marklyell
Member
#heffing #spawningissues #purPOSE #foksakenoflayas
Posts: 390
Registered on: June 2015
|
Post by marklyell on Jun 28, 2015 14:47:02 GMT
The thing I really don't understand about the people against gay marriage is why? I can somewhat understand the root of the hatred, but their lives will literally not change at all now that same sex marriage is legal. To me it's nothing but hysteria. They are get themselves so worked up based on their assumptions about us that It's quite laughable at times. I mean have you seen some of their tweets from the other day. They say things like, "great, now that gays can marry, pedophiles will want marriage rights too" or "now I'm going to have gays flirting with me all the time" But in reality nothing will change for them. This is simply other people becoming equal. They are stuck on the idea that being gay is something purely sexual, but for me that is not true at all. I simply found love in an unconventional place and way. Attacking religion won't help the situation, it is the ideology of bigots that is the problem. I've thought about this a lot and asked myself the same question. The only thing I can come up with is that some people instinctively attack things they don't understand. Also, it gets passed on from generation to generation, people carry things they were taught growing up for their whole lives. I was lucky enough to be brought up by parents who detested discrimination and prejudice of any kind and that naturally rubbed off on myself and my siblings. In much the same way, I guess kids who are brought up in an environment that tells them people of different sexual orientations and races are somehow lesser also carry that with them. It's not a conscious decision they make to hate people, they literally just have it ingrained in them that that's the correct attitude to have. Of course, a lot of people brought up in environments like that are able to grow and mature enough to break out of that way of thinking. Societal norms also have a big part to play. If you compare LGBT rights for a moment with the civil rights movement, you see what a long way we still have left to go. Even here in the UK, where civil partnerships have been legal for years and gay marriage has recently been introduced across the board, it is still acceptable in this day and age for respected political commentators and politicians to publicly express the opinion that religious leaders should have the right to refuse to marry LGBT couples if it goes against their religious beliefs. Now, imagine for a moment a prominent politician expressing their belief that if a religious leader didn't want to marry a black couple because of his belief that white people are superior and he somehow found a way to justify this belief as religious? Anyone who spoke up in defence of this would be forced to resign from their position immediately and loose all credibility but with LGBT issues, this kind of thinking and rhetoric is still acceptable - this needs to be changed and challenged at every level until the day when LGBT discrimination is on a par with racial discrimination as completely and utterly intollerable and wrong.
|
|
ossiru
Member
Posts: 150
Registered on: September 2014
|
Post by ossiru on Jun 28, 2015 16:44:14 GMT
Attacking religion won't help the situation, it is the ideology of bigots that is the problem. Attacking might not be the best approach, but harsh criticism is warranted. It's hard to say whether religious scriptures are the root of bigoted ideas, but bigots sure as hell love quoting them as their primary motivation. Religions are just personally held ideologies and should not be shielded from the sort of criticism no one would hesitate to throw at a political ideology that made similar claims about how "wrong" a type of sexuality is. And yeah, it is pretty baffling how people can care that much about what genitals others prefer to look at. It always cracks me up when they talk about the "gay agenda". The most sinister thing my gay friends conspire to do is invite me to Eurovision viewing parties. Congratulations btw
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 18:41:06 GMT
The thing I really don't understand about the people against gay marriage is why? I can somewhat understand the root of the hatred, but their lives will literally not change at all now that same sex marriage is legal. To me it's nothing but hysteria. They are get themselves so worked up based on their assumptions about us that It's quite laughable at times. I mean have you seen some of their tweets from the other day. They say things like, "great, now that gays can marry, pedophiles will want marriage rights too" or "now I'm going to have gays flirting with me all the time" But in reality nothing will change for them. This is simply other people becoming equal. They are stuck on the idea that being gay is something purely sexual, but for me that is not true at all. I simply found love in an unconventional place and way. Attacking religion won't help the situation, it is the ideology of bigots that is the problem. To play devil's advocate, people are often worried about these new laws infringing on their religious freedoms. I know that was what happened in Canada after gay marriage was legalized in 2005, where a Catholic organization by the name of The Knights of Columbus was sued by a lesbian couple for not holding their wedding ceremony at the church. The pastor claimed that gay marriage went against the teachings of god, and offered his help to them in finding them a new hall to hold the ceremony, but the couple decided that wasn't good enough and charged the charitable organization. On a broader scale, Trinity Western University, an evangelical school in British Columbia, was denied their proposed law school by various law societies across Canada due to their community covenant, a document signed by students that says they will behave in a certain way. It says that they will refrain from lying, cheating, they will respect peers and superiors, and they will refrain from sex outside of the bounds of marriage. Trinity Western University defines marriage between a man and a woman, which is the cause of all of this. The law school of theirs had been effectively denied because they want the students of a religious university to refrain from sex outside of marriage as defined by the bible, and law societies deemed this discriminatory. Things like that happened in Canada when we legalized gay marriage, and the same will happen in USA. There is a balance to be struck between religious freedom and gay rights, and I do think both nations are on the right track to achieving a better balance, but the gains of rights for gays in America inherently means the loss of rights for certain religious organizations, and that is something that I can understand being upset about.
|
|
|
Post by tsunderella (Ch3rryBoyHunter) on Jun 28, 2015 19:18:15 GMT
The thing I really don't understand about the people against gay marriage is why? I can somewhat understand the root of the hatred, but their lives will literally not change at all now that same sex marriage is legal. To me it's nothing but hysteria. They are get themselves so worked up based on their assumptions about us that It's quite laughable at times. I mean have you seen some of their tweets from the other day. They say things like, "great, now that gays can marry, pedophiles will want marriage rights too" or "now I'm going to have gays flirting with me all the time" But in reality nothing will change for them. This is simply other people becoming equal. They are stuck on the idea that being gay is something purely sexual, but for me that is not true at all. I simply found love in an unconventional place and way. Attacking religion won't help the situation, it is the ideology of bigots that is the problem. To play devil's advocate, people are often worried about these new laws infringing on their religious freedoms. I know that was what happened in Canada after gay marriage was legalized in 2005, where a Catholic organization by the name of The Nights of Columbus was sued by a lesbian couple for not holding their wedding ceremony at the church. The pastor claimed that gay marriage went against the teachings of god, and offered his help to them in finding them a new hall to hold the ceremony, but the couple decided that wasn't good enough and charged the charitable organization. On a broader scale, Trinity Western University, an evangelical school in British Columbia, was denied their proposed law school by various law societies across Canada due to their community covenant, a document signed by students that says they will behave in a certain way. It says that they will refrain from lying, cheating, they will respect peers and superiors, and they will refrain from sex outside of the bounds of marriage. Trinity Western University defines marriage between a man and a woman, which is the cause of all of this. The law school of theirs had been effectively denied because they want the students of a religious university to refrain from sex outside of marriage as defined by the bible, and law societies deemed this discriminatory. Things like that happened in Canada when we legalized gay marriage, and the same will happen in USA. There is a balance to be struck between religious freedom and gay rights, and I do think both nations are on the right track to achieving a better balance, but the gains of rights for gays in America inherently means the loss of rights for certain religious organizations, and that is something that I can understand being upset about. I can see your point, and people should be able to practice their religion however they see fit. The problem is that their ideology based on their religion IS discrimination, and thus they are open to criticism that they are due. There are many religious persons whom fully put their faith in God, but at the same time adhere to modern society. For example the earth being older than 6000 years. It is not the Bible that says the earth is 600k years old, it is ideological Christians whom interpret the Bible to reinforce the only "faith" they have known. Infact: where in the Bible exactly are the rules and regulations for what a church can or can't do? There is none. These bigots (as much as the claim to have faith in god) worship material things and human ideas more than Biblical faith and Godly interventions. So, with that said I do not believe them discriminating against gay marriage is a religious freedom, They are still free to believe whatever they want, but a church is a building in the material world for people to visit to get to know "God" and thus discrimination should not be a part of that.
|
|
marklyell
Member
#heffing #spawningissues #purPOSE #foksakenoflayas
Posts: 390
Registered on: June 2015
|
Post by marklyell on Jun 28, 2015 20:04:32 GMT
The thing I really don't understand about the people against gay marriage is why? I can somewhat understand the root of the hatred, but their lives will literally not change at all now that same sex marriage is legal. To me it's nothing but hysteria. They are get themselves so worked up based on their assumptions about us that It's quite laughable at times. I mean have you seen some of their tweets from the other day. They say things like, "great, now that gays can marry, pedophiles will want marriage rights too" or "now I'm going to have gays flirting with me all the time" But in reality nothing will change for them. This is simply other people becoming equal. They are stuck on the idea that being gay is something purely sexual, but for me that is not true at all. I simply found love in an unconventional place and way. Attacking religion won't help the situation, it is the ideology of bigots that is the problem. To play devil's advocate, people are often worried about these new laws infringing on their religious freedoms. I know that was what happened in Canada after gay marriage was legalized in 2005, where a Catholic organization by the name of The Nights of Columbus was sued by a lesbian couple for not holding their wedding ceremony at the church. The pastor claimed that gay marriage went against the teachings of god, and offered his help to them in finding them a new hall to hold the ceremony, but the couple decided that wasn't good enough and charged the charitable organization. On a broader scale, Trinity Western University, an evangelical school in British Columbia, was denied their proposed law school by various law societies across Canada due to their community covenant, a document signed by students that says they will behave in a certain way. It says that they will refrain from lying, cheating, they will respect peers and superiors, and they will refrain from sex outside of the bounds of marriage. Trinity Western University defines marriage between a man and a woman, which is the cause of all of this. The law school of theirs had been effectively denied because they want the students of a religious university to refrain from sex outside of marriage as defined by the bible, and law societies deemed this discriminatory. Things like that happened in Canada when we legalized gay marriage, and the same will happen in USA. There is a balance to be struck between religious freedom and gay rights, and I do think both nations are on the right track to achieving a better balance, but the gains of rights for gays in America inherently means the loss of rights for certain religious organizations, and that is something that I can understand being upset about. White supremicist store owner refuses to serve black customer because it goes against his beliefs as a member of the KKK - absolutely illegal and he would be rightly vilified for it. Homophobic pastor refuses to marry gay couple because it goes against his religious beliefs - completely acceptable and we must respect it. I can't accept that. Discrimination doesn't suddenly become okay when you practice it while hiding behind religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 20:06:39 GMT
To play devil's advocate, people are often worried about these new laws infringing on their religious freedoms. I know that was what happened in Canada after gay marriage was legalized in 2005, where a Catholic organization by the name of The Knights of Columbus was sued by a lesbian couple for not holding their wedding ceremony at the church. The pastor claimed that gay marriage went against the teachings of god, and offered his help to them in finding them a new hall to hold the ceremony, but the couple decided that wasn't good enough and charged the charitable organization. On a broader scale, Trinity Western University, an evangelical school in British Columbia, was denied their proposed law school by various law societies across Canada due to their community covenant, a document signed by students that says they will behave in a certain way. It says that they will refrain from lying, cheating, they will respect peers and superiors, and they will refrain from sex outside of the bounds of marriage. Trinity Western University defines marriage between a man and a woman, which is the cause of all of this. The law school of theirs had been effectively denied because they want the students of a religious university to refrain from sex outside of marriage as defined by the bible, and law societies deemed this discriminatory. Things like that happened in Canada when we legalized gay marriage, and the same will happen in USA. There is a balance to be struck between religious freedom and gay rights, and I do think both nations are on the right track to achieving a better balance, but the gains of rights for gays in America inherently means the loss of rights for certain religious organizations, and that is something that I can understand being upset about. I can see your point, and people should be able to practice their religion however they see fit. The problem is that their ideology based on their religion IS discrimination, and thus they are open to criticism that they are due. There are many religious persons whom fully put their faith in God, but at the same time adhere to modern society. For example the earth being older than 6000 years. It is not the Bible that says the earth is 600k years old, it is ideological Christians whom interpret the Bible to reinforce the only "faith" they have known. Infact: where in the Bible exactly are the rules and regulations for what a church can or can't do? There is none. These bigots (as much as the claim to have faith in god) worship material things and human ideas more than Biblical faith and Godly interventions. So, with that said I do not believe them discriminating against gay marriage is a religious freedom, They are still free to believe whatever they want, but a church is a building in the material world for people to visit to get to know "God" and thus discrimination should not be a part of that. I would hardly call the examples I've given discrimination. The Knights of Columbus searched for an alternative solution for the couple requesting their services, and Trinity Western University accepts gay students. Their ideologies have not led to discrimination, and yet they have suffered for not actively changing their policies and ideologies to whole heartedly support gays. THAT is more discriminatory than what the LGB community faced within the two examples I previously stated. Opposing a movement or action does not immediately qualify any given person as a bigot, and I hate to see harsh terms like that thrown around so loosely as a buzzword. Another reason gay marriage is opposed by many is due to the idea that childhood innocence is something to be preserved. Religious people often value older traditions, like abstaining until marriage, keeping relationships monogamous, and keeping relationships straight. The idea from many churches is that values like these, when instilled in children, lead to a more constructive upbringing and a better adjusted adult. There may be merit to this claim as the rise of teen pregnancies has been correlating very closely with the decline of youth church attendance over the past several decades. The idea that making sexuality, especially deviant sexuality, public and normal for children is concerning to these parents due to their wish to keep their kid "on the right track," so to speak. That sexual deviancy I'm talking about is quickly spreading into society and becoming the norm, and that is concerning to many parents. Just Google Image search "*city name here* Gay Pirde", and you'll see lots of things not appropriate for children; be it a man straddling a 3 metre long dildo on a car in Chicago, or men in banana hammocks stripping in the streets of Vancouver, there is a concern about how far is too far when it comes to sexual displays in society, and many say normalizing some of these actions by law is well over that threshold. Just to clarify, I don't agree with the idea of keeping sexuality out of media and various entertainment industries, but I do believe there is merit to opposing public marches that involve unnecessary nudity and other inappropriate things. It isn't discrimination against LGB people so much as asking for common decency in public, but by no means does that justify the restriction of the marital rights for gays.
|
|
Robodark
Member
♡
Posts: 681
Registered on: March 2015
|
Post by Robodark on Jun 28, 2015 20:18:55 GMT
Most religous people are against gays because they were raised to be like that, same goes for racism: If a young black boy asks to be on the swing next to a young white boy, the white boy wouldn't say no because he was black, unless his or her parents taught him or her to be like that. And that's like on of the many reasons. It also could be experiences like mine: The girl I was in a relationship for years, ran off with another woman a few weeks ago. I would understand if someone gets a bitter thought when someone mentions lesbians after that experience. (I do not hate lesbians in any way.) You get my point now, my friend who wasn't born religous but later became muslim in his life doesn't hate gays at all, because none of these experiences happend to him. A human changes in it's life by experiences and the people it meets. It's still not a good excuse to hate on anyone at all. The whole world and the people in it are changing, I hope one of the changes the world and it's people get is acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by tsunderella (Ch3rryBoyHunter) on Jun 28, 2015 20:19:17 GMT
I can see your point, and people should be able to practice their religion however they see fit. The problem is that their ideology based on their religion IS discrimination, and thus they are open to criticism that they are due. There are many religious persons whom fully put their faith in God, but at the same time adhere to modern society. For example the earth being older than 6000 years. It is not the Bible that says the earth is 600k years old, it is ideological Christians whom interpret the Bible to reinforce the only "faith" they have known. Infact: where in the Bible exactly are the rules and regulations for what a church can or can't do? There is none. These bigots (as much as the claim to have faith in god) worship material things and human ideas more than Biblical faith and Godly interventions. So, with that said I do not believe them discriminating against gay marriage is a religious freedom, They are still free to believe whatever they want, but a church is a building in the material world for people to visit to get to know "God" and thus discrimination should not be a part of that. I would hardly call the examples I've given discrimination. The Knights of Columbus searched for an alternative solution for the couple requesting their services, and Trinity Western University accepts gay students. Their ideologies have not led to discrimination, and yet they have suffered for not actively changing their policies and ideologies to whole heartedly support gays. THAT is more discriminatory than what the LGB community faced within the two examples I previously stated. Opposing a movement or action does not immediately qualify any given person as a bigot, and I hate to see harsh terms like that thrown around so loosely as a buzzword. Another reason gay marriage is opposed by many is due to the idea that childhood innocence is something to be preserved. Religious people often value older traditions, like abstaining until marriage, keeping relationships monogamous, and keeping relationships straight. The idea from many churches is that values like these, when instilled in children, lead to a more constructive upbringing and a better adjusted adult. There may be merit to this claim as the rise of teen pregnancies has been correlating very closely with the decline of youth church attendance over the past several decades. The idea that making sexuality, especially deviant sexuality, public and normal for children is concerning to these parents due to their wish to keep their kid "on the right track," so to speak. That sexual deviancy I'm talking about is quickly spreading into society and becoming the norm, and that is concerning to many parents. Just Google Image search "*city name here* Gay Pirde", and you'll see lots of things not appropriate for children; be it a man straddling a 3 metre long dildo on a car in Chicago, or men in banana hammocks stripping in the streets of Vancouver, there is a concern about how far is too far when it comes to sexual displays in society, and many say normalizing some of these actions by law is well over that threshold. Just to clarify, I don't agree with the idea of keeping sexuality out of media and various entertainment industries, but I do believe there is merit to opposing public marches that involve unnecessary nudity and other inappropriate things. It isn't discrimination against LGB people so much as asking for common decency in public, but by no means does that justify the restriction of the marital rights for gays. I actually agree with many points again, and you are right. I was throwing bigot around loosely. I actually disagree with most gay pride parades. Not the parades themselves as they are an important tool to have equal right, but some of the sexual displays are quite disgusting to me personally. It's no secret that I am not a rainbow waving lesbian. Infact, in my personal and professional life my sexuality does not affect anything as is the way it should be, and the loud minority of the lgbt community who do like to share every aspect of themselves to everybody also deserve criticism. I'm going to go familiarise myself on the Trinity case b4 I post more about it from ignorance so please be patient for that. However I still stand by my previous post.
|
|
marklyell
Member
#heffing #spawningissues #purPOSE #foksakenoflayas
Posts: 390
Registered on: June 2015
|
Post by marklyell on Jun 28, 2015 20:20:05 GMT
I can see your point, and people should be able to practice their religion however they see fit. The problem is that their ideology based on their religion IS discrimination, and thus they are open to criticism that they are due. There are many religious persons whom fully put their faith in God, but at the same time adhere to modern society. For example the earth being older than 6000 years. It is not the Bible that says the earth is 600k years old, it is ideological Christians whom interpret the Bible to reinforce the only "faith" they have known. Infact: where in the Bible exactly are the rules and regulations for what a church can or can't do? There is none. These bigots (as much as the claim to have faith in god) worship material things and human ideas more than Biblical faith and Godly interventions. So, with that said I do not believe them discriminating against gay marriage is a religious freedom, They are still free to believe whatever they want, but a church is a building in the material world for people to visit to get to know "God" and thus discrimination should not be a part of that Another reason gay marriage is opposed by many is due to the idea that childhood innocence is something to be preserved. Religious people often value older traditions, like abstaining until marriage, keeping relationships monogamous, and keeping relationships straight. The idea from many churches is that values like these, when instilled in children, lead to a more constructive upbringing and a better adjusted adult. There may be merit to this claim as the rise of teen pregnancies has been correlating very closely with the decline of youth church attendance over the past several decades. The idea that making sexuality, especially deviant sexuality, public and normal for children is concerning to these parents due to their wish to keep their kid "on the right track," so to speak. That sexual deviancy I'm talking about is quickly spreading into society and becoming the norm, and that is concerning to many parents. Just Google Image search "*city name here* Gay Pirde", and you'll see lots of things not appropriate for children; be it a man straddling a 3 metre long dildo on a car in Chicago, or men in banana hammocks stripping in the streets of Vancouver, there is a concern about how far is too far when it comes to sexual displays in society, and many say normalizing some of these actions by law is well over that threshold. I literally cannot believe anyone would actually use an argument like that. It's so easy to pick on one particular thing and twist it to suit your own argument. For example, I could point to a TV show like The Simpsons, which used to be shown weekly at 6pm on the TV station of our national broadcaster here in the UK - have you ever seriously counted the number of times in a Simpsons episode Homer and Marge either openly talk about having sex, or that they're about to go and have sex or that they've just had sex and how many plotlines are resolved by Homer and Marge in bed together having just had make up sex? Or, I could use your logic and do a Google Image search....hmmm...let's go with Miley Cyrus, former teen sensation marketed to children all over the United States for years - oh look, there she is straddling a cannonball, there she is wearing barely any clothing and "twerking" in front of some guy who's simulating having sex with her, oh and here's another one of her with a G-String on with her legs split wide apart. Now tell me this - what are children more likely to search for on Google Images? The Simpsons and Miley Cyrus or "Gay Pride San Fransico" Really man, that's a pathetic PATHETIC argument. It's possible to find sexual images on a Google search for Pride marches so you use THAT as a basis for implying that LGBT rights are somehow responsible for the youth of today "losing their way" ? I've got news for you mate, it's possible to find sexual images in a Google Image search for ANYTHING, why do you attribute some sort of importance to the ones which happen to involve gay people?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 20:31:56 GMT
To play devil's advocate, people are often worried about these new laws infringing on their religious freedoms. I know that was what happened in Canada after gay marriage was legalized in 2005, where a Catholic organization by the name of The Nights of Columbus was sued by a lesbian couple for not holding their wedding ceremony at the church. The pastor claimed that gay marriage went against the teachings of god, and offered his help to them in finding them a new hall to hold the ceremony, but the couple decided that wasn't good enough and charged the charitable organization. On a broader scale, Trinity Western University, an evangelical school in British Columbia, was denied their proposed law school by various law societies across Canada due to their community covenant, a document signed by students that says they will behave in a certain way. It says that they will refrain from lying, cheating, they will respect peers and superiors, and they will refrain from sex outside of the bounds of marriage. Trinity Western University defines marriage between a man and a woman, which is the cause of all of this. The law school of theirs had been effectively denied because they want the students of a religious university to refrain from sex outside of marriage as defined by the bible, and law societies deemed this discriminatory. Things like that happened in Canada when we legalized gay marriage, and the same will happen in USA. There is a balance to be struck between religious freedom and gay rights, and I do think both nations are on the right track to achieving a better balance, but the gains of rights for gays in America inherently means the loss of rights for certain religious organizations, and that is something that I can understand being upset about. White supremacist store owner refuses to serve black customer because it goes against his beliefs as a member of the KKK - absolutely illegal and he would be rightly vilified for it. Homophobic pastor refuses to marry gay couple because it goes against his religious beliefs - completely acceptable and we must respect it. I can't accept that. Discrimination doesn't suddenly become okay when you practice it while hiding behind religion. The pastor isn't homophobic though. He offered up alternative means for them to get married by contacting various other organizations willing to do the job for the lesbian couple. I can't see a better way to handle such a situation without him disobeying the word of his God by acting against his will in the very building dedicated to him. Religious practise should be protected under the law just as much as the practise of marriage between gays, and that means that this pastor, regardless of how you view him, deserves the right to decide what his church does.
|
|
|
Post by tsunderella (Ch3rryBoyHunter) on Jun 28, 2015 20:40:49 GMT
Another reason gay marriage is opposed by many is due to the idea that childhood innocence is something to be preserved. Religious people often value older traditions, like abstaining until marriage, keeping relationships monogamous, and keeping relationships straight. The idea from many churches is that values like these, when instilled in children, lead to a more constructive upbringing and a better adjusted adult. There may be merit to this claim as the rise of teen pregnancies has been correlating very closely with the decline of youth church attendance over the past several decades. The idea that making sexuality, especially deviant sexuality, public and normal for children is concerning to these parents due to their wish to keep their kid "on the right track," so to speak. That sexual deviancy I'm talking about is quickly spreading into society and becoming the norm, and that is concerning to many parents. Just Google Image search "*city name here* Gay Pirde", and you'll see lots of things not appropriate for children; be it a man straddling a 3 metre long dildo on a car in Chicago, or men in banana hammocks stripping in the streets of Vancouver, there is a concern about how far is too far when it comes to sexual displays in society, and many say normalizing some of these actions by law is well over that threshold. I literally cannot believe anyone would actually use an argument like that. It's so easy to pick on one particular thing and twist it to suit your own argument. For example, I could point to a TV show like The Simpsons, which used to be shown weekly at 6pm on the TV station of our national broadcaster here in the UK - have you ever seriously counted the number of times in a Simpsons episode Homer and Marge either openly talk about having sex, or that they're about to go and have sex or that they've just had sex and how many plotlines are resolved by Homer and Marge in bed together having just had make up sex? Or, I could use your logic and do a Google Image search....hmmm...let's go with Miley Cyrus, former teen sensation marketed to children all over the United States for years - oh look, there she is straddling a cannonball, there she is wearing barely any clothing and "twerking" in front of some guy who's simulating having sex with her, oh and here's another one of her with a G-String on with her legs split wide apart. Now tell me this - what are children more likely to search for on Google Images? The Simpsons and Miley Cyrus or "Gay Pride San Fransico" Really man, that's a pathetic PATHETIC argument. It's possible to find sexual images on a Google search for Pride marches so you use THAT as a basis for implying that LGBT rights are somehow responsible for the youth of today "losing their way" ? I've got news for you mate, it's possible to find sexual images in a Google Image search for ANYTHING, why do you attribute some sort of importance to the ones which happen to involve gay people? He is partially correct though. To me these parades (although very helpful to push gay rights) are taken as a representation of the gay community. That is something the participants are fully aware of yet they still act in a selfish manner. It's one thing to participate for the sake of support, it's another thing to show lude displays of affection in public. It's a fine line, and in all honesty there is not much to be done about it except the one thing everybody has a right to do. That one thing is ignore it. If you are worried about your children then don't take them to watch the parade. Online there are parental tools aswell. As a new parent myself I have a problem with other parents demanding society change in certain ways because of either their ignorance with tech, or their laziness. Those are no excuses to demand other people change their ways when they are not forcing your children to do anything.
|
|
marklyell
Member
#heffing #spawningissues #purPOSE #foksakenoflayas
Posts: 390
Registered on: June 2015
|
Post by marklyell on Jun 28, 2015 20:42:35 GMT
White supremacist store owner refuses to serve black customer because it goes against his beliefs as a member of the KKK - absolutely illegal and he would be rightly vilified for it. Homophobic pastor refuses to marry gay couple because it goes against his religious beliefs - completely acceptable and we must respect it. I can't accept that. Discrimination doesn't suddenly become okay when you practice it while hiding behind religion. Religious practise should be protected under the law Why? My political beliefs aren't protected under the law - I am in no position to discriminate against someone because I disagree with their politics. My cultural beliefs aren't protected under the law - I wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against anyone just because I wasn't a fan of the cultural norms they subscribe to. Infact, if I tried to invoke either of those two things as a means to discriminate against someone, you and everyone else would think it was ridiculous. Religion is different though - why? Can you give me any rational, reasoned and measured argument as to why religion is different? Why people's religious beliefs should be protected by law when they use them as a means to discriminate? And let's be honest here - this isn't actually about religion. It's about religion SPECIFICALLY as it relates to LGBT issues. If any religious leader, anywhere in the developed world attempted to discriminate against someone based on the colour of their skin - you and I would not be having this debate. So the question is - why should someone's religious beliefs be protected under the law when none of their other beliefs are? And why does this only apply to LGBT issues? Could it be that many people are still just fundamentally homophobic and using religion these days has become a way to put an acceptable face on prejudice?
|
|
marklyell
Member
#heffing #spawningissues #purPOSE #foksakenoflayas
Posts: 390
Registered on: June 2015
|
Post by marklyell on Jun 28, 2015 20:54:39 GMT
I literally cannot believe anyone would actually use an argument like that. It's so easy to pick on one particular thing and twist it to suit your own argument. For example, I could point to a TV show like The Simpsons, which used to be shown weekly at 6pm on the TV station of our national broadcaster here in the UK - have you ever seriously counted the number of times in a Simpsons episode Homer and Marge either openly talk about having sex, or that they're about to go and have sex or that they've just had sex and how many plotlines are resolved by Homer and Marge in bed together having just had make up sex? Or, I could use your logic and do a Google Image search....hmmm...let's go with Miley Cyrus, former teen sensation marketed to children all over the United States for years - oh look, there she is straddling a cannonball, there she is wearing barely any clothing and "twerking" in front of some guy who's simulating having sex with her, oh and here's another one of her with a G-String on with her legs split wide apart. Now tell me this - what are children more likely to search for on Google Images? The Simpsons and Miley Cyrus or "Gay Pride San Fransico" Really man, that's a pathetic PATHETIC argument. It's possible to find sexual images on a Google search for Pride marches so you use THAT as a basis for implying that LGBT rights are somehow responsible for the youth of today "losing their way" ? I've got news for you mate, it's possible to find sexual images in a Google Image search for ANYTHING, why do you attribute some sort of importance to the ones which happen to involve gay people? He is partially correct though. To me these parades (although very helpful to push gay rights) are taken as a representation of the gay community. That is something the participants are fully aware of yet they still act in a selfish manner. It's one thing to participate for the sake of support, it's another thing to show lude displays of affection in public. It's a fine line, and in all honesty there is not much to be done about it except the one thing everybody has a right to do. That one thing is ignore it. If you are worried about your children then don't take them to watch the parade. Online there are parental tools aswell. As a new parent myself I have a problem with other parents demanding society change in certain ways because of either their ignorance with tech, or their laziness. Those are no excuses to demand other people change their ways when they are not forcing your children to do anything. Yes but, again, this has become another way to put an acceptable face on prejudice. Think of it this way - in the last 15 years there have been several well publicised terrorist incidents in cities in the western world perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. World leaders from all over the globe have condemned these attacks but in the same breath they remind us all that these people do not represent Islam and retalitory attacks on innocent Muslims are rightly condemned. Then you have guys like Anders Brevik - a white middle class terrorist from Norway who massacred 100 children at a youth camp as part of a "war" against Islam. My point here is that Anders Brevik had the same skin colour as me, he was the same gender as me, he was even roughly the same age as me and there are thousands upon thousands of other young, white middle-class men who share his beliefs. I am a white, heterosexual male and nothing means less to me. Other white, heterosexual males do bad, bad things. Some Muslims do horrible things, some gay people are dickheads, some hispanic people are douchebags, some musicians are peadophiles etc. etc. etc. You see what I'm saying? You're always going to share some common traits with people who do things you don't like - in your case you happen to share a sexual orientation with some people who do things you don't approve of. But don't let people use that as a justification to judge gay people, just as I would never let someone use the actions of Anders Brevik to judge me for being a straight, white male. Just as a normal Muslim person would never let someone judge them for the 9/11 attacks. Again, I keep going back to this point but it's relevant - it seems that tarring LGBT people with the same brush is still more acceptable in society than doing it to any other group of people.
|
|
|
Post by tsunderella (Ch3rryBoyHunter) on Jun 28, 2015 21:02:40 GMT
He is partially correct though. To me these parades (although very helpful to push gay rights) are taken as a representation of the gay community. That is something the participants are fully aware of yet they still act in a selfish manner. It's one thing to participate for the sake of support, it's another thing to show lude displays of affection in public. It's a fine line, and in all honesty there is not much to be done about it except the one thing everybody has a right to do. That one thing is ignore it. If you are worried about your children then don't take them to watch the parade. Online there are parental tools aswell. As a new parent myself I have a problem with other parents demanding society change in certain ways because of either their ignorance with tech, or their laziness. Those are no excuses to demand other people change their ways when they are not forcing your children to do anything. Yes but, again, this has become another way to put an acceptable face on prejudice. Think of it this way - in the last 15 years there have been several well publicised terrorist incidents in cities in the western world perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. World leaders from all over the globe have condemned these attacks but in the same breath they remind us all that these people do not represent Islam and retalitory attacks on innocent Muslims are rightly condemned. Then you have guys like Anders Brevik - a white middle class terrorist from Norway who massacred 100 children at a youth camp as part of a "war" against Islam. My point here is that Anders Brevik had the same skin colour as me, he was the same gender as me, he was even roughly the same age as me and there are thousands upon thousands of other young, white middle-class men who share his beliefs. I am a white, heterosexual male and nothing means less to me. Other white, heterosexual males do bad, bad things. Some Muslims do horrible things, some gay people are dickheads, some hispanic people are douchebags, some musicians are peadophiles etc. etc. etc. You see what I'm saying? You're always going to share some common traits with people who do things you don't like - in your case you happen to share a sexual orientation with some people who do things you don't approve of. But don't let people use that as a justification to judge gay people, just as I would never let someone use the actions of Anders Brevik to judge me for being a straight, white male. Just as a normal Muslim person would never let someone judge them for the 9/11 attacks. Again, I keep going back to this point but it's relevant - it seems that tarring LGBT people with the same brush is still more acceptable in society than doing it to any other group of people. Exactly my point, both for and against the parades. It is important to me that the parades continue. Gay exposure is a prime tool to lessen the assumptions about what gay people are or are not, but at the same time I can still be critical of them the same way I would be critical of a man and a woman dry humping each other in public. They have every right to do it, but I have every right to ask them to stop.
|
|
marklyell
Member
#heffing #spawningissues #purPOSE #foksakenoflayas
Posts: 390
Registered on: June 2015
|
Post by marklyell on Jun 28, 2015 21:07:42 GMT
I would also add, I have marched proudly on Pride parades and have never seen any of this so called gratuitous sexual behaviour on display. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I have never seen it. I've also been to countless football (or, soccer for our American friends ) matches and seen horrible violence, racist abuse and all manner of anti-social behaviour. I've also been to many without a single incident. Things will happen at any large gathering of people, unsavoury things, funny things, horrible things, illegal things etc. etc. It has nothing to do with the skin colour, sexual orientation, religious beliefs of the assembled masses. It's just that happens when there are a lot of people in the same place, the more people you add to anything, the more chance you have that one of them will do something silly.
|
|