Homophobes

You're treading a really thin line by phrasing things in ways that don't sound, at a glance, offensive... Which is never a good sign. It's hard to phrase "I disagree with homosexual practices" and not make it sound analogous to "I disagree with interracial relationships."
 
i disagree with the burning of the embassies in several islamic nations by muslims, which does not men i disagree with muslim practices.

i disagree with sodomy and sexual intercourse amongst men, and sexual intercourse amongst women.

i agree with hetero sexual relationships between any married human beings.

i disagree with the appelation marriage given to gay union.

how is this not clear, and how does it make me a racist? i disagree with the actions some people decide to do. simple, no?
 
I'm just trying to point out that the statement, "I disagree with the appelation of "marriage" being given to a union between people of different races" would not seem too far out of place on your list. It's still an opinion in the same way... it's just that the matter of it is now seen as socially unacceptable, whereas because we haven't progressed far enough socially or what have you, the same is not true for homosexuality.
 
its against many religions to be gay and have gay sex you stupid piece of shit. eating frogs and your other bullshit answers are just disgusting not against religion.
 
so assume i say that i think that interracial marriage is not allowable for the purity of what have you "race"... is that not an opinion that i would be allowed to voice?

and since you're saying that i am just voicing an immature opinion because society has yet to catch on that homosexual behavior must be accepted at all costs, well... i don't think that tolerating honor killings in a free country not bound my islamic law is acceptable either.

but i guess society just needs to be over all more accepting of things, such as backwards cultures and things that go against a certain moral code . after all, everything is right, in it's own way!
 
Firstly: yes you're allowed to voice that opinion. It just seems sort of odious, doesn't it? Most people today would feel a little uncomfortable even hearing the proposition of "Purity of race" and the suggestion that races shouldn't mingle. But it remains an opinion in exactly the same way. If you can accept that both opinions should be respected, then you're being consistent, but many people will intuitively disagree.

Next. A "certain moral code" is arbitrary if it bases differential treatment on irrelevant differences. Also, you're being kind of vague about what this certain moral code is... but I guess it's easier to be vague and arbitrary than rational. Some things are simply wrong. There's just no reason that homosexuality should be that isn't either incorrect or irrelevant. The most common response, "It's not natural", has been shot down so many times that it's rather funny how you people seem to manage to forget every time this subject comes up how badly you got told last time. It seems the strategy is to lose and make the same arguments and lose again so repeatedly that the opposing viewpoint just gives up on trying to reason with you. Which might work, who knows, but it doesn't make you right.

In case you were wondering, there are several reasons why the anti-gay side always seems to end up on the wrong end of philosophical debate on the subject. Essentially, the fight against homosexuality on an abstract moral level is a fight that can't be ultimately won. Hedging and sleight of hand don't even work, you need to surrender hard positions to avoid analogical rebuttals, so you end up with a more and more diluted argument... as result, you can't even manage intellectual dishonesty in this debate. It simply comes back to the fact that the whole argument is based on a fear or dislike of difference, a lack of understanding of perspective, occasional hatemongering, and any attempt to rationalize that sort of thing just isn't going to work very well, because it's not BASED on rationale. It's based on what you WISH made logical sense, what you're trying to form into something that can be argued for rationally. That sort of thing leads to moral theories being built out of the philosophical equivalent of balsa wood.

Accordingly, since restriction of rights / subjugation or decrial of a sector of the population requires some pretty solid evidence that they deserve it, the onus of proof is weighing really heavily on you, whereas your opponenets need no basis at all, they just need to find holes in what you're saying.

And lastly, you have far more idiots on your side than you'd probably like, saying "But it's just so gross, two guys kissing, omg ew" as if that was supposed to convince anyone of anything.

You guys are really stubborn about this crap, which is the only reason the debate has raged on this long. There always have been homosexuals, there always will be. At some point people will stop being threatened by difference and yes, social progress will lead to their acceptance to the point where "I'm gay" won't provoke any stronger reaction than would "I'm black" or "I'm Christian". Looking down arbitrarily on special interest groups is, necessarily, contrary to social progress. So while your opinion may not be "immature", as such, or backward (yet), it is morally and logically suspect. And that's a NICE assessment of your position.
 
"Next. A "certain moral code" is arbitrary if it bases differential treatment on irrelevant differences. Also, you're being kind of vague about what this certain moral code is... but I guess it's easier to be vague and arbitrary than rational. Some things are simply wrong. There's just no reason that homosexuality should be that isn't either incorrect or irrelevant. The most common response, "It's not natural", has been shot down so many times that it's rather funny how you people seem to manage to forget every time this subject comes up how badly you got told last time."

depends what is meant by "natural". if, and i suspect that what you mean, it's someone saying that they find it just plain wrong that they do it, then yeah, it has been shot down.

but what about natural from a darwinian and evolutionnary point of view? how valuable is homosexuality, be it choice or from genes (in fact, more so if it's a specific gene) as an instinct if it contributes nothing to the species? fact is, while you can argue that homosexuality is not morally wrong very well (because if you take out a religious point of view, then there is no reason to not condone homosexual behavior), you cannot say that it is the "natural way", ever. last i checked, the natural way of having sex is male and female and you damn well what i mean by that.

but i suppose you will argue that heym us humans are speshul, and natural sexual relationships can and should be judged on other criterion than the traditional lock and key model, such as pleasure, and that to each his own how they will coppulate.

again, if you take any religious authority out of the picture, then theres no problem with homosexuality (lest of course you be darwinian, in which case you have just contradicted yourself.)

as culturally unnacceptable as gay marriage is today as opposed to interracial ones, fact is, they didn't have a problem with the term "marriage". this has been discussed over and over, and im sure you know what the tolerant view from a conservative dude is: call it something else, and all of a sudden, EVERYONE can be happy. the fact that gay rights activists demand equal rights where no equal right is to be claimed (gays have the right of marriage to any one of the oppposite sex, same as anyone) is just appalling, since all they want is to be accepted: all they are doing, is piss everyone, including tradition, off. the fact that marriage has always been between two people of oopsoite sex in all of known human history suggest that, maybe, this trumps someones longing for a social status they aren't allowed to have by definition.

but im sure im just being petty, ignorant or all three, i rest my case.

oh, and im not looking down on anyone, unless you consider disagreeing to be looking down. if you think that im putting gays somehow below me in terms of the person, think again. i just disagree witht heir actions. i disgree with my friends smoking pot, but i don't look at them as any less of friends for it.

although... nah. it's not even worth going into it from a religious perspective. no one gives a damn about these things anyways.

so seeing as i can't back what i say with my religious convictions, because there is no ground to stand on with them in today's society, i once again rest my case.
 
"but what about natural from a darwinian and evolutionnary point of view? how valuable is homosexuality, be it choice or from genes (in fact, more so if it's a specific gene) as an instinct if it contributes nothing to the species? fact is, while you can argue that homosexuality is not morally wrong very well (because if you take out a religious point of view, then there is no reason to not condone homosexual behavior), you cannot say that it is the "natural way", ever. last i checked, the natural way of having sex is male and female and you damn well what i mean by that."

The evolutionary point of view has nothing to do with ethics. The point is, as you noted, that if we're going to use this model to call homosexual relations unnatural, then we must make the same claim about relations between sterile people.

"again, if you take any religious authority out of the picture, then theres no problem with homosexuality"

Then there is no moral problem with homosexuality, and references to moral codes shouldn't even be made. If your disagreement is a religious one, that's very different from saying it's a moral one.

"all they are doing, is piss everyone, including tradition, off. the fact that marriage has always been between two people of oopsoite sex in all of known human history suggest that, maybe, this trumps someones longing for a social status they aren't allowed to have by definition."

Then that definition needs to change... which is kind of the point. Tradition doesn't actually count for ANYTHING from a logical point of view. For just about "all human history", the general rule has been that the union of two people in marriage shouldn't be between different races. Until the last century, and for a good part of that century, the union between a black man and a white woman was unheard of.

"so seeing as i can't back what i say with my religious convictions, because there is no ground to stand on with them in today's society, i once again rest my case."

Then you rest it on nothing rational, only your particular belief system... which is why you guys keep LOSING the case. Just stick the the whole "No Christian Church will recognize gay marriages" thing and you're all good. Not "Gay marriage is wrong", because then you get beat down.

Of course, your colleagues won't acccept that. I think the biggest problem with politics today is that people can't tell when they're losing an argument.
 
well, nothing rational...

as i said in some other thread, there should be some amount of knowledge vis-à-vis of how a child develops within a gay couple. are there any psychological scars due to having two moms and two dads? knowing only one is ctually bearer of your genetic material and that some donor provided the rest (these issues can also be seen with IVF). this could give more of a case or less of case, and a rational one, to gay marriage opposers.

gay marriage IS wrong. the whole problem is most people tend to think that what us tolerant conservative christians oppose is gay union proper. it is just the appelation, really. Like i said: in this day and age, you cannot win an argument on whether or not pretty much anything is right or wrong, especially gay union, because without a religious view point there is no argument against it that holds.

However, one CAN argue against something being called what it cannot be called. Red is not blue, and red cannot demand to be blue. again, marriage is not up for grabs. that definition is laid in stone. sorry to everyone whom it conscerns, theres no chnaging the definition of marriage.

and if you talk about the union of a black man and a white woman being unheard of, was that because of social predjudice from the white folk, or the black folk? it went both ways: the minority was not always the one being discrimnated agaisnt when it came to such things...
 
"as i said in some other thread, there should be some amount of knowledge vis-à-vis of how a child develops within a gay couple. are there any psychological scars due to having two moms and two dads? knowing only one is ctually bearer of your genetic material and that some donor provided the rest (these issues can also be seen with IVF). this could give more of a case or less of case, and a rational one, to gay marriage opposers."

First, just suggesting that that study needs to be performed (suggesting that being brought up by gays would "corrupt" a child) is inherently discriminatory. Secondly, how could you control such a study? Make them live in a biodome? Even THEN, there would be too many variables. Any such study would be so hopelessly flawed that the results would be suspect no matter what they were.

"gay marriage IS wrong. the whole problem is most people tend to think that what us tolerant conservative christians oppose is gay union proper. it is just the appelation, really. Like i said: in this day and age, you cannot win an argument on whether or not pretty much anything is right or wrong, especially gay union, because without a religious view point there is no argument against it that holds. "

You can easily win an argument as to whether something is right or wrong. I could win an argument that it's wrong to blow up the earth and kill the entire human race. But that's immaterial because what you're REALLY saying is...

"However, one CAN argue against something being called what it cannot be called. Red is not blue, and red cannot demand to be blue. again, marriage is not up for grabs. that definition is laid in stone. sorry to everyone whom it conscerns, theres no chnaging the definition of marriage."

This isn't a moral claim. It's a semantic one. "Calling a square a circle is wrong" is technically a correct statement, but it is not a statement about ethics. So basically, what you're doing here is blatantly equivocating about ethics, shifting the definition of "right". As for whether your claim about marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman, well, that's actually up for debate... others might prefer to define it as a union between two people who love each other.

"and if you talk about the union of a black man and a white woman being unheard of, was that because of social predjudice from the white folk, or the black folk? it went both ways: the minority was not always the one being discrimnated agaisnt when it came to such things..."

Yes, it was totally the black peoples' fault. They looked down on the white people and would have felt sullied to be connected to them. Are you SERIOUS?
 
but does the child get to choose whether or not he gets a mom or not? there must a moral battle there, no?

is it ethical to allow a group of people to claim a status that is not theirs to have because of what they claim is just not possible to give to them (is it ethical for a white kid to demand help from the negro collge fund? is it right? is it absurd?)

it is verym VERY hard to win an argument in right vs wrong nowadays when it comes to drug usage, violence, language and all sorts of other things. that is what was meant. in everyday life, unless we're ethics expert numero uno like you, you can hardly tell someone that smoking pot is wrong, or wait: it's hard to tell people that mobs of muslims killing innocent people is wrong ("they're within their right to react the way did given the gravity of the insult! thats just how their culture is!")

what i was sating about black people is that, if you look around today, at least where i've been, there aren't many black guys hooking up with white girls, just because it's not what they're looking for. and black supremists exist, too... but that wasn't the point. point was, i have seen/read accounts where black men would have nothing to do with white women and vice versa because of the whole racist movement that went both ways.

but meh. im out ethicked every way i look, because i don't have the tools or awareness of the logical errors i am commiting to a much more educated int he ways of the ethical to respond. im sorry if i just have to take what arguments against what i say as is, seeing as you're obviously the higher educated.
 
look, gay people suck. dick. they like penis in mouth. who the fuck wouldnt hate them? GAY FAGGOTS SUCK. stop bitching about how no one likes u casue ur a faggot, deal with it. go suck someones dick.
 
haha I love how we have an intelligent debate going on and at the same time some attention starved kid keeps popping in saying "oh gays should die they like dick!"
 
"but does the child get to choose whether or not he gets a mom or not? there must a moral battle there, no?"

I don't get to choose my parents. Maybe I'd prefer my dad werea billionaire. The fact is that there's no reason to restrict parenthood based on the characteristics of the parents, being Gay has no more effect on the raising of a child than does being a football fan. Even if it had an effect equivalent to being a KKK member, well, we don't tell racists that they can't have children.

"is it ethical to allow a group of people to claim a status that is not theirs to have because of what they claim is just not possible to give to them (is it ethical for a white kid to demand help from the negro collge fund? is it right? is it absurd?)"

It may or may not be ethical, but if it's unethical, the ethicality of it has nothing to do with the binary. In other words, you might argue it's wrong to call a black person a white person because they're obviously not white... it's incorrect. It's a different statement to say you SHOULDN'T call a black person a white person, that's a different kind of "wrong". Thus your equivocation. And there is no necessary link between the two kinds of wrong. As I say, just because it might be wrong to claim that 2+2=5, it isn't necessarily ethically wrong. That's a whole different debate... namely the debate we've been having.

" in everyday life, unless we're ethics expert numero uno like you, you can hardly tell someone that smoking pot is wrong, or wait: it's hard to tell people that mobs of muslims killing innocent people is wrong ("they're within their right to react the way did given the gravity of the insult! thats just how their culture is!")"

Don't blame me that people don't educate themselves before they try to have an argument, it's not like the literature isn't out there. It's like trying to argue about shakespeare without ever having read it, obviously you're not going to be able to support any of your ideas properly. For example, that last bit of sarcastic example is cultural relativist ethics, which can be disproved really really easily (reduces to subjectivism, contradictory cultures, self-defeating, about 5-6 other issues).

" point was, i have seen/read accounts where black men would have nothing to do with white women and vice versa because of the whole racist movement that went both ways."

Actually, if anything, black people were for the most part indoctrinated into actually thinking they were inferior, simply because it was what they'd been told all their lives (just as white people who wouldn't have been racist in another time were often as a product of what they were taught). But this argument seems off topic.
 
i get freaked out wen a gay guy cuts my hair. i dont know why. and i just kinda feel uncomfortable around them. but ill try to be nice and friendly, but i still just feel relly uncomfortable
 
Shure you can voice whatever opinion you please but that doesnt make a valid one. And I have no idea what you are trying to say in your second point . . . that if you should be acceptable towards gays then you have to be acceptable towards killings? Now how does that make any sence? That form of argument is not valid and can be twisted however you want. For example: If we dont allow gays to marry whos to say that we allow blacks and whites to marry? Whos to say that we let anyone marry???

Did you get that? No? Good now you see how I feel.
 
i normally dont listen to the announcements in the mournings at my school, but today their just talking and im not hearing any of it like usual.

but then all the sudden I hear HOMOPHOBES! clear and loud.
 
i thought there was a seoeration between church and state in this country, which also seperates us from the muslim extremist nations. it is against many religons to have premaritial sex, and yet you dont see many people crusading to have it outlawed.
 
I feel as though you can never know who's gay and who isn't. One of your best friends might be gay and he just hasn't told anyone. So i maintain the attitude because gay people are just like everyone else, why should we even think about them differently. The same problem exists with black people, they're just people that look different. I mean, you don't hate people if they have a certain hair color or food preference would you?
 
It's sooo different with homosexuals. They always try to flaunt it or throw it in people's faces. I don't want to know that you're gay, so just act normal. lol Wear normal clothes and talk normal, otherwise go to Canada, cause they have gay marriages and crap there. No morals, lots of drugs, gay marriage, Canada's doing a great job! lol Not.
 
Eh, I feel like throwing my opinion in here too.

I am fine with homosexuality up until the point of adopting children. I know this arguement has been going on up there, but I feel like adding.

Yes, the arguement can be made that nobody was chosen into being born into the family the are now in, but that is inherintely obvious. So to me, that isnt really much of a point. Let's look at the whole adoption thing:

Now say, hypothetically, there are two sets of parents. One is a straight couple, one is homosexual. They both have the exact same morals and exact same methods of raising kids, or at least as similar as possible, seeing how the family structure is not the same. Now I agree that both these couples might do a great job of parenting, but, remembering this is hypothetical, which one would raise a child that is perhaps better balanced and well suited to stand up against what the world puts against it? I raise a personal question, and answer honestly, which would you rather choose if you had the choice...?

While I agree that you would be able to find many cases where a homosexual couple would do much better in raising a kid than a straight one, you have to look at the above situation in an immensely broad scope. As in, this happening a million times over. Are we not screwing with nature in doing this?

I tend to find a double standard in this whole thing anyway. If someone says that they do not agree with homosexuality, is it not their right to do so, just as much as a homosexual has the right to be so. So in saying these certain people are extremely ignorant, aren't you, yourself, showing a lack of understanding? As long as these people arent hurting homosexuals, just like homosexuals aren't hurting those who arent gay, what is the problem?
 
I'd also like to add, that from what I have seen, Europe only pretends to be as socially progressive/open as you think.
 
hahahahha!!! do i sense a little hate on newschoolers??? WHAT THE FUCK!! never thought i'd see the day... hahaha
 
it's a stupid joke middle schoolers like to make. it goes along with "gay marriage is wrong, unless both chicks are hot" which i've heard so many times i want to shoot myself every time some kid says it
 
most guys find lesbians cool in porn but im sure in real life its not that great and just as sick as a couple of gay guys.
 
Sims, recent studies have shown that it doesn't matter what family structure a child has. Be it single mom/father, a regular family, or a homosexual family. As long as they give love, disciple (in the right ways of course), and support then data shows that any structure can work. That means that a homosexual couple can't raise children any better/worse then a heterosexual couple.
 
He doesn't have the onus of proof, you're trying to restrict peoples' rights, you're the one who has to prove you have cause.
 
Do you have any idea what the family research council is?!? I might as well link to an article at www.kkk.com on why the Blacks and Jews are trying to take over the world...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top