Michelle Bachmann says "Gays have bullied the American people"

[Wells]

Bachmann is like if you took Sarah Palin and made her dumber.

Bachmann can hold down a job.

[mvaliz]

I don't see how this got infracted while a lot of these others didn't; is this site really that biased?

Anyway, I'd agree that the agenda has been rather forced of late. I wouldn't quite equate it to bullying, but it's definitely forced.

It's most likely was for his trending use of meme photos (against the forum rules) coupled with most likely his various screwball nutjob conspiracy theories in that post. (again, against the forum rules)

It's not some "liberal bias" as you're implying. Myself and others have been infracted and/or banned as well due to our so-called "Liberal" posts containing rule-crossing maneuvers.

[Dendrek]

Bachmann is like if you took Sarah Palin and made her dumber.

I don't think IQs can go into the negatives.

[Deleted]

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1 Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


[Infracted]

[nattyg]

I can be a fairly conservative person, but holy fuck this is idiotic. At least I can be proud to say I have never used my religion or personal beliefs to bully or otherwise try to keep someone down for believing or living a way I personally don't like. If I don't like something and it doesn't affect me I keep it to my fucking self.

Did you even read the law? The point is that people were being impacted (in CO) by having to serve someone they didn't want to in their own business. Curious, what's the difference between an "exclusively gay" photographer, cake baker, etc... and a straight person electing not to engage in a business contract with someone they disagree with based on religious grounds or for the simple fact that their shirt is purple?

[Regalbeast]

That's a bit intellectually dishonest. What have they pushed on you exactly? Their presence? Their opinions? Is their being vocal about discrimination and mistreatment inconvenient for you?

Intellectually dishonest...lol. Yeah if I disagree and believe that they shouldn't be allowed to be legally married then I get flamed and harassed until I agree.

[spinner981]

Just keep listing fallacies. Maybe you'll come across the right one. What he described was what marriage meant for hundreds of years. Social conservatives are just cherry picking.

Either that or social liberals are just generalizing (or perhaps using an undistributed middle); defining many radically different types of marital relationships as traditional and then just assuming that they are all one in the same because they refer to them all as traditional. Perhaps a composition fallacy, only this would deal with 'definitions of traditional marriage relationships', not just a general type of group.

[Wells]

Intellectually dishonest...lol. Yeah if I disagree and believe that they shouldn't be allowed to be legally married then I get flamed and harassed until I agree.

Stop crying and address his questions.

[Orbitus]

It's ok, that's to be expected when I start mentioning foreign words like 'facts'. Some people just don't know what they are.

Still waiting for these facts you claim you have. All I see is you being wrong with what your definition of love and marriage is. You are actually advocating for someone that is gay to marry people of the opposite sex just so they can have 'equal rights'. When in reality gay people don't have the actual right to marry who they love, that is of course another consenting adult. Not the slippery slope fallacy of marrying objects, animals or children.

[Wells]

Either that or social liberals are just generalizing (or perhaps using an undistributed middle); defining many radically different types of marital relationships as traditional and then just assuming that they are all one in the same.

Hey you guys are the ones who are trying to appeal to tradition. You just think no one will notice when you cherry pick what traditions you want the government to enforce.

[Dendrek]

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1 Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Oh, that's convenient. It actually has the word "homosexual" in the bible? I didn't realize the King James was written after 1869.

[Sevyvia]

A bill making anything religiously based into law is wrong. I'm also fully in support of anyone (Gay, straight, in between, whatever skin color) being able to live a normal and unharassed life

That said, looking past the woman's language, there is a point here. And that point is the right of anyone, business or private person, to refuse someone entry to their own property. That's a basic right, and I think that needs to be protected. I do NOT think that it should be "You can't come in here because the bible hurr durr," but the basic, underlying right is there and should be there.

Many, many unjust things happen to people who are gay/lesbian, trans, whatever. And I think those things need to stop. But at the same time, it shouldn't be at the cost of basic, essentially good, tenets.

[Dendrek]

Intellectually dishonest...lol. Yeah if I disagree and believe that they shouldn't be allowed to be legally married then I get flamed and harassed until I agree.

Why would their getting married matter to you? Does it affect you in any tangible way? Or is it just an "eww... I don't like that, make it illegal" reaction?

It's an honest question, btw. I really want to know why it would matter. Let's say you were completely oblivious to this whole debate for the past 10 years and in (hypothetical) 2 years gay marriage becomes legal in all states. If you found out about the change 4 years from now, would it affect you? Would it matter to you?

[belfpala]

Just keep listing fallacies. Maybe you'll come across the right one. What he described was what marriage meant for hundreds of years. Social conservatives are just cherry picking.

I even started compiling sources from my ancestry... but then I was all, nah, I'll just skip to the violent parts.

(Hint for spinner: Every marriage was negotiated by the most powerful member of families, not by either of the people to be married. That was the way of it.)

[tiporispit]

I wonder if singles and non-parents will ever have equality in this country. It seems kids are a prerequisite to get any kind of assistance in this shithole.

[spinner981]

Still waiting for these facts you claim you have. All I see is you being wrong with what your definition of love and marriage is. You are actually advocating for someone that is gay to marry people of the opposite sex just so they can have 'equal rights'. When in reality gay people don't have the actual right to marry who they love, that is of course another consenting adult. Not the slippery slope fallacy of marrying objects, animals or children.

Fact: There is no law that states "You may marry whoever you love, unless your homosexual." and even in the case that there was a law that says "You may marry whoever you love", even if a homosexual couldn't marry someone of the same sex, a heterosexual also could not. Like I said, many people don't accept that answer, but it is a fact.

[Felya]

Did you even read the law? The point is that people were being impacted (in CO) by having to serve someone they didn't want to in their own business. Curious, what's the difference between an "exclusively gay" photographer, cake baker, etc... and a straight person electing not to engage in a business contract with someone they disagree with based on religious grounds or for the simple fact that their shirt is purple?

Being straight is not a religion and you can't derive a specific religion based on sexuality. If they were serving those who they don't want, what was the identifying factor? Because unless they snuck in to their bedroom, everything from banning public displays of effection to dress code is completely legal.

[Wells]

even if a homosexual couldn't marry someone of the same sex, a heterosexual also could not

Not to repeat myself here, but the law also prevents the rich from sleeping on the sidewalk.

[Felya]

Fact: There is no law that states "You may marry whoever you love, unless your homosexual." and even in the case that there was a law that says "You may marry whoever you love", even if a homosexual couldn't marry someone of the same sex, a heterosexual also could not. Like I said, many people don't accept that answer, but it is a fact.

There is also no law that prohibits gay wedding, only the fact that gay marriage is not recognized by law. Yet, you don't see anyone trying to ban gay weddings, only inhibit legal recognition of marriage.

[mvaliz]

Intellectually dishonest...lol. Yeah if I disagree and believe that they shouldn't be allowed to be legally married then I get flamed and harassed until I agree.

...am I the only one who sees the irony of you having an avatar apparently mocking Putin on a Shark, despite you simultaneously sharing in his paranoid delusion of some mythical "Gaygenda" push against society?