Let's relax and calmly discuss homophobic people...

Re: I'm growing to hate homophobic people...

Yeah, I've been trying to choose my words to be less inflammatory* - and the quote of mine you caught was from before I reread your post again to see you said pretty much the same thing.

*I know what you're thinking. "Less inflammatory? At the House of Lords?" I've been finding it easier to disagree with people when I'm also not concentrating on getting under their skin. Which in some cases gets under people's* skin.

*After getting confused on whether it's people's or peoples', I discovered I was suddenly confused about it being people or poeple. While poeple sounds like a precocious child's pronunciation of purple, it's not people. However, should a gathering of Edgar Allen Poe clones arise and swarm Baltimore, we can be confident in knowing that people can overtake the Poeple.

 

Honestly, my rule for the HoL is that if edits have to happen (beyond edits that correct my atrocious first pass grammar which usually takes a minute) they're usually to underscore a point - which typically means not backing down and perhaps also making a post more inflammatory than before.

Also I'm happy to have had the thread be derailed so quickly, and to have been corrected by Japes and ytzk that being gay is a normal thing for people to get worried about in an OCD context and not the dawn of some widespread anti-gay (without any particular religious beliefs of that nature) future. I really appreciate the freedom of speech here as where else could I be like "Yeah I have had tremendous horrific anxiety causing OCD worries about hurting other people, but people who have OCD worries about being gay - what's that about?" Posting on mental health forums before about other issues, certainly not as blunt as this but I like to reserve my bluntness all for you guys, has resulted in hostility and a complete lack of objectivity.

You're all great guys and gals, so thanks.

 

Re: I'm growing to hate homophobic people...

My edits serve a slightly different purpose. If my initial point doesn't fit because I don't have all the pieces in place, standing my ground just makes me look stupid. You've all seen it.

Also I agree about the effect of mental health forums. I left the mod staff of psychforums because I noticed the mods, supermods and admins would congratulate each other for slamming people in threads. The last straw was actually when I was congratulated for how I handled a member (it's ok, I laughed too) being a royal turd in the ASD subforums. I couldn't trust that the mod team was there for support if we were so proud of ourselves for "putting people in their place."

 

I guess I've surpassed worries of making a tit of myself.

Normally I look in the psychforums for both OCD related things and other stuff, and I don't find it too ridiculous. It could be that the scene has changed since you were a mod.

 

I blame Jojo for the contentious nature of this thread. Using an incendiary word like 'hate' in the title? That's just asking for poeple to put on their bad-attitude pants before they even click the link.

Anyway, I think we all need to grow up and settle our differences of opinion like civilized gentlemen: strip down to the waist and bare-knuckle box.

 

Re: I'm growing to hate homophobic people...

I agree. But first I should learn how to box.

 

Re:

I'm sorry, if I could now change it to "Let's relax and calmly discuss homophobic people" I would.

Wait, I can - most forums don't allow you to and it's not something I've ever tried. It does however mostly screw up the opening sentence. Having now changed it, part of me feels like "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Homophobes" might be a slightly better title.

 

I choose not to contribute to this thread in any meaningful way outside of stating my general enjoyment of Zanza's posts. If you look at them in an Andy Kaufman sort of way they become brilliant.

 

I really can't tell when people are joking here, anymore. There's only enough detail to mention how Poe's Law applies to this.

 

This is indeed getting quite silly.

 

Rue the Day I'm in Zana's and Japes' Camp

How about that Zoe Quinn guys?

I actually had this argument with a woman at a party. Where equality was questioned I maintained that a gay man has the same rights to marry as I have and that that is quite equitable. The woman called me a bigot and stormed off. It's absurd how few cocktails it took for her to lose her acumen as a lawyer.

My apologies star-crossed first cousins, you simply are not as fashionable as homosexuals.

A bloke with whom I work has similar things to say about the US's indigenous population. Having no exposure to Indians I haven't formed any opinion of them one way or the other, but my coworker is reputed to make sound judgments based on observation and evidence. It may offend some people, but I have to assume his anecdotes are at least informed.

This is where I bend the conversation toward state's rights, which is a concept I don't blame you non-Yanks for not caring about. What aggravates me is how the pro-LBGT conversation seems to have completely eclipsed the opposing side. It may be the company I keep, but I tend to hear about how important it is to recognize same-sex marriages and I never hear about any argument for the other side. Why should same-sex marriage be universally recognized? "Because it's important." Why shouldn't the conservatives have their way? "Because they're haters." This is not compelling.

We have 50 states! What is stopping us from carving them up and letting some recognize same-sex marriage and some not? If you don't want gay neighbors, we have a bunch of states over here where they probably won't want to live. Enjoy. "But my marriage isn't recognized in that state!" Then don't go there. I don't see why Japes cannot have a haven where what he accepts as moral is upheld and elsewhere a gay man isn't barred from visiting his husband at the hospital.

 

Re: Rue the Day I'm in Zana's and Japes' Camp

Gay guys still can't marry men, though, which is what they'd prefer if they're the kind to get hitched. Like I said earlier, and as you quoted; Another way to describe it is if any one person is allowed to marry a consenting adult of their preference, then there's not putting one group of people above another. Yes, with this as a guide even straight people can marry the same sex, so everyone has the same rights. Straight people would want to do this for the same reason gay people would want to marry the opposite sex.

It's true*.

EDIT: I know this is a direct (-ly humorous) counter to the quote of mine you used; and in spite of how I hyperbolically describe incest, I know why it's illegal. There's a greater risk of genetic damage when siblings (11%) or first cousins (2%) have children. If this continues happening, the damage increases gradually until you have people like Charles the II. Plus, adding sexual tension to a family unit sounds a bit off.

It's said that stereotypes tend to be based on a bit of truth. But, from what I've been able to find - the indigenous people here get money because the US government forced them out of their land, and now is in a legally binding contract to help them with college, among other things. Disabled people and veterans get those too.

Natives are less likely than white people to abuse alcohol, so they're like every other skin tone in the country.

They're also just ahead of the hispanic population in high school graduation, which puts them behind Asians, just like everyone else. The majority of natives with college degrees tend to work in pretty high paying fields, too, like engineering.

Now you need to bear in mind that one person is generally incapable of true objectivity - while this man may have directly seen things confirming his stance or otherwise found evidence confirming it; if a person already has it in their head that "this is how things work," or a specific group is a certain way, everything they find is going to make their convictions stronger. EDIT2: I don't mean he started out with these opinions, but reading enough of the same thing or seeing it enough tends to lean a person's thoughts in a single direction

To be fair, uncompelling arguments for the other side also exist, and you have to remember that not everyone can hold their liquor, on top of not everyone actually knowing about what they're supporting**. And I haven't been able to find solid secular arguments against marriage equality, considering they end up being the same bullet points I'd see from people arguing against it from a religious standpoint. The worst part of it is the majority of arguments against gay marriage I've heard were the same things people said about left-handedness in the middle ages - that it's morally wrong, that they can use their right hand like anyone else and are choosing not to, that left handed people serve the devil, etc. The Latin word for left is sinistral, the root of "sinister." The French word for left is gauche, which is also their word for "wrong." It's something so deeply ingrained in history that the languages people speak today are still influenced by the past distrust of lefties.

And it's happening today with homosexuals; gay used to describe straight people who had a lot of sex, then it meant "happy," and now it means gay. A dyke used to be something at the end of a river, and now it's a lesbian too. Speaking of lesbians, that was a word originally used to describe the women of Lesbos who were famous for the amount of oral sex they performed. Still, I understand that handedness has no direct relationship with orientation, and languages naturally change over time to suit the populations speaking them.

Back on target, why I think the conservatives shouldn't "have their way"; every time someone brings up "family values" as a reason not to let homosexuals marry each other, they're actively spitting in the face of functioning families with gay people in them. Every time Leviticus comes up, it's being spouted by a person who's mixing their fabrics***. Every time someone says it "devalues real marriage," they're admitting that gay people getting married makes them less committed to being in a stable relationship. And every time someone says "because they can't have kids naturally," they're mocking heterosexual couples incapable of having children.

Well, what you mentioned in the beginning is definitely happening now. And the reason what you mentioned in the middle and last part shouldn't happen is because you're describing a forced segregation.

*Incest!
**You remember the Occupy movement? They didn't even know what they wanted.
***The part of Leviticus that decries homosexuality also says God is angered by people who mix their fabrics together. As a side note, the "anti gay" part might've been written to keep Hebrews from taking part in the religious ceremonies of Ishtar, which normally involved a huge orgy where the priest (a man) would become a conduit for spiritual energy (in the form of semen) that would be given to the mentioned god.

 

Re: A wall of text. Dig it.

This is true and it is also true that straight men cannot marry guys, which is the piece that makes this equal. Champions of equal marriage rights aren't really for equality because equality already exists. Unless the demand is for equality between the sexes in which case the sexuality of the couple is moot and the feminazis have failed the homosexuals by not setting this precedent already:

• "Yes ma'am, how can I help you?"
  "I want to marry a woman."
  "Why would you want to marry another wo-"
  "MenhaveitIwantit!"
  "OK, fine! Have it your way, women can marry women. While I have the books open do you suppose I should do the same for men?"
  "Nah, they'd never make such an unreasonable request."

dovetails nicely into

because this exposes that people to not advocate that any adult is permitted to marry another consenting adult because they accept the exception for first cousins. If the bleeding hearts truly cared that consenting adults were forbidden from marrying, they would have rallied behind the first cousins years ago.

Native Americans have the highest prevalence of heavy drinking. This is a genetic fact because their bodies cannot process alcohol. I don't know if any of this is true and these pieces of information came from the same website so judge their validity for yourself, but researchers are exploring if there are any truth to the stereotypes.
Suffice it to say that my coworker never expressed that he was bothered that natives receive assistance, but more how they wasted it once it was awarded. Upon reaching majority (or something) his native peers received fat checks from the government and blew them on jacked up trucks and a trailer to live in rather than invest it in an education. Personally, I don't think that this exposes the indigenous population's proclivity toward sloth and waste, but rather how this system of compensations does not stimulate people's drive to achieve. I believe the same happens to the assisted Aborigines.

Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that people who are against recognizing gay marriages are also terrible at making their case. One secular argument I can think of is that being reared by homosexual parents may be psychologically damaging to a child. If this is true, then it would be nice to know ahead of time so it can be mitigated. In fairness, the "morally wrong" comment was in reference to left-handedness hundreds of years ago, but the same is said of homosexuality now. There are laws criminalizing the immorality of theft, so asserting that laws should not address morals is defeated by precedents such as this.

These are perfect examples of people who are against recognizing gay marriage failing at making a case for their views (I find that second one especially amusing). In order for one side to be satisfied by "having its way," the other side cannot. So far, I see no reason why the decision should not go in favor of the conservative position.

Nothing is being forced in the scenario where gay marriage is recognized in some states but not in others! People both for and against are free to live or visit wherever they choose, it's just that some states would confer certain advantages over others. I say we get an even distribution and see how it shakes out. Will the anti-gay marriage states experience an exodus of a young and talented workforce and be compelled to change their laws to maintain an economy? Will the states that recognize gay marriage be growing the next generation of axe murders because the kids could not reconcile the fact that their parents are gay? I can think of one way to find out.

 

I'd appreciate if the US decides to help the World out by volunteering as a guinea pig in this case. Meanwhile, socialist feminist* Sweden seems to continue towards giving every couple a chance to secure their family's economic safety by allowing gay-marriage. Because, really, this whole argument is also about the jurisdictional part of "marriage", not just family values.

That's a pretty low argument, TDC. You're merely bending the case by saying that it's equal just because straight and gay people have the same opportunities, even thought they're not after the same thing. If the tables were turned, and we lived in a world where you were only allowed to [strike]suck dick[/strike] marry other men, when you were craving for [strike]some juicy meat caves[/strike] a woman's embrace, I doubt you'd stick with the same argument. I also find this a little bit weird that you even state this, since straight couple will not lose a single thing** if gay-marriage would be allowed.

It is, frankly put, none of your goddamn businesses to begin with.

*Compared to the US.
**Except the horde of raging homosexuals roaming the street out of sheer frustration.

 

Re: A wall of text. Dig it.

Haha, oh wow.

 

Re: America the Guinea Pig? A Man After My Own Heart! (no h

This is a prime example of what it means for two people to be treated equally by the law.

This has absolutely nothing to do with equality under the law. An industrious man and a lazy man have the same opportunities to make a life for themselves. I assume you wouldn't permit the lazy man to steal (to break the law) just because he is oriented toward sloth.

It isn't a low argument, it is perhaps the only example where I argue the law is acting beautifully! The law is the same for groups regardless of race, creed, and sexual orientation. The law is perfectly blind in this case as it should be! It works the other way too, in that a fellow cannot be fired from a job simply because he is gay. In this case, homosexuals aren't exempted from the law, nor should they be the exception to how the law as it applies to marriage.

Again you are correct. I would form a good argument.

This is true. I have precisely zero -- count 'em: ZERO -- dogs in this fight.

 

I think the "same opportunities" argument is pretty shallow; if gays are equal under the current laws preventing same sex marriages in some states, you could also make an argument that by not having same sex marriage laws you're barring a straight person from marrying someone of the same sex. In that regard, by not introducing the law you're actually not offering the full range of civil rights to a straight person that they could experience in other states and similar westernised countries.

I guess you might say that comparison to other countries or states has no basis in encouraging legal change and policy making - but I don't think this is true; legal change often comes from some internal lobbying and external observation of what other places do to gauge whether current legislature is in line with what is normal on a larger scale, which is especially pertinent in America due to your variations in law at a state level. Those previously mentioned straight people without the right to same sex marriage could therefore be considered unequal and denied opportunities relative to straight people in other parts of the same country and of the world. All of this begs the question - why're you always trying to keep the straight people down TDC?

Ultimately my point is that in the same vein you claim the law handles people without bias (which is not the same as equality), gay people people could claim that they want same sex marriage to broaden the civil rights of everyone. This also brings to mind, at least to me, historical black segregation in America - where black people were kept separate on the proviso that they had the same legal rights and facilities as white people ("equal but separate" and all that). Though black people were "equal" in the eyes of the law, they were not equal on a personal and practical level which is a very similar point - albeit a much more extreme example - to what people keep on arriving at here.

Honestly, I'm just grateful I live in England where if I want to enter into a platonic bro-marriage (well, maybe with some light fingering - I'm only human) then I can do.

 

Re: Gay is the New Black

Describing a completely equal scenario and saying that you disagree with my interpretation gains no traction. Do we disagree on the fundamentals of what it means for something to be equal?

I believe this is the chief problem the US is facing right now: a consistent treatment of the issue across the nation. For a couple to be wed in one state and have that union not recognized in another state must be frustrating to no end.

Not me, the feminists.

I would not have made the distinction between unbiased treatment before the law and equal treatment before the law. In the case of racial segregation in the US, would it have been acceptable if the facilities used by the races were actually maintained to be the same quality?

 

Re: Gay is the New Black

Gay is the New Black, I love it.

I wasn't saying I disagree with your interpretation, just that there is more than one interpretation to be had and both can be founded on the spurious nature of equality (e.g. "The law already treats everyone the same, why change it?" and "Everyone will still be treated the same after the law, why not change it?"). What I'm driving for more is that arguing on the basis of equality is a null argument in both directions - it's not a substantial enough reason to say that the law should not change, it's also not a substantial reason for the law to change. The argument that gay people are already equal is a bad one to defend, as straight people are also equal after the law is introduced - hence as I mentioned it is shallow and has no substance.

Well obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be defending your point.

In terms of the original idea that overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson case (that facilities were not equal) yes of course it would have been acceptable if the facilities had been maintained to the same standard (albeit the idea is still stupid, a fully integrated system of facilities is always going to be less of a bureaucratic ball-ache than one that divides them up along arbitrary lines). However beyond the hypothetical a country is never going to achieve equal standards across the board, so the inequality would have always existed.

The point was, to the letter of the law, black people were not being fairly represented under legislature. Gay people, as they cannot marry who they please like straight people can, can also be seen as not being fairly represented under the law. This of course comes full circle to the equality argument ("They are fairly represented, they have the same rights as straight people") however as I mentioned gay people can make that argument too ("Straight people would be fairly represented, they'd have the same rights as gay people"), because the argument can be made in both instances it undermines it in either case as a legitimate point.

 

Re: A wall of text. Dig it.

If a straight man wants to marry, though, he's going to pick a woman over a man. The same can't be said of homosexual men, hence the inequality. Straight men should also have the ability to marry a partner they'd not pick over their preferred sex.

I don't believe I said why this shouldn't happen, I just said why it's illegal. There's a more compelling case for genetic damage in naturally born children of incestuous couples than those in homosexual couples. But, even though I personally think incest is gross, if the people are genuinely in love then they should be able to do what they want.

Did you notice how the table and all information held within the page you linked shows that white people are most likely to use alcohol? It even shows how hispanic males are the most likely to abuse alcohol on a daily basis, followed by white males and then by natives. Their weekly use is the highest, but daily abuse is arguably the more severe of the two situations. Example; a week of heavy drinking is bad, but drinking heavily every day is worse.

The rate of alcohol use and abuse among our indigenous populations is still lower than white people, both in proportion (except in regard to women) and by raw number. So, their abuse is far from a genetic fact. What's a fact is they're more prone to die of alcohol related causes, and it's easier for them to become alcoholics on a physical basis. But none of the other data you linked proves your opening statement.

Generally, if you have one guy citing his native peers, you have one guy citing his native peers - though I will say that 13% of the native population goes on to actually get a college degree. This goes a long way to explain all of those "HEY!" ads I see on television encouraging natives to use the money to go to college.

There's nothing proving it is true. Even in a recent study claiming it was (circa 2012), the people conducting it cherry picked dysfunctional families with same sex parents. The same results could be gathered for heterosexual parents or single parents to prove similar things. About 33% of gay households have children, and there's no proven correlation, let alone causation, between gay parents and mentally ill kids.

That's actually what I said. Different phrasing; much more verbose, but still.

Actually, citing crimes with victims, like theft, does nothing to prove a case against victimless crimes.

You may have heard more compelling arguments against gay marriage, but the ones I mentioned are some of the ones I've heard and argued against. Granted, I don't understand the conservative point of view - as in, I don't see how homosexuals marrying does anything to their way of life, other than make them uncomfortable.

People who are married are less likely to get or spread STD's because they're more likely to be in a stable relationship, keeping them from sleeping around. This has the bonus side effects of reducing infection rates, and lower health care costs. It would also increase tax revenue; considering marriage tends to increase family income, often placing people in a higher tax bracket. This would also reduce people eligible for welfare. Plus, if more couples have the ability to marry, more marriages are going to happen. Considering the cost of a marriage, it's safe to say they'll boost local economies.
Also, it's more likely you can adopt a child when you're married, though the reasons are more along the lines of the income and stability of a home that come along with marriage. I've seen that a lot of people (who are especially vocal on the internet) are against allowing gay people to adopt. Considering the 397,122 orphaned children living in this country, I think not allowing gays to adopt hurts the kids more than it helps them.

These are several reasons why social and economic conservatives should be in support of marriage equality.

"But I'm a second class citizen in that state!" Then don't go there.
If that's not what you were trying to say, you might've clarified that in the post you said it. I can see what you're talking about now, but can you understand why I responded the way I did?

From a following post of yours, I can see you're more arguing devil's advocate than you are strongly adhering to one side or another. I have to say, that can be a difficult thing to do on such a divisive issue, and I'm suitably impressed.