Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
New Schoolyard Bullies?
63 Answers
http://
Interesting article here from someone who supports same sex marriage.
Interesting article here from someone who supports same sex marriage.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nobody's arguing the right of gays and others to argue their case. What's irritating (as well as offensive) is the persistent sneering at any objection to the latest gay "caprice/demand/right" and the labelling of it as homophobia. It's a bigotry in the negative which ascribes bad intention to any contrary opinion and refuses to allow that those opinions might be held honestly, in good faith, and (at least in the objector's) for good reasons.
vetuste_ennemi
You wrote:
"any opposition to any demand by any gay in pursuit of an "easier, better life" homophobic, doesn't it, SP? Basically your definition of homophobia is "disagreeing with SP"
No. That's not the case, and I did not use the work 'homophobia'. You used it.
'anti-gay' is exactly what I said - you are against specific actions which make live easier or better for gay people. It doesn't mean that you hate gay people, but you believe that your wishes should override those of gay people.
The reason you cannot marry your mother or sister is because it would be encouraging incest, which is illegal.
Gay sex isn't.
Also, I strongly suspect that most people would not support intra-familial marriage, whereas most people are in favour of equal marriage rights (54% according to YouGov).
Also this statement is a little off:
"The view that the world is, or ought to be arranged exclusively for one's own gratification is a childish conceit."
The reason it doesn't make sense is because it suggests that people should not campaign or demand anything that makes their lives better.
That would mean that anyone who campaigns for anything is part of an irritating lobby.
Including those who campaign for road safety? Equal pay? The end of zero hours contracts? Broadband coverage in rural areas?
You see what I mean?
You wrote:
"any opposition to any demand by any gay in pursuit of an "easier, better life" homophobic, doesn't it, SP? Basically your definition of homophobia is "disagreeing with SP"
No. That's not the case, and I did not use the work 'homophobia'. You used it.
'anti-gay' is exactly what I said - you are against specific actions which make live easier or better for gay people. It doesn't mean that you hate gay people, but you believe that your wishes should override those of gay people.
The reason you cannot marry your mother or sister is because it would be encouraging incest, which is illegal.
Gay sex isn't.
Also, I strongly suspect that most people would not support intra-familial marriage, whereas most people are in favour of equal marriage rights (54% according to YouGov).
Also this statement is a little off:
"The view that the world is, or ought to be arranged exclusively for one's own gratification is a childish conceit."
The reason it doesn't make sense is because it suggests that people should not campaign or demand anything that makes their lives better.
That would mean that anyone who campaigns for anything is part of an irritating lobby.
Including those who campaign for road safety? Equal pay? The end of zero hours contracts? Broadband coverage in rural areas?
You see what I mean?
One other point - I think that gay people have far[i more to complain about when it comes to language that describes them than others who complain about the word 'homophobic'.
It would be [i]fantastic] to discuss why someone is against equal marriage or gay parenting, but unfortunately, any conversation I've had with someone who is against the idea grinds to a halt pretty quickly as it transpires that they simply 'don't feel it's right'.
But like I said before - these are strange times. In 50 years these discussions will look as weird as conversations about mixed race marriages look now.
It would be [i]fantastic] to discuss why someone is against equal marriage or gay parenting, but unfortunately, any conversation I've had with someone who is against the idea grinds to a halt pretty quickly as it transpires that they simply 'don't feel it's right'.
But like I said before - these are strange times. In 50 years these discussions will look as weird as conversations about mixed race marriages look now.
"TTT - as a test, you should try this amongst your straight mates......yada yada....etc" - it may surprise you to know that I actually have 2 gay friends in my regular acquaintances and i am not anti Gay. I am anti same sex marriage and I am concerned at the rise of militant extremists in the gay movement who want to bully those that do not worship their agenda.
It just seems wrong, it does not fit with society as I know it, perhaps I'm old and set, perhaps it will start to seem normal at some point. Marriage is primarily for the creation of family, (yes I pre empt usual cobblers about barren couples). same sex people cannot produce children.
Why do they want to get "married"? what harm does it do if they cannot wed?
Why do they want to get "married"? what harm does it do if they cannot wed?
TTT
You've hit the nail on the head.
Whenever equal marriage is debated, those against it find it difficult to summarise exactly why they disagree with it.
You wrote:
"It just seems wrong".
That in itself is a perfectly reasonable response, but as an argument - it's a bit weak.
My point is this - if you disagree with gay people getting married, what is it specifically that you find 'wrong'.
You've hit the nail on the head.
Whenever equal marriage is debated, those against it find it difficult to summarise exactly why they disagree with it.
You wrote:
"It just seems wrong".
That in itself is a perfectly reasonable response, but as an argument - it's a bit weak.
My point is this - if you disagree with gay people getting married, what is it specifically that you find 'wrong'.
You know when you walk into a room and it's wrong, the layout, the decor, the furniture, something is wrong. Now if I tried to list what made a room "wrong" for me, in advance, I could not because I don't know until I see it, I cannot define the "rules" for wrongness, I just know it when I see it. That's how I feel about same sex marriage. I know it is no argument but that's my feeling on it. Oh and for those that don't know, I am 100% atheist, there is no religious influence here.
Tora, I suggest, finds the idea of gay marriage to be ‘wrong’ in the sense that women going out to work, wearing trousers, men being ‘house husbands, women on submarines, men as secretaries, and so on and so on … were all seen as ‘wrong’ when the first appeared, because they were fundamental changes to long-serving practises.
But that is the nature of cultural evolution – something has to be new at the start, it can be no other, but the new becomes custom and practise with the passage of time, and so it will with gay marriage which in cultural terms, is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Things change as things must, but people adapt to those changes at different rates, and it seems that for some people, the older they are, the harder that adjustment becomes.
However – simply finding the adjustment difficult, as Tora is doing, seems to be an acceptable response in our tolerant times, what is not acceptable, is to decide it is wrong and people should be vilified for it – as in the case of our friendly neighbourhood council clerk over the water.
But that is the nature of cultural evolution – something has to be new at the start, it can be no other, but the new becomes custom and practise with the passage of time, and so it will with gay marriage which in cultural terms, is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Things change as things must, but people adapt to those changes at different rates, and it seems that for some people, the older they are, the harder that adjustment becomes.
However – simply finding the adjustment difficult, as Tora is doing, seems to be an acceptable response in our tolerant times, what is not acceptable, is to decide it is wrong and people should be vilified for it – as in the case of our friendly neighbourhood council clerk over the water.
Since when did you appoint yourself the judge regarding my adjustment to change a.h. I would thank you to stick to debate and not individual social comment. You know nothing of my family or social life, just the speck of it that you assiduously glean from the life that this site seems to breath into you.
Latest Posts
And Even More Good News From Labour.
News8 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
ChatterBank24 mins ago
And They Wonder Why Insurance Is So...
News27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.