Question about Gay Hate

[Jafas United]

Is that relevant though?

Yeah, that means that less than 59% are Swedish.

Yes, but that's not all of Malmös population. Only 59% of the immigrant population are Swedish citizens.

And remember, 30% are foreign born. Meaning the actual non-Swedish population would be much higher, because of the children of immigrants.

[Vecherd]

Yeah, that means that less than 59% are Swedish.

Yes, but that's not all of Malmös population. Only 59% of the immigrant population are Swedish citizens.

And remember, 30% are foreign born. Meaning the actual non-Swedish population would be much higher, because of the children of immigrants.

Right, I misunderstood then, I thought it was Malmö as a whole.

[Grenartia]

What the fuck are you talking about, Willis?

AFAIK, this is an original argument, and a google search yields nothing relevant under "No true Cheese/Bread argument".

No, the elimination of gluten free bread from being bread and lactose free cheese from being cheese.

But 5 other people who can eat the sandwiches on the island consider that to somehow make their sandwiches with real cheese and real wheat worth less.

[DASHES]

Personally I am against the legalization of official gay marriage.

I definitely do not hate homosexuals, I just strongly dislike the state of being that is 'homosexuality' due to my beliefs about human relationships and sexuality (Kind of like how people say that God loves the sinner, but hates the sin).

In its most traditional definition, Marriage is the legal and/or spiritual union between a man and a woman. Heterosexuality has been at the very core of marriage from its origins, and for that reason I feel that 'Gay marriage' will never be 'true' marriage. If gay couples want to have something like marriage, they ought to call it something completely different, because by definition 'homosexuality' as a state of being and 'marriage' as an institution have nothing to say to each other.

This is not about hate, this is about the historical and religious incompatibility of marriage with homosexuality, and its continuation in modern times.

Here is an idea: Remove the legal benefits and significance of marriage in general. That way gay couples will lose some interest in the idea of gay marriage, liberals will be happy because of a drop in this pre-existing marital-rights inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and conservatives/religious individuals will be satisfied because this new idea proposing an 'invalid' form of 'sinful' marriage will drop out of interest and favor. Marriage will then become a merely a private and personal union of spiritual and romantic value to everyone. Some homosexual couples will still want to get married, sure, so they can do so privately without conservatives being upset since the state will not officially recognize their marriage (or any marriage, for that manner).
What do we think about this fair idea?

[Ifreann]

Personally I am against the legalization of official gay marriage.

I definitely do not hate homosexuals, I just strongly dislike the state of being that is 'homosexuality' due to my beliefs about human relationships and sexuality (Kind of like how people say that God loves the sinner, but hates the sin).

In its most traditional definition, Marriage is the legal and/or spiritual union between a man and a woman. Heterosexuality has been at the very core of marriage from its origins, and for that reason I feel that 'Gay marriage' will never be 'true' marriage. If gay couples want to have something like marriage, they ought to call it something completely different, because by definition 'homosexuality' as a state of being and 'marriage' as an institution have nothing to say to each other.

This is not about hate, this is about the historical and religious incompatibility of marriage with homosexuality, and its continuation in modern times.

Appeal to tradition? Yawn. Marriage has changed before, why not now?

Here is an idea: Remove the legal benefits and significance of marriage in general. That way gay couples will lose some interest in the idea of gay marriage, liberals will be happy because of a drop in this pre-existing marital-rights inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and conservatives/religious individuals will be satisfied because this new idea proposing an 'invalid' form of 'sinful' marriage will drop out of interest and favor. Marriage will then become a merely a private and personal union of spiritual and romantic value to everyone. Some homosexual couples will still want to get married, sure, so they can do so privately without conservatives being upset since the state will not officially recognize their marriage (or any marriage, for that manner).
What do we think about this fair idea?

Sorry, not interested in making life more difficult for married couples for the sake of sparing the feelings of some bigoted conservative theists.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Hey NSG, I'm not sure if this was posted before, so I wanna say this now.

If you've never met a gay person before...

If you've never seen a gay marriage / married couple before...

If you've never talked to a gay person before...

If they have 0 impact on your life...

Then why are people banning gay marriage?

Also, I'm not gay, I do believe that if they want to do something, let them. They aren't doing anything harmful to you.

Also, any argument like "because the bible said so" "because its unnatural" "because think of the children" "because they roonin da fewtur of amerikaaaa" will be ignored.

People are against gay marriage because they have have an ideal of marriage which doesn't involve same sex couples. You don't have to be homophobic to be against gay marriage.

And I'm saying this as a straight white male who is for homosexual marriage.

[Neo Nibu]

You know back in the day it was a Christian rite for gays to marry.

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."

Full article can be found here;
http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

[Tmutarakhan]

I definitely do not hate homosexuals, I just strongly dislike the state of being that is 'homosexuality'

Hating my "state of being" is hating me.

(Kind of like how people say that God loves the sinner, but hates the sin)

That non-Biblical phrase is the height of Christian hypocrisy: you want to hate, and pretend that what you are doing is not hating.

In its most traditional definition, Marriage is the legal and/or spiritual union

Marriage is the LEGAL union. Full stop. You can add on all the spiritual rituals you want. Leave those who want nothing to do with your rituals alone.

If gay couples want to have something like marriage

No, we don't want something "like" marriage.

Here is an idea: Remove the legal benefits and significance of marriage in general.

Abolish marriage altogether, just to spite people you don't like? Remove legal protections from all families? Yeah, great idea there.

[DASHES]

Personally I am against the legalization of official gay marriage.

I definitely do not hate homosexuals, I just strongly dislike the state of being that is 'homosexuality' due to my beliefs about human relationships and sexuality (Kind of like how people say that God loves the sinner, but hates the sin).

In its most traditional definition, Marriage is the legal and/or spiritual union between a man and a woman. Heterosexuality has been at the very core of marriage from its origins, and for that reason I feel that 'Gay marriage' will never be 'true' marriage. If gay couples want to have something like marriage, they ought to call it something completely different, because by definition 'homosexuality' as a state of being and 'marriage' as an institution have nothing to say to each other.

This is not about hate, this is about the historical and religious incompatibility of marriage with homosexuality, and its continuation in modern times.

Appeal to tradition? Yawn. Marriage has changed before, why not now?

Here is an idea: Remove the legal benefits and significance of marriage in general. That way gay couples will lose some interest in the idea of gay marriage, liberals will be happy because of a drop in this pre-existing marital-rights inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and conservatives/religious individuals will be satisfied because this new idea proposing an 'invalid' form of 'sinful' marriage will drop out of interest and favor. Marriage will then become a merely a private and personal union of spiritual and romantic value to everyone. Some homosexual couples will still want to get married, sure, so they can do so privately without conservatives being upset since the state will not officially recognize their marriage (or any marriage, for that manner).
What do we think about this fair idea?

Sorry, not interested in making life more difficult for married couples for the sake of sparing the feelings of some bigoted conservative theists.

You want two people of the same gender to be 'married' to one another? Fine, just don't call it 'marriage' because by george, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and there is no reason to change the definition of marriage (as it has rested in its basic traditional for almost as long as human history, formally recognized in its common form by peoples in all parts of the world for thousands of years) just to please a sexual minority.

We could just call homosexual unions 'UGLA's or 'United Gay Lovers Arrangements' or something like that. Voila, we've fixed the issue:
Liberals are happy because those in gay relationships can finally have a platform in which their relationships can be formally recognized by the state (just like heterosexuals), and Conservatives are happy because the institution that known universally as 'Marriage' can rest undisturbed in its traditional context and significance. Gay unions would no longer continue to threaten to directly conflict with religions with such blasphemy as 'Gay' Marriage. Some religious individuals may still be belly-aching over it, but ultimately this peaceful resolution can bring equality and remove yet another pair of battle-lines that have been drawn between liberals and conservatives.

I know what you are thinking, but why not? A simple name change can shut most of this quarreling up and allow everyone to get on with their lives. It wont cost you a penny or a minute's time. That, and the LGBT community gets a cool new acronym to throw around in conversations.

[Hedepa]

i dont know why people hate gay marriage so much. if one woman can marry a man in this country, how would 2 people of the same gender marrying effect anyone? if the reason is religious, mixing religion with politics is unconstitutional anyway.

[Farnhamia]

Appeal to tradition? Yawn. Marriage has changed before, why not now?


Sorry, not interested in making life more difficult for married couples for the sake of sparing the feelings of some bigoted conservative theists.

You want two people of the same gender to be 'married' to one another? Fine, just don't call it 'marriage' because by george, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and there is no reason to change the definition of marriage (as it has rested in its basic traditional for almost as long as human history, formally recognized in its common form by peoples in all parts of the world for thousands of years) just to please a sexual minority.

We could just call homosexual unions 'UGLA's or 'United Gay Lovers Arrangements' or something like that. Voila, we've fixed the issue:
Liberals are happy because those in gay relationships can finally have a platform in which their relationships can be formally recognized by the state (just like heterosexuals), and Conservatives are happy because the institution that known universally as 'Marriage' can rest undisturbed in its traditional context and significance. Gay unions would no longer continue to threaten to directly conflict with religions with such blasphemy as 'Gay' Marriage. Some religious individuals may still be belly-aching over it, but ultimately this peaceful resolution can bring equality and remove yet another pair of battle-lines that have been drawn between liberals and conservatives.

I know what you are thinking, but why not? A simple name change can shut most of this quarreling up and allow everyone to get on with their lives. It wont cost you a penny or a minute's time. That, and the LGBT community gets a cool new acronym to throw around in conversations.

Why do I have to care about the delicate sensibilities of conservatives who think that because they pray to some indefinable something that loves them, they own the word? It it looks like marriage and functions like marriage and breaks up like marriage, it's marriage. Deal with it.

[Hedepa]

You want two people of the same gender to be 'married' to one another? Fine, just don't call it 'marriage' because by george, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and there is no reason to change the definition of marriage (as it has rested in its basic traditional for almost as long as human history, formally recognized in its common form by peoples in all parts of the world for thousands of years) just to please a sexual minority.

so you're saying that the term, "gay marriage" doesn't even make sense because in order for it to be called marriage, it has to be a male and female, and you therefore believe in an engagement between 2 males, but not gay marriage?

[Azrael]

I am totally in support of gay marriage. I've met plenty of (and am related to a few) gay people who are quite pleasant people and who deserve every right that heterosexuals have. If there was any reason why I would be against gay marriage, it would probably be because I'm an anti-marriage kind of person. Even then, gays have fought so long and hard to deserve this right that that doesn't stop me from be 100% in favor of homosexuals obtaining the right to marry whoever they please.

I don't see why the government or anyone for that matter should try to stop them.

[Azrael]

You want two people of the same gender to be 'married' to one another? Fine, just don't call it 'marriage' because by george, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and there is no reason to change the definition of marriage (as it has rested in its basic traditional for almost as long as human history, formally recognized in its common form by peoples in all parts of the world for thousands of years) just to please a sexual minority.

so you're saying that the term, "gay marriage" doesn't even make sense because in order for it to be called marriage, it has to be a male and female, and you therefore believe in an engagement between 2 males, but not gay marriage?

Why do people so vehemently protect the word "marriage"? It's rather pointless if you ask me. If they want to call it "gay marriage", then they absolutely can.

[Ovisterra]

so you're saying that the term, "gay marriage" doesn't even make sense because in order for it to be called marriage, it has to be a male and female, and you therefore believe in an engagement between 2 males, but not gay marriage?

Why do people so vehemently protect the word "marriage"? It's rather pointless if you ask me. If they want to call it "gay marriage", then they absolutely can.

It's a rather pedantic attempt to find grounds on which to stop gay marriage.

[Divair]

Appeal to tradition? Yawn. Marriage has changed before, why not now?


Sorry, not interested in making life more difficult for married couples for the sake of sparing the feelings of some bigoted conservative theists.

You want two people of the same gender to be 'married' to one another? Fine, just don't call it 'marriage' because by george, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and there is no reason to change the definition of marriage (as it has rested in its basic traditional for almost as long as human history, formally recognized in its common form by peoples in all parts of the world for thousands of years) just to please a sexual minority.

We could just call homosexual unions 'UGLA's or 'United Gay Lovers Arrangements' or something like that. Voila, we've fixed the issue:
Liberals are happy because those in gay relationships can finally have a platform in which their relationships can be formally recognized by the state (just like heterosexuals), and Conservatives are happy because the institution that known universally as 'Marriage' can rest undisturbed in its traditional context and significance. Gay unions would no longer continue to threaten to directly conflict with religions with such blasphemy as 'Gay' Marriage. Some religious individuals may still be belly-aching over it, but ultimately this peaceful resolution can bring equality and remove yet another pair of battle-lines that have been drawn between liberals and conservatives.

I know what you are thinking, but why not? A simple name change can shut most of this quarreling up and allow everyone to get on with their lives. It wont cost you a penny or a minute's time. That, and the LGBT community gets a cool new acronym to throw around in conversations.

Sorry, no. You don't own a monopoly on the word marriage.

[Aggicificicerous]

so you're saying that the term, "gay marriage" doesn't even make sense because in order for it to be called marriage, it has to be a male and female, and you therefore believe in an engagement between 2 males, but not gay marriage?

Why do people so vehemently protect the word "marriage"? It's rather pointless if you ask me. If they want to call it "gay marriage", then they absolutely can.

And despite their insistence on tradition, they conveniently ignore the fact that traditionally, marriage in most parts of the world was between one man and multiple women.

[DASHES]

I definitely do not hate homosexuals, I just strongly dislike the state of being that is 'homosexuality'

Hating my "state of being" is hating me.

(Kind of like how people say that God loves the sinner, but hates the sin)

That non-Biblical phrase is the height of Christian hypocrisy: you want to hate, and pretend that what you are doing is not hating.

In its most traditional definition, Marriage is the legal and/or spiritual union

Marriage is the LEGAL union. Full stop. You can add on all the spiritual rituals you want. Leave those who want nothing to do with your rituals alone.

If gay couples want to have something like marriage

No, we don't want something "like" marriage.

Here is an idea: Remove the legal benefits and significance of marriage in general.

Abolish marriage altogether, just to spite people you don't like? Remove legal protections from all families? Yeah, great idea there.

You are misunderstanding me here, as many on NSG do.
Hating your state of being is not hating you. Say you are infected with the rhino virus. I may hate the fact that you have the virus. I may hate the very fact that such a virus exists. It does not mean that I hate you, we are just talking about that the sickness here. That's all.

The principal behind 'God loves the sinner, but hates the sin' has no inherent hypocrisy; it just means that may I love you as a human being because you are my fellow person, but I may hate some things that you do. For example, I am a 'gamer'. You may hate video games and hate the fact that that is how I spend some of my free time, but you don't necessarily hate me; you just hate this 'thing' I happen to do sometimes. You just may want me to change. No hate here, just a disliking of actions.

As for your 'FULL STOP', I said specifically 'Marriage is the legal and/or spiritual union'. The spiritual significance of marriage is dependent on circumstances, and sometimes it may not be present at all.

And no, I'm not trying to abolish marriage altogether either. What I proposed was one way of bringing marriage equality among different types of couples that was mutually satisfactory to the political left and right. I now disagree with this plan that I have made. I have made a new plan.

Here, for your convenience:

We could just call homosexual unions 'UGLA's or 'United Gay Lovers Arrangements' or something like that. Voila, we've fixed the issue:
Liberals are happy because those in gay relationships can finally have a platform in which their relationships can be formally recognized by the state (just like heterosexuals), and Conservatives are happy because the institution that known universally as 'Marriage' can rest undisturbed in its traditional context and significance. Gay unions would no longer continue to threaten to directly conflict with religions with such blasphemy as 'Gay' Marriage. Some religious individuals may still be belly-aching over it, but ultimately this peaceful resolution can bring equality and remove yet another pair of battle-lines that have been drawn between liberals and conservatives.

[DASHES]

You want two people of the same gender to be 'married' to one another? Fine, just don't call it 'marriage' because by george, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and there is no reason to change the definition of marriage (as it has rested in its basic traditional for almost as long as human history, formally recognized in its common form by peoples in all parts of the world for thousands of years) just to please a sexual minority.

so you're saying that the term, "gay marriage" doesn't even make sense because in order for it to be called marriage, it has to be a male and female, and you therefore believe in an engagement between 2 males, but not gay marriage?

I suppose the answer to your question is to some degree, yes.
Just change the term for gay marriage. Call it something other than mariage, but treat it like the same thing, and for the most part I believe we can put a lid on this entire debate.

[The Reasonable]

You mean couldn't care less?

I die a little inside every time I see "could care less", because I think people are actually getting it into their heads that that's actually the phrase.

Ok, ok, I made a mistake! I was posting this at like 1 AM last night and I would appreciate it if you guys could simply correct me without making value judgments based on that error.

[Tmutarakhan]

Again, somebody else who got banned...

Anyways, for those who are reading this who also have the same feeling:

You live on an isolated island with 11 other inhabitants. There is a restaurant that is prohibited from serving anything other than ham and cheese sandwiches on said island. You and 3 of the other inhabitants are lactose-intolerant, vegetarian, and have a gluten allergy, meaning you can't eat the sandwiches or any ingredient thereof. Are you and the other 3 being discriminated against?

Vegetarianism is a choice.

I don't think so. A restaurant doesn't have to have vegetarian/lactose-fee/gluten free food if it doesn't want to unless it's legislated so.

Now, what's stopping them from using gluten free bread? and lactose free cheese? This example is full of holes.

The analogy would be that the law forbids using gluten-free bread and lactose-free cheese (because that is against the "traditional" definition of bread and cheese). The argument is that everyone has equal rights, since everyone gets the same sandwich: sound fair?

[Tmutarakhan]

so you're saying that the term, "gay marriage" doesn't even make sense because in order for it to be called marriage, it has to be a male and female, and you therefore believe in an engagement between 2 males, but not gay marriage?

Why do people so vehemently protect the word "marriage"? It's rather pointless if you ask me. If they want to call it "gay marriage", then they absolutely can.

They're hijacking the word "marriage", which is what makes it even worse. They are attacking the validity of all non-Christian couples.

[Dissant Machine Empire]

I don't even know why people care about what doesn't affect them. If you really care that much, midn your own bussiness and pretend gay marriage doesn't exist, just don't attack people who support it.

[Desperate Measures]

so you're saying that the term, "gay marriage" doesn't even make sense because in order for it to be called marriage, it has to be a male and female, and you therefore believe in an engagement between 2 males, but not gay marriage?

I suppose the answer to your question is to some degree, yes.
Just change the term for gay marriage. Call it something other than mariage, but treat it like the same thing, and for the most part I believe we can put a lid on this entire debate.

How about we call gay marriage BUBEG. (BUBEG... BUBEG... hee hee... that's funny to say.... BUBEG) Best Union Before the Eyes of God. Would that be better?

[Mavorpen]

Why do people so vehemently protect the word "marriage"? It's rather pointless if you ask me. If they want to call it "gay marriage", then they absolutely can.

And despite their insistence on tradition, they conveniently ignore the fact that traditionally, marriage in most parts of the world was between one man and multiple women.

And it was never really for "love" but rather for economic reasons.