Voters set to affirm hatred of gays

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
To show my support for legislation that this country needs.

This country needs, or your wants?

If I had meant this post to be inflammatory, I could have easily attached multiple adjectives to 'wants'.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Pandaren
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...10/31/gay.marriage.ap/

The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage. Those in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah would ban civil unions as well, and those extra provisions have generated extra controversy.

Recent polls showed support for the amendments at 76 percent in Oklahoma and Kentucky, 65 percent in Arkansas, 60 percent or more in Michigan, 59 percent in Montana and 57 percent in Ohio.

The message is clear: the majority of people in those states hate gays. They see them as freaks to be relegated to second-class citizens. Congratulations on perpetuating bigotry in our great nation! /sarcasm. :|

This makes a mockery of civil rights.

banning gay marriage =/ hatred of gay people.

You are absolutely right. But, being against gay marriage would likely be closely associated with those who morally oppose homosexuality. And many (but not all, by any stretch) of those who believe homosexuality to be a sin are the sort who hate gays. One must not fall prey to opposing a position just because you find odious some of those who support it.

Frankly, if one were honestly of the position that one whould love the sin, yet hate the sinner, as well as beleiving that in a free society every one should be free to act as tthey wish, so long as that act doesn't impinge on the rights of others, then I can't see how they could advocate using laws to restrict the rights of others.

The best arguments I've heard against it are:

We don't want the state tacitly endorsing homosexuality. My question is this: why not? The fact that it is a sin in your religion is not a good enough reason to legislate in a secular democracy. And the growing number of those with non-Christian faiths, as well as atheists require the state to be secular.

Or,

The state has no business legislating one way or another wrt marriage, a religious institute. OK, I'll give you that one. In that case, there should be no legal definition of marriage whatsoever, which would allow any church in the land to marry homosexuals if it so wishes, de facto legalizing it. I actualy like this one, leaving the proper definition up to those with a true stake in it, and replacing all of our legal definitions of it with some kind of administrative (and likely gender-blind) equivalent for the purposes of contract law and pensions.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Oh, right, I don't hate gay people, I just don't think they should have the same rights I do. Makes perfect sense to me!

That is where you, and many others, are incorrect. Homosexuals have every right that heterosexuals do. They can get married in the same way that you and I can get married. Now, they cannot "marry" someone of the same sex, but neither can you or I. This is not a civil rights issue, period.

White people can't use the Black people water fountain.

That argument is null and void. You cannot compare the current treatment of homosexuals to the plight of the black community 50 years ago. One is a civil rights issue, the other is not. Not to mention, one involved the enslavement of an entire race of people for 300 years, while the other has hurt the feelings of a miniscule percent of the population.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
And many (but not all, by any stretch) of those who believe homosexuality to be a sin are the sort who hate gays.

Proof? Link? Anything?

Didn't think so.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
That argument is null and void. You cannot compare the current treatment of homosexuals to the plight of the black community 50 years ago. One is a civil rights issue, the other is not.

Your reasoning is circular. Your argument is therefore "null and void."

 

[daniel1113]

How is that a circular argument?

 

[chess9]

If gays are a "miniscule percent of the population" why the fuss? Don't you have better things to do than attack the 'miniscule"?

-Robert

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: chess9
If gays are a "miniscule percent of the population" why the fuss? Don't you have better things to do than attack the 'miniscule"?

-Robert

I haven't attacked anything. Nice try, though.

 

[Tom]

" I'll say it again, banning gay marriage /= hatred of gay people. "

You're right. Probably only 90% or so of the "ban gay marriage" people also hate gays.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Oh, right, I don't hate gay people, I just don't think they should have the same rights I do. Makes perfect sense to me!

That is where you, and many others, are incorrect. Homosexuals have every right that heterosexuals do. They can get married in the same way that you and I can get married. Now, they cannot "marry" someone of the same sex, but neither can you or I. This is not a civil rights issue, period.

White people can't use the Black people water fountain.

That argument is null and void. You cannot compare the current treatment of homosexuals to the plight of the black community 50 years ago. One is a civil rights issue, the other is not. Not to mention, one involved the enslavement of an entire race of people for 300 years, while the other has hurt the feelings of a miniscule percent of the population.

So it ok to discrimate against a group as long as you didn't enslave that group for 300 years?

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Oh, right, I don't hate gay people, I just don't think they should have the same rights I do. Makes perfect sense to me!

That is where you, and many others, are incorrect. Homosexuals have every right that heterosexuals do. They can get married in the same way that you and I can get married. Now, they cannot "marry" someone of the same sex, but neither can you or I. This is not a civil rights issue, period.

White people can't use the Black people water fountain.

That argument is null and void. You cannot compare the current treatment of homosexuals to the plight of the black community 50 years ago. One is a civil rights issue, the other is not. Not to mention, one involved the enslavement of an entire race of people for 300 years, while the other has hurt the feelings of a miniscule percent of the population.

You used the same argument against gay marriage / civil unions as racists used 50 years ago to justify segregation.

 

[miketheidiot]

from what i've seen being against gay marriage is hate gays and the be infavor or even opposed to banning gay marriage is to be gay. Ever time I try to oppose our proposed amendment I'm called "gay" or a "i love you" or some sh!t like that. I makes it impossible to argue against.

 

[Pandaren]

They are both civil rights issues. Why should a minority (gays) not have the same rights as other people w' regard to their significant others? Why should the law treat them differently?

There was a time when there were laws in the southern U.S. that made marriage between blacks and whites illegal. People said interracial marriage was a threat to society, and that the law was ok because it applied equally to blacks and whites. How much sense does that make?

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: joshw10
White people can't use the Black people water fountain.

That argument is null and void. You cannot compare the current treatment of homosexuals to the plight of the black community 50 years ago. One is a civil rights issue, the other is not. Not to mention, one involved the enslavement of an entire race of people for 300 years, while the other has hurt the feelings of a miniscule percent of the population.

 

[Luck JF]

1 Corinthians 6:9 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Luck JF
1 Corinthians 6:9 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Are you trying to say Bush isn't going to heaven? I'd agree.

Bush was a male cheerleader.

Bush was a drunkard.

I could have bolded others too...

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Pandaren
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...10/31/gay.marriage.ap/

The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage. Those in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah would ban civil unions as well, and those extra provisions have generated extra controversy.

Recent polls showed support for the amendments at 76 percent in Oklahoma and Kentucky, 65 percent in Arkansas, 60 percent or more in Michigan, 59 percent in Montana and 57 percent in Ohio.

The message is clear: the majority of people in those states hate gays. They see them as freaks to be relegated to second-class citizens. Congratulations on perpetuating bigotry in our great nation! /sarcasm. :|

This makes a mockery of civil rights.

banning gay marriage =/ hatred of gay people.

Right, keep telling yourself that. Oh, right, I don't hate gay people, I just don't think they should have the same rights I do. Makes perfect sense to me!

just because certain liberals want to rage a cultural war against our traditional values doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree with it. I'll say it again, banning gay marriage /= hatred of gay people.

Who in the hell is trying to take away your 'traditional values'? Is your mariage any different once others are allowed to too?

If you have traditional values, great, that fine. But why do you have to impose them on the everyone else?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: joshw10

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Oh, right, I don't hate gay people, I just don't think they should have the same rights I do. Makes perfect sense to me!

That is where you, and many others, are incorrect. Homosexuals have every right that heterosexuals do. They can get married in the same way that you and I can get married. Now, they cannot "marry" someone of the same sex, but neither can you or I. This is not a civil rights issue, period.

White people can't use the Black people water fountain.

That argument is null and void. You cannot compare the current treatment of homosexuals to the plight of the black community 50 years ago. One is a civil rights issue, the other is not. Not to mention, one involved the enslavement of an entire race of people for 300 years, while the other has hurt the feelings of a miniscule percent of the population.

You used the same argument against gay marriage / civil unions as racists used 50 years ago to justify segregation.

They compared segregation to gay marriage? Interesting...

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
They are both civil rights issues. Why should a minority (gays) not have the same rights as other people w' regard to their significant others? Why should the law treat them differently?

What right don't they have? FYI, marriage isn't a right. However, even if it was, homosexuals are treated the same as heterosexuals. You could argue the fairness of this, but it's not a civil rights issue.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Pandaren
They are both civil rights issues. Why should a minority (gays) not have the same rights as other people w' regard to their significant others? Why should the law treat them differently?

What right don't they have? FYI, marriage isn't a right. However, even if it was, homosexuals are treated the same as heterosexuals. You could argue the fairness of this, but it's not a civil rights issue.

Would a ban on interracial marrige be ok? Both black and whites would have the same rights to marry an person of oppisite gender but same skin color.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
homosexuals are treated the same as heterosexuals. You could argue the fairness of this, but it's not a civil rights issue.

they're not, though... if I was in a commited relationship with another male for 50 years, he still couldn't visit me in the hospital because the law won't consider him to be a family member and he'd have no power of attorny unless we had drawn up the paperwork beforehand. if I were to die suddenly, he'd have no claim over my estate.

In Virginia, for example, the Marriage Affirmation Act abridges gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other, interferes with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: Tom
" I'll say it again, banning gay marriage /= hatred of gay people. "

You're right. Probably only 90% or so of the "ban gay marriage" people also hate gays.

What do you mean by hate? I doubt there are many people who want Leviticus type executions of homosexuals, which is what I consider hate to be.

This country needs, or your wants?

Both, in this scenario.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: Tom
" I'll say it again, banning gay marriage /= hatred of gay people. "

You're right. Probably only 90% or so of the "ban gay marriage" people also hate gays.

What do you mean by hate? I doubt there are many people who want Leviticus type executions of homosexuals, which is what I consider hate to be.

This country needs, or your wants?

Both, in this scenario.

I don't know, things like saying gays got what they deserve with aids, using the word "gay" to describe things as negative, saying they will burn in eternal fires, that sort of thing.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

This country needs, or your wants?

Both, in this scenario.

I'll simply say that I am glad you don't make our laws then.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...10/31/gay.marriage.ap/

The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage. Those in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah would ban civil unions as well, and those extra provisions have generated extra controversy.

Recent polls showed support for the amendments at 76 percent in Oklahoma and Kentucky, 65 percent in Arkansas, 60 percent or more in Michigan, 59 percent in Montana and 57 percent in Ohio.

The message is clear: the majority of people in those states hate gays. They see them as freaks to be relegated to second-class citizens. Congratulations on perpetuating bigotry in our great nation! /sarcasm. :|

This makes a mockery of civil rights.

You forgot Louisiana. September 18th 78% voted to Hate and Ban Gays as well as Civil Unions.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Rainsford
People don't really understand their democratic duty, for the most part, and the government seems to have forgotten the whole "protect the minorites" part of the "will of the majority". Fvcking pathetic.

The role of the government in this country is not to protect the rights of the minority. Where do people keep getting this idea? It's to protect the rights of everybody.

Right, and Gays are a people, they are Gays and must be hated and Banned.

There are so many they will have to start burning them at stakes to thin the herd.