Ted Cruz indoctrination coloring book inspires hilarious comments from internet

[Felya]

Well, we do keep asking them to provide any rational reason to oppose gay marriage, and they keep failing to provide it. It's not like we aren't asking them to defend their position with reason and logic, hoping they can provide some insight. They just keep refusing to, and the only reason for that reticence, to my mind, is a recognition that it's based on irrational hatred, and they don't want to voice that because it exposes their true beliefs for what they are.

I think satimy using that quote as some sort of justification, is an example of that. The only two options that are presented for his opinion, are flawed reasoning or flawed character. Using that quote to justify being against gay marriage, is admitting you have flawed reasoning or having flawed reasoning to think it justifies your reasoning. There is no win in that for opposing gay marriage... A forum is a great avenue to show ones reason, they are not being stifled...

[Xeones]

This is an excerpt written by a gay man on this issue from the Atlantic

If it’s “anti-gay” to question the arguments of marriage-equality advocates, and if the word “homophobic” is exhausted on me or on polite dissenters, then what should we call someone who beats up gay people, or prefers not to hire them? Disagreement is not the same thing as discrimination. Our language ought to reflect that distinction.

I would argue that an essential feature of the term “homophobia” must include personal animus or malice toward the gay community. Simply having reservations about gay marriage might be anti-gay marriage, but if the reservations are articulated in a respectful way, I see no reason to dismiss the person holding those reservations as anti-gay people. In other words, I think it’s quite possible for marriage-equality opponents to have flawed reasoning without necessarily having flawed character. When we hastily label our opposition with terms like “anti-gay,” we make an unwarranted leap from the first description to the second.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...ophobe/282333/

I think that summarizes what I am trying to get at. Do you disagree with that notion?

We know this guy is gay how? Not that it really matters, this smacks of people who say something racist and then say "I've got black friends I'm not racist I swear".

The entire argument is based around the idea that a person can dislike people having rights without disliking something about those people. It's a fundamentally flawed premise. Those people are bigots because they dislike a person for something that fundamentally makes up who they are. You cannot respectfully attempt to deny someone their rights because of who they are.

Can I respectfully say that blacks should go back to being slaves? Then how can you respectfully say that gays shouldn't have the state given right of marriage because of who they are?

Homophobia does have malice, denying people their rights is malicious even if they aren't ready to get physical with it.

[satimy]

Im not going to reply to everyone as it would take to long

My original point was that people label Ted Cruz as a Bigot because he is against gay marriage. My point was that being against gay marriage does not imply a hatred for gays. I think a legal argument could be made that denying homosexual marriage is not discriminatory in the sense that nobody is allowed to do it. However I personally think it should be legal, as I think that gay marriage doesn't cause harm and that the government should not interfere with anything that doesnt involve harming another person(generally speaking).

If we can't even have discourse about topics without resorting to name calling and stereotyping then I don't see the process being successful. And when the discussions go from talking about the actual substance of the issues, in which I think pro gay marriage people have the logical edge than the process becomes more and more radical and less based on the actual substance.

[Masark]

then what should we call someone who beats up gay people, or prefers not to hire them?

I think the word "criminal" works just fine for those people.

[Felya]

I think a legal argument could be made that denying homosexual marriage is not discriminatory in the sense that nobody is allowed to do it.

It is discriminatory, because it discriminates between straight and gay marriage. It's like banning you on a forum and then claiming you are not banned, but that anyone not named Satimy can post. It is a ban on everyone who would post as Satimy... Not just you... Everyone...

How is that rational?

- - - Updated - - -

I think the word "criminal" works just fine for those people.

That's exactly it... I was thinking the same...

- - - Updated - - -

My original point was that people label Ted Cruz as a Bigot because he is against gay marriage. My point was that being against gay marriage does not imply a hatred for gays.

It does imply it. It doesn't mean it's true, but it is implied. The only other option, even according to the link you posted, is flawed reasoning. Flawed reasoning implies hate in it's flaw. It's why the quite you posted asked to not jump to conclusions. The simple reality, is that there is no logical reason to be against gay marriage...

There is no substance to being anti-gay marriage... The best you can hope for is misunderstanding...

[mvaliz]

Im not going to reply to everyone as it would take to long

My original point was that people label Ted Cruz as a Bigot because he is against gay marriage. My point was that being against gay marriage does not imply a hatred for gays. /snip.

Replace the word "Gay Marriage" and "gay" with the words "Black Rights" and "Blacks" or "Women's Suffrage" and "women", you'll get the idea then...

EDIT: Hate comes in many forms... in his case, he serves it very VERY chilled.

[Mukki]

http://www.amazon.com/Ted-Cruz-Futur...?tag=wowowo-20


I love you, internet. This often happens with many amazon products.

I just realized that Ted Cruz really looks like Chris Chan.

[Mormolyce]

Finally a media format suitable for conservative audiences!

According to the publisher's official description, the new book is “a non-partisan, fact-driven view of how Texas Sen. Rafael Edward 'Ted' Cruz became a U.S. senator."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4412879.html

Ahahaha. Gold.

Also:

http://www.coloringbook.com/tea-part...ring-book.aspx