Bush Bans Gay Marriage

[Dr Unne]

The word "racism" is completely inaccurate in this context. Prejudice or discrimination is the term you want.

[The Man]

I'm not saying it's necessarily correct, I'm just saying it's more convenient. Predjudiced would work too though, though it doesn't sound as accusatory.

[Peegee]

Using words to imply something false (racism in this case) is some sort of fallacy, even if it's just being obfuscating.

[Kawaii Ryûkishi]

Much like schoolkids falsely labeling things "gay" because they can't think of a more eloquent word.

Irony times five million.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Racism is just a branch off the tree of discrimination.

But like many of the "Young" generation, Wuppa made a good point in chat, mentioning that younger people are more willing to accept than the older population.

The majority of the population is like, 35 years and older...they make up like 65-70% of the population. But there are a select few who will teach their children that gay-marriage is wrong...I was told in class that it was wrong, but I grew up to accept that statement as discrimination.

But many of my friends who are atheists generally agree that what Bush is trying to do is idiotic. Those who generally are Christian are more likely to support this "ban." Notice that I said "more likely", not "all Christians".

As for homosexuals raising kids...who cares? No legitimate scientific study shows that homosexual parents have negative impacts on kids, nor does it promote them to being "gay" and such. All studies that were done show that homosexual parents can be just as good as heterosexual parents.

[Garland]

I don't know how others feel on the issue, but I know if someone is going to flame me, they had better use accurate insults.

[Big D]

OOC:

Actually, I'd rather there be no flaming of anyone, for any reason. If anyone disagrees with what another member says, then that's up to them and they're entitled to say so. However, no-one's entitled to attack other members for those reasons. Point to note: "I despise rabid fundamentalists who think that minorities should be shot" is not an attack on all Christians, or on people opposed to homosexual marriage. Likewise, it's not a personal flame to say "I've got no time for ultra-liberals who'd have us bown down and worship everyone who wants their differences to be given precedence." Those are merely statments of opinion. However, the minute that such a comment is directed at another person's post, it becomes a personal attack and this thread, as well as the flamer's Eyes on Each Other access, is in jeopardy. Keep it civil, keep it clean. We're here to debate and discuss, not argue and abuse. Thank you for your attention.

w00t.

[Tokki Wartooth]

I think it's kind of insulting that you put sexual-discrimination on the same level as racism and sexism. People can't help what nationality or gender they are born as, and until it's proven otherwiese, I do believe that people are able to choose their sexuality. But even in the unlikely event that they're not, sexuality isn't something you see as soon as you look at a person, like race and gender.

Also, I don't think it's a good defense to say that incestual marriages should be banned (and gay marriages not) because they produce defective children. Homosexual marriages produce no children at all, except through artifical insemination. And if an incestual couple really wanted healthy children, they could undergo the same procedure. So in the same light, if homosexual marriages are allowed, incestual marriages should be too. Love is love as you all say, right?

[Harmless Pigeon]

Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon
I equate this comment with racism

Originally posted by Dingo_Jellybean
No. It makes him just as bad as a racist.

Because that's still discrimination, and discrimination has no target.

Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon
I said that I equate that comment with racism (i.e. it's just as bad). I wasn't saying that Bush was a racist.

Originally posted by Garland
It's not racism. "Race"-ism

Garland, can you say Homer-ism? Thought not.

I didn't say he was racist. Then someone else explained it. Then I did too. You still don't understand.

[The Man]

It's pretty much been proven that people are unable to choose their sexual orientation. Think about it - given the vast majority of people who discriminate against homosexuals, who in their right mind would choose to be one unless it were natural for them? It's almost conclusively been linked to a genetic imbalance in chemicals of some sort, I believe. I don't know much about it beyond that.

[DocFrance]

Originally posted by The Man
It's pretty much been proven that people are unable to choose their sexual orientation. Think about it - given the vast majority of people who discriminate against homosexuals, who in their right mind would choose to be one unless it were natural for them? It's almost conclusively been linked to a genetic imbalance in chemicals of some sort, I believe. I don't know much about it beyond that.

I wouldn't say it's "pretty much been proven" yet. There's evidence that this might indeed be true, but no solid facts. It's like the so-called "obesity gene."

Besides, there are plenty of other things we humans do despite the opinions of the majority.

[The Man]

True. The evidence is quite strong, in any case. And I don't much like the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" attitude anyway

[Giga Guess]

Originally posted by DocFrance
If a man is allowed to marry another man, who is to say that a man can't also marry his sister, an eight-year-old girl, a cow, or even his favorite chair?

I find this VERY offensive. It simply falls back on the ideal that homosexuals are the same thing as pedophiles. First of all, an 8-Year-Old girl is not old enough to form a decision of this magnetude on her own. In my experience this excuse is just another way of people saying "It...it's just wrong...!" without seeming like a religious zealot who cannot think without reading the bible. I mean there is a massive difference between homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia.

I defy anyone to give me a reason why this is a bad thing without resorting to "morality" or the above argument. If one convincing argument is given, I'll never speak of this again.

Oh, and as for the "sanctity of marriage," that went down the crapper with Joe Millionaire, Brittney's quickie marriage, and about half a dozen other reality TV shows. Not to mention Anna Nicole Smith. I fail to see what we can do that hasn't been done or trumped by several straight marriages. And for the record most homosexuals, myself included, do not wish to step on the churches' toes. We simply wish to be recognized as a civil union. I truly fail to see the problem. (BTW, I don't have a problem with people who disagree with the concept. You are entitled to your opinion. It's a free country. However, people who act like I'm out to eat their children, or convert them into our fold offend me greatly.)

[Garland]

Harmless Pigeon, that wasn't the line I was referring to. My correction of the term racist was in reference to your post where you said:

"That person basically said that marriage is Christian, and that therefore only Christian people should get married. Not only is that blind discrimination, but it also is racist. What kind of logic is that?"

Sorry for the confusion. I was only pointing out that his comment didn't make him racist. Sorry if you're upset or anything though. Didn't mean anything by it.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Originally posted by The Man
It's pretty much been proven that people are unable to choose their sexual orientation. Think about it - given the vast majority of people who discriminate against homosexuals, who in their right mind would choose to be one unless it were natural for them? It's almost conclusively been linked to a genetic imbalance in chemicals of some sort, I believe. I don't know much about it beyond that.

It's not really a chemical imbalance, more like with some interior sagital area of the brain that tends to be wider in homosexuals...I forgot the full terminology...but it was an interesting read in a bio-statistics book.