US Supreme Court rules gay marriage is legal nationwide

[FlyingJesus]

Bigotry is a refusal to accept fact in preference to dogma or blind ignorance (to use the British terminology as opposed to the Americanism which just means a prejudice)

And no, arguing that something that affects a huge amount of civil liberties is a small matter that shouldn't be protected by a national government, and that banning gay marriage isn't discrimination because you can just "choose" to act straight (while pretending that this would in some way preserve the sanctity of marriage...) is what's hateful and offensive. It's your poor reasoning in this and pretty much all matters that makes you look stupid, not necessarily the conclusions you draw from them

[Kyle]

Let's all post the same thing and offend nobody and everything will be perfect.

don't be such a gaylord.

[dbgtz]

Bigotry is a refusal to accept fact in preference to dogma or blind ignorance (to use the British terminology as opposed to the Americanism which just means a prejudice)

And no, arguing that something that affects a huge amount of civil liberties is a small matter that shouldn't be protected by a national government, and that banning gay marriage isn't discrimination because you can just "choose" to act straight (while pretending that this would in some way preserve the sanctity of marriage...) is what's hateful and offensive. It's your poor reasoning in this and pretty much all matters that makes you look stupid, not necessarily the conclusions you draw from them

Oxford dictionary... "Americanism". Please stop trying to redefine the word or at least give me a source which defines the word in such a way.

In the first sentence of the 2nd uh "paragraph", I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you saying federal government should get involved in this? If so, that's merely your preference for a powerful federal government, whereas he sees the power should be in individual states hands. That in itself has nothing to do with his stance on gay marriage, merely letting it be decided on a more local level. It may be offensive to some (though perhaps not to others, I'm not really in a position to judge) but you don't care if he gets offended so why should he care vice versa? That still doesn't make him a bigot. It's debatable if it's hateful, but I won't get into that since I didn't make the statement nor do I care enough about gay marriage as a whole. To no surprise either, you resort to insults to help make your own argument appear more valid.

[The Don]

Oxford dictionary... "Americanism". Please stop trying to redefine the word or at least give me a source which defines the word in such a way.

"The concept of Bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[1][2]

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[3][4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

[dbgtz]

"The concept of Bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[1][2]

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[3][4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

[1] links to the Oxford dictionary where I got my source and mentions nothing of what was said prior to it. [2] is a slightly definition, yes, but still not like what FJ said (and is actually still different to what it was meant to be a source to).

[The Don]

[1] links to the Oxford dictionary where I got my source and mentions nothing of what was said prior to it. [2] is a slightly definition, yes, but still not like what FJ said (and is actually still different to what it was meant to be a source to).

The second link is to the Cambridge definition which is pretty much what fj said http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict.../british/bigot
don't really want to get into a big debate over semantics anyway, just pointing out that he isn't trying to redefine the word.

[dbgtz]

The second link is to the Cambridge definition which is pretty much what fj said http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict.../british/bigot
don't really want to get into a big debate over semantics anyway, just pointing out that he isn't trying to redefine the word.

It lacks the keyword "fact".

Lmao I like how off topic this got but OK

[FlyingJesus]

In the first sentence of the 2nd uh "paragraph", I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Then try reading it. The words are right there, it's a response to Dan's post where he as usual made up an argument to attribute to me that I hadn't made at all, and there's really no way to explain it further other than repeating myself

[October]

Absurd that federal authorities are getting involved in the issue of marriage. It's a state matter, if that.

Almost every other country that has legalized gay marriage has done so on a federal level.

It evidently does in some states hence why it has lost nearly every public vote it's been put to. I do understand what you mean though, but then again that's just another reason for a unitary state and sovereign parliamentary system like our own rather than a federal system with a constitution like the United States.

In the US, we often have voted to legalize it at a state level, but then judges ban it again.

- - - Updated - - -

You and others would be surprised to know I am actually kind of in favour of gay marriage nowadays, the reasoning being that as gay people have children it's best for children to have parents who are in a stable marriage. One can hold such a view, but be against unconstitutional means to pass legislation.

And i'm also doing my job as Debates Leader in provoking discussion so instead of a boring thead of "woo how great xx" x10 we've had an interesting discussion on both gay marriage itself as well as the American constitutional system and states rights. So chill out and remember it's a forum: to discuss stuff.

This isn't in debates, though, so it was kind of unnecessary imo. And if that is the only reason you're in favor of gay marriage then I'd hate to say it but you really aren't.

[dbgtz]

Then try reading it. The words are right there, it's a response to Dan's post where he as usual made up an argument to attribute to me that I hadn't made at all, and there's really no way to explain it further other than repeating myself

Reread, understood, my initial response is still mostly valid.