Homophobia

[Lingus]

Meh, just found this with some quick Googling. It's from 2001 and on a Christian site but it does cite sources, so I guess it gives us something to discuss.

This should be disregarded in my opinion. For one thing it was prepared by a biased group. In addition, you can pretty much do anything you want with charts and graphs and numbers.

What I find particularly interesting is that they are comparing homosexuals in long term commited relationships to married straight couples. For one thing, their whole point is that marriage needs to be upheld. So if that's the case, then commited couples should have nothing to do with that. Yes, you can't use married gay couples because there aren't enough of them to have a large enough group for statistics. But there is a fundamental flaw in using commited couples. Having been in both situations, long term committed relationship and married, I can say that there is a definite difference in how the couple feels about the relationship. The marriage itself is an additional level of commitment, whether symbolic or legally. To add to that, how many of these commited homosexual couples were ever going to get married. It stands to reason that at least a percentage of the couples in the study would not ever get married. There are straight couples that do that. Stay in a long term commited relationship and then break up after a period of time without ever getting married.

[Jackabomb]

Dear Scotty, I am a little uncertain about the meaning of your question. Are you asking for a reason against gay marriage or against homosexuality? Putting aside for the moment my objection to homosexuality itself, I object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is what marriage is, has been, and always shall be. It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken). Its definition has been unchanged for ages: A man and a woman. Now, I couldn't care less about tax benefits or what else have you. They can have 'em. I object to the use of the terms 'marriage','husband', and 'wife' to describe things that are not...those things.
What does it matter to me if people want to call each other what they're not? Well, I can't answer that without drawing on my personal beliefs and that discussion is bound to include scripture.

What really annoys me is that homophobes won't bat an eye at hundreds of celebrities that have 15 divorces under their belt, or straight couples that get married on a whim and don't even truly love each other, but God forbid one gay couple that actually does love their partner have the same benefits that straight couples get.

Dear Jake, I do bat an eye at people marrying and divorcing as if they're playing musical beds. I do not approve of people who marry on a whim and don't even understand what love means. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. Also the constitution does not protect people from being judged by others. I can be as judgmental as a KKK-Nazi if I want and the bill of rights has nothing to do with that. The bill of rights is about protecting people from the government.

Dear Lingus, Any group is biased. You won't find a group anywhere that everyone will agree is unbiased because bias is part of what makes us human. It's just the downside of nicer words you hear all the time like 'perspective' or 'worldview' or 'outlook on life'. I think of biases(in general) as nothing more than the price we pay for being different from each other. The question is whether or not a publication is deliberately untruthful simply to support the bias. And I highly doubt you(or I) know enough about this organization and that publication specifically to make any kind of accurate ruling in that field.

[Jake]

Dear Scotty, I am a little uncertain about the meaning of your question. Are you asking for a reason against gay marriage or against homosexuality? Putting aside for the moment my objection to homosexuality itself, I object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is what marriage is, has been, and always shall be. It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken). Its definition has been unchanged for ages: A man and a woman. Now, I couldn't care less about tax benefits or what else have you. They can have 'em. I object to the use of the terms 'marriage','husband', and 'wife' to describe things that are not...those things.
What does it matter to me if people want to call each other what they're not? Well, I can't answer that without drawing on my personal beliefs and that discussion is bound to include scripture.

What really annoys me is that homophobes won't bat an eye at hundreds of celebrities that have 15 divorces under their belt, or straight couples that get married on a whim and don't even truly love each other, but God forbid one gay couple that actually does love their partner have the same benefits that straight couples get.

Dear Jake, I do bat an eye at people marrying and divorcing as if they're playing musical beds. I do not approve of people who marry on a whim and don't even understand what love means. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. Also the constitution does not protect people from being judged by others. I can be as judgmental as a KKK-Nazi if I want and the bill of rights has nothing to do with that. The bill of rights is about protecting people from the government.

Dear Lingus, Any group is biased. You won't find a group anywhere that everyone will agree is unbiased because bias is part of what makes us human. It's just the downside of nicer words you hear all the time like 'perspective' or 'worldview' or 'outlook on life'. I think of biases(in general) as nothing more than the price we pay for being different from each other. The question is whether or not a publication is deliberately untruthful simply to support the bias. And I highly doubt you(or I) know enough about this organization and that publication specifically to make any kind of accurate ruling in that field.

Marriage has not always been a religious affair. It was once thought of as a private matter, but christians made it into a pact with God back in the early AD and slowly started adding other rules and obligations throughout the years. Marriage is not inherently a christian tradition. It has been used throughout history by many different cultures for many different reasons, even before Christianity was around. If a gay couple wants to be married in a church, it should be up to that specific church on whether or not they want to marry that couple. I do not believe in forcing churches to marry couples they do not want, but I also believe churches should be able to marry who they want if it is within their beliefs. This goes without saying that these ceremonies should be completely separate from any government laws. Any benefits from getting a religious marriage should come from the church alone, and if you are looking for legal benefits, you must also obtain a civil union.

Using a system like this allows gays to get a civil union without the religious aspect involved, and if they do want the standard religious marriage that goes along with it, they can find a church that is willing to marry them. Anybody that thinks a gay couple should not be allowed a civil union or a marriage from a church that supports gay rights is very obviously imposing their narrow minded world view on that couple and the church.

Oh and fyi, there's a clear cut difference between being a judgmental bigot and acting on that bigotry. You can be disgusted by gay marriage all you want, but when our government takes away the right of people to get married based on their sex, that's sexism. It means we're treating people differently based on their gender, which is totally illegal and morally wrong. The world would be a better place if we stopped judging and started accepting people for who they are.

[Jackabomb]

Jake, I don't understand the purpose of your last paragraph. Can you clarify a little with regards to why you're saying that and what it has to do with my post?

[Scotty]

My question wasn't so much about marriage, just homosexuality as a whole.  It's just that the current hot topic is gay marriage.  Oppressors have made it very clear that they want homosexuals to disappear, and now that gay marriage is finally being legalized, those oppressors are getting up in arms over it.

Saw this today and thought it applied rather well to Jack's remarks:

"Claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet."

Dear Scotty, I am a little uncertain about the meaning of your question. Are you asking for a reason against gay marriage or against homosexuality? Putting aside for the moment my objection to homosexuality itself, I object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is what marriage is, has been, and always shall be. It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken). Its definition has been unchanged for ages: A man and a woman. Now, I couldn't care less about tax benefits or what else have you. They can have 'em. I object to the use of the terms 'marriage','husband', and 'wife' to describe things that are not...those things.
What does it matter to me if people want to call each other what they're not? Well, I can't answer that without drawing on my personal beliefs and that discussion is bound to include scripture.

You're already delving into religion by attaching "religious affair" to the definition of marriage.  I, for the life of me, cannot possibly understand how people want to get into technicalities such as interpretations of a word (marriage) and use that as leverage.  It's a freakin' word, and everyone feels that they can sit there and say "Marriage means man and woman, not man and man, nor woman and woman!"  What the hell does it matter, it's a word that everyone is apparently interpreting in their own way to justify their opposition against those who don't agree with them.

And I'll clarify Jake's last paragraph for you.  Everyone (particularly the government who ultimately decides whether or not gay marriage is legal) who says "you're not good enough to get married" when it comes to homosexuals and marriage is sexist, oppressive, and self-centered.  Sure, you can think whatever you want, you can do whatever you want, everyone has the right to pursue happiness.  When it crosses the line is when you think that what you want is not what others want, and what you want is going to prevent others from doing what they want to be happy (to a reasonable extent obviously).  It's how I view life.  Do what makes you happy, but the minute that what you're doing is stepping on someone else's right do the same, you are wrong.

[Lingus]

It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken).

You are mistaken. You can be married by a civil marriage officiant and have a completely non-religious marriage. The person that married me and my wife was herself of a particular religion, but as far as her technical affiliation there was none, and we were not married in a church or any other place of god. Furthermore, the only thing that actually holds any weight is the actual marriage document. This is a government form. Anyone, regardless of where or how their wedding ceremony is held, must have this document to be considered legally married. In that sense, in the sense of the legal meaning of the word, marriage is not a religious affair at all. And that meaning is what should be used to determine the laws of who should be allowed to be married. That is to say, everyone.

Dear Jake, I do bat an eye at people marrying and divorcing as if they're playing musical beds. I do not approve of people who marry on a whim and don't even understand what love means. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. Also the constitution does not protect people from being judged by others. I can be as judgmental as a KKK-Nazi if I want and the bill of rights has nothing to do with that. The bill of rights is about protecting people from the government.

You're kind of making our point. You're saying the bill of rights is about protecting people from the government. In other words, the government should not stand between two people wanting to be married (in the legal sense). You are right that the constitution does not allow the government to tell religious institutions what to do. But that's not what anyone is saying. No one is saying that it is unconstitutional that churches won't marry gay couples. It is that the government won't recognise a civil marriage of a gay couple.

Dear Lingus, Any group is biased. You won't find a group anywhere that everyone will agree is unbiased because bias is part of what makes us human. It's just the downside of nicer words you hear all the time like 'perspective' or 'worldview' or 'outlook on life'. I think of biases(in general) as nothing more than the price we pay for being different from each other. The question is whether or not a publication is deliberately untruthful simply to support the bias. And I highly doubt you(or I) know enough about this organization and that publication specifically to make any kind of accurate ruling in that field.

I believe I made a fairly valid point about the accuracy or validity of the study in question. Simply based on logic alone I see a flaw. Based on that, I believe, in the context of this discussion, the study should be disregarded in any kind of argument. It just isn't a valid enough point to me. You can make whatever assumption you want based on that study, but I will consider it to be an invalid assumption. You have as much right to believe it as I have to discount it, but the point of calling up a study like that is to back an argument.

By the way, the term marriage simply means "an intimate or close union". Notice that, in this definition of the term, there is no referrence to sex, people, numbers, or any other qualifier. The term itself, if you really want to get technical, can literally apply to any union of anything. Of course, this is an invalid definition of the term in a discussion of the constitutional legality of same sex marriage. As is the religious definition of the term.

[Scotty]

It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken).

You are mistaken. You can be married by a civil marriage officiant and have a completely non-religious marriage. The person that married me and my wife was herself of a particular religion, but as far as her technical affiliation there was none, and we were not married in a church or any other place of god. Furthermore, the only thing that actually holds any weight is the actual marriage document. This is a government form. Anyone, regardless of where or how their wedding ceremony is held, must have this document to be considered legally married. In that sense, in the sense of the legal meaning of the word, marriage is not a religious affair at all. And that meaning is what should be used to determine the laws of who should be allowed to be married. That is to say, everyone.

Dear Jake, I do bat an eye at people marrying and divorcing as if they're playing musical beds. I do not approve of people who marry on a whim and don't even understand what love means. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. Also the constitution does not protect people from being judged by others. I can be as judgmental as a KKK-Nazi if I want and the bill of rights has nothing to do with that. The bill of rights is about protecting people from the government.

You're kind of making our point. You're saying the bill of rights is about protecting people from the government. In other words, the government should not stand between two people wanting to be married (in the legal sense). You are right that the constitution does not allow the government to tell religious institutions what to do. But that's not what anyone is saying. No one is saying that it is unconstitutional that churches won't marry gay couples. It is that the government won't recognise a civil marriage of a gay couple.

Dear Lingus, Any group is biased. You won't find a group anywhere that everyone will agree is unbiased because bias is part of what makes us human. It's just the downside of nicer words you hear all the time like 'perspective' or 'worldview' or 'outlook on life'. I think of biases(in general) as nothing more than the price we pay for being different from each other. The question is whether or not a publication is deliberately untruthful simply to support the bias. And I highly doubt you(or I) know enough about this organization and that publication specifically to make any kind of accurate ruling in that field.

I believe I made a fairly valid point about the accuracy or validity of the study in question. Simply based on logic alone I see a flaw. Based on that, I believe, in the context of this discussion, the study should be disregarded in any kind of argument. It just isn't a valid enough point to me. You can make whatever assumption you want based on that study, but I will consider it to be an invalid assumption. You have as much right to believe it as I have to discount it, but the point of calling up a study like that is to back an argument.

By the way, the term marriage simply means "an intimate or close union". Notice that, in this definition of the term, there is no referrence to sex, people, numbers, or any other qualifier. The term itself, if you really want to get technical, can literally apply to any union of anything. Of course, this is an invalid definition of the term in a discussion of the constitutional legality of same sex marriage. As is the religious definition of the term.

Bravo!  So now back to my previous question:  Without using religion as a reason (since Lingus did a fantastic job of separating the two), what is one valid reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized?  Is it just that the majority of the opposition wants to oppress their religiosity on all the impressionable fuzzy-wuzzies of the world?

[ARTgames]

Reading Jackabomb last last post it seems just to be about semantics i think.

... I object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is what marriage is, has been, and always shall be. It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken). Its definition has been unchanged for ages: A man and a woman. Now, I couldn't care less about tax benefits or what else have you. They can have 'em. I object to the use of the terms 'marriage','husband', and 'wife' to describe things that are not...

.. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. ...

Like many discussions we get down to what words mean. And this really is a different subject, but non the less my view is idk about the word people use in this case. I say let the same sex people have their "Marriage like"(hope that term is ok with you Jackabomb) ceremonies! :)

[Lingus]

Without using religion as a reason (since Lingus did a fantastic job of separating the two), what is one valid reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized?  Is it just that the majority of the opposition wants to oppress their religiosity on all the impressionable fuzzy-wuzzies of the world?

I don't think there is one (if that wasn't already clear). The only reason I can see anyone objecting to same sex marriage is because it goes against their own personal view of what marriage should be about. That is not a valid reason.

Reading Jackabomb last last post it seems just to be about schematics i think.

(Semantics) And yes, I agree.

[Torch]

Homophobia's one of those things that our grandchildren will laugh at. Totally illogical and quickly on the social decline.

[stick d00d]

Bravo!  So now back to my previous question:  Without using religion as a reason (since Lingus did a fantastic job of separating the two), what is one valid reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized?  Is it just that the majority of the opposition wants to oppress their religiosity on all the impressionable fuzzy-wuzzies of the world?

People are going to go by whatever their parents taught them, or by their own personal beliefs. Honestly, with religion aside I guarantee 60-70% of the people would still be opposed to gay marriage. When a person is that set in their ways, it's tough to reason with them. Gay marriage can (and is) being legalized and will most likely be legalized in some other (if not all) states soon.

[Jake]

Reading Jackabomb last last post it seems just to be about schematics i think.

(Semantics) And yes, I agree.

I just bursted out laughing. Awesome.

[ARTgames]

Reading Jackabomb last last post it seems just to be about schematics i think.

(Semantics) And yes, I agree.

I just bursted out laughing. Awesome.

lol, im just glad he could figure it out and correct me. Some malapropism for me.