23
   

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 08:48 am
Duh...sorry boys. Slip of the mind there. Correction in order. Anti-integrationist would have been the term.

coastal rat
What are your reasons for disallowing gays full equality?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 08:56 am
CoastalRat wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I have seen blatham (or certainly his better half, so perhaps I'm confusing them here) make the argument that someone who wishes that race NOT be a factor in any part of life, is a racist ... so it comes as no real surprise to see him make the claim that an "anti-segregationist" is a racist.


What I was trying to point out is that an "anti-segregationist" would never have been racist. A segregationist would have been since he would have been against someone having basic equality with someone else simply because of his race. An anti-segregationist would have been people like ML King. His post painted the wrong group as being racist.

I knew what he meant and was getting at though.


I knew what you were trying to point out, and it seems blatham does now too. :wink:

blatham wrote:
Boy, I'd love to see you dig up the quote you seem to remember. Will you get it soon or should I keep reminding you?


I'm on it. Remember, I did say it might be Lola. I'll be back with the results of my search.

bernie wrote:
But as to your argument, you rather conveniently drop out any notion of how 1950 is not now.


Which argument of mine are you referring to?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 09:04 am
Quote:
I'm on it. Remember, I did say it might be Lola. I'll be back with the results of my search.
It wasn't me. If it was someone else, no need to bother. My noggin has a total membership of 1.

Quote:
Which argument of mine are you referring to?
Disregard. This was a consequence of me misoverestimating my use of English.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 09:09 am
blatham wrote:
Boy, I'd love to see you dig up the quote you seem to remember. Will you get it soon or should I keep reminding you?


Here's the exchange I was thinking of. It was Lola. I'm sure you won't take offense, but I do sometimes confuse the two of you .....

Lola wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Someone who believes that race should not be a factor .... is a racist?


That exact argument was made in our provincial legislature earlier this week. It's been fascinating to watch that play out.


Well, I agree with Tico's statement above. As a matter of fact, I said so a few pages back.

Tell us how it played out, Beth.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1217553#1217553

.... to which I responded with ....

Ticomaya wrote:
Lola: since you say someone who believes race should not be a factor, is a racist ... is it safe to conclude that you also believe that someone who believes race should be a factor is also a racist?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1217570#1217570

.... but I do not believe that question was ever answered.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 09:14 am
And I had a question to my grade three teacher, Miss Epelstein, which yet remains unanswered. Perhaps one day we'll both find satisfaction.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 09:18 am
blatham wrote:
And I had a question to my grade three teacher, Miss Epelstein, which yet remains unanswered. Perhaps one day we'll both find satisfaction.


Yes ... although Miss. Epelstein has no doubt passed on to a better place, while my questionee remains merely conveniently elusive ... a sighting here, a sighting there.

Until that day, why don't you ask me your question and I'll do my best to assist you in your search for knowledge?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 09:21 am
blatham wrote:
coastal rat
What are your reasons for disallowing gays full equality?


This statement epitomizes I think the major point of contention. The proponents of same sex marriage keep using this term of equality. They are someone not being treated equally. We are not disallowing gays full equality. They currently have full equality. The laws governing marriage treat homosexuals, heterosexuals, polygamists, members of the child-love society (or whatever they are called), and any other group you care to mention the same. All have the same rights. What gays are asking for is to change the laws to give them additional rights, no different than if someone decided they wanted to marry their sister and started a movement to allow incestuous marriages.

I don't believe it is in society's best interest to begin changing laws and definitions of things such as marriage for the sake of some group the starts yelling loud enough that they demand the change. Call it a slippery slope argument if you want to and shrug it off, but what stops another group from pushing for their agenda based on arguments that they don't have full equality.

Secondly, for a great many people of faith, homosexuality is a sinful act of rebellion against God's design and purpose for mankind. Rolling over and not voicing our opinions on this issue would be tantamount to accepting homosexuality as a normal and acceptable lifestyle. This goes against Biblical teaching for people of faith. Would it be easy for us to just shut up and let others dictate the society we live in? Of course it would. Just like it would be easier for you to shut up and let others dictate to you the society you should live in. Neither group of people will do that in the near future.

These are my two main reasons for being against same sex marriage. I understand completely why some people will disagree with my reasons. If everyone agreed with me on everything life would be quite boring. :wink:

Those who push for the validity of same sex marriage have every right to do so without being vilified or called names. Those of us on the opposite side of this fight have that same right. Admittedly there are extremists and idiots on both sides, but I don't believe that is the majority.

As I have stated in a previous post, if laws are changed to allow same sex marriage, it will be my responsibility to live under and honor those laws. I can still attempt to get the laws changed, but I will still be subject to it. Right now, the law is what it is. The GLBT community must live under those laws while trying to change them. But the labeling of people as homophobes is hurting their cause. People who have no problem with gays individually will take offense at the tactics they are using. Defying laws and then calling us homophobes or worse will not win us over to their opinions nor give us any reason to sympathize with them.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 09:25 am
Out for a bit...thanks for reply CR. Get back asap.
0 Replies
 
Wiyaka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 10:35 am
Coastalrat. I agree with your problem with name calling. It's done no good here, for anyone. However, I've stated my reasons for supporting same sex marriage without getting into a discussion of theology. They are economic and legal, not religious or spiritual. I believe that I presented them fairly well in previous postings. I'm not sure where you get your facts about Sam recieving benefits as my spouse. A power of attorney won't allow her to have the same benfits that my previous spouses would enjoy, when I was a man. the federal government denies same sex partners the same benefits as hetro sexual spouses, plain and simple. If need be, I'll take the time to dig the exact name of the law and post it, but trust me it's on the books since Clinton signed it in 1996.

Please don't use the smoke screen about bestiality, incest and polygamists, those are diversionary tactics. After all, there are many in your Bible that were polygamists, including Moses and Solomon. According to what I've read, Lot's daughters lay with him after his wife was turned to salt.These are considered by the Christians I know to have had a major impact on the religions of Christianity, Islam and Judhism. Besides the topic is about same sex marriage and those that oppose it, not bestiality, incest or polygamy as refered to in . Should you feel the need, why not start a thread on it? It might be interesting.

I can't speak for those that follow those beliefs. I've studied them and was once very active in the Catholic Church, even being a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus. However, That's in the past, when I lied about who and what I am. I now follow Lakota spirituallity and have found no adverse reaction for my marrying Sam legally, from any of the Elders that I've met.

I guess my point is this, our country was founded on the many principles. One of these principles is the separation of Church and State. IMO It appears that the US is heading in the direction of a State Church and I personaly would hate to see it happen. By imposing religious values onto the people of the US that don't follow or wish to believe as you or others may , it causes many forms of pain, frustration and feelings of alienation.

Perhaps a thread on the moral sides of this issue is in order. However, I am not one to judge another's spiritual belief nor do I have the right to impose my beliefs on others. I only ask that others respect that and show me the same respect.

Regarding a previous posting of yours. I'm not sure where you live, but in my state of WI same sex marriages are not allowed. This is something that Sam and I are trying very hard to change. We don't want to have to work harder for the things that hetrosexuals do. IMO that's like telling a woman that she needs to work harder to have the same pay and benefits as a man in a simalr situation.

BTW, IMO you and your family are more open minded than mine, regarding same sex partners. Let me give you a few true examples of the differences. I have seven grandchildren by my two daughters, I'm not able to see my grandchildren because my children disagree with my lifestyle. When I went to a family reunion a few years ago, a younger brother looked at his hand in horror, after shaking my hand. My family doesn't contact me, even when a brother was in a coma for ten days. I'm used to these things and am beyond feeling sad or angery over them. I simply submit them as examples of how so people percieve us.

Now, if there is nothing beyond emotional or religious responses regarding the issue of same sex marriages, I'll post elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 10:52 am
Maintaining a set of values is not the same as forcing religion down the throats of citizens. This is the basis of law and it has always been done. This is how it has been decided that murder/robbery/burglary/theft/rape is wrong, and that prostitution, illegal drug use, incest, adultery, and polygamy should be outlawed, even if they were permitted in the past. Society has always determined what values should be maintained. Yet there will always be those that argue for the decriminalization or legalization of the latter group of crimes.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 11:06 am
Wiyaka wrote:
Coastalrat. I agree with your problem with name calling. It's done no good here, for anyone. However, I've stated my reasons for supporting same sex marriage without getting into a discussion of theology. They are economic and legal, not religious or spiritual. I believe that I presented them fairly well in previous postings. I'm not sure where you get your facts about Sam recieving benefits as my spouse. A power of attorney won't allow her to have the same benfits that my previous spouses would enjoy, when I was a man. the federal government denies same sex partners the same benefits as hetro sexual spouses, plain and simple. If need be, I'll take the time to dig the exact name of the law and post it, but trust me it's on the books since Clinton signed it in 1996.

Please don't use the smoke screen about bestiality, incest and polygamists, those are diversionary tactics. After all, there are many in your Bible that were polygamists, including Moses and Solomon. According to what I've read, Lot's daughters lay with him after his wife was turned to salt.These are considered by the Christians I know to have had a major impact on the religions of Christianity, Islam and Judhism. Besides the topic is about same sex marriage and those that oppose it, not bestiality, incest or polygamy as refered to in . Should you feel the need, why not start a thread on it? It might be interesting.

I can't speak for those that follow those beliefs. I've studied them and was once very active in the Catholic Church, even being a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus. However, That's in the past, when I lied about who and what I am. I now follow Lakota spirituallity and have found no adverse reaction for my marrying Sam legally, from any of the Elders that I've met.

I guess my point is this, our country was founded on the many principles. One of these principles is the separation of Church and State. IMO It appears that the US is heading in the direction of a State Church and I personaly would hate to see it happen. By imposing religious values onto the people of the US that don't follow or wish to believe as you or others may , it causes many forms of pain, frustration and feelings of alienation.

Perhaps a thread on the moral sides of this issue is in order. However, I am not one to judge another's spiritual belief nor do I have the right to impose my beliefs on others. I only ask that others respect that and show me the same respect.

Regarding a previous posting of yours. I'm not sure where you live, but in my state of WI same sex marriages are not allowed. This is something that Sam and I are trying very hard to change. We don't want to have to work harder for the things that hetrosexuals do. IMO that's like telling a woman that she needs to work harder to have the same pay and benefits as a man in a simalr situation.

BTW, IMO you and your family are more open minded than mine, regarding same sex partners. Let me give you a few true examples of the differences. I have seven grandchildren by my two daughters, I'm not able to see my grandchildren because my children disagree with my lifestyle. When I went to a family reunion a few years ago, a younger brother looked at his hand in horror, after shaking my hand. My family doesn't contact me, even when a brother was in a coma for ten days. I'm used to these things and am beyond feeling sad or angery over them. I simply submit them as examples of how so people percieve us.

Now, if there is nothing beyond emotional or religious responses regarding the issue of same sex marriages, I'll post elsewhere.


Don't think I said anything about Sam getting your benefits. I would not make statements of fact unless I know it to be fact, so I think you may have something confused there.

The problem with believing that religious beliefs have no place in this discussion is silly. The totality of my beliefs is shaped by many things, just as yours are. Society, upbringing, religious faith and such all have a bearing on what each of us believes. My faith shapes my values and beliefs. That does not invalidate my beliefs anymore than the fact that your lack of faith in a Christian God invalidates your beliefs. We are equal in that respect. If Billy Graham himself declared that he now believes the Bible says homosexuality is not a sin but a normal lifestyle, I still would not campaign for same sex marriages. Just as if science came out and categorically stated that homosexuality is a choice, you would not stop campaigning for same sex marriage. It is a part of who we are based on many factors, not just religion/faith or whatever.

Nor have I claimed that the Fed government does not grant certain benefits to married people. It does. But again, here you are not treated any more unequally than anyone else who is not married under the current laws. You are not being discriminated against.

As for beastiality, incest, polygamy and such, I did not use them to justify keeping same sex partners from marrying. I just pointed out that the marriage laws currently are non-discriminatory. They apply equally to you as they do to everyone else, whether they claim to be heterosexual, polygamists or whatever.

I am in SC and of course the laws here are basically the same concerning marriage as they are in WI.

I consider myself nothing more than an average Christian. I think, although of course it is my opinion, that the average Christian thinks the same way. I'm sorry your family has totally rejected you. I just see a big difference between rejecting the way a person lives and rejecting a person. I disagree with my brother's lifestlye and the language uses. But I could no more stop loving him or seeing him than I could tell my wife to take a hike. So I find it difficult to understand how family can treat you or anyone else that way, even though I know it happens.

You and I will always disagree on the issue of same sex marriage and I think we can both live with that. It was never my intention to get on this thread and defend my views on that issue or to debate that issue. My only reason was to point out the idiocy of believing that opponents of same sex marriage are homophobic. Just as it would be idiocy for me to claim that all proponents of same sex marriage must be homosexuals. Neither is the case.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 11:13 am
The laws are written so that if you love someone of the opposite sex, you may marry. If you love someone of the same sex you may not. Since heterosexuals love those of the opposite sex, and homosexuals love those of the same sex the latter are being deprived of the right to marry the one they love, a privilege not denied to heterosexuals.
0 Replies
 
Wiyaka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 11:27 am
Coastal, your last paragraph is absolutely correct. However, in regard to Federal benefits, IMO the gender or sex of one's partner should make no difference when it comes to allowing benefits, that is discrimination. Imagine this being allowed for your family members. It would have made differences in their lives, in many ways.

After some reflection on this, I think I may start a thread about this. First I have to rummage though my office and emails to get the exact details right, as to what the laws are called, exactly when enacted and so on. Once armed with this information, I can present precise information for further discussion.

We may disagree on these issue, but I don't like name calling any more than you. It inflames the emotions and does no good. With that, I'm off this thread for good. As Uncle Selo used to say, "'Nuff said."
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 11:28 am
flyboy804 wrote:
The laws are written so that if you love someone of the opposite sex, you may marry. If you love someone of the same sex you may not. Since heterosexuals love those of the opposite sex, and homosexuals love those of the same sex the latter are being deprived of the right to marry the one they love, a privilege not denied to heterosexuals.


I really don't think this is the thread to debate this issue, but as a quick response I will just say that all laws can be said to help some while hurting others. You cannot make and pass any law that will benefit all people on an individual level. If you want example of what I mean, just ask.

The marriage laws currently on the books are applied equally to all people. You cannot twist things to show that some people are discriminated against until you can show the the law is being applied differently to them than it is to me. Just because someone believes a law is unfair to them personally does not mean they are being discriminated against.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 11:29 am
flyboy804 wrote:
The laws are written so that if you love someone of the opposite sex, you may marry. If you love someone of the same sex you may not. Since heterosexuals love those of the opposite sex, and homosexuals love those of the same sex the latter are being deprived of the right to marry the one they love, a privilege not denied to heterosexuals.



And the laws are also written to deprive a man of the right to have sex with little boys, prostitutes, sheep, and multiple wives. Using your strawman argument, there are a lot of rights and privileges being denied to those who would be so inclined to engage in such behavior.

But there is also no requirement that you love the person you marry, and thus "love" is not a prerequisite to marrying. The laws do not permit homosexuals or non-homosexuals to marry those of the same sex, regardless of whether they love that person or not.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 11:45 am
Ticomaya wrote:
flyboy804 wrote:
The laws are written so that if you love someone of the opposite sex, you may marry. If you love someone of the same sex you may not. Since heterosexuals love those of the opposite sex, and homosexuals love those of the same sex the latter are being deprived of the right to marry the one they love, a privilege not denied to heterosexuals.



And the laws are also written to deprive a man of the right to have sex with little boys, prostitutes, sheep, and multiple wives. Using your strawman argument, there are a lot of rights and privileges being denied to those who would be so inclined to engage in such behavior.

But there is also no requirement that you love the person you marry, and thus "love" is not a prerequisite to marrying. The laws do not permit homosexuals or non-homosexuals to marry those of the same sex, regardless of whether they love that person or not.


Ticomaya, that arguement has been done to death and it is no more true now than when it was first used. The reasons why have already been put forth as well on this thread.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 12:10 pm
revel wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
flyboy804 wrote:
The laws are written so that if you love someone of the opposite sex, you may marry. If you love someone of the same sex you may not. Since heterosexuals love those of the opposite sex, and homosexuals love those of the same sex the latter are being deprived of the right to marry the one they love, a privilege not denied to heterosexuals.



And the laws are also written to deprive a man of the right to have sex with little boys, prostitutes, sheep, and multiple wives. Using your strawman argument, there are a lot of rights and privileges being denied to those who would be so inclined to engage in such behavior.

But there is also no requirement that you love the person you marry, and thus "love" is not a prerequisite to marrying. The laws do not permit homosexuals or non-homosexuals to marry those of the same sex, regardless of whether they love that person or not.


Ticomaya, that arguement has been done to death and it is no more true now than when it was first used. The reasons why have already been put forth as well on this thread.


What exactly do you find incorrect about my post?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 12:21 pm
flyboy writes
Quote:
The laws are written so that if you love someone of the opposite sex, you may marry. If you love someone of the same sex you may not. Since heterosexuals love those of the opposite sex, and homosexuals love those of the same sex the latter are being deprived of the right to marry the one they love, a privilege not denied to heterosexuals.


Tico writes
Quote:
But there is also no requirement that you love the person you marry, and thus "love" is not a prerequisite to marrying. The laws do not permit homosexuals or non-homosexuals to marry those of the same sex, regardless of whether they love that person or not.


Revel writes
Quote:
Ticomaya, that arguement has been done to death and it is no more true now than when it was first used. The reasons why have already been put forth as well on this thread.


Flyboy draws an erroneous assumption that if you love someone of the opposite sex you may marry. No, you cannot if you are too young, if the person you love is a minor or already married or too closely related or too mentally impaired to consent or does not want to marry you or you are already married or, at least in most states, s/he is in prison, has certain communicable diseases, or, as it stands now, if s/he is the same sex as you.

As Tico points out, on the other hand, so long as none of the mentioned conditions disallowing marriage exist, you can marry any person who consents to marry you even if you hate each other. There is nothing whatsoever on the application or the license itself that even asks for information regarding affection , fidelity, love, or concern for the other person. Every person in the United States has the exact same rights in that regard to marry. Why should gay same sex couples be given the right to marry and straight same sex couples not have the same right? If there was no other reason whatsoever, that should be enough to keep marriage as it is currently defined and provide civil unions for everybody else who wants them, male, female, gay, straight, or any combination. Just pick a different word than marriage for the civil unions, and everybody still has the exact same rights, the institution of marriage is protected, and nobody is discriminated against.

And Revel, maybe the argument is done to death, but some just don't seem to be able to get it. Sometimes good teaching requires a lot of repetition. To see the danger in affording special rights to anybody, gay, straight, male, female, or any combination is not homophobic or any kind of 'ist for that matter. It is simply common good sense.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 12:32 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Why should gay same sex couples be given the right to marry and straight same sex couples not have the same right?


Just to correct facts, you seem to be saying that if gay marriages became legal, marriages between two same sex straight people would still be illegal. That would not be the case. I, being totally heterosexual (although Chrissee would vehemently disagree :wink: ) would certainly be allowed to marry another straight guy if gay marriage, or more appropriately, same sex marriage, became legal.

Again, no discrimination would be present against heterosexuals just as there is no discrimination now against homosexuals. Using the discrimination argument to either support or oppose same sex marriage is a non-starter in my very humble opinion.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 12:39 pm
That is a possibility CR, but I'm not seeing any advocacy for that. I'm not seeing the argument presented that any same sex couple, gay or straight, is being discriminated against. The argument is that it is only gays who are being discriminated against.

But assuming you are right, would the same rules about no close blood relations, etc. still apply? People can say such 'nitpicking' is silly, but there are no laws out there in which the picky details do not become important sooner or later.

Evenso as it stands now, everybody of all races, cultures, creeds, and gender have identical constitutional rights and rights under the laws of their various states. Changing those laws opens up so many cans of worms on many fronts that any possible homophobia drops way down on the list of what is at issue.
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 06/16/2024 at 10:01:43