We do the same to mentally feel better about the mass incarceration of people from Central American in the United States. Illegal alien was a term we invented so we could mentally and emotionally separate ourselves from the acts we set in motion that hurt and kill other humans. These terms exist precisely because we know what we do to them for our own gain is highly immoral and godless...essentially feeding people to machines.

One of my favorite examples is the term megadeth the US government came up with during the Vietnam War. Instead of saying we had 25,000 soldiers die in the past two months deployed we can say we had two and a half mega deaths which doesn't sound nearly as bad.

In any of these crises where humans feed other humans to machines you have an initial problem, then you have a small group convince a larger group that smaller group of people who are Other are a public health concern. Once you do this it is ghettos, trains, detention centers, and death. All legal. All genocides i can think of were legal.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 12 2019 05:50am

Oh come on now, are they really people if they aren't white?

There's a difference between opposing homosexuality and opposing gay marriage. Marriage is an institution which grants a decent number of privileges and conveniences. The only way to justify these privileges that come with marriage is that a society has an evident self-interest in creating offspring and providing its children with a safe environment. It is a perfectly logical position to say that the bond between two people who, due to the "bigoted biology", will never be able to procreate should not enjoy these same privileges.

So no, opposing gay marriage is not necessarily a bigoted position to take, although I have to acknowledge that a lot of the opposition to gay marriage does indeed come from bigoted minds.

My personal opinion is that marriage (in the legal sense) is an outdated institution and should be abolished altogether (people can of course still marry in churches, i.e. in the religious sense). Better replace it with something more modern and customizable like the French pacte civil de solidarité ('pacs', https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_solidarity_pact ).

Sterile couples or couples with no interest in children shouldnt be able to marry. You heard it here folks. Weve been through this garbage line of reasoning a hundred times for the past 10 years that its just become embarrassing.

The government/the law cant really differentiate with this level of granularity.

And again, opposition to gay marriage is not my personal viewpoint. I would prefer abolishing marriage in the legal sense and replacing it with a french-style civil pact; and if that's not an option, I prefer the current world with gay marriage over the previous status quo where gays could not marry.

Nonetheless, I reject the notion that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily a bigoted position.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 12 2019 08:05am

Sure it can. Just put a spot to sign on a marriage form that you intend to produce children and have a reasonable expectation of your ability to do so. Done. Punish perjury as it comes to the attention of the state.

Its ridiculous to say that marriage is for making children. Theres a lot of other reasons to incentivize marriage.

I dont think you can reasonably escape it being a bigoted position any more than you can escape being against interracial marriage is a bigoted position. And even if you disagree "my religion" doesnt turn it to being non bigoted.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 12 2019 08:12am

by that 'logic', women who passed a certain age, people who are infertile / sterile, or those who just don't want kids and use birth control would be barred from marriage as well. no privileges for those who can't or don't want to procreate...
that is not REALLY the issue though, is it? making such excuses for them, in order to make it appear more 'rational' and acceptable is bad, especially if they fail basic logic...

It's not intolerant to refuse to accept the redefinition of an important institution.

Abolitionists cited the Bible as well. There's definitely verses in the Bible that one could use to justify slavery... unlike gay marriage or homosexuality, where scripture is clear.

I don't get the reasoning though. You're arguing that nobody is really reading scripture and figuring out what it says, we're just accepting the dominant position of the times. But I live in a culture that has largely accepted gay marriage and homosexuality as morally good. More and more Christians are moving that way. So why am I not just moving that way as well?

Well, the answer is because scripture does have meaning. It's possible to understand what it's saying. Some issues are more clear than others. The gay marriage and homosexuality issues are very clear.

This post was edited by IceMage on Oct 12 2019 11:04am

Discriminating against a class of people is discrimination by definition. You are arguing that discrimination against homosexuals is beneficial.

not expanding privileges != discrimination.

for example, it is not discrimination when citizens are subject to military conscription while non-citizens are not. similarly, it is not discrimination if citizens enjoy the right to vote while non-citizens dont.
it is not discrimination of non-veterans when veterans enjoy certain advantages on healthcare, pension or public transport.


in general, dscrimination can be defined as "systematically unequal treatment of equal or functionally similar situations/cases".
however, unequal treatment of unequal situations/affairs does not constiute discrimination!!



the real key question hence is whether society has an equal interest in promoting and protecting the relationships between heterosexual and gay couples. my personal answer is yes, but I think that valid arguments to the opposite exist as well.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 12 2019 11:54am