How can you not when you see idiots trying to defend bigotry?

Are you guys still arguing on this pic?

@DasHiveMind  
Again, this is just a hypocritical double standard of yours. You set arbitrary rules governing when it is and when it isn’t okay to say something harsh, and on top of everything else you readily embrace open hatred of others, even though you condemn people for the mere possibility that they feel that way about your group of interest.
 
I am obviously not always the nicest of people myself, but I’ll make no attempt to justify that fact. It’s a lofty virtue to be able to speak out against whatever is evil in the world, but shoulder hatred for no one.
 
As for the Bible, we could get into that, but I doubt it would be a productive conversation. Suffice it to say that while it describes many things from the perspective of a historical narrative, it does not condone everthing that occurs in that narrative.
 
Getting back to the issue of marriage itself, you don’t seem to realize the political nature of this disagreement. If the majority of people want to sanction state-recognized gay marriage, then that’s what will happen. If they don’t recognize “gay marriage” as even being the real thing, why would they vote as if they did? A representative government is there to do the will of the people, so if you want anyone to side with you, maybe telling them that you hate them all isn’t the best way to pull it off.
 
Lastly, I wasn’t directly accusing you of doing the same thing as those other two, I was simply making a point.

@Millennial Dan  
>No name calling  
I’m not insulting them for insulting me, I open accept the idea you can have intellectual debates without respecting the other side. I don’t hate my opponent for hating me, I hate them for denying gays the same rights that they have.  
Fuck one of the smartest debaters I know is a asshole to just about anyone who disagrees with him, doesn’t change the fact he’s usually right and backs up everything he says with facts.
 
>Definition  
And why not? Modern day marriage isn’t a copy of what the bible says, which had A LOT of other types of marriages (Husband & Wife, Husband & wife & husbands concubines, Husband and female prisoner of war, Husband & wife & females slaves, rapist & rape victim). Seriously, letting gay marries hurt whom exactly? If everyone in a group consents to the marriage, just let them marry, their right to happiness outweighs some peoples imaginary right to not be offended.
 
>others said that  
So why tell me off for that? I’m not somehow responsible for what everyone who agrees with me on a single subject says.

@DasHiveMind  
@Ra1nbowCrasH  
>they’re not mutually exclusive you know
 
You call people names and insult them in all sorts of ways, and then hypocritically call them out for giving any of that back, self-righteously declare that it’s okay for you, but not for them. How absurd.
 
>several people  
>that’s my definition
 
Suffice it to say, I have a huge problem with that. You think one way, and other people think differently. Marriage was not invented by you, so maybe it’s just a tad presumptuous of you to redefine it on your terms.
 
>And I’m not the one talking about who is and who isn’t a brony
 
I was of course referring to these guys.

@DasHiveMind  
In fact, a lot of times it’s mutually inclusive.

@Millennial Dan  
The gays should have the right to marry who they love, because heterosexuals can. I’m not demanding unlimited rights for everyone.
 
Marriage is a Union between several people who love each other, that’s my definition, and lettting gays marry or whoever the fuck wants to will no way hurt people who married already. And I’m not the one talking about who is and who sin’t a brony, I called 5725 an asshole, not a “fake brony”
 
Have you read these comments? I have been arguing with logic, the fact I’m also calling my opponents bigots and jackasses does not somehow remove the fact that I have been arguing via logos.
 
I can logically argue against my opponent and still call my opponent an fuck’tard, they’re not mutually exclusive you know.

@DasHiveMind
 
What are you babbling about? What rights? Does everyone possess the right to have whatever they want? Of course not. There are certain things denied to you, me, and everyone else alive. Your position has no foundation, and your boasted hatred is itself detestable.
 
What is marriage? Who defines it? What does this have to do with the state? What are the practical consequences of all arrangements? This parade isn’t really about civil rights, whatever your acidic friends and yourself may say. It’s a complex situation that warrants discussion and debate, WITHOUT the idiotic ravings of people who have gotten their emotions up into a childish fervor saying who deserves to be a fan of MLP, of all things.
 
MLK Jr. himself never advocated such garbage. If you’re right, you should be able to plead your position intelligently, not allowing your admitted state of heightened emotion to dictate your statements.

@Millennial Dan  
Calling people out on whining about not being able to oppress others rights is the same as whining about said lack of right to oppress?
 
Yes, I hate people who actively vote against Gay Marriage, I think it is a terrible action and worsens the character of anyone who does so, because you know, oppressing the rights of others because they don’t like them is a quality that is looked down on.

@DasHiveMind  
Yeah, but the supporters of gay marriage in this thread have been entirely neutral and honorable, right? For having what amounts to a differing political opinion, many here have resolved to be quite comfortable in doing nothing but hurl nonstop insults.

Awh reading through this thread.  
Good ol 5725, somehow always drawing the lines of who should and shouldn’t get married at gays despite his reasons for not including them also disclude several straight people as well, and calling others bigots for not agreeing with him.

@Millennial Dan  
That’s cute, but homophobes are despicable people.

@Millennial Dan  
Nice insult

@Background Pony #2536  
Like yourself, for example.

@GenkiMan  
Agreed. For a show about friendship and tolerance, there sure are a lot of dumb bigots here.

@GenkiMan  
Sure, that makes total sense. And you know what else, I nominate you to be official doorkeeper to this fandom.

Some people shouldn’t be allowed to be bronies/pegasisters.

such thread
 
@Carcer such comment

I think I agree that this is the closest we will ever get to a solution that satisfies the largest number of people. Still, government must have strict and discerning criteria for adoption; but that, I believe, should primarily be left to local authorities to sort out.

@Background Pony #E717  
The entire concept of marriage is “made-up” in the first place in that it is an invention of human beings and it has been exceptionally inconsistent throughout human history, so to argue against any particular definition as being “modern” or “made-up” is ridiculous. Blind resistance to new things and changes does not help society. Don’t perpetuate it.
 
At any rate, from a secular civil perspective there should be no differentiation between same-sex unions and heterosexual unions. To enforce a distinction - marriage is for straight couples, civil unions are for gays - is to suggest that the commitment to each other made by the individuals involved is somehow fundamentally different and requires a different categorisation, which is not a stance that should be taken by secular authority. If a given religion wants that its definition of marriage should strictly apply to the union of a man and a woman, that’s their prerogative. The government, on the other hand, should treat any union between two people in exactly the same way, and as long as they’re officially calling heterosexual unions “marriage” they should be calling homosexual unions marriage as well. As long as marriage exists as a civil institution, it should be available to any two people regardless of their gender and orientation. The religious institution of marriage is a matter of preference for specific religions. If civil unions are going to exist as a separate thing for whatever reason, they should likewise be available to individuals of any orientation.
 
Personally I figure things would be much easier if the government and secular authority would just stick to recognising civil unions of any form and let the term “marriage” be a matter of personal definition rather than a state-sanctioned concept. What any given church or religious organisation thinks marriage ought to be should not inform state recognition of civil partnership.

@Carcer  
What is the big damn hustle for striving for full-time recognition for gay marriage in the US?? Its not like the Earth is going to die if its not. Gays and lesbians should let go of the modern made-up concept of same sex marriage. Be happy with civil unions.

@Carcer  
Hey…

I do not have the tolerance to read this entire thread, but there’s nothing wrong with gay marriage, appeals to any sort of natural behaviour when it comes to the constructs of human society are laughable, the definition and purpose of marriage itself has been highly variable throughout human history and across regions (and so appeals that “but marriage is for X!” are similarly ridiculous) and people of any gender and sexual orientation deserve the same right to have their commitment to each other officially recognised and respected as traditional heterosexual couples. That’s the end of that.
 
I wish we had deleted this a year ago but oh well

@Background Pony #5725  
You’ve already ignored all the evidence against you (which is a lot more plentiful than that on your side) on raising kids.