No. You’re just a bigot who doesn’t like to think they are. You like the ideas, but have a problem when a negative term gets attached to it. It’s like when people weren’t “racist.” They were “race realists.” It was racism with a new logo. Similar to how when people were homophibic, it wasn’t “bigotry”, it was “Think of the children” and “the gay agenda.”
I mean, look— I don’t like holier-than-thou activists either, but you need to make a distinction between them, actual activists, and the groups they’re representing. The former is an extreme minority.
Instead of being distrustful of the movement and making yourself look like an ass by preemptively attacking, your energy is better spent not bothering. In the event you encounter a nutjob, go troll them or tell them to pound sand. I promise you, as long as you aren’t on (formerly Twitter) or Tumblr circa 2016, it’s not as common as you think.
So no one was homophobic before? The Stonewall Riots just happened because gay people were bored? The big numbers in hate crimes? The government openly saying that they wouldn’t do anything about AIDs because it affected mostly gay people? I’m guessing it was gay people who wrote the laws that got us kicked out of the military. And made it so we couldn’t get married.
State interference with and regulation of marriage is, and always was, an abomination. Marriage is a religious and societal institution, and the state only got involved to prevent miscegeny.
The Christian church isn’t going to recognize gay weddings, but anyone else is welcome to.
I’d be happy to advocate with you in the pursuit of getting the state out of marriage.
And since the state has been involved for a long time, that means it should be open to anyone. Just as it’s been open to others such as atheists. They weren’t doing it for religious purposes. Nor were kings and queens when they would marry their children to unite kingdoms. Or people who basically married their children in exchange for cattle.
My point isn’t to get the state out of marriage since at this point it is more so a legal document and something that couples do out of love for each other. But the idea that it’s a religious thing is ridiculous. Not to mention its hardly an argument since that means that gay people have even more rights to get married, since some church’s, including Christian ones, will do it. If anything the idea that being gay is a sin has been slowly falling out of Christianity in the same way that interracial marriages were something many Christians were against at one point. So the idea that it’s somehow an argument against same sex marriage is absolutely false, and would only open the doors even more. It doesn’t even have to be religious. Being married is just being married.
“But some church’s wouldn’t count it!” Funny. I was raised Mormon. According to them most straight marriages don’t count either since they weren’t don’t in a Mormon temple. I don’t see others complaining that their church doesn’t recognize it.
Not only was this just moving the goal post, but it also is one that has been discussed many times and has always been torn apart.
Marriage refers to two things - (1) a legal contract between two people, mediated by the state, and (2) societal and/or religious acceptance of two people as a married couple. Nowadays, in most parts of the world, only the first matters for most purposes. So the state should recognise all marriages, but religions and society are free to have their own conditions as long as they do not harass people they don’t like.
Said what shit? When? What are you even talking about?
Everything you guys say about trans people.
“Biology!”
Heard that
“It’s a fad!”
Heard that
“It’s mental illness!”
Heard that
“Society is gonna crumble!”
Heard that
It’s everything. Everything. Everything. Let me repeat, everything. Even down to shit like should ____ be in the military or the bathrooms or sports?
Everything. It was bigotry back then. Its bigotry now.
You have a very loose definition of bigotry.
No. You’re just a bigot who doesn’t like to think they are. You like the ideas, but have a problem when a negative term gets attached to it. It’s like when people weren’t “racist.” They were “race realists.” It was racism with a new logo. Similar to how when people were homophibic, it wasn’t “bigotry”, it was “Think of the children” and “the gay agenda.”
Being hateful or disapproving of a demographic of people based on their identity?
Treating people being gay as political.
Yup, back then it was “the gay agenda.”
Same shit, different day.
It’s the alphabet mafia who are treating people being gay as political, not conservatives.
Using a pejorative name to refer to LGBT… you’re not helping your argument with that one.
Removed by mod
I mean, look— I don’t like holier-than-thou activists either, but you need to make a distinction between them, actual activists, and the groups they’re representing. The former is an extreme minority.
Instead of being distrustful of the movement and making yourself look like an ass by preemptively attacking, your energy is better spent not bothering. In the event you encounter a nutjob, go troll them or tell them to pound sand. I promise you, as long as you aren’t on (formerly Twitter) or Tumblr circa 2016, it’s not as common as you think.
Removed by mod
There are gay animals, my guy. If you’re against something as simple and widely accepted as gay rights, I don’t know what to tell you.
For the sake of your future kids, please don’t have any, though. I’d hate for your kid to turn out gay, trans, or ace.
You cannot show anybody how to be gay. You are either born gay, or you aren’t. Sexuality is not a choice. You need to better educate yourself.
My dude… “They” don’t want to make your children gay. They just don’t want your children bullying and beating up children who are.
So no one was homophobic before? The Stonewall Riots just happened because gay people were bored? The big numbers in hate crimes? The government openly saying that they wouldn’t do anything about AIDs because it affected mostly gay people? I’m guessing it was gay people who wrote the laws that got us kicked out of the military. And made it so we couldn’t get married.
Removed by mod
Lol You don’t even know the basic history behind Stonewall or the queer community in general.
Thanks for proving my point.
State interference with and regulation of marriage is, and always was, an abomination. Marriage is a religious and societal institution, and the state only got involved to prevent miscegeny.
The Christian church isn’t going to recognize gay weddings, but anyone else is welcome to.
I’d be happy to advocate with you in the pursuit of getting the state out of marriage.
And since the state has been involved for a long time, that means it should be open to anyone. Just as it’s been open to others such as atheists. They weren’t doing it for religious purposes. Nor were kings and queens when they would marry their children to unite kingdoms. Or people who basically married their children in exchange for cattle.
My point isn’t to get the state out of marriage since at this point it is more so a legal document and something that couples do out of love for each other. But the idea that it’s a religious thing is ridiculous. Not to mention its hardly an argument since that means that gay people have even more rights to get married, since some church’s, including Christian ones, will do it. If anything the idea that being gay is a sin has been slowly falling out of Christianity in the same way that interracial marriages were something many Christians were against at one point. So the idea that it’s somehow an argument against same sex marriage is absolutely false, and would only open the doors even more. It doesn’t even have to be religious. Being married is just being married.
“But some church’s wouldn’t count it!” Funny. I was raised Mormon. According to them most straight marriages don’t count either since they weren’t don’t in a Mormon temple. I don’t see others complaining that their church doesn’t recognize it.
Not only was this just moving the goal post, but it also is one that has been discussed many times and has always been torn apart.
Marriage refers to two things - (1) a legal contract between two people, mediated by the state, and (2) societal and/or religious acceptance of two people as a married couple. Nowadays, in most parts of the world, only the first matters for most purposes. So the state should recognise all marriages, but religions and society are free to have their own conditions as long as they do not harass people they don’t like.
What does Alex Jones’ dick taste like?