The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Chrissee wrote:

When one is blinded by fear and prejudice, rational discussion is not possible. Dance, as you will, on an infinite number of pins but the truth is the truth. The essence of opposition to gay marriages comes from homophobia. It is an irrefutable fact.

I am not blinded by either fear or prejudice. You certainly have not even begun to demonstrate the supposed irrefutability of this "fact" that you tout so persistently. Your discussion so far has considtently consisted only of pronouncements that you insist we all simply accept without demonstration or argument. Who here is blinded by fear? who by prejudice????

0 Replies

Yeah, we know Chrissee. Just like all your other "irrefutable" facts that you keep spouting. Pardon those of us who choose to ignore your facts until you start providing proof outside of your experience.

Ah, and since you did ask me earlier, and I am always willing to answer questions put to me, I have never been attracted to men. But I'm sure you will still believe (since it is one of your "facts") that I am just repressing my gay tendencies, so it is probably pointless for me to give you this answer.

Our opinions may be different, but I have enjoyed the back and forth with you.

0 Replies

You're debating beliefs which ultimately can't entirely be pinned to facts. I believe that most of the opposition to gay marriage is homophobia and as there are various degrees and motives for homophobia. It still boils down to the desire of religious members of society to impose their concept of morals on others. If they'd realize that Jesus left this decision of judgement to a God and not to any mortal man, it's only our primarilly Roman based laws that can affect the concept of marriage. Any conservative who demand laws in attempt to govern personal behavior that is essentially victimless are against their own dogma or at least the dogma they profess to support. An amendment to the constitution is wrong headed in any rationale. Let the states decide if a civil marriage is appropriate and let each religious sect decide whether they want to perform rites. They probably shouldn't be forced to perform those rites because even business has the right not to deliver service. There are plenty of religious sects now who would perform the service if it was state sanctioned. My local Episcopalean priest would perform such rites and the local Methodist (Bush's church) would perform such rites.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

You're debating beliefs which ultimately can't entirely be pinned to facts.

What I have debated and object to with Chrissee is her belief that it is a fact that most opponents of gay marriage are repressing their own gay tendencies. She does not wish to acknowledge that this is her belief, but states that it is a fact.

Lightwizard wrote:

I believe that most of the opposition to gay marriage is homophobia and as there are various degrees and motives for homophobia.

I would disagree, but it depends upon your definition of homophobia. Its basic meaning is an irrational fear of homosexuals. Most of the opposition has no fear of homosexuals (IMO). I personally have not seen this fear, thus, using Chrissee's reasoning, it must be a fact that there is none. But I digress. From a Christian viewpoint, the opposition is based on moral grounds. Society is asking that we promote a lifestyle which we see as immoral and give it standing as though it is perfectly normal. Can you not then understand the opposition? You may disagree with this thinking, but show me the homophobia behind it. There is no fear there. Just standing up for what we believe is right, just as those in favor are standing up to what they think is right.

EDIT: I am not saying that some of the opposition is due to homophobia, I would be just as foolish going in that direction as those who state most of the opposition is homophobic.

Lightwizard wrote:

Let the states decide if a civil marriage is appropriate...

Here is where we agree. I have no problem letting the voters of each state decide. I believe that is where the ultimate authority should be. The problem is the gay community wants to circumvent the democratic process by taking their case to judges who have their own agendas.

But, given the outcry about the outcome in those states which voted on this issue in Nov., those who support gay marriages are showing they have no desire to leave this issue up to the people. Why? Because right now, if left up to the people, it is a losing cause. And that is just not acceptable to them. So much for leaving it up to the states.

0 Replies

Quote:

But, given the outcry about the outcome in those states which voted on this issue in Nov., those who support gay marriages are showing they have no desire to leave this issue up to the people. Why? Because right now, if left up to the people, it is a losing cause. And that is just not acceptable to them. So much for leaving it up to the states.

Yeah, history has always shown that when left up to the people, they will choose the path that leads to liberty and justice for all Americans, despite religious or personal bigotries, despite the fact that it challenges their world-view or makes them uncomfortable, right CR? Right.

I'm sure you don't want me to start listing things.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Good for you, Cyp.

Sorry, CoastRat, but my experience here in the OC (still a bastion of conservatism but waning) is an irrational fear of gays. Those who say they are unconcerned are usually unwilling to express it because they don't want to be identified as homophobic. You ask ten people if they are homophobic and I really believe most of them will lie.

0 Replies

Cy, I would then ask why it is that Light says he thinks it should be left up to the states. Do you two disagree? When left up to the states, gay marriages have been defeated quite soundly. Or do y'all wish to leave it up to the states only if they vote to allow gay marriage? Which is it? I'm just curious. I really don't understand how you can say to leave it up to the states but then make the comment you made Cy.

Light, you believe that if you ask 10 people if they are homophobit that most will lie. You must be psychic. If you say most will lie, then why even ask because you will not believe them anyway. You statement presupposes that most of the 10 are homophobic, thus they will lie. Maybe most of them really are not homophobic and are telling the truth.

0 Replies

As do I.

Homophobia is a strange thing; it's not politically correct to be homophobic, yet many people have a deeply rooted fear of it.

Personally I believe that this fear, especially in males, comes from the period of one's life in which we are first introduced to the concept of sexuality; namely, middle school. You go to any middle school in America and 'Gay' is a derogatory word. Hell, many people around my age (25) still use it as a primarily derogatory adjective.

While most of these people, down deep, really have nothing against the gay man/woman, this sort of psychological conditioning is pervasive. It gets into your brain. Young men are afraid of being labelled 'gay' because it represents exclusion from the pack, and we all remember how strong the pull to conform is during this time. We (at least the men amongst us) will remember the derision with which effeminate men are treated by their peers from a young age, ranging from verbal to physical abuse. So, what does a young man who might be curious about other men do? He clamps down on such feelings stringently, and the result is some of the homophobia that is latent in our society today.

The anti-gay marriage movement is based in homophobia, stated or not. There are no logical arguments for keeping two consenting adults from enjoying a life together. None. The only arguments that have been presented in this thread are based upon fear, tradition, and religion.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, people, but that funny document that people like to referrence that started our country states that all men are created equal. Anyone who believes that this is not an issue of equality really, really needs to go back and read the arguments put forth against inter-racial marriage and desegregation in the middle of the previous century; the arguments are exactly the same.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As do I.

Homophobia is a strange thing; it's not politically correct to be homophobic, yet many people have a deeply rooted fear of it.

It isn't politically correct to be politically incorrect either. So what. What or who determines what is "politically correct"?

Quote:

Personally I believe that this fear, especially in males, comes from the period of one's life in which we are first introduced to the concept of sexuality; namely, middle school. You go to any middle school in America and 'Gay' is a derogatory word. Hell, many people around my age (25) still use it as a primarily derogatory adjective.

While most of these people, down deep, really have nothing against the gay man/woman, this sort of psychological conditioning is pervasive.

While this may represent your view and experience of things, it doesn't necessarily represent that of others. This is nothing more than projection.

Quote:

The anti-gay marriage movement is based in homophobia, stated or not. There are no logical arguments for keeping two consenting adults from enjoying a life together. None. The only arguments that have been presented in this thread are based upon fear, tradition, and religion.

This may be true only if you define homophobia as opposition to gay marriage. If, instread you adopt the conventional; meaning of the word as referring to an irrational fear or dislike, then you are saying there is no rational basis on which to restrict marriage to a man and a woman. At that point youi are faced with the dilemma posed earlier by Thomas. Why restrict it to only two people? Why restrict brother and sister, or brother and brother for that matter? We do have such restrictions and as far as I know most advocates of gay marriage are in favor of retaining them. What is the rational argument for that?

No one here on this thread has advocated a prohibition of any kind on the creation of lasting unions between gay couples, or even the civil recognition of them. The issue is only the distinction between them an the marriage of a man and a woman.

You are stuck in a semantical trap and are in effect demanding that we acept your view merely because you say it is so. Worse, in support of your arbitrary views, you would deny the majority the right to regulate its society through a democratic process. This is a far more dogmatic approach than advocated by even the worst right wing religious zealot.

0 Replies

I'm not sure you ended your post the way you intended to, George.

Quote:

Worse, in support of your arbitrary views, you would deny the majority the right to regulate its society through a democratic process

The majority has shown itself unable to make social changes which are neccessary to enable all Americans to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the majority is unable to make the difficult, but neccessary, decision, it must be done for them. This has proven successfull several times in the history of our nation and is directly responsible for the intergrated society we enjoy today.

If the majority cannot come up with a logical argument as to why two gays should not be allowed to marry (not civil union, not lasting partnership, but marriage) then they should be allowed to. So far, there have been no arguments put forth that to this effect that have been based in sound logic; rather, Tradition, Religion, and Fear are the foundation of this segregation. Therefore, until such an argument is put forth showing the specific harm of such an action, it should be allowed under law.

This is the way equality works. I'm surprised you need this explained to you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

At that point youi are faced with the dilemma posed earlier by Thomas. Why restrict it to only two people? Why restrict brother and sister, or brother and brother for that matter? We do have such restrictions and as far as I know most advocates of gay marriage are in favor of retaining them. What is the rational argument for that?

Another point I forgot to adress. Why restrict it? The brother and sister restriction seems to make sense from a biological stanpoint, but even the idea of the incest taboo is being challenged by some scientists. But let's say that the taboo is there for good reason; that being the case, one can conclusively show how a relationship such as the one you describe isn't beneficial to the potential offspring of such a union.

As for multiple marriages, I say that anyone who is stupid enough to do it deserves what they get; but when has that stopped Americans? I don't think we should have restrictions against group marriages either.

This is called freedom, people. You really need to think about what that means.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Cy, I would then ask why it is that Light says he thinks it should be left up to the states. Do you two disagree? When left up to the states, gay marriages have been defeated quite soundly. Or do y'all wish to leave it up to the states only if they vote to allow gay marriage? Which is it? I'm just curious. I really don't understand how you can say to leave it up to the states but then make the comment you made Cy.

Light, you believe that if you ask 10 people if they are homophobit that most will lie. You must be psychic. If you say most will lie, then why even ask because you will not believe them anyway. You statement presupposes that most of the 10 are homophobic, thus they will lie. Maybe most of them really are not homophobic and are telling the truth.

As I said earlier, who comes out and says 'yes, I'm a homophobe?' Noone likes to admit irrational fears, especially ones that carry social stigmata. It's like admitting that you are racist; people just don't do it. People face religious pressure to denounce gays, social pressure, and sometimes physical violence is the issue.

As for the states v. federal issue, I believe that the state vote plan is better than a federal vote plan in that it mirrors currently existing laws on marriage. But I still think gov't intervention may be neccessary if the people can't get their irrational fears out of the way.

A general question: Why do people get angry at things? Why do they fear things? What do the two have to do with each other?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"Another point I forgot to adress. Why restrict it? The brother and sister restriction seems to make sense from a biological stanpoint, but even the idea of the incest taboo is being challenged by some scientists. But let's say that the taboo is there for good reason; that being the case, one can conclusively show how a relationship such as the one you describe isn't beneficial to the potential offspring of such a union. "

Change "brother and sister" to "same-sex" and "incest" to "same-sex" and try again.

0 Replies

Why? There is no evidence at all that same-sex marriages raise children badly. In fact, they cannot experience the same gene pool issues that the incest taboo is designed for. So your point is fallacious.

You cannot conclusively show how a same-sex marriage is harmful, from a genetic standpoint, to the offspring of said union or to society as a whole. I challenge you to attempt to do so; it would be the first logical argument I've seen in this thread from your POV.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As for the states v. federal issue, I believe that the state vote plan is better than a federal vote plan in that it mirrors currently existing laws on marriage. But I still think gov't intervention may be neccessary if the people can't get their irrational fears out of the way.
Cycloptichorn

But I thought the people were the government, not the other way around. You seem to be saying that if the ignorant masses can't get it right (as defined by who?), then all-knowing government should force it down our throats. Do I understand you correctly? Otherwise, this government "of the people, by the people and for the people" has perished.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why? There is no evidence at all that same-sex marriages raise children badly. In fact, they cannot experience the same gene pool issues that the incest taboo is designed for. So your point is fallacious.

You cannot conclusively show how a same-sex marriage is harmful, from a genetic standpoint, to the offspring of said union or to society as a whole. I challenge you to attempt to do so; it would be the first logical argument I've seen in this thread from your POV.

Cycloptichorn

Thus, since the gene-pool issue would be the reason for continuing to ban incestuous marriages, you would be for allowing such marriages if one or the other partner were sterile, right?

0 Replies

You cannot show how an incestual marriage is harmful, from a genetic standpoint, to the offspring of said union or to society as a whole.

They can adopt just as well as a gay couple can. However, your incestiphobic attitude wants to deny them their fair and equal rights!

I believe the point of this is to demonstrate (which was done much better, earlier, by Thomas) some of the counter arguements against homosexual marriage. I have stated my opinion on this many times already.

0 Replies

It's just as "psychic" to assume they are telling the truth so take your choice, CR.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

It's just as "psychic" to assume they are telling the truth so take your choice, CR.

I agree, if I were assuming that. I never said I would assume they were telling the truth. I would not know one way or the other. But unless there were evidence in their actions indicating otherwise, can you or anyone else give a rational reason for not taking someone at their word?
Otherwise, why ask the question in the first place, since you have already decided the "truth" before the response is given. You would be in effect forcing the data to match your preconceived belief, ie since everyone is homophobic but does not want to be labeled as such, if questioned everyone will lie, thus responses of not being homophobic are lies, so voila, I have proved that most of those against gay marriage are homophobic.

But hey, thinking we are all homophobic is no skin off my back. I never really give much thought to what others think about me. And it is my experience that the majority of those against gay marriage think the same way, so again using Chrissee's logic, it must be a fact. And nothing you can say will make it otherwise. Nyah-nyah-nyah. Laughing

0 Replies

I did not write that I believe all were homophobic or that you were homophobic. How's your reading comprehension these days?

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know