The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Foxfyre wrote:

But the fact is, most Americans do agree with me on this one. And I think most Americans also agree that same sex couples and others who choose not to or cannot marry need many or all of the protections and benefits available to married couples and would support that.

The bottom line is that there needs to be tolerance and understanding from both sides to solve the issue.

Listen up lesbians and homosexuals. I just can't understand why you refuse to tolerate being discriminated against. Talk about being intolerant! Why can't you be more reasonable!

We're willing to allow some things, we're willing to tolerate you folks, just don't go and get uppity on us, thinking you should have equal rights.

0 Replies

How are you being discriminated against in the matter of marriage JTT? What right do you not have that anybody else has?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

How are you being discriminated against in the matter of marriage JTT? What right do you not have that anybody else has?

It's so incredibly simple that I'm surprised how some folks miss it. For a person who falls in love with a same sex partner, some seek to make these people citizens apart. What is held to be the gold standard [in many peoples' eyes] is to be denied to certain defineable groups of people.

This apartness isn't being suggested with any sense of inclusiveness. Its sole purpose is to exclude. That is, by definition, discrimination, discrimination of the basis of someone's sexuality.

It's no different than the specious argument of Plessy v Ferguson, 'separate but equal'. When there are churches that are willing to join two people in, for that church, "a holy union", there is nothing else for it to be called but a marriage.

You can't legislate away ignorance, but the active legal support of ignorance is not what a civilized country should be striving for.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

How are you being discriminated against in the matter of marriage JTT? What right do you not have that anybody else has?

In marriage, homosexuals are being discriminated against.

They are a group that is prevented from being married and receiving the benefits of marriage, just because they come from that group. This is discrimination.

No one should deny this.

The question that should be being asked is whether this discrimination is justified.

Obviously, we must discriminate. If employers don't discriminate against potential employees who would be bad to their company, their company won't do well. If you don't discriminate and deny rich people from free healthcare (when they can more than comfortably afford paying it themselves) any public healthcare system you have to help the poorest of the poor will fail.

Discrimination is necessary, but some discrimination is wrong.

Racial discrimination is wrong, because racial discrimination has no real benefits, cannot be justified (a black person can do just as well if not better than a white person) and is just plain moronic.

The question is whether homosexual discrimination is wrong in regards to marriage.

0 Replies

Who we fall in love with has no relevance when it comes to rights of marriage afforded by the law. The law does not affect or address being in love or not being in love. The fact that one chooses to marry or not to marry has no effect on being in love or not being in love.

The fact remains that within restrictions imposed by the law on EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY can marry anybody willing to have them. There is currently no discrimination re gays, race, religion, or any other criteria. Everybody has the identical rights when it comes to marriage laws.

The debate is not over separate but equal. Everybody already has equal rights. The debate is over whether a definition of marriage will be changed.

For reasons already stated, the majority of Americans oppose changing the definition of marriage.

Meanwhile you have the right to love whomever of whatever sex you prefer. If you do not wish to marry according to the definition of marriage, but you want the benefits that are afforded by such marriage, your best bet is to work the the non-extremist folks who would like to see everybody's needs met in this regard.

0 Replies

To JTT and Wolf--i recommend beating your heads against a wall, you'll have more prospect of making an impression, and it will hurt less.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The debate is not over separate but equal. Everybody already has equal rights. The debate is over whether a definition of marriage will be changed.

No, the debate is over separate and clearly unequal. We know that laws, even constitutions can harbor and perpetuate ignorance. Civilized people reject such ignorance.

For reasons already stated, the majority of Americans oppose changing the definition of marriage.

I have no reason at all to suspect that the majority of Americans at one time opposed changing the definition of 'citizen'. As I said, civilized people reject such ignorance.

You can dance all around the issue to make yourself feel better, Foxfyre, but however it pans out, even if ignorance prevails, no one will be asking same sex partners, "How long have you been civilized?"; "When did you get civilized?".

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

This is one of the funniest threads out. I don't often look - but when I do, I am always stunned at just what stunning positions people will contort themselves into in order to attempt to make it look like there is any other reason than homophobia to be against gay marriage.

The last page or so is exquisite.

Now - in the midst of a perfectly Orwellian series of moments - Set says people ain't gonna understand the word "Orwellian"!

Foxfyre, do you understand why your contentions are Orwellian?

0 Replies

Winston Lives ! ! !

Long Live Big Brother ! ! !

0 Replies

Goebbels would be proud as well:

Quote:

...people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

0 Replies

Nope. The Orwell I studied described the archetypical totalitarian society. Seems to me the marriage laws are quite even handed and equitably adminisered and democratically supported.

Until JTT can explain to me how the marriage laws deny him any right afforded to anybody else, his complaints of 'separate but equal' simply won't hold water. You guys keep trying to compare the issue with race. The laws that prevented one race from doing what another race was allowed to do were in fact discriminatory and were voted down. That didn't happen until a majority of Americans saw and recognized the inequities and knew that situation should be made right.

Marriage laws are not discriminatory. Nobody is excluded or disenfranchised. And until more Americans see more good reasons to change them than they see good reasons to keep them as they are, change is not likely to occur.

Meanwhile, most of us have an offer on the table to support a way to correct inequities between the married and unmarried. If everybody will be reasonable, I think that's doable.

Otherwise extremism begets extremism and we'll see more of the unfortunate initiatives to protect marriage that shut out considerations for the unmarried altogether.

0 Replies

Apparently, there is a big intellectual divide here. I give up.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

To JTT and Wolf--i recommend beating your heads against a wall, you'll have more prospect of making an impression, and it will hurt less.

Why did I not listen?

0 Replies

I don't blame you for giving up, Boss . . .

Fox, Orwellian refers to double-think and double-speak . . . not that that is any likelier to sink in with you than anything else which has been explained to you here . . .

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Goebbels would be proud as well:

Quote:
...people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

Luckily, in this case, the strategy is not working. I guess that any good lie requires a bit of truth in it to get people to believe. In this case, there is not a scintilla of truth in this absurd, illogical and Orwellian contention.

0 Replies

Well then I think the only Orwellian tendencies by your definition are being employed by those who cannot or refuse to recognize the reality of the situation.

0 Replies

Well, don't despair, Fox, we don't hold this inability on your part against you pesonally, we just wish you would get over it . . .

0 Replies

Wikipedia definition
The term "Orwellian" usually refers to one or more of the following:

Manipulation of language for political ends. Most significantly by introducing to words meanings in opposition to their denotative meanings. The eventual result of which is that words are left only with connotations. e.g., an orwellian abuse of language would be refusing to identify something as sexist merely because sexist has a negative connotation, even if the denotative usage would be correct.
Invasion by the state of personal privacy, whether physical or by means of surveillance.
The total control of daily life by the state, as in a "Big Brother" society.
The disintegration of the family by the state
The replacement of religious faith with worship of the state in a semi-religious manner
Active encouragement by the state of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent
A dystopian future
The use of verbose and ambiguous language

0 Replies

Exactly, described in the novel as "double-speak" and "double-think." You may eventually catch on, although i doubt that i personally will live that long.

0 Replies

Active encouragement by the state of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent (From the Wikipedia definition)

Now who is employing 'doublethink' in the matter of marriage? Those who define it as the law defines it? Or those who wish it to be something other than it is?

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know