a question i have for both gay people and homophobes?

[Something Amyss]

(or offend others)

I'm curious as to what you mean, specifically by this. Who is offending others? The homophobes? The homosexuals? John Cena?

People have the right to be offended.

People also have the right to criticise, question, and condemn. "Why is this an issue?" is not an unfair question.

Freedom of expression means freedom to criticise.

I take the other thrust of your argument, however. I don't really care what people think of me so much as what they might do to me. Or, in some cases, already have.

These days in many countries popular opinion holds that white males should be disadvantaged to allow black people and women to get the jobs they may have been passed over for in the past. Employers who do this are considered Equal Opportunity Employers who support Affirmative Action.

Actually, it's for jobs they're currently otherwise being disqualified from. I can see why that might be a touchu subject, though.

To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage.

You mean like we've already changed it from a property exchange, included monogamy, discouraged sex outside of marriage, changed who can get married, redefined it to allow people of different races and faiths to get married, changed it into a religious institution, removed the capacity of family members to marry, etc? Hell, same-sex marriage isn't even all that new a concept, except for the legal benefits side.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to redefine this sacred institution which is completely carved in stone.

The Greeks and Romans their gods had no rules on this stuff and you can see lots of examples of homosexuality in the ruins of their art and cultures.

Fun fact: Romans actually had a lot of policies against gays. Homosexuality could cause status loss and even pre-Christianity could have legal repercussions if you didn't do it with certain people of lower classes. That's right, the Romans had a series of "it's not gay if..." rules. Greeks weren't always pro-gay, either.

I mean, the monotheistic Abrahamic religions didn't help, but it's not like everything was great until the evil Christians came along and ruined it for the gays. Even then, the "no homo" thing doesn't start to show up within them until what? 4th, 5th century? I honestly forget, but I think there's a point in there somewhere.

 

[thethird0611]

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage. Enforcing definitions is not discrinimation. If there was something that was exactly the same as marriage, except it was between two people of the same sex and called something else would that be acceptible or still discriminatory because the marriage wasn't redefined to suit homosexual couples?

You're right. It would be changing marriage. Why on earth would that be bad? If the existing definition is discriminatory, then enforcing the status quo (for no other reason than it is the status quo) is indeed discriminatory.

It is bad. Your never going to admit it though.

Forcing a culture to change itself to accommodate you is horrendous.

I say it exactly like that, because I have had discussions with people who fully support gay marriage and hate religion. I asked them "What if we find a compromise. What if under the government it is all civil unions, hetero, homo, etc."

"NO. We HAVE to have marriage or your a bigot"

The definition of marriage is not discriminatory, it is a definition that fits. Many people who are pro-gay marriage have made it discriminatory by forcing it to be what they want, like a child who cant have a toy that another is playing with.

Oh, and now that you think you know me by reading all that, I am pro-gay civil union with equal benefits. The only thing is, I fully respect religious culture, their traditions, their ideals.

You mean you want religious dominance in law.

Where did I say that? Point me to where I want religious dominance in law.

Was it where I said that we should have civil unions under the government for all unions, hetero and homo?

Is it where I wanted equal benefits for homosexual couples?

Or is it where I actually sympathize with both parties and wanted to find a compromise that kept both a very religious dominated tradition with the religious area, but also a way that allowed homosexuals to have equal benefits?

 

[thethird0611]

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage. Enforcing definitions is not discrinimation. If there was something that was exactly the same as marriage, except it was between two people of the same sex and called something else would that be acceptible or still discriminatory because the marriage wasn't redefined to suit homosexual couples?

You're right. It would be changing marriage. Why on earth would that be bad? If the existing definition is discriminatory, then enforcing the status quo (for no other reason than it is the status quo) is indeed discriminatory.

It is bad. Your never going to admit it though.

Forcing a culture to change itself to accommodate you is horrendous.

I say it exactly like that, because I have had discussions with people who fully support gay marriage and hate religion. I asked them "What if we find a compromise. What if under the government it is all civil unions, hetero, homo, etc."

"NO. We HAVE to have marriage or your a bigot"

The definition of marriage is not discriminatory, it is a definition that fits. Many people who are pro-gay marriage have made it discriminatory by forcing it to be what they want, like a child who cant have a toy that another is playing with.

Oh, and now that you think you know me by reading all that, I am pro-gay civil union with equal benefits. The only thing is, I fully respect religious culture, their traditions, their ideals.

You mean you want religious dominance in law.

Where did I say that? Point me to where I want religious dominance in law.

Was it where I said that we should have civil unions under the government for all unions, hetero and homo?

Is it where I wanted equal benefits for homosexual couples?

Or is it where I actually sympathize with both parties and wanted to find a compromise that kept both a very religious dominated tradition with the religious area, but also a way that allowed homosexuals to have equal benefits?

You want their opinions to have legal impact. That's more than respect. Oh, but it has to be your religion and the sects that share your opinion.

It's the part where you try to give ownership of a legal concept to your religion and only those of a certain opinion on gay marriage.

Again, tell me where I said I wanted religious dominated law.

Oh no, but I must have no respect for pro-gay marriage people since I want their views to have legal impact.

OH WAIT. I wanted -both- side to have an impact on it. Oh no, I WANT COMPROMISE. EVERYONE RUN.

So im waiting. How do I want religious dominated law?

 

[thethird0611]

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage. Enforcing definitions is not discrinimation. If there was something that was exactly the same as marriage, except it was between two people of the same sex and called something else would that be acceptible or still discriminatory because the marriage wasn't redefined to suit homosexual couples?

You're right. It would be changing marriage. Why on earth would that be bad? If the existing definition is discriminatory, then enforcing the status quo (for no other reason than it is the status quo) is indeed discriminatory.

It is bad. Your never going to admit it though.

Forcing a culture to change itself to accommodate you is horrendous.

I say it exactly like that, because I have had discussions with people who fully support gay marriage and hate religion. I asked them "What if we find a compromise. What if under the government it is all civil unions, hetero, homo, etc."

"NO. We HAVE to have marriage or your a bigot"

The definition of marriage is not discriminatory, it is a definition that fits. Many people who are pro-gay marriage have made it discriminatory by forcing it to be what they want, like a child who cant have a toy that another is playing with.

Oh, and now that you think you know me by reading all that, I am pro-gay civil union with equal benefits. The only thing is, I fully respect religious culture, their traditions, their ideals.

You mean you want religious dominance in law.

Where did I say that? Point me to where I want religious dominance in law.

Was it where I said that we should have civil unions under the government for all unions, hetero and homo?

Is it where I wanted equal benefits for homosexual couples?

Or is it where I actually sympathize with both parties and wanted to find a compromise that kept both a very religious dominated tradition with the religious area, but also a way that allowed homosexuals to have equal benefits?

You want their opinions to have legal impact. That's more than respect. Oh, but it has to be your religion and the sects that share your opinion.

It's the part where you try to give ownership of a legal concept to your religion and only those of a certain opinion on gay marriage.

Again, tell me where I said I wanted religious dominated law.

Oh no, but I must have no respect for pro-gay marriage people since I want their views to have legal impact.

OH WAIT. I wanted -both- side to have an impact on it. Oh no, I WANT COMPROMISE. EVERYONE RUN.

So im waiting. How do I want religious dominated law?

I told you where you asked for it. You don't need to say it explicitly for it to be your position. It shows itself when you ask for something that is religious dominance.

Funny, I didn't say 'no respect'.

And just yelling 'compromise' doesn't magically make you right as you seem to think.

Your compromise involves religious dominance in the law where it does not belong.

Actually, no, no it doesnt. So now, im going to do a magic trick. Im going to show your how you are wrong wrong wronggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

You never said where I wanted religious dominated law. My ideals actually take all religion -out- of government law and make it a government defined union between two people. Thats not religious dominated. Each religion can then make Marriage mean what ever the fuck they want it to be.

TADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

No, but you implied it heavily. And it pisses me off, because I have respect for people and their views, unless you explicitly do something to piss me off and take that respect away. I.E. making your only argument being something that is 100% WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.

Your just like most people who hold a view. You are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You hate compromise because you cant have exactly what you want.

 

[viranimus]

I dont have much of a horse in this race but ive got two points.

I know its kind of a stupid point and im detracting from the serious issue that homosexuals are persecuted. obviously i can sypathise with you but would be entirely stupid to try and empathise with you which wasnt what i was trying to achieve above.

You got those backwards. Sympathize would be the ability to call back on a mutually shared experience. Empathize would be understanding of a situation without actually sharing the same experience.

It seems to me that we as a society should stop pointing the finger at homosexuality and instead point it at the horrible face of homophobes for these are the ones who deserved to be judged. In fact we should all listen to the wise words of slightly out of context misquoted martin luther king and move away from our pre-programmed convention of judging people because of there appearance or lifestyle choice and when theres a lot of assholes out there who go unjudged

I would assume you were looking to be overwhelmed with dissenting opinions by throwing a baited thread out there so I find it harder to be concerned with biting off more than you can chew. So I have to ask, Is it really the best idea to fight against hatred, ignorance, intolerance and bigotry with hatred, ignorance, intolerance and bigotry? Has that EVER worked to Deescalate hostility?

 

[thethird0611]

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage. Enforcing definitions is not discrinimation. If there was something that was exactly the same as marriage, except it was between two people of the same sex and called something else would that be acceptible or still discriminatory because the marriage wasn't redefined to suit homosexual couples?

You're right. It would be changing marriage. Why on earth would that be bad? If the existing definition is discriminatory, then enforcing the status quo (for no other reason than it is the status quo) is indeed discriminatory.

It is bad. Your never going to admit it though.

Forcing a culture to change itself to accommodate you is horrendous.

I say it exactly like that, because I have had discussions with people who fully support gay marriage and hate religion. I asked them "What if we find a compromise. What if under the government it is all civil unions, hetero, homo, etc."

"NO. We HAVE to have marriage or your a bigot"

The definition of marriage is not discriminatory, it is a definition that fits. Many people who are pro-gay marriage have made it discriminatory by forcing it to be what they want, like a child who cant have a toy that another is playing with.

Oh, and now that you think you know me by reading all that, I am pro-gay civil union with equal benefits. The only thing is, I fully respect religious culture, their traditions, their ideals.

You mean you want religious dominance in law.

Where did I say that? Point me to where I want religious dominance in law.

Was it where I said that we should have civil unions under the government for all unions, hetero and homo?

Is it where I wanted equal benefits for homosexual couples?

Or is it where I actually sympathize with both parties and wanted to find a compromise that kept both a very religious dominated tradition with the religious area, but also a way that allowed homosexuals to have equal benefits?

You want their opinions to have legal impact. That's more than respect. Oh, but it has to be your religion and the sects that share your opinion.

It's the part where you try to give ownership of a legal concept to your religion and only those of a certain opinion on gay marriage.

Again, tell me where I said I wanted religious dominated law.

Oh no, but I must have no respect for pro-gay marriage people since I want their views to have legal impact.

OH WAIT. I wanted -both- side to have an impact on it. Oh no, I WANT COMPROMISE. EVERYONE RUN.

So im waiting. How do I want religious dominated law?

I told you where you asked for it. You don't need to say it explicitly for it to be your position. It shows itself when you ask for something that is religious dominance.

Funny, I didn't say 'no respect'.

And just yelling 'compromise' doesn't magically make you right as you seem to think.

Your compromise involves religious dominance in the law where it does not belong.

Actually, no, no it doesnt. So now, im going to do a magic trick. Im going to show your how you are wrong wrong wrong.

Yes, it does.

You never said where I wanted religious dominated law. My ideals actually take all religion -out- of government law and make it a government defined union between two people. Thats not religious dominated. Each religion can then make Marriage mean what ever the fuck they want it to be.

I did. I said: "It's the part where you try to give ownership of a legal concept to your religion and only those of a certain opinion on gay marriage." You know, the bit where you insist that your religious views should be 'respected' by insisting that the legal concept of marriage can't include gays marrying. And insisting it be removed, as if the religious own the concept, is again showing your desire for religious dominance in law. Being so arrogant as to think the religious own the word and it can't be used in a secular manner is where you show that you think religious opinion should dominate.

No, but you implied it heavily. And it pisses me off, because I have respect for people and their views, unless you explicitly do something to piss me off and take that respect away. I.E. making your only argument being something that is 100% WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.

No, in fact I didn't I'd suggest it's your paranoia about being persecuted on the forums.

Your just like most people who hold a view. You are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You hate compromise because you cant have exactly what you want.

You're just like most people who don't think rationally. Instead of paying attention to arguments and how good they are you just shout "COMPROMISE" and anyone who doesn't agree with you is clearly evil and against compromise in and of itself.

Haha, well im going to leave my last comments and not going to reply anymore because you have this god awful thought process about how your always right.

First off. Are you ever going to ask, "Hey, thethird0611, are you religious?" Because you would get a surprising answer of, "You know, not really. More agnostic, kinda teetering between atheism and religious, and it could change at anytime.". I just have respect for cultures and people, and dont want people to shove people out of the way just so -their- views can flourish.

Second. Marriage is only a legal concept because of religious people. Taking it out and replacing it with a neutral term that encompasses all couples is not religious dominated, that is taking religion out of government and making it fair for all. Buttttttt, I dont know why I continue to say that, because you have this weird view that if anything doesnt give you exactly what you want, it is wrong and purely religious.

Third. I dont care about paranoia and persecution. These forums have a really bad thought process of 'everything liberal/atheist is right and everything conservative/religious is wrong". Hell, I can converse with my friend on Transexuality (who is currently in transition between MtF)(And its fun to discuss because I did a personal study of it when I was major in Psych), and it can be thoughtful and both sides can go away with something. On these forums? Nope. Everyone is a bigot who doesnt support them.

Fourth. No, yeah, compromise doesnt help everything, but its much better to find something to make everyone happy than to think that the whole world is an us v them battle, and that only YOU have the right answers.

So yeah, have fun. If you really want to reply with something constructive, send me a PM. I wont be checking back here because all I will find here is another attack against me because you dont agree with my views.

 

[Silvanus]

It is bad. Your never going to admit it though.

Forcing a culture to change itself to accommodate you is horrendous.

I say it exactly like that, because I have had discussions with people who fully support gay marriage and hate religion. I asked them "What if we find a compromise. What if under the government it is all civil unions, hetero, homo, etc."

"NO. We HAVE to have marriage or your a bigot"

The definition of marriage is not discriminatory, it is a definition that fits. Many people who are pro-gay marriage have made it discriminatory by forcing it to be what they want, like a child who cant have a toy that another is playing with.

Oh, and now that you think you know me by reading all that, I am pro-gay civil union with equal benefits. The only thing is, I fully respect religious culture, their traditions, their ideals.

What of religious groups who want to perform the ceremonies? Quakers, and many other individual churches, have wanted to do so for a long time.

The law, as it was, did not allow them to do so. Religious culture is not uniformly against performing the ceremonies. It is not respecting religious culture to ban them from performing the ceremonies they want, just because most Churches are against it.

How is your "all inclusive" definition any better? Would it allow for plural marriages? Would it all hetro or home incestual marriages? Changing the status quo for no other reason then gay marriage is the current "flavour of the month" and not because you want to fix the discrimination of marriage as an institution is not really much of a better idea then creating a new just as discriminatory definition of a couple.

I'm sure they called mixed-race marriage the equivalent of "flavour of the month", too. Why change tradition, after all?

I live on the planet Earth, where do you live where everyone is always honest about their opinions?

You're intentionally missing my point.

In the town & county where I live, the majority is against gay marriage. They are also vocal about it.

I am not being "fashionable".

 

[MagunBFP]

To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage.

You mean like we've already changed it from a property exchange, included monogamy, discouraged sex outside of marriage, changed who can get married, redefined it to allow people of different races and faiths to get married, changed it into a religious institution, removed the capacity of family members to marry, etc? Hell, same-sex marriage isn't even all that new a concept, except for the legal benefits side.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to redefine this sacred institution which is completely carved in stone.

Or rather then adding another change because of the "flavour of the month" was missing from Marriage Version 24, we could scrap it and start from scratch with a completely secular definition that could be as all encompassing as we wanted. Leave marriage to the gods and start with secular life bonds or something.

I told you where you asked for it. You don't need to say it explicitly for it to be your position.

Hang on... we're allowed to put words in other peoples mouths now? Cause I'm pretty sure you accused me of doing the same thing... you can't have it both ways

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You know, I've never really understood the word "homophobe" or "homophobia."

I mean, the literal meaning is someone who has a strong and irrational fear of gay people right? But how many "homophobes" are actually literally afraid of gays? The entire word seems like a misnomer.

 

[MagunBFP]

How is your "all inclusive" definition any better? Would it allow for plural marriages? Would it all hetro or home incestual marriages? Changing the status quo for no other reason then gay marriage is the current "flavour of the month" and not because you want to fix the discrimination of marriage as an institution is not really much of a better idea then creating a new just as discriminatory definition of a couple.

I'm sure they called mixed-race marriage the equivalent of "flavour of the month", too. Why change tradition, after all?

I'm sure it was, it seems you're missing the point I was making. The fact is that we've changed and added to marriage repeatedly through it's history, it's barely even symbolically what it used to be. Rather then just keep adding to the patchwork of additions and addemdums that define marriage we should fix the whole damn thing. The problem is when there are people who don't care about anything not being included except for their own personal agendas and they insist that "insert flavour here" gets taken care of immediately and then eventually they'll support someone elses "harder" or "less important" flavour, such as is often the arguement when polygamy is brought into the marriage equality debate.

I live on the planet Earth, where do you live where everyone is always honest about their opinions?

You're intentionally missing my point.

In the town & county where I live, the majority is against gay marriage. They are also vocal about it.

I am not being "fashionable".

So everyone in your town and county is always honest about their opinions? Then I envy you, we could all do with a little less bullshit and a lot more honesty. To be honest I don't know you from Bob, so telling me you're not being fashionable is relatively meaningless. Just like you could be thinking I'm a bigot because you don't agree with me... doesn't really make any difference.

 

[MagunBFP]

I told you where you asked for it. You don't need to say it explicitly for it to be your position.

Hang on... we're allowed to put words in other peoples mouths now? Cause I'm pretty sure you accused me of doing the same thing... you can't have it both ways

This is not a hard concept.

If someone says "I hate blacks" I don't need to point out where they say "I'm racist."

If someone says the law shouldn't be changed a certain way because of religious beliefs I don't need to point out where they say "I want religious dominance in law"

You also put quotes as if I said them. Good job owning up to... oh wait you didn't, you just failed to understand something, jumped on it thinking you'd win some sort of prize, and never replied to the actual reply to you.

I see, so swearing on a bible in court or having "In God We Trust" printed on currency or any other mention of god/religion enshrined in law is religious dominance?

Saying that religion should have a place in law is hardly saying it should be a dominant force. It's not an idea I agree with but it's an idea and it's hardly the worst one out there.

True I didn't respond to your message, I'm at work and replying to you is never a quick action. As for the quotes, it was more for the rephrasing of the hate implicit in the bigotry you were saying was really the only reason anyone could possibly not support gay marriage... when I quote you I use a quote box, I find it makes it alot clearer

 

[Stasisesque]

Maybe some races/tribes were simply better. Evolved more/faster.

I suggest, if you are interested, you read up a little on unilinear evolution. Please note the theories are obsolete so they'll need to be read in the context of early 19th century, mostly British sociologists.