Player gets booed for upholding personal convictions

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 03:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I agree. Now show me where she said gays should not have equal rights

I posted what she wrote on the day same sex marriage was made legal.

Then I asked how many Christian here would be honest.

Anyone who read what she wrote and still claims she opposes same sex marriage is not being honest.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-12-2018, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I posted what she wrote on the day same sex marriage was made legal.

Then I asked how many Christian here would be honest.

Anyone who read what she wrote and still claims she opposes same sex marriage is not being honest.

Opposing gay marriage does not mean claiming you want gays to not have equal rights IF you think gay marriage is a special right.  You don't think so, neither do I. But you can't just discount that argument because you don't agree with it.

So, unless you can show she actually said she doesn't believe gays should have equal rights, you need to stop saying she says she doesn't think gays should have equal rights.

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 03:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: All I know is Christians spent millions of dollars fighting against giving homosexuals special rights.

See, I can do it too.

Same sex marriage is not a "special right" it applies to everyone equally.

Limiting marriage to only heterosexuals is discriminatory because the right to marry the person you love is limited to heterosexuals only.  It denies equal rights to homosexuals.

Like I said, "equal rights" has a definition.  Your subjective beliefs can not change that.  And a law that applies to everyone equally is an "equal right" not a "special right".

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 03:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Opposing gay marriage does not mean claiming you want gays to not have equal rights IF you think gay marriage is a special right.  You don't think so, neither do I. But you can't just discount that argument because you don't agree with it.

Yes I can.

"Equal rights" has a definition that is not changed by subjective beliefs.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-12-2018, 03:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Same sex marriage is not a "special right" it applies to everyone equally.

Limiting marriage to only heterosexuals is discriminatory because the right to marry the person you love is limited to heterosexuals only.  It denies equal rights to homosexuals.

Like I said, "equal rights" has a definition.  Your subjective beliefs can not change that.  And a law that applies to everyone equally is an "equal right" not a "special right".

(06-12-2018, 03:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I can.

"Equal rights" has a definition that is not changed by subjective beliefs.

You know what else has a definition? The word "said". You keep using it subjectively when it comes to her words. Why can't she use "equal rights" subjectively?

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 03:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You know what else has a definition? The word "said". You keep using it subjectively when it comes to her words. Why can't she use "equal rights" subjectively?

Okay.  I will change the word to "implied".  And anyone who reads he comments and responds honestly will agree that she opposes same sex marriage.

She can not use "equal rights" subjectively because it has a definition.  While homosexuals were denied the right to get married to each other there were not "equal rights" for them.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-12-2018, 04:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay.  I will change the word to "implied".  And anyone who reads he comments and responds honestly will agree that she opposes same sex marriage.

'Implied' is still the wrong word. It suggests a concerted effort on her part to make that implication. As you are the only one who has come to the conclusion that that's the message she's REALLY trying to convey, 'imply' would be just as bad as 'said'. I think the only acceptable way to put it is that you are INFERRING this specific message. 

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 04:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: As you are the only one who has come to the conclusion that that's the message she's REALLY trying to convey, 'imply' would be just as bad as 'said'.

I am not the only person who came to this conclusion.  After the comments were posted hundreds of people came to the exact same conclusion I did, made comments about her position, and she never said any of them were wrong.

Most people here who read he comments agree with me.

Anyone who reads those comments and does not think she opposes same marriage is just blatantly lying to himself.  Her meaning could not be more clear.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-12-2018, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not the only person who came to this conclusion.  After the comments were posted hundreds of people came to the exact same conclusion I did, made comments about her position, and she never said any of them were wrong.

Most people here who read he comments agree with me.

Anyone who reads those comments and does not think she opposes same marriage is just blatantly lying to himself.  Her meaning could not be more clear.

I'm not talking about the message of opposing gay marriage. I'm talking about the message of being against equal rights for gays. She has not said that nor implied that she is against equal rights for gays. 

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 04:29 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm not talking about the message of opposing gay marriage. I'm talking about the message of being against equal rights for gays. She has not said that nor implied that she is against equal rights for gays. 

If she is against same sex marriage then she is against equal rights for gays.

When gays could not get married to each other it was because they did not have equal rights.

That is like saying that blacks had equal rights under Jim Crow because they were allowed to go to any business ran by their own race "just like everyone else".

[*PhilHos*]

(06-12-2018, 04:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If she is against same sex marriage then she is against equal rights for gays.

Not necessarily.

[Griever]

(06-12-2018, 03:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I agree. Now show me where she said gays should not have equal rights or that they should be put to death for their lifestyle.


I don't know if she thinks she would go to hell for wearing something that supports gay pride, but it has become quite common now in America that by just displaying something means you are promoting it - think of the 10 Commandments on a courthouse or a nativity scene in a public square or Christmas carols being sung at school. We've been told for quite a few years now that by allowing these things is the same as promoting them to the exclusion of other religions or religious iconography. I don't see a difference in thinking by wearing a Gay Pride shirt that one is promoting it.

With that said, I agree that people shouldn't be so weak as to allow the wearing of a shirt or the display of the 10 Commandments to affect how or what they believe.

All I know is Christians spent millions of dollars fighting against giving homosexuals special rights.

See, I can do it too.

well why else would a government building want to display the 10 commandments if they didnt support it?

granted they arent and shouldnt be allowed to do it, which should be common sense as to why they arent allowed in the first palce




its sad that you think equal rights are special....I guess that does explain some things

[*PhilHos*]

(06-13-2018, 09:15 AM)Griever Wrote: well why else would a government building want to display the 10 commandments if they didnt support it?

Am i right to assume that you're a fan of the NFL? As a fan, you would say you support it in some fashion, yes? By your logic, then, I can also assume you do NOT support the NBA, NHL, MLB, or any other professional sporting league.

The government in America is supposed to a be a goverment OF the people. If there are Christians, there should be no issue in having their iconography on display. Likewise, if there are Jews or Muslims or Hindus or members of any other recognized religion, then their iconography should be allowed to be on display. The argument should be of INCLUSIVENESS not exclusiveness.

Lastly, if allowing the 10 Commandments is a "promotion" of said religion to the exclusion of all others, then wouldn't the outright banning of them also be considered the prohibition of said religion?

(06-13-2018, 09:15 AM)Griever Wrote: its sad that you think equal rights are special....I guess that does explain some things

Looks like you need your reading comprehension checked. I never said that I think equal rights are special rights. I only pointed out how many have made that argument.

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 03:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Lastly, if allowing the 10 Commandments is a "promotion" of said religion to the exclusion of all others, then wouldn't the outright banning of them also be considered the prohibition of said religion?

No. Promotion and prohibition are not opposites in that way. This is a logically invalid argument.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-13-2018, 03:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. Promotion and prohibition are not opposites in that way. This is a logically invalid argument.

How do you figure? If putting up a sign that says "Gays Allowed" is a promotion of the homosexual community, then wouldn't you agree that the prohibition of putting up a sign then be considered to be an exclusion of gays?

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2018, 03:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Am i right to assume that you're a fan of the NFL? As a fan, you would say you support it in some fashion, yes? By your logic, then, I can also assume you do NOT support the NBA, NHL, MLB, or any other professional sporting league.

If the first two rules of the NFL were  "1. I am the professional sports league.  2.  There are no other professional sports leagues" Then you might have some sort of argument.  Otherwise this is just silly

(06-13-2018, 03:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The government in America is supposed to a be a goverment OF the people. If there are Christians, there should be no issue in having their iconography on display. Likewise, if there are Jews or Muslims or Hindus or members of any other recognized religion, then their iconography should be allowed to be on display. The argument should be of INCLUSIVENESS not exclusiveness.

You can't include them all because they contradict each other.  It is impossible to have any consistent rules based on religion because they all have different rules.  So since you can't support all of them you treat them all equally and don't support any of them.

Also Christians would shit twice and die if they started posting Muslim, Wican, and Satanic iconography in every classroom.

(06-13-2018, 03:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Lastly, if allowing the 10 Commandments is a "promotion" of said religion to the exclusion of all others, then wouldn't the outright banning of them also be considered the prohibition of said religion?

Yes.  All religion is supposed to be banned from our government.  Everyone is free to worship however they want on private property, but government buildings should be free of anything that promotes any religion.

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2018, 04:17 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How do you figure? If putting up a sign that says "Gays Allowed" is a promotion of the homosexual community, then wouldn't you agree that the prohibition of putting up a sign then be considered to be an exclusion of gays?

Who is prohibiting anyone from putting up a sign that says "gays allowed"?  Or are you talking about a sign that says "gays only allowed"?

And what government building has a sign that says "gays allowed"?

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 04:17 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How do you figure? If putting up a sign that says "Gays Allowed" is a promotion of the homosexual community, then wouldn't you agree that the prohibition of putting up a sign then be considered to be an exclusion of gays?

No. I would consider a prohibition of putting up such a sign to be a prohibition of putting up the sign. Prohibiting the sign does not prohibit the activity the sign promoted. Applied to your original argument, prohibiting the erection of the Ten Commandments on public property is merely the prohibition of erecting them on public property. It is not a prohibition of the religion(s) which they are perceived as promoting.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-13-2018, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the first two rules of the NFL were  "1. I am the professional sports league.  2.  There are no other professional sports leagues" Then you might have some sort of argument.  Otherwise this is just silly

False, but leave it up to fred to knock the strawmen down!

(06-13-2018, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't include them all because they contradict each other. 

So? The government contradicts itself all the time. Why should they care NOW about contradiction? The fact is that we are a nation made up of people from varying religions. The government should be SUPPORTIVE of ALL the religons; not banning them all because some weakminded atheists are incapable of seeing religious symbols lest they become accidentally converted.

(06-13-2018, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is impossible to have any consistent rules based on religion because they all have different rules.  

It's impossible to have a rule that says if the religion is recognized by the government then their religious iconography can be displayed for a specific reason (i.e. it's a holiday)? I'm not arguing that people need to FOLLOW the religions, but there should be no reason to deny a Nativity at Christmas time or to display a menorrah at Hannukah or to display whatever you would display during Ramadan, etc. 

(06-13-2018, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So since you can't support all of them you treat them all equally and don't support any of them.

You CAN support all of them.

(06-13-2018, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Also Christians would shit twice and die if they started posting Muslim, Wican, and Satanic iconography in every classroom.

I'm sure many would. So what? Why is THIS the time that you care what Christains think?

(06-13-2018, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  All religion is supposed to be banned from our government. 

No it's not. Religoin is not to be forced upon the citizenry, true, but religion was not supposed to be banned from the government. 

(06-13-2018, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone is free to worship however they want on private property, but government buildings should be free of anything that promotes any religion.

This is gotten far off track from the message I was trying to convey; my original point was intended to argue that supporting one does not mean you cannot support others. Allowing the display of a Nativity scene should not automatically mean the promotion of Christianity unless a menorrah or some other non-Christian religious symbol is expressly forbid.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-13-2018, 04:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who is prohibiting anyone from putting up a sign that says "gays allowed"?  Or are you talking about a sign that says "gays only allowed"?

And what government building has a sign that says "gays allowed"?

It's called a hypothetical situation.