Because it's [gay marriage] been voted down? Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values, including Christians.
[Not when those values violate others' rights.]
Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!
[This is complete bullshit. You are denying a group of people a right which they want to have. How is this not discrimination? Analogy time! Say marriage is only legal between people of the same race. "Oh," say the supporters. "Everyone has the right to marry someone of their race, so everyone is equal!"]
Homosexuality is behavior and should NOT be treated like race.
[quote he posted]
50 comments
Because it's [gay marriage] been voted down? Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values, including Christians.
But what if I was against Christian marraiges? Afterall, I have a right to vote according to my personal values.
[Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard! ]
The only right they violate is your "right" to be a bigot.
[Homosexuality is behavior and should NOT be treated like race. ]
Okay, lets treat christians as second class citizens. Afterall, Christianity is behavior and not a race.
"Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values, including Christians."
And some people want to kill all Christians.
I actually agree with the first part of this post. "Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values"--yes, that's true. You should have the right to vote however you want, even if I find your voting repugnant.
However, the rest of this is nonsense. Gays' values do not violate your rights in any way. Homosexuality is status, not behavior. Even if it were a choice (which I doubt), religion is a choice, is it not? Someone can change their religion more easily than their sexuality, and religion is protected against discrimination. Why should sexuality not be so protected?
Of course, you could argue that religion as a choice should not be protected. Have fun finding a job when no one in this "christophobic" nation will hire you.
Their being married to each other violates your rights how? It doesn't affect your marriage or your right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
And despite your quote, there is certainly a biological basis. The fact that we haven't found it yet (according to your quote at least) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In light of that, homosexuality -is- a valid group to protect. Race is too, but that's only because there are people who can't understand that race ISN'T a valid biological division for humans and that (other than some phenotypic differences and slight differences in susceptibility to certain diseases as a result of genetics that adapted to local conditions before people started moving around a ton) a "black" human is the same as an asian human is the same as a "white" human is the same as an aboriginal human and so on.
Dr. Fitzgibbons, eh? This Dr. Fitzgibbons?
"Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist who has worked with many homosexuals, believes that a little boy's lack of hand-eye co-ordination and athletic ability causes peer rejection so strong that it can lead to homosexuality."http://soli.inav.net/~jfischer/mar99/marymeehan.html
The man who thinks that one should pray to find a spouse?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMcsUVRuf6I
The same "unbiased" "psychiatrist" who works for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (a.k.a. "NARTH")?
Great research, shithead.
... violates your right to dictate other peoples lives? I'd say I'm surprised by your bull headed jackassness, but then you pretty much based your religion off of you only being right and everyone else goes to hell, so I'm not actually surprised at all.
Everyone should have the right to vote according to their personal values, including Christians
I completely agree. Even though I completely disagree with them, and think their views are bullshit, they still have the right to vote however they want.
Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!
No, they don't.
Homosexuality is behavior and should NOT be treated like race.
This makes no sense. Everything is a "behavior". If you're referring to the idea that homosexuality is learned or chosen behavior, then you're wrong. Homosexuality is something you're either born with or not born with. You're either homosexual, or you're not. End of debate.
So, values of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity "violate your rights"? How? Then again, you folks are fucking morons, and think you have a RIGHT to VIOLATE OTHERS' RIGHTS just because you believe (wrongly) that "God" hates them. WTF is WRONG with you?!
Discredited by Scientific America eh? I guess you mean all the scientists in America? I dont know about that but the popular science magazine Scientific American had this to say in an editorial...
"Take genes. In 1993, Dean Hamer at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, identified a region on the X chromosome that might predispose men to homosexuality - a putative "gay gene". And there are findings to support Hamer's notion that such a gene might increase a woman's chances of having more children, which would ensure that it persists...
...It would be wrong to say that homosexuality is all down to "nature": it is likely that people are influenced to different degrees by both biology and learning. But the notion that homosexuality is "unnatural" is equally wrong. Robinson's other comments are also disturbing. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed."
Scientific American: Editorial: Why homosexuality is not unnatural
Lying for Jesus again eh, "Dr." Fitzgibbons?
DevilsChaplain google the guys name, every single site citing him as an expert has family, catholic, christian or free republic in the name.
Quite aside from the constitutional arguments, I think I'm right in saying that the majority of people across America do support gay rights - certainly, you've just elected a president who's apparently squarely behind them. It's only by localising the vote to areas with above average pockets of bigotry, and often apparently bussing them in from elsewhere, that the more recent state laws against homosexuality have been passed, and I think they're still opposed at the federal level - and this, I feel, is a stupid and profoundly anti-democratic measure. How far should local opposition to overall democratic law go? If a state can disregard federal laws it doesn't like, why can't a single town disregard state laws it doesn't like; why can't an individual disregard even those if he doesn't like them? It's surely exactly the same principle, and thus the same arguments defend or condemn such action at all levels.
Oh, yes, I chose a sexuality that made me hate myself. I'm bi just for the kick I got out of begging god to make me straight. I wanted to feel alone. To hate gym because the 14 year old me couldn't help but notice soft curves and how wonderful other women smell.
While the principle that everyone should have the right to vote about anything, is a good one in most modern nations. The tyranny of the majority still exists and this is a perfect example why people should not be voting about issues like this in the first place.
Lastly, though there may not have been a genetic component discovered yet, there is significant evidence that homosexuality is a developmental while still in the uterus.
"Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard! "
What rights are those asswipe? C'mon, let's hear'em buttfuck
"Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!"
You don't care about their rights, why should they care about yours?
Narcissism is alive and well in the fundie world.
If 'Dr' Fitzgibbons' ideas were true all of the following people would be gay:
That's obviously not true.
Wow. Just wow. You feel discriminated against because you aren't allowed to discriminate others by taking away their rights?
"Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard! "
I absolutely refuse to believe I'm only 36 points above the average IQ if someone anywhere near average can refer to this mess of words as logic. Homosexuals marrying infringes on your rights about as much as rich people buying nice houses infringes upon my rights (to have the nicest house of course). It makes no sense and gay marriage has nothing to do with straight people and most bisexual people. Gay marriage is an issue that only affects homosexuals.
There are numerous biological reasons why people fear the unknown, and given that homosexuality is about 2% pervasive it is fairly unknown to most people. I'm somewhat surprised homosexuals are as supported as they are and merely accept that there is a huge percentage of people that don't really understand but also don't think it's fair to cause trouble for other people when there's nothing to be gained. A small percentage understands the plight and the rest reject it because they're absurdly short sighted and ignorant and could never imagine such persecution ever being aimed at them where they might need allies (though many of them surprisingly pretend that it is).
[Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!]
Which of your rights have been violated, specifically?
When you're done, you can explain why it's OK for gays to pay taxes and serve in the military but it's not OK for them to have the same rights as anybody else.
"Scientific America"
idiot
To prevent the tyranny of the majority, whereby 51% of the population can vote to remove the rights of the other 49%, we have a constitution and bill of rights.
So, yes, Sir Lucario, has the right to vote according to his personal values.
But, no, that he and a like-minded majority voted a particular way does not automatically mean those values must become enshrined in law.
Matters relating to human rights should never be put to a vote. It doesn't matter if the majority of Americans don't like same-sex marriage because they feel it's "icky". It's a human rights issue, same as giving women the vote, same as granting African Americans the same rights as whites.
So, let me see if I get this right:
- Science is wrong when it comes to evolution, then it is the work of the devil and all scientists are idiots and brainwashed.
- When it comes to gays, scientists are smart, brilliant and spot on.
Can you morons make up your god-damned minds?
Your right to...what? Not get a "save the date" from your gay co-worker? Not hear a woman refer to her "wife"? Not see a wedding cake topper with two grooms or two brides? That's not fucking good enough!
Maybe we should put your right to get or stay married up to a vote next.
"Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!"
No, they don't. You have no right not to be offended.
Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!
Which of your rights have been violated? You still have the right to live according to your religious beliefs. You can still marry one woman, not divorce, whatever. All we want to do is enable others to live according to their moral beliefs.
Actually I think Prop. 8 is a good thing because it is going to force the courts to finally intervene in this mess.
When held up to a constitutional challenge Prop. 8 will fail and that will open the door for same sex marraige in all states hopefully.
Sir Lucario, perhaps you could explain how the marraige of any two people could possibly violate your rights? It has no effect on you whatsoever in any way other than offending your bigoted morals.
Still I must thank you and those like you for forceing this to a head via Prop. 8, you may think you have won, but all you have done is ensure the failure of your bigoted ideals.
their values violate MY rights
Why? Are they trying to ban heterosexual marriage?
You FAIL. Please die in a fire.
"Well their values violate MY rights. Double Standard!"
The scary thing is, we came pretty close to having a Supreme Court justice who thought exactly this way - Robert Bork, nominated by Reagan in 1987, and a reactionary Christian bigot. He has actually written on his theory that the anguish caused to religious conservatives at knowing that someone, somewhere is doing something they consider morally wrong, actually constitutes a violation of their rights.
Fortunately, he was beaten to a metaphorical pulp in his Senate confirmation hearings and has made a career out of licking his wounds ever since and shrieking about how America is declining towards a new Dark Ages becaues of liberalism and secularism. I'm not exaggerating... he says that in just about so many words. Look up reviews of his 1997 book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah."
"'There is no research supporting a genetic basis of homosexuality. '
There are a LOT of correlations of various strengths between homosexuality and various other traits which ARE certainly genetically determined. A particularly promising one involves homosexuality and the hypothalamus.
Doesn't the name Fitzgibbons mean "son of gibbons"?
OMG, sound the alarm -- embedded monkey reference! Better yet, thinly veiled "descendent of monkey" reference!
This assclown actually sounds more like a monkey's uncle, tho...
That appeal in Northern Ireland failed.
Fundies in the UK now only have the right to have a legal boot in the bollocks. And like it.
The ACLU are watching...! >:D
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
