Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 I'm religion and you're a kid and here's your opinion, take it, I want you to have it. Now go and live your life and don't question what I told you when you were too young to understand otherwise. ----------- So, if you're actively dispelling another perspective because it clashes with what an institution told you as a kid, I call that ignorant. If you're not actively dispelling another perspective because you've just simply never been exposed to something somebody other than religion had to say, then that's equally ignorant. Right? Of course there is no problem with people questioning what they have been taught religiously and looking at all situations from multiple angles, but I still don't see people who believe in what they are taught and form an opinion based on that as ignorant either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Just because a belief is popularly held for a long time and passed down through generations does not make it true. This is one of the most common fallacies. That is the reason so many people are critical of beliefs that are backed up with religion. If you believe something strongly, you really need to be able to back it up with reasons. Tell us why you say it's wrong--not just that your parents believed it, so you believe it too. That's another fine way of putting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Of course there is no problem with people questioning what they have been taught religiously and looking at all situations from multiple angles, but I still don't see people who believe in what they are taught and form an opinion based on that as ignorant either. It is when they refuse to see the other side of the argument. I have YET to hear a tangible argument for why homosexual's cannot enter into a lawful marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Is not being for gay marriage the same as being against it? If yes, why would anybody oppose gay marriage? What business is it of theirs? She deserved all the bashing she gets for this because a.) in 2009 opposing gay marriage = ignorant b.) she opposed gay marriage PUBLICLY and c.) she was a contestant in a beauty pageant. Most importantly: does she have ANY idea how much of a gay institution beauty pageants are? That's like Saturday's first round pick publicly decrying beer drinkers. Oh my god, how dare she! So now people with an opinion agianst gay marriage need to be in the closet? Oh the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Oh my god, how dare she! So now people with an opinion agianst gay marriage need to be in the closet? Oh the irony. But it doesn't beat the irony of the Big Cat throwing the word "ignorant" around at other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 It is when they refuse to see the other side of the argument. I have YET to hear a tangible argument for why homosexual's cannot enter into a lawful marriage. Bigotry. It is disguised, of course, but that's the only real reason to oppose the right of a same sex couple to be married. Now, there are plenty of reasons to be personally opposed to same sex marriage, but those reasons should apply to your personal behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 It is when they refuse to see the other side of the argument. I have YET to hear a tangible argument for why homosexual's cannot enter into a lawful marriage. Many people in this country don't believe that Bob and Glenn should have the ability to marry and therefore receive the same benefits of marriage (mostly financial) as Bob and Amy. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Okay, I'm not quite sure how much this has been discussed on the board, and I first and foremost want to put it out there that I'm not looking for a huge gay marriage debate persay, more so just some insight. I'm sure many of you are aware of what has been going on since Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answered the oh-so-controversial question about whether or not she supports gay marriage in this country during the Miss America show a couple of days back. I would provide a link, but there are so many stories of different nature all over the web, from the reaction during the show, to the aftermath and rash of ridicule against Miss California in the days that have followed that I would have to put forth about 20 links to do the job. My question is: Since when was it so out of line to answer the gay marriage question, which is obviously opinionated-based, in an honest fashion? So what if she is personally opposed to two men or two women marrying one another? Isn't that HER opinion, and isn't she damn well entitled to it? Since she answered that question on national television as being opposed to it due to her strong Christian beliefs and upbringing, she has been absolutely chastised by people of many circles including the show's promoters, judges, celebrities (predictable), and much of the media. Whether you agree with her opinion on the topic or not, I think it's an absolute joke for her to be contiunally publicly ridiculed about answering a question that is based on OPINION, not FACT, honestly. Am I way off base on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Many people in this country don't believe that Bob and Glenn should have the ability to marry and therefore receive the same benefits of marriage (mostly financial) as Bob and Amy. Just sayin'. What was the point in you writing this? I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 I was thinking the same thing about 10 minutes ago. My bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Many people in this country don't believe that Bob and Glenn should have the ability to marry and therefore receive the same benefits of marriage (mostly financial) as Bob and Amy. Just sayin'. That's right. Some people are bigots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 But it doesn't beat the irony of the Big Cat throwing the word "ignorant" around at other people. Hey, at least I've come to terms with the topics I'm ignorant about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think I can clear this whole thing up. Apparently it's just a great big wacky misunderstanding. All you opponents of gay marriage: You do realize of course that if it's legalized you will not actually be required to marry another dude, right? It's only for other people who want to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Exactly. What's wrong with having personal beliefs that help guide your own behavior? Some people believe that homosexuality is wrong, because the Bible refers to it as "an abomination". Many Jews don't eat pork, because of their religious beliefs. The Bible also calls eating pork "an abomination". But, I know few Jews who oppose my right to eat pork...and there's the real rub, in this situation. Against same-sex marriage? Fine, don't marry a person the same sex as yourself. But, that gives you no right to interfere in the practices of those with different beliefs, as the practice of gay marriage among those who desire it, has zero negative impact on the rights of those who don't believe in it. She didn't interfere, she merely answered the question that was asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 What was the point in you writing this? I don't get it. The point is that is part of the sentiment of many, more than likely the majority of, the people in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Agree ... I think James Carville is as much of an ass as Rush Limbaugh. I hate all extremes ... governing is ... errrr ... SHOULD BE representing everyone's interests ... unfortunately you don't get elected by being a centrist anymore ... we're lucky when a president gets elected and moves to the center. Unfortunately that's an accurate observation on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 That's right. Some people are bigots. You always you the word "bigot" so judiciously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Its the CIA's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 The point is that is part of the sentiment of many, more than likely the majority of, the people in this country. Yep, and a lot of people in this country used to have slaves, and most supported the notion that women shouldn't vote. For awhile there, everyone thought Home Improvment was a great sitcom. Things change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 She didn't interfere, she merely answered the question that was asked. I understand. And as I suggested, I have no problem with her having that personal opinion. There really isn't anything that interesting about the question, or the answer to it, IMO. Rightly or wrongly, people are taking the answer to that question to mean she opposes the right for same-sex couples to marry. That would have been a far more interesting/revealing question, and answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts