Violence Against the LGBT Community

[hey]

Just to make sure I'm following here, if I'm not understanding or open minded to things like the KKK or Aryan Youth I'm a bigot too since they hold different sets of beliefs and values that I find repulsive and abhorrent? Is this correct (according to Tweek)?

Correct, according to the definition of the word bigot.

[hey]

Just to make sure I'm following you here, you're comparing someone who opposes gay marriage as a member of the KKK more importantly to the organization of the KKK?

Someone who aims to oppress those he doesn't like? Yeah, tat sounds similar to what the kkk does.

[Tyche]

At least the KKK isn't drafting legislation. And gays have been killing themselves left and right due to intolerance, so the body count probably isn't much different.

[hey]

At least the KKK isn't drafting legislation.

Seriously. The kkk arguably does less harm.

[D44kpunk]

chickfila line at the mall was like 6 hours long today no lie :/ i was confused wtf was going on since i have been internet/tv-less the last few days

[Dimmauk]

Is girl on girl porn considered gay pornography? Or is the only gay porn male on male?

[hey]

Is girl on girl porn considered gay pornography?

No.

[Kuya]

some would disagree with hey but I'm sure everyone here would rather just call them bigots, it's so much easier to assume and generalize than actually asking people their opinions right? Here are a few articles about it, there are more. Or you could always go and actually talk to people about how they feel and why they feel. Ask them if they hate gay people too.
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep...-blankenhorn19
http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2007...-marriage.html

Do you know why anti-gay and anti-gay marriage people are called bigots? Because more often than not, the animus driving their arguments are fueled by an irrational and uncaring animosity towards a group they barely know as people. Bigots can be as obvious as the light of day, or they can shield themselves behind arguments. These arguments can vary from religious to economical.

In academic debates where respect is given to the people debating, one does not call someone else a bigot because it amounts to an ad hominem, and you should argue against someone's idea directly. There's a certain point in time where you've heard every argument under the sun about homosexuality and found them all wanting, and you finally settle on the idea that there is practically no valid argument left. The links you provided are no different. And then you start looking at what animates these crappy arguments against homosexuality and find that beneath all or most them, animosity towards the very idea of homosexuality exists.

Maybe there's someone who genuinely only thinks about society's need to reproduce, and hence the animus behind his homophobic arguments aren't born out of homophobia. That's unlikely, but possible. So i'm not going to call these authors bigots (though they no doubt do not give any fucks about a so called right to marriage for gay people), even though they might very well be. Instead let me quote some of their arguments to see if i even have to bother arguing anymore. I'll post the essence of their arguments, which also happen to be their worst points:

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

I'll post quotes from the other two in a separate post. So people can see the kind of arguments tweek is presenting us, and then has the gull to come up to us and argue that there is something beyond bigotry in these arguments.

[Dimmauk]

My grandfather, who suffered from alcoholism and depression due to growing up in an orphanage, once told me "I would have rather have had gay parents that loved and cared for me, than no parents at all" He was never adopted because nobody adopted Hispanic kids. He lived in the orphanage till he was 18, then went straight into the military and WWII and Korean war after.

[Kuya]

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep...-blankenhorn19

Spoiler: show

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing -- the gift, the birthright -- that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2007...-marriage.html

Spoiler: show

So how does all of this relate to gay marriage?

Simple. Gay relationships are fundamentally dissimilar to heterosexual ones precisely because gay relationships can never of their own initiative produce offspring who are the biological and natural responsibility solely of the same-sex couple.

A lesbian couple, for instance, who uses donor sperm to conceive has produced a child who is biologically related to only one of them, and who must be adopted by the other. A third party, the sperm donor, is the actual father of the child no matter what we pretend about this group of people for the sake of political correctness.

A gay male couple can possibly donate sperm to be used by a woman to produce a child for them. However, the woman is still the child's mother, again despite our pretenses. And absent adoption, the child will only be the natural responsibility of whichever man is the child's biological father.

A gay couple of either gender can also adopt in most states; but here the law sees no need for marriage, since the law's willingness to interfere in adoption doesn't depend in the least on the marital status of the people who wish to adopt.

In all three of these instances, the law recognizes the fact that these relationships are not analogous to marriage, precisely because the children are not the natural and expected result of the relationship. A gay relationship can never produce children on its own. A gay couple, as a couple, will never find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and unprepared for what the law sees as the onerous burden of raising children, and will therefore not need the law's succor to help them shoulder this burden. In fact, the gay couple as a couple only takes on the burden of raising children by bypassing the natural means of becoming parents and either creating a child with the help of a third party (the child's natural mother or father) or by adoption, or both.

[Tweek]

Maybe there's someone who genuinely only thinks about society's need to reproduce, and hence the animus behind his homophobic arguments aren't born out of homophobia. That's unlikely, but possible. So i'm not going to call these authors bigots (though they no doubt do not give any fucks about a so called right to marriage for gay people), even though they might very well be.

That's enough, thank you. Yes they very well might be, many people who oppose gay marriage are bigots towards gays but like I said I don't believe all are. I do not correlate opposing gay marriage with being intolerant of and hating all gays.

I also don't correlate shopping at Chick fil a with being apathetic with gay rights and no this has nothing to do with me being uncomfortable with being called apathetic it's with the principal of others being called apathetic for that sole reason. (I don't have a chick fil a near me I've only ever been once years ago possibly inside an airport)


As for the KKK, I'm not going to respond because comparing a persons stance on one specific topic is nothing like an entire organization especially one like the KKK.

[Kuya]

I don't know what else to say here. I'm having an argument with people who's only objection seems to be to we should not call everyone who is anti-gay marriage a bigot, and that we should not call everyone who chooses to eat in chickfila, despite its actions, apathetic to gay marriage. The entire objection predicated upon the mere possibility that perhaps one single person who is not a bigot or apathetic exists in the anti-gay marriage side or chickfila. It's a technicality bordering on the absurd.

But, whatever. You're right. There is a small theoretical chance someone who is anti-gay marriage is not a bigot. Congratulations.

[Dimmauk]

Did you see all those people at Chickfila supporting free speech? I didnt see any protesters either. So apathetic.

[Salodin]

Wait wait wait, so tl;dr: I can't eat at chik fil a for those awesome waffle fries, or else I'm apathetic towards gay rights?

Is that any different from putting my money into a bank I know is involved in defrauding the public (for instance the banks involved in the LIBOR scandal), just because I need a safer place to put my money other then my mattress?

[Eurell]

Giving people more money to donate to groups that advocate outlawing homosexuality definitely isn't supporting gay rights lol.

[Demosthenes11]

Wait wait wait, so tl;dr: I can't eat at chik fil a for those awesome waffle fries, or else I'm apathetic towards gay rights?

Is that any different from putting my money into a bank I know is involved in defrauding the public (for instance the banks involved in the LIBOR scandal), just because I need a safer place to put my money other then my mattress?

If you knowingly support immoral actions without any pressing reason to do so (no other options, force), then you can likely accurately be described as apathetic at best

[Salodin]

If you knowingly support immoral actions without any pressing reason to do so (no other options, force), then you can likely accurately be described as apathetic at best

Insinuating they don't have the best fucking waffle fries and chicken ever.

Also, it's ok to be a bigot if you have no other option. But if you do, then fuck you bigot? I don't agree with his bigot ass, but fuck man, it's chik fil a. I fucking love those fries...

[Dimmauk]

Is cheating considered an immoral action?

[Kuya]

There's a difference between an action that makes you look like a bigot, and actually being a bigot (having bigoted beliefs). You'll never know about the latter unless the person willingly admits it.

[Tweek]

Insinuating they don't have the best fucking waffle fries and chicken ever.

Also, it's ok to be a bigot if you have no other option. But if you do, then fuck you bigot? I don't agree with his bigot ass, but fuck man, it's chik fil a. I fucking love those fries...

he's putting in the clause because people here still drive cars and pay for fuel and support other big fucked up industries that people pointed out.. but those are totally different!