Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

How does... Options · View
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:48:45 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,477
Location: Cakeland, United States
Gay marriage (or legal union) threaten heterosexual marriage?

I've never figured that one out.

What really threatens the majority of heterosexual marriages?

Can someone explain this to me (if you can, I mean). You're more than welcome to explain it to me, even if you can't. I won't hold your opinion against you.

I might mock you somewhat.

You might mock me.

This is the big boys/girls room - we can talk about it, can't we?

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Guest
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:16:53 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
It doesn't, it's just the far fetched notion of the moral minority. They opine that since god "made adam and eve, and not adam and steve" then the sanctity of marriage between man and woman goes by the wayside. If man marries man then what keeps him/her from marrying an animal, etc., etc.

Of course they also believe that men lived to be incredible ages like Noah who would have died at 746 years of age.
sprite
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:20:43 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 16,836
Location: My Tower, United States
i have often wondered this myself... i wish someone would explain it to me since i'm obviously cluesless and have no idea how anyone's marriage might effect someone elses.

Live, love, laugh.
rxtales
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:36:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
Someone tried to explain this one to me the other day. His explanation was not that it threatened straight marriages, it threatened the human race, because if everyone were gay then nobody would have babies.


I told him that was stupid and of course you can still reproduce.
Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 8:01:19 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,471
Location: California
I think the people who are against gay marriage are just homophobes. Simple as that.



Rembacher
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 8:40:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Having grown up in an extremely religious area, with an extremely religious family gives me a slightly different perspective on this. I agree that homosexual people should be able to have their union legally recognized, but I hesitate to say it should be called marriage. Yes, in the strictest definition, marriage is the blending of two different components, but I believe the institution of marriage is a religious creation, and therefore have a hard time in agreeing that the church should be forced to allow a union they don't agree with. Plus, I know a lot of churches are worried that they will be forced to allow homosexual marriages in their facilities if it is allowed, because if it is legal, to not perform those weddings is discrimination. It's hard to say how the balance between one groups religious freedom works with another groups right to marry.

Maybe all I'm arguing is semantics. If we chose another word to describe all unions, and left the church to call it marriage, would it really change anything? I think a far bigger threat to heterosexual marriage, is common-law arrangements. The more people who live together without the legal commitment of marriage, the less people will actually get married.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 9:57:15 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,615
Location: Your dirty fantasy
After reading a few of the posts in this thread, I can honestly say that it only solidifies everything that is wrong with religion.

Religion is a vehicle for judgment and a way to ostracize those that don't believe the same dogma. All of this is ingrained, despite the notion that most religions claim that love, morality, guidance and forgiveness are the backbone of their beliefs. bs

The whole concept of marriage as it is currently defined just seems so outdated to me, and if marriage is currently defined as a "religious union", then "marriage" will always have demands that have nothing to do with the original point of it. Which is to celebrate two people that have chosen to commit and create a life path together. I see this as a secular union. I don't see it as something that requires ties to any kind of religious base that is set to control the couple. The couple should be committing to each other... not the church. I just see it as a very personal choice.

As it is now, what do marriage vows even mean anymore, with the divorce rate on the rise. Does taking a vow to "forsake all others" in front of a religious official somehow mean something when cheating and affairs are commonplace? When those vows are broken, it's not like God or the church will be striking down the offending bride or groom in a fury of thunderbolts, or hauling them off to "matrimonial jail". The vows are personal and affect the couple that has chosen to make that commitment to each other.

That's why, whether it's a couple that chooses to take their vows in a personal non-religious ceremony, or a couple that just chooses to live together and abide by their own commitments to each other, or for those people that want to take that formal step in a church because they are religious and (gasp!) also gay... then they should have that right. It's not affecting anyone else's life other than their own, so why does anyone care how/why any couple chooses to commit to each other.

Some might say well then why can't same-sex couples just be happy without needing the formality of marriage? It's because they should have the human right to take part in the same thing that is afforded to heterosexual couples. In our society, 'marriage' is tied to many 'legalities' which may also be of benefit to a couple... such as being able to be put on each other's health plans, inheritances in the case of death, adoption options, and the legal right to be with that person and make decisions should one person be hospitalized.

All of these things are behind the scenes. According to the rest of the planet, they are just two people in love who live with each other and wear wedding bands on their fingers. Does it affect anyone else? No. So should anyone have issues with it? Again, the answer is no.

As far as the fear that a church would "have to allow" gay marriages in their facilities as Jebru mentioned... I assume people understand by now, that homosexuality is not contagious. And I assume the regular church goers won't be invited to the occasion anyway, so how will they even be affected? Personally if I was gay and wanting to get married, the last thing I'd want would be to get married in a church that outwardly condemns me. That's why many same-sex marriages have an official that conducts the ceremony outside of a formal church. So again, it's not affecting anyone that still holds to their traditional religious beliefs.

I can't believe that this is even an issue in today's modern world. d'oh!

Guest
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:10:17 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
Simply put: I think the religious zelots put out this propaganda about it affecting heterosexual marragies to incite fear and discrimination against the gay and lesbian community. However, like others above, I don't believe it could affect heterosexual marriages.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 6:02:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,216
Location: United States
If gays could marry...

1. Suddenly, insurance companies would have to offer spousal benefits to a whole new (and until now, unrecognized) percentage of society. This would HAVE to affect the bottom line and rates would pretty much have to increase, for everyone, not just gay couples.

2. Governments that have some kind of retirement plan like the "Social Security" that America is so proud of would have to totally reconfigure their actuarial tables to allow for longer payouts of benefits as more people who didn't qualify as "spouse" before now do qualify.

3. Gays would realize what a drag it is to wake up, look over at the pillow next to them, and think, "There's never gonna be a new person there - ever again..."

There are two different aspect to marriage. The religious one (which pretty much universally forbids gays to marry) and the secular one, which is the only one that would have to change, in order for gays to be able to marry. In secular terms, marriage is a contract between two people. It allows those two people to conjoin every facet of their lives, not just living together, but everything from combining their fiscal lives, to sharing responsibility for their health and medical decisions. The contract can only be dissolved by a lengthy and tedious legal process called "divorce". I don't see any reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to enter into this type of contract. The fact that they're not allowed to now is just a sign that humans still have plenty of capacity for cruelty toward their fellow man.
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 9:05:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
I've always wondered this as well. I laugh at the fact that everytime a presidential election comes up, one of the main issues continues to be gay marriage. Economy? Nah. Iraq? Who cares. But dudes kissing? Well that's something to worry about!

How in the hell does this threaten heterosexual marriage? Like straight married men are going to, all of a sudden, start ditching their wives and start marrying men? I hate slippery slope arguments, but this one really takes the cake.

I recall a right wing pundit actually saying "If we allow men to marry men, then where do we draw the line? Soon we'll have people marrying dogs and goats!"

I think it all boils down to the fact that there is a large proportion of the population that still believes homosexuality is a personal choice, and not biologically determined. Until this religious based ignorance is erradicated, we will constantly be struggling against such faith based stupidity.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, August 14, 2010 9:24:44 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
"1. Suddenly, insurance companies would have to offer spousal benefits to a whole new (and until now, unrecognized) percentage of society. This would HAVE to affect the bottom line and rates would pretty much have to increase, for everyone, not just gay couples."

BINGO

Well put senor nuddiepants, and as for the cruelty toward fellow men, organized religion and empowered political parties/governing bodies have always had a way to subjugate the masses and then tell them its for their own good. With gay marriage the spin sell from politicians is religious dogma of "man should not lay with man", yet we have a separation of church and state???

I could keep going but I think I might go cross eyed. Ahhhhh...I'll just sit back and bathe in the hypocrisy of our government.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, August 15, 2010 9:26:49 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,477
Location: Cakeland, United States
rxtales wrote:
Someone tried to explain this one to me the other day. His explanation was not that it threatened straight marriages, it threatened the human race, because if everyone were gay then nobody would have babies.


I told him that was stupid and of course you can still reproduce.


Exactly, RX...

In 1976 there were just over 4 billion people on this planet. In 34 years of apparently more successful breeding than dying, the human race is now very close to 7 billion of us breathing at the same time.

Nudie has indicated that gay marriage might threaten insurance corporations and other corporate interests, but I'm concerned with the whacknut argument - that it threatens the traditional marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.

I recall the Carrie Prejean debacle, only because it's the most recent in my memory. She seems like an intelligent young woman.

Jeb - do those religious folks who you alluded to, feel that the 'marriage' is something which only belongs to 'their particular realm' (for lack of a better word to describe this)...and it cannot be 'abused' unless they abuse it themselves?

I think divorce threatens marriages more than gay marriages threaten marriages.

I could be wrong.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
HaileSelassie
Posted: Monday, August 16, 2010 6:30:45 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/23/2010
Posts: 18
I guess they're afraid of gays having more money to fund their GAY AGENDA once they can double their standard deductions or something.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:26:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,216
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:

Nudie has indicated that gay marriage might threaten insurance corporations and other corporate interests, but I'm concerned with the whacknut argument - that it threatens the traditional marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.


You can't defend an argument based on fear in any way other than by fear-mongering. During the days of segregation, one of the reasons to justify keeping whites and black separate was to keep the black "bucks" from having sex with the white women. Doesn't say much about the willpower of the white women, but there you go. The white male fear of their own impotence justified subjugating an entire segment of the population to a role as second-class citizens.

The fear today is the same. The (white, male-majority) government fears that if gay marriage is allowed, then the "faggots" will seduce their white, lily-pure sons, turning them gay in the process. Again, it doesn't say much for the willpower of the scions of government, but there it is.
Rembacher
Posted: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:08:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
WellMadeMale wrote:
Jeb - do those religious folks who you alluded to, feel that the 'marriage' is something which only belongs to 'their particular realm' (for lack of a better word to describe this)...and it cannot be 'abused' unless they abuse it themselves?


Marriage as a religious institution is more my own opinion than something I've heard specifically. And to clarify, I'm not talking about just Christianity, I'm including Islam, and any other religion that forced its population to enter marital arrangements rather than have the population mating at random causing a survival of the fittest anarchy situation. In Ontario, we now have laws that give common law couples a lot of the same rights as married couples, which is also part of why I see marriage as a religious institution rather than a simple contract between two people.

The religious people I quoted were in reference to the concern that churches would be forced to allow the use of their building for gay marriages, and possibly the officials would not have the right to refuse to perform a gay marriage without being sued. Now yes, most gay people will not choose to have their ceremony in a church, when it is opposed to them, but there are some who would do it to make a politcal statement, and those are also the people most likely to sue the church for refusing. Some might say that a church is just a building, and the members don't have to attend. But to the members, that building is a house of God, and it is sacriligious to do anything against God's commands in it. I know many churches run bingo events, and different fundraisers like that, but the church my parents attend would never allow anything like that. They have very strict rules even for if you are renting the building, and would see it as extremely offensive if you broke them.
Guest
Posted: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:16:32 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
Dancing_Doll wrote:
After reading a few of the posts in this thread, I can honestly say that it only solidifies everything that is wrong with religion.

Religion is a vehicle for judgment and a way to ostracize those that don't believe the same dogma. All of this is ingrained, despite the notion that most religions claim that love, morality, guidance and forgiveness are the backbone of their beliefs. bs

The whole concept of marriage as it is currently defined just seems so outdated to me, and if marriage is currently defined as a "religious union", then "marriage" will always have demands that have nothing to do with the original point of it. Which is to celebrate two people that have chosen to commit and create a life path together. I see this as a secular union. I don't see it as something that requires ties to any kind of religious base that is set to control the couple. The couple should be committing to each other... not the church. I just see it as a very personal choice.


i love you!!!
Guest
Posted: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:18:50 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
personally i dont think god gives a shit whos doing who..
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 6:18:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,216
Location: United States
LittleMissBitch wrote:
personally i dont think god gives a shit whos doing who..


In my opinion, it's not up to me to say what God likes or doesn't like. If God is so against gays being gay, I'm sure he'll let them know eventually. In the meantime, it ain't none of my fucking business...
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 06, 2010 8:12:46 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
If marriage is a religious institution then why is it that marriage is not solely carried out in religious rounds anymore? Sheesh you can get married on a football pitch! isn't that taking the piss a bit?

Yet 2 loving, consensual adults who plan on spending the rest of their lives together cannot commit in a similar fashion or be recognized as such by the law of their land?

It's odd cos over in Australia now we are recognized by centrelink (our social) as couples.........so we no longer get single parent payments for kids like we used to, so they cut down on there payments to thousands of same sex couples out here yet we aren't allowed to legally be recognized by many other institutions!1

So we can now be recognized as a couple when it saves the government money............but not when it threatens heterosexuality and 'morality'???

Oh and heterosexual morality and the church..........oh dear should we even go there?

Wonder now what the statistics are on heterosexual divorce and infidelity are?????? Sure gays are seen to jump from bed to bed but hey ever thought that maybe if just maybe our relationships were taken seriously by society we might have more respect ourselves for ouw own relationships? Like any relationship though they fail, we're human after all but i also know of loving lesbain relationships that have been going for near on 30 yrs and yet are still legally and socially denied!

As a heterosexual (assuming any are reading this thread still) would you be happy not having a relationship recognized at all after 30yrs with someone?

Did you knwo that if a gay partner dies that the remaining partner if not in a country lucky enough to have a 'relationship register' and be registered is legally entitled to NOTHING! even wills are easily disputed cos legally any biological takes precedence even over a WILL!!!
WorkAlone
Posted: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 12:35:20 AM

Rank: Cogent Sensualist

Joined: 2/27/2010
Posts: 1,516
Location: Subject to Change without Notice, Canada
I see that the soap box is free for moment so I'll climb up and offer my two cents.

[SOAP BOX MODE ON]

OK, so let's consider the religious aspect here. The Christian church (well, some, but not all variants of it) is against same-sex marriage. But, by a stroke of incredible luck, we have freedom of religion in much of the first world. So, one doesn't need to be Christian to be married. If marriage is strictly limited to the Christian church version, then only Chrisitans can be married. And yet, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and even Mormons are allowed to marry. Now how can this be? Let's consider the case where a church exists (and they do, the United Church, among others, is a Christian church that is very open to same-sex unions) that accepts same-sex marriage. If marriage is a religious institution and a religion accepts it, wouldn't that make it legal? What if I happen to be agnostic or even atheist, can I even get married if it's a religious institution? Admittedly, these are fairly ridiculous questions and so show that the argument can't be wholly won or lost on the basis that [some variants of] the Christian church are against same-sex marriage.

Now let's consider the whole 'wrongness' of homosexuality. Principle 1: If God controls everything, then all homosexuals are that way because God made them that way. Hmmm, don't like that one and think it's unnatural and a choice? Principle 2: Homosexuality has been observed in pretty much every species that has been studied, therefore, homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Not buying it yet? Read the Kinsey report to see just how common same-sex experiences are and then try to argue that it's an aberrance and unnatural. Or, look around here at how many of the women have expressed at least some passing interest in their own sex--doesn't seem so unnatural anymore, huh?

Moving on, let's try the procreation argument. If the purpose of marriage is procreation, it stands to reason that only couples that can procreate can be married. This neatly bars same-sex couples from being married. It also bars the aged, the impotent, the infertile, some disabled, and countless couples who have no intention to procreate. In fact, wouldn't simple condom or birth-control pill use be a breach of the purpose of marriage if it was solely for procreation and grounds for dissolution of the union? And wouldn't marriage, by definition, be invalid once the child-rearing was over? Nope, can't be all about procreation.

The insurance argument doesn't exactly hold water either. Yes, it is true that employers would need to extend family medical coverage to same-sex couples (in the US, every other civilized country in the world has government health care). But, let's be fair here, wouldn't that be true if they hetero'd up and married members of the opposite sex? Based on statistics, the incidence of homosexuality is in the 5-10% range. So this may increase the number of people on a company's family health plan by 5-10%--hardly breaking the bank, certainly when compared to the number of breeders who pop out babies who consume more than their share of medical treatment dollars. The cost would also be offset by potentially having a similar number of workers covered by their same-sex spouse's insurance from their spouse's job and thereby reducing the insurance premiums. Overall, it would represent a very small change.

Live and let live, I say. None of the arguments hold water and are clearly all based on bigotry and the queasiness some people feel when they think of two men having intercourse; as if straight couples didn't engage in a little anal from time to time, lol.

For what it's worth, I'm straight, but I don't see why it's any of my business, or anyone else's who chooses to marry whom or what their motivations may be, as long as it's consentual, let 'em at it. As long as I can still marry who I want to marry (assuming he/she wants to marry me too) and have sex with them in whatever way we decide to have sex, it's none of my business who others choose to marry or what they do (consentually) in their bedrooms.

[SOAP BOX MODE OFF]

Looking around and seeing a line forming so I sheepishly climb down off the soap box to let the next speaker climb up.
Ian
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 5:07:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 2/12/2010
Posts: 89
we've seen slavery turned into equal rights and cows turned into a McDonalds...

i say we just wait 20 years, then ask why gay marriage WAS seen that way lol
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:34:56 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,477
Location: Cakeland, United States


Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Guest
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:41:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
Bravo WMM...I'm a huge advocate of gay rights...I'm such a fag hag lol...and it's true humour makes ignorant homophobes look as small as they act(grins)...Well done for posting that video... it gave me a good giggle
Guest
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:47:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 675,560
Wait do I have to be serious?? (pouts)...If pocket lint wanted to get married does it affect me?...No...Two men.Two women..who cares...Live and let live...If they want to express their love by marriage like straight people then good for them...
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, September 09, 2010 5:10:05 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,477
Location: Cakeland, United States
A number of years ago, I happened to be working in a cubicle farm for awhile before I could post out to my current career field. I worked on a floor as a glorified data entry clerk/robot with about 150 women and maybe six or seven other dudes (most of those were first level supes).

But across the low 48 inch tall divider from me, sat Monte. Very likable fellow, funny as hell...I would, even then at the age of 30, live somewhat vicariously through him and his wild partying tales.

Immediately behind me sat my effeminate yet 'I am a heterosexual, Jeff!' affable and snappy dressing cohort - Marvin. African american, uber liberal and interracially married to a nice Caucasian lady. Marv was a few years younger than I.

Monte, at 21, was flamboyantly gay and by gosh he was out of the closet and getting into yours! lol

All around the three of us men, sat 20 to 27 year old young married and single women with a very small % of divorcee's.

Monte would come in some mornings and just light in on reveling us all with his previous evenings sexploits. His voice carried and especially when he would stand up, at 6' height...he could broadcast in a normal voice level to people three cubicle aisles away in all directions.

"Oh my god, then he shot his load down my throat and I was literally, like gagging, drowning in cum...I had to tap out, I was so blowing cum bubbles out my nose...!"

Baby Lee, the notorious 28 year old black woman on her third 'white boy' husband would stand up, hands on hips and remark: "Monte, can you shut the fuck up? We don't come in here and discuss our sex lives with our husbands or boyfriends."

I'd see him standing outside on the smoking patio/balcony and tell him..."Hey man, I get it...we all get it...but just tone it down a bit in there, will'ya? You're setting yourself up for a sexual harassment lawsuit."

I liked 'em all...my coworkers, I mean. A very colorful bunch of 20 somethings (back in the day) evil4



Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
mercianknight
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 6:55:35 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,027
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
I have read, pondered and digested all the comments and, for me, had my own epiphany.

Firstly, we should all rejoice in the freedoms that we do enjoy and revel in our own expressions of individualism, earned and fought so hard for in the 'western' civilisations. Sure we can pick at the flaws of our governments, but try being openly gay in places like China or Iran before you get pompous. Additionally, whilst there has been a lot of 'christianity' bashing in this thread, that is not the focus of the thread, so cool it. Christianity is far from perfect but way more tolerant of gays than some other religions we could name.

My vote goes to Jebru for a well written discourse. Gay union/marriage in no way threatens we heterosexuals and I see no reason to prevent their civil union if they so wish - and be damned the adjustment to actuarial tables, most of those models are flawed anyway.

Where I will dig my heels in, as so eloquently stated already, is in demanding protection for the churches from the adversarial minority who will insist on trying to get married in a church 'building' and who will try to sue should the church refuse. I have no tolerance for that type of person who are probably merely looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
LadyX
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 9:23:23 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
mercianknight wrote:

Where I will dig my heels in, as so eloquently stated already, is in demanding protection for the churches from the adversarial minority who will insist on trying to get married in a church 'building' and who will try to sue should the church refuse. I have no tolerance for that type of person who are probably merely looking for their 15 minutes of fame.


I agree with that completely- I don't think any church should be forced to host any event that they don't want to- whether it be a wedding, or anything else. I'd hope that churches would be tolerant enough to open their house of worship to gay couples, but many probably won't, and that should be their rights, along with the backlash they probably deserve. First amendment rights don't exempt you from the reaction of others to your exercising of rights.

The part of the same post that I've seen in other posts too- which I'll never buy- is the argument of: "Well, it could be worse! Imagine if you lived in ________! See? Now you don't have anything to complain about!"

Of course gay rights are unacceptable in China, North Korea, Iran, Nazi Germany, etc.- but that has nothing to do with anything. The fact that something is awful in another place doesn't mean we should suddenly drop any concerns we have where we are. I guess Civil Rights for all races should never have occurred; after all, blacks had it better here at the time than they did in South Africa. Women shouldn't have been given the right to vote- after all, they were still without rights in many areas of the Middle East. Actually, that's still true- maybe we shouldn't be able to vote, and instead should be happy that we don't have to wear burquas in public. Somebody remind victims of police brutality that in Algeria, they'd just be shot on sight without a trial. That ought to satisfy them.

You fight for what's right, even if those who frankly aren't concerned with somebody else's rights thinks it just "pompous". What happened to striving for what's right, regardless of who else is getting it wrong?

sprite
Posted: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:38:21 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 16,836
Location: My Tower, United States
Magical_felix wrote:
I think the people who are against gay marriage are just homophobes. Simple as that.


i just love people who start out their argument with... "Not that i have anything against gays, but..." really, if they need a qualifier, obviously they have an issue. i have to agree. they are usually bigot who need to disguise their bigotry by having a 'valid' reason to be against homosexuality. same thing applies to adoption rights or allowing partners hospital access. there's no good reason for it beyond simple fear/hatred.

Live, love, laugh.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.