racist, just that the racism in question is only found in fictitious platforms (generated by some democrats) which the republican party does not actually hold to. Screw it, that sentence sounds terrible. I'll let him defend it himself T.T

by **Tylertlat** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:41 pm

Lord Pheonix wrote:I was not aware that Republicans are against Gay Marriage is a sweeping generalization and not just one of the issues that they stand by.

If you had said that no one would have a problem. What you said was

Lord Pheonix wrote:Then fuck you faggy.

And then implied that Republicans want to segregate homosexuals and heterosexuals in a Jim Crow fashion.

Those are two VERY different things, BTW.

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:47 pm

CivBase wrote:LP, you said they were racist and discriminated against homosexuals, not that they were against gay marriage. Those are entirely different accusations.

Also, seath, I don't see how that law bars "normal" (heterosexual) marriage for anyone.

I'm saying that trying to outlaw gay marriage IS DISCRIMINATING and gave the segregation against blacks as an example of giving a discriminating group and alternative means to do the same thing to point out how fucking retarded it is.

by **Rotaretilbo** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:50 pm

Kasrkin Seath wrote:"In 2004, voters approved a constitutional amendment, Michigan State Proposal - 04-2, that banned same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state. It passed with 58.6% of the vote. The Michigan Supreme Court later ruled that public employers in Michigan would not be legally allowed to grant domestic partnership benefits based on the recently passed measure."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Michigan

Not barred from normal marriage, eh? Know anything about your home state, Tyler?
Yes, I know "THERE IS A TOPIC FOR THIS!"

You missed the point. Homosexuals have full access to marriage. The problem is that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. As such, they do not desire this type of marriage. They want to redefine marriage to be a union between two people. As such, the analogy between homosexuals and blacks during the Civil Rights movement do not line up. The analogies would line up if homosexuals were not allowed to engage in traditional marriages (one man and one woman) simply because they were homosexual. As it stands, it's like saying that welfare discriminates against the wealthy because they can't get food stamps too.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:If you guys really want to avoid this kind of conundrum you should really set up a post with a list of stances that each candidate holds instead of bickering about generalized party policies/beliefs.

Based on what's been said in thread, I really don't think anyone here actually knows what both candidates stances are on every issue. I certainly don't, but every time I go to look up someone else's claims about one candidate or another's stance, I find that it is generally biased or otherwise inaccurate.

Lord Pheonix wrote:I said that them trying to outlaw gay marriage WAS DISCRIMINATING and gave the segregation against blacks as an example of giving a discriminating group and alternative means to do the same thing to point out how fucking retarded it is.

Look, P, if you're not even going to try to be subtle with your fallacies, don't bother posting. It's insulting that you honestly think that we're that stupid.

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:52 pm

I'm sorry, am I fucking missing something here?

"Hey, you are gay. You are not allowed to do this thing because you are gay" is not a fucked up thing anymore?

by **Kasrkin Seath** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:53 pm

CivBase wrote:Also, seath, I don't see how that law bars "normal" (heterosexual) marriage for anyone.

It bars all forms of marriage and civil unions even. Obviously there is something wrong here.

Normal is all a matter of perspective, is it not? In some places it IS "normal". In some places, polygamy is "normal". Hell, where I live it is normal to call a water heater a 'Hot Water Heater', so obviously everyone who considers it something else is wrong.

by **CivBase** Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:56 pm

LP, there is not a single law that says that. Not a single one! The right to marry has not been denied to homosexuals, the right to same-sex marriage has equally been denied to everyone. It's NOT discrimination. Get it?

So... marriage itself is illegal in your state then, seath? Like... for everyone? Or is the construct simply not recognized by the government regardless of who's involved? Also, I used the quotes because it was the word tyler used, not because I thought it was accurate.

by Sponsored content

Which of the two candidates do you favor (or hate least)?