Ender's Game

You compared someone being against gay marriage to lynching blacks and the Holocaust. Want me to refresh your memory, since you're now pretending your original statement was different?

Maybe you're just a troll after all? Or, at the very least, highly dishonest?

Ah, so being against gay marriage directly leads to suicide, homelessness (Huh? Are gay people any more homeless than the average person?), and murder?

The thing you don't get is that views like this are actually hurting the cause of gay acceptance, not helping it. A normal, sane person will look at your posts, and want nothing to do with your brand of intolerance and lunacy. Hell, I'm someone that agrees with gay marriage, and even I think your posts are an embarrassment.

 

Oh, I know, and agree with you completely. I am forced to argue within the American paradigm because that's the one I have to deal with. I think the same is at issue, though, in your country (correct me if I am wrong, please), the semantic game of the word itself, marriage, causing a constant derailment of issues. Both sides using the same word to mean two very different things.

 

Those skinheads are a very limited number of deranged people who blame their own faults on racial groups. They believe in the New World Order. They will believe anything to hate. Hitler had a large majority behind him (initially). In the US today, the vast majority of people are not homophobes. Even those who oppose Gay marriage are arguing about definitions (though I won't repeat myself there). The persecution of Gays is like the persecution of all deviation from the group norm. It's sad to say, but that issue is deep within humanity. Even corrective measures often end up swinging things the other way (discrimination against Germans after WW2 for instance).

As I've said before, many of the repetitive issues with human society stem from human biology and psychology; changing those two things is difficult and consumes time on a macro-scale. Governments don't last long enough. Historical memory might not last long enough. (This isn't saying that homophobia is natural.)

 

Perhaps you don't know what de jure means, but that is a total misunderstanding of what I said. Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with law. Laws are meant to be moral constructs that maintain what society thinks is "just". Your right to say and think what ever you want has nothing to do with the definition of say, murder, or theft.

 

Care to explain why? It's easy to write insults like this about any author. However, it's nothing but childish insults without explaining the reasons behind such emotions.

 

My comment included the sentence

which you are deliberately ignoring in order to make it look like I said something which I very explicitly did not.

I'm thinking the same thing about you.

Treating a group of people as less than human leads to suicide, homelessness (and, yes, homeless teens are disproportionately likely to be gay), and murder.
Telling that group that they cannot have the same rights as everyone else is an expression of treating them as less than human.

Minorities have heard this before. "Be a good n****** and don't rock the boat". Intolerant? What am I intolerant of, -exactly-? I already said I'm okay with gay marriage being legal and not practiced in all churches.

 

The First Amendment has nothing to do with law?

The Bill of Rights doesn't meet this definition?

So, the Bill of Rights (which is a part of the Supreme Law of the Land is not law?

 

Thank you for that last bit, btw. A very large part of why those of us this side of the fence get as emotional as we do is that it's not about beliefs for us; it's about very real differences in the quality of our lives. We don't have the luxury of deciding where we would draw our "belief lines". No str8 person needs my opinion or permission to marry, nor should they. But I actually have to sit and wait on the approval and permission of others to feel secure in the knowledge that my William won't be dispossessed of the life we have made together when I pass. Right now, there is nothing protecting that. If I were to pass, my own grief-stricken family (yes, MY FAMILY) has the right to swoop in and take from him our memories and shared moments together. They have the legal right to rape him of the life we built. People do fucked up shit when they are in grief. That's why there are laws to protect the surviving member of a MARRIAGE.

 

Wow, I wasn't wrong. You really do think that being against gay marriage leads directly to suicide, homelessness, and murder. You are simply insane.

I'm willing to bet anything you have never made this comparison in real life to a black person. You might be crazy, but your courageous arrogance and intolerance is probably confined to the Internet only.

Hilarious. To use the same comparison you're so fond of, I'm sure Nazis didn't consider themselves "intolerant", either. They were really zealous and convinced that Jews were evil and must be exterminated, just like you're really zealous and convinced that anyone against gay marriage is a mass-murdering criminal.

It's not enough to consider the other person mistaken and rationally explain your own beliefs. Nope. They have to be the worst kind of genocidal villain.

No, you don't. But any opinion not backed up by reasoning is meaningless. And when you post that "Writer X sucks! I hate and despise him!", while failing to provide any justification, you're not contributing anything meaningful to the topic, now are you?

 

That's how some people think, though, isn't it? It's a minority of people, but a loud minority at times. I think most people are more reasonable. Justin Rocket's mentality is exactly the same as that of someone who truly is a racist or homophobe, but just on the other side of the issue. It all comes from the same place, and is equally as unflattering of the person holding the views no matter where it comes from.

The people who push progress on these issues are the ones who are able to present a more reasoned argument. Ultimately, those are the consensus builders. The argument for gay marriage is a simple one - the opposition to it lies in subjective personal morality (generally religious in nature), and not due to any demonstrable harm. The government shouldn't make policy on that basis. Because the State provides certain rights and obligations to people who enter into marriage, it should not exclude people from availing themselves of those rights and obligations on religiously-based morality (or, even if it isn't religiously-based). The government should be neutral and provide the same benefits to any two people. There's no strong rationale against it, it just comes down to an individual, ultimately, saying they don't agree with it.

 

Content is the wrong word. I would still find it saddening, but I would not actively seek to reverse it or stop gays from doing it.

 

It speaks volumes that you would not be content with a solution which would respect the views of both sides.

 

At this point, I know you're trolling since i never advocated exterminating anybody. I'm done with you.

 

I said I would accept it, not condone it or like it. You are free to do whatever you feel is right, as am I. My actions are not changed by how someone else feels about it, and neither should yours.

 

A person who is content is at peace and not eager to change the situation should the opportunity present itself.
In this situation, since you aren't content with the situation (where all views are respected), you are merely biding your time until you can screw over those who disagree with you. That's not peace. That's cold war.

 

Well, you're mistaken, because I already said that I don't believe in activism against gay marriage.

 

To some extent, I agree. However,

surely if his characters are dull and his stories silly, you can explain why? Yes, it's difficult to explain why a description is boring, fine, but the others are not especially challenging.

I never said you were. However, I compared your intolerance and hatred of opposing views to that of Nazis because it's the exact same comparison you kept making about opponents of gay marriage. Do you now understand how ridiculous and insulting it is?

When you're alienating people who are in agreement with you about gay marriage (not just me, either) and they're calling you insane, it's probably time to re-evaluate your approach and beliefs. Imagine how someone who actually disagrees with you feels. Instead of getting them to see a different point of view, you're probably convincing them even more that their stance against gay marriage is the correct one. Which is a shame; you're hurting the very cause you're espousing.

Excellently stated; I completely agree.

Honestly, it would be ideal if the federal and state governments got out of marriage entirely, and then people could marry whatever other human being they wanted to, provided they were both of legal age. Of course, that's a power and method of control government is loathe to give up.

 

I'm sorry. It appears you have misunderstood me. Free speech has very little to do with what you define in law. It has to do with what people believe outside of the law. But the law itself does not come under free speech protection. In the law, you can't define theft as a bunny rabbit. You can, for yourself, consider theft equivalent to bunny rabbits.

The Bill of Rights doesn't change the supposedly moral nature of laws, which when made, must be just laws. A gay person doesn't consider current marriage law just, and many Christians wouldn't consider a different definitions just. Since the Government and Law represent everyone, you cannot have the government choosing sides in such a issue. Sure, if Gay marriage were legal, Christians wouldn't have to approve, except when they pay taxes.

 

Just a friendly, neighborhood mod reminder to keep this thread civil. I've only just noticed this thread, and how confrontational it's been. Please? For me?