Should people who oppose gay marriage be banned from this forum?

[afleitch]

A claim that if true just makes your opposition to gay marriage more jarring because their opposition has the benefit of making sense.

So you accept religious opposition to gay marriage as a valid reason?

I accept it as less nonsensical than whatever your reasoning is.

To be fair, faith based opposition to something based on interpretation of 'revelation' as opposed to any evidential basis or understanding gleamed from social interaction is just as nonsensical. Unless one lives in a societal or cultural bubble, which TJ, DC and our friend here do not.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

No.

The thing about gay people is that they are incredibly patient. We've always had to wait on each step of the rights movement from decriminalisation to marriage, on the majority deciding when it was appropriate to give us some rights. How very nice of them. So we can wait. But there will be a point when opposing it becomes indefensible. When society isn't crumbling because of it and people you know are gay and married and the vast majority of people don't even notice sexuality as a defining characteristic, those who still oppose it or wave about a leather book en lieu of using thought will join the ranks of societies greatest assholes alongside those who think women should be in the kitchen and mixed race babies are an abomination.

I agree, but I think we'll all be dead or as old as Grumps when that happens. Precisely because people like Hifly and JCL claim not to be bigots but fight to maintain the heternormativity of an institution that should be inclusive. The result is still the same: They nurture an environment in which gay people do not feel welcome and can't express themselves freely. But it's okay! They're respectful about it.

I wish people could just realize that they're doing awkward backflips and jumping through hoops to try and defend bigotry. It's so senseless.

[Free Bird]

Wouldn't it be NOT tolerant to ban people who aren't tolerant?

[© tweed]

Had this forum been around 50 years ago, on what day would the racial segregationists have been banned? MLK's assassination?

they shouldn't be autobanned even today, only if they go banging on about it in unrelated contexts.  doctrinal litmus tests are for seminaries.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Yes, just for the funnies.

[°Leprechaun]

No.

The thing about gay people is that they are incredibly patient. We've always had to wait on each step of the rights movement from decriminalisation to marriage, on the majority deciding when it was appropriate to give us some rights. How very nice of them. So we can wait. But there will be a point when opposing it becomes indefensible. When society isn't crumbling because of it and people you know are gay and married and the vast majority of people don't even notice sexuality as a defining characteristic, those who still oppose it or wave about a leather book en lieu of using thought will join the ranks of societies greatest assholes alongside those who think women should be in the kitchen and mixed race babies are an abomination.

Well I guess I'm an asshole, because if a woman Wants to be a housewife I fail to see what is wrong with that. Many married women work because they have to not because they want to. Suppose a man wants to be a so called "housewife"? Is there anything wrong with that? So,  if it's ok for a man to be a housewife why not a woman? Somehow, though, I don't think that is what you meant. Of course, I do not believe a woman should be denied the opportunity to work, in fact, most people are ready to have a woman president even if not specifically for Hillary or Palin.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

A claim that if true just makes your opposition to gay marriage more jarring because their opposition has the benefit of making sense.

So you accept religious opposition to gay marriage as a valid reason?

I accept it as less nonsensical than whatever your reasoning is.

To be fair, faith based opposition to something based on interpretation of 'revelation' as opposed to any evidential basis or understanding gleamed from social interaction is just as nonsensical. Unless one lives in a societal or cultural bubble, which TJ, DC and our friend here do not.

Bushie?

[TNF]

I don't think that opposing same-sex marriage should be grounds for a ban, but I do think that open homophobia should be grounds for a ban, much in the same way that open racism already is.

[GMantis]

No. Ban people who want to ban others for having different opinions instead

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think that opposing same-sex marriage should be grounds for a ban, but I do think that open homophobia should be grounds for a ban, much in the same way that open racism already is.

I was wondering if homophonia might be grounds for a ban:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/homophonia-social-media-strategist-fired-after-blog-post-about-homophones-was-seen-as-relating-to-homosexuality-9639593.html

[°Leprechaun]

No. Ban people who want to ban others for having different opinions instead

I think that it is ridiculous to be such a control freak that you want to suppress views different from your own. It's normal to be annoyed by some opinions, but to oppose free speech, that bothers me a lot.

[°Leprechaun]

"On May 20, 2011, Gallup reported majority support for same-sex marriage for the first time in the country."

That's only three years ago.
Certainly, there are many places in the United States where there is not a majority of people supporting same-sex marriage. To make it sound so extreme to oppose same-sex marriage is a little problematic because back in 2008 and before anyone who supported it was considered extreme, even on this forum. Few Democratic politicians had the courage to support it and many of the Democrats on this forum supported those politicians. Obama only supported it when it became politically expedient to do so.

It is only since June 26, 2003 that same sex sexual activity became legal nationwide, and this was due to a Supreme Court decision not popular opinion, so it was only eleven years ago that the US's laws advanced beyond the current situation in Uganda.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't think that opposing same-sex marriage should be grounds for a ban, but I do think that open homophobia should be grounds for a ban, much in the same way that open racism already is.

I was wondering if homophonia might be grounds for a ban:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/homophonia-social-media-strategist-fired-after-blog-post-about-homophones-was-seen-as-relating-to-homosexuality-9639593.html

the words "homo" and "homo" are actually homophones, the former meaning person in Latin, the latter same in Greek

[afleitch]

No.

The thing about gay people is that they are incredibly patient. We've always had to wait on each step of the rights movement from decriminalisation to marriage, on the majority deciding when it was appropriate to give us some rights. How very nice of them. So we can wait. But there will be a point when opposing it becomes indefensible. When society isn't crumbling because of it and people you know are gay and married and the vast majority of people don't even notice sexuality as a defining characteristic, those who still oppose it or wave about a leather book en lieu of using thought will join the ranks of societies greatest assholes alongside those who think women should be in the kitchen and mixed race babies are an abomination.

Well I guess I'm an asshole, because if a woman Wants to be a housewife I fail to see what is wrong with that. Many married women work because they have to not because they want to. Suppose a man wants to be a so called "housewife"? Is there anything wrong with that? So,  if it's ok for a man to be a housewife why not a woman? Somehow, though, I don't think that is what you meant. Of course, I do not believe a woman should be denied the opportunity to work, in fact, most people are ready to have a woman president even if not specifically for Hillary or Palin.

You grabbed something I didn't say and ran with it

If a man thinks a woman should be in the kitchen regardless of what the woman wants to do thereby placing his desires over hers, then he is an chauvinistic asshole. If a woman or man wishes to be a homemaker then of course that's fine.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I think respectful  hatred along the lines of TJ or DC is not banworthy.

Neither TJ nor DC are hateful people in the least.

Didn't TJ say he'd disown his hypothetical gay child?

No btw.

[RI]

I think respectful  hatred along the lines of TJ or DC is not banworthy.

Neither TJ nor DC are hateful people in the least.

Didn't TJ say he'd disown his hypothetical gay child?

No btw.

If he did, I didn't see it.

[afleitch]

I think respectful  hatred along the lines of TJ or DC is not banworthy.

Neither TJ nor DC are hateful people in the least.

Didn't TJ say he'd disown his hypothetical gay child?

No btw.

If he did, I didn't see it.

He's thinking of usefulidiot. TJ just thinks you can pray it away.

[°Leprechaun]

No.

The thing about gay people is that they are incredibly patient. We've always had to wait on each step of the rights movement from decriminalisation to marriage, on the majority deciding when it was appropriate to give us some rights. How very nice of them. So we can wait. But there will be a point when opposing it becomes indefensible. When society isn't crumbling because of it and people you know are gay and married and the vast majority of people don't even notice sexuality as a defining characteristic, those who still oppose it or wave about a leather book en lieu of using thought will join the ranks of societies greatest assholes alongside those who think women should be in the kitchen and mixed race babies are an abomination.

Well I guess I'm an asshole, because if a woman Wants to be a housewife I fail to see what is wrong with that. Many married women work because they have to not because they want to. Suppose a man wants to be a so called "housewife"? Is there anything wrong with that? So,  if it's ok for a man to be a housewife why not a woman? Somehow, though, I don't think that is what you meant. Of course, I do not believe a woman should be denied the opportunity to work, in fact, most people are ready to have a woman president even if not specifically for Hillary or Palin.

You grabbed something I didn't say and ran with it

If a man thinks a woman should be in the kitchen regardless of what the woman wants to do thereby placing his desires over hers, then he is an chauvinistic asshole. If a woman or man wishes to be a homemaker then of course that's fine.

That's what I thought you meant, but thanks for clarifying. Of course, I have no problem with that. I do not think one person should have that much power over another.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I don't think that opposing same-sex marriage should be grounds for a ban, but I do think that open homophobia should be grounds for a ban, much in the same way that open racism already is.

How homophobic though? There are degrees of homophobia and not everyone here is 100% pro-homo.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No

[7,052,770]

Had this forum been around 50 years ago, on what day would the racial segregationists have been banned? MLK's assassination?

The moment it was no longer mainstreamed (as in social acceptable to support).

That's incredibly hard to define and varied from state to state. But we can all agree that hypothetical 1950s message boards would have allowed segregationists to post, but at some point they would have been banned. At some point we'll cross that same point for gay marriage, and I think you can at least argue that we're already there. I think there's a better than 50% chance that SSM will be legal in all 50 states while Obama is still president, so maybe that will be the day.

[ingemann]

Had this forum been around 50 years ago, on what day would the racial segregationists have been banned? MLK's assassination?

The moment it was no longer mainstreamed (as in social acceptable to support).

That's incredibly hard to define and varied from state to state. But we can all agree that hypothetical 1950s message boards would have allowed segregationists to post, but at some point they would have been banned. At some point we'll cross that same point for gay marriage, and I think you can at least argue that we're already there. I think there's a better than 50% chance that SSM will be legal in all 50 states while Obama is still president, so maybe that will be the day.

Open opposition to gay marriage are clearly as mainstream to day as the support for segregation or the opposition to interracial marriage ever was. It's not impossible that it will change in the near future, but if you look at this forum or any other bipartisan forum, the opposition to SSM are clearly still mainstream.