President-Elect Barack Obama

[.josh]

You know, there are plenty of people who follow beliefs that do not include the bible, or no belief at all, who oppose gay marriage, or gays in general (I hate using the term homophobic, as I feel that that is not an accurate label for opposers). Why you guys got to stereotype?  And please don't say something along the lines of "Because most people who oppose gay people are bible thumpers," because that's obviously the idea behind stereotyping.

[DarkWater]

You know, there are plenty of people who follow beliefs that do not include the bible, or no belief at all, who oppose gay marriage, or gays in general (I hate using the term homophobic, as I feel that that is not an accurate label for opposers). Why you guys got to stereotype?  And please don't say something along the lines of "Because most people who oppose gay people are bible thumpers," because that's obviously the idea behind stereotyping.

 

Not everyone who opposes gay marriage follows a belief that includes the bible obviously, but it seems a majority of people who DO have the bible and oppose gay marriage are opposed BECAUSE of the bible. 

And it is kind of homophobic, there's no other way to really put it.  And I'm not trying to stereotype, but it is what it is. =/

[waynew]

If you have a problem with the way another person lives their life.... and that person is doing absolutely nothing wrong that would affect you or your life... I'd have to question your opposition to homosexuals.

[.josh]

You know, there are plenty of people who follow beliefs that do not include the bible, or no belief at all, who oppose gay marriage, or gays in general (I hate using the term homophobic, as I feel that that is not an accurate label for opposers). Why you guys got to stereotype?  And please don't say something along the lines of "Because most people who oppose gay people are bible thumpers," because that's obviously the idea behind stereotyping.

 

Not everyone who opposes gay marriage follows a belief that includes the bible obviously, but it seems a majority of people who DO have the bible and oppose gay marriage are opposed BECAUSE of the bible. 

And it is kind of homophobic, there's no other way to really put it.  And I'm not trying to stereotype, but it is what it is. =/

 

...and you just did exactly what I asked not to be done: you stereotype as justification for stereotyping.  Do you not see the flawed circular logic in that? 

 

And as far as homophobic is concerned: yes, there is another way to put it: opposing gay/gay lifestyle/etc.. I phobia is an irrational fear of something.  Very few people are irrationally afraid of gay people.  Very few people are even rationally afraid of gay people.  Most people who oppose gay people disagree/oppose/hate them because they think it is morally wrong or whatever, but the point is, they don't irrationally or even rationally fear them. 

 

So do yourself a favor and instead of saying someone is homophobic, simply say they oppose them.

[DarkWater]

*facepalm* The irrationality of a person's "fear" of gays is pretty objective, so I don't think the word I use really matters.

[waynew]

And as far as homophobic is concerned: yes, there is another way to put it: opposing gay/gay lifestyle/etc.. I phobia is an irrational fear of something.  Very few people are irrationally afraid of gay people.  Very few people are even rationally afraid of gay people.  Most people who oppose gay people disagree/oppose/hate them because they think it is morally wrong or whatever, but the point is, they don't irrationally or even rationally fear them.

 

Being afraid of gay people is pretty irrational. What is there to fear?

[.josh]

Well I think I could probably come up with a list of why the people who rationally fear gay people rationally fear them, but that's not the point.  The point is that it's silly to respond to someone's opposition to gayness by claiming they are homophobic.  Maybe if I use a different example you will see my point.

 

I could hate...

 

....spiders.  Does that necessarily make me arachnophobic? No! I can simply think they are evil, annoying little creatures that I want to stomp on. 

 

....thunderstorms. Does that necessarily make me brontophobic?  I could easily just think they are loud and wet and annoying, ruining my day at the park.  I do not have to be irrationally afraid of thunderstorms to hate them.

 

....vomiting.  Does that necessarily make me emetophobic?  I could easily just think it sucks to throw up that fine meal I just ate.  I could easily think I that was a waste of a good bottle of booze, ruining my chances to get laid.  Also, cleaning up the mess kind of sucks.  I do not have to be irrationally afraid of vomiting in order to hate it.

 

I could go on and on all day.  Apparently there's a word to label an irrational fear of anything you can think of... and that's the key word irrational.  Even if one is legitimately afraid of something, they are no longer phobic. 

 

Sorry but it's just not anywhere near accurate to claim someone is homophobic just because they oppose gay people. It is not an objective statement at all.  Especially when you turn around and stereotype the "naysayers" as bible thumpers.  It's a sneaky and underhanded attempt to discredit people who oppose a lifestyle or agenda. 

 

Person1: "I hate gay people!"

Person2: "You're just a homophobic bible-thumper!"

 

You guys claim that person1 have no basis for making their statement; do you not see how silly and stupid person2's response is, in turn?

 

 

[DarkWater]

And if you hate spiders or vomiting because a book told you to, then I'd consider it irrational.

I hate it when people give examples to defend their position, but the examples are completely out of context or irrelevant.  :-\

 

And don't say that I randomly started calling everyone who opposes gays a homophobic bible thumper.  The whole discussion on gays up to this point has been about the bible pretty much, even before I posted.  Look at your posts, lol.

 

"Bible says being gay is a sin.  It's pretty clear on that count.  Well the whole conflict of interest comes in with that whole acknowledging of a creator part."

  Really?  Come on.  You can't say I'm calling you homophobic because of the bible for no reason.  And before you jump on that sentence, when I say homophobic, I mean "opposed to gays".

 

s/homophobic/opposed to gays/g;

[.josh]

How are my examples out of context or irrelevant?  I gave examples of how one can oppose something without being irrationally afraid of it.  Seems pretty relevant and in-context to me....

 

And you argue that believing something simply because a book told you is irrational? LMAO okay well then, pick up any science book.  Have you personally done the experiments to verify everything in there, yourself? Didn't think so. 

 

How do you know Mr. Obama won the election? Were you there to personally count the votes, or are you taking other people's word for it?  And don't tell me that the proof is there for you to count, because I guarantee you you personally cannot go and count them.

 

Pick up a newspaper, read any story about what happened.  Were you personally there to witness it?  Didn't think so.

 

People have this huge double standard when it comes to the bible.  They automatically write it off as fiction, and yet happily go about their lives believing everything else under the sun without actually verifying it. 

 

Or faith in general.  Do you know how your car works, what every single piece does? A plane? A computer? Or do you just have a general idea and take for granted that it does what it's "supposed to do." People put their faith in other people and things they don't understand or know about or don't even care to understand or know about, every single day, and yet casually toss out the bible.

 

I am not offering all that up as proof that what the bible says is true.  I'm simply pointing out a double standard.  Please think about what you're saying before you say it.

 

And my earlier arguments that brought the bible up were for arguing a different point.  This whole thread has evolved into new debates several times over now.  You're the one taking things out of context to use as an example, not me.

[DarkWater]

I can guarantee to you that if a science book told me to fear spiders, I wouldn't until I had a fearful experience involving spiders, in which case the fear wouldn't be irrational.

 

And I really hate to get started on this topic, but I will.  There's a major difference between believing an article in a science book and the bible.  You're putting faith in the validity of the article, but you're putting blind faith in the bible.  There's quantifiable, tangible data involved with science.  If I had the means, I very well could verify the experiment myself. 

 

About the election: There are people and machines that counted and verified the results.  If they made a mistake, it could be corrected or identified at least.

 

And you see, having "faith" (which is really not the right word for this situation) in a part of a car and plane and a computer is completely different from blindly believing something from a source whose only proof is in the source itself.  That's like saying "believe what I tell you because I'm telling it to you, which means it MUST be true".

 

I write the bible off as fiction because there's no proof, no evidence, no tangible method of identification that actually verifies the stories in the bible.  That's like reading Lord of the Rings and believing it just because someone wrote it.  I always hear people say "They wouldn't have written the bible if it wasn't true".  :-\

 

It's not a double standard; it's two completely different things.  It's kind of disappointing that something with proof is compared to something without proof at all and considered a double standard.

 

We can go back and forth with this for quite a while, but in the end, there's absolutely no proof of things in the bible except for other bible stories or other religious items claiming its validity.

 

Quick question: If I told you I had a 2 ton, fully grown African elephant in my left pocket, would you believe me?

[.josh]

I may be able to pick up a book and learn the ins and outs of a car but if I decide to instead just get in the car and drive, in principle, I am indeed personally taking it on faith.  Not really sure why you don't understand that....

 

"While hunting in Africa, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How an elephant got into my pajamas I’ll never know. " - Groucho Marx

 

And on that note, I think I'm taking a break from this debate, as well...

[DarkWater]

Good idea.

 

Sooooo, how do you guys feel about Democrats basically ruling the country now? xD

[xtopolis]

Just to add a few cents:

I voted for Obama because it was the first time I felt inspired to vote by a candidate.

 

(I live in California)

-The gay marriage ban passed by 4%, (52 - 48).  That's pretty damn close.  It is currently being argued, protested, contested, etc, etc, etc as we speak.  lol.

-I saw protesters from both sides of the issue holding their signs together on corners, so the hate must be from elsewhere, I didn't see any fighting, only peaceful .. advertising.

-In my experience, all votes for banning gay marriage came from people of religious faith.  But of course this is limited to my sample.

 

And, @ CV, lol.

I hope you're not comparing "faith" to "fact/experience":

You drive your car because you've SEEN that it works as so.  There are facts, documents, manuals, etc, supporting that the car will in fact work as it says.  You observe it's function daily, and have personal experience with it, that ANYONE who has driven can relate to.

 

I am not of faith, so you may consider my retort biased:

Many things of faith are ideological, accepted because people no longer contend them as much.  Also, things such as the idea of "God", and the past events are fairly hard to prove.  Not to mention, not all believers can relate in the same way...  I would say all cars operate on the idea that you can use it to drive somewhere... but I afaik, not all faiths claim to deliver you unto your god... and certainly not by doing the same practices.

 

I am not religiously versed, but it's hard for me to believe in something that hasn't been made real, or cannot be explained without using itself as an example/src.  Feel free to enlighten me if you wish.

[corbin]

You know, there are plenty of people who follow beliefs that do not include the bible, or no belief at all, who oppose gay marriage, or gays in general (I hate using the term homophobic, as I feel that that is not an accurate label for opposers). Why you guys got to stereotype?  And please don't say something along the lines of "Because most people who oppose gay people are bible thumpers," because that's obviously the idea behind stereotyping.

 

 

 

I was mainly using biblical people as an example.  Marriage is a religious thing after all.  I mean, I guess it could be viewed as straight up social in some aspects now, since marriage has become standard.  There are always more than 1 reason for everything, but I would think the main reason would be religion.

[.josh]

You know, there are plenty of people who follow beliefs that do not include the bible, or no belief at all, who oppose gay marriage, or gays in general (I hate using the term homophobic, as I feel that that is not an accurate label for opposers). Why you guys got to stereotype?  And please don't say something along the lines of "Because most people who oppose gay people are bible thumpers," because that's obviously the idea behind stereotyping.

 

I was mainly using biblical people as an example.  Marriage is a religious thing after all.  I mean, I guess it could be viewed as straight up social in some aspects now, since marriage has become standard.  There are always more than 1 reason for everything, but I would think the main reason would be religion.

 

Believe it or not, I personally do not have a problem with a gay couple getting a civil union.  That is, going down to the justice of the peace/clerk and being recognized as "married" under the law.  As far as the law is concerned, it's about filing taxes jointly such and all.  Gay people are tax paying citizens just the same as straight people.  I do not feel they should be discriminated in that aspect.  They live together and pay bills together etc.. so why shouldn't they be allowed the same govt. benefits? 

 

To me, the problem starts when they want to have a ceremony for a religion that believes gay marriage is not okay.  How can you expect to stand in front of a priest with a bible and be sanctified in the eyes of God, when the bible says it's wrong?  Why would you even want to?  It's not even a requirement for civil union.  I've met others who feel the same way as I do: okay with civil union, not okay with religious ceremony. 

 

Unfortunately, many people on both sides of the fence put civil union and religious union in the same boat, not even recognizing it as something that is separate, and I personally think that's where a lot of opposition comes from.  Not all of the opposition. As I have said in previous posts, there are many reasons why people are for or against it.  My overall point is that it's not as black and white as people make it out to be.

[DarkWater]

Why should their own religion effectively condemn them though?  If they want to have a religious ceremony in whatever religion they are, they should be able to.  :-/

[.josh]

Why should their own religion effectively condemn them though?  If they want to have a religious ceremony in whatever religion they are, they should be able to.  :-/

 

That makes no sense.  If you follow a religion that believes abc and you decide that only a and b apply to you, you are no longer following that religion, and you shouldn't be able to expect a follower of abc to recognize you as a follower of abc.  That's the whole point of freedom of religion. 

[DarkWater]

Why should their own religion effectively condemn them though?  If they want to have a religious ceremony in whatever religion they are, they should be able to.  :-/

 

That makes no sense.  If you follow a religion that believes abc and you decide that only a and b apply to you, you are no longer following that religion, and you shouldn't be able to expect a follower of abc to recognize you as a follower of abc.  That's the whole point of freedom of religion.

 

And you're really going to tell me that you follow every single part of your religion?  Come on.

[.josh]

Why should their own religion effectively condemn them though?  If they want to have a religious ceremony in whatever religion they are, they should be able to.  :-/

 

That makes no sense.  If you follow a religion that believes abc and you decide that only a and b apply to you, you are no longer following that religion, and you shouldn't be able to expect a follower of abc to recognize you as a follower of abc.  That's the whole point of freedom of religion.

 

And you're really going to tell me that you follow every single part of your religion?  Come on.

 

That's a really weak argument, and you know it. 

 

 

[DarkWater]

No it's not, you just tried to use the same argument. o_O

[Daniel0]

I agree with CV. What if a person said he was a christian, but didn't believe in Jesus Christ? That would contradict Christianity and thus you wouldn't be a real christian. It's the same concept only "being homosexual is not allowed" is replaced with "Jesus Christ".

[Mchl]

Except existence of Christ is among seven 'truths' of Catholic faith (don't know exact English term). In fact you can be homosexual and believe in Christ, while apparently if you want to be Catholic, you can't be homosexual...

[.josh]

No I didn't.  I broke it down to simple abc terms, and pitted two individual people against each other, not an entire religious belief system against one person.  I did that so that you can see that I should not be forced to recognize your beliefs, anymore than you should be forced to recognize mine.

 

There are indeed churches out there who claim to be christian churches, who allow gay marriages.  And I scratch my head wondering how they rightfully call themselves christian.  Just the same, there are indeed churches out there who prey on people's fears to take their money.  And I scratch my head wondering how they can rightfully call themselves. christian.  I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find a church out there that says they are christian, and yet somehow tries to justify killing people.  I'm not singling out being gay; that just happens to be the subject of conversation. 

 

The point is, nobody is perfect.  But there is a difference between knowing the "rules" and failing to follow them because you're not perfect, and knowing the "rules" and failing to follow them because you disagree with them. 

 

And again, it's not so simple as black and white.  Even the devil believes in God.

[.josh]

Except existence of Christ is among seven 'truths' of Catholic faith (don't know exact English term). In fact you can be homosexual and believe in Christ, while apparently if you want to be Catholic, you can't be homosexual...

 

Catholicism is one form among many of Christianity.  Not everybody is catholic

[Mchl]

I can only speak from the point of what Catholic Church teaches, as I don't know teaching of other Christian churches that well.