Gay People Against Gay Marriage

[hurfdurf]

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.

Because in reality, what happens is the majority club together and make the lives of the minorities hell when they are allowed to. People are disgusting and need to be regulated, the free market does not work.

 

[hurfdurf]

Now you're just being stupid. I understand what you mean but come on don't talk wet...

Replace gay with black, or bigfoot belief, its the same thing.

 

[Sliver]

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

OMG. Really ? Because, in a just and fair society, people should be able to get a room in a bedsit/hotel/whatever, regardless of their sexuality. If you don't grasp this simple premise then I can only assume you're homophobic.

 

[Sliver]

Now you're just being stupid. I understand what you mean but come on don't talk wet...

Thanks for the ad hominem retort. As usual in these cases, you provide no reasons for your remarks.

 

[Xiler]

Equality laws leading to a deeper hatred over time? any evidence for that?

I was using an example based on your situation but was merely saying that if vast amounts people chose to do this then surely it shows the law was only using force to suppress these actions?

I get that equality laws are the most sensible of the choices available due to human nature, all i'm saying is there are other opinions in achieving it although much harder(maybe impossible).

 

[elmarko]

Because in reality, what happens is the majority club together and make the lives of the minorities hell when they are allowed to. People are disgusting and need to be regulated, the free market does not work.

Indeed, you don't need that many disgusting people to make life difficult for minorities.

To those who think it's fine.

Imagine you are a black family living in an almost exclusively white area, with many of them being racist.

Should all the shop-keepers be allowed to refuse to sell them food or drink?, no taxi services? or buses even?.

What kind of stupid society would we be to endorse & allow that kind of idiotically unproductive mentality, do people honestly think that would constitute progress?.

Stupid people with stupid opinions don't deserve to have their foolish beliefs respected - they should be challenged & persuaded when no objective harm is done & forced when it is.

 

[anything I don't mind]

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.

It is you who does not or rather refuses to understand my point. This is why you misinterpret and claim i am not logical etc.

I understand their (gay marriage advocates) arguments perfectly, that is why I say what I have said. They never had the rights taken away, marriage never included the right to marry the same sex or animals or inanimate objects. It has always been very specific. Homosexual already have equal rights, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, this is the same right that everyone else has. What they want is additional rights, the new right of marrying someone of the opposite sex. So stop trying to hide behind equality or exploit this non sense idea of equality in order to justify and convince everyone that they should accept something that that may disagree with.

 

[krooton]

Homosexual already have equal rights, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, this is the same right that everyone else has. What they want is additional rights, the new right of marrying someone of the opposite sex.

Hetero people will ALSO have the right to marry someone of the same (what I assume you meant) sex.

Equalitybombed!

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Homosexual already have equal rights, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, this is the same right that everyone else has. What they want is additional rights, the new right of marrying someone of the opposite sex. So stop trying to hide behind equality or exploit this non sense idea of equality in order to justify and convince everyone that they should accept something that that may disagree with.

I can't even parse this properly. Are you suggesting that homosexuals have equality because they can marry a straight person?

Do you even read what you type?

 

[Xiler]

Indeed, you don't need that many disgusting people to make life difficult for minorities.

To those who think it's fine.

Imagine you are a black family living in an almost exclusively white area, with many of them being racist.

Should all the shop-keepers be allowed to refuse to sell them food or drink?, no taxi services? or buses even?.

What kind of stupid society would we be to endorse & allow that kind of idiotically unproductive mentality, do people honestly think that would constitute progress?.

Stupid people with stupid opinions don't deserve to have their foolish beliefs respected - they should be challenged & persuaded when no objective harm is done & forced when it is.

I agree and know that's why its done. I was merely trying to get across that for using the law you ultimately give one person(group) and take away from another(wither it be stupid/unproven or even in time found to be correct.)

As for the above poster implying I'm homophobic, get a grip and stop going ape because someone suggested something different to your view.

 

[Sliver]

As for the above poster implying I'm homophobic, get a grip and stop going ape because someone suggested something different to your view.

I have a firm grip thank you. When you argue against gay people having equal rights under the law, what else am I meant to assume ? I'm not being funny, it's a very honest question that I would like you to answer.

 

[elmarko]

Hetero people will ALSO have the right to marry someone of the same (what I assume you meant) sex.

Equalitybombed!

Excellent.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I can't even parse this properly. Are you suggesting that homosexuals have equality because they can marry a straight person?

Yes they have equality because they are equal under the law. I prefer to say that they have equal rights. What the gay people want is additional rights, you can not claim that additional rights is about equality.

OK say that people with red hair want the ability to do something that is currently not legal, but only specific to people with red hair. They can't then claim it is about equality, as they would be after additional rights specific to them.

If red hair people were not allowed to get married or black people were not allowed to get married (normal marriage). Then they could make the claim that it was about equality, because that would be a valid argument. But you can not ask for additional rights and use equality as a justification.

 

[elmarko]

Yes they have equality because they are equal under the law. I prefer to say that they have equal rights. What the gay people want is additional rights, you can not claim that additional rights is about equality.

OK say that people with red hair want the ability to do something that is currently not legal, but only specific to people with red hair. They can't then claim it is about equality, as they would be after additional rights specific to them.

If red hair people were not allowed to get married or black people were not allowed to get married (normal marriage). Then they could make the claim that it was about equality, because that would be a valid argument. But you can not ask for additional rights and use equality as a justification.

But as pointed out above.

This law will allow two straight men to get married (if they so desire) - making it completely equal.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Hetero people will ALSO have the right to marry someone of the same (what I assume you meant) sex.

Equalitybombed!

That is correct, they would technically be able to, but due to that, it does not mean the argument of equality is valid for same sex marriage. If straight people were not allowed to get married to the same sex after same sex marriage was allowed, then the straight people could use an argument of equality.

 

[Xiler]

I have a firm grip thank you. When you argue against gay people having equal rights under the law, what else am I meant to assume ? I'm not being funny, it's a very honest question that I would like you to answer.

What I'm saying is instead of making a new law why not just take out the old one that was stopping them? Surely that's the only thing that's causing the problem?

 

[Sliver]

What the gay people want is additional rights...

Please elaborate and tells us what these 'additional' rights are that would privilege them above non gays.

 

[Sliver]

What I'm saying is instead of making a new law why not just take out the old one that was stopping them? Surely that's the only thing that's causing the problem?

I think I know what you're saying, maybe. However the laws are juggled, added/removed/whatever, the out come must be one of equality for all under the new legislation regardless of sexuality. If this is agreeable to you, then I think we are on the same page.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I never said anything about privilege. I am just pointing out that the argument for same sex marriage based in equality is invalid.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Please elaborate and tells us what these 'additional' rights are that would privilege them above non gays.

Well, it seems that they can marry straight people so that's groen showing his utter lack of thought and typing out his unusual views as per normal a thing they should be happy with!