Support NeoGAF

[Pollux]

Of course it would be completely impractical. That's not the point. The point is that generally the folks claiming the purpose of marriage is children never even think about these other examples. Their reasoning is entirely constructed to support their dislike of gay marriage; thus, a rationalization.

As you said it is completely impractical, and if their view is that marriage is for children, then one wouldn't know that a couple might be infertile prior to the marriage and the attempt to have children. While they could say that they know that two men and two women can't have children. Would that really be a rationalization though? Wouldn't that just be consistent with their world view, does it have to be bigoted?

 

[AnathemicOne]

How do you determine if an individual is sterile prior to getting married and attempting to have children?

Okay, what the hell are you arguing? Ever heard of going to the doctor and finding out?

Edit: are you on some personal quest to prove that bigotry is nonexistant because that's too idealistic to the chaos of actual reality.

 

[Pollux]

Okay, what the hell are you arguing? Ever heard of going to the doctor and finding out?

But in the world where someone is arguing that the purpose of marriage is children, and then as Jintor, Cyan, and Sutton Dagger pointed out sterile couples would also be unable to have children. So the question is, would you then, in order to maintain a the argument that you weren't a bigot, be compelled to require mandatory testing for sterility prior to marriage?

Edit: are you on some personal quest to prove that bigotry is nonexistant because that's too idealistic to the chaos of actual reality.

I never said bigotry is nonexistent, I'm just finding it hard to believe that every single person, all 100% of them, who oppose gay marriage are doing it because their bigots. Uneducated? Yes. Having a completely different definition as to the purpose of marriage? Maybe. "Trying to think of the children"? It's a possibility. But just because they're idiots, does that make them a bigot?

well if they lost their tesitcles to cancer it wont stop them from being able to get married to the opposite sex now would it?

In our world, no. And in our world gays should be allowed to get married. But in the hypothetical persons worldview of the marriage=children mindset? Maybe, probably.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

How do you determine if an individual is sterile prior to getting married and attempting to have children?

well if they lost their tesitcles to cancer it wont stop them from being able to get married to the opposite sex now would it?

 

[RDreamer]

Of course it would be completely impractical. That's not the point. The point is that generally the folks claiming the purpose of marriage is children never even think about these other examples. Their reasoning is entirely constructed to support their dislike of gay marriage; thus, a rationalization.

I think generally the people who view it this way view it in a sort of vague way. God created man and woman to be joined together, and the purpose in a general way is to create children. On a micro scale maybe some people cannot conceive for some reason, but they're still that general "man" and general "woman" that God created to work together in that way.

You guys do also have to remember that these people don't believe it's just two people getting married. A lot of people believe it's two people and God. It's not two people in the bed that night, either, consummating the marriage. It's God and two people. God is a key ingredient to them. That's why it's a sacrament to many. God blesses the act on a macro scale (he created man and woman to be together) and on the micro scale of someone who specifically is religious and does believe those things and offers themselves to God. They don't get muddled up with some of the failed marriages and other such things, because they're still following god's game-plan. Even if they're failing, at least they're still succeeding on one level, that sort of general God made man and women to be together sort of thing.

And the reason we don't understand it, I guess is because most of us probably will never be as sure as they are about anything. I've looked into some of these people's eyes when they say some of these things (like God is there with you in your bed on the first night, etc), and this isn't a sort of vague thing they believe. It's at their very core. You take gravity for granted, that when you roll out of bed your feet will hit the ground. That's how these people are with their beliefs in the Bible. Saying, well other people have other beliefs to some of them is weird. It's like telling you gravity doesn't exist. It hurts their brains.

 

[Pollux]

I think generally the people who view it this way view it in a sort of vague way. God created man and woman to be joined together, and the purpose in a general way is to create children. On a micro scale maybe some people cannot conceive for some reason, but they're still that general "man" and general "woman" that God created to work together in that way.

You guys do also have to remember that these people don't believe it's just two people getting married. A lot of people believe it's two people and God. It's not two people in the bed that night, either, consummating the marriage. It's God and two people. God is a key ingredient to them. That's why it's a sacrament to many. God blesses the act on a macro scale (he created man and woman to be together) and on the micro scale of someone who specifically is religious and does believe those things and offers themselves to God. They don't get muddled up with some of the failed marriages and other such things, because they're still following god's game-plan. Even if they're failing, at least they're still succeeding on one level, that sort of general God made man and women to be together sort of thing.

And the reason we don't understand it, I guess is because most of us probably will never be as sure as they are about anything. I've looked into some of these people's eyes when they say some of these things (like God is there with you in your bed on the first night, etc), and this isn't a sort of vague thing they believe. It's at their very core. You take gravity for granted, that when you roll out of bed your feet will hit the ground. That's how these people are with their beliefs in the Bible. Saying, well other people have other beliefs to some of them is weird. It's like telling you gravity doesn't exist. It hurts their brains.

Very well said. But that doesn't change the fact that there still is no religious argument to oppose same sex marriage. Especially if those who seek the marriages are not part of the particular religion or have no desire to get married in a Church.

 

[AnathemicOne]

But in the world where someone is arguing that the purpose of marriage is children, and then as Jintor, Cyan, and Sutton Dagger pointed out sterile couples would also be unable to have children. So the question is, would you then, in order to maintain a the argument that you weren't a bigot, be compelled to require mandatory testing for sterility prior to marriage?

If one was already sterile via cancer or whatnot, does mandatory testing have to be even required?

You're generalizing complex issues to fit your "mind game" that you impose on GAF, in this thread of all places. When in reality, said complex issues are actually complex, the example of being sterile for example you imply that people who are sterile and seek to marry are oblivious to their condition when in actual reality a good number of people are aware of their sterilty.

Now the question is, what is the damn purpose of imposing this "mind game" here. Again, are you on some sort of personal quest to prove that bigotry is nonexistant? If so, then you need a cold does of reality.

 

[Cyan]

... and if their view is that marriage is for children...

Why, though? You don't get that kind of view out of the empty air. So where did that view come from?

I think generally the people who view it this way view it in a sort of vague way. God created man and woman to be joined together, and the purpose in a general way is to create children. On a micro scale maybe some people cannot conceive for some reason, but they're still that general "man" and general "woman" that God created to work together in that way.

That's fine, but z had specified that this person wasn't very religious.

 

[The Faceless Master]

How do you determine if an individual is sterile prior to getting married and attempting to have children?

people can't somehow know that they're sterile before getting married? there are all sorts of scenarios where someone could find that information out.

 

[RDreamer]

Very well said. But that doesn't change the fact that there still is no religious argument to oppose same sex marriage. Especially if those who seek the marriages are not part of the particular religion or have no desire to get married in a Church.

But that's kind of what I was getting at. There's almost two criteria. God approves of men and women being together, because that's why he created them. That's their entire purpose. God also intended for people to be religious and believe in the sort of religious arguments I put forth up there. So in a person who believes these thing's mind when two people not in the church are getting married, and they're a man and a woman they're still fulfilling the first criteria. They're still fulfilling God's big "game-plan." Maybe they won't admit it and do like the 2nd criteria says, but they're still doing it. That's why gay-marriage throws a snag into it. It's against both criteria set up. It's not following God's game-plan even on a vague scale.

That's fine, but z had specified that this person wasn't very religious.

Not very religious or not religious at all?

If they're not very religious I still think these things are pretty well ingrained as truth to those types of people.

Not religious at all? Well, then I'm just going to say that then that's very very likely just a knee-jerk "ick" type reaction.

 

[Korey]

It'd be great if people would stop basing their lives and other peoples lives on non-existent beings

 

[Pollux]

people can't somehow know that they're sterile before getting married? there are all sorts of scenarios where someone could find that information out.

Yea, I came to the same conclusion when my roommate suggested the "marriage=children" theory. There really is no way to justify opposition other than a denial of civil rights. Feels good having tried to think of every other option that I could think of and come to the same conclusion.

Why, though? You don't get that kind of view out of the empty air. So where did that view come from?



That's fine, but z had specified that this person wasn't very religious.

Good point, and since the view has to come somewhere...rationalizing. Right?

If one was already sterile via cancer or whatnot, does mandatory testing have to be even required?

You're generalizing complex issues to fit your "mind game" that you impose on GAF, in this thread of all places. When in reality, said complex issues are actually complex, the example of being sterile for example you imply that people who are sterile and seek to marry are oblivious to their condition when in actual reality a good number of people are aware of their sterilty.

Now the question is, what is the damn purpose of imposing this "mind game" here. Again, are you on some sort of personal quest to prove that bigotry is nonexistant? If so, then you need a cold does of reality.

Again, when did I ever say that I though or wanted to prove bigotry was nonexistent? If you don't want to talk then why attempt to accuse me of something that was in no way my intention? Am I some how insulting you because I'm trying to think outside the box, and not automatically assume the worst about people? What a bleak world you must live in.

But that's kind of what I was getting at. There's almost two criteria. God approves of men and women being together, because that's why he created them. That's their entire purpose. God also intended for people to be religious and believe in the sort of religious arguments I put forth up there. So in a person who believes these thing's mind when two people not in the church are getting married, and they're a man and a woman they're still fulfilling the first criteria. They're still fulfilling God's big "game-plan." Maybe they won't admit it and do like the 2nd criteria says, but they're still doing it. That's why gay-marriage throws a snag into it. It's against both criteria set up. It's not following God's game-plan even on a vague scale.

Good point.

Not very religious or not religious at all?

If they're not very religious I still think these things are pretty well ingrained as truth to those types of people.

Not religious at all? Well, then I'm just going to say that then that's very very likely just a knee-jerk "ick" type reaction.

In this line of thought, no religion. Let's pretend that there are no religious organizations or faiths. And as I said above, no matter what, it seems as if it just comes back to another form of rationalizing since the belief of marriage=children would have to come from somewhere. So, there really isn't a valid "non-bigoted" or "non-knee jerk" reaction.

 

[NullPointer]

Republicans, declaring war on women's right to do what they want with their bodies sealed their faith.

I kindof wonder whether this is a typo or you meant to say it this way.

Either way it kinda works.

And in other news, yes gay sex does not lead to procreation, but then again the same can be said of most heterosexual sex. That Djinni has already left the bottle.

At the end of the day its none of our business, and it would go back to being none of our business if we stopped trying to stifle and shun people we don't understand. The quickest way to have something shoved in your face is to restrict its free expression.

 

[Veezy]

But that's kind of what I was getting at. There's almost two criteria. God approves of men and women being together, because that's why he created them. That's their entire purpose. God also intended for people to be religious and believe in the sort of religious arguments I put forth up there. So in a person who believes these thing's mind when two people not in the church are getting married, and they're a man and a woman they're still fulfilling the first criteria. They're still fulfilling God's big "game-plan." Maybe they won't admit it and do like the 2nd criteria says, but they're still doing it. That's why gay-marriage throws a snag into it. It's against both criteria set up. It's not following God's game-plan even on a vague scale.




Not very religious or not religious at all?

If they're not very religious I still think these things are pretty well ingrained as truth to those types of people.

Not religious at all? Well, then I'm just going to say that then that's very very likely just a knee-jerk "ick" type reaction.

My fiancee and I are not getting married in a church and neither of us profess to any sort of faith. By the Christian faith, regardless of how much I love her and how much she loves me, we will both burn in eternal hellfire. Forever. Why can't gays get married too if they're going to burn with us?

EDIT: If I'm not mistaken, as a matter of fact, since we're not being married in a church, wouldn't our marriage be unrecognized by God? Doesn't that make us as bad as two men or women getting married? Hell, technically we'd be worse if a gay couple gets married in a church, right?

 

[jaxword]

It'd be great if people would stop basing their lives and other peoples lives on non-existent beings

Literally no one in the thread is going to do this or possibly change their religious beliefs. Hatred runs deep.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Yea, I came to the same conclusion when my roommate suggested the "marriage=children" theory. There really is no way to justify opposition other than a denial of civil rights. Feels good having tried to think of every other option that I could think of and come to the same conclusion.

Good point, and since the view has to come somewhere...rationalizing. Right?


Again, when did I ever say that I though or wanted to prove bigotry was nonexistent? If you don't want to talk then why attempt to accuse me of something that was in no way my intention? Am I some how insulting you because I'm trying to think outside the box, and not automatically assume the worst about people? What a bleak world you must live in.

What I'm trying to figure out is what is your purpose in your posts you are making. Note the thread title then note the nature of your posts. This thread is already being derailed for 2 pages due to this and I would like to know why.

You state you have a hard time in believing that on issue such as same sex marriage that the people against it are all bigoted. Why the hell would you state this in the first place? For someone who advocates complexity in an argument you sure aren't doing a great job in expressing that by only thinking absolutes.

Did you think that people against same sex marriage are all bigoted an actual reality? Did you think that this issue was black and white? If not, then again, what the hell is the purpose of your posts for the last 2 pages?

 

[Aaron]

Yea, I came to the same conclusion when my roommate suggested the "marriage=children" theory. There really is no way to justify opposition other than a denial of civil rights. Feels good having tried to think of every other option that I could think of and come to the same conclusion.

Ask if she would oppose 60 year old man and woman marrying. And if she says yes, tell her she's a heartless monster.

 

[Pollux]

What I'm trying to figure out is what is your purpose in your posts you are making. Note the thread title then note the nature of your posts. This thread is already being derailed for 2 pages due to this and I would like to know why.

You state you have a hard time in believing that on issue such as same sex marriage that the people against it are all bigoted. Why the hell would you state this in the first place? For someone who advocates complexity in an argument you sure aren't doing a great job in expressing that by only thinking absolutes.

Did you think that people against same sex marriage are all bigoted an actual reality? Did you think that this issue was black and white? If not, then again, what the hell is the purpose of your posts for the last 2 pages?

Considering people have been painting anyone who is against SSM as a bigot, it's a reasonable thing to question. You clearly didn't read a single thing that has been discussed, because I've said repeatedly that I don't think everyone who opposes SSM is a bigot. If my rationale doesn't satisfy you, and you're uninterested in actually discussing the question presented, then why bother posting if your only goal is to stifle free thought and honest inquiry?

Ask if she would oppose 60 year old man and woman marrying. And if she says yes, tell her she's a heartless monster.

Of course she wouldn't oppose that, and she doesn't oppose gay marriage either; she suggested the marriage=children worldview when we were having this conversation earlier, but we never talked about it since she went to bed, thus I came here to discuss it with GAF. And I think I'm done with it because someone think's I'm trying to derail the thread, which honestly was not my intention. Everyone who actually did humor me, thank you very much. And I'm sorry that this was such a clusterfuck.

Everyone should be for marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of the sex of the involved adults.

In the same way I don't care what someone worships, Frog, Dog or any of the current deities, people shouldn't care (and politicians shouldn't legislate) who others choose to spend their lives and time with.

I'll disagree with you on the legislation, b/c those tax benefits are pretty nice regardless of a couple being heterosexual or homosexual. There just shouldn't be any discrimination in the legislation, equal marriage rights for everyone who wants to get married.

 

[LukeSmith]

Everyone should be for marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of the sex of the involved adults.

In the same way I don't care what someone worships, Frog, Dog or any of the current deities, people shouldn't care (and politicians shouldn't legislate) who others choose to spend their lives and time with.

 

[RDreamer]

My fiancee and I are not getting married in a church and neither of us profess to any sort of faith. By the Christian faith, regardless of how much I love her and how much she loves me, we will both burn in eternal hellfire. Forever. Why can't gays get married too if they're going to burn with us?

But in that way you're still following God's game plan if you're a man and woman. They can argue about everything else, but they'll approve of that, because it's the way God made it. In their minds God still approves that piece of it. That's where the whole sanctity of marriage crap comes from. There is no piece of it that God approves in gay marriage, because it isn't supposed to be that way at all.

EDIT: If I'm not mistaken, as a matter of fact, since we're not being married in a church, wouldn't our marriage be unrecognized by God? Doesn't that make us as bad as two men or women getting married? Hell, technically we'd be worse if a gay couple gets married in a church, right?

No. I've never ever heard of this sort of view by someone religious. You definitely wouldn't be "worse" than a gay couple getting married in a church. They'd probably view that church as a sort of affront to God or something. They'd be heathens who got it wrong. That's usually even more of a problem for some of 'em.

 

[Karma Kramer]

The president of the united states advocating for marriage equality is a pretty big deal. I completely disagree with you here.

Its not a very big deal if it doesn't mean anything on a federal level. It's good that he said it, but to claim a vote for Obama = a vote for gay equality is assuming/hoping for more than what is there.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Considering people have been painting anyone who is against SSM as a bigot, it's a reasonable thing to question. You clearly didn't read a single thing that has been discussed, because I've said repeatedly that I don't think everyone who opposes SSM is a bigot. If my rationale doesn't satisfy you, and you're uninterested in actually discussing the question presented, then why bother posting if your only goal is to stifle free thought and hihonest inquiry?

To get the thread back on topic. I'm just finding hilarious that in a thread were we ought to be discussing the implications of Obama's announcment the thread has been derailed into some psuedo-philosophical discussion on bigotry.

Not to mention your psuedo-philosophical stimuli is ridden with critical thinking errors such as the sterility before marriage example you've recently brought up.

 

[RDreamer]

Its not a very big deal if it doesn't mean anything on a federal level. It's good that he said it, but to claim a vote for Obama = a vote for gay equality is assuming/hoping for more than what is there.

Well he's done a pretty good job of pushing things so far. And not voting for Obama is pretty much a vote for Romney who would want a federal amendment banning gay-marriage. So, yeah, decently big deal.

Also it's a big deal in that it's kind of a turning point. As the poll suggest, the nation itself is at that turning point in favoring it, and it's a nice thing that the sitting president, the first in history to approve it, is also coming out for it. It's kind of a landmark of how far we've come and where we have to go.

 

[NullPointer]

Literally no one in the thread is going to do this or possibly change their religious beliefs. Hatred runs deep.

You'd be surprised. For many people faith is just a given, a byproduct of their upbringing. Even small encounters with different perspectives can lead to questioning and introspection. For some that will lead to a more fundamentalist understanding, and for others to a wider view of things.

I wouldn't discount the power of conversation, even on a gaming forum. Its still people engaging with people, even if the signal to noise ratio is high.

I've learned a lot from GAF, and I figure that's partly because gaming as a whole attracts a lot of seriously smart and creative people into the fold.

 

[jaxword]

You'd be surprised. For many people faith is just a given, a byproduct of their upbringing. Even small encounters with different perspectives can lead to questioning and introspection. For some that will lead to a more fundamentalist understanding, and for others to a wider view of things.

I wouldn't discount the power of conversation, even on a gaming forum. Its still people engaging with people, even if the signal to noise ratio is high.

I've learned a lot from GAF, and I figure that's partly because gaming as a whole attracts a lot of seriously smart and creative people into the fold.

While I don't disagree with you that there's some interesting points of view on the site and that they have many merits and value, can you provide even one example of someone changing their religious beliefs because of an internet debate here?

It's really hard to make people change something they've been raised to hate.

 

[RDreamer]

While I don't disagree with you that there's some interesting points of view on the site and that they have many merits and value, can you provide even one example of someone changing their religious beliefs because of an internet debate here?

It's really hard to make people change something they've been raised to hate.

Is there a reason you keep using "hate" interchangeably with religion?

And anyway, I think a lot of people's beliefs have been molded through the internet. For most it probably wasn't one specific conversation, but in general those things can help quite a bit.

 

[jaxword]

Is there a reason you keep using "hate" interchangeably with religion?

And anyway, I think a lot of people's beliefs have been molded through the internet. For most it probably wasn't one specific conversation, but in general those things can help quite a bit.

In regards to this thread and same-sex marriage, there's literally no reason to be opposed to it other than hating gays, and that 100% applies to religious reasons. People will use acceptable language doublespeak and talk in circles around outright saying it but that's what it comes down to, deep down. And now someone says "Hate is too strong a word" and the rationalization dance begins again.

 

[NullPointer]

While I don't disagree with you that there's some interesting points of view on the site and that they have many merits and value, can you provide even one example of someone changing their religious beliefs because of an internet debate here?

I couldn't give any examples of significant transformations no, but in any thread with decent conversation back and forth you'll see at least one or two people soften their views, or expand their understanding in ways they didn't expect. Every bit matters in my book.

And anyway, I think a lot of people's beliefs have been molded through the internet. For most it probably wasn't one specific conversation, but in general those things can help quite a bit.

That and I think the sharpest changes occur when you know or care or respect somebody who finds themselves the subject of these big debates. It changes everything when you have a personal or emotional stake.

In regards to this thread and same-sex marriage, there's literally no reason to be opposed to it other than hating gays, and that 100% applies to religious reasons.

No way. For too many thats likely true, but there are plenty of others who just live in ignorance or who feel uncomfortable about the idea of gays-gonna-gay. People who have hate nobody and no thing, but simply don't understand. Its too easy to lump it all in the box of "hate". Humanity and society is far too complex for that.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Well he's done a pretty good job of pushing things so far. And not voting for Obama is pretty much a vote for Romney who would want a federal amendment banning gay-marriage. So, yeah, decently big deal.

Also it's a big deal in that it's kind of a turning point. As the poll suggest, the nation itself is at that turning point in favoring it, and it's a nice thing that the sitting president, the first in history to approve it, is also coming out for it. It's kind of a landmark of how far we've come and where we have to go.

I disagree, not voting for Obama is not voting for Obama... it doesn't mean I support Romney. This is the problem with our current two party system. People convince themselves that if they don't vote for the lesser of two evils than they are supporting Romney/Bush. I'm voting probably for Gary Johnson. If everyone would just support the candidate they want instead of picking the lesser evil, we might have a major third party in this country.

Not to mention I am voting in Washington State which will be locked down for Obama anyway.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Gaborn, as usual, can't give credit where credit is due. Unfuckingbelievable and frankly, unsurprising.

 

[jaxword]

No way. For too many thats likely true, but there are plenty of others who just live in ignorance or who feel uncomfortable about the idea of gays-gonna-gay. People who have hate nobody and no thing, but simply don't understand. Its too easy to lump it all in the box of "hate". Humanity and society is far too complex for that.

"Uncomfortable" why? There's no reason at all that what two adults do on their own has ANY effect on anyone else's life. You're not going to be 100% comfortable with other people do in life. What kind of childish worldview expects the rest of the world to be at your comfort level? Why is it that THIS particular "uncomfortable" action draws SO MUCH attention and rage?

When I hear people say they are just "uncomfortable", that's just another example of the acceptable language doublespeak I referred to. What, exactly, makes them so "uncomfortable"?

It's hatred by another name.

 

[davepoobond]

i dont see how religion will ever have its way with the government's laws when it comes down to it in the federal court system.

gay marriage will eventually be legitimized by the supreme court, it will just take however long it takes for a case to get to them.

its sort of sad that this coming election will pretty much be "gay marriage yes" or "gay marriage no" rather than choosing a president we need.

 

[NullPointer]

It's hatred by another name.

Have you ever been uncomfortable by other people in your life? Does that mean you hate them?

 

[jaxword]

Have you ever been uncomfortable by other people in your life? Does that mean you hate them?

I never tried to make them second class, so no.

 

[NullPointer]

I never tried to make them second class, so no.

Have it your way then. Its much easier to lump it all together as hate.

 

[MIMIC]

In regards to this thread and same-sex marriage, there's literally no reason to be opposed to it other than hating gays, and that 100% applies to religious reasons.

That is a ridiculous notion.

A lot of it stems from religion but that certainly doesn't mean people just hate gays.

 

[davepoobond]

That is a ridiculous notion.

well, i would consider that at the very least you are disrespecting and treating those who consider themselves gay to have less rights than other people.

it is discrimination, pure and simple.

 

[nib95]

Very risky proposition for him, especially so close to the election, but I admire his courage and grit.

On a side note, does anyone know the rough estimates of the population of male and female homosexuals in the US? I realise many likely stay silent about it, but any estimation would do. Also curious to know if there are more gays or more lesbians.

 

[Dead Man]

Have you ever been uncomfortable by other people in your life? Does that mean you hate them?

Other people I have never met who will have no impact on me? Can't say they make me very uncomfortable very often.

 

[jaxword]

Have it your way then. Its much easier to lump it all together as hate.

There's no "easier" here. It is what it is.

That is a ridiculous notion.

A lot of it stems from religion but that certainly doesn't mean people just hate gays.

Ok, what's another reason for treating gays as second-class humans?

 

[nib95]

There's no "easier" here. It is what it is.

Ok, what's another reason for treating gays as second-class humans?

Whilst I'm not justifying it, I think for a few it's merely because religion tells them it's wrong. Obviously there are some homophobic types out there who do hate gays. As with anything, people often hate what they don't understand or fear.

But there's the religious types who are just going by the book. To many, religion is a lifestyle and order of law.

Just as law tells you you can't marry more than one wife (you could say impeding on your rights), religious text states that homosexuality is wrong and they try and stick that in to law too. People do a lot of things in the name of law, country, army or religion, I don't think it automatically incites hatred though.

Having said that though, far as I can tell in any of the religious books, there is no punishment in law outlined for homosexuality, which is why I believe God and only God should decide that and not law of the land. It's not like murder, assault or something where gays enacting their rights are actually harming any one. They're not, at all.

 

[Dead Man]

Whilst I'm not justifying it, I think for a few it's merely because religion tells them it's wrong. Obviously there are some homophobic types out there who do hate gays. As with anything, people often hate what they don't understand or fear.

But there's the religious types who are just going by the book. To many, religion is a lifestyle and order of law.

Just as law tells you you can't marry more than one wife (you could say impeding on your rights), religious text states that homosexuality is wrong and this they try and stick that in to law too. People do a lot of things in the name of law, country, army or religion, I don't think it automatically incites hatred though.

Having said that though, far as I can tell in any of the religious books, there is no punishment in law outlined for homosexuality, which is why I believe God and only God should decide that and not law of the land. It's not like murder, assault or something where gays enacting their rights are actually harming any one. They're not, at all.

That to me would change the reason for the bigotry, not stop it being bigoted. Bigotry is about the behaviour, not the reason for it.

 

[Black Republican]

what happened tothe conservatives who said hed only support this after reelectionw

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

Obviously, getting married in church if you're gay (at least in catholic churches etc) is NOT gonna happen, so nobody needs to worry about that right there.

Then all that is left is the governmental/legal side of getting married as a status of society right?

In that case then, i wonder why some people would always bring religion into it if it's not even really affected all that much by such a law?

 

[Gustav]

political suicide.
i wonder what mit's happy dance looks like.

If this is political suicide the situation in the US is worse than I thought.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Two straight male roommates who are best friends? Two gay male roommates who are best friends? A male and female living together who are best friends?

If these people want the same legal rights as a married couple because the other person is their best friend whom they trust implicitly, should any of these pairs be denied those rights?

of course not?

 

[MIMIC]

well, i would consider that at the very least you are disrespecting and treating those who consider themselves gay to have less rights than other people.

it is discrimination, pure and simple.

Are we talking about "legal" rights or just the title of marriage. Because as far as I know, civil unions grants the same rights as marriage. I've had no interest in the topic until recently but that's what I've learned in this thread.

Ok, what's another reason for treating gays as second-class humans?

Well let me first shed a tiny sliver of light on my position regarding homosexuality: yes I think people are born with their current sexual orientations (so no, I don't think it's a choice) but--as Shouta more succinctly articulated my thoughts--"I don't think that homosexuality is the standard mode for living creatures"...whereas, I DO with heterosexuality. I'd go into more detail but I'd rather not risk it because it could come across as offensive.

I've actually voted for gay marriage before because I don't have a problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they want....but I would probably abstain in the future because I'm not necessarily for or against it.

 

[Jintor]

I've actually voted for gay marriage before because I don't have a problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they want....but I would probably abstain in the future because I'm not necessarily for or against it.

If you don't have a problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they want... then aren't you, more or less, for it?

 

[jaxword]

Well let me first shed a tiny sliver of light on my position regarding homosexuality: yes I think people are born with their current sexual orientations (so no, I don't think it's a choice) but--as Shouta more succinctly articulated my thoughts--"I don't think that homosexuality is the standard mode for living creatures"...whereas, I DO with heterosexuality. I'd go into more detail but I'd rather not risk it because it could come across as offensive.

I've actually voted for gay marriage before because I don't have a problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they want....but I would probably abstain in the future because I'm not necessarily for or against it.

There's nothing hateful about your position, and you respect consenting adults doing whatever they want. So there's nothing offensive or wrong here. There's nothing inherently offensive or wrong with thinking homosexuality is wrong--it's ACTIONS that define hatred.

You can disagree with homosexuality all you want and even call it unnatural and against God/evolution/whatever. Hell, I support people's rights to say that as loudly as they want. I support freedom of speech, even if it's wrong, bigoted or just plain stupid.

It's when you FORCE the homosexuals to accept that label, that second-class label, that label that they're beneath the straights, that because of this birth defect they are sub-human...THAT'S when it's hatred.

There is NO value in doing so other than taking pride in a victory over "them"...THAT's when it's hatred.

This is not the first or last time. We, the majority, have always used lies, deceptions and doublespeak to justify why THOSE types of people are to be treated like lower humans.

Blacks. Chinese/Japanese. Jews. Christians. Irish. Peasant class. Indian lower castes.

Throughout history, each of those people have been treated like dirt to the point of MURDER for these simply because they all have one thing in common: the majority in power wanted to treat them as less than than them.

THAT's when it's hatred. Not the murder, but the simple idea that they deserve to be second class because you dislike them.


So no, I wouldn't be accusing you or people who thought like you of hatred or bigotry, because you've made your stance clear without impinging upon the rights of others.

But the majority are using the same old rationalizations they've used for 6000 years. Hatred by another name. And it should be called out and fought against as hard as we can. We're better than this. We cannot allow this.

It is hatred and it should be called hatred. That's not the "easy" answer. It is the RIGHT answer. And it must be stopped.

 

[Yoshiya]

I've actually voted for gay marriage before because I don't have a problem with two consenting adults doing whatever they want....but I would probably abstain in the future because I'm not necessarily for or against it.

As you've acknowledged, these two consenting adults feel a compulsion that seems right to them, even if not "natural" at a species-level macro scale (putting aside innate bisexuality arguments etc.). Same-sex attracted people fall within what should be considered the range of "normal" human behaviour, just behaviour that has a sexual and romantic appeal for some and not others. Marriage equality is therefore about, to me, tearing down these false delineations that render an already marginalised group an anthropological other by law, by defining same-sex couples as perpetually outside the socially normalised model of commitment. This is needless and destructive discrimination and should be worth action to redress as a greater social good despite its personal irrelevancy.