NationStates Jolt Archive

How is it that opponents of gay marriage can get away with recycling the same arguments (and I use the term generously) that were used by racists 50 years ago? Why is it that so many people are unable to learn from history, and unable to recognize that today's homophobes will, in the end, be regarded in much the way we regard anti-misceginationists of the past?

Here are some similarities I can see:

1. Argument of God's will.

Basically, that God didn't want it so we shouldn't either. In 1959, a mixed-race couple was put on trial for violation of laws against mixed-race marriage, and the trial judge had this to say:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

This argument is the easiest to throw away, since we all know that speculation about what an all-powerful Creator may or may not want is not considered grounds for law in any civilized nation.

2. Argument of "equal oppression."

This is the idea that since all people are allowed the freedom to marry only a person of the opposite sex, it doesn't count as discrimination because gay people labor under the same restriction as white people. The Virginia State court made this same argument in support of its laws prohibiting mixed-race marriage:

"The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."

This argument wasn't good enough for the US Supreme Court back then, and I don't see any reason why it should be good enough for us today.

3. Argument that it is in the best interests of the State and the people to defend racism/homophobia.

In Naim v. Naim (1955) the Virginia State Court of Appeals concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride." It is easy to see the similarities to today, when it is often claimed that the government must protect the "sexual purity" of its citizens, prevent the corruption of sexuality, and the obliteration of traditional sexual values.

4. Argument of tradition.

The claim that marriage has always been defined a certain way, and therefore we shouldn't change it. This was exactly the same argument raised by those who saw no reason to overturn laws against mixed-race marriage; such mixed-race marriages had been prohibited since the founding colonies, so why make them legal and violate the traditional definition? Fortunately this argument was tossed aside by the courts, proving that the definition of marriage is not graven in stone, and that we can and do change our traditions for the better.

5. Argument from inability to procreate.

Supposed "biological evidence" was often referred to that claimed mixed-race couples could not produce children, and therefore that their marriages had no value. This is quite similar to myths that homosexual couples cannot have children or make families, and is often cited as a reason to deny marital status. The reality is that homosexuality and infertility are not linked, and homosexuals can have biological children through a variety of means.

This argument also is an insult to all adopted children and adoptive families, as it totally devalues the wonderful act of welcoming an otherwise unwanted child into a loving home.

Finally, this argument also supposes that inability or unwillingness to produce children should disqualify a couple from marriage, yet that is not a standard currently applied to heterosexual couples; infertile couples are permitted to wed or to remain married, and a study from the late 90s showed that over 4 million married couples in America described themselves as "childless by choice," with no intent to ever have children.

6. The infamous "slippery slope" argument.

This is the one you see most often, the claim that if we allow gay people to wed then next we will be allowing people to marry animals or toasters or whathaveyou. History has proven how pathetic this sort of falacy is, since it was claimed that allowing inter-racial marriage would lead instantly to legalized polygamy, incest, beastiality and necrophilia...more than 50 years later, we can all see how stupid those claims really were. Not to mention the fact that we can, and do, draw the line in all our legal judgments; claiming that gay marriage is a slippery slope to things like beastiality is like claiming that if we allow adults to drive cars then we're starting down a slippery slope to letting infants drive cars.


That's what I have for now...feel free to add more if you think of any.

ARGH! LOGIC! IT BURNS! IT BUUURRNS US, PRECIOUSSSS!!! *howls*

There is a simple flaw in the pro-Gay marriage lobby which they fail to appricate. They believe that they are comming from a high and mighty "Equality for all" viewpoint, and anyone who opposes is a bigot/homophobe. However there viewpoint is nothing more than an ideology. No more no less. It is no supiror to any other ideology, including the Christian belief that Gay marriage is wrong. And to deal with your racism point

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."

Colossians 3:11

There is a simple flaw in the pro-Gay marriage lobby which they fail to appricate. They believe that they are comming from a high and mighty "Equality for all" viewpoint, and anyone who opposes is a bigot/homophobe. However there viewpoint is nothing more than an ideology. No more no less. It is no supiror to any other ideology, including the Christian belief that Gay marriage is wrong. And to deal with your racism point

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."

Colossians 3:11

so what you are saying is that you are unable to respond to any of my points. gotcha.

There is a simple flaw in the pro-Gay marriage lobby which they fail to appricate. They believe that they are comming from a high and mighty "Equality for all" viewpoint, and anyone who opposes is a bigot/homophobe. However there viewpoint is nothing more than an ideology. No more no less. It is no supiror to any other ideology, including the Christian belief that Gay marriage is wrong. And to deal with your racism point

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."

Colossians 3:11
Point one--there is no "christian belief that gay marriage is wrong." There are certain sects of christianity that believe that to be the case, but as there is no single doctrine of christianity as a whole, there can be no overarching christian belief about anything having to do with same-sex marriage.

Secondly, as the US is a secular--not a christian--society, the use of scripture to make a point is a bit ludicrous. Use the Constitution instead, since that's what we base our laws on. Bottle is exactly right--there is no realistic difference between the arguments made by anti-miscegenation lawmakers in the fifties and same-sex marriage opponents today. It's discriminatory, plain and simple.

There is a simple flaw in the pro-Gay marriage lobby which they fail to appricate. They believe that they are comming from a high and mighty "Equality for all" viewpoint, and anyone who opposes is a bigot/homophobe. However there viewpoint is nothing more than an ideology. No more no less. It is no supiror to any other ideology, including the Christian belief that Gay marriage is wrong. And to deal with your racism point

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."

Colossians 3:11

You're completely right. There is nothing wrong with christians thinking that gay marriage is wrong.

There is nothing wrong, also with the christians and non-christians seeing nothing wrong with it.

Neither ideology is superior. Now, do you really want the government in the business of picking ideologies?

Neither ideology is superior. Now, do you really want the government in the business of picking ideologies?
of course, as long as they pick HIS ideology!

so what you are saying is that you are unable to respond to any of my points. gotcha.

I never said that, I simpley said that people who support Gay marriage need to get off their high horse and take a look around. Their beliefs are not supirior to anyone elses. Going round calling anyone who doesnt agree with you a bigot or closed minded means that you to are being closed minded. Wake up and smell the roses Bottle, pro-homosexual marriage is not the only opinion with validty. And now I will deal with your arguement. Many christians believe that homosexual sex is a sin, acording to the Bible. Thus allowing homosexuals to be married is putting their sin on a pedistal to the world and glorifying it. I only subscribe to arguement 1, not the other five. There is nothing in the Bible to sugest that inter racial marriage is prohibited. There is to sugest that between a Christian and a Non Chrisitan is a bad idea, but thats faith not race.

Neither ideology is superior. Now, do you really want the government in the business of picking ideologies?

Once the ideologies are out of the way it is down to numbers. Those who support and oppose. If a government is voted in that in its electoral manifesto promised to prohibit Gay marriage then it would seem that it is democratic to ban Gay marriage.

There is a simple flaw in the pro-Gay marriage lobby which they fail to appricate. They believe that they are comming from a high and mighty "Equality for all" viewpoint, and anyone who opposes is a bigot/homophobe. However there viewpoint is nothing more than an ideology. No more no less. It is no supiror to any other ideology, including the Christian belief that Gay marriage is wrong.
I'm not entirely clear on where you're going with this. Is it your opinion that morality is relative? Is it your opinion that morality is defined only on the basis of what a community of people mutually agree constitutes acceptable behavior?

And to deal with your racism point

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."

Colossians 3:11
I don't see where you're going with this.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Once the ideologies are out of the way it is down to numbers. Those who support and oppose. If a government is voted in that in its electoral manifesto promised to prohibit Gay marriage then it would seem that it is democratic to ban Gay marriage.
Except that we make allowances to prevent the 'tyrany of the majority' so that we don't oppress or subjegate a part of the populace because we think their love is 'icky.'

Except that we make allowances to prevent the 'tyrany of the majority' so that we don't oppress or subjegate a part of the populace because we think their love is 'icky.'
Well, in theory anyway....

Except that we make allowances to prevent the 'tyrany of the majority' so that we don't oppress or subjegate a part of the populace because we think their love is 'icky.'

Good point. If majority always ruled, rich white male landowners would be the only ones voting.

Well, in theory anyway....
Yeah, I probably should have said, "We should have..."

Good point. If majority always ruled, rich white male landowners would be the only ones voting.
or still being the only ones voting...

It's not the Bible that people shouldn't be gay or lesbian, eh?

Read:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22


I am for gay marriage. I say let them be. Just wanted to point that out to you people!

Except that we make allowances to prevent the 'tyrany of the majority' so that we don't oppress or subjegate a part of the populace because we think their love is 'icky.'

So then how do you decide? If no ideology is supiror then it must come down to numbers must it not? What other way is there?

So then how do you decide? If no ideology is supiror then it must come down to numbers must it not? What other way is there?

So you're saying that it was wrong for the government to allow interracial marriages just becuase most of the people back then were against it?

Once the ideologies are out of the way it is down to numbers. Those who support and oppose. If a government is voted in that in its electoral manifesto promised to prohibit Gay marriage then it would seem that it is democratic to ban Gay marriage.

Tyranny by majority, nice. You'll do well when I take over the world. You've already got a knack for tyranny.

Bottle, your post is perfect.

Wake up and smell the roses Bottle, pro-homosexual marriage is not the only opinion with validty.
If the anti-gay marriage idea is so valid, then why can't its proponents come up with any good arguments?

If a government is voted in that in its electoral manifesto promised to prohibit Gay marriage then it would seem that it is democratic to ban Gay marriage.
That's not democratic, that's tyranny of the majority.

So then how do you decide? If no ideology is supiror then it must come down to numbers must it not? What other way is there?
You're arguing that no ideology is superior, but you haven't provided any basis for that contention. Part of the problem is that I think you're using ideology incorrectly for this discussion.

If everything comes down to numbers, as you say, then souldn't Al Gore have won the 2000 election? I mean, if you put aside the ideoligies that support and oppose the electoral college, it comes to numbers. And the numbers say Gore was the winner. Explain that one.

It's not the Bible that people shouldn't be gay or lesbian, eh?

Read:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22


I am for gay marriage. I say let them be. Just wanted to point that out to you people!

Leviticus isn't a real part of the bible.

Well if no ideology is superior, than I can assert that Aryans are better than Jews right? And if you call me a racist...you're just being intolerant and intellectually arrogant.

I've said for awhile that its all the same interracial marriage arguments being dressed up for modern times (in fact, laws are still on the books in some states meant to "protect" them from interracial couples coming from other states...and such laws are now being used against homosexual couples), but you did well getting the actual quotes from court cases outlining the exact same sentiments expressed today.

And, lest Christians think they're being oppressed by seeing gay people marry, think about other faiths and non-faiths who feel oppressed NOT being allowed to marry?

What happened to the 'I don't care' argument to gay marriage. Watch:

1st guy: Hey, those two faggots over there wanna get married!

2nd guy: I don't care.

1st guy: You don't care?

2nd guy: Nope, not even a little bit.

1st guy: Why not?

2nd guy: They already live next door to me, and it's really none of my business, and it's really none of yours either since you don't even live in this part of town.

1st guy: hmm. good point. Why should I care.

2nd guy: you shouldn't.

1st guy: wow! not caring is so much easier!

It's not the Bible that people shouldn't be gay or lesbian, eh?

Read:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22


I am for gay marriage. I say let them be. Just wanted to point that out to you people!
the bible also specifically states that any man who is injured in the genital region cannot be allowed into a church, and that children of mixed-race marriages are to likewise be banned from all churches and religious functions. my whole point was that this is utterly irrelevant to our system of law, since we don't base our law on the Bible.

If everything comes down to numbers, as you say, then souldn't Al Gore have won the 2000 election? I mean, if you put aside the ideoligies that support and oppose the electoral college, it comes to numbers. And the numbers say Gore was the winner. Explain that one.
I really think we should stay away from the Democrat vs Republican flamefest. There are 100000000000000000001 other threads for that.

You're arguing that no ideology is superior, but you haven't provided any basis for that contention. Part of the problem is that I think you're using ideology incorrectly for this discussion.
yeah, i was wondering about that, too. i mean, by his logic, if my "ideology" states that the killing and eating of human babies is a moral imperative, and my "ideology" is equal to any counter view, then nobody has a leg to stand on if they try to refuse me the right to eat babies.

What happened to the 'I don't care' argument to gay marriage. Watch:

1st guy: Hey, those two faggots over there wanna get married!

2nd guy: I don't care.

1st guy: You don't care?

2nd guy: Nope, not even a little bit.

1st guy: Why not?

2nd guy: They already live next door to me, and it's really none of my business, and it's really none of yours either since you don't even live in this part of town.

1st guy: hmm. good point. Why should I care.

2nd guy: you shouldn't.

1st guy: wow! not caring is so much easier!

I agree. The world would be a much better place if more people were as lazy as you or I.

Wake up and smell the roses Bottle, pro-homosexual marriage is not the only opinion with validty. And now I will deal with your arguement.
oh, don't misunderstand me, i think anti-homosexual marriage is just as valid as racism, sexism, or any other form of bigotry.

Why can't you bums realize how screwed up gay marriage is? It's messed up and abnormal.

As for rebutal of point number 5, if you can change the definition of a word as traditional as marriage for the "good of the state" then you can also change words as old as Freedom

Why can't you bums realize how screwed up gay marriage is? It's messed up and abnormal.

Thanks for playing. Now run along. Someone with an actual point to make might want your spot. :)

Why can't you bums realize how screwed up gay marriage is? It's messed up and abnormal.
oooh, good argument!

seriously, do you people not see how much you embarass yourselves when you make posts like that? somebody gives a detailed argument and you respond with nothing more substantive than "it's messed up and abnormal." thanks for proving my point, though...that's exactly what the racists said about mixed-race marriages :).

Why can't you bums realize how screwed up gay marriage is? It's messed up and abnormal.

So?

As for rebutal of point number 5, if you can change the definition of a word as traditional as marriage for the "good of the state" then you can also change words as old as Freedom
yes, you can, and we redefine and modify our legal freedoms all the time...what's your point?

yeah, i was wondering about that, too. i mean, by his logic, if my "ideology" states that the killing and eating of human babies is a moral imperative, and my "ideology" is equal to any counter view, then nobody has a leg to stand on if they try to refuse me the right to eat babies.
Exactly--it's the logically absurd result of that argument. Whether or not a ideology is superior depends on what you want the end result to be. If you're looking for a society with the largest possible "in-group," then you're in favor of same-sex marriage because it includes a subset currently excluded from the "in-group." If you'd rather have a society based on a set of laws that are at least 3,500 years old and were written for a society vastly different from the one we currently live in (in other words, if you're a social Luddite), then you're against same-sex marriage, because that bass-ackwards society is the one you hope to achieve. For me, the first option is the superior one. Obviously not the same for everyone.

So then how do you decide? If no ideology is supiror then it must come down to numbers must it not? What other way is there?
Interpreting the constitution? How about other historical document that say that every American is allowed rights like the pursuit of happiness. Surely it falls under the category of hapiness to be married to the one you love?

Theorically, numbers cannot be used to deny equality and justice for all.

There is a simple flaw in the pro-Gay marriage lobby which they fail to appricate. They believe that they are comming from a high and mighty "Equality for all" viewpoint, and anyone who opposes is a bigot/homophobe. However there viewpoint is nothing more than an ideology. No more no less. It is no supiror to any other ideology, including the Christian belief that Gay marriage is wrong

You know what?

You're right.

I do think I'm superior. I do think that I'm better then you. Vastly so. I do see myself as holding the higher moral ground then you do. And I do see you as a bigot/homophobe.

Know what the difference between the two of us is? History will prove me right-you and your arguments will one day be forgotten, you sad little man.

Why can't you bums realize how screwed up gay marriage is? It's messed up and abnormal.
Why don't you realize how screwed up the entire institution of marriage is, whether for straights, gays, or daisy-eating dragons?

I agree. The world would be a much better place if more people were as lazy as you or I.

No shit. As long I don't have to watch the honeymoon videos (unless it's two very hot lesbians) I really don't give a shit about it. If gay marriage is allowed, it'll be a big deal for about two weeks and then they'll move on to something else that'll 'decay our moral fabric' or something along those lines.

So then how do you decide? If no ideology is supiror then it must come down to numbers must it not? What other way is there?
no it doesnt come down to numbers

it comes down to freedom and actual harm

so bottle isnt free to eat babies because it implies harm to babies

so is there actual HARM to allowing gay marriage?
none that i can see, and several upsides (property rights, inheritance rights, survivor rights etc)

BUT. given that your ideology isnt WRONG, any more than any religious stance is right or wrong. YOU cant be forced into gay marriage, you cant be forced to ATTEND a gay wedding, you are free to join a denomination that will not recognize or perform gay weddings. you do not have to condone ANY KIND of gay relationship. that is your religous right and you will find many many people who will join you in those beliefs.

so bottle isnt free to eat babies because it implies harm to babies

get off your high horse! my ideology is just as valid! how dare you insult my culture's proud tradition of baby-eating! unless America passes laws requiring all people to eat babies, i am being oppressed!!!!

How is it that opponents of gay marriage can get away with recycling the same arguments (and I use the term generously) that were used by racists 50 years ago? Why is it that so many people are unable to learn from history, and unable to recognize that today's homophobes will, in the end, be regarded in much the way we regard anti-misceginationists of the past?

Here are some similarities I can see:

1. Argument of God's will.

Basically, that God didn't want it so we shouldn't either. In 1959, a mixed-race couple was put on trial for violation of laws against mixed-race marriage, and the trial judge had this to say:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

This argument is the easiest to throw away, since we all know that speculation about what an all-powerful Creator may or may not want is not considered grounds for law in any civilized nation.

2. Argument of "equal oppression."

This is the idea that since all people are allowed the freedom to marry only a person of the opposite sex, it doesn't count as discrimination because gay people labor under the same restriction as white people. The Virginia State court made this same argument in support of its laws prohibiting mixed-race marriage:

"The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."

This argument wasn't good enough for the US Supreme Court back then, and I don't see any reason why it should be good enough for us today.

3. Argument that it is in the best interests of the State and the people to defend racism/homophobia.

In Naim v. Naim (1955) the Virginia State Court of Appeals concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride." It is easy to see the similarities to today, when it is often claimed that the government must protect the "sexual purity" of its citizens, prevent the corruption of sexuality, and the obliteration of traditional sexual values.

4. Argument of tradition.

The claim that marriage has always been defined a certain way, and therefore we shouldn't change it. This was exactly the same argument raised by those who saw no reason to overturn laws against mixed-race marriage; such mixed-race marriages had been prohibited since the founding colonies, so why make them legal and violate the traditional definition? Fortunately this argument was tossed aside by the courts, proving that the definition of marriage is not graven in stone, and that we can and do change our traditions for the better.

5. Argument from inability to procreate.

Supposed "biological evidence" was often referred to that claimed mixed-race couples could not produce children, and therefore that their marriages had no value. This is quite similar to myths that homosexual couples cannot have children or make families, and is often cited as a reason to deny marital status. The reality is that homosexuality and infertility are not linked, and homosexuals can have biological children through a variety of means.

This argument also is an insult to all adopted children and adoptive families, as it totally devalues the wonderful act of welcoming an otherwise unwanted child into a loving home.

Finally, this argument also supposes that inability or unwillingness to produce children should disqualify a couple from marriage, yet that is not a standard currently applied to heterosexual couples; infertile couples are permitted to wed or to remain married, and a study from the late 90s showed that over 4 million married couples in America described themselves as "childless by choice," with no intent to ever have children.

6. The infamous "slippery slope" argument.

This is the one you see most often, the claim that if we allow gay people to wed then next we will be allowing people to marry animals or toasters or whathaveyou. History has proven how pathetic this sort of falacy is, since it was claimed that allowing inter-racial marriage would lead instantly to legalized polygamy, incest, beastiality and necrophilia...more than 50 years later, we can all see how stupid those claims really were. Not to mention the fact that we can, and do, draw the line in all our legal judgments; claiming that gay marriage is a slippery slope to things like beastiality is like claiming that if we allow adults to drive cars then we're starting down a slippery slope to letting infants drive cars.


That's what I have for now...feel free to add more if you think of any.

you act as if gays and lesbians are a seperate race of people or something. It really comes down to do you think gays are born that way or did they choose to be that way. I'll probably get flamed by saying it, but really think about it. Personaly I think about 95 percent of them choose to be that way.

you act as if gays and lesbians are a seperate race of people or something. It really comes down to do you think gays are born that way or did they choose to be that way. I'll probably get flamed by saying it, but really think about it. Personaly I think about 95 percent of them choose to be that way.
whether or not homosexuals are gay genetically or by choice is irrelevant. we aren't allowed to deny people rights based on an ideology they hold, any more than we are allowed to deny them rights based on accidents of birth. in either case, the right to wed cannot justly be denied to gay people if it is secured for straight people.

get off your high horse! my ideology is just as valid! how dare you insult my culture's proud tradition of baby-eating! unless America passes laws requiring all people to eat babies, i am being oppressed!!!!
*very stern look*

bottle, where are you getting these babies? unless they are your very own babies you cant eat them. (and you have said many times that you will never have babies of your own)

*very stern look*

bottle, where are you getting these babies? unless they are your very own babies you cant eat them. (and you have said many times that you will never have babies of your own)
i bought them babies, fair and square! 30K a head, and worth every delicious penny, they were!

whether or not homosexuals are gay genetically or by choice is irrelevant. we aren't allowed to deny people rights based on an ideology they hold, any more than we are allowed to deny them rights based on accidents of birth. in either case, the right to wed cannot justly be denied to gay people if it is secured for straight people.


what about people who wanna marry animals.Shouldn't we secure their rights too.

what about people who wanna marry animals.Shouldn't we secure their rights too.
they can want to marry animals all they wish, and they cannot be denied the right to marry based purely on their beastial leanings. however, a civil marital union is a legal contract under the law, and animals are not able to enter into contracts, therefore that person cannot marry an animal. they can believe in marriage to animals, and they cannot be denied the right to marry another human adult simply because they hold an unpopular belief, but no creature other than the human adult is able to give consent (and therefore only human adults can enter into civil marriage).

they can want to marry animals all they wish, and they cannot be denied the right to marry based purely on their beastial leanings. however, a civil marital union is a legal contract under the law, and animals are not able to enter into contracts, therefore that person cannot marry an animal. they can believe in marriage to animals, and they cannot be denied the right to marry another human adult simply because they hold an unpopular belief, but no creature other than the human adult is able to give consent (and therefore only human adults can enter into civil marriage).
what about a really smart ape

you act as if gays and lesbians are a seperate race of people or something. It really comes down to do you think gays are born that way or did they choose to be that way. I'll probably get flamed by saying it, but really think about it. Personaly I think about 95 percent of them choose to be that way.
whats it to YOU if they "choose" it?

i dont care if its genetic, the way they were raised or a flat out choice. love is love and if they want to make a permanent committment to each other i say FINE.

what about a really smart ape
what about a really smart ape? only human adults are able to give consent under the law. what about that is confusing to you?

what about people who wanna marry animals.Shouldn't we secure their rights too.

Here's one: maybe we should start minding our own business.

If a guy wants to shag a sheep, let him. As long as he does it on his own property, why should it matter to you?

I'm pretty sure you probably do some freaky things the rest of us rather not know about, so why don't we keep it that way. We don't wanna know what you do, don't try and tell other people what they should do.

i bought them babies, fair and square! 30K a head, and worth every delicious penny, they were!
slavery is outlawed by the constitution (isnt it?)

you should try kitty pot pie instead, just as tastey, WAY cheaper

Here's one: maybe we should start minding our own business.

If a guy wants to shag a sheep, let him. As long as he does it on his own property, why should it matter to you?

I'm pretty sure you probably do some freaky things the rest of us rather not know about, so why don't we keep it that way. We don't wanna know what you do, don't try and tell other people what they should do.

I wax my buttocks with electric eels. Wanna see some pics lol

slavery is outlawed by the constitution (isnt it?)

i'm not enslaving anybody, just eating them!

you should try kitty pot pie instead, just as tastey, WAY cheaper
but you have to skin them kitties or you get hair in your teeth. call me lazy, but i just wanna pop my meal in the oven and watch it crisp.

I wax my buttocks with electric eels. Wanna see some pics lol

Actually.......yeah.

Here's one: maybe we should start minding our own business.

If a guy wants to shag a sheep, let him. As long as he does it on his own property, why should it matter to you?

I'm pretty sure you probably do some freaky things the rest of us rather not know about, so why don't we keep it that way. We don't wanna know what you do, don't try and tell other people what they should do.

as long as it doesnt constitute cruelty to animals anyway.
sheep is probably fine but there are animals who would be harmed by such a thing and that should be as illegal as using bunnies to test eye makeup

i'm not enslaving anybody, just eating them!

but you have to skin them kitties or you get hair in your teeth. call me lazy, but i just wanna pop my meal in the oven and watch it crisp.

buying and selling people IS slavery

THAT is the bad part.

noooo you just hold the kitten over the burner and the hair singes off

as long as it doesnt constitute cruelty to animals anyway.
sheep is probably fine but there are animals who would be harmed by such a thing and that should be as illegal as using bunnies to test eye makeup

Alot of priest do it with little boys without harming them..

(and are against gay marriages btw)

buying and selling people IS slavery

THAT is the bad part.

babies are entres, not people.


noooo you just hold the kitten over the burner and the hair singes off
hmm, your recipe intrigues me...dinner and a show rolled into one, essentially...i like it!

very well, you've won me over! no more baby eating for Bottle, now i shall simply fry kittens alive and eat their crispy corpses! that is my ideology, and nobody can tell me it is less valid than any other ideology! the government is obligated to recognize the torture and consumption of kittens as a valid perspective, and to defend the rights of those who wish kitten-frying to be a mandatory requirement for matrimony! after all, no person who refuses to kill a kitten can possible be moral, according to my ideology, and it would be an insult to the sanctity of marriage to allow them to wed. kitten-frying should be written into the Constitution as a requirement for all marriages, otherwise i am being oppressed.

Alot of priest do it with little boys without harming them..

(and are against gay marriages btw)
SOME priest do it with LOTS of little boys and i think that if you asked the boys (and former boys) they would dispute the "without harming them" part

and *smack* there IS a difference between sheep and boys eh?

I want the to do it with the olsen twins.. This is a one of the major ideologies in this country so we should be allowed to do it otherwise the majority of this country is being opressed...

Alot of priest do it with little boys without harming them..

it is impossible to have sex with a child without harming that child. period. no child can consent to sex, therefore all sex with a child is rape.

I want the to do it with the olsen twins.. This is a one of the major ideologies in this country so we should be allowed to do it otherwise the majority of this country is being opressed...
if the Olsen twins consent to have sex with you then that's fine, and you are more than allowed to do it. you are not allowed to have sex with any non-consenting person, however, and the Olsen twins have the right to be protected by that law just as all people do.

babies are entres, not people.


hmm, your recipe intrigues me...dinner and a show rolled into one, essentially...i like it!

very well, you've won me over! no more baby eating for Bottle, now i shall simply fry kittens alive and eat their crispy corpses! that is my ideology, and nobody can tell me it is less valid than any other ideology! the government is obligated to recognize the torture and consumption of kittens as a valid perspective, and to defend the rights of those who wish kitten-frying to be a mandatory requirement for matrimony! after all, no person who refuses to kill a kitten can possible be moral, according to my ideology, and it would be an insult to the sanctity of marriage to allow them to wed. kitten-frying should be written into the Constitution as a requirement for all marriages, otherwise i am being oppressed.
so when can i expect the first BFK (bottle fried kitten) franchise to open up?

SOME priest do it with LOTS of little boys and i think that if you asked the boys (and former boys) they would dispute the "without harming them" part

and *smack* there IS a difference between sheep and boys eh?

Well they wouldnt feel the same way about it if not every1 told them it was wrong afterwards.. wouldnt they..

so when can i expect the first BFK (bottle fried kitten) franchise to open up?
as soon as i can get those Humane Society killjoys to see the light.

I want the to do it with the olsen twins.. This is a one of the major ideologies in this country so we should be allowed to do it otherwise the majority of this country is being opressed...

OHMYGOD thats sick!!
the olsen twins! EWWWWWWWW

Well they wouldnt feel the same way about it if not every1 told them it was wrong afterwards.. wouldnt they..
i don't know if you are joking or just really ignorant, but i am going to assume it is ignorance because of how disgusting it would be to joke about something like molestation.

i urge you to speak with mental health professionals and councilors who know about child sexual abuse; they will help you to understand that the damage caused by such abuse is serious and is not created by society's negative view of sex with children. please educate yourself before you go around saying things like what you have been posting.

if the Olsen twins consent to have sex with you then that's fine, and you are more than allowed to do it. you are not allowed to have sex with any non-consenting person, however, and the Olsen twins have the right to be protected by that law just as all people do.

Laws can change if alot of people want it to..
Gay marriages is also forbidden by law but that is about to change to.. its just a matter of time..

i don't know if you are joking or just really ignorant, but i am going to assume it is ignorance because of how disgusting it would be to joke about something like molestation.

i urge you to speak with mental health professionals and councilors who know about child sexual abuse; they will help you to understand that the damage caused by such abuse is serious and is not created by society's negative view of sex with children. please educate yourself before you go around saying things like what you have been posting.

hehehe u are sick for trying to force ur way of thinking on me.. ur probs anti everyone thats not the same as u arn't u

Well they wouldnt feel the same way about it if not every1 told them it was wrong afterwards.. wouldnt they..

thats quite an assumption.

i think that many many of them WOULD think it was wrong/yucky. there may be some few who dont qualify as "boys" (say a 17 year old) who had a genuine fondness for the priest who sexually exploited them. but a 10 year old boy isnt very likely to LIKE the experience of being molested.

hehehe u are sick for trying to force ur way of thinking on me.. ur probs anti everyone thats not the same as u arn't u
this is where we get back to the test of freedom vs harm

the sexual exploitation of children is harmful so we have laws against it. even if the child "consents", if they are below a certain age it is considered rape.

to force the olsen twins to have sex with anyone who has that "sex with twins" fantasy would cause them harm, so no dice on changing that rule either.

if you are sexually attracted to SHEEP, then as long as you arent using someone elses sheep ( a kind of theft) or harming the sheep (animal cruelty) then its your business. just PLEASE do it in private *shudder*

thats quite an assumption.

i think that many many of them WOULD think it was wrong/yucky. there may be some few who dont qualify as "boys" (say a 17 year old) who had a genuine fondness for the priest who sexually exploited them. but a 10 year old boy isnt very likely to LIKE the experience of being molested.

If I was raised with different moral standards then I have now then I would properbly like every orgasm Id get.. even if it was with a catholic priest.. If it would be seen as normal as Black and white walking nxt to eachother what was really odd some time ago then it wouldn't be a problem tho.. so it could be "harmless" in the future



(im not a pedo btw :) )

Gay marriages arent weird at all in my country.. or drugs use for that matter.. its just a matter of perspective.. if such things are allowed then the next generation wouldn't even be bothered by it

EDIT: and bottle, yes people can get psychological damage from child abuse, but not if its an accepted thing

and no im not pro kiddysex, im just messing around..

Not to nitpick... but a... bit... less ellipses... would make your point... clearer... :)

If I was raised with different moral standards then I have now then I would properbly like every orgasm Id get.. even if it was with a catholic priest.. If it would be seen as normal as Black and white walking nxt to eachother what was really odd some time ago then it wouldn't be a problem tho.. so it could be "harmless" in the future



(im not a pedo btw :) )

*gives infinite the look*

you are assuming the boy have orgasms.

hehehe u are sick for trying to force ur way of thinking on me.. ur probs anti everyone thats not the same as u arn't u
if you believe that non-consentual sex is okay, or that American law could be changed to permit non-consentual sex, then you are both sick and ignorant. again, i urge you to educate yourself. right now you are just an embarassment.

what is interesting to me is that, after 6 pages, not ONE serious response to my post has been presented. interesting, and disappointing...if preventing gay marriage is so important, why is nobody willing to step forward and seriously discuss it?

babies are entres, not people.


hmm, your recipe intrigues me...dinner and a show rolled into one, essentially...i like it!

very well, you've won me over! no more baby eating for Bottle, now i shall simply fry kittens alive and eat their crispy corpses! that is my ideology, and nobody can tell me it is less valid than any other ideology! the government is obligated to recognize the torture and consumption of kittens as a valid perspective, and to defend the rights of those who wish kitten-frying to be a mandatory requirement for matrimony! after all, no person who refuses to kill a kitten can possible be moral, according to my ideology, and it would be an insult to the sanctity of marriage to allow them to wed. kitten-frying should be written into the Constitution as a requirement for all marriages, otherwise i am being oppressed.

The way I see it is that yes everyone has different moral oppinions. To take action on these I think they have to go through two filters.

1) Does doing this harm anyone/thing else. eg murder is not acceptable but wearing a certain type of clothing is.
2) Am I trying to force this on anyone/thing else. eg A man can walk around wearing a hat made from newspaper, that is acceptable. He cannot however attempt to force me into wearing the same hat.

I understand that these examples are easy and that some bluring occurs with some issues but you get the general idea.

The way I see it is that yes everyone has different moral oppinions. To take action on these I think they have to go through two filters.

1) Does doing this harm anyone/thing else. eg murder is not acceptable but wearing a certain type of clothing is.
2) Am I trying to force this on anyone/thing else. eg A man can walk around wearing a hat made from newspaper, that is acceptable. He cannot however attempt to force me into wearing the same hat.

I understand that these examples are easy and that some bluring occurs with some issues but you get the general idea.
see, and that would be my system as well. however, since gay marriage harms nobody, i can't see why so many people are so damn determined to ban it. nobody is trying to force them to have a gay marriage, nor are they being expected to like, view, attend, or in any way participate in gay marriages. but apparently it hurts their feelings, and they think that's reason enough.

see, and that would be my system as well. however, since gay marriage harms nobody, i can't see why so many people are so damn determined to ban it. nobody is trying to force them to have a gay marriage, nor are they being expected to like, view, attend, or in any way participate in gay marriages. but apparently it hurts their feelings, and they think that's reason enough.

Yea well they are just pissed off cause the church has no power to change things anymore. Boo hoo.

nobody's got any substantive challenges for me? how sad...and how vidicating :).

nobody's got any substantive challenges for me? how sad...and how vidicating :).

Im all for it. :)

Personaly I think about 95 percent of [homosexuals] choose to be that way.
Why would they choose to a sexuality that would result in them being discriminated against relentlessly?

Homosexuality is natural for some, and visible in the animal kingdom.

I want the to do it with the olsen twins
pics plz

what is interesting to me is that, after 6 pages, not ONE serious response to my post has been presented. interesting, and disappointing...if preventing gay marriage is so important, why is nobody willing to step forward and seriously discuss it?
It's because your post is irrefutable.

It's because your post is irrefutable.
i dunno. call me a crazy optimist, but i just can't believe that so many people would be anti-gay marriage without having thought it through enough to respond to the points i posted. they seem like pretty obvious comparisons, so anybody who feels this issue is important must have thought about them, and that leads me to conclude that the anti-gay marriage people must have at least come up with refutations that satisfy themselves. why don't they present them? i really do want to hear what they have to say, if only to get some insight into their vantage on the subject.

i dunno. call me a crazy optimist, but i just can't believe that so many people would be anti-gay marriage without having thought it through enough to respond to the points i posted. they seem like pretty obvious comparisons, so anybody who feels this issue is important must have thought about them, and that leads me to conclude that the anti-gay marriage people must have at least come up with refutations that satisfy themselves. why don't they present them? i really do want to hear what they have to say, if only to get some insight into their vantage on the subject.
Okay, so I'm only playing devils advocate and I totally believe that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, and I don't even think this is a good argument but I'll give this one a whirl because it had a passing occourance in my head when I read your post-

So the initial argument against mixed-race marriage was the slippery-slope, that if we allow this than what will we allow next. By that view, gay/lesbian marriage is the next mogul on that slope which would justify the fallacy.

Best I can come up with. And I don't buy it.

ive been thinking about this, bottle

i think we should keep your original post and every time someone posts another "gay people shouldnt be allowed to be married because they are icky" thread we should post it.

if they dont address your points, we should take turns posting it, every page or so, until they DO.

if i have your permission, i have copied your original post to save for such a plan if you should agree to it.

So the initial argument against mixed-race marriage was the slippery-slope, that if we allow this than what will we allow next. By that view, gay/lesbian marriage is the next mogul on that slope which would justify the fallacy.

Best I can come up with. And I don't buy it.
yeah, that's a semi-legit point. my response, though, would be that the very concept of the slippery slope is refuted by American law. we can, and do, draw the line in pretty much every context. like i said before, claiming that allowing gay marriage will lead to us allowing beastiality is like claiming that allowing adults to drive will lead to us allowing cows to drive.

but hey, thanks for at least stepping up for the homophobes...they appear to need all the help they can get.

ive been thinking about this, bottle

i think we should keep your original post and every time someone posts another "gay people shouldnt be allowed to be married because they are icky" thread we should post it.

if they dont address your points, we should take turns posting it, every page or so, until they DO.

if i have your permission, i have copied your original post to save for such a plan if you should agree to it.
haha, good call. sounds like a plan to me.

It's not the Bible that people shouldn't be gay or lesbian, eh?

Read:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22


I am for gay marriage. I say let them be. Just wanted to point that out to you people!

Yeah, now; read the rest of Leviticus. I've got a lot of stones over here and a good number of people I know wear their wools mixed with polyester, and their cotton with their nylon. That's a sin; and I've been practicing my stoning. So tell me, just how closely are we gonna follow old Leviticus?

I've always been of the school that if you're gonna do something, do it right, and not half-assed. Now I know a good many people who don't follow Leviticus beyond lying with men as they were womenkind, they eat shellfish and stuff. I say we round 'em up and make them see the light, er, stones of righteousness!

And what's the government gonna do about it! We're a friggin Christian nation right? I have every right to gather those sinners and stone them publicly! So again, how closely do we wish to follow old Leviticus? And just how much do we want the word of god to superceed the laws of the state?

'cause I can have a bloodbath prepared in the name of god in under 40 minutes if we want. Tell me, just how much do we want to punish those who don't follow the big L-man's words? After all, they are part of the bible, for Christians, their words equal our laws.

********
The previous was satire, ment only to entertain and outrage.
In the name of everything good and true (chocolate, and the Peanuts comic strip) don't think I was serious!

Oh, and yeah, I know perfectly well that you support gay marriage, but I didn't want Leviticus to go unchallenged here.

Yeah, now; read the rest of Leviticus. I've got a lot of stones over here and a good number of people I know wear their wools mixed with polyester, and their cotton with their nylon. That's a sin; and I've been practicing my stoning. So tell me, just how closely are we gonna follow old Leviticus?

I've always been of the school that if you're gonna do something, do it right, and not half-assed. Now I know a good many people who don't follow Leviticus beyond lying with men as they were womenkind, they eat shellfish and stuff. I say we round 'em up and make them see the light, er, stones of righteousness!

And what's the government gonna do about it! We're a friggin Christian nation right? I have every right to gather those sinners and stone them publicly! So again, how closely do we wish to follow old Leviticus? And just how much do we want the word of god to superceed the laws of the state?

'cause I can have a bloodbath prepared in the name of god in under 40 minutes if we want. Tell me, just how much do we want to punish those who don't follow the big L-man's words? After all, they are part of the bible, for Christians, their words equal our laws.

********
The previous was satire, ment only to entertain and outrage.
In the name of everything good and true (chocolate, and the Peanuts comic strip) don't think I was serious!

Oh, and yeah, I know perfectly well that you support gay marriage, but I didn't want Leviticus to go unchallenged here.
that's another thing that really freaking annoys me:

not a single person has been able to explain to me why we should pay attention to the Levitical law against homosexuality while not obeying the other laws in that book. not one. yet 80% of homophobes cite that passage as "proof" that God forbids homosexuality. what the hell is up with that?!

thought of something else that doesn't make sense to me...

a lot of people claim that marriage is a Christian institution, right? but that's proven to be false if you read the BIBLE. i mean, you have pages of men knowing their WIVES and begatting children long before Christ is born...hell, Christ's mom was MARRIED to Joseph! so if marriage is a Christian institution, how come their own holy book describes marriage as far predating their religion? should the Christians be telling us that marriage is a Jewish institution, if they really are reading their Bibles?

Yup, Bottle, I agree completely. Following their argument to the logical conclusion on that issue would lead to a bloodbath of anyone who shops at Sears, Wal-mart or any such stores, anyone who eats at Seafood resturants. Soooo many abominations, so many stones to throw, so few people who actually follow any of them.

thought of something else that doesn't make sense to me...

a lot of people claim that marriage is a Christian institution, right? but that's proven to be false if you read the BIBLE. i mean, you have pages of men knowing their WIVES and begatting children long before Christ is born...hell, Christ's mom was MARRIED to Joseph! so if marriage is a Christian institution, how come their own holy book describes marriage as far predating their religion? should the Christians be telling us that marriage is a Jewish institution, if they really are reading their Bibles?
But they like their adopted “pagan” belief … like any tradition it becomes the comfortable norm.
Hard to leave comfort zones

nobody's got any substantive challenges for me? how sad...and how vidicating :).


vindicated a long long time ago me thinks. Great post though

But they like their adopted “pagan” belief … like any tradition it becomes the comfortable norm.
Hard to leave comfort zones
it was far harder for the Southern plantation owners to give up their slaves, seeing as how they were fiscally dependent upon their "comfort zone" as well.

it was far harder for the Southern plantation owners to give up their slaves, seeing as how they were fiscally dependent upon their "comfort zone" as well.
Oh I agree ... was just making a smartass comment :)

Oh I agree ... was just making a smartass comment :)
lol.

dammit, why will none of the homophobes rise to the challenge?! i'm trying to give them a shot at actual credibility, and they are just ignoring it. WHY ARE THEY SUCH COWARDS?!

lol.

dammit, why will none of the homophobes rise to the challenge?! i'm trying to give them a shot at actual credibility, and they are just ignoring it. WHY ARE THEY SUCH COWARDS?!
Quote from manford mann “blinded by the light …”

i'm going to bump this again, holding out hope for the homophobes...if you really do put any thought at all into your views, please show me!!!

Not a homophobe, sorry bottle. ;)

But I just think we should put all the homophobes, racists etc out there through an ethics course where they learn about harm/non-harm and why paternalism is bad...

Not a homophobe, sorry bottle. ;)

But I just think we should put all the homophobes, racists etc out there through an ethics course where they learn about harm/non-harm and why paternalism is bad...
i just want to understand them. i am convinced that no intelligent person will choose to be racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigotted if they are helped to understand why those views are flawed, so i want to figure out where the disconnect is in their heads. that way we can help them without having to simply brain wash them with repetition.

i just want to understand them. i am convinced that no intelligent person will choose to be racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigotted if they are helped to understand why those views are flawed, so i want to figure out where the disconnect is in their heads. that way we can help them without having to simply brain wash them with repetition.

The problem is, some intellegent people HAVE been racist and such. DW Giffith for example-in some ways, an outright idiot, in others a genius. Some might argue that Lovecraft was quite intellegent as well.

i just want to understand them. i am convinced that no intelligent person will choose to be racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigotted if they are helped to understand why those views are flawed, so i want to figure out where the disconnect is in their heads. that way we can help them without having to simply brain wash them with repetition.Goed touched on it, but I'll expand. I don't think there's necessarily a link between racism or homophobia and intelligence. I'll grant you that in many, perhaps even most cases, there's a link.

In some cases, it's purely learned behavior--momma and daddy hated nigras and faggots and Democrats and they taught me to do it also. This attitude is reinforced by the slurs that major media people like Bill O'Reilley and Rush Limbaugh get away with on a daily basis, and if you dare criticize them for calling an NBA game a gang fight between the Crips and the Bloods or for telling a religious Jew that he needs to go back to Israel, then you're accused of being an PC-pantywaist.

And then there are intelligent people who are bigoted because they really do believe they're better than others around them. They're the scariest. These are people who believe eugenics should be the method by which the human race improves itself, who believe that Brave New World is something to strive for. It doesn't matter how many times you prove to them that they're idiots--they believe that they're right, and because they're smart in whatever their chosen field is, they believe that they're smart on this matter as well. At least with the learned behavior types, you can convince them over time that they might be mistaken about the threat that the other poses.

The problem is, some intellegent people HAVE been racist and such. DW Giffith for example-in some ways, an outright idiot, in others a genius. Some might argue that Lovecraft was quite intellegent as well.
oh, let me clarify: i mean that no intelligent person will be racist or homophobic UNLESS there is something wrong with their thought process. as in, i believe that intelligent people can be shown why racism or homophobia is not beneficial and will not help them accomplish what they truly want in life. i believe that if an otherwise intelligent person holds a racist or homophobic view then it must be because some wires are crossed some place.

but both you and Incertonia are quite right, there are many otherwise-smart people who hold some horrid and oddball views. that's why i want to talk with those people, to figure out what the confusion point for them is, and to try to help them see past it and draw a more sensible conclusion.

And then there are intelligent people who are bigoted because they really do believe they're better than others around them. They're the scariest. These are people who believe eugenics should be the method by which the human race improves itself, who believe that Brave New World is something to strive for. It doesn't matter how many times you prove to them that they're idiots--they believe that they're right, and because they're smart in whatever their chosen field is, they believe that they're smart on this matter as well. At least with the learned behavior types, you can convince them over time that they might be mistaken about the threat that the other poses.
but WHY?! what is it that causes them to cling so desperately to a flawed belief system, if they are so very smart? there is some disconnect, and i want to find it.

but WHY?! what is it that causes them to cling so desperately to a flawed belief system, if they are so very smart? there is some disconnect, and i want to find it.I think it's because they believe that because they're smart in their chosen field, they are therefore smart in every field, and so refuse to acknowledge their limitations. It's hubris. Part of it may also be linked to the idea that they have no investment in changing their way of thinking--until they have some reason to challenge their worldviews, they simply won't.

I was lucky in some ways, because while I was raised by some of the most non-racist people in the world, they were also virulently homophobic. Obviously, I've gotten past that second part, so I've made part of the journey, but I only did it after my base assumptions were challenged and I was forced, against my will at first, to deal with them. Had I never been challenged by outside forces, and had I not already been receptive to that challenge, then I'd likely never have changed. I think it requires that combination--the challenge and the receptiveness--or you wind up banging your head against the wall.

i dunno. call me a crazy optimist, but i just can't believe that so many people would be anti-gay marriage without having thought it through enough to respond to the points i posted. they seem like pretty obvious comparisons, so anybody who feels this issue is important must have thought about them, and that leads me to conclude that the anti-gay marriage people must have at least come up with refutations that satisfy themselves. why don't they present them? i really do want to hear what they have to say, if only to get some insight into their vantage on the subject.
Maybe they are just united in "ickyness" and the reasoning does not go really beyond that (sometimes they make some vague bible refferences but I think maybe that is so they have the appearance of legitimacy)

Speaking of the retarded way some people treat homosexuality, check this out. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/14/25238/046) Unfortunately for the kid, because it's a private school, he likely has little legal recourse. Wonder how his parents feel, seeing as they spent over $130,000 in tuition over the kid's lifetime and he won't even get a high school diploma out of it (not to mention the whole gay son thing)? That kid's got a rough time ahead, unless his parents turn out to be far more understanding than I imagine they are.

oh, let me clarify: i mean that no intelligent person will be racist or homophobic UNLESS there is something wrong with their thought process. as in, i believe that intelligent people can be shown why racism or homophobia is not beneficial and will not help them accomplish what they truly want in life. i believe that if an otherwise intelligent person holds a racist or homophobic view then it must be because some wires are crossed some place.

but both you and Incertonia are quite right, there are many otherwise-smart people who hold some horrid and oddball views. that's why i want to talk with those people, to figure out what the confusion point for them is, and to try to help them see past it and draw a more sensible conclusion.
Now you are starting to frighten me. If they hold a set of beliefs regardless of the logic or otherwise of that belief and regardless of the evidence they have or thnk they have then they must have some wires crossed (e.g. mad). So what other opinions do the moral majority want to stamp out? How should we deal with these flawed people who don't think as we do? I know, lets make them put a bright sign on thier cloths so all us normal folk can see who they are.....

Now you are starting to frighten me. If they hold a set of beliefs regardless of the logic or otherwise of that belief and regardless of the evidence they have or thnk they have then they must have some wires crossed (e.g. mad). So what other opinions do the moral majority want to stamp out? How should we deal with these flawed people who don't think as we do? I know, lets make them put a bright sign on thier cloths so all us normal folk can see who they are.....
huh? i have never said i want to "stamp out" any beliefs, and i have frequently made it clear that i will vocally and opennly defend the freedom to be racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise bigotted. i have no interest in forcing people to give up any belief system, since i don't believe it is possible to do that (short of torture, which doesn't really change their beliefs so much as break their minds and spirit). i don't know why you feel the need to make things up, but you might want to try reading and listening rather than simply attributing random motives to others in accordance with your personal feelings.

huh? i have never said i want to "stamp out" any beliefs, and i have frequently made it clear that i will vocally and opennly defend the freedom to be racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise bigotted. i have no interest in forcing people to give up any belief system, since i don't believe it is possible to do that (short of torture, which doesn't really change their beliefs so much as break their minds and spirit). i don't know why you feel the need to make things up, but you might want to try reading and listening rather than simply attributing random motives to others in accordance with your personal feelings.
I have no feelings about this one way or the other at present.
But it was not I that used imotive language by stating that people that hold certain views must have some wires crossed, I do not and did not intend to establish your motives for saying that, I intended to illustrate where such an assumption that one persons views are so wrong and that your own or another set is so right could take you. We are not dealing with science here so no one can say oone person is correct and another wrong. I can say I do not like racist views and can judge them acording to my moral standards but cannot make an absolute statement of fact about them.
I also fail to see where I made anything up, I merely extrapolated the logic you appeared to be using to judge the views and opinions of others.
I am sorry that my little dig at the stements you made has offended you to the point of being defensive.
But that is not exactly true, I like to prod people to make them think about thier opinions and statements and the assumptions they make. as I myself whe I examine some of the things I say have to think how I can to that point.
And now I start to waffle so will sod off.

I have no feelings about this one way or the other at present.
But it was not I that used imotive language by stating that people that hold certain views must have some wires crossed, I do not and did not intend to establish your motives for saying that, I intended to illustrate where such an assumption that one persons views are so wrong and that your own or another set is so right could take you.

my assumption is very simple: the totality of evidence available to humans at this time in history shows that homophobia, racism, and sexism are irrational perspectives that are based upon incorrect or incomplete interpretation of facts. for an otherwise intelligent person to make this sort of error, and to cling to their error tenaciously in the fact of ample refutation, implies that there is something beyond pure intellectual problems interfering with their comprehension; they are clearly able to understand and process data, but they are failing to do so, therefore there must be some cause other than simple inability to comprehend.

that assumption will not "take me" where you seem to think it will. it is not possible to force the sort of comprehension i am talking about, and there is nothing to be gained by simply prohibiting people from holding or voicing illogical ideas.


We are not dealing with science here so no one can say oone person is correct and another wrong.

actually, we were talking about objective facts and information here. apparently you are not, which is your business, but that doesn't change the fact that i am.


I can say I do not like racist views and can judge them acording to my moral standards but cannot make an absolute statement of fact about them.

i can make many factual statements about racist views. for example, if somebody claims that black people are inferior to white people, i can ask them to provide an example of this inferiority, and i can then refute their claim with ample factual evidence. the same can be done with homophobic claims.

whether or not i "like" homophobia is not the issue. the issue is that people who hold homophobic views do so because they have false underlying assumptions, assumptions that can be PROVEN false using objective information. however, many homophobes will still cling to these assumptions even when the evidence disproving them is amply presented, and that is where my idea of the disconnect comes into play.


I also fail to see where I made anything up, I merely extrapolated the logic you appeared to be using to judge the views and opinions of others.

you drew a false connection and reached an incorrect conclusion. i have never and will never propose to force people to give up their opinions, nor do i base my evaluation of the incorrectness of homophobia upon my personal opinion.


I am sorry that my little dig at the stements you made has offended you to the point of being defensive.

i see nothing wrong with defending my views, and i am not offended by being expected to do so. what offends me is when people do not even trouble to read my views before drawing false conclusions about what i believe. if you take the time to listen to my views then you will avoid making that mistake in the future.


But that is not exactly true, I like to prod people to make them think about thier opinions and statements and the assumptions they make.

that's great. sadly, in this case you were "prodding" opinions that i don't hold. you can save us both a lot of time by focusing on my actual arguments, statements, and opinions, rather than creating false conclusions that you then attribute to me.

So then how do you decide? If no ideology is supiror then it must come down to numbers must it not? What other way is there?

You've got a very valid point here. I think I'll use it against that guy who was arguing that muslim-majority states shouldn't oppress Christians.

Now if only I could remember who that guy was...

i just want to understand them. i am convinced that no intelligent person will choose to be racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigotted if they are helped to understand why those views are flawed, so i want to figure out where the disconnect is in their heads. that way we can help them without having to simply brain wash them with repetition.

They don't choose to be bigotted, it's perfectly natural.

(sorry couldn't resist the comparison).

Who is to say that either group is "right"? And when was the last time you saw a person whose entire belief system was based on "facts" and "truth" and "logic" and not on postulates, assumptions, and feelings?

Such a person does not exist. So it's kind of hard to call people names like "bigot" and ask why a person of intelligence would think these bad thoughts.

Speaking from experience, brainwashing only pisses them off. I did the "bisexual world tour in my youth" thing, and I don't think marriage is something for everyone (hey, just wait until we get the gay divorce issue - then they'll learn what heteros have known for years).

You'll never persuade them. So give up and go get laid. It's what I did.

They don't choose to be bigotted, it's perfectly natural.

(sorry couldn't resist the comparison).
whether or not something is natural does not determine whether or not it is beneficial, just, or healthy. rape is natural, murder is natural, theft is natural, and yet for some reason we don't hear many people claiming that we should encourage or condone those activities. it is true that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is quite natural, but that has nothing to do with why it should be permitted/accepted in society. monogamy is extremely unnatural, after all, and yet monogamous relationships are highly prized and deeply valued.

Who is to say that either group is "right"?

according to my system of belief, it is wrong for any group to deny rights to any other group based on beliefs or practices that are not directly harmful to others. the fundamental laws of my nation are in agreement with this position, and therefore the people who seek to deny rights to gay citizens are "wrong." they are more than entitled to dislike gay people, to believe homosexuality is evil, or to refuse to have any contact with gay people, but they do not have the right to take away the freedoms of others simply because they don't like them. if they try to do so, they are "wrong" according to our system of law.


And when was the last time you saw a person whose entire belief system was based on "facts" and "truth" and "logic" and not on postulates, assumptions, and feelings?

i'm not expecting them to base all their beliefs on logic alone, because beliefs and opinions are matters of thought and feeling. what i am asking is that they not hold opinions or beliefs that are in direct conflict with empirical reality...that is how i live my life, how all my close friends and family live their lives, and how all the people i respect live their lives. it is quite possible, and quite fun :).


Such a person does not exist. So it's kind of hard to call people names like "bigot" and ask why a person of intelligence would think these bad thoughts.

a bigot is a person who is strongly partial to their own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. to call homophobes bigots is not name calling, it is simply an accurate statement. i am not a bigot because i am quite tolerant of those who belong to different groups, including those who belong to groups i find disgusting or offensive...i strongly defend the rights of many groups that i find deplorable, including the rights of the religious, the rights of homophobes, the rights of racists, and the rights of sexists. when a homophobe defends the rights of those they do not agree with then they will no longer be a bigot, but so long as they advocate denying rights to homosexuals the word "bigot" will be an accurate term for what they are.

Speaking from experience, brainwashing only pisses them off.

*sigh* how many times do i have to say this? I AM NOT INTERESTED IN BRAIN WASHING ANYBODY. i do not believe it is possible to FORCE somebody to change their views on subjects like this one, and i have no interest in trying to do so.


You'll never persuade them. So give up and go get laid.
my sex life has never suffered due to my zest for debate. i see no reason why i shouldn't continue open and honest discourse, or why i should limit my conversations to only the people who already agree with me.

Speaking of the retarded way some people treat homosexuality, check this out. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/14/25238/046) Unfortunately for the kid, because it's a private school, he likely has little legal recourse. Wonder how his parents feel, seeing as they spent over $130,000 in tuition over the kid's lifetime and he won't even get a high school diploma out of it (not to mention the whole gay son thing)? That kid's got a rough time ahead, unless his parents turn out to be far more understanding than I imagine they are.
WOW. that is totally disgusting...he is 18, and told the principle that he wanted his privacy respected, and yet the asshole decided to out him against his wishes. i can't even begin to express how angry that makes me. however, since they are a private school it is their choice to make...i simply will make every effort to spread word of this so that no loving and caring parents will waste their money and harm their children by sending them to such a disgusting school.

WOW. that is totally disgusting...he is 18, and told the principle that he wanted his privacy respected, and yet the asshole decided to out him against his wishes. i can't even begin to express how angry that makes me. however, since they are a private school it is their choice to make...i simply will make every effort to spread word of this so that no loving and caring parents will waste their money and harm their children by sending them to such a disgusting school.
I know. It's really a shame that he has so little legal recourse because he attended a private school, and I would imagine that the people who send their kids there think that the principal went easy on the kid. Ugh.

WOW. that is totally disgusting...he is 18, and told the principle that he wanted his privacy respected, and yet the asshole decided to out him against his wishes. i can't even begin to express how angry that makes me. however, since they are a private school it is their choice to make...i simply will make every effort to spread word of this so that no loving and caring parents will waste their money and harm their children by sending them to such a disgusting school.
Agreed

my assumption is very simple: the totality of evidence available to humans at this time in history shows that homophobia, racism, and sexism are irrational perspectives that are based upon incorrect or incomplete interpretation of facts. for an otherwise intelligent person to make this sort of error, and to cling to their error tenaciously in the fact of ample refutation, implies that there is something beyond pure intellectual problems interfering with their comprehension; they are clearly able to understand and process data, but they are failing to do so, therefore there must be some cause other than simple inability to comprehend.

that assumption will not "take me" where you seem to think it will. it is not possible to force the sort of comprehension i am talking about, and there is nothing to be gained by simply prohibiting people from holding or voicing illogical ideas.


actually, we were talking about objective facts and information here. apparently you are not, which is your business, but that doesn't change the fact that i am.


i can make many factual statements about racist views. for example, if somebody claims that black people are inferior to white people, i can ask them to provide an example of this inferiority, and i can then refute their claim with ample factual evidence. the same can be done with homophobic claims.

whether or not i "like" homophobia is not the issue. the issue is that people who hold homophobic views do so because they have false underlying assumptions, assumptions that can be PROVEN false using objective information. however, many homophobes will still cling to these assumptions even when the evidence disproving them is amply presented, and that is where my idea of the disconnect comes into play.


you drew a false connection and reached an incorrect conclusion. i have never and will never propose to force people to give up their opinions, nor do i base my evaluation of the incorrectness of homophobia upon my personal opinion.


i see nothing wrong with defending my views, and i am not offended by being expected to do so. what offends me is when people do not even trouble to read my views before drawing false conclusions about what i believe. if you take the time to listen to my views then you will avoid making that mistake in the future.


that's great. sadly, in this case you were "prodding" opinions that i don't hold. you can save us both a lot of time by focusing on my actual arguments, statements, and opinions, rather than creating false conclusions that you then attribute to me.
Well I'll leave you to your seathing anger and presumptions and statement of apparent facts.
I will let you assume that all the information you have read or seen is correct and that no one is allowed to dispute the evidence presented to them. I will not comment on the apparent judgmental attitude that you appear to display by catagorising all people who hold a set of views as abnormal, sorry failing to rationalise the world on a purely intelectual level. With the correct application of logic. I am sorry for pointing out the possibility that they may be right and you wrong, obviously you could nver be wrong as you have all the facts that will ever be available about these topics.
I will wait for the presentation of irrefutable facts that prove beyond any doubt that homosexuality is never in anyway harmfull to the individual, society and the species (beliefs I hold but could not in all honesty say were statements of fact, however as your logic is so precise you will be able to do that for me), that in no aspect of life are balck people superior to whites, or whites superior to blacks and that in all things men and women perform equally well.

This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friends...
*repeat infinitely*
Can't everyone just agree to let everyone sucknfukk whomever they please without bashing their skulls in with a rifle butt?

This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on my friends...
*repeat infinitely*
Can't everyone just agree to let everyone sucknfukk whomever they please without bashing their skulls in with a rifle butt?
I think that is a given.
My problem is with those who stand in judgement over those who do not share that belief and take a superiour stance assuming they are correct and thier systme of decision making is correct and fool proof. PLus I'll take any opportunity to wind someone up who so obviously bites.

Well I'll leave you to your seathing anger and presumptions and statement of apparent facts.

"seething anger?" wow, not only is your reading comprehension a bit dim, but you really overestimate your own importance. if anything, your posts made me feel more jolly than usual :).


I will let you assume that all the information you have read or seen is correct and that no one is allowed to dispute the evidence presented to them.

not that i need your permission for such things, but that's very generous of you. of course, that's not an assumption i have ever made, and i have personally attacked and researched all the data and evidence i use to support my views. i know you like to project, but not everybody blindly accepts information just because it supports the views they already have decided to hold.

further, you again must have failed to read what i posted: the WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD was for people to dispute what i posted. i invited it. i practically BEGGED for it. all i got was people agreeing with me. if you wish to dispute my evidence the let me say it yet again: PLEASE DISPUTE MY EVIDENCE. YOU ARE NOT ONLY ALLOWED TO DO SO, I AM BEGGING YOU TO DO IT.


I will not comment on the apparent judgmental attitude that you appear to display by catagorising all people who hold a set of views as abnormal, sorry failing to rationalise the world on a purely intelectual level.

let's be clear:

we have an otherwise intelligent person who claims that turtles are mammals. they have been presented with the evidence showing that to be false, but they persist in their belief that turtles are mammals. i say, "hmm, there's something wrong here, there is a disconnect in how this person is thinking, or perhaps there is a serious communication problem...let's talk and try to figure out what is going on." you say, "why can't you just accept his point of view? stop being judgemental!"


I am sorry for pointing out the possibility that they may be right and you wrong, obviously you could nver be wrong as you have all the facts that will ever be available about these topics.

i have asked you already to please take the time to read my posts before you reply to them, and i will ask you yet again because you seem to not have heard me before. i have been asking this entire time for homophobes to defend their position, for them to challenge my evidence with evidence of their own, to show the holes in my evidence, or to in any way provide substantive reasons why their views should be regarded any differently than racism or sexism. if you would like to do that, please do. but if you are simply interested in riding about this thread on a very high horse and informing other posters of what they think and feel...well, actually, you are welcome to keep doing that, because it's kind of cute :).


I will wait for the presentation of irrefutable facts that prove beyond any doubt that homosexuality is never in anyway harmfull to the individual, society and the species (beliefs I hold but could not in all honesty say were statements of fact, however as your logic is so precise you will be able to do that for me), that in no aspect of life are balck people superior to whites, or whites superior to blacks and that in all things men and women perform equally well.
okay, have fun waiting...this thread was not on that topic, so if you are looking for such facts you can either visit another thread or start one of your own. please do me the courtesy of not hijacking my topic, though, and i will do you the same courtesy on any threads you start.

"seething anger?" wow, not only is your reading comprehension a bit dim, but you really overestimate your own importance. if anything, your posts made me feel more jolly than usual :).


not that i need your permission for such things, but that's very generous of you. of course, that's not an assumption i have ever made, and i have personally attacked and researched all the data and evidence i use to support my views. i know you like to project, but not everybody blindly accepts information just because it supports the views they already have decided to hold.

further, you again must have failed to read what i posted: the WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD was for people to dispute what i posted. i invited it. i practically BEGGED for it. all i got was people agreeing with me. if you wish to dispute my evidence the let me say it yet again: PLEASE DISPUTE MY EVIDENCE. YOU ARE NOT ONLY ALLOWED TO DO SO, I AM BEGGING YOU TO DO IT.


let's be clear:

we have an otherwise intelligent person who claims that turtles are mammals. they have been presented with the evidence showing that to be false, but they persist in their belief that turtles are mammals. i say, "hmm, there's something wrong here, there is a disconnect in how this person is thinking, or perhaps there is a serious communication problem...let's talk and try to figure out what is going on." you say, "why can't you just accept his point of view? stop being judgemental!"


i have asked you already to please take the time to read my posts before you reply to them, and i will ask you yet again because you seem to not have heard me before. i have been asking this entire time for homophobes to defend their position, for them to challenge my evidence with evidence of their own, to show the holes in my evidence, or to in any way provide substantive reasons why their views should be regarded any differently than racism or sexism. if you would like to do that, please do. but if you are simply interested in riding about this thread on a very high horse and informing other posters of what they think and feel...well, actually, you are welcome to keep doing that, because it's kind of cute :).


okay, have fun waiting...this thread was not on that topic, so if you are looking for such facts you can either visit another thread or start one of your own. please do me the courtesy of not hijacking my topic, though, and i will do you the same courtesy on any threads you start.
I stand suitably chastised. :(
I’m having a bad few days and it is not that often there is a thread where some stands up for themselves. I will this very moment dismount from my high horse and no longer act as the highway man and hijack your thread. But that dandy little mare you sit upon must only be a few hands shorter than mine. :)
Your example of the turtle is a good one. You have to make sure however that every one has the same understanding of what a turtle is and what a mammal is, then you have to ensure the definition of a mammal is actual correct. For example what you call a turtle I may call a tortoise. The only problem with it is when a mammal and a reptile are clearly defined it is a fairly straight line with little subjectivity. The topic of homosexuality can be more subjective and the lines a little more fuzzy. So I might agree with you that extreme views could be covered by your ‘wires cross’ description others may not.
As my views appear to diverge from yours only slightly on this topic, I’ll slope off an leave you.

I will make every attempt to improve my deplorable performance in the field of English comprehension, in an attempt to move from ‘dim’ to glowing faintly. :(

I also make apologies for the apparent egocentric interpretation I made of your responses to my petty jibes. :(

I stand suitably chastised. :(
I’m having a bad few days and it is not that often there is a thread where some stands up for themselves. I will this very moment dismount from my high horse and no longer act as the highway man and hijack your thread. But that dandy little mare you sit upon must only be a few hands shorter than mine. :)
Your example of the turtle is a good one. You have to make sure however that every one has the same understanding of what a turtle is and what a mammal is, then you have to ensure the definition of a mammal is actual correct. For example what you call a turtle I may call a tortoise. The only problem with it is when a mammal and a reptile are clearly defined it is a fairly straight line with little subjectivity. The topic of homosexuality can be more subjective and the lines a little more fuzzy. So I might agree with you that extreme views could be covered by your ‘wires cross’ description others may not.
As my views appear to diverge from yours only slightly on this topic, I’ll slope off an leave you.

I will make every attempt to improve my deplorable performance in the field of English comprehension, in an attempt to move from ‘dim’ to glowing faintly. :(

I also make apologies for the apparent egocentric interpretation I made of your responses to my petty jibes. :(


well that takes all the damn wind out of my sails. *pout*

but hey, it's really impressive that you were willing to admit when you made a mistake. perhaps i was not clear enough in my opinions, either, and for that i also apologize. i suppose it is hard for me to keep a flavor of contempt out of my discussions about homophobes, no matter how hard i try to view the matter objectively...oh well, que sera.