Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I wonder how someone can even "not believe" in something that happens every day.

I love the use of the term "don't believe in" with regard to gay marriage. As if there's no physical evidence of its existence...like gawd.

I'm just going off what he said, I find it weird as well.

You people are so funny. If someone thinks homosexually is a sickness you automatically label them as a bigot. Don't you see how utterly stupid and ignorant that is? The gay community has turned into a bunch of whiny cry babies that can't seem to stand getting their feelings hurt from people who don't approve of their lifestyle. If you are so secure about being gay, why do apposing comments bother you so much? Put away the tissue and get off your ass instead of concerning yourself with what others think about your personal life.

The gay community, if it can be addressed as thus, probably doesn't care about your approval. What they care about is having the same legal protection as everyone else. I know, it's strange. It's like there's a document that says "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" or something.
 
Yes you can. You currently have equal rights.

You can't marry another guy. Neither can I.

You can marry a woman - so can I. That is equality whether you like it or not.

You can marry the person you love, the consenting adult that you love, and he can't. Ergo, that's not equal.
 

I'm glad you're amused. I do appreciate your posts. One nice thing about Catholic dogma is that there is meat on the bones, which gives skeptics such as me something to argue against (there really is no point arguing with an evangelical). The Church has a wonderful history of intellectualism, and the founders were sticklers for logical consistency. I'm talking more about the Nicene Counsel era, rather than St. Paul (who was a genius in a different way). It's fun to read of the contortions they went through that led to the invention of the Holy Trinity concept. It's not surprising they've spent the last 1500 years defending Church dogma against all comers. It was a pretty amazing job weaving that fabric in the first place, and who knows what would happen if they started pulling on the intellectual loose strings?;)
 
Sue De Nimes said:
You have shown no interest in intelligent discourse and have done nothing but show your own hate filled prejudices.


Sue De Nimes said:
Some animals practice cannibalism as well - should we all do that as well?



Yes you can. You currently have equal rights.

You can't marry another guy. Neither can I.

You can marry a woman - so can I. That is equality whether you like it or not.



If that's intelligent, love filled discourse - I think I can never satisfy your high standards.
 
If that's intelligent, love filled discourse - I think I can never satisfy your high standards.

By the way, I love how the initial argument is

"It's not natural"

and when that's debunked it changes to "Yeah, well, horrible things are in nature too!"
 
Some animals practice cannibalism as well - should we all do that as well?

Is cannibalism a consensual act?

And

You still haven't provided a list of legal, consensual adult acts that you find "morally reprehensible".

That list is necessary exculpatory evidence to establish that you don't single out homosexuals for your moral condemnation—which IMO would indicate bigotry.

Surely there must be more that raise your moral outrage.

Please share.
 
That old chestnut! Surely you understand the difference between the murder, butchery, barbecuing and dining upon a fellow human being and sex. Right?

I would like to say yes, but probably not. Some people just can't see things in a way outside of the "whatever makes my argument right" way. It's not that they're saying things just to disagree, they actually believe the crap they're peddling.
 
My mind is just blown how badly people cling to their hatred that they come up with so many illogical responses to why they thing x group shouldn't have equal rights.

Part of me thinks its because they don't realize they know gay people (everyone does, whether the person they know is out or not is another story).

Part of me thinks its because they see the hollywood stereotype gays and they think thats what gays are? Maybe they think gays are the dancing, prancing, makeup wearing slutty guys they see on TV?

For the benefit of some of those on this forum I'll say this:

Yes, most people fit into the heterosexual mold.

No, not everyone fits in this mold, there are other people who are gay, lesbian, bi, etc and there is nothing wrong with that.

Many gay guys you meet are not what you see on TV. I'm not at all feminine, I don't care for fashion or drag stuff or any of the stereotypical things you see in movies or pictures of pride parades. Even if I was there is still nothing wrong with that. People like different things.

Unless I told you, you would have no idea I was gay. The cougars in my office sure don't have any idea and because I can't tell them due to the state I live in allowing me to be fired from the workplace for being gay I have to constantly dodge awkward relationship questions. This is not OK.

I'm in my early 30's. My friends all started their lives, are married to the person they love, have kids and houses…But I can't get married to the person I love. Why? No reason other than hate. That's definitely not ok.

Even if I did find someone to be with, since we can't get married if something happened to them I wouldn't be allowed to visit them in the hospital or heaven forbid be with them while they are dying because legally I am not seen as a spouse. That is definitely not ok.

So to those against equal rights, you need to look at yourselves and figure out exactly why you hate those that don't even affect your lives. Gay marriage will never affect you, why are you so against it?
 
Is cannibalism a consensual act?

And

You still haven't provided a list of legal, consensual adult acts that you find "morally reprehensible".

That list is necessary exculpatory evidence to establish that you don't single out homosexuals for your moral condemnation—which IMO would indicate bigotry.

Surely there must be more that raise your moral outrage.

Please share.

I didn't realise I was on trial and I didn't realise you had appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner.

----------

You can marry the person you love, the consenting adult that you love, and he can't. Ergo, that's not equal.

I am a man. I am unable to get pregnant and bear a child. A woman can.

That isn't equal.

Who can I sue?
 
I am a man. I am unable to get pregnant and bear a child. A woman can.

That isn't equal.

Who can I sue?

Thats biology, thats different. Just like being white, black, asian, gay or straight is biology.

We're talking rights under the law, how can you not see the difference?
 
I didn't realise I was on trial and I didn't realise you had appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner.

----------



I am a man. I am unable to get pregnant and bear a child. A woman can.

That isn't equal.

Who can I sue?

I mean this with all due respect... are you serious?
 
I'm in my early 30's. My friends all started their lives, are married to the person they love, have kids and houses…But I can't get married to the person I love. Why? No reason other than hate. That's definitely not ok.

Marriage isn't just about recognising that you love someone. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman that has evolved in society for the raising of children.

You are a hate filled bigot. Why? Because rest assured you will have some criteria by which you consider it wrong for two people to get married. Is it a brother and sister? What about a father and daughter?

At some point you will reach a line that you consider it wrong to cross. Why? No other reason but hate?

I don't think you are a hate filled bigot but you need to understand that there is more to this than hate. I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone. I do sincerely believe that redefining marriage to allow people of the same sex to marry would be contrary to the greater good.

I believe that children deserve to have a mother and a father. To intentionally deny them one of those is child abuse.
 
Why don't all the gays and the religious fanatics move to a desert island and fight it out and leave the rest of us alone.

All societies face these questions on a continual basis. Who should be allowed to be a member and what should they be allowed to do. And I'm not sure who us is, but there seems to be a preponderance of people without a direct stake in this debate, taking part in it.

The thing to keep in mind, is that anyone could choose to be off by themselves, removed from society. We don't, in part because of the many advantages of shared existence. The clashes that result from disagreements are just the price of those advantages.
 
I mean this with all due respect... are you serious?

It is the reductio ad adsurdum of the argument presented.

One may like apples or one may like oranges. An apple isn't the same thing as an orange. Refusing to call an orange an apple doesn't mean that one hates either.

Marriage involves a man and a woman. Two men or two women can spend all their lives together but it will never be a marriage. It is an ontologlical impossibility.
 
Marriage isn't just about recognising that you love someone. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman that has evolved in society for the raising of children.

You are a hate filled bigot. Why? Because rest assured you will have some criteria by which you consider it wrong for two people to get married. Is it a brother and sister? What about a father and daughter?

At some point you will reach a line that you consider it wrong to cross. Why? No other reason but hate?

I don't think you are a hate filled bigot but you need to understand that there is more to this than hate. I don't hate you. I don't hate anyone. I do sincerely believe that redefining marriage to allow people of the same sex to marry would be contrary to the greater good.

I believe that children deserve to have a mother and a father. To intentionally deny them one of those is child abuse.

You obviously don't know about the history of marriage if you believe that it was created as a means of raising children. It started off as more of a financial transaction than anything else. Not that it matters anymore because society no longer pays the man's family to take the bride. -_-
 
I didn't realise I was on trial and I didn't realise you had appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner.

Your ideas are on trial. That's what forums allow: the opportunity to share and test our concepts and logic and see how well they stand up.

You've claimed you're not a bigot.

But you've described homosexuality as "morally reprehensible".

From Merriam Webster ...

Full Definition of BIGOT

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

It's quite possible that you aren't a bigot ... that you view any number of legal, adult consensual acts with the same moral contempt that you view homosexuality. There are other causes for moral hypersensitivity ...

Why Some of Us Fret More Over Moral Dilemmas

New research finds that these brain regions are more active in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which suggests they tend to be more distressed by moral quandaries than people without the condition.

"Faced with a problem of this type, people suffering from this type of anxiety disorder show that they worry considerably more," study researcher Carles Soriano, of the Hospital de Bellvitge in Barcelona, told Spanish news agency SINC.

Soriano and his team studied 73 patients with OCD and 73 control subjects, measuring their brain activity with an fMRI machine as they were faced with decisions, such as the classic crying baby dilemma.

Compared with the control subjects, the patients with OCD had a higher degree of activation in the orbitofrontal cortex, a region with ties to the decision making processes and the development of moral sentiment, the researchers found. The OCD patients did not have the same responses when making more trivial choices, such as choosing between going to the countryside or the beach for the weekend, the researchers note.

OCD is thought to affect at least 1 percent of the population and is characterized by repetitive behaviors that aim to reduce anxiety.

While the majority of cases involve compulsions to clean and perform other rituals or routines, other forms of the disorder are marked by pathological sexual or religious guilt, suggesting OCD patients might be prone to moral hypersensitivity.

The new study appears in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry.

http://www.livescience.com/24711-obsessive-compulsive-moral-dilemmas.html

So again, please share the other legal, consensual adult acts that you likewise view as "morally reprehensible" so that the members of this forum can determine whether you are singling out homosexuals for this moral outrage or not.

Thank you.
 
It is the reductio ad adsurdum of the argument presented.

One may like apples or one may like oranges. An apple isn't the same thing as an orange. Refusing to call an orange an apple doesn't mean that one hates either.

Marriage involves a man and a woman. Two men or two women can spend all their lives together but it will never be a marriage. It is an ontologlical impossibility.

So you admit that you're arguing a logical fallacy and then you expect to be taken seriously. Marriage involves a man and a woman in your definition. Luckily, the world doesn't always go by your definition.

----------

I don't hate anyone.

You compared homosexuality to a great number of horrible things, and then say you don't hate gay people. It doesn't work that way. You can't make the comparisons you do without having some dislike of gay people.
 
Your ideas are on trial. That's what forums allow: the opportunity to share and test our concepts and logic and see how well they stand up.

You've claimed you're not a bigot.

But you've described homosexuality as "morally reprehensible".

No I haven't. I have distinguished between homosexual activities and being homosexual. That is an important (and very simple to understand) difference.

From Merriam Webster ...



It's quite possible that you aren't a bigot ... that you view any number of legal, adult consensual acts with the same moral contempt that you view homosexuality. There are other causes for moral hypersensitivity ...



So again, please share the other legal, consensual adult acts that you likewise view as "morally reprehensible" so that the members of this forum can determine whether you are singling out homosexuals for this moral outrage or not.

Thank you.

The "members of this forum" have so far shown themselves to be prejudiced and close minded. I have made some very simple clarification remarks which the "great and the good" seem unable to comprehend.

When people can't get past a rudimentary idea such as the difference between a person who might identify as homosexual and same sex sexual acts I don't see the point in engaging.

----------

You compared homosexuality to a great number of horrible things, and then say you don't hate gay people. It doesn't work that way. You can't make the comparisons you do without having some dislike of gay people.

Homosexuality is not the same thing as sexual acts between two people of the same sex.

No point in discussing if people can't see the difference.
 
No I haven't. I have distinguished between homosexual activities and being homosexual. That is an important (and very simple to understand) difference.



The "members of this forum" have so far shown themselves to be prejudiced and close minded. I have made some very simple clarification remarks which the "great and the good" seem unable to comprehend.

When people can't get past a rudimentary idea such as the difference between a person who might identify as homosexual and same sex sexual acts I don't see the point in engaging.

----------



Homosexuality is not the same thing as sexual acts between two people of the same sex.

No point in discussing if people can't see the difference.

You're arguing that homosexuality is different than homosexual acts. Seriously. That's your intellectual high ground? And then you condescend with the "no point in discussing" crap line, as if you've actually proven anything other than the fact that you have no real points.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.