9 ms·
why would you start insulting random people because they happen to hold a different view from the mainstream? it's sound like dictature to me. Have you ever con
by Hikari 14y ago
why would you start insulting random people because they happen to hold a different view from the mainstream? it's sound like dictature to me. Have you ever considered that you can be against gay mariage without wanting to harm gay people or resent any kind of hate toward them?
- cdcarter 14y agoI have, in all my years, never heard that position successfully argued. Marriage-protection amendments almost universally outlaw not only marriage equality but also the establishment of other non-"marriage" arrangements that carry the same benefits as marriage. Please explain how someone could agree with that but not hold any hate towards homosexuals.
- spindritf 14y agoMarriage benefits are a subsidy towards a particular social arrangement (and it changes all the time, mostly through the shape of tax and divorce laws). You don't have to hate anyone to be against extending it. There are supporters and opponents of beef subsidies but cow hate is not the major driving force there. Of course, politics is not about policy http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html so it's very difficult to successfully argue anything because the argument (on any political topic, and in any direction) will almost always be disingenuous.
- incest 14y agoMarriage benefits should be different for heterosexual and homosexual couples like beef and pork subsidies.
- natep 14y agoYes, I've considered it, and no, it's not possible, since inequal marriage rights harms gays by definition. What scenario did you have in mind?
- mibbitier 14y agoSome people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that. Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of "men" to include women :/
- danparsonson 14y ago> Some people oppose the redefinition of the word "marriage" to include unions other than a man and a woman. There's nothing homophobic about that. How else would you categorise it? What other reason do you have to oppose the slight broadening of the definition of a word? "Loving union between a man and a women" into "Loving union between two people"? > Think of what it'd be like if Women were pressing for the redefinition of "men" to include women :/ That's a non sequitur and I hope you know it. Redefining marriage in this way is more akin to the last century's redefinition of the word 'citizen' in the US and the UK to include black people - it erases a distinction that was incorrectly made in the first place. "Men" and "Women" are biologically separable.
- mibbitier 14y agoHaving words for different things is useful. It makes language more efficient and reduces the need for clarification :) We have words such as "waitress" and "waiter", because it adds useful information. It tells us their sex. It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful. Similarly, being able to tell the sex of the people involved in a union, is useful information. It means you don't have to ask for clarification, and reduces the chances of faux pas. To compare it to a persons colour is silly. Sex matters... That's why our language is full of words like son/daughter, waiter/waitress. Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter. It's irrelevant.
- corin_ 14y ago> "It's not sexist to have such words, it's just useful." Less so now than in the past, but there are feminists who would disagree with you on that, and who do consider "waitress vs waiter", "actress vs actor" etc. to be sexist. > "Colour does not matter, which is why our language doesn't have specific words for say a black waiter." Actually our language does have some specific words for people of different colours, plenty of them are now considered racist. I'm sure you don't need a list of examples here.