Originally Posted By ecdc >>I can think of several. It must be sad and empty to not be able to conceive of something greater than yourself. That's probably what makes the godless so petty and spiteful.<< This is the bedrock of conservative beliefs. They are unable to conceive that someone who disagrees with them might possibly have a good reason for doing so. They are too simple-minded to appreciate that someone might have a different perspective, a different worldview, or a different upbringing that might make someone different than themselves. Therefore, they assign dark motives to those who don't march lockstep with themselves. "I believe in God, so someone who doesn't must just be petty and spiteful. I have a job, so a homeless person must just be lazy. I like girls, so a homosexual just must be a pervert or at least choosing that approach." And it's not sad at all, Douglas. I'm godless and proud of it. It's actually quite liberating to stop doing mental gymnastics and believing in an imaginary friend or Santa Claus for adults. As for petty and spiteful, I can't think of anything more petty than actively working to rescind rights granted to a group of people by a court of law interpreting the Constitution. Especially since granting those rights didn't impact the religious in any kind of way.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It must be sad and empty to not be able to conceive of something greater than yourself. That's probably what makes the godless so petty and spiteful.> Don't you think that's a pretty broad brush? I happen to be Christian, and most of the people I know are one religion or another, but I have known a number of athiests and agnostics, and only one I'd call petty or spiteful; the rest were fine, happy people. To say that the godless are petty and spiteful is awfully broad, no? And it's not that they can't conceive of something greater than themselves; it's that they don't believe in God as we conceive Him (or aren't sure God can be known or understood). That's not the same thing as unable to conceive of it. And for the record, ecdc, <This is the bedrock of conservative beliefs. They are unable to conceive that someone who disagrees with them might possibly have a good reason for doing so. They are too simple-minded ...> That's pretty broad too. There are plenty of conservatives who aren't like that at all.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That's pretty broad too. There are plenty of conservatives who aren't like that at all.<< Very true. My statement should have included a qualifier that showed I was referring to those conservatives for whom fiscal conservatism is unimportant, but for whom abortion, stem-cells, and gay marriage defines their politics.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<Great. More hate from the godless.>> ROFL! Ah, more nastiness from someone who always plays the victim and pretends to be the one who is attacked first. It's okay to be embarrassed Doug. No need to lash out when you're proven wrong. Doug knows it's easier to just divert the conversation (all the while blaming other people for doing it). Maybe I should come up with some wussy alliterations to claim how badly he's is treating me (another play from the Douglas playbook). Keep it up, Doug, your arguments can go from 100% irrelevant to 110%. LOL!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'm not any religion. However, I'm not so afraid of the religious that I'd insult them or deny them their civil liberties, like some here." Oh crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. But denying gays a fundamental right is okay? LOL.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I'm curious how anyone on this forum has denied religious people here their civil liberties? Bah, more "I know you are but what am I" nonsense.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Don't you think that's a pretty broad brush?> Yes, I do. I was trying to illustrate by example. If we stop all the inflammatory rhetoric, maybe we can have civil, intelligent discussions. Maybe assuming the worst intentions, we could try to see others point of views.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Ah, more nastiness from someone who always plays the victim and pretends to be the one who is attacked first. It's okay to be embarrassed Doug. No need to lash out when you're proven wrong.> 1. I don't attack first. 2. I haven't been proven wrong.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But denying gays a fundamental right is okay?> Forcing people to recognize a gay marriage and grant commensurate benefits is not a fundamental right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm curious how anyone on this forum has denied religious people here their civil liberties?> I didn't mean to imply any one had. I meant that a lot of people have expressed the desire that religious people not be allowed to speak their minds or vote their consciences. They say things like, "If only those like utahjosh could just keep their silly beliefs to themselves and not use them to hurt others."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Don't you think that's a pretty broad brush?>> <Yes, I do. I was trying to illustrate by example.> Ahhhhh. Right. And I can sell you this bridge we have in Brooklyn, free and clear. ecdc copped to going overboard and painting with too broad a brush. That's why he's a respected poster here. You try to claim you were "illustrating by example," when it's clear, especially in context, that you were just lashing out in frustration, like ecdc did, as most of us do from time to time. And you won't cop to it. That's why you're not respected here. <Forcing people to recognize a gay marriage and grant commensurate benefits is not a fundamental right.> Marriage to the person of one's choice is a fundamental right. SCOTUS said so in Loving, and they will again, eventually. And many people had your attitude after Loving - "we're FORCED to recognize this bogus marriage between a black and a white, which the good Lord never intended?" Like those people, you really don't get to play the victim here.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Forcing people to recognize a gay marriage and grant commensurate benefits is not a fundamental right." And that, of course, is framing it in a way that no one has said. You know damn well what I meant, and instead you twisted it. It isn't necessary, but I'll be very clear for you- denying gays the fundamental right to marry is what I was referencing. Forcing YOU to do something is NOT what it is about. But you knew that. By your logic, instead of desegregation, some people were forced to sit next to black people. Men were forced to allow women to vote. It wasn't that all races are to be treated equally or that that women have a political voice. No, that couldn't be it. People were FORCED to accept these changes that didn't like them.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda I don't care if gays marry, but I do believe that only those with blue eyes and blond hair (of any sex) should be allowed to marry.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I guess it was too much to ask of you.> To not call you on your nonsense? I guess so. SPP also said it, better than I did.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< 2. I haven't been proven wrong.>>> Yes, you have been. On several occasions.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It must be sad and empty to not be able to conceive of something greater than yourself. >>> And once again, we see the fallacy of people that have a problem with some issue of organized religion being equated to being "Godless" and of "not being able to conceive of something greater than [themselves]." With the possible exception of the true, hardcore atheists, there are very few people to whom that description would apply, yet again and again we see such labels being attached to people that don't have a certain point of view on things. <<< That's probably what makes the godless so petty and spiteful. >>> Some would say that that's a quite good description of yourself.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And that, of course, is framing it in a way that no one has said. You know damn well what I meant, and instead you twisted it. It isn't necessary, but I'll be very clear for you- denying gays the fundamental right to marry is what I was referencing.> I don't think I twisted it; I think I more accurately described what was being discussed. Gays had the fundamental right to marry before the California Supreme Court decided the State had to recognize their marriages, and they have that fundamental right now. What they don't have is the ability to force people to recognize those marriages.
