So let me get this "straight" - I'm not allowed to refer to a person as "a bundle of sticks used to flame gay people with"? Justin Bieber, in that sense of the word, is a ******. The scrawny b*stard is continually used as ammunition by the "not 'manly' = gay har har" crowd. Also, in England ****** has quite a few different connotations including "meatball", so it's easily as multi-purpose as "gay" in that respect. Maybe the real problem is that it's so hard to read what is meant by non-transparent insults, of which there are many. Please be aware that I'm only joking around, but I don't think it's worth trying to control vocabulary. It was the point of one of my posts in another thread. If some people still use uncreative terms of phrase to directly attack others in a worn-out context then it's just really obvious who the f*ckheads are from a distance. I'd rather people used an outdated pejorative phrase to refer to me than were directly unfair to me in a tangible form. YMMV I guess.
As for the main topic, HOMOPHOBIA IS BAD IN CAPITALS. Let me get that part of my opinion down first. Honestly the whole tradition of marriage is a historical/religious issue, and I would hope that in generations to come, the people who don't subscribe to it will be able to rise above feeling left out. I too, believe that religious marriage is a completely unnecessary step for people who are not heavily religious. The only people this affects are people who have somehow managed to develop the moral footing that Christianity/[insert religion] is the one true way AND develop a serious homosexual relationship which they would want to validate in the House of God. Everyone else, generally, would be happy with a non-religious wedding or civil partnership or evening dinner for two. I think that churches which want to observe gay marriage should be encouraged to do so, but I don't think the demand is SO great that every church should be forced to. It's not like going to a pub, where people of all orientations are equally likely to want to be in any and all of them at a given moment. The point about divorce not being traditional, and marriage preventing us from raising children who aren't our own particularly resonates with me - marriage served as a fairly upheld promise of paternity, which is less relevant today when tests can be carried out and many monogamous couples are not hitched. That position on marriage also rules out adoption and fostering. It blew my mind when I found out that some people really believe that raising another person's child is wrong - leaving them to die, now would that be more in line with the ever-loving goody-two-shoes perspective of religion? I had assumed adoption would be the absolute food of Ned Flanders types who just want to do good by all means. That was a sad day for me, as (hopefully) a future foster parent. At the very basis of the paternity guarantee - i.e. "If I marry you I don't expect to provide for a child who is not my blood" - is CONDITIONAL love. Sorry, but anyone who has known "their" child more than five minutes, only to find out it's not theirs after all (or any other unsatisfactory trait, for instance the child is gay), is irrational if they choose to relinquish all care. Sure, it's nice to pass on your genes and stuff, and yeah, money's tight, but you are a gross parent if that was your original and only clause of judgment. Were you just waiting for a reason to tell that kid you don't love him/her? Maybe age 18?
It really irritates me when people are so heavy-handed with their beliefs that they start attacking others. It just stinks of the same bullsh*t from the Civil Rights era. That is all entirely wrong, none of their business, and I would like to think, not the action associated with most religious people who do not get their gratification from following the instruction to "save" others. The ones who do are a separate problem for any citizens not following the same rules - which is most people, not just the homosexuals. I've always found it to be the greatest moral dilemma, what can really be done for those who think their seat in Heaven is dependent on how many others they can convert.
/rant. I love this thread. The topic p*sses me off a LOT. Especially the way vocab is given the same weight as hate crimes. It's not a jab at anyone who has said they don't like such terms, but honestly it makes me incredibly angry that people put so much energy into defending the offended and so little into providing the services such a person needs to cater to their differences. (E.g. most would rather be given a wheelchair than, not be provided one but never have to hear the word "cripple". That's just stupid, but it's how the internet debates of which I've seen many usually come out.)