Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[Matt]

Guys you are being kind of harsh here on Ack... he obviously holds no hatred against gays. Calling him a racist is a little out of line. He's wrong in his interpretation of how the law should treat this issue in accordance with his personal beliefs.

Agree. And without him and his controversial views, what would we have to talk about? This forum hasn't been this busy in a long time.

 

[seedofvengeance]

Pretty much every point I could think of has already been raised and still there's no relent. I'll just say that homosexuality is not a lifestyle, and those who label it as such are displaying their ignorance.

I realize this, I'm just not sure what else to label it as in the context I was saying it.

 

[AchrisK]

What is intolerance? Is disagreement automatically intolerance?

 

[waif]

No.
I don't know really where intolerance came from. From what I can tell you're fine with homosexuality, just not gay marriage or people explaining to kids why the men are kissing each other.


@mathias: I don't think most people have been insulting him personally.
Regardless, you gotta respect him taking on basically the whole forum.

 

[seedofvengeance]

Intolerance would imply him using derogatory remarks and wanting gays outlawed.
Intolerance is a term used a little too frequently now a days.
In grammatical terms INTOLERANCE, would mean he doesn't tolerate gays existing, which is not what he's arguing.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Disagreement in a way which would disenfranchise a group of people who have no logical/realistic reason to have their fucking rights infringed upon is intolerance, yes.

 

[Jean-Pierre]

Disagreement in a way which would disenfranchise a group of people who have no logical/realistic reason to have their fucking rights infringed upon is intolerance, yes.

.

 

[waif]

No, I would say he's not intolerant of homosexuality. He's intolerant of gay marriage - he does not tolerate it's existance - but he's not anti-gay.

 

[Omni]

Disagreement in a way which would disenfranchise a group of people who have no logical/realistic reason to have their fucking rights infringed upon is intolerance, yes.

.

 

[seedofvengeance]

No, I would say he's not intolerant of homosexuality. He's intolerant of gay marriage - he does not tolerate it's existance - but he's not anti-gay.

This is what I meant... just said in a much better way.

 

[Omni]

No, I would say he's not intolerant of homosexuality. He's intolerant of gay marriage - he does not tolerate it's existance - but he's not anti-gay.

He's showing intolerance of the idea of equal rights for gay people. Where it originates and how it manifests itself doesn't change this.

 

[seedofvengeance]

I think they were saying he was intolerant of gays in general, which is wrong.
If you use intolerance in the way you're using it, you could technically say that anything you don't agree with you're intolerant of. It's just a more harsh way of saying it.

 

[waif]

I also think intolerance is kind of a strong word. I would say opposition is more fitting. Intolerance suggests unfounded bigotry rather than opposition based on religious beliefs.

And while the law should not be based on religion it's perfectly legitimate for him to base his opinion on his legal beliefs.

 

[seedofvengeance]

Any ways... back to the real argument...
you're wrong, Ack.

 

[Jean-Pierre]

No, I would say he's not intolerant of homosexuality. He's intolerant of gay marriage - he does not tolerate it's existance - but he's not anti-gay.

That doesn't make any sense. He thinks of homosexuals as something other than regular citizens if he believes that they should not share the EXACT same rights as other citizens.

 

[waif]

read my other comment. if we still disagree then that's not gonna change. but I think arguing about what someone else believes is a waste of time.

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

AchrisK, you are a modern day racist.

Ah, come on, no need to be so hard on the guy. His only problem is that he's letting his feelings get over logical reasoning, and that's a problem everybody has faced before.

 

[Jean-Pierre]

read my other comment. if we still disagree then that's not gonna change. but I think arguing about what someone else believes is a waste of time.

Whether it's "opposition" or "intolerance" (a completely moot point), you're denying a large group of human beings the same rights available to every other human being.

 

[waif]

i mean, he doesn't have a problem with them having the rights entailed in marriage, just the actual thing itself.

 

[Jean-Pierre]

i mean, he doesn't have a problem with them having the rights entailed in marriage, just the actual thing itself.

what