Why do People Have a Problem with Gay People?

Because as a group they (their activists, and the bien-pensant class who have for now decided that this minority group's interests trump millions of others) aggressively thrust their sexual proclivities into every area of society, taking full advantage of any public sympathy to lob insults at all who are completely disinterested in their narcissistic personal struggles, whilst simultaneously expecting to be revered, completely immune from any and all criticism, and moreover to be given preferential treatment in law via some bizarrely formed notion that they are oppressed?

Any noisy and vocal minority behaving in this fashion should expect at best a thin level of charitable tolerance, as by and large people will prefer to avoid conflict. The problem is not with homosexuality or "gay people" as individuals, but as a cultural movement alien to most they are just like any other divisive element of a multicultural society and should therefore not have any expectations of widespread acceptance.

In what way are gay people doing any of the things in bold?

Sure it can cause problems for both parties, but not everyone will accept gays and this will include some parents.

On the bolds, the implementation of hate crime and discrimination legislation represent preferential treatment in the law

I qualified it at the start by specifically stating 'as a group', which represents their public persona to those who are not interested but are constantly exposed to 'gay this' and 'gay that' in the media anyway. If 'gay people' as individuals have been hijacked by a minority of activists not representative of the whole then that is unfair but then these should be denounced.

On the bolds, the implementation of hate crime and discrimination legislation represent preferential treatment in the law over and above individuals who choose not to thrust their sexuality into the public domain (not that this is unique to homosexuals as a sub-group, far from it); whilst the demand that the institution of marriage be re-defined specifically to accommodate pairings other than that of a man and a woman is anything but demonstrative of 'equality' (and yet all opponents on common sense or religious grounds are automatically rendered 'homophobes' and 'bigots').

Like I said, it wasn't an argument per se, it was my opinion.

And I was obviously talking about homosexual men only. Not lesbians.

And of course it matters how strongly associated it is - its one of those kind of questions, "tell me what comes to your mind when I say the word..."

It will be in there somewhere.

Who did I quote anyway? I don't remember.

I only have a problem with it if they act gay, like what ive found from gay people is that'll walk weird or overreact and do hand gestures ... that is all.

Anti-discrimination laws are needed wherever people are being discriminated against. Unless you're suggesting that gay people aren't discriminated against, I don't see how this is at all unequal.

Marriage isn't being redefined, the law is being changed so it is no longer illegal for gay people to get married.

The implication is that committing a crime (or discriminating) against them because they are gay is somehow worse than if they don't have a particular minority attribute (reflected in sentencing guidelines). All people should be equal before the law, this sort of thing is a nonsense and breeds resentment.

In the UK, marriage is equal in that any unmarried adult male can form a marital union with any unmarried adult female (and vice versa). That a man cannot marry a man (or a woman marry a woman) does not mean the existing concept is not equal. It may feel 'unfair' but children can't get married either, and nor can blood relations, and one cannot marry multiple wives or husbands at the same time. The lobbying for these to also be 'corrected' are not evident, so referring to equality as a battle ground is not only false it is disingenuous. Homosexuals are again being elevated above the rest of society.

Civil partnerships confer all legal rights of a marriage on homosexual couples, but demanding it be called a 'marriage' when it is not one is really (as per usual, the basis of my original comments) just insisting its all about them and their sexuality and not the institution itself.

If I understand it correctly, the sentences vary according to the intent of the perpetrator which is hardly new. Crimes committed against gay people where their orientation was incidental aren't effected.

So you feel that gay people are equivalent to children? Or that being gay is equivalent to incest? Just because there are other instances where marriage is restricted does not mean that banning gay marriage is justified. It's like saying 'children aren't allowed to drive so it would be fine to ban gay people from driving too'. It's ridiculous.

Civil partnerships do not confer all the legal rights of marriage. See here for examples.

In the UK, marriage is equal in that any unmarried adult male can form a marital union with any unmarried adult female (and vice versa). That a man cannot marry a man (or a woman marry a woman) does not mean the existing concept is not equal. It may feel 'unfair' but children can't get married either, and nor can blood relations, and one cannot marry multiple wives or husbands at the same time. The lobbying for these to also be 'corrected' are not evident, so referring to equality as a battle ground is not only false it is disingenuous. Homosexuals are again being elevated above the rest of society.

That's quite possibly the most ridiculous argument I've heard in this entire thread. You cannot compare the argument of homosexual marriage to children getting married or to marriage of blood relation.

The reason marriage between children is banned is due to a question of maturity. They're not considered mature enough to make a life changing decision for themselves. Gay adult on the other hand have exactly the same levels of maturity as any other adult, do actually if you're going to compare gay marriage to underage marriage, it is a form of discrimination. The basis of your argument in this is based on maturity, so if they're as mature as any other adult, why can't they get married?

Again, the reason marriage of blood relations is banned is due to incest, which can harm any offspring created. Their genes are too similar so cause genetic mutation within the unborn child, causing them to have serious disabilities. So again, your argument is flawed as the reasoning behind a ban on marriage between blood relations is due to the safety of an children produced. As they're is an inability to naturally reproduce within homosexual relationships, it isn't exactly the best of comparisons.

And just to address your final comment, in actual fact, they're not being elevated above the rest of society, they're simply being elevated to have equal rights, rather than being below heterosexual society.



Posted from TSR Mobile