Or Ashton Kutcher.
Yes.
Homophobia is not a mental illness. No one who uses the term intends it to be understood to be a mental illness. While it was originally coined to describe a pathology, its usage has diverged from that definition (which, I believe, is no longer accepted in clinical circles, although I could be mistaken on that point) over thirty years ago.
Oh, please; homosexuals have had the advantage of being harder to identify, but they’ve faced plenty of persecution. Murder, beatings, castration, “corrective rape” for lesbians, forced hormone therapy, imprisonment for decades, and on and on.
Well, you are simply wrong. Plenty of religious sects support same sex marriage.
Well, you’re wrong, but even if you were correct, so what? I’m not religious, and by law, neither is our government. Why do you think its proper for our government to force me to live by your religious rules?
Every religion is not prohibitive of gay marriage, nor is any religion defined by any single principle but by the harmony of the individual strings of each member of the church when struck by that principle.
It also is an argument that begs the dragging out of a metric assload of examples of hypocrisy for every law that allows/tolerates/enables/provides equal protection and opportunity for anything that happens to be seen as sinful or bad or evil or whathaveyou by whatever religious teachings you follow. And then we have to reconcile that with whatever is on such a list for that other guy over there who’s religious beliefs are different than yours. And so on.
This is idiotic for (at least) two reasons:
-
Blacks were never able to hide their color. Your comparison on that point is shit.
-
You don’t grant people equality and basic human rights based on how much abuse they’ve suffered. Or, would you be happy to grant gays marriage rights if only they experienced another few decades of violent suffering?
What stupidity.
For quite some time, California law recognized lobotomies as a legitimate treatment for homosexuality. Although in fairness, I’m never found any evidence that the treatment was used. Still, just being gay was seen as grounds for people cutting out chunks of your brain
This really makes me sad.
The bible makes a lot of claims that simply must be ignored by christians in order to continue to believe, so I don’t understand why they can’t just ignore this one too.
My marriage isn’t less because Pam and Linda are also married.
I just don’t understand.
For this I am well chastised. It was a kneejerk reaction, there are most certainly fanatics on both sides, and I withdraw the statement with apologies.
Now explain why a secular Republic should base its marital laws on 2,000-3,000 text whose teachings on marriage include the right to murder a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, the legal obligation of a rape victim to marry her rapist*, and concubinage?
*Sorry Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart, but my faith says you two have to go back to that guy who abducted and raped you and this time marry him, and while I can see that others would think that’s barbaric and unfair, it’s my faith and that’s what’s important. And don’t worry that your rapist is already married, it allows polygamy as well. Otherwise you have shamed your family by not screaming louder and must be put to death.
I like this statement too.
Brings out a good point about the whole deal
Mike Huckabee is a goddamned liar. For fuck’s sake, his co-religionists have an ongoing boycott of Disneyland because the park refuses to bar entrance to gays. The list of companies that have been boycotted by Christian groups for having gay-friendly policies is longer than my arm.
This thread is classic. Every time I see a discussion like this, the anti-gay/black/whatever people never try to actually justify their viewpoint, they instead attempt to change the discussion into an argument about their right to hold that viewpoint.
It’s almost like they can’t justify their viewpoint, so they try to change the subject into an argument about free speech.
The subject is homosexuality and SSM, not free speech. Obviously you have free speech. No one is arresting you for what you’re saying. So why can’t you stick to the subject? Don’t you have any actual arguments?
It shouldn’t.
The beauty of it being a republic is that I can be overruled by the populous as they so deem. I can think and vote one way, you and think and vote another way, and the majority rules.
There is a big difference in me posting here saying “I think marriage is between a man and a woman and a same sex union should be a different title”, and standing on the street corner with a “God Hates Fags” sign.
Do I think God hates gay people? Not at all. Do I think gays are going to hell? Nope. If I’m standing on a street corner and a gay couple is being beaten by thugs am I going to jump in and intervene with my boxknife in my pocket? Hell yes.
I have an opinion on the subject and that’s that. I’m not even that adamant about the opinion that I argue with people and make notes about developments, it’s just the opinion I have. It’s the answer to a question is all it is with me.
So if some type of SSM act passes and its nationally recognized am I going to be pissed, cry, or speak out against it? Nope. I’m gonna shrug my shoulders and say “well it’s not how I would have done it but whatever” and go about my life.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that all opinions are equally reasonable.
First, I’d appreciate it greatly if you took the time to read this whole post, and respond with your thoughts. My intention is not to sound snarky or attacking, so please don’t interpret me that way.
Are you actually believing the bible, or are you believing someone else’s interpretation of it? If it’s your belief, you’d have no problem reciting chapter and verse exactly what it says regarding “a sacred bond between a man and a woman”. I don’t think text like that exists in any form in the Bible, not in those words at least. Correct me if I’m wrong.
If you are able to post said scripture, great. If you need to Google it in order to find the text in question, you are probably operating on the biblical interpretations of others. I don’t think there is such a thing as a Christian who can’t find at least some fault in the various offshoots and weird sects that Christianity has, some are just plain nutty. My point is, that they all use the same book to justify their beliefs, yet many branches of Christianity believe wildly different things. Interpretation is everything with the bible. When you go to church, you listen to someone interpret the bible. That person is fallible, and was born with original sin. They are people.
God created gay people right? If you think Satan created them, then just stop reading. Bonobo monkeys have homosexual sex all the time, it’s not even an issue to them. God made them too right? Did one of them eat an apple in the garden of Eden?
If Jesus came to Earth today, and someone asked him, should we allow these gay people to get married, what do you honestly think his response would be? Think about that for a second. Would he quote Mark 12:31 and say Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Or would he say something about protecting the word marriage, or something about gays being an abomination even though he creates them daily?
I think your heart is in the right place in allowing gays to be joined officially, and given the same rights as heterosexual couples. I just think that your issues with the word marriage being used might be influenced by people that are far more homophobic than you. I also think you feel compassionate towards gay people but are conflicted because of your traditional beliefs. Again, I could be wrong, but I think that in time you might soften your position and adopt a live and let live approach to life.
You may be able to find a passage here or there that can be interpreted as being anti-SSM, but you can find far more about compassion, love, acceptance, and tolerance.
Opinions are all equally reasonable.
The actions surrounding those opinions may well not be.
Wrong as wrong can be.
My apologies for addressing the actual thread subject when we’re all having such a good time yelling at each other, but I pretty much have to drive past a Chick-Fil-A in the Woodlands, TX on the way home from work (not the one La Palin went to last week but only a couple miles away) and there was a quarter-mile line of cars blocking one lane of Rayford Road, waiting for drive-thru.
So, not only upholding the God-given American right to freely express passive-aggressive bigotry, but, given it was 97 degrees and everyone was idling with the a/c on, wasting untold amounts of fuel as well. Way to go, Texas; make me proud.
Then why are you here arguing that we shouldn’t have SSM?
We can see that beauty in operation in things like the Jim Crow South, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Japanese internment, and oh! so many others.
The fact is, this is one of the biggest flaws of a Republic. If the majority decide they want to crap all over a minority, there’s really fuck-all the minority can do about it.
Not as big as you’d like to think. I mean, after all, those people with the God Hates Fags signs are just expressing their opinion, right? If “I’m just expressing an opinion,” is a get-out-of-jail-free card for expressing bigoted ideas, then surely it applies to those guys, too, right?
And that’s the difference in this debate between gay people and straight people. If the issue goes a way you disagree with, you can shrug your shoulders and go on about your life. If it goes a way we disagree with, we can’t do that, because the issue is literally, “Should gay people be allowed to live their lives?”
That’s what makes the attempts to draw an equivalence between how gay people react to things like CFA’s position, and how bigots react to it. The people on your side of the debate have absolutely no skin in this game. No matter how the debate turns out, it will literally have no effect at all on your life. The repercussions for gay people, on the other hand, are huge. In some case, literally life or death. I know people who are currently dead, who would otherwise be alive if they’d been able to get on their partner’s life insurance policy. So, yeah, gay people are a lot more passionate about not being treated like shit, than the religious right is about being allowed to treat gay people like shit. Big fucking surprise there.
I’ll take this on three XL tee-shirts please.*
(Actually, XXL if you’ve got them because, you know, shrinkage and stuff.)