The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

"Legitimate" anti-gay opinions? Legitimate anti-nigger opinions? Legitimate anti-jew opinions? A bit tough to find legitimacy here george.

What makes church dogma (or any dogma) dangerous is the rather obvious history of how such has been put to exclusionary and racist uses.

Neither I, nor any pro-gay organization, claim such a right to deny heterosexuals any/all claims to equality. Nor any right to deny you your opportunity to speak your opinion. Nor any right even to propose/work towards legislation you see fitting. Unless, of course, such legislation does in fact deny others the rights you assume accrue to yourself and those who agree with you.

What makes an opinion "anti gay"? The accepted definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, prevents the "marriage" of two men, whether they are homosexual or not. Moreover it does not deny the right of marriage to gay people - it only requires that the couple be of opposite sex.

Echoing the stance taken by defense fund lawyers in several court cases, Johnson said teachers and students critical of homosexuality have been pressured to stifle their views while at school. They cite the case of a San Diego-area high school student, Chase Harper, who was disciplined last year for refusing to change out of a T-shirt that read, "Homosexuality is Shameful."

You are playing categorical & semantical games Blatham, and using them to support irrational conclusions.

We have laws that grant exceptional privilegs or dedicated governmental action to people with certain disabilities. Have those who do not suffer from those disabilities been excluded from equal standing in the community?
The goal of such programs (which define classes of peoples) is NOT to exclude them or to deny them a semblance of equality, but rather to promote them up to some position relatively equal to others. Thus the civil rights legislative acts. Thus the legislation regarding women's rights. The point isn't the act of defining a class, but WHY one does so.

Your use of the rhetorical question "Legitimate anti gay opinions" clearly stating that there can be no such thing, was a deliberate (I think) deception. My point was merely that you DEFINE all opposing views on some matters as "anti gay", implying wrongful bias, when there is no logical basis for this conclusion whatever. While it is true that prejudice can accompany any opinion, reasonable or not, it is not necessarily true that there is a relationship between them.
I did not say there can be no legitimate anti-gay opinions. But where are they? And do they meet a standard such that they permit the reduction or denial of the equality rights of a class of people? The factual matter, as relates to who opposes equal status for gay people, and as regards the elements in the US who are the most active and causal in this movement, is that they are all so commonly marked (the exceptions are few indeed) by notions of homosexuality being either perverse or unnatural or inferior (as with interracial marriage, we'll recall), and are so universally coincident with church doctrine or with the "uggg!" reaction (as with interracial marriage) that labelling the movement as homophobic is no less true or accurate than labelling the anti-civil rights movement as being fundamentally racist, which it was.

One could equally well argue that you are "anti religious" and are intent on denying people the right to their beliefs, or to act in accord with their moral concepts.
Not logically. Your particular religious membership, even if you might be a member of a majoritarian faith, grants you no special priviledges. I pose no threat to your right to believe what you wish, to assemble with who you wish, or to speak any idea you wish. I do pose a threat (I'm teeny though) to any move you might make towards establishing legislation which does deny others equal rights.

What makes an opinion "anti gay"? The accepted definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, prevents the "marriage" of two men, whether they are homosexual or not. Moreover it does not deny the right of marriage to gay people - it only requires that the couple be of opposite sex.
Of course, as noted in many cases earlier, the legislation proposed and passed doesn't stop at restricting the "marriage" label, but goes much further than that. Your "a gay has the right to marry someone other than who he wants to marry" is not much worthy of having been typed. I'll grant you the right to your faith but only if you meet on Sunday with Muslims only.
To deny gays the right to marry whom they want and at the same time give them full legal status equal to others must be justified in some manner or to a standard which you, and no one else here, has managed to meet. Your repeated claim - "the family is in danger so why add to the possible burden on the institution" - is very far from meeting such an objective or evidence-based criterion.

My strong impression is that you do indeed argue for limitations on the ability of organizations of religiously-motivated people to "propose/work towards legislation". You often go well beyond that and imply that the opinions themselves of people whose motives for holding them are religiously motivated are necessarily invalid or inoperative in political discourse. This is intolerance (and hypocrisy) in its worst form.
There is absolutely nothing I can do about other peoples' ability to organize or propose/work towards legislation. But of course I can argue forcefully (or counter-organize) why what they are doing is either morally or legally or socially negative, which is what I'm doing here.

You claim I'm guilty of religious intolerance in its worst form. Hardly the worst form which involves throwing cream pies. I'm not intolerant of religion at all. The fact of this matter is that I grant it no special status in either moral questions nor any other sort of question. The Pope's opinion is precisely equal to the opinion of a drywaller from New Jersey or that of a Satanist or that of a majority opinion on, say, who is the prettiest girl in town - outside of those indicators that might suggest study, familiarity, and open-mindedness.

The danger with a religious group is exactly the same as the dangers that apply with membership in a political party...that folks can stop thinking for themselves and simply take the words of some singular authority at the top, or take the traditional worldview proposed, and give it 'truth by default' status. Humans in community have done this to very evil consequence so commonly in our history that it seems rather imprudent to ignore it.

But this time, the specific article he quotes does speak to some genuine homophobia.

In the context ot this thread, George's contention and mine is that it isn't anti-gay to take a stand against the GLAAD, that it's not what you call 'anti-nigger' to take a stand against the NAACP, and that it is not antisemitism to take a stand against the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. We also contend that taking such stands is legitimate. You are simply engaging in deceptive labelling here.

blatham wrote:
What makes church dogma (or any dogma) dangerous is the rather obvious history of how such has been put to exclusionary and racist uses.

Thomas wrote: As have scientific theories such as eugenics and socialist economics. I don't think the distinction between science and dogma gets you very far on this particular issue, which is mostly about competing value judgments.

If I remember correctly, I failed at my last attempt at getting a principled answer to a two-part question related to this point. Let me try again:

(1) Do you believe that the majority of voters, and the representatives they choose, have a moral right to deny to lovers in polygamous and incestuous relations the right to get married?

(2) Assuming that your answer to question (1) is "yes": What, in your opinion, is the relevant distinction between polygamists and incestuous couples on the one hand and homosexuals on the other hand? And why does this distinction morally justify that the majority can treat those classes differently?

OK Blatham's intolerance of religion is not an example of its worst form. However he repeatedly discounts the merits and value of the opinions and political action of people whom he assumes are motivated by religious matters merely because of that assumed motivation, regardless of the objective merits of the opinions themselves. The word for that is intolerance.

Scientific inquiry when engaged in as we normally understand the term - that is, as open-minded and not holding to a 'truth' regardless of contradictory evidence or a more efficient thesis - is the means by which either you or I would hope investigations will go. But there is a clear difference where a world-view holds certain central ideas to be absolutely true and not available for investigation or contest. And this is the situation of the theology in question.

To (1) I do not think the government has the moral right to prohibit any social arrangement which consenting and informed adults might choose.

To return to Thomas' point - if government can prohibit the marriage of a father to his daughter, it can prohibit the marriage of a couple of the same sex (homosexual or not).

Unmarried people do not have a "right" to the benefits established for married people. These benefits were in general created to meet our social responsibilities to those who would bear and raise the children who will populate the next generation of citizens, who will work and pay the taxes that will finance the social security and VA benefits their parents (and others) will receive.

That, gentle people, is the true reason that we would like to be able to legally marry: not religion, not trying to convince others that we're better, not because we're a minority, but it would allow us the opportunty to have the same rights and benefits others take for granted.

The US Constitution says that this country was formed so that all people are entitled to certain inalienable rights, life ,liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

Posner's comments make sense to me and lead to the conclusion that Blatham's permissive society in which consentuality is the only necessity, would indeed lead to a very very slippery slope.

What rights are you referring to?

Unmarried people do not have a "right" to the benefits established for married people. These benefits were in general created to meet our social responsibilities to those who would bear and raise the children who will populate the next generation of citizens, who will work and pay the taxes that will finance the social security and VA benefits their parents (and others) will receive. That is the fundamental distinction here, and the people, acting through their government have the right to make this distinction.

Can Chrissee read minds? Does she know the "true feelings" of others?
Interesting talent.