By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - If you are against gay marriage, explain why without mentioning religion

 

Are you for or against gay marriage?

For 290 49.49%
 
Against 171 29.18%
 
don't know 16 2.73%
 
whatever who cares? 108 18.43%
 
Total:585
fordy said:
timmah said:

Your lack of understanding on simple concepts is really quite comical, I actually laughed out loud when I read your reply. If I teach my kids that it's wrong for them to have sex before they get married, that's not by definition bigotry against people who have sex outside of marriage in any sense of the word, it's simply me teaching them right from wrong. If I teach them that it's wrong to use curse words, that's not bigotry against people who use curse words. If I teach my kids not to eat too much candy, it's not bigotry against people who eat too much candy. By your asinine definition, it would literally be bigotry to teach my kids anything at all related to behavior. Your insane logical leap is beyond reason.


Your lack of logic and reasoning is just as comical. For instance, not ALL reasoning for abstaining from sex does not point to having sex outside of marriage; there are many other factors, but since you decide to cherry pick, if your kids go against your wishes and DO have sex, what would your level of toleration be? In other words, if you come on here saying, "I guarantee my kids wont be having sex outside of marriage", then yes, that is bigotry too, because it displays a degree of intolerance in your position of authority.

And once again you're resoring to cyclic arguments. I've told you before, the difference between things like swearing and eating too much, and things with NO logical consequence, like homosexuality, is that the first group consists of things that cause harm to themselves or others, therefore, group A is justified. Group B is only justified by your own beliefs, and can be regarded as unethical parental practice.

I'm going to keep pushing this, because your initial post criticised my misuse of the word 'bigot', so why aren't you addressing this? Explain to me once again, HOW is my justification of bigotry misused? I have asked this 3 times now, and you've decided to ignore it altogether.

I have explained, in detail, multiple times how your use of the word Bigot was not correct in this instance in my opinion. If you don't realize that this was done, I literally have no words.  Even if you don't agree with what I've said, it's pretty clear I addressed why I thought parental guidence on moral issues cannot be equated to bigotry. My response to his 'guarantee' statement is that it may be naive (because you can never guarantee your child's actions), but is not bigotry in and of itself. Teaching one's children to look down on other groups, treat other groups differently, or that other groups are somehow 'bad' (which is not what I will ever do with my children though I'm can't speak for others) would be bigotry. Teaching one's Children not to do certain things in their own personal life cannot in any sense of the word be bigotry, it would only be bigotry towards the child if you in turn treated your child badly if they acted against your wishes anyway, something I would not do. Stating a Guarantee that your child will not do a specific action is merely naive and/or foolish, but not bigotry by the definition of the word.

You're certainly passionate (I respect your passion, even if I disagree with you), but you blatently cross the line instead of having a meaningful discussion. I don't like the word Bigot, and I do believe you misuse that word to insult and intimidate people. You'd rather silence people you oppose by saying those people are bigots (a very demeaning term), insulting their intelligence by calling them things like lemmings, talking about 'grade school' reasoning, bringing up Hitler when referring to my moral beliefs, and using a myriad of antagonistic tactics to bully people into shutting up. If you disagree with me on that, look back at your post where you suggested I should shut my mouth, there's a ton of other great bully tactics in that particular post as well. I can't grasp how you can attack others for supposedly not being 'tolerant', when you yourself exhibit a clear lack of tolerance of anybody who disagrees with you.



Around the Network

I dont have a problem with gay marriage I just have a problem with gays demanding a marriage in a church even tho their "word not allowed here" might forbid it.

I mean if you do something that is against your "illegal word" then well BAD FOR YOU I guss you have to build your own gayagogue or whatever the building should be called and marry inside there. Problem solved.

But again I have no problem with gay marriage





mai said:

the2real4mafol said:

But how would you know if they are loving parents or not, unless they are allowed to adopt. There are probably gay couples out there that would make better parents than a heterosexual one. If you see that the kid has bad parents (gay or not), they should be treated the same as anyone else would. And how exactly are they disadvantaged? It shouldn't matter who there parents are, as long as they are happy and have a good life. But it's like people think i'm in a so called "disadvantaged family" because i'm in a single parent family. I'm nearly 18 now and have never needed my dad, and i'm fine. I think you are far more disadvantaged if you have 2 abusive parents than 2 loving gay parents to be honest. I can understand that society cares about the children, but it shouldn't bother them who there parents are, as long as you can tell that they are fine. People just need to be more tolerant to these people

Err, so the reasons why social workers might consider it harmful for homosexual family parenting a child aren't obvious to you?

Check this btw:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325635/Christian-couple-doomed-foster-carers-homosexuality-views.html
Disturbing, isn't it?

Not only are they Christian (i said not to mention religion in the title), but this is a paper that tends to have conservative views on things, so are obviously anti-gay. These people are only against gays adopting because of the fact they are Christian. This article mentions very little that suggests having gay parents damages a child physcologically, if anything all it says is that a religious couple is against gays having civil relations/ marriages and being able to adopt, because of there faith. Also, I hope you realise the couple were traditional christian too, not gay. It proves my point that only the religious are bothered about repressing gays and there rights. Try and find an Atheist with similiar views.

Why are Christians even against gays, what happened to love thy neighbour? in that case 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

I'm straight and really don't care. If gay people want to get married why shouldn't they? People who actually campaign against it are probably gay themselfs and can't accept it so they devote there time to thinking about gay people.



timmah said:

I have explained, in detail, multiple times how your use of the word Bigot was not correct in this instance in my opinion. If you don't realize that this was done, I literally have no words.  Even if you don't agree with what I've said, it's pretty clear I addressed why I thought parental guidence on moral issues cannot be equated to bigotry. My response to his 'guarantee' statement is that it may be naive (because you can never guarantee your child's actions), but is not bigotry in and of itself. Teaching one's children to look down on other groups, treat other groups differently, or that other groups are somehow 'bad' (which is not what I will ever do with my children though I'm can't speak for others) would be bigotry. Teaching one's Children not to do certain things in their own personal life cannot in any sense of the word be bigotry, it would only be bigotry towards the child if you in turn treated your child badly if they acted against your wishes anyway, something I would not do. Stating a Guarantee that your child will not do a specific action is merely naive and/or foolish, but not bigotry by the definition of the word.

You're certainly passionate (I respect your passion, even if I disagree with you), but you blatently cross the line instead of having a meaningful discussion. I don't like the word Bigot, and I do believe you misuse that word to insult and intimidate people. You'd rather silence people you oppose by saying those people are bigots (a very demeaning term), insulting their intelligence by calling them things like lemmings, talking about 'grade school' reasoning, bringing up Hitler when referring to my moral beliefs, and using a myriad of antagonistic tactics to bully people into shutting up. If you disagree with me on that, look back at your post where you suggested I should shut my mouth, there's a ton of other great bully tactics in that particular post as well. I can't grasp how you can attack others for supposedly not being 'tolerant', when you yourself exhibit a clear lack of tolerance of anybody who disagrees with you.

There is a difference between your opinion and actual DEFINITION of the word bigot. I've already posted HOW my usage of the word is logically sound, through use of intolerance through parental authority. You cannot expect to say "Well it's my opinion" and expect it to hold water against the actual definition of the word. Once again, everyone has beliefs, but the ramifications of broadcasting or enacting on some beliefs is bigotry, INCLUDING intolerance through parental authority. Take for example:

http://www.newser.com/story/160528/alabama-teen-nabbed-in-high-school-bomb-plot.html

Say that this teen's hatred for blacks and gays came from the teaching of the parent's "morals" to the child. By your argumentation, the parent was completely right and justified to develop a wall in this child's mind and to develop feelings of hate and intolerance into a young, growing mind. In other words, the child LEARNED intolerance because of the authoritarial position of the parents. This is why intolerance through authority is INCLUDED in the definition of bigotry.

There's a difference between my intolerance and intolerance through parental authority, and that difference is, in this argument, I hold no authority over you, so my persuasions have to be achieved logically. My anger comes when you choose to ignore such logic and go on with ramblings of "it's my opinion", and "well I'm more calm", like they're some kind of sound logic reasoning of their own. For god's sake, if you're going to reply to a post with logical reasoning, don't just post opinion to combat logic. You have provided NOTHING in terms of argument ever since I posted the definition of bigotry and intolerance. Once again, "YOUR OPINION" DOES NOT IMPLY "LOGIC REASONING". Look up Logical Implication before you even comprehend the last sentence.

If you read back from the beginning of the thread, you'll see every attack I've made was justifiably given. As I've argued, and PROVEN anlready, I used the correct definition of the word "bigot" when necessary. You were called a Lemming after your EXACT SAME agument that you provided as a previous poster. In other words, you followed him off the cliff (read up the urban legend about Lemming cliff behavior if you still do not get it). Your reasoning WAS 'grade school' quality, as I mentioned above. You're using opinion to combat logic, and it's not sound. For instance, you're accusing me of "trying make my opinion as fact". Can you show me where I've expressed that any of these words are "my opinion"? For all you know, I could be playing Devil's Advocate here. You, on the other hand, have expressed a few times that "it's your opinion". It's true, it's your opinion, and if you don't like it being questioned or totally destroyed by logical reasoning, then I suggest that you keep it to yourself (hence my previous post to KINDLY do so, which is the vital part of that sentence in that previous post that you missed. It was a suggestion in the nicest possible intentions). Once again, answer with some ACTUAL logic, and you'll find that my demeanor changes. You can't expect to treat me with opression through illogical argumentation and NOT expect me to be offended by it.



Around the Network

the2real4mafol said:

Not only are they Christian (i said not to mention religion in the title), but this is a paper that tends to have conservative views on things, so are obviously anti-gay. These people are only against gays adopting because of the fact they are Christian. This article mentions very little that suggests having gay parents damages a child physcologically, if anything all it says is that a religious couple is against gays having civil relations/ marriages and being able to adopt, because of there faith. Also, I hope you realise the couple were traditional christian too, not gay. It proves my point that only the religious are bothered about repressing gays and there rights. Try and find an Atheist with similiar views.

Why are Christians even against gays, what happened to love thy neighbour? in that case

That wasn't the point.

Again (take a breath in... and out): people are being punished for their beliefes -- that's a sign of an ideology on the govermental level. An ideology and propaganda of tolerance, individual freedom or whatever, ideology that eventually has gone against the very basis of any society (which is family, and a traditional one) over smth as negligible as homosexuals (and by sheer numbers they are negligible), who not even worth a discussion and mainly just a trolling point for the media. Look above, 300 000 are protesting against gay marriage, which is huge for 2.5 mln plus smth Paris in France, that have unprecedented high "homosexuals acceptance" rate. I'm actually surprised, I thought Europe was done. Doubt all of them are religious nuts and, as you say, "anti-gay". Are you going to ignore their opinion?

If you cannot understand why traditional family has an undoubtful advantage over homosexual, I'm afraid I won't be able to explain. The reasoning here goes beyond any ideology, since it's based on the way the society works. And btw I'm an atheist, so you couldn't say I'm "anti gay marriage" due to religious views I do not have. Probably I'm just older than you, a father and generaly more conservative (was like you 10 years ago).



I put I was agaisnt gay marriage. The reason for this is not because I revere the institute of marriage, as a religious or "secular political" institution. I oppose marriage as being instrusive. Relationships do not need to be approved or "sanctified" by any authority.

However, I cannot support anyone opposing gay marraige from a conservative/ecumenical position. This position has supported the regimentation of relationships, and as such as espousd the subjugation of woman.

Gay relationships are just as valid as straight relationships. This is because those involved in any romantic liaison consider their relationship as valid as any other. The church or state be damned.



mai said:

the2real4mafol said:

Not only are they Christian (i said not to mention religion in the title), but this is a paper that tends to have conservative views on things, so are obviously anti-gay. These people are only against gays adopting because of the fact they are Christian. This article mentions very little that suggests having gay parents damages a child physcologically, if anything all it says is that a religious couple is against gays having civil relations/ marriages and being able to adopt, because of there faith. Also, I hope you realise the couple were traditional christian too, not gay. It proves my point that only the religious are bothered about repressing gays and there rights. Try and find an Atheist with similiar views.

Why are Christians even against gays, what happened to love thy neighbour? in that case

That wasn't the point.

Again (take a breath in... and out): people are being punished for their beliefes -- that's a sign of an ideology on the govermental level. An ideology and propaganda of tolerance, individual freedom or whatever, ideology that eventually has gone against the very basis of any society (which is family, and a traditional one) over smth as negligible as homosexuals (and by sheer numbers they are negligible), who not even worth a discussion and mainly just a trolling point for the media. Look above, 300 000 are protesting against gay marriage, which is huge for 2.5 mln plus smth Paris in France, that have unprecedented high "homosexuals acceptance" rate. I'm actually surprised, I thought Europe was done. Doubt all of them are religious nuts and, as you say, "anti-gay". Are you going to ignore their opinion?

If you cannot understand why traditional family has an undoubtful advantage over homosexual, I'm afraid I won't be able to explain. The reasoning here goes beyond any ideology, since it's based on the way the society works. And btw I'm an atheist, so you couldn't say I'm "anti gay marriage" due to religious views I do not have. Probably I'm just older than you, a father and generaly more conservative (was like you 10 years ago).

well i guess they shouldn't be discriminated against for religious reasons, they have a right adopt like anyone else. It's not like they would be bad parents (they don't look like bad parents anyway). But saying that, is this any different than discriminating gays from adopting because they are gay?

But i'll be honest with you, i find gay relationship and adoption a bit strange, something don't seem right about it. But despite that, i'm willing to tolerant them and just believe they should be treated like everyone else when it comes to any issue. And i tend to agree, a more traditional family is better but it's just not right to stop a gay family from forming, it's there choice at the end of the day. 

Also, i don't see myself becoming more conservative until i'm very old probably. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

^Good thing you do. It is "strange" indeed, human beings are tend to protect their lifestyle, at least those who value stability, even though unconsciously sometimes.

Child sexuality is smth he/she learns about as early as 10-12 y.o., of course, kids are aware of gender specific differences way before that and could even form sort of couples with each other mimicking adult's behaviour, but never truly understand it until early teen age. At this point pro-gay lobbists usually start running in circles screaming "it's not a choice" :D Of course, it's not, but it is surely not smth you inherit. Relationships between parents, social groups he/she interacts with, culture in general are all influential in one way or another on kid's psychology before he/she formed as a personality, which includes his/her sexuality. Though I'm not with alarmists in anti gay marriage camp, that homosexuals are great threat, but it's smth worth keeping in mind that homosexuals are useless for society in this specific regard -- this should be foundtation of our attitude to them on what's tolerable and what's not.



mai said:

^Good thing you do. It is "strange" indeed, human beings are tend to protect their lifestyle, at least those who value stability, even though unconsciously sometimes.

Child sexuality is smth he/she learns about as early as 10-12 y.o., of course, kids are aware of gender specific differences way before that and could even form sort of couples with each other mimicking adult's behaviour, but never truly understand it until early teen age. At this point pro-gay lobbists usually start running in circles screaming "it's not a choice" :D Of course, it's not, but it is surely not smth you inherit. Relationships between parents, social groups he/she interacts with, culture in general are all influential in one way or another on kid's psychology before he/she formed as a personality, which includes his/her sexuality. Though I'm not with alarmists in anti gay marriage camp, that homosexuals are great threat, but it's smth worth keeping in mind that homosexuals are useless for society in this specific regard -- this should be foundtation of our attitude to them on what's tolerable and what's not.


Speechless. You sad, bigoted little man.