Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And now for the whacky Libertarian view from a We don't allow the use of certain terms regardless of who uses them. Carry on. who would like to get married. (Is a mod seriously going to give me a warning for calling myself what I am again?)

Legalized gay marriage in WA state... Yay?...

People can barely afford to shelter themselves or the basics for living, but awesome. We can get married, in that state where unemployment remains quite high. Awesome, good priorities. Thumbs up.

Marriage should go back to being what it used to be. Not managed by the Government. Period. No legal or tax incentives, penalties, or any other such nonsense.

It should be between two people socially, by an established religious institution. Done, end of story.

Gay marriage used to be "legal" in this country, because it was not controlled by the Government. Gay marriage was "legal" and rather accepted on this continent before this country existed. It simple was not legislated.

Fight to get the Government hands off your personal business, and everyone elses, rather than ask them to get involved. There are so many other important things to do.

Ahtman wrote:I know biccat called me a bigot twice and was not banned as far as a I know, as posts continued unabated. Maybe he is talking about himself.

This must be part of the magic fantasy land that I'm not part of. Where all conservatives are evil and all liberals are loving and peaceful, as opposed to the murderous violent bastards they really are.

sebster wrote:The trick is that in your world, if someone gives a homophobic reason for disapproval of gay marriage*, and another person calls them on it by calling them a bigot, that counts as oppression on apparently a far more grievous level than denying someone the right to marry the person they love.

I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse). However, I don't think that people should be labeled as bigots simply because they oppose gay marriage, which is what tends to happen.

You're apparently under the assumption that I get offended by colorful language. I don't. But if you're a bigot if you hate homosexuals then you're equally a bigot if you hate Christians. Or Jews. Or Israelites. Or really any class of people.

That label could be easily applied to almost every poster here. For example, I'm bigoted against pedophiles.

I'm bigoted against vegeterians and cats. Is there a relationship?

Frazzled: And you didn't respond to my explanations of how each of them were caused or related, directly or indirectly, by homophobia.

The religious interpretations of the bible condemning homosexuality for example weren't very common until a specific period of history, the Victorian era-- oddly enough, this was also the era in which the very concept of homosexuality was first defined in fact, setting the stage for history up until now where people believe there is either homosexuality or heterosexuality. When in reality, it's more complex than that, but this allows for demagogues to easily put populaces in an us vs them mentality-- which they did of course, being demagogues.

Today science understands sexuality as more of shades of grey or possibly a color spectrum depending on who you ask. The most popular tool has several rankings along the line of "entirely heterosexual", "mostly heterosexual", "bisexual with heterosexual leanings", and so on all the way up to "entirely homosexual". And most people fall in closer to the bisexual line than either extreme.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Marriage should go back to being what it used to be. Not managed by the Government.

Wait, when was this?

I'm fairly certain marriage was managed by government for quite some time. Either secular government or religious bodies which effectively functioned as government of a different kind.

Frazzled: And you didn't respond to my explanations of how each of them were caused or related, directly or indirectly, by homophobia.

Because its prima facae stupid. None of the arguments have anything to do with homophobia, unless of course you assume any disagreement is homophobia, which you and Sebster seem to be doing. Your argument is so overly broad as to be nonsensical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Legalized gay marriage in WA state... Yay?...

People can barely afford to shelter themselves or the basics for living, but awesome. We can get married, in that state where unemployment remains quite high. Awesome, good priorities. Thumbs up.

Marriage should go back to being what it used to be. Not managed by the Government. Period. No legal or tax incentives, penalties, or any other such nonsense.

It should be between two people socially, by an established religious institution. Done, end of story.

Gay marriage used to be "legal" in this country, because it was not controlled by the Government. Gay marriage was "legal" and rather accepted on this continent before this country existed. It simple was not legislated.

Fight to get the Government hands off your personal business, and everyone elses, rather than ask them to get involved. There are so many other important things to do.

Frazzled wrote:None of the arguments have anything to do with homophobia,

Melissia wrote:"It's always been that way!" is logically fallacious (appeal to tradition-- just because something is tradition is not itself a logical reason to keep it that way). Nevermind that the reason why it is tradition in the first place is because of a wave of homophobia that developed in the Victorian era (amongst other things) as well as the fact that marriages now aren't anywhere near what they were way back when. Marriages in that time were basically just used to breed new families, nowadays, they are expressions of romantic feelings and a desire for permanence and integration.

Melissia wrote:"It's unnatural!" Is logically unsound, as it is present in nature-- and is brought about by homophobia. Nevermind that "natural" isn't necessarily a good thing to begin with (Solanaceae-- nightshade-- is natural, but you still shouldn't eat it).

Melissia wrote:"It violates the sanctity of marriage" indicates a religious component which indicates our government is violating its own constitution (because all that is needed to oppose this is to have a religion which states that gay marriage doesn't violate the sanctity of marriage, and there are many who think that), and furthermore is logically inconsistent as the supposed "sanctity" is inconsistently applied. to the rest of the population. "God doesn't like it" follows a similar path, it's inconsistent amongst various religions and religious sects within each individual religion. Secular sanctity of a concept is subjective at best, and again, is never used consistently in terms of marriage.

Melissia wrote:The religious interpretations of the bible condemning homosexuality for example weren't very common until a specific period of history, the Victorian era-- oddly enough, this was also the era in which the very concept of homosexuality was first defined in fact, setting the stage for history up until now where people believe there is either homosexuality or heterosexuality. When in reality, it's more complex than that, but this allows for demagogues to easily put populaces in an us vs them mentality-- which they did of course, being demagogues.

The four most popular reasons for banning gay marriages, and all of them are linked to homophobia or a history of homophobia.

Sweet but irrelevant. None of those were the ones I noted.

Frazzled wrote:Sweet but irrelevant. None of those were the ones I noted.

Number 1 was directly mentioned and argued to be homophobic in nature.. Number 2 and 3 are very much related to the "tradition" argument, which was directly mentioned and argued to be homophobic in nature.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sweet but irrelevant. None of those were the ones I noted.

Number 1 was directly mentioned. Number 2 and 3 are related to the "tradition" argument, which was directly mentioned..

1. No I say Sky god. you're being specific to Christianity. Again not homophobic unless any disagreement is homophobic.
2. FAIL. neither are tradition related. . Both are related to children. Again not homophobic unless any disagreement is homophobic.

Frazzled wrote:1. No I say Sky god.

So it's not related to Christianity, but it's still an expression of homophobia.

Frazzled wrote:2. FAIL. neither are tradition related.

Being in denal doesn't change anything.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. No I say Sky god.

So it's not related to Christianity, but it's still an expression of homophobia.
You don’t get it do you? The Sky God argument is one to be taken literally. Its not homophobia because its not based on fear or hate.

Frazzled wrote:2. FAIL. neither are tradition related.

Being in denal doesn't change anything.

I don’t know about “denal” but you’re assuming a mental state. A mental state has nothing to do with arguments about the best interests of children. You’re mental state is such that you are presuming homophobia. But with that standard I can now argue its an “ism” whenever someone disagrees with me on anything, because I am presuming their mental state.” Indeed in this instance I am presuming a mental state of heterophobia on your part. Don’t be in denal. Don’t be a hata!

Frazzled wrote:you’re assuming a mental state.

Discrimination against homosexuals is, by definition, homophobic. If the argument was "blacks [or whites / asians / hispanics / purple people eaters] can't marry" it'd be racist. If it was "Jews can't marry" it'd be antisemitic. If it was "Muslims can't marry" it'd be Islamophobic.

It's rather hard to avoid being homophobic while advancing a homophobic agenda.

biccat wrote:
I generally support popular referendums, so I've got no problem with putting this to a vote of the people at large, if there's enough interest to put it to a vote.

Wait, are you saying minority rights should be decided by majority rules?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:you’re assuming a mental state.

Discrimination against homosexuals is, by definition, homophobic. If the argument was "blacks [or whites / asians / hispanics / purple people eaters] can't marry" it'd be racist. If it was "Jews can't marry" it'd be antisemitic. If it was "Muslims can't marry" it'd be Islamophobic.

It's rather hard to avoid being homophobic while advancing a homophobic agenda.

Alternatively the same argument can be made about proponents of homosexual marriage. Yet I refuse to believe advocates are heterophobes determined to repress heterosexual culture.

Whats awesome is when you back off from the "you disagree with me thereforw you're an 'ist'!" mentality you can find common ground and things can actually get done.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:you’re assuming a mental state.

Discrimination against homosexuals is, by definition, homophobic. If the argument was "blacks [or whites / asians / hispanics / purple people eaters] can't marry" it'd be racist. If it was "Jews can't marry" it'd be antisemitic. If it was "Muslims can't marry" it'd be Islamophobic.

It's rather hard to avoid being homophobic while advancing a homophobic agenda.

Alternatively the same argument can be made about proponents of homosexual marriage. Yet I refuse to believe advocates are heterophobes determined to repress heterosexual culture.

Whats awesome is when you back off from the "you disagree with me thereforw you're an 'ist'!" mentality you can find common ground and things can actually get done.

I agree. But its just so easy to call somone aa "Phope" or a "Ist" that you don't need to form aa coherent and well thoughtout argument.

Frazzled wrote:Alternatively the same argument can be made about proponents of homosexual marriage.

No it couldn't. Proponents of homosexual marriage are not proposing to remove the rights of heterosexuals. That argument isn't based on any form of logic or sanity.

True dat. If they really are an "ist" you're not going to change their opinion. If they aren't but you start throwing around the :ist " charge to quiet opposition, it merely hardens and radicalizes opposition instead. Instead if you use, you know, reasoned arguments, people's opinons can change, public opinion changes, and things change. Mmmm....democracy at work.

Frazzled wrote:True dat. If they really are an "ist" you're not going to change their opinion.

What a coincidence, opinions aren't changing around here amongst the homophobes that speak out against gay marriage.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Alternatively the same argument can be made about proponents of homosexual marriage.

No it couldn't. Proponents of homosexual marriage are not proposing to remove the rights of heterosexuals. That argument is stupid.

yea, its really the same argument as life is a zero sum game. Its stupid only because you're stuck in the "everyone else is an 'ist,' mindset. All you do is harden opinion against you.

Take moi. I'm of the Libertarian argument. The government needs to be out of it. If the government is not out of it, then I'm fine with it on an equal rights basis. But the moment you mistaken call me an "ist" then I am against you, and in strong visceral terms. Its human nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True dat. If they really are an "ist" you're not going to change their opinion.

What a coincidence, opinions aren't changing around here amongst the homophobes that speak out against gay marriage.

Whats funny is: 1) you just broke Dakka Rule #1; 2) you're exhibiting the same unthinking discriminatory attitude you're describing to others; and 3) I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone has actually posted on this thread against the homosexual marriage vote.
Thats kind of awesome now that I think about it. This requires a pic!

Frazzled wrote:True dat. If they really are an "ist" you're not going to change their opinion. If they aren't but you start throwing around the :ist " charge to quiet opposition, it merely hardens and radicalizes opposition instead. Instead if you use, you know, reasoned arguments, people's opinons can change, public opinion changes, and things change. Mmmm....democracy at work.

Ok, LEts see if wwe can try this. Give me a reasoned argument against gay marriage.

Frazzled wrote:yea, its really the same argument as life is a zero sum game. Its stupid only because you're stuck in the "everyone else is an 'ist,' mindset. All you do is harden opinion against you.

No, the argument is stupid because the argument is stupid. It is logically flawed. It is irrational. It is inane with no small amount of insane mixed in for good measure. The homosexual marriage proponents are not arguing for a reduction in the rights of heterosexuals (or bisexuals whom have a partner of the opposite sex for that matter), therefor the same argument cannot be applied to them.

Doing so is no less than trolling. There is no discrimination against heterosexual couples here.

Frazzled wrote:Whats funny is: 1) you just broke Dakka Rule #1;

"Around here" referred to Texas, Frazzled.

And I see homophobia quite frequently amongst my fellow Texans, especially the older generations. The ones who tend to vote more, sadly enough. They aren't changing their opinions no matter what arguments are put forth.

But hopefully they'll die off and let the non-homophobic generations gain control though. That may sound callous, but it's the result of our flawed democratic system.

Frazzled wrote:2) you're exhibiting the same unthinking

I'm thinking quite clearly thank you very much.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:True dat. If they really are an "ist" you're not going to change their opinion. If they aren't but you start throwing around the :ist " charge to quiet opposition, it merely hardens and radicalizes opposition instead. Instead if you use, you know, reasoned arguments, people's opinons can change, public opinion changes, and things change. Mmmm....democracy at work.

Ok, LEts see if wwe can try this. Give me a reasoned argument against gay marriage.

I'll go with the two arguments I proffered related to kidlets. Then again I offered counter arguments to them.
I think the only other argument I'd make is that marriage is also a religious state. But then again there goes that Frazzled libertarian argument argument again that The State should stay out of marriage altogether and let whatever speghetti being faith requirements stand. Separation of Church and State baby. The State provides the contract structure, and whatever they want to call themselves or follow for religious marriage (or whatever) is their matter. You sign onto the super dooper Government Spouse plan, and then can call yourself married/hitched/tied to the old ball and chain, whatever you want. Just don't bug me about it unless there's going to be cake, in which case I'm so there.

Oh wait, there is one more argument. Its the "Brother's Keeper" argument. Basically, have you seen old married couples? We're old, slow, and pruny. Save them from that fate!

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I know biccat called me a bigot twice and was not banned as far as a I know, as posts continued unabated. Maybe he is talking about himself.

This must be part of the magic fantasy land that I'm not part of. Where all conservatives are evil and all liberals are loving and peaceful, as opposed to the murderous violent bastards they really are.

That doesn't make sense and is quite a leap from one thing to another. It happened and I would go into more detail if you want, but I think moving on would be better. I also think the mod and ex-mod community prefer not to rehash past incidents.

(Is a mod seriously going to give me a warning for calling myself what I am again?)

Yes. Using a slur, even when referring to ones self is against the rules. I also doubt it is the only way, or best way, to describe yourself.

Melissia wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Marriage should go back to being what it used to be. Not managed by the Government.

Wait, when was this?

I'm fairly certain marriage was managed by government for quite some time. Either secular government or religious bodies which effectively functioned as government of a different kind.

You are right there has generally always been some sort of involvement, but really not to the extent there is now.

Things that we just take for granted now as restricted;

For instance until 1862, Bigamy was not against the law.

Also back in the 1800's there are records of female husbands, two women married in the expanding West. It may not have been "formal" marriage through a church, but there were not the same implications tax wise, etc etc for being married. Common law marriage at the time was the standard.

Back further, up until the 16th Century, marriage was strictly a private affair between the two people wishing to be married and thier families. No marriage licenses, blood tests, etc.

Marriage licenses were not needed in the USA until after the civil war, and once the Government gets to lisencing things, is when the restrictions start coming. This is when it became "law" to discriminate about who was allowed to marry who, especially at the time, mixed race couples.


The whole process has in my view actually gotten more and more narrow and restrictive, and the easiest solution is just inviting the government to butt out.

Interesting information and perspective there Shadowseer.

biccat wrote:
I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse).

It ranks up there with "biased", "hypocrite", "antisemitic", "racist", and "ironic".

Though I suspect "biased" probably takes the cake because almost everyone who utters it uses it incorrectly.

Frazzled wrote:
Because its prima facae stupid. None of the arguments have anything to do with homophobia, unless of course you assume any disagreement is homophobia, which you and Sebster seem to be doing. Your argument is so overly broad as to be nonsensical.

For the record, its really hard to argue that the demands of your ethereal Sky God are not simply your demands. Because, even if your Sky God demands it, you're the one listening and relaying the information.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I don't think I've ever said someone isn't a bigot (at least as their opinions pertain to homosexuality) for being "homophobic" (probably the most overused inappropriate word in modern discourse).

It ranks up there with "biased", "hypocrite", "antisemitic", "racist", and "ironic".

Though I suspect "biased" probably takes the cake because almost everyone who utters it uses it incorrectly.

Frazzled wrote:
Because its prima facae stupid. None of the arguments have anything to do with homophobia, unless of course you assume any disagreement is homophobia, which you and Sebster seem to be doing. Your argument is so overly broad as to be nonsensical.

For the record, its really hard to argue that the demands of your ethereal Sky God are not simply your demands. Because, even if your Sky God demands it, you're the one listening and relaying the information.

For the record those who believe in the great Sky God #27 will disgaree and say they are wider demands, and you're just NOT listening.

Frazzled wrote:
For the record those who believe in the great Sky God #27 will disgaree and say they are wider demands, and you're just NOT listening.

Sure, but I'm consciously making the choice not to listen.

Its one of those things that people like to take the self out of, but can't quite do so.

I for one believe homosexual practice is wrong; I am Christian. However, I don't see any point in not allowing gay marriage because the bit I disagree with is the type of relationship that it is between the two people of the same gender. Even when gay marriage is illegal, people have gay relatnships, and nothing I can do will stop that. I wouldn't look down on anybody for being gay, though I would certainly urge them not to practice homosexual relationships-how a person feels and how they behave shouldn't be the same thing as far as I am concerned.
In the end though, I would blame the focus of modern society on sex, rather than any one specific group or affiliation of people for the fact that this sort of discussion is necessary-sex and relationships are not the be all and end all of human existance.

Rabtorian wrote:...sex and relationships are not the be all and end all of human existance.

Without sex, humans wouldn't exist...