GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Should gays have The Right To Be Married?

Repetitive Monkey · 03-10-2004, 12:16 AM

I don't like the values of the "gay community," but I don't really give two shits about gays or what they do as long as they don't intentionally provoke me or try to influence children to "explore their sexuality."

Here are a few points I feel I have to raise however.

1. Many on the "yes" side are extremely quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as "clearly" frightened and insecure, "obviously" homosexual themselves, without providing any argumentation whatsoever. Look back in this thread for examples.

This is invalid argumentation, and it sounds so fucking stupid and desperate that it is beyond me as to how you get away with it as often as you do. Anyone can say that since someone agrees or disagrees with something, they are "clearly" frightened, "obviously" meaning something else no matter what they say, and so forth. I could say that if you are disagreeing with this very post, it is obvious and perfectly clear that you in effect are just like me, and are just trying to deny your own nature by virtue of the act of disagreeing with me. See my point? Try something else, please. How about some convincing arguments instead of those desperate attempts at "winning" arguments by playing supreme God over what the opposition's arguments "really" means.

2. Disallowing the misuse of a concept/ritual invented by and for straight people to mean something special to them isn't oppression or denying anyone any rights. If "denying" this to gays is denying them their rights (how and where did they earn this right?), then by the exact same logic, single people and people who want to marry a group of people or even a plant/baby/child/picture/object/soul/animal are also being denied "their" right and thereby "oppressed." And what about urinals for men? Aren't women oppressed and denied their rights by not getting urinals installed in womens' bathrooms? After all, some woman do prefer to stand while peeing. Who are we to say that they can't have urinals? Denying them their rightful urinals is not humane! Et cetera.

I suggest the gays stock up on some of that "sensitivity" and "tolerance" they are so quick to preach about, and put some thought into whether they really want to change the meaning of marriage for everybody, when in fact they are just a vocal little minority. But I guess sensitivity and tolerance doesn't apply that way, right? Hypocricy at its best.

I have more points about this issue, but I have spent enough time on this for now. Thanks for reading.

CLIFFNOTES: 1) Explanation of own stance. 2) A bunch of interesting little analogies and facts sum up to ownage of one of the sides to this discussion. 3) The question of whether the sensitivity and tolerance being preached is applicable in more than just the way in which it is beneficial to politically correct groups is raised.

03-10-2004, 12:16 AM
Repetitive Monkey Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,505	I don't like the values of the "gay community," but I don't really give two shits about gays or what they do as long as they don't intentionally provoke me or try to influence children to "explore their sexuality." Here are a few points I feel I have to raise however. 1. Many on the "yes" side are extremely quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as "<b>clearly</b>" frightened and insecure, "<b>obviously</b>" homosexual themselves, without providing any argumentation whatsoever. Look back in this thread for examples. This is invalid argumentation, and it sounds so fucking stupid and desperate that it is beyond me as to how you get away with it as often as you do. Anyone can say that since someone agrees or disagrees with something, they are "clearly" frightened, "obviously" meaning something else no matter what they say, and so forth. I could say that if you are disagreeing with this very post, it is obvious and perfectly clear that you in effect are just like me, and are just trying to deny your own nature by virtue of the act of disagreeing with me. See my point? Try something else, please. How about some convincing arguments instead of those desperate attempts at "winning" arguments by playing supreme God over what the opposition's arguments "really" means. 2. Disallowing the misuse of a concept/ritual invented by and for straight people to mean something special to them isn't oppression or denying anyone any rights. If "denying" this to gays is denying them their rights (how and where did they earn this right?), then <b>by the exact same logic, single people and people who want to marry a group of people or even a plant/baby/child/picture/object/soul/animal are also being denied "their" right and thereby "oppressed."</b> And what about urinals for men? Aren't women oppressed and denied their rights by not getting urinals installed in womens' bathrooms? After all, some woman do prefer to stand while peeing. Who are we to say that they can't have urinals? Denying them their rightful urinals is not humane! Et cetera. I suggest the gays stock up on some of that "sensitivity" and "tolerance" they are so quick to preach about, and put some thought into whether they really want to change the meaning of marriage for everybody, when in fact they are just a vocal little minority. But I guess sensitivity and tolerance doesn't apply that way, right? Hypocricy at its best. I have more points about this issue, but I have spent enough time on this for now. Thanks for reading. CLIFFNOTES: 1) Explanation of own stance. 2) A bunch of interesting little analogies and facts sum up to ownage of one of the sides to this discussion. 3) The question of whether the sensitivity and tolerance being preached is applicable in more than just the way in which it is beneficial to politically correct groups is raised.