Ukip Banned From London Pride Parade, But Organisers Say Decision Is Not 'Politically Motivated' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;47894926]I know it's hard for many supports of LGBT groups to understand, but not all people against gay marriage are against it because they hate gay people. This includes self loving gay people who are themselves against gay marriage, of whom there are plenty of, just do a google search. The conflagration of opposition to gay marriage and necessary bigotry and homophobia is a strawman that clouds the actual arguments and opinions that people hold.[/QUOTE] I've seen some arguments that basically boil down to it being a fight over using the word 'Marriage' on Government documents. When you have full equality under the law and the same benefits, it's a bit of a way to keep being activists after the fight has been won. It's why there's been a lot of stuff in recent years where places like Sweden have only really have had "Gay Marriage" since around 2010 and Finland still technically doesn't have it, despite those being some of the most progressive bastions.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47894926]I know it's hard for many supporters of LGBT groups to understand, but not all people against gay marriage are against it because they hate gay people. This includes self loving gay people who are themselves against gay marriage, of whom there are plenty of, just do a google search. The conflagration of opposition to gay marriage and necessary bigotry and homophobia is a strawman that clouds the actual arguments and opinions that people hold.[/QUOTE] Christ how unempathetic do you have to be to support policies that do nothing but [I]deny LGBT people rights.[/I] If these people actually cared for me, my friends, and my family they wouldn't want us to keep being goddamn second-class citizens. The only thing we want are the same exact rights and treatment that cishets do; they can legally marry, not worry about being fired or discriminated based on being cisgender/heterosexual. not be afraid to be beaten up or have slurs thrown at them for being cishet, and a shit-ton of other things that these people take for granted every day. It boggles my mind that there are people that think that wanting those things is asking for [I]special rights[/I] or somehow promoting a sinful lifestyle that's destroying society from the inside out. Yea, you might not want to fucking admit it but being against these things DOES make you a hateful bigot, because it's so ludicrous to say that marriage is somehow sacred when a man/women do it but when two adults of the same gender want to it's destroying your precious, and fragile traditions. And it's completely possible to be morally against the institution of marriage itself for whatever reasons (would actually love to see polyamorous marriage, but that's an exponential-paperwork nightmare in itself), but how is it that you can't see the sheer hypocrisy here?? We literally just want to live our lives like normal everyday people. That's it. And don't get me started on gay conservatives, who would rather stand by an oppressive ideology rather than help other LGBT folk. I cannot sincerely remember the last time one of them said anything positive about bisexual or transgender people. But no, god FORBID we let the deviants and degenerates broach the sacred union of marriage.

While it's clearly politically motivated, I don't see anything wrong with it. If I was inviting a bunch of gay friends over I certainly wouldn't also invite my racist homophobic idiot uncle.

[QUOTE=Levithan;47896046]Christ how unempathetic do you have to be to support policies that do nothing but [I]deny LGBT people rights.[/I] If these people actually cared for me, my friends, and my family they wouldn't want us to keep being goddamn second-class citizens. The only thing we want are the same exact rights and treatment that cishets do; they can legally marry, not worry about being fired or discriminated based on being cisgender/heterosexual. not be afraid to be beaten up or have slurs thrown at them for being cishet, and a shit-ton of other things that these people take for granted every day. It boggles my mind that there are people that think that wanting those things is asking for [I]special rights[/I] or somehow promoting a sinful lifestyle that's destroying society from the inside out. Yea, you might not want to fucking admit it but being against these things DOES make you a hateful bigot, because it's so ludicrous to say that marriage is somehow sacred when a man/women do it but when two adults of the same gender want to it's destroying your precious, and fragile traditions. And it's completely possible to be morally against the institution of marriage itself for whatever reasons (would actually love to see polyamorous marriage, but that's an exponential-paperwork nightmare in itself), but how is it that you can't see the sheer hypocrisy here?? We literally just want to live our lives like normal everyday people. That's it. And don't get me started on gay conservatives, who would rather stand by an oppressive ideology rather than help other LGBT folk. I cannot sincerely remember the last time one of them said anything positive about bisexual or transgender people. But no, god FORBID we let the deviants and degenerates broach the sacred union of marriage.[/QUOTE] It seems you have a lot of words to put in other people's mouths. I don't think I said any of that. You can deny their existence all you want, but gay people who are self loving, accepting and open about their sexuality, and against gay marriage exist. It seems that you don't want LGBT people to be heard, you want you to be heard. It's also interesting to note that many of the arguments coming from LGBT circles against gay marriage are completely void of religion. They are coming from completely different perspectives on the issue. As an example, here's a blog post written by a gay man against the fight for gay marriage, totally void of religious reasons: [url]https://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/why-i-oppose-gay-marriage/[/url]

[QUOTE=sgman91;47896263]It seems you have a lot of words to put in other people's mouths. I don't think I said any of that. You can deny their existence all you want, but gay people who are self loving, accepting and open about their sexuality, and against gay marriage exist. It seems that you don't want LGBT people to be heard, you want you to be heard. It's also interesting to note that many of the arguments coming from LGBT circles against gay marriage are completely void of religion. They are coming from completely different perspectives on the issue.[/QUOTE] Whether or not a group of people should be allowed certain civil rights or not shouldn't be up for debate period. Because there are some (dumb) lgbt people who are okay with being second-class citizens doesn't make restricting their rights any more valid. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison]There were black slave owners in the United States once[/url], maybe the U.S. should reconsider making certain groups of people property again because there were a couple of people amongst that group who were okay with it? No matter what the majority believes about a certain group, that should not be cause for that group to have their rights restricted in any circumstance. Even if the vast majority of a given country was opposed to gay marriage, they should not have the right to outlaw it. That would just be tyranny of the majority. Civil rights should under no circumstances be altered, no matter what the country as a whole believes. And yes, any attempts to oppose such rights, such as gay marriage, is bigoted.

[QUOTE=Maegord;47896367]Whether or not a group of people should be allowed certain civil rights or not shouldn't be up for debate period. Because there are some (dumb) lgbt people who are okay with being second-class citizens doesn't make restricting their rights any more valid. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison"]There were black slave owners in the United States once[/URL], maybe the U.S. should reconsider making certain groups of people property again because there were a couple of people amongst that group who were okay with it? No matter what the majority believes about a certain group, that should not be cause for that group to have their rights restricted in any circumstance. Even if the vast majority of a given country was opposed to gay marriage, they should not have the right to outlaw it. That would just be tyranny of the majority. Civil rights should under no circumstances be altered, no matter what the country as a whole believes. And yes, any attempts to oppose such rights, such as gay marriage, is bigoted.[/QUOTE] Just to be clear, the fight for black rights is in no way the same as the fight for LGBT rights. There is no inherent difference between a white man/woman and a black man/woman, therefore any legal difference is necessarily bigoted. No inherent difference exists on which to base a valid argument of legal difference. On the other hand, there are inherent differences between a gay man and a women, and a gay woman and a man, therefore legal differences are not necessarily bigoted because these differences may create other reasons. The existence of these differences makes the argument much less black and white (forgive the pun) than the one about racial equality. You may think these differences are irrelevant to the topic of marriage, but another person might think these differences are relevant... So a discussion must be had. Another example of people with inherent differences having different legal rights are children and adults. They are different and therefore it's possible to make rational arguments to have the law treat them differently based on those differences. This shows that society never intends to make all people equal in every way, only in ways where no rational argument can be made for a difference.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47896397]Just to be clear, the fight for black rights is in no way the same as the fight for LGBT rights.[/QUOTE] Both are repressed groups and are/were seen as second class citizens due to factors far outside of their control. [QUOTE=sgman91;47896397] There is no inherent difference between a white man/woman and a black man/woman, therefore any legal difference is necessarily bigoted. No inherent difference exists on which to base a valid argument of legal difference. On the other hand, there are inherent differences between a gay man and a women, and a gay woman and a man, therefore legal differences are not necessarily bigoted because these differences may create other reasons. The existence of these differences makes the argument much less black and white (forgive the pun) than the one about racial equality. You may think these differences are irrelevant to the topic of marriage, but another person might think these differences are relevant... So a discussion must be had. [/QUOTE] Another person may have an assumption that people of Jewish origin should have no legal rights in our society. Should we revoke the legal right of people of Jewish birth, until we can have a discussion? [QUOTE=sgman91;47896397] Another example of people with inherent differences having different legal rights are children and adults. They are different and therefore it's possible to make rational arguments to have the law treat them differently based on those differences. This shows that society never intends to make all people equal in every way, only in ways where no rational argument can be made for a difference.[/QUOTE] There is no inherent difference between a Homosexual Man and a Straight Man (equally so for Women). Such difference is as thin as skin color, and once again points to the fight against Racial Discrimination. The fact that you are saying that Homosexual Individuals should have legal rights equaling children, simply due to their selection of sexual and romantic interest? Again, let's remove rights from Jews (and Blacks while we're at it) as well, because we are not required to have all adult individuals in our country be equal.

[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47893922]What's the wordplay here? I don't see any way this could have been not homophobic even in its mother tongue[/QUOTE] It's somewhat homophobic, but much less than it appears in English. We rarely talk about sexuality, so the primary meaning of the word translated to "faggot" (пидор) is brought up much, much less often than its secondary (a really shit person, like, a huge asshole, with no implication of being homosexual), to the point that it could very well be just two different words sounding the same to be used as a slur towards homosexuals and as a general insult. So yeah, it's totally the case of not knowing your surroundings rather than bigotry.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47896263]You can deny their existence all you want, but gay people who are self loving, accepting and open about their sexuality, and against gay marriage exist.[/QUOTE] Nobody is denying their existence, but they can fuck off as much as straight people who believe the same thing. What you're doing is basically "well my gay friend says X anti-gay thing so it's okay" except in this case he/she isn't even your friend

I personally see a UKIP LGBT+ branch as nothing but turkeys voting for Christmas. It's also a problem when you have your political leader and other prominent members of UKIP [url=http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/ukip-homophobia-gay-pride]spewing out LGBTPhobic crap both in actual policy and in individual members actions in so many numbers that you cannot consider their thoughts to be mere anomalies[/url] At the risk of sounding cynical as well, I would also believe that the only reason there's a LGBT+ branch is because they want to PinkWash their organisation to appear 'respectable' to other LGBT+ people. Perhaps it is a PR ploy, or perhaps there are people who identify as LGBT+ who are perfectly happy to see others lose their legal rights. I'm glad they disallowed the party this year (note this was not a 'ban') - it just doesn't make sense to have a party so entrenched in attacking the civil rights of LGBT+ people to attend an event that has a historical background in fighting for civil rights (even if today's pride nowadays is nothing but a commercialised entity)

Forgot to mention this earlier, at the UKIP conference they were handing out this leaflet [IMG]http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5243521.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/UKIP-Conference-Leaflet.jpg[/IMG]

Carte blanche? I didn't realize UKIP was full of frenchies

Shit, we're busted.

[QUOTE=gufu;47896543]Both are repressed groups and are/were seen as second class citizens due to factors far outside of their control.[/QUOTE] This is just begging the question. If you start with saying that something is repression (marriage rights), then you've started with your conclusion. [QUOTE]Another person may have an assumption that people of Jewish origin should have no legal rights in our society. Should we revoke the legal right of people of Jewish birth, until we can have a discussion?[/QUOTE] If they can provide a rational basis of inherent difference between Jewish people and other people, then sure. This actually happens in some areas. Mormons, for example, don't allow people from other religions into their temples. They openly discriminate against those people based on the very real differences that exist between a Mormon and a non-Mormon. I don't think anyone would argue that this should be banned since it's based on a real, meaningful, difference. [QUOTE]There is no inherent difference between a Homosexual Man and a Straight Man (equally so for Women). Such difference is as thin as skin color, and once again points to the fight against Racial Discrimination. The fact that you are saying that Homosexual Individuals should have legal rights equaling children, simply due to their selection of sexual and romantic interest? Again, let's remove rights from Jews (and Blacks while we're at it) as well, because we are not required to have all adult individuals in our country be equal.[/QUOTE] You've missed the point of my comment. I compared gay men and women (or gay women and men) because that is the change that we're talking about. The heterosexual marriage is between a man and woman. A gay relationship is between a man and another man. Notice that the difference is that the woman is replaced by a gay man. So this is the focus of the difference. I, and basically everyone else, would totally agree that it would be absolutely discriminatory to disallow gay men to be married at all, but that's not the issue at hand. [quote]because we are not required to have all adult individuals in our country be equal.[/quote] I don't know if you completely misread my argument or are purposefully strawmanning it, but that's not the entirety of what I said. Here, let me quote myself: "This shows that society never intends to make all people equal in every way, [B]only in ways where no rational argument can be made for a difference.[/B]" You conveniently left out that last part even though it's essential to my point. The question isn't whether real differences exist between gay relationships and straight relationships, everyone would agree that real differences do exist, but whether those differences are meaningful when it comes to marriage. That's where the discussion is to be had. [QUOTE]Nobody is denying their existence, but they can fuck off as much as straight people who believe the same thing. What you're doing is basically "well my gay friend says X anti-gay thing so it's okay" except in this case he/she isn't even your friend[/QUOTE] I'm really not. I'm not pushing any agenda other than that people who both disagree with you and are not haters of gay people, or religious, exist. The fact that they exist means that there must be some real argument against it based on non-bigoted grounds. That's it. That's my entire point. Notice that I haven't even attempted to make an argument against gay marriage. [QUOTE]doesn't matter if he's gay or not, he's still an idiot who wants to deny people rights[/QUOTE] This is very reminiscent of conservatives who say, "It doesn't matter if he's american, he's still not patriotic and wants to hurt America because he doesn't believe X thing that I think is important" instead of actually listening to the person's reasons and having a civil discussion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47900232]This is just begging the question. If you start with saying that something is repression (marriage rights), then you've started with your conclusion.[/quote] Except no, you start with a point, and a point is that denying marriage rights to same sex couple, is a repression of rights for the same sex couples. Bringing a discussion to a point is a viable way of leading of discussion. [QUOTE=sgman91;47900232]If they can provide a rational basis of inherent difference between Jewish people and other people, then sure. This actually happens in some areas. Mormons, for example, don't allow people from other religions into their temples. They openly discriminate against those people based on the very real differences that exist between a Mormon and a non-Mormon. I don't think anyone would argue that this should be banned since it's based on a real, meaningful, difference.[/quote] Except that this is in no way enforced and endorsed by the government, local or federal (at least, to my best knowledge, the later), and if I was to actually enter into a Mormon temple, I would at worst be trespassing (and that's assuming it's not considered a public location, in which case that's not even relevant). But the fact that this exist, doesn't make it right, and I in fact think that this (blocking of religious areas from people of different religion) should be banned. Beside, the religious affiliation should be IN NO WAY a viable reason for a meaningful difference, especially as an excuse for discrimination. [QUOTE=sgman91;47900232] You've missed the point of my comment. I compared gay men and women (or gay women and men) because that is the change that we're talking about. The heterosexual marriage is between a man and woman. A gay relationship is between a man and another man. Notice that the difference is that the woman is replaced by a gay man. So this is the focus of the difference. I, and basically everyone else, would totally agree that it would be absolutely discriminatory to disallow gay men to be married at all, but that's not the issue at hand.[/quote] Redefinition of Marriage as non-discriminatory in gender is superior than duplication and production of another definition. [QUOTE=sgman91;47900232] I don't know if you completely misread my argument or are purposefully strawmanning it, but that's not the entirety of what I said. Here, let me quote myself: "This shows that society never intends to make all people equal in every way, [B]only in ways where no rational argument can be made for a difference.[/B]" You conveniently left out that last part even though it's essential to my point. The question isn't whether real differences exist between gay relationships and straight relationships, everyone would agree that real differences do exist, but whether those differences are meaningful when it comes to marriage. That's where the discussion is to be had. [/quote] The discussion is irrelevant, since no actual and rational argument has been set forward. Equally, in this case, we should have never been able to actually judge criminals, as long as there is at least one person who puts down rational argument about the fact that they are a good person. [QUOTE=sgman91;47900232] I'm really not. I'm not pushing any agenda other than that people who both disagree with you and are not haters of gay people, or religious, exist. The fact that they exist means that there must be some real argument against it based on non-bigoted grounds. [/quote] And there is a unicorn flying around Uranus, because celestial bodies exist in great numbers. None of the existing arguments by anti-gay marriage supporters are rational, and simply stalling UNTIL they come up with one in idiotic and pointless. [QUOTE=sgman91;47900232] That's it. That's my entire point. Notice that I haven't even attempted to make an argument against gay marriage. This is very reminiscent of conservatives who say, "It doesn't matter if he's american, he's still not patriotic and wants to hurt America because he doesn't believe X thing that I think is important" instead of actually listening to the person's reasons and having a civil discussion.[/QUOTE] Except the discussion has been held for a long period of time, and constantly ended up logically won by pro-gay marriage side, repeatedly, using rational points. All this tends to be, is simply stalling and hoping for a point to be made. Also, I am gonna break up an actual civil conversation, and go for a personal attack, here. Considering that you only recently got unpermad on Garry's birthday, and considering the reason for the perma, I think you have quite a bit of anti-LGBT bias.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47900232] I'm really not. I'm not pushing any agenda other than that people who both disagree with you and are not haters of gay people, or religious, exist. The fact that they exist means that there must be some real argument against it based on non-bigoted grounds. That's it. That's my entire point. Notice that I haven't even attempted to make an argument against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Flat-Earthers exist, that doesn't mean there's a good argument against a spheroid Earth.

[QUOTE=gudman;47896693]It's somewhat homophobic, but much less than it appears in English. We rarely talk about sexuality, so the primary meaning of the word translated to "faggot" (пидор) is brought up much, much less often than its secondary (a really shit person, like, a huge asshole, with no implication of being homosexual), to the point that it could very well be just two different words sounding the same to be used as a slur towards homosexuals and as a general insult. So yeah, it's totally the case of not knowing your surroundings rather than bigotry.[/QUOTE] So like bugger in english then.

[QUOTE=Nikota;47890714]There's a line you can draw when it comes to parties like Labour that are bending over backwards to get the Muslim vote[/QUOTE] Under 5% of England's population is Muslim, most of them don't vote, and the one's who do vote vote for the Conservatives. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;47896263]You can deny their existence all you want, but gay people who are self loving, accepting and open about their sexuality, and against gay marriage exist. [/QUOTE] Not very loving to deny sexual minorities their civic rights simply because of a personal gripe.

[QUOTE=thisispain;47904537]Under 5% of England's population is Muslim, most of them don't vote, and the one's who do vote vote for the Conservatives. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] Not very loving to deny sexual minorities their civic rights simply because of a personal gripe.[/QUOTE] Muslims tend to be Labour voters.

[QUOTE=Jame's;47904579]Muslims tend to be Labour voters.[/QUOTE] My bad, the article I was reading statistics from focused on specific constituencies. The point still stands, especially if they've always voted Labour anyway.

[QUOTE]Not very loving to deny sexual minorities their civic rights simply because of a personal gripe.[/QUOTE] ****It's not very loving to push sexual minorities opinion on the rest of society based on personal gripes.**** NOTE: THIS IS SARCASM See what I did there? I've safely ignored the actual arguments that you've made by shrinking your entire opinion down to a stupid and petty personal gripe. Let's be clear: I don't think your opinion is based on a personal gripe. I just wanted to show how easy it is to dismiss literally everyone else who disagrees with you if your starting point is that everyone else is stupid and evil. [QUOTE]Flat-Earthers exist, that doesn't mean there's a good argument against a spheroid Earth.[/QUOTE] The roundness of the earth is also a scientifically verifiable fact. Sadly, the best form of marriage for society isn't that kind of fact. I mean, come on, at least try to think these attempts at witty mockery through before posting them.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47906575]It's not very loving to push sexual minorities opinion on the rest of society based on basic human decency and equivalency. [/QUOTE] I FTFY to something that reflect reality.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47906584]I FTFY to something that reflect reality.[/QUOTE] Please actually read my posts before commenting on them. The entire point was that that line didn't reflect reality.

Oh I've read it and I thoroughly understood you. I'm saying to you though, that pushing the opinion that gay people are deserving of equal treatment, is vastly different and one would even have a strong argument to say, incomparable to that gay people don't deserve equal treatment.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47906602]Oh I've read it and I thoroughly understood you. I'm saying to you though, that pushing the opinion that gay people are deserving of equal treatment, is vastly different and one would even have a strong argument to say, incomparable to that gay people don't deserve equal treatment.[/QUOTE] Firstly, I'm not making an argument about the legitimacy of gay marriage, and have provided no arguments for or against it. Secondly, the entire argument within society is on whether gay marriages are actually equal to heterosexual marriages. To say that people are arguing that gay people don't deserve equal treatment is to have a total misunderstand of the arguments being made.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47906631]Firstly, I'm not making an argument about the legitimacy of gay marriage, and have provided no arguments for or against it. Secondly, the entire argument within society is on whether gay marriages are actually equal to heterosexual marriages. To say that people are arguing that gay people don't deserve equal treatment is to have a total misunderstand of the arguments being made.[/QUOTE] No it isn't and gay marriage doesn't have any serious arguments against it besides "I don't like it" and "It violates the sanctity of marriage", both of which aren't really valid reasons to deny people equality. You want to move the goal posts, so be it, but I was just countering your point that this is all based on just "opinion". Opinions are one thing and everyone is allowed to have them. Opinions that reflect and create an atmosphere of inequality and subversion is not a good thing though, would you agree or no? [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] An opinion doesn't have to be held maliciously to hurt people. Surely you agree, as you think the opinion that gay marriage is a good thing is detrimental to society but you don't think people who feel that way are malicious, do you? I don't necessarily think people who oppose gay marriage are malicious, but that doesn't excuse them from doing harm, does it?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47906655]No it isn't and gay marriage doesn't have any serious arguments against it besides "I don't like it" and "It violates the sanctity of marriage", both of which aren't really valid reasons to deny people equality.[/QUOTE] It's laughably easy to find arguments against gay marriage beyond the two you've given. Just do a quick Google search and you'll find some. Here's one right from the top from MIT's top newspaper: [URL]http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html[/URL] I don't even agree with all the points he makes in that column, but to deny it's existence is just ignorance. [QUOTE]I was just countering your point that this is all based on just "opinion"[/QUOTE] Can you point out where I said that? From my perspective I've been saying the exact opposite, that real, rational arguments exist against gay marriage beyond simple bigotry. [editline]8th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE]An opinion doesn't have to be held maliciously to hurt people. Surely you agree, as you think the opinion that gay marriage is a good thing is detrimental to society but you don't think people who feel that way are malicious, do you?[/QUOTE] I never assume malicious intent unless literally no other possibility exists. Based on that belief I don't think I've ever met a supporter of gay marriage who I would say did so with malicious intent. [QUOTE]I don't necessarily think people who oppose gay marriage are malicious, but that doesn't excuse them from doing harm, does it?[/QUOTE] You may believe that, but it's not common. From my experience, most gay marriage supporters actually believe that everyone against gay marriage does so from a perspective of hating or fearing gay people. The knowledge that a person is against gay marriage is enough to tell these people that that person is a bad person, not just wrong, but bad.

[QUOTE=sgman91;47906787]It's laughably easy to find arguments against gay marriage beyond the two you've given. Just do a quick Google search and you'll find some. Here's one right from the top from MIT's top newspaper: [URL]http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html[/URL] I don't even agree with all the points he makes in that column, but to deny it's existence is just ignorance.[/QUOTE] Yeah you've linked that before and I found everything it says to be weak then, and just as weak now upon re-reading. [QUOTE]Can you point out where I said that? From my perspective I've been saying the exact opposite, that real, rational arguments exist against gay marriage beyond simple bigotry.[/QUOTE] So when you were saying how it's wrong for people who support gay marriage to be able to push their opinion that isn't based on fact from your perspective you weren't saying that anyone who argues with you is just opinionated? [QUOTE]I never assume malicious intent unless literally no other possibility exists. Based on that belief I don't think I've ever met a supporter of gay marriage who I would say did so with malicious intent. [/QUOTE] Well that's good. [QUOTE]You may believe that, but it's not common. From my experience, most gay marriage supporters actually believe that everyone against gay marriage does so from a perspective of hating or fearing gay people. The knowledge that a person is against gay marriage is enough to tell these people that that person is a bad person, not just wrong, but bad.[/QUOTE] So argue with me rather than a generality because I don't actually know that many people who feel they're doing it maliciously. They're just tired of being harmed by people who by now, should at least have some understanding of how their actions, or inactions, have impacted the lives of people who didn't choose to be socially stigmatized by you or your like.

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;47890207]My question is, why would UKIP be there? They've consistently shown an anti-LGBT stance, so why would they go to a Pride parade? I'm not sure if banning them was the right choice, but they should have at least pressed UKIP to declare what they actually plan to do.[/QUOTE] don't the guys there get a paid day off for doing it?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47906876]Yeah you've linked that before and I found everything it says to be weak then, and just as weak now upon re-reading.[/QUOTE] That's fine if you don't agree, but it's still not a religious or emotion based argument. This argument, along with basically all arguments relating to social ideals, are mostly based on the foundational assumptions you make. I'm assuming you make difference assumptions than than the author of that article, just as I do, and that's why you disagree with it. [QUOTE]So when you were saying how it's wrong for people who support gay marriage to be able to push their opinion that isn't based on fact from your perspective you weren't saying that anyone who argues with you is just opinionated?[/QUOTE] That was a sarcastic re-rendering of thisispain's remark about the anti-same-sex marriage arguments being nothing more than personal gripes. In the same post I said, "Let's be clear: I don't think your opinion is based on a personal gripe." For extreme clarity, let me restate my position on this topic: I think the two sides of the same-sex marriage debate have differing foundational assumptions and that these assumptions lead equally rational people to different conclusions. Because of this, the argument is really about which assumptions are more accurate and better supported. One of these assumptions is whether same-sex marriages are essentially the same as traditional marriages. Where you fall on this assumption will entirely change the way you rationally think about the issue, and that is just one of a few important ones. [QUOTE]So argue with me rather than a generality because I don't actually know that many people who feel they're doing it maliciously.[/QUOTE] I'm trying to be careful because there are other people in this thread who have spoken with the assumption of malicious intent. I don't want to respond to you, specifically, only to have one of them come along and take it out of context, as per what usually happens. Last time I did that I got banned because a mod didn't understand the argument and assumed malicious intent. [QUOTE]They're just tired of being harmed by people who by now, should at least have some understanding of how their actions, or inactions, have impacted the lives of people who didn't choose to be socially stigmatized by you or your like.[/QUOTE] I have done literally nothing to "socially stigmatize" gay people. I treat all the gay people in my life, of which there are a number, with the same compassion and good nature that I treat everyone in my life, there is no difference. Honestly, most of them would probably be surprised to find out that I don't support same-sex marriage because it doesn't inform the way I treat people. Not agreeing with a social change posited by a group because I don't think they've given good reasons for it is not stigmatizing them, and I fear a society where it would be.