Is it called "marriage" in the legal statement? "Marriage" by definition is a union of a man and woman.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. Which is why as I said in another post, we need a new civil union that provides the same rights as marriage. Most of us live in secular states, why the hell is our civil union a religious one?
Comment has been collapsed.
"Marriage" by definition is uniting two entities. It changed through popular usage to become a christian ritual oriented term, though they are far from the only religion to marry, and far from the first. Just sayin'
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. This is shown by the earliest uses of the term "marriage" and its related terms in other languages. The redefinition of marriage being between two entities was the modern invention. Every other civilization, society, religion, and community has defined marriage as between men and women. The function was initially to establish political unions, then for procreation. The latter is the prevailing "traditional" view among most of the world. Recently, cultural shifts have redefined marriage as being for romance, fulfillment, or love—qualities historically associated with, but not essential to the definition of, marriage. Even more recently, with the rise of the LGBT movement, the core definition of marriage has been redefined as between two individuals irrespective of their sex. Although I am completely fine with this redefinition, it is definitely a new one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but this person stated marriage by definition, and the definition of words change over time. They evolve. Just as we stopped stoning people to death, just as we considered women and blacks equal citizens within society, it is time we fully realised the modern meaning of marriage in it's simplicity : combining together. Bringing to unison. The pretense of requiring one man and one woman is a religious / traditionalist thing, and unless a society is willing to declare one religion or opinion as sovereign to the detriment of all dissenters, this is simply false.
Asserting that a religious definition of a term is the only possible way for a word to function, as a means to suppress a slice of population from having equal consideration, is quite frankly an absurd and round-about way of interpreting things.
Comment has been collapsed.
My point was that your statement of Christianity being the ones who hijacked and defined marriage along its traditional sense is inaccurate. The traditional definition of marriage has existed since human civilization did and every culture on Earth has held the same definition. The redefinition of marriage is a rather recent one, and regardless of its merits, it is the role of the legislature to legally redefine marriage, not the Supreme Court. But I won't bring my arguments about this recent decision here. It's already detailed in my reply to this thread and the responses therein.
The traditional definition of marriage is universal. The concept of marriage being between two entities is what originated from a particular school of thought. The definition of marriage being between one man and one woman has been identical throughout history and throughout every civilization, though, so it would be a complete disregard of human history to claim that the traditional definition is not currently the universal one.
I believe your mistake, Uroboros, if that you assume the traditional definition of marriage to be a religious one found only in some cultures of the world. Every culture, from Indian to Roman to Scandinavian to Chinese and more, all defined marriage the same way. Even the Ancient Greeks, in all their love for homoerotic play, praised the merits of marriage as defined between a man and a woman. No society or culture, not even those which condoned homosexuality in some form (Ancient Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Native Americans, Persians, etc.), defined marriage as being anything except between a man and a woman. This is not a religious institution. It is a human one.
The issue is whether to retain this definition of marriage or redefine it, or introduce another term (such as "civil union") which replaces it in legal matters. The petitioners and the majority clearly opted to redefine marriage at its very core. This does not negate the fact that this redefinition is the new definition and it is new in human culture.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wouldn't it also disregard the fact that homosexual people have existed for equally as long, and were still held in various forms of disregard or disdain also? Even in cultures where homosexual conduct was not outright framed as a bad thing, there were no ways to challenge views of marriage without being seen as challenging those in power (or mocking 'tradition'), both of which were fast tracks to very physical punishment. Culture plays a large role in these things, and the further back you venture in history, the further you venture into corporeal punishments and disproportionate reactions for not adhering to tradition. History and tradition is not a good reason for law to stay static. There is good reason to change tradition and deviate from the path of history where dark-age mentality is holding us back. Even then, I cannot claim to be an expert on history by any means despite my thoughts, so upon a quick google I found this which suggests that same-sex marriages and unions existed prior to the roman rise of christian popularity.
Regardless, my primary concern was dispelling the idea of 'ownership' over a word taking precedence over human lives, and they had done this by stating a false definition. The modern definition is a mixture of elements (a uniting of entities), or to quote "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.". Even if it really was defined as just between man and woman, it wouldn't be remotely enough reason to deny a whole denomination of people equality.
Comment has been collapsed.
Neither history nor tradition alone are valid reasons to uphold a law or refuse to amend it, but they are important factors when determining whether to change it. If history indicates that the proposed change is disastrous, that warrants reconsideration. If the relevant tradition(s) serves a utility and benefits society greater than would its abolition, then that is terms for favoring the tradition over the reformation or abolition thereof. Laws should always progress and advance with society, but to do so without any historical or traditional support is a dangerous experiment to implement.
Same-sex unions did exist in some fashion, though they were rare and always separated from marriage institutions. From my understanding, they were treated much like how we treat (or did treat) the distinction between marriages and civil unions: both were forms of legal unions between two people, but one was founded on a tradition of opposite-sex unions, whereas the other was an avenue for same-sex unions. Moreover, even a quick glance over the Wikipedia article would show that the majority of documented cases are based on a very loose definition of "union". Most of them do not qualify as "marriage" even if marriage included same-sex couples, and the few which do were treated as a separate institution, with the traditional definition of marriage being considered the prevailing and established view. I would not consider those outliers to invalidate the general claim that marriage's core definition involved a union between a man and a woman, and that this definition is found as the prevailing tradition in every culture and society on Earth.
Of course the tradition definition of marriage should not be used as a means of disenfranchising entire demographics of people from enjoying equal rights and treatment; however, the abolition and redefinition of marriage from its core meaning is not necessary to accomplish this. Regardless of what avenue could be taken to achieve marriage equality, that avenue should have been taken through the legislature—State of Federal—whose role it is to define (and redefine) legal terms. That is not the place of the Supreme Court and it never was. I refer back to my initial post in this thread and the responses therein for further commentary on the matter of the Supreme Court.
Comment has been collapsed.
"however, the abolition and redefinition of marriage from its core meaning is not necessary to accomplish this."
Unless the governing bodies make it so that the word 'marriage' takes precedence over equality, they it really does. So far, people have in fact been barred from equal consideration all for the sake of a word (amongst other spurious reasonings), so if that is the roadblock people are using to fracture equality, the roadblock itself will be tackled directly. Hence my objection to the original post for reply, and my taking time to confront it. I frankly could not care less about who or where the discussion should have taken place, the fact that it did not, and the fact that many MANY years have passed with a slice of the populace being given open and lesser treatment, means that in this case, the approach is justified.
I won't claim to know the finer ins and outs of the american system, but I will simply underline how there has been ample time for a 'correct' approach. You can argue that it is potentially the start of a very slippery slope, but when the alternate is yet more shrugging, passive approaches and allowing your citizenship to be effectively a form of second-class citizen in this regard (all for the mere opinion of others and the shape of a fucking word), it is easy to draw a line under this as an exception under exceptional circumstances.
The subject has shifted drastically from my original point, which as hamfisted as it was, was simply to correct of a false definition and to curb the idea that even had the definition been correct, trying to hold it so static and without change to encompass civilised equality is pretty ass-backwards.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your first sentence is confusing to me, but I think I get what you mean. In any case, I would say that the reason why the term "marriage" is even a roadblock in the first place is because nobody seemed to have the imagination to explore alternatives or suggest otherwise. Like I mentioned here and explicated here, redefining marriage was not necessary to accomplish the goal of marriage equality. The "roadblock", in my opinion, was contrived.
You argue that the ends justify the means in this situation. I disagree. Although ends can justify means, this is not one of those cases because the "end" set a precedent for future ends which may be far less nobler. This "end" additionally required a circumvention of the democratic process to expediently achieve that which was otherwise inevitable anyway. If the matter in question was a deprivation of their negative liberties, then there would be more grounds to expedite the change. This was strictly a matter of positive liberties, in specific the granting of entitlements to a demographic of people. This demographic was otherwise equal to their peers in their negative liberties; they only lacked legal recognition and the entitlements which followed.
These entitlements are privileges, not rights, even though one may have a legal right to entitlements. I would argue that no rights, save perhaps the right to marry[1], were being deprived of homosexuals; only entitlements. This is still indubitably wrong, but it does not justify circumventing the democratic process, violating the checks and balances which ground our government, and mandating social change which was in no way supported by the majority of citizens. I agree that same-sex couples should be legally equal to their opposite-sex counterparts; however, their livelihoods were not in such jeopardy that abuse of power was warranted, if indeed abuse of power is ever warranted at all.
This does not mean that their suffering or plight is any less exigent; however, it does mean that we as a people should not compromise on our core principle of democracy. In doing so, we may compromise on our core principle of equality, but this compromisation is due to our government's inability to facilitate democratic change, and the fact that many constituents of this nation has no interest in democracy or equality, less so the latter than the former. Democracy is what informs equality, as well, so compromising on our democracy is to threaten our equality. We should therefore seek equality through democracy, not equality even at the expense of democracy. The latter is a guaranteed way of losing both.
I would argue that were an alternative approach taken (like the one I suggested), democratically-established social change for marriage equality would not have taken anywhere as long. Regardless, however slow and arduous the process may be, this only highlights an ineffective and broken government, and a people that wishes to wield our democracy to ensure inequality. The appropriate course of action would then be to address the problems of the government, not to appeal to one branch to circumvent the others and risk destabilization; and to continue publicly engaging in debate with the intent of proselytizing those who do not respect equality.
If the problem is noncompliant politicians, then ensure that the next election instates competent politicians. If the problem lies in the system itself, such as filibustering and leniency toward government representatives, then address those. If the problem lies in people who seek to obstruct equality through democracy, or who respect neither, then it is our duty as democratic egalitarians to persuade them with our words and fight them at the ballot box, exercising our democracy to effect the equality our nation ideally embodies. Appealing to an undemocratic, unelected council of nine lawyers appointed at the discretion of the President is to willingly disenfranchise the entire Public of their voice and subject them to the arbitration of individuals acting outside of their role as a judicial entity. It does not persuade those who dissent against same-sex marriage, and it does not alleviate us of their affront on equality. All it does is rule in favor of one side while silencing the other. That is neither democracy nor equality; that is tyranny.
My interjection was to correct your correction and inform you that your definition of marriage is the new definition which usurped its traditional variant. I admit to steering this discussion away from general semantics to the matter of this case, but I did so because the overarching topic of this thread is the case itself. Semantic arguments can be useful and even crucial to a debate, but when they lose sight of the main topic, they lose their efficacy at reaching any sort of conclusion.
As for your criticism of marriage's traditional definition, I refer to my arguments here (paragraphs 3–4), here, here, and here (paragraph 5).
As an aside, I appreciate your input, Uroboros, and I hope you don't take my responses to be contrarian or offensive in any way. I understand where you're coming from (I really do!) and I have felt the same way before; I honestly don't believe we disagree in ideals. My problem is with how to effect change and how change was effected, not with the change itself. We both agree that marriage (or replacement term) should be equal for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. But whereas you feel the ends justify the means here, I am not thrilled that the ends needed to justify the means at all. Regardless, same-sex couples can now marry and that is something I think we can both celebrate. I just wish the celebration wasn't so bittersweet.
[1] – The right to marry is complex because the traditional and legal definition of marriage implicitly excludes same-sex couples. Although contemporary culture has redefined marriage to something more akin to your definition of marriage, marriage is (or was) still legally defined as an opposite-sex union. Same-sex couples therefore do not possess this fundamental right by definition. The issue then becomes whether to change the definition of marriage in order to include same-sex couples as entitled to this fundamental right. I have already ennumerated my views on this matter multiple times, so I won't reiterate them here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Urgh. Look. I really don't care for the legalese of this. I'm going to skim your post and not read through your links, because as I already thought I made clear, the legal side of this completely disinterests me and I don't have enough familiarity to engage too deeply. Forward apologies if my post sounds accusatory, as any anger contained within is more for society and law in general. At worst, all you get from me is frustration. :P
The point is that the poster originally used a flippant remark to wave off progress, using a dead definition. I'm certain the definition hasn't been "a man and a woman" for some time now and just to reiterate, according to the oxford dictionary, marriage is not exclusively between one man and a woman. As I already said, yes, my initial refuting of this was hamfisted and somewhat off-mark, but it doesn't change the fact that this isn't what marriage is currently defined as, and even if the other poster was correct, the definition of a word is not a compelling reason to allow for inequality on a governmental level, especially not for this long. That is the only thing I intended to oppose.
On the subject of legal machinations, even while this may on some level set a bad precedent for not following the proper or optimal channels, you must also consider that this is in no way a recent problem. If there must be an err in the legal system, let it be in favour of those who are denied the rights of others without compelling reason, and allow progress to work from there (rather than assuming to continue the minor second-class citizen routine as if it were an acceptable state for while discussions were ongoing). I won't get into the semantics of whether it's a right or a privilege, because even if my use of vocabulary was off, I'm certain my point was clear enough. Ultimately it doesn't matter what you call it, when a demographic is denied the same legal span that all others are and with no reason that holds up to scrutiny, this is prejudice, and bickering over the fine-print to ignore the central issue is just plain silly. Had I been trying to assert something on the level of legal fineprint or the process of the courts, then I could understand, but here my only challenge was to someone placing priority in an old, religion-centric term, and placing the liberties of a demographic second. It was a flippant remark, and it got one equally flippant in return. To me, this is much like the "wiretapping" garbage that crops up from time to time, where clear recorded evidence of someone going into great detail of how they willingly tortured/murdered someone being unusable as evidence due to the guilty party not consenting to being recorded. Sure, there is a reason certain laws are in place, and there is a due process for all things, but there is a time when upholding those protocols are a blatant detriment to justice, which in this case is placing more importance upon a word than upon granting a people the same rights uniformly.
The inability to visit a hospitalised partner due to that word is not a small thing. Conferring financial benefits based on sexuality is not a small thing. Hence why I place so little concern over the fine legal trappings when there is a more and far longer-running problem. While this may seem like an emotional appeal to you, this is not a criminal proceeding, nor does bestowing such equality on homosexual couples harm anybody in any way. There was nothing to protect but semantics. Quality of life and equality are worth far more than the sanctity of a word, a word that stopped being religious and started being governmental the very moment any benefit or entitlement was attached to it by law. A word, like any other, that does not need to have a singular meaning. A word, like any other, that changes and evolves, and belongs to nobody.
I'm sorry, but to suggest (even more) patience in the blind faith that maybe-sorta-someday someone might maybe-sorta be able to negotiate the ability for gay couples to enter union and be conferred all the same benefits in the eyes of the law? To me that really does seem absurd given the sheer span of time that has already passed with such little progress of any kind. Suggesting patience in the face of equality is surely the 'better man' route, but it should be no demographic's own duty to rehaul a broken system just to gain equal consideration. So call me overly idealistic if you must, but after the democratic process has routinely failed them for so long, I do not see this as such a terrible thing. Yes, it does mean that there are legal issues to come, and more struggles to be had, but sometimes when a structure fails so incredibly and for so long, it is the nature of things for such an engine to break and need re-fitting. Sometimes the first step of lasting change is simply to make a loud noise, to send a strong message, to stand firm, even if in the eyes of the law you may be required to step back and calm yourself once the initial push has occurred. If anything, this was a roaring success in having forced the subject to the forefront of people's minds, making it harder to take a passive stance and sweep them back under the rug.
It must seem odd to hear me say again that discussion of the legal side of things does not interest me, especially after all this, but I found myself trying to further underline where I was coming from. Consider the simple nature of the two posts that proceeded all this. Those were my sole concern, and I never pretend to know (or care to discuss) about the legal spaghetti underneath it all.
Comment has been collapsed.
[The below response is a rebuttal to your reply along with some expanded commentary on abstract political philosophy bafflegab. It's an elaboration on the same basic point: good goal, bad way of accomplishing it. I completely sympathize with your views on all this, but I just don't think it's that simple. I'm tempted to delete it all, but I'll let you be the judge. If you aren't interested, feel free to skip over all of it to the final paragraph, right below the line.]
Dictionaries only define common usage. They do not define terms by any strict standard or criteria except for the commonness of their use and the frequency of being treated as meaning a particular definition. Marriage, legally defined, has always been a union between a man and a woman, and every major culture and civilization in human history has concurred with this definition. Regardless of whether marriage should still be defined as that, the fact remains that historically and legally, the definition of marriage was exclusively that of a union between a man and a woman. How regular dictionaries define is is irrelevant because they do not factor in the history or legal legitimacy of any of their definitions with the exception of those which are strictly historical or legal.
The current definition of marriage differs from country to country, from culture to culture, from society to society, and from legal system to legal system. Within your own culture or ideological position (one I believe we share), marriage is defined a particular way; that is not the universal definition of marriage and currently, the traditional definition of marriage (a union between a man and a woman) is actually still the prevailing definition throughout the world and among a significant portion of US citizens. You can disagree with this traditional definition all you want (as do I), but that is the contemporary status of the semantics of marriage.
[...] and even if the other poster was correct, the definition of a word is not a compelling reason to allow for inequality on a governmental level, especially not for this long. That is the only thing I intended to oppose.
I agree with this, but I disagree that the democratic process should therefore be circumvented to accomplish it. Equality is guaranteed through democracy; forfeiting the latter is a guaranteed means of losing the former. I do agree that the poster was being flippant and failed to understand how irrelevant the meaning of "marriage" is. I am concerned, however, that you assume the meaning of "marriage" is relevant to my criticisms. In reality, they're tangential to far more serious affairs.
The issue with "wiretapping" is a complex one. Essentially, the reason why consent is upheld so rigorously, even if damning evidence is thereby invalidated from judicial review, is because failure to do so could lead to a slippery slope. In order to prevent this, a Schelling fence is established, a boundary or limit—arbitrary or justified—on what is considered acceptable procedure or action that serves to prevent exceptions to the rule from becoming the rule itself (which is oftentimes a far worse state of affairs than when the original rule does not permit those exceptions). If that Schelling fence is abandoned, we must fall back to another, often weaker Schelling fence and hope that we don't make the same mistake of compromising on our values just to permit exceptional cases from going through. Only this time, we don't just have the exceptions to consider; we also have the precedents we set and the compromised integrity of our position after having relinquished the previous foothold to accomplish short-term goals.
Essentially, if we attempt to make exceptions for indicting individuals on evidence they did not consent to provide, we would be forfeiting crucial Schelling fences on due process, legal consent, and the protocols which inform the legal system. In doing so, we are one step further away from an overall fair and just society, and one step closer to the opposite, just because we gave into our moral indignation toward an exceptional case (or number of cases). This is a real threat which makes society overall less fair and just in the long-term, even though it may achieve short-term victories in fairness and justice.
The appropriate course of action would be to reposition the Schelling fences so as to be more fair while closing any loopholes which might exist. Fix the problems in the legal system and patch up the Fence so that those exceptions don't occur or occur far less frequently. Even a perfect system will allow exceptions, however, because we are not perfect beings and this is not a perfect society. Compromising on our principles is a surefire way of losing the very principles we hoped to uphold in doing so. This is bad policy for any individual to take, let alone an entire Nation. That is why I oppose Obergefell v. Hodges: we abandoned the Schelling fences of judicial restraint and democratic process in order to achieve a short-term victory while setting ourselves up for a potential long-term defeat. Although this defeat is not guaranteed, it shouldn't be a possibility in the first place.
The importance here is not on the word of marriage—that is a tradition whose merits could be argued separately. The importance is on who gets to redefine marriage and, more specifically, who gets to dispense positive liberties. The legal answer to both is the legislature, not the judiciary (and that includes the Supreme Court). The definition and tradition of marriage are related arguments, but that was not the problem I was highlighting; the problem was the abuse of power by the Supreme Court. The word "marriage" and its meaning is ultimately irrelevant.
There was nothing to protect but semantics.
Many conservatives, traditionalists, and religionists disagree. I'm inclined to agree with you, but the Supreme Court should not be ruling for one side and silencing the other. It should be accommodating for all sides where possible. We should not be compromising on equality for democracy, but we shouldn't compromise on democracy for equality, either. Like I already explained in the posts I previously linked above, the decision of Obergefell v. Hodges was not the only option. Another option was available, which achieved the exact same practical goal while removing the semantic concerns: replacing "marriage" with "civil union". It would the onus of the petitioners (and, one could argue, of the People as a whole) to push for this terminological replacement at the legislature, not the Supreme Court. Just because the legislature was being slow or ineffectual, that is not an excuse to circumvent the democratic process and appealing to an undemocratic assembly of nine unelected lawyers to do our bidding in their stead. That's abandoning a crucial Schelling fence, the only fence which protects us from losing the very rights and liberties we sought to procure.
Suggesting patience in the face of equality is surely the 'better man' route, but it should be no demographic's own duty to rehaul a broken system just to gain equal consideration.
It is everyone's duty to do so. Unfortunately, some shirk their duties or defy them in favor of undemocratic rule. It is our responsibility, as the People, to ensure equality. We achieve this through democracy. Would you prefer tyranny? Undemocratic authoritarianism? Perhaps so when those in power align with your views, but once you become the targets, then what? Who will fight for you?
This has little to do with a mere word. It has to do with politics, culture, law, and jurisprudence. This issue is far more complex, Uroboros, and although I understand your frustration (and often feel it myself), I doubt it'llever be that simple. Contrary to what you may believe, if it did work the way you'd prefer, I would argue that it would be far closer to, and more likely to precipitate, dictatorship and inequality than the current process ever could. Unfortunately, the democratic process is the least evil of all (at this time). Compromising on it to achieve marriage equality is risking losing all equality.
Forcing a particular version of progress is often how one subjugates a society, not free it. One does not force freedom—that is an oxymoronic attempt at achieving equality through unequal means. Same-sex marriage is a noble goal and I am glad that it is legalized, but will the precedent we had set be used to only accomplish noble goals? Or are we setting ourselves up for a a long-term defeat just because we were too impatient to take the appropriate path? Even if this is an isolated incident and nothing bad comes from it, was it really right to undermine democracy in the first place? Perhaps all that matters are the practical effects, not the theoretical flaws. Perhaps the ends do justify the means here. But we cannot predict that and if they do not, we are to blame. Unfortunately, by the time it becomes an issue, we won't be alive to see it, so it will be our children's burden, not ours.
You don't seem to wish to discuss this any further, so I'll respectfully resign. I appreciate your input, Uroboros, and I recognize that we agree in ideals where we differ in methodologies, and share common principles where we diverge in procedure. Maybe my concerns are overblown and I'm overemphasizing the process at the expense of the practical results. It wouldn't be a first for me. I honestly hope my concerns are unfounded and my stringency for upholding these arbitrary lines is unnecessary. I just wished hope wasn't all I had.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, marriage is part of the legal definition, which is the cause of the issue. As soon as people made marriage into a legal issue rather than a personal commitment, it became subject to governmental oversight. People can and do make spiritual commitments without bothering to get a marriage license, but without being legally married, there are a number of potential issues that come up. Spouses have different legal rights than partners, and that was the source of the lawsuits.
Comment has been collapsed.
Surprised it took this long XD my government is full of slow greedy turtles!
Comment has been collapsed.
coming next:
Pedophiles who want to marry kids. Equal rights...it is just an orientation, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
yes it will totally lead to that.
Gay marriage was legalized in Canada about 10 years ago, and in Netherlands it was 2001-2002 i guess,and in some other countries (Scandinavian countries for example) it was also made legal a long time ago.
right now those countries are like the worst, they let people marry children (pedophilia) and even bestiality is legal too....
it's just awful, people live in fear in those countries and it's like hell on earth.
Comment has been collapsed.
two sane adults deciding to marry each other and live in formal relationship and an adult forcing a weaker child into relationship - there's a massive difference here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Come on, the kid got into the van, it knew what it was getting into.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you fucking serious? Do you really believe 2 consenting adults getting married is the same than a pedophile abusing a child?
OP got it right. Blacklist those bigots is the right thing to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
well this thread blew up!
so many interesting posts...my favorite is that guy who reports everyone for inappropriate behavior,he's like my new hero!
i see and understand why some people would be against Gay Marriage (which is simply called "marriage" in many countries and been that way for a long time) but it just makes me sad to read some of the opinions of those people, being against something is fine, maybe it's not acceptable in your country and in your culture but that's not a reason to hate on other people and other cultures.
+
go read some of the comments in 9Gag's facebook posts about the new laws, it's just so awful and interesting at the same time :| :D
Comment has been collapsed.
best part that if someone disagrees with him, it's inappropriate behavious, but things like "fuck all gays!!!", calling people brainless, bitch or telling them to burn in hell is no longer inappropriate when he does it :>
Comment has been collapsed.
Great to see this finally happen in the United States. I served in combat with many gay people under the "Don't ask, don't tell policy". I never understood how they could serve their country, yet be forced to hide their identity or be kicked out with a bad discharge. Fortunately, that was changed after I retired. Now the icing on the cake -- they can marry and be afforded the same benefits. People forget the small things, like not being able to visit your loved one in the hospital, because you aren't technically "family".
They have had a tough road and even as a heterosexual male, I empathize with this plight. If it were the other way around, and being hetero was somehow taboo, I would be fighting for my rights too. You can't change who you are, and you shouldn't have to when it comes to love. At least love with other human beings, I still not defending bestiality you sickos :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hang on, you've dragged us in here with that statement and no hidden giveaway?
Preposterous!
I have no words..
Literally..
or maybe figuratively.. most people can't tell which is which anyway..
Comment has been collapsed.
I dream when humanity will die slowly and i will be in the last generation when every life will be really important and another things - no. Then i can do nothing, just relax, play videogames, watch porn, eat potatoes with tomato juice and dream about heterosexual girlfriend.... Almost paradise, it would be if i had a big harem.
Btw the main target of humanity is making kids. Marriage isn't so important. But i don't want to see Chinese everywhere with their fucking communism, but it can be reality only after few centuries. Although i don't think that it can be possible in Ukraine(btw i know that incest is popular in russia).
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree. My post is an instruction how to live last years of humanity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, my social experiment is working.
Comment has been collapsed.
weren't you supposed to leave it 2 comment trees above? :D: what are you still doing here?
Comment has been collapsed.
Just one Question:How many people Supports this???
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't matter how many people support it, no human being should be treated inequally under law unless there is a very solid, rational, moral objection. So far, there have been no rational, moral objections to gay marriage that hold up to scrutiny.
The right to equality should never be subject to 'popular opinion', lest we start holding votes on whether or not we should stone someone to death.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if we only stone someone HALF to death?
And, in fairness, if cops started a voting session before they killed defenseless people, maybe we'd have less police-caused murders. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
At the risk of further blacklisting I wish police were given extensive mental fitness tests to see if they deserve to wear a badge.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for the people that support this, and congrats America for stepping in and bring more equality to us.
Hope everyday to wake up into a better world, glad that today was one step in that direction.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Hope everyday to wake up into a better world" "and congrats America for stepping in and bring more equality to us."
Explain this how making the world perfect by doing this?? just explain
Comment has been collapsed.
because it gives a big group of people equal rights oppsed to refusing these rights based on religious/ideological indoctrination.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's change the question: How does the legalization of gay marriage affect you?
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much what zelghadis said.
And:
1) yes, to me it's a better world, guess it suffice. I don't have any problems if you don't see that way.
2) it brings more equality to me and lot of my friends. And a lot other people out there. Again, I'm not speaking for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
i am not supporter you know but who i am to judge people by their actions....everybody is free to do what they like...i just gotta say something i know some of you Support this and some people were wating for this or whatever anyway i am sorry if i said anything wrong or even bad before and as i said before i didn't came her to make wars or even on the real world or any shit like that everybody got their own opinion you know
peace.
Have a great day poeple
Comment has been collapsed.
noone forces you to support or to like gays. It's just different thing not supporting / not liking something, and another thing to atack it, fight it. What does this law change for heterosexuals? Nothing. It's not forcing them to turn homosexual, it just gives homosexuals same rights heterosexuals already had,
ANyway, no hard feelings (thou your 1st post was really offensive), at least I personaly take no grudge and un-blacklisted you ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
Surprised it took so long, this shouldn't be an issue anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
Have to love the "I don't have a problem with homosexuality, just don't do it in my face" sentiments.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, which when translated, turns into "I have no problem with homosexuality so long as they hide it and it is never seen in daylight", which is kind of part of the problem with people's attitudes. :V
Comment has been collapsed.
the fun thing is that all the people that are so offended by "homosexuals in public" seems to have nothing against vulgar public sexualization as long as it is heterosexual. Double standards. Like idk - almost butt-naked girl walking by the street in mini that don't fven fully cover her rear with a thong sticking up of it and her male partner publicly grabbing her ass - it's ok. Two males publicly holding each other hands? DON'T PUSH YOUR SICK SEXUAL DEVIATION DOWN MY THROAT!
For me personally - would I be offended bu two guys having public buttsecks on the street? Sure. The same way I'd be offended seeing heterosexual couple doing the same thing in public. Sexual orientation of person has nothing to do here.
Comment has been collapsed.
you know - it's double edged sword ;) When you talk about public nudity or public sex you imagine some sexbomb from a porno etc, while in real life you'd also see let's say fat old granny with sagged tits ;P Kids aside - I don't think it's something you'd ike to keep publicly encountering :D:
Comment has been collapsed.
someone being ugly and having no nose is not their choice, they have no control over it, so how can I blame them for it even if it don't please me to look at? Mentioned granny undressing and flashing her old vaggie in front of me is her own decision, so this I can oppose ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
And pretty sure lots of those people wouldn't have problems with two girls publicly holding hands.
Or doing something more to each other...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup - just another example of hypocrisy and double standards ;)
Fun fact - in our, sadly conservative and run by catholic church, country, where majority of society is still against homosexuals, lesbian porn is second most popular type of porn watched according to some studies I read a while ago :D: So yeah - ppl will yell about how we should ban homosexuality, yet in private of their rooms gonna watch and get turned on watching homosexual porn ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
But the true question is: ladyboy x girl is straight or lesbian?
Comment has been collapsed.
Doesn't that mean that they just want to be a power Bottom?
Comment has been collapsed.
getting uncomfortable about public display of affection?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm actually fine with this being legal, i don't have issues with people who are sexually attracted in different ways (as long as i don't get involved). I've had and met quite a few people who were gay/bi/lesb and i got to say, these people are usually one of the best people to meet and form a friendship with. If you value good friends, people that are socially excluded are usually one of the best type of people to make friendships with.
But i'm going to be honest here, marriage is a thing of the past in my book. When i was a kid, i pictured myself growing up to become a great man and father to a lovely child & wife. All i got from my relationships experiences was nothing but a mess in my life that kept dragging me down every time i tried to find someone worth my time. When you are making a living with the wrong people, you are better off on your own, that is the harsh truth. If you want to live with another person, just tag up, both of you and avoid marriage all together. Unless you are pretty sure that person you are sticking with is worth it in the end.
New generations are kinda messed up, me being part of one and i was thought the old values from the times of my parents, grandparents and older brothers, i feel like i don't belong in this society when i see people of my age doing certain stuff that isn't morally correct.
I'll never get to marry myself, unless someone shows up in my life that makes me change back to what i initially was meant to be, but the way i see things nowadays, it won't be happening and the best thing i'll ever get is probably deep/longterm relationships with someone.
Not sure if this is worthy of being blacklisted in someone's book, some religious people here might take offense to the marriage bit or could even be against OP's topic for that matter. You could say i don't believe in god, but i do believe that there might be something in the afterlife, something no human can describe. As to what this afterlife situation might be, it could be anything out of our imagination's reach or nothing at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is that marriage has not only the romantic side you're talking about. Sure - nowadays you don't have to be married to live with your partner - I'm doing so myself with my fiancee, just because we cannot afford marriage and wedding, but there's also other very important side of marriage that has been refused to all LGBT ppl until now. Formal side. You may live together with your partner, but formally, from a legal point of view, you're two strangers, which lead to many everyday issues. You cannot pay taxes as a couple, hence you end up paying govt more that you'd do as a marriage. If something bad happens you don't have the right to even visit him/her in the hospital or make medical decisions (if he's unconscious) because formally you're not a family. Worst case scenario - you may not even get allowed to deathbed of person you loved ald lived whole life with, because you're a stranger. And then after he/she passes away you cannot inherit the goods/money you both worked your whole life together.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know there's been an issue in US before this law got passed. And I know they are an issue in my country - and we don't have common-law marriages here at all, so homosexual couples are pretty screwed. There's been stories like the very family that threw away teir daughter from home for being lesbian had right to make medical decissions for her when she was hospitalized, while they refused her lifelong partner to even visit her. And by law standpoint they were right, because they are family, and her partner was formally a stranger.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, i get that feeling. Nearly seems like religion is trying to manipulate peoples choices in the end by not giving us enough freedom of choice.
You basically believe in the church (god) and marriage or get screwed over, sorta.
My parents always forced me to attend church when i was a kid and those "special classes about the bible", they aren't really that kind of people who favour religion either, they just wanted to make sure i got the right stuff for the future, and boy, sure i did. I've followed my own path a few years back, i usually don't go eye to eye with my mother in terms of religion discussions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see that. Wouldn't a testimonial of sorts fix the "stranger part"?
Like, when you inherit the goods and money (and bills) of your parents, it's usually written down in paper who inherits the stuff. So wouldn't it be the same if for example i died and left my goods and money to my wife and/or kids. I don't know how you guys call that process over there, i'm not really well informed in this situation. But i suspect if i had any kids, my goods and money would go to them without a problem, my wife on the other hand, not sure if a testimonial would change anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
there are two problems with testimonial. First of all - inheritance taxation. In many countries, including mine, inheritance is taxed, with tax lowered or even totally romoved, if money and belongings go either to charity or closest family. In my country example if you leave your money/beongings to closest family member he will get them all, but if you leave them to your homosexual partner, who is not formally your family, he will have to pay 20% tax from it., so he will get 1/5 less than if he/she was married to you. Second problem is that family would often go and fight in court to lift testimonial will. If for example testimonial have even small formal error or they claim that when you wrote it in hospital you weren't completely sane, because you were on painkillers and they clouded your judgement - they can win in court and your parter end up with nothing, even against your actual will.
Comment has been collapsed.
As a whole, I agree that marriage is a very outdated concept. But as a legal institution that has very real and very tangible consequences, equal protection under the law is critical.
Comment has been collapsed.
B...but they will change our innocent children into the Gays!
Comment has been collapsed.
The ironic thing is the comic isn't entirely wrong as the homosexual community greatly influences the standard of fashion; so in a sense, as that young boy grows up, he would essentially start dressing to fit into his peers' style of clothing, which is indirectly determined by the greater fashion industry's progression. You know, the trickle down thingy effect mabob doohickey.
However, this isn't to say the child may have a terrible sense of fashion and be one of those guys who doesn't know how to dress himself but luckily turns to sites like imgur that have neat-o hipster pictures of like, how to accentuate your dress shirt with appropriate ties, and how to put on dress pants one leg at a time.
And now this is the important part: it's all meaningless in the end because this is generally the only line in a comment people like to read from the "TL;DR" mantra.
P.S., the comic is funnier because he has sparkles around his face and what, how is that even, like, what? sparkles? are gay people Twilight vampires now? haha, get it? blood sucking, but maybe it's a reference to another kind of sucking; ha ha, cuz you know, gay. I mean, where am I even going with this now? I have peered into the abyss of this comic... and it has stared back into me! SPARKLESPARKLE
Comment has been collapsed.
I support gay marriages. Why? Well, this may sound a bit crazy but the world is extremely crowded. So any couple that adopts children instead of giving birth is actually doing the world a huge favor, provided that gay couples are willing to adopt children. There are lots of orphans out there in need of a loving home.
Comment has been collapsed.
it may be one of the reasons you support it.. but it's not enough to solve the population or orphan problem..
Comment has been collapsed.
Step in the good direction I guess. I don't really get this whole hype about being able to get wed, but if it makes some people happy so be it (unless we're talking about all the law stuff: shared taxes, medical care, etc., because that's actually really important) :P
Seeing two guys kissing on the street doesn't really bother me, seeing two girls do that does pretty much the opposite. The only thing that bothers me, no difference if homo- or heterosexual is being too obnoxious with it. If you're in a goddamn train sitting right in front of me and you just eat each other's faces for 2h straight, then I'll just start carrying a duct tape and do this to every annoying couple:
Comment has been collapsed.
So happy I nearly cried yesterday. <3 I mean, there's so much more that needs to be done, but this is still massive. My girlfriend and I can finally be properly recognized throughout my entire country once we tie the knot - not to mention the legal benefits of marriage finally extending to us everywhere here.
Also, all homophobes please blacklist and block me. I'd hate to accidentally come in contact with you again.
Comment has been collapsed.
We're happy for you as well ;) And don't bother with these few idiots, they scream so loud, because they realized that in this actual discussion in this actual community for once they are the minority :D:
Comment has been collapsed.
Aww, this is why I actually stayed around this community so long - for the most part everyone is so friendly (and not just about this topic, of course). It's hard to even keep a whitelist; I like too many people. lol
Comment has been collapsed.
I hope you're getting some kind of enjoyment from the posts here. Both from happiness and hilarity. Congratulations!
Comment has been collapsed.
Definitely. Bigot social media accounts are pretty hilarious too. lol
Comment has been collapsed.
you call them bigot just because you do not share their views on morality and yet you think you are better than them? logic?
Comment has been collapsed.
bigot - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
So logic here is to call intolerrant ppl with the word that dictionary-wise perfectly describes intollerant ppl.
Comment has been collapsed.
you should look closer at the meaning of the word and it origins, it is clearly an insult. You are the one being intolerant of other ideas too as you can't accept people having other views. According to your definition you'd qualify for being bigot too - congrats :)
Comment has been collapsed.
What Zelghadis says. First off, heterosexuals being bigots towards homosexuals came first, not the other way around. That's why it's funny because, y'know, they're the origin. Secondly, bigotry is intolerance towards another group / individual's opinions and/or beliefs. E.g. Hating all atheists and calling them heretics. Bigotry because it's intolerance to someone's disbelief in religion.
Also, I don't recall her saying or even implying that she is better than anyone else and the topic at hand doesn't even have anything to do with morality OR logic.
Also, I noticed you're the same person who tried to humiliate me and be Professor Show Off because you ' teach history on University level'. So, how's that history knowledge working out for you, huh? Not very good, it seems.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no need to insult you. Why would I? You said the church/Christianity held back science, I have given you numerous examples that Christianity fuelled science without giving anyone a lecture. If you do not agree to mere facts, so be it. It was necessary to point out that my history knowledge goes beyond wikipedia and mainstream propaganda. Go to a library and search for books on that topic (you might even find the one I wrote on that very subject in 2008 regarding the first public schools in the 16th century), study and decide for yourself what is true and stop trolling me, I'm too old for this game and it seems I do not have as much time on my hands as you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I gave you full list of facts where christianity held science back. You never responded.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except your refused to respond back concerning whether not you were showing off or simply exercising general knowledge. I never stated anything that was remotely wrong or incorrect and the fact that you basically told me "you're wrong GG" and refused to explain why or how shows a lot. I could have easily went back and forth without citing wikipedia or 'mainstream propaganda'. As I said, Galileo is a perfect example.
Also, I never said the Church / Christianity held back science. That was someone else, I believe.
All of that said, I didn't mean offence but I felt offended to be offered a comment with an, to me, obscure point and at the same time to be implied that I'm somehow not worth talking to just because I don't have the same knowledge as you. I would never talk out of my ass other than for jokes so to imply otherwise, despite the fact that I would certainly withdraw when my knowledge hits its limit, WOULD be insulting, to say the least.
Explaining what or how I was wrong would have been much more mature.
Comment has been collapsed.
Either way, I'm going to withdraw from conversation because all I see from your posts is showing off and how full of yourself you are and I don't see a reason to continue speaking with you.
Comment has been collapsed.
It took America about 220 years but they finally did it. The world is slowly becoming a little better. Even though I'm not Homosexual, I still support it. Congratulations!
Comment has been collapsed.
Congrats! Although, to play the Devil's Advocate now, just because you now can get married doesn't necessarily mean that one should get married. I'm not really an advocate of anyone getting married (unless children are involved, and then it makes sense in a custody/healthcare/etc regard). Proper paperwork (living will, power of attorney, et al.) are usually enough for most people, and splitting up becomes much easier, should things turn acrimonious.
But if the two of you believe this to be a true and lifelong commitment, then I'm proud you now have the choice to get married!
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, I do wonder how many people just jumped and got married because they could now (or out of just showing pride or whatever?). I'm not saying there aren't people who thought it through (like the couple who waited 54 years in Texas - I'm gonna take a leap of faith here and guess they thought about it lol), but I do get the idea of 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should,' especially with something like this that's meant to be lifelong... and also makes a massive mess if things go wrong. It's actually been legal in my state a long time; I just waited because I felt it's something I should be sure of, and of course, in regards to it being nationwide finally - I'm just happy I can live anywhere with the same freedom and that others now have a freedom I already could've taken advantage of.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good. I'm glad you've thought rationally about it. :)
I know far too many people who have gotten married as casually as a person joins a bowling league.
Comment has been collapsed.
Congrats! :)
And, for when that time comes, have a cake topper
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought of you when I heard this yesterday, even though your state already had marriage equality. Still must be a really nice feeling to know that ones marriage will be recognized (even if not always respected) when you have to change states and such.
Now if only my country could get with the times and also enact marriage equality.... alas I fear I'll also have to wait for a decision from the Bundesverfassungsgericht, our Supreme Court.
Comment has been collapsed.
With a name like that, I hope its the top court! Scheiß!
Comment has been collapsed.
It is Germany's highest court and it's name would translate like this: 'Bundes' means Federal 'Verfassung' is the Constitution and 'Gericht' is a court of law.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know. I was just poking fun at the length of the word. :)
I figured the Eszett would've given me away.
Comment has been collapsed.
since I've seen even Germans struggle to pinpoint the BVG and it's place in the fabric of the Grundgesetz (our constituion) and the political landscape, I wasn't expecting an American do so ... Eszett or not :-)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that and Merkel are about the extent of my German Government knowledge. I like to keep my knowledge-base broad and functionally useless.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even though I actually intend to stay in this area (maybe? If I moved I'd probably still be in a state in New England), it is honestly. Something about it just feels nice to know that no matter where I am in my own country, I'm finally being treated more like a normal human being (there's a lot more to be done though). Even bigger than that is just how big of a step this is; instead of individual states allowing equal marriage, it's the entire country not only allowing it, but stopping individual states from discriminating. Plus, it's really wonderful to see so many people who couldn't marry before finally free to do so.
Discrimination in other forms is still a terrible problem though:
Comment has been collapsed.
To your last point, absolutely.
I read in the weeks leading up to this that some in the LGBT community thought getting marriage equality should have been the second step, after getting rid of discrimination in housing, work and services. That this might have more direct day-to-day consequences for a lot of people than the right to marry. I think that might be even more the case for transpeople, but there is some truth to it anyway.
But marriage equality IS important even in itself, both as a symbol and of course in the lives of the people themselves.
Hopefully the march to full equality in all aspects of life will pick up more steam and discrimination eradicated.
Comment has been collapsed.
Big hugs to you and your girlfriend. <3
Also, whitelisted. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks. ^^ I'm happy to say my own whitelist grew much, much more than my blacklist after this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Congratulations! Wishing you a long and successful marriage! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Aaaaaahhw, this gives me the warm and fuzzies! I hope that the two of you have a wonderful life together. <3
Comment has been collapsed.
These faggots sure can be smokin' hot, though. I gotta say...
P.S. Since the joke seems to have passed me by because I actually messed up, 'faggot' is a british term for a cigarette end aka the butt of a cigarette. Actually, it might just be a term in general but yeah. Jokes.
Comment has been collapsed.
It also means a bundle of sticks. Maybe this poster just really likes sticks?
edit: Oops. Didn't click the image above. Sidetracked. lol Well, here's more sticks anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Does he have a fireplace? Personally, I own a fireplace and I can never get enough of those faggots. It sure does give me a chill down my back when I see a nice plump faggot. :')
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate faggots. It takes forever to find enough of them to really enjoy myself. It feels too much like work. I'll settle for a nice hot bath, instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd just like to point out to anyone that I'm not using the word as a derogatory term. In fact, I laugh at the evolution of the word and how at some point in time it became a derogatory term.
Comment has been collapsed.
This reminds me of a story that my British friend told me. She was talking to someone about how she hates faggots [the food], and at first they thought that she meant homosexuals. Ended up being quite awkward and hilarious.
And while we're on the subject of alternate word meanings, ejaculate also describes saying something quickly and suddenly. Though I do believe that definition is quite outdated. Now it just means a penis doing something suddenly.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, you're correct. Faggot means bundle of sticks, 'Fag', which is thought to derive from 'Flag', and has absolutely no relation to Faggot, is the British word for cigarettes.
:)
Comment has been collapsed.
Brit here. A "Fag" is a cigarette. Not a "Faggot". "Faggots" in the UK are either a homophobic slur, or a food product mostly made of offal.
Comment has been collapsed.
Guessing it could be regional dialect, but the region I'm in, you'd get some funny looks calling it that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's based on dialect. 'Faggot' is the cigarette butt while 'fag' is the actual cigarette.
Comment has been collapsed.
I love that many of those people claimed "christianity is shoved down their throats" but they're doing exactly same thing right now. I can't open FB not to see homo-propaganda, especially after yesterday. Hypocrites. Even music-related sites and pages change their logos to fit the "rainbow" colors. This is so stupid, jumping on the band wagon.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sheeple have always been wide open to propaganda. The endless pro-homo-propaganda is one of the loudest and most annoying ones in the history of mankind. Well played, gotta give them that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aye and if you're disagree you're "homophobic". They're allowed to have their views on the world and you're not cause if you do, and it disagrees with theirs, then you're "this" and "that" and so on.
"Homophobic? Nah, you're just heterophobic." - Eminem
Not to mention the word itself doesn't make sense when applied to people who disagree with homosexuality because -phobia means deeply instilled fear of something. But hey, who cares, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you're taking this the wrong way. All words get misused, it's just a thing. However, that doesn't mean the word doesn't have meaning. People who are seemingly cautious, for example, towards homosexuals can very well be suggested as homophobic. Why else would someone be cautious for any reason other than fear? What, are you afraid of 'icky germs'? Do you think homosexuality is a disease? If, by chance, you do then you're homophobic because you're creating a threatening situation out of a rather non-threatening reality.
Replace your 'point' with black and white and you've got another great example..
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really. I dislike the idea of homosexuality but I don't have any problem with people around me who are homosexual. See now? It's none of my business what they do behind close doors but it doesn't mean I have to share the same views as they do. If they are around me I'll shake their hands and talk with them. I treat them as I treat everyone else. But, again, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the lifestyle they lead.
It's like with vegans. I don't agree with their views and I can't imagine how one can NOT eat meat. But I treat them as I treat everyone else. And it's not an issue that I don't agree with their eating habits. But if I don't agree with their sex habits, oh boy - shitstorm incoming!
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair enough. I thought you were out-right bashing them but I guess I misunderstood. Homophobic is overused, definitely. As you explained below what you meant by 'disagree', I won't go further on this topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can I disagree with Gingers? Or will that just incite their rage and cause them to swallow my soul?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ya know, I read on the internet that Hitler was a Ginger.
Comment has been collapsed.
You think that works? There's a high school down the street and my crawlspace isn't filled with cheerleaders. Yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's only what you think.
"And slowly, your eyes opened to the dark silence of your room. Your breath shuddered violently once, your fear choking you, then the room once again fell to a deathly still.
Then, just as your heart began to beat once again, and you had finally accepted it to only be a passing nightmare, you heard that same, dreadful noise from the attic space above once again:
RA RA RA!
RA RA RA!"
Comment has been collapsed.
It was a shortcut. I meant that you dislike the idea and don't "agree" with its views. It's like with trans-gender for example. You can disagree with what it stands for and not like it, simple as that. I'm not saying you don't have to like the person though, I'm just talking about the idea itself. Same with homosexuality.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't choose your sexual orientation? What about pedophiles then? Are you going to defend them as well because "they were born this way"? That's BS.
And don't bring up racism because it's a totally different issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
See? You make me out to be the enemy of homosexal people. You put me as equal to racists. I should just stop talking with you now.
If I don't find black women attractive I'm suddenly "racist" as well? If I'd rather have light skin than darker I'm racist too? I can't say shit because you're going to label me just because I don't share the same views as you do. Fair enough. I never even once in this thread said I "don't like homosexual people". I never said a bad word about them (aside from those that do act like hypocrites, which is the word I used) yet still you call me a "homophobe". You can say what you want, you could even kill me but I'll never change my mind about homosexuality. I don't like the idea of two people of the same sex loving each other, period. But I don't mind people who are like that because their lives are not mine to live. Their lives, their choices, their consequences. And if you can't take opinion of people who disagree with you on this then it just means you want everyone in the world to agree with you, which is childish. Otherwise you call them names, like you did in my case - "homophobe".
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be homophobia if I had something against homosexual people. But I don't.
You didn't answer my question. It's okay "not to like" anything you want. You don't have to like anything and there's nothing wrong with that. Just because you don't like a certain skin colour doesn't make you a racist and just because you don't like a sexual orientation doesn't make you a "....phobe". It starts being an issue if you hate the person BECAUSE they person has this or that skin colour. Or you hate the person BECAUSE this person has this or that sexual orientation. Then it's an issue and then you can say "racist" or "homophobe".
Comment has been collapsed.
Read my original post in this thread. I never said I have an issue with homosexual people being allowed to marry.
Also, it doesn't disturb me. You're making stuff up that I never said. By saying "I don't like the idea of two people of the same sex loving each other" it means that I would never do that, simply because I'm not attracted to people of the same sex as me and the idea of being kissed by another man is disgusting to me. Maybe I used wrong words then. I don't mind when two people of the same sex love each other or even have sex with each other. It's their life. Not mine. I'm just saying I wouldn't do that in my life because it's not my thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you even know what are you talking about? Pedophilia is still classified as a mental disease (paraphilia) and it's not in any way a sexual orientation, because you are attracted from the situation (doing sex with a minor, often unwilling), not the subject. (I cannot explain very well in English, but if you search around, you'll get the point, is full of studies).
Sexual orientation is a different matter. Btw you are not meant neither forced to like LGBT people. But you should not use that as an excuse to prevent them rights that they should have as human beings. If you don't like them, just turn around, world is big.
Comment has been collapsed.
As I have written there, you are not actually attracted by the subject, but more from the situation it leads. It is why many pedophiles are attracted by a specific range of age in the majority of the cases, and they go for specific situations (often involving unwilling children). I am not that expert on the matter tho, but I've read a bit about.
I don't know if there is a separate istance for people attracted by the person, if it is not a paraphilia I guess you could just go with adults.
Also, it's not classified as pedophilia if you are attracted on isolated cases by someone who is a minor. I don't know where are the bounds tho, but again, there are psychiatrist and psychologist out there for a reason :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Scientifically, pedophilia involves an attraction to pre-pubescent children. Their lack of sexual definition is the source of the attraction, which is why pedophiles usually involve whichever gender child is available and known to them, rather than a specific one.
Comment has been collapsed.
I read scientific articles about homosexuality being a "mental ilness" as well. But with the homo-lobby of course it would be swept under the rug.
I don't have problems with homosexual people. We're just talking.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol, homosexuality is not anymore a mental illness since 1990. But I guess with your homo-lobby comment you have spoken sufficiently to let me guess what kind of thinking you are using. Well, then be careful and wear your tin-foil hat, homo-propaganda can make you gay and it's better to avoid that.
Also, your actions tell me you have something against LGBT people, if you cannot see that by yourself, try to think why many of us are a little bothered by your comments.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have anything against LGBT people, I just don't like the idea of homosexuality. Is that too hard to understand? I don't care how many people are bothered by my comments. I'm true to myself and I'll never say anything I don't agree with. I won't say I like something when I don't.
Yet again, we're talking about the idea, not the people.
Like I said, I read recent articles and research proving that homosexuality is indeed a "mental illness" but I know you won't believe me because it wouldn't agree with your whole view on the subject. Besides, I don't care. I'm not homosexual, I don't mind people who are so what's the problem?
Comment has been collapsed.
Hustlayo, homosexuality isn't a mental illness. I mean, it has been classified like that based mainly on religious arguments. Cultures like Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks never had a problem with men having men lovers or women having women lovers. Besides, as far as I know, they also authorized sex between an old man and a young man/woman. Because you were considered as adult way earlier AND that it was much seen as an initiation. And it was also people having consent.
I just want to point to you that if you don't having any problems with the homosexual people, if you think that it is a mental illness, it means that you consider them as ill and must be cured. I know you never gave any hint that you think it is a mental illness though.
Anyway, as far as you respect them, I've got no problem. You may not understand their lifestyle or agree with it, but it's the same as yours mainly :).
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't say what I think about it because simply I don't know. I don't have an opinion on this. Yeah, I don't have problem with those people, why would I? They're the same as the rest and I'm not going to look under the bedsheets of others because that's none of my business.
But I've read articles saying that this is indeed mental illness, scientific articles. But then again, there are articles that state otherwise. So like I said, I don't know.
Comment has been collapsed.
erm... you don't. Do you think you, as a heterosexual, could now suddenly change your sexual orientation and start feeling attracted to men? No? So why do you think it will work the other way?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know how "strong" the attraction is the other way. And I don't know if those people truly are not attracted to people of the opposite sex, like none at all. I don't know that.
Comment has been collapsed.
you don't know how strong attraction is. you don't know if they are truly not atracted to other sex (they are not, ppl who are are called bi ;p). Yet you somehow know that it's their choice and they can change it anytime (even while you cannot change your "choice" of your orientation).
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said they can "change it anytime".
I'm not an expert in this field either. I don't pretend to know much about this. I don't. But then again, for the 100th time - I don't care what those people do. Read my original post, I wrote in it what annoyed me about this whole issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
their "views" have nothing to do with you. Them getting married influence your life in any form? your views on the other hand takes their basic human rights away from them. see the difference?
Comment has been collapsed.
So I can't say anything about things that are not directly connected with me? I can't have a "say"? I can't have an opinion? Also how is marriage a "basic human right"? It's not. It's a privelege. And man+woman have this privilege because they can "create" babies and broaden the society by that.
Comment has been collapsed.
so infertile couples should be denied marriage 'cause they can't "create" babies?
Comment has been collapsed.
They're the exception and it's not that they don't have them for the lack of trying. Biologically they CAN have them. Homosexual couples can't have them biologically no matter what they do.
Comment has been collapsed.
This implies that married people must procreate. I don't see any of this, also know a lot of people that are married, still no babies (and not due to infertility).
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not natural. Natural is when you put your penis into your wife's vagina and 9 months later a baby is born.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's unnatural based on your religion and ideology. Btw - what are you doing writing on these forums? Writing over some electrical internet cables instead of talking face to face is unnatural! same as driving by car instead of walking. And using your fridge and so on and on.
Few centuries ago things like medical autopsy, surgery or even vaccination has been viewed as unatural. Goog luck living without everything that is unnatural, what we gert thanks to science and technology.
Comment has been collapsed.
In-vitro is messing with the kid who is going to be born. Using all the stuff you mentioned is "messing" with your own body to make your life better. There's a huge difference.
Comment has been collapsed.
both is messing with body to make life better or even possible. In case of invitro it creates this life making it possible, in medicine it can cure illness that would kill you also making this life possible.
I see absolutely no difference you're talking about. All are just medical procedures. In 100 years invitro will be something commonly used and catholic church (if it will still exist) will just jump to some then new medical procedure calling it unnatural.
Comment has been collapsed.
Believe that if you want. It's none of my business tbh.
Catholic Church will exist until the end of the world, quote me on that.
Comment has been collapsed.
if it don't die soon I guess it will. Heck even more - in that scenario I'm pretty sure it wil, as it's influence and propaganda will likely add quite a bit to this end of the world happening :>
Comment has been collapsed.
he can have kids of his own and tell them to remember church will exist till the end of the world! (unfortunately, i can't)
Comment has been collapsed.
Uhm, some other religions thought that and they really crumbled. I mean, I doubt many people now pray Zeus/Jupiter or Artemis/Diane for example.
Maybe the Catholic Church will evolve in something else though.
Comment has been collapsed.
No - you can say whatever you feel like, but you shall not enforce your views if they limit the freedom of another party.
As for marriage being "Human Right"
We are all born free and equal - homosexual couple is equal to heterosexual couple.
We're All Equal Before the Law - homosexual couples had numerous law disadvantages over heterosexual couples.
Marriage and Family - speaks for itself. As long as there is full consent of both parties.
As for creating babies - so by your definition we should ban marriages for heterosexual couples that use contraception or where one or both parties are sterile?
Comment has been collapsed.
That was my point. I have my views but I don't enforce them on anyone and don't even want to. So what's the problem?
As I explained above when it comes to creating babies. Those people that can't have babies are the exception and it's not that they don't have them for the lack of trying. Biologically they CAN have them. Homosexual couples can't have them biologically no matter what they do. And those that use contraception always have kids sooner or later. And point is they CAN HAVE them on their own, just by having sex. Something homosexual couples will never have no matter what they do.
Comment has been collapsed.
And those that use contraception always have kids sooner or later. - false, I know a lot of couples that don't want to have kids and don't have. Including a marriage of my uncle - 34 years together, no children because they don't wnt them. Am I suppose to guess they haven't had sex in all this time?
Also homosexual couple can use surogate mother, invitro or simply just adopt a baby - it's not like there are not enough kids in orphanages that desperately needs someone to love them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Homosexual couples having kids - I'm not going there. I don't want to delve into that subject lol, I'm too tired for this. Let's just stop at that. I see I can't win you over anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd 100 times more would rather give kids to homosexual couples than keep them in drunkard pathological families we have a lot in our country.
But you're right - you won't win me over by using ideology based purely on something I see only as poor written fantasy novel ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
I can give you links to articles and research which claim that putting children in homosexual families is wrong for the children and that it warps their idea of the world but you'll just disregard it or you'll start looking for faults to disprove them. I see you're bent on supporting homosexuality, so be it. It's none of my business really.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can give you phisical prove of the contrary, just come to a Pride to know some Homogenitorial families and their kids. I see (and many specialists more professional than me) that there are not any differencies behind two types of family. Children needs love, nothing more, nothing less.
Anyway I've read many of that studies, and have take part to many of that forums, catholics and not, since you know, I was against that things (LGBT movements). But when I started doing my reasearch, see with my eyes, knowing people and just saw what my "side" was really attempting at, I've changed , to the one that really have arguments and really was searching for love, and not deny others that. Many of the ones I've red when I was homophobic were all argouments based on dogmas (nature is this way, god say so, children think this) without any reliable way of supporting them, many others comes from untrustable sources, just a mess.
I don't have problems with you thinking a certain way until you just think that. as I said, just watch the opposite direction if you don't like it. Unfortunately, as I can see, it goes beyond simply thinking, because "nature say so", or "it's meant this way" and our rights go fuck themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, totally.
Someone's opinion is more important than scientific paper in scientific magazine. Way to go!
Give me one paper from normal scientific magazine and I will believe you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right, because "scientific studies" can't be bought. Especially by a lobby that's so strong nowadays.
You don't have to believe me, it's fine. Believe what you want.
Comment has been collapsed.
So the studies saying that homosexuality is a mental illness can be bought too... if I can throw that argument back at you.
Besides, if homosexual families are bad because children will have a different view of the world, what about the hererosexual familes with incest and abusive parents?
There are "bad" parents on either side. Whether you're homosexual or heterosexual isn't revelant there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totally, because they are trying to convert you and oppress the rights of everyone else... They are loud because they need to be! Without that religious discrimination, this movement would have been un-fucking-necessary.
Comment has been collapsed.
Religion has nothing to do with it. It's a social issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
It should be merely a social issue, but clearly its not. Religion has everything to do with it, being its the primary source of opposition to LGBT equal rights.
Comment has been collapsed.
- It was legalized yesterday so I don't think religion has such a big influence over it after all.
- Live and let live. Religous people have right to believe what they want. What they can't do is enforce on others how to live their lives. And they don't. Legalization of same sex marriage wasn't stopped, was it? As much as they talk about living like this or that - they can do that. You don't have to go to church if you don't want to. But don't expect religion to adapt to something if this something we're talking about is clearly seen as bad in said religion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are u seriously kidding me?
- Yesterday, its 2015, How long since the other major civil rights movement is that? how long since the enlightenment is that? how long since the onset of the Abrahamic faiths is that? too bloody long.
- Live and let live? Really? Because a group have been oppressed for multiple millennia, because they have been persecuted in almost every possible way imaginable. The religious can believe whatever the hell they want. But if they want to bring outdated bigoted views to the public arena, they should expect opposition and to defend such views. You want to know why they lost? because their justifications are pathetic. Lastly, religion will adapt, it has before, because it must. Being anti-gay will be as popular in the future as pro-slavery is now.
Comment has been collapsed.
No one lost anything. Their justification is Bible and that's enough for believers, trust me. They don't need anything else. As for the rest - well, it's their lives. Religion may "adapt" to a certain extent. It will never say something is okay when it's not according to the Bible, period. Don't even compare homosexuality to slavery cause it's laughable. Denying marriage to homosexual people is the same as killing, oppressing, putting down, disrespecting and treating like shit people who have different skin color? Stop acting like homosexual people are martyrs. People in Somalia don't even have the right to have a safe life and live, just live, but here we are talking about how homosexual people were opressed because they couldn't freely express their love even though they had everything else they wanted. First world problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Denying marriage to homosexual people is the same as killing, ... who have different skin color?"
No but Killing, oppressing, putting down, disrespecting and treating LGBT like shit is comparable, give or take... Gaining the right to marry brings them up to par with respect to other civil rights movements... It was not that long ago interracial marriages were looked upon with similar disgust, hows that looking now bub?
"Don't even compare homosexuality to slavery cause it's laughable."
You missed the point entirely... I said religious views change, they will change on homosexuality just like they have on slavery... newsflash the bible endorses it.
"It will never say something is okay when it's not according to the Bible, period."
like slavery.
" People in Somalia don't even have the right to have a safe life and live"
This is relevant to the discussion how? nice try on trying to divert and throw in a red herring. Discuss what the topic at hand or quit replying.
"First world problems"
Easy to say when your not the group being discriminated against. Everyone has trivial problem, even those in non 1st world countries. Just cos there's big issues at hand does not mean we forget about everything else that's going on. If its such a small issue and there was no real opposition then why the hell did it take so bloody long. Oh.. and what about every Xmas when the religious cry foul that there's a war on Christmas? ohhh 1st world problems that's right!!
Comment has been collapsed.
Not discriminating against? You're discriminating me now. I'm a Christian and a Catholic. I'm discriminated on daily basis because of that, trust me. Do I cry about it? No. And how do you know I'm not discriminated in another ways? You don't know a thing about me, tbh. But nowadays let's just all focus on homosexual people because they're the most opressed people on Earth. Yeah, right. That was my point. I don't mind the marriage, to be honest. I don't mind all of that at all. It doesn't happen in church. Let those people have those pieces of paper with their names on it if they care so much about it. I don't care. Read my first post - I mind the all in my face about it, whatever I open and whenever I look I see this and at this point it's a propaganda. And you have to agree with it! Cause if you don't you're made out to be second Hitler denying people their "human rights". I have nothing more to add.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I'm living in a country with 90% declaring to be catholics. With 60% being active catholics and close 40% being very active - aka going to church every sunday. In country with both biggest political forces being right parties openly admitting being catholic-inspired. In country with numerous catholic medias - countrywide radio, 2 TV stations, countless press and internet portals. In country that has a church at every corner, cross hanging on wall in every public department, school etc. In country that signed concordate with Vatican and that donates millions upon millions of public money to my church. In country where catholic religion classes is in every public school, while no other religion than catholic have them avaiable. In country with big public religious events being hold many times a year. In country where every military or police unit have their own dedicated catholic priest. In country where politics make special meetings with heads of catholic church to consult them on changes in legalisation process. And I'm discriminated for being catholic on a daily basis."
:D:
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you really that oblivious? Maybe because you don't openly talk about it. I've been ridiculed about my faith numerous times.
And 90% is just because most babies are baptized right after birth lol. Not many of Poles actually go to church every sunday and live their lives according to ten commandments.
The image you just painted about our country being so "catholic" is naive. I know more atheists than christians and nowadays very big number of people criticizes church openly. The so called catholics that declare they are catholics talk shit about church on daily basis, I know because I hear that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh I am so opressed - because someone is making fun of me. Or say naughty things about my church. I'm soo discriminated against...
Wanna hear about real discrimination problems? Your soulmate, love of your life, who you spent whole life with not being able to see you on your deathbed in hospital, because you're not formally a family. Your parents kicking you out of your home because you've told them about your orientation and "this queer is no longer child of mine". People being laid off from work because of their skin color, sexual orientation or religion, or not getting work based on these factors - and I haven't heard a single case of catholic being fired for being catholic. But know several cases of muslims not getting job because they probably are some arab terrorists. Getting paid less because of being a woman, while holding the same position as a man. Hearing that your whole nation should be put down, and that ppl are sorry that Hitler didn't finish jew problem. Seeing caountless antisemitic graffittis at walls are around you in every city. Having your home, or shop or anything invaded, set on fire by "true patriots" neo-nazis, because you're not a "true pole". Having these "patriots" beat you heavilly and hospitalized for being gay, having darker skin or speaking with foreign accent. These are a problems that a lot minorities face every day. This is serious heavyweight discrimination.
Saying that you are discriminated for being catholic, while living in one of most conservative-catholic countries in Europe, simply because some ppl make fun of my church or don't agree with my religion is like spitting into the face of every minority that DOES get HEAVILY DISCRIMINATED in this country.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bull fucking shit. There are different levels of discrimination. Just because I'm not discriminated against as much as others doesn't mean I'm not disciminated against at all. Besides, I was trying to prove my point that christians are indeed discriminated all around the world because they are. Even in Poland. I wasn't talking about myself almost at all lol. And even in our country I remember there were instances of discrimination, for example someone losing a job because this person had a cross over her neck and said he would not take it off.
Discrimination is alive and well, true. It should never take place, no matter how big or small. Yeah, some minorities are discriminated aginst more openly and more in general and I agree this is a huge problem and should never happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
You right, I'm discriminating against you, because the "Christian" definition of discrimination is anyone who disagrees with them. LGBT ARE one of the most discriminated groups of people therefore have the right to be vocal about it... You think they'd be arking up if they already had the same rights? pffft... You being discriminated against? come back to me when you cant even get married, when you cant even tell someone your a christian before your kicked out of home, lose your friends and family, bullied and picked on by your peers, have hate crimes committed against you. find it hard to get employment/housing, have huge well funded groups of people actively campaigning against your equal rights.. Or worst case, in come countries torture and the death penalty. In some places sure, Christians are a minority and can be discriminated against, ironically that occurs in theocracy's similar to what Christians wish they had.. And homosexuals are still treated worse in such places.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you think that you know nothing about disciminations against christians commited around the world daily. Millions of christians die every year because of their faith, especially in African countries. In North Korea you can't even have a Bible at home because you can die for that. If you're a christian and have a cross on your neck you won't be allowed to enter half of Africa if you won't take it off. Christians are also bullied and pick on for manifesting their faith or just being christian, I've seen that first hand. I myself was very often laughed at because I was defending my faith or for saying "I like the idea of waiting with sex until after the marriage". It's so easy to say when you're not the one being discriminated, isn't it? Maybe if you were a christian you'd know that christians are being discriminated, killed, and treated like shit all over the world on daily basis, even in my country which claims to be "catholic".
Now, I'm not saying homosexual people are not discriminated. I agree that they should never be judged based on their sexual orientation. But is forcing everyone to "like" the idea of homosexualiy really the answer? I don't think so. At this point homosexual lobby is very aggresive, even here, common people. If I don't like homosexuality I'm going to be bashed. If homosexual people advocate freedom so much they should be able to let others be free and express their FREE opinion, not forced. It works both ways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure i recognize/d that Christians are persecuted against in many places, but the question was are you?. In any case, ironically its typically done by other religious theocracy's, and where Christianity is majority, those said religions are discriminated against in turn, so don't pretend its all innocent. By in large the LGBT group have it worse, and throughout history have had it worse... Very often at the hand of Christianity. It was not that long ago that gays were forceably sterilized in 1st world countries, Its sickening.
No 1 can force u to like anything, they want to be recognized as much as anyone, If you were in their position, eg. Christians were a minority that were discriminated against, you'd wish fr equal rights aswell, you'd wish for the normalization of the stigma against your group. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, anyone who denies the rights for other groups are hypocrites. What was that saying, do unto others, or something... yeah so many don't listen to their own mantas. Its funny that one group can use physical and psychological abuse to subjugate those who are different, but the moment a few of those people rise up can call them on their bullshit, they cry persecution.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like I said somewhere above, I don't mind that they got their marriages - as long as they don't get them in church - and they won't.
I disagree with one thing though, you said homosexual people have been persecuted throughout history way more than Christians, I don't think that's true. Religious people will be always the most persecuted because religion is the most sensitive subject of all, even above sex. When God is involved everything else matters less and people are motivated by "higher power" they believe in - that's stronger than anything else.
Comment has been collapsed.
Should they be able to marry in church? not if the church doesn't want it. But if there are some churches who wish to do that, that is their prerogative. Then there is always other religious faith alternatives which you also have no say in.
Like i said sure, Christians have copped it bad in some places and some eras, and its an awful thing... But you say "religious people have always been persecuted" in a funny way as if you fail to realize its usually religious people from other faiths who do it.
Ofc if you count ALL religions into 1 group, they will count for as the largest marginalized group for the soul fact that they count for the majority of people who have lived, that's not a fair comparison for the reason mentioned above. That's like me saying "more humans have been persecuted than homosexuals" duh. I see you try to obfuscate yourself between being "christian" and "religious" , sorry you don't get to speak for yourself and all religions as if they are the same group.
Christianity has had power in Western culture for over a millennia, their persecution has been much more limited since then, popping up in other regions such as Africa and Asia from time to time. Thing is wherever there is persecution (including that to Xtians), it typically goes towards homosexuals as well. Homosexuals as group have been consistently and systematically targeted by numerous societies, major religious and political groups, including but not limited to the abrahamic faiths. Until recently times, the majority of faiths and cultures have been anti-homosexual, its only been within the last century or so they've been able to climb out of the closet (XD). If you take it by percentage and how long they've been demonized by so many, homosexuals(LGBT) would come out worse than most if not all religious groups.
In saying that, ALL discrimination and persecution is abhorrent. I am anti-dogmatist more than anything and would quite happily endorse people whose faiths align with my own humanist values. This converstaion has drifted off from the original point of conversation, ive addressed each of your major points from every post but I highly doubt ive made too much of a difference in yours or anyone's attitudes. I believe in equity and being empathetic, I honesty hate the division throughout the world caused by fundamentalism and dogmatism. But whatever, to each their own, I can only try and be reasonable. Take care.
p.s. "When God is involved everything else matters less"
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that all kinds of discrimination and persecution are wrong, evil even.
If you say "ive addressed each of your major points from every post but I highly doubt ive made too much of a difference in yours or anyone's attitudes" then I think you missed the point. I'm a very emphatic person as well but at the same time I have my own views on the world which don't change "because majority does that" or something else. I have a feeling you demonize me but in reality I never held anything against homosexual people. Are you going to blame me when I tell you I don't understand vegans and how they can NOT eat meat? And that I don't agree with their eating habits? It would be pretty silly to do that. So why do you condemn me for saying I don't agree with some people's sexual habits? It's my opinion, I can have it. But at the same time I'm not forcing it on anyone nor am I enforcing it. I see LGBT people and their supporters are panically scared of negative opinions. It looks like it's "talk about us as long as what you're saying is positive". That's like a regime. I can't say a bad word about homosexuality (not even the people, just the idea) because I'm going to be bashed for it. Again, this is hypocritical. I don't mind people living their lifestyles if that's what they want to do and if they don't hurt anyone else in the process. But I do mind what I mentioned in the OG post, that all of this is "in my face" nowadays, whatever I open and whenever I look.
I don't understand why you're hating on religion tbh. Yeah, bad things were done in its name. Bad things were done also in the name of "patriotism", "defending one's country" and hundreds of other noble causes. Evil people use all kinds of excuses to commit bad deeds, religion being one of them. Christianity at its core is a religion of peace though. If you read the Gospel you will see that. I think you know the Gospel. Christians are supposed to follow Christ who was without sin and forgave even his enemies. If we all lived like Jesus then the world would be a paradise. So don't hate on religion itself because it's pointless, hate on people who use religion as an excuse to do evil.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that all kinds of discrimination and persecution are wrong, evil even.
Then why are we debating whether of not LGBT should be able to marry, its contradictory to say you are against all forms of discrimination without supporting equality for all groups.
I'm a very emphatic person as well but at the same time I have my own views on the world which don't change "because majority does that" or something else.
Who says to change because its majority opinion? People should change when its its the right thing to do, when the arguments are more convincing. Hipsters are the ones who avoid mainstream ideas because they are popular, just because something is popular doesn't mean its wrong. Normal people will have a mix of both. Whichever they feel is right with their beliefs, but at the same time being open to new arguments on the matter.
I have a feeling you demonize me but in reality I never held anything against homosexual people.
Don't let my use of sarcasm fool you, I'm being rather civil in this conversation (for the most part). I haven't demonized anyone.
Are you going to blame me when I tell you I don't understand vegans and how they can NOT eat meat? And that I don't agree with their eating habits? It would be pretty silly to do that. So why do you condemn me for saying I don't agree with some people's sexual habits?
This is not a very apt analogy, vegans are not discriminated against in the same manner in regards to social conventions and legal rights. If you said Vegans should not be able to marry, I'd be right up there arguing against you. You don't have to agree with a persons lifestyle to support their right to live it, to support their right for equality. I can sit next to a vegan just as easily as i can sit next to a homosexual.
It's my opinion, I can have it.
Everyone is welcome to their own opinions and beliefs. If you speak them in the public domain however, you open yourself up to criticism, no matter the position you hold.. Criticism is not demonization nor discrimination, its everyone's right to ask for justification for you words. You are able to do the same, and nobody should deny the right of anyone to have their say.
I see LGBT people and their supporters are panically scared of negative opinions. It looks like it's "talk about us as long as what you're saying is positive". That's like a regime. I can't say a bad word about homosexuality (not even the people, just the idea) because I'm going to be bashed for it.
It depends on what you say, see the last paragraph.
Again, this is hypocritical.
Everyone is a hypocrite about something.
I don't mind people living their lifestyles if that's what they want to do and if they don't hurt anyone else in the process.
They don't want to hurt anyone, they want equal rights, that's it.
But I do mind what I mentioned in the OG post, that all of this is "in my face" nowadays, whatever I open and whenever I look.
That is tough luck.. We all live in a society where we have to live together and get along, So many may disapprove of your lifestyle, and you may ask "why should i change for them", that is the same thing a LGBT will say to you. Their actions alone don't hurt you, as yours don't hurt them. But everyone has to live and let live, allowing people to be themselves without trying to control others. If you demand control over another and refuse to change yourself when someone requests, you portray that very hypocrisy you tout others offend.
I don't understand why you're hating on religion tbh. Yeah, bad things were done in its name. Bad things were done also in the name of "patriotism", "defending one's country" and hundreds of other noble causes. Evil people use all kinds of excuses to commit bad deeds, religion being one of them.
I literally said in the previous post " I am anti-dogmatist more than anything and would quite happily endorse people whose faiths align with my own humanist values." I also mentioned that there were alternative sources to the hate against LGBT groups apart from religion. But you can not deny that religious motivations are a major factor in the historical and contemporary situation of discrimination and persecution of LGBT people.
Now that's not to say these are religious values per se, as the diversity of religions is quite vast. Rather values that have been put under the umbrella of certain religious ideologies. I am a huge fan of philosophy and quite enjoy many of the philosophical, metaphysical and moral teachings many religions hold. In most cases when ive used "religion" it is as a generalization, and typically im referring to the abrahamic faiths specifically.
Christianity at its core is a religion of peace though
Anyone would say that about their own beliefs, there are however many contradictory ideas and claims made by the religion which are antithetical to a peaceful lifestyle and philosophy. In saying that much of Christianity has moved on from its barbaric past, and Im happy to see many becoming closer to a better understanding of empathy for their fellow human beings... There is still much progress to make (esp in other religions that shall remain unnamed). I grew up Christian before i was forced to change my beliefs in time during my childhood and teenage years... This was through education and self retrospection. Still, much of my moral beliefs are christian in origin, the ones which are compatible with my now humanistic viewpoint.
hate on people who use religion as an excuse to do evil.
I don't "hate on" anyone, or at least i do my best not to.... I'm only human. I do my best to "hate on" ideas which are ignorant, dogmatic and dangerous. Though many still are yet to grasp that criticism of an idea is separate from criticism of themselves. No 1 is right about everything, hence we should all aspire to self correction of any and all ideas/beliefs we hold.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, okay, I read it but I'm not going to reply to this, sorry man :D This is too much. I understand what you're saying and I respect your opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
What they can't do is enforce on others how to live their lives. how can you say something like that being a Pole? This is exactly what polish catholic church and polish politicians have been doing over last 25 years ;p Partnership couples have been neglected, because bible says man+woman only. 40+% of politicians vote against in vitro, because bishop said so. Anti-violence convention held back by months, because it's against "christian values" and so on and on.
Comment has been collapsed.
I urge you to read anti-violence convention. It wasn't about anti-violence it all in reality. That's why it was held back. But I'm not going to talk about this cause it's a route to yet another subject.
I'm saying what my POV looks like. Do I have to agree with all this you wrote? But then again, do politicians have to do everything people want? EVERYTHING? I don't think so. Nowadays everyone's acting so damn entitled. We're entitled to nothing. There's no humility in people's lives nowadays. It's all about "I want", "I deserve" etc. - we don't deserve shit.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was sort of surprised not to see any threads about this already but as a straight male ally, congratulations to all the people in the USA who are now able to legally
tie that ball-and-chain around their anklebe with the person they love. Yeah, that.If people intend to spread hate then they will probably end up blacklisted.
Apparently I need to clarify this for some people. Dissenting opinions do not equate hate, I meant inflammatory or derogatory posts. I think I've only blacklisted one person so far, although some of you may already be on my list. (Written about 3 hours after I originally posted this.)
Mawwwwwwwwiage...
Comment has been collapsed.