Its a provocative question. Myriad policies and beliefs are based on (even the expectation of) the answer.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its a provocative question. Myriad policies and beliefs are based on (even the expectation of) the answer.
Yet I can't help wondering why.
One's religion and religious expression (or lack thereof) is protected under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. And there are various anti-discrimination laws to further back it up.
Yet one can change one's religion over the course of one's life.
Furthermore, the change goes both ways. People raised in non-religious conditions "find God", and religious people "lose their faith". Some even do so very publicly.
I have sometimes wondered if "being gay" were organized into a religious practice, with ceremonies, ministers, preachings, etc., would there be the same kind of pro/anti sentiments toward it? Or would it just turn into another religious conflict, like radical believers in any religion have against the infidels of other religions.
The problem with your "logic", what you're describing are things who's actions negatively effect others. My being a lesbian effects no others than myself. Secondly, there's no credible study that shows pedophilia as a "born trait", it's been shown time and time again that those with pedophiliac tendencies were victims themselves, or is a side effect to a greater mental illness.
If I were unable to control my urges, I would be at best hypersexual or at worst a rapist, but again, you're comparing apples to dump trucks. Being heterosexual is a inborn trait, yet I don't see you comparing it to pedophilia, rape and murder. I mean, this is what blows my mind when I see straight people bitching about how we shouldn't say that being gay is nature vs nurture.
I had no control or choice in how I feel towards other women. As much as I tried to be normal, so why should it be legal that I was fired for doing something a simple and consenting as loving another woman?
Also, just for your future clarification, it's illegal to refuse work/housing/marriage/etc to someone on the grounds of mental illness. Secondly, your comment is steeped in terms that vilify and stigmatize mental illness. Which is rather disgusting in its own right, as there are millions of people out there living their lives with mental illness, that are loving, strong and wonderful people.
That has to be one of the best ideas I've ever read.
I put forth the idea of the Church of Stonewall.
You guys are scaring me, I was happy to be living in a non-religious environment and now you want to change that?! 
(edit: that was referring directly to the post above me and it was not meant seriously, as the post above me wasn't either...)
(edit: that was referring directly to the post above me and it was not meant seriously, as the post above me wasn't either...)
Last edited:
This is why I mention the issue of societal harm. I received a link to a Canadian study behind a paywall, which still only addressed the issue of childcare. I was only able to read the abstract. Other than that it seems to be a purely ideological issue, in which most of the arguments are hypocritical. If it's an issue of religious rights, those can be maintained by allowing churches to determine whether or not they wish to perform specific marriage services. Aside from that no one has been able to show harm, where in your examples of rapists or pedophiles, I could easily argue harm or potential harm. Consider a drunk driver. He isn't just a danger to himself. He is a danger to others. As for slippery slopes, no one with even a half functioning brain would accept that as valid logic. Pick something that actually makes sense! It's up to you to display the connection, not just insinuate that one leads toward the other.
I'm fascinated by people who don't "approve" of gays or a gay lifestyle. Haha, who the **** are you to approve of anyone else's lifestyle? It takes an amazing amount of self-centeredness to even begin to think that way.
What would Jesus think of such sick, bad people? He wouldn't think very highly
What would Jesus think of such sick, bad people? He wouldn't think very highly
Holy ... this thread is INSANE. How on earth are so many people so screwed up?
"The end of society" - If gay rights, marriage etc are going to bring about the fall of society - how come none of the more progressive countries around the world that have allowed workplace equality, marriage etc have had ANY significant problems with it? I'd rather live in a place where people can live fulfilled lives where they aren't doing any harm, than one where people are repressed and not allowed to be themselves.
Two gay people. They're married. This is a problem because... ?
"Slippery slope" argument is complete nonsense. Gayness *isn't* a behaviour .. Ooh, "gay people should just not act on it!" - So, you'd be ok with a life where you are never able to couple with the person you love, or people you find attractive (consenting adults! Common sense, people!) - Do you have *any* empathy at all? I find it incomprehensible how people can't see how wrong that is. Why does anyone get to tell anyone else what they can and can't do? (while it is causing no harm to people)
Kudos to those in here keeping up the good fight in the face of some serious bigotry and closed mindedness.
-- edit:
In case nobody's linked to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions - It's always been around and it'll outlive any religion or blocks you throw at it. It's part of the human condition*. Deal with it.
* it's part of many other species' condition too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals.
"The end of society" - If gay rights, marriage etc are going to bring about the fall of society - how come none of the more progressive countries around the world that have allowed workplace equality, marriage etc have had ANY significant problems with it? I'd rather live in a place where people can live fulfilled lives where they aren't doing any harm, than one where people are repressed and not allowed to be themselves.
Two gay people. They're married. This is a problem because... ?
"Slippery slope" argument is complete nonsense. Gayness *isn't* a behaviour .. Ooh, "gay people should just not act on it!" - So, you'd be ok with a life where you are never able to couple with the person you love, or people you find attractive (consenting adults! Common sense, people!) - Do you have *any* empathy at all? I find it incomprehensible how people can't see how wrong that is. Why does anyone get to tell anyone else what they can and can't do? (while it is causing no harm to people)
Kudos to those in here keeping up the good fight in the face of some serious bigotry and closed mindedness.
-- edit:
In case nobody's linked to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions - It's always been around and it'll outlive any religion or blocks you throw at it. It's part of the human condition*. Deal with it.
* it's part of many other species' condition too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals.
Last edited:
I found it interesting how it brought out of the woodwork new members who'd never participated in this topic before.
Where have these people been?
I hope they stick around.
Dissent is so much fun.
...and right there you have hit upon the root of the issue. That can work both ways. It also can be hypocritical. If gays don't like straights, they are simply expressing their displeasure with the establishment. If straights don't like gays, they are bigots.
Uhh... when have gays ever tried to ban hetrosexual marriage? When has a straight man ever been told that his attraction to women is unnatural?
Oh brother. You entirely missed the point.
Which is what exactly? How can it possibly work both ways? In what way do gays not like straight people?
For someone who was lamenting the fact that you feel that gay people can't seem too get over it when people disagree with them, you've been doing a lot of complaining about people disagreeing with you in this thread.
Get over it. That was your advice, right? Try taking it, Hun.
I've never heard a gay person say they don't like a straight person because they are straight - only that they don't like not having equal protection under the law, and don't like attempts to deny them that equality.
100% ACK. Personally I'm in the lucky position to always have been able to give a **** about anyone who has issues with gays. I cannot change the mindset of others, so what else should I do about it but not care? I've been married to my husband for 7 years now and I mention it to anyone in the same way as straight men mention their wives. I don't want to hide it if someone asks about my weekend or my "family situation", if it offends someone or their "religious feelings" - it's their issue, they decided to believe in "god" or "allah" or whatever, live with it, it's their choice to live by those rules, don't be that dumb to expect everyone else to live by them, thanks.
And someone (I think it was shaun, uk, but I could be wrong, doesn't really matter), said that the majority hates gays. Obviously I can't speak for "the majority" - (as he can't either). What I did find is that the tolerance towards gay people has grown incredibly over the past 25 years. I came out in 1990, people didn't believe me at first as I was a typical Slayer/Overkill/Agent Steel/WatchTower(! nobody knows them, underrated cult metal)-Metal head with long hair, gays weren't really heard of in that scene but eventually they did get it (after I showed up with my first BF). It was a novelty back then but it also established a ton of honest friendships as it lead to some very sincere and open discussions, especially as I was the opposite of that what the media liked to portray gays as (although I won't deny that there definitely is something true about gays, disco balls and shiny mascara and stuff, it's just not my planet). Nobody ever thought of the "shoving sexuality down the others throat" straw man argument (random thought: the second you tell me about your wife you're shoving your heterosexuality down my throat). As soon as my mom told my (christian) aunt that I'm gay she came over and apologized for having said that "all gays need to be executed" a few years before.
No major point here all in all, I just really, really hope that countries that aren't too progressive right now will develop in a similar way as Germany or Canada have and that gays anywhere will be able to live open and enjoy the life that they were born into.
Edit: No, I don't expect everyone to find my "gayness" "terrific". There always will be loud gays who demand it all, it's like any other interest group, you'll always have the loud and expressive ones, but all in all it's just about accepting each other on the most basic level. nothing else.
And sure, you can find the idea of gay sex "disgusting", why not. I feel the same way about "straight" sex as a straight person feels about "gay" sex. who would have thought?
Last edited:
Oh yes! Because gay people lobby, protest and spread hate and intolerance to make sure straight marriage is illegal, and make sure heterosexuals have less protections and rights than gays
----------
China does have a fairly bloody history.
----------
Are you kidding? In the past couple hundred years, the Christians have been doing the vast majority of the persecuting.
You're about 500 years under. Go back to to at least the mid-late 1400s, and you'll be closer.. and even that may be under as well.
BL.
I will not make the same mistake of forcing my kids to learn a religion based off a book written by men 2000 years ago who claimed they talked to a god that doesn't exist. And teaches hate and intolerance.
My Children will be allowed to make their own religion choices once they are matured and can have a logical thought process. hence, they will not be going to bible camps, or Mega Churchs when they are 8.
Sure, they can do that once they reach the age of 17 or 18 or something like that. But I will refuse to send them to any kind of church social group, or a church, or anything like that when they are young kids.
I have a firm feeling that the VAST majority of of religious people, were indoctrinated at a very young age, when children believe pretty much anything.
You give a 9 year old kid a Pizza party and a Jesus Technicolor Dream coat show on Ice, he'll believe anything.
If say my 8 year old son would ever come back ( assuming I had a son, could be a girl! Oh no it won't! Im gonna choose the sex of my child! ) and say
" Dad! My new friend wants me to come to a Bible Camp! She said its fun! And Her parents said I can learn about Jesus, he loves everyone! "
" Oh No, I can't let you be exposed to that. "
" Why not? They said its fun! "
" You see, your new friend and her parents believe a book written 2000 years ago, about people who never existed, and a magic man in the sky, and they think they will all be saved! And anyone who disagrees with them will burn and suffer forever "
" Wow dad! That sounds silly! Are they stupid?"
" No! Of course not, but if you think they are, never tell them. They have a right to think whatever they want, as do you. You may not act on your dislike of them, or their way of thinking. But anyway lets go to the local Science Center or Natural history Museum and learn about real things. "
That's my mantra.
I won't keep it from them entirely, but I will tell them none of it is real, because its not.
I will teach them things like morality, acceptance, tolerance, science, evolution, that the earth goes around the sun, and that the earth is more than 6000 years old.
I don't want my children to go through life with the delusion of religion.
That's not a personal insult to anyone, if religion and praying gets you through your day, knock yourself out. I won't try to stop you.
I do not think this applies to everyone, I know people of no faith in several militarys around the world, and they can handle it without god or the need to think of a higher power.
Sometimes, I don't understand people of faith, I heard this years ago, forget from where, but it went something like this.
You see some poor womens husband getting killed in a car crash on the news and shes balling her eyes out, that her husband was just killed
" M'am, is there anything you'd like to say now that found out your husband died in the crash? "
" Oh its so terrible that he died in the crash! It must have been horrible
But its ok! He's with Jesus now! he's in a better place! "
.....................
" Then why are you crying? If your husband is dead and in some kind of uptopia with your savior, then why are you crying? Did you cry when he got a job promotion and a new car to?"
Anyway.
I think lots of the outrage you see from the louder Christians in America, is that many of them realize that Christians getting special Treatment in America is starting to come to an end in the next couple decades.
Last edited:
I agree completely with G51989.
I did get into trouble with my Christian sister-in-law after watching her pray with her son, my 5-year old nephew. I was wondering if he had asked her to do that, she said "no, we just do it every night"... I started a small debate about "freedom of religion" and it didn't go well... she wasn't able to tell me why an adult would make a child pray to a god that that child never chose consciously. We don't talk much anymore since I believe in that freedom of religion instead of implanting the idea of some god into a kids brain. It has nothing to do with "believing", it`s just a dull "I've been told so"...
I did get into trouble with my Christian sister-in-law after watching her pray with her son, my 5-year old nephew. I was wondering if he had asked her to do that, she said "no, we just do it every night"... I started a small debate about "freedom of religion" and it didn't go well... she wasn't able to tell me why an adult would make a child pray to a god that that child never chose consciously. We don't talk much anymore since I believe in that freedom of religion instead of implanting the idea of some god into a kids brain. It has nothing to do with "believing", it`s just a dull "I've been told so"...
That's my point, if they didn't stuff that stuff into children heads at the age of 5, and waited until they were mature adults. It would be a whole different world, because most people wouldn't buy it.
If you were 22 and never heard of god or the bible or jesus and found a bible in a bookstore, You wouldn't go " Hey Johnny! I found the meaning of the life over here? Adam and Eve, the sun goes around the earth! Yeah the arc and people living to 900 years old, jesus coming from the dead and a magic person in the sky named god, oh this! seems completely logical! ", You wouldn't take it as being serious, you'd chuck in the trash can. Because it doesn't make sense.
I think the vast majority of people from any religion are only religious because they were taught from a very young age that is the the only correct way to think. And you'll be punished after death if you don't.
Religion had a point a long time ago, but now we as humans are beginning to understand our surroundings, and how we came to be here. Faith is no longer needed.
Last edited:
The discussion is over as soon as someone brings in religion - how can you argument with someone who truly believes that a "god" is telling him/her/it to dislike gays?
We're just at the beginning of a time to see more and more governments ignore religious aspects, things will get better over time.
We're just at the beginning of a time to see more and more governments ignore religious aspects, things will get better over time.
This is not wholly true. If the person you love is a close blood relative, marriage is generally denied. What if I find I am in love with 2 people or more why am I denied the right to be legally bonded to them as well? This is discrimination as well. Marriage is not a right granted within the Constitution, therefor how can it be a right denied? Would polygamy be a protected class under the new rules or still a thing frowned and discriminated upon?
When it comes to benefits being supplied to a spouse by an employer, why are same sex partners granted benefits when non-married different gender partners are denied the same benefits by said employer not considered discrimination and a battle taken up on the basis of this discrimination? Is it because people don't want to see or acknowledge that discrimination occurs to hetero groups as well??
What is the criteria to be granted benefits by an employer if legal marriage is not the determining factor? Is it time together? How does one document that if no legal documents exists? In these cases what is in place to stop one from claiming partnership and getting benefits after nothing more than a few weeks together exist? And it has happened where groups like Disney have extended benefits to same sex partners yet denied the same benefits to different sex partners based upon the fact that the different sex partners were not married. Why the double standard? Is a double standard not considered discrimination or is it considered an anomaly and not discrimination, as I don't see activists groups taking up this battle?
Unfortunately being a white male hetero in this day, I have to face some of the largest losses of my rights as other groups obtain so called "equal" or "same" rights. Affirmative action has caused members of my group to lose job offers in the name of affirmative action. Yet this was stricken down as discrimination in a court why? My group has been denied the same protections when charges of discrimination are filed, as the findings have been determined that there is no such things as "reverse discrimination". Why do they call it this special name? if race is a protected class, then why is the white race not a class, but the norm against how other classes should be judged? I have been to other countries and denied rights based upon my color, religious affiliation, and sex so I do know and have experienced discrimination but it wasn't called that since I was not considered a part of the protected class.
This is why these battles are so heated as the group fighting for the rights they believe that are being denied, whether true or not (and this is a general statement I am not speaking to any specific right in this case) they fail to see that the granting of a right and said equality will generally in some way infringe upon the same sort of right for another group!
Why is it fair to call someone a name such as bigot because they don't agree with your stance but you don't feel it is fair for them to say how they feel about a group and judge them based upon this? How is one name calling better than another? Is it not hatred in both cases? Should stupidity and ignorance be protected classes as well??
I'm one of those who had not taken part in these sorts of threads on MacRumors until a couple of days ago. Honestly, I typically like to stay out of political and religious discussions because they just go round in circles and very rarely present the best side of people, and it's true in this one too. But...sometimes it just sucks you in because statements can get really silly (to put it mildly) and something has to be said.
I've never been able to wrap my head around people who's discomfort of gay men and women leads them to retreat into a shell of dislike and lashing out, be it based on religion or that they find something "icky" or both. Is it really worth it? The older I've gotten, the more I've learned that life can be nasty, brutish and very, very short. When we reach the inevitable screeching halt of life, having spent any amount of time worrying about who was sleeping consensually with whom and what constitutes a couple is so "not on the list".
I'd much rather discuss photography and other visual art, music, literature, languages, culture over great coffee, wine, whiskey and food with a table full of interesting minds. Irrational fear or Henri Cartier-Bresson, hatred or photographing a Rocky Mountain sunrise, bigotry or a pint of cider in the Square & Compass pub in Dorset, UK?
I know which I'd choose.
I've never been able to wrap my head around people who's discomfort of gay men and women leads them to retreat into a shell of dislike and lashing out, be it based on religion or that they find something "icky" or both. Is it really worth it? The older I've gotten, the more I've learned that life can be nasty, brutish and very, very short. When we reach the inevitable screeching halt of life, having spent any amount of time worrying about who was sleeping consensually with whom and what constitutes a couple is so "not on the list"
.I'd much rather discuss photography and other visual art, music, literature, languages, culture over great coffee, wine, whiskey and food with a table full of interesting minds. Irrational fear or Henri Cartier-Bresson, hatred or photographing a Rocky Mountain sunrise, bigotry or a pint of cider in the Square & Compass pub in Dorset, UK?
I know which I'd choose
.