Reasons for Opposition to Gay Marriage?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Batou667:
Just out of interest, are there any reasons for opposing homosexuality that wouldn't be branded "bigoted" or "stupid" by the majority here?

I doubt it. Opposing gay marriage, I can almost understand. I think it's an indefensible position and rooted mostly in bigotry, but I can kinda see why people might feel that way.

Opposing homosexuality in general is ridiculous, though; it's here, it's queer, get used to it. Opposing the concept of homosexuality is sort of like saying you oppose the sea or gravity. These things all occur naturally, are clearly a part of the world we live in, and calling them disgusting or being "opposed" to them isn't going to make even the slightest bit of difference to that. You could say that you find the moon disgusting on "moral and ethical grounds", and it would make about the same amount of sense.

thaluikhain:

SonicWaffle:
In fairness, nobody (or at least, not on the same level - I imagine if it is happening it's a petition started in a basement and signed by one person) is attempting to legislate acceptance of Obama's commiemuslimnaziatheist status or trying to get schools to teach the moon landings as fake. There's an undercurrent of backlash against the gay issue because people feel their views are under attack, and when a person's views are attacked that tends to make them more aggressive in defending them.

There may be only one simple answer, but the more we insist our version is true the harder people are going to fight back.

I suppose so. Evolution and abortion seem to have gotten more controversial, not less, in many places.

It's a known phenomenon, though I don't recall the name right now, where in some cases the more you prove someone wrong the harder they fight you. Some people just can't cope with their worldview being wrong, so rather than accept that they might have made a mistake they will go to ridiculous lengths (up to and including intense levels of denial) to argue that they are in fact right and the evidence against them is false.

Seems to be the basis for a lot of creationist "proof" - they tend to focus on one tiny aspect of evolutionary theory, pick holes in it which are usually based on things we don't know yet, and then claim that they've disproven the entire thing. At which point I assume they go off for a congratulatory back-slapping session and to announce that they've proved creationism by default.

Batou667:
Just out of interest, are there any reasons for opposing homosexuality that wouldn't be branded "bigoted" or "stupid" by the majority here?

I'm pro-equality myself but poor ol' Fisher321 seems to have put himself in an unwinnable situation. People are lining up to tell him that his subjective opinion is wrong and their subjective opinions are correct, because this is the Escapist and we're super-liberal here and we've defined gay rights as something you must support Or You're A Bigot.(TM)

Basically, we've created a thread where there is only one defensible position, and that strikes me as intellectually rather "off".

In theory, yes. I don't know of any, but I am willing to accept that there might be non-bigoted reasons out there. It comes down to having an actual reason, not "I don't like gays". Not "the Bible/church says so". The argument that marriage benefits are for couples to raise children almost meets this criteria, but fails to account for the fact that many of the benefits have nothing to do with children, the option for gays to have children from previous relationships/adoption/surrogates, or the fact that we give benefits to couples that cannot or choose not to procreate.

I realise I am essentially asking for a unicorn here, but I am willing to entertain the idea that there may be secular. defencible, consistent arguments out there. I simply have yet to encounter one.

Reginald:
Well, no. Since, you know, opposition to homosexuality is intrinsically bigoted.

That's still a straight-up a priori. Can you explain why it's bigoted?

Reginald:
The kid didn't give any actual reasons. He essentially said he just doesn't like men who like other men.

A more charitable way of phrasing that would be to say that homosexuality goes against his personal morality and ethics, and don't we make these kind of moral stands all the time in our so-called progressive and permissive society? Pedophilia is illegal, regardless of proveable consent or harm. Bestiality is illegal regardless of whether the animal is harmed or even if the animal arguably initiated the act. Necrophilia and cannibalism are illegal, even if the deceased has signed a consent form or waiver, and those are two "crimes" that can truly be said to be victimless. But all of the above are still illegal because "we" as a society don't approve of such things - these acts don't fit in with the prevailing paradigm of acceptability. And historically, in our culture at least, homosexuality didn't fit into the prevailing paradigm of acceptable social behaviour either - and that may still hold true for certain socially conservative people.

thaluikhain:
Lots of questions have simple answers. You could as well ask if there is any real rational evidence that the moon landing was faked, or that Obama is a commie muslim african jewish space lizard. You'd get much the same answer for that, and nobody would be surprised.

The difference is that if I questioned whether the moon landings were faked, people could guide me through the logical steps to prove how actually it was possible, feasible, attainable with mid-20th century hardware, and so on. Very few people would curl their lip and say "They just happened, stupid, stop talking or people will think you're a bigot."

Gold:
I personally find that notion that you can "oppose homosexuality" absolutely retarded to begin with.

I doubt even the most homophobic person would doubt that homosexuality is real - I meant social expression of homosexuality, case in point, gay marriage.

Yup, I'm straining pretty badly under the weight of playing Devil's Advocate for this long as I really don't share Fisher321's viewpoint at all. But what happened to "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it"? Where would the harm be in trying to find out the reasoning or motivation behind "unpopular" viewpoints such as this, rather than the usual Liberal partisan trick of crying bigot, or racist, or Islamophobe or anti-Semite and considering the case closed? I can't think of a single time where understanding has been promoted or a discussion has been improved by shutting down one side of the argument.

Batou667:

Reginald:
Well, no. Since, you know, opposition to homosexuality is intrinsically bigoted.

That's still a straight-up a priori. Can you explain why it's bigoted?

Because opposing a group because of their sexuality is bigotry?

Batou667:
A more charitable way of phrasing that would be to say that homosexuality goes against his personal morality and ethics, and don't we make these kind of moral stands all the time in our so-called progressive and permissive society? Pedophilia is illegal, regardless of proveable consent or harm. Bestiality is illegal regardless of whether the animal is harmed or even if the animal arguably initiated the act. Necrophilia and cannibalism are illegal, even if the deceased has signed a consent form or waiver, and those are two "crimes" that can truly be said to be victimless. But all of the above are still illegal because "we" as a society don't approve of such things - these acts don't fit in with the prevailing paradigm of acceptability. And historically, in our culture at least, homosexuality didn't fit into the prevailing paradigm of acceptable social behaviour either - and that may still hold true for certain socially conservative people.

Discomfort isn't a good reason to deny gays their rights. If we could prove gay marriage would cause a meteor to destroy the Earth, then maybe that would be a good reason.

al4674:

Uszi:
...
In all seriousness though, with this objection, the simplest reply is that gay marriage has nothing to do with any other form of marriage. Polygamy, marrying animals or inanimate objects are each their own, separate issues and should be discussed individually on their own merits. There are no flood gates.
I mean, that puts the onus on them to explain why they think that gay marriage and polygamy or bestiality or anything else are essentially the same, and the explanation usually will kick back to your first few objections, i.e. "The bible says its wrong," or, "It will destroy the sanctity of marriage!"
To which there are already fantastic rebuttals.

When the great sexual revolution was taking place, people also voiced concerns about the future of sexual practices. There were fears that if promiscuity and divorce were condoned, then it would lead to a society of sexual hedonism, where all manner of devations from the heterosexual norm would be acceptable - it would go from traditional marital relations to promiscuous relations to homosexual relations to polygamous, to incestuous etc.

Looking at the world today, I must say that the conservatives were for the most part right.

Really? Sexual hedonism? Is that what we have these days?

I am of the impression that there are a few things most Americans in general consider more important than their personal sexual gratification. It certainly isn't my number one and only priority. I have interests like: getting a good job, providing for a future family, being an ethical and fair person, etc. Especially when the rest of the planet, outside of, I guess, the Vatican and Islamic Governments, thinks Americans are prudes when it comes to sex. I mean, I'd write that choice of words off as hyperbole if you had given me any indication that you were exaggerating. It looked like you were attempting to be serious, though.

Are we slightly more cavalier about sex than we were before 1960? Of course! But there isn't anyway to be less cavalier about sex than we were in the era of Leave it to Beaver. Married couples slept in separate beds on TV and in movies before 1960, for fuck's sake (... hehe, get it?)

al4674:

Promiscuity, divorces, unwanted pregnancies etc have skyrocketed, the spread of STD's is out of control etc.

Has it? Do you have numbers? Or is this what you digested from the "conservatives" who were "for the most part right" about the sexual hedonism we are experiencing in this country?

As it turns out, Divorce rates are trending down, according to the CDC/NCHS:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18600304/ns/us_news-life/t/us-divorce-rate-falls-lowest-level/#.UL-UBGfVpNJ
image

As it turns out, teenage pregnancies are trending down:
http://shawneehistory.tripod.com/12.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf

As it turns out, sexual promiscuity has been more or less stable for the past 40 years:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/

As it turns out, the STI rate for many STIs is down, especially when you account for better reporting and greater willingness by the populace to talk about and seek treatment for STIs.(STD is no longer the politically correct term for refering to sexually transmitted infections)
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/foreword.htm

Even if you can find evidence that the rates have increased, it would still be an exaggeration to say that they have "skyrocketed." People certainly got divorced before 1960, had sex before marriage before 1960, and unintended pregnancies before 1960, and spread sexually transmitted infections before 1960.

al4674:

The very fact that we are discussing the morality of homosexuality today shows that the slippery slope argument is valid and working.

No, no it doesn't. Just because you decide, or your group of "conservatives" decides to group issues, it does not mean they are necessarily causative relationships between any them. Even if you are able to establish some causative relationships within that group, i.e. sexual liberation in the 1960s has lead to greater social acceptance of homosexuality in 2012, it doesn't suddenly make all of the issues you've grouped together interdependent, or causative of one another. And it doesn't mean that homosexuality and, say, teen pregnancy are related to or influence one another. They are separate issues.

You certainly can't say that promiscuity lead to homosexuality will lead to polygamy, incest and bestiality. It doesn't logically follow.

Look, sexual promiscuity is its own issue, with its own causes and effects. Homosexuality is an entirely separate issue, with its own causes and effects. The same goes for polygamy, incest and bestiality. The only way in which you can possibly group these separate issues together is to make a list of sexual practices that conservatives find abhorrent.

al4674:

What people fail to see that condoning gay marriage has concrete consequences.

Such as gays getting married. Trust me, no one thinks that nothing will happen if we allow gay marriage. Most of us just disagree with you about all the other things you claim are going to happen.

al4674:
When we are talking about gay relations, we are talking about a sexual practice that deviates from the heterosexual norm.

What do you mean by the "heterosexual norm?"

Are you simply referring to the fact that the majority of folks are interested in heterosexual intercourse? Are you saying that the United States are culturally heterosexual (even though we've always had a minority homosexual population?) Or are you even being that limited? Are you talking about human behavior in general? Because depending on where you are on the planet and in time, there certainly was no such thing as the "heterosexual norm."

al4674:

So a follow-up question must be asked:
Can we justly discriminate in favor of some deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable sexual standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate other deviations from reasonable sexual standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

This is why we have a disconnect, I think.

You create a fictitious sexual norm, which is based on what "conservatives" say it is. You argue that there are some sort of sexual standards. You then claim that anything that is not within those standards is a "deviation." You then claim that we must treat all of these "deviations" must be treated equally.

First, there is no sexual norm. You must establish that there is a sexual norm.

Second, even if there was a sexual norm, there are no sexual standards. You must establish that even if there is a sexual norm, that there is also a set of sexual standards that we are somehow held to.

Third, even if there is a sexual norm and a set of sexual standards, there is no requirement to take separate "deviations" from the "sexual standards" as equal. You must established that even if there is a sexual norm, and even if there are a set of sexual standards, that we must treat separate deviations from the norm equally.

Let me make an analogy for you:

When we are talking about loitering in a store, we are talking about a shopping practice that deviates from the shopping norm. So a follow-up question must be asked:
Can we justly discriminate in favor of some deviations and against others? No. If we tolerate deviations from reasonable shopping standards, then we will fairly have to tolerate other deviations from reasonable shopping standards because all of the different kinds of deviates will demand consistency from us and nondiscriminatory equal treatment.

For purposes of argument, other deviations include, but are not limited to: buying out of style clothing, shop lifting, physically assaulting other shoppers, yodeling while shopping, discarding trash in store aisles, wiping ones nose on merchandise and then returning it to shelves, eating and drinking in the store, not wearing shoes while in the store.

Since these are all deviations, they must all be treated equally, or else we are discriminating against the other deviates.

Do you get where I am going with this false equivalency between entirely unrelated issues? No one in their right mind would say that if we allow people to buy ugly clothes, we must also allow people to steal clothes and assault other customers.

al4674:

Therefore, if liberals get to redefine the definition of marriage to suit their supported demographic, why can't other groups do so as well?

You have literally been doing that your entire post: you've defined marriage in a way that is consistent only with what "conservatives" feel it should be. Feel free to continue, no one said you couldn't.

al4674:
Why are there no talks about legalizing incestuous relationships (like father and daughter relations) which can also take place between consenting adults, making them eligible for marriage? Why can't a necrophiliac, who legally obtained a dead body, marry it? Etc etc.

It sounds like we should answer those questions. Which would mean we are treating them as separate issues, considering them on a separate basis, each on their own merits, problems, causes and effects.

This means there is no slippery slope. QED.

al4674:

This is a question of intellectual honesty and logical consistency.

Couldn't agree more!

al4674:
None of the pro-gay marriage advocates are making a case for incest for example, even though the arguments are very much the same.

They are not very much the same.

Batou667:

I'm pro-equality myself but poor ol' Fisher321 seems to have put himself in an unwinnable situation. People are lining up to tell him that his subjective opinion is wrong and their subjective opinions are correct, because this is the Escapist and we're super-liberal here and we've defined gay rights as something you must support Or You're A Bigot.(TM).

If you weren't a bigot, why wouldn't you at least be okay with gay rights, it's worth asking.

Considering that gay rights still includes the right to, you know, not be thrown in prison for our private sexual practices with another consenting adult, I damn sure don't mind calling someone opposed to gay rights a bigot.

Fisher deserves what he gets. He wants to throw down the gauntlet, we'll smack him with it.

But if you call me super-liberal again, I'll get to preaching even louder. I'm not welcome in Camp Leftwing for some very clear reasons....

GunsmithKitten:

Batou667:

I'm pro-equality myself but poor ol' Fisher321 seems to have put himself in an unwinnable situation. People are lining up to tell him that his subjective opinion is wrong and their subjective opinions are correct, because this is the Escapist and we're super-liberal here and we've defined gay rights as something you must support Or You're A Bigot.(TM).

If you weren't a bigot, why wouldn't you at least be okay with gay rights, it's worth asking.

Considering that gay rights still includes the right to, you know, not be thrown in prison for our private sexual practices with another consenting adult, I damn sure don't mind calling someone opposed to gay rights a bigot.

Fisher deserves what he gets. He wants to throw down the gauntlet, we'll smack him with it.

But if you call me super-liberal again, I'll get to preaching even louder. I'm not welcome in Camp Leftwing for some very clear reasons....

What do we call people who are for gay-rights? Bigot sounds like an insult so we need something insulting for the other side.
What about those of us who are pro-equality but against gay marriage? I'm one of those who prefers if we just got rid of marriage and either had nothing or civil unions for everyone.

Xan Krieger:

GunsmithKitten:

Batou667:

I'm pro-equality myself but poor ol' Fisher321 seems to have put himself in an unwinnable situation. People are lining up to tell him that his subjective opinion is wrong and their subjective opinions are correct, because this is the Escapist and we're super-liberal here and we've defined gay rights as something you must support Or You're A Bigot.(TM).

If you weren't a bigot, why wouldn't you at least be okay with gay rights, it's worth asking.

Considering that gay rights still includes the right to, you know, not be thrown in prison for our private sexual practices with another consenting adult, I damn sure don't mind calling someone opposed to gay rights a bigot.

Fisher deserves what he gets. He wants to throw down the gauntlet, we'll smack him with it.

But if you call me super-liberal again, I'll get to preaching even louder. I'm not welcome in Camp Leftwing for some very clear reasons....

What do we call people who are for gay-rights? Bigot sounds like an insult so we need something insulting for the other side.
What about those of us who are pro-equality but against gay marriage? I'm one of those who prefers if we just got rid of marriage and either had nothing or civil unions for everyone.

Bigot usually is an insult, and I would imagine most of us who used it in replies to fisher meant it that way. Gay rights is, as a political issue, unusual, because it has a clear cut right and wrong, similar to civil rights movements regarding race. It doesn't make sense to need an "insult" for those on the equality side. But I guess if we were truly desperate, we could take "fag enablers" courtesy of those wonderful folk at the WBC.

As for your position, it clearly isn't intolerant or hateful towards any particular group on the sole grounds of what that group is, so you're clearly not a bigot, and anyone calling you such is full of shit. Moreover, that reasoning as far as I'm concerned is pretty much the only acceptable reason behind opposition to gay marriage, because it's more a stance on marriage in general than to do with the gay variety.

CAMDAWG:

Xan Krieger:

GunsmithKitten:

If you weren't a bigot, why wouldn't you at least be okay with gay rights, it's worth asking.

Considering that gay rights still includes the right to, you know, not be thrown in prison for our private sexual practices with another consenting adult, I damn sure don't mind calling someone opposed to gay rights a bigot.

Fisher deserves what he gets. He wants to throw down the gauntlet, we'll smack him with it.

But if you call me super-liberal again, I'll get to preaching even louder. I'm not welcome in Camp Leftwing for some very clear reasons....

What do we call people who are for gay-rights? Bigot sounds like an insult so we need something insulting for the other side.
What about those of us who are pro-equality but against gay marriage? I'm one of those who prefers if we just got rid of marriage and either had nothing or civil unions for everyone.

Bigot usually is an insult, and I would imagine most of us who used it in replies to fisher meant it that way. Gay rights is, as a political issue, unusual, because it has a clear cut right and wrong, similar to civil rights movements regarding race. It doesn't make sense to need an "insult" for those on the equality side. But I guess if we were truly desperate, we could take "fag enablers" courtesy of those wonderful folk at the WBC.

As for your position, it clearly isn't intolerant or hateful towards any particular group on the sole grounds of what that group is, so you're clearly not a bigot, and anyone calling you such is full of shit. Moreover, that reasoning as far as I'm concerned is pretty much the only acceptable reason behind opposition to gay marriage, because it's more a stance on marriage in general than to do with the gay variety.

The reason I think as I do is because to me marriage is between man and woman while civil union sounds much more neutral, person A and person B. I love my gay friends and want them to have rights while at the same time I have to face myself and my definition of marriage. It seems a solid middle ground and I see no reason to disagree. As for the whole bigot issue, I want that word gone because it offends my friends and my parents who are against gay marriage (such as my mother who voted for NC's amendment one).

You know, I have a group of 6 friends, and at least 4 of them are against it, but they don't care enough to campaign either way, a good sign. Now, what I find odd, is why the majority of the time, those against gay marrige are of the age 50+. Every tv interview is with an older man or woman, and if it's a young person they just spout the same religious BULLSHIT that the old ones do. Ah religion, how I loathe the.

Xan Krieger:
What do we call people who are for gay-rights? Bigot sounds like an insult so we need something insulting for the other side.

You don't look around much if you don't see them; Repropbate, pervert, communist, sodomite enabler, godless. There's a few to start with.

GunsmithKitten:

Xan Krieger:
What do we call people who are for gay-rights? Bigot sounds like an insult so we need something insulting for the other side.

You don't look around much if you don't see them; Repropbate, pervert, communist, sodomite enabler, godless. There's a few to start with.

I sorta like the idea that we "need" an insult for people supporting people's rights. Thos bastards!

I'm bigoted against child molesters. Flame me with your tolerance, you wonderful "people's rights" types.

lowhat:
I'm bigoted against child molesters. Flame me with your tolerance, you wonderful "people's rights" types.

I pray to god this is sarcasm, but child-molesters tend to *hurt* kids, as in rape and scar them emotionally. There's a reason why we don't tolerate it.

NemotheElvenPanda:

lowhat:
I'm bigoted against child molesters. Flame me with your tolerance, you wonderful "people's rights" types.

I pray to god this is sarcasm, but child-molesters tend to *hurt* kids, as in rape and scar them emotionally. There's a reason why we don't tolerate it.

I assume it's precursor to the usual "you're bigoted against bigots, shows how accepting you really are, stupid hypocritical left wing filth".

NemotheElvenPanda:

lowhat:
I'm bigoted against child molesters. Flame me with your tolerance, you wonderful "people's rights" types.

I pray to god this is sarcasm, but child-molesters tend to *hurt* kids, as in rape and scar them emotionally. There's a reason why we don't tolerate it.

Not tolerating it could actually be the problem.

I will once again point to the Sambia tribe of Africa, which still exists and operates to this very day. They believe that the male body doesn't produce semen naturally, so it must be given anally and orally in childhood so that the child will grow up to be big and strong. So at the age of 7-14, the boys are separated from their families and placed into a single man's house along with a few other boys, and they all become the man's...well...playthings, I guess (There is another phrase that describes it better, but even I'm not comfortable with saying it on a public forum). Ancient Romans also shared the idea that a young boy is a decent conquest for an older man.

Anyway, I bring them up because men who grew up in that tribe and later left to pursue a life in 'civilization' have been studied rather extensively by Psychologists and they've found that a very large majority have less sexual dysfunction/disorders than 'normal' men. Their childhood experiences weren't traumatizing because it was treated as a positive and necessary thing as opposed to something that was horrific and taboo.

Similar dealie with 11-14 being the normal age for girls to get married and have children with men in their 30-40's, which only really ended a couple of hundred years ago because of growing opposition from the Church.

Not really relevant to anything in particular, just thought it was worth mentioning.

Kopikatsu:

NemotheElvenPanda:

lowhat:
I'm bigoted against child molesters. Flame me with your tolerance, you wonderful "people's rights" types.

I pray to god this is sarcasm, but child-molesters tend to *hurt* kids, as in rape and scar them emotionally. There's a reason why we don't tolerate it.

Not tolerating it could actually be the problem.

I will once again point to the Sambia tribe of Africa, which still exists and operates to this very day. They believe that the male body doesn't produce semen naturally, so it must be given anally and orally in childhood so that the child will grow up to be big and strong. So at the age of 7-14, the boys are separated from their families and placed into a single man's house along with a few other boys, and they all become the man's...well...playthings, I guess (There is another phrase that describes it better, but even I'm not comfortable with saying it on a public forum). Ancient Romans also shared the idea that a young boy is a decent conquest for an older man.

Anyway, I bring them up because men who grew up in that tribe and later left to pursue a life in 'civilization' have been studied rather extensively by Psychologists and they've found that a very large majority have less sexual dysfunction/disorders than 'normal' men. Their childhood experiences weren't traumatizing because it was treated as a positive and necessary thing as opposed to something that was horrific and taboo.

Similar dealie with 11-14 being the normal age for girls to get married and have children with men in their 30-40's, which only really ended a couple of hundred years ago because of growing opposition from the Church.

Not really relevant to anything in particular, just thought it was worth mentioning.

That shouldn't be tolerated either, it's sexual abuse. Also their people are like people who believe the Earth is flat, scientifically wrong so they have no way to defend the abuse.

Xan Krieger:
That shouldn't be tolerated either, it's sexual abuse. Also their people are like people who believe the Earth is flat, scientifically wrong so they have no way to defend the abuse.

Sexual abuse to you based on your subjective morals. Again, the men from the Sambia Tribe do not suffer trauma from their childhood experiences. There is nothing objectively wrong with the way they did things as there was no harm being done to any parties involved.

Anyway, the whole 'The world is flat' theory wasn't very widely believed at any point in time to the best of my knowledge. In the early 200's BC, Eratosthenes was able to measure the circumference of the Earth almost exactly by doing nothing more than tracing the Sun's path through the sky and measuring that against the size of the city of Swenet. He more or less proved that the world was spherical in 240~ BC. 240 BC was a really long time ago. Not in the grand scheme of things, but as far as recorded history goes...it's pretty far back.

Xan Krieger:
snip

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "gone", as it's a little vague and could range from being disused as a buzzword for this issue, all the way to removed from the english language entirely. But that's not really important.

It all depends on the reasons behind someone's opinion. I don't automatically assume people opposed to gay marriage hate gay people, it sets off a warning bell, but you have to wait for an explanation. Now obviously I don't know your mother, but if she opposes gay marriage, and voted for that amendment, and her reasoning is in some way intolerant (which I'm going to assume it is, given what that bill was about), then unfortunately she is a bigot. That is simply what the word means. If she's offended, she needs to either get over it, or change her position. You can't just stop using words that are common usage, and completely accurate, because someone's insulted. I don't like to use the racial analogy again, but if there was someone who was campaigning for re-segregation, you wouldn't refrain from calling them rascist or bigoted, because those are words that perfectly describe the person.

Anyway, the only alternative to bigot i can think of is homophobic, and I really hate how widespread it's usage has become.

Reginald:

Because opposing a group because of their sexuality is bigotry?
...
Discomfort isn't a good reason to deny gays their rights. If we could prove gay marriage would cause a meteor to destroy the Earth, then maybe that would be a good reason.

A-ha! You've walked onto my big letter X with an easy counterpoint hanging above. What about paedophilia? That's one group of people who we routinely do discriminate against based on their sexual preferences and without strictly applying the harm principle.

(No, no, I didn't just equate homosexuality and paedophilia, I'm just pointing out that both of them were once taboo and now only one is - and actually if you go back a few centuries you'd find yourself in a society that accepted marriage at a much younger age than today but held that homosexuality was literally a one-way trip to Hell.

That's simply a product of our shifting and fairly subjective moral consensus, which has NEVER been based on proving our likes/dislikes rationally.)

GunsmithKitten:
But if you call me super-liberal again, I'll get to preaching even louder. I'm not welcome in Camp Leftwing for some very clear reasons....

How come, if you don't mind my asking? The gun advocacy?

Batou667:

Reginald:

Because opposing a group because of their sexuality is bigotry?
...
Discomfort isn't a good reason to deny gays their rights. If we could prove gay marriage would cause a meteor to destroy the Earth, then maybe that would be a good reason.

A-ha! You've walked onto my big letter X with an easy counterpoint hanging above. What about paedophilia? That's one group of people who we routinely do discriminate against based on their sexual preferences and without strictly applying the harm principle.

(No, no, I didn't just equate homosexuality and paedophilia, I'm just pointing out that both of them were once taboo and now only one is - and actually if you go back a few centuries you'd find yourself in a society that accepted marriage at a much younger age than today but held that homosexuality was literally a one-way trip to Hell.

That's simply a product of our shifting and fairly subjective moral consensus, which has NEVER been based on proving our likes/dislikes rationally.)

We're living in 2012, not 1202. We SHOULD be proving our dislikes. People in the past were idiots, it doesn't make 'eww!' a valid argument.

Batou667:
A-ha! You've walked onto my big letter X with an easy counterpoint hanging above. What about paedophilia? That's one group of people who we routinely do discriminate against based on their sexual preferences and without strictly applying the harm principle.

Paedophilia is actually harmful, though, even when the child consents. If you believe a child can consent, that is.

Batou667:

A-ha! You've walked onto my big letter X with an easy counterpoint hanging above. What about paedophilia? That's one group of people who we routinely do discriminate against based on their sexual preferences and without strictly applying the harm principle.

(No, no, I didn't just equate homosexuality and paedophilia, I'm just pointing out that both of them were once taboo and now only one is - and actually if you go back a few centuries you'd find yourself in a society that accepted marriage at a much younger age than today but held that homosexuality was literally a one-way trip to Hell.

That's simply a product of our shifting and fairly subjective moral consensus, which has NEVER been based on proving our likes/dislikes rationally.)

This one is pretty easy to resolve: Homosexual people having sex involves two consenting adults. Pedophilia involves an adult performing sexual acts on a child that can't consent, doesn't understand the implications of what's going on and runs the risk of being traumatized for life.
See the difference here? Two guys or two girls getting it on hurts no one, whereas a pedophile puts children at risk of severe physical and psychological trauma.

That some people are even willing to compare what I and my fiancée does in our bedroom to people who rape children speaks volumes about the intellectual dishonesty of the anti gay-marriage camp.

Outside of religious "reasons" (which are pretty much all crap) there really aren't any good reasons against gay marriage

I know homophobic people who are OK with gay marriage, so it's really hard for me to think of any argument against gay marriage that I can agree with.

That being said, morality is a thing and people have different morals. And some people are against gay marriage for moral reasons. We may not agree with them but we shouldn't mock them over it. Mocking them is not even just stupid and useless, it's actively counter-productive to changing someones mind.

Batou667:

A-ha! You've walked onto my big letter X with an easy counterpoint hanging above. What about paedophilia? That's one group of people who we routinely do discriminate against based on their sexual preferences and without strictly applying the harm principle.

This is a flawed argument.

We already have a great legal standard in the United States that prevents someone from successfully making this argument. It's the requirement that there be informed consent. And minors are typically defined as being unable to give informed consent in any number of applications. It's why your parents have to co-sign everything for you before you're 18.

It doesn't matter how much candy someone has in their van.

And it doesn't even matter that a child is "harmed" by the act, even though we know that they most certainly are. Minors simply lack the ability to give informed consent, and the discussion now ends there, without any need to consider the harm principle or discrimination.

This is one of the things that directly prevents the slippery slope. Pedophiles simply cannot get through the "flood gates" of legal gay marriage unless they can somehow get advocates to change our standard of informed consent as well.

Batou667:

(No, no, I didn't just equate homosexuality and paedophilia, I'm just pointing out that both of them were once taboo and now only one is - and actually if you go back a few centuries you'd find yourself in a society that accepted marriage at a much younger age than today but held that homosexuality was literally a one-way trip to Hell.

That's simply a product of our shifting and fairly subjective moral consensus, which has NEVER been based on proving our likes/dislikes rationally.)

I feel like we should probably stick with polygamy and bestiality if we're going to try and blur any lines in the sand.

How come, if you don't mind my asking? The gun advocacy?

That's the big one, but on a minor note, I'm also not a big fan of affirmative action and think Obummer is just Bush 2.0 when it comes to interventionalism and personal intrusion in the name of security.

my one problem with gay relationships/marriage is that from a wholly survival perspective, gay relationships produce no children compared to straight ones so if there were to many a countries population could go down instead of up

VALOCARAPTOR:
my one problem with gay relationships/marriage is that from a wholly survival perspective, gay relationships produce no children compared to straight ones so if there were to many a countries population could go down instead of up

You mean like it already is in many western nations? The problem isn't gay marriage in this case, but rather broad societal attitudes towards work, careering and family making that mean many couples postpone getting children until late in their lives and then only get one or two children since any more would adversely impact the mothers, and potentially the fathers, ability to continue their career post-natal stages.

If the prospect of dwindling populations is what you worry about, then giving homosexuals the right to marry isn't the solution. In case you haven't noticed, a homosexual person who isn't actively suppressing his or her sexual orientation will not be settling into a heterosexual relationship in the first place. So whatever or not homosexual people can marry doesn't matter from a population perspective, since they won't be contributing to the child making anyway (unless laws are passed to allow for things like same sex couple adoptions and artificial insemination of lesbian women).

VALOCARAPTOR:
my one problem with gay relationships/marriage is that from a wholly survival perspective, gay relationships produce no children compared to straight ones so if there were to many a countries population could go down instead of up

This is why I'm screwed if the zombies rise, the two girls I planned to save are lesbians. Even as the last man on Earth no girl loves me :(

VALOCARAPTOR:
my one problem with gay relationships/marriage is that from a wholly survival perspective, gay relationships produce no children compared to straight ones so if there were to many a countries population could go down instead of up

so i assume by extension you also have a problem with infertile and/or old people having relationships/getting married?

spartandude:

VALOCARAPTOR:
my one problem with gay relationships/marriage is that from a wholly survival perspective, gay relationships produce no children compared to straight ones so if there were to many a countries population could go down instead of up

so i assume by extension you also have a problem with infertile and/or old people having relationships/getting married?

Naturally. God cursed their genitals for a reason.

Batou667:

I doubt even the most homophobic person would doubt that homosexuality is real - I meant social expression of homosexuality, case in point, gay marriage.

actually, I've met some who do. They say that we're only gay because we're "Trying to rebel" or "just trying to look cool" or, the most simplistically baffling of all, "just wanting to have teenage fun" NONE of them believe there's a real attraction.

But what happened to "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it"?

That's an olive branch that I do NOT extend to people who would see me fucked over by the law.

I can't think of a single time where understanding has been promoted or a discussion has been improved by shutting down one side of the argument.

Think very, very, VERY carefully about the idea of allowing any and all ideas into any discussion before you go further. Not every idea deserves attention.

lowhat:
I'm bigoted against child molesters. Flame me with your tolerance, you wonderful "people's rights" types.

What does have to with homosexuality? Being homosexual doesn't automatically make you a pedophile.

Frission:

lowhat:
I'm bigoted against child molesters. Flame me with your tolerance, you wonderful "people's rights" types.

What does have to with homosexuality? Being homosexual doesn't automatically make you a pedophile.

It very well may, if we are to trust the theories of Adolph Brand, and he was on the inside.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked