23
   

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

 
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 06:31 pm
I'm sure they'd want to, but I seriously doubt they'd win through.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 07:12 pm
I wouldn't be so sure of that one. There are enough people in the courts that agree with their agenda that it wouldn't be hard to press charges and see them through to jail time and or fines.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 07:21 pm
Has anything like that been attempted before in the US? Female priests? Ethnic minority priests?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:55 am
I agree with clyp, there has not ever been a logical non religious reason to deny gay couples the same rights as straight couples.
0 Replies
 
Instigate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 02:38 am
I think image has a lot to do with it. When people think of homosexuals, they think of the flamboyant, effeminate man or the tough butch female. People just dont want marriage associated with this behavior, and they dont want it to become mainstream and popular. Gays can thank Hollywood for how they are perceived by most people. The Bible holds some sway, but I dont think that it was a major factor in most peoples decision.
0 Replies
 
Instigate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 02:51 am
A side note:

If gay marriage became the norm, how long do you think it would be before they were demanding the right to raise children? Define "parenthood" for me.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 04:22 am
Oh please!!! Man, it must be really tough being gay and having to read this bull over and over again. It must be so very frustrating for 2 people who love eachother but can't get married. When their partner is in the hospital, the person they love the most can't even visit them. I mean come on!!!

I stand in line with the others in asking what harm would it do anyone to let them get married? Anyone who is against it is HOMOPHOBIC!
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 04:25 am
Montana wrote:
Oh please!!! Man, it must be really tough being gay and having to read this bull over and over again.


Actually I find it hilarious. Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 04:51 am
woiyo wrote:
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.


Anger arising from something I've said isn't bothersome.

You've corrected your expression from 'pro-homo' to 'pro-homosexual'. I'll change mine from 'pro-nigger' to 'pro-african american'. What could either term possibly mean? If I'm pro-african american, would it mean I want everyone to be an african american? If you are pro-homsexual, would it mean that you must then be anti-heterosexual? My position is pro-equality for everyone.

The claim in your first sentence is false, and clearly false. If it were true, then the legislation in question would be limited to marriage, and it is not, as Oliphant demonstrates, and as Thomas and I have indicated. It is not merely marriage that is at issue.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 04:55 am
Gautam wrote:
Montana wrote:
Oh please!!! Man, it must be really tough being gay and having to read this bull over and over again.


Actually I find it hilarious. Laughing


Bless you Gautam! Cool
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 05:02 am
Baldimo wrote:
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?


As this poster was informed a long while ago, I do not bother to enter discourse with him. However, it ought to be pointed out that the claim he makes here is, at best, a straw man argument but, most likely, false in any case.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 05:14 am
HofT wrote:
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>


This is, I think, the Barney Frank/Carl Rove strategy...keep it hidden and move forward with stealth, the better to achieve your goals when you don't get folks all uppity by telling them what you are really planning to do.

In this case, I disagree. The 'culture war' is now engaged, and everyone ought to be appraised of the reality of that. Can we assume that Martin Luther King received advices to cool the rhetoric and stay home cooking up some grits rather than marching and getting white people all angry and upset?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 05:27 am
Instigate wrote:
I think image has a lot to do with it. When people think of homosexuals, they think of the flamboyant, effeminate man or the tough butch female. People just dont want marriage associated with this behavior, and they dont want it to become mainstream and popular. Gays can thank Hollywood for how they are perceived by most people. The Bible holds some sway, but I dont think that it was a major factor in most peoples decision.


So, the problem is that an effeminate man makes some people feel uncomfortable?

Then ought we to pass legislation which keeps people suffering paralysis or those severely deformed off the streets?

Many people, once, did not wish interracial marriage to become mainstream and popular. Many people, once, didn't want any Irishmen in their neighborhoods. Many people, once, would refuse to hold a business position where they were junior to a female.

Discomfort isn't the standard. The constitution, with its provisions for broad and inclusive equality, provides the standard.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 05:30 am
Gautam wrote:
Montana wrote:
Oh please!!! Man, it must be really tough being gay and having to read this bull over and over again.


Actually I find it hilarious. Laughing


hi G

Nice to find your evil chortle here.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 05:31 am
Instigate wrote:
A side note:

If gay marriage became the norm, how long do you think it would be before they were demanding the right to raise children? Define "parenthood" for me.


Yes? And the problem is?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 05:42 am
McG said
Quote:
I refuse to have the government force it's judgement on any religious institution.



cyclo said
Quote:
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.


McG hasn't realized yet that he's fallen for a bit of a trick here. Note who is portrayed as victim..."I don't like gay marriage. My church doesn't like gay marriage. If gay people are allowed the same freedoms and protections we enjoy under the law and constitution, then WE are being victimized"

If blacks are allowed to sit on buses with whites, then white are victimized.

If Jews are allowed to become members of the country club, then it is all the non-Jews who are really being victimized.

If women are allowed to vote and own property and be equals of their husbands, then men are the victims of this unnatural and anti-biblical arrangement. People of faith shall not be coerced by activist judges such that they have to abide granting 'equality' where it does not belong.
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 06:40 am
Blatham - there is nothing stealthy about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, which can be found in its entirety here:
http://www.malawyersweekly.com/signup/gtwFulltext.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

Halfway down the page we find the basis for the dissent:

____________________________________________________________
"...These cases, along with the Moe case, focus on the threat to privacy when government seeks to regulate the most intimate activity behind bedroom doors......................Ironically, by extending the marriage laws to same-sex couples the court has turned substantive due process on its head and used it to interject government into the plaintiffs' lives."
____________________________________________________________

Talk of grits and collard greens will not turn this into a civil rights issue. Every single TV presentation of 2 grooms stepping out a church door and kissing passionately, or 2 brides doing the same, causes a reaction based on what Newsweek termed "the ick factor" in the vast majority of the population.

The "culture" you mention may well be engaged, as you say, but all it will accomplish is anullment of civil unions. This has already started. If you have any basis for foreseeing any other result I would wish to see it.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 06:48 am
Yup, we live in the freest country in the world, but we don't want some people to be as free as the rest of us.

I thought the remark about the churchs in fear of being sued under the Hate Crimes Act was telling. Do you suppose they realize that their stance and statements on homosexuality appears very much to be hate speech?
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 06:51 am
Joe - for the record all "hate crimes" legislation is fundamentally unconstitutional being in breach of the "equal protection" clause. All are equally protected except for the class of "designated victims".

Think about it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 07:19 am
blatham wrote:
McG said
Quote:
I refuse to have the government force it's judgement on any religious institution.



cyclo said
Quote:
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.


McG hasn't realized yet that he's fallen for a bit of a trick here. Note who is portrayed as victim..."I don't like gay marriage. My church doesn't like gay marriage. If gay people are allowed the same freedoms and protections we enjoy under the law and constitution, then WE are being victimized"

If blacks are allowed to sit on buses with whites, then white are victimized.

If Jews are allowed to become members of the country club, then it is all the non-Jews who are really being victimized.

If women are allowed to vote and own property and be equals of their husbands, then men are the victims of this unnatural and anti-biblical arrangement. People of faith shall not be coerced by activist judges such that they have to abide granting 'equality' where it does not belong.


That's a neat trick. You quoted my words and then went on to say they meant something entirely different than what they actually say... That's really cool! You must be taking lessons from BPB.
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 09:11:11