Such as...?
You're kidding right?
Such as...?
Alright, so you think the local governments should have control, I'm assuming that means if you live in an area where they don't want gay marriage it should be banned (since it is the logical extension of your statement). Additionally, family values has nothing to do with this argument, so okay.
So you don't dislike gay people but you have a problem with there being more of them? Doesn't add up. Also, "more susceptible to alternate lifestyles"? Why would this matter if you supposedly have no negative feelings towards homosexuality?
So if you aren't "saying this in regards to homosexuality" why are you mentioning it? Do you think it is okay for local areas to ban same-sex marriage? Same-sex adoption? Outlaw homosexual sodomy (mind you, heterosexual sodomy was completely fine under the old Texas law)? Would you vote for these ordinances?
If you don't dislike homosexuals then why do you care if there are more or less of them? Why would it even matter to you? You want to raise your daughter without her "being able to understand it"? No one's asking you to describe what happens in their bedroom, and running around saying "I don't want gays to flaunt it" is a lame-ass canned argument wannabe conservatives use along with "Federalism" to justify this sort of bullshit.
We're not talking about guys walking around in thongs dancing with each other in some sort of stereotypical San Francisco bacchanal (and I'd be pissed about the heterosexual or lesbian equivalents of such, by the way), but would seeing two relatively normal guys hold hands on the park really send you into a state of apoplexy or shatter your daughter's fragile brain?
You keep saying you don't want there to be more homosexuals, and you don't want your lifestyle "attacked" (and unless gay marriage means you're going to be kidnapped out of your home and turned gay, it won't). So, alright, lay out your perfect world in terms of this. What rights would gays have? Not have? Could they get married? Adopt? Serve in the military? Show the same level of PDA a hetrosexual could?
@dte: quite, except for bit about power relations -- the very significant distinction that bias against a dominant, hegemonic group by a weaker group is far less harmful than bias against a weaker group by a dominant, hegemonic group.
IOW, a joke about stupid Americans is less nasty than a joke about stupid Negroes.
It's also interesting that members of a hegemonic group very often become completely blind to this distinction. I've seen this in Russians about Estonians and Turks about Kurds, as well as Americans about, say, Arabs (and what not). You're not, ahem, entirely immune yourself.
For many reasons, a majority of homosexuals as a base of human interraction is a dangerous thing, especially the viability of the human race and its ability to propegate itself under normal circumstances.
Local governments ban same sex marriage? Yes, if that is their will. See my above statements regarding the political fallout for changing the definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with discriminating againt homos, but with the implication it would have on the freedom of other groups and religious organizations. If it could be done without those implications, I'd vote for the homos to be allowed to marry.
Same sex adoption? I'd vote to not allow this.
My personal belief about the development of a child and identity issues are my own reasons.
My home, my daughter, my life. If I don't want you there for any reason, you need to GTFO. Its called personal freedom and liberty. When I feel she is at an appropriate age to have exposure to such things, I will allow it. But I am the parent, and its my job to let influences into her life at appropriate ages so that she is not confused are distraught. Some parents get pissed if their kid is told their is no santa clause too early. Some parents don't want any type of sexual conotations introduced into their lives until a certain age. Kids favorite word in the world is 'Why?'. And even seemingly inocuous circumstances can cascade into inappropriate subject matter because of this word, subject matter that is beyond thier understanding.
1:Yet it happens alot and is on TV alot. Lets not forget to mention the gay militants who go out of their way to wage a war on religious organizations by raiding their services in gay mockery of their religion. Or how they incite and promote violence towards those who vote against their cause, like providing map quest maps to their homes on the internet!!! Lets be real, two guys holding hands on a park bench is not what most people are refering to when they talk about being 'in your face'.
2:I said that 'more the merrier' is not my desire. Stop with the homophobe crap you and all your other sock puppets espouse to denegrate those who have an opposing viewpoint. /sarcasm on : Oh Yes, I'm so scared I'm going to be kidnapped and turned gay, gee I hope I don't accidently forget to lock the door tonight. /sarcasm off.
And if you don't like what I have to say, then tough shit. Your only option at this point is acceptance of the reality that I am an individual who is entitled to my view and there is nothing you can do about it. So you can try and be peaceable and find middle ground, or you feel its my way or nothing, then you can go screw yourself. Up to you.
I'm just astounded that you can't see the hipocrisy. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and you will scream this at the top of your lungs, but only when your 'group' is being wronged. Your inablility to use the same brush for different groups nullifies any such arguments you make. "Thats wrong!!!! Unless of course we are talking about <insert other group> , then its ok". You simply lose all credibility when you make the argument for one group and then take the opposite stance for another group. Your stance of such arguments is a logical fallicy. Live by the PC sword, Die by the PC sword. At least I'm honest with myself and choose not to live by the PC sword.
I'm just astounded that you can't see the hipocrisy. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and you will scream this at the top of your lungs, but only when your 'group' is being wronged. Your inablility to use the same brush for different groups nullifies any such arguments you make. "Thats wrong!!!! Unless of course we are talking about <insert other group> , then its ok". You simply lose all credibility when you make the argument for one group and then take the opposite stance for another group. Your stance of such arguments is a logical fallicy.
Live by the PC sword, Die by the PC sword.
At least I'm honest with myself and choose not to live by the PC sword.
You'd be a bit more convincing if you got a spell-checker, by the way.
I think that's a pretty unfortunate statement in a thread about bigotry and discrimination - given your position. So, people have to spell correctly to convince you?
Beyond that, it's a low blow even for a rhetorical obsessive like yourself - who'd rather appear articulated than truly believe in what you say.
Bigotry is about power relations -- a dominant group marginalizing a dominated one.
By the way, I recall someone here commenting on the difficulty someone else had in taking someone's statements at face value. Remember anything about that?
Yes that is correct. However, that being said I could care less if gays married or had the same rights as married couples. My problem is that the definition of marriage being changed carries a whole pandora's box of pollitical fallout for the freedom of many other groups, especially religious. And in this case the government ends up dictating religion which is a very very VERY dangerous thing.
More the merrier implies that there could never be enough. For many reasons, a majority of homosexuals as a base of human interraction is a dangerous thing, especially the viability of the human race and its ability to propegate itself under normal circumstances. It also carries other social aspects that I believe would have a negative impact upon our society as a whole with a majority population of homosexuals. Call me a bigot all you want, but I honestly think that would be the truth of the reality.
Same sex adoption? I'd vote to not allow this. My personal belief about the development of a child and identity issues are my own reasons. And if this does not jive with yours, then tough. One more reason for a federalist system, then we can both be happy.
My home, my daughter, my life. If I don't want you there for any reason, you need to GTFO. Its called personal freedom and liberty.
No it isn't.
I defined bigotry for you earlier. It's about treating those who are different with intolerance or worse, and you may or may not be fanatical about it. It's also about simply having a closed mind in general.
It has absolutely nothing to do with dominating groups marginalizing a dominated one. That's all in your head - and though bigots have been known to behave like that, it's nothing to do with bigotry itself.
At least try to comprehend the words you're using when you're so quick to apply them to others.
Accusing people of something that's arguably quite serious, without even understanding what you're accusing them of, is pretty pathetic. You seem to go out of your way to behave like that these days.
Consider Germany, ca. 1938. Do you believe these two kinds of prejudice are equally harmful?
(a) Prejudice by ethnic/religious Germans against Jews
(b) Prejudice by Jews against ethnic/religious Germans
Yes, and I admit I can't take everything you say at face value - because it contradicts too many things. You, however, were unable to take ANYTHING I said at face value. At least, that's how it seemed to me.
Are you really saying you don't care about rhetoric - and maybe even so much that it might appear obsessive to others? In fact, I think it gets in the way of truth all too often for you.
I guess that's not even close to being true? Be honest now.
If I am not mistaken, "the minority is oppressing us" rhetoric was used there as well.
(BTW, it's fun to be on the same side of a debate with you for a change.)