Holy shit, this guy is a fucking lunatic. First he wants to take your guns and now he wants to tax churches. I guess you can say those things when your political career is over.

Only churches(and mosques) who believe what Obama did in 2009 and Hillary Clinton did in 2012. Amazing that a mainstream Democrat position just a few years ago suddenly makes you a bigot today.

Since when have mainstream politicians not held bigoted positions to appeal to the broader electorate?

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2019 01:18am

I don't consider opposing gay marriage a bigoted position. And I think there's plenty of politicians who don't hold bigoted positions in the colloquial sense. What are Elizabeth Warren's bigoted positions? Or Mitt Romney's?

I know you don't, and in 50 years your grandchildren will be calling you a fossil for thinking that, same as I thought of my grandmother is a fossil for thinking "you don't hang out with blacks" isn't a bigoted position.

I'm not familiar enough with Warren's positions to necessarily say, and we all hold some positions that will, with time, be shown to be bigoted even if we don't realize it now.

Luckily the truth isn't determined by majority vote.

Also, equating a Christian opposing society redefining the institution of marriage with blatant racism is weak sauce.

This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 12 2019 02:42am

There is no truth to be had. What is and isn't bigoted is a matter of opinion. Slavers didn't think they were bigoted, they thought they were following the natural order. However, there will be a time shortly where virtually nobody holds the opinion that being against gay marriage isn't bigoted. And that will be a better time for everybody.

"Christian opposing society redefining the institution of marriage" is a weaksauce way to define your position. Your position is itself a redefinition of marriage, not some universally held ideal. Go back just a few hundred years and marriage was mostly a business transaction, go to the right parts of the world and "marriage" barley exists as a concept.

The only reason you think the comparison is weaksauce is because you live in a time where gay marriage has only recently gained widespread acceptance. You need to think about things in the larger picture, at least if you care about not being a shitty person.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2019 02:52am

What definition of bigoted are we working with?

Here's one:



Slavers would acknowledge they were bigoted, they would just say their intolerance and hatred was justified by the natural order.

On the other hand, accepting the orthodox Christian view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and God created it for a purpose, can't honestly be construed as bigotry. Obviously some who oppose gay marriage are bigoted against gays, but the position in and of itself is not obviously bigoted.

Also, the economic conditions around marriage have changed throughout history, but the most widely accepted view of marriage historically has been a union between one man and one woman, particularly among the Christian world.

I know you have a hard time understanding this, but the Biblical justification for opposing gay marriage is solid. A large segment of Christianity will always hold to that viewpoint. The arguments against it by gay affirming Christians are incredibly weak.

The problem with the comparison is that a Christian can honestly oppose gay marriage, or the affirmation that homosexual relationships are morally good, and still not have any hatred towards gay people. That doesn't really apply with discrimination against blacks.

This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 12 2019 03:10am

In other words you believe your intolerance is justified by the natural order because it was given by God, by the way tons of slavers cited the bible the same way you are, and the only reason you will come back saying the justification for slavery in the bible is weak is because you grew up in a society that taught you that slavery is wrong.

i'm pretty sure they would have argued that slaves are not real people, but property.