Brethren gathering BYU force to help with Prop 8 ...

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I was simply registering my surprise that an apparently intelligent person like rcrocket would give so much money to such a wrong cause.

In your opinion.

Agreed.

But I am starting to see that anyone who disagree with you is either stupid,bigoted or dishonest.

Not at all.

Ah the poisoning of the well homophobe. How about you take Bob's good arguments and show is why they are homophobic. Maybe you are an antigayaphobe.

Bob's arguments were not "good"; rather, all seemed to stem from homophobia (other than those that stem from simply doing as told by the Brethren).

What reasons? I did not given any? How can you compare nothing to something. I simply stated that some of the arguments have validity.

And I was simply pointing out that your reasoning was also used to fight against interracial marriage.

Good people of honest hearts can have fine reasons for opposing this and not be bigoted.

I disagree. I will not excuse what essentially boils down to homophobia, just as I won't give a pass to racists and sexists, no matter how "good-hearted" they are/were. Let's call a spade a spade, Jason.

But I am not ok with you calling people that do have honest and good reasons that differ from little old you homophobes. This seems to be your best argument. Name calling.

I haven't seen any "honest and good reasons" for treating homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. Period. Folks can differ from me all they want, but I will call it as I see it. Those who wish to change a constitution for the sole purpose to discriminate against an entire segment of society are bigots, no more and no less ... in my humble opinion, of course.

[_asbestosman]

I see just as much unmovable posturing by those who are for gay marriage. Look at Rollo. There is NO good argument that those opposed to it can make. They are simply bigots in his mind.

Mighty Curelom made an interesting case. He said that even though it's just a fight for a two syllable word (we're already willing to give homosexuals the same rights in civil unions), it's something that they want and there's really no compelling reason to deny it to them (since we're already give them the same rights under a different word).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Personal slams are virtually all I get from certain people here -- Rollo Tomasi ... very much among them.

Thanks for illustrating perfectly the 'pot calling the kettle black' principle.

[_Daniel Peterson]

bigots, no more and no less

QED.

Civil discussion with such a person is effectively impossible. Well-poisoning at its most blatant.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I see just as much unmovable posturing by those who are for gay marriage. Look at Rollo. There is NO good argument that those opposed to it can make. They are simply bigots in his mind.

True. Just like "NO good argument" ever supported the priesthood ban, interracial marriage, etc. Some things are just wrong, and no excuse will change it.

[_rcrocket]

Folks can differ from me all they want, but I will call it as I see it. Those who wish to change a constitution for the sole purpose to discriminate against an entire segment of society are bigots, no more and no less ... in my humble opinion, of course.

The interesting thing about your argument, however, is that you combine not only the insult of being a homophobe with other personal insults -- my ability to practice law, for instance. ("And you call yourself a lawyer.") Name-calling and personal insults? Why is that necessary?

Oddly, I don't remember you stooping to such a couple of years ago.

True. Just like "NO good argument" ever supported the priesthood ban, interracial marriage, etc. Some things are just wrong, and no excuse will change it.

How are these related to the Prop 8 argument?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

bigots, no more and no less

QED.

Civil discussion with such a person is effectively impossible. Well-poisoning at its most blatant.

I call 'em like I see 'em, big guy.

[_asbestosman]

Those who wish to change a constitution for the sole purpose to discriminate against an entire segment of society are bigots, no more and no less ... in my humble opinion, of course.

Would it be ok to change a constitution to discriminate against bigots--in your humble opinion?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I call 'em like I see 'em, big guy.

So do bigots, little fellow.

[_Brackite]

It is a fine analogy and many who are opposed to day marriage have good reasons even if you or Rollo disagree and those reasons do not make them homophobes.

I disagree. People who insist on having their wedding ceremonies at night have no valid reason to push their views on others who may wish to get married during the day.

Dear Dr. Shades,

I do think and believe that Jason Bourne really meant to state gay marriage[s] instead of day marriage[s]. :)

Take Care!