Gay People Against Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Permabanned
Joined
28 Dec 2009
Posts
13,052
Location
london
I think you are complete missing the point. People are arguing for equality of opportunity and equality under the law. With those two in place everyone has the chance to fulfil their potential. Some will, but some won't, creating an inequality of wealth. That inequality will be a result of an individuals actions and ability, not because they were held back by others. I think you're rolling everything up into one issue, when it is much more complicated than that.

People already have equality under the law and everyone has the same opportunities available to them. What they are after is additional rights and additional opportunities masqueraded as equality. But it is even more than that, there is a whole social movement dedicated to this idea of equality, which stems from marxism. They use this idea to criminalize people who discriminate and to push their agenda of neutralizing the traditional family and encouraging non traditional families.

White Knight Closet Marxist said:
If the above is how you feel, why are you against positive discrimination (which isn't always done by the government?).

Or let me guess, are you only against discrimination which applies to you?.

I am against positive discrimination because it is done by government. Do you have an example of positive discrimination not done by government? If a private organization wanted to practice affirmative action then that is their right. They would be fools to do that, as they would be hiring people not based on ability, but on non relevant or unimportant physical characteristics. But if they want to do that, that is their choice and i would not have a problem with that. As, if i did that would make me a hypocrite as i couldn't possible accept discrimination from businesses but not accept positive discrimination. But realistically positive discrimination is something that comes about due to this culture of equality movement that pushes for the government to enforce equality.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2011
Posts
10,575
Location
Portsmouth (Southsea)
People already have equality under the law and everyone has the same opportunities available to them.
Gay people don't.

What they are after is additional rights and additional opportunities masqueraded as equality.
What additional rights, specifically.

But it is even more than that, there is a whole social movement dedicated to this idea of equality, which stems from marxism.
Most of society (the sane members) tend to think a society focused on reducing inequality is a superior society.

Which society would you suggest we emulate?, do you think the society you propose would have greater or worse social cohesion?, do you think it would have higher or lower crime? - by what criteria would you judge what you propose to be superior to say the "Marxist/socialist equality movement" as you put it.

They use this idea to criminalize people who discriminate and to push their agenda of neutralizing the traditional family and encouraging non traditional families.
I don't see how they are encouraging non traditional families, permitting isn't the same as encouraging.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2011
Posts
10,821
Location
Darlington
Most of society (the sane members) tend to think a society focused on reducing inequality is a superior society.

I completely agree. This silly talk about our so called 'Marxist Society' is a straw man fallacy. It reminds of the Healthcare debate in America, where the Republicans say universal healthcare is socialism, which in turn, is communism, which in turn is the devils work ! It's a fallacy.

People who argue against equality under the law are hiding some selfish immorality within themselves that they know will suffer should equality under the law be universal. They want inequality because they know that this inequality will benefit them in some selfish way. At least that's my theory ! lol
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2011
Posts
10,575
Location
Portsmouth (Southsea)
I completely agree. This silly talk about our so called 'Marxist Society' is a straw man fallacy. It reminds of the Healthcare debate in America, where the Republicans say universal healthcare is socialism, which in turn, is communism, which in turn is the devils work ! It's a fallacy.

People who argue against equality under the law are hiding some selfish immorality within themselves that they know will suffer should equality under the law be universal. They want inequality because they know that this inequality will benefit them in some selfish way. At least that's my theory ! lol
Indeed.

I've always thought it was a case of "throwing the toys out of the pram" when unjustified privileges are removed.

Historically white, economically rich males has all of the rights & all of the privileges.

They had all the land, all the votes, all the wealth & preference of the law.

Slowly over time this has dissipated, with the wealth, rights & preference equalling out to the different sub-groups in society (the poor, the women & the people of different ethnic groups).

Those who have something to lose from this social transaction will be the most vocal & critical of it, or people who have aligned with political groups or social groups which wish to halt this trend (for personal gain).
 
Associate
Joined
17 Jun 2008
Posts
325
Both sides of the argument are the same in my eyes, two different groups wanting to impose their views on other using the law(force).

I believe that others can do what they want as long as it doesn't harm other people. Gay people should be allowed to get married and live life how they want as much as a christian family should be allowed to politely refuse a gay couple a bed due to their beliefs.

Will never happen though. In the end though people will always want to impose their views through force instead of either accepting our differences or trying to change others views through understanding.

I know 2 gay people that are against gay marriage(through law) because of the above. Maybe some things should just be a non issue and people just have to accept differences and get on with it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Aug 2007
Posts
27,491
Location
Auckland
Gay people should be allowed to get married and live life how they want as much as a christian family should be allowed to politely refuse a gay couple a bed due to their beliefs.

What if the gay people are Christian? Do they not get married and also stop themselves from booking a room in their own motel?
 
Associate
Joined
17 Jun 2008
Posts
325
Would you also accept people refusing to do business with people because of the colour of their skin, because of their beliefs?

While I would be against it, why shouldn't they have the choice? In this day and age this would only alienate the person refusing and most people wouldnt do business with them.

If a change were to happen tomorrow and everyone could do this and everyone chose to do it then everything is just being swept under the carpet through the law and this only breeds a deeper hatred over time.
 
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Posts
4,960
Location
North East England
Having children is a very important part of your life, maybe more so than being with someone you are sexually attracted to and for that reason I think gay marriage is a bad idea.

(yes you can adopt etc but it isn't the same).

I don't want kids. Does this mean my girlfriend and me shouldn't be getting married?

Or to put it another way marriage has nothing to do with having kids.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2011
Posts
10,821
Location
Darlington
Gay people should be allowed to get married and live life how they want as much as a christian family should be allowed to politely refuse a gay couple a bed due to their beliefs.


Here's the problem with the second part of that statement. Christian's have beliefs based on faith, not evidence and not any reality which is demonstrably true. Therefor their beliefs are ill founded, and the consequences of those ill founded beliefs are that they influence their actions, which in the real world, are sometimes harmful.

Using your logic. Imagine I ran a bedsit and I was a Big Foot believer. A couple walks through my door asking for a room, and I ask them, 'Do you believe in Big Foot ?' and they reply 'No.' I then refuse them a room because they don't believe as I do. Would I be morally right in that situation ? Let me answer for you. No ! I'd be an ass.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,306
Location
Northern England
On Facebook, (I know, I know) a friend posted this link to an article on the BBC's site. The friend is a Christian male, I don't know how strong his views are, but I think they include a fairly deep-seated anti-homosexual stance. I've no idea if he represents most 'modern' Christians in the UK, though (does he?).

I'm of the opinion that gay and lesbian couples can do whatever the heck they want, as long as in doing so they don't hurt anyone. If heterosexual couples can marry and have kids then so should gay and lesbian couples be able to.

Truthfully though, I have done little research into it - but are there really any non-religious, hard, rational facts against gay marriage?

I don't think there are any rational facts against gay marriage. I've attended a couple of gay weddings myself and found them to be no different from heterosexual weddings...well, minus the profusion of butch chicks with mohawks...

On the other hand i personally disagree with churches being forced to conduct same sex marriage. In my eyes a religious marriage is the joining of a male and female together in the sight of God. This therefore rules out gay marriage. I also believe it's wrong to force priests/reverends etc to conduct a ceremony that they find to be against their religious beliefs.

tldr; same sex secular marriage = good, same sex religious marriage = not so good
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Apr 2004
Posts
4,793
Location
London
While I would be against it, why shouldn't they have the choice? In this day and age this would only alienate the person refusing and most people wouldnt do business with them.

Well, imagine if you were unable to receive a service because you were in a minority group being discriminated against. Is that fair?

If a change were to happen tomorrow and everyone could do this and everyone chose to do it then everything is just being swept under the carpet through the law and this only breeds a deeper hatred over time.

Equality laws leading to a deeper hatred over time? any evidence for that?
 
Associate
Joined
17 Jun 2008
Posts
325
Using your logic. Imagine I ran a bedsit and I was a Big Foot believer. A couple walks through my door asking for a room, and I ask them, 'Do you believe in Big Foot ?' and they reply 'No.' I then refuse them a room because they don't believe as I do. Would I be morally right in that situation ? Let me answer for you. No ! I'd be an ass.

While in my view stupid but why should you not have the choice to say no whatever your reasoning?

I guess it all comes down to the notion of needing laws to protect ourselves from ourselves for the above example.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Oct 2003
Posts
1,387
Location
Aberdeen
People already have equality under the law and everyone has the same opportunities available to them. What they are after is additional rights and additional opportunities masqueraded as equality. But it is even more than that, there is a whole social movement dedicated to this idea of equality, which stems from marxism. They use this idea to criminalize people who discriminate and to push their agenda of neutralizing the traditional family and encouraging non traditional families.

Do you actually understand the issue? The whole point is that gay people do not have equality under the law. If there is equality under the law then there is no need for the law to make the distinction between a maried hetrosexual couples and same sex couple, which is currently does. The inequality exists because the state took rights away from gay people. They don't want anything special, they just want to be treated the same. I fail to see how anyone can have a serious problem with someone aspiring to that.

I'm not going to bother replying any more. I try to be polite and understanding of other peoples views. But the blatent contradictions in you view (eg. discrimination okay but positive discrimination bad) and the complete lack of logical thought is starting to get a bit grating.
 
Permabanned
Joined
17 Mar 2013
Posts
1,143
Here's the problem with the second part of that statement. Christian's have beliefs based on faith, not evidence and not any reality which is demonstrably true. Therefor their beliefs are ill founded, and the consequences of those ill founded beliefs are that they influence their actions, which in the real world, are sometimes harmful.

Using your logic. Imagine I ran a bedsit and I was a Big Foot believer. A couple walks through my door asking for a room, and I ask them, 'Do you believe in Big Foot ?' and they reply 'No.' I then refuse them a room because they don't believe as I do. Would I be morally right in that situation ? Let me answer for you. No ! I'd be an ass.

Now you're just being stupid. I understand what you mean but come on don't talk wet...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom