LedZeppfan77 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I find this stance truly puzzling. You don't hate gay people, but you want them treated like second-class citizens, not afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. That makes absolutely no sense. It's the same as saying you don't support abortion, except in cases of rape or incest. Either you believe abortion should be available no matter the reason, or you don't think it should be available at all. It's also akin to people who are against abortion, but for the death penalty. I don't hate you, and I certainly don't think any less of you for believing what you do, I just don't understand how you came to that reasoning. How can you discard the abortion argument and try and simplify it so? You cannot come to that way of reasoning on the matter of abortion. Its not cut and dry as you put it. It certainly makes a difference, at least in a moral perspective of how the pregnancy was achieved. And you are trying to paint her as hating gays when she ahs stated she does not. Typical of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I didn't say she hated gays. I didn't imply she hated gays. I said I didn't understand how she could say she doesn't hate Group X, but doesn't think Group X deserves the same rights as Group Y. For fuck's sake, Rick. Learn to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 How can you discard the abortion argument and try and simplify it so? You cannot come to that way of reasoning on the matter of abortion. Its not cut and dry as you put it. It certainly makes a difference, at least in a moral perspective of how the pregnancy was achieved. And you are trying to paint her as hating gays when she ahs stated she does not. Typical of you. Seriously? Either you're alright with a woman having the right to do what she wants with herself or your not, it's a simple as that. It shouldn't take an act of rape to come to that conclusion. Second, why would you reduce a person to having less rights than you if you didn't indeed dislike them and were just trying to put a good face on it? You start shit with Liz everytime and wonder why she ends up ignoring you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I find this stance truly puzzling. You don't hate gay people, but you want them treated like second-class citizens, not afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. To play devil's advocate for a moment, do you think the right to a "civil union" which affords all of the legal rights hetrosexual couples enjoy means being treated like a second class citizen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 To play devil's advocate for a moment, do you think the right to a "civil union" which affords all of the legal rights hetrosexual couples enjoy means being treated like a second class citizen? Yes. Either do away with marriage completely and give everyone civil unions, homosexual or heterosexual, or give everyone marriage, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Calling it "civil unions" instead of marriage because you don't want to piss off religious fundamentalists basically flies in the face of the Supreme Court doing away with the concept of "separate but equal" in Brown v. Board of Education. SCOTUS in 1954 said that "separate but equal" was in violation of the 14th amendment. Either it's a marriage or it's not. You can't give Group X something called one thing and give the same thing to Group Y and call it something else. What is precipitating giving it another name? If it has the same rights and benefits of a marriage, why not call it a marriage? I'd love to see people who oppose gay marriage do so without falling back on the Bible or some other religious text. Not saying you've done that, just saying in general. It would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I'd love to see people who oppose gay marriage do so without falling back on the Bible or some other religious text. Not saying you've done that, just saying in general. It would be nice. I don't oppose gay marriage. Either it's a marriage or it's not. You can't give Group X something called one thing and give the same thing to Group Y and call it something else. What is precipitating giving it another name? If it has the same rights and benefits of a marriage, why not call it a marriage? We have lots of situations where Group X gets something and Group Y gets another. Maybe its a poor example, but I am not allowed to use a women's washroom. There is no real reason for that, its just tradition. We could have just as easily not placed so much stigma around this bodily function and made all washrooms unisex. But we as a society did not, and now it is ingrained in us. Many people would bristle if I opened a business with a unisex washroom - because it does not comport with their traditional understanding. It does not mean they hate the opposite sex, it just means they are steadfast in their views that men and women should go to the bathroom separately because it is all that they know. In fact, there is no reason why we should not all use the same room - it is more efficient and more equal. All I am trying to say is that while I am inclined to agree with you that all people should be allowed to marry, I understand how someone can disagree but not "hate" gay people. When it is borne out of tradition instead of malice it is a little easier to understand. Edited to add- if my wife knew I was comparing marriage to a bathroom I would be in serious trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 As an aside, I didn't say you opposed gay marriage. Now, I've used unisex bathrooms. They don't bother me. I go to the bathroom to go to the bathroom, not pay attention to who's in there with me. I've also used the men's room before, when the line for the ladies room was too long. When you gotta go, you gotta go. I don't know if I'd compare the fact we have separate toileting facilities for the genders to the debate on civil unions vs. marriage, though. We have separate bathroom facilities for privacy reasons, mostly. Also, using the bathroom is not a civil right, and the fact that the genders have separate facilities isn't an encroachment on either gender's civil rights. The idea that separate facilities for the genders is "tradition" seems a bit hinky to me, since I would imagine until probably the Industrial Revolution, maybe a bit earlier, there was one standard bog for everyone to use, whether you had girl parts or boy parts, and the infusion of women in the workplace particularly, necessitated separate accomodations. Traditional marriage, as an aside, was as a transfer of property from one man (the bride's father) to another (the groom), and could include the new bride and her slaves or the new bride and any concubines the groom wanted to take. It could also include one man and many wives, though I don't think polygamy/polyandry should be illegal. If everyone is over the age of consent and agrees to the marriage, I don't see what the big deal is. If one man or woman wants to take on the stress of supporting, in more ways than just financially, several spouses, go for it. And before any of the peanut gallery chimes in and says "Well then what about people marrying animals or children?".....children and animals cannot consent to anything, nor can they sign contracts, so even if polygamy and gay marriage were made legal, it doesn't mean people are going to run out and go marry a 6 year old or a snapping turtle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The Koran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 As an aside, I didn't say you opposed gay marriage. Well, technically I didn't say you said I did. Seriuosly though, I wasn't sure by your last line if you were clear on my viewpoint. Glad we sorted that out! I don't know if I'd compare the fact we have separate toileting facilities for the genders to the debate on civil unions vs. marriage, though... using the bathroom is not a civil right, and the fact that the genders have separate facilities isn't an encroachment on either gender's civil rights. That wasn't my intention. You had asked an earlier poster how she could not "hate" gays but not want them to marry. The bathroom example was really more of an illustrative point. Not everyone is as progressive as you and would feel comfortable using a unisex washroom (or the men's in a pinch - good for you by the way!). My only point was that the fact that others may have discomfort with that idea doesn't mean they "hate" the opposite sex. It just means that they are uncomfortable with it because they cannot reconcile it with what I called "tradition" for lack of a better term (I might have used education, upbringing, engrained views, ignorance, not knowing any different, etc. - but tradition seemed the most neutral). My point is, the poster who you called out probably doesn't hate the LGBT community. In fact she said she doesn't. She just has deeply engrained views which she cannot reconcile with their right to marry. That does not make her right, but it also does not make her malicious. I guess all I was really trying to do in this exercise is to point out that if we took the time to understand each other better, before casting aspersions, we might advance the debate a little further and educate each other in the process. Once you tell her she hates people, when she doesn't think she does, you've probably lost her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 For the last time, I didn't say she hated anyone. I've said that twice now. Nowhere in my response to her did I say she hated gays, said she said she hated gays, or implied/inferred/intimated that she hated gays. What I wanted to know is how she rationalized in her mind, not hating gays, but believing they should be second-class citizens when it comes to marriage. That doesn't mean I think she secretly hates gay people and doesn't want to admit it, or something silly like that. I also don't consider myself progressive, I consider myself logical. If I have to go to the bathroom, and the only bathroom available is a unisex facility, I'm not going to urinate on myself, or give myself a UTI hoping to find a women's restroom. If there's 20 women in line for the bathroom and there's no one in line for the men's room, I'm going to use the men's room. I don't see what other choice I'd have, short of going tinkle on the floor. To boil it down, I don't understand how people can hold inconsistent viewpoints on things like this. Not everything is black and white, I agree with that, but some things to my mind are. While I understand that there are all different kinds of people in this world, and that differences between people exist, I don't think those differences make one group better or more entitled than another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 For the last time, I didn't say she hated anyone. I've said that twice now. Are you sure you are being fair? It may not be what you intended, but it certainly appeared to me to be the message you were conveying. You said: I find this stance truly puzzling. You don't hate gay people, but you want them treated like second-class citizens, not afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. That makes absolutely no sense. It's the same as saying you don't support abortion, except in cases of rape or incest. Either you believe abortion should be available no matter the reason, or you don't think it should be available at all. It's also akin to people who are against abortion, but for the death penalty. First you said that her views make absolutely no sense. You then followed up in the next sentence by indicating it is an either/or proposition. Either you are for abortion or against it - no middle ground - the obvious implication being if you don't want gays to marry, you must hate them - no middle ground. Reminds me of - either you are with us or with the terrorists... If that was not what you intended, you should read it again. You have proven yourself a worthy wordsmith in your last several posts. I have no doubt you could have made your point in way which did not lead at least two people to conclude that you were implying something you did not intend. I am not trying to be an asshole. I am just saying that in these discussions tone and word choice mean everything and often are the difference between reaching someone or having a thread degenerate into a series of expletives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 But you aren't the CEO of a company making a statement in a public manner about a controversial topic. Therefore, what you think or say about it, won't be possibly construed as actual or potential 'unofficial, but plausibly deniable, company policy.' FWIW, I don't consider boycotting something to be the same as 'ignoring' it... quite the opposite actually. My dad is the CEO of a company and he is very clear on his views but he does not get boycotted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedZeppfan77 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Seriously? Either you're alright with a woman having the right to do what she wants with herself or your not, it's a simple as that. It shouldn't take an act of rape to come to that conclusion. Second, why would you reduce a person to having less rights than you if you didn't indeed dislike them and were just trying to put a good face on it? You start shit with Liz everytime and wonder why she ends up ignoring you.... She is a big girl Walter and does not need you to come running to the rescue. It seems like you like to follow my posts around the site to pounce on me every fucking chance you get. Over and out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I find this stance truly puzzling. You don't hate gay people, but you want them treated like second-class citizens, not afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. That makes absolutely no sense. It's the same as saying you don't support abortion, except in cases of rape or incest. Either you believe abortion should be available no matter the reason, or you don't think it should be available at all. It's also akin to people who are against abortion, but for the death penalty. I don't hate you, and I certainly don't think any less of you for believing what you do, I just don't understand how you came to that reasoning. I never ever said that I treat them like second-class people. I have no idea how you thought I said that but I didn't. And also, I don't think that abortion is right at all even for rape or incest. I don't hate you either (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Are you sure you are being fair? It may not be what you intended, but it certainly appeared to me to be the message you were conveying. You said: First you said that her views make absolutely no sense. You then followed up in the next sentence by indicating it is an either/or proposition. Either you are for abortion or against it - no middle ground. The obvious implication being if you don't want gays to marry, you must hate them - no middle ground. Reminds me of - either you are with us or with the terrorists... If that was not what you intended, you should read it again. You have proven yourself a worthy wordsmith in your last several posts I have no doubt you could have made your point in way which did not lead at least two people to conclude that you were implying something you did not intend. I am not trying to be an asshole. I am just saying that in these discussions tone and word choice mean everything and often are the difference between reaching someone or having a thread degenerate into a series of expletives. Re-reading the post, I can see how someone would come to that conclusion, and I apologize for muddiness of the argument. For the record, one of the people who responded to the post can't stand me, and would accuse me of saying just about anything in order to take a few shots at me, so that person's contribution should be ignored. You haven't been here long enough to know that for yourself, but take my word for it. I do believe some things are black and white, and while abortion isn't the topic of this thread, I used it as an example of how I believe some issues don't allow fence-sitters. I don't think it's possible for there to be middle ground on things like marriage and abortion; middle ground to me means wishy-washy/can't make up your mind, and I don't like that. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty and refusing to take a side so you can argue from both sides of your mouth. That's just my view on it, yours and everyone else's may differ. However the way I was raised and the way I choose to interact with people, doesn't allow me to be that way myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I never ever said that I treat them like second-class people. I have no idea how you thought I said that but I didn't. You said you don't think gays should have the right to get married. Denying them the right to marry affords them second-class status in relation to heterosexuals in the realm of marriage. I don't believe that's right, fair, just, decent, or even logical. For the longest time in this country, black people were treated as second-class citizens to whites in nearly every way imaginable; schools, public facilities, jobs, housing, even athletics. They were seen as lesser and either denied things outright, or given lower-quality or inferior versions as opposed to what was given to whites. I'm sure if you asked white people in the north if they hated black people, they'd have said no and meant it. They didn't hate black people, but it didn't stop them from thinking whites were better and deserved better. There were even white people in the south who didn't hate blacks, but felt whites were better and deserved better. Granted, that was a minority of Southern whites. This is really no different. In both instances, the majority group (straights) has decided that there is something they have (marriage) which cannot be given to people who they think are different (gays) and deserve either a lesser version (civil unions), or nothing at all. There's nothing in my mind, that explains away rationally, denying gays the right to marry. I haven't seen anyone give me a decent reason yet. They either say "tradition" which is hinky at best, or they fall back on religion, which is completely ludicrous. To be clear, I'm not saying you've done either of those things. I'm talking about my general experiences discussing this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 You said you don't think gays should have the right to get married. Denying them the right to marry affords them second-class status in relation to heterosexuals in the realm of marriage. I don't believe that's right, fair, just, decent, or even logical. For the longest time in this country, black people were treated as second-class citizens to whites in nearly every way imaginable; schools, public facilities, jobs, housing, even athletics. They were seen as lesser and either denied things outright, or given lower-quality or inferior versions as opposed to what was given to whites. I'm sure if you asked white people in the north if they hated black people, they'd have said no and meant it. They didn't hate black people, but it didn't stop them from thinking whites were better and deserved better. There were even white people in the south who didn't hate blacks, but felt whites were better and deserved better. Granted, that was a minority of Southern whites. This is really no different. In both instances, the majority group (straights) has decided that there is something they have (marriage) which cannot be given to people who they think are different (gays) and deserve either a lesser version (civil unions), or nothing at all. There's nothing in my mind, that explains away rationally, denying gays the right to marry. I haven't seen anyone give me a decent reason yet. They either say "tradition" which is hinky at best, or they fall back on religion, which is completely ludicrous. To be clear, I'm not saying you've done either of those things. I'm talking about my general experiences discussing this topic. I do not think that they should get married: It's not natural at all. It is obvious that nature did not design man to be with man and woman with woman. I do not wish to discuss this topic in depth, but I do think this is a decent reason. But what I think will not effect what they want, people don't care what I think. They just want to do what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Re-reading the post, I can see how someone would come to that conclusion, and I apologize for muddiness of the argument. That is very big of you to say. Sometimes I find people around these parts aren't ever willing to take a second look at things. I very much admire that you did that. I do believe some things are black and white, and while abortion isn't the topic of this thread, I used it as an example of how I believe some issues don't allow fence-sitters. I don't think it's possible for there to be middle ground on things like marriage and abortion; middle ground to me means wishy-washy/can't make up your mind, and I don't like that. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty and refusing to take a side so you can argue from both sides of your mouth. That's just my view on it, yours and everyone else's may differ. However the way I was raised and the way I choose to interact with people, doesn't allow me to be that way myself. There is nothing wrong with having strength in your convictions, and it is admirable that you are able to be definitive. I have not always had an easy time with that. For a long time on the gay marriage issue I believed that the only important issue was the legal one. I thought if you gave someone a civil union and all the rights that go with it, what more could they want. They were equal under the law. I thought that asking to change the definition of marriage was the same as asking that tennis be called football from now on. But I evolved - just as the world around me evolved. Now I can't imagine thinking otherwise. So there is hope, even for the wishy/washy. Your post at 7:28 is precisely the way to help someone get there - even if it doesn't work immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 If it's not natural, then why does homosexuality occur in the animal kingdom? Can't get much more natural than animals. Also, if you're talking about it terms of having children, since two men and two women can't have kids biologically, do you think heterosexuals who are sterile/infertile or may not want children shouldn't get married? Because they are no different than two men or two women when it comes to reproduction. As a matter of course, homosexuality isn't a choice. You're born gay, just like you're born with the skin color you have. Civil rights shouldn't be denied to you because of something you cannot control or change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 If it's not natural, then why does homosexuality occur in the animal kingdom? Can't get much more natural than animals. Also, if you're talking about it terms of having children, since two men and two women can't have kids biologically, do you think heterosexuals who are sterile/infertile or may not want children shouldn't get married? Because they are no different than two men or two women when it comes to reproduction. As a matter of course, homosexuality isn't a choice. You're born gay, just like you're born with the skin color you have. Civil rights shouldn't be denied to you because of something you cannot control or change. People are not born gay, just like people are not born with a specific religion in mind. Beliefs and skin color are two totally different things. People have changed from being gay and being straight. And if you don't want to have children then why would you get married in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 People are not born gay, just like people are not born with a specific religion in mind. I am not sure I agree about whether or not people are born gay, but that aside, do you think that people of a certain religion should not be able to get married? You rightly point out that they were not born that way. Should we deny them certain rights? And if you don't want to have children then why would you get married in the first place? Love Companionship Money Glutton for punishment Losing a bet Tax purposes Green card Shall I go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I am not sure I agree about whether or not people are born gay, but that aside, do you think that people of a certain religion should not be able to get married? You rightly point out that they were not born that way. Should we deny them certain rights? Love Companionship Money Glutton for punishment Losing a bet Tax purposes Shall I go on? First of all, yes. I do think that atheists should not get married because atheists should not believe in marriage. God was the one who invented holy matrimony and we have created it for, like you said, punishment, losing bets, tax, and, money. I mean I think people can get married if they want but it probably does nat match up with their religion in the first place. People say "I believe in marriage or right or wrong but I do not believe in God" When it was God in the first place who created it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I don't think you can really get a good chicken sandwich..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 First of all, yes. I do think that atheists should not get married because atheists should not believe in marriage. God was the one who invented holy matrimony and we have created it for, like you said, punishment, losing bets, tax, and, money. I mean I think people can get married if they want but it probably does nat match up with their religion in the first place. People say "I believe in marriage or right or wrong but I do not believe in God" When it was God in the first place who created it. So would you be ok with gays getting married if it was not in a church/synagogue/temple/mosque and the servive was not performed by clergy of some kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 So would you be ok with gays getting married if it was not in a church/synagogue/temple/mosque and the servive was not performed by clergy of some kind? First people don't have to get married in a church or whatever but that is beside the point. I don't care if gays get married I just don't think that is right. That is all I wanted to say since the beginning. Being gay is a sin just like lying or cheating or hating people. But I do think they should not get the same privileges. For example: Gays should not get married, just like liars should not be trusted, or haters should not be around people, or cheaters should be closely monitored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.