Anti-Gay Marriage

[Dwalin2010]

No, I really can't, but tell me the last time you heard a child saying they wanted a mother and a father, sincerely, and I'll think about changing my way of thinking around that.

What did you honestly expect to get when you linked an article that was fairly biased against homosexuality, and then claimed that homosexuals were shoving heterosexuals into their place? BRS up there is right, if you honestly think that, then you're terribly sheltered.

Feel free to respond to what I said with how you feel, and I'll respond to what you say calmly. Since it seems you can't handle someone being upset at what you've said.

I'll humor you.

I just thought that things mentioned in the article are extreme. If it's telling lies, it's one thing. But if it's true, do you really think it's normal? Do they really have nothing else to do apart from forbidding things like "father-daughter dances"? People are always talking about bigot Christians, but the other side can also be bigot, I just thought this was a good example. I personally would like to see a society with many different cultures, preferences etc. Isn't allowing gay marriage and give them all rights heterosexuals have not enough? That's what I don't get. It really seems to me people want more than equality, and are also being very belligerent in the process (on both sides of the conflict, of course).

[Nanami Touko]

How would you act/feel if you were part of a group that has been hated on simply for being? It's not as severe as racial discrimination, obviously we've never used homosexuals as slaves, but it's still terrible. I will admit that the father daughter dance one seems a bit silly, but it doesn't seem extreme to me. And yes, a lot of those examples do seem normal to me. The first example is someone who seems to simply be agender. Harvard agreed to accept that. The eharmony one is about equality. Gay people also use online dating sites. The homecoming thing also seems fine, because it doesn't restrict genders and it even seems to be promoting transgender people, and I'm all for that.

I could go on to each example and state my opinion on it, but the point I'm making is, this article seems to be placing gender roles above everything else, and that they're important. In the long run, they're really not. If we could take gender out of the equation everywhere, people wouldn't be biased by it. Men wouldn't serve longer jail times because they're men. Women wouldn't suffer lower pay wages because they're women. If everyone stopped caring about gender, I'm positive the world would run a lot smoother.

Isn't allowing gay marriage and give them all rights heterosexuals have not enough?

I guess for some people it's not. I guess some people think like I do, and want to be rid of the notions of gender, so that everyone is just seen for who they are.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Child of the Tenth Month

[Dwalin2010]

I guess for some people it's not. I guess some people think like I do, and want to be rid of the notions of gender, so that everyone is just seen for who they are.

If many people think like that, it's perfectly ok with me, as long as they keep it to themselves. I wouldn't like to have a family where there is no distinction between father and mother, brother and sister etc. I wouldn't like ALL things to be the same in the world. Not every difference involves discrimination. And many people think in the same way. If we don't touch you and don't force our ideals on you, why would you want to impose your ideals and change OUR families?

However, I am thankful for you being willing to talk calmly. You are really only the 2nd or 3d person in my life ever wiliing to do that in such debates on internet.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Nanami Touko]

Because a lot of those examples did involve discrimination, like the eharmony one, or the adoption one. The dance one and the France one seem to be the only examples where they're pushing hard for gender to be removed from the picture. And while I would enjoy no gender for people, I don't think these events are about removing gender from people. The way I see it, they're simply trying to remove the distinction, so that there could be, perhaps, mother son dances, mother daughter dances, maybe father son ball games. France wants to remove mother and father from documents so that there's no weight on any decisions regarding the mother or the father, and choices are simply made on the person as a parent.

That's just how I see it. I know my dream world of no gender will probably never happen, so I simply support whatever things I see that promote people being able to live how they want to live. Someone being gay or trans or agender doesn't affect anyone else negatively, so there shouldn't be restrictions on those things.

And you're welcome, but I would suggest trying to thicken your skin a bit. As you obviously know, not everyone on the internet will speak calmly to you, but even if they're upset, they can still have good points in their argument. Try to ignore the yelling and just respond to what they've presented. and if all they're doing is yelling, laugh at them.

I don't really have much else to say, but this was fun, thanks. I hope I've broadened your views slightly.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Child of the Tenth Month

[Rehab]

Your dream is sounds like it might be my dream too, for the record. I assume there are many sides to it that I haven't heard, but I find it way too easy to internalize social division based on sex based on assumptions that it's essentialist- "all girls/boys are X, and I don't like X, therefore I don't like boys/girls," or "all boys/girls should be X, and I prefer being X to its alternatives, so I only like girls/boys (that are X)." I know that's not the only thing that our common ideas of gender can do for people, but I know too many people who fight, get hurt, and fixate on separation because of them.

I don't actually know what I want to do about it. I'm just tired of using it to identify people.

[I.M. Gei]

Dwalin, we don't live in your South Park fantasy just world where "the truth is always in the middle." This is the real world, where there are 29 states in the USA where you can be fired for being gay (name me a single place where you can be fired for being straight), where there are dozens of countries in the world where homosexuality is illegal and there are even two where homosexuality is a "crime" punishable by death (again, name me one country where it is illegal to be heterosexual or where you can be put to death for being heterosexual) and where LGBT people get beaten up in the streets every day just because of who they are. These are all things you should keep in mind every time you try to present us with your worldview of false equivalence and try to pretend that heterosexual people are getting it just as bad as homosexual people.

On another note, I love how the man who wrote the article you present us hand waves away the comparison of denying gay marriage to denying interracial marriage with the benefit of his placement in the world today, after decades of progressives having the idea of differences in races beaten out of society's consciousness with a hammer.

"Well the reason this is silly is that there's very little difference between a black man and a white man"

Uhh yeah, lets go see what people were saying about that in the 30's and 40's.

[Constable Reggie]

The link that Dwalin posted, as crude as it was, does pose a very interesting question. At what point does it stop being simply fighting for equality, and start being something more than that? You shouldn't insult him and handwave the idea just because you think the very idea of the possibility is offensive.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Espinosa]

tbqh employment generally leaves no guarantee in today's competitive world. If you apply a law that prevents an employer from sacking a homosexual employee, they are still fully able to do so with any alternative excuse. Similarly to how ethnic minorities being legally protected does nothing (e.g. 'his language capacities are insufficient for the job', even a job that involves little to no talking), the practical applications of such law elude me. 'We're not firing you because you're gay, your homosexuality just causes conflict/discomfort/whatever else among workers'. In the end, it is firsly public opinion that you should aim to change.

I gotta say though, being gay is a whole lot easier to hide than racial and ethnic features if you maintain a decent level of privacy at the workplace. Some mannerisms in speech and behaviour, perhaps way of dressing, may stand out, but are not necessarily shared by LGBT persons.

[Esau of Isaac]

tbqh employment generally leaves no guarantee in today's competitive world. If you apply a law that prevents an employer from sacking a homosexual employee, they are still fully able to do so with any alternative excuse. Similarly to how ethnic minorities being legally protected does nothing (e.g. 'his language capacities are insufficient for the job', even a job that involves little to no talking), the practical applications of such law elude me.

Actually, racial minorities being a protected class is very pertinent to any business hiring. Some may defend in a court of law that they fired someone based on lack of job qualifications, but if a court finds that it was based on ejection of an employee because they're a protected class, then they can still face punitive damages. And given that they can be pretty costly, it's usually in a company's best interest to avoid such behavior.

The practical applications at this time are somewhat similar to those based on age or pregnancy. They are not specifically a protected class as defined with race, gender, religion, national origin, etc. but there are varying state (and I think federal) statutes that protect them in employment opportunities.

[I.M. Gei]

At what point in that article does it become "more than a fight for equality? I read it and pretty much went "Wow, I agree with most of the "evil" things you're campaigning against. Thanks for making my choices easier!"

Edited May 16, 2013 by Black★Rock Shooter

[Constable Reggie]

At what point is threatening sue because of a father-daughter dance even remotely reasonable?

[I.M. Gei]

Okay, that's unreasonable. But the vast majority of the stuff in the article isn't.

[Constable Reggie]

I never said they weren't, I said the article as a whole brought up an interesting perspective worthy of discussion.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[shadykid]

On another note, I love how the man who wrote the article you present us hand waves away the comparison of denying gay marriage to denying interracial marriage with the benefit of his placement in the world today, after decades of progressives having the idea of differences in races beaten out of society's consciousness with a hammer.

"Well the reason this is silly is that there's very little difference between a black man and a white man"

Uhh yeah, lets go see what people were saying about that in the 30's and 40's.

this is definitely the 2nd time you've posted the exact same thing as someone on Something Awful

and hahaha the title of that piece alone tells me all i need to know

[peener weener]

If many people think like that, it's perfectly ok with me, as long as they keep it to themselves. I wouldn't like to have a family where there is no distinction between father and mother, brother and sister etc. I wouldn't like ALL things to be the same in the world. Not every difference involves discrimination. And many people think in the same way. If we don't touch you and don't force our ideals on you, why would you want to impose your ideals and change OUR families?

Oh man, it's true, we were never really forced into your ideals! It's not like we still are! It's not at all like integrating genderfluid/etc. people is good. I need to change my world-view.

[Dwalin2010]

Oh man, it's true, we were never really forced into your ideals! It's not like we still are! It's not at all like integrating genderfluid/etc. people is good. I need to change my world-view.

I don't quite get it what are you trying to say, honestly. Are you being sarcastic or what?

[Anouleth]

Because a lot of those examples did involve discrimination, like the eharmony one, or the adoption one. The dance one and the France one seem to be the only examples where they're pushing hard for gender to be removed from the picture.

The France one seems to be more of a case of standardisation. After all, it's easier to just give everyone the same passport than to give people special passports if they have two fathers or two mothers. Maybe it wouldn't be a big cost to have customised passports for different families, but I can see why they did it that way and I don't think it's about trying to stamp out gender.

[shadykid]

I don't quite get it what are you trying to say, honestly. Are you being sarcastic or what?

so why don't you just keep it to yourself, huh

[Dwalin2010]

so why don't you just keep it to yourself, huh

Keep to myself what? I have already said all I wanted to.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Green Poet]

Actually, racial minorities being a protected class is very pertinent to any business hiring. Some may defend in a court of law that they fired someone based on lack of job qualifications, but if a court finds that it was based on ejection of an employee because they're a protected class, then they can still face punitive damages. And given that they can be pretty costly, it's usually in a company's best interest to avoid such behavior.

The practical applications at this time are somewhat similar to those based on age or pregnancy. They are not specifically a protected class as defined with race, gender, religion, national origin, etc. but there are varying state (and I think federal) statutes that protect them in employment opportunities.

Agreed.

Though this does bring to mind the "de facto discrimination" argument, that the main obstacle of widespread acceptance of all orientations is not based on what laws may effect but rather the mindset of the majority. It's true that, in an honest court, individuals may be spared from discrimination, but history seems to suggest that it'll take a civil rights movement collective effort to make any tangible progress.

[Parrhesia]

I'm still trying to figure out how

--When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.

is

revenge

[Green Poet]

Wait, what. . .? Where is it said to be for revenge?

[eclipse]

Read that entire wall by Dwalin.

EVERYONE, do try to keep this on-topic.

[Green Poet]

Read that entire wall by Dwalin.

EVERYONE, do try to keep this on-topic.

Ah, of course. My bad.

[shadykid]

since Minnesota just passed their marriage equality bill, guess what happened next!

http://mnprogressiveproject.com/republicans-prevent-dfl-senators-from-attending-marriage-equality-signing-ceremony/