This thread is so gay

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go
User avatar
Fenrir
Posts: 930
Joined: 26 Jul 2011, 07:25
First Video: LRRcast for Interrupted Garage
Location: Somewhere in the Ethers.

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Fenrir » 31 Jul 2012, 12:18

AlexanderDitto wrote:Good for you. Being honest and using your words is a foolproof plan every time.

I should really start writing self-help books. Though it would be a very short book. Two pages: "BE HONEST" and "USE YOUR WORDS."


Haha, I might buy that book :P

I also reminded him of my name too. Already found his facebook page so I'll likely add him on there or see if he adds me.

Part of me is kinda curious about a couple of things though since he did remember me after all this time (and even said he'd noticed me about but wasn't sure if it was me or not). Then again, I have a habit of over thinking sooo....

Yay for using my words!
"Sing something new, I have nothing left. I can't face the dark without you."

: Fenrir - DB IRC : LRRFenrir - TwitchTV : @the_dismuke - Twitter :

Image
User avatar
goat
Posts: 3710
Joined: 02 Feb 2009, 20:59

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby goat » 31 Jul 2012, 18:56

Oooo an argument, I haven't had one of these in a while. Thank you for moving this in here; I actually looked here for it before I looked in the LOL thread b/c, ya know.... topics. If you don't mind, I'll respond paragraph by paragraph like the arrogant motherfucker I am.

Lord Hosk wrote:
goat wrote:Actually two different reasons. Starbucks and Target take the "for" side because it's good for their liberal middle class white people demographic that makes up a majority of their business. Even if it is the "morally correct" stance (and if you say it isn't, we need to have words), no company would ever risk alienating their customers like that unless it were profitable. Even if they have always been secretly for it, where the fuck have they been for the last 30 years?

The chicken chain that shall go unmentioned has taken the "against" stance because their founders are crazy-ass, bible-banging motherfuckers who force the views of their management on the rest of the company. Notably, it's not money in this case, as the fact that they've been slipping money to anti-gay rights lobbyists has surfaced a couple of times, but this is by far the biggest press it has ever gotten.

So that's why. 1)money and 2)top-down "moral" choices

Oh, and if the WBC supporting unnamed chicken restaurant isn't lawl worthy, I don't know what is.


You are putting one side of the argument as right and the other as wrong and saying that the wrong side is not only wrong but "crazy-ass, bible-banging motherfuckers." and that if I or I assume anyone else doesn't support giving benefits to same sex partners we are immoral.


I said we would have to have words, and now where are going to have them. If you seriously believe that GSM individuals and partners don't deserve the same rights as everyone else (and I'm not saying that you necessarily do, I'd like to believe you're playing the devil's advocate), you are categorically incorrect. Incorrect on a level heretofore unknown except to people who believe that black people shouldn't have the same rights as white people.

I'd like to apologize for lumping "bible-banging motherfuckers" and "crazy-ass motherfuckers" into the same group, though. That's unfair to both parties. However, the cross-section of the two groups represents a large body of the anti-GSM rights movement.

I'll address that bit about morals further down.
Lord Hosk wrote:Both corporations are forcing their employees to abide by the head of the corporations moral choices. If you are a manager at Starbucks and opposed to homosexuality it doesn't matter you have to provide benefits to same sex partners of your employees. If you are a manager at a Chick-Fil-A and in support of Same sex marriage, it doesn't matter because a portion of every one of your sales goes to oppose it.

The senior leadership of both companies do things they feel are right, which you are free to agree or disagree with and financially contribute to or not. One is supporting and one is opposing same sex relationships and both are doing it in a financial way. They both do it in part because it is what their customer base supports so it makes them look favorable. Chick-fil-A is all over but their base is in the "bible belt" yes this is loosing them some business but it is also gaining them business. A few of my wife's family members are "reformed Christians" who live in S.C. based on their recent facebook posts and the responses that some of their friends have posted they have all eaten there several times over the past couple of weeks just because of the controversy when they "typically don't eat out that much".

Your wife's family? They're bad people. You should give them shitty gifts at christmas and forget to call on their birthdays. My point was more (as you address in the next paragraph) that CFA has ALWAYS been anti-GSM rights while Target and Sbucks are only recently, fashionably pro-GSM rights. I would submit that CFA has a LOT more to lose nationally by being publicized as against GSM rights.

CFA has always been like this, but they've lacked any publicity for it. CFA isn't trying to drum up business by gay bashing, they prefer to just quietly go about funding an organized subjugation of a minority rather than announce it to the world.

On the other hand, Sbucks and Target are loud and proud. Sure, they've always been liberally run and have probably slipped money to the liberal parties for a while now, but you can't help but feel that they're trying to ride a wave of pro-GSM feel good energy with their target demographics. CFA benefits tangentially in the same way, but anti-GSM rights is a view that is clearly passing out of fashion and stands to trigger a bigger backlash than coming out "for". I don't think many people have been protesting their local Starbucks lately (at least for that reason, crazy people sure do love coffee).
Lord Hosk wrote: The President of Chick-fil-A has ALWAYS been clear about his opposition to gay marriage as you said this isn't a new thing, only the current level of protests and counter protests are new. I don't really understand why its such a big deal NOW when it has always been their stance and has rarely caused a stir.

Supporting and opposing homosexuality both fall under being "moral" since morality is following ones belief of what is right.

Okay, technically that is an accurate definition, but morality is also a social concept that is a conglomeration of popular opinion. Popular opinion is heavily swaying towards pro-GSM rights at the moment. So, in that light I would argue that it is immoral to be anti-GSM rights. Similarly, a priest would argue that homosexuality is "immoral" and "a sin" because a book says so. But his congregation will regurgitate the same thing, and it becomes part of the "social mores".

But if we're not going to nitpick about definitions like that, I'd submit that, yes, on a personal level, it is immoral to not want equal rights for all people, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. It's immoral in the exact same way that owning slaves is immoral. They are "morals" and individually "a moral" each, but they are immoral, categorically socially unacceptable.


*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~


Also, good work, Fenrir. You've officially chatted up more people in one conversation than I have all month. :P
Follow a derelict account:

http://www.twitter.com/goat1
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby AlexanderDitto » 31 Jul 2012, 19:43

goat wrote:But if we're not going to nitpick about definitions like that, I'd submit that, yes, on a personal level, it is immoral to not want equal rights for all people, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. It's immoral in the exact same way that owning slaves is immoral. They are "morals" and individually "a moral" each, but they are immoral, categorically socially unacceptable.


Not going to wade into this argument (because I don't really have the time, and honestly in this particular scenario re:breaded chicken sandwiches, it's mostly not worth arguing) but I would like to point out that what you're essentially bringing up here is the debate over Moral Relevativism, which is a deep, deep rabbit hole it would be wise to avoid in the context of this discussion, partially because it's not central to the argument, but mostly because it's been debated for hundreds of years and there's no universally agreed upon answer.

So, you know. Keep that in mind.

If anyone's interested in moral relativism, I find Sam Harris usually writes very persuasively on the topic.
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Matt » 31 Jul 2012, 20:04

Yeah, I didn't touch that portion of the discussion for much the same reason.

I find the concept of strict moral relativism to be extremely obnoxious, but the interactions of moral systems are so complicated that I usually find it more productive to just let it be.

I haven't read (or watched) Harris address this subject, but based on a google search for a summary of his position, I tend to think he and I view morality in very similar ways.

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby AlexanderDitto » 31 Jul 2012, 20:48

Matt wrote:I haven't read (or watched) Harris address this subject, but based on a google search for a summary of his position, I tend to think he and I view morality in very similar ways.

-m


I find myself agreeing with him quite a bit. He's got his issues, but his take is at least scientific, or attempts to be, which is refreshing in the realm of "who knows who's right?!" philosophy.
User avatar
goat
Posts: 3710
Joined: 02 Feb 2009, 20:59

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby goat » 01 Aug 2012, 04:29

Fair enough. It was probably a bad idea to use the word "moral" in the initial post for that exact reason. As usual, my hamfisted approach to arguing has gotten me in trouble again. =(
Follow a derelict account:

http://www.twitter.com/goat1
User avatar
aeric90
Posts: 2866
Joined: 12 Apr 2010, 06:09
First Video: How to Talk Like a Pirate
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby aeric90 » 01 Aug 2012, 05:20

I'm going to weigh in on the conversation in a bit but first...

The literary community lost a great gay icon today. Gore Vidal is dead at age 86. I don't know how many of you are familiar with his work but 'The City and the Pillar' was a novel I read shortly after I came out and is a highly sexual novel about gay love that was published in the 1940s so it was a watershed.

More information is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19074230

I will be re-reading the book this week.

Just for levity:

Lisa - "Friends? Ha! These are my only friends: Grown-up nerds like Gore Vidal. And even he’s kissed more boys than I ever will."

Marge - "Girls, Lisa. Boys kiss girls."
Join The War Against Pants
http://twitter.com/aeric90
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Matt » 01 Aug 2012, 14:00

More thoughts on the CFA dispute, this time with reference to things CFA is apparently actually doing as a business.

The tone of the article is a little condescending, maybe, but the points it makes are important (and frankly, a little condescension on this issue is probably justifiable).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/david-badash/chick-fil-a-5-reasons-it-isnt-what-you-think_b_1725237.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

HuffPo Gay Voices wrote:Former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee decreed Wednesday, Aug. 1, to be "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." The former Republican governor of Arkansas says he "has been incensed at the vitriolic assaults on the Chick Fil-A company because the CEO, Dan Cathy, made comments recently in which he affirmed his view that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld."

Of course, not one word of that is accurate, not even that Dan Cathy is the CEO (his dad is), and if you're standing in line waiting for your chicken sandwich and waffle fries, why not take a moment to learn about what Chick-fil-A really does, and -- even if you're opposed to same-sex marriage -- what your money is buying.

Here are five reasons why Chick-fil-A isn't what you think:

1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.

Even if you oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want to support a company that advocates putting gay people in jail, or "exporting" them, just because they're gay?

2) Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it "twisted up kind of stuff."

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you really think gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation"? Haven't we all heard enough blame from those who claim to speak for the Lord, like after Katrina or, more recently, after the shooting in Aurora, Colo.?

3) Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you support fake "science" that is known to harm the very people it claims to help?

4) The media keep saying Chick-fil-A has never discriminated, but the truth is that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination. That's what a leading business publication, Forbes, stated in 2007, when they also called Chick-fil-A a "cult" and reported that Chick-fil-A's founder and CEO Truett Cathy said he wanted to hire married people because they are more industrious and productive. Truett Cathy has also said he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support what some call a "cult" whose CEO says he would fire employees for "being sinful"?

5) Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.

Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?

There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?


-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Drinnik
Posts: 1976
Joined: 25 Jul 2010, 15:15
First Video: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/v
Location: Colchester, UK

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Drinnik » 02 Aug 2012, 04:17

dackwards d wrote:You'd think that anyone in the sciences would at least be open to experimentation.


Image
Image

Image
User avatar
tak197
Feito Com Fruta
Posts: 9010
Joined: 13 Mar 2007, 19:20
First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby tak197 » 02 Aug 2012, 11:41

One of the funnier comments I've seen regarding this whole thing:

"I'll have to look into (the things CFA has been accused of doing), but still, no one is perfect and they have Waffle Fries."

To be honest about the whole thing, I'm sickened by what Chick-Fil-A has done, but in general, the anti-gay and anti-Christian bashing has made me really not give a fuck about this anymore. Here's a suggestion for the US: try following Wheaton's law, and DON'T BE A DICK.

(If I really wanted to, I'd probably record a rant a la Foamy the Squirrel.)

EDIT: And my cousin posts something on Facebook that makes a ton of sense in this debate, even though she meant it as a general statement...

"To me, it is sadder than any current event that some people seem to have lost their ability to empathize & show compassion. Compassion & empathy allow us to step into someone elses shoes as best we can & try to see the world from their view. We may not be able to understand their world view entirely but when we try our best, I think we show our greatest gift of humanity. When we separate oursleves by saying WE are right and YOU are wrong then we distance ourselves from our hearts. The world is full of views as diverse as the patterns of snowflakes. Where will your heart lead you today?"
Image
Image
User avatar
goat
Posts: 3710
Joined: 02 Feb 2009, 20:59

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby goat » 02 Aug 2012, 15:51

tak197 wrote:EDIT: And my cousin posts something on Facebook that makes a ton of sense in this debate, even though she meant it as a general statement...

"To me, it is sadder than any current event that some people seem to have lost their ability to empathize & show compassion. Compassion & empathy allow us to step into someone elses shoes as best we can & try to see the world from their view. We may not be able to understand their world view entirely but when we try our best, I think we show our greatest gift of humanity. When we separate oursleves by saying WE are right and YOU are wrong then we distance ourselves from our hearts. The world is full of views as diverse as the patterns of snowflakes. Where will your heart lead you today?"


My problem with that is that it is also defending bigotry against GSM. There are a lot of views, but some of them are fucking stupid. You can oppress GSMs if you want, but you can't institutionalize it.
Follow a derelict account:

http://www.twitter.com/goat1
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby AlexanderDitto » 02 Aug 2012, 16:02

goat wrote:
tak197 wrote:EDIT: And my cousin posts something on Facebook that makes a ton of sense in this debate, even though she meant it as a general statement...

"To me, it is sadder than any current event that some people seem to have lost their ability to empathize & show compassion. Compassion & empathy allow us to step into someone elses shoes as best we can & try to see the world from their view. We may not be able to understand their world view entirely but when we try our best, I think we show our greatest gift of humanity. When we separate oursleves by saying WE are right and YOU are wrong then we distance ourselves from our hearts. The world is full of views as diverse as the patterns of snowflakes. Where will your heart lead you today?"


My problem with that is that it is also defending bigotry against GSM. There are a lot of views, but some of them are fucking stupid. You can oppress GSMs if you want, but you can't institutionalize it.


Yeah, I was with your cousin up until

When we separate oursleves by saying WE are right and YOU are wrong then we distance ourselves from our hearts. The world is full of views as diverse as the patterns of snowflakes.


Because guess what? Some of those special little snowflakes are hateful bigots. In some cases, one side IS in the wrong. If one side is promoting hate instead of love, they are wrong. Views as diverse as the patterns of snowflakes are all well and good, and you're entitled to voice those opinions, but I'm not going to validate and tolerate when assholes go out and try to actively do harm in the world.

In many cases, there's room for debate. In this case, I think it's pretty clear:

The Family Research Council and the American Family Association are groups that take actions to oppress GSM. (I guess we're all using that acronym now! It's handy.)

Chick-fil-A donates large amounts of money to these organizations.

If you eat there, you are indirectly supporting those organizations with your dollars. That's your choice, you're free to do it, but doing so has consequences. (The consequences are you're an unhealthy asshole!)

Yesterday, a huge number of people explicitly drove to a Chick-fil-A to show that they support Chick-fil-A donating to those organizations.

That's sick. I don't care about the Christianity stuff, or the free speech stuff. Nobody wants to ban Christianity or free speech. Those are red herrings from the real problem here, that a company can actively promote hate and people flock to support them. It's wrong, and as humans, we should be ashamed.
Last edited by AlexanderDitto on 02 Aug 2012, 20:11, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Timelady
Posts: 1139
Joined: 01 Jun 2008, 13:30
First Video: Deeply Religious
Location: New Hampshire
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Timelady » 02 Aug 2012, 17:43

AmazingPjotrMan wrote:Bacon is not a chronological entity.
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Lord Hosk » 02 Aug 2012, 18:20

"Our Culture has accepted two fundamentally flawed lies. The first is that if you disagree with someones lifestyle you must fear and hate them. The second is that in order to love someone you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both of these are nonsense. You don't have to compromise your convictions to be compassionate." (slight paraphrase)

There is a huge gap in the middle between "F--- must die" and "Christians are idiots and bigots" and this thread is weighing heavily on the side of the later. It is obviously far easier to yell at the fringes than to discuss the intricate fuzzy middle but as someone who is not a Gender or Sexual Minority, or someone who hates, fears, or actively seeks to oppress those who are I want to try to reestablish that there are more than two points of view here. That was the main reason why I responded to goat in the first place.

There is a HUGE group of both the Liberal and Conservative, Religious and Non Religious(I wish there was a better term there maybe Matt has one) who get grouped as either one side or the other. My point of view supports both sides of this argument but I don't feel comfortable laying it all out here because of how polarized one way this discussion has been.
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby AlexanderDitto » 02 Aug 2012, 20:06

Lord Hosk wrote:There is a huge gap in the middle between "Fags must die" and "Christians are idiots and bigots" and this thread is weighing heavily on the side of the later. It is obviously far easier to yell at the fringes than to discuss the intricate fuzzy middle but as someone who is not a Gender or Sexual Minority, or someone who hates, fears, or actively seeks to oppress those who are I want to try to reestablish that there are more than two points of view here. That was the main reason why I responded to goat in the first place.

There is a HUGE group of both the Liberal and Conservative, Religious and Non Religious(I wish there was a better term there maybe Matt has one) who get grouped as either one side or the other. My point of view supports both sides of this argument but I don't feel comfortable laying it all out here because of how polarized one way this discussion has been.


Yes, unfortunately, people are stupid and say hateful things on both sides, rather than having a discourse.

In this day in age, self-labeling as a Christian doesn't mean you're anti-gay, or a bigot, or an idiot. I'm friends with many Christians who are wonderful people, who support gay marriage and fight against hatred and bigotry. This isn't the religion thread, so the finer nuances of how they come to that conclusion is irrelevant. What matters is that Christians can be good, non-hateful people. I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with that.

The thing is, I don't understand how this is a spectrum. There aren't two sides to this argument. "Fags must die" is wrong. "Christians are idiots and bigots" is wrong. Both of those statements are wrong and bad. There's no "point of view" about this. They're hateful things to say that do no good for anyone.

I don't presume to speak for your point of view, Hosk, but I'd venture to guess we agree about that.
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby AlexanderDitto » 02 Aug 2012, 20:10

Also, on a lighter and more relevant note:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gaymercon/gaymercon-everybody-games

A group of dedicated people-who-do-awesome-things including Zach Weiner of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal webcomic fame (a friend of mine!) is working to start a convention for LGBT gamers in San Francisco, slated to take place a year from today.

I'd like to go, though I don't know if I can afford to go all the way to San Francisco for a weekend. Either way, I kicked in $30, so I'll have a ticket if I win the lotto.

I don't play the lotto, though.
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Matt » 02 Aug 2012, 20:18

Hosk, there are pretty much just two angles here.

Either you believe that GSM people ought to have the same legal right to marry the person of their choosing, or you believe something else. Yes that "something else" encompasses a wide array of arguments and and perspectives, but regardless of the details, they are still something other than total legal equality.

Yes, a lot of christian bashing gets caught up in this argument, but lets be fair here. While not all christians oppose gay marriage, the VAST majority of opposition, especially political action and finance, is driven by and with the support of the church, or religiously based political action campaigns. So while it certainly possible to be a christian and support gay marriage rights, it's hardly unfair to characterize christians, generally, as being the force predominantly responsible for the continued lack of recognition of, and in many cases legislation against, gay marriage rights. There is simply not a significant secular contingent or argument against gay marriage rights.

So my question to you is basically this: do you support full legal equality for GSM individuals as it pertains to their right to marry an individual of their choosing (or ideally "full legal equality for GSM people" full stop)?


-m

edit: I'd also like to make it clear that I'm not just pulling this assertion out of my ass. I have run the numbers previously (and I just re-ran them now)based on Pew research data.

Opposition to gay marriage runs about 45% in the general population. (though, if you factor "don't knows" in as opposed, that jumps to about 55%. Support also sits at about 45%.

Around 49% of christians (agregate) oppose gay marriage.

Self-identifying christians account for approximately 70% of the population of the US.

That means that 34% of the general population are christians who oppose gay marriage. Remembering that total opposition to gay marriage is 45% of the general population, christian opposition to gay marriage accounts for a full 76% of total opposition to gay marriage. More than the combined opposition of all other religious and non-religious groups combined.

edit2: corrected a couple numbers
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby AlexanderDitto » 02 Aug 2012, 21:20

(It seems the updated October 2011 numbers have 44% of Christians opposing gay marriage, down from 48% the previous year. But otherwise your numbers are right.)

It's worth pointing out that 46% of Christians support gay marriage, which means 36% of the general population are Christians who we shouldn't just throw under the bus. Those people are important, they are individuals, and they matter.

The point still stands, though, that due to their size, the big Christian anti-gay bloc is the primary group standing in the way of equal rights for LGBT people, which is unfortunate.
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Matt » 02 Aug 2012, 21:28

AlexanderDitto wrote:(It seems the updated October 2011 numbers have 44% of Christians opposing gay marriage, down from 48% the previous year. But otherwise your numbers are right.)

It's worth pointing out that 46% of Christians support gay marriage, which means 36% of the general population are Christians who we shouldn't just throw under the bus. Those people are important, they are individuals, and they matter.

The point still stands, though, that due to their size, the big Christian anti-gay bloc is the primary group standing in the way of equal rights for LGBT people, which is unfortunate.


I wasn't sure quite how to interpret the numbers this year, they were reported less clearly, and without reference to other religions. The "total" values they used were equivalent to the values in the general population, and include the "unaffiliated" numbers from the bottom of the chart. Their text summary of the chart refers to the "unaffiliated" as "religiously unaffiliated" which I took to mean "non-christian", but it may refer to non-denominational christians.

If it does refer to non-denominational christians, then for the first time in in as long as I've had an interest in researching these numbers christians (generally) have caught up with the level of support in the general population. This has NEVER been the case in the years I've looked into this (they usually lag several points behind, because even the most liberal denominations usually can't offset the level of opposition among evangelicals). I would have thought this point would warrant note in the summary, because t's a pretty big deal if true.

For the purposes of my calculations I omitted "unaffiliated".

If you include them, christian opposition still accounts for 70% of all opposition to gay marriage.

AlexanderDitto wrote:It's worth pointing out that 46% of Christians support gay marriage, which means 36% of the general population are Christians who we shouldn't just throw under the bus. Those people are important, they are individuals, and they matter.


This is true, but I still don't think it's unfair to characterize the debate as being fundamentally one of bigotry driven from predominantly within christianity. When the primary argument against gay marriage is "the bible says this is wrong" responding with "take your bible and stuff it" is not really inappropriate, even if a sizeable portion of your supporters believe in it too.

That said, the numbers do suggest that self identified Christians make up the majority of supporters of gay marriage as well, and it's worthwhile to remember that before getting too entrenched in the idea that this is strictly a LGBT vs. Christianity issue.


-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
JustAName
Posts: 7669
Joined: 30 Mar 2010, 21:08
First Video: Rapidfire I
Location: The Land of Unbearably Fashionable People and Lots of Cars

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby JustAName » 02 Aug 2012, 21:59

AlexanderDitto wrote:Also, on a lighter and more relevant note:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gaymercon/gaymercon-everybody-games

A group of dedicated people-who-do-awesome-things including Zach Weiner of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal webcomic fame (a friend of mine!) is working to start a convention for LGBT gamers in San Francisco, slated to take place a year from today.

I'd like to go, though I don't know if I can afford to go all the way to San Francisco for a weekend. Either way, I kicked in $30, so I'll have a ticket if I win the lotto.

I don't play the lotto, though.


Heck yes! I would totally put you up, if you were to come out (heh) for it. Just sayin'.
Alja-Markir wrote:Andy is the LRR Heart-throb.
Morgan is the LRR Crotch-throb.


And all I can do is read a book to stay awake. And it rips my life away, but it's a great escape.

Image
User avatar
aeric90
Posts: 2866
Joined: 12 Apr 2010, 06:09
First Video: How to Talk Like a Pirate
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby aeric90 » 03 Aug 2012, 05:35

AlexanderDitto wrote:Also, on a lighter and more relevant note:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gaymercon/gaymercon-everybody-games

A group of dedicated people-who-do-awesome-things including Zach Weiner of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal webcomic fame (a friend of mine!) is working to start a convention for LGBT gamers in San Francisco, slated to take place a year from today.

I'd like to go, though I don't know if I can afford to go all the way to San Francisco for a weekend. Either way, I kicked in $30, so I'll have a ticket if I win the lotto.

I don't play the lotto, though.



Aww hell yes! I'd totally go to this! I may see about pitching in. I haven't done anything on Kickstarter yet at all. It's over a Canadian long weekend and I haven't been back to the Bay area in ages. I'll see if I can swing it.

It would be a shame not to have a LRR RRPT presence there.

Matt wrote:Percentage of Christians stuff...


I'd be curious to see on what grounds the percentage of Christians that are opposed to gay marriage base their opposition. Are they opposed to same-sex unions or are they opposed to the use of the term marriage. I for one oppose the Government's use of marriage in general and feel it would be best if the term marriage was ditched from bureaucratic policy in favor of something with no religious connotations that was available to everyone and then if they wished to get a religious marriage they would be free to do so.
Join The War Against Pants
http://twitter.com/aeric90
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4382
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Phailadelphia (Again)
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby AlexanderDitto » 03 Aug 2012, 06:20

Fayili wrote:
AlexanderDitto wrote:Also, on a lighter and more relevant note:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gaymercon/gaymercon-everybody-games

A group of dedicated people-who-do-awesome-things including Zach Weiner of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal webcomic fame (a friend of mine!) is working to start a convention for LGBT gamers in San Francisco, slated to take place a year from today.

I'd like to go, though I don't know if I can afford to go all the way to San Francisco for a weekend. Either way, I kicked in $30, so I'll have a ticket if I win the lotto.

I don't play the lotto, though.


Heck yes! I would totally put you up, if you were to come out (heh) for it. Just sayin'.


Oooh! Really, you would?! Fayili you are a dear. That might make it financially feasible....

aeric90 wrote:Aww hell yes! I'd totally go to this! I may see about pitching in. I haven't done anything on Kickstarter yet at all. It's over a Canadian long weekend and I haven't been back to the Bay area in ages. I'll see if I can swing it.

It would be a shame not to have a LRR RRPT presence there.


I know! I love and miss San Francisco, and would love to go back. Hopefully you can make it!

aeric90 wrote:I for one oppose the Government's use of marriage in general and feel it would be best if the term marriage was ditched from bureaucratic policy in favor of something with no religious connotations that was available to everyone and then if they wished to get a religious marriage they would be free to do so.


Theoretically, this is how it should be. In reality, though, that still doesn't fix the culture problem, i.e. the fact that nobody knows what a civil union is. If I tell my grandmother I got married, she knows immediately what that means. If I tell her I got civil union'd, that doesn't mean jack-shit to her. Hence they're inherently unequal.

Though I suppose in that case one could always get married in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.... Surely they offer wedding packages? (Atheist weddings... I think I smell a business opportunity! XD)
User avatar
Drinnik
Posts: 1976
Joined: 25 Jul 2010, 15:15
First Video: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/v
Location: Colchester, UK

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Drinnik » 03 Aug 2012, 07:43

dackwards d wrote:You'd think that anyone in the sciences would at least be open to experimentation.


Image
Image

Image
User avatar
Avistew
Posts: 2593
Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 18:34
First Video: Can't remember
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Avistew » 03 Aug 2012, 08:15

aeric90 wrote:I'd be curious to see on what grounds the percentage of Christians that are opposed to gay marriage base their opposition. Are they opposed to same-sex unions or are they opposed to the use of the term marriage. I for one oppose the Government's use of marriage in general and feel it would be best if the term marriage was ditched from bureaucratic policy in favor of something with no religious connotations that was available to everyone and then if they wished to get a religious marriage they would be free to do so.


I actually have the opposing view. I take issue with the fact that religious people claim the word "marriage" as their own, when it started as a legal contract of transfer of property. I feel that if they want a union that's religious only, they can give it a new name, and not take the secular one and ask the state to stop using it.
I once jokingly suggested "goddage" and people got pretty upset. But I'm serious about the principle, if you think there should be two words, then create a new one. Etymologically it has nothing to do with religion at all, nor were marriages specifically religious as far as recorded history leads us to believe.

I don't know why in the US religious people have made "marriage" their own idea. I've never heard that argument in France (that the word should only be used in a religious way) and it seems to me if you have the civil contract and no religious ceremony, you're married, but if you have a religious ceremony and no civil contract, you are not.

In short, it's an argument I don't understand and certainly don't agree with. If you want to differentiate between legal marriage, which is the responsibility of the state and does not require to be condoned by religion, and religious ceremonies, which do not need to have any legal aspects (taxes, etc) or to be recognised by the state, by all mean do use different words. But it seems to me you can't just go around asking people to ask the word they've always used even before your religion existed.
Check out my webcomic, The Meddlers! (Currently not updating)
User avatar
Lord Hosk
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 Dec 2011, 08:30
First Video: Checkpoint: Into the breach
Location: Half and inch below the knuckle of the ring finger. MI

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Lord Hosk » 03 Aug 2012, 08:20

aeric90 wrote:
Matt wrote:Percentage of Christians stuff...


I'd be curious to see on what grounds the percentage of Christians that are opposed to gay marriage base their opposition. Are they opposed to same-sex unions or are they opposed to the use of the term marriage. I for one oppose the Government's use of marriage in general and feel it would be best if the term marriage was ditched from bureaucratic policy in favor of something with no religious connotations that was available to everyone and then if they wished to get a religious marriage they would be free to do so.



The basis of the argument is against same-sex unions not the use of the term marriage. The reason is that based on the bible homosexual acts are sins, in the same way as drunkenness, extra marital and premarital sex and speeding are sins. (wait for it) By accepting homosexual marriage they would be saying its ok the words are "hate the sin, not the sinner" and by saying that its ok for two men or two women to live together and bond their lives is saying that the homosexuality is ok.

Now a vast majority of the people who are opposed to gay marriage saying that it is a institutionalization and acceptance of the sin have no problem getting drunk on Friday night at the bar and picking up some random person of the opposite sex to screw. They have no problem getting a divorce for "irreconcilable differences" or "because we fell out of love" and they get angry at people who don't drive 5 over the speed limit at all times.

There are a few who truly do oppose homosexual unions out of concern and even love for gay people. People who believe that saying its ok prevents them from seeing it as wrong and repenting of their sins.

However it is FAR more common that
Image
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb

[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests