The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

revel wrote:

I believe without going back and rereading the beginning of this thread what started the whole homophobic idea was the phrase pushed out by those in congress and administration. The phrase was something like wanting "preserve the Sanctity of marriage."

It is homophobic to think you have to keep gays from marrying in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage."

No more than it is "heterophobic" of the Religious Right to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" by campaigning against no-fault divorce of heterosexual couples. In both cases, I find the campaigners' agenda misguided and counterproductive. But psycho-pathology has nothing to do with it, and I resent the allegation that it does. There are acceptable and unacceptable ways of talking politics. Slandering ones opponents as suffering from a sexual or mental condition is not acceptable. Nobody knows this better than homosexuals, who have been suffering this kind of slander for millennia.

revel wrote:

On the whole though; I think in the end it will all be settled in the courts and there is no way to rule negativily on this without using emotions of some sort to keep homosexuals from having the same rights as others.

It is impossible to rule without emotions the other way either. This is an emotional subject, and no law in the world can change that.

0 Replies

Sentanta,

No, I'm not "all over the road" at all. It's bewildering how you managed to miss the bulk of what I said in favor of responding to a parenthetical comment. I mean...that's it?

Quote:

You use the expression "preserving the sanctity of marriage" which tips your hand about your own religious scruples.

I don't have religious scruples. I used the phrase "preserving the sanctity of marriage" in the exact manner *you* used it--i.e. in response to someone else's use of it. That's why it appeared in quotes. So have we both tipped our hand about our own religious scruples, etc., etc.?

What do you have going here, a religionist radar with a trigger finger? Within the context of this discussion, please consider me an atheist. I suppose if I have to be religious to defend a religious concept against unjustified allegations, that makes everyone for SSM a homosexual! Done deal.

I don't know how my "comments about marrying near relations" are hilarious. I never made one. I said "marriage between siblings" & was not even marginally inclusive of all "near relations". I made the point about siblings to help show how *other* abnormal relationships are disallowed by the "preserving the sanctity of marriage" concept, not just homosexuality (which itself goes against the allegation the concept is homophobic).

Here's what *I* find hilarious: You did all that and managed to negotiate your way around my main points. Those points were:

1) "preserving the sanctity of marriage" is more likely religious zealotry for pro-heterosexual marriage & against *all* abnormal marriage concepts, than it is homophobia, therefore, SSM is not more disallowed than the others;

2) There's no reason to believe homosexuals have less rights than the "others" (whoever they are); and,

3) The proposed *type* of marriage is more appropriately called same-sex marriage rather than homosexual marriage;

How is it acceptable for you to skip over these & focus on a freaking parenthetical comment? Seriously. How is it acceptable? I'm forced to keep this in mind when I read your future posts.

0 Replies

piss them off

Omar de Fati wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Omar de Fati wrote:
The title of this thread is ridiculous. . . .

It doesn't help the half-baked arguments for SSM when the arguments are riddled with pejoratives & inflammatory ultimatums. If ever a point was made by them, I might hold out a moment longer just to piss them off.

You fail to state any reason why you are against same-sex marriages other than for the sake of being arbitrary.

No, I didn't "fail to state any reason why" I am against SSM. It wasn't my intention. I wasn't aware I was required to do so in order to participate in the thread. My response was directly to the initial post. Just as I excluded a gazillion other things, for example, my home address, are you going to consider excluding my home address a failure to disclose it, too? Also, I didn't state my position is held arbitrarily.

The points I attempted to communicate are:

1) Same-sex marriage is more appropriate language than "gay-marriage" (this works in the proponents of SSM favor, not mine, except where it helps sling the homophobe buzzword around);

2) There's nothing less than silliness behind the suggestion people who oppose same-sex marriage are homophobes;

3) I'm not convinced or compelled by the arguments for same-sex marriage. With a special note, the tendency by SSM proponents is (as you've just shown) I should be arbitrarily for same-sex marriage. This raises point 3.1: Why should I be arbitrarily for it? There's no reason because this is arbitrary;

4) I'm not homophobic, or Christian, & I don't think homosexuality is immoral;and,

5) Proponents of SSM who are accessible for discussion tend to be tactless, angry, & too willing to make use of pejorative terms & ultimatums.

I don't see how stating "any reason why" I'm against SSM or my address for that matter, has to do with communicating my points.

Withholding one's approval of a legal measure that would afford same-sex couples equal protection under the law simply to piss people off is not only arbitrary, it's capricious.

The title of this thread states a conclusion: "The anti-gay marriage movement is homophobic."

You are claiming that you are not homophobic, that you do not object to homosexuality on moral grounds, yet you do not approve of same-sex marriage. You have not said anything to disprove the author's conclusion. You have not stated any legitimate reason for advocating a position that discriminates against homosexuals.

You simply engage in the very same conduct that you purportedly object to. There are people in this country who have tried to discern a legitimate, rational reason for discrimination and unequal treatment of homosexuals. They are hard-pressed to find a reason other than moral disapproval and unfounded fears. Simply responding that the conclusion is ridiculous and nothing but silliness begs the question.

If moral disapproval and unfounded fears (homophobia) is not the basis for the movement to prevent homosexuals from getting married, then what is the basis?

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Out of curiosity, why is it homophobic for anyone to claim to be against SSM in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage"?

How would same-sex marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage as an institution or destroy the sanctity any marriage in particular?

"Sanctity" means being holy or sacred. Accordingly, if people are afraid that two men getting married would somehow destroy the holiness or sacredness of marriage, isn't that homophobia?

0 Replies

Re: piss them off

Debra_Law wrote:

Omar de Fati wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Omar de Fati wrote:
The title of this thread is ridiculous. . . .

It doesn't help the half-baked arguments for SSM when the arguments are riddled with pejoratives & inflammatory ultimatums. If ever a point was made by them, I might hold out a moment longer just to piss them off.

You fail to state any reason why you are against same-sex marriages other than for the sake of being arbitrary.

No, I didn't "fail to state any reason why" I am against SSM. It wasn't my intention. I wasn't aware I was required to do so in order to participate in the thread. My response was directly to the initial post. Just as I excluded a gazillion other things, for example, my home address, are you going to consider excluding my home address a failure to disclose it, too? Also, I didn't state my position is held arbitrarily.

The points I attempted to communicate are:

1) Same-sex marriage is more appropriate language than "gay-marriage" (this works in the proponents of SSM favor, not mine, except where it helps sling the homophobe buzzword around);

2) There's nothing less than silliness behind the suggestion people who oppose same-sex marriage are homophobes;

3) I'm not convinced or compelled by the arguments for same-sex marriage. With a special note, the tendency by SSM proponents is (as you've just shown) I should be arbitrarily for same-sex marriage. This raises point 3.1: Why should I be arbitrarily for it? There's no reason because this is arbitrary;

4) I'm not homophobic, or Christian, & I don't think homosexuality is immoral;and,

5) Proponents of SSM who are accessible for discussion tend to be tactless, angry, & too willing to make use of pejorative terms & ultimatums.

I don't see how stating "any reason why" I'm against SSM or my address for that matter, has to do with communicating my points.

Withholding one's approval of a legal measure that would afford same-sex couples equal protection under the law simply to piss people off is not only arbitrary, it's capricious.

The title of this thread states a conclusion: "The anti-gay marriage movement is homophobic."

You are claiming that you are not homophobic, that you do not object to homosexuality on moral grounds, yet you do not approve of same-sex marriage. You have not said anything to disprove the author's conclusion. You have not stated any legitimate reason for advocating a position that discriminates against homosexuals.

You simply engage in the very same conduct that you purportedly object to. There are people in this country who have tried to discern a legitimate, rational reason for discrimination and unequal treatment of homosexuals. They are hard-pressed to find a reason other than moral disapproval and unfounded fears. Simply responding that the conclusion is ridiculous and nothing but silliness begs the question.

If moral disapproval and unfounded fears (homophobia) is not the basis for the movement to prevent homosexuals from getting married, then what is the basis?

You most certainly have the floor whenever you choose to explain:

1) how homosexuals have less rights than their counter parts;

2) why this should be about homosexuals & not same sex marriage; or,

3) why two hetersexuals shouldn't enjoy this *new* version of marriage; or,

4) why, in the absence of any of the above, I should "just do it" cause...

Otherwise, you can save your strawman, passive aggressive personal attacks, & misquoting behavior for someone else.

If you feel courageous, you could throw in:

5) why anyone should agree your totally obscure & silly definition of homophobia is correct

0 Replies

First Debra, I am not afraid that it will destroy the "sanctity of marriage". One aspect of my opposition is that gays are demanding society change the historic definition of marriage to accomodate their lifestyle. What other lifestyles will we next be asked to accomodate just because a group is vocal enough to demand it?

I admit there may be some people opposing it who fear that same sex marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage, but how does that equate to homophobia, a fear of homosexuals? Or even a hatred of homosexuals, which I would concede could be considered homophobia. I don't see it. The GLBT community is trying to paint everyone who opposes their desire that we change the definition of marriage as some hate-filled, homophobic individual. Doing so is not going to convince people they are right. Quite the opposite will be true in my opinion, as observed in the outcome of the recent votes in a number of states.

So why insist on calling those who disagree with them homophobic? I believe they hope to convince people that there is no legit argument other than hatred for denying them the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. And I for one take offense at being lumped in as somehow hating a group of people just because they say I hate them.

0 Replies

Debra law,

I think that many of us here are merely trying to make the point that opposition to same-sex 'marriage' is not necessarily a result of homophobia. It seems to me this is a reasonable position - unless you implicitly assert that opposition to same-sex 'marriage' itself constitutes homophobia and therefore implies a burden of proof on one who asserts otherwise. Certainly your last post seems to make that clear.

The author of this thread has emphasized that he asserts only that the leadership and driving forces behind the political movement opposing same-sex 'marriage' are homophobic, while many of its adherents (usually politely including his interlocutor of the moment) are merely their dupes. However, the dialogue here quickly degenerated to one in which the unstated presumption of proponents was that opposition itself constitutes homophobia. This, of course, is yet another mindless semantical evasion by the forces of political correctitude and thought control which are increasingly being rejected by an electorate that, after all this, has managed to retain a good deal of its common sense.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

First Debra, I am not afraid that it will destroy the "sanctity of marriage". What gays are demanding is that society change the historic definition of marriage to accomodate their lifestyle.

Now, there may be a fear of destroying the sanctity of marriage among some people, but again, how does that equate to homophobia, a fear of homosexuals? Or even a hatred of homosexuals, which I would accede could be considered homophobia. I don't see it. The GLBT community is trying to paint everyone who opposes their desire that we change the definition of marriage as some hate-filled, homophobic individual. Doing so is not going to convince people they are right. Quite the opposite will be true in my opinion, as observed in the outcome of the recent votes in a number of states.

So why insist on calling those who disagree with them homophobic? I believe they hope to convince people that there is no legit argument other than hatred for denying them the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex. And I for one take offense at being lumped in as somehow hating a group of people just because they say I hate them.

I share some of those sentiments. Here I am saying I've got a vote that I'm willing to throw into the ring *if* there exists a reason to do it. I can change my position because I don't have a religious morality. Yet, in response, I get the main argument "Either you're already on our side or you're a homophobe! Now, prove your side right!"

I think it's ridiculous. In fact, it's *my* kind of vote that can make the difference. It seems I'd be coddled & not attacked like I'm a schlep in a highschool cafeteria. It's silly beyond better description.

0 Replies

I agree Omar. While part of my opposition is religiously based, I still recognize that religion and secular laws may not always agree. In other words, if there is enough sentiment in this country to pass laws allowing same sex marriage, then as a Christian I would recognize the legality of those marriages in the eyes of our government. I could and would still disagree with the law (just as I disagree with some laws currently on the books) but I would have to live under that law.

But being against same sex marriage, even if it was only because of a person's religious beliefs, does not equate to homophobia or a hatred of people who are homosexual. No matter how loudly they try to spin it that way.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I agree Omar. While part of my opposition is religiously based, I still recognize that religion and secular laws may not always agree. In other words, if there is enough sentiment in this country to pass laws allowing same sex marriage, then as a Christian I would recognize the legality of those marriages in the eyes of our government. I could and would still disagree with the law (just as I disagree with some laws currently on the books) but I would have to live under that law.

But being against same sex marriage, even if it was only because of a person's religious beliefs, does not equate to homophobia or a hatred of people who are homosexual. No matter how loudly they try to spin it that way.

Hey, I'm with you 100%. Except that I'm not a Christian, I'm with you, 100%.

0 Replies

GLBT people throw the word "homophobia" around in attempt to silence those that do not agree with them. If they can silence enough people they believe they will win, I happen to think this is one area that they will fail of they do not change their ways. Many states are voting and it is in the main stream that the president is being set.

0 Replies

Homophobic
IMO the use of homophobic is an emotional response to the perception of hatred or disgust. Is it used to silence those who disagree? If so it does not work.

I do not use the term homophobic for people who oppose same sex marriage, because I find name calling inappropriate. It is violence without physical contact.

My primary reasons for supporting same sex marriage are:

1, Legal recognition of the relationship, and the benefits available to married couples. (Let's skip the procreation issue. It' a non starter.)

2, The equality of all people. Historically our laws have de-humanized: Native Americans, People of Color, Women, Children, The Mentally Challenged, The Japanese and now any one who looks "suspicious" (of Arabic origin). Most of the de-humanizing laws have fallen, sometimes requiring an apology and large amounts of money paid in reparation.

Striped of religious rhetoric, marriage is a social contract entered into for the mutual benefit of the contracting parties. All I want to see is legal recognition of that contract between any two consenting adults, equality for all.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
Out of curiosity, why is it homophobic for anyone to claim to be against SSM in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage"?

How would same-sex marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage as an institution or destroy the sanctity any marriage in particular?

"Sanctity" means being holy or sacred. Accordingly, if people are afraid that two men getting married would somehow destroy the holiness or sacredness of marriage, isn't that homophobia?

[/b]

yes, sometimes a spade is a spade.

0 Replies

I can agree with you there Sam. And I truly understand your argument. If more of the GLBT advocates stayed away from the labeling and stuck to the argument you mention in your last paragraph, I think more people would be won over, especially if you would back away from the word "marriage" and go with some other phrase or whatever. I think many religious people could be persuaded to support you.

Some would not (including myself....sorry) based strictly on the grounds that recognizing anything between same sex couples would amount to an acceptance that their lifestyle is a perfectly normal thing, thus contradicting Biblical teaching (as most conservative Christians see it). But, as I have said earlier, if enough support can be found to pass same sex marriage laws, that would be the law and those of us who feel differently would be in the position to recognize the law as being law and working to change it.

I truly do not believe that the majority of those opposing same sex marriage are homophobic or even have a hatred for those who are. But then I really can only speak for myself and quite frankly I think most of those here on A2K who are gay and I would get along just fine were we to personally know each other. I don't have to agree with a person's lifestyle in order to care about them as friends, and I think many more Christians than you think have the same attitude. It is just that sometimes I don't think either side in this debate does a really good job of listening. Oh well.

0 Replies

Re: Homophobic

Sam1951 wrote:

IMO the use of homophobic is an emotional response to the perception of hatred or disgust. Is it used to silence those who disagree? If so it does not work.

I do not use the term homophobic for people who oppose same sex marriage, because I find name calling inappropriate. It is violence without physical contact.

My primary reasons for supporting same sex marriage are:

1, Legal recognition of the relationship, and the benefits available to married couples. (Let's skip the procreation issue. It' a non starter.)

2, The equality of all people. Historically our laws have de-humanized: Native Americans, People of Color, Women, Children, The Mentally Challenged, The Japanese and now any one who looks "suspicious" (of Arabic origin). Most of the de-humanizing laws have fallen, sometimes requiring an apology and large amounts of money paid in reparation.

Striped of religious rhetoric, marriage is a social contract entered into for the mutual benefit of the contracting parties. All I want to see is legal recognition of that contract between any two consenting adults, equality for all.

I'm not aware of any situation where being a homosexual is like being a person of color, a woman, child, mentally challenged or japanese. As far as I'm aware homosexuals are equal citizens & enjoy the same rights as people who aren't homosexual.

That leaves me with one of your primary reasons which is itself the very idea. #1 essentailly describes same sex marraige. It's like saying you support same sex marriage because you support same sex marriage.

Quote:

Striped of religious rhetoric, marriage is a social contract entered into for the mutual benefit of the contracting parties. All I want to see is legal recognition of that contract between any two consenting adults, equality for all.

Why only adults? Why only two? Why strip it of its "religious rhetoric"?

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

revel wrote:
I believe without going back and rereading the beginning of this thread what started the whole homophobic idea was the phrase pushed out by those in congress and administration. The phrase was something like wanting "preserve the Sanctity of marriage."

It is homophobic to think you have to keep gays from marrying in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage."

On the whole though; I think in the end it will all be settled in the courts and there is no way to rule negativily on this without using emotions of some sort to keep homosexuals from having the same rights as others.

No, no, no, no. That's no homophobia. Maybe it's religious zealotry, but it's certainly not homophobic. Preserving the sanctity of marriage also means disallowing polygamy, marriage between siblings, between children & adults, & a small host of other inventive relationships. Homosexuality is one of many ways people carry on relationships. The uniqueness of homosexual relationships are no more "different" than any abnormal relationship is "different" (except homosexuals are squeakier hinges, which by the way, doesn't mean they *deserve* to be oiled).

This whole *angle* about homosexuals having the same rights as others is ridiculous. This is either about two people of the same sex being able to marry, or it's about two "homosexuals" being able to marry. And I'll tell you right now, I'll NEVER, under any circumstances (except being high on crack) vote to pass legislation based on someone's sexuality.

And no one is trying to "keep homosexuals from having the same rights as others". For god's sake. Hell, if anything, I'm trying to keep homosexuals & other people from enjoying more rights than I have. Homosexuals already have the same rights as others. In fact, it can be argued when doing a comparision, a homosexual male or female has *more* rights than their heterosexual counterparts in terms of protection.

This *new* variation of marriage is about "same sex", not "homosexuality". Why? Because two straight men will be able to marry despite being heterosexual. SSM won't give homosexuals "the same rights as others", it'll give everybody a right that currently doesn't exist for anyone.

I wish they would put more post on one page, I missed this one and some others before responding.)

Anyway,

The context of the term I was referring to in the phrase "sanctity of marriage" was in the small confines of the past election season when the term was first brandied about. They were referring to homosexuals mostly if not all.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
CoastalRat wrote:
Out of curiosity, why is it homophobic for anyone to claim to be against SSM in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage"?

How would same-sex marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage as an institution or destroy the sanctity any marriage in particular?

"Sanctity" means being holy or sacred. Accordingly, if people are afraid that two men getting married would somehow destroy the holiness or sacredness of marriage, isn't that homophobia?
[/b]

yes, sometimes a spade is a spade.

No Revel, I guess this is something you and I will never come to agreement over. Believing same sex marriage will destroy the sacredness of marriage does not equate to homophobia. I will use this as an example of why. It may not be the best example but it will suffice to make my point (I hope).

I would oppose allowing my two dogs to get married on the grounds of destroying the sacredness of marriage, but that does not mean I have a dogphobia. (I know that is not a word, but I am just trying to make a point, so don't start making fun of my example here)

0 Replies

SSM
CostalRat,

To the best of my knowledge the Catholic Church had no statements regarding homosexuality until the Middle Ages? It looks to me as though population density may be a factor in this. In sparsely populated areas any companionship is good. With higher population density there is both a greater choice of partners and the added stress that comes with large numbers of people living in close proximity. Just a thought.

My posts may be a bit sporadic today, I working on finishing the living room, kitchen and hall floors.

0 Replies

Actually, we don't want to be a protected class of citizens. We want to be treated the same as those that aren't homosexual. We want equal rights, nothing more and defintely not less.

Lets forget about labeling and get to the true facts. If any two people wish to marry, they should be allowed to do so. What difference does it make what the genders or sexes are? If two people fall in love, why shouldn't they have the same rights and privileges as a hetrosexual couple?

I've given the reasons for same sex marriages in previous postings. However, I just learned today that a homosexual man was barred from attending the funeral of his 20 year partner, by the family. I should also state that I personaly know of a gay couple that have adopted two boys and the boys are extremely well balanced, just a bit more open minded than most their ages (14 and 15).

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

revel wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
CoastalRat wrote:
Out of curiosity, why is it homophobic for anyone to claim to be against SSM in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage"?

How would same-sex marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage as an institution or destroy the sanctity any marriage in particular?

"Sanctity" means being holy or sacred. Accordingly, if people are afraid that two men getting married would somehow destroy the holiness or sacredness of marriage, isn't that homophobia?
[/b]

yes, sometimes a spade is a spade.

No Revel, I guess this is something you and I will never come to agreement over. Believing same sex marriage will destroy the sacredness of marriage does not equate to homophobia. I will use this as an example of why. It may not be the best example but it will suffice to make my point (I hope).

I would oppose allowing my two dogs to get married on the grounds of destroying the sacredness of marriage, but that does not mean I have a dogphobia. (I know that is not a word, but I am just trying to make a point, so don't start making fun of my example here)

Actually though I disagree still you make a good point.

I disagree because I don't see how anyone else or anything can destroy the sanctity of a marriage between two individules unless they themselves somehow destroy it. I mean my marriage will be just as valid if two people of the same gender get married or not.

Maybe it is not homophobic, but I can't think what else it would be.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know