You refuse to address the point, so you try an attack, hiding from the issue. Try again, or it's clear you are refusing to answer the points.
I'll point out that civil unions are not ONLY enjoyed by gays, there are male/female couples that choose this route versus "marrige' for a variety of reasons. Again, your whole obsession over STIGMA indicates to me this is more about public validation than legal rights. Let's call this debate what it really is...
As I said, I don't really care what people call two people who enter into a formal relationship call it, to me the substance of a relationship is more important than what you call it. I find the substance of this debate interesting since for all intents and purposes gays and hetros can enjoy the same legal standing as a married couples, this truly is a debate over vocabulary. Don't pretend that in part the obsession with allowing gays to enter into formal "marrige" is not in part a sharp stick to the eye of people you feel wronged by (conservative Christians perhaps?).
Again, as I said, you can't change the "stigma" factor by forcing a change in vocabulary just like you can't force a racist hispanic father to approve of his daughter's engagement to a black man just because the state says it's ok. At the end of the day any victory in this arena is symbolic in nature only, it seems more like you need to grow a spine and quit caring what the fuck other people think.
People who marginalize gay relationships are not going to change their stripes because somebody changes a word around. I thought liberals were supposed to be the big "live your life however you want and don't care what others think crowd" anyway? You guys are losing your touch...
So? There are lots of things straight and gay couples share, that have nothing to do with the area of discrimination, gay marriage.
You don't answer the issue of denying blacks the right to eat at white-only restaurants by pointing out that they get to drive on the same roads as whites.
First, where do you get off using the word obsession? I'm passionately for ending unjustified discrimination. That's not a bad thing, and the word 'obsession doesn't fit.
Was Martin Luther King 'obsessed' with the race issue in a way that was wrong?
Give me a break with the wrong, cheap rhetoric. (I use rhetoric in a very intentional manner and will defend it. You can't defend that.)
Second, it's not about gays wanting people to say anything to them 'approving', it's about their wanting the *same rights*. Marriage *is* the public recognizing the relationship.
So, in that sense you're right - and so what? The question is why you think you have the right to deny them equality and make them second-class citizens.
Not having equal marital rights *is* a stigma, and the desire for a stigma is why the pro-discrimination people are holding out on the word.
Yet another misguided point. I'd agree the substantive areas are 'more important', but so what? That has nothing to do with the remaining, important area.
Again, I would tell blacks who are wanting equal access to restaurants that it's more important that they have the right to vote. So the hell what?
OK, I won't pretend it. I'll say it. It's not about a stick in the eye to those people. It's about frickin equality, and if you didn't have the empathy of a rock, you would get a clue about that and stop thinking it's 'all about you' like a narcissist. I won't deny that those people might not *feel* like it's a sharp stick in the eye, but that has nothing to do with the reason I support this - I wish they didn't, but I also see that as the price they pay for their own bigotry.
I had a relative who told me that when he saw a mixed couple, he had to stop and count to ten to keep his composure it upset him so much. They didn't date to hurt him.
You dismissively say the issue is 'just vocabulary', but I see you fighting tooth and nail on it for no reason, and I don't see you agreeing to be treated as second class yourself.
I will repeat what I already said: this is not about changing people's opinions. It's about changing the *official state treatment of gays*.
There will be bigots regardless, but there's a big difference between the state officially treating them as second class and treating them the same.
What a jerky attempt to be snarky. You understand little about liberals, obviously. No wonder you are on the side you're on.
I often like to see people improve their views to become liberals, but you are welcome to stay over there a while longer.
You attacked my post as 'degrading to blacks'. You are stil dodging the issues and haven't answered them. Are you going to, or are you going to dodge them?
No actually, Im going right to the heart of your argument where you try throughout it to equate the struggles black people have had to the issue of gay marriage.
No, you are fallaciously ignoring what the analogy actually said, in order to dodge the issue.
You are not, obviously, going to answer the post. And you can't even admit that.
It's pretty funny you hounded me for a response to nonsense for days if not weeks to something I'd already answered, but you can't answer a post.
idiotekniQues
Platinum Member
- Jan 4, 2007
- 2,572
- 0
- 76
well take it easy on him, he probably thinks the world wasj ust created a few thuosand eyars ago and dinosaurs are a trick of the devil.
And you still have yet to post in that thread. Feel free to do so, then I may respond to your illogical arguments here.
You again make the attack with zero to back it up, as always.
I'm not interested in whether you respond, I'm simply limiting your options to responding or it being clear you can't or won't.
In the other thread, you apparently had a hard time reading where I said I'd already addressed the issues in a previous post, and I may or may not post further at some point.
I've never said blacks should be forced into slavery. I've never said women should not have the right to vote. I've never said inter-racial couples can't marry. What I HAVE said, is that I don't believe gays should be allowed to be married. Please don't attmept to equate them all.
Thats a loaded question if I ever saw one. Let me explain (again). I believe the Bible strictly says that homosexuality is a sin, therfore, I will not support any measure to promote it.
Actually, its more to do with the fact that I believe marriage is a religious institution. There is no bigotry. Bigotry suggests I hate, which I do not. I dont hate gays, no matter how much you and others here can't see that.
Again, please try not to make them the same thing, we both know they aren't.
And again, slavery has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Now, I have answered your pathetic argument, but I wouldnt expect you to man up and actually post what you promised in the thread about the pedophile radio host who distributes child porn whom you still defend today.
Here's the thread to make it easy for you :
http://forums.anandtech.com/me..._key=y&keyword1=busted
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
corbett,
you and your church have every right to deny gay marriage in your church. You don't like it then fine...I have read some interesting arguments that oppose gay marriage from the catholic church and quite frankly it is their belief system and if you choose to be a part of that belief system then there is nothing that anyone can/should say in opposition to YOUR CHOICE.
but why do you feel it is necessary to deny these gay rights outside of your church/belief system? Why isn't it enough to you to live and let live?
when Jesus walked the earth, which of the lowly did he discriminate against?
you and your church have every right to deny gay marriage in your church. You don't like it then fine...I have read some interesting arguments that oppose gay marriage from the catholic church and quite frankly it is their belief system and if you choose to be a part of that belief system then there is nothing that anyone can/should say in opposition to YOUR CHOICE.
but why do you feel it is necessary to deny these gay rights outside of your church/belief system? Why isn't it enough to you to live and let live?
when Jesus walked the earth, which of the lowly did he discriminate against?
Probably for the same reason gays want to call it "marriage" instead of "civil unions"
I wouldnt consider gays "lowly" Sure, Jesus did not discriminate against anyone; however, he did not promote sin either. You never once see him encouraging someone to sin in the Bible.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
so let them call it marriage! how does that hurt you? you can stand at the steps of your church and denounce gay marriage all you want. But you and your kind want to take it a step further and involve legislation and law. But once you do that you have to take into account equality and justice, and you are not advocating equality by limiting the vocabulary involved, you can't make the term 'marriage' sacrosanct in the eyes of the law.
that is advocating for a second class citizenry. pure and simple
No jesus did no promote sin but he did love everyone equally. You are not exhibiting the same kind of love that jesus would have in mind for any sinner. You want to make those gays "lowly" you want to make them exist in a world that is subordinate to your beliefs and your rights. You dont like their lifestyle, fine. Just say it. The bible says alot of things are sins..that makes the bible very convienent.
it is harder to love like Jesus loved.
If Jesus did not promote sin, how can I promote homosexuality?
This is where we completely disagree. Sure we are to love everyone equally; however, that doesnt mean we let everyone do whatever they want.
I never said "I dont like their lifestyle", what I said was I believe the Bible explicitly states their lifestyle is a sin, and therefore I will not promote it.
Care to expound on this before I jump to conclusions?
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
you dont have to promote anything!!! thats your problem. You have to live and let live, you have to love and not judge or condemn a people that is different from you. No one is trying to indoctrinate you into gayness, and no one is asking you to indoctrinate anyone into hetero-ness.
Jesus lifted the broken and the sick, he comforted the sinner. he didn't care about the sins they have committed. He asked that of us. He gave us salvation through his sacrifice and then he asked us that if we believe in him, we will follow in his ways. Now take what you feel about homosexuality, and really ask yourself, are you a road to salvation? or are you a barrier to salvation?
and listen, jump to conclusions all you want here is a partial list of sins good luck trying to follow all of them. The bible is convenient for condemning people for their sins, its happened all throughout history and something tells me that future generations will allow this to continue to happen. But try to reconcile that with the teachings of Jesus from the bible and you realize the many contradictions. Because ultimately you can't love someone and simultaneously put them down. And that is what you are doing.
To love everyone like Jesus loved us is to love everyone equally, even though they hate, even though they oppress, even though they sin. That is not promoting sin, that is promoting the type of love we need in this world. And you only hope that someone learns to love that way. You can't love like that by oppressing people. You can't just say "oh those people are sinners to hell with them, they don't deserve what I deserve. " You are WRONG, they do deserve what you deserve, and that is a life lived in the love of God and Jesus Christ.
Try doing that.
I really do need to type slowly for you.
*No one is saying you believe those things*. They are an analogy to clarify for you the question being asked in why you think you have the right to vote against gay marriage.
You did not understand the question, and answered about the mechanics of the vote, that the constitution gives you the right to vote.
I carefully explained to you - using analogies where the moral aspect is especially clear for illustration - that you are not being asked about the mechanical right but the moral right.
You then disregarded the entire point to say something absurd.
It's like playing baseball with someone who runs to third instead of first and just won't get the rules. And no, I'm not literally saying you run to third when you play baseball.
The issues with your position include but are not limited to:
1. You are ignoring all the overwhelming science and facts available which prove beyond any reasonable doubt that gay is generally a CONDITION, not a CHOICE.
2. You ignore all the Christian beliefs interpreting the bible that are consisten with gay marriage. Only some Christian sects interpret the bible (wrongly, IMO) to condemn gays.
3. You are breaking the rule to treat others as you would like to be treated, since I think that if you were gay, you would want the right to be treated equally and marry.
4. You are extending the involvement of religion into law past where there is a secular reason for the law, to where there is none.
For example, murder and theft have both religious and secular reasons to have laws, but gay marriage has no secular reason to have a law against it.
It's the same principle as if Catholics in earlier days voted for eating meat on Friday to be a crime.
5. You are inconsistent. You don't follow many other biblical statements equally. Where's your call for stoning adulterers? For rapists to pay her family a fine and marry her?
Oh, that's old testament. Well, so is a lot of the scripture you interpret (wrongly IMO) as anti-gay. And Jesus never said homosexuality is a sin, as you say you believe.
Thousands of statements on helping the poor (sorry, right-wingers, but you lose), but not one saying homosexuality is a sin. See the next point for His 'man and woman' comment.
6. The bible isn't a text written to cover ever situation exactly. When there is a comman to 'go forth and multiply', are the infertile sinning when they don't? Why doesn't it say 'except you infertile people'? Because it's a general statement, and *there are exceptions*. There are tens of millions of abortions many Christian say are sins, but the bible doesn't say that explicitly. People say girls too young should not get married, but the bible doesn't give an age for it.
When Jesus refers to marriage as a man and woman, there's no reason to think He wasn't speaking in the same way as 'go forth and multiply' was targeted to most, not all.
He was dealing with the 'norm', and not using language that included the small minority of people born gay.
Once you determine, as any honest inquiry will, that homosexuality generally is a condition from birth or a very young age, the other Christian principles say you are wrong, IMO.
7. The bible has passages ordering men to take slaves. Today, we'd say that's wrong.
You need to use a little common sense in reading the bible.
Ask yourself why a percentage of people would be born gay, and yet not supposed to get to marry like others? Does it make any sense?
Can you say anything why it's something deserving punishment like other sins?
8. You're inconsistent in supporting ANY 'equal rights' for gays, if you are going to say you are not going to vote for any law supporting it because it's a sin.
Why vote for laws recognizing 'civil unions' and rights to benefits and non-discrimination and other rights, if it's something you say is a sin and which you condemn?
Laws which give equal rights to gays in any of those areas are 'condoning' gay relationships just like gay marriage would. You are not being consistent.
9. Why is it ok for you to indulge your religious prejudice when it harms others with inequality?
People who opposed black marriage and inter-racial marriage also used the bible to defend their bigotry. How can you say you're not doing the same?
Bigotry doesn't mean just 'hate'. It means, IMO, to treat worse than others, to view worse than others, for no good reason.
Here are a few definitions from the web:
Nothing about hate, exactly - pretty good fits for your attitude.
Indeed, here's the one from yourdictionary.com in a usage example just like you:
Now, I'm pretty sure the Cardinal would say he doesn't hate gays, either, but there he is in the dictionary under bigotry.
The fact is you want to treat gays worse than others, and you have no secular justification.
It's the *same principle*. You just think you're justified because you think gays are sinners - isn't everyone a sinner? - so you are justified to deny them equal treatment.
There were a whole lot of arguments made why black discrimination and slavery were justified too. And their slavery arguments were much stronger than your case.
And again, you are refusing to read what's written there, the reference to slavery is an *analogy* to rebut your non-answer about why you think you have the moral right to vote for discrimination by saying that you have the right to vote from the constitution, not addressing what you were asked. You again here *dodge* the issue by again going down a non-issue by ignoring the point of the analogy.
It can be written without the analogy, to deny you the hiding place:
Now, as for the other thread, first, you are not being honest about what I said. I said above here what I said there already: that I said there I'd already addressed the issue, and I *might* have more to say later. That is not in any way, shape or form a 'promise' to say more as you falsely state. Also, there were no open questions there for me to address. The bottom line is that I'd commented, and was and am waiting for more solid facts to come out to reach further conclusions. I may or may not have more to say in the meantime.
If there's some *specific* question or questions you have that I didn't already answer, you can bump that thread with them or PM me.
In the meantime, your points above are answered, and I remain of the view that you are guilty of bigotry, regardless of it having some loose connection to a biblical belief.
Edit: Corbett, I just caught you using the word 'pathetic' in your post. You have earned the irony of the week award. Try not to be an ass and make a fool of yourself that way.
Craig, this is why I end up eventually dropping these arguments with you. You obviously have waaaaay too much free time to sit there and write something so long, and I do not. Besides, its obvious that you aren't willing to see anyone's opinion as valid if it differs from you.
And again, color me shocked that you ignore the Bernie Ward thread.
How many times did Jesus say, "Go, and sin no more"
Again, I'm not putting gays down. Just show me where Jesus promoted someone continuing to sin and I will concede my entire argument.
And again, of course we are to love everyone, no matter what sins they have. Thats obvious. I'm not saying "To Hell with them", thats for God to decide. What I am saying is that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin, so therefore, there is no way that Jesus would defend it. He consistently throughout the New Testament tells sinners to "Go and sin no more", even though he loves them completely.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
It is when they are not allowed the same benefits as people who fit your definition of marriage.
Ignoring the religous overtones, marriage is a legal contract that is recognized by the government. One does not need religion to get marriage (as a male/female). However, one does need the government to formally recognize it (license application prior to and registering afterwards).
For the government to deny the legal recognition is no different than what was done with inter-racial couples and similar to what was done with slaves by legally assigning them less value.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 396
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter