The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Not trying to argue the point with you, Thomas. Just giving one possible explanation for why a society could genuinely have an interest in preventing incestuous marriages.

Could be that preventing incestuous marriages is an outmoded concept; you're free to pursue that if you wish.

Could also be that if we open the door to incestuous unions then those percentages would go up.

I haven't seen any objective examples of how society could be harmed by homosexual marriages, though.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

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

No it wasn't okay. But the fault was with the HUGE misconceptions about the underlying biology that caused the prohibition, not with the legal argument that followed from that misconception. If the underlying biology had been correct, which it wasn't; if 18th and 19th century race theorists had been right, which they weren't; if children from interracial marriages really were a sick, dangerous burden to society, which they aren't -- I would not have a problem with outlawing inter-racial marriage, which I do.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

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

No it wasn't okay. But the fault was with the HUGE misconceptions about the underlying biology that caused the prohibition, not with the legal argument that followed from that misconception. If the underlying biology had been correct, which it wasn't; if 18th and 19th century race theorists had been right, which they weren't; if children from interracial marriages really were a sick, dangerous burden to society, which they aren't -- I would not have a problem with outlawing inter-racial marriage, which I do.

I was not speaking to whether or not you support interracial marriage.

I was pointing out that I think your argument is flawed.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

I was pointing out that I think your argument is flawed.

That's what I thought you did. In response, I was trying to point out that in your example of interracial marriage, I think it was the premise of the argument that was flawed, not the argument itself.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

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.

Well, fortuitous that I ended up at the correct destination even while using the wrong map. How'd you get here? Not that I mind your company.

As to paragraph 1...
One could read 'movement' in the manner you do, to include anyone who might agree with or have voted in line with the various anti-gay marriage ammendments noted at the head of this thread. But that's going rather further than I know you understand was intended, and rather further than the words themselves suggest. If I were to say that the 'anti-jew movement in pre-war germany was (pardon) semitophobic', would that claim be too strong? What qualifier would you be comfortable with? Mainly, predominantly, overwhelmingly, at core?

Would you contest there is such a movement (an organized effort by supporters of a common goal)? Would you contest that it is mainly, predominantly, overwhelmingly, at core driven by a distaste for or dislike for homosexuality? Would you contest that the Congressional vote figures you note are likely (or nearly certainly) a consequence of either personal adherence to this movement or of a prudent movement/voter placation motive?

As to paragraph 2...I see joe has given you one response.

Quote:

"Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."

"For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits. It would deny to same-sex "spouses" only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages. The Massachusetts Constitution, as was explained in the Goodridge opinion, does not permit such invidious discrimination, no matter how well intentioned."

The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. The bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, is makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

The above is, as I'm sure you recognize, from the finding of the Massachusetts SC from last year.

Could you please clarify for me how the above might be "ridiculous"? This was a state court, and joe can fill us in on whether that difference poses significant problems for my argument.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
I was pointing out that I think your argument is flawed.

That's what I thought you did. In response, I was trying to point out that in your example of interracial marriage, I think it was the premise of the argument that was flawed, not the argument itself.

Ah.

I disagree on the interpretation that anti-interracial-marriage laws were actually based on the idea that "blacks are inferior".

They were based on fear (economic and personal) of minorities, and the "scientific" justification was designed in support of this fear. (At least that's what my liberal University of Texas education taught me. :wink: )

The logic of your statement that "all men are prevented from marrying other men and so it does not discriminate against homosexuals" is still flawed.

0 Replies

Thomas,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of birth defects as a result of inbreeding in mammals?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Thomas,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of birth defects as a result of inbreeding in mammals?

Snood,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of AIDS as a result of sexual congress in homosexuals?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Would you contest there is such a movement (an organized effort by supporters of a common goal)?

No.

blatham wrote:

Would you contest that it is mainly, predominantly, overwhelmingly, at core driven by a distaste for or dislike for homosexuality?

Yes. Among my American friends, the predominant view among the conservatives is that the approach to homosexuality should be live-and-let-live, but that gay marriage would nevertheless be a net loss to society. This is not a representative sample, but I have yet to see a reason that outright hostility to homosexuals is more than a strongly held minority view of maybe 15% of Americans.

blatham wrote:

Would you contest that the Congressional vote figures you note are likely (or nearly certainly) a consequence of either personal adherence to this movement or of a prudent movement/voter placation motive?

Yes. I believe it's more likely a bias against changing tried and tested institutions and a bias for subsidizing marriage as a proxy for the bearing and raising of children, which they think homosexual marriages are unable to supply. (I think mistakenly, in the case of raising them.)

blatham wrote:

The above is, as I'm sure you recognize, from the finding of the Massachusetts SC from last year.

Yes. And I predict it will be overridden within 10 years at most -- either by the Federal Supreme Court or by a change in the Massachussetts constitution.

blatham wrote:

Could you please clarify for me how the above might be "ridiculous"?

1) The deprivation is not arbitrary. It has a tradition of several millenia, and it reflects an proven inability of homosexuals to bear children, and a widely believed inability of them to rear them. You can argue that the tradition ought to be broken, and that homosexuals indeed can rear children. But the assertion that the deprivation is arbitrary is, sorry, ridiculous.

2) "For no rational reason" -- ditto. You can argue that the reasons are mistaken, and I do, but to claim that they are not rational is nonsense.

3) homosexuals are not a class, they just exhibit a certain kind of behavior. If you believe this behavior isn't worth subsidizing through a public institution like marriage, you aren't discriminating "against a defined class".

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
Could you please clarify for me how the above might be "ridiculous"?

1) The deprivation is not arbitrary. It has a tradition of several millenia, and it reflects an proven inability of homosexuals to bear children, and a widely believed inability of them to rear them. You can argue that the tradition ought to be broken, and that homosexuals indeed can rear children. But the assertion that the deprivation is arbitrary is, sorry, ridiculous.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."

Thomas wrote:

2) "For no rational reason" -- ditto. You can argue that the reasons are mistaken, and I do, but to claim that they are not rational is nonsense.

I have heard some rationalized arguments, but no rational ones.

Thomas wrote:

3) homosexuals are not a class, they just exhibit a certain kind of behavior. If you believe this behavior isn't worth subsidizing through a public institution like marriage, you aren't discriminating "against a defined class".

This argument might actually have some merit. Homosexuals are not identified as a minority by the federal government.

However, using the law to argue against changing the law is a circular argument.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Thomas,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of birth defects as a result of inbreeding in mammals?

Sure. The question is, how severe and numerous birth defects, caused by how much, how long-sustained inbreeding? I am not aware of any evidence that the occasional brother-sister, father-daughter pregnancy would be a big enough public health risk to merit any legislative action. And I wouldn't expect any more than that to result from a legalisation of incest.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

snood wrote:
Thomas,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of birth defects as a result of inbreeding in mammals?

Snood,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of AIDS as a result of sexual congress in homosexuals?

Actually, the evidence is that HIV is contracted through exposure to the bodily fluids of an infected person. Homosexual sexual contact, heterosexual sexual contact, blood transfusion, etc. are all methods of passing the infection.

C'mon McG, can't you do better than "God caused the gay plague to prove that homos are evil?"

*Edited to correct typo.*

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."

As it happens, I was concluding that the practice was "not arbitrary", which "it's always been that way" is a valid argument for.

DrewDad wrote:

However, using the law to argue against changing the law is a circular argument.

Yes. That's why I didn't use the law to argue against changing the law.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
Thomas,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of birth defects as a result of inbreeding in mammals?

Snood,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of AIDS as a result of sexual congress in homosexuals?

Actually, the evidence is that HIV is contracted through exposure to the bodily fluids of an infected person. Homosexual sexual contact, hetersexual sexual contact, blood transfusion, etc. are all methods of passing the infection.

C'mon McG, can't you do better than "God caused the gay plague to prove that homos are evil?"

"God caused the gay plague to prove that homos are evil?" Laughing

Where'd you get that?

You've missed the point I made though.

Read it again and see if you get it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."

As it happens, I was concluding that the practice was "not arbitrary", which "it's always been that way" is a valid argument for.

That only works if you can prove that the original impetus was not arbitrary. I don't think you can do that. Argument to antiquity is argument to antiquity. Give us a reason for the practice.

Thomas wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
However, using the law to argue against changing the law is a circular argument.

Yes. That's why I didn't use the law to argue against changing the law.

OK.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
Thomas,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of birth defects as a result of inbreeding in mammals?

Snood,
I take it you are aware that there is evidence of AIDS as a result of sexual congress in homosexuals?

Actually, the evidence is that HIV is contracted through exposure to the bodily fluids of an infected person. Homosexual sexual contact, hetersexual sexual contact, blood transfusion, etc. are all methods of passing the infection.

C'mon McG, can't you do better than "God caused the gay plague to prove that homos are evil?"

"God caused the gay plague to prove that homos are evil?"

Where'd you get that?

You've missed the point I made though.

Read it again and see if you get it.

I got the points you were trying to make. Both the one you will admit to and the one I highlighted here.

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
Would you contest that it is mainly, predominantly, overwhelmingly, at core driven by a distaste for or dislike for homosexuality?

Yes. Among my American friends, the predominant view among the conservatives is that the approach to homosexuality should be live-and-let-live, but that gay marriage would nevertheless be a net loss to society. This is not a representative sample, but I have yet to see a reason that outright hostility to homosexuals is more than a strongly held minority view of maybe 15% of Americans.

Not much I can do with this, thomas. Your sample size is...? Another sample might be the folks on this board who argue against gay relationships or gay marriage. And if you burrow down and search out their affiliations you end up in a very predictable place, almost one for one.

As to live and let live, that's hardly the case in those jurisdictions noted in the lead-in. We both know the other states are similarly targeted.

As to net loss to society...pulease. That's an argument that is without any foundation other than, "Well, I figure..." One could as easily argue that allowing the Irish into Detroit was a BAD idea. Why would they think it?

Quote:

blatham wrote:
Would you contest that the Congressional vote figures you note are likely (or nearly certainly) a consequence of either personal adherence to this movement or of a prudent movement/voter placation motive?

Yes. I believe it's more likely a bias against changing tried and tested institutions and a bias for subsidizing marriage as a proxy for the bearing and raising of children, which they think homosexual marriages are unable to supply. (I think mistakenly, in the case of raising them.)

Such as the tried and tested institution of same-race marriage? The tried and tested institution of men vote, women don't vote?

Quote:

blatham wrote:
The above is, as I'm sure you recognize, from the finding of the Massachusetts SC from last year.

Yes. And I predict it will be overridden within 10 years at most -- either by the Federal Supreme Court or by a change in the Massachussetts constitution.

I think not. On the other hand, the US could continue to move in a direction dissimilar to that of the rest of the western world on a host of issues. Such would certainly be a happy consequence to the folks populating the movement of which we speak.

Quote:

blatham wrote:
Could you please clarify for me how the above might be "ridiculous"?

1) The deprivation is not arbitrary. It has a tradition of several millenia, and it reflects an proven inability of homosexuals to bear children, and a widely believed inability of them to rear them. You can argue that the tradition ought to be broken, and that homosexuals indeed can rear children. But the assertion that the deprivation is arbitrary is, sorry, ridiculous.

Odd use of 'arbitrary'. Where did the 'wide belief of an inability to raise children' come from in the extant american population? Where do you read about it today, you know, if you type "children of gay parents become murderers and drug addicts" into google?

Sure, social change is often marked by turmoil. Protests and movements seeking to inhibit what shift (eg civil rights in the south) might not be described as 'not arbitrary'?

2) "For no rational reason" -- ditto. You can argue that the reasons are mistaken, and I do, but to claim that they are not rational is nonsense.

Quote:

3) homosexuals are not a class, they just exhibit a certain kind of behavior. If you believe this behavior isn't worth subsidizing through a public institution like marriage, you aren't discriminating "against a defined class".

They just exhibit a certain kind of behavior? Hardly. Perhaps you mean in the way that most males, drawn to females sexually and for life partnership, merely exhibit a certain kind of behavior? Nothing else going on? You actually hold that to be so?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You actually hold that to be so?

Yes.

You have stated your opinion about the nature of the opposition against gay marriage, and I have stated mine. We are now at a point where my responding to the details of your latest post would do nothing but throw us into an infinite loop, where I am not interested in going.

0 Replies

Evil german.

0 Replies

A few pages back, Thomas wrote: "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. "

Well, it may not "violate" rights, but it does deny rights, and for me, that's what this is really all about. As I have said many times, if a civil union carried with it all and exactly the same rights between partners as civil marriage currently does, I (and I believe most gay people) would support that union.

re: polygamy. I would not oppose any legal civil union between two consenting adults. I would oppose a legal civil union between more than two consenting adults, but only for economic reasons as, obviously, large groups of people might then form such "unions" for benefits only(e.g. health care). If benefits within such a civil union were, however, restricted to only two members of the union, I would have no opposition.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know