U.S. Supreme Court halts gay marriage in Utah

[Retro Rob]

I don't know your exact views, how can I answer unless you tell me?

I will say that I've never come across a non-homophobic reason that someone disagrees with letting gays marry. If you have one, I'm all ears (no joke).



How about you explain how this is any different than interracial marriage and racism?

You just said all taking points are homophobic, now you're saying you don't know my views. My guess is that you don't know the views of 99 percent of people who don't agree with it, and since they're all "homophobic", you don't care to know.

So basically it boils down to all taking points not in favor of it is by definition, "homophobic". Do you know how stupid you are for holding that view?

 

[Texashiker]

There are many people who don't care. And they aren't the problem as they don't care either way, so they won't crusade against it. Those who oppose it are more likely to get into the situation where rational views are presented to them only harden them to being against it. Even when all of their concerns/criticisms have been addressed.

When someone speaks up about their indifference they are branded. And that is not fair.

You know what gays need to do? Stop prancing around 1/2 naked in their parades, and stop suing the pants off everyone who does not join them.

Part of tolerating means not having to see it. Two gay men want to suck each others face, do it in the privacy of their own home. I do not want to see it.

You're absolutely right, to be honest. I don't think they realize that calling me homophobic doesn't make me one -- thats why I asked whats a "homophobic root".

:thumbsup:

 

[ElFenix]

When someone speaks up about their indifference they are branded. And that is not fair.

You know what gays need to do? Stop prancing around 1/2 naked in their parades, and stop suing the pants off everyone who does not join them.

Part of tolerating means not having to see it. Two gay men want to suck each others face, do it in the privacy of their own home. I do not want to see it.




:thumbsup:

who's doing the branding? maybe you need to look in the mirror.

 

[MrPickins]

You just said all taking points are homophobic, now you're saying you don't know my views. My guess is that you don't know the views of 99 percent of people who don't agree with it, and since they're all "homophobic", you don't care to know.

So basically it boils down to all taking points not in favor of it is by definition, "homophobic". Do you know how stupid you are for holding that view?

I already told you, I've debated this subject for years and have not once heard a logical argument against gay marriage that didn't involve homophobia. This is completely based on my personal experience.

All you have to do to prove me wrong, though, is to offer one counter argument.

Also, I've lived/worked all over Texas (among other places) and dealt with people of all types and opinions. You can guess as to my experiences with different people, but you'd be wrong.


Still dodging the race issue, btw?

So basically it boils down to all taking points not in favor of interracial marriage is by definition, "racist". Do you know how stupid you are for holding that view?

:whiste:

 

[Retro Rob]

I've already answered your question.

How about you give me one argument against it that is not homophobic

One, that's all I ask.


Why do you keep dodging the race analogy? It's the most apt of any.

Lol -- a racist isn't a person who doesn't think whites should marry blacks. That's an opinion, only. We choose to attach race because we think everyone should think like we do.

 

[MrPickins]

Lol -- a racist isn't a person who doesn't think whites should marry blacks. That's an opinion, only.

Yeah, a racist opinion.

 

[MrPickins]

Whatever, this was fun for today.

Have fun with your increasingly out-dated views. :thumbsup:


Edit (before I run out the door): You never did give me one non-homophobic example to refute my assertion. I'll have to assume you don't have one.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yeah, a racist opinion.

How dare someone think differently than you do. They're all racist!

 

[MrPickins]

Of course I had to take one last look before leaving (it's like gawking at a car wreck)...

How dare someone think differently than you do. They're all racist!

Thinking that the races shouldn't mix is practically the definition of racist.

You're making yourself look foolish.



Still waiting for the non-homophobic reason to be against gay marriage, btw.

 

[OCGuy]

Holy sh*t an anti "race-mixer" has been exposed.....

I'm not sure how you accidentally typed anandtech when you were looking for stormfront...

 

[Retro Rob]

Of course I had to take one last look before leaving (it's like gawking at a car wreck)...



Thinking that the races shouldn't mix is practically the definition of racist.

You're making yourself look foolish.

Thinking that people shouldn't think differently is practically the definition of fascism

 

[LunarRay]

Lol -- a racist isn't a person who doesn't think whites should marry blacks. That's an opinion, only. We choose to attach race because we think everyone should think like we do.

It's ok to hold an opinion but not ok to legislate that opinion upon the population if it is within the Rights shared by all people in this nation.

Always remember your Rights are guaranteed by how strongly you support the Rights of others....

 

[MrPickins]

Still waiting for the non-homophobic reason to be against gay marriage, btw.

The way he's dodging that speaks volumes.

:whiste:

 

[shadow9d9]

You just said all taking points are homophobic, now you're saying you don't know my views. My guess is that you don't know the views of 99 percent of people who don't agree with it, and since they're all "homophobic", you don't care to know.

So basically it boils down to all taking points not in favor of it is by definition, "homophobic". Do you know how stupid you are for holding that view?

That isn't what he said. No argument has been put forth by any human being thus far that wasn't based/rooted in homophobia. Sure, you have people who try to hide it in cherry picking from their insane holy book of course(ignoring the other insanities of course!), but homophobia is the clear reason.

Since it harms literally no one, and gives equal rights to people, there is no legitimate reason to stop gay people from marrying.

 

[shadow9d9]

Thinking that people shouldn't think differently is practically the definition of fascism

You could think the moon is made of cheese for all we care. You can't deny people equal rights because of it.

 

[shadow9d9]

When someone speaks up about their indifference they are branded. And that is not fair.

You know what gays need to do? Stop prancing around 1/2 naked in their parades, and stop suing the pants off everyone who does not join them.

Part of tolerating means not having to see it. Two gay men want to suck each others face, do it in the privacy of their own home. I do not want to see it.




:thumbsup:

"Part of tolerating means not having to see it."

False.

"Two gay men want to suck each others face, do it in the privacy of their own home."

Heteros do it, so so can they.

We GET it. You are fearful of homosexuals. WHO CARES! They deserve equal rights.

Maybe you should spend less time worrying and thinking about where the dicks of homosexual men go.


Oh, and heterosexuals have plenty of half naked festivals/parades/runs/etc.

 

[shadow9d9]

If you are indifferent, you are a bigot.

There is no middle ground here. You are either for gay rights, or you are against them.

Not really, but that is what people are telling me.

Right. Indifferent to inequality is the equivalent of being against it.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

When someone speaks up about their indifference they are branded. And that is not fair.

You know what gays need to do? Stop prancing around 1/2 naked in their parades, and stop suing the pants off everyone who does not join them.

Part of tolerating means not having to see it. Two gay men want to suck each others face, do it in the privacy of their own home. I do not want to see it.

:thumbsup:

Is it fair to brand white supremacists as racists? If you can't own the label then perhaps you should reconsider your position.

They don't sue people who don't join them. They sue people who are legitimately infringing on their rights. And the people who prance around half naked is a small % of the gay community.

Part of tolerating does NOT mean "not having to see it." If heterosexual couples can make out in public, why can't homosexual ones? Many straight people don't want to see straight couples sucking face...

 

[werepossum]

Again, you are fundamentally so far removed from the real LGBT community and what they are doing that it is apparent (Well, it has been) that you are simply incapable of discussing this topic at an adult level.

I think that phrase "LGBT community" has done a lot of damage by implying not only homogeneity but also difference. If one accepts that there is an LGBT community which is distinct and therefore different from non-gays, then assuming that the most visible gay people are representative of that group is natural. Blacks suffered much the same a bit, but not to nearly as strong a measure because most people who identify as black are easily visually identified, so that one knows (assuming one has at least enough wit to dress oneself and is not living a segregated lifestyle) that the black carjacker on the evening news is not representative of blacks as a whole. If however one knows few or no gays, then it's easy to assume that the most visible specimens are representative of the "community". In reality people tend to be individuals, such that while I do not care for watching sports a significant amount of gay men do. Yet everyone would associate watching football with the straight community rather than the gay community.

I understand the need to have a sense of community when one is so different from one's family and childhood friends, but I still think the concept is ultimately damaging.

What you did there was unnatural getting divorced! We should ban divorce.

I'm kidding with that, but you're basically saying "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends." Right.

This is another thing that grinds my gears, for it is a bald statement that no matter how many black (or gay, or albino Inuit, etc.) friends you may have, you are racist unless you agree with me.

I have a hard time understanding all the reverse bigotry, which is all this is, and demanding people be politically correct instead of genuinely honest. This is all a form of bullying...convert or die (socially-speaking), lynch-mob mentality, and its ok for you to do this.

We all talk about "tolerance" and repect,...if I judge gays as being deviants, I can't do that, but then the same idiots, right out of the sides of the necks, justifiy "judging" me...as you so willingly admit to doing.

You guys don't want tolerance. You don't know what it means.

Well said, sir. I'd just point out that the thread is about gay marriage, not respect or tolerance. I suspect that most gays would be fine with having the same rights and freedoms and protections as everyone else without insisting that everyone accept their gayness.

 

[Victorian Gray]

When someone speaks up about their indifference they are branded. And that is not fair.

You know what gays need to do? Stop prancing around 1/2 naked in their parades, and stop suing the pants off everyone who does not join them.

Part of tolerating means not having to see it. Two gay men want to suck each others face, do it in the privacy of their own home. I do not want to see it.

And how many people want to see two straight people sucking each others face and you know, ya just can't get away from it. It's on TV. It's in the movies. It's in most fiction books. It's on the streets. It's on billboards. It's in the schools. Damn! It's everywhere. Really, keep it in privacy of the home. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

 

[Victorian Gray]

Lol -- a racist isn't a person who doesn't think whites should marry blacks. That's an opinion, only. We choose to attach race because we think everyone should think like we do.

Excuse me? What non racist reason can you come up with to be against inter racial marriage?

 

[Retro Rob]

Excuse me? What non racist reason can you come up with to be against inter racial marriage?

I don't know -- I am not against interracial marriage. My point isn't whether or not someone has a valid reason, but the fact that they can have an opinion.

A lot of the time, people just feel a certain way about things for reasons only known to them.

At any rate, the comparisons are not worth replying or, for a specific reason:

You're saying my argument X (disagreement with gay marriage) is false because argument Y (disagreement with interracial marriage) was false. This is a fallacy of virtue....which is why I am wholly ignoring them.

If you want to show me why I am wrong about disagreeing with gay marriage, tell me why I am wrong about gay marriage...don't tell me why racists were wrong 99 years ago, or why slave owners were wrong.

That's like saying I was wrong for eating a cheeseburger because by great-grandfather was wrong about eating a can of soup.

 

[berzerker60]

It's an analogy. In both cases, there was a social group that was looked down upon - and subject, sometimes, to violent beatings (and a death penalty in the UK, among other places) - that started speaking up for equal treatment. In both cases, the majority was comfortable with the way things were and got very upset that someone was trying to change things from the 'natural' order. In both cases, the Bible was used to justify this oppression, pseudoscience was used to justify the oppression, and laws were passed to legitimate and solidify this oppression. You're wrong to be supporting the active legislation specifying that this minority group be banned from involvement in the same social and legal structures everyone else gets to take part in, solely because (and your reasons are unclear, so clarify if you like) you just find them icky and wish they would go away.

I have a hard time understanding all the reverse bigotry, which is all this is, and demanding people be politically correct instead of genuinely honest. This is all a form of bullying...convert or die (socially-speaking), lynch-mob mentality, and its ok for you to do this.

We all talk about "tolerance" and repect,...if I judge gays as being deviants, I can't do that, but then the same idiots, right out of the sides of the necks, justifiy "judging" me...as you so willingly admit to doing.

You guys don't want tolerance. You don't know what it means.

Indifference to evil is evil.

 

[werepossum]

I don't know -- I am not against interracial marriage. My point isn't whether or not someone has a valid reason, but the fact that they can have an opinion.

A lot of the time, people just feel a certain way about things for reasons only known to them.

At any rate, the comparisons are not worth replying or, for a specific reason:

You're saying my argument X (disagreement with gay marriage) is false because argument Y (disagreement with interracial marriage) was false. This is a fallacy of virtue....which is why I am wholly ignoring them.

If you want to show me why I am wrong about disagreeing with gay marriage, don't tell me why racists were wrong 99 years ago, or why slave owners were wrong.

That's like saying I was wrong for eating a cheeseburger because by great-grandfather was wrong about eating a can of soup.

But surely you see the similarity, no? Both must ultimately fall into a limited number of categories - it's always been like that, my religion demands it, I fear what else may follow it, or I just don't like it so it's wrong.

I do respect you and your right to have an opinion, and I respect your opinion itself. Same with TexasHiker. I only disagree when people attempt to use government to enforce those opinions. I do however believe that opinion is destined to die out in the general population. Another similarity is that opposing gay marriage, like opposing interracial marriage, is practically impossible once they become legal. There simply are no adverse effects that would warrant depriving someone of their G_d-given rights. And denying someone a freedom they have never had is also depriving them of that freedom just as if they had had it.

 

[Retro Rob]

But surely you see the similarity, no? Both must ultimately fall into a limited number of categories - it's always been like that, my religion demands it, I fear what else may follow it, or I just don't like it so it's wrong.

That's why the argument is fallacious, because it doesn't address the merit of my argument, but the merit (or lack thereof) of other arguments.

For instance, many in Detroit live in poverty...some rob and kill people. So just because people in Detroit share similarities with the killers and thieves, is ok for me to use that as an indictment against ALL Detroiters?

You see the similarities? Poor, living in Detroit...so logically, they're all thieves and killers.

I do respect you and your right to have an opinion, and I respect your opinion itself. Same with TexasHiker. I only disagree when people attempt to use government to enforce those opinions. I do however believe that opinion is destined to die out in the general population. Another similarity is that opposing gay marriage, like opposing interracial marriage, is practically impossible once they become legal. There simply are no adverse effects that would warrant depriving someone of their G_d-given rights. And denying someone a freedom they have never had is also depriving them of that freedom just as if they had had it.

I agree. I HATE when religion attempts to legislate their beliefs. That's not what I am doing, nor proposing as a action to be taken.