Anti-Gay Marriage

[Dwalin2010]

I don't really have a position on homosexuality, but when I see debates between it's supporters and haters, I can only notice that both sides in such debates are full of hatred and the most sick thing is each of them feels justified to be rude just because the other side has been rude as well on a certain point. It's just a crazy, pitiful race of "who is more good at being evil". People just think that we either should allow everything, murder, rape, pedophilia, incest and drugs including, or we should live by 17th century standards when people were burnt for "witchcraft" or when they were killed for "heresy". No middle-groud, according to them.

As I said, it's just childish to say "why should we be polite if others were not?"
BECAUSE YOU PRETEND TO BE BETTER, THAT'S WHY!

Edited May 3, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Baldrick]

OK but see

99% of homosexuals don't want to stop Christian getting married (haven't met them all, can't say 100%).

The discrimination is kind of a one-way street. (I'm straight ftr)

[I.M. Gei]

I don't really have a position on homosexuality, but when I see debates between it's supporters and haters, I can only notice that both sides in such debates are full of hatred and the most sick thing is each of them feels justified to be rude just because the other side has been rude as well on a certain point. It's just a crazy, pitiful race of "who is more good at being evil". People just think that we either should allow everything, murder, rape, pedophilia, incest and drugs including, or we should live by 17th century standards when people were burnt for "witchcraft" or when they were killed for "heresy". No middle-groud, according to them.

As I said, it's just childish to say "why should we be polite if others were not?"

BECAUSE YOU PRETEND TO BE BETTER, THAT'S WHY!

Uh, dude, I'm someone totally in favor of gay marriage and I'm reasonably sure 99% of people who share that position aren't in favor of allowing pedophilia or incest or murder or any of the other ridiculous, outlandish crap "including."

oh, and sorry, but the whole "it's bigoted to hate bigots" line isn't gonna fly :V

Edited May 3, 2013 by Black★Rock Shooter

[Dwalin2010]

Uh, dude, I'm someone totally in favor of gay marriage and I'm reasonably sure 99% of people who share that position aren't in favor of allowing pedophilia or incest or murder or any of the other ridiculous, outlandish crap "including."

oh, and sorry, but the whole "it's bigoted to hate bigots" line isn't gonna fly :V

I was exaggerating of course, but I am sure religious people don't want to return to the 17th century to burn witches either.

But what's wrong with the "it's bigoted to hate bigots" line? The Germans once built concentration camps for Jews. Should Jews now build concentration camps for Germans?

I really have the impression that it's not so much about human rights or religion as it is to argue for the sake of arguing. If this was the first discussion about this I read, I wouldn't have said that, but I read at least 10000 by now and they are all the same.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Sublime Manic]

I was exaggerating of course, but I am sure religious people don't want to return to the 17th century to burn witches either.

But what's wrong with the "it's bigoted to hate bigots" line? The Germans once built concentration camps for Jews. Should Jews now build concentration camps for Germans?

I really have the impression that it's not so much about human rights or religion as it is to argue for the sake of arguing. If this was the first discussion about this I read, I wouldn't have said that, but I read at least 10000 by now and they are all the same.

As Baldrick pointed out, the discrimination is very one-way. And whether or not any group hates another group involved has nothing to do whether gay marriage should be legalized. The "bigoted to hate bigots" line doesn't make any point about the legitimacy of gay marriage, inaccurate as that line is in the first place.

And people would NOT make this the issue that it is if it was just for the sake of arguing.

[I.M. Gei]

If you really think that it's okay for a homophobe to call a gay person disagreeable for existing but that it's not okay for anyone here to call the homophobe an asshole for doing that, I have nothing to say except that you're drawing a huge case of false equivalence here.

[Dwalin2010]

If you really think that it's okay for a homophobe to call a gay person disagreeable for existing but that it's not okay for anyone here to call the homophobe an asshole for doing that, I have nothing to say except that you're drawing a huge case of false equivalence here.

If a homophobe says that, it's okay to call him whatever you want. It's just I don't think that everybody who isn't active enough in fighting for the homosexuals' cause should be labeled as a homophobe and that not every religious who doesn't personally like homosexuality should be labeled as a bigot. I personally don't like it, but I don't go around preaching hatred towards homosexuality. I am religious, but to me, a gay atheist who is honest and does good things is way better than a serial killer or a bully who do whatever they want justifying themselves with "helping God".

[I.M. Gei]

If a homophobe says that, it's okay to call him whatever you want. It's just I don't think that everybody who isn't active enough in fighting for the homosexuals' cause should be labeled as a homophobe and that not every religious who doesn't personally like homosexuality should be labeled as a bigot. I personally don't like it, but I don't go around preaching hatred towards homosexuality. I am religious, but to me, a gay atheist who is honest and does good things is way better than a serial killer or a bully who do whatever they want justifying themselves with "helping God".

Uh, except nobody here is calling anybody who doesn't go out saying "gays are the devil" or "HOW DARE YOU INFRINGE UPON MY RIGHT TO FIRE PEOPLE FOR BEING GAY" or "God hates fags" a homophobe?

I honestly don't even get what you're trying to say here anymore. On another note, though, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade if it's true. If you do things that make you a bigot, then I'm sorry, but you're a bigot. (Actually, I don't see why I should apologize for that, but whatever.)

Edited May 3, 2013 by Black★Rock Shooter

[Dwalin2010]

I honestly don't even get what you're trying to say here anymore.

Well, forget it then. It's probably because I was remembering the attitude of people on another forum.

If I have to answer the original question, I have nothing against gay marriage being legalized, I just wanted to point out that not all religious people go preaching hatred. I think that religion theoretically is and should be about being good people.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Narga_Rocks]

No one ever said the church has to marry people.

You really think so, huh?

In other news, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/357084.aspx

I'm too lazy to find people suing a church, but in my opinion suing a christian photographer for refusing to take photographs of a wedding they are religiously against is just as bad as forcing a church to perform a ceremony they are religiously against. And if someone hasn't sued a pastor/priest/reverend/whatever for refusing to marry them yet, it's probably not far off.

Here's something close, since it's on their property even if they didn't want the priest/whatever to perform the ceremony.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/aug/07081501

"A Christian seaside retreat association is suing New Jersey state officials for threatening to prosecute it for rejecting a same-sex couple’s bid to hold a civil union ceremony on its property."

Edited May 3, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Anouleth]

Businesses are different from private religious organisations. Public accomodations (which presumably this seaside retreat association falls under) have been prohibited in engaging in discrimination in the United States since 1964, yet to my knowledge no church has ever been forced to accomodate black people or interracial marriages.

[eclipse]

If a homophobe says that, it's okay to call him whatever you want. It's just I don't think that everybody who isn't active enough in fighting for the homosexuals' cause should be labeled as a homophobe and that not every religious who doesn't personally like homosexuality should be labeled as a bigot. I personally don't like it, but I don't go around preaching hatred towards homosexuality. I am religious, but to me, a gay atheist who is honest and does good things is way better than a serial killer or a bully who do whatever they want justifying themselves with "helping God".

NO. STOP.

Just because someone says something that disagrees with your views doesn't mean it's suddenly okay to sink to their level. It's sad that the person in question is acting like that, but responding with hatred isn't going to improve his/her viewpoint.

If churches are forced to marry gay couples (by civil law), that would be enough of an argument for me to be against gay marriage. I seriously hope that there is a strict separation of church and state when it comes to this!

[Chiki]

Just because it goes against a church's morals to marry gays does not mean that it's okay to deny the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to gay couples.

[I.M. Gei]

I dunno about the rest of you, but I think there is a demonstrable difference betweem shitting on someone for what they've put out into the world as their opinion, versus doing it because of their sexuality (something they can't help).

Think of it like this: I go out into the world everyday and meet people I didn't know. I'm not an asshole to any of them. Sometimes I get to know them better and find out they want gays put in jail for being gay. From then on out I'll probably be a bit of an asshole to them. For instance, do you think Ted Nugent waits to see if the Mexican he's just met actually literally jumped the border fence to sell drugs before he's an asshole to them?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Black★Rock Shooter

[eclipse]

Just because it goes against a church's morals to marry gays does not mean that it's okay to deny the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to gay couples.

It's precisely because of the government/religion divide that I'm willing to support it. I don't mind giving the government benefits/hospital visitation/other secular things to those who want to marry. As long as the churches aren't obliged to give their non-secular support to it, I'll be happy.

I dunno about the rest of you, but I think there is a demonstrable difference betweem shitting on someone for what they've put out into the world as their opinion, versus doing it because of their sexuality (something they can't help).

Think of it like this: I go out into the world everyday and meet people I didn't know. I'm not an asshole to any of them. Sometimes I get to know them better and find out they want gays put in jail for being gay. From then on out I'll probably be a bit of an asshole to them. For instance, do you think Ted Nugent waits to see if the Mexican he's just met actually literally jumped the border fence to sell drugs before he's an asshole to them?

I'm against shitting on people, period. Yes, it's unfortunate, but they're very unlikely to listen to you if you're hostile. If you truly want them to change, you start by being nice to them.

Edited May 4, 2013 by eclipse

[I.M. Gei]

It's precisely because of the government/religion divide that I'm willing to support it. I don't mind giving the government benefits/hospital visitation/other secular things to those who want to marry. As long as the churches aren't obliged to give their non-secular support to it, I'll be happy.

I'm against shitting on people, period. Yes, it's unfortunate, but they're very unlikely to listen to you if you're hostile. If you truly want them to change, you start by being nice to them.

Hey, at least ridiculing a position has a chance to change someone's mind. Just because you don't like the tone of how someone says something doesn't change whether or not that person is right.

Perhaps the problem is that you're expecting I give homophobes some kind of deference that they don't deserve and you can't handle their not getting it. At least, this is the impression I get.

[Chiki]

If two gay Christians want to get married by their church, I think the church should be forced to marry them. One side will lose in the end, but the side which disregards human rights (the church) should be the rightful loser.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I'm against shitting on people, period. Yes, it's unfortunate, but they're very unlikely to listen to you if you're hostile. If you truly want them to change, you start by being nice to them.

But when you do that, you absolutely run the risk of tacitly supporting their bigotry. I mean, I know coming from me this is going to sound old, and nobody is going to take it seriously, but straight up being nice to people won't always help. I have friends and people I am nice to who believe awful things, and not a single one of them has changed their horrible horrible opinions. On the other hand, of the people I've been far more aggressive with, I've seen far more success.

I am at a point in my life where I actually consider terminating friendships I have had for years because those friends refuse to change their sexist, racist, homophobic, etc beliefs, even on a fairly minor level, because in many cases I can't change peoples' minds by being nice.

Now this is not to say it can't be done. It might even be just as good as being aggressive. The point is, making it clear that horrible opinions are not acceptable to you does actually work to discourage horrible opinions.

I guess it depends on what you mean by shitting on though. Regardless though, if you can't see the difference between calling somebody a fag for being gay, and calling someone a homophobic asshole for doing that, I don't know what to tell you.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Defeatist Elitist

[Constable Reggie]

If two gay Christians want to get married by their church, I think the church should be forced to marry them. One side will lose in the end, but the side which disregards human rights (the church) should be the rightful loser.

Agreed. As a matter of fact, I think government should force all churches to marry any and all couples that desire a church ceremony. A goat-demon worshipping pair of sociopaths want to get married at your church? Too bad, you gotta do it!

Since when did religious wedding ceremonies become a human right?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Defeatist Elitist]

Agreed. As a matter of fact, I think government should force all churches to marry any and all couples that desire a church ceremony. A goat-demon worshipping pair of sociopaths want to get married at your church? Too bad, you gotta do it!

How are wedding ceremonies a human right?

So are you being sarcastic or what? I mean, I don't actually think churches should be forced to conduct any marriages they don't want to, but the parallel you seem to be trying to construct is pretty absurd.

[Baldrick]

The most important part of getting people to change their views is to respect them. If you tell them they're wrong without letting them have their say, you'll only make them obstinate. Tactfully explaining to them why they are wrong should make most reasonable people rethink their position.

[Chiki]

There are plenty of gay Christians who want to get married in a church. Why would that make them sociopaths?

[Defeatist Elitist]

The most important part of getting people to change their views is to respect them. If you tell them they're wrong without letting them have their say, you'll only make them obstinate. Tactfully explaining to them why they are wrong should make most reasonable people rethink their position.

I always let people have their say, it's actually pretty difficult not to. In fact, I usually try to start with tact. I mean, I am a human being. I know how to communicate with other human beings. I don't think any of us here spend all our lives yelling at everybody who disagrees with us on anything. Please don't post telling us how to conduct basic human interaction, I'm pretty sure we've got that covered.

edit: I get where you're coming from, because yes you are partially right, but I just find it odd you immediately assume that I have no grasp of how to effectively communicate with other human beings.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Defeatist Elitist

[Constable Reggie]

I was using a hyperbolic example to emphasize the ridiculousness of Olwen's initial claim. After all, if same-sex couples (a group that the church does not exactly agree with) can force the church to marry them, why not Buddhists? Hinduists? Goat-demon worshippers? Why even give the church a choice in their practice?

Forcing the church to conduct wedding ceremonies via government regulation for groups that they have fundamental disagreements with is absurd.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Defeatist Elitist]

I was using a hyperbolic example.

Forcing the church to conduct wedding ceremonies via government regulation for groups that they have fundamental disagreements with is absurd.

I think it's fundamentally misunderstanding what a church is, but I don't think it's absurd.