Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?

Opposition To Gay Marriage Is Everything Society Should Be Fighting Against

by Samuel Horti
5 February 2013 37 Comments

The argument for and against gay marriage has once again become a major talking point, and anyone speaking out against it needs to have a major reappraisal of their opinions and attitudes...

Nick Clegg’s recently planned comments about those who oppose gay marriage have again brought the issue front and centre. England is, all too slowly, making progress, with David Cameron pledging that the coalition will legalise gay marriage before the next election: a move that could play out very well for both parties politically. The existence of opposition on this issue should not be surprising (there are plenty of bigots – or whatever you want to call them – floating around), but the fact that some of this opposition comes from people in government – people who make decisions about my life and yours – is cause for concern.

As far as any civilised society is concerned, the debate is over. Arguments against same-sex marriage are always illogical, and are fuelled by personal prejudice rather than informed reasoning. If you think you’ve got a good one, then you haven’t. Type it into google and I have no doubt that you’ll be greeted with hundreds or valid refutations. The most popular argument (and the only one I will mention for time’s sake) is that marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman, and you can’t just redefine it.

Imagine! Redefining something to improve society! Oh the humanity! This is the kind of status quo bullshit that could’ve been used to oppose our greatest steps forward throughout history (didn’t those pesky women understand that voting is something that only men could do?). In all seriousness, quoting a definition as a reason that we should not be able to create a more just and inclusive society is both archaic and incredibly stupid.


Church Exempted From Gay Marriage? Oh Please Piss Off

Obama Is Right To Be For Gay Marriage, Religion Has Nothing To Do With It

One of the most vocal, and largest, opposition groups is the ‘Coalition for Marriage’, whose website blatantly misrepresents the facts and disregards scientific evidence. They claim that the public are against gay marriage (despite the results of numerous polls), and have the gall to write that the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father (see what the evidence actually says on the Australian Psychological Association’s website).They have over 600,000 signatures on their online petition to ‘defend traditional marriage’ (that’s one way of putting it), including those of 26 Labour and Conservative MPs.

26 MPs. That is 26 people who are making decisions, as I said before, about my life and yours, who don’t believe that people should have the right to marry simply because they commit the crime of being attracted to people of the same sex. Now I’m not saying that people who oppose same sex marriage should be stripped of their parliamentary membership (everyone is entitled to their opinion), but they should at least be named and shamed (click the link in the last paragraph for the full list). Because opposition to gay marriage showcases everything that we, as a society should be fighting against.

While it’s true that MPs cannot be angels, and are bound to hold some pretty worthless opinions somewhere in their repertoire, this one in particular is extremely meaningful. It suggests that for these people, reason – which should always be our societal arbiter – can be replaced with hysterics in order to oppress a minority group. It suggests that these people believe that social equality is not a worthy end if the boat gets rocked in the means – something, I think, that we should all abhor. We pride ourselves on being an accepting nation, a nation full of freedom and equality, and yet we have elected officials who support a movement that spits in the face of liberty. It is incredibly worrying and I hope that these officials are found out in the next election.

When gay marriage is, at last, introduced in England, it will be cause for celebration. We will be able to say that we have – at least in law – shrugged off a lot of the stigma associated with homosexuality, and it will cement the fact that we do not take moral advice from the pages of scripture and we are proud of it. I’d like to borrow my closing remarks (with no intention of giving them back) from a piece written by Ian Stubbs, Vicar of Glossop Parish Church in Derbyshire, which was published on the Independent’s website earlier this week. “I shall similarly rejoice and weep the first time I officiate at the wedding of a gay couple”, Mr Stubbs said, “whether the Church sanctions it or not.”

If you like it, Pass it on

image descriptionCOMMENTS

Skin Ed 12:26 pm, 6-Oct-2012

"You just can't redefine marriage" says the Church of England.... Wot? Like Henry VIII did when he split from Rome so he could divorce?

Jason 6:03 pm, 6-Oct-2012

Democracy is about represemtation of the people. Where a significant portion of the population is against gay marriage, why does it appall you that their view is represented? A foolish article. And I'm pro gay marriage.

JACK 6:27 pm, 6-Oct-2012


myleftboot 7:05 pm, 6-Oct-2012

Why do you care so much? Its a pathetic irrelevance. The gay lobby is far too over represented, Sharia Law has more support per head capita in a nationwide referendum, i'm willing to bet!

Samuel Horti 11:10 pm, 6-Oct-2012

Jason, would you say that, because we have racist members of the public, we wouldn't be appalled if an MP made a racist slur? And myleftboot, I care about gay marriage because it's a matter of social equality, but I care more about the message behind the opposition - that was the whole point of the article.

Charles Ballard 9:21 am, 7-Oct-2012

I can make this real simple for you.... When you giveyourself to God , you exchange your works for Grace. Turning your back on the world, sin, and Earth. And every time you turn towards sin, its a sign you do not believe in Gods power. And Apostle John said.. show me your faith in belief, not in work. Any Christian who says he is saved and lets sin turn him towards a sinner is Self Righteous and hell bound. And when a saved person dies, they havento atone for these works, they are saved from condemnation by Jesus blood, but they have to atone for their works and the bible says their are believers with no rewards in heaven. Prayer is your only option if you want to be holy, You teach the unholy, forgive the repentent, and Disciple the saved. If you believe that the government should punish the commiters of these crimes or exhalt them, you are being judged more harshly than they are. So either show you are saved and trust in the lord, or shut up, once you open your mouth, you are not speaking as a person of god, but as those who were cast into stuoor with no ears and eyes, for you had god before you and did not recognize him. If you do not believe a fetus will be avenged by the lord, you have no faith, therefore no salvation, The believer who outlaws moral crime, is no different than the moral sinner. So argue that point, start with Romans 11 and when you see it the right way, you will not be able to argue with me.

Sharpydufc 11:07 am, 7-Oct-2012

@myleftboot - apart from the fact that the majority of the population support gay marriage in the uk (approx 62% of 65 million people) and at the absolute highest figure 40% of Muslims support sharia law in the uk (2.8 mill pop.). It's clear that the only lobby over represented are people with computers unable to fact check before they run their mouth. @jason - isn't this the point of the Sab? It's an article with an opinion. You don't have to agree. But feel free to write a rebuttal, which we both know you won't.

Jason 6:21 pm, 7-Oct-2012

@Samuel, the equivalent of a racist slur would be a homophobic slur, which is not relevant to your article. @Sharpydufc, what is there to rebutt? I commented on the article with my opinion that the article was foolish. You do not have to agree. Its ok, I'll wipe your dummy for you.

Samuel Horti 10:02 pm, 7-Oct-2012

@Jason, I was just taking what you said to its natural conclusion. You said that because there are voters who hold this view, we shouldn't be annoyed that there are politicians who, in turn, hold the same opinion. This means you'd have to accept racist, homophobic, sexist MPs (considering there are members of the public who hold these viewpoints) - something I don't think we should do.

Skin Ed 11:04 pm, 7-Oct-2012

@ Charles, wot, another god-botherer quoting from the collection of fairy tales that is the bible? Tell ya what mate, prove to me how you live your life entirely to its teachings, including the Book of Leviticus, and then you can tell me what's what.

Jason 8:49 am, 8-Oct-2012

@Samuel, societal views change over time. What is considered sexist, racist or homophobic now is different to what it was in the last 100 years where marital rape did not exist, woman and blacks could not vote, and homophobia was not an understood concept. 2500 years ago homosexuality was accepted by the Greeks but so was paedophilia. In a democratic society you should not supress ideas, you should allow them to be defeated in public. Also you seem to assume that everyone who does not vote for gay marriage is a homophobe. I don't think thats the case. If someone were to say they believed gays already had equality through civil unions and it was inaproppriate to legislate for the Catholic church to accept gay Marriage despite the pope's objections, I would say this is a rational and non-homophobic argument.

Kane 8:56 am, 8-Oct-2012

The debate shouldn't be whether to allow homosexuals to marry, the debate should be, why the f*ck does anyone want to get married?!

Samuel Horti 11:00 am, 8-Oct-2012

@Jason, at no point in my article did I say that the MPs who hold this view should leave Parliament (I said the opposite), I just said they should be named and shamed. The same way that a racist MP should be named and shamed, or one who dodges taxes. You seem to hold the view that we should just switch off and let the MPs do whatever they want. It may not be overtly homophobic, but there are no reasonable arguments against gay marriage that cannot be defeated (hence the article). And the legislation is not forcing the Catholic church to do anything, it's just making the process legal. What is the problem with that? If the Catholic church wishes to remain behind the times casting homosexuality as a sin, it might finally get reasonable Catholics to wake up to the fact that they're better than the church they support.

Samuel Horti 11:01 am, 8-Oct-2012

@Jason At least we seem to agree that legalising gay marriage is a good thing. I just think that MPs who hold stupid viewpoints should be exposed, you do not. I guess that's just a minor quibble but at least we agree on the main issue.

jerms 6:24 pm, 5-Feb-2013

You know that the biggest concentration of wealth in the world lies in the hands of bigots who are very much against liberty, and particularly oppse gay marriage. They also despise western Pop-music, women showing their faces in public, women drivers, women voting and women working. Hello Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, They funded Obama's rise to power, they're funding the extremists in Northern Mali, they have bought and paid for the Iraqi parliament... and the UK parliament. Not till we know and understand how democratic politics are sold to the highest bidder, and until we understand who that bidder is will we truly begin to understand the broad sweep of history.

Dave 7:31 pm, 5-Feb-2013

Dumb question maybe but whats the difference between a civil partnership and marriage ? Apologies for my ignorance. Best I can see, marriage is something that has some religious angle and a civil partnership is purely, err, civil. there appears to be some getouts for various religious bodies to not get done over refusing to perform same sex marriages, are there any religions that actually go out and say "any holes a goal" or similar ( apols to all those nonflesh stickers ). Cheers D

Nick 1:39 am, 6-Feb-2013

I don't have any problem with what poofs do or how they do it, as long as I don't have to see it, and if they want to wed, why not? Out of my numerous aunts and uncles, sister and brother, there were 8 weddings, 7 of which failed. Of those 7, 4 were due to infidelity, and the other 3 were because they couldn't be bothered any more. The only marriage to work was my Mum & Dad's, ironically enough, as my Dad was the only one out of all of them to die young. So the one marriage which was good, ended anyway. So hpw can you cheapen marriage any more than that? And the thing that makes me pro gay marriage is the idea that politicians the world over are using it as a major political football. Nothing better to do? Fix the schools, hospitals and roads first you cunts! Stop trying to win the redneck vote with something less important.

Samuel 10:17 am, 6-Feb-2013

@Dave, there isn't much difference, civil partnerships aren't recognised in some countries (which could have some consequences if you had to go to hospital abroad, for example). Marriage is not religious, you can have secular marriage. It's more the fact that if gay people want to marry, why should they be denied? Even if there isn't much difference on paper, the social difference is huge, as people see marriage as the 'highest form' of union between two people.

LoneWolf 12:32 pm, 6-Feb-2013

I couldn't care less if Gay people want to get married, what I don't agree with is forcing a Church or a particular Priest etc to preside over a gay marriage if it is against their beliefs. Forcing someone to do something against their beliefs is surely not something democratic Britain should be advocating, particularly when there are other options open? I'm not religious myself and see nothing wrong with getting married in a registry office.

Beth Kennedy 2:01 pm, 6-Feb-2013

I propose the UK follows Denmark's example. Basically, we should allow the priests to have their own choice. Some may not choose to hold gay marriages but others will. I wrote a news story on my blog about this:

Simple Simon 3:00 pm, 6-Feb-2013

Lonewolf - spot on and this for me is the major issue here. When the rights of a minority force others to act against their beliefs, then that is very wrong indeed. A muslim man should not be able to dictate whether Christmas tree lights are put up in a prodominently Christian town. A homosexual couple should not be able to force a priest to marry them against his beliefs. They should not be able to sue a B&B owner who turns them away because she is a devout Christian, they should not be able to sue a cake maker who is devout Christian because he will not make them a wedding cake. This is the problem. Unless we bow to every whim of minorities then there is outrage... where does that leave those of us who do not agree forcing your views on others is acceptable?

LoneWolf 3:23 pm, 6-Feb-2013

SS - the BandB story I did think was ridiculous at the time. Plenty of other places to go in the area with more relaxed views surely?! I am sure there are gay priests etc who would be only too happy to perform a marriage ceremony between 2 gay people, however where a party does not want to they shouldn't be forced to. It's not either or for me, there are plenty of options available to demonstrate your commitment to someone without resorting to forcing a priest to conduct a religious service against their will and religious beliefs, which potentially would be in beach of their human rights?

Dave 6:12 pm, 6-Feb-2013

@Samuel - thanks for the response, so pretty much just words then ? as far as I can see, same sex 'marriage' isn't legal/legitamized/allowed in the vast majority of countries around the world - hell, they cant even have a standard set of rules in one country ( the US ). if two people want to sign up to some legal frame work where they're seen as a single unit, bet of luck. I dont see why people get hung up on calling it marriage, civil partnership or Derek the Purple Hedgehog. Civil Partnerships ( in the UK at least ) are even more restrictive than marriages, in that CPs are only for two people of the same sex, a 'normal' hetro couple can't get one.

Nick 2:12 am, 7-Feb-2013

The Catholic Church should be forced to marry gays. After all, they've been forcing themselves on choirboys for centuries. A bit of their own medicine.

k.hardman 8:35 pm, 7-Feb-2013

I am not against Gay people per se but I pose a simple but crude question How do they consummate the marriage ? I am not being funny but serious Per anus or Per dildo is not sexual intercourse. The people who shout loudly about their support for gay marriage have no stronger arguments than those who oppose it. Basically it is "Because we don't want to be different or treat differently " The trouble is we are different and just have to accept it without the theatricals. What I find hard to grasp is why some male gays want to artificially impregnate women with their sperm so they can father a child and some gay females will allow themselves to be so impregnated .. The debate has become political and it is well known that several m.p s hide their true sexuality behind marriages of convenience I cannot accept that this governments decision is a true representation of the people,s view.. Okay marry in a registry office by a qualified person but do not expect outrageous weddings in church by clergy

Stan Dalglish 10:51 pm, 7-Feb-2013

If the Oranges are in the bowl, then the Tesco man has been. No, I don't know what I mean by this either?

Washishu 4:22 pm, 10-Feb-2013

The fashionable term in the seventies was "oppression". I supported Gay Lib then to help end that oppression not to have it turned on me.

Samuel 12:23 pm, 11-Feb-2013

@Dave, I suppose that's really the point - it shouldn't matter, and so the fact that a certain group can be cut off seems ludicrous. Civil partnerships should be open for all, including heterosexuals. Absolutely no reason not to. And it looks like it could be on the cards at some point.

Max 1:23 am, 14-Feb-2013

Firstly democracy ie majority rule should be balanced with the opposite. eg parrallel to commmon law with legislature. Because it's unfair for a tiny group to dictate what people do but it's also unwise to allow the majority with all their group think and general badness (after all they're likely average people) to state everything that happens. also it's meaningless because if the majority is made up mainly of sheeple (ie go with the crowd group thinkers) then by all logic their opinion doesn't really count and isn't an actual opinion because it is simply whatever other people's opinion is - it's nothing. fine let gay people have marriage. that's quite a liberal way things to be. But encouraging homosexuality... homosexuality in itself... using logic and thought - isn't actually a very good state of being. if even 30%/40% or something of a society was gay there'd probably be problems of the most important; since the begining of time issue of needing to reproduce. also for a child growing up; it won't be natural having same sex partners purely in the aspect of getting of growing up seeing feminine mother and masculine dad.. that dynamic. there world will be all that particular sex and it may even be confusing seeing their sibling a different sex to them and their parents etc... i've read some arguments against the 'if everyones gay then it's bad' argument. well firstly it doesn't need to be everyone; if only a high proportion is gay it will cause 'problems' - artificial insemination will have to be done. some argue that it will never be the case that more people become gay... i think there's a lot of group think people - if they see more gay people they're more likely to be gay themselves it could increase to like 30% of people being gay. I don't have any personal attachments to this; my thoughts come from a place of pure thought ie logic with no concern for biases and opinion and hate. Put it this way if there were no problems with being gay i'd be 100% for gay people getting/doing/being anything imaginable.

Samuel 11:56 pm, 17-Feb-2013

@Max, why do you think this encourages homosexuality? Just affords gay people the same rights as others. Obviously no sexuality should be encouraged in any way, and I doubt you could affect the balance anyway. In regards to your point about parents, that's just downright false. Studies by groups such as Australian and Canadian Psychological societies have shown no impairment in development in any way in children raised in households where both parents are gay. It doesn't confuse children, or scare them at all. See the link

Samuel 12:00 am, 18-Feb-2013

Sorry for the long link. Here's a better one

Jonathan 1:33 am, 11-Apr-2013

I oppose same sex "marriage" on the basis that we should not overturn thousands of years of precedent based on the wishes of a few. Homosexuals represent less than 5 percent of the human population. Allowing same sex marriage will open the door to polygamous and incestuous marriages. After all, if marriage is a human right then on what basis would any government tell a polygamist or an incestuous advocate that "no, you can't marry the person or persons you love"? The only way any state could say no to those people would be as an arbitrary decision open to endless legal challenges until it too were allowed. Society will only suffer if homosexual marriage is allowed and not even the decadant Roman Empire or even the ancient Greeks considered same sex couples "married". If two societies that lasted thousands of years and spanned the known world wouldn't be ok with it then why should we? My arguments are neither illogical nor bigoted. Too often are terms like "bigot" or "homophobe" tossed around merely to silence any differening much for tolerance eh?

Captain Beefheart 10:22 pm, 12-Apr-2013

Will anybody EVER mention homophobia without conflating it with racism *yawn* ? Don't worry about 'racist' bigots or misogynists or ageists or fatists or whatever straw man you need to use. Just focus on the subject in hand which is gay marriage.

Mead 9:38 am, 3-Sep-2013

Homosexual unions are not a part of being civilized. You cannot compare homosexual acts with being black. I don't recall ships bringing all the gays from another country and forcing them to work on plantations, or taking away their names and giving them new ones, or raping them to force them to breed new gays to work. I don't recall gays being segregated. The only thing they haven't been allowed is marriage. Wow. So you know, nobody is forcing you to stay here in shackles. You're free to move to the gayest places on earth and go get your fake marriage done. It's still fake, even if the law and the papers say otherwise, but nobody is stopping you.

bob 4:35 pm, 11-Oct-2013

Bit late to this one but it does piss me off. I have 2 rules, 1. Believe in any sky fairy or sandal wearing nut job all you wish as long as you allow me to not give a shit 2.) No one gets hurt. On this one, Gay marriage, my feelings are that it's up to you if you want to swear you'll love, cherish and protect your partner, go for it, but the church has a rule book, Bible, and the rules clearly state that a man should not lie with another man. Those are their rules, you are supposed to live by those rules to retain your membership, I think it’s all shit but they happen to believe in those rules, so what right have these couples got to demand that they can break those rules and demand that they can do what they want? They are not in the silly club because to be in that club you have to live by the rules, you wanna’ get married, great, go find someone you respect, a Mayor, Elvis impersonator, Rod Stewart, anyone, have a ‘Promise Not to Fuck Each Other About Ceremony’, have cake and a party afterwards but you don’t get to demand they change the rules of their club just to suit you. That bed and breakfast couple that said you can have a twin room not a double because our club rules forbid it, they got mauled and that’s bollocks, if you don’t follow the house rules you get asked to leave, you leave your pint on the pool table you get asked not to cause the rules say no drinks on the pool table, not drinks on the table are ok if you have no pants on, the rule is the rule.

Sylvia Mann 8:20 pm, 24-Jan-2014

I can hardly fathom the amount of ignorance, illiteracy and prejudice in this comment section. I hardly know what to say. It makes depressing reading; I hope it is not a reflection of our society, yet I fear this selection may not be the worst. @Jason: Why do you think it 'appals' him? It is not proportional representation to agree with your bigoted constituents. In fact, under our system of democracy, it is not even assumed. MPs should be better educated and therefore be able to make reasoned decisions on the behalf of their constituents. @myleftboot: get your head out of The Sun and read something that won't rot your brain, and might actually teach you something. Try the writing on the packaging of your bog roll. @Charles Ballard: Thank you for confirming my suspicion that religious people are illiterate. Try making a point, because I am not ‘able to argue with [you]’ – because drunk, illiterate rambles, although perhaps emblematic of those of your ilk, are not actual arguments. Also, that really wasn’t simple. @Jason: Your exposition of society’s advancement is confusing as it is confirming the message of the article; it is against the tide of progress to be against gay marriage. Also, I would argue with your phraseology: there is now an awareness of sexism, racism and homophobia, which 100 years ago was not seen as such. The societal awareness has changed, not the presence of prejudice. To test, imagine being affected by these prejudices: you would feel it, which is the point – an emotion by any other name hurts as much. Also, marital rape did very much exist, but no one gave a shit, or no one with the power to do anything about it had any interest in doing so. Also, I think that this ‘rational and non-homophobic argument’ is homophobic: as all arguments against gay marriage are. For what are the Pope’s objection based on, if not an out-dated, homophobic anachronistic faerie-tale? @Dave: Similarities: It seems nearly everything: same tax, social security and pension benefits, property rights and inheritance tax, parental responsibility for their partner’s children, tenancy rights, insurance, next-of-kin in hospital rights. Differences: all I could find was that the partner does not receive the courtesy title which the spouse of a peer of knight would get… @Simple Simon: You are picking up the very few times that these issues to hit the news, and in so doing showed that it is rare that a complaint is made. If you imagine the amount of prejudice a gay couple receive travelling around the country, this B&B example making the news shows how infrequently this is fought against. The issue with the B&B owner was that she was running a business but, as it was in her house, she blurred the line between business and personal. Imagine if a hotel turned them away. This is a very similar situation. Reductio ad [not so] Absurdum: homophobic Apartheid. Although this one couple’s inconvenience is not a debilitating display of discrimination, it is a chance to ask, what kind of country do we want, and what lengths are we willing to go to uphold our values? Remember: every time a person faces prejudice they suffer psychologically. When this happens we all suffer because we have a responsibility to collectively create a country our kinsmen will not be unnecessarily harmed by. This is the point about all of this. Homophobia, sexism, racism: any prejudice is psychologically damaging. It hurts people and it forms their experience of the world; this has a negative feedback loop, often reinforcing these negative stereotypes. Where would you rather live? Anyway, I think this ‘outrage’ is very muted, considering the daily prejudice many people have to live with. It is not ‘bowing to the whim of minorities’ to change the laws to follow reason or to make people follow equality laws. Those who do not agree that ‘forcing your views on others is acceptable’ should be very thankful to whoever managed to invert the charge of bigotry. @LoneWolf: ‘More relaxed views’ – your way to define those who follow the law? If you let one business create their own rules, you’ve lost the battle: a disabled child could be unfairly turned away from a school because there are others who will take them. This ‘others will take them’ argument is ridiculous, unsupportable, lazy thinking. Maybe this is why you’re a LONEWolf…That and the double use of comma and exclamation mark. We do agree somewhat though, I’m sure there are gay priests too. Beach of human rights? Like a whale? Yes. Horrific. All the priests will be crying… ‘And then I had to marry these two men… They looked so happy… I wanted one…’. @Dave: Yes, they are more restrictive like that. I don’t know why they did it this way: not creating a Civil Partnership that could be seen as a replacement for marriage: if everyone could have one. People get hung up about it for many reasons. Two main ones: if they are religious, they want to be married in the eyes of God; they will somehow feel it is not as real, or whatever. The other is because it is not the same, it’s like throwing them a bone. Whether it is legally the same or not, it feels like a cop out. What people want is to be completely equal, and from then on they can define their differences. It just isn’t the same. And it should be. @k.hardman: I don’t think you’re doing it right. @Max: Firstly, I have to say, this is very difficult to follow.. Ever thought of writing it in ‘Word’ and copying and pasting it? Spell and grammar checker…. Little bit of thinking… But, yes, ‘tiny group to dictate what people do’ shows an amazing lack of understanding about history and society. Have you ever heard of a website called ‘Wikipedia’? It’s amazing – Read it, Max, but, please, don’t edit it. I don’t know if you are a girl or boy, gay or straight, but (unless you’re bi) imagine the same/opposite sex – whatever would not be you’re preference – so if you’re a straight man (most likely) imagine a man. Imagine having sex with someone of the same/opposite sex. What would it take to ‘encourage’ you to do this? You may not be aware, but you have elicited a Chaucerian pun: courage was used by the smutty man to imply sexual ability; an erection. I digress. Now you mention ‘logic and thought’ I wish you had applied this to yourself. ‘My thoughts come from a place of pure logic’. I’m doubting my understanding of this concept and hoping that, whatever it is, my thoughts come from a place far far away. Ok. Max: I’ll get to the point. NO ONE CAN BE ‘ENCOURAGED TO ‘BECOME GAY’ - THINK ABOUT IT. 10%. It is genetically determined. Not environmentally determined. Read this. Read it again. Print it out. Stick it on your wall. Then go tell Russia. @Jonathon: Are you illiterate and unable to find a simple statistic, or are you hoping everyone else is and therefore you are using obfuscation? 10%. Your further point. Firstly, no it will not. These two things are against the law. Can you and Jeremy Irons go back to 1966 and have some logical consistency to this argument? Secondly, so what? Let people marry as many people as they want. Why not? What’s it to you? Let people marry their family members if they want. Obviously there is an argument against this because genetic mutations are more likely in children born to an incestuous couple. This is why it is against the law. Perhaps kinsmen who are unable to have children would be able to marry. The problem with this ‘argument’, if it can be seen as such, is that it is an illogical nonconsecutor. It just does not follow: homosexuality is a genetic pre-disposition to find the same sex attractive. Polygamy is cultural; it is environmental determined. Incest is just really unlucky. Or having a really hot cousin. But this fear or polygamy is bizarre; there is no suggestion that there is a demand for polygamous marriage: 10% of the population are gay, there is no such sexuality that society would be breaching the rights of by not legalising this marriage. Also, why do people fear this? Why do people care? If a whole bunch of people want to all marry, why not? I don’t understand this fear of it. I very much doubt that if it were legalised that any, but a very small number of people, would take it up. It is currently not against the law to have polygamous relationships. This is not common, I do not know if there are any statistics for it and by now I can’t arsed to find out: I really couldn’t give a shit. But why would there be a demand for this, provided, if what I suspect is the case, there is not a high prevalence of polygamous relationships? This, surely, must come first. The argument against incest is for the health of the offspring. This argument will stand. Again, there is no figure like the 10% of homosexual couples. There just is not the demand for these marriages: there are no laws regulating relationships. If there was there would be widespread polygamous and incestuous relationships; to the extent that we would be aware of it. Where are these polygamous, incestuous couples who will form this lobby and that cause such fear in those that do not want them to marry? The relationships would come first. How common is this? I find this argument so bizarre. It is just based on shit. Some idiot had a shit one day and looked at it, and saw the ominous sign of this massive, looming harm to society, and had to warn everyone. ‘Thousands of years of precedent’ is a reason to not give women the vote. It is an argument to legalise slavery. It is an argument to have constant wars with Europe. It is a reason to not send the majority of people to school. It is a reason to be racist. It is a reason to wipe your ass with your hand. It is no reason. ‘Society will only suffer if homosexual marriage is allowed’. Consider the suffering. The utter devastation and desolation. The lost dreams and broken youth. Why, perchance, would society ‘only suffer’, dear? This is the kind of bigoted, illogical, unsubstantiated claim that entirely undermines your later claim. ‘Decadant [or perhaps decadent] Roman Empire’… Really? Perhaps, but I wonder what you find decadent about it, or what association you are attempting to make. This is a very bizarre point. This was a very different society and marriage was most often a contract involving the girl’s father’s consent rather than hers. The marriages were initiated to spawn sprogs and to protect the girl, and give the man a household. In Greece, there was a common tradition which we would see as homosexual but they saw as guardianship. There was no concept of homosexuality in either society. Men’s wanting to sleep with young men was not questioned and did not prevent them from having wives. They had no need to marry them, in a society where marriages where instigated mainly to protect the children or the wife. Apart from being annoying, your ending is unsatisfying because you present a premise and react to it as though it were unchallengeable. As alluded to earlier, your arguments are the epitome of illogicality and bigotry. Words like ‘homophobe’ and ‘bigot’ are ‘tossed around’ infrequently in relation to what would be warranted. I have no idea whom they ‘silence’, but as the objects of their sentiments suggest, theirs would be the source of ‘differing opinion’. Again. Well done for the inversion. However, it doesn’t work to merely say how you want to be seen; you must also be it. @Captian Beefheart: I think many people do mention homophobia in isolation. I do not understand your issue with people making the connection: both are the cause of others’ suffering. Both are the result of ignorance. @Mead: You do not have to win the ‘who has suffered the most competition’ to have suffered. I am picking up on a theme, as you, like so many, are displaying an extreme lack of knowledge and understanding about history and about the current state of society. 1967. Oscar Wilde. Look it up. People are stopping them. You can’t expect people to move their whole lives: away from their families/work/homes to gain an equality that should be afforded them in their own country. There is no good reason why it shouldn’t be given to them. You sound like a child. What is your definition of real? @bob: Ok, not too bad. But we cannot allow every institution to make their own rules without regulation. What you are proposing is Libertarianism. Don’t get me started on that. But, long (very long) story short: Libertarianism kills. If the couple had turned away a black couple (I'm conflating the two… Why not?) If they had turned away a black couple, maybe you’d understand. I don’t know that you’re not racist, but I do come from the assumption that people are reasonable. Perhaps I should change this.

jdf 11:02 am, 4-May-2014

Those who seem to denounce opposition to Gay marriage as "bigoted" or "ignorant" seem to suffer from Dunning Kruger delusions. Note some of the feeble arguments and premises they use: 1. Conflating homosexuality (a non-immutable, de facto paraphilia) with gender or race. 2. Appealing to moral anti-realism and moral subjectivism (probably unaware of what either of these are, and that they are philosophically inept positions). 3. Chronological snobbery, the view that all change is progress, or at least the lack of an adequate, consistent, objective criterion system for what "progress" is. Views like this are easily defeated by any entry-level course in comparative history.

Leave a comment

Life image description SABOTAGE