Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

You argued your position well and without an appeal to faith. While your religion may have shaped your views on gay marriage, that thread remained firmly based in secular appeals to reason.
[/quote]

  1. A secular argument doesn’t negate bigotry.

  2. I don’t remember (I’ll check back later) if you did this, but others used blacks in the place of gays.

So, despite how I make my argument, must I not be a bigot? I would deprive homosexuals of state recognized marriage, after all. As others have said, what if I did as much for members of different races wanting to marry each other? Blacks and whites being an obvious consideration here.

So, am I a bigot? This question is for everyone who took the opposing position throughout, but especially those who made the black/gay comparisons.

Feel free to be honest, it’s not something that is going to bother me. But we did see a couple of decent exchanges between me and some others. I’m wondering if that decency is despite me being a bigot, or because deep down something is a bit different here than in a question of a black man marrying a white woman. [/quote]

I may have drawn analogies to anti-miscegenation (I know I certainly did bring up blacks/whites at one point, but it was less about marriage and more about the concept that one must prove gays and heterosexuals “the same” before extending marriage rights; I said that that logic could have been used to argue against universal suffrage as well because men/women and whites/blacks are of course not identical to one another), but I do of course believe that there is something different here than in the question of a black man marrying a white woman and I haven’t said otherwise.

To get at the larger point: bigot is a nebulous word. Am I a bigot because I don’t believe the state should recognize polyamorous relationships with a marriage license? Am I a bigot because I think incest should be illegal? Under some of the broader definitions of the word, the argue could be made that I am.

But who gives a shit? I certainly don’t. Maybe there’s been some bigotry in here (the “gays are abhorrent” lines qualify in my view), but there has been no hate and that’s what counts.

362

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

You argued your position well and without an appeal to faith. While your religion may have shaped your views on gay marriage, that thread remained firmly based in secular appeals to reason.
[/quote]

  1. A secular argument doesn’t negate bigotry.

  2. I don’t remember (I’ll check back later) if you did this, but others used blacks in the place of gays.

So, despite how I make my argument, must I not be a bigot? I would deprive homosexuals of state recognized marriage, after all. As others have said, what if I did as much for members of different races wanting to marry each other? Blacks and whites being an obvious consideration here.

So, am I a bigot? This question is for everyone who took the opposing position throughout, but especially those who made the black/gay comparisons.

Feel free to be honest, it’s not something that is going to bother me. But we did see a couple of decent exchanges between me and some others. I’m wondering if that decency is despite me being a bigot, or because deep down something is a bit different here than in a question of a black man marrying a white woman. [/quote]

If you were running for President I wouldn’t vote for you based on what I know about you in part because I think your religious views would drive your policy decisions in ways that I disagree with. I also suspect I would lose your vote for the same or similar reasons. I don’t have any problems with you personally or mean any disrespect by this and I don’t think this makes either of us religious bigots–it means we see the world differently and disagree on some important things (if it does mean I’m a bigot I guess I’ll have to deal with that label).

Regarding your specific views on gay marriage and homosexuals, I do believe that a prohibition against gay marriage is discriminatory and that homosexuals are adversely impacted by this stance in general. It is historically different in degree than Black/White issues because of slavery but it is similar in my view in that it involves what I believe are immutable characteristics and human dignity and homosexuals have generally been subjected to real shitty treatment by society in the past. But I don’t think based on what you have said that you are motivated by malice or ill will or that it would be productive to slap a “bigot” label on you.

Similarly, I don’t think that I am being “anti-Chrisitian” merely because I disagree with some tenets of Christianity and I also don’t think it would be productive to slap a bigot label on me merely because I disagree with some Christian tenets.

I doubt I can change your stance on gay marriage or convince you that your faith is wrong, but maybe, like Pat suggested, we can find some common ground. I admit there have been some good counterarguments presented here–slippery slope/flood gate problems are legitimate; arbitrary line-drawing is sometimes hard to justify; and I concede the state could rationally want to promote stable, traditional relationships that promote procreation. I just don’t think that some of the good points that have been brought up are compelling enough to change my mind.

Similarly, I’d like to think that my opponents on here might be willing to concede that its at least rational for homosexuals to want their status in society to be more normalized and that maybe if I present the case well enough the opposition might see things through their eyes a little easier.

The difficulty I see with finding common ground is that the term “marriage” is a loaded word–a sacred concept–and allowing homosexuals access to even the word cheapens it for many. In the same way, homosexuals see the denial of access to the word as cheapening them or treating them as dirty and abhorrent. In other words, it seems to me that homosexuals want access to the word for the same reasons that opponents want to deny them access to the word. That’s why I think the one solution might be take the word itself away from the state and have the state recognize a bundle of legal rights in a “civil union.” People could still get “married” in a church if they want and confirm their religious marriage through a legal “civil union.” Or maybe this wouldn’t make anybody happy, I don’t know.

363

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

You argued your position well and without an appeal to faith. While your religion may have shaped your views on gay marriage, that thread remained firmly based in secular appeals to reason.
[/quote]

  1. A secular argument doesn’t negate bigotry.

  2. I don’t remember (I’ll check back later) if you did this, but others used blacks in the place of gays.

So, despite how I make my argument, must I not be a bigot? I would deprive homosexuals of state recognized marriage, after all. As others have said, what if I did as much for members of different races wanting to marry each other? Blacks and whites being an obvious consideration here.

So, am I a bigot? This question is for everyone who took the opposing position throughout, but especially those who made the black/gay comparisons.

Feel free to be honest, it’s not something that is going to bother me. But we did see a couple of decent exchanges between me and some others. I’m wondering if that decency is despite me being a bigot, or because deep down something is a bit different here than in a question of a black man marrying a white woman. [/quote]

If you were running for President I wouldn’t vote for you based on what I know about you in part because I think your religious views would drive your policy decisions in ways that I disagree with. I also suspect I would lose your vote for the same or similar reasons. I don’t have any problems with you personally or mean any disrespect by this and I don’t think this makes either of us religious bigots–it means we see the world differently and disagree on some important things (if it does mean I’m a bigot I guess I’ll have to deal with that label).

Regarding your specific views on gay marriage and homosexuals, I do believe that a prohibition against gay marriage is discriminatory and that homosexuals are adversely impacted by this stance in general. It is historically different in degree than Black/White issues because of slavery but it is similar in my view in that it involves what I believe are immutable characteristics and human dignity and homosexuals have generally been subjected to real shitty treatment by society in the past. But I don’t think based on what you have said that you are motivated by malice or ill will or that it would be productive to slap a “bigot” label on you.

Similarly, I don’t think that I am being “anti-Chrisitian” merely because I disagree with some tenets of Christianity and I also don’t think it would be productive to slap a bigot label on me merely because I disagree with some Christian tenets.

I doubt I can change your stance on gay marriage or convince you that your faith is wrong, but maybe, like Pat suggested, we can find some common ground. I admit there have been some good counterarguments presented here–slippery slope/flood gate problems are legitimate; arbitrary line-drawing is sometimes hard to justify; and I concede the state could rationally want to promote stable, traditional relationships that promote procreation. I just don’t think that some of the good points that have been brought up are compelling enough to change my mind.

Similarly, I’d like to think that my opponents on here might be willing to concede that its at least rational for homosexuals to want their status in society to be more normalized and that maybe if I present the case well enough the opposition might see things through their eyes a little easier.

The difficulty I see with finding common ground is that the term “marriage” is a loaded word–a sacred concept–and allowing homosexuals access to even the word cheapens it for many. In the same way, homosexuals see the denial of access to the word as cheapening them or treating them as dirty and abhorrent. In other words, it seems to me that homosexuals want access to the word for the same reasons that opponents want to deny them access to the word. That’s why I think the one solution might be take the word itself away from the state and have the state recognize a bundle of legal rights in a “civil union.” People could still get “married” in a church if they want and confirm their religious marriage through a legal “civil union.” Or maybe this wouldn’t make anybody happy, I don’t know.
[/quote]

Excellent post.

364

Left-wing or right-wing. Religious or irreligious. Progressive or conservative, it doesn’t matter.
At the end of the day, at the end of the thread, you are all denying my girlfriend’s right to live openly and officially under her own sexual orientation(s).
You biphobic bigots !

And will somebody please think of the children ?
We all know that it takes a village to raise a child.
An happy menage a trois (ou quatre, ou cinq…) is obviously superior to a semi-broken nuclear family.

365

You guys are gentlemen, no doubt. But I wonder if your civility is misplaced in my case. I literally do not believe homosexuals should be able to marry. I don’t want them to be open about it in public schools. I believe organizations like the Boy Scouts not only can but should be able to bar gays. And yes, I do find homosexuality to be abhorrent, much like I find coprophilia, orgies, etc. Heck, I’m not even apologetic about it. Now, while I do have a secular argument (not that you necessarily agree with it) for preserving the status and exclusivity of heterosexual marriage, this is my view of homosexuality. If I were to say the same thing about blacks, even if wasn’t proposing any policy changes that would target them (even a libertarian can be a bigot), I doubt anyone would hesitate to call me a bigot.

Blacks shouldn’t marry whites.

Blacks shouldn’t be Boy Scout leaders.

I have no doubt that I’d be labeled a bigot by you folks. Hell, people would’ve piled in here to have a go at me. Republican, Democrat, and independent. Religious, and atheist.

Anyways, I won’t pursue this further as I realize it’s starting to get pushy. However, I would only ask you both to consider this. If I’m a bigot in your eyes, I can take hearing it and still maintain the same tone in future debates. Again, I just have a hard time imagining you guys hesitating to call a bigot out if we were discussing such things, but substituting blacks, because it might not be ‘productive.’ It feels, I don’t know, off.

366

[quote]kamui wrote:
Left-wing or right-wing. Religious or irreligious. Progressive or conservative, it doesn’t matter.
At the end of the day, at the end of the thread, you are all denying my girlfriend’s right to live openly and officially under her own sexual orientation(s).
You biphobic bigots !

And will somebody please think of the children ?
We all know that it takes a village to raise a child.
An happy menage a trois (ou quatre, ou cinq…) is obviously superior to a semi-broken nuclear family.

[/quote]

I was kind of wondering what their responses would be, too. Perhaps they think you’re making it up for the sake of the argument. They may not be aware that you’ve disclosed your lifestyle in previous threads.

367

By the way, when I say I find something abhorrent that does not mean participating individuals deserve to be bullied, teased, or God forbid, assaulted. I may think the guy who likes to get pooped on is into some sick stuff, but that doesn’t mean I want him harassed if his proclivity somehow became public knowledge. Sorry to get vulgar. However, I don’t understand why it’s unsettling for a straight man to find homosexuality disgusting. A gay co-worker, and friend (I’m not racist, I have black friends!), once told me his first and only heterosexual encounter was ‘gross.’ Well, yeah, I kind of figured he would see it that way.

368

True.

So, to be clear :
i’m not making it up for the sake of the argument.
I’m really a polyamorous guy who happens to be against gay marriage (or polyamorous marriage, for that matter).

The argument about polygamous marriage is NOT a slippery slope fallacy nor a strawman.
LGBT activists are currently quite silent about it (despite the B component of the acronym) because it could undermine or weaken their causes. But it’s the next natural step.

many of my own “sex friends” think it is the logical “march of progress”.

I disagree, mainly because i’m a cynical bastard who don’t believe in “progress”.

Or, more accurately : in my eyes, my lifestyle is not and should not be a counterculture. It’s another culture, and that’s all.
I don’t need to proselytize. I don’t ask for recognition. I don’t need to go against the “way of the land” and i fully accept its minoritary nature.
I will obviously stand up against any kind of bullying or harassment, and defend my girlfriend against it, but my moral duties end right there.
I don’t have to try and reform the minds of others.

369

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You guys are gentlemen, no doubt. But I wonder if your civility is misplaced in my case. I literally do not believe homosexuals should be able to marry. I don’t want them to be open about it in public schools. I believe organizations like the Boy Scouts not only can but should be able to bar gays. And yes, I do find homosexuality to be abhorrent, much like I find coprophilia, orgies, etc. Heck, I’m not even apologetic about it. Now, while I do have a secular argument (not that you necessarily agree with it) for preserving the status and exclusivity of heterosexual marriage, this is my view of homosexuality. If I were to say the same thing about blacks, even if wasn’t proposing any policy changes that would target them (even a libertarian can be a bigot), I doubt anyone would hesitate to call me a bigot.

Blacks shouldn’t marry whites.

Blacks shouldn’t be Boy Scout leaders.

I have no doubt that I’d be labeled a bigot by you folks. Hell, people would’ve piled in here to have a go at me. Republican, Democrat, and independent. Religious, and atheist.

Anyways, I won’t pursue this further as I realize it’s starting to get pushy. However, I would only ask you both to consider this. If I’m a bigot in your eyes, I can take hearing it and still maintain the same tone in future debates. Again, I just have a hard time imagining you guys hesitating to call a bigot out if we were discussing such things, but substituting blacks, because it might not be ‘productive.’ It feels, I don’t know, off.

[/quote]

This gives me a lot to think about. I don’t really have a response, but I will say that the views you laid out here (with the mild exception of comparing homosexuality to coprophilia) don’t strike me as terribly extreme or unreasonable (from my liberal point of view, that is). So far as I can tell, you’re not arguing that sodomy should be made illegal, as Sexmachine did. THAT is in my mind an extreme and disgusting point of view.

I do have one question: do you know any homosexuals well, and are you friends with any?

370

[quote]smh23 wrote:
So far as I can tell, you’re not arguing that sodomy should be made illegal, as Sexmachine did. THAT is in my mind an extreme and disgusting point of view.[/quote]

No, I do not feel the government has any business doing such a thing. There should be no arrests, citations, or even a report in a record because so and so disclosed that John has Bob ‘sleeping over.’

Absolutely. Most were shocked I feel the way I do when the conversation would come up. One gay couple (a supervisor of mine and his lover) were two of the most gung-ho republicans I know. One absolutely could not stand Obama. No, I never asked about their stance on gay marriage, though. And they never asked me. They knew I was also Republican, but in addition, a devout orthodox Catholic, so I’m sure they had a hunch. Some things I let be, unless brought up to me. Proper place, proper time, kind of thing. Then I have no choice but to be honest no matter if I’m presently in the minority or not.

371

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Biological vs. adoptive? I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there were some inherent advantage in being raised by the people with whom you share your genetic composition.[/quote]

Ok, so you wouldn’t be surprised to learn of an advantage with biological parents - but what do you personally think?[/quote]‘’’

What does this have to do with anything? Kids who need to be adopted by definition have biological parents who can’t or won’t care for them.
[/quote]

Obviously we should kill them. As long as they aren’t aborted, of course.

372

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, when I say I find something abhorrent that does not mean participating individuals deserve to be bullied, teased, or God forbid, assaulted. I may think the guy who likes to get pooped on is into some sick stuff, but that doesn’t mean I want him harassed if his proclivity somehow became public knowledge. Sorry to get vulgar. However, I don’t understand why it’s unsettling for a straight man to find homosexuality disgusting. A gay co-worker, and friend (I’m not racist, I have black friends!), once told me his first and only heterosexual encounter was ‘gross.’ Well, yeah, I kind of figured he would see it that way.[/quote]

It’s completely natural for heterosexual men to find homosexual behaviour repulsive. However, what I find gross does not factor into my opinion of gay marriage nor should it.

373

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, when I say I find something abhorrent that does not mean participating individuals deserve to be bullied, teased, or God forbid, assaulted. I may think the guy who likes to get pooped on is into some sick stuff, but that doesn’t mean I want him harassed if his proclivity somehow became public knowledge. Sorry to get vulgar. However, I don’t understand why it’s unsettling for a straight man to find homosexuality disgusting. A gay co-worker, and friend (I’m not racist, I have black friends!), once told me his first and only heterosexual encounter was ‘gross.’ Well, yeah, I kind of figured he would see it that way.[/quote]

Can’t say I really disagree with this, in a narrow sense. When I’m talking about homosexuality, I try not to think about the specifics, but when the image forces its way into my mind, its visit is always extremely unpleasant.

I would assume that a lot of gay guys feel a similar visceral distaste at the thought of gettin’ down with the womenfolk.

374

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

You argued your position well and without an appeal to faith. While your religion may have shaped your views on gay marriage, that thread remained firmly based in secular appeals to reason.
[/quote]

  1. A secular argument doesn’t negate bigotry.

  2. I don’t remember (I’ll check back later) if you did this, but others used blacks in the place of gays.

So, despite how I make my argument, must I not be a bigot? I would deprive homosexuals of state recognized marriage, after all. As others have said, what if I did as much for members of different races wanting to marry each other? Blacks and whites being an obvious consideration here.

So, am I a bigot? This question is for everyone who took the opposing position throughout, but especially those who made the black/gay comparisons.

Feel free to be honest, it’s not something that is going to bother me. But we did see a couple of decent exchanges between me and some others. I’m wondering if that decency is despite me being a bigot, or because deep down something is a bit different here than in a question of a black man marrying a white woman. [/quote]

If you were running for President I wouldn’t vote for you based on what I know about you in part because I think your religious views would drive your policy decisions in ways that I disagree with. I also suspect I would lose your vote for the same or similar reasons. I don’t have any problems with you personally or mean any disrespect by this and I don’t think this makes either of us religious bigots–it means we see the world differently and disagree on some important things (if it does mean I’m a bigot I guess I’ll have to deal with that label).

Regarding your specific views on gay marriage and homosexuals, I do believe that a prohibition against gay marriage is discriminatory and that homosexuals are adversely impacted by this stance in general. It is historically different in degree than Black/White issues because of slavery but it is similar in my view in that it involves what I believe are immutable characteristics and human dignity and homosexuals have generally been subjected to real shitty treatment by society in the past. But I don’t think based on what you have said that you are motivated by malice or ill will or that it would be productive to slap a “bigot” label on you.

Similarly, I don’t think that I am being “anti-Chrisitian” merely because I disagree with some tenets of Christianity and I also don’t think it would be productive to slap a bigot label on me merely because I disagree with some Christian tenets.

I doubt I can change your stance on gay marriage or convince you that your faith is wrong, but maybe, like Pat suggested, we can find some common ground. I admit there have been some good counterarguments presented here–slippery slope/flood gate problems are legitimate; arbitrary line-drawing is sometimes hard to justify; and I concede the state could rationally want to promote stable, traditional relationships that promote procreation. I just don’t think that some of the good points that have been brought up are compelling enough to change my mind.

Similarly, I’d like to think that my opponents on here might be willing to concede that its at least rational for homosexuals to want their status in society to be more normalized and that maybe if I present the case well enough the opposition might see things through their eyes a little easier.

The difficulty I see with finding common ground is that the term “marriage” is a loaded word–a sacred concept–and allowing homosexuals access to even the word cheapens it for many. In the same way, homosexuals see the denial of access to the word as cheapening them or treating them as dirty and abhorrent. In other words, it seems to me that homosexuals want access to the word for the same reasons that opponents want to deny them access to the word. That’s why I think the one solution might be take the word itself away from the state and have the state recognize a bundle of legal rights in a “civil union.” People could still get “married” in a church if they want and confirm their religious marriage through a legal “civil union.” Or maybe this wouldn’t make anybody happy, I don’t know.
[/quote]

Excellent post.[/quote]

Ditto.
I think the issue of ‘rights’ is a shadow for the real issue which is access to the word. To the sacred institution of marriage. I doubt very seriously that merely a granting of rights would stop the the push for gay marriage. In fact, it may make it even louder.
Let’s give all couples the same rights. Let the institution remain for opposite genders.

My one caveat is adoption. I wouldn’t refuse to let gay couples adopt for one very simple reason, a loved child is better off than an unloved one. But I would have it considered last. Ideally a ‘traditional’ two parent home is the best solution, but I would consider anybody willing to love a child and raise a child in a loving home, over the cold walls of an orphanage any day.

Now somebody mentioned gay adoptions as being ending abortion. This is bullshit since there are waiting lists and shit for babies, and no shortage of desire for babies. It’s the older kids nobody wants.

The end of abortion is the recognition that it’s a human life and that taking a human life is an abominable act. Until people realize that fact, there will always be abortion.

375

[quote]pat wrote:
Ditto.
I think the issue of ‘rights’ is a shadow for the real issue which is access to the word. To the sacred institution of marriage. I doubt very seriously that merely a granting of rights would stop the the push for gay marriage. In fact, it may make it even louder.
Let’s give all couples the same rights. Let the institution remain for opposite genders.

My one caveat is adoption. I wouldn’t refuse to let gay couples adopt for one very simple reason, a loved child is better off than an unloved one. But I would have it considered last. Ideally a ‘traditional’ two parent home is the best solution, but I would consider anybody willing to love a child and raise a child in a loving home, over the cold walls of an orphanage any day.

Now somebody mentioned gay adoptions as being ending abortion. This is bullshit since there are waiting lists and shit for babies, and no shortage of desire for babies. It’s the older kids nobody wants.

The end of abortion is the recognition that it’s a human life and that taking a human life is an abominable act. Until people realize that fact, there will always be abortion.[/quote]

Great post, Pat.

376

The French Socialist president has put forward a bill to allow gay couples to marry and adopt kids to be debated by parlaiment in January. French gay marriage and adoption bill backed by cabinet - BBC News Former President Sarkozy’s party and leader are against it. Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders have come out against it,this has believed to have an affect on the support of the issue by the general public (as in more were in favour of the idea before the religious leaders spoke out). Many local mayors who preside over both religious and civil marraiges in France have said that they will not give their signatures to gay ‘marraiges’.

377

Gay marriage passed in Maine, Maryland and Colorado. So much for “gay marriage has never passed a referendum.” And the amendment in Minnesota to define marriage as between one man and one woman was voted down. Looks like a clean sweep for gay marriage this election.

378

Mayors do not preside over religious marriage in France.
At least not since the separation of the Church and the State in 1905.
Actually, the State doesn’t even recognize nor acknowledge religious marriages.

Also, keep in mind that France has legalized same-sex civil unions in 1997.
It gives homosexuals (and heterosexuals for that matters) nearly the same advantages than a traditional marriage, but under another name, and with slightly different terms and legal/fiscal privileges.
Our left happens to think it’s not enough.

379

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Gay marriage passed in Maine, Maryland and Colorado. So much for “gay marriage has never passed a referendum.” And the amendment in Minnesota to define marriage as between one man and one woman was voted down. Looks like a clean sweep for gay marriage this election.[/quote]

Probably Washington State as well, the votes are still being counted but its ahead.

380

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Gay marriage passed in Maine, Maryland and Colorado. So much for “gay marriage has never passed a referendum.” And the amendment in Minnesota to define marriage as between one man and one woman was voted down. Looks like a clean sweep for gay marriage this election.[/quote]

Probably Washington State as well, the votes are still being counted but its ahead. [/quote]

I meant Washington, it wasn’t up for a vote in Colorado.