But you are. You’re proposing that that side be given equal respect.
Assuming your conclusion. You have defined homosexuality to be sinful, and expect that simple statement of hatred and ignorance to be accepted as a basis for serious argument. “We love the sinner, what we hate is the sin” is one of the most common and most contemptible lies around.
Speak for yourself. :dubious:
You can say you don’t agree, but if you can’t or won’t explain why, that opinion is of no value.
You show respect, and even understanding, for only one. Don’t kid yourself.
I don’t understand the difference*. So could you explain the difference between a “Gay Pride” parade and an “Irish Pride”/St. Patrick’s Day parade and why ignoring it if you don’t care for those people is an acceptable solution for one and not the other?
*I understand one difference: except in, say Ulster, the Gay Pride parade is likely to piss off a larger group of people. However, I’m suspecting from your post that you feel there’s a more fundamental difference.
But in this case they do give a shit, so your argument doesn’t apply, it’s a special case.
I think they opposition to gay marriage are bluntly honest about the reasons they oppose it. They think it’s immoral. I don’t see dishonesty on that point. No one is claiming it is ONLY about preserving the language.
I never said it isn’t bigotry, I said the bigotry cuts both ways, not exactly the same thing. You don’t see an argument that YOU deem reasonable. It’s reasonable to them, but because you disagree with it you dismiss it and reduce it to ‘fags are yucky’. There are some very fundamental reasons from within a Christian point of view homosexuality is wrong. The main one is that sex is for procreation and procreation alone. IE, buggering is spilling one’s seed in fallow soil. The seed itself is sacred as it contains the godly potential to create another life if planted in fertile soil. It’s seen as wasting the gift that God gave you, the power to create life. They are opposed to heterosexual promiscuity as well, it’s not like they are singling homosexuals out. What makes homosexuality a special case is that homosexual sex can NEVER result in a new life.
I am just arguing that throwing the word ‘bigotry’ around as an epithet is a convenient ploy to avoid giving deeper thought to the position your opposition holds. As has been said in this thread, why think about their position? It’s just ignorant bigotry anyway.
First, you have not one shed of proof except your paranoia to show that this IS the agenda. Secondly, even granting that that IS the case why is this such an issue for you. In the eyes of the law - there should be NO difference. It only matters to the religiously-bigoted worldview of the fundamentalists of the world. If, as you say, the law should offer ALL legal priveleges to gay marriages what it offers to straight marriage, why should the LAW apply a different name other than to satisfy the bigoted.
To be honest, my position on the nomenclature is one of indifference - but I could imagine gays to have much stronger feelings about this. And why shouldn’t they? We’re talking about legal nomenclature with legal effects - whatever cultural impact it has is incidental and should not distract from the fact that an injustice is being remedied.
Imagine me arguing for a different name on mixed marriages (blacks and whites). I could use (with very little tweaking) the same arguments you are using right now about gay marriage. Do you think I will be considered racist by just about anybody?
One is a celebration of sexuality the other is a celebration of ethnicity. They would oppose a celebration of BDSM culture too. They don’t like their children seeing men in pink hotpants and a 20inch papier mache schlong. I am certain some people DO oppose St. Patrick’s Day parades because they are orgies of public drunkenness.
I don’t know what you’re getting at. It’s just the open display of sexuality that sets it apart.
So you are implying that you are going to simply ignore context and yet try and get me to respond anyway?
It’s perfectly coherent to some people. Your inability to comprehend isn’t the same thing as incoherence on my part.
No I’m not. I am saying that in a thread about the rationale it’d be nice to discuss the rationale rather than see it turn into a cathartic thread about venting spleen at a mutually hated subculture. You’re not here to understand you are here to denounce.
I haven’t defined homosexuality as anything. I pointed out a recognized position that some people hold. You really want me to hold the hated position so you can have a target that you feel justified in being mean to. I am not going to be a vessel for your bigotry.
I did, and you are one of the only people here who cannot separate my personal view from the Devil’s Advocate position.
Ok, the views are not based in hatred and ignorance they are based in religious doctrine.
Right, because I don’t just agree with your pat oversimplifications that makes ME ignorant. :rolleyes:
Then I would suggest that they not take their children to a Gay Pride parade. Come to think of it, that’s pretty much what ElvisL1ives said, yet you seemed to have a problem with his suggestion.
Guess I’ll have to ask again: Why is “don’t go if you don’t support it” an unacceptable solution in your eyes?
(ETA: Actually I wouldn’t have any problems with the community banning the paper mache schlongs under local obscenity statutes. I’m not sure what the problem with men in pink hotpants is, except as a crime against fashion.)
So if participants in Gay Pride Parades consisted exclusively of stony-faced people in buttoned-up business suits, you would approve of them? Or would that still be a “celebration of sexuality”?
No, I personally prefer them the way they are, much better than if they were stoney-faced in business suits. I’ve gone out of my way to go to Burning Man several times, where people behave like they are at a gay pride parade for a whole week.
I am simply pointing out the ‘rationale’, you know, staying on-topic?
But yes, I am sure that those who care about the issue would be more ok with it if they were dressed modestly.
If you can’t defend your position, that’s nobody else’s problem.
The ones who already have the prejudice you’re catering to, perhaps.
In a thread about the rationale it’d be nice to see some rationality. You haven’t provided any.
I *do *understand, and that is *why *I denounce.
“Some people” define homosexuality as sinful, as you said. Your “rationale” is based on that definition, so why should one not believe you share it?
If that’s truly not the position you hold, you should not be arguing it. Very bad form. Honesty-impaired, even. But if you won’t profess any other, what else can the rest of us conclude?
It is merely your “personal view” that marriage is unnatural and people are naturally promiscuous. OK. Just a question, then - are you married? For how long?
Which, of course, often provides a convenient excuse for harboring hatred and ignorance.
Your words, not mine. No, the fact that you show respect and understanding for only one side makes your protestations of neutrality and objectivity doubtful.
Well, there is one of the more outrageous statements I’ve ever seen. Imagine, wild humans, breeding in the wild! Raping and subjugating!
Later, when they caught civilization and religion, they learned that it was far better to go against their natural inclinations. Thence tender love. Phwew!!! What a story.
And of course those damn gays just can’t control themselves and get with the program. They’re all out there being wild and promiscuous and all, just because they want to be defiant. Like bad children. We’ve told them over and over, but they just won’t listen!
Hundreds of posts, and it is still all about the sex. No other rationale has been offered that can stand on its own. Only more and more circuitous revolutions around the eeck! factor.
Facts shall not sway them in light of a higher truth.
No, you did not. I prodded you on the difference as regards societal acceptance between ethnicity and sexuality, and your reply was merely to question my seriousness. :rolleyes:
Now try it for real - and remember about “being born that way”.
I’ll admit you’ve technically answered it, but “One’s about ethnicity and one’s about sexuality” doesn’t have much explanatory power behind it.
As far as I can tell the position is: Because you’re* uncomfortable with gay people marching down Fifth Avenue, we have to ban Gay Pride events, but I’m equal uncomfortable with Irish people on Fifth Avenue, but I have to suck it up when March 17 rolls around. Please explain why we have to cater to your discomfort but not mine.
*Generic you, not necessarily you personally.
A problem that the Lord himself, in His infinite wisdom, solved by ensuring that we have a virtually limitless supply of sacred seed from our early teens until the deathbed. The minority who actually adhere to the strictures you lay out—who have never masturbated, engaged in oral, used birth control, or thought of sex as a pleasurable act rather than a societal imperative for procreating—are, of course, free to live out the rather grim-sounding lives they’ve hollowed out for themselves, at least until Barack Hussein Antichrist’s Jerkoff Squads begin breaking in doors and forcing holy men to touch themselves in unholy ways. For the rest, alleged Christians whose focus narrows on the “immorality” of gay sex while ignoring their own myriad transgressions—I will add “hypocrisy” to their short list of attributes.
I am perfectly willing to exclude bigotry as a motivating force; I simply haven’t heard presented an alternate reason that passes the smell test, from you or anyone.
I’m defending it just fine. Whether your ignorance is fought ultimately is not my concern. I am making the attempt, but if I fail I can handle it. You have nothing to teach me here because I am not ignorant of your position.
Yawn More attempts to personalize it so your bigotry has an outlet.
lol
If you say so.
Believe what you want, whatever makes you feel righteous and ‘tolerant’.
lol Your inability to separate a person from the argument isn’t my concern. Did you not take debate class in HS?
Yes, I am married, almost four years, lived with her a few years before that and have been married once before for 2.5 years.
Whatever allows you to oversimplify things.
I don’t show respect and understanding for only one side. Jayjay got it just fine. He understood my view perfectly. I think it’s an abstract social good. I am neither gay nor a Christian Evangelical. If I were on a Christian message board I’d be arguing the opposite position in order to educate people about the other side of the debate, like I am attempting to do here. In fact I’d be arguing more passionately because I am in support of gay marriage. I passionately support gay adoption because I am all for opening up the field of contenders for foster care and adoption based on the idea that a larger field of contenders will provide an opportunity to place the kids more effectively. I have seen some really atrocious hetero foster care in my life and don’t think that gay couples will do any worse.
I’ve gone out of my way to go to Burning Man several times, where people behave like they are at a gay pride parade for a whole week.