The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

angie wrote:

"You know Angie, when I got married they didn't ask if I was Gay. So I'd say you already have the same rights. "

Yes I do; of course I am not gay. Gay Americans do not have the same rights, and to suggest they do is entirely disingenuous.

websters defines disingenuous as: "lacking in candor; or giving a false appearance of simple frankness"
What about my opinion is lacking in candor?
Both I and the homosexual have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Neither has the right to marry someone of the same sex, or someone who is deceased, or to be married to multiple partners at the same time, or to marry someone who is under the legal age. Therefore same sex marriage would be a special right not an equal right.

Quote:

So you think it's ok for someone to BE homosexual, just as long as he or she remains celibate. Who the hell are you to decide that someone else ought to remain celibate?

You obviously think that some people were born homosexuals. I don't buy it. I said earlier that what people do in their own home is their business. I have a problem when they try to teach school kids that they were born homosexuals.

Quote:

"Even if you believe that some people are born gay, you must know that others are just experimenting......"

Whether or not someone decides to "experiment" is his or her business, not yours.

So you agree that some are experimenting? That would mean they were not born homosexual.

Quote:

As you can't argue your points rationally, I'm not at all surprised by the ad-hominen stuff.

What rationale do you not get?

Quote:

I do not decide to "love" or "hate" a fellow human being based upon his or her sexual orientation, or personal sexual behavior. [/color]

Good, I don't hate them based on their homo/ hetero sexuality either. I do disagree with some however.

Quote:

"Also I don't believe kids know who they are. Encouraging a 15yr old to declare himself gay is like letting him play with a loaded gun..."

Encouraging a child, at any age, to be who he or she is is good parenting. Most gay people knew they were gay at a very early age, often many years before puberty. Attempting to suppress it and deny it, because of fear of societal or parental judgments, must be a living hell for kids.

I thought most state set the age of legal consent at 16.
Encouraging a child to be (homo or hetero) sexually active is setting them up to be victims of sexual abuse. Hardly good parenting. Most kids have no idea who they are. They are not ready to make minor decisions about their life much less decisions with lifelong consequences. I think the hell description is better applied to the awkward late bloomer who is misled to believe that he is gay and coming out will solve all his problems. Don't you have any concern for them?

Quote:

Do you know any gay people personally ?

Yes, I had a roommate in the military who was a homosexual. He had a ton of problems going back to childhood. Among these was a history of sexual abuse and a very poor relationship to his father.
Also my sister inlaw has AIDS. Her husband died from it. The only good thing that came from it was meeting our friend John. When he later moved to Tx he stayed with us for about 3 months. During this time he was not allowed any "guests". He could have friends over but they had to be mindful of our children. This is the same rule which still applies to my wifes heterosexual brother. By the way John also had a poor relationship with his father and had also been the victim of sexual abuse.

Quote:

People do not choose their sexual orientation. I did not choose to be straight. Did you? Could you have chosen to be gay instead? Didn't think so. Doesn't work that way.

I think this is the root of our disagreement. I believe homosexuality is a choice. You admitted earlier that some was due to experimentation. Now you contradict yourself. I remember homosexual activist feeling insulted at the idea that they were born different. Like they were being called defective. Now it is used as a tool to absolve any responsibility for their actions. By the way, I think heterosexuals should be more responsible too.

Quote:

So, to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation is, therefore, in my opinion, BIGOTED. To attempt to deny someone his or her civil rights on the basis of sexual orientation is BIGOTED. And guess what? I choose to discriminate against bigots.[/color]

If I were calling them a bunch of names and screaming that God hates them then I would say that your right. I actually believe that he loves them every bit as much as me or anyone else. I don't know whether you believe in God or not. If not this probably means nothing to you.
I belive the roots of most homosexuality could be traced back to problems in childhood, either sexual abuse, poor parental relationships or some other factor. It is my opinion that promoting homosexual behavior would only increase the number of victims. For this reason I oppose homosexual marriage.
Speaking of choice, Blatham may choose to continue dialoguing with you, but I choose otherwise.

Quote:
blatham wrote:
For 5th century BC Athenians, there was no social taboo associated with homosexuality. For Malaysians and Indonesians, only relatively weak taboos exist, and there, bi-sexuality is not unusual nor particularly frowned upon. Navajos and many Muslim cultures exemplify the opposite - quite severe taboos against homsexuality, and in that latter case, can hold execution as a penalty for violating the taboo.

Thomas:
Fine with me as far as it goes. I would add, however, that society systematically privileges married people over non-married people. There is a difference between something being taboo and it not being privileged, and this difference is important to the topic of your thread.

Quote:
blatham wrote:
When we think of such matters in this way, one valuable gain is in no small illumination in predicting how the community will likely react when a taboo is pushed. It will react like ours is now.

thomas:
Again, fine with me as far as it goes, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. Given your observations, you still cannot conclude that since our society reacts like it does, a taboo must be being pushed.

Quote:
blatham wrote:
And none of this will have, necessarily, an objective or rational basis. Again, interracial marriage is a fine example.

thomas:
Agreed, but there is nothing wrong with it. Consistency of social norms over time, and over a wide range of people, is a good in itself. It allows everybody to know what the rules are. Hence "it has always been that way" and "Everybody does it" are actually good arguments for doing something in one way rather than another. I am not sure you are appreciating this point enough.

Thomas is a more patient man than I.

The topic proposition in this thread is that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily an indication of homophobia in the part of one who holds that opinion.

Thomas has convincingly offered reasonable alternative reasons on which one could oppose gay marriage, and has, as well, pointed out serious contradictions in the arguments its proponents have put forward in support of it. None of thisa has the slightest tint of homophobia or a fixed dislike of homosexuals or homosexuality.

For those of you who wish to DEFINE homophobia as opposition to gay marriage, you are OK. However this is not the usual understanding of the term.

NO one here has made a convincing case here to support the truth of the topic proposition. On the other hand Thomas has clearly demonstrated that there are reasonable bases on which one could oppose gay marriage that have nothing at all to do with homophobia.

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


blatham: 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.


dadothree: I hope it tells one person that he or she was not born a homosexual. That he or she can change if THEY WANT to. That there are christians motivated by love not hate willing to help. Why do you have a problem with this?

For those of you who wish to DEFINE homophobia as opposition to gay marriage, you are OK. However this is not the usual understanding of the term.

Webster define phobia as: "an exagerrated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects or situation"

So having a fear not the same as having a phobia. The fear must be illogical , inexplicable and exaggerated.

The word is intentionally misused to in an attempt to discredit anyone who opposes the homosexual activist.

I do fear what will happen if same sex marriage is allowed. But since that fear is not illogical it is not a phobia.

Main Entry: ho·mo·phobia [...] : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Main Entry: ho·mo·phobia [...] : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

I do fear what will happen if same sex marriage is allowed. But since that fear is not illogical it is not a phobia.

You made a similar claim a page earlier, using necessarily in that case as well. That is not the thesis of this thread.

The thesis is that:
1) there is an identifiable movement with an explicit goal of seeking to disallow the state allowance of gay marriage and
2) that movement is organized and driven by, mostly but not exclusively, individuals and groups who believe homosexuality to be abormal and perverse - against 'nature', against 'god's will and scriptures', or profane (producing an internal mental state as might be the case for some who go to a gallery and see a statue of the pope covered with dogshit) and
3) this movement, or significant and powerful portions of it, have goals which are not limited to denial of gay marriage but to other legislative initiatives seeking to thwart the furtherance of social changes which might lead to homosexuality being considered other than profane.

1) is hardly contestable.
2) requires one to read the publications and internet sites coming out of the forefront activist groups within this movement. These are not public health agencies nor independent doctors' organizations or independent mental health groups. It's not doctors without borders or MADD or the ACLU.
3) is demonstrated by the actual ballot initiatives noted in the lead in post on this thread (and much more is to be found on the sites noted above).

Now, george or thomas may consider that homosexuality is just peachy and not different (in a private bedroom) from heterosexual sex. They may hold that the real problem here is social upheaval for no compelling reason. How can we tell neither of them is in the minority group in question?

I don't think passing the marriage amendments proves people are homophobic.

Oliphant is speaking of two issues: first, that the press has fallen down on reporting the text and legal consequences of many of these states' referenda, and that the intention of those who wrote and pushed forward the ammendments is homophobic, if disguised. That doesn't mean, and Oliphant doesn't say it does, that voter Tom Smith who checked the ammendment is himself a homophobe.

A related factor is your apparent willingness to characterize all of your political opponents as mindless fanatics, bent on evangelizing an unwilling world into old forms of intolerance. This has become a permanent straw man in these arguments, and it should not surprise you that others, who do not fit that rather simplistic characterization, resist your arguments. (Skillfully too, I might add.)

As an aside, I am skeptical of zealots of every stripe. I regard MADD, the ACLU and other like self-appointed reformers as equally crazy. In the right context they can do some good, but a reasonable person wouldn't wish to spend any serious time with any one of them.

ehBeth wrote:

dadothree wrote:

I do fear what will happen if same sex marriage is allowed. But since that fear is not illogical it is not a phobia.

Same sex marriage is legal here. Nothing frightening has happened.

So from my perspective, your fear is illogical, dadothree. A phobia.

Blatham,

Please explain to me the moral (your term) principles under which state recognition that homosexual unions are the equivalent of heterosexual ones is required, while, at the same time, rendering the prudent recognition of traditional, "majoritarin" values of our culture "bankrupt". I am interested to understand these principles and consider their other implications.

Those principles voiced by the Massechussetts Supreme Court, quoted earlier here. Also, DebraLaw on this thread and others, voices those principles with clarity and with eloquence. This claim has no empirical basis whatsoever. Nor is it likely to be even possible to formulate any testable hypothesis that might validate your thesis. The systems are far too complex, with variables not even recognizable, let alone susceptible to isolation. Aside from all that, what would you measure?

Your assumption that this unprecedented step would have only beneficial effects is itself pure, unvarnished surmise, unsupported by anything at all.

That's not an assumption of mine. You'll find no claim in anything I've written which includes or depends upon that assumption.

How can we say that the elimination of slavery in America, or the on-going attempts to level the playing field for blacks in America has had positive consequences? What will you measure? Or sufferage...what economic factors or demographic factors will inform us? In what manner will we be informed? In 2004, x number of women voted and in 1777, y number of women voted. In 1977, x number of African Americans drove Cadillacs and in 1823, y number of African Americans were lynched without trial.

'Postive' or 'negative' consequences in these contexts are moral conclusions, not anything else. That fewer blacks are murdered by whites now than previously is a positive consequence only because it matches moral principles of justice, equality, and minimization of unnecessary suffering. Lincoln had no way to measure all the social consequences or economic consequences of emancipation. We have no way to answer or predict similar social decisions. We surely never will have. And whatever such decisions we make will NEVER have ONLY positive or negative consequences.

"We take it as self evident that all men are created equal." Could anything be less self-evident? As an empirical claim, it can be shown false by anyone over five years of age. It is just not 'true'. Plato didn't think it true. Paul Wolfowitz doesn't think it true. George Bush doesn't think it true. I don't think it 'true'.

It is a principle, a moral principle...an idealized understanding of how we OUGHT to think about things and how we ought to treat others around us, and how we ought to design our social/political systems and establish our values and then pass them on to our children.

The founding of your country as an independent nation with its constitution and its bill of rights is surely the clearest instantiation of this principle into a political arrangement that any known and complex society had ever attempted. If you suspect that blatham 'worships' something, this principle and experiment probably come as close as anything.

But it's been a long haul to get here! The principle, in some ragged form, long predates the Greeks, and it predates the Christian period. And why have we human groups not always had this principle (these related group of principles) sitting at the forefront of our thoughts and our institutions and our social structures? Because it has been, and still is, in conflict with other human tendencies. Human societies everywhere tend to organize themselves into schemes of dominance.

Inequality is the default scheme. Scapegoating, us/them, self identification as 'chosen' people, power achieved through degradation of those about, exclusion of some serving to validate the worth of others...that's the way of it in human societies. "Wealth" is entirely without meaning except as it is relative to the "poverty" of others. Bill Gates doesn't want more money. He wants more differentiation.

It has been against this unremitting tide that the principles which sit at the foundation of your nation's experiment wage war. It is the only good war around.

Blacks, women, Chinese, Christians, non-Christians, jews, French peasants, half-breeds, homosexuals, those without wealth or access to power...battles for equality and inclusion in every case.

To say, as you do above george, that allowing gay marriage is 'unprecedented' is not terribly accurate. And in any case, it is certainly no justification for ignoring the moral principles involved. It is no more unprecedented than freeing blacks or allowing women the vote. Yes, slavery was a more egregious violation of the principle, but it is the same principle.


You ascribe my views on this to my "theology" and my "tendency to prefer the status quo". Do you allow for the possibility of any other factors here? What is it that motivates your contrary views? Is it pure reason?

Social considerations of homosexuality, like interracial marriage, are inextricably bound in this culture with items of faith and with theologically-driven proscriptions on behavior. I brought the subject of 'taboo' into this discussion in order to demonstrate the unreflective and suspect nature of much human thought even if it is widely held. This is the territory of 'authority'...the territory of claiming knowledge where no knowledge may be present at all, often where it is quite impossible...simply trust (however deep and sincere) that some other person or tradition has it right.

So, those are my contrary views.

Do you feel that same sex marriage has not put these children at greater risk?

dadothree wrote:

Do you feel that same sex marriage has not put these children at greater risk?

I don't feel that same sex marriage has put any children at any risk. In fact, if you do the research, you'll discover that it has benefitted/will benefit some children, as their families are/will be in more secure financial situations. It's all to the good.