Gay Marriage

I think that it's a wide-spread misconception that opposition to gay marriage constitutes "homophobia". Well, then again, homophobia is a term that is bandied about by many in order to shame people who exercise their right to voice a dissenting opinion on the issue. Kind of like when hardcore Zionists call people anti-Semites for criticizing the illegal persecution on Palestinians and the illegal occupation of Palestinian land. In other words, the term homophobia is really cliche--has no meaning to me, aside from the fact that it inicates that the person using it is probably trying to inhibit my right to free speech.

I think it is a gross fallacy to equate the "plight" of homosexuals to the plight of African-Americans, something that the AME Church I believe has addressed in the past. There's just no comparison.

The sad thing is, is that you can't have an objective understanding of the issue because you obviously subscribe to the propaganda that proponents have been churning out. We see it every day, and it's become so constant, that the easy thing to do is to simply give in and subscribe to the belief. This is the intent of propaganda. Propagandists don't want you to think for yourself, they don't want you to seek the truth, because to do so undermines the validity of their fallacious agenda.

 

why the hell not? who is it hurting?

 

Would you prefer straight supremacy? Bigot? Heterosexist?

Meanings of homophobia based on actions:

Actively work towards defining homosexuals as a minority group which should be deprived (or kept deprived) of fundamental human rights which are enjoyed by other groups e.g.:

The right to marry.

Job security -- to be not fired because of their sexual orientation,

Being free of discrimination in accommodation,

Being included as a protected group in hate-crime legislation.



Meanings based on belief and feeling:

Attempt to love the homosexual even while condemning homosexual activity as a sin that they feel is hated by God. As St. Augustine who said "Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum" which means "With love for mankind and hatred of sins." It is often loosely translated as: "Love the sinner and hate the sin," a saying often incorrectly attributed to Jesus Christ.

Hate or dislike of all persons with a homosexual orientation, perhaps even those who choose to remain celibate.

A belief that persons with a homosexual orientation are sub-human and can be physically attacked with impunity. The aggressors are often young males who regard gay bashing as a coming-of-age ritual.

Have an irrational fear of gays and lesbians.

 

I really hope that you don't think that you're impressing me with your righteous attitude, or that you're insulting me by suggesting that I'm the one with the problem here. Basically all you're doing if regurgitating the same old rhetoric, and that really doesn't prove anything when it comes down to it, other than you can't really think for yourself.

The problem with your argument is that it could be twisted to apply to anyone who leads any sort of lifestyle.

Again, if a brother and sister want to marry, don't they have the "fundamental human right" to do so? By your logical, yes they do. As two consenting adults, who's to stop them, right?

Or what about a man who wants to marry ten wives? That's happening in the U.S., and whenever the issue is raised, people become indignant. Yet my guess is that many of the people who are indignant probably support gay marriage. Who are they to say what's right or wrong, though?

Fifty years ago, the idea that two men could get married was preposterous; I would really like to see just what kind of activity will be tolerated in fifty years because of the precident that has been set. I wouldn't be surprised if child pornography becomes widely accepted--there's already been some debate on the "artistic merits" of child pornography, and this is only made possible because of the skewed sense of right and wrong that we now have thanks to things like "gay rights".

One last point; I'd really like to know whether you're gay, have gay friends, or have had homosexual experiences. My guess is that if you have, then your arguments have more to do with legitimizing your own poor choices than it does nobly championing "human rights."

 

The Pope, for one.

 

There's a difference between two people in love and child pornography.

Why is homosexuality a poor choice? Honestly, I'm interested to hear your reasons.

 

I wasn't attempting to do either one. I am shocked that you, of all people, would call my attitude righteous, which, according to Princeton, means characterized by or proceeding from accepted standards of morality or justice; morally justified. Perhaps you would like to attempt to redefine righteous, for your convience, as you have attempted to do with homophobia and incest.

What have you proved? What poingant, groundbreaking, scientific studies have you commented on? It is impressive to watch a man feed off of emotion...

Virtually any argument could be twisted to apply to many things. I am only arguing for ONE thing, one very specific thing; equal protection under the law. Your family and church can teach/preach whatever values and morals it wants to, the government, however, should not be involved in arbitrary discrimination of its citizens.

By my logic? Not at all. You should reread post #192 from the other thread (see link at bottom).

I do not know enough about polygamy/polyandry to comment much. I feel that it is a different issue that, like incest, often involves dominance issues, etc. I am not a good source on this, however, as I have not studied it...

Again, you are assuming causation when only correlation exists.
According to this logic, increase in teen pregnancy could be caused by global warming.

Yes, Yes, and Yes. I have discussed all of this publicly in the other thread. This does not invalidate my argument any more than your being heterosexual invalidates yours.
post #192

 

Propaganda that it's ok to be gay? I don't mind subscribing to that propaganda.

 

Well said PhotoGra, well supported.

 

Actually the 14th Amendment regarding equal protection under the law should suffice; but instead, a collection of Christians with enough hubris that its density rivals that of black holes, refuses to accept any position that doesn't fit into their own narrow worldview.

The Constitution safeguards that majority rule will not be the deciding factor in all matters. This kind of labelling and oppressing of gays is another version of saying that blacks are given 3/5 personhood or saying that women are not given equal rights.

I have completely had it with those who cannot see that God is too big to fit into one religion. Christianity has no corner on the market when it comes to God.

 

When the Texas Board of Education approved new health textbooks after the publishers gave in to last-minute pressure from some board members to define marriage as a "lifelong union" between a man and woman. It is putting obvious anti-same sex union of any kind propaganda into the hands of the Texas school (now to be ill informed) children.

 

I think that EVERYONE who does not cause deliberate suffering to others is to be treated as equals. Especially when it comes to things you can do nothing about yourself, like sexuality. Gay marriage? A definite yes from me.

P.S. This thread is gay.

 

I don't understand why the concept of gay marriage is so very concerning to heterosexuals?? My sister is gay and she "married" her partner a couple years ago. It never really hit me what it was like for her untill then. They cannot purchase life insurance together among other things. Why should I give a shit if they are legally married by the state and afforded the same rights as myself and my husband?? It won't change anything about the way they live except for maybe for the better. I guess I'm saying that even though thier "marriage" wasn't legally recognized by the state, they will continue to live together and love each other and be married in thier eyes and the eyes of thier families, regardless of what the "law" says. I'm with you Sara Michele!! Sometimes People cannot control who they fall in love with. And I for one can't see anything wrong with being in love!! Live and let live!

 

thats how the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage....

 

Yeah and it's wrong too...

If I was a kid today with a textbook that said that, I'd protest. And if they gave any sort of test with a question about that in it, you can bet I wouldn't put the answer that's in the book. Fuck that bullshit. Marriage is something people who love each other do, to pledge their lives together forever. I don't see anyone trying to ban divorce! Talk about hurting the sanctity of marriage :/. Dumbasses (not all you guys, the people out there who agree with this discrimination...sorry...I just can't stand that mess )

Here's a good article : "I'd leave the country, but my wife won't let me"

 

Seriously, buddy, I'm not Christian, but you can't honestly say that Christians are "narrow minded" and imply that homosexuals are somehow broad-minded and accepting of other people's beliefs and opinions. That's just such a crock. Homosexuals are no less prone to being narrow-minded and bigoted.

 

So basically, I was right then. Well, that's good that you can admit it. It's a start, at least.

Well, no, there's a big difference. This issue has to do with right and wrong, what is normal and abnormal. You see, the human body is structured in such a way that sex is meant to be performed between a man and a woman. I don't have to justify this in any way by making up esotiric theories about why this is acceptable behaviour. I know by simple logic that it is a truth that sex is meant to be performed between a man and a woman only, that this is the truth and that this is what is, and should always be considered, normal.

On the other hand, someone who engages in homosexual conduct, knowing full well that it is not normal, has to mire themselves in lies, rationalizations, spin-doctoring, etc. in order to derive a fabricated sense of legitimacy, which they then force upon others.

 

Oh, now I understand your argument better. You are upset because your wife/girlfriend won't do oral/anal...(?)

Sex is designed for reproduction, biologically. A quick review of anatomy, however, will provide you with several other options for sexual relations for pleasure and intimacy. Having sex for pleasure or intimacy is almost exclusively human, separating us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Homosexuality in humans is no less of an unnatural behavior than any sexual activity not intended for procreation. That being said, I agree that my sexuality is abnormal, in the sense that it is not the prevailing sexuality. What I don't see is the significance of it being abnormal in the legal arena. It is not abnormal in a psychologic sense. It is not an unhealthy relationship, either sexually or emotionally. What critera is being used to define right and wrong? Right/wrong is very distinctly different from normal/abnormal.

What are you talking about? What has anyone tried to force on you? I do not need to lie or rationalize, or even discuss my sexuality with another person in order to have a sense of legitamacy. I am legitamate...regardless of your promotion of hate based values. I am not suggesting that you be a receptive partner of anal sex. I am, once again, only arguing for equal protection and rights from the government. You are still free to not be homosexual, and to not like homosexuals. You have yet to make one educated, intelligent comment. I should not have expected one now.

 

I didn't say anything about the attitudes of homosexuals.

 

You can rationalize however you want, you can label me whatever you want, but I know, and I think deep down you know as well, that I'm right and you're wrong. Stating that homosexuality is wrong and abnormal is no more bigoted than stating that incest or pedophilia is wrong and abnormal. I'm quite certain that if over the course of the next fifty years pedophiles strive for legitimacy and acceptance in our society, that in fifty years time they will be using much the same argument as homosexuals are now.