A. I was staying on topic. Didn't I ask about three times how I was ever irrelevent? You never offered anything on how my statements were irrelevent, so either you're just saying things to annoy me or you just missed the point to my arguments completely. Either way the Serious discussion forum is no place for trolling, Jack.

B. I have been listening to your opinion, and I replied to each and every single one of them. It's kind of hard for me to form an entire counter argument if I don't listen. Maybe something was lost in translation and I took what you said with a different context then what you intended, or vice versa.

C. Maybe you should read what you say. This is basically the exact same thing as B. I only recall two examples where you were fine with gay marriage. I already said I thought one of them was sarcasm and the second one you pretty much followed it up with a statement on how the bible's morality is unchanging, which kind of implicated that you were against gay marriage because the bible is against gay marriage.

D. That's a cop out. After all, when all fails at least you can still blame the other person as being incompetent, right? Sorry, but I'm a human being. And it just so happens I'm kind of programmed to not change my beliefs. And guess what? Yet again you're making your self look like a hypocrite. Whether I'm right or wrong I can just as easily use that very statement against you - anyone can use that statement.

And hold up, I thought you said I was being completely irrelevent. If I was irrevelent then how on earth could my viewpoint be anything related to the actual topic? Such as the side that's specifically against yours. I find it kind of sad that you continually try to discredit my opinion by simply saying that it's irrelevent. But what about the inconsistencies and double standards in your logic? Speaking of your logic, I love the part where you basically said how logical your own logic is, which is probably at least a tad pretentious.

I'm not a smart guy, but if you're going to complain about how incompetent I am in changing my point of view then maybe you shouldn't follow that up with something that sounds down right conceited - something that's literally the same type of behaviour you just condemned in the exact same sentence.

I've been a self righteous twat, and I said numerous times that your beliefs are inconsistent. But despite all that I never said that my way of thinking was this fascinating form of logic or if it was even logical at all. Basically, I never tried to discredit your arguements by basically using a sophisiticated form of saying that you're wrong and I'm right like a grade school kid.


As for your great treasure of fantastic arguements which you apparently refuse to post . . .

Since you tried to lecture me on grammar I guess I'll lecture you on English 101 -

Show, don't tell. If you're just going to tell me that that your arguements are incredible gems then that doesn't make them any more important than just an opinion, and a fairly inconsistent one at that. Oh, and your post was completely irrelevent to gay marriage. It even caused another member *me* to go off topic as welll.

If you take a moment to consider everything you said to me, then maybe you'll realize just how incredibly ironic you're being.

Why is this argument still going on?


This statement is only half true. While slavery does occur in the Bible, one can easily make the point that the systems of debt we have today are really no better than a glorified form of slavery. The only way to have a system that completely avoids slavery would be communism and the last time I checked, communism doesn't work. The Bible does NOT promote racism, which I'm pretty sure is what you are really referring to. When people think of slavery nowadays they think of African Americans in the 1800's, which is not even close to being the same thing.


People should have the right to use their personal beliefs when stating a moral opinion. If he were speaking about in from a legal perspective, religion shouldn't have anything to do with the matter. Yes mentioning religion is going to pull the conversation in that direction, but it takes two to have an argument.

Looking at gay marriage from a purely legal standpoint in the United States (the whole post)...

Marriage, in legal terms, is a contract. To be legally married, all you have to do is present an ID and sign on the dotted line. No formal religious ceremony is required for two people to be legally married.

Just as a state cannot discriminate against the legal marriage of a white man and a black woman, a state should not be able to discriminate against same-sex marriages. Under the 14th's amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

A law prohibiting gay marriage denies the privilege of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

if you'd like to repeal the fourteenth amendment because you think, "Well, that was written so that states wouldn't discriminate against African Americans after the Civil War," would you be comfortable knowing that your state (if the state constitution allowed it) could censor your speech, declare a state religion, revoke your firearms, deprive you of a trial by jury, imprison you without just cause, etc.?

tl;dr A ban on gay marriage should be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court hasn't done so most likely because of the hostile attitude of many Americans towards homosexuals.

Really, I don't see the big deal. If a gay couple wants to marry or something they can go ahead, it should be legal and work on paper. If they want to have a big ceremony with the priest and religious hocus pocus then I agree with any priest that refuses to do that, since it is the priest's decision, and being gay isn't really something to celebrate. Gay pride is a joke too. You should be proud of being straight, not being gay. Makes no sense.

Actually I think the supreme court hasn't done so because no case has come before them in which they could make that decision one way or the other.

Eh? You should have pride in the fact that you identify with the already overwhelming heteronormative culture? Weird.

Ideally gay people shouldn't need to have pride in themselves because they would be fully accepted by society for who and what they are.

I can't... I can't even... I don't know what to say...
This is probably the most bigoted thing posted on this site that hasn't been removed.

The original root of the word is obviously around 'fear', but actual usage is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homophobic

Well, I still don't classify as homophobic according to any of the dictionary definitions. The wiki article sounds a lot more biased than the dictionary definitions, but I'd probably be classified as homophobic according to said wiki article.

Homophobe should simply be defined as any person attempting (wishing for/advocating) to stop homosexuals being homosexual.

But it isn't defined as that. "Ground" should be defined as a circular object coloured green.

Yeh, that's why I said 'should'. And WTFBBQ was your second sentence??

I was showing how ridiculous it is to say what you think different words should mean.

It's pretty simple: sexist and racist encompass all negative attitudes surrounding sex and race. There is no "ist" word for referring to homosexuals, so homophobia is the word that is used to carry all these meanings. Sure, it's not logical when you look at the root of the word, but very little of english is.

To quote a wise SEN member:


I don't see how discussing the exact meaning of the word "homophobia" is progressing the discussion on same-sex rights.

(On a side note, I thought homo more represented "singularity" or something in common, rather than "man," which is why we have words like homogenized and homologous.)

Jack tried to derail the thread by saying homophobia doesn't mean what we said it meant. He's wrong and I'm correcting the record.

Roy:
homo- 
a combining form appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “same” ( homology ); on this model, used in the formation of compound words ( homomorphic ).

what if we consider homosexuality from the perspective of categorical imperative?

What do you mean by that, K_A? Are you arguing that homosexuality does not derive from necessity?

Half of this entire thread is people stupidly arguing about technicalities and all kinds of semantics.
I asked a question to develop discussion, and my post gets reported?



I'm saying that if everyone were gay, we wouldn't have very many people left on this planet right now.

Categorical Imperative implies that we shouldn't do things unless we approve of having everyone do what we are doing.
It's like the opposite of "If everyone does it, it must be ok."

I guess everyone should be president of the united states, or no one should.

Also I'd point out that many gay men and women have children. If anything, if everyone were gay the world would be a much better place due to no overpopulation problem.

That sort of all or nothing dealing does not prove anything, K_A.
If everyone were breeding, there would be a significant problem of overpopulation.
If certain minority groups didn't exist or did not try to fulfill their desires, there would be no market for the things they desire. Those that make their living off of said markets would be destitute. Make of that what you will.
The only thing all or nothing is really good for is nerve reactions.
As long as no harm is involved in or results from something, physical, psychological, financial or otherwise, noone should try to assault any group on any grounds.
In the case of Gay Rights, they should be granted all rights afforded straight people. They fill many niches and markets and provide a very large market (for lack of a better word) for adoption, as many gay couples wish to adopt children and given the state of things, said children would not gain a chance to get a couple. I know people who have been adopted and lived in an orphanage prior to that. They told me it was not good at all.
So why the hell not give them rights?