Critique my [gay marriage] blurb

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-01-31 05:51pm

Remember that to these people, inside every good, heterosexual Christian is a flaming homo ready to leap out and s3x0rz ur kids!!1

The logical implication of this argument is that they believe they themselves could become gay with enough persuasion. Make it pervasive enough, and their fragile willpower will shatter. They'll abandon their families, and countless other families across Christian Redneckistan will do the same.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-02-02 11:47am

I don't think they believe they could be made gay, but they're convinced that their children could be made gay. In their minds, heterosexuality is taught, and they are heterosexual today because their fathers told them about how evil homosexuality was when they were children. Presumably, without that early childhood education, they would have been at risk to turn gay. That's why they're terrified of anything that might dilute this all-important message.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-02-02 12:33pm

Darth Wong wrote:I don't think they believe they could be made gay, but they're convinced that their children could be made gay. In their minds, heterosexuality is taught, and they are heterosexual today because their fathers told them about how evil homosexuality was when they were children. Presumably, without that early childhood education, they would have been at risk to turn gay. That's why they're terrified of anything that might dilute this all-important message.

Unless of course, they happen to be closeted, self hating homosexuals who marry strictly for the sake of keeping up appearances, and violently attack gay rights so they look normal and can avoid the risk of ostracism by the community. Like that one evangelist in Colorado not too long ago who resigned for being caught with a gay prostitute.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-02-02 01:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:I don't think they believe they could be made gay, but they're convinced that their children could be made gay. In their minds, heterosexuality is taught, and they are heterosexual today because their fathers told them about how evil homosexuality was when they were children. Presumably, without that early childhood education, they would have been at risk to turn gay. That's why they're terrified of anything that might dilute this all-important message.

This suddenly conjures up a funny image of a bunch of these guys stuck on an island without a priest.

"We've got to get off this island now or we're gonna get really gay!"

Incidentally, if you can find a way to elaborate on the 'smokescreen' part and somehow fit the word 'bigotry' in there I think that would really slam it home.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2007-02-02 01:53pm

Haruko wrote:So I was thinking. I remember at my forum in a topic about gay marriage, one of my members posted the following:

Taking the historical line of attack against the religious institution of marriage is actually far easier than all that. Hammurabi's Code dates from circa 1800 BCE and therefore predates even Judaism as we know it, which was effectively established by Moses in 1200 BCE (Abraham believing in a much simpler version), let alone Christianity. Hammurabi's Code includes passages referring to a legal definition of marriage ("contracts").

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2007-02-02 02:15pm

Christians oppose homesexual marriages for a very simple reason:
Homesexuality is wrong and a sin. Period.

And you want to protect your children from sin.

(Not to mention the fact that it is disgusting: Two men (or women) kissing? *look away*)

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-02-02 02:25pm

D.Turtle wrote:Christians oppose homesexual marriages for a very simple reason:
Homesexuality is wrong and a sin. Period.

And you want to protect your children from sin.

So is divorce and taking the Lord's Name in vane. Where's the campaigns to outlaw those?

(Not to mention the fact that it is disgusting: Two men (or women) kissing? *look away*)

TithonusSyndrome · Post by **TithonusSyndrome** » 2007-02-02 04:08pm

General Zod wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I don't think they believe they could be made gay, but they're convinced that their children could be made gay. In their minds, heterosexuality is taught, and they are heterosexual today because their fathers told them about how evil homosexuality was when they were children. Presumably, without that early childhood education, they would have been at risk to turn gay. That's why they're terrified of anything that might dilute this all-important message.
Unless of course, they happen to be closeted, self hating homosexuals who marry strictly for the sake of keeping up appearances, and violently attack gay rights so they look normal and can avoid the risk of ostracism by the community. Like that one evangelist in Colorado not too long ago who resigned for being caught with a gay prostitute.

I think that for a lot of these people, the feverish need to keep up appearances plants an ever-stronger seed of doubt in their minds that wouldn't prosper so if they weren't so overly homophobic. They begin to become paranoid over innocuous occurences in the presence of males that they interpret as being sexual in some way. I'd savor the irony more if it wasn't so goddamn ignominous altogether to begin with.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2007-02-02 09:39pm

General Zod wrote:
D.Turtle wrote:Christians oppose homesexual marriages for a very simple reason:
Homesexuality is wrong and a sin. Period.

And you want to protect your children from sin.
So is divorce and taking the Lord's Name in vane. Where's the campaigns to outlaw those?

They WERE outlawed for most of the last two thousand years.
It got overturned some time ago.
But it is still frowned upon.

Remember: the whole homosexual marriage thing is NOT about outlawing them - it is about KEEPING them outlawed. Big difference.

(Not to mention the fact that it is disgusting: Two men (or women) kissing? *look away*)

Just to make it clear: That is not my reaction, but the reaction of christians I know.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2007-02-02 10:00pm

Remember: the whole homosexual marriage thing is NOT about outlawing them - it is about KEEPING them outlawed. Big difference.

What exactly is the difference? It still represents a bigoted attitude towards gays either way.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2007-02-03 01:00am

wolveraptor wrote:
Remember: the whole homosexual marriage thing is NOT about outlawing them - it is about KEEPING them outlawed. Big difference.
What exactly is the difference? It still represents a bigoted attitude towards gays either way.

The difference is keeping it outlawed is a more realistic and worthwhile goal than outlawing divorce. How many Americans do you think you are going to be able to get behind that movement?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-02-03 01:02am

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:
Remember: the whole homosexual marriage thing is NOT about outlawing them - it is about KEEPING them outlawed. Big difference.
What exactly is the difference? It still represents a bigoted attitude towards gays either way.
The difference is keeping it outlawed is a more realistic and worthwhile goal than outlawing divorce. How many Americans do you think you are going to be able to get behind that movement?

I think he's saying that it doesn't make any ethical difference. We all recognize the political realities.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2007-02-03 02:16pm

wolveraptor wrote:
Remember: the whole homosexual marriage thing is NOT about outlawing them - it is about KEEPING them outlawed. Big difference.
What exactly is the difference? It still represents a bigoted attitude towards gays either way.

The difference is simple:
To outlaw something you have to show something is evil and wrong.
To legalize something you have to show its right. IOW to stop it from being legalized you have to simply sow doubts about it being right.

See the difference?

And yes of course it is bigoted.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-02-03 02:47pm

D.Turtle wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:
Remember: the whole homosexual marriage thing is NOT about outlawing them - it is about KEEPING them outlawed. Big difference.
What exactly is the difference? It still represents a bigoted attitude towards gays either way.
The difference is simple:
To outlaw something you have to show something is evil and wrong.
To legalize something you have to show its right. IOW to stop it from being legalized you have to simply sow doubts about it being right.

See the difference?

And yes of course it is bigoted.

Actually, regardless of the underlying bigotry, it's nonsense that there's a different standard for legalization vs criminalization. It should be perfectly adequate to demand evidence of harm in both cases, rather than expecting people to prove a negative in order to legalize something.

If something is illegal, then we are persecuting people and using state resources for enforcement. That right there is objective harm, so the harm caused by the illegal act must outweigh this. Ergo, the burden of proof is on he who would claim harm, regardless of whether we are asking to criminalize or legalize something.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-02-03 05:31pm

D.Turtle wrote:(Not to mention the fact that it is disgusting: Two men (or women) kissing? *look away*)

It may not be something you or I wouldn't want to engage in but the gay members of society don't see it as disgusting at all.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-02-03 05:35pm

D.Turtle wrote:The difference is simple:
To outlaw something you have to show something is evil and wrong.
To legalize something you have to show its right. IOW to stop it from being legalized you have to simply sow doubts about it being right.

See the difference?

And yes of course it is bigoted.

No, there isn't a difference since the it had to be out-lawed at some point in time in the first place. Since the people who outlawed it failed to meet the requirements for outlawing it, why should anyone need to "show that its right" to legalize it?

Darth Mordius · Post by **Darth Mordius** » 2007-02-03 10:27pm

Darth Servo wrote:No, there isn't a difference since the it had to be out-lawed at some point in time in the first place. Since the people who outlawed it failed to meet the requirements for outlawing it, why should anyone need to "show that its right" to legalize it?

In an ideal world, you're right. As the sytem works now, the "real life mods" have been convinced gay marriage is a spammer, and the banhammer has been brought down upon it.

D.Turtle wrote:(Not to mention the fact that it is disgusting: Two men (or women) kissing? *look away*)

No one has said it yet, so I will: lesbians = hot.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-02-04 02:08pm

Darth Mordius wrote: No one has said it yet, so I will: lesbians = hot.

The hotness of same-sex couples of either gender varies directly with the product of the hotness of each member of the couple (not the sum, as you might think).

This implies that both the slope of the joint hotness curve increases steeply as the hotness of either or both members increases, but also that if either of them has a negative hotness value, even if they are just slightly homely, the entire couple will possess a negative value.

Darth Mordius · Post by **Darth Mordius** » 2007-02-04 03:01pm

Molyneux wrote:The hotness of same-sex couples of either gender varies directly with the product of the hotness of each member of the couple (not the sum, as you might think).

This implies that both the slope of the joint hotness curve increases steeply as the hotness of either or both members increases, but also that if either of them has a negative hotness value, even if they are just slightly homely, the entire couple will possess a negative value.

Alas, it is true: ugly lesbians make baby jesus cry.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2007-02-05 03:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, regardless of the underlying bigotry, it's nonsense that there's a different standard for legalization vs criminalization. It should be perfectly adequate to demand evidence of harm in both cases, rather than expecting people to prove a negative in order to legalize something.

If something is illegal, then we are persecuting people and using state resources for enforcement. That right there is objective harm, so the harm caused by the illegal act must outweigh this. Ergo, the burden of proof is on he who would claim harm, regardless of whether we are asking to criminalize or legalize something.

Of course it is nonsense, but that is the impression I get with this whole gay marriage thing.

Reading through the posts that lead to this, I just want to make this clear:
My impression is that the way the system works, regardless of if it right or not, is that it is harder to legalize something, than it is to criminalize something.

As another example, it is harder to legalize pot, than it is to criminalize cigarettes (even though cigarettes are simply deadly, while pot AFAIK has some redeeming qualities).

I do NOT defend this viewpoint as the correct one, I am merely stating that in my opinion that is the way the system works.

As an addendum, concerning the question why there is no movement to criminalize/delegalize divorce:
Look at why the Church of England was founded: The King of England wanted to divorce, but the Pope would not allow this - so the King of England founded the Church of England with him as the highest religious authority.

Darth Servo wrote:It may not be something you or I wouldn't want to engage in but the gay members of society don't see it as disgusting at all.

As in my reply to General Zod, I state again, just to make it clear:
That is not my reaction, but the reaction of christians I know.
I do admit that I feel weird around homosexual people, but I am trying to suppress this part of my upbringing. And I would NOT complain loudly about this or oppose gay marriage,

I should have made that abundantly clear in the first post.
I didn't and I apologize.

General Question: I always considered gay as referring only to men who are homosexual, is this not the case anymore? Ergo is gay now accepted as referring to all people that are homosexual?

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2007-02-05 04:26pm

D.Turtle wrote:General Question: I always considered gay as referring only to men who are homosexual, is this not the case anymore? Ergo is gay now accepted as referring to all people that are homosexual?

As far as I know, gay has always referred to homosexual men and women, and there was never a point where it explicitly meant men (although I'm not an etmyologist).

I'm curious, however, as to why you think (or perhaps thought) gay refers only to men? On some level, I think I know why, since men are often called gay and little fuss is made over lesbians, but I'd still like to know how you made the assumption/connection (unless there's some history to the word gay that I glossed over).

Vyraeth · Post by **Vyraeth** » 2007-02-05 04:28pm

Just to clarify, the word gay itself initially had no sexual connotation, D. Turtle, but I believe it assumed it's current sexual implication in the 1900s (I don't know specifics, Wikipedia or Google it if you care).

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-02-05 04:52pm

Vyraeth wrote:Just to clarify, the word gay itself initially had no sexual connotation,

True. Originally it was just a synonym for "happy". The homosexual male community probably adopted it to try and dispell the right-wing BS that being a homosexual meant a life of misery. I could be wrong though.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2007-02-05 07:01pm

Vyraeth wrote:I'm curious, however, as to why you think (or perhaps thought) gay refers only to men? On some level, I think I know why, since men are often called gay and little fuss is made over lesbians, but I'd still like to know how you made the assumption/connection (unless there's some history to the word gay that I glossed over).

Well, I always understood it as gay for men and lesbian for women, homosexual for both.
Why that way, I can't really explain. It just seemed natural to me (like calling the sky 'sky' and the sun 'sun'.

Maybe its more separated in german.

Because, for example, here in Germany gay marriage is called "Homo-Ehe" (Ehe=marriage). And the gay rights movement is called "Lesben- und Schwulen-Bewegung" (Schwul=gay, Bewegung=movement).

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2007-02-05 07:35pm

Well, from what I've seen amongst the queer community in Melbourne, gay seems to be a generic term covering all homosexuals, but it's slowly shifting towards referring to males only, with lesbian referring to females.

So gay can refer to all homosexuals (as in "the gay community" or"gay rights"), or it can refer to only male homosexuals (as in GLBT, which stands for "gay, lesbian, bi and transsexual"). Confusing, eh?

ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!