If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Gay, lesbian, and bisexual Brigham Young University, make an "It gets better..{until you are excommunicated by your church, banned from your ward and disowned by your own family}" video   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 245
    More: Interesting, Brigham Young University, Wausau, bisexuals, DePaul, The Lookout, lesbians, gays  
•       •       •

8248 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Apr 2012 at 10:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-08 01:32:59 PM

Five Minute Standup: sonarbison: You don't get it. The pro-traditional marriage crowd does not see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. They see it as a moral issue. The reason they oppose same-sex marriage isn't because of animosity towards gays or a desire to "take away their rights", it's because they don't want to be legally obligated to accept behavior that they consider to be deviant and immoral. People oppose same-sex marriage for the same reason they'd oppose legalizing marriage between (sterile) incestuous couples.

Instead of attacking people, why don't you try listening to them instead? I don't agree with your stance on this issue, but I understand the reasoning behind it (which is why I don't get angry over it.) If you really want to understand this issue, you're going to have to take into account what really motivates the other side. Assuming terrible motivations on their part may make you feel righteous, but it does nothing to help further the discussion...


You don't get it. The pro-Nuremburg Laws crowd doesn't see getting rid of Jews as bigotry. It's a national security issue.


Opposing marriage equality is wrong. Comparing the opposition to marriage equality to the holocaust or slavery is asinine and offensive, akin to comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality.
How about we turn down the stupid rhetoric just a bit.
 
2012-04-08 01:36:13 PM
digitalpirate       
 
Smartest
Funniest
  2012-04-08 12:25:07 AM  
mama's_tasty_foods: For those of you who are not LDS- why the hell would you ever move to Utah?

I'm openly gay non-mormon who was raised in Detroit and live in Utah because:

1. I'm an aerospace engineer and Utah has a lot of aerospace industry.
2. I ski a lot and "this is the place" for die-hard skiiers(mormons will get the pun)
3. It's MUCH better than where I grew up, Detroit.
4. The culture in SLC is much different than the rest of the state.
4. I confident enough to not care what a bunch of Prozac popping people who think god lives on a planet called Kolob think about me.


Good for you. Sounds like you're a good guy.
 
2012-04-08 01:52:02 PM

rynthetyn: wedun: Johnny Savage: Cool. I was just asking. I had a good friend that was enticed (his words) into the community after college. He was miserable until he 'came out' to his friends that he wasn't gay. He married a chick about 5 years ago.

So he's one of those ex-gays i keep hearing about. If only people weren't trying to make the homosexual lifestyle feel so normative, innocent straight people wouldn't be getting forced to do it. Why do all of these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?

The real question that needs to be asked is whether you have to give the toaster back if somebody you recruit turns straight again.


No, but only because you've probably already covered it in sequins.

If I had to guess, and I do, the person in question is bisexual, hooked up with a dude but was then dragged by the various social trappings of "you're gay" that are irritating, depressing, and/or problematic. Things like:
-Anti-gay discrimination from heterosexuals
-gay stereotypes (like "must be flaming fashion designer" or "must go to pride rallies, constantly")
-Anti-bisexual discrimination by homosexuals (no really, there's a subdivide between the GL and the BT)

And finally, after one or more (presumably bad) breakups he realized that the men he was hooking up with weren't that interesting and that he had started projecting the emotional baggage gathered from previous boyfriends onto new boyfriends, and decided this must mean he's not actually gay, so he must be straight (because he's still convinced life is binary) and starts chasing girls again, finds one he thinks he can put up with, and settles down.

And hopefully they live happily ever after. Hopefully if he realizes he's still attracted to men he simultaneously realizes that shiat doesn't matter because he's happy with who and what he's got.

If not? Well, stupid people having stupid drama is kind of a big thing, so he'll fit right in.
 
2012-04-08 02:04:50 PM

eddiesocket: Opposing marriage equality is wrong. Comparing the opposition to marriage equality to the holocaust or slavery is asinine and offensive, akin to comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality.
How about we turn down the stupid rhetoric just a bit.



I said Nuremeberg Laws, dude, one of which banned marriage between Jews and Aryans. Sounds pretty similar to me. You wanna talk about slavery? Anti-miscegenation laws were defended using the exact same bullshiat rhetoric the anti-gay marriage crowd is spewing. You gonna tell me that slavery and Jim Crow are two different issues? If you can't see the difference between comparing a mild infringement of human rights to a strong one and comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, you're part of the problem.
 
2012-04-08 02:07:21 PM

Lumpmoose: Johnny Savage: coco ebert: That's the problem with the whole "It gets better" campaign. It often doesn't.

The problem with the campaign is that the vast majority of people (in general) don't give a damn what your sexual orientation is. It is even more pronounced amongst the people with whom you will associate upon 'coming out'.

It's pedantic biatching. If you're gay, be gay. It's not like you will have a hard time finding folks who will accept you.

That is precisely the point of the campaign. It's aimed at pre-18 students that are bullied in their schools. The limited scope of the campaign is to convince those kids to not commit suicide. If they just wait until adulthood, they will encounter a world that is just like you described: a world where they can live their lives the way the want and no one will care.

In school, many children do care--and they bully. The bullied queer kids need hope.


QFT. It's not, "life will someday be puppies and rainbows," it's "your shiatty parents, shiatty school, and shiatty town are not the alpha and omega of your life, eventually you can leave."
 
2012-04-08 02:55:08 PM

rocketpants: What a ward might look like:

[i.imgur.com image 595x446]


(seriously, WTF is a ward?)


It's...you know...like "a ward of the state". So it's like a servant, maybe. Or sexual slave. Oh, go look it up!
 
2012-04-08 03:13:23 PM
It's a good thing God and their church loved them enough to not make them feel hated and drive them towards suicide like it says in the bible.

You can really tell for how they relate all the love and support they received.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/419964_101506218 7 5357599_556967598_9189324_512672944_n.jpg
 
2012-04-08 03:18:42 PM
a ward is a subdivision of a stake

a stake is like a diocese, a ward is like a parish
 
2012-04-08 03:34:19 PM

eddiesocket: rocketpants: (seriously, WTF is a ward?)

It's...you know...like "a ward of the state". So it's like a servant, maybe. Or sexual slave. Oh, go look it up!



Wikipedia is nowhere near as entertaining.

/ leaving satisfied
 
2012-04-08 04:15:42 PM

sonarbison: You don't get it. The pro-traditional marriage crowd does not see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. They see it as a moral issue.


And I'll argue that realistically being against same sex marriage is a way for these people to pretend to care about morality, without actually having to do anything, or make waves in a way that might upset the social order.

Instead of attacking people, why don't you try listening to them instead?

I can only listen to most people for short periods of time before wanting to drink heavily, they're so stupid and inane in their beliefs.
 
2012-04-08 04:19:55 PM

gibbon1: sonarbison: ...
Instead of attacking people, why don't you try listening to them instead?

I can only listen to most people for short periods of time before wanting to drink heavily, they're so stupid and inane in their beliefs.


Here's why I'm sick of listening:
26.media.tumblr.com

(and you can substitute a lot of different things on that shirt)
 
2012-04-08 04:59:12 PM

SpookyEyes: The Church claims to accept gays and love gays (as long as they don't participate in icky gay sex) and then when members aren't in the public eye anymore use epithets, talk about HOMOSEXUALS as if they have some sort of horrifying, catching disease, and say enlightening things like "So and so is a lesbian...one night with a real man like me would cure her of that, har de har har!" (Yes, I've heard that multiple times).


Sadly, it's not just idle talk, either (not that it "only" being idle talk would mean we should accept it). Corrective rape is a very real thing, though thankfully not very prevalent in North America.
 
2012-04-08 04:59:31 PM
I guess I was a bit naive to expect a thoughtful, nuanced response to my commentary. Look, you can either make an effort to at least understand (not to agree with) my arguments, or you can go on calling me names and feeling self-righteous. It's your choice. I've taken the time to read essays and articles listing arguments in favor of same-sex marriage (which I understand, respect and regard as a legitimate position, although one I disagree with), why can't all of you do the same?

Every time the same-sex marriage debate comes up, people try to compare it to anti-miscegenation laws, and how people tried to use the same arguments for both. Though this argument is not without merit, I think Colin Powell put it best when he said: "Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."

A much better comparison would be our laws that prohibit incestuous marriage. Assuming the incestuous couple is infertile and cannot produce genetically-defective offspring, do our laws forbidding them to marry have a leg to stand on, other than the fact that we consider what they do to be "icky?" I mean, they're both consenting adults, why impose literal interpretations of the Old Testament on them? No, I'm not using the "slippery slope" argument to imply that legalized same-sex marriage will lead to legalized incest, but the same idea applies in both cases.

There's no reason why we can't have a mature discussion about this topic. If you're a smart person who's actually going to seriously consider what I have to say, I'd love to hear your response. If you're going to call me a bigot, homophobe or compare me to Hitler, don't bother.
 
2012-04-08 05:20:02 PM

sonarbison: I guess I was a bit naive to expect a thoughtful, nuanced response to my commentarythinly veiled attempt at legislating a selective exclusion to civil law to a minority others enjoy for no demonstrable reason.


FTFY Legislating against people's civil rights is what it is no matter the level of denial you steep yourself in.

sonarbison: A much better comparison would be our laws that prohibit incestuous marriage.


That actually has a documented scientific genetic risk. Non sequitur.

sonarbison: If you're going to call me a bigot, homophobe or compare me to Hitler, don't bother.


You don't get to frame the argument by redefining the vocabulary of hypocrisy given Mormons were once lynched for being who they were.

You're a bigot. Take a long look in the mirror and repeat that.

But it's clear you don't have the spine.
 
2012-04-08 05:33:59 PM

sonarbison: I guess I was a bit naive to expect a thoughtful, nuanced response to my commentary.


I'm basically a west coast boy. My roots are old pioneers and Scandinavians. As such the first two things that come to mind when dealing with what other people do,

First, Is this my business? Clearly other peoples relationships and sex livers are not my business. Because their effect on me is nil.
Second: Is there some sort of social duty? Clearly this has nothing to do with other people either. So not my business.

See? Gay people? Not my business. End of story.

Now you. You want to prevent gay people from having relationships with each other.

Is this my business? Not directly.
Social Duty? It is my social duty to prevent people like you from interfering with other peoples personal business.

See very clear, very easy. You're in the wrong and must be opposed.
 
2012-04-08 05:36:51 PM

Johnny Savage: Cool. I was just asking. I had a good friend that was enticed (his words) into the community after college. He was miserable until he 'came out' to his friends that he wasn't gay. He married a chick about 5 years ago.


eddiesocket: It's "odd" because it's stupid. Why would a straight person pretend to be gay and date (and presumably have sex with) guys for two years, unless of course he's trying to fool the landlord. A closeted gay person doesn't want to acknowledge that he's gay and fears rejection from friends and family. A straight person is not going to be kicked out on the street or ridiculed for saying he likes the opposite sex.
Johnny Savage's friend (if he exists at all) is bisexual, obviously. Capable of loving and being sexually attracted to both genders. This isn't rocket science.



There's two different things that could be going on here, assuming that everything really did happen just as Johnny Savage told it.

1. As you say, Johnny Savage's friend (let's call him "Bob") may have been bisexual. Keep in mind that anyone between 1 and 5 on the Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale can be considered bisexual. I don't have a lot of hard facts at my fingertips, but my impression is that most bisexuals are not "3s", meaning most bisexuals are attracted to both men and women but NOT EQUALLY. In modern parlance, you'll sometimes hear people describe themselves with terms like "lesbian-identified bisexual" or "straight-identified bisexual."

So Bob could have been a "mostly-straight" bisexual man (a 1 or 2 on the Kinsey scale) who made himself miserable by trying to live his life as an exclusively-gay man. That would not be QUITE as bad as a gay man trying to live life like a straight man, but it would be nearly as bad, because he would, in the end, be denying his true sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, bisexuals feel very real pressure from both the straight AND the LGBTQ community to "pick a side." There's a lot of belief that bisexuality doesn't "really exist" and that bisexuals are either homosexual or heterosexual people who are "confused" about their orientation or "in denial" about their homosexuality. In such a scenario it's not so hard to believe that Bob may have been pressured by gay friends to declare himself as gay, and later felt unhappy because he was expected to deny his true feelings when he fell in love with (or merely wanted to have sex with) a woman.


2. Even though our current best scientific understanding is that sexual orientation is largely fixed for most people at a very young age (even before birth, quite possibly), I do believe that sexual orientation can and does change over time for some people. I don't mean many people go from a 0 to a 6 or vice-versa, but I could see Bob going from a 2 to a 1, or a 3 to a 2, which might explain why he thought he was gay but later in life saw himself as heterosexual.

David Bowie is one rather well-known case of a man being bisexual for part of his life, but later in life seeing himself as exclusively heterosexual.

There's just still an awful lot about human sexuality we do not understand yet, and while "born this way" is true for the most part, I don''t think it completely explains everyone's experience.
 
2012-04-08 05:44:45 PM

sonarbison: No, I'm not using the "slippery slope" argument to imply that legalized same-sex marriage will lead to legalized incest


Yes, you are. You might as well say, "why do we allow 50 year olds to have sex with 18 year olds? The "age of consent" is totally arbitrary. If we allow that, we have to allow 50 year olds to have sex with 10 year olds".

sonarbison: but the same idea applies in both cases.


If you're going to say that me dating my boyfriend is analogous to me dating my mom, then you have signaled a marked lack of desire to have a "mature discussion on this topic".


Things you never hear:

"All my life growing up, I knew I was different. I was only attracted to blood relatives."
"Are you going to the Incest Pride Parade this weekend?"
"I dated my sister, but it didn't work out. Since I have no other siblings, there is no one else on the planet that I am sexually attracted to".

How many father/daughter or mother/son or brother/sister relationships do you know of? It's a stupid argument. People are indeed born gay. It is not, as Colin Powell suggests, "defined by behavior". Take any random gay and ask them when they knew they were gay. The lion's share of them (myself included) will say they were gay long before they ever had a gay sexual encounter, just as heterosexuals are straight long before they ever have a straight sexual encounter.

You're uncomfortable around dudes kissing and the buttsex. It makes you feel icky. That's your only objection. You didn't even bother offering a real objection, other than to ignorantly assert that it's a choice (which even if it is, so what, religious affiliation is a choice and it's illegal to discriminate on that basis) and then compare it to farking one's mom, a surefire way to signal you want to have an intelligent, respectful debate if there ever was one.
 
2012-04-08 05:48:28 PM

ciberido: There's just still an awful lot about human sexuality we do not understand yet, and while "born this way" is true for the most part, I don''t think it completely explains everyone's experience.


Fair enough, but Johnny Savage described his friend as "in the closet", meaning he was actively deceiving people in believing he was gay when he really wasn't, much as a closeted gay person would do. And that's just nonsensical.
 
2012-04-08 05:58:02 PM

sonarbison: I guess I was a bit naive to expect a thoughtful, nuanced response to my commentary. Look, you can either make an effort to at least understand (not to agree with) my arguments, or you can go on calling me names and feeling self-righteous. It's your choice. I've taken the time to read essays and articles listing arguments in favor of same-sex marriage (which I understand, respect and regard as a legitimate position, although one I disagree with), why can't all of you do the same?


Ok, fine.

What is your argument against same-sex marriage? On what basis would you deny it?

For me, the problem with "taking the time to read essays and articles listing arguments" opposed to same-sex marriage is that I HAVE read them. The arguments invariably boil down to:

1) it's icky
2) it's against my religion
3) same-sex couples can't have children
4) it goes against tradition
5) it will destroy marriage

But to my knowledge, none of these claims have ever been shown to be both plausible and persuasive. For example, neither (1) nor (2) are any basis for law in a secular, pluralistic society, so there's no point bothering with them no matter how true they may be. I would have to dismiss (4) for the same reason: cellular phones are also "nontraditional," yet we haven't banned them. (3) seems pretty weak considering how we don't require couples seeking marriage to prove their fertility. We allow men who have had vasectomies to get married, for example.

Having dispatched the first four, number 5 WOULD be a compelling argument, if you could prove it, but I haven't seen anyone do it yet. Since it is now the case that same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the world but not others, this should be your golden opportunity to demonstrate its deleterious effects.

So, what is argument number 6? I mean, you do think you have something new to offer that we haven't heard already, do you not?
 
2012-04-08 06:30:52 PM

eddiesocket: Take any random gay and ask them when they knew they were gay. The lion's share of them (myself included) will say they were gay long before they ever had a gay sexual encounter, just as heterosexuals are straight long before they ever have a straight sexual encounter.


I knew for certain that I was bisexual in the fourth grade. I had a crush on "Steve" (not his real name, not that it matters). His parents and my parents thought we made a cute couple. One day, right after one of our moms made some comment about how "adorable" we looked together, I realized that what I liked about Steve had nothing to do with him being a boy, and that if he were Stephanie rather than Steve I would've liked her just as much --- but our parent's wouldn't have been so charmed about our relationship then. That's when I knew for certain that I was bisexual and that I had better hide it from everybody else. Fourth grade.

I had suspicions earlier, when people in church talked about how terrible homosexuality was. I would feel guilty/nervous because I kinda knew that they didn't know they were talking about me, and I was worried I'd do or say something that would "let the cat out of the bag." But it wasn't really clear to me that my "sin" was bisexuality until I met Steve.

In high school I tried being exclusively gay. In college I tried to "go straight." (Yeah, I know that breaks the "LUG" stereotype a bit). For a year or two after college I tried to be exclusively gay again. Finally I quit trying to "pick a team" and "went back to being" bisexual, which is to say, I stopped trying to deny who I had been all along. And for the record, the harder I tried to be non-bisexual, the more miserable I was. Trying to be exclusively heterosexual was no more or less horrible for me than trying to be exclusively homosexual.

And that's why I'm kinda touchy about bisexuality and get very annoyed with gays who tell me I'm REALLY a lesbian (or "really" a straight) who's "confused" or "in denial" or "in transition" or whatever the bisexuality-erasing flavor of the month is.
 
2012-04-08 06:36:39 PM

Akambe: You're not excommunicated for being gay. You can be excommunicated for immoral (including homosexual) acts. You can have gay tendencies and serve in church leadership positions, even. Just don't promote, encourage, or condone gay sex (or premarital sex, or extramarital sex). Saying it's okay is going against the church, so if you think the church is wrong--jeeez, just get out, already.


Well, being a Mormon is a surer route to Hell than being a sodomite, so, relatively speaking, "it does get better".
 
2012-04-08 07:14:32 PM

UCFRoadWarrior: Are we still blaming Mormons for Prop 8 passing in California?

Even when the largest percentage of support came from the black and hispanic community.....


We don't blame Mormons for voting for Prop 8, we blame them for lying about it.
 
2012-04-08 07:15:27 PM

coco ebert: That's the problem with the whole "It gets better" campaign. It often doesn't.


Ya, it does... even if you get excommunicated and your parents ditch you, it gets better... it is incredibly nice to not have to worry about whether people actually love you for who you are or they simply love some imaginary concept of who they would like you to be. fwiw, it makes it much easier to love yourself.
 
2012-04-08 07:16:57 PM

ciberido: eddiesocket: Take any random gay and ask them when they knew they were gay. The lion's share of them (myself included) will say they were gay long before they ever had a gay sexual encounter, just as heterosexuals are straight long before they ever have a straight sexual encounter.

I knew for certain that I was bisexual in the fourth grade. I had a crush on "Steve" (not his real name, not that it matters). His parents and my parents thought we made a cute couple. One day, right after one of our moms made some comment about how "adorable" we looked together, I realized that what I liked about Steve had nothing to do with him being a boy, and that if he were Stephanie rather than Steve I would've liked her just as much --- but our parent's wouldn't have been so charmed about our relationship then. That's when I knew for certain that I was bisexual and that I had better hide it from everybody else. Fourth grade.

I had suspicions earlier, when people in church talked about how terrible homosexuality was. I would feel guilty/nervous because I kinda knew that they didn't know they were talking about me, and I was worried I'd do or say something that would "let the cat out of the bag." But it wasn't really clear to me that my "sin" was bisexuality until I met Steve.

In high school I tried being exclusively gay. In college I tried to "go straight." (Yeah, I know that breaks the "LUG" stereotype a bit). For a year or two after college I tried to be exclusively gay again. Finally I quit trying to "pick a team" and "went back to being" bisexual, which is to say, I stopped trying to deny who I had been all along. And for the record, the harder I tried to be non-bisexual, the more miserable I was. Trying to be exclusively heterosexual was no more or less horrible for me than trying to be exclusively homosexual.

And that's why I'm kinda touchy about bisexuality and get very annoyed with gays who tell me I'm REALLY a lesbian (or "really" a straight) who's "confu ...


I'm omnisexual... sure there are only two genders... but if there were more, I'd probably have sex with them too. :P
 
2012-04-08 07:27:31 PM

Johnny Savage: coco ebert: That's the problem with the whole "It gets better" campaign. It often doesn't.

The problem with the campaign is that the vast majority of people (in general) don't give a damn what your sexual orientation is. It is even more pronounced amongst the people with whom you will associate upon 'coming out'.

It's pedantic biatching. If you're gay, be gay. It's not like you will have a hard time finding folks who will accept you.


Spoken like a really well-intentioned straight person who didn't come from a religious upbringing. You have absolutely no idea what it's like to have real doubt in your head about whether or not your family would still love you if they actually knew who you were. Sure, there are plenty of non-bigoted people out there... but I've also lived in places where either religious people or klansmen (ya, they still exist and run towns in parts of Oklahoma) were the loudest constituents in the town. The vast majority of people don't give a damn what your sexual orientation is, but the vast majority of people also don't give a damn if some homophobs camp outside of a club and beat the shiat out of you on your way out. It'd be cool if it was a total non-issue, but it's disingenuous to pretend that nobody cares when there are still idiots like Santorum out there as serious contenders for presidents, organizations like NOM and the Mormon Church out there trying their best to teach everyone that you're evil, and you still end up having to dispel weird stereotypes (no I can't dance, I don't give a fark about fashion, and I have yet to see a single episode of Drag Race (I much prefer Archer)). It won't be an issue soon, and that'll be cool... but for right now, there are a lot of places where gay people can't get married, where you can get fired for being gay, where you can't put a picture of you and the person you love up on your desk like everyone else because they don't like the gender of the person you fell for. Pretending like we're already at a place of equality is bullshiat though, the majority of Californians even voted that heterosexuals should still get special rights just for them (apparently we need to protect heterosexuality like endangered animals... if we just gave everyone equal rights, apparently dogs would marry cats, up would be green, and everyone would be gay as heck.... something about nazi's riding dinosaurs in rivers of blood or whatever). So... as someone who still has friends who knew Matthew Shepard pretty well, as someone who has seen the Klan in action on a college campus (OSU Stillwater), and as someone who is relentlessly optimistic... we're on the right track to where it's a non-issue, but we aren't quite there yet.
 
2012-04-08 07:31:47 PM

ciberido: sonarbison: I guess I was a bit naive to expect a thoughtful, nuanced response to my commentary. Look, you can either make an effort to at least understand (not to agree with) my arguments, or you can go on calling me names and feeling self-righteous. It's your choice. I've taken the time to read essays and articles listing arguments in favor of same-sex marriage (which I understand, respect and regard as a legitimate position, although one I disagree with), why can't all of you do the same?

Ok, fine.

What is your argument against same-sex marriage? On what basis would you deny it?

For me, the problem with "taking the time to read essays and articles listing arguments" opposed to same-sex marriage is that I HAVE read them. The arguments invariably boil down to:

1) it's icky
2) it's against my religion
3) same-sex couples can't have children
4) it goes against tradition
5) it will destroy marriage

But to my knowledge, none of these claims have ever been shown to be both plausible and persuasive. For example, neither (1) nor (2) are any basis for law in a secular, pluralistic society, so there's no point bothering with them no matter how true they may be. I would have to dismiss (4) for the same reason: cellular phones are also "nontraditional," yet we haven't banned them. (3) seems pretty weak considering how we don't require couples seeking marriage to prove their fertility. We allow men who have had vasectomies to get married, for example.

Having dispatched the first four, number 5 WOULD be a compelling argument, if you could prove it, but I haven't seen anyone do it yet. Since it is now the case that same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the world but not others, this should be your golden opportunity to demonstrate its deleterious effects.

So, what is argument number 6? I mean, you do think you have something new to offer that we haven't heard already, do you not?



Ah! Now we're getting somewhere!

Yes, those are the main reasons people oppose same-sex marriage (there is at least one more: fear of legal repercussions for religious objections to homosexuality.) Notice that nowhere on that list do you find "animosity towards homosexuals." My intention was not to convince you that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legally recognized, just to illustrate the real reasons people oppose it. Hatred for gays is not one of them, at least in the vast majority of cases. You may dismiss those arguments as specious and invalid, but in no way do they implicate a desire to oppress a different group of people.

Oh, and the reason I used the "incestuous marriage" example was just to illustrate that those same exact arguments you listed are also the only basis to oppose legalized incestuous marriage (between infertile couples.) Would you be in favor of legalizing that too? If no, why not?
 
2012-04-08 07:53:14 PM

digitalpirate:
Homo:ones own kind
Phobia:fear of
Homophobia:fear of ones own kind
We need to retire the word "homophobia" like we retired rainbows and pastel Izod shirts. All 3 have become tired stereotypes.


Kind of like how "we should call it 'homophobia' because it has nothing to do with fear" has become a tired stereotype?

Nobody's going to take the 'We need to retire the word "homophobia"' proposal seriously until you offer an alternative term. We need to call it SOMETHING, and that something had better not have any more syllables than "homophobia." You've got five syllables max. Think of something.
 
2012-04-08 07:57:43 PM

sonarbison: ciberido: sonarbison: I guess I was a bit naive to expect a thoughtful, nuanced response to my commentary. Look, you can either make an effort to at least understand (not to agree with) my arguments, or you can go on calling me names and feeling self-righteous. It's your choice. I've taken the time to read essays and articles listing arguments in favor of same-sex marriage (which I understand, respect and regard as a legitimate position, although one I disagree with), why can't all of you do the same?

Ok, fine.

What is your argument against same-sex marriage? On what basis would you deny it?

For me, the problem with "taking the time to read essays and articles listing arguments" opposed to same-sex marriage is that I HAVE read them. The arguments invariably boil down to:

1) it's icky
2) it's against my religion
3) same-sex couples can't have children
4) it goes against tradition
5) it will destroy marriage

But to my knowledge, none of these claims have ever been shown to be both plausible and persuasive. For example, neither (1) nor (2) are any basis for law in a secular, pluralistic society, so there's no point bothering with them no matter how true they may be. I would have to dismiss (4) for the same reason: cellular phones are also "nontraditional," yet we haven't banned them. (3) seems pretty weak considering how we don't require couples seeking marriage to prove their fertility. We allow men who have had vasectomies to get married, for example.

Having dispatched the first four, number 5 WOULD be a compelling argument, if you could prove it, but I haven't seen anyone do it yet. Since it is now the case that same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the world but not others, this should be your golden opportunity to demonstrate its deleterious effects.

So, what is argument number 6? I mean, you do think you have something new to offer that we haven't heard already, do you not?


Ah! Now we're getting somewhere!

Yes, those are the main reasons p ...


Bullshiat. They hate gays and those are just the five top ways of rationalizing their hate. If these people are opposed to gay marriage, that's nice... nobody is asking them to marry a gay. I don't remember getting to give any feedback on whom they could marry. I'm in favor of getting the government out of marriage. Gays can already get married in plenty of churches, the government is the last bastion of this discrimination because the idiots have managed to codify it for all these years. The government, in the interest of streamlining courts, medical decisions, and estate issues, should simply create a nice civil status for everyone wherein you can create a reciprocal designation between any two people to name eachother as having estate rights, medical decision making rights, tax-burden sharing rights and the raft of legal protections currently afforded to couples participating in marriage. The reality right now is total poppycock, conservatives are all too happy to charge the gays higher taxes by not letting them marry, then use those very tax dollars to prop up failed religious institutions like marriage. The idea that monogamous gays and lesbians could destroy the sanctity of a (government-based) sacrament anywhere near as well as Kardashian, Britney Spears, Larry King, or Newt Gingrich have already done is just frickin laughable at best.
 
2012-04-08 07:57:59 PM

firefly212: ciberido: eddiesocket: Take any random gay and ask them when they knew they were gay. The lion's share of them (myself included) will say they were gay long before they ever had a gay sexual encounter, just as heterosexuals are straight long before they ever have a straight sexual encounter.

I knew for certain that I was bisexual in the fourth grade. I had a crush on "Steve" (not his real name, not that it matters). His parents and my parents thought we made a cute couple. One day, right after one of our moms made some comment about how "adorable" we looked together, I realized that what I liked about Steve had nothing to do with him being a boy, and that if he were Stephanie rather than Steve I would've liked her just as much --- but our parent's wouldn't have been so charmed about our relationship then. That's when I knew for certain that I was bisexual and that I had better hide it from everybody else. Fourth grade.

I had suspicions earlier, when people in church talked about how terrible homosexuality was. I would feel guilty/nervous because I kinda knew that they didn't know they were talking about me, and I was worried I'd do or say something that would "let the cat out of the bag." But it wasn't really clear to me that my "sin" was bisexuality until I met Steve.

In high school I tried being exclusively gay. In college I tried to "go straight." (Yeah, I know that breaks the "LUG" stereotype a bit). For a year or two after college I tried to be exclusively gay again. Finally I quit trying to "pick a team" and "went back to being" bisexual, which is to say, I stopped trying to deny who I had been all along. And for the record, the harder I tried to be non-bisexual, the more miserable I was. Trying to be exclusively heterosexual was no more or less horrible for me than trying to be exclusively homosexual.

And that's why I'm kinda touchy about bisexuality and get very annoyed with gays who tell me I'm REALLY a lesbian (or "really" a straight) wh ...


Captain Jack?
 
2012-04-08 07:59:12 PM

ciberido: digitalpirate:
Homo:ones own kind
Phobia:fear of
Homophobia:fear of ones own kind
We need to retire the word "homophobia" like we retired rainbows and pastel Izod shirts. All 3 have become tired stereotypes.

Kind of like how "we should call it 'homophobia' because it has nothing to do with fear" has become a tired stereotype?

Nobody's going to take the 'We need to retire the word "homophobia"' proposal seriously until you offer an alternative term. We need to call it SOMETHING, and that something had better not have any more syllables than "homophobia." You've got five syllables max. Think of something.


DBS, Dickbag Syndrome, generally characterized by people who feel the need to feed their own self-esteem by acting in a predatory manner towards those with minor differences.
 
2012-04-08 08:00:02 PM

eddiesocket: firefly212: ciberido: eddiesocket: Take any random gay and ask them when they knew they were gay. The lion's share of them (myself included) will say they were gay long before they ever had a gay sexual encounter, just as heterosexuals are straight long before they ever have a straight sexual encounter.

I knew for certain that I was bisexual in the fourth grade. I had a crush on "Steve" (not his real name, not that it matters). His parents and my parents thought we made a cute couple. One day, right after one of our moms made some comment about how "adorable" we looked together, I realized that what I liked about Steve had nothing to do with him being a boy, and that if he were Stephanie rather than Steve I would've liked her just as much --- but our parent's wouldn't have been so charmed about our relationship then. That's when I knew for certain that I was bisexual and that I had better hide it from everybody else. Fourth grade.

I had suspicions earlier, when people in church talked about how terrible homosexuality was. I would feel guilty/nervous because I kinda knew that they didn't know they were talking about me, and I was worried I'd do or say something that would "let the cat out of the bag." But it wasn't really clear to me that my "sin" was bisexuality until I met Steve.

In high school I tried being exclusively gay. In college I tried to "go straight." (Yeah, I know that breaks the "LUG" stereotype a bit). For a year or two after college I tried to be exclusively gay again. Finally I quit trying to "pick a team" and "went back to being" bisexual, which is to say, I stopped trying to deny who I had been all along. And for the record, the harder I tried to be non-bisexual, the more miserable I was. Trying to be exclusively heterosexual was no more or less horrible for me than trying to be exclusively homosexual.

And that's why I'm kinda touchy about bisexuality and get very annoyed with gays who tell me I'm REALLY a lesbian (or "really" a ...


I'm a different kind of pirate.
 
2012-04-08 08:05:26 PM

firefly212: Bullshiat. They hate gays and those are just the five top ways of rationalizing their hate.


...what a hater sounds like.
 
2012-04-08 08:05:48 PM

firefly212: ciberido: digitalpirate:
Homo:ones own kind
Phobia:fear of
Homophobia:fear of ones own kind
We need to retire the word "homophobia" like we retired rainbows and pastel Izod shirts. All 3 have become tired stereotypes.

Kind of like how "we should call it 'homophobia' because it has nothing to do with fear" has become a tired stereotype?

Nobody's going to take the 'We need to retire the word "homophobia"' proposal seriously until you offer an alternative term. We need to call it SOMETHING, and that something had better not have any more syllables than "homophobia." You've got five syllables max. Think of something.

DBS, Dickbag Syndrome, generally characterized by people who feel the need to feed their own self-esteem by acting in a predatory manner towards those with minor differences.


From dictionary. com:
ho·mo·pho·bi·a [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA
noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

The word no longer has to mean a literal fear. It's evolved to mean a general distaste of, or to use dictionary.com's word, antipathy towards gays.
 
2012-04-08 08:06:26 PM

sonarbison: I guess I was a bit naive to expect a thoughtful, nuanced response to my commentary. Look, you can either make an effort to at least understand (not to agree with) my arguments, or you can go on calling me names and feeling self-righteous. It's your choice. I've taken the time to read essays and articles listing arguments in favor of same-sex marriage (which I understand, respect and regard as a legitimate position, although one I disagree with), why can't all of you do the same?


You haven't shown up again in this thread since you made this post, so I don't know if you're still around, but I'm going to say this. That this was your response shows that you're not actually interested in good faith dialogue with others, you're only interested in complaining that other people don't listen to you.

I responded to you by listing off just a small excerpt of the messages I heard growing up in conservative Christian churches and religious right circles over the years, messages that are very real, messages that show that yes, I understand the arguments, I've had them pounded into my head day in and day out for the better part of my life. I expressed my feeling that it's a miracle that I grew up hearing those messages about how I'm an abomination and don't hate myself today.

Maybe instead of whining about how other people don't want to listen to you, you should take some time and actually try to listen to what we're saying. A lot of us, myself included, know exactly what your arguments are because we grew up in that world and we lived it. We lived it, and unlike some others we got out alive to live to tell just how destructive your message actually is. Don't assume that we're dismissing your arguments because we don't want to listen, and try to listen yourself instead of playing the victim.
 
2012-04-08 08:07:27 PM

sonarbison: Oh, and the reason I used the "incestuous marriage" example was just to illustrate that those same exact arguments you listed are also the only basis to oppose legalized incestuous marriage (between infertile couples.) Would you be in favor of legalizing that too? If no, why not?


Already asked and answered above. And please stop comparing me to a literal mother farker and then claim that I'm the hater.
 
2012-04-08 08:13:55 PM

sonarbison: firefly212: Bullshiat. They hate gays and those are just the five top ways of rationalizing their hate.

...what a hater sounds like.


Spot on... that's one of the big sticking points where I disagree with Obama... the government can't have both civil unions and marriage... there can't be a "separate but equal" for gays... it didn't work with anything else, and it's not going to work here. I have no qualms with religious people who will not believe in my marriage, what they believe is not at all relevant to my marriage... where I get frustrated is when they try to codify what they believe into a whole raft of "special rights" for heterosexual people. Even if I accepted the tradition (of 50 percent divorce rates), the totally bogus child-related basis (we allow old people to marry all the time), I'd still be left with a question of whether or not government intervention (or lack thereof) substantially effects the long-term viability of heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage. Ultimately, that question of the interest of government intervention leads me to conclude that government should either let everyone marry or nobody marry as the outcome for heterosexuality in general, and of heterosexual marriage, would not be significantly altered by whatever choices the government makes.
 
2012-04-08 08:16:03 PM

ciberido: So, what is argument number 6? I mean, you do think you have something new to offer that we haven't heard already, do you not?


sonarbison: Yes, those are the main reasons people oppose same-sex marriage (there is at least one more: fear of legal repercussions for religious objections to homosexuality.) Notice that nowhere on that list do you find "animosity towards homosexuals."


So you admit those five are bogus. Great. Moving on...


sonarbison: fear of legal repercussions for religious objections to homosexuality.


What the hell does that mean? What "legal repercussions" are you afraid of, and what exactly do you mean by "religious objections to homosexuality" in that context? Do you mean that you're afraid that a gay couple in Utah would sue the LDS church for refusing to marry them? Are you afraid of big, studly men in tasteful pink jackboots marching into your church and forcing two women to kiss each other at gunpoint? Do you imagine your Elder being arrested and dragged off in handcuffs because his sermon denouncing homosexuality was legally classified as hate speech?

Are your "objections" ACTIONS that you or some other Mormon would take, or are they WORDS you might say, or what? Until you specify what some of these "religious objections" might be which could result in "legal repercussions," this argument is so nebulous as to lack all meaning.


sonarbison: My intention was not to convince you that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legally recognized


So you're just completely wasting my time, then, is that it? If you're not arguing that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legally recognized, then what the hell ARE you trying to say?


sonarbison: You may dismiss those arguments as specious and invalid, but in no way do they implicate a desire to oppress a different group of people.


That's it? Your entire point is "We're really not mean, hateful people"?

Well, great. Duly noted.

Except I care about actions, not desires. I don't give a flying fig whether you oppress me with a scowl on your face or a smile and a song in your heart. I don't care if you think it's for my own good. I just want you to stop oppressing me, period.
 
2012-04-08 08:17:12 PM

firefly212: sonarbison: firefly212: Bullshiat. They hate gays and those are just the five top ways of rationalizing their hate.

...what a hater sounds like.

Spot on... that's one of the big sticking points where I disagree with Obama... the government can't have both civil unions and marriage... there can't be a "separate but equal" for gays... it didn't work with anything else, and it's not going to work here. I have no qualms with religious people who will not believe in my marriage, what they believe is not at all relevant to my marriage... where I get frustrated is when they try to codify what they believe into a whole raft of "special rights" for heterosexual people. Even if I accepted the tradition (of 50 percent divorce rates), the totally bogus child-related basis (we allow old people to marry all the time), I'd still be left with a question of whether or not government intervention (or lack thereof) substantially effects the long-term viability of heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage. Ultimately, that question of the interest of government intervention leads me to conclude that government should either let everyone marry or nobody marry as the outcome for heterosexuality in general, and of heterosexual marriage, would not be significantly altered by whatever choices the government makes.


Obama is fine with gay marriage. He refuses to defend DOMA, he spoke out against Prop 8. The rumors are he's weighing the political consequences in swing states before declaring support of marriage equality before the election. He's not a hater, he's just a coward.
 
2012-04-08 08:28:59 PM

eddiesocket:
Obama is fine with gay marriage. He refuses to defend DOMA, he spoke out against Prop 8. The rumors are he's weighing the political consequences in swing states before declaring support of marriage equality before the election. He's not a hater, he's just a coward.


I don't see that as cowardly, I see that as political realism. Sure, I'd love it if he declared his support of marriage equality before the election, but I'd rather that he not do something that is going to encourage the other side to get out and vote, or that could cause conservative Democrats to switch sides. The consequences of Obama not winning reelection when so many of the Supreme Court justices are as old as they are could be catastrophic for this country. I'd rather Obama ensure reelection first because the stakes are too high if he loses.
 
2012-04-08 08:29:06 PM

eddiesocket: firefly212: sonarbison: firefly212: Bullshiat. They hate gays and those are just the five top ways of rationalizing their hate.

...what a hater sounds like.

Spot on... that's one of the big sticking points where I disagree with Obama... the government can't have both civil unions and marriage... there can't be a "separate but equal" for gays... it didn't work with anything else, and it's not going to work here. I have no qualms with religious people who will not believe in my marriage, what they believe is not at all relevant to my marriage... where I get frustrated is when they try to codify what they believe into a whole raft of "special rights" for heterosexual people. Even if I accepted the tradition (of 50 percent divorce rates), the totally bogus child-related basis (we allow old people to marry all the time), I'd still be left with a question of whether or not government intervention (or lack thereof) substantially effects the long-term viability of heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage. Ultimately, that question of the interest of government intervention leads me to conclude that government should either let everyone marry or nobody marry as the outcome for heterosexuality in general, and of heterosexual marriage, would not be significantly altered by whatever choices the government makes.

Obama is fine with gay marriage. He refuses to defend DOMA, he spoke out against Prop 8. The rumors are he's weighing the political consequences in swing states before declaring support of marriage equality before the election. He's not a hater, he's just a coward.


It's one of the times where I think it doesn't really matter... whether it's Obama or Romney, on this one... they'll just do whatever the pollsters tell them to.
 
2012-04-08 08:46:24 PM

firefly212:
It's one of the times where I think it doesn't really matter... whether it's Obama or Romney, on this one... they'll just do whatever the pollsters tell them to.


And this is where I say again, judicial appointments are huge, a number of Supreme Court justices are really old, and Obama and Romney aren't going to be appointing anywhere near the same sort of judges to the court. It definitely matters who gets elected.
 
2012-04-08 08:58:37 PM

rynthetyn: firefly212:
It's one of the times where I think it doesn't really matter... whether it's Obama or Romney, on this one... they'll just do whatever the pollsters tell them to.

And this is where I say again, judicial appointments are huge, a number of Supreme Court justices are really old, and Obama and Romney aren't going to be appointing anywhere near the same sort of judges to the court. It definitely matters who gets elected.


Exactly. The next president will replace Ginsburg and Scalia, at least. Probably Kennedy, too. We need this win or marriage equality is lost for a generation or more, in addition to health care, corporate personhood, etc.
 
2012-04-08 09:12:50 PM

eddiesocket: rynthetyn: firefly212:
It's one of the times where I think it doesn't really matter... whether it's Obama or Romney, on this one... they'll just do whatever the pollsters tell them to.

And this is where I say again, judicial appointments are huge, a number of Supreme Court justices are really old, and Obama and Romney aren't going to be appointing anywhere near the same sort of judges to the court. It definitely matters who gets elected.

Exactly. The next president will replace Ginsburg and Scalia, at least. Probably Kennedy, too. We need this win or marriage equality is lost for a generation or more, in addition to health care, corporate personhood, etc.


Breyer's getting up there too, he's 73. I'm going to wager that Scalia is either going to drop dead in office or else try to hang in there to wait to retire until a Republican is elected POTUS--though, given his massive ego, he may never retire and will end up dropping dead during oral arguments one day.
 
2012-04-08 09:15:08 PM

eddiesocket:

Exactly. The next president will replace Ginsburg and Scalia, at least. Probably Kennedy, too. We need this win or marriage equality is lost for a generation or more, in addition to health care, corporate personhood, etc.


If Scalia got replaced on the court by a Liberal. . .you'd see the ACLU et-al coming out of the woodwork for test cases to overturn some 5-4 precedents.

The very idea of President Obama getting to name Scalia's replacement makes me smile.
 
2012-04-09 12:33:35 AM
not that anyone will read this, but I feel the need to contribute, possibly because my little brother, who's out, is getting married to his long, long ... long-time boyfriend. He grew up in a supportive family, even a supportive church(catholic, no less). Parental units went a little crazy at first, but the teachers in the family(older siblings) pressured them into actually looking at the science behind all the genetics proving that he didn't have a choice in the matter. Do I think that doing the same to religious fundies will work? No. They could have, and have had, the scientific proof laid out before them, and they will decry that it is still a choice, a demon possession, or some such.

Back to my original point in actually posting.


when a group uses their moral objections as a basis for the laws of the land, which is strictly prohibited by the constitution, that is the basest abuse of power, either corruption of civic officials or buying the vote(prop 8). If your beliefs stray into my life(straight, by the way), or the lives of my loved ones, and thereby affect them or myself in some physical way, you've crossed the line and that should be opposed with whatever legal means can be put against you.

There. Short and sweet.

personally, I'd like to walk into one of the LDS Halls, listen for a bit, then cut a big fart. "So, that's your argument, in a nutshell?", and walk out.

/violence is the last card to be played in the game of diplomacy, not the first
//but don't forget you have that card to play
 
Displayed 45 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report