There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, it does not hurt anyone or have any proven negative effect. This will be essentially my be all, end all say in the matter, it is not but I will not continue to respond to people who cannot find more than 2 minutes to read a few paragraphs.
So let me put it to you all straight: If you are "against" homosexuality, it is, as things currently stand, an invalid opinion. I'm sick of people flaunting their right to hate, there is nothing wrong with being gay, therefore you are holding a discriminative opinion. Whether you act on it or not, it is an invalid view that is not backed by real evidence and so much as stating it can be offensive.
Until it is shown otherwise, please keep it to yourself and think of POSITIVE rather than negative aspects of people that are different for you. It's much like people declaring my Gods to be demons - why can't they be saints or angels, or something else instead, that I see as God? Why does it always have to be demons?
But with a particular breed of Christian, it's ALWAYS demons. The same applies with gay people, who are different, therefore demonic in their actions.
Hating the sin and not the sinner doesn't generally work out because love is such a big part of human life. Pat Robertson very often only denounces homosexuality rather than homosexuals(which he tends to do about 1/3 as often from the quotes Iv'e seen), but he's still raising a new generation of impressionables to hate gay people.
Most people don't distinguish between sin and sinner. In my opinion, Sin is a lousy concept, but if you're going to believe in it, believe in it in a way that actually makes sense.
Nobody can force you to be tolerant of gay people, but you have to realise that it's your behaviour which has proven to be unethical, unfair, even indirectly deadly if it leads people to suicide, and not homosexuals, and you need to take the responsibility that it's your flaw, not theirs.
I can safely say it's invalid also, because there are never any reasonable, logical arguments against it, and they are nearly always based on religion or conversatist "stay the same for the sake of tradition" ideals.
It's an excuse to be an assjacket. And yes Didy, that includes you disagreeing for "Biblical" reasons. However great the Bible is it was written in a very different time, and was "moderated" by people who were less than holy(roman emporers being one), so it's important to reinterpet it in a manner that makes sense. You have every opportunity to believe what you like, and form your own opinion. "The Bible says so" is no excuse.
It's impossible *not* to pick and choose with the bible. I haven't read all of it, but I know enough about it ot know that if you wear cotton, you're just about as guilty as Joe Bummer.
You have a responsibility to choose what you believe and use it in a manner that is not offensive and hateful. You cannot be an absolutist, therefore the bible is not an adaquate defense. Just because it seems to be "in the bible" doesn't mean you have to agree with your initial reading of it.
The Bible is not supported by fact. It may make sense to you, and there is a chance it could be at least a bit right because so many people identify with it, but you have to keep in mind that a lot of people only believe because their parents essentially forced them too by teaching them that it was the only valid path and alternatives send them to hell, and it cannot be used in a debate, partially for this reason. There is no debating this. Ask anyone who has any level of experience in debate.
When you debate, you can only use things to back you up which are either anecdotal(which only account for very mild evidence), statistical, or generally scientific. Arguing from your personal beliefs is no different from using an opinion as fact.
Again, I'm not making this up. Read up on debating, and how to and not to do it.
I will not answer any further ridiculous questions and statements on how it "could" be right. People that beleived there was an australia without knowing were far more likely to be wrong than right, even if it turned out it did exist. Please learn the concepts of probability.
If you "disagree" with homosexuality, you are wrong, as it's not a form of behaviour that leaves room for any level of disagreement. Whether or not it can be "reprogrammed", it cannot be changed by natural, safe and concious means. Therefore, it is a part of someone's self, and if it is sinful, it is putting people naturally on an unfair platform which is heavily discriminatory. And not all people have the same amount of "tests". Right and wrong should be based on concious intent of action, not impulses that are difficult to resists and serves no greater good to do so.
"Am homosexual", and "against homosexuality" are not views. One is a romantic and sexual orientation, the other is a dislike of that orientation, which is more of a feeling than an opinion.
It is NOT on an equal level, because being homosexual, or even having homosexual friends takes up a vast part of someone's life, whereas your "opinion" is most likely a part of your life that hardly effects you.
They are not worth the same. The fact that the anti-gay argument changes this basic idea of weighing up who is effective further invalidates the movement.
Making people vote for gay marriage should be utterly illegal for that reason. If you vote against gay marriage because you do not "agree" with it, you have done something very bad, and I won't molly coddle you over it and pretend to tolerate what you've done like some pro-gay people do. You Funk up. You need to never do anything that stupid again.
The vote you got wasn't for gay marriage. It was "Should we enforce our beliefs on others?". Just think what else they can get away with now. All you need to do is take a vote on a minority you know people don't like much, and you can screw them over any way you wish.
Wonderful loophole.
If you voted against gay marriage, you voted that it is perfectly acceptable to force your ideals on other people. I can't see how you can do that and call yourself a decent, tolerant person
Gay Marriage effects everyone, but only minisculely. Votes should be weighed on how much something effects someone, or it does not make sense, and makes minority rights a huge struggle.
Saying that it's fair because it was voted in is like saying it was fair that a group of people got to vote on whether John gets to go out with the girl he loves or not(Who nobody much likes), but it's fair since he was equally represented with his single vote. This is EXACTLY what it's like and is once more, utterly irrefutable.
"It was voted for, you were equally represented", and "Marriage is for gay people too: They can marry a woman if they want!"
Are snide, evil, disgusting comments neo-cons use to rub the fact that ignorance and hatred is held above individuality into every decent person's face.
Paedophilia and marriage doesn't count because paedophilia sexual acts are outlawed and sodomy isn't, which is where it's comparable. Polygamy is not only rarer, but most people are capable of identifying how it opens up certain loopholes.
Number is far different to gender, also. Romantic love generally only works between too people, and gay love just blurrs the genders.
Though that said, there are so few polygmaists that it may not even cause harm.
I do know one "poly" person and am not against her orientation. I'm not sure she's like to marry two people, however, but Polygamy involves changing the system a lot more than removing gender restrictions as rights and benefits apply to more people than just two. It really does rewrite the concept of a traditional relationship.
Not to mention, nowhere near as many people are for it, and resisting gay marriage will not affect how polygamy stands as it is the support and not approval which determines it's success.
There is no way of determining non-human consent.
Gay Marriage has been set up in Spain and a few other places in Europe. The system has not fallen apart. There is no reason to believe the same will happen in the U.S., and if it might, it's the system that needs changing.
Higher rates of divorce would only be because gay people aren't used to being married. It will take a few years before acceptable protocol in a homosexual marriage starts to form.
The point is people need the same *relative* rights. Christians don't necessarily need the right to have a Bar Mitzah in public, but if we don't have the right for Bar Mitzahs, then Jewish people won't get to do it. Is that fair? After all, everyone gets the same rights.
Very few systems go out of their way to deny people rights. They simply make sure the meaning of particular rights are out of reach to those that they do not wish to have them.
It's sneaky, it's bad, and if you support it, I have little respect for you or your "decision">
You can apply that to EVERYTHING. Gun laws apply to people who own them, stealing applys to people who steal. You don't persecute a thief who's never stolen. More specifically, unemployment benefits ONLY go to those that are unemployed, because that's a relative right that they need to survive in order to live and function and hopefully find a new job.
Why unemployment benefits but no gay marriage? After all, sick, depressed, ill people who are unable to work still get the same rights as everyone else.
That's like banning wheelchairs and claiming disabled people can get around like everyone else.
People need to accept and own up to their flaws. We all have them, especially me, though some are more harmful than others.
I'm long done trying to tolerate the other sides intolerant. If you want your "views" to be tolerated, then you have to base them on acceptance and not rejecting. Tolerating intolerance is no better than not tolerating in the first place.
This isn't a battle of "opinion". Opinion is whether or not a war may be ethical, as it involves hurting people and leaves room open for debate, politics, and your view on current afairs. Prejudice is not an opinion, it's a character flaw.
If you tell me to "See the other side", there is no other side. How you deal with homosexuals *is* most certianly your choice, and quite frankly we don't give a crap if it upsets you that people are acting the way they are naturally imposed, your opinions are what is unnatural and if your own bigotry hurts you that is your own fault and you should seek ways to become more tolerant, not reinforce your right to incitement to hatred.
People like Pat Robertson cause far too much harm to be allowed on the airwaves. As it is, your media is moderated, so it would not do harm to have an independant organisation, like the ITC in Britian, prevent people like him from going too far. It has been tried, and it does work in Britian. Free Speech has not crumbled under itself because hateful, nor has P.C. completely taken over even if it sometimes goes too far.
You blurt out how important Free Speech is and how you'd fight to the death to defend someone's right to say what you don't agree with.
Which is complete rubbish, because at the end of the day people make a bigger deal, because they like to be the ones that think in terms of "Ah, the bigots are bad, but I know that some gays will do the same, so I can be on a whole new second level of intelligence by second guessing the situation!" which ends up giving bigots more rights than those protesting against them, which is currently the case in the U.S.
This isn't about agreement, or opinion. It's about prejudice and discrimination, and there are no two ways around it. You do not "agree" or "disagree" with prejudice and discrimination. Either it is wrong(as it usually is), or it is based on something which IS harmful(paedophilia, murderer), but even if it is harmful, we should seek to try and help these people if they are not truly evil, instead of shaming them and destroying yet another life.
Right, that's about everything.
If you "hate gays", or even believe in discrimination of any form against them, you are wrong, and need to find a way to work better with people different from yourself. Because of the fact that being anti-gay involves rewriting logic and reason itself, it is an invalid stance.
End of argument.
|
