The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

helen
Docs sent to the Irish Tenor this morn. Thanks for the wonderful anecdote!

Easy Chrissee, nobody's perfect.

All heads turn towards george..."hmmm....just how self-referential is he being here?....hmmmm".

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-BRF-Gay-Rights.html?oref=login

Lately, I've noticed that Evagelical conservatives enjoy making themselves out to be the victims in this issue by saying that their right to political freedom is infringed by their religious convictions. They say that the government enjoys barring them from political forums because of their beliefs and are using the notion of a secular state as an esxcuse to do so.

What they don't seem to understand is that the government is not trying to bar them from political forums because of their religious inclincations, but because they want those inclinations to made into laws. The government isn't trying to tell them that they can't be religious, but that they aren't going to allow them to use the mechanisms of the state to enforce their religious views on others.

Canada, now, is witnessing the same dynamics as we've been discussing.

A christian right activist movement has arisen in the last two decades, and they've targeted and influenced our right side parties (now amalgamated into the Conservatives).

This party is now attempting to duplicate what has gone on in the US...to use gay marriage as a divisive, vote-gaining strategy.

This is very interesting to watch, as they are using exactly the same rhetoric and techniques. For example, "forcing gay marriage on Canada"..."activist judges", etc. It's word for word.

Here, we have as our foundational national legal document the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a fairly recent document, written and put into place in the early 80s when it supplanted The British North America Act.

The high courts in five provinces and one territory (territories are simply our northern and less organized regions) have already heard cases on gay marriage and all have found that denying gay people the right to marry violates the equality principles and statutes of the charter.

Our previous PM requested that the federal Supreme Court rule on whether the existing definition of marriage as between a woman and man was constitutional, and the SC found that, under the Charter, the government could allow marriage between two people of the same gender.

In speaking to the issue of 'tradition', they found...

"Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."

(Belgium and the Netherlands are the other two countries mentioned)

Where that puts us now is...our present PM plans to forward a bill to our Parliament, this month, which will specifically allow marriage between gay people.

Homophobia?
I leave for a week and nobody has countered my argument that opposition to same sex marriage can be based on a rational fear of the potential impact to society, especially children. If my POV is too foolish then this should be easy. There seems to be plenty of people with plenty of free time. So what gives? Again ,if the fear is well founded then it is not a phobia.


Also in catching up I read someone(maybe CY) ask for evidence that a homosexual couple could not raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple. IMO The burden of proof should be placed on the homosexual since the evidence for successful heterosexual parenthood goes back thousands of years.

Mind linking some data about gay parenting harming children. Your "argument" has no merit.

Do you think 'links' constitute proof? In fact his argument is clear and completee. It doesn't depend on any specific demonstration of facts - unless you wish to challenge the implied assertion that marriage between men qand women is a long-established practice in most human societies.

On what basis to you make your utterly unsupported (and unsupportable) judgement that his argument "has no merit"?

Without evidence, the argumenat has no merit, all the evidence I have seen indicates gays do as well as parents as straights.

Without evidence, the argumenat has no merit, all the evidence I have seen indicates gays do as well as parents as straights.

homophobic?
Chrissee
What evidence are you talking about?

Also you said earlier that my opposition to same sex marriage was based on bigotry and homophobia. You have yet to put forth any agrument that my fears are not rational. As a parent of a child with a developmental disability, I believe my fears are well founded. Again I am not saying that the homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile. I am saying that the common repulsion to homosexuality is a good defense for children.

"more than 90 percent of people with developmental disabilities will experience sexual abuse at some point in their lives" Valenti-Hein& Schwartz1995.
Other studies show that 39-68% of girls with developmental disabilities wil be sexually abused before their 18th birthday. For boys the figures range from 16-30%

So please, will one of you explain to me how my fear is irrational. Will one of you tell me how illogical I am.

Dad, what do your stats have to do with homosexuality?

from dictionary.com


The element of 'rationality' that the fellow keeps insisting is a part of the definition of homophobia is, we'll note, not present in definitions 1 or 3, and is not a necessary criterion even in defintion 2 (note the 'or').

Selectively defining the term constitutes a red herring in this case. Our friend's usage meets the definition of homophobia with ease.

Of course, Kara's question re these statistics (source unknown, unverified) is rather pertinent. And revealing... Child molestation = homosexuals at work.

"The common repulsion/aversion to jews/blacks is a good defence for children"

So, george, our friend is a walking and talking case of the term in question.

Homophobia?
[[/QUOTE]
Littlek
I used the example earlier of most young boys being more than willing to engage in sex with a female teacher. They would not typically be willing to do so with a male teacher. There is in most cases a repulsion toward homosexuality. I believe this repulsion is a healthy response as it provides a defense against sexual predators. I am NOT contending that homosexuals are more likely to be predators. I am simply saying that as this (I believe) natural repulsion is eroded and the child is more willing to accept homosexuality, he becomes more vulnerable. To me this is not about the rights of adults as much as it is the safety of children.
If a child grows up being told that there is nothing wrong with smoking or drinking it is logical to assume that he would be more likely to engage in those activities before adulthood. Sexual (hetero or homo) activity should be no different. If he is told that it is perfectly normal, then he should be more likely to engage in the activity. The legalization of same sex marriage would send him that message. What people do in their own bedroom is not my concern. What others decide to teach their own kids is their business. But what is taught to kids in public schools and in society as a whole, is as much my business as anyones. So even if my argument is based on fear, it is not an irrational fear. Therefore it is not bigoted or homophobic.

Does everyone here understand how our friend cannot, for his rhetorical purpose, allow himself to be honest regarding how Webster defines the term?

I do.

Absolutely. Another hole digger.

Dadofthree's "repulsion theory" is so far-fetched that it doesn't merit serious discussion. To imply that repulsion to homosexuality is an innate human trait is absurd.

(Trying to play semantic acrobatics and redefine words in the dictionary to suit yourself is a foolish pastime).