Yes, you can't seem to envisage two men or two women being in a lifelong non-sexual relationship.
Sure I can. There's no reason why they couldn't get civil unionized in that situation. Just like two straight people in a non-sexual relationship can get married in the present, evil, bigoted situation.
Quote:
We don't want marriage, we want civil union. binding in certain things, not all.
But don't you see, that then guts the point of a gay civil union, which is that they have to have ALL the rights and privileges ?_and RESPONSIBILITIES ?_as a straight marriage. Otherwise, they're still second class unions, and are pretty much worthless.
I have a girl friend who has offered over the years several times to get married for various reasons- the last one that if we get four more years of GWB that we can move to Europe and I can legally work, since she has dual citizenship. We could walk down to city hall this afternoon and do this and have a completely non-sexual civil union in plain view. But I can't do anything of the sort with someone I would actually be in love with, rather than just love. Nice.
BTW- accusing gays of being somehow selfish because their rights would not be somehow transferrable to other minorities is like accusing the suffragettes of being selfish for trying to get women the vote. How awful they were not to have been trying to get the voting age lowered as well!
I'm going to say it one more goddamn time: Being against gay marriage does not automatically mean hating gays. It just doesn't.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
I'm going to say it one more time: Yes it does.
There's this friend of mine -- one of my best friends, actually -- who sometimes drives drunk. I find drunk driving to be deplorable and I am completely opposed to his actions. Does that mean I hate the guy? Of course not, just that I hate it when he does that.
There's this friend of mine -- one of my best friends, actually -- who sometimes drives drunk. I find drunk driving to be deplorable and I am completely opposed to his actions. Does that mean I hate the guy? Of course not, just that I hate it when he does that.
Are you saying that drunk driving is a genetic thing? Or just a lifestyle.
I've never caused a 4-car pileup because I liked boys...
Are you saying that drunk driving is a genetic thing? Or just a lifestyle.
I've never caused a 4-car pileup because I liked boys...
No, although there's evidence that alcoholism is genetic. Being an alcoholic certainly makes one more likely to drive drunk, seeing as how one would be drunk more often. Either way, it was just an illustration as to how you can strongly dislike one aspect of someone, but like them on the whole.
We don't want marriage, we want civil union. binding in certain things, not all.
Separate and unequal is not what is being discussed. We are talking about equality.
The whole point of this movement is to give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, not different ones and not less. The bindings have to be fully equal in the eyes of the state.
As it is now, heterosexuals are not at a disadvantage.
The type of union you describe above has absolutely nothing do do with gay marriage.
There's this friend of mine -- one of my best friends, actually -- who sometimes drives drunk. I find drunk driving to be deplorable and I am completely opposed to his actions. Does that mean I hate the guy? Of course not, just that I hate it when he does that.
This is an offensive parallel. Not only is driving drunk not any sort of innate characteristic, it is a harmful action that endangers other people. It is also 100% a choice.
No, although there's evidence that alcoholism is genetic. Being an alcoholic certainly makes one more likely to drive drunk, seeing as how one would be drunk more often. Either way, it was just an illustration as to how you can strongly dislike one aspect of someone, but like them on the whole.
So then homosexuality is a disease? Or a genetic disorder? Something that I could treat with 12 steps at the Betty Ford Center or Promises and then go on to date J-Lo?
I'm not quite sure if you aren't seeing the parallel here, or if you are. Or which is worse....
Unless you can justify all of the issues above (oh, and there are, of course, hundreds more), then all you have to fall back on is "that's icky and I hate those fags."
Which is your position, of course. That much is evident to anyone whose read your hateful, anti-gay posts.
Kirk
I have to tell you that I've encountered many people in my life who happen to be gay, and not one of them is as extreme and unreasonable as you appear to be.
I respect your views. However, you must accept that your view is the minority. One of the reasons that it's in the minority is the ongoing debate about whether or not being gay is a choice. I think you are very wrong to say that it is NEVER a choice. This contrasts to, say, being black, because being black is never a choice. Ever. While we can debate the topic and we can certianly disagree, you must at least accept the debate exists.
Now, to your rather insulting and borderline guideline-violating posts: I do not see how my posts can be characterized as hateful or even anti-gay. I certainly do not "hate fags" as you have put it. I've been associated with some brilliant, talented and just generally great people who happen to be gay. Who they choose to be with and how they're oriented sexually is really of no consequence to me. It never has been. This being said, I do oppose their ability to get married. It's not just about my belief system. There are many practical problems such as:
1) It will become much easier for two people to have a "sham" marriage for no other reason than legal/tax/financial benefits. Though this certainly happens now with heterosexuals, it will become far easier because the only requirement for marriage will be having another person present. That person would no longer even need to be of the opposite sex. I could go out and marry my best male friend, just so I could take advantage of things like estate planning benefits. This is not a problem?
2) As a taxpayer, I fund certain benefits for married couples. If gay marriage is allowed, I am now being forced to fund, with my own income, an orientation I do not agree with in general. Is that right? I don't think it is.
3) States Rights: If the people of the state of PA decide they don't want gay marriage, why should they have to recognize said marriages from, say, Oregon?
These are just some of the issues. Your position, that being that homosexualtiy is no more a choice than being a minority race, doesn't hold water. It's the basis for you calling me a gay hater, and it's flawed. If I opposed interracial marriage, I would be a bigot because there is truly no choice AT ALL in one's race. When it comes to gay marriage, the issue is quite different.
In any case, what this is really about is the complete and total acceptance of homosexuality in our society, despite the fact that 90% of the world's population is not gay. The real agenda is to have a society in which not only gay marriage is allowed, but taught as every bit as normal as marriage between a man and a woman. Tolerance of another way of living is fine and expected. Altering the course western civilization so that the "other way" becomes the norm is not.
Go ahead and think I hate you because we disagree. It's obvious your mind won't change. I wish you and your partner well.
This is an offensive parallel. Not only is driving drunk not any sort of innate characteristic, it is a harmful action that endangers other people. It is also 100% a choice.
Homosexuality is innate, and it hurts no one.
Try again.
Kirk
Which actually makes my point stronger. If I can get over something that can potentially kill people and is completely preventable, how much easier would it be for me to not care about something that you can't help and doesn't hurt anything*.
*For the record, I'm not sure I entirely agree on that point, but that's not what this thread is about and I don't have time write out all my views on the topic right now anyway. Suffice to say that I think that hating any group of people simply because they are what they are is completely wrong.
Which actually makes my point stronger. If I can get over something that can potentially kill people and is completely preventable, how much easier would it be for me to not care about something that you can't help and doesn't hurt anything*.
So you choose to hate gays. Right back at you, bigot.
And go ahead, tell me, how precisely does my relationship with my boyfriend hurt me? Or him? Or the people around us?
Come on. Don't hold back. You know you want to do it. Go ahead and say it.
I have to tell you that I've encountered many people in my life who happen to be gay, and not one of them is as extreme and unreasonable as you appear to be.
I note that you didn't even try to respond to a single issue I raised, indicating you don't give half a **** about the hardships in gay lives caused by people like you. Typical.
Quote:
However, you must accept that your view is the minority.
50 years ago, in the South, so was the view that blacks were equal human beings.
Quote:
One of the reasons that it's in the minority is the ongoing debate about whether or not being gay is a choice.
People of character and compassion are no longer debating this issue.
You, on the other hand, clearly are. Typical.
Quote:
1) It will become much easier for two people to have a "sham" marriage for no other reason than legal/tax/financial benefits.
Only marginally easier than it is now.
I should face all the hardships above just because you don't want two pals trying to get a slightly lower tax bill and estate benefits by faking a gay marriage? What the **** sort of priorities are those?
Oh, the priorities of a selfish bigot. Got it.
Quote:
2) As a taxpayer, I fund certain benefits for married couples. If gay marriage is allowed, I am now being forced to fund, with my own income, an orientation I do not agree with in general. Is that right? I don't think it is.
So should there be no divorce, since Catholics do not agree with it?
Should there be no meat served in the military, since vegetarians do not agree with it?
Should there be no free birth control available to public employees because it violates the tenets of Catholicism?
Should there be no women in government since it violates the beliefs of many mysoginists?
Should there be no military because it violates the beliefs of pacifists?
You don't get to say "my beliefs are all that are allowed to be funded." This is not a theocracy. And you are not the final arbiter of right and wrong, on how people should be allowed to live my life.
I don't agree with discrimination. In fact, my religion strongly opposes it. The current marriage laws are discriminatory, therefore I do not support them. Why should I be forced to support your filthy, disgusting heterosexual relationship?
Quote:
3) States Rights: If the people of the state of PA decide they don't want gay marriage, why should they have to recognize said marriages from, say, Oregon?
They shouldn't.
There, I answered your questions. Now you do the same to mine.
Let's see you try to justify all that pain and suffering.
Quote:
Altering the course western civilization so that the "other way" becomes the norm is not.
Who wants to make homosexuality "the" norm? I certainly don't.
Quote:
I wish you and your partner well.
You wish us pain and suffering, all of the pain and suffering I listed above ? you know, the issues you refused to address. And you probably get off just thinking about how hard your bigotry has made and will make our lives.
One of the reasons that it's in the minority is the ongoing debate about whether or not being gay is a choice. I think you are very wrong to say that it is NEVER a choice. This contrasts to, say, being black, because being black is never a choice. Ever. While we can debate the topic and we can certianly disagree, you must at least accept the debate exists.
I can also waste my time debating with a flat-earther. I choose not to. It isn't a choice. Period.
Quote:
Now, to your rather insulting and borderline guideline-violating posts: I do not see how my posts can be characterized as hateful or even anti-gay. I certainly do not "hate fags" as you have put it. I've been associated with some brilliant, talented and just generally great people who happen to be gay. Who they choose to be with and how they're oriented sexually is really of no consequence to me. It never has been. This being said, I do oppose their ability to get married.......Your position, that being that homosexualtiy is no more a choice than being a minority race, doesn't hold water. It's the basis for you calling me a gay hater, and it's flawed. If I opposed interracial marriage, I would be a bigot because there is truly no choice AT ALL in one's race. When it comes to gay marriage, the issue is quite different....
Go ahead and think I hate you because we disagree. It's obvious your mind won't change. I wish you and your partner well.
You wish them well, just a second-class kinda well- a sort of "why won't you shut up about your loathsome practices and just play nice" well. While it's very nice of you to actually interact with people that you find brilliant and talented but tragically flawed, your desire to see them oppressed is hateful, period. Your argument that your taxes should not be used to support things you don't like is insipid- why shoud mine be used to support things I don't like? Like roads in Pennsylvania that I don't use and music programs in public schools when I don't have kids.
Just don't try to sell me on your benevolence there, buddy.
Okay, I'll bite. It's important to examine your own reasoning and to question why you believe things. For what reason, other than hate (prejudice, xenophobia, call it what you like), might one decide that a certain group of people does not deserve equal rights to oneself? Or is it a matter of not believing that the right to gay unions and the benefits thereof IS the same right as the right to straight marriage? Does gay marriage carry with it verifiable negative repercussions which it does not hold in common with straight marriage? Do these repercussions cause harm not only to the participants but also to those around them and to our society as a whole?
Clearly, you can believe that a person's actions are wrong without hating the person, but is there any objective, more or less universally agreeable reason to assert that homosexuality and/or gay marriage are wrong? One not based solely on religious belief or personal aversion? Until provided with such a reason, I will have to maintain my belief that we are just going through a gradual change in our social norms, just like countless others in the past. In the future, one might expect to see exactly the same sort of legal and moral debates taking place over the issue of public nudity, or profanity, or any number of other social taboos.
Which actually makes my point stronger. If I can get over something that can potentially kill people and is completely preventable, how much easier would it be for me to not care about something that you can't help and doesn't hurt anything
I think you need some more editing there. Are you saying that you eguate a person's sexuality with a disease that is part genetic and part behavior? Are you saying that Homosexuality is a disorder that must be treated, because it destroys lives, kills innocents, and erodes the fabric of society? That out-of-control homosexuality kills tens of thousands every year? Would you host an "intervetion" on one of your gay friends who has just gotten too gay?
50 years ago, in the filth region we call the South, so was the view that blacks were equal human beings.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
I don't agree with discrimination. In fact, my religion strongly opposes it.
You seem to have no problem denigrating the entirety of the (non-black, non-gay) southern population of the United States in a hateful, radicalized, bigoted way.
Nice way to engender progress and communication and equality.
You seem to have no problem denigrating the entirety of the (non-black, non-gay) southern population of the United States in a hateful, radicalized, bigoted way.
Nice way to engender progress and communication and equality.
There are good people in the South. I've lived my whole life in the South. But there is no denying that the South is, generally speaking, a backwards place that is almost always quick to embrace evil and discrimination. This is the region, after all, that fought a war to continue the immoral enslavement of other people. This is the region, after all, that until the mid-1800s barred Roman Catholics from holding public office in most localities and states. This is the region, after all, of Jim Crowe and the Ku Klux Klan.
I've lived 26 years in the South, and I can't come up with one redeeming thing to say about it.
If it's bigoted to tell the truth about the South, a truth I live with every day of my life, then I'll admit to being a bigot. And I'll also admit that I can't wait to get out of school so that I can quickly become a former Southerner.
I think you need some more editing there. Are you saying that you eguate a person's sexuality with a disease that is part genetic and part behavior? Are you saying that Homosexuality is a disorder that must be treated, because it destroys lives, kills innocents, and erodes the fabric of society? That out-of-control homosexuality kills tens of thousands every year? Would you host an "intervetion" on one of your gay friends who has just gotten too gay?
Kirkland says it's "innate" which is just cute-speak for genetic.
He avoids saying genetic 1. because it's not proven yet and 2. if it is genetic then the Pandora's Box of extremists trying to "cure" it will be open and we'll see tests, "cures", and abortions before you can say "bigot".
I'm saying basically what he said it's just that when I say it he reads bigotry into it. I said take civil unions now, and later when society evolves a bit further, push for marriage. By then I hope there wouldn't be a mad rush to "fix" homosexuality.
When he says it it's the Gospel according to the Gays, when I say it it's "bigoted"....
Comments
Originally posted by johnq
Yes, you can't seem to envisage two men or two women being in a lifelong non-sexual relationship.
Sure I can. There's no reason why they couldn't get civil unionized in that situation. Just like two straight people in a non-sexual relationship can get married in the present, evil, bigoted situation.
We don't want marriage, we want civil union. binding in certain things, not all.
But don't you see, that then guts the point of a gay civil union, which is that they have to have ALL the rights and privileges ?_and RESPONSIBILITIES ?_as a straight marriage. Otherwise, they're still second class unions, and are pretty much worthless.
Kirk
BTW- accusing gays of being somehow selfish because their rights would not be somehow transferrable to other minorities is like accusing the suffragettes of being selfish for trying to get women the vote. How awful they were not to have been trying to get the voting age lowered as well!
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm going to say it one more goddamn time: Being against gay marriage does not automatically mean hating gays. It just doesn't.
Originally posted by Kirkland
I'm going to say it one more time: Yes it does.
There's this friend of mine -- one of my best friends, actually -- who sometimes drives drunk. I find drunk driving to be deplorable and I am completely opposed to his actions. Does that mean I hate the guy? Of course not, just that I hate it when he does that.
Originally posted by Whisper
There's this friend of mine -- one of my best friends, actually -- who sometimes drives drunk. I find drunk driving to be deplorable and I am completely opposed to his actions. Does that mean I hate the guy? Of course not, just that I hate it when he does that.
Are you saying that drunk driving is a genetic thing? Or just a lifestyle.
I've never caused a 4-car pileup because I liked boys...
Originally posted by tmp
Are you saying that drunk driving is a genetic thing? Or just a lifestyle.
I've never caused a 4-car pileup because I liked boys...
No, although there's evidence that alcoholism is genetic. Being an alcoholic certainly makes one more likely to drive drunk, seeing as how one would be drunk more often. Either way, it was just an illustration as to how you can strongly dislike one aspect of someone, but like them on the whole.
Originally posted by johnq
We don't want marriage, we want civil union. binding in certain things, not all.
Separate and unequal is not what is being discussed. We are talking about equality.
The whole point of this movement is to give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, not different ones and not less. The bindings have to be fully equal in the eyes of the state.
As it is now, heterosexuals are not at a disadvantage.
The type of union you describe above has absolutely nothing do do with gay marriage.
Originally posted by Whisper
There's this friend of mine -- one of my best friends, actually -- who sometimes drives drunk. I find drunk driving to be deplorable and I am completely opposed to his actions. Does that mean I hate the guy? Of course not, just that I hate it when he does that.
This is an offensive parallel. Not only is driving drunk not any sort of innate characteristic, it is a harmful action that endangers other people. It is also 100% a choice.
Homosexuality is innate, and it hurts no one.
Try again.
Kirk
Originally posted by Whisper
No, although there's evidence that alcoholism is genetic. Being an alcoholic certainly makes one more likely to drive drunk, seeing as how one would be drunk more often. Either way, it was just an illustration as to how you can strongly dislike one aspect of someone, but like them on the whole.
So then homosexuality is a disease? Or a genetic disorder? Something that I could treat with 12 steps at the Betty Ford Center or Promises and then go on to date J-Lo?
I'm not quite sure if you aren't seeing the parallel here, or if you are. Or which is worse....
Originally posted by Kirkland
I'm going to say it one more time: Yes it does.
Unless you can justify all of the issues above (oh, and there are, of course, hundreds more), then all you have to fall back on is "that's icky and I hate those fags."
Which is your position, of course. That much is evident to anyone whose read your hateful, anti-gay posts.
Kirk
I have to tell you that I've encountered many people in my life who happen to be gay, and not one of them is as extreme and unreasonable as you appear to be.
I respect your views. However, you must accept that your view is the minority. One of the reasons that it's in the minority is the ongoing debate about whether or not being gay is a choice. I think you are very wrong to say that it is NEVER a choice. This contrasts to, say, being black, because being black is never a choice. Ever. While we can debate the topic and we can certianly disagree, you must at least accept the debate exists.
Now, to your rather insulting and borderline guideline-violating posts: I do not see how my posts can be characterized as hateful or even anti-gay. I certainly do not "hate fags" as you have put it. I've been associated with some brilliant, talented and just generally great people who happen to be gay. Who they choose to be with and how they're oriented sexually is really of no consequence to me. It never has been. This being said, I do oppose their ability to get married. It's not just about my belief system. There are many practical problems such as:
1) It will become much easier for two people to have a "sham" marriage for no other reason than legal/tax/financial benefits. Though this certainly happens now with heterosexuals, it will become far easier because the only requirement for marriage will be having another person present. That person would no longer even need to be of the opposite sex. I could go out and marry my best male friend, just so I could take advantage of things like estate planning benefits. This is not a problem?
2) As a taxpayer, I fund certain benefits for married couples. If gay marriage is allowed, I am now being forced to fund, with my own income, an orientation I do not agree with in general. Is that right? I don't think it is.
3) States Rights: If the people of the state of PA decide they don't want gay marriage, why should they have to recognize said marriages from, say, Oregon?
These are just some of the issues. Your position, that being that homosexualtiy is no more a choice than being a minority race, doesn't hold water. It's the basis for you calling me a gay hater, and it's flawed. If I opposed interracial marriage, I would be a bigot because there is truly no choice AT ALL in one's race. When it comes to gay marriage, the issue is quite different.
In any case, what this is really about is the complete and total acceptance of homosexuality in our society, despite the fact that 90% of the world's population is not gay. The real agenda is to have a society in which not only gay marriage is allowed, but taught as every bit as normal as marriage between a man and a woman. Tolerance of another way of living is fine and expected. Altering the course western civilization so that the "other way" becomes the norm is not.
Go ahead and think I hate you because we disagree. It's obvious your mind won't change. I wish you and your partner well.
Originally posted by Kirkland
This is an offensive parallel. Not only is driving drunk not any sort of innate characteristic, it is a harmful action that endangers other people. It is also 100% a choice.
Homosexuality is innate, and it hurts no one.
Try again.
Kirk
Which actually makes my point stronger. If I can get over something that can potentially kill people and is completely preventable, how much easier would it be for me to not care about something that you can't help and doesn't hurt anything*.
*For the record, I'm not sure I entirely agree on that point, but that's not what this thread is about and I don't have time write out all my views on the topic right now anyway. Suffice to say that I think that hating any group of people simply because they are what they are is completely wrong.
Edit: re-worded the first bit of the "*" part.
Originally posted by Whisper
Which actually makes my point stronger. If I can get over something that can potentially kill people and is completely preventable, how much easier would it be for me to not care about something that you can't help and doesn't hurt anything*.
So you choose to hate gays. Right back at you, bigot.
And go ahead, tell me, how precisely does my relationship with my boyfriend hurt me? Or him? Or the people around us?
Come on. Don't hold back. You know you want to do it. Go ahead and say it.
Kirk
Originally posted by SDW2001
I have to tell you that I've encountered many people in my life who happen to be gay, and not one of them is as extreme and unreasonable as you appear to be.
I note that you didn't even try to respond to a single issue I raised, indicating you don't give half a **** about the hardships in gay lives caused by people like you. Typical.
However, you must accept that your view is the minority.
50 years ago, in the South, so was the view that blacks were equal human beings.
One of the reasons that it's in the minority is the ongoing debate about whether or not being gay is a choice.
People of character and compassion are no longer debating this issue.
You, on the other hand, clearly are. Typical.
1) It will become much easier for two people to have a "sham" marriage for no other reason than legal/tax/financial benefits.
Only marginally easier than it is now.
I should face all the hardships above just because you don't want two pals trying to get a slightly lower tax bill and estate benefits by faking a gay marriage? What the **** sort of priorities are those?
Oh, the priorities of a selfish bigot. Got it.
2) As a taxpayer, I fund certain benefits for married couples. If gay marriage is allowed, I am now being forced to fund, with my own income, an orientation I do not agree with in general. Is that right? I don't think it is.
So should there be no divorce, since Catholics do not agree with it?
Should there be no meat served in the military, since vegetarians do not agree with it?
Should there be no free birth control available to public employees because it violates the tenets of Catholicism?
Should there be no women in government since it violates the beliefs of many mysoginists?
Should there be no military because it violates the beliefs of pacifists?
You don't get to say "my beliefs are all that are allowed to be funded." This is not a theocracy. And you are not the final arbiter of right and wrong, on how people should be allowed to live my life.
I don't agree with discrimination. In fact, my religion strongly opposes it. The current marriage laws are discriminatory, therefore I do not support them. Why should I be forced to support your filthy, disgusting heterosexual relationship?
3) States Rights: If the people of the state of PA decide they don't want gay marriage, why should they have to recognize said marriages from, say, Oregon?
They shouldn't.
There, I answered your questions. Now you do the same to mine.
Let's see you try to justify all that pain and suffering.
Altering the course western civilization so that the "other way" becomes the norm is not.
Who wants to make homosexuality "the" norm? I certainly don't.
I wish you and your partner well.
You wish us pain and suffering, all of the pain and suffering I listed above ? you know, the issues you refused to address. And you probably get off just thinking about how hard your bigotry has made and will make our lives.
Kirk
Originally posted by SDW2001
One of the reasons that it's in the minority is the ongoing debate about whether or not being gay is a choice. I think you are very wrong to say that it is NEVER a choice. This contrasts to, say, being black, because being black is never a choice. Ever. While we can debate the topic and we can certianly disagree, you must at least accept the debate exists.
I can also waste my time debating with a flat-earther. I choose not to. It isn't a choice. Period.
Quote:
Now, to your rather insulting and borderline guideline-violating posts: I do not see how my posts can be characterized as hateful or even anti-gay. I certainly do not "hate fags" as you have put it. I've been associated with some brilliant, talented and just generally great people who happen to be gay. Who they choose to be with and how they're oriented sexually is really of no consequence to me. It never has been. This being said, I do oppose their ability to get married.......Your position, that being that homosexualtiy is no more a choice than being a minority race, doesn't hold water. It's the basis for you calling me a gay hater, and it's flawed. If I opposed interracial marriage, I would be a bigot because there is truly no choice AT ALL in one's race. When it comes to gay marriage, the issue is quite different....
Go ahead and think I hate you because we disagree. It's obvious your mind won't change. I wish you and your partner well.
You wish them well, just a second-class kinda well- a sort of "why won't you shut up about your loathsome practices and just play nice" well. While it's very nice of you to actually interact with people that you find brilliant and talented but tragically flawed, your desire to see them oppressed is hateful, period. Your argument that your taxes should not be used to support things you don't like is insipid- why shoud mine be used to support things I don't like? Like roads in Pennsylvania that I don't use and music programs in public schools when I don't have kids.
Just don't try to sell me on your benevolence there, buddy.
Clearly, you can believe that a person's actions are wrong without hating the person, but is there any objective, more or less universally agreeable reason to assert that homosexuality and/or gay marriage are wrong? One not based solely on religious belief or personal aversion? Until provided with such a reason, I will have to maintain my belief that we are just going through a gradual change in our social norms, just like countless others in the past. In the future, one might expect to see exactly the same sort of legal and moral debates taking place over the issue of public nudity, or profanity, or any number of other social taboos.
Originally posted by Whisper
Which actually makes my point stronger. If I can get over something that can potentially kill people and is completely preventable, how much easier would it be for me to not care about something that you can't help and doesn't hurt anything
I think you need some more editing there. Are you saying that you eguate a person's sexuality with a disease that is part genetic and part behavior? Are you saying that Homosexuality is a disorder that must be treated, because it destroys lives, kills innocents, and erodes the fabric of society? That out-of-control homosexuality kills tens of thousands every year? Would you host an "intervetion" on one of your gay friends who has just gotten too gay?
Originally posted by Kirkland
50 years ago, in the filth region we call the South, so was the view that blacks were equal human beings.
Originally posted by Kirkland
I don't agree with discrimination. In fact, my religion strongly opposes it.
You seem to have no problem denigrating the entirety of the (non-black, non-gay) southern population of the United States in a hateful, radicalized, bigoted way.
Nice way to engender progress and communication and equality.
Originally posted by johnq
You seem to have no problem denigrating the entirety of the (non-black, non-gay) southern population of the United States in a hateful, radicalized, bigoted way.
Nice way to engender progress and communication and equality.
There are good people in the South. I've lived my whole life in the South. But there is no denying that the South is, generally speaking, a backwards place that is almost always quick to embrace evil and discrimination. This is the region, after all, that fought a war to continue the immoral enslavement of other people. This is the region, after all, that until the mid-1800s barred Roman Catholics from holding public office in most localities and states. This is the region, after all, of Jim Crowe and the Ku Klux Klan.
I've lived 26 years in the South, and I can't come up with one redeeming thing to say about it.
If it's bigoted to tell the truth about the South, a truth I live with every day of my life, then I'll admit to being a bigot. And I'll also admit that I can't wait to get out of school so that I can quickly become a former Southerner.
Kirk
Originally posted by tmp
I think you need some more editing there. Are you saying that you eguate a person's sexuality with a disease that is part genetic and part behavior? Are you saying that Homosexuality is a disorder that must be treated, because it destroys lives, kills innocents, and erodes the fabric of society? That out-of-control homosexuality kills tens of thousands every year? Would you host an "intervetion" on one of your gay friends who has just gotten too gay?
Kirkland says it's "innate" which is just cute-speak for genetic.
He avoids saying genetic 1. because it's not proven yet and 2. if it is genetic then the Pandora's Box of extremists trying to "cure" it will be open and we'll see tests, "cures", and abortions before you can say "bigot".
I'm saying basically what he said it's just that when I say it he reads bigotry into it. I said take civil unions now, and later when society evolves a bit further, push for marriage. By then I hope there wouldn't be a mad rush to "fix" homosexuality.
When he says it it's the Gospel according to the Gays, when I say it it's "bigoted"....
Originally posted by johnq
Kirkland says it's "innate" which is just cute-speak for genetic.
innate
1 Possessed at birth; inborn.
2 Possessed as an essential characteristic; inherent.
3 Of or produced by the mind rather than learned through experience
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=innate
Whether or not it is genetic is undetermined, but we know that it is innate.