Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Because they are 'different' and some people can't deal with anyone that differs from the norm

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    A study on the acceptance of homosexuality taken from;

    http://www.pewglobal.org/files/pdf/258.pdf

    Name:  Snipit.PNG
Views: 36
Size:  17.6 KB

    You may need to zoom in to see it properly...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    In what way are gay people doing any of the things in bold?
    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').
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    Sure it can cause problems for both parties, but not everyone will accept gays and this will include some parents.
    Sure, people can think whatever they want. The point is that it's basically insane, isn't it? It's completely irrational destroy your connection with your children on the basis of an erroneous and unsupportable view.

    Yes, we can say some parents will reject their child's sexuality, just like some people will be cat ladies.

    In my case, my boyfriends' parents refuse to recognise me as anything other than his "friend" (i.e. they're delusional) and it means they may not actually spend any time with the future presumable grandchildren who are looking more likely each day. They've completely alienated both of his heterosexual siblings over this issue. Why would anyone do that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    On the bolds, the implementation of hate crime and discrimination legislation represent preferential treatment in the law
    Nope. The legislation says sexual orientation, not homosexuality. Straight people are equally protected by such legislation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because they are ignorant and find it hard to come to terms with something that society deems not 'normal'. Also a lot of those people tend to be very uncomfortable with their own sexuality and feel the need to persecute others because of it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    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').
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    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.
    You weren't obviously talking about homosexual men, or you'd have said homosexual men. The thread isn't about homosexual men, it's about 'gay people' including lesbians. When you responded you were talking to someone who was saying that you couldn't say anything negative about homosexuals without being homophobic, you responded saying that someone couldn't say anything negative about school etc. and then moved on to something not even related to homosexuals, so he's still right (or she, can't remember the username and not checking again).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atemukay)
    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.
    That's being camp not gay. The two are mutually exclusive though generally go hand in hand with homosexual men.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    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.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    This point may have been made already, but one reason is fear of your own sexuality. A glorious example is that Scottish RC archbishop who went banging on about gay marriage and shortly afterwards had to resign because his own behaviour with other men had been less than perfect.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    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.
    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.

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by incipientT)
    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.
    Ordinarily crime has a motive (intent) and an act. These legislations add a third component, essentially prejudice or hate. Determining whether this is a factor and then punishing more severely if it is deemed so, is essentially regulating thoughts on some ill-defined scale of moral relativism. I am against this in any form but it is evidence of special treatment (more equal than equal).

    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.
    I didn't say any of those things, just illustrating that marriage is presently clearly defined but if you start tampering with it then other 'unfairnesses' (not inequalities) are self-evident. It's not against gays in particular.

    Civil partnerships do not confer all the legal rights of marriage. See here for examples.
    The financial rights need to be updated if that's true, whereas the concepts of adultery/consummation are part of the reason that legislating marriage for homosexuals requires a full re-definition, perhaps you have some ideas on terminology that our ruling classes have missed. Presently it is looking like they'd have to axe them entirely on absurdity grounds, which is hardly fair to currently married couples. This is really just another exercise in subverting traditional society norms until they no longer mean anything whatsoever.

    On the cultural importance of marriage and the stuff about genders, I suggest you read this: http://sultanknish.blogspot.mx/2013/...-marriage.html

    I suppose it would be a noble thing if homosexual couples travelling to Saudi Arabia were able to have their marriage recognized abroad though :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)

    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    isn't there some sort of evidence to suggest the rise in homosexuals is dangerous. Similar to the rise of bestiality in the dark ages where killing somebody for a log of wood became the norm. Once something dangerous become so accepted, it becomes normal. All this interference causes confusion which could create holes in the O-Zone layer, opening of the 'third eye' (Spiritually speaking) and decline in society.

    People who rise against the evil of fighting against nature :confused: will be condemned as herotrics and throw into jail by the Gay Mafia if we allow notoriety to continue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KC003)
    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
    What about animal rights then? there right to graze in the field without being killed by some spear wielding maniac supplying Tesco's. What if 15 year old want to drive? they can't do that can they.

    Homosexuality is going to end up going through the roof. Children will grow up CONFUSED witnessing all this sickness whilst you call it normal? :confused: what do we teach children about it? that's it's normal? that's it's only a bum-hole? this issue should be left as it is. No more they can get married but they can't raise kids because it will destory that chillds outlook on humanity and turn him mentally ill one day. WE (Most civil people) do not want cross-dressing to become something more than a joke.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    gay people dont have rights
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.