Same-Sex Marriage

[Porygon-Z]

Those laws are a thing of the past, just like racial discrimination laws are a thing of the past.



The automatic assumption that anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle is a bigot is a logical fallacy. First of all, just because one opposes issues like same-sex marriage does not mean one automatically hate all homosexual people, they just disagree with a matter of policy. The "bigot" card is one homosexual activists play when they have no more logical things to say.

Secondly, people oppose homosexuality for all kinds of different reasons. Many people are taught from a very young age that homosexuality is wrong, it's hard-wired into their train of thought. They do not just all of a sudden decide to "hate" homosexuals just like you assert homosexuals do not just all of a sudden decide to "choose" to be gay.

And lastly, what you are calling bigotry should not be excluded from the classroom. I disagree with all this political corectness we are putting into our public school system. The fact that there are people who oppose homosexuality is just as much of a truth as the fact that homosexuals exist. We shouldn't present one-sided information in the name of political corectness but rather should present all sides of the issues so that students can weigh the arguments each side makes and decide for themeselves which side to be on.

So if I raised a bunch of kids to discriminate against Blacks or Asians that would be okay, because it's not their fault it's just how they were raised? Sorry this doesn't make sense. There's no excuse for ignorance. You don't teach a kid to be gay, he just is gay. It would be like trying to teach somebody to be 6 foot tall. You can't do it. You can however teach prejudice to a child, and that is wrong.

There is no difference between homosexual descrimination and racial discrimination. According to your logic we should also allow the KKK into the classroom because their opinion is just as valid as everyone else's.

This isn't about who is right and who is wrong, it is about a minorities being treated differently because of the way they were born.

But you will never get this through your head, because you seem to think being gay is a "lifestyle" despite the evidence given earlier (from a person who is against gay marriage no less) to educate you that it is not.

You're ignorance is overwhelming, but it just goes to show a leopard never changes it's spots and a bigot never changes their mind.

And yes I can play the bigotry card, because that's exactly what it is, and if you would care to read back to all the other points made in this post there are plenty of other points that were made before arriving at the crux of the matter. So no the bigorty card is not the only card in my hand, but if the boot fits...

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So if I raised a bunch of kids to discriminate against Blacks or Asians that would be okay, because it's not their fault it's just how they were raised? Sorry this doesn't make sense. There's no excuse for ignorance. You don't teach a kid to be gay, he just is gay. It would be like trying to teach somebody to be 6 foot tall. You can't do it. You can however teach prejudice to a child, and that is wrong.

There is no difference between homosexual descrimination and racial discrimination. According to your logic we should also allow the KKK into the classroom because their opinion is just as valid as everyone else's.

This isn't about who is right and who is wrong, it is about a minorities being treated differently because of the way they were born.

But you will never get this through your head, because you seem to think being gay is a "lifestyle" despite the evidence given earlier (from a person who is against gay marriage no less) to educate you that it is not.

You're ignorance is overwhelming, but it just goes to show a leopard never changes it's spots and a bigot never changes their mind.

And yes I can play the bigotry card, because that's exactly what it is, and if you would care to read back to all the other points made in this post there are plenty of other points that were made before arriving at the crux of the matter. So no the bigorty card is not the only card in my hand, but if the boot fits...

Please refrain from resulting to logical fallacies and personal attacks. They don't add validity to your arguments at all.

The KKK were a part of America's history and to deny that that is just as bad as Germany denying the Holocaust happened so they don't look bad. Most high school US history classes teach about the KKK and students are aware of what they stood for. If any of those students wished to adopt the KKK's line of thinking, they are within their 1st Amendment rights to do so.

The government has no business in telling people who to like and who to dislike or what to think. The 1st Amendment alows us to hate anyone for any reason or to like anyone for any reason. It aslo gives us the right to vocalized that hate as freedom of speech. It also give those disagree the right to vocalize that as well.

Just like we don't want the government instilling religion on our children, we shouldn't tolerate them instilling ideology on them. While the child is under the age of 18 the parent has the constitutional right raise their child in any manner they see fit and teach them anything they wish to teach them. If the child decides to break away from those teachings during adulthood that is also their right.

 

[Porygon-Z]

Please refrain from resulting to logical fallacies and personal attacks. They don't add validity to your arguments at all.

The KKK were a part of America's history and to deny that that is just as bad as Germany denying the Holocaust happened so they don't look bad. Most high school US history classes teach about the KKK and students are aware of what they stood for. If any of those students wished to adopt the KKK's line of thinking, they are within their 1st Amendment rights to do so.

The government has no business in telling people who to like and who to dislike or what to think. The 1st Amendment alows us to hate anyone for any reason or to like anyone for any reason. It aslo gives us the right to vocalized that hate as freedom of speech. It also give those disagree the right to vocalize that as well.

Just like we don't want the government instilling religion on our children, we shouldn't tolerate them instilling ideology on them. While the child is under the age of 18 the parent has the constitutional right raise their child in any manner they see fit and teach them anything they wish to teach them. If the child decides to break away from those teachings during adulthood that is also their right.

You're quite correct. The constitution would allow all of those things. However that doesn't mean that discriminating against a person for how they were born any less bigoted.


But if you don't tolerate having gay ideology instilled on children, why should we tolerate having straight ideology instilled on them. It works both ways you see.

And by that logic, we shouldn't be trying to allow gay marriage, we should be trying to abolish marriage altogether.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You're quite correct. The constitution would allow all of those things. However that doesn't mean that discriminating against a person for how they were born any less bigoted.


But if you don't tolerate having gay ideology instilled on children, why should we tolerate having straight ideology instilled on them. It works both ways you see.

And by that logic, we shouldn't be trying to allow gay marriage, we should be trying to abolish marriage altogether.

I don't think schools instill heterosexual ideology. They do teach of heterosexual sex in sexual eduaction classes but that is so adolescents who choose to have sex will be safe as to avoid contracting STDs and casuing pregnancy. The state has an interest in preventing those things from happening to anyone, and especially to minors. I would have no objection if information on homsexual sex was taught in an effort to reduce STDs should a student decide to engage in homosexual sex.

I agree that we shouldn't say that either side is better or more correct than the other. The infornmation should be presented in the most unbiased manner as possible in order to allow individual critical thinking when students make decisions about their sexual lives.

Abolishing marriage is an interesting concept. I don't think that would be practical unless we had civil unions/domestic partnerships as a replacement and used that across the board. Then differnt religious organizations could decide what constitutes a marriage. The civil union would be used for the purposes of legal benefits, while the marriage would be used for religious recognition of said union.

 

[Dawn]

Murdered? Branded as sub human by "religion"?

I think this is the very thing some of us are sick of having shoved down our throats, including those of us who actually support the movement. Enough shock treatment. It's not relevant to the movement. Plenty of people are murdered for plenty of stupid reasons and homosexuality is not special in that regard. There is a difference between being attacked at large and personal, individual attacks that often include someone off their rocker that winds up in jail for the act itself.


Quite honestly? If I was a mother, and my child turned out to be bisexual or homosexual I'd educate them my self the best way I saw fit. If I thought for one moment they were straight and being educated about gay relationships in school I'd pull them straight out of that class first and then have a very serious talk with the school administration on what is appropriate for my child to be learning.

My point. If they intend to educate alternative orientations, they better get 3 separate classes at minimum for the 3 major separate orientations or they will get nothing but resistance from me. Lot's of work on the school's part, but I'm fine with the alternative of teaching my child myself. It's their choice really, but I guarantee I would not be the only one pulling.

I want the school's and other people's opinions beneath my own in terms of how my child is raised. So no, I would not tolerate a multi-orientation class just because some people decided it was "right".

Call it selfish to value my own opinion above others, but that's just the way the world works. I can't be changing my opinion every time someone comes up and assumes I don't know what I'm doing, especially in the raising of a child which is a very long term process and will undoubtedly be questioned at least a hundred times before I'm done.

Off Topic: The ad at the bottom of the page said "Is gay marriage wrong?" ... ... Looks like I need to run a scan for adware / spyware.

 

[trebornosliw]

First off, you never said anything about the age of the children in the first place, so naturally I assumed you meant in sex ed for teenagerss.

I agree young children shouldn't be taught sex ed in the first place, but sex ed for teenagers should be all inclusive regardless of sexual orientation, becuase some of those teenagers will be gay and they deserve and equal education about sex as a straight teenager.

And for the last time! Homosexuality has nothing to do with morals or indocrtination. Homosexulaity is a part of human biology which last time I checked was a big part of a rounded education.

How many times do you have to be told before it's clear to you. Homosexulaity is not a lifestyle or an opinion, it's a part of your physiology, like the colour of your eyes or your height.

And that "opposing viewpoint" you're mentioning, that's called homophobia, which is a form of biggotry. It's not right to treat somebody differently for something they have no control over.

Needless to say I think biggotry should be kept out of the classroom at all costs.

Can you respond to my previous point?
And this is the biggest problem I have with gay "rights" activists. They tend to call anyone opposing their agenda "homophobic," or "bigoted." I've already stated that I have no problem with homosexuals. If they want to screw around in private, that's their business. What gets to me is when they want special rights and privileges because of their condition; for instance, the use of "hate crimes" laws to sue anyone who disagrees with them.
Please explain to me how changing the definition of marriage, especially in light of the fact that most Americans thus far oppose such an action, will help this country.

@locz, Thank you! I very much appreciate it when people specify the fact that racism in the US is largely just history today. Just like homophobes, you'll run into a few racists, but the majority of Americans really couldn't care less about the color of your skin.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Murdered? Branded as sub human by "religion"?

I think this is the very thing some of us are sick of having shoved down our throats, including those of us who actually support the movement. Enough shock treatment. It's not relevant to the movement. Plenty of people are murdered for plenty of stupid reasons and homosexuality is not special in that regard. There is a difference between being attacked at large and personal, individual attacks that often include someone off their rocker that winds up in jail for the act itself.


Quite honestly? If I was a mother, and my child turned out to be bisexual or homosexual I'd educate them my self the best way I saw fit. If I thought for one moment they were straight and being educated about gay relationships in school I'd pull them straight out of that class first and then have a very serious talk with the school administration on what is appropriate for my child to be learning.

My point. If they intend to educate alternative orientations, they better get 3 separate classes at minimum for the 3 major separate orientations or they will get nothing but resistance from me. Lot's of work on the school's part, but I'm fine with the alternative of teaching my child myself. It's their choice really, but I guarantee I would not be the only one pulling.

I want the school's and other people's opinions beneath my own in terms of how my child is raised. So no, I would not tolerate a multi-orientation class just because some people decided it was "right".

Call it selfish to value my own opinion above others, but that's just the way the world works. I can't be changing my opinion every time someone comes up and assumes I don't know what I'm doing, especially in the raising of a child which is a very long term process and will undoubtedly be questioned at least a hundred times before I'm done.

Off Topic: The ad at the bottom of the page said "Is gay marriage wrong?" ... ... Looks like I need to run a scan for adware / spyware.

You're not selfish for valuing your opinion on this matter. The homosexual activists have placed their opinions over yours when they decided to pass this indoctrination as "educational".

Can you respond to my previous point?
And this is the biggest problem I have with gay "rights" activists. They tend to call anyone opposing their agenda "homophobic," or "bigoted." I've already stated that I have no problem with homosexuals. If they want to screw around in private, that's their business. What gets to me is when they want special rights and privileges because of their condition; for instance, the use of "hate crimes" laws to sue anyone who disagrees with them.
Please explain to me how changing the definition of marriage, especially in light of the fact that most Americans thus far oppose such an action, will help this country.

@locz, Thank you! I very much appreciate it when people specify the fact that racism in the US is largely just history today. Just like homophobes, you'll run into a few racists, but the majority of Americans really couldn't care less about the color of your skin.

You can't sue someone for a hate crime. Hate crime laws are a criminal matter. It's quite ridiculous actually. A famous hate crime case is this one where this guy was yelling inside a Pizza Hut resturaunt because he didn't want a homosexual employee preparing his food. He was charged and convicted of disturbing the peace but instead of getting a slap on the wrist like they usually do for disturbing the peace, he served 6 months in jails because his "crime" was "motivated by hate" thus getting a hate crime enhancement.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

Quite honestly? If I was a mother, and my child turned out to be bisexual or homosexual I'd educate them my self the best way I saw fit. If I thought for one moment they were straight and being educated about gay relationships in school I'd pull them straight out of that class first and then have a very serious talk with the school administration on what is appropriate for my child to be learning.

My point. If they intend to educate alternative orientations, they better get 3 separate classes at minimum for the 3 major separate orientations or they will get nothing but resistance from me. Lot's of work on the school's part, but I'm fine with the alternative of teaching my child myself. It's their choice really, but I guarantee I would not be the only one pulling.

I'm just curious. Are you saying you would pull your child out if you thought they were being taught about homosexual relationships or homosexual oriented sex education. Besides, seeing as sex-ed is generally taught at 11-12 years old I highly doubt that your hypothetical child will have even considered sexual orientation. At that age most kids would be Asexual rather than gay or straight.

 

[trebornosliw]

I can't speak for Yellow, of course, but I'm opposed just to education regarding sexual method at that age, of any kind. I mean, "some guys marry guys" is true, so why not teach it? but the more nitty-gritty education should be left till later. Though even then I would ask if it's truly necessary to be teaching that stuff in schools.

 

[professor plum]

What gets to me is when they want special rights and privileges because of their condition; for instance, the use of "hate crimes" laws to sue anyone who disagrees with them.

Um. What?

Condition? You say that like it's a disorder.

Quite honestly? If I was a mother, and my child turned out to be bisexual or homosexual I'd educate them my self the best way I saw fit. If I thought for one moment they were straight and being educated about gay relationships in school I'd pull them straight out of that class first and then have a very serious talk with the school administration on what is appropriate for my child to be learning.

You'd pull them out for being taught about homosexual relationships? Why?
I learned about heterosexual relationships in school, and didn't learn about homosexual relationships in school. And . . I'm gay, so how does that work..?

 

[Pokémon Ranger ✩ Moriarty]

I don't get what's wrong with Same Sex Marriage. I may be straight but they are people too. People should love who ever they want, and the world should accept it. I'm straight and I think there is nothing wrong with Same Sex Marriage at all. We are all human-beings. I may be 14 but I mean what I say. Look at Ellen Degenerous and Porche.

It is so, so encouraging to see a younger person posting something like this. Seriously, THANK YOU.

As for the OP...denying homosexuals marriage on the grounds of "because they can't have children" is...well, let's just say it promotes a certain amount of immaturity. There are childless heterosexual couples who don't have children because they can't or don't want to, but I don't see you lambasting them...? Oh. Because they're straight. So the childless aspect of marriage really can't bother you that much, eh? Besides which, there are plenty, plenty of children out there in orphanages crying out for a warm, loving environment, and so long as a family can give that to them then I really don't care if they're straight, bisexual, homosexual, single, black, white, yellow, green, turquoise or beige. People who adopt are awesome. End of. I hope to one of them myself some day.

As for the constitution...there was a poster back there somewhere who pointed out that the US Constitution isn't updated to match social concerns, and as you yourself pointed out that it hasn't been updated since 1990, it's about as out-of-date as your argument. "Omgs, gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry! For, um, a string of reasons that could easily apply to straight people as well but won't because I'll pretend for the sake of argument that straight people don't exist!" OK THEN. :|

People should be able to love who they want. The state should not be able to interfere with basic human relationships¹. If two people love each other and wish to marry each other, then who the hell cares except for the two people getting married?

¹ Unless of course, those relationships revolve around abuse. Then the legal system has a right to get involved.

 

[trebornosliw]

Again, what end is accomplished by changing the definition of marriage? Why not just update the status of civil union?
About the Constitution, the Constitution was never intended to outline rights, so it's silly to try to use it as an example here. The Constitution is, as Obama has stated, a list of "negative liberties." It doesn't apply to individuals, it applies only to our government, and tells them what they can't do. So the Constitution has no real place in this debate.
Oh, and Erik, yes, logically it is a disorder. See my earlier post.
EDIT: Meh, I keep letting myself get dragged into these things. I really don't have time to keep things up, so ttfn, I may check in again later. I have to say, I really admire the fact that nobody's getting all emotional, this is a very good debate thread. Pleasure talking to you all!