The dominoes keep falling around the faith-based opposition surrounding same-sex marriage (Page 67)

Corwin: Oh yeah... this is dave's thread, isn't it.

davesdatahut: Near, that was attempted, with patience that would make the deities pleased, if they got the time to watch. I don't believe in deleting posts, just responding. And there ain't no other response left other than ridicule.

davesdatahut: Dave's thread Corvin. Dave's thread!!!!
Is Dave's thread allowed to marry other threads of the same sex?

near50ohoh: @davesdathut sure there is... ignoring

davesdatahut: Ignoring allows perpetuation.

near50ohoh: Zanjan isn't the only dissenter to the view you began your thread with. I haven't heard any that aren't religious in their orientation. SO you win. In your sample of voices, the religious here have mostly been anti-gay marriage.
I know you THINK I'm the exception, but I think people saw I was fairly representing the liberal religious voice and just sat back to watch. Just a theory mind you.
Zanjan has also made some really good points that do show intelligence and compassion and what I know of her career leads me to believe she's very capable of it.
But bottom line, I'm not a fan of publicly shaming someone for having an opposing POV.
If you want to, you could address the points she raises without linking them to hers. If that is your concern. You could also just add links from professionals and make no comment so people can make their own decisions.
I know at times I was feeling attacked even though I was primarily on your side. And that's a shame. It appears Zanjan has more patience than I do with you. Good luck on the thread. I've had enough of religion being slagged. I find your attitude to be as bigoted as you claim hers is.

davesdatahut: Taking correct note that a lot of religious people DO support gay marriage and DO have open minds when it comes to fair treatment of ALL....tell me, Near, about a spot in this thread where I have been bigoted. And then tell me about Zanjan's intelligent and compassionate posts regarding gays. Maybe there have been some. But I ain't seen em in a long time - and that long time ago includes a long time when I, and others, here tried reason on the matter of fair treatment of gays. And tried. And tried. And tried. Before losing patience to the point where more combative responses are more appropriate. You don't have to be a fan of what you call public shaming. But sometimes the tail must be pinned on the donkey for all to see.
And to restate, I never said, nor would I ever say, that all religious people are anti-gay or anti- gay marriage. I wouldn't say it cause it wouldn't be true. But a lot of em are, especially those in the organized religious folds. A lot of organized religions breed that festering view. And we have seen those views expressed right here in this thread.
As for dissenting viewers in general, there are others here with views on gays with with I and others disagree. Their comments are usually followed, by me and others, with questions asking them to explain their views. If they don't descend into double-talking, non-responsive gibberish, or don't simply castigate an entire class of people into second-class citizenship with no rhyme or reason, their views will be accorded respect. As noted, there was an extended period when people tried to engage Zanjan in just that sort of back-and-forth.

Zanjan: Near : " Zanjan I'm pro gay marriage and that's the point at which you and I disagree."

Many, many times I've posted in this thread clearly stating that I take NO POSITION on this topic BECAUSE it's a civil issue. I've never said I agree or disagree. NEVER. Yet Everyone is ignoring that and keeps insisting otherwise. It may seem that I oppose some thoughts but that doesn't affect topic neutrality or my affection for others.

As for the quote that Pyro copied/pasted - it wasn't directed to gays but to all who push their personal and emotional issues into others' faces, especially in public and in the crudest manner.

All one has to do is read my posts **for themselves**; they can see I've only offered factual information relating to the subject. When posters asked me questions, I've politely and truthfully responded. It's not me they detest - they hate to hear any facts or truths; reality is what they're riling against.

I agree with you, Near, that the OP of this forum had no aim to flush out common sense, have an intelligent conversation on the matter, or help gays or anyone else for that matter - its just an excuse for certain posters to be abusive to others. I've said all I can say about the subject so no need for me to rehash or return.

pyroclastic flo: oh i see. this thread no longer about Gay folks being afforded the same civil rights as Hetero folks. now it's all about poor "persecuted" zan.

pfffft again! she publicly shames herself w/ her smug compassion free elitist condescension and self aggrandizing moralizing edicts from on high. it never fails to amaze me how reaping what one sows is a concept lost on so many religious folks.

hey near50? maybe, instead of castigating those who assist zan in reaping her arrogant hateful harvest, you could direct your ministrations to zan herself and help her learn how to plant a less odious crop.

davesdatahut: I was gonna say "Pyro, you wanna take this one?" And then you took this one.
Now, not meaning to steal your thunder or nothin', here is my shot at answering the latest shot of Zanjanian love...

So, Zanjan, you contend that you take 'no position' on this matter of equal marital rights for gays under civil law. No position at all. None. This fairly well runs contrary to the entire length, breadth and tone of all you've contributed to this thread. I'd go back and lift out some of the many examples of that, but anyone who has stuck with this thread knows that this assertion by you is an utterly fabricated bit of revisionist history.
But, ok, for shits and giggles, let's go with that. Let's do some suspension of disbelief and accept that you take NO POSITION on equal civil marital rights for gays. None.
What you're saying, therefore, is that it doesn't matter to you one way or another if gays have the same marital rights as straights. None. They could have these rights. They could not have these rights. Whatever. It doesn't pop up on your informed radar screen. That would be the logical interpretation of NO POSITION on this. You don't care. Either way is ok. Yes?
In other words, you don't care if an entire class of law-abiding citizens has the same civil rights as others. It doesn't matter to you.YOU DON'T CARE.
Let's repeat that. YOU DON'T CARE if gays have the same civil rights as others or not. You take "no position" on this.
That speaks so many volumes, there isn't enough space in this thread box to elaborate on it all. But this certainly is worth saying: think for a moment what your response might be if some of us started saying the same shit about women. That we DON'T CARE if women have the same rights as men. It doesn't matter us. We DON'T CARE. They could have the right to vote or the right to work or the right to be something other than mens' property. Or not. We take "no position" on this.
Same thing for the rights of blacks. NO POSITION on this.
You think about that when you keep taking "no position" about who has rights and who doesn't. Because taking "no position" is the same as saying it's ok with you that some people have "no rights."
Unless, of course, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

Corwin: Ummm... if Zanjan has no opinion either way in regards to the topic of this thread...
... then why is she posting in here??

davesdatahut: Because she wants to disseminate facts!
Or, because, maybe, she has an opinion this. Along the way, she will do anything possible to make it sound like she really just loves all kindsa people. A friend of the people!

pyroclastic flo: if zan doesn't care about the topic of the thread why has she been posting on it ad nauseum?

see definition #3

preen (prēn)
v. preened, preen·ing, preens
v.tr.
1.
a. To smooth or clean (feathers) with the beak or bill.
b. To trim or clean (fur) with the tongue, as cats do.
2. To dress or groom (oneself) with elaborate care; primp.
3. To take pride or satisfaction in (oneself); gloat.

The13th: I think it's OK to take no position, the judge who rule for or against gay marriage probably also claim that he took no position but just rule according to the law. And would love to explain why he make such decision.

davesdatahut: Boyz, it was the United States Supreme Court, which indeed did rule according to the law. The court ruled because the law provides equal protection for all citizens. This is not complicated.