guy and friends ruin confederate facebook group

[Ipquarx]

Do you know what discrimination is? It means "to make a distinction." Again, these are the general definitions we're talking about here.

[Ad Bot]

[Frequency]

"loveism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of love. (not on the basis of who you have love with)"

show's over

[Col. Derontchi]

Do you know what discrimination is? It means "to make a distinction." Again, these are the general definitions we're talking about here.

Again, that implies that it is a distinction from the other love.

[Ipquarx]

Again, that implies that it is a distinction from the other love.

It implies that the distinction made between being able to marry and not being able to marry is based on love.

"loveism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of love. (not on the basis of who you have love with)"

show's over

If you want to hold firmly that definition and that definition only, sure, show's over. I concede.

[Frequency]

If you want to hold firmly that definition and that definition only, sure, show's over. I concede.

because that's the only definition you aspie lmao

[Ipquarx]

because that's the only definition you aspie lmao

Well no, it's not. Every dictionary I've seen has a slightly different definition of it.
Merriam webster has 3 definitions: "unfair treatment of people because of their love"
"prejudice or discrimination based on love" (The one I used)
"behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on love"

Dictionary.com has 3 definitions:
"attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles."
"discrimination or devaluation based on a person's love or gender"
"ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women"

thefreedictionary.com has 2 definitions:
"Discrimination based on gender"
"The belief that one gender is superior to the other"

etc.

[Frequency]

yes there are many ways to say the same thing what's your point lol

[Col. Derontchi]

It implies that the distinction made between being able to marry and not being able to marry is based on love.

They are allowed to marry, just not someone of the same love.

[Ipquarx]

yes there are many ways to say the same thing what's your point lol

They are allowed to marry, just not someone of the same love.

yes, based on the love of their significant other, a distinction is made of whether or not they can marry. That is discrimination, based on love. Which fits into 2 different definitions of loveism. If you want to only allow one definition such as "The belief that one gender is superior to the other" for which this doesn't fit, then no, it's not loveism. That's my point.

[Frequency]

That is discrimination, based on love.

that is discrimination based on loveUALITY. they're not discriminating them because they're a man or a woman, they're discriminating because they are having a same-love relationship which is almost EXCLUSIVELY based on loveuality, not their love

i don't see how you're not getting this

[Swat 3]

That's family values, which is a form of loveism.

going to throw my two cents, and say that family values =/= kind of loveism.

family values: fear of gays

not loveism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of love.
what.

like seriously love =/= loveuality.

i mean like i wholeheartedly do not agree with col. or the righteous bible thumpers of lego forum land but you always seem to be the one going around aiding the derailing of a thread along with planr.

[Ipquarx]

that is discrimination based on loveUALITY. they're not discriminating them because they're a man or a woman, they're discriminating because they are having a same-love relationship which is almost EXCLUSIVELY based on loveuality, not their love

i don't see how you're not getting this

Except I've already established that loveuality has no role in the decision. They can be homoloveual, aloveual, anything. They're not allowed to marry regardless of loveuality, regardless of whether or not the majority are homoloveual or not.

going to throw my two cents, and say that family values =/= kind of loveism.

family values: fear of gays

not loveism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of love.
what.

like seriously love =/= loveuality.

i mean like i wholeheartedly do not agree with col. or the righteous bible thumpers of lego forum land but you always seem to be the one going around aiding the derailing of a thread along with planr.

Fine, I see I'm not going to be changing any minds here. I've made my point(s) perfectly clear, so I'll stop now.

[Frequency]

loveuality has no role in the decision. They're not allowed to marry regardless of loveuality, regardless of whether or not the majority are homoloveual or not.

this is hilarious

[MoltenKitten]

No ip your point was never clear, it physically made my brain hurt

[Col. Derontchi]

now how about that separation of church and state