Quote:
|
Originally Posted by magictoy
Since you presume that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a "homophobe," does that make everyone in favor of it a "heterophobe?"
Now that your original bias has been addressed, I'll answer your question. There's nothing wrong with it. I know of no one who opposes two people linking their lives in such a fashion. The general opinion, as I (and many other people) see it, is that you're calling an apple an orange.
Words mean things. If gays and other people in search of preferential treatment are going to declare that some words are offensive to them, they're going to have to get used to the fact that some heterosexual couples think that a change in the definition of what they consider a sacred relationship is offensive.
|
I'm sorry, but that really is quite nonsensical.
People against gay marriage are homophobic not only because it's usually out of an irrational prejudice to homosexuality in some form, but because they believe in enforcing some form of discrimination against homosexuals.
How does that translate to people for gay marriage being heterophobes? That's horrible logic. People against straight marriage and not gay marriage would probably be heterophobe. Heterophobe is a ridiculous word nearly always coined by neo-cons who can only argue through emotionally weighted strawmen, it's a good idea to steer clear of it.
I think there is far too much tolerance of homophobia in this day and age. It's not the same thing as being a heterosexual like some people write it off to be, it's something that should be frowned upon because it causes nothing but strife. If people would only listen to logic so many of the "blurry lines" would becoem distinct.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Toaster126
I have no problems with gay marriage, but wow that's a terrible comment. Why must people be afraid of or embody what they don't agree with?
I blame pop psychology.
|
It's nothing about agreeing, it's about discrimination. Am I the only person that remembers discrimination is an objective BAD thing? Most of the great revolutionaries of the past never acted that way.
Can you imagine Martin Luther King saying "I have a dream - but well, I have to admit the KKK DO have a point in their whole "Black people should die" thing".
It's complete nonsense. Being against discrimination doesn't mean you can't be for "discriminating" against things which are actually proven to be wrong in some manner.
Most discriminatory views are simply quite illogical and not based in fact. Writing claims off as opinions and beliefs is a wonderful way to let them keep them long after they're proven wrong.
Homophobic arguments are pretty much without exception
non-sequitor if you consider the facts of homosexuality, homosexuals, and relationships in general.
When you get down to "opinion", protecting someone's opinion that those kind of people should all burn in hell is ridiculous. Nobody is going to control someone's thoughts, but we should take a stand against that which is simply unacceptable and leads to nothing but hardship.
There is nothing to be gained by protecting homophobia in the manner in which people do online, constantly. Ultimately, the people protecting homosexuality are the ones that get banned first in a heated argument. It's complete idiocy and it's time someone took a stand against it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
What's funny about people like you Filth is that you are as bigotted as the people you label.
|
Absolute rubbish. If someone were to "discriminate" against a rapist, would you call hypocrite on them for claiming to be liberal too? No. Personally, I accept things so long as they don't hurt other people. Bigotry unfortunately does hurt other people as it's an idea that spreads like a virus, giving people an excuse to show a complete lack of regard to others. At least this is a
good reason to disrespect someone, and is something that, unlike homosexuality, can be changed through choice.
He is not voting against bigot's right to marry, is not spreading ridiculous propoganda as to how they should burn in hell. What's funny about you and many "relativists" is that you're acting exactly in the manner Neo-Cons need for their fallacies to remain in place, protecting arrogance as equally as wisdom.
Quote:
|
Rationality has no bearing on bigotry, only perspective, a bigot is merely someone who is intolerant of somebody elses view, which you clearly are on this matter.
|
Relativist nonsense. "Bigot" is usually coined as someone who is intolerant of someone else as a person and their way of life that in no way intrudes on others, not just a "view".
Again, a person is not a Bigot for thinking that a rapist is doing something wrong and should be stopped. Similiarly, as bigotry has a proven track record of violence, social rejection of victims and removal of civil rights, it is something which should be stood against.
I will say I am intolerant of other people's views if they are in someway harmful, and I have no shame in it anymore than I do in saying I am tolerant of people who do not set out to hurt or discriminate against others who do no wrong. I do not believe they should be "Medicated" for it like some people believe homosexuals should be, however, just that it be socially discouraged. So attempting to making me out to be that which I hate fails in more areas than one. Not to mention how tired I am of fence-homophobes using that argument.