It's like, you get it, but you don't. You've repeated the same thing over and over, but your point still doesn't get made. Just because one group was hated on "worse" doesn't make the other group "invalid in thier argument".1.3m slaves died enroute to America. Approx. 2500 African American people were lynched between emancipation and today. The numbers for slaves beaten to death during the legalization of slavery don't exist.
I'll take being hated and alone any dayAt least then it's just words. Oh, and the estimated 3% of American Males who are full on hard-gay. I guess it's not that lonely, is it?
Higher numbers mean that there were actual crimes committed against African Americans. The reason this point was brought up was because someone 30 posts back was trying to say that racism and homophobia are basically the same, when they're not similar at all except being one group of people doens't like another.
And yes, people hate us Jews.
Again, not what happened. But if that's what you wish to add to this conversation, by all means.
But legally it's not the same. There are no Gay bathrooms. There are no Gay drinking fountains. Gay people don't sit at the back of the bus. In fact, there are very few limitations that homosexuals have when compared to the daily life of an African American citizen in the early 1900s. While I agree that we will someday look back on this as LIKE the Civil Rights movement the day to day affairs of a homosexual man or woman is nothing like the day to day affairs of an African American.
A fucking men. This person knows what time it is.
At some point we need to stop trying to be accepted by everyone. The happiest times I've had is when I didn't worry about the things being said about me.
- Status
T
TotalFusionOne
Does posting one liners like this help the conversation? Oh wait. Now you've edited it to include more. I thought it was just an attempted slam against me. Again.
I... Never said that? What I said was that the argument was made that Gay Hatered was comparible to the racism in the US in the late 1800s (Chinese immigrants were mentioned specifically) and the pre-civil rights movement days and these arguments do not present a fair comparison because it wasn't the same level of activity in the hatred.
The hatred you see today is in words. Easily ignorable. The hatred then was in murder. Torture. Rape. Beatings. Mutilation. Comparing the two is unfair because it's like you're trying to imply that this is what the average homosexual faces on a day to day basis like the average African American faced back in the Pre-civil rights movement days. It's nothing alike.
The version of "hate" we have today is a bunch of words and that's about it. And seriously, people are going to "Hate" you no matter what you are. You hate conservative Christians for standing in the way, don't you? You hate the people who vote against these bills? What makes you different than them?
Also, why was your statement about being dragged ignored? Wasn't there something I was missing, or was it honestly a confusing between the two hate crimes?
A
Armadillo
I can see nothing even approaching a rational argument from the anti-gay marriage people. There is absolutely no reason on their side other than hatred, and devotion to their religion.[/QUOTE]
"Don't just label them all as intolerant bigots."
"There is no reason on their side other than hatred."
Well, OK then. I tried.
T
TotalFusionOne
OH OH I MISSED THIS ONE!
You are RIGHT sir! Absolutely RIGHT! So take the power out of their hands and outlaw marriage altogether. All civil unions all the time ;D
I don't hate them. I pity them. How small must their hearts be to fight and claw and spend money just to make another group of people unhappy.
Also, Kissinger already refuted why Civil Unions are not really acceptable.
But you did, in your example of the military, you stated it was better to skirt the issue than try and fix it. Also, the racial hated is compareable, the number of outbreaks does validate one over the other or I could just say that Black racial hate wasn't real because it couldn't compare to the Holocaust.
Are you really saying that none of the above happens to gays? I mean really? Because it sounds like that's what you're implying.
No, it was talking about both.
C
Chibibar
TotalFusionOne: The reason we don't have as many "burning crosses" on gays' lawn BECAUSE of all the changes and law went into effect after the racial movement in the 40s and 50s.
Laws were change. Segregation was made illegal. Hate Crime laws (well later) were passed to protect people after them. I am sure if this was an issue back in the 40s (as in more known like today) those people would get the same treatment.
I remember in history class where U.S. is trying to promote family living (remember those lesson of 2.5 kids etc etc)
It is all a stepping stone. Of course in any society, there are exception to the rules. There are people who still exist today (like the Phelps who protest in cemeteries of gay soldiers) or incidents where homosexual are beaten and such, but luckily there are many laws that protect people TODAY unlike 40 years ago. This is why you don't see as much violence.
The new weapon today is law. Using the government to pass laws (like some states saying marriage is only recognize between MAN and WOMAN) I mean why even define it? Why not just let the same sex have it? cause the old way of beating people up, burning stakes, and such are day in the past. Now we are in the modern day, and they use modern weapons.
Hate is Hate regardless of generation or how much one suffers.
Laws were change. Segregation was made illegal. Hate Crime laws (well later) were passed to protect people after them. I am sure if this was an issue back in the 40s (as in more known like today) those people would get the same treatment.
I remember in history class where U.S. is trying to promote family living (remember those lesson of 2.5 kids etc etc)
It is all a stepping stone. Of course in any society, there are exception to the rules. There are people who still exist today (like the Phelps who protest in cemeteries of gay soldiers) or incidents where homosexual are beaten and such, but luckily there are many laws that protect people TODAY unlike 40 years ago. This is why you don't see as much violence.
The new weapon today is law. Using the government to pass laws (like some states saying marriage is only recognize between MAN and WOMAN) I mean why even define it? Why not just let the same sex have it? cause the old way of beating people up, burning stakes, and such are day in the past. Now we are in the modern day, and they use modern weapons.
Hate is Hate regardless of generation or how much one suffers.
T
TotalFusionOne
Again, never once did I say it was better to skirt the issue than fix it. What I SAID was that the majority of people are uncomfortable so this was a logical fix.
And.. You could say that it wasn't real etc.. etc.. And then I'd just say "But massive amounts of people died on both sides... There were riots and fights... So they're... Actually kinda the same." That hasn't so much happened in the homosexual thing in the recent past.
It seems like your version of hate is people saying "I JUST HATE THEM THEY'RE GODLESS HEATHENS AND THEY ALL SHOULD DIE AND BURN AND HELL" and my version of hate is them saying that... And then actually killing them. See the difference?
And I don't want to be mean, but this is the... Third time? You've misquoted me. It'd really help if you went back and read what I wrote. :\ Because everytime you "quote" me you're saying almost the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Almost as if you were just trying to paint me in a negative light instead of dealing with the points I'm struggling to make
I'm saying that it is NO WHERE in ANY WAY near what it was like for African Americans. And yes, it pretty much never happens to homosexuals. Please, I lived in the bible belt and worked/went to the largest gay club in Orlando. There were more gay men kicking the shit out of straights than the other way around. It's almost non-existent anymore. Has been for almost 20 years. And didn't happen much before that.
... Okay.
Why define it? Because it's been defined. For a little over a couple of thousand of years. Marriage was a union between man and a woman. A RELIGIOUS union.
Which brings me full circle: This is why we don't allow marriage to be recognized. Homosexuals get the rights and privileges of every other person like they should have, and straight people get their Marriage being sacred between man and woman.
Then that means that hate is nothing. Because it doesn't matter how much one suffers (A tear shed over a nasty name or a death by a noose) then all it is is words, not actions. So ignore the words and quit comparing
T
TotalFusionOne
K
Green_Lantern
Staff member
I know that I shouldn't say who gets worse or not, my own opinion on the subjects changes.
what I am saying is that is much harder for a gay to escape homophobia, there is no indepedent full-gay societies, while differents races can live generations without actually fearing racism, there is always a degree of xenophobia, and competitions that causes disputes and war, but in a day to day basis is possible to someone to grow up and don't have to live in the same city with a group that hates that person because it was born with a diffrent skin color.
Also, you know those black slaves? And those that are so hated by white people?? Well, guess what, Black people can be hatefull too and I doubt that many of those lynched after the emancipation would accept a kid who was gay. Slavery and Racism has being a problem for these black for how many centuries? Homophobia is a problem for gay people everywhere for thousands of years.
what I am saying is that is much harder for a gay to escape homophobia, there is no indepedent full-gay societies, while differents races can live generations without actually fearing racism, there is always a degree of xenophobia, and competitions that causes disputes and war, but in a day to day basis is possible to someone to grow up and don't have to live in the same city with a group that hates that person because it was born with a diffrent skin color.
Also, you know those black slaves? And those that are so hated by white people?? Well, guess what, Black people can be hatefull too and I doubt that many of those lynched after the emancipation would accept a kid who was gay. Slavery and Racism has being a problem for these black for how many centuries? Homophobia is a problem for gay people everywhere for thousands of years.
I
Iaculus
One reason for a perceived relative lack of mistreatment for homosexuality: it's easier to hide it if you're gay than if you're black. The character of the abuse is different, forcing them underground rather than separating them from everyone else, if that makes sense. They are treated as the enemy within, rather than the enemy without.
Don't forget that there're a fair few countries where open homosexuality = death by stoning. Even the most extreme ethnic cleansing programmes are seldom that blatant and widely-accepted by the international community, though they are admittedly more widely and overtly destructive.
Don't forget that there're a fair few countries where open homosexuality = death by stoning. Even the most extreme ethnic cleansing programmes are seldom that blatant and widely-accepted by the international community, though they are admittedly more widely and overtly destructive.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Thanks, plus there is a thing about:
"crude numbers": one thing is saying that "100.000" men are killed for being black and "1.000" are killed for being gay, now compare with saying "1%" of the black men are killed by race and "10%" of gay men are killed because they are gay.
Plus there is not only the fact that is easier to hide that you're gay, but just as likely is easier to hide that you was killed because it was gay, hell, I remember few years ago that said that my city was the capital with the least number of "gay crimes", yet, we also have another research showed the worst % of people that are okay with homosexuality. Funny.
I'm going to go ahead and openly apologize to Fusionone if I'm the reason he no longer posts in this thread. I know what point he was trying to get across, and it just seemed like if I could just get through to him he'd change his mind, but his opinion *IS* grounded in fact and therefore not necessarily wrong. I'd really be dissapointed if he stepped out of this thread completely because of our discussion.
You raise good points and even made me take a look at things a bit differently, even if I didn't see them eye to eye. Thank you.
You raise good points and even made me take a look at things a bit differently, even if I didn't see them eye to eye. Thank you.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
what?
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Oh right. I was thinking that there might be some deleted posts or Private Messages envolved.
Also: Should we make this discussion/debate in another thread?
and since we already off topic-ing, I loved your "Shego Sandiego" Avatar.
C
Chibibar
We are still technically on topic since it was about government and marriage. I hope fushionone doesn't give up on the issue.
like I said on other post, I do see where he is coming from and some direction where it should be, but alas, in my opinion, that particular direction does not quite have same fruitful result (the direction of government abolish all recognize marriage and benefits, just the government, you can still have your religious marriage and such) and thus there won't be an issue. (technically)
I wish it was that easy personally. I can almost envision the horror if the government were to take away All government marital benefits (the automatic ones) and everyone would have to file proper paper (including people who were recognize) for the government to recognize power of attorney, living will, will, visitation rights, name changes, extended power of attorney (or possibly unlimited since many power of attorney are pretty specific in some cases) basically Lawyer's dream (making tons of money from all this) but worst nightmare for the American public and guess who they are going to blame?
again, that is my opinion of what might happen.
like I said on other post, I do see where he is coming from and some direction where it should be, but alas, in my opinion, that particular direction does not quite have same fruitful result (the direction of government abolish all recognize marriage and benefits, just the government, you can still have your religious marriage and such) and thus there won't be an issue. (technically)
I wish it was that easy personally. I can almost envision the horror if the government were to take away All government marital benefits (the automatic ones) and everyone would have to file proper paper (including people who were recognize) for the government to recognize power of attorney, living will, will, visitation rights, name changes, extended power of attorney (or possibly unlimited since many power of attorney are pretty specific in some cases) basically Lawyer's dream (making tons of money from all this) but worst nightmare for the American public and guess who they are going to blame?
again, that is my opinion of what might happen.
No it wasn't... apparently marriage by priest was a Counter-Reformation thing...
And men used to marry women just to sleep with them, and then repudiate the pregnant women because there weren't any witnesses, which is why the church stepped in...
And the whole civil union - marriage thing is just bloody semantics... people that argue it for real (and not just as a stupid compromise to make people feel better about it) are retarded.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
No it wasn't... apparently marriage by priest was a Counter-Reformation thing...
And men used to marry women just to sleep with them, and then repudiate the pregnant women because there weren't any witnesses, which is why the church stepped in...
And the whole civil union - marriage thing is just bloody semantics... people that argue it for real (and not just as a stupid compromise to make people feel better about it) are retarded.[/QUOTE]
Also, one of the things that always annoyed me in this thread is that often someone says that "there is plenty of churces and priest that accept blah blah blah", funny how those people exist and are important when is time to say "is not religion fault", but nowhere to be seen when someone says "the church have the right to refuse marriage who they think are sinners".
I am complaining about the lack of logic and consistency, just to make it clear.
C
Chibibar
well, that is why I avoid the whole religious one cause it is religion. It doesn't have to make sense.
My points are mainly toward the government one (where everyone should have equal access)
My points are mainly toward the government one (where everyone should have equal access)
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Could you better prhase that, I din't understood.
Could you better prhase that, I din't understood.[/quote]
I think what Chibi's getting at is that religion is better left out of the argument because, quite frankly, religion by it's very nature is a defiance of logic.
C
Chibibar
Could you better prhase that, I din't understood.[/quote]
I think what Chibi's getting at is that religion is better left out of the argument because, quite frankly, religion by it's very nature is a defiance of logic.[/QUOTE]
Yea. I think the touch pad screw up the writing.
Basically what I was saying is that I left our Religion in this conversation cause religion doesn't have to make sense. It is religion. The main topic for this conversation (at least for my part) is purely on the government level.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Could you better prhase that, I din't understood.[/quote]
I think what Chibi's getting at is that religion is better left out of the argument because, quite frankly, religion by it's very nature is a defiance of logic.[/QUOTE]
If we did so, we could very well just lock this thread, there isn't a point in arguing about homosexual marriage if we don't bring religion in the discussion.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Oh, it is, and is wrong that they do so. But really, why they are doing it?
edit: the thing goes like this
Church says something => People Believe in Something => Politicians do what the People want => LGBT get screwed => Profit (for the church of course)
is at least naive to say that the church doesn't dictated politics and rights, it powers might have become only a fraction of what once was, but still is quite influent.
C
Chibibar
Bingo.
Green Lantern: my whole premise is that citizen of the U.S. have certain individual benefits which is equal (it doesn't matter who you are) but when it comes to couple status (i.e. marriage) this is where the line is drawn.
In my previous post, government has laws that govern the right between two people who are married. We have property rights, estate (when someone died), benefits (taxes and government benefits like Social security and insurance). Now when a hetro couple married, they get these things automactically cause the government recognize it and thus treat it normally.
When a couple divorce, there are laws in place (in each state) on how to divide property unless there are contract (like prenup) in place. BUT same sex couple are NOT recognize and guess what? if they broke up (divorce) there is no property division unless it happen to be in both of their names.
When your spouse dies without a will, the government has rule in place that the widower will gain right to property (in the past it was the MALE heir) but if it is same sex, unless there is a will, it will go the family, if no family, it will go to the state and the widower gets nothing.
Currently you can only add your spouse and children to your insurance. If the same sex is not recognize as spouse, your stay at home spouse gets no insurance unless you take on coverage on your own (which is WAY expensive for many adding a spouse is cheaper)
these are just couple of things that citizen of the U.S. gets AS LONG (except for 4 states) they are hetro married couple.
hence, the discussion.
edit: Ahhhh.... I see where you are going with it Green Lantern. So...... if that is the case, then why even go with popular vote?
my opinion: the state government wants to "look good" and not piss off the other voters group, but since they are a minority, it won't pass. So far 2 states fail on popular vote. 4 states that allows it via legislation or court.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Religious control is not a 100%, but is far more important than what most people in that defend religion seem to argue, and takes control of the state doing what the voters want.
I just hate people just giving a slap in the wrist to every problem that religions causes, they are allowed to be humans and imperfect, but minorities like the gays can't, and there is people that come here and say that gays can't hate the church back, because "make they just as bad" as the church.
In short, gay can't be humans, they must be saints, but the saints can be human.
I don't even know where I am going, I just depressed now.
C
Chibibar
Religious control is not a 100%, but is far more important than what most people in that defend religion seem to argue, and takes control of the state doing what the voters want.
I just hate people just giving a slap in the wrist to every problem that religions causes, they are allowed to be humans and imperfect, but minorities like the gays can't, and there is people that come here and say that gays can't hate the church back, because "make they just as bad" as the church.
In short, gay can't be humans, they must be saints, but the saints can be human.
I don't even know where I am going, I just depressed now.[/QUOTE]
I think it is more of, "If we do what the church does, does it make us any better?"
Remember that any bad action done by the minority just add ammo and fuel to the powerful group (like the church) and goes "see? see? look what the sinners are doing!! they are evil! evil!" (btw, that is total exaggeration but you get the idea) but anyways. I will not talk more about religion aspect of it.
Religious control is not a 100%, but is far more important than what most people in that defend religion seem to argue, and takes control of the state doing what the voters want.
I just hate people just giving a slap in the wrist to every problem that religions causes, they are allowed to be humans and imperfect, but minorities like the gays can't, and there is people that come here and say that gays can't hate the church back, because "make they just as bad" as the church.
In short, gay can't be humans, they must be saints, but the saints can be human.
I don't even know where I am going, I just depressed now.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to try to put this into a little context for ya, GL. This is my view alone, so take it for what you will.
There are segments of the gay community that are just as militant and irrational as the most extreme religious person. There is an instance of gay bashing in the opposite: gays beating up straights.
I used to do gay youth outreach and tolerance education in college, and one of our go to excercises was to have people imagine what it would be like to live in a world that was all gay people and you were the only straight person you know. It employes what many have mentioned here, putting yourself in another person's shoes to see their viewpoint.
If we have to accept that, say Jeffrey Dahmer, doesn't represent the gay community as a whole, then we have to be just as ready to accept that, say Jerry Falwell, doesn't represent the christian community as a whole.
Quite frankly, GL, It sounds to me that you're projecting a lot of your own issues.
A
Armadillo
I don't know about that. There are some who would force churches to marry gay people. That would be a violation of the right to free association and freedom of religion.
- Status