siap'd...Reality hits Mizzou!

[TheBeav815]

I also don't think anyone should tell business owners who they should serve or what they should do. If they want to turn away customers, that's on them.

The problem with that is where you draw the line. You have to go through a lot of these kind of fill in the blanks:

It's ok to refuse to serve somebody who is _________________ but it's wrong to refuse to serve somebody who is __________________.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the very same people who think it should be an owner's decision to not do business with gay people would turn colors and cuss paragraphs if some business owner who doesn't believe in war kicked out some kid in uniform home on leave.

 

[Soda Popinski]

I also don't think anyone should tell business owners who they should serve or what they should do. If they want to turn away customers, that's on them.

Good to know. You mean like if you owned a diner or lunch counter, for instance?

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

Good to know. You mean like if you owned a diner or lunch counter, for instance?

Yes. Why should someone change their beliefs just because others want them to. That's like telling all Muslims they should convery to Catholocism to enter the U.S.A.

 

[TheBeav815]

Yes. Why should someone change their beliefs just because others want them to. That's like telling all Muslims they should convery to Catholocism to enter the U.S.A.

.......no, it's like telling Muslims they can't kick Catholics out of their store for being Catholic.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

The problem with that is where you draw the line. You have to go through a lot of these kind of fill in the blanks:

It's ok to refuse to serve somebody who is _________________ but it's wrong to refuse to serve somebody who is __________________.

I have this sneaking suspicion that the very same people who think it should be an owner's decision to not do business with gay people would turn colors and cuss paragraphs if some business owner who doesn't believe in war kicked out some kid in uniform home on leave.

Nope. That would be their decision. A stupid one that would hurt their business either way.

 

[Lincoln100]

Conservatives love to claim that liberals are so sensitive and causing the "pussification of America" and everything, but they complain and ***** and moan as much as anyone else. It's just what you decide to be offended by.

Obviously this is very generalized but: Liberals are offended by people saying racism isn't a problem, Conservatives are offended by people saying racism is more prevalent than it is. Liberals are offended by people who believe gay people shouldn't be married, Conservatives are offended by people who are gay.

People need to stop being so high and mighty and pretending only one side of the political spectrum is too sensitive. Especially when the Republican debates have been the most immature crybaby-infested events we've ever seen in politics.

Our whole culture is a mess of disrespect and hate for anyone who doesn't share the same beliefs. It sucks.

I have never heard anyone say or suggest "racism isn't a problem." The issue I have with it is that racism is always the problem. It is this false narrative that is endlessly pushed by liberals and which in fact lends to the divisiveness and emboldens individuals to lie through their teeth. The really sad thing about it is that so much of it is pure politics and it really screws with peoples lives, but it is ok because it gets people elected. The merits of something mean almost nothing if there are differing colors involved. This also goes hand-in-hand with the narratives that people who are pro-life hate women, privatizing social security means you hate old people, being supportive of traditional marriage means you hate homosexuals, etc. And I agree 100% that in today's politics, the total lack of ability to actually concede a point or two has made politics totally unbearable.

 

[jeans15]

Racism has never kept me from doing anything.

 

[huskers360]

I have never heard anyone say or suggest "racism isn't a problem." The issue I have with it is that racism is always the problem. It is this false narrative that is endlessly pushed by liberals and which in fact lends to the divisiveness and emboldens individuals to lie through their teeth. The really sad thing about it is that so much of it is pure politics and it really screws with peoples lives, but it is ok because it gets people elected. The merits of something mean almost nothing if there are differing colors involved. This also goes hand-in-hand with the narratives that people who are pro-life hate women, privatizing social security means you hate old people, being supportive of traditional marriage means you hate homosexuals, etc. And I agree 100% that in today's politics, the total lack of ability to actually concede a point or two has made politics totally unbearable.

Spot on.

 

[TheBeav815]

I have never heard anyone say or suggest "racism isn't a problem." The issue I have with it is that racism is always the problem. It is this false narrative that is endlessly pushed by liberals and which in fact lends to the divisiveness and emboldens individuals to lie through their teeth. The really sad thing about it is that so much of it is pure politics and it really screws with peoples lives, but it is ok because it gets people elected. The merits of something mean almost nothing if there are differing colors involved. This also goes hand-in-hand with the narratives that people who are pro-life hate women, privatizing social security means you hate old people, being supportive of traditional marriage means you hate homosexuals, etc. And I agree 100% that in today's politics, the total lack of ability to actually concede a point or two has made politics totally unbearable.

Why, do you mean to suggest that not everything is all one way or another?

The only point I take issue with is your assertion on "traditional" marriage. I have to ask, what sort of dowry did your wife's family provide in exchange for the honor of you taking her off their hands? 5 goats? More?

The point being, there is no such thing. The definition of marriage has always been whatever was culturally convenient, whether that was many wives, a child bride, marrying your dead husband's brother, dowry, etc.

So what people mean by "traditional marriage" is just generally, "I don't want gay people to be allowed to get married." And that has nothing to do with straight people. If your marriage had enough sanctity after all the rest of history, it'll be ok if you let two chicks get in on it.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan_rivals19671]

I hope my son marries a woman, and I hope my daughter marries a guy and I've actually discussed this with them before. GASP, I must hate gay people!!

 

[TheBeav815]

I hope my son marries a woman, and I hope may daughter marries a guy and I've actually discussed this with them before. GASP, I must hate gay people!!

And for whose sake do you hope that? Yours or theirs?

 

[litespeedhuskerfan_rivals19671]

Both.

 

[TheBeav815]

Both.

And why is that?

 

[Lincoln100]

Why, do you mean to suggest that not everything is all one way or another?

The only point I take issue with is your assertion on "traditional" marriage. I have to ask, what sort of dowry did your wife's family provide in exchange for the honor of you taking her off their hands? 5 goats? More?

The point being, there is no such thing. The definition of marriage has always been whatever was culturally convenient, whether that was many wives, a child bride, marrying your dead husband's brother, dowry, etc.

So what people mean by "traditional marriage" is just generally, "I don't want gay people to be allowed to get married." And that has nothing to do with straight people. If your marriage had enough sanctity after all the rest of history, it'll be ok if you let two chicks get in on it.

So is it that you take issue with the word "traditional," because you don't think there is a standard definition? Seems like that is a different issue. I think you understood my point. Whatever label you want to give it, the point is that someone can have a differing opinion on just about any issue without hating the opposing view / person, but you wouldn't know it with all the scumbags in society who do all the fear mongering and pandering. It wouldn't bother me as much if so much of the population wasn't just straight up stupid and soaked the crap up.

 

[jeans15]

And why is that?

Because it's normal for most people to want that. Hard to procreate with people of the same sex.

I would like a grandchild one day. If they choose not to have one great for them.

 

[TheBeav815]

So is it that you take issue with the word "traditional," because you don't think there is a standard definition? Seems like that is a different issue. I think you understood my point. Whatever label you want to give it, the point is that someone can have a differing opinion on just about any issue without hating the opposing view / person, but you wouldn't know it with all the scumbags in society who do all the fear mongering and pandering. It wouldn't bother me as much if so much of the population wasn't just straight up stupid and soaked the crap up.

On that issue in particular, it boils down to a question of why one feels justified in wanting gay people not to have something everyone else has. "Because I don't like it" is not a reason why something should not be legal.

If you don't like it, that's a perfectly great reason why you shouldn't do it. But you don't get to stop other people from doing it when it's not hurting anyone.

 

[Lincoln100]

Because it's normal for most people to want that. Hard to procreate with people of the same sex.

I would like a grandchild one day. If they choose not to have one great for them.

This post just doubled the amount of pages this thing is going to go

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

.......no, it's like telling Muslims they can't kick Catholics out of their store for being Catholic.

Why, do you mean to suggest that not everything is all one way or another?

The only point I take issue with is your assertion on "traditional" marriage. I have to ask, what sort of dowry did your wife's family provide in exchange for the honor of you taking her off their hands? 5 goats? More?

The point being, there is no such thing. The definition of marriage has always been whatever was culturally convenient, whether that was many wives, a child bride, marrying your dead husband's brother, dowry, etc.

So what people mean by "traditional marriage" is just generally, "I don't want gay people to be allowed to get married." And that has nothing to do with straight people. If your marriage had enough sanctity after all the rest of history, it'll be ok if you let two chicks get in on it.

So 2 chicks is ok, but 2 guys isn't. I can't decide whether you are sexist, bigot, or racist. How about all 3, I am sure all 3 are correct. How dare you!!!!

 

[Lincoln100]

On that issue in particular, it boils down to a question of why one feels justified in wanting gay people not to have something everyone else has. "Because I don't like it" is not a reason why something should not be legal.

If you don't like it, that's a perfectly great reason why you shouldn't do it. But you don't get to stop other people from doing it when it's not hurting anyone.

wasn't there a post on this a few weeks ago that went about 13 pages? There are various reasons as to why someone might not "like it," whether or not you agree with it. And again, you are straying off topic; even if the only reason a person gives for not supporting gay marriage is "because I don't like it," they can still give that opinion without hating an alternative view or gay people. That is the point, no matter your definition or whether or not you think someone's opinion is sufficiently explained.