Spin Off - Tolerance - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: Spin Off - Tolerance

  1. #21
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,764

    Default

    This is a good argument Alissa and I see your point. As I said earlier, I wish that there was no government involvement in marriage for either straight or same sex marriage. It would be so much easier. I personally treat same sex couples and non-married straight couples the same. One is no worse or better than the other. There are other social issues that are much more important to me (Such as abortion), that most candidates are the same on (Someone who is strong pro-life is also often pro-family), but would not vote solely on how someone felt about same sex marriage. I however do not think that someone who opposed same sex marriage and the only activity they did was to vote, is necessarily a bad or bigoted person. It does nothing to further your agenda to be mean to or call names to those people. The only thing it does is drive a larger wedge in between two groups of people. Dividing the country not between North and South, but between conservative and liberal. Having the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman does not make you a bad person. I know many wonderful people who have this belief. It may not be super tolerant to not be against same sex marriage, but neither is it tolerant to hate anyone who is against same sex marriage.

    Another point is that you can be against an activity, but not against the person doing it. For example, I can not stand abortion. I think it is terrible and should not be legal. That said, I have nothing but love and compassion for someone who has been in that situation. Why can not people who are pro gay marriage be against legislation banning gay marriage, but still accept people who are against it?

    ~Bonita~

  2. #22
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,340

    Default

    So if the law wasn't involved in marriage, than anyone could get married....gay or not gay.

    But if its legal, only straight people can get married?

  3. #23
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    I don't "hate" anyone. I also believe that they have the right to their opinions. "not super tolerant" though they may be. I do not wish to make it against the law for people to be against gay marriage, although I do think it is wrong. "Bigoted" and "not super tolerant" are kind of the same thing, aren't they? One is just trying to sugarcoat it a little. At the end of the day I just sincerely cannot wrap my head around the argument that someone can want to keep someone else and their families from having the same rights that they themselves enjoy, and yet they have no animosity towards them. I can't imagine thinking that someone deserves less rights than I have, but then turning around and saying that I respect them or am not against them. If I thought someone deserved less rights than I have, it would be because I thought they were somehow less than me in some very fundamental ways. I believe you used the word "sub human" in the other debate. That is exactly how people are treating homosexuals - as if they are sub human.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  4. #24
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    So if the law wasn't involved in marriage, than anyone could get married....gay or not gay.

    But if its legal, only straight people can get married?
    In this instance, people against same sex marriage would not have their tax money going toward a union they did not support. In the same sense, same sex couple would not have their tax money going toward straight couples. It would just be a non issue. Anyone could have whatever ceremony they wanted, and no one else would have to pay for it. IMO, it is the only reasonable solution.

    ~Bonita~

  5. #25
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    I can't imagine thinking that someone deserves less rights than I have, but then turning around and saying that I respect them or am not against them.
    So then how can you think that a pro-gay activist can be an advocate for anti bullying for Conservative Christian students who's families are against same sex marriage? If Conservative Christians can not be nice and in the class room treat gay students kindly, than neither can a liberal activist be kind to conservative Christians. (Which of course I do think you can be kind to someone and stand up to what I think of as bullying without agreeing with that person)

    ~Bonita~

  6. #26
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    In this instance, people against same sex marriage would not have their tax money going toward a union they did not support. In the same sense, same sex couple would not have their tax money going toward straight couples. It would just be a non issue. Anyone could have whatever ceremony they wanted, and no one else would have to pay for it. IMO, it is the only reasonable solution.
    Civil marriage is about a lot more than just taxes. It deals with a large array of topics including sharing assets, inheritance, insurance coverage, and even being able to visit their loved ones in the hospital. I think it's reasonable to argue whether or not it's fair for married couples of any stripe to get tax breaks, but getting rid of that there is still a lot of things that we use the marriage contract to keep track of. And that is the part that slays me - when you're talking about banning civil marriage, these government rights and protections are the ONLY things that we are talking about. Whether or not gay marriage is legal, gay people will still live together, build families, and even have ceremonies to join them together in the churches that perform gay marriage rites. You aren't protecting ANYTHING to do with religion, you are only denying them equal rights under the law.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  7. #27
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    In this instance, people against same sex marriage would not have their tax money going toward a union they did not support.
    False...because you said yourself that in place of marriage, people would be able to designate any beneficiary they want...and there would be a process involved in that.

    So they can still be married and get your tax money.

    ETA:

    this is what I'm thinking

    Scenario 1) We do not ban SSM and ensure they are included and receive equal benefits of marrage
    Outcome: Gay couples can marry freely and receive all the benefits that one desires for their partner and themselves

    Scenario 2) We get rid of legal marriage and replace it with the ability to designate another individual to receive all the benefits that we now tie to marriage
    Outcome: Gay couples can marry freely and receive all the benefits that one desires for their partner and themselves

    Seeing as the outcome is exactly the same,
    I would like to know how the second scenario doesn't cost you any tax dollars but the first one does. And exactly what tax dollars are going to this process (where are they being spent?)
    Last edited by KimPossible; 10-24-2012 at 09:04 AM.

  8. #28
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    So then how can you think that a pro-gay activist can be an advocate for anti bullying for Conservative Christian students who's families are against same sex marriage? If Conservative Christians can not be nice and in the class room treat gay students kindly, than neither can a liberal activist be kind to conservative Christians. (Which of course I do think you can be kind to someone and stand up to what I think of as bullying without agreeing with that person)
    I don't know of any pro-gay activists that think that Conservative Christians deserve less rights than them.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  9. #29
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,764

    Default

    bully - definition of bully by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

    bul?ly 1 (bl)
    n. pl. bul?lies
    1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
    2. A hired ruffian; a thug.
    3. A pimp.
    4. Archaic A fine person.
    5. Archaic A sweetheart.
    v. bul?lied, bul?ly?ing, bul?lies
    v.tr.
    1. To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See Synonyms at intimidate.
    2. To make (one's way) aggressively.
    v.intr.
    1. To behave like a bully.
    2. To force one's way aggressively or by intimidation: "They bully into line at the gas pump" (Martin Gottfried).
    adj.
    Excellent; splendid: did a bully job of persuading the members.
    interj.
    Used to express approval: Bully for you!



    IMO - Bullying is physical. A big bully steals the smaller kids lunch money. A big bully threatens the nerd that he will hurt him if he does not do his homework. Voting for a conservative candidate is not bullying. Any person that is an adult working in a public school should be able to prevent bullying regardless of their political views. If they can not, they should not be working in a school. How someone votes, or what they do in their spare time does not prevent them from keeping the children safe.


    - I apologize for not keeping the debates separate.

    ~Bonita~

  10. #30
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    I don't think that bullying is purely physical. If I disliked you and actively worked to try to get you fired from your job, that would be bullying, would it not? I think whenever you actively work to bring harm to someone because you dislike them or disagree with them, you are being a bully.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions