The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

(Never volunteer for anything -- unless, of course, everyone else steps backwards and you're left holding the bag).

0 Replies

I am for allowing anyone to marry who wants to. I believe there are stronger arguments to be made to keep incestual marriages from happening than other types of marriages which are currently not allowed, but I am not personally against them; it is not my place to decide what makes others happy throughout their lives.

I still have yet to see an argument for keeping the gay population segregated from the rest of the population that is based on something other than fear, tradition, or bigotry/homophobia. I eagerly await; for it answers this question well:

Quote:

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.

Freedom is a large concept; it is difficult for society to accept that everyone is equal. We've come a long way in doing so, and many of the steps which have led to our current society were mandated by the courts in the face of popular dissent.

Nevertheless, the steps were considered neccessary by the courts of the time in order to support those concepts upon which our country was founded, even if it makes people uncomfortable! The majority of Americans cannot always be relied upon to take the long view, and it is silly to believe they could. This is exactly why our supreme court has the powers that it does, for when the law does not match public opinion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

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

Some days better than others. I really did not mean to indicate that you thought all are homophobic or that I am. That is however the premise of this thread. I know that many, and possible most, would not think to state that ALL those against gay marriages are homophobic.

Sorry if you took it that way. It was not my intention.

0 Replies

Those who are against gay marriages are not homophobic per se; they just need to be careful to choose arguments based in logic and verifiable data in order to distinguish themselves from those who are pushing arguments based upon homophobia.

I eagerly await one of you to show logical reasons, having nothing to do with tradition, religion, or homophobia, that gay marriages would negatively impact either the gays themselves or society as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It's virtually impossible to say all are homophobic who oppose gay marriage because one cannot know what form gay marriage may take or to what degree someone may be homophobic. It may be a latent homophobia in itself. I suppose there are studies with perhaps some interviewing on the level of Alfred Kinsey that could reveal something but even that would be inconclusive. Actually, Masters-Johnson may be a better example than Kinsey as they used more refined methods. Psychiatry itself is not an exact science. It almost has to be a gut feeling when one is conversing with someone about homophobia and gay marriage. Hesitations in the voice when answering, etc. Need one of the police interrogators on "CS" or "Law and Order" who more often get unrealistic results than not.

Those against gay marriage may be rampantly homophobic or marginally homophobic and most often human nature would prompt them not to reveal how much or how little. Like I said, to many heterosexuals, the image of gay sex is just as embarrassing to them as the image of their mom and dad having sex. That shouldn't make them paternal-phobic or maternal-phobic because they know their parents are human beings and can be accepted flaws and all.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Those who are against gay marriages are not homophobic per se; they just need to be careful to choose arguments based in logic and verifiable data in order to distinguish themselves from those who are pushing arguments based upon homophobia.

I eagerly await one of you to show logical reasons, having nothing to do with tradition, religion, or homophobia, that gay marriages would negatively impact either the gays themselves or society as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

I just find their arguments against it to be irrational and illogical which just leads to the suspicion of homophobia. They are unconvincing and seem to be trying to convince themselves.

0 Replies

Agreed; there has yet to be an argument put forth based upon what the actual effects of the proposition would be, showing how they would harm. That being said, I suspect there are rather more, shall we say, base reasons why people are against the proposition.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Does homophobic have the same connotations as racist to you guys?

0 Replies

They both qualify as bigotry but I don't believe it's exactly the same. It's like asking if xenophobia is the same as racism, although that seems to be the new fear for Americans in this century.

0 Replies

Similar, in that they are in the vast majority of cases irrational fears based upon traditional prejudices which use arbitrary distinctions to seperate a group from the rest of mainstream society in order to marginalize or control said group.

Though I doubt that goes through the mind of the guy hurling insults every time....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

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.

"Majority Rules" doesn't apply to the Constitution.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Those who are against gay marriages are not homophobic per se; they just need to be careful to choose arguments based in logic and verifiable data in order to distinguish themselves from those who are pushing arguments based upon homophobia.

I eagerly await one of you to show logical reasons, having nothing to do with tradition, religion, or homophobia, that gay marriages would negatively impact either the gays themselves or society as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

What you believe to be logical and what I believe to be logical may be two very different things Cy. I look at the design of the universe and believe it is only logical that it was created by God. A holy God who has established right and wrong behavior for His created beings. Logically speaking then, would it not be best, if you believe in God, to seek His will as to right and wrong? I think logic would dictate that. So what is His will? I believe that His will is discernable through the writings of the Bible, that said word was divinely inspired. And, from my studying of the Bible, I believe that homosexuality is sinful and harmful to society (after all, logically speaking, God would not prohibit something that is beneficial to His creation). If homosexuality is a sin to God, then does it not logically follow that anything promoting homosexuality as a valid, moral lifestyle should be argued against? I think so. Thus, again logically speaking from my point of view, allowing gay marriages is tantamount to accepting a lifestyle as normal that I believe is sinful.

Now, you may argue that my belief in God is illogical thus toppling my whole argument. I realize also that this explanation may not suit you, since the crux of the explaination is based on religion, but it is the basis of my opposition to gay marriage. It has nothing to do with any fear of gays (homophobia) or some repressed gay tendency as Chrissee may wish to believe.

Anyway, as I have said in other threads about gay marriage, it will be what it will be. In the big scheme of things, I will admit that allowing gay marriage will not harm me directly. And if this country one day makes them legal, I won't be jumping off any cliffs over it. But it is my right to oppose it and I am doing so.

0 Replies

When a so-called majority (really indefinable other than some, again, suspicious polls) wants the Constitution interpreted to their liking by legislatures who have throughout our history have passed laws that are dubiously in accord with than Constitution (the Mann act for one). We wouldn't need a USSC, for instance, if laws were not to be tested against the Consitution and they also interpret what the forefathers meant. They often refer to the Federalist Papers and other documents, precedents that have stood up in the past, and all the other methods of coming to a conclusion. Roe vs Wade is not unconstitutional but still there are those who believe it is wrong. The majority doesn't get to judge right from wrong for the minorities. The majority is made up of minorities.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
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.

"Majority Rules" doesn't apply to the Constitution.

Gay marriages are not covered in there either. Neither are hetersexual marriages. Thus, I agree that the federal government has no need to get involved. The federal government may have bestowed certain priviledges to married individuals, but that does not give them the right to decide who can marry. Thus it is left to society to decide what marriage is. And I think that is what people voted on in this last election.

0 Replies

I think we have all gotten away from the topic of this thread. I think each of us knows that we could argue about legalizing gay marriages for the rest of our lives and none of us will change our beliefs on this topic. It will be something to watch as cases are brought against states where initiatives passed authorizing a definition of marriage contrary to the desires of the gay community.

So I think I will refrain from arguing my stance on this thread any longer and stick to why I disagree with the initial post and those who agree with the initial post.

0 Replies

We all seem to be in agreement about the federal government getting their nose out of it -- Clinton certainly isn't a good example of that. Oh, come on, you know all our Presidents are molded by the milieu around them, by public polls and by their religious beliefs. Bush changes colors as much if not more than the rest of them. He's bringing up issues now that he knows could be tough to tackle and likely not really worth the effort but that's calling attention away from a war that day-by-day does not seem to be worth the effort.

0 Replies

Quote:

I believe that His will is discernable through the writings of the Bible, that said word was divinely inspired.

Not to challenge your beliefs or anything, but I take it you also believe that wearing two different types of fabric is a sin? And planting two crops in the same field is a sin? How about stoning your adultress wife? That's okay, according to the bible, as is the buying and selling of slaves.

If you believe the bible is a literally interpretation of God's will, you can't pick and choose for the parts you want. I highly doubt you believe the others are sins; so why this particular issue?

In this case, it's Homophobia that was made law by saying 'well, God says it's wrong.' Not that I want to challenge your beliefs; but, and I cannot stress this enough, your religious beliefs have nothing to do with reasons we should or should not make laws!

Logic implies that you can show some sort of process, break down the problem into steps, and show how causality works. None of these are accomplished by saying, 'well, a 2000 year old book says so, so it must be logical.' That's the opposite of logic: faith.

Faith is fine, but a shitty way to make policy. If you are truly against gays marrying, you have to come up with better reasons than this, or support them marrying under the constitutional right of equality for all people.

So, we have one admission that it is religion and tradition behind the argument, and not logic. Any others?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

We all seem to be in agreement about the federal government getting their nose out of it -- Clinton certainly isn't a good example of that. Oh, come on, you know all our Presidents are molded by the milieu around them, by public polls and by their religious beliefs. Bush changes colors as much if not more than the rest of them. He's bringing up issues now that he knows could be tough to tackle and likely not really worth the effort but that's calling attention away from a war that day-by-day does not seem to be worth the effort.

We have found common ground at last Light. Most all presidents are indeed molded by the milieu around them, the polls, their religious beliefs, etc. (I say most because I just hate saying ALL without definitive proof). Bush is no different than the others in this regard. It must be something about getting into politics that affects the DNA to cause this. That's my theory anyway.

0 Replies

I guess everyone on A2K already knows I value politicians less than attorneys (although the majority of them are lawyers) and used car salesmen. At least they are manageable -- politicians are not. Sure you can change horses and vote another guy in but strangely the complexion of things don't really change much without some outside force. Like nature deciding to turn the inaugural into an icebox. He's getting a cold reception even from Mother Nature (who may are may not be married to God).

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Not to challenge your beliefs or anything, but I take it you also believe that wearing two different types of fabric is a sin? And planting two crops in the same field is a sin? How about stoning your adultress wife? That's okay, according to the bible, as is the buying and selling of slaves.

If you believe the bible is a literally interpretation of God's will, you can't pick and choose for the parts you want. I highly doubt you believe the others are sins; so why this particular issue?

We could discuss this Cy, but since this is a political forum it would be best discussed elsewhere. But I fear explainations would be a waste of time.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In this case, it's Homophobia that was made law by saying 'well, God says it's wrong.' Not that I want to challenge your beliefs; but, and I cannot stress this enough, your religious beliefs have nothing to do with reasons we should or should not make laws!

I don't think the Bible mentions "homophobia". Homosexuality is mentioned. But I get your meaning. :wink: But just because my religious belief is the basis of my opinion does not invalidate my opinion. Nor does it mean I should just go along with whatever because my opinion is based on faith.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Faith is fine, but a shitty way to make policy. If you are truly against gays marrying, you have to come up with better reasons than this, or support them marrying under the constitutional right of equality for all people.

So, we have one admission that it is religion and tradition behind the argument, and not logic. Any others?

Yep, I am not afraid to admit that faith is the basis of my argument. And you see no logic in faith. I can live with that.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know