Demonizing people
- Thread starter Sorcerer
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Spot on Bells! Indeed, how DOES one work alongside a homophobic coworker? I did a few years back. Eventually he started talking to other workers about me being gay. I never heard the conversations directly, but could definitely overhear parts of them. I couldn't imagine how anyone could make themselves look so ridiculous. At one point another coworker asked me if I was gay. I told him don't ask me that or I would take it to HR. I wasn't exactly out at work and preferred not to even discuss it. I resented the fact that I was being forced to all because this one guy and his problem with "homos". Eventually our company laid off lots of workers, and away went that homophobic ass. To this day I wonder if I should have confronted him directly and asked, "So what if I'm gay? What does it matter?" In any case, I mention this to confirm how discrimination against gay people still goes on all the time, even when we are not "out" or "in your face" about it. It doesn't take alot of people to do it either. Only one asshole out of hundred or so, pushing and manipulating opinion against us in any way he can.
Magical Realist,
You deny that marriage, throughout the world, and in every human culture past and present, has not been seen, by default, as something that occurs only between man and woman?
Because of legislation. It's not that men have been deprived of being married to each other throughout the ages, it's just not been a part of any society until now.
jan.
You deny that marriage, throughout the world, and in every human culture past and present, has not been seen, by default, as something that occurs only between man and woman?
Because of legislation. It's not that men have been deprived of being married to each other throughout the ages, it's just not been a part of any society until now.
jan.
http://www.ranker.com/list/13-people-who-married-inanimate-objects/jude-newsome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage
http://www.oddee.com/item_97042.aspx
People have married all sorts of weird shit...
So, no, it isn't jsut between a man and a woman it seems.
I don't understand why the admins allow it.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No. I'm not denying that at all. I'm simply denying that as a justification for defining marriage that way. Time was women in every culture in the past were seen, by default, as property to be sold to another family to accrue benefits. Time was black people were viewed as non-persons to be abused and enslaved. The mere fact that these things have been the default MO of all cultures in the past does not justify their continuance as such today. The world is waking up to accepting marriage equality for gays. Times are a' changing. That's why you are now in the minority on this issue. I bet that in 50 years people will look back and laugh at a world that discriminated against gays in this way.
Well it's definitely part of society now. So get used to it. And if you don't think constitutional amendments defining marriage as exclusively between a man and women isn't depriving gay people of both genders from marrying each other, you are wrong. It is blatant violation of the 14th amendment, which says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I don't think they knew it was going on. They would've definitely taken some action otherwise I'm sure.
Woman are marrying their dogs. Do you have a problem with that?
Yes, there are a great many things that have changed since the Bronze Age when your religion was being formed, but we no longer follow many of those barbaric ideas anymore. Time to get with the program and move into the 21 st century, Jan.
Oh, they knew. There's no question of that.
Magical Realist,
What do you think the real purpose of marriage is?
Now we have woman at the top of the food chain, but it doesn't change the fact that they are women. Marriage is fundamentally essential to every society (even technological ones), as it produces the next generations. It is more than just a lovey-dovey arrangement.
And it's good that black people are no longer publicised like that, but black people are actual people, alway were, and always will be. No amount of legislation can change that.
You're talking about something else. The examples you gave are of people who have been oppressed because of their gender, race, or ethnicity.
You say ''waking up'' as though the world has been ignorant of something. The ''world'' at present knows what marriage is, they accept that gays can be married. Not that gays have been deprived of marriage for as long as human society has been.
Lot's of things are part of society, and we've no choice but to get used to it.
All I'm saying is that ''marriage'' or the idea of ''marriage'' has changed, it's not what it was.
jan.
What do you think the real purpose of marriage is?
Now we have woman at the top of the food chain, but it doesn't change the fact that they are women. Marriage is fundamentally essential to every society (even technological ones), as it produces the next generations. It is more than just a lovey-dovey arrangement.
And it's good that black people are no longer publicised like that, but black people are actual people, alway were, and always will be. No amount of legislation can change that.
You're talking about something else. The examples you gave are of people who have been oppressed because of their gender, race, or ethnicity.
You say ''waking up'' as though the world has been ignorant of something. The ''world'' at present knows what marriage is, they accept that gays can be married. Not that gays have been deprived of marriage for as long as human society has been.
Lot's of things are part of society, and we've no choice but to get used to it.
All I'm saying is that ''marriage'' or the idea of ''marriage'' has changed, it's not what it was.
jan.
What makes you think there's only one? Do you think everyone gets married for the same reason? Do you think this has always been true?
What is that supposed to mean?
Marriage is not required for procreation.
Are you suggesting that gay people aren't people?
And homosexuals are oppressed because of their sexuality. What's your point?
You're delusional if you think that the world accepts gay marriage.
And yes, gays have been deprived of marriage. Do you think homosexuality is a new phenomenon? LOL
There is no single definition of marriage, nor has there ever been. And the image you are attempting to defend is itself a change from previous images.
Jan... I sincerely hope that you simply typed that statement HORRIBLY wrong, and are not ACTUALLY insinuating that homosexuals are "not people"...
My bold. Here is the first post of this thread:
Demonizing people
Mod note: Thread split from http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....37#post3164737
Quote Originally Posted by Hapsburg View Post
I never said religion was. Religious notions of morality are just as made-up as secular notions of morality. There is no objective right or wrong.
There is, however, social stability; best secured by the government ensuring the welfare of the people. Which, to me, includes the ability of individuals and groups to do as they please so long as they avoid harming others. This is clearly an instance where someone gets hurt, so yes it's proper for the state to be involved. But if it were not such a clear-cut case of someone getting hurt, I would figure that religious freedom is good for social stability.
I suppose you could say that religion demonising gay people might be good for social stability. After all, hating a small minority draws everyone together, no? The fact that some people might take matters into their own hands and attack or kill said gay people is not a clear-cut case, so that's all right then?
It's all about religion demonising gay people, and always was.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Depends on the couple. Some marry for money. Some for love. Some for kids. Or various combinations thereof.
Not any more it isn't. Many nowadays opt to procreate without getting married. Many others opt to marry without procreation. There is absolutely no moral imperative linking marriage to procreation.
Legislation changed them to citizens entitled to the same civil rights as white people.
I gave you examples of minorities oppressed for who they are. They are no different than gay people being oppressed for who they are. Whether you discriminate against someone because of their gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, it is all discrimination and all equally wrong. Are you actually advocating gay people be discriminated against based solely on their orientation? What rationale do you have for doing so?
No society has ever in the history of mankind allowed the marriage of gay people. So yes gay people HAVE been deprived of marriage as long as there have been societies. Given that, the world HAS been ignorant of the status of gay people as equal human beings deserving of the right of marriage.
Good. Then why are you complaining about gay marriage?
The concept of marriage has evolved with mankind. And this is a very good thing.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Do you really think it will?
I don't.
This was probably the best response I could think of for the time being, to the reminder we were given. It was either that or lose my shit or quit. I will get around to responding to that request and reminder properly, once I am less angry and less disappointed.
Sure!quinnsong said:
I'd rather you didn't leave.Trooper said:
He's not worth it.
Of course it goes on.Magical Realist said:
I think the belief that saying "homosexuality is wrong" or "condemning" gays is not discrimination says a lot about the problem. And this is a problem. Then we have the argument that he is entitled to his opinion. Sure, I won't disagree with that. He and people like him are entitled to their opinion. However what I won't agree with is when said opinion affects so many others in such a negative fashion. It would be like a guy coming to work in a predominately black place of employment wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit and saying he's not discriminating against anyone, he doesn't hate black people or Jews, he just thinks they are wrong and condemns them and his wearing his garb is just a way to state his opinion. What's going on here is no different to that scenario. And to me, it is unacceptable. I won't lie, people have many issues with me as a moderator. And there have been many requests for my resignation. Many calls for my head. My response to such demands has always been that what you see with me is what you get. If I have a problem, I will say it. I am often rude and brash about it, I will often throw my hat into the ring and let rip in a debate, but what you see is what you get.
We have homosexual members and staff. And as a heterosexual, I'm having issues with it. I am having issues accepting this situation. I cannot even imagine what it must be like for our homosexual members and staff. So for the last few days, I withdrew from this particular topic of discussion because after weeks and weeks of it in the public and moderator forums, I am very close to, as I said before, losing my shit.
I don't know how you put up with it. I couldn't do it without letting that person know that it was unacceptable. I think the fact that you put up with it for so long shows a level of patience you should not have. This is not something you should have to put up with or ignore. It shouldn't exist at all.
Are homosexuals not actual people worthy of equal protection?Jan Ardena said:
And here we have a situation where people are being oppressed because of their sexuality.
He is talking about the exact same thing.
Gays have been denied and deprived of the right to marry for as long as marriage existed. And "marriage" is different depending on cultures and religious beliefs.
Indeed..
Some of the milestone in the history of marriage:
1. Arranged alliances
Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.
2. Family ties
Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.
Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.
2. Family ties
Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.
Such a great institution.. One that needs to be protected from evil gays trying to marry those of the same sex while touting the history and the great institution that is "marriage".. Whose religious history involved marrying one's child off to ghosts and marrying one's half sister to strengthen family ties..
who gets to be on top?