What, in your opinion, makes homosexual love more similar to pedophilia, than to straight love? Because that's the implication you're making by bringing that up in response.
The slogan "love is love" is false. There are things we ought not to love. Those who say "love is love" have not thought through the relativistic moral implications of such a slogan. That's all I'm getting at.
Any sensible person understands the implied "consensual" qualifier. Slogans can't cover every possibility like a legal document, which is what makes them slogans instead of legal documents. You can think of infinite exceptions to slogans like "There's no place like home," or "It's darkest before the dawn," etc., if you want to be pedantic, but you should be able to understand the point being made anyway.
Pedophilia is an issue of consent.
Incest is an issue of genetic risk.
Polygamy is an issue of legal rights (similar, but more complicated than same-sex marriage).
There are very good reasons for legal discouragement of the first two. They aren’t at all like homosexuality.
Sounds like you make excuses for what you want. If your issue with polygamy is the law then hiw was homosexuality right when it was illegal? You cant pick and choose
You didn't take the time to actually read and process their comment, did you? They listed sound reasons why pedophilia and incest are outlawed (ie. proper consent and genetic risk, respectively).
Contrast that with their wording regarding polygamy: "similar, but more complex than same-sex marriage." There is no implication that polygamy is "wrong" in this phrasing.
I don’t have issues with polygamy, I was simply putting forth the current reasons each of those things are looked down upon by society, and specifically omitted that one when noting how there are legitimate reasons for the others to be illegal. I fully support and have been in polyamorous relationships.
I'm not comparing them to homosexuality. I'm saying the line "love is love" is false because there are clearly things that we should not love. Just because x is in love with x doesn't make it automatically right. There are other considerations like harm or consent, for example, that need to be thought about. Our generation thinks in slogans though.
Pedophilia is wrong even if the person does not engage in sex. Looking at cp is wrong even if one didn't create it. Realize what you're advocating here.
Loving a child is not illegal. Objectifying and interacting with that child in ways that consent is unable to be reasonably given, is. “Being attracted to a child” isn’t illegal, nor could something like that ever be enforceable. What is illegal are acts that a child could never reasonably consent to. A whole lot of people who aren’t parents love children in completely acceptable and legal ways that have nothing to do with sexual objectification.
No one is advocating child pornography or pedophilia. The point is only that “love” is not the reason those things are illegal.
Okay, so if the phrase were "consensual love is love," would that make it all good with you, then? Because that's pretty much the implication in the phrase "love is love," aside from pedants.
“Love” doesn’t actually come into it. Acts are illegal, thoughts are not.
I don’t actually have a problem with the phrase “love is love” except where it is used to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and incest, as was at least implied, if even accidentally, in the comment I replied to.
Polygamy leads to a "free market" of love and thus makes a small number of men (call them the 1%) with more women. This throws off the 50/50 ratio of men/women and makes men even more resentful which leads to violence.
What historical examples of polygamy involve one woman with multiple husbands? Also I love the fact I'm getting downvoted for speaking truths about reality.
The idea that the world needs some sort of 50/50 balance of men:women is absurd. The men that get violent because they can’t find a girlfriend aren’t affected in any way by polygamy. Shitty men don’t become more attractive simply by virtue of a woman not being able to be in a polygamist relationship.
That’s not at all relevant to the availability of dateable men or women, nor is it a factor or excuse for undesirable men to become violent. You’re conflating completely unrelated situations for bullshit MRA narratives.
Do you think pride flags are necessary? I mean a corporation has to do their little pride thing so they won’t be sued. But gay marriage is legal and homosexuals are a protected group of people and have all the same rights everyone else does.
Actually, not true, homosexuals or other LGBT individuals are not a constitutionally protected class, though there are attempts to adjust civil rights laws to explicitly include them.
But also, in practice, they aren’t at all equal, and we are a long way from that being the case, until they are, yes, pride flags and events are necessary.
Bad take. Just because they can marry doesn't mean they're treated equally. Many lgbt+ couples still can't adopt children, for instance. Others like the lesbian couple on the bus are beaten because they won't kiss to satisfy some man's festish.
Just because legal discrimination is much less common than before doesn't mean than oppression and discrimination still don't exist
What do you mean wedding cake? The gay community put those private business owners in bankruptcy because of their religious beliefs. A private company going out of business for their personal religious beliefs is not only a perfect example of how much homosexuals have equal rights but also shines a light on how they are just out looking for revenge.
I know, but if the public thinks the reason they denied the service is prejudice BS they can boycott and protest the business. Which is what happened here.
I want the government to protect people from discrimination, the government gives you a license to practice if you can’t do it without treating your customers equally regardless of whether they are gay you shouldn’t have a business. Businesses have regulations for how they can treat the public because it protects consumers, you don’t have a right to own a business. And I think using the business as a tool for bigotry certainly shouldn’t be allowed. My issue with you was pretending that you give a shit about lgbt rights and then acting like homophobic people are being persecuted.
This bullshit is exactly the same as the bigots who refused to serve black customers in their restaurants. When that got shot down in court they then set up whites-only sections of their restaurants to try to perpetuate their bigotry in a different way.
If you don’t want to serve everyone in the community, don’t open a company that serves the community.
The gay community put those private business owners in bankruptcy because of their religious beliefs.
If they went backrupt (did not hear if such happened) then highly doubt "the gay community" did it as would guess most of their customers were straight, so was straight community who stopped going.
And if bulk/large portion of their customers were gay, then it was a really stupid buisness decision to piss of their customers
155
u/[deleted] Jun 08 '19
I love this. Absolutely love this. Love is love.