The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Quote:

First of all I never said that blacks are inferior. I believe that all people are equal. Our behaviors are are another matter. If I help feed the poor, then I am doing good. If I steal or cheat someone then I am doing wrong. If the same person can do good and evil, then the difference must be the behavior. So as A christian I believe that we are all loved by God equally. He does not like my sins anymore than yours or anyone else's

Of course, many have considered blacks inferior, and many others still do consider blacks inferior. Often, the justification or reasoning used to excuse racism has been an interpretation of scripture, and of 'sin'. As in the case of Bob Jones University and Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc

Quote:

Bob Jones University is not affiliated with any religious denomination, but is dedicated to the teaching and propagation of its fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs. It is both a religious and educational institution. Its teachers are required to be devout Christians, and all courses at the University are taught according to the Bible. Entering students are screened as to their religious beliefs, and their public and private conduct is strictly regulated by standards promulgated by University authorities.

The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes, 5 but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race...

Since May 29, 1975, the University has permitted unmarried Negroes to enroll; but a disciplinary rule prohibits interracial dating and marriage. That rule reads:

"There is to be no interracial dating.

"1. Students who are partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled. [461 U.S. 574, 581]

"2. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled.

"3. Students who date outside of their own race will be expelled.

"4. Students who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University's dating rules and regulations will be expelled."...

No. 81-1, Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States

Goldsboro Christian Schools is a nonprofit corporation located in Goldsboro, N.C. Like Bob Jones University, it was established "to conduct an institution or institutions of learning . . ., giving special emphasis to the Christian religion and the ethics revealed in the Holy scriptures." Articles of Incorporation 3(a); see Complaint 6, reprinted in App. in No. 81-1, pp. 5-6. The school offers classes from kindergarten through high school, and since at least 1969 has satisfied the State of North Carolina's requirements for secular education in private schools. The school requires its high school students to take Bible-related courses, and begins each class with prayer.

Since its incorporation in 1963, Goldsboro Christian Schools has maintained a racially discriminatory admissions policy based upon its interpretation of the Bible

As I said earlier, your personal ideas about what constitutes 'sin', and your particular interpretation of scripture does not provide sufficient criteria for avoiding the equality provisions and principles of the constitution and bill of rights.

Quote:

Your body was not designed for flight. Therefore flying is abnormal. Your body was not designed for a prostate examination. Therefore prostate examinations are abnormal.

I agree, that our bodies were not designed for flight. Anyone stepping out of an airplane at altitude will prove this. As for the prostate exam, again I agree. I have not seen to many people born with a scope in their bum.
So we seem to be in agreement. Flying , prostate exams, and homosexuality are not normal.

You avoid, you must avoid, the logical consequence of this equation. Your argument against homosexuality is that it is 'not normal'. You justify activism and legislation designed to reduce or eliminate it, or to deny equality status to homosexuals, because what they do is 'not normal'. Thus, by your argument, pilots and doctors too ought to suffer such treatment and reduction of equality status.

Quote:

Quote:
Evolution, or procreation, remains uninfluenced via marriage between couples where one partner is incapable of producing offspring. Therefore such unions are abnormal.

Procreation is a potential result of a natural or normal act. The act is normal because our bodies either evolved or were designed for this specific purpose. When procreation does not result the sexual act is still natural. It is only the result that has changed. So one could argue that the act was unsuccessful, but not abnormal.

You demonstrate a poor understanding of evolution, and of design for that matter. Did your forefinger evolve for, or was it designed to clean your nose? Or to facilitate multiple uses? Pushing an elevator button? Cleaning a spot on your computer screen? Tickling your children? Manipulating a clitoris? Anal stimulation? Why ought I or anyone else to accept your conception of what evolution or design mandates? Is your hand designed to grasp a crescent wrench or another man's penis? Men's and women's hands are the same.

Quote:

You're right, this applies to information on both sides of the debate. When two statements/ books/ studies contradict each other one of them must be false. Choosing to believe based only on which is more to ones liking may be easier, but it will also likely be wrong. To determine what is true we should use logic.

Please, lets.

Quote:

For example: Much of the heterosexual activity that occurs is the result of sexual experimentation. Some of these participants will experiment with homosexuality as well.
Do you disagree with anything so far?
It is logical to believe that (at a minimum) some who are engaging in homosexual activity were not born that way. They are doing so by choice.
If this theory is true then there should be evidence of EX-GAYS

By which I assume you mean people who now mainly or totally engage in heterosexual activities. Yes, there are many such cases. Of course, the converse is equally true. Many who originally engaged in heterosexual activities now engage mainly or totally in homosexual activities. That constitutes 'evidence of' EX-HETEROSEXUALS. How far does that get you?

Quote:

If your looking for the truth, check it out.
If you just want to recruit, reply with propaganda
dadothree

This is my favorite bit in your post. I suspect you have no comprehension at all as to what this tells the rest of us about you.

0 Replies

graffiti wrote:

My suggestion: a separation of church and state.

Any 2 people, whether they are gay or straight, ought be allowed to register a civil (governmental) union with absolutely equal benefits and rights to those who are now able to marry.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. "Any 2 people" would include dropping the prohibition against incest. Are you willing to follow your own suggestion to this conclusion? Are you saying that the prohibition against incest violates the separation of church and state? If not, how do you distinguish the prohibition against incest from the prohibition against homosexual marriage?

Also, I notice that your "any two people" rule seems to discriminate against polyandrous women and polygamous men. Why do you support this discrimination? What's so special about marriage being between just two people?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

graffiti wrote:
My suggestion: a separation of church and state.

Any 2 people, whether they are gay or straight, ought be allowed to register a civil (governmental) union with absolutely equal benefits and rights to those who are now able to marry.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. "Any 2 people" would include dropping the prohibition against incest. Are you willing to follow your own suggestion to this conclusion? Are you saying that the prohibition against incest violates the seperation of church and state? If not, how do you distinguish the prohibition against incest from the prohibition against homosexual marriage?

Also, I notice that your "any two people" rule seems to discriminate against polyandrous women and polygamous men. Why do you support this discrimination? What's so special about marriage being between just two people?

Any 2 people was imprecise: my bad. I intended it to mean any 2 unrelated people of either the same or both sexes. Is that clear enough yet?

Your attempt to compare incest and polygamy to marriage between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, given the subject matter of this thread, is unworthy of a response, in my opinion.

0 Replies

graffiti wrote:

Your attempt to compare incest and polygamy to marriage between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, given the subject matter of this thread, is unworthy of a response, in my opinion.

Needless to say, it is your opinion which determines whether you respond or not, as well it should. I just happen to disagree with your opinion. One point this thread is about, and which people here disagree on, is whether the prohibition against certain kinds of marriage reflects animosity against the kind of people being restricted -- as distinguished from opposition against changing what a marriage is.

If marriage is no more than a contract between consenting grown-ups, there is no reason to restrict the number of parties to that contract. There is also no reason to exclude siblings, cousins, parents, and their grown-up children from entering the contract -- as long as everybody consents to its terms.

As soon as you concede that voluntary polygamy and voluntary incest should remain illegal, you admit that marriage is more than just a contract. You also admit that the rest of society should have a say in who gets to enter the contract, and that religious beliefs should be considered in making this collective decision. (For nothing but your beliefs supports your view that polygamy and incest are bad things.) Finally, by admitting that the prohibition does not necessarily reflect hostility against the polygamous and incestuous people being in love with each other, you open up the possibility that the same might be true about those who want to restrict homosexual couples from marrying.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

As soon as you concede that voluntary polygamy and voluntary incest should remain illegal, you admit that marriage is more than just a contract. You also admit that the rest of society should have a say in who gets to enter the contract, and that religious beliefs should be considered in making this collective decision. (For nothing but your beliefs support your view that polygamy and incest are bad things.) Finally, by admitting that the prohibition does not necessarily reflects hostility against the polygamous and incestuous people being in love with each other, you open up the possibility that the same might be true about those who want to restrict homosexual couples from marrying.

Nicely done! I believe this settles the issue -- though I doubt that Blatham will concede.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

If marriage is no more than a contract between consenting grown-ups, there is no reason to restrict the number of parties to that contract. There is also no reason to exclude siblings, cousins, parents, and their grown-up children from entering the contract -- as long as everybody consents to its terms.

Perhaps in your libertarian utopia, Thomas, but in the real world contracts are highly regulated. There is no reason why the state cannot mandate the kinds of persons or the number of persons who can enter into a particular class of contracts, except when those regulations violate some other right.

Thomas wrote:

As soon as you concede that voluntary polygamy and voluntary incest should remain illegal, you admit that marriage is more than just a contract.

Marriage is a unique form of contract. But then so is an option, or a guaranty, or an insurance policy, or a mortgage. Different contracts, different rules.

Thomas wrote:

Finally, by admitting that the prohibition does not necessarily reflects hostility against the polygamous and incestuous people being in love with each other, you open up the possibility that the same might be true about those who want to restrict homosexual couples from marrying.

The state routinely steps in to limit the right of persons to enter into contracts. So, for instance, a minor is allowed to cancel any contracts that he might make, up to the time that he reaches the age of majority. Likewise, people who are considered legally "incompetent" cannot enter into binding contracts at all. Contracts between married couples, or between guardians and wards, are treated to a different standard of scrutiny than those between strangers. Just because the state regulates these kinds of contracts doesn't mean that the state is hostile towards minors or incompetents or married couples or wards. It just means that the state recognizes that, in certain circumstances, there are contracts that deserve special rules because of the condition or relationship of the parties.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Perhaps in your libertarian utopia, Thomas, but in the real world contracts are highly regulated. There is no reason why the state cannot mandate the kinds of persons or the number of persons who can enter into a particular class of contracts, except when those regulations violate some other right.

A fair point. I observe however, that this supports my conclusion rather than contradicting it: That the government can restrict who gets to marry and who doesn't, and that these restrictions do not necessarily reflect hostility to the people being restricted.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

[A fair point. I observe however, that this supports my conclusion rather than contradicting it: That the government can restrict who gets to marry and who doesn't, and that these restrictions do not necessarily reflect hostility to the people being restricted.

Quite true. The act of regulating marriage doesn't necessarily reflect hostility toward homosexuals. On the other hand, the hostility expressed by some policymakers toward homosexuals doesreflect hostility toward homosexuals.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Perhaps in your libertarian utopia, Thomas, but in the real world contracts are highly regulated. There is no reason why the state cannot mandate the kinds of persons or the number of persons who can enter into a particular class of contracts, except when those regulations violate some other right.

A fair point. I observe however, that this supports my conclusion rather than contradicting it: That the government can restrict who gets to marry and who doesn't, and that these restrictions do not necessarily reflect hostility to the people being restricted.

The government can restrict contracts, but should have to show a reasonable cause for doing so.

One reason for preventing incestual marriages, for example, is to prevent a known risk for birth defects. (And what happens when genetic scanning can show the actual risk? Or prevent all together?)

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

On the other hand, the hostility expressed by some policymakers toward homosexuals doesreflect hostility toward homosexuals.

Agreed, but this is a much weaker claim than the one Blatham made in the title of this thread. His claim was that the anti-gay-marriage movement is homophobic. No exceptions, no qualifications, no allowance made for non-hostile reasons to oppose gay marriage. And the "movement" in question covers the 5/6 of Congress who voted for maintaining the status quo with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, as opposed to the remaining 1/6 of Congress who voted to change the status quo.

As a political matter, I believe that the 5/6 of Congress were wrong and that introducing gay marriage would be a good idea. But I also believe that the political burden of proof should rest on those who want to change long-standing institutions, not on those who want to conserve them. Finally, I believe that as a legal matter it's rediculous to pretend that prohibitions against gay marriage violate your constitution's equal protection clause. Unbelieveable but true: not every good idea in politics is required by the constitution, and not every bad idea violates it.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

One reason for preventing incestual marriages, for example, is to prevent a known risk for birth defects. (And what happens when genetic scanning can show the actual risk? Or prevent all together?)

Risk to whom? To the parents, who volunteer to take it? To the child -- who presumably would prefer the risk of birth defects over the certainty of never existing in the first place? Frankly, I can see no victim in this picture who has standing to complain.

0 Replies

Lemme get this straight - Thomas, you stumping for incest here?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Lemme get this straight - Thomas, you stumping for incest here?

I'm not stumping for incest, but I wouldn't mind giving consenting grownups the right to engage in it. My point is that while incest, polygamy and homosexuality aren't necessarily bad, prohibiting them does not violate fundamental rights, in contrast to what many advocates of gay marriage are arguing.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Agreed, but this is a much weaker claim than the one Blatham made in the title of this thread. His claim was that the anti-gay-marriage movement is homophobic. No exceptions, no qualifications, no allowance made for non-hostile reasons to oppose gay marriage. And the "movement" in question covers the 5/6 of Congress who voted for maintaining the status quo with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, as opposed to the remaining 1/6 of Congress who voted to change the status quo.

I'll let you and blatham work that out.

Thomas wrote:

As a political matter, I believe that the 5/6 of Congress were wrong and that introducing gay marriage would be a good idea. But I also believe that the political burden of proof should rest on those who want to change long-standing institutions, not on those who want to conserve them. Finally, I believe that as a legal matter it's rediculous to pretend that prohibitions against gay marriage violate your constitution's equal protection clause. Unbelieveable but true: not every good idea in politics is required by the constitution, and not every bad idea violates it.

If marriage were simply a symbolic act, with no legal consequences (e.g., if it were strictly a religious act, like communion), then I think your constitutional analysis would be correct. But the government not only sanctions marriage, it confers benefits upon married people solely because of their marital status. Under the constitution, the government cannot, without some compelling rationale, discriminate among people when it confers benefits. Thus, if a certain class of persons is prohibited from receiving government benefits solely because of their sexual orientation, then there is a strong case to be made that the government is unconstitutionally discriminating against that class of persons.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
One reason for preventing incestual marriages, for example, is to prevent a known risk for birth defects. (And what happens when genetic scanning can show the actual risk? Or prevent all together?)

Risk to whom? To the parents, who volunteer to take it? To the child -- who presumably would prefer the risk of birth defects over the certainty of never existing in the first place? Frankly, I can see no victim in this picture who has standing to complain.

The burden of care for children with birth defects falls on society as whole, not just the parents. Thus, the compelling interest for society to attempt to control incestuous births.

Nor do I claim certainty that this is the only potential problem with incestuous relationships. Quite the opposite, in fact, but this is just the first reason that came to mind.

(As I mentioned, this particular taboo might be in for a bit of a re-think as we are better able to prevent birth defects. This kinda ties in with the whole abortion issue, though, as the question then becomes what do you do with the fetus once a birth defect is detected?)

*Edited to include second paragraph*

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Thus, if a certain class of persons is prohibited from receiving government benefits solely because of their sexual orientation, then there is a strong case to be made that the government is unconstitutionally discriminating against that class of persons.

They aren't prohibited from receiving government benefits solely because of their sexual orientation. Gay men have the same right to marry than straight men. They just don't have the right to marry each other, just like straight men don't.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Thus, if a certain class of persons is prohibited from receiving government benefits solely because of their sexual orientation, then there is a strong case to be made that the government is unconstitutionally discriminating against that class of persons.

They aren't prohibited from receiving government benefits solely because of their sexual orientation. Gay men have the same right to marry than straight men. They just don't have the right to marry each other, just like straight men don't.

There's a disingenous argument for you.

I guess when interracial marriage was banned it was OK too, because blacks could marry, they just couldn't marry whites?

0 Replies

America, like all other societies, wants its sexual partners to be married--one reason is to introduce some order into the nation's sexual life--but we want homosexual lovers to be unmarried. Put another way, we want our heterosexual lovers to be "officially" committeed to each other and our homosexual lovers to be "officiallly" uncommitted to each other. Rather inconsistent if you ask me.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

They aren't prohibited from receiving government benefits solely because of their sexual orientation. Gay men have the same right to marry than straight men. They just don't have the right to marry each other, just like straight men don't.

Sorry, Thomas, that argument won't work. If a law has a discriminatory effect, it doesn't matter how "equal" it is on its face. A law that prohibits men from marrying other men has a disparate impact on homosexuals.

Laws are not considered in a vacuum, as if they had no consequences. If a law that is "neutral" on its face is discriminatory in practice, then it is a discriminatory law.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Nor do I claim certainty that this is the only potential problem with incestuous relationships. Quite the opposite, in fact, but this is just the first reason that came to mind.

I am not an expert in this matter, and after a Medline search on "Incest, genetic", the only quantitative study that turned up had this to say in its abstract.

Quote:

Effects of consanguineous marriages on morbidity and precocious mortality: genetic counseling.

Freire-Maia N.

The excess risks of morbidity and precocious mortality for the offspring of incestuous matings and of matings of uncles-nieces and aunts-nephews, first cousins, first cousins once removed, and second cousins have been estimated as 32%, 18%, 9%, 5%, and 2.5%, respectively. These estimates are based on the theory of Morton et al [1956], assuming a damage (genetic and nongenetic) of 20% for the offspring of nonconsanguineous couples and two "deleterious" equivalents per gamete. Other possibilities (a damage of 40%; 2.5 deleterious equivalents per gamete), a partition of the total risk into prenatal and postnatal events, and some aspects of the inbreeding theory are also presented. Comments intended for persons interested in counseling are provided.

Note that the percentages given describe the excess risk due to genetic defects. Since genetic defects are a very minor cause of morbidity and precocious mortality to begin with, we're talking about peanuts here. The taboo against incest evolved in an environment where people were much more likely to live among close relatives as they are today. As a practical matter, outlawing incest among consenting grown-ups seems barely less outdated than the taboo against homosexuality. (When combined with child abuse, that's an entirely different matter of course.)

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know