(wL) Forums

FrostyMeds Wrote:

naive Wrote:

RED7EAGLE Wrote:srsly it's really silly u comparing animals to humans.....

Humans *are* animals. Citing traits about other animals you consider to be negative can be done with positive things as well (flight, limb regeneration). Only a very small percentage of our DNA differs us from most of the animal kingdom. It's fairly ignorant to deny how similar in fact we are to all living organisms found on earth.

It doesn't matter if you like gay people or not, it's a natural phenomenon in mammals that reproduce in the way that we do. It's always going to be around whether you like it or not. It is nature. It also does not effect heterosexual people in any way. Why should your slight discomfort around gay people be worth a trade off of absolutely crushing an individuals entire life due to your misguided fears about homosexuality.

Hating gay people is like hating gravity, you are a fool if you call it 'unnatural' and there isn't shit you can do about but accept it. They are never going to go away and you better get used to it.

Homophobia is linked to closet homosexuality also. So all of you haters are really probably just gay and confusing arousal stemming from homosexuals stimuli for anxiety. Most reasonable explanation for all of these unfounded fears IMO Source (there are more): http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/article/homophobia

Thank God there are still people out there with a brain.

^ I know right?

Anyways, I don't really agree with what Obama threw out in the realm of marriage.  Let me start out by saying that I have been studying the Bible for a little bit more than 12 years and it is listed in the Bible several times that marriage is between a man and a women.  At the same time, I have no qualms with people who choose to be gay.  Considering marriage is more of a religious term, I would follow along the lines of "separation of church and state".

I would agree with everything Obama said if the term marriage was taken out of the equation.

That’s what brought about the term "civil unions." However, this whole debate was never about obtaining the same legal rights as those married, right? If it were, then the whole matter would’ve since been resolved. If anyone actually believes that this is truly about obtaining the same legal rights as those married, then they’re only fooling themselves. Civil union laws which are almost completely identical to their marriage counterpart have been shot down multiple times by gay-rights activists. I’m not saying that there aren’t any homosexual couples out there which are truly, and only after these legal rights. I am, however, saying a greater majority of these homosexual couples are after far more than simply that. The practice of homosexuality conflicts with tradition, and the philosophy and texts of most religions. Homosexual couples want to be accepted for who they are and what they believe in, as do all people in this world. Sadly, in desire for this acceptance, many foolishly believe that they can legally force their practices into laws, originally derived from, and heavily intertwined with religion, and it’ll suddenly be accepted by both the religious base which practices it, and everyone following it simply through tradition. This is essentially a battle over a title with false hopes attached, and certainly won’t go as planned. I’m against gay-marriage because this problem is in most cases being pursued for all the wrong reasons. There are even some people who are for it or against it for no other reason than to “get back at” other people they hate such as racist or sexist bigots. If you spin the wheel of hate, then it’ll never stop spinning. You can’t force something onto someone and expect it to end there. If someone truly believes something and holds great pride in it and someone comes along and destroys it, even if the person was completely right in doing so, then the person will hate them for crushing their world, and may even spitefully go against them for that reason alone. If you proceed in this way then it will only build up more hate in the world and almost guarantee the issue will persist for further in the future than necessary. Although homosexual couples pursue this with a noble cause in heart, this simply isn’t the right way to do it. Racism was tackled in this way and to this day it still lingers on. I’m afraid that in the likely event homosexual couples do earn their right to gay-marriage, it’ll only give them a short-term feeling of satisfaction, and they’d likely be no less bitter and depressed than they are now shortly down the road. If not more so actually, since they wouldn’t even have that goal to strive for in life.

I understand your line of argument Bison, but I know many homosexual couples whom simply desire the same economic benefits as married couples receive because they have an adopted child and that sorta thing. They have been oppressed all of their lives and are used to it for the most part, they've told me that they know even if some law passed that gay people had the same exact rights as heterosexuals, there will always be oppression against homosexuals because of history and social stigma, but that does not mean it wouldn't improve their overall condition as well as the biggest problems facing homosexuals: coming out of the closet in the environment that is public US high schools.

ceddeeoo Wrote:I know many homosexual couples whom simply desire the same economic benefits as married couples receive because they have an adopted child and that sorta thing....that does not mean it wouldn't improve their overall condition as well as the biggest problems facing homosexuals: coming out of the closet in the environment that is public US high schools.

All of which can work in the frame work of "civil union"

ceddeeoo Wrote:they've told me that they know even if some law passed that gay people had the same exact rights as heterosexuals, there will always be oppression against homosexuals because of history and social stigma

That's very much true, however, pushing for the title "marriage" is in no way going to remedy this problem. I speculate it'll simply add wood to the growing fire and make even more people bitter and reluctant to accept homosexual couples. A great deal of people don't even really care about the whole issue except for it treading on their traditions and religious beliefs which they hold dearly. If you don't leave them the option to accept homosexual couples on their own terms and instead aggressively force it onto their beliefs, then they'll be all the more spiteful and reluctant to do so in the long run. This is something which will in some cases be passed onto their kids as well. I see the whole issue as an unnecessary head on confrontation or attack on tradition and religion. When simply using the term "civil union" gets rid of a great deal of the opposition and secures them with basically the same legal rights. The sooner they realize that, the better. Alternatively, for years to come, they'll be fighting a great deal of people who feel they have been wronged by them.

M. Bison Wrote:I speculate it'll simply add wood to the growing fire and make even more people bitter and reluctant to accept homosexual couples. A great deal of people don't even really care about the whole issue except for it treading on their traditions and religious beliefs which they hold dearly. If you don't leave them the option to accept homosexual couples on their own terms, then they'll be all the more spiteful and reluctant to do so in the long run.

I don't know about that argument though. You could have accepted slavery based on that argument. Wait until people accept that black people deserve the same rights as white people. If you push white people into accepting black people as someone more than slaves, they will feel bitter in the end.


I would be ok with another term than marriage. I don't care what it's called, as long as it has the same legal status. But then again, it isn't meant for me, maybe a lot of gay people have a different opinion.
I don't care at all about marriage myself. The notion that someone (a priest or whoever) has to approve the fact that me and my gf are together makes me laugh.

George, Of The Jungle Wrote:You could have accepted slavery based on that argument. Wait until people accept that black people deserve the same rights as white people. If you push white people into accepting black people as someone more than slaves, they will feel bitter in the end.

That was actually happening to varying degrees. Slavery as a whole was deteriorating fairly rapidly. I'm not saying it's not a good thing it didn't end sooner, but that's something interesting to note.  :o

Regardless, these are in some ways two very different issues. Unlike with slavery, homosexuals as individual people are completely entitled and equally eligible under the same laws that govern everyone else. The difference is their particular sexual orientation isn't recognized under law, but no more or less than it would be for anyone else in their position. Slaves on the other hand were not given nor eligible to anywhere near the same legal treatment as their white skinned counterparts. I truly hope you're not trying to make a correlation between the two.  :-\

M. Bison Wrote:That was actually happening to varying degrees.

M. Bison Wrote:I truly hope you're not trying to make a correlation between the two.  :-\

I get what you're saying. And I'm not arguing the two situations are the same. I was talking about the given argument. I just don't think we should keep things as they are (while causing damage to some people) just because of the prejudices of a certain group. There are always going to be people who stick to their prejudices, that doesn't mean the rest should give in to them. Even if you wait 50 more years, there are still going to be people against it, you can wait forever that way.
If you legalize gay marriage, the persons who are against it aren't gonna suffer because of it. In the current situation, there is a group of people who do suffer.

George, Of The Jungle Wrote:I get what you're saying. And I'm not arguing the two situations are the same. I was talking about the given argument. I just don't think we should keep things as they are (while causing damage to some people) just because of the prejudices of a certain group. There are always going to be people who stick to their prejudices, that doesn't mean the rest should give in to them. Even if you wait 50 more years, there are still going to be people against it, you can wait forever that way.
If you legalize gay marriage, the persons who are against it aren't gonna suffer because of it. In the current situation, there is a group of people who do suffer.

I don't believe nothing should be done either. I'm saying the ludicrous campaign for acceptance through the term "marriage" should end. A great deal of progress could have been made much easier towards same-sex rights were the term "civil union" settled upon by gay rights activists. It's quite clear by now that not all religious individuals will be accepting of "gay-marriage" any time soon since they hold the term "marriage" dear to them religiously, and in some way same-sex would be sacrilege in religious context. The term "civil union" wouldn't be bound to religion and would be simply be a manufactured civil partnership law of the state, so it's free of this religious and tradition barrier of opposition. The opposition of some gay right activists to the term "civil union" simply makes the matter all the worse, since it clearly shows this is more than a fight about rights per-say, but rather one about acceptance. Unfortunately, they're in this way forcing their life style to be accepted by the religion and consequently people through law. You can't strip ones traditions, beliefs, and opinions from them, and expect it not to result in long term resentment.

i.e.:


Although for the life of me, I can't figure out why this poster emphasizes "civil." Do they want an "uncivil" union? Trololo.

Oh, if they call it something else than marriage, that would be fine by me. To me it's all about giving them the same legal rights, treating them the same.
Maybe they should send a letter to the Vatican (or other sects) if they want them to accept gay marriage.

My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately, some feel they'd rather invest lots of time and millions of dollars to fight over this trivial phrasing matter and spitefully go at it. The gains made are usually lost not long thereafter. :-\