Bridgewater State Univ Student, Attacked For Gay Marriage Ed

If I understand your view, the physical attack is the fault of the writer because insults were hurled?

PS, your dishonesty here is remarkable. "Bigot" was not used simply because someone had a differing opinion. It was used because denying others a legal privilege based upon their sexuality is bigotted…almost as bigotted as your argument. While I have almost always disagreed with your arguments, I had believed you reached your conclusions through different interpretations of reality, still with intelligent reasonings. As of late, you've demonstrated hateful and arrogant disdain for anyone with opinions different from your own.

Pointing out the bigotry of your argument is not "name calling", it is accuracy.

Guess who shot down homosexual marriage at the ballot box in California? Minority democrats! So don't assume the attackers are Republicans. And so far we only have one side of the encounter. Maybe the "victim" even hit first.

Ah, the ol' "they did it to themselves to throw off suspicion"....

rofllol

I wondered how many posts it would take before you threw that one in... I had a bet with myself that it would be less than 6...

You never disappoint...

I'm sorry, Mr. PrintSmith, but I can't agree either. If the person had been called a bigot to their face, I could understand passions rising at that moment causing a punch, but to read a story, track down the writer, make sure it is them, then hit them? Isn't that pre-meditation? Shouldn't they be in better controll of themselves to not let a story get them that upset?

plaidvillain wrote: PS, your dishonesty here is remarkable. "Bigot" was not used simply because someone had a differing opinion. It was used because denying others a legal privilege based upon their sexuality is bigotted…almost as bigotted as your argument. While I have almost always disagreed with your arguments, I had believed you reached your conclusions through different interpretations of reality, still with intelligent reasonings. As of late, you've demonstrated hateful and arrogant disdain for anyone with opinions different from your own.

Pointing out the bigotry of your argument is not "name calling", it is accuracy.

Guess what PV - I've been a consistent advocate for having marriage taken out of the hands of any government agency entirely. Marriage, from the government's perspective, is a legal situation, a contract between two individuals that is recognized by the government authority. Ask me to support calling every such arrangement a civil union and leave the term marriage in the spiritual realm where it originated and where it belongs and I'll stand right beside you. Try to tell me the general government has the power and authority to decide what marriage is and who is entitled to participate and I'll fight you tooth and nail.

I see absolutely no reason to deny 2 homosexuals the same legal status as 2 heterosexuals - but I do see a reason why the term marriage should not be applicable and civil union, which is what all of them are from the State perspective are anyway you look at it. I would go further, since it is inevitable that it will anyway, and say that the general government has no more authority to decide the legal status for 3 or more people than it does to decide it for 2 of them. I will go a step beyond that and say that the federal government wasn't granted the power to define what marriage is or is not and that this sovereign power is one of the ones reserved to the States and their citizens to decide for themselves. What the general government's courts have to say on the matter regarding the decision of California and her citizens is no more binding upon them than a decision by those same federal courts would be upon the decisions of Canada or Mexico would or should be.

I'll go a step beyond that and say that if Utah wants to make the LDS church the official state church of Utah it has the sovereign authority to do precisely that at any time it chooses to do so. If California wants to designate Wicca as the official state religion of California it can do that too. The States are sovereign entities - the general government is not. The general government is an administrator of the sovereignty that belongs to the States which has been delegated to it. That which has been delegated is subject to being revoked by the entity which possess what was delegated. The citizens of California retain the right to alter their current form of government and to institute within their State a government laid on a foundation which they believe will be most likely to bring about their safety and happiness. California is sovereign in this area, as is Massachusetts, New York, Vermont and every other State in this union of ours. Neither you nor I has any more interest in how California decides this matter than we do how Mexico decides it - both are foreign governments to the one that exists in Colorado. We both, as citizens of Colorado, have an interest in how Colorado decides this matter, but that is as far as our interest in the matter goes. If you want a say in how California decides the matter, become a citizen of California.

The sooner we start paying attention to our own matters instead of everyone else's, the better off we all will be, the happier we all will be. Nothing good ever comes of poking your nose into other people's business - only trouble.

Moonchild wrote: I'm sorry, Mr. PrintSmith, but I can't agree either. If the person had been called a bigot to their face, I could understand passions rising at that moment causing a punch, but to read a story, track down the writer, make sure it is them, then hit them? Isn't that pre-meditation? Shouldn't they be in better controll of themselves to not let a story get them that upset?

Pardon my removal of the color - it is a bit difficult to read.

Would you feel the same if a person of African descent did the same with someone who had written that all such people were "N's"? Shouldn't they also be in better control of themselves and not let a simple written word get them that upset?

Do we know with certitude, hearing only one side of the story thus far, that there was not more to the discussion prior to the punch being thrown? If one is willing to call someone else a bigot in writing, would you then not also think them capable of repeating the slur in person during a verbal exchange with a person whom they viewed as a bigot who confronted them regarding their written view? There is a proverb, the origins of which I am not familiar that goes something along the lines of there being 3 sides to every story - yours, mine and the cold hard truth. Are you certain you have heard the cold hard truth of what happened at this point Moonchild?

Nothing in the article says it was conservatives who hit her. Like I said, intolerance of homosexuality isn't a red state/blue state issue. California voters, a liberal state, denied homosexual marriage.

Even Obama has said he is against homosexual marriage, as is Clinton.

Interesting, PS, that you make comments about staying out of other folks' business, but support a party and ideology that is all about controlling others and telling them which decisions they may or may not make themselves. Conservatives say they support personal freedom and liberty, but want to control who you can marry, when you can divorce...based upon theie personal religious mythology. Then, when someone points out their bigotry, they feign victimhood! What's the matter, PS? Don't want anyone to oppress your ability to oppress others? "Hypocrite" seems quite appropriate here. So does that give you justifiable excuse to assault me?

Your analogy to the use of the "N" word is erroneous logic, and stinks. You really think pointing out bigotry is somehow equated to the oppression and pain associated with that word?

plaidvillain wrote: Interesting, PS, that you make comments about staying out of other folks' business, but support a party and ideology that is all about controlling others and telling them which decisions they may or may not make themselves. Conservatives say they support personal freedom and liberty, but want to control who you can marry, when you can divorce...based upon theie personal religious mythology. Then, when someone points out their bigotry, they feign victimhood! What's the matter, PS? Don't want anyone to oppress your ability to oppress others? "Hypocrite" seems quite appropriate here. So does that give you justifiable excuse to assault me?

Your analogy to the use of the "N" word is erroneous logic, and stinks. You really think pointing out bigotry is somehow equated to the oppression and pain associated with that word?

Where in the platform of the Democrat Party does it support national homosexual marriage?