We should just let them duke it out and last man/country standing wins. (;
I love sarcasm ;)
Everyone has their own reality. When I came to this country I had a choice. I could keep my language my culture and all of that crap or I could assimilate, leave all of that behind and live the good life. Guess which I chose? Life is full of choices. There's give and take. People that only take...... make me feel uneasy.
The gay community is uncompromising when it comes to this issue of marriage.
check this out:
Maybe we should continue over there since it's getting crowded over here.
OK, sorry about the misquote, It was not intentional.
I liked your cliff, razor blade thing. ;)
I stopped reading after the 3rd paragraph because that is not what I'm saying. I think that we are talking past each other.
Here's what I'm saying:
if a straight person said he wanted a kid who shares his same reality and perspective, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then that person would be classified a bigot. And it's really a shame because the only thing that matters is the rights associated with marriage, not the word marriage. If the gay community took their rights and left the word, then there would be peace.
Check this debate out.
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
We should probably continue over there because this is getting way too crowded.
OK, so now you're saying that you follow the crowd instead of making up your own mind.
Think about this. In any given argument, to use absolutes is usually wrong. To say that "everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot" is wrong. To say that "everyone else says that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot so it must be true" is wrong.
Are you saying that it is physically impossible for someone to be against gay marriage for some reason other than being a bigot?
Think about this. If it were a true statement that anyone who doesn't want to be around a specific group is a bigot, then why doesn't the definition of the word say that? Could it be that there are plenty of other reasons for people not to want to be around a specific group? What if you were shy and only wanted to hang around your own kind? What if you were deaf and only wanted to hang around deaf people? What if people with tinnitus wanted to be called deaf and deaf people were opposed, would they be bigots?
Soccer, you're floundering. lets keep it short and sweet.
The specific thing you requested from me was to give you a legitimate reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. I did that. You still claim that every person that is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot (period). if you don't think that my reason is legitimate, then say so and we'll debate that.
I never said that people should stop fighting for their rights. I said that they should take the high road, which is a slower, longer road. Take the Gandhi road, the Martin Luther king road instead of the low road that may get you there faster. Don't take the "If you are against us you are " road. The low road is a tactic used to get you there faster.
If I recall correctly, I did not compare homosexuals to Nazis. I said that the tactics being used are the same tactics that the Nazis used. This tactic can be used for good. The tactic itself is not evil. The gay movement is not the first to use that tactic. I don't like the tactic.
I think that calling everyone who is opposed to gay marriage a bigot is unfair and narrow minded.
When I said, "gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost?" What I mean is, That the ends do not justify the means. Calling people a bigot in order to get your way is uncalled for.
I've told you in the past when I have up voted you and why. This is the first time I have ever down voted someone. But I respect you enough to explain why I'm doing it. I'm down voting you for insisting that everyone who is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot even after I have given you one reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion and you did chose not to respond to that. Your position implies to me that the ends justify the means. I think you can do better than that.
no hard feelings. Peace out ;)
If you lost the ability to adopt in Arkansas because you can't marry or even have civil unions there, then move to a gay friendly state. But under no circumstance take this advice to mean that you should stop fighting for marriage.
So by your definition everyone is a bigot, including yourself, because I can probably come up with a group of people that you don't want to be around.
However, a closer look at the definition of the bigot will clearly show that it is possible for a person to not want to be around a group of people for reasons other than intolerance of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. For example, I do not want to be around people that don't speak my language because I would rather be something else rather than trying to make myself be understood or trying to understand what they were saying. And if we are just supposed to be sitting there saying nothing, I would still rather be something else.
BTW, I think that it is convenient that:
"Being intolerant of bigotry cannot be called bigotry."
The specific thing you requested was for me to give you a legitimate reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. I did that.
You said that, "I feel that bigotry or ignorance are the only reasons to oppose this issue." I thought I gave a perfect example where this was not the case. Some people just don't want to be around other people. That does not make them a bigot nor does it make them ignorant. Not granting gays the word marriage but granting them the same rights does not make one a bigot nor does it make one ignorant nor does it hurt the gay community.
You say that same but separate is not good enough as though as soon gays are allowed to marry the bigots will suddenly see the errors of their ways. That's not going to happen. All the litigation in the world will never force a bigot to accept you. He will just look at you in the eye, turn around, and roll his eyes.
My argument does not call people names. Your argument calls anyone opposed to gay marriage a bigot or ignorant.
The side you're on is considered liberal. The side I'm on is seen as conservative. I don't categorize my argument as conservative because it takes a middle of the road approach. Take a little (your rights) give a little (leave the word behind). This is what I call negotiation. The side you're on is not interested in negotiation and is seen as militant; it's a "my way or the highway" approach and then your side acts surprised when they encounter resistance.
The side your on wants people to put themselves in their shoes but they are not willing to put themselves in the shoes of the other side.
The side I'm on is seen as being based on religion. I don't categorize my argument as being based on religion because my argument does not invoke religion. It invokes human nature. My argument is also constructive in that it alienates a smaller group on the religious right. It is pragmatic and rational in that it gets gays their rights sooner and all they are leaving on the table is just a word.
People can want all they want. I never said it was unreasonable. I just think that it is not practical at this point in time as evidence by proposition 8. I have said that gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost? Take your time, regroup, do a "lessons learned" analysis of what went wrong and why and then try again later.
People can want all they want but that does not mean that they are entitled to it or that they deserve it or that they have a right to it.
The status quo does not seem right to me. Otherwise I would never have suggested to bypass them. I saw an injustice occurring and I tried to think of a pragmatic approach towards getting what I consider important and leaving behind what I don't consider important in the shortest amount of time. That was my contribution. That was my way of stepping up to the plate and trying to fix things and I got slammed. This explains why others that have tried to help the gay community but encountered the negative feed back have stopped supporting gay marriage more than anything else.
What allowed slavery to continue was not inaction and complacency. People were working towards fixing it. What allowed slavery to continue for as long as it did is that it takes time to change the world.
The gay community is not asking for certain rights, it is demanding them. The gay community is not interested in negotiating and this stance is alienating a lot of potential allies. The gay community is taking an in your face approach and are surprised when the other side responds in kind.
The group that followed Martin Luther King were not militant. The Black Panthers were.
The gays that are peacefully trying to advance their agenda are not militant. The ones vandalizing churches are.
The gay community wants to portray itself as being the new civil rights fighters of our generation. The black community finds this highly offensive. What is the worst a gay man has had to openly endure in the last 10 years and compare that to what a black man had to endure during the 60's. There's no comparison. The gay community as the new civil rights fighters of our generation is an exaggeration; it is a tactic meant to get them what they want, nothing else.
No one promised gays the right to marriage. They can have their love legally recognized under a different name and not suffer because of it. They can be part of a nation that allows the pursuit of happiness without the having the word marriage. The word marriage will not magically get them to be acceptance nor get them a chance at the happiness that everyone else takes for granted. They have to find happiness within themselves. No one can grant it to them so no one can deny it to them.
I hope you see why I am upset at those hypocritical gays that say "empathize with our suffering in a society that does not fully accept us" and then turn around and vandalize churches. Now that is a real crime and it is not very accepting of the other side. I don't think they are empathizing with the other side, do you? I guess they forgot to put on their neighbors shoes.
Do you think that when gays call the other side hateful and bigot and ignorant that they are able to see the humanity of the other side? Does maligning someone help you solve your differences or does it hinder? And if it hinders, why do it. What value is there in calling someone a bigot? It is a great tactic. The Nazis used it with great success to get people to think that it was OK to kill Jews because, after all, Jews were vermin. You see?
andSoccer16,
First of all. I would like to say that you have challenged me and bested me and I have acknolwedged it and up voted you for it. If you're truly a teen, then you're light years ahead from when I was a teen because it has taken me this long to get to this stage. It may have been a backwards journey for me but I like to think otherwise.
Your question was an interesting challenge to say the least. I wrestled with it until my wife got home and helped me see the light. She helped me see what I've been feeling but unable to put into words.
Please bear with me, I'm a little drunk. Which is not entirely fair because you are not allowed to drink and probably in your prime.
A non- religious reason why people are opposed to same sex marriage (by J.C.)
Birds of a feather flock together.
I wish I could make my argument more...... serious.... more..... adult like. It's just human nature.
Here read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/
and this:
http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/
and this:
http://milehive.com/
The bottom line:
Gays want to be accepted into a club that doesn't want them and they are getting militant about it.
Why is that? Probably because people want what they can't have and despise what they do have. Groucho Marx once said:
"PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".
This is also why the "hair" industry makes lots of money. Women with straight hair want curly hair and women with curly hair want staight hair.
It's just human nature. Not bigotry or ignorance, it's just human nature.
Now, I have to go pee.
C-ya ;)
"I don't have to have a complete reason for why someone up or down voted me or anyone else but down voting has been as huge issue for me since I'm the one who got hit. I certainly didn't notice anyone stepping up to say that was wrong before I made the accusatory debate."
I was hit before but I don't care about the points so it doesn't come naturally to me to think that an adult would care about some lousy points. That's why I "didn't step up to say that it was wrong." But after the fact I tried to give you some of my points because I realized that they were important to you and they weren't important to me.
"People can simply run in and out of debates, down vote someone they don't like and up vote those they do and that is not right!"
Yes, that's right and life is not fair. I learned that a long time ago. The difference is that I accept the fact that life is not fair and I learn the rules so that I can bend them. I don't try to change the rules. I guess that's what makes me conservative ;)
"The only thing I do not accept, across the board, are those that are ill mannered and can say nothing in defense of their own arguments other than to start the name calling or rag on the age routine."
You are the one that started with the name calling. I guess that's what makes you a liberal ;)
"I don't wish to have my cake and eat it too and I do not understand why you would accuse me of wanting that."
I said that because it appears to me that you are not interested in negotiating. It seems that when you feel that you are entitled to something to should just demand it and then you expect to get it. This is what I see happening between the religious right and the gay community. I tell you what I see because it may be of some value to you. I'm standing outside looking in. I have a different point of view. When two blind men try to describe an elephant to each other, and they are standing on the opposite end of the elephant, should one man discard the other man's point of view as wrong or should he consider what the other is telling him in order to come up with a more complete picture? Think about that for a moment because we are on different ends of the elephant and I'm just providing input from where I'm standing in the hopes that it is of some benefit to you. If it isn't, then I'll just STFU because I don't have a dog in this fight.
"Think about what I said on the debate when that person was looking for your retirement from this site. I said what I did because it was wrong and you were my ally even though I was still bruised from the last brouhaha regarding Repubgal. You were so busy trying to think of unfunny things to say you couldn't think for one moment that I may have needed some words of encouragement from you on that board!"
OK, look. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you needed some words of encouragement from me or anyone. You and I are different in that I'm more callous. I didn't need for you to stick up for me and I never understood why you let Repubgal get to you. This fundamental difference is what makes us be at odds with each other.
For what it's worth, I hope the gay community gets what they want. It doesn't affect me in any way shape or form. When proposition 8 passed and the facts came out (blacks voted overwhelmingly for it, the proponents spent less money and won, etc.) and after talking to people who had signs on their yard, I realized that this was an up hill battle and suggested by passing the religious right. But you're right. I'm a straight boy, as you so eloquently put it, and I guess I will never understand you or your plight. I thought my heart was in the right place; that I was lending a helping hand. But I guess none is wanted nor needed so deal with it on your own. I don't care.
What true colors? Do you see a conspiracy everywhere you look? This isn't the first time you have used these words. Do you go looking for people to use these words on? If so, you may be creating your own reality.
You really don't know me at all.... do you? But you are convinced that you do and you act accordingly on your assumptions. And not only do you believe you know me, you also believe you know the true nature of every person you perceive to be against you and you act accordingly. Amazing!
Sorry Jake. i don't want you to feel like you're being picked on or ganged up on. Some of these people have really pissed me off and that's not easy thing to do but I have to side with them on this issue...... but only to point. After that, I'm back to fighting them. There's a fundamental difference in their argument that just sets me off.
It means that you can click where it says "Logon" and instead of using your user name and password you can use "DownVote@gmail.com" for the user name and then use the password "createdebate" to down vote me again. It is an anonymous account that was created for people that wanted to down vote someone, tell them why they down voted and still remain anonymous. This information was on another debate. Since you are so intent on down voting me I figured I'd help you out.
NO! You're making an assumption as to why people are opposed to same sex marriage! Show me the data proving that "people are just willfully denying this fact because it doesn't fit into their world view." This is part of the problem. People are going off half cocked making assumption all over the place..... and they are not even constructive assumptions. If the other side doesn't agree with you, just malign them and call them names. The assumption is that there's one reason and only one reason why the religious right is against same sex marriage; they're bigots. Come on, you're smarter than that! The world is not black and white. There are shades in between. That's me and whole lot of other people.
Most children look up to their parents, but that's because the parents are taller ;)
Also, I find it hard to believe that someone would chose to be gay. I mean, that's a hard life to live.
I hope you are not lumping in with those 4. I'm not hurt by it personally. I'm an outsider looking in and providing input as to what it looks like from where I'm standing and suggesting a way forward. Bypass the religious right, forget the word "marriage" and focus on obtaining your rights through civil unions.
Gays should embrace their difference and chose to create a word that elevates gay unions above the divorce wrought hetero marriages.
The religious right thinks the word belongs to them. They're going to fight for it. Proposition 8 is indicative of how hard they are willing to fight. They are willing to go to the mat. They are not going to roll over. This battle is going to slow the gay community as they attempt to gain their rights. They need a fast track to their rights. Go around the religious right. Forget the word, get your rights now! Focus on what is truly important like being by your partner in his/her time of need if (God forbid) they are ever in the hospital. You should have that right now. You shouldn't have to wait while you argue over a silly word.
Then if you're different pick a different word. Traditionally marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman. To use the same word for same sex partners dilutes the word and makes it less descriptive. It also pisses of the religious right and makes for great CD fodder ;)
You claim to be different but you want to seen as the same. That doesn't make any sense to me. Let us see you as different and accept you for what you are. There's no need to put a requirement forcing us to see you as the same.
BTW, claiming that gays are genetetically different and supporting genetic engeneering means that someday some one will want to eradicate the gay gene. It's a two edge sword that cuts both ways. You have to love it ;)
Remember, vote twice, vote often ;)
I couldn't give you a high five so an up vote will have to do ;)
You seem to think that only your vision of what this site should be is the valid vision. Only your vision of how votes should be used is the right one. And on top of all that you want to add even more rules like, you have to leave a reason explaining why they down voted you. That seems strange from someone who wants to be accepted. It's like you want to be accepted on your terms but you don't want to have to accept others on their terms. You want ot have your cake and eat it too. Human nature, I guess ;)
BTW, if log on as downvote, you can down vote again ;)
Hmmmm.
I have put my views out there (made a stand). Maybe it's hard to distinguish when I'm kidding and when I'm being serious.
Here's my position on the subject.
I think that same sex couples should bypass th liberal right and secure civil unions because the rights afforded to married couples are more important than the word "married."
Would you rather use the word "married" but not have any rights or have the rights but not the word? I know you want both but think about this. Demanding both has resulted in a backlash.
The religious right was able to spend less and out organize the gay community in order to get proposition 8 passed. What does that tell you? It tells me that the religious right is deeply offended at the demands made by the gay community. The religious right feels (right or wrong) that the word belongs to them.
The gay community has not understood this and has made matters worse by claiming that the religious right is hateful (I know because I've seen the bumper stickers). This is really strange because in poll after poll people seem OK with civil unions. It is as though the gay community is so focused on their goal that they fail to hear what the religious right is saying and when they do hear they (truly or intentionally) misunderstand the words and misrepresent them.
The religious right is willing to give the gay community its rights....., but not the word. And all the litigation in the world will never force the majority of the religious right that are currently alive to accept gays as married. If anything, litigation will have an opposite effect.
The gay community will eventually win this battle but (if they continue using the current approach) the damage done to the relationship between the two groups will suffer greatly. The gay community is alienating the religious right.
I know that the gay community feels that they are the ones being alienated by the religious right. But think about this. How would you feel if some homeless guy came into your home and (not negotiated but) demanded a place to sleep? You have the room. You don't need it all at any given point in time. He will have all kinds of reasons why he should be allowed to sleep there. And if you refuse because it is your home and he shouldn't be making demands, he'll say that you're a hateful person.
Don't bother answering because if there's anything I have learned is that you can't change a person's mind with just an argument. Just as you wont change mine. And since you have made it clear that friendship to you means that I have to (not only accept but actually) share your point of view, I accept your request to be enemies. I respect your point of view but I don't share it.
One last thing. This is hokey, I know, but it does seem to make me feel better sometimes. Maybe it will make you feel better.
God give me the strength to change the things I can,
the patience to put it with the things I can't,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Actually, the person on the receiving end sometimes gets butt hurt. Or so I'm told ;)
Here's the problem with genetic predisposition being the cause of homosexuality.
1. If they are genetically disposed to be gay, they are defective and must be cured.
It is surely the environment. You get two men lost in the wilderness, exposed to the elements, huddling trying to keep each other warm and before you know it ... BAM!
