|
On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies".
Nope. Because marriage also confers hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights and various private property sharing clauses. Also putting your spouse on your health insurance is kinda nice.
|
I am all for "traditional marriage." I should be able to sell my daughter into slavery for a bushel of wheat and 6 goats.
Damn governments taking away my right to slavery.
|
On June 25 2013 04:24 Hyperionnn wrote:
Disclaimer: I only read the first 10-15 pages of this thread
I'm fine with all LGBT people, but I dont certainly like "LOLOLOL WE ARE GAYS AND WE FUCK EACH OTHER LOLOLOL CMON EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE SEX UNDER RAINBOW LOLOLOL"
One should not be proud or ashamed by their sexual preferences, that's what I think for this matter
The pride thing is just a counter to the discrimination. As long as it is present, it is needed.
|
On June 25 2013 04:22 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Messy -> can of worms opened. And yeah, you're a homophobe.
I am not a homophobe. I opened that can of worms because he asked for it, and rather than shy away I stood firm and stated my point of view.
Homophobe -a person who hates or fears homosexual people.
I interact with gay people every day. I have a close friend who is gay.
|
On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies".
Well; even under the whole "tax subsidies" argument, then it would be supposedly "morally reprehensible" to give homosexuals food stamps, unemployment, disability, medicare, etc etc. because "people who disagree with homosexuality" are paying to the gov't, and don't want it to be used for homosexuals. Which we all know is a bogus argument.
|
On June 25 2013 04:23 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:21 Shodaa wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. You're implying that homosexual couple don't want or can't have children, which is far from the truth. It's a biological impossibility. They can adopt, but so could single people.
And you are blatantly asserting your ignorance here for everyone to see. I'm pretty happy that people like you have come into this topic, so those who may be on the fence can see all of the terrible arguments against homosexual marriage.
So couples that are infertile but straight shouldn't get married legally?
And single people have adopted before, if their monetary situation is in the very rich region, sure. However, if a married couple comes together with their incomes, and gets tax breaks, doesn't that make it easier for them to adopt? I mean cmon now, you are just grasping at straws at this point.
|
On June 25 2013 03:44 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:34 Focuspants wrote:
I cant believe this is getting backlash. People hate supporting equality? Every time something like this happens I lose a little more faith in mankind. It's 80 percent me. I'm all for equality. It is the way the world is moving and that's great. Just expressing my opinion on a highly contested issue.
It's not highly contested when it's basically just you disagreeing.
|
On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies".
As long as couples are not mandated by law to have children, and adoption is still legal.. then yes, it is all about equal rights and nothing else.
|
Wow this thread has gotten pretty crazy. Insane accusations and irate flaming flying to both sides 
For what it's worth, I'm just annoyed that the icon is ROYGBVW instead of ROYGBIV.
|
I wish other countries could get their thumbs out of their asses and give these LGBT people their rights. This crusade for LGBT rights is rather boring to hear about 24/7 when you live in a country where these people have the same rights as others :/
|
On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes.
Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.
The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is:
#1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies)
#2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers)
I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights.
This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all.
|
On June 25 2013 04:25 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. So you are suggesting that because they are a gay couple they shouldn't be able to see their loved one on their deathbed in some hospital situations? That they should have a harder time buying a house together, and that they should have separate credit histories, and should get discriminated against based on the tax code due to people's religious sensibilities? Don't you realize how absurd that is?
I don't think you quite get his argument; he's merely bringing up a reason why people might have against homosexual marriage; and he does bring up a good point imo.
It's the same idea behind "why should I pay for a war I don't agree with."
|
On June 25 2013 04:27 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:22 Monsen wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Messy -> can of worms opened. And yeah, you're a homophobe. I am not a homophobe. I opened that can of worms because he asked for it, and rather than shy away I stood firm and stated my point of view. Homophobe -a person who hates or fears homosexual people. I interact with gay people every day. I have a close friend who is gay.
And Thomas Jefferson was in love with one of his black slaves, and fathered a child, and took care of the family in his will.
|
On June 25 2013 04:26 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:24 Hyperionnn wrote:
Disclaimer: I only read the first 10-15 pages of this thread
I'm fine with all LGBT people, but I dont certainly like "LOLOLOL WE ARE GAYS AND WE FUCK EACH OTHER LOLOLOL CMON EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE SEX UNDER RAINBOW LOLOLOL"
One should not be proud or ashamed by their sexual preferences, that's what I think for this matter The pride thing is just a counter to the discrimination. As long as it is present, it is needed.
Well, I think it would be really irritating when some anti-LGBT people arrange a hetero-pride against LGBT people. I think that many people has virtually no problems with LGBT people, but I find those prides and other stuff quite irritating to be honest
|
On June 25 2013 04:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 25 2013 04:06 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
I think that it's important to recognize the direction that the world is moving and move with it. You can have contradictory opinions regarding an issue, but if you express yourself be prepared to fight for what you think. We are equal in the sense that EVERYONE has the RIGHT to express an opinion, not in the sense that there are an equal amount of views on a particular subject. TL as a private entity has the right to express itself as an individual. You may agree or disagree with the opinions expressed on the site, and that is your privilege to do so. I think that the majority of the people on this site are young new age liberals and progressives. Don't be surprised at the reaction you get if you same something contradictory to the forward thinking view. Just be prepared to take a lot of flak and suck it up. I see where you're coming from. Consider your opinion equally considered <3. While I strongly disagree with your views, I must say I'm impressed with your maturity acting as a voice of the minority on this site. I really do wish more of the people who disagree with homosexuality were like you. Its modern Christianity that attempts to resolve the conflict between the teachings in the bible and modern society. They object on principle that being in a homosexual relationship is against the teachings, but refuse to take any action further than "objecting". This includes voicing the objection. The entire process in internal and has not effect on anyone unless you direct ask the person. To do anything further would require the Christian to do social harm to themselves and the gay person. As that goes against their teachings, they simple object, but keep it to themselves. Although as a Christian, I do not agree, I cannot fault the practice. It harms no one and it part of the process of resolve religious teaching's conflict with modern society.
Thank you, Plansix. I avoid the objection because it's not in my right to tell someone who isn't a follower of Christ what he or she should or should not do. And if they are a follower of Christ and are homosexual, they must reconcile that fact themselves.
|
On June 25 2013 04:27 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:22 Monsen wrote:On June 25 2013 03:04 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:57 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction. The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often. If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose. On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote:
B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture.
- Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion). Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture?? 1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids? Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine. 1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life. Messy -> can of worms opened. And yeah, you're a homophobe. I am not a homophobe. I opened that can of worms because he asked for it, and rather than shy away I stood firm and stated my point of view. Homophobe -a person who hates or fears homosexual people. I interact with gay people every day. I have a close friend who is gay.
No I mean that this will go from "gay rights debate" into full overdrive "religious people and their ridiculous opinions" clusterfuck.
And why don't you go tell your "close gay friend" that you chide with him on his choice of being gay. I'm sure he'll love to hear your opinion and treat you with tons of love and respect.
|
On June 25 2013 04:28 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:44 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 03:34 Focuspants wrote:
I cant believe this is getting backlash. People hate supporting equality? Every time something like this happens I lose a little more faith in mankind. It's 80 percent me. I'm all for equality. It is the way the world is moving and that's great. Just expressing my opinion on a highly contested issue. It's not highly contested when it's basically just you disagreeing.
Well if you take a look at France where gay marriage was allowed just months ago, it is highly contested. There were crowds on the street protesting against it.
Edit: Oh and most likely people don't choose to be gay. they just are.
|
On June 25 2013 04:30 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:25 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. So you are suggesting that because they are a gay couple they shouldn't be able to see their loved one on their deathbed in some hospital situations? That they should have a harder time buying a house together, and that they should have separate credit histories, and should get discriminated against based on the tax code due to people's religious sensibilities? Don't you realize how absurd that is? I don't think you quite get his argument; he's merely bringing up a reason why people might have against homosexual marriage; and he does bring up a good point imo. It's the same idea behind "why should I pay for a war I don't agree with."
The two situations are not analogous. Should we then, in the spirit of consistency, say that when interracial marriage was finally legalized, even though it was controversial, there was some credence to the other side being against it? There was no GOOD argument against interracial marriage, and saying that they have a good argument because they don't wanna pay for it, well then tough. KKK clan members pay taxes and pay for all sorts of things, like a black president's salary. This is a simple human rights issue, not a 50/50 grey area discussion.
|
On June 25 2013 04:29 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 04:25 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 04:22 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:20 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 04:19 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:15 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much? Does anyone else see where I am coming from or...?
Btw that rainbow mane on the horse does look awesome. They should keep it just because.
Can homosexuals be married where you live? If your answer is no, then there hasn't been enough done for their basic human rights. The interesting thing is that when people talk about gay marriage, most of the time nobody is actually preventing gays from having a ceremony, saying vows, living together, being monogamous, etc. The issue is taxpayer funded subsidies for couples. Do people really have a right to taxpayer subsidies? These subsidies were intended to encourage child birth, so it doesn't really make sense to subsidize same-sex couples. If that were the case; infertile couples should not be allowed to be wedded That's a worthy argument in its own right but certainly doesn't contradict what I have said. The issue here is not human rights. It's taxpayer subsidies. People say "equal rights" because it's a lot more emotionally appealing than "gimme monies". And the ability to adopt as couple(which is different that single adoption), rights of surviorship, visitation rights and all the other stuff that comes with marriage. Its not just about taxes. Things like your will and visitation rights can be delegated without marriage.The main issue here that can't be gained without full legal marriage is: #1. Tax refunds for couples (subsidies) #2. Legal enforcement that private businesses have to give spousal benefits (of course the policing is also paid for by taxpayers) I just think it's a bit absurd to claim these are rights. Maybe they should get these subsidies and legal enforcement of spousal benefits. Maybe not. But it's not a matter of rights. This whole issue is very heavily buried under emotional appeals, so people cry about "rights" when it's not a matter of rights at all.
Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk.
|
On June 25 2013 04:27 Qwyn wrote:
I interact with gay people every day. I have a close friend who is gay.
How does he react to your opinion on homosexuality? I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
