Leaving aside the disgusting reference to gays as “animals” and the obvious absurdity of equating homosexulaity with “a kink” in the first place, your so-called “argument” is flawed because fetishists DO, in fact, have the right to marry. A couple can show up to county court in the most conservative place in America and declare their intent to drink each other’s blood while sitting in a kiddie pool full of giraffe shit, and as long as they are straight the judge will marry them. But heaven forbid two sane, loving men want to have a committed relationship. Polygamy is equally irrelevant, as there is no right to a polygamous marriage by anyone and thus no equality issue.
The truth does matter. Here’s some truth, for example: if your actions or words are in support of a hateful viewpoint, the fact that you say you don’t hate anybody yourself is not going to be very important. It’s going to be especially important to the people on the wrong end of your views. It’s also true that you may have a very different view of your motives than others, and you’re not automatically a better judge. And on top of that, it’s true that what you say (and what you say about why you’re speaking) is probably less important than what you do.
Without crossing the line here (hopefully), to me it’s the equivalent of saying ‘I think blacks SHOULD have to sit at the back of the bus and be segregated. I don’t think this because I hate blacks, I just think it’s the logical and correct action due to X’. That would sound ludicrous today (it would BE ludicrous today), because it would rightfully be seen as grossly unfair and dehumanizing. I believe that 10 or 20 years from now this will all be seen in exactly the same light for gay marriage. For the gods sake people…why SHOULDN’T gay men and women have the same rights as other human beings have? Why shouldn’t they be able to marry and have all of the legal and contractual rights and privileges that any pair of males and females have?? Does anyone else here remember when mixed race marriages weren’t allowed (by law)? It was a touch before my time (where I grew up), but this is THE EXACT SAME THING!
:smack:
(all of which is getting away from the original theme of the thread, but I think it needed repeating)
-XT
I was quoting George Orwell’s Animal Farm which uses animals metaphorically to describe social issues. In that context, I’d call straights “animals” too.
Sounds like “No one has a right to marry the same sex and therefore there is no equality issue.”
See what I’m talking about folks? Those arguing for gay marriage take all the same pages from the straight playbook in order to explain why allowing gay marriage but not incest or polygamy.
Now it’s the viewpoint that’s hateful. In what way does a desire to make marriage a meaningful institution again become hateful? Am I “hateful” of divorcees if I’m against divorce? Hateful of children if I wish there wasn’t child support to help motivate divorce? hateful of victims if I oppose bogus domestic violence?
The fact is the word is greatly abused.
In my opinion the gays do themselves a disservice by continuing to spout this stuff all over the place. Accept that disagreement is not the equivalent of hate.
Dude, if you wanted people to think you weren’t hateful of gays, maybe you wouldn’t say gayness is a “kink” or they have “artificial families” or, just in general, keep referring to “the gays” as a monolithic entity.
Just because a group has a prejudice doesn’t give you a right to be prejudiced against them. Maybe antisemitism is more common among African-Americans, for example (which I think is still somewhat true). That doesn’t mean you get to say, “Oh, they are antisemitic, so I won’t let them vote.”
So sure, gay people can be hateful. And when a gay person expresses a hateful opinion, we can all address that.
But you haven’t address what the problem is with gay marriage and why you think it shouldn’t be illegal. You seem just to be trying to deflect the conversation, and in a way that really looks an awful lot like someone who has a lot of issues with homosexuality.
When “make marriage a meaningful institution again” means “don’t let gays get married.” If you’re that convinced of the rightness of your position, don’t hide it behind cliches and buzzwords like a politician. You think letting gays marry who they want will make marriage less meaningful, right? Then say so. It’d be even better if you could give a sensible explanation of why that’s the case, but we’ve been having this debate for years and that hasn’t happened yet.
I wouldn’t call that hateful, no. Callous and foolish? Sure.
Sounds more hateful of women since it would make it harder for them to get divorced, but no, I’d probably say it’s just absurd rather than hateful.
Does anyone favor bogus domestic violence claims?
I keep waiting for you to explain why they’re different, and you keep not explaining. Why is that? Meanwhile you keep saying things that do make it sound like you have a problem with gays.
Which isn’t exactly a logical way to go about it. Nor is it acceptable to the gay activists if that is the way you approach the issue to them; try this on for size, almost exactly quoting you but switching sides:
The gays’ description of the attitudes of gays doesn’t matter to anyone except gays. The straights don’t care if you say you’re in favor of gay marriage because gays have equal rights or because of some other thing. The result is the same.
I don’t really need to point out the logical flaws in either one. Why can gays use this flawed reasoning scheme and it seems to pass muster but it would be ridiculed if a straight uses it?
Pray tell advise what term you’d prefer over artificial to describe a family that did not rely on biology between the two participants in the marriage to produce the child. Anything else relying on others or technology seems apt to a description of “artificial” to me, if one is honest about it. I’ve included step-families in the term “artificial family” before too; it simply means that someone other than family members participated in the biology of that particular family.
Hatred added on top of discrimination is the same as insult added to injury. What matters is the injury: the actual fact of discrimination. To remove the insult while keeping the injury going is nothing but a cosmetic gesture. It’s fake-nice.
I’m going to ignore the rest of this post since it doesn’t even make any sense, but I gotta ask (probably foolishly): So, when people adopt, do they have an artificial kid and an artificial family?
Again, we already know you have strong opinions on the unreasonableness of gay activists. You’ve mentioned it over and over again. How about explaining why they shouldn’t view your opinion that way?
This is incoherent, and my comment wasn’t. I don’t think this is a good way for you to try to make your point.
How about calling them a family, which is what they actually are? The bonds that make a family are real, and the rest is pretty much trivia. If you have to describe the situation further, then say they’re a gay couple who adopted. Big deal.
That seems like a limitation in your own thinking.
I think if you said this to a step-family or an adoptive family, they would find it repugnant, rude, and very judgmental. I don’t think they would give a crap for your opinion about the realness of their family. Who made you the judge of what makes a real family? What you are talking about is biology, which is not inconsequential but isn’t the only measure of a family and never has been.
Your stance on gay marriage is the least of the reasons why I think you hate gay people.
You’ve gone far afield. I am not making either pro/con arguments for gay marriage. All attitudes are hypotheticals. The point of my argument and the only thing I have been meaning to say is that, as a group, and according to their arguments, gays are just as hateful as any other group, and have their own prejudices.
But those who strongly advocate for gays do not pay much attention to the nuances of argument and keep giving us the broken record of arguing their opponents motivations.
Now when I begin to speculate on your motivations its some moral wrong. But your speculation becomes fact, and my characterization of what’s in my mind and heart is irrelevant.
As soon as gay activists say I can decide for them what they really think and feel, then I’ll still protest the fact they can’t judge my feelings and inner thoughts; but at least I won’t think them hypocrites.
[QUOTE=David42]
Pray tell advise what term you’d prefer over artificial to describe a family that did not rely on biology between the two participants in the marriage to produce the child. Anything else relying on others or technology seems apt to a description of “artificial” to me, if one is honest about it. I’ve included step-families in the term “artificial family” before too; it simply means that someone other than family members participated in the biology of that particular family.
[/QUOTE]
Horseshit. If a man and a woman adopt a child most (reasonable) people would simply call their unit a ‘family’ without batting an eye. If YOU choose not to it’s because you are playing semantics games and are dancing around the issue. It would be offensive for a straight couple who adopts a child to be described as ‘artificial’, and it’s equally offensive for a gay couple who adopts a child or has a child through other means to be called ‘artificial’. Love is the only real ingredient needed to create a family unit…biology is completely optional. Hell, a couple (gay or straight) alone can form a ‘family unit’ right there, even if no children are involved at all.
-XT
Well, if you decide to talk about your own opinions and why you’re not hateful, that might be interesting. What you’re doing now is really, really not.
Of course. We have no idea what your actual position on the issue of those gays indulging their kink in the structure of an artificial family, or whether marriage should be made meaningful again instead.
Do you realize that even if this were true, it would have no bearing on the merits of their arguments? And again, you’re not saying why your position isn’t hateful- just that it’s mean of “gay activists” to say that it is.
because it is inaccurate, but of course you’ve already proclaimed that to be irrelevant.
Right-o. I think you’ve really demonstrated hypocrisy in it’s purest possible form.
Seems a lot of quibbling over semantics. Or worse, trying to win a debate by refusing me the full arsenal of the language. Boils down to asking me to concede that any act of sexual pleasure is the equivalent of creating life. I don’t think that is honest. Admit it, the phrase “heterosexual sex” is insulting to gays, isn’t it?
Which you of course couldn’t possibly have and therefore spend no time thinking about.
I recall the bullying you did last thread I commented on these issues to shut down honest intellectual discourse.
YOU WIN BY ALL MEANS. I’m not up for more abuse by mods.
I see that you have not thought this through and your logic is flawed.
Simply repeating statements, substituting different nouns, is not actually a valid argument unless you address the ways in which the nouns are exactly equivalent in meaning and practice.
Polygamy and incest are different from same-sex marriage in several ways. (You will note that those who oppose same-sex marriage like to dismiss laws against miscegenation on the grounds that miscegenation is “not like” same sex marriage.)
Until you provide the ways in which polygamy and incest are the same as same sex marriage, you are simply playing semantic games and the hostility you display is sufficient to provide a suspicion of homophobia to your motives.
And you are just playing games, here. I know of no one else, (aside from a very tiny number of people who oppose adoption on irrational grounds), who would ever describe a family in which the children are adopted as “artificial.” If you are proclaiming that you are among that tiny minority of semantic game-players, you are still providing evidence that you are motivated by hatred rather than reason.
Again: how is it inacurrate, and do you see where even though you insist it isn’t hateful, it could appear that way to someone else?
I guess you do, but your attempt to invert my statement didn’t make any sense.
You brought it up in the first place, and I don’t think it’s semantics.
You’re not being refused anything.
That’s not the issue at all. Nobody has asked for your opinion on any act of sexual pleasure or the value of life. We were discussing same-sex marriage. Sex acts of all kinds take place inside or outside of marriage.
I’m not gay, but I doubt they’re insulted by the word or the act since I have never ever heard any gay person say anything even remotely like it. Why would you think they feel that way? It’s ridiculous. My experience is that gay people really don’t care who you’re having sex with. They’d like not to be judged on who they want to have sex with, and some of them also want to be allowed to get married to their partners.
I don’t have this particular limitation, no. I don’t think biological relationships are the only type or the real type, and I don’t think others are “artificial.” I didn’t claim to have no limitations on my own thinking: I was saying that this seems to be your own preoccupation and I see no reason for anyone else to accept it.
I’m not bullying you, I’m not shutting you down, and I haven’t been acting as a moderator in this discussion. However, you are neglecting to support your arguments and it looks like you prefer to talk about the supposed failings of gay activists (you seem to feel very put-upon by them) rather than demonstrating the validity of your own opinions. You haven’t explained why your opinion isn’t hateful beyond your assertion that it isn’t - and the more you post about it, the more I think your objection is actually is emotional and not based on any specific reasoning.