Do you support gay marriage? watch

(Original post by *Stefan*)
No one said it doesn't stand. Clearly some countries do not accept it. That much is indisputable.

The question we've been talking about is whether they're right to do so, which they clearly are not.

You even hinted that with the "rational" adjective.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Sorry, but some people are against gay marriages.
You cannot change that and enforce them.

I'm rational about it because I understand that it's unfair and unjust to treat gays poorly. However, I'm against gay marriages.

can we just let this thread die already, gay marriage is legal in most places anyway... and likely will be made legal in other places in the future

(Original post by Jhansen23)
You're absolutely correct. Most gay men DON'T have anal sex.

And probably 0.00000001% of lesbians. Who are also homosexual...

I fully support it

(Original post by Alisa59)
Sorry, but some people are against gay marriages.
You cannot change that and enforce them.

I'm rational about it because I understand that it's unfair and unjust to treat gays poorly. However, I'm against gay marriages.

Exactly. Then you and them are rightly called backwards and whatnot.

I doubt the corrosion of religion is wear out anytime soon in countries with lacking education. That doesn't mean I won't be walling them and you backwards or bigoted.

(Original post by nomnomnomm)
can we just let this thread die already, gay marriage is legal in most places anyway... and likely will be made legal in other places in the future

You've gotta be kidding me?

Most places imply a majority [of places.]


Posted from TSR Mobile

(Original post by *Stefan*)
"Western" view? You mean the humane, modern and respectful view apparently.

You don't see where I get this idea from? Please. If it were different, we wouldn't even be discussing this now.

I don't get when people think their arguments on this topic only refer to single elements. My point was consequential to yours. SA, for religious reasons, whiplashes gay people, just because they're gay. The society itself embraces and encourages this. According to your logic, we shouldn't challenge this because it's the status quo. Don't get why you're trying to segregate the issues.

The "being brought into something" argument is deeply fallacious and disturbing. There is always the point for change. If that argument worked in factual terms, black people wouldn't have any rights today, nor would homosexuals be able to marry in western societies. Someone always changes the status quo.

Erm, isn't that what I said? I don't expect them to accept it precisely because they're backwards. I'm well aware the corrosion of religion in those societies will not wear out.

Of course it doesn't equate to being backwards. Where did I say it does? There's a difference between religious people who respect human rights and religious people who do not. You can guess whom I was referring to when I said "backwards".

Posted from TSR Mobile

People in the ME will despise Western views whereas people in the West will despise ME-ern views/cultures.

Both sides can point fingers at each other, call each other backwards etc. so you thinking that Western views are more humane, modern, respectful etc. isn't the right answer.

Also, I made my point on how the ME and other countries will not be receptive of the idea of gay marriage but, alas, there is always someone who gets triggered and starts to put words into my mouth.

I didn't say embrace whipping gay people just for being gay. I even pointed out that I thought this was wrong. I said that many people in Middle Eastern/Asian society do not believe being gay is right therefore it is unlikely that attitudes are going to change towards them when a vast majority of them grow up in an environment where being heterosexual is the norm and that homosexuality is virtually unheard of to them and it is frowned upon.

No. Don't compare this to black people. You have got to understand, thus ending this argument, that the idea of gay marriage will not be receptive in societies where their culture, religion, whatever, goes against being homosexual in the first place. I don't advocate for removing black rights or gay rights for that matter. You're comparing getting married to someone with someone's skin tone/race.

You also contradict yourself. You say 'they' not accepting gay marriage means that they are backwards. 'They' being religious people.


Happy Ramadan.

(Original post by *Stefan*)
Exactly. Then you and them are rightly called backwards and whatnot.

I doubt the corrosion of religion is wear out anytime soon in countries with lacking education. That doesn't mean I won't be walling them and you backwards or bigoted.

I'm just going to point out that you've contradicted yourself.

Bigot: obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.

You not accepting her view and calling her backwards and a bigot makes you a bigot.

Well done, you played yourself.

(Original post by nomnomnomm)
can we just let this thread die already, gay marriage is legal in most places anyway... and likely will be made legal in other places in the future

Countries where gay marriage is currently legal: The Netherlands (2000), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina (2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), England and Wales (2013), France (2013), New Zealand (2013), Uruguay (2013), Luxembourg (2014), Scotland (2014), Finland (signed 2015, effective 2017), Ireland (2015), United States (2015), Greenland (2016), Colombia (2016)

So thats 24.

Countries that have anti-homosexuality laws or being gay is punishable: Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia,Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Daesh (or ISIS /ISIL), India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine/GazaStrip, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen Americas, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados,Belize, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent& the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, Cook Islands, Indonesia (Aceh Province and South Sumatra), Kirbati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands,Tonga, and Tuvalu, Russia, and Lithuania.

Thats 77.

But yeah lets let this thread die because 'gay marriage is legal in most places anyway.'

(Original post by Lujubi)
People in the ME will despise Western views whereas people in the West will despise ME-ern views/cultures.

Both sides can point fingers at each other, call each other backwards etc. so you thinking that Western views are more humane, modern, respectful etc. isn't the right answer.[/QUOTE]

Despise is a strong word. But in any case, you know who's correct by looking at records.

So yes, it is. Whether you're willing to accept that or not is immaterial.

(Original post by Lujubi)
Also, I made my point on how the ME and other countries will not be receptive of the idea of gay marriage but, alas, there is always someone who gets triggered and starts to put words into my mouth.

I'm pretty sure we have talked about this issue. That they are not receptive is clear. That is not the point though.

(Original post by Lujubi)
I didn't say embrace whipping gay people just for being gay. I even pointed out that I thought this was wrong. I said that many people in Middle Eastern/Asian society do not believe being gay is right therefore it is unlikely that attitudes are going to change towards them when a vast majority of them grow up in an environment where being heterosexual is the norm and that homosexuality is virtually unheard of to them and it is frowned upon.

You said that we should not challenge their views on gay marriage. When it comes to whipping, however, you seem to actively disagree. As I said, this only reflects your own views - you agree with one but don't with the other. It changes nothing in that SA, for instance, is horrible and backwards.

(Original post by Lujubi)
No. Don't compare this to black people. You have got to understand, thus ending this argument, that the idea of gay marriage will not be receptive in societies where their culture, religion, whatever, goes against being homosexual in the first place. I don't advocate for removing black rights or gay rights for that matter. You're comparing getting married to someone with someone's skin tone/race.

The comparison is sort of an allegory. You simply don't want to consider it because you know it destroys your argument. I didn't compare black people/gay people rights - I compared the notion behind them. If, as you said, things shouldn't be challenged because they're the status quo, black people would still be suffering. Ergo, your argument is fallacious.

And? Both belong to their fundamental human rights groups. And both are equal.

(Original post by Lujubi)
You also contradict yourself. You say 'they' not accepting gay marriage means that they are backwards. 'They' being religious people.

How am I contradicting myself? It's clear that the vast, vast, vast majority of those who refuse to accept gay marriage, and thus impose their views on others, are, surprise surprise, religious people.

(Original post by Lujubi)
Happy Ramadan.

Happy Ramadan... I guess.

(Original post by nomnomnomm)
can we just let this thread die already, gay marriage is legal in most places anyway... and likely will be made legal in other places in the future

Exactly! Lol...
Maybe other places will be made legal in the future, but I doubt that they will be agreeing with it.

(Original post by Lujubi)
I'm just going to point out that you've contradicted yourself.

Bigot: obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.

You not accepting her view and calling her backwards and a bigot makes you a bigot.

Well done, you played yourself.

Logic clearly evades you. There's a point when one point of view becomes superior to the other.

Gay people, by wanting to marry, do not wish to strip religious people of their religion, or refuse their "straight" marriage.

Religious people, on the other hand, do exactly that. They have no problems degrading others and stripping them of their human rights.

That much I thought was clear.

Also, again according to your logic, we should not flame ISIS because it's their religious beliefs and we would be bigots by doing so?

Please.

(Original post by nomnomnomm)
can we just let this thread die already, gay marriage is legal in most places anyway... and likely will be made legal in other places in the future

In most places? In the Western world you mean. Because half the world is willing to jail people because they're gay, not even argue whether they want to marry.

(Original post by epage)
Countries where gay marriage is currently legal: The Netherlands (2000), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina (2010), Iceland (2010), Portugal (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), England and Wales (2013), France (2013), New Zealand (2013), Uruguay (2013), Luxembourg (2014), Scotland (2014), Finland (signed 2015, effective 2017), Ireland (2015), United States (2015), Greenland (2016), Colombia (2016)

So thats 24.

Countries that have anti-homosexuality laws or being gay is punishable: Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia,Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Daesh (or ISIS /ISIL), India, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine/GazaStrip, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen Americas, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados,Belize, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent& the Grenadines, Trinidad & Tobago, Cook Islands, Indonesia (Aceh Province and South Sumatra), Kirbati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands,Tonga, and Tuvalu, Russia, and Lithuania.

Thats 77.

But yeah lets let this thread die because 'gay marriage is legal in most places anyway.'

Interesting.
I didn't expect countries in South Africa, Russia, or Lithuania to be in the list.

(Original post by *Stefan*)

Despise is a strong word. But in any case, you know who's correct by looking at records.

So yes, it is. Whether you're willing to accept that or not is immaterial.

I'm pretty sure we have talked about this issue. That they are not receptive is clear. That is not the point though.
You said that we should not challenge their views on gay marriage. When it comes to whipping, however, you seem to actively disagree. As I said, this only reflects your own views - you agree with one but don't with the other. It changes nothing in that SA, for instance, is horrible and backwards.

The comparison is sort of an allegory. You simply don't want to consider it because you know it destroys your argument. I didn't compare black people/gay people rights - I compared the notion behind them. If, as you said, things shouldn't be challenged because they're the status quo, black people would still be suffering. Ergo, your argument is fallacious.And? Both belong to their fundamental human rights groups. And both are equal.

How am I contradicting myself? It's clear that the vast, vast, vast majority of those who refuse to accept gay marriage, and thus impose their views on others, are, surprise surprise, religious people.
Happy Ramadan... I guess.

I'm going to tell you for a third time now. I did not say that whipping/killing gays is right because it's the status quo. I said that the idea of gay marriage is not receptive in the ME/Asia. THAT IS THE POINT, or I wouldn't have had this argument.

Again. putting words into my mouth. I disagree with treating people badly just for being gay as I disagree with being racist to someone. I also said that comparing gay marriage to somebody's skin tone/race is ridiculous. How does this destroy my argument? The fact that you compare race to marriage is beyond me but then again, this is your opinion and I am going to accept that whether I like it or not.

I defined what bigot meant which is (broadly speaking) the inability to accept the views of others.
You called someone/asian/middle eastern people a bigot and backwards because they are not receptive of the idea of gay marriage probably because of culture and religion. Do you not see what you did wrong there? A key part of this debate is to listen and respect the fact that people may have views different to yours and calling them a bigot/backwards for following religion etc. does not help.

I think I am done with TSR for today. I respect the fact that you challenged my viewpoint of this, so I'll give you that one.
W'salam.

(Original post by Alisa59)
Interesting.
I didn't expect countries in South Africa, Russia, or Lithuania to be in the list.

Russia?? Are you serious?? Thats one of the most famous countries for being against homosexuality. It isn't necessarily illegal, but many people in the country are against it and there are 'anti homosexual propaganda' laws, whatever that means.

(Original post by *Stefan*)
Logic clearly evades you. There's a point when one point of view becomes superior to the other.

Gay people, by wanting to marry, do not wish to strip religious people of their religion, or refuse their "straight" marriage.
Religious people, on the other hand, do exactly that. They have no problems degrading others and stripping them of their human rights.
That much I thought was clear.
Also, again according to your logic, we should not flame ISIS because it's their religious beliefs and we would be bigots by doing so?

Please.

This one has gone over your head. I explained up in the post above what I meant by this since I'm not typing that all out again.

(Original post by Lujubi)
I'm going to tell you for a third time now. I did not say that whipping/killing gays is right because it's the status quo. I said that the idea of gay marriage is not receptive in the ME/Asia. THAT IS THE POINT, or I wouldn't have had this argument.

Again. putting words into my mouth. I disagree with treating people badly just for being gay as I disagree with being racist to someone. I also said that comparing gay marriage to somebody's skin tone/race is ridiculous. How does this destroy my argument? The fact that you compare race to marriage is beyond me but then again, this is your opinion and I am going to accept that whether I like it or not.

I defined what bigot meant which is (broadly speaking) the inability to accept the views of others.
You called someone/asian/middle eastern people a bigot and backwards because they are not receptive of the idea of gay marriage probably because of culture and religion. Do you not see what you did wrong there? A key part of this debate is to listen and respect the fact that people may have views different to yours and calling them a bigot/backwards for following religion etc. does not help.

I think I am done with TSR for today. I respect the fact that you challenged my viewpoint of this, so I'll give you that one.
W'salam.

Do you even spend a minute to understand what I'm saying or are you simply blasting at the get-go?

We were talking about the correctness of their approach, considering you criticised me for calling them backwards. That they are not receptive is clear and not open to discussion. How many times do I need to say this?

OMG... This is getting tiresome. Where did I compare being gay with skin tone? I gave an example when you said that some things should never change because people in certain places accept them as the status quo. Following yet or do I need to explain this in a textbook manner?

I answered this in the post below. When one essentially harasses the other, he is a bigot end of. Whether you accept this or not is immaterial.

I didn't really challenge a viewpoint. There's a wrong and a right perspective here. You just happen, no doubt due to your religion, to belong to the latter.

(Original post by Lujubi)
This one has gone over your head. I explained up in the post above what I meant by this since I'm not typing that all out again.

No, it hasn't. You simply realised the sheer stupidity of what you said. To compare the oppressor with the oppressed is ridiculous.

everyone's entitled to their own rights so of course! People that oppose it are the ones that judge really EVERYONES GOT FREE WILL. YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE!

(Original post by cashcash871)
Not really no. I think marriage should be between a man and a woman.

good job nobody's forcing you to get gay married then