The Supremes Tackle Birth Control

No it was more than that but it's OK buddy. Discussing your projections is not entertaining me or anyone else that reads this.

We live in the world of the internet.

And on the internet men are men, women are men, and the children are FBI agents.

now you all made forget the belt I was looking up on ffxiah! D:

has Magic Accuracy +8 . Help me out!

Edit: nvm Found it!

Because Hobby Lobby and cabinet-maker people want to have it all. They want the legal protections of a for-profit corporation AND the religious freedoms afforded to individuals and some non-profits. They don't get both.

But they AREN'T abortifacants. The owners of the stock in that closely held corporation BELIEVE they are.

Eh, whatever, that wasn't the point I was making, Chanti.

And, just based on the HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE actions I see in this and many other threads, is anyone rapidly starting to wonder if the two loudest neocon hyper-"conservative" trolls are sockpuppets of the same person?

speaking of sock puppets, my fiance sent me a link today that you might be interested in.

Not same person but I have a video of me and King walking into the liberal den that is the ah P&R forums. And I know exactly how every discussion is going to end up.



And calling it now and I won't even argue this with you King. It is not up for debate. I am Romy.

Its about the only point I have been trying to make this whole thread.

Sorry.

I named my dog Romy after her, lol. I'm totally the Michele :O

What's sad is that you think anyone opposing you is automatically a liberal, as though that's some kind of damning insult. It doesn't matter that half of what you argue against has historically been supported by conservatives and, by literal definition, is conservative (as in, it preserves the rule of the Constitution and legal precedent).

I'm going to assume you hit puberty some time after Carter left office, so you have had very limited access to what conservatism was before it was co-opted by and uttered trashed by the Religious Right. For that matter, you seem to have some grasp of what far-left liberalism looks like but cannot seem to see how far from that current Democrats are. It's like you need to live in the partisan fantasy that funds the 24-hour "news" machines because reality is too multi-colored and frustrating.

Keeping religion and religious exceptionalism out of government is something a proper conservative would uphold, in case I was being unclear. It's basic Cons-law. Permitting religion to have a say in government is actually a traditionally liberal sort of thing.

I was thinking Fone and King were the same person lol. I mean no disrespect by that btw, its just something that popped in my head like 3-5 pages ago.

Oh and in response to Amandarius, I was 5 twenty years ago. Although, when I became aware of the world around me, maybe 17 or 18, it seemed like common sense that all people should be treated equally.

Lolwut, when did I CLAIM that everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot? I gave the definition of Bigotry and an example. Oppose it all you want, the defining characteristic of bigotry is INTOLERANCE, not opposition.

Also, you don't know anything about my personal activism or community work. Go fly a kite.

Reason for birth control:

Can you go into that a bit further? It seems like intolerance is the new buzzword for opposition, and I'd like to know how you believe someone can go about opposing gay marriage without being intolerant.

I have known personally worse than that second but NOTHING as outre as that first.

/shudder

The fact that he is smiling with that hideous tattoo in the first pic creeps me out.

I'm not anti tattoo but at some point you look like a tool.

I'm going by actual definitions, not the way the words are used in pop culture. You can be opposed to an idea without attempting to disadvantage people on the other side. I'm personally opposed to many things, but I never have actively worked to take away anyone's rights. It's mostly in how you approach differing ideals. I don't have a problem with people observing their religious beliefs so long as it doesn't trample any else's rights and I'm strongly opposed to any group or person being afforded advantage based on their religious beliefs (at least from a legislative standpoint).

I don't know if that answers your question.

Sort of. But if a person's opposition revolves around a position that denies a person of something that he or she views as a "right", then wouldn't doing anything at all to endorse the said position "disadvantage the people on the other side" and be viewed as intolerant?

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just genuinely curious how someone can be expected to endorse their view against gay marriage, for example, without being immediately labeled as intolerant. If something is newly labeled as a "right" but wasn't before, suddenly anyone in opposition is expected to shut up, accept it, or automatically become an intolerant bigot?

As a hypothetical, let's say I'm opposed to gay marriage. I think that marriage is between a man and woman, period. I can choose to keep my beliefs and not associate with gay people, etc, but let people live their lives the way they choose. I could still vote for candidates that share my view, etc. I would be opposed and tolerant.

If I were opposed to gay marriage and also actively trying to have marriage legally defined as man/woman via picketing, petitioning, donating to or participating in an interest group, that would be opposed and intolerant.

In/tolerance being the key, you can disagree without trying to disadvantage others. However, I agree that people with controversial or classic views are almost always labeled as bigots or intolerant regardless of whether they actually are.

Waitafrickingminuet.

If marriage gives rights and privileges unavailable to the unmarried its an equal rights thing. The Supremes said so.

Okay, so using the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech is what makes it intolerant. Got it. I'm clear on this now.

*** hell, this isn't a difficult concept. Don't agree with gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. See how that affects only yourself? Burden others with that same belief by actively trying to deny them marriage shifts that belief into intolerance. I don't think anyone here would argue for denying you your beliefs, but things would get prickly if you wanted to place your beliefs onto others given that two men or two women getting married places zero burden on your existence.

The problem with gay marriage as an example though is that any reason given against the issue boils down to 'gay couples are different' and we inevitably head into bigotry territory.

Calm thyself, I'm not arguing against gay marriage. I'm arguing against the stupidity that says one side should have to keep their opinion to themselves or be labeled as intolerant bigots while the other side gets to be as vocal as they wish.

I get that but putting other pronouns in there instead of 'you' made it read weird to me.

It still remains a bad example to latch onto since all the counter arguments are devoid of logic and steeped in bigotry. Of course no one wants to hear it. No one wants to hear about racial supremacy, Antisemitism, or misogyny either. You can certainly still advocate such issues openly, but at this point it would be silly to get offended about being called a bigot over it. Discrimination against LGBTs is rapidly reaching that same point.

I see your point, but I just think it's a sleazy tactic. No pros or cons in the discussion, just "It's their right! How dare you think otherwise!" Let's discuss and study the sociological effects on society in general. Maybe the psychological effects on children. There might be no ill effects whatsoever, but screw that. It's their right! The same could be said for a number of other stances that the left traditionally holds.

That particular info is out there already. It's simply beating a dead horse at this point.