23
   

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

 
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 10:59 am
McGentrix wrote:
Then people that are pro-gay marriage are anti-hetero marriage?


Excellent point, McG! Laughing ITA w/you here. Most Americans are open-minded enough to support a myriad of lifestyle choices theoretically. They just don't want to pay actual cash to support choice. I really think that was the bottom line for many who came out and voted about the amendment. And then the wording being somewhat ambiguous left plenty room for personal interpretation, which led people to choose based upon other people's opinions, and fear it would affect their pocketbooks, and therefore their lifestyles. I don't beilieve the issue was homophobia except (as someone else said so superbly,) in the case of the "vast minority." Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 11:20 am
woiyo wrote:
" Slavery was, of course, quite traditional. In India, it was quite 'traditional' for new wives to be stoned to death for arriving with an insufficient dowry. Stringing up blacks without anything like a trial was a tradition in the American south previously. Women, traditionally had no vote and could be raped by their husbands with no worry of legal consequences, the assault being quite legal under the traditions of the day.

Ought such traditions always to be maintained? "

The PEOPLES elected officials STOPPED the "tradition" of slavery.
Did they? Or did you actually fight a civil war on the matter because consensus could not be reached? And how close might you be to another one now?

If and when THE PEOPLE or the PEOPLES ELECTED officials feel that marriage the time is right to change the "traditional" definition of marriage, it will be done.

Apparently, NOW is not the time.

You really post some silly examples Blatham. Each "tradtion" you outline was changed according to the laws of OUR land at a time when the PUBLIC deemed it necessary by a majority of votes.
And until the majority moved over to a new viewpoint or value, was everyone else silent on the matter? Before women had the vote, were there no marches, no written protests, no people like me arguing like I am here?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 11:25 am
McGentrix wrote:
Then people that are pro-gay marriage are anti-hetero marriage?


Cute. But it's a semantic cuteness, not a discerning one.

Someone such as I who argues that gay marriage ought to be free from social/legal constraint make no claim regarding how others in the community ought to organize their own marriage bonds.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 11:36 am
Yeah, that really doesn't make any sense, McG.

Why would you assume that someone who is pro-gay marriage is anti-regular marriage? You are trying to flip the argument around, but it doesn't work, and do you know why?

Because GAYS MARRYING DOESN'T IMPACT STRAIGHT MARRIAGES IN THE SLIGHTEST!!!!!

I would challenge you, or anyone, to tell me SPECIFIC ways in which straight people and straight marriages are harmed by the concept of Gay marriage.

Once you can lay out for me how other people's lives will be affected by this, then you can claim that being anti-gay marriage ISN'T homophobic; until good reasons can be shown why they shouldn't be able to marry, then it IS homophobia pushing this drive.

And 'tradition' isn't a good reason for doing things in a democracy, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 11:44 am
Blatham - The Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850 which set in motion many pieces of legislation that precipitated the American Civil War which began in 1861.

Again, those in the minority can speak their mind and try to sell their position on the majority or reach a compromise. Until the pro-homo marriage minority can sell that to the public, they best seek a compromise until then.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 11:45 am
The voters in Montana, North Dakota, Utah and Oregon disagree with Cycloptichorn's definition of democracy.

Fact, not opinion.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 11:50 am
Feel free to explain how that is.

I don't even remember bringing democracy up...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 11:52 am
Whoops, I did mention democracy.

But I stand by my point. 'Tradition' is not a logical reason for enacting laws. The courts realize this, and that is why they have been slowly granting more and more rights to minorities and gays over the years.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 11:54 am
woiyo wrote:
Blatham - The Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850 which set in motion many pieces of legislation that precipitated the American Civil War which began in 1861.

Again, those in the minority can speak their mind and try to sell their position on the majority or reach a compromise. Until the pro-homo marriage minority can sell that to the public, they best seek a compromise until then.


"Pro-homo"...modern equivalent of "pro-nigger"?

Compromises may need to be constructed in various states, but legal challenges will likely be the complimentary strategy, along with education and activism. One more generation in the grave and the visceral disgust at homosexual acts (that's boys...with girls it's ok, yes?) will likely have gone the way of legislation banning oral-genital contact.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:06 pm
blatham wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Blatham - The Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850 which set in motion many pieces of legislation that precipitated the American Civil War which began in 1861.

Again, those in the minority can speak their mind and try to sell their position on the majority or reach a compromise. Until the pro-homo marriage minority can sell that to the public, they best seek a compromise until then.


"Pro-homo"...modern equivalent of "pro-nigger"?

What kind of silly reply is that?? Do you always twist meanings to get off message? FYI PRO-HOMO is an abbreviation. PRO-NIGGER as you so eloquently stated is, to me, a racist, vulgar comment.

Compromises may need to be constructed in various states, but legal challenges will likely be the complimentary strategy, along with education and activism. One more generation in the grave and the visceral disgust at homosexual acts (that's boys...with girls it's ok, yes?) will likely have gone the way of legislation banning oral-genital contact.


Once again, NO ONE has stated the HOMOSEXUAL lifestyle is in question. The ONLY ISSUE being discussed is MARRIAGE.

It's attitudes like your that get people angry at the PRO-HOMOSEXUAL community.

I suggest you wise up.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:06 pm
Yikes, the The Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850 is countered by the US government rulings beginning in 1847 that native americans are not included, ergo I conclude that "slavery" was not the issue it seems to be but was rather a political issue used to establish economic advantage of the north over the south. There was no moral indictment of slavery and if fact native americans of the southwest were bartered over by various religious groups for contracts with the BIA to "civilize them."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:11 pm
Woiyo,

Do you consider homosexuals to be people? Fellow citizens?

I'm not trying to bait you, I'm looking for a real answer on this one.

Also, I would like to re-iterate my challenge from above: can anyone show me SPECIFIC ways in which gay marriage will hurt straight marriage?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:15 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, that really doesn't make any sense, McG.

Why would you assume that someone who is pro-gay marriage is anti-regular marriage? You are trying to flip the argument around, but it doesn't work, and do you know why?

Because GAYS MARRYING DOESN'T IMPACT STRAIGHT MARRIAGES IN THE SLIGHTEST!!!!!

I would challenge you, or anyone, to tell me SPECIFIC ways in which straight people and straight marriages are harmed by the concept of Gay marriage.

Once you can lay out for me how other people's lives will be affected by this, then you can claim that being anti-gay marriage ISN'T homophobic; until good reasons can be shown why they shouldn't be able to marry, then it IS homophobia pushing this drive.

And 'tradition' isn't a good reason for doing things in a democracy, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn


I am not assuming anything. Blatham said that you cannot be pro something without being anti something else. So he now agrees (I am assuming now) that you actually can be pro something without being anti something else.

Being pro-hetero marriage in no way indicates a fear of homosexuals or homosexual relationships. It's not a homophobic response. It is an opinion. Let me repeat that. It is an opinion.

I have repeatedly seen the arguement stating that people who do not condone homosexual marriage are missing the point that we must not be able to understand or we don't get it.

However, it seems to me that those who argue most boistrously supporting gay marriage fails to do the same thing. They fail to try to understand the opposite viewpoint.

Here is a SPECIFIC way in which straight people and straight marriages are harmed by the concept of gay marriage

You are asking millions of people to accept what they deem unacceptable. They have already been forced to give up so much in the name of "understanding".

This is not slavery. This is not racism or sexism. This is a large percentage of the American population saying "ENOUGH!"
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:20 pm
Quote:
You are asking millions of people to accept what they deem unacceptable. They have already been forced to give up so much in the name of "understanding".

This is not slavery. This is not racism or sexism. This is a large percentage of the American population saying "ENOUGH!"


And they will be forced to give up more in the future.

Why?

Because in a secular democracy, when you claim that everyone is free and equal, you have to back it up with the law. Period.

When you wish to make exceptions to this, you have to back said exceptions up with logic. Religious traditions are not logical. I am not impunging anyone's beliefs; just stating that we should NOT be making policy based upon illogical concepts!!!

What you have pointed out to me is NOT a way that gays HURT pre-existing or future straight marriages, it is an affirmation of the fact that people don't like the idea of gay's marrying. But it doesn't say WHY other than to say 'God is against it,' which is a fallacious argument.

Surely there's something better than that which can be presented to support the case for your side?

Cheers

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:29 pm
Silly question = "Do you consider homosexuals to be people? Fellow citizens? "

Yes and Yes. When did I suggest otherwise?

Where did I suggest I was anti homo lifestyle??

To address your other silly challenge, the issue of the impact on traditional marriage is irrelevant.

The REAL question in my view is WHY should ANY 2 people, regardless of sex and sexual orientation, who want to live together, acquire property, provide for health and welfare be denied the benefits provided to married couples with respect to propoerty, health and welfare decisions?

ANswer to me is - THERE IS NO REASON why ANY 2 people should denied those benefits. This includes Felix and Oscar - 2 divorced men who are Hetro sexual, live together, own property together and care for each other and DATE WOMEN. It also include Homosexual couples.

I just do not feel that society is ready to include those "catagories" into the definition of Marriage.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:31 pm
Nope. That's it. That is the extent of my arguement against gay marriage. I have noted many times that I am all for the government getting COMPLETELY out of the marriage business and granting only civil unions between consenting adults.

I refuse to accept the demise of my wifes beliefs though. Therefore, I will refuse to accept homo-sexual marriage as it would be without a clarification of seperation of church and state. I refuse to have the government force it's judgement on any religious institution. I refuse to accept a future than bans religious belief.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:44 pm
Thank you, Cycl, for remembering what you yourself had said 3 minutes ago - evidence of intellectual honesty there!

For those unfamiliar with US legislation, the 4 states which had the same-sex marriage ban on the ballot are IN ADDITION TO states already prohibiting it. The few who have no legislation so far plan to pass it soon, rendering a constitutional amendment moot.

All this effort to legalize same-sex marriage has achieved so far is the cancellation of civil unions in states where they were legal - was that the ultimate intent, I wonder <G>
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:45 pm
Quote:
I refuse to accept the demise of my wifes beliefs though. Therefore, I will refuse to accept homo-sexual marriage as it would be without a clarification of seperation of church and state. I refuse to have the government force it's judgement on any religious institution. I refuse to accept a future than bans religious belief.



These statments just don't make sense to me. I'll go one at a time.

Quote:
I refuse to accept the demise of my wifes beliefs though.


That's fine, but it is hardly a logical position, and certainly not one which should be used to formulate policy, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
Therefore, I will refuse to accept homo-sexual marriage as it would be without a clarification of seperation of church and state.


I agree with this part in that the seperation of Church and state is a huge part of this issue that needs to be better defined (and not to get partisan, but having a guy like Bush in power isn't helping).

Quote:
I refuse to have the government force it's judgement on any religious institution.


How exactly would the government do this, again? No church would be forced to recognize the marriage, hold the marriage, or sanction the marriage of homosexuals just because the state does. So this doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
I refuse to accept a future than bans religious belief.


Heh, you're starting to sound like me with the gloom-and-doom. The US is all about NOT banning religious beliefs! The flipside is, you cannot ban others rights based upon YOUR religious beliefs.

I know you're not really against me on this issue so I don't want to sit here and harangue ya, it's just frustrating trying to find people to give LOGICAL reasons for banning marriage between homosexuals. I am a firm believer that logic should be used in the formation of policy, and it just doesn't seem to be the case, here.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 12:59 pm
Dys - you're somewhat behind the times as concerns writ of mandamus - overturned in 1987.

________________________________________
"In Kentucky. v. Dennison (1861), the Supreme Court held that the federal courts may not, through the issue of writs of mandamus, compel state Governors to surrender fugitives. The decision was, however, overruled in 1987; now, the federal courts may require the extradition of fugitives. Alleged fugitives generally may not challenge extradition proceedings. The motives of the governor demanding the extradition may not be questioned. The accused cannot defend himself against the charges in the extraditing state; he must do so in the courts of the state receiving him. It has, however, been determined that the accused may prevent extradition by offering clear evidence that he was not in the state he allegedly fled from at the time of the crime. There is no constitutional requirement that extradited fugitives be tried only for the crimes named in the extradition proceedings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_%28United_States_Constitution%29
__________________________________________

The argument here is about the "full faith and credit" clause, not runaway slaves. Pls pay attention Smile
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 06:27 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How exactly would the government do this, again? No church would be forced to recognize the marriage, hold the marriage, or sanction the marriage of homosexuals just because the state does. So this doesn't make any sense.


Ever heard of hate crime legistration? The fringe of the homosexual agenda would in fact want to press charges against churches that wouldn't allow them to be married, calling it discrimination. This would limit free speech in the church and remove a level of separation of church and state. Would the govt be allowed to monitor churches for such acts if they are reported?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 10:45:42