We literally don't care. Respectfully, I am tired of this nonsense. I don't give even half of a damn if you think things should be said a certain way. This is not a minority sentiment, either. This is something that is fueling Emperor Trump to white house status come November. I've seen you say multiple times now that "PC isn't wrong". It impedes free speech. I can't criticize anything controversial anymore without being called a racist, bigot, or misogynist. You have literally used these words in almost all of your posts. Do you think maybe, just maybe, you're being a bit extreme?
Obviously you care a little since you said respectfully. it does not impede free speech and you will need a citation of some sort to prove that it does. I have not said misogynist once. I have not said those words about you once so perhaps double check your message. I have only used those words on Trump to which they do apply and I gave proof (deny it if you want that is your right.) I am not being extreme and perhaps you need to take a step back because your post is very presumptive about my beliefs which I have not expressed in detail. You have put words in my mouth several times that in no way indicate my beliefs.
This can be seen for example in colleges where there are "safe spaces" (which are basically like daycare rooms) set up to shield students from any sort of dissenting thought.
I swear nobody knows what an actual safe space is.
Let's say that you're a transgender person in a conservative area and you receive a lot of abuse. Let's say that your college recognizes that a lot of LGBT students have complained about abuse and how difficult it is to live in the area, so they make an LGBT student union. These students meet together and discuss issues that affect them as members of the LGBT populace openly and without fear that someone is going to walk in and call them *******s and tell them to kill themselves.
THAT is what a real safe space is. They're areas for discussion, and I've found that many of them will welcome outsiders as long as they're respectful and engage in good faith, rather than just piling on abuse.
As a gay person myself living in an area that is essentially a theocracy, it's nice to have places to meet people with similar issues as myself and discuss these things without fear of reprisal.
The "safe spaces" that 4chan and reddit like to ***** about are basically the result of a game of internet telephone and essentially don't exist.
You shouldn't need an imaginary space to be yourself. You shouldn't need people fighting for you and your sexuality, or that of your friends and family. It should be tolerated. Donald Trump literally wanted Caitlyn Jenner to be a judge in one of his pageants. How intolerant of him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
You shouldn't need an imaginary space to be yourself. You shouldn't need people fighting for you and your sexuality, or that of your friends and family. It should be tolerated. Donald Trump literally wanted Caitlyn Jenner to be a judge in one of his pageants. How intolerant of him.
I think you are going way too far with this. Do you really think it is appropriate to say some of the things that Trump has said in a professional environment? Its not being a "sjw" to want to be treated with dignity and respect. Some people do take it too far but those people are not in mainstream politics. Also if you are a comedian who can only make people laugh with racism or sexism jokes then you are a bad comedian and need to learn to branch out.
You are completely missing the point. Donald Trump's rise to fame has largely been catalyzed by incidents such as this, this, this, and this. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. This type of political correctness that has manifested in the last few years is not about making people treat others with respect. It is an extremely authoritarian ideology that is in many ways analogous to Newspeak.
I have browsed many Trump sites and forums (in particular /r/The_Donald) and when they talk about political correctness they are almost always referring to the type of political correctness that is being forcefully advocated by SJWs. It is not a coincidence that Trump's rise has come in a time when SJWs have become more and more mainstream.
I do not support Trump at all (as a libertarian he has a lot of authoritarian tendencies and policies that I highly disagree with), but I do support being anti-SJW. SJWs have a lot to do with Trump's rise to power. Many people on the left have used political correctness as a weapon for years, but they have been careful not to ruffle the feathers too much of the right. The SJWs have taken the usage of political correctness to a level of sheer absurdity and have abused it with reckless abandon. They have basically pushed the envelope too far and in doing so they have unleashed a reactionary force on the right designed to be explicitly opposed to far-left ideology. The genie is out of the bottle now.
You shouldn't need an imaginary space to be yourself. You shouldn't need people fighting for you and your sexuality, or that of your friends and family. It should be tolerated. Donald Trump literally wanted Caitlyn Jenner to be a judge in one of his pageants. How intolerant of him.
He's been the most consistent GOP candidate on homosexual affairs over the last 20 years. He doesn't agree that the term 'marriage' is acceptable. And to be frank I don't think he's wrong. We're supposed to be a free country. There is nothing free about telling a Catholic priest that he must wed two men/women if he doesn't believe in it otherwise he must face the law. There's no reason a baker shouldn't be able to refuse to bake a cake promoting gay marriage if he/she doesn't believe in it.
It's not about intolerance. Religious freedom is important. I'm agonstic, I have been since I was a teenager. And I find this incredibly unfair.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
I think you are going way too far with this. Do you really think it is appropriate to say some of the things that Trump has said in a professional environment? Its not being a "sjw" to want to be treated with dignity and respect. Some people do take it too far but those people are not in mainstream politics. Also if you are a comedian who can only make people laugh with racism or sexism jokes then you are a bad comedian and need to learn to branch out.
You are completely missing the point. Donald Trump's rise to fame has largely been catalyzed by incidents such as this, this, this, and this. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. This type of political correctness that has manifested in the last few years is not about making people treat others with respect. It is an extremely authoritarian ideology that is in many ways analogous to Newspeak.
I have browsed many Trump sites and forums (in particular /r/The_Donald) and when they talk about political correctness they are almost always referring to the type of political correctness that is being forcefully advocated by SJWs. It is not a coincidence that Trump's rise has come in a time when SJWs have become more and more mainstream.
I do not support Trump at all (as a libertarian he has a lot of authoritarian tendencies and policies that I highly disagree with), but I do support being anti-SJW. SJWs have a lot to do with Trump's rise to power. Many people on the left have used political correctness as a weapon for years, but they have been careful not to ruffle the feathers too much of the right. The SJWs have taken the usage of political correctness to a level of sheer absurdity and have used it with reckless abandon. They have basically pushed the envelope too far and in doing so they have unleashed a reactionary force on the right designed to be explicitly opposed to far-left ideology. The genie is out of the bottle now.
fair points. Your examples are extreme and certainly not the norm. I think Trump takes it too far in the opposite direction however. There needs to be an appropriate middle ground between hurling insults and taking everyday conversation points as insults.
What are you thoughts?
He's been the most consistent GOP candidate on homosexual affairs over the last 20 years. He doesn't agree that the term 'marriage' is acceptable. And to be frank I don't think he's wrong. We're supposed to be a free country. There is nothing free about telling a Catholic priest that he must wed two men/women if he doesn't believe in it otherwise he must face the law. There's no reason a baker shouldn't be able to refuse to bake a cake promoting gay marriage if he/she doesn't believe in it.
It's not about intolerance. Religious freedom is important. I'm agonstic, I have been since I was a teenager. And I find this incredibly unfair.
Trump has pandered and flip flopped on the issue so it would be fair to say that the other candidates have been more consistent (that is to say consistently homophobic.) Is that not fair to say?
No one is telling a priest to do anything. Homosexual couples have to find a person to agree to wed them. The only thing the government protects is against bigots like Kim Davis who refused to follow a supreme court mandate that she issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Do you disagree that Kim Davis is a bigot?
Can confirm. I am militantly against political correctness. If you think I'm a rare example you're wrong. SJW's are a plague to free speech.
Me too. But you know what else is a plague to free speech? Donald J. Trump. Where your "SJWs" shout down differences of opinion with progressive buzzwords and Tumblr slogans, Trump shouts down differences of opinion with, well, shouting. His standard rhetorical mode of grade-school insults is completely inimical to the open and uncensored exchange of ideas. When was the last time you had an intellectual discourse with the bully stealing your lunch money? And it gets way, way worse. He has spoken approvingly of violence against demonstrators at his rallies, and threatened to take retaliatory action against the media figures criticizing him should he become president. If you truly care about free speech, for God's sake don't vote for Trump.
But maybe you would be more inclined to believe this if I shopped up an image of a sheep saying, "None of this matters because Donald Trump says he's for free speech, and obviously that's the truth because it fits my narrative in spite of all the evidence to the exact opposite"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He's been the most consistent GOP candidate on homosexual affairs over the last 20 years. He doesn't agree that the term 'marriage' is acceptable. And to be frank I don't think he's wrong. We're supposed to be a free country. There is nothing free about telling a Catholic priest that he must wed two men/women if he doesn't believe in it otherwise he must face the law. There's no reason a baker shouldn't be able to refuse to bake a cake promoting gay marriage if he/she doesn't believe in it.
It's not about intolerance. Religious freedom is important. I'm agonstic, I have been since I was a teenager. And I find this incredibly unfair.
Trump has pandered and flip flopped on the issue so it would be fair to say that the other candidates have been more consistent (that is to say consistently homophobic.) Is that not fair to say?
No one is telling a priest to do anything. Homosexual couples have to find a person to agree to wed them. The only thing the government protects is against bigots like Kim Davis who refused to follow a supreme court mandate that she issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Do you disagree that Kim Davis is a bigot?
Kim Davis is a buffoon. Sad. very low energy.
No. I disagree the the word 'marriage' is needed when civil union exists. I'm bisexual, please do not come at me and act like I don't understand the problem here. If you do so, despite the last 12 hrs of us talking, I am done with you. Marriage is something religious and is an act of God. A civil union is the same but religion is not part of it. Donald has been saying this for years, and only until now is he apparently 'flip flopping.' Idk how? Considering religious freedom is in our ******* constitution. A catholic priest should be able to tell two gay people, regardless of gender, to kick bricks if he doesn't agree with their choices. That's all I'm saying. I'll be the fist person next to you to talk about trans and homosexual affairs, but this isn't one of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
A catholic priest should be able to tell two gay people, regardless of gender, to kick bricks if he doesn't agree with their choices.
Legalizing gay marriage did not force the Catholic priest to marry gay people. It just allowed the Unitarian minister across the street to marry gay people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No. I disagree the the word 'marriage' is needed when civil union exists. I'm bisexual, please do not come at me and act like I don't understand the problem here. If you do so, despite the last 12 hrs of us talking, I am done with you. Marriage is something religious and is an act of God. A civil union is the same but religion is not part of it. Donald has been saying this for years, and only until now is he apparently 'flip flopping.' Idk how? Considering religious freedom is in our ******* constitution. A catholic priest should be able to tell two gay people, regardless of gender, to kick bricks if he doesn't agree with their choices. That's all I'm saying. I'll be the fist person next to you to talk about trans and homosexual affairs, but this isn't one of them.
You didn't read my post did you? A priest is allowed to refuse to marry people. That is a real option should he choose to use it. You need to understand that marriage is something religious but it is also something legal it involves legal contract and is recognize by our government and the supreme court officially recognizes that a marriage can be between two members of the same sex.
And again you do not need to be confrontational about it. I have not been that way to you. We are trying to have a civil debate.
A catholic priest should be able to tell two gay people, regardless of gender, to kick bricks if he doesn't agree with their choices.
Legalizing gay marriage did not force the Catholic priest to marry gay people. It just allowed the Unitarian minister across the street to marry gay people.
That is not at all what has happened and is happening. And you know it. It's not a 'marriage' by biblical stance, it's a civil union. Homosexuals want that anyway despite it being against the religion of those who can grant it. There is literally no reason homsexuals need to say "married" vs "civil union". I don't care. I can't find a single bit of benefit being 'married' vs being civilly binded grants. The reason for this is that there are none.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
That is not at all what has happened and is happening. And you know it. It's not a 'marriage' by biblical stance, it's a civil union. Homosexuals want that anyway despite it being against the religion of those who can grant it. There is literally no reason homsexuals need to say "married" vs "civil union". I don't care. I can't find a single bit of benefit being 'married' vs being civilly binded grants. The reason for this is that there are none.
Show me one instance of a Catholic priest being forced to marry a same-sex couple. You can't. Never happened. Won't happen. If someone has told you that this is going to happen, that person is lying to you to scare you. It's complete nonsense.
I would love if this were provable, but I doubt it is. What lead you to this conclusion?
Admittedly, it only covers statements made on the 2016 campaign trail, but Politifact rates 51% of what Clinton has said as "True" or "Mostly True", and only 28% as "False", "Mostly False", or "Pants on Fire" (with only 1% in that final category). - link
Meanwhile, Trump has had only 8% of his statements as "True" or "Mostly True" (with only 1% in the former category), and 77% as "Mostly False", "False", or "Pants on Fire" (with 20% in that final category) - link
For the rest:
Sanders: 48% >= Mostly True, 32% <= Mostly False, 0% Pants on Fire
Rubio: 35% >= Mostly True, 42% <= Mostly False, 3% Pants on Fire
Cruz: 21% >= Mostly True, 66% <= Mostly False, 7% Pants on Fire
Kasich: 50% >= Mostly True, 32% Mostly False, 5% Pants on Fire
Trump is far and away the most dishonest candidate running, with both the fewest True statements and the most False AND the most Pants on Fire, both by considerable margins.
Clinton's actually had factually the most True/Mostly True statements of any of the candidates running (barely edging out both Sanders and Kasich), and the fewest Falses, though she does lose out to Sanders in terms of the number of Pants on Fire lies.
BIas, what else? She's on record flip flopping constantly. Anyone who says she isn't the biggest liar is either blinded by bias or completely delusional. The only presidential candidate under federal investigation in history. She should be in prison, not running for office.
Amusingly enough, Donald Trump is currently ALSO under federal investigation, for his fraudulent business venture, Trump University.
I'm more and more reminded of the Discworld bit where elected officials are immediately jailed upon being elected, and serve out their term from a prison cell.
That is not at all what has happened and is happening. And you know it. It's not a 'marriage' by biblical stance, it's a civil union. Homosexuals want that anyway despite it being against the religion of those who can grant it. There is literally no reason homsexuals need to say "married" vs "civil union". I don't care. I can't find a single bit of benefit being 'married' vs being civilly binded grants. The reason for this is that there are none.
Well when you insist on using different vernacular for the same term but applied to a different group of people it creates an inherent inequality. The real reason why someone would want to use a different term is to downplay the legitimacy of homosexual marriage.
No. I disagree the the word 'marriage' is needed when civil union exists. I'm bisexual, please do not come at me and act like I don't understand the problem here. If you do so, despite the last 12 hrs of us talking, I am done with you. Marriage is something religious and is an act of God. A civil union is the same but religion is not part of it. Donald has been saying this for years, and only until now is he apparently 'flip flopping.' Idk how? Considering religious freedom is in our ******* constitution. A catholic priest should be able to tell two gay people, regardless of gender, to kick bricks if he doesn't agree with their choices. That's all I'm saying. I'll be the fist person next to you to talk about trans and homosexual affairs, but this isn't one of them.
You didn't read my post did you? A priest is allowed to refuse to marry people. That is a real option should he choose to use it. You need to understand that marriage is something religious but it is also something legal it involves legal contract and is recognize by our government and the supreme court officially recognizes that a marriage can be between two members of the same sex.
And again you do not need to be confrontational about it. I have not been that way to you. We are trying to have a civil debate.
I'm not being confrontational. I've wanted to call you a lot of names but I've remained civil. Please don't think I'm unreasonable. We both know that's not true.
Again, I don't care. I literally do not believe in a God and I can see how telling priests to do something that defies their beliefs is wrong. How can't you? This is the essence of Agnosticism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
The GOP establishment are fighting Trump because he's a hardlined moderate. If you're a Democrat, he's the guy you want (between him, Cruz and Rubio). All the crap he says, he's just repeating everything Fox has put out the past 20 years. People love to hate and he's focused on that. He's playing them.
All but Bernie have stated they'd essentially start a war with Russia. Being a vet, I don't see any other choice. Bernie also says he wants to repeal nafta, cafta,tafta, tpp - all the trade agreements to send our jobs overseas.
Fix the middle class, bring job, stop picking fights. I'm a registered Republican who got Berned.
I would love if this were provable, but I doubt it is. What lead you to this conclusion?
Admittedly, it only covers statements made on the 2016 campaign trail, but Politifact rates 51% of what Clinton has said as "True" or "Mostly True", and only 28% as "False", "Mostly False", or "Pants on Fire" (with only 1% in that final category). - link
Meanwhile, Trump has had only 8% of his statements as "True" or "Mostly True" (with only 1% in the former category), and 77% as "Mostly False", "False", or "Pants on Fire" (with 20% in that final category) - link
For the rest:
Sanders: 48% >= Mostly True, 32% <= Mostly False, 0% Pants on Fire
Rubio: 35% >= Mostly True, 42% <= Mostly False, 3% Pants on Fire
Cruz: 21% >= Mostly True, 66% <= Mostly False, 7% Pants on Fire
Kasich: 50% >= Mostly True, 32% Mostly False, 5% Pants on Fire
Trump is far and away the most dishonest candidate running, with both the fewest True statements and the most False AND the most Pants on Fire, both by considerable margins.
Clinton's actually had factually the most True/Mostly True statements of any of the candidates running (barely edging out both Sanders and Kasich), and the fewest Falses, though she does lose out to Sanders in terms of the number of Pants on Fire lies.
BIas, what else? She's on record flip flopping constantly. Anyone who says she isn't the biggest liar is either blinded by bias or completely delusional. The only presidential candidate under federal investigation in history. She should be in prison, not running for office.
Amusingly enough, Donald Trump is currently ALSO under federal investigation, for his fraudulent business venture, Trump University.
I'm more and more reminded of the Discworld bit where elected officials are immediately jailed upon being elected, and serve out their term from a prison cell.
k. Till I actually hear about it I'm going to assume it's total horse *****, just like the majority of attacks on the Donald have been since he announced his presidency. They have nothing to convict him of. Unlike Hiillary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
I can see how telling priests to do something that defies their beliefs is wrong. How can't you?
Do you not read other posts? I told you no one forces priests to wed gay couples and three other people corroborated that statement. No one is forcing anyone to marry homosexual couples. Religious figures have every right to refuse. The mandate only applies to the government's half of the marriage equation.
k. Till I actually hear about it I'm going to assume it's total horse *****, just like the majority of attacks on the Donald have been since he announced his presidency. They have nothing to convict him of. Unlike Hiillary.
Luckily for you, you can read the state of NY's suit:
I can see how telling priests to do something that defies their beliefs is wrong. How can't you?
Do you not read other posts? I told you no one forces priests to wed gay couples and three other people corroborated that statement. No one is forcing anyone to marry homosexual couples. Religious figures have every right to refuse. The mandate only applies to the government's half of the marriage equation.
The GOP establishment are fighting Trump because he's a hardlined moderate. If you're a Democrat, he's the guy you want (between him, Cruz and Rubio).
I an independant and I can assure you that Trump is not the man I want in the office.
No, dude, the moment homosexuals try and force these priests to do it the backlash makes international news. I don't care if you're independent. Waste your vote, i don't give a damn.
I'm talking to you not the others trying to jump in. We've both ignored them entirely so don't pretend that it's just me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
No, dude, the moment homosexuals try and force these priests to do it the backlash makes international news.
Where are you getting this idea that this is a thing that has happened? For the fourth time and with the back up of other posters: No one is forcing Catholic priests to wed homosexual couples
It has not happened and will not happen by decree of our government. Funnily enough with the current Pope going the way he has been we may see the Catholic Church advocate the practice in our lifetimes though.
A catholic priest should be able to tell two gay people, regardless of gender, to kick bricks if he doesn't agree with their choices.
Legalizing gay marriage did not force the Catholic priest to marry gay people. It just allowed the Unitarian minister across the street to marry gay people.
That is not at all what has happened and is happening. And you know it. It's not a 'marriage' by biblical stance, it's a civil union. Homosexuals want that anyway despite it being against the religion of those who can grant it. There is literally no reason homsexuals need to say "married" vs "civil union". I don't care. I can't find a single bit of benefit being 'married' vs being civilly binded grants. The reason for this is that there are none.
Been following this thread for awhile, but this post caught my eye. If there is no difference between marriage and civil union, but only heterosexual people can get married while only homosexual people can have civil unions, isn't this "separate but equal"?
Funnily enough with the current Pope going the way he has been we may see the Catholic Church advocate the practice in our lifetimes though.
Common misconception. Francis is a nice guy, but that doesn't mean he's not Catholic. He's never said anything to indicate he might be open to gay marriage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A catholic priest should be able to tell two gay people, regardless of gender, to kick bricks if he doesn't agree with their choices.
Legalizing gay marriage did not force the Catholic priest to marry gay people. It just allowed the Unitarian minister across the street to marry gay people.
That is not at all what has happened and is happening. And you know it. It's not a 'marriage' by biblical stance, it's a civil union. Homosexuals want that anyway despite it being against the religion of those who can grant it. There is literally no reason homsexuals need to say "married" vs "civil union". I don't care. I can't find a single bit of benefit being 'married' vs being civilly binded grants. The reason for this is that there are none.
Been following this thread for awhile, but this post caught my eye. If there is no difference between marriage and civil union, but only heterosexual people can get married while only homosexual people can have civil unions, isn't this "separate but equal"?
Yes, but it's okay because God told them so. Just like all the other injustices they like to inflict.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern URW Control WBG Abzan GRW Burn
EDH GR Rosheen Meanderer
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is supposed to be a civil debate you know.
You shouldn't need an imaginary space to be yourself. You shouldn't need people fighting for you and your sexuality, or that of your friends and family. It should be tolerated. Donald Trump literally wanted Caitlyn Jenner to be a judge in one of his pageants. How intolerant of him.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
You are completely missing the point. Donald Trump's rise to fame has largely been catalyzed by incidents such as this, this, this, and this. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. This type of political correctness that has manifested in the last few years is not about making people treat others with respect. It is an extremely authoritarian ideology that is in many ways analogous to Newspeak.
I have browsed many Trump sites and forums (in particular /r/The_Donald) and when they talk about political correctness they are almost always referring to the type of political correctness that is being forcefully advocated by SJWs. It is not a coincidence that Trump's rise has come in a time when SJWs have become more and more mainstream.
I do not support Trump at all (as a libertarian he has a lot of authoritarian tendencies and policies that I highly disagree with), but I do support being anti-SJW. SJWs have a lot to do with Trump's rise to power. Many people on the left have used political correctness as a weapon for years, but they have been careful not to ruffle the feathers too much of the right. The SJWs have taken the usage of political correctness to a level of sheer absurdity and have abused it with reckless abandon. They have basically pushed the envelope too far and in doing so they have unleashed a reactionary force on the right designed to be explicitly opposed to far-left ideology. The genie is out of the bottle now.
He's been the most consistent GOP candidate on homosexual affairs over the last 20 years. He doesn't agree that the term 'marriage' is acceptable. And to be frank I don't think he's wrong. We're supposed to be a free country. There is nothing free about telling a Catholic priest that he must wed two men/women if he doesn't believe in it otherwise he must face the law. There's no reason a baker shouldn't be able to refuse to bake a cake promoting gay marriage if he/she doesn't believe in it.
It's not about intolerance. Religious freedom is important. I'm agonstic, I have been since I was a teenager. And I find this incredibly unfair.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
What are you thoughts?
No one is telling a priest to do anything. Homosexual couples have to find a person to agree to wed them. The only thing the government protects is against bigots like Kim Davis who refused to follow a supreme court mandate that she issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Do you disagree that Kim Davis is a bigot?
Me too. But you know what else is a plague to free speech? Donald J. Trump. Where your "SJWs" shout down differences of opinion with progressive buzzwords and Tumblr slogans, Trump shouts down differences of opinion with, well, shouting. His standard rhetorical mode of grade-school insults is completely inimical to the open and uncensored exchange of ideas. When was the last time you had an intellectual discourse with the bully stealing your lunch money? And it gets way, way worse. He has spoken approvingly of violence against demonstrators at his rallies, and threatened to take retaliatory action against the media figures criticizing him should he become president. If you truly care about free speech, for God's sake don't vote for Trump.
But maybe you would be more inclined to believe this if I shopped up an image of a sheep saying, "None of this matters because Donald Trump says he's for free speech, and obviously that's the truth because it fits my narrative in spite of all the evidence to the exact opposite"?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Kim Davis is a buffoon. Sad. very low energy.
No. I disagree the the word 'marriage' is needed when civil union exists. I'm bisexual, please do not come at me and act like I don't understand the problem here. If you do so, despite the last 12 hrs of us talking, I am done with you. Marriage is something religious and is an act of God. A civil union is the same but religion is not part of it. Donald has been saying this for years, and only until now is he apparently 'flip flopping.' Idk how? Considering religious freedom is in our ******* constitution. A catholic priest should be able to tell two gay people, regardless of gender, to kick bricks if he doesn't agree with their choices. That's all I'm saying. I'll be the fist person next to you to talk about trans and homosexual affairs, but this isn't one of them.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And again you do not need to be confrontational about it. I have not been that way to you. We are trying to have a civil debate.
That is not at all what has happened and is happening. And you know it. It's not a 'marriage' by biblical stance, it's a civil union. Homosexuals want that anyway despite it being against the religion of those who can grant it. There is literally no reason homsexuals need to say "married" vs "civil union". I don't care. I can't find a single bit of benefit being 'married' vs being civilly binded grants. The reason for this is that there are none.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Show me one instance of a Catholic priest being forced to marry a same-sex couple. You can't. Never happened. Won't happen. If someone has told you that this is going to happen, that person is lying to you to scare you. It's complete nonsense.
Admittedly, it only covers statements made on the 2016 campaign trail, but Politifact rates 51% of what Clinton has said as "True" or "Mostly True", and only 28% as "False", "Mostly False", or "Pants on Fire" (with only 1% in that final category). - link
Meanwhile, Trump has had only 8% of his statements as "True" or "Mostly True" (with only 1% in the former category), and 77% as "Mostly False", "False", or "Pants on Fire" (with 20% in that final category) - link
For the rest:
Sanders: 48% >= Mostly True, 32% <= Mostly False, 0% Pants on Fire
Rubio: 35% >= Mostly True, 42% <= Mostly False, 3% Pants on Fire
Cruz: 21% >= Mostly True, 66% <= Mostly False, 7% Pants on Fire
Kasich: 50% >= Mostly True, 32% Mostly False, 5% Pants on Fire
Trump is far and away the most dishonest candidate running, with both the fewest True statements and the most False AND the most Pants on Fire, both by considerable margins.
Clinton's actually had factually the most True/Mostly True statements of any of the candidates running (barely edging out both Sanders and Kasich), and the fewest Falses, though she does lose out to Sanders in terms of the number of Pants on Fire lies.
Amusingly enough, Donald Trump is currently ALSO under federal investigation, for his fraudulent business venture, Trump University.
I'm more and more reminded of the Discworld bit where elected officials are immediately jailed upon being elected, and serve out their term from a prison cell.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I'm not being confrontational. I've wanted to call you a lot of names but I've remained civil. Please don't think I'm unreasonable. We both know that's not true.
Again, I don't care. I literally do not believe in a God and I can see how telling priests to do something that defies their beliefs is wrong. How can't you? This is the essence of Agnosticism.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
All but Bernie have stated they'd essentially start a war with Russia. Being a vet, I don't see any other choice. Bernie also says he wants to repeal nafta, cafta,tafta, tpp - all the trade agreements to send our jobs overseas.
Fix the middle class, bring job, stop picking fights. I'm a registered Republican who got Berned.
k. Till I actually hear about it I'm going to assume it's total horse *****, just like the majority of attacks on the Donald have been since he announced his presidency. They have nothing to convict him of. Unlike Hiillary.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
I'm an independent and I can assure you that Trump is not the man I want in the office.
Luckily for you, you can read the state of NY's suit:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/trump.pdf
No, dude, the moment homosexuals try and force these priests to do it the backlash makes international news. I don't care if you're independent. Waste your vote, i don't give a damn.
I'm talking to you not the others trying to jump in. We've both ignored them entirely so don't pretend that it's just me.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
It has not happened and will not happen by decree of our government. Funnily enough with the current Pope going the way he has been we may see the Catholic Church advocate the practice in our lifetimes though.
Been following this thread for awhile, but this post caught my eye. If there is no difference between marriage and civil union, but only heterosexual people can get married while only homosexual people can have civil unions, isn't this "separate but equal"?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes, but it's okay because God told them so. Just like all the other injustices they like to inflict.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer