General Chat / GAY MARRIAGE

I'm going to build a gay roller coaster and make everyone ride it.

I'm going to build a gay roller coaster and make everyone ride it.

 

 

Mr Bones' Wild Ride?

http://imgur.com/gallery/Wxzbl

Louis, since you live in a civilized country with seemingly reasonable people this may not make sense to you (I know it makes no sense to me) but here in the land of the free, home of the brave if someone has a different opinion than we do we have to be complete dicks about it at all times and put labels on then to completely discredit them and everything they say.

For example... rather than your very reasonable stance of (paraphrasing) "I don't agree with CSW but he's a cool guy and I'm glad he stated his opinion and we could have this debate". In America we would call him a homophobe who needs to be held accountable for his "offensive" and "anti gay" statements. The only thing we love more than bragging about free speech (something that the vast majority of the world has) is trying to bully people into being afraid to exercise that free speech. We only like free speech when the person speaking agrees with us.

... Murica

Pussy.

On a really related note - I would like MA and Louis CK to have kids.

https://www.youtube....h?v=eb-JZSyhWSc

His comments may be difficult to understand and may not be of your opinion, and yes they may directly affect you and hurt you somewhat, BUT, calling him out for stating his opinion, which he has done respectfully, is just as bad, if not worse. Everyone here (almost everyone) is singling him out and making him to feel like an ass. If you think he is an ass cause of what he has said, then fair enough, but ganging up and attacking his beliefs is much worse than CSW having his opinion that was expressed respectfully.

 

fuck you

The only reason marriage exists in a legal sense is because it was a sacrament of a religion. You can't have the legal meaning without the religious. Saying that the religious definition is "fake" is also insulating, or whatever word you want to use.

Also, I find it embarrassing that you all are so proud of yourselves for "proving him wrong". Its impossible to win any argument when you are the only one on a side. Its like getting 10 guys together to beat some kid up because he believes something different. His opinions are his opinions, they aren't right or wrong, especially when it pertains to something like this.

If only there were some place in the US where a (presumably) white, heterosexual, Christian male could go to be amongst his people and not be segregated against.  It's really rough out there for those types!

There is a difference. CSW is a decent member of the community. His opinion, whilst disagreeable, is purely an opinion on one certain aspect. He is not against gays, he is against gay marriage, he is not going to go round blowing up people because they are gay, he is also not discriminating against anybody directly and making matters extremely personal.

 

His comments may be difficult to understand and may not be of your opinion, and yes they may directly affect you and hurt you somewhat, BUT, calling him out for stating his opinion, which he has done respectfully, is just as bad, if not worse. Everyone here (almost everyone) is singling him out and making him to feel like an ass. If you think he is an ass cause of what he has said, then fair enough, but ganging up and attacking his beliefs is much worse than CSW having his opinion that was expressed respectfully.

I read this earlier today, written about a black man in America, in regards to racism: https://medium.com/@...st-538512462265

"Living every single day with institutionalized racism and then having to argue its very existence, is tiring, and saddening, and angering. Yet if we express any emotion while talking about it, we’re tone policed, told we’re being angry. In fact, a key element in any racial argument in America is the Angry Black person, and racial discussions shut down when that person speaks. The Angry Black person invalidates any arguments about racism because they are “just being overly sensitive,” or “too emotional,” or– playing the race card. Or even worse, we’re told that we are being racist (Does any intelligent person actually believe a systematically oppressed demographic has the ability to oppress those in power?)

But here is the irony, here’s the thing that all the angry Black people know, and no calmly debating White people want to admit: The entire discussion of race in America centers around the protection of White feelings."

I see a parallel here, as I've been saying all along in this thread, between the two groups of segregated groups.  It doesn't matter how politely you engage people who think you're a lesser person, Louis.  In fact, doing so only allows him to think it's okay to continue thinking of you like that. You say that he "is not against gays."  I disagree.  He's not dragging you behind a pick up truck or lynching you, but he is advocating that you don't get to enjoy the same rights that he has. That is being against gays. It's not okay.

I regret that this has turned into a free for all because of my comments, but I don't regret not allowing him to continue to call down from his position of privilege about how it's inconveniencing him. 

I am gay. One day I would like to get married, not because it means I can have the same rights as everybody else, because I hope to one day be in a loving relationship and that I can show that off by committing my entire life to somebody else.

BUT I don't believe in gay marriage. In fact, I am against it. Why does it need to be labeled? Marriage is marriage. I don't want to be a part of anything that is labeled as it is signifying that we are different, when we aren't. I am a normal person who lives a normal, albeit somewhat flamboyant, life, and as such wish to be married like a 'normal' person in a 'normal' marriage, not one that is labeled differently.

Circa the Supreme Court decision, we do not have "gay marriage."   Just "marriage," which people cannot be excluded from anymore.  Your comments are a bit confusing, but I understand what you mean.  "Gay marriage" is 1. a short hand to talk about the subject and 2. something people throw out as a compromise like CSW suggested.  You know, a separate but equal thing over there. Doesn't matter anymore, because that's over.  Just the bigotry remains.  As such, my offer still stands, lover.

Yeah... I'm gonna stay in the "I don't deserve to be treated inferiorly because I like dick" camp. "Gay Marriage" is, like AC said, semantics, and until recently, normal marriage wasn't a possibility for us. Not only just the standard loving relationship way, but in the governmental benefits as well. If I love someone and they're sick, I damn well deserve hospital visitation rights, and if it takes marriage to get that, then the nation better treat me like any other fucking citizen. 

 

Honestly, I don't care how well someone can type out an argument on an internet forum; if you don't feel like I deserve the same rights as any other citizen because it hurts your precious archaic moral code, then fuck you.

 

Meanwhile, MA and AC, keep on keepin' on...

Thank you MA for being up tone policing. Not only is it naive to think "politeness" is somehow justification for allowing hateful and prejudiced opinions without consequence, but it's also derailing the conversation, which ends up being a "talk about talking" instead of a "talk about the subject at hand".

Let's get back to the issue and not focus so much on HOW something is being said, but rather WHAT is being said. With that in mind, CSW's peaceful posts are ignorant and lacking strong logical arguments and evidence, and MA's angry posts are rather truthful and get to the core of the issue despite their tone.

Homosexuality is more an issue of property rights than it is a spiritual issue. I'm the furthest thing from a libertarian and believe marriage should not remain a government institution. Why? Marriage was primarily an economic contract in the past and love had little to do with it. Lower class marriages were practically for survival purposes and upper class marriages were often arranged for property and inheritance.

 

Because marriage was and still is an economic contract behind the facade; gay marriage, being fully consensual, should be allowed. No more denying wrongful death claims. No more denying residency. No more denying child support. No more lost inheritance. I could type up another several paragraphs-long post like I have done in past social media and pretend people want to read it but to keep things simple, in order to maintain the pursuit of happiness, gay marriage has been legalized.

 

Societies organize themselves and create their laws organically... for all those afraid of any sort of sudden 'moral decay,' I'm sure you guys would have loved living in ancient Hellenic times.

for all those afraid of any sort of sudden 'moral decay,' I'm sure you guys would have loved living in ancient Hellenic times.

I doubt it very much, homosexuality was rife back then, you were a nobody if you didn't have a wife and a young slave boy to fuck.

That was my point Louis... it was sarcasm. However it is a bit of a misconception to believe that the ancient civilizations were bastions of homosexuality. In ancient Rome, such acts could label a person infames and cause them to lose most of their legal protections.

LIES! ancient greece and rome only had gay sex, it's what they lived for!

Lol! Anient greece and rome were some of the gayest civilizations yet. They would only exercise in sports while nude and without women. That includes sports like wrestling.

In Ancient Greece and Rome, sexuality wasn't even a thing. The sex wasn't based on gender but on the role of each person.

#Masculus4Masculus

The most interesting aspect of this forum discussion, for me, has been a noticeable split between the American and European responses. A lot of very heated, passionate opinions and statements from the USA, while the Brits and other Europeans seem to have taken a "yeah...whatever, good for the gays, here's a joke" kind of approach. Not that this furthers the argument, but I just though it interesting to see how the different cultures have responded.

 

About the issue itself, I tend to believe that if something is wanted enough, it will happen, and that these events occur when the general population is ready for that change. It's a very lazy, ignorant approach to things, but I'm an ignorant, lazy guy. I'm glad that gays can now marry, as I see it as a further step towards general tolerance of everyone, and the less fighting and hating there is, the better the world is I think.

 

I personally think the notion of marriage (as a whole, not hetero/homo specific) is losing it's value, with divorce becoming so commonplace and the church and religion having less of an impact on peoples' lives. I'm pretty sure there's loads of gays out there who won't bother to get married simply because they've been happy together for so long, and the title of marriage won't make any difference to them, happiness-wise or legal-wise or whatever. Equally, loads will get married, for various reasons, but quite often it will be "because we can".

 

Just a question for the gays on here: If gay marriage wasn't called "marriage", but instead the title of civil partnership granted the couple the same rights as a married hetero couple (i.e. hetero marriage and civil partnerships carry the same weight), would you be as satisfied with that as you are now with the current standings?

^ Review "separate but equal" and why that didn't work.

 

Also the Americans are probably more riled up about it than the Europeans because Europe has largely already had this debate and come down on the more progressive side of it while we only just got this ruling in the U.S. - and it wasn't even by a large margin. And as you can see, the only dissenters in this thread (csw and G Force) are both American.

MTE Ling. This is a big deal because a large part of America is still pretty conservative and religious, and we only recently legalized gay marriage whereas many European countries have legalized gay marriage for almost a decade now.

Calling it "seperate but equal" alone isn't a valid argument in my opinion. Are seperate restrooms for women and men sexism?

Devil's advocate here.

Would you let your 10 year old daughter go into a room where a man is peeing at a urinal?