Marriage

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Does that go for homophobes too?

Define homophobe.

Betcha can't without realizing that this non-word is just another distortion of the english language designed to foster normalization of homosexuality.

. . =(_8^(1)

[ianmdrennan 2]

Homophobe
Racist

Replace "Race" with "Sexuality" in Racist and the similarities are striking.

I guess I just don't see the difference on where some guy sticks his cock or woman sticks her tongue vs what color their skin is as a reflection on how "abnormal" he/she is considered to be.

What they do has no impact on my life or the life of my family whatsoever so I don't really care what they do as long as it's consensual.

It's just my opinion. Others are welcome to theirs whether or not I agree with them.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[kelel01 1]

Dude, Billvon is about to hand you your ass on a platter with some scripture . . . Billvon?

Kelly

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Does that go for homophobes too?

Define homophobe.

Betcha can't without realizing that this non-word is just another distortion of the english language designed to foster normalization of homosexuality.

you cannot 'distort' the english language. It is a continually, expanding evolving concept. New words are added everyday to define the world around us. Because you reject a behavior pattern does not make it 'abnormal'

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,991]

> I see that you refer to God. Do you read the bible? Do you believe in
> what it says? If so the bible specifically denounces homosexuality in no
>uncertain words.

It actually says to kill them. "Let them be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Do you advocate murder of all gays? If not, why do you defy the bible?

It also says that, once troops invade a city, they should kill all the children, most of the women, but keep the virgins to rape. Do you advocate that our troops do that?

The bible lists rules that say when it's OK for a father to sell his children into slavery. If you have kids, will you follow those rules, or will you disregard the bible?

The answer is that we have grown up. We no longer consider slavery, rape, or murder to be acceptable in modern society - and we realize that the bible was written in a different time with completely different laws, traditions and morals. Ironically, the principles in the bible have often served as a foundation to disregard the more ancient and evil parts of the bible. As a society we have a ways to go, but we're getting there.

> There is no way possible for you or anyone to have enough perspective
> on our culture to consider it "growing up".

When my grandmother came to the US, there were signs in the windows that said "Irish need not apply." My great-grandmother on the other side could not vote until after she had my grandmother; women were not allowed to vote in the US when she was younger. Even in my family's lifetime we have grown up as a culture.

>This is the only culture we really know.

You've never seen another culture?

>We have clues as to past cultures, but we really don't truly understand
> what it was like for people in the past . . . .

You can always ask them.

[billvon 2,991]

>Define homophobe.

Someone who dislikes or fears someone else just because they are gay.

[Frenchy68 0]

Warning Skydyvr: some form of homophobia has been linked to a person's repressed homosexual feelings...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Does that go for homophobes too?

Define homophobe.

Betcha can't without realizing that this non-word is just another distortion of the english language designed to foster normalization of homosexuality.

homophobe

n : a person who hates or fears homosexual people

www.dictionary.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does that go for homophobes too?

Define homophobe.

Betcha can't without realizing that this non-word is just another distortion of the english language designed to foster normalization of homosexuality.

homophobe

n : a person who hates or fears homosexual people

www.dictionary.com

I say that defines it pretty well, without doing anything to "foster normalization of homosexuality." Whether being gay is "normal" or not, a person who fears or hates homosexual people is still a homophobe.

[livendive 8]

Quote

by the way I am totally against gay marriages and if you want to describe that as prejudiced then go ahead. I don't give a shit.

Quote

I put gays on the same level as retardation. They shouldn't be discriminated against, but they are still not normal.

From dictionary.com:

Quote

dis·crim·i·nate v.

To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice.

Isn't prohibiting gays from marrying a form a discrimination?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Having gay marriages says to the world that homosexuality is normal.

And what do you think about heterosexual people who have committed adultery being allowed to stay married, or to ever marry again? According to your theory, wouldn't that say to the world that adultery is normal?

If we're going to talk about gay marriages ruining the institution of marriage, then I think we should take a look at people like JFK and Bill Clinton (and SO many other heterosexual married people who have cheated on their spouses), who in my opinion have already made a complete mockery of marriage anyway.

[billvon 2,991]

>If we're going to talk about gay marriages ruining the institution of marriage . . .

Then we should also talk about divorce. I think legal divorces do far more to ruin the institution of marriage than gay marriage. Ban divorce and you'll keep all US marriages intact! What could be better for the institution?

[Frenchy68 0]

Then the only choice for separation is either the good old Henry the VIII way or the Peterson way? Why does everyone seem to be so concerned about how other people's relationship are defined? Why can't we just give our own value to the notion of marriage, and let others be?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[billvon 2,991]

>Why does everyone seem to be so concerned about how other
>people's relationship are defined?

I really think there are some people out there who need an external force (the church, the state etc) to tell them what their relationship must be; without such an external force, they cannot form a stable relationship. They need the stability that external rules and regulations impose. For such people, adding gays to the group of people who can be married forces an association between their marriage and a gay marriage, and for some people, especially those who feel gays are evil, they feel "tainted" by association. How can they maintain their marriage via rules A, B and C when they add a group with icky rule D? Must they now follow icky rule D too? Is it OK if they don't follow rule D but others do? Quite the dilemma for some people.

[Frenchy68 0]

I agree with you, but I think it's a pointless fight against natural evolution (I love that word!). The problem used to be the same with blacks in buses, women in law school, etc... Deal with it, people. And if they can not define their marriage on their own without outside help, the foundation of their union is tainted at its core.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[narcimund 0]

Quote

And if they can not define their marriage on their own without outside help, the foundation of their union is tainted at its core.

I've been attacked with this argument before. It's usually tinged with nasty words (like "tainted"). The logic goes like this:

• Gay marriage is bad because gay people can't have stable relationships without social approval. That proves gay relationships are unnatural and weakly bound.
  
  
• Straight marriage is good because straight people can't have stable relationships without social approval. That proves straight relationships are community-based, moral, and based on the traditional ways which are best.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Frenchy68 0]

Gay marriage is bad because gay people can't have stable relationships without social approval. That proves gay relationships are unnatural and weakly bound***

How about mixed race marriages? They have not always been socially acceptable. Marriages between jews and non Jews have not always been socially acceptable. Would yourecommend we revert to these former "traditional ways"?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[PhillyKev 0]

You do realize that you're talking to a married gay man, right?

[Frenchy68 0]

Didn't know he was married!
Maybe I should have read the first part of his post...
Anyway, I'll take on anyone today. Gay, straight, midgets, bring it on...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Zenister 0]

most gays i know really dont care so much about social approval (it would be nice, but you cant force anyone to approve of you) so much as they care about equal legal status and spousal rights...

I've never understood the mindset that needs exclude, ridicule and repress to make themselves feel better or more special about their own relationships....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Darius11 12]

First let me give you my position.
I never have had a problem with someone’s sexual choice and don’t care if you are straight or gay.

That being said I can see how in one way why people would be agents gay marriage.
I think a homosexual couple should be able to have the same rights as a married couple, but to get married in a church, Masque, or other religious temple is an insult to that religion if the religion denounces homosexuality.

Civil union with all the rights: Yes
Getting married in a church: No

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[billvon 2,991]

>I think a homosexual couple should be able to have the same rights as a
> married couple, but to get married in a church, Masque, or other religious
> temple is an insult to that religion if the religion denounces homosexuality.

I agree 100%. I could care less what religions do - what matters is that a gay couple get afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>I think a homosexual couple should be able to have the same rights as a
> married couple, but to get married in a church, Masque, or other religious
> temple is an insult to that religion if the religion denounces homosexuality.

I agree 100%. I could care less what religions do - what matters is that a gay couple get afforded the same rights as a heterosexual couple.

I agree with this too. There should be "legal" marriages (or civil unions) and then there should be "religious" marriages. Gay couples should have the same rights with a legal marriage that a straight couple would have, and I think it should be up to each religion to decide if they want to recognize a gay marriage or not.

[Zenister 0]

oh just imagine the splinter groups forming....religious schism is such fun to watch.

which is part of why religions that do not recognize gay marriage now, do not want it granted equal legal status at all. It would continue to undermine one of the few social 'authorities' still remaining to religion after it and governmental authority split. The farther it (a religion, any religion) is divided the less influence it has on society.

How many people haven’t been in a church since the last time someone got married? What is the effect on churches when more weddings take place outside than in due to their inability to adapt to social change?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That being said I can see how in one way why people would be agents gay marriage.
I think a homosexual couple should be able to have the same rights as a married couple, but to get married in a church, Masque, or other religious temple is an insult to that religion if the religion denounces homosexuality.

No problem - right now a straight Christian couple can't get married in a church if the pastor doesn't want to do it. A close friend ended up leaving his church because of differences of opinion over how his upcoming wedding would be done.