The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Ticomaya wrote:

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?

I bolded the part I disagreed with. Debra Law and others have said that if two consenting adults want to marry that is a different issue than if one consenting adult person and a child who cannot consent or animal that cannot consent. It is also a different issue when it comes to such close relations marrying for health reasons.

Although I don't see anything wrong with having multiple spouses. (I can't imagine anyone wanting to do such a thing. :wink:)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

You and I are in total agreement on this one Fox. I was just pointing out that you appeared to say that if gay marriage became legal, heterosexuals would be discriminated against because we could not marry someone of the same sex. Maybe I misread your post or your meaning went over my head, a distinct possibility.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

Yes, it's true: gays and straights have equal rights when it comes to marrying someone of the opposite sex. But that's sham equality. As Anatole France pointed out: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Wait a minute, that sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before?

Well, like I said: The law, as it currently stands, permits only one class of persons to have state-sanctioned affective relationships and to enjoy the rights and benefits that pertain to those relationships. Heterosexuals, in that respect, are clearly more equal than homosexuals.

0 Replies

Homophobia?

revel wrote:

I will give over in the arugment of not everyone who disagrees with SSM is a homophobic. There are a lot of reasons that a person might disagree with SSM.

IMO I think they pretty well all come back to some kind of moral reason.

Here is a deifinition of homphobic from an online dictionary.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=homophobia&x=9&y=12

One entry found for homophobia.

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
- ho·mo·pho·bic /-'fO-bik/ adjective

Revel:

You state that not everyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is homophobic. You state that there are lots of reasons, unrelated to homophobia, for disagreeing with same-sex marriage. However, you completely contradict your statement when you say all those reasons are related to some "moral reason." Moral disapproval of same-sex marriage is the very essence of homophobia (which you defined) because all the possible objections to same-sex marriage are grounded in irrational fears, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

I have yet to find an argument against same-sex marriage that is rational and unrelated to homophobia. All the arguments against same-sex marriage are born from a fear or aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals.

Discrimination is unequal treatment of classes of persons who are similarly situated.

Heterosexual persons and homsexual persons are similarly situated. They are persons who choose to form intimate relationships through coupling.

Coupling, defined by the Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary:

Quote:

Main Entry: 2cou·ple
Pronunciation: 'k&-p&l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cou·pled; cou·pling /-p(&-)li[ng]/
transitive senses

1 a : to connect for consideration together b : to join for combined effect

2 a : to fasten together : LINK b : to bring (two electric circuits) into such close proximity as to permit mutual influence

3 : to join in marriage or sexual union

Here is an irrefutable fact: People, whether they are homosexuals or heterosexuals, form couples. They connect and fasten to each other; they join together for consideration together, for combined effect, and to permit mutual influence.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The right to join with another person in a legally-recognized relationship, (a relationship that bestows benefits and imposes duties through countless state laws), is a fundamental right.

Marriage is regulated by the laws of every state. In every state, the couple must secure a license to get married. The laws of every state recognize and give legal effect to persons who have coupled themselves in heterosexual relationships by allowing them to secure a marriage license, but denies the same to persons who have coupled themselves in homosexual relationships.

The power of the state to regulate marriage is not unlimited. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall deprive any person of equal protection under the law.

The laws in most states discriminate between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. The laws in most states subject persons who are similarly situated (persons who apply for marriage licenses in order to marry and give legal effect to their coupling) to unequal treatment. When a fundamental right is involved, i.e., the fundamental right to marry, the state regulation that discriminates between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples must serve a compelling governmental objectives (or interests) and that the discriminatory means employed must be necessary and narrowly tailored to the achievement of those objectives (or interests).

Although revel states "There are a lot of reasons that a person might disagree with SSM," I have yet to learn of a reason that satisfies an equal protection analysis.

How does state denial of marriage licenses to homosexual couples serve a compelling state objective or interest?

Moral disapproval of same-sex marriages is grounded in homophobia (as the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality) and does not serve a compelling governmental objective or interest. Our United States Supreme Court cases have made it clear than an adversion to a particular group or class of persons can never justify discriminatory laws. Lawrence v. Texas.

The Supreme Court has conclusively stated: (1) the fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process. Lawrence v. Texas.

Under the Equal Protection Clause, moral disapproval is never a legitimate (let alone, compelling) state interest. Moral disapproval can never justify a state law that bans homosexual conduct, but not heterosexual conduct. Moral disapproval of homosexuals is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review (let alone a strict scrutiny review) under the Equal Protection Clause.

The state, through a multitude of laws, confers many economic and noneconomic benefits upon persons based on marital status. The problem is, the state holds the key to gaining that marital status. The state allows opposite-sex couples to obtain marital status simply by application to the state for a marriage license, but excludes same-sex couples from attaining marital status by denying them the right to apply for a marriage license. The inevitable inference is that the denial of a marriage license to homosexual couples is born of animosity toward the class (homosexual couples) that it affects.

See, e.g., ROMER v. EVANS.

The Supreme Court has conclusively stated that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest unrelated to moral disapproval , is NEVER a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.

Is there any reason compelling enough and unrelated to moral disapproval that would justify the unequal treatment of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples? Is there a compelling governmental objective that would make the denial of marriage licenses to homosexual couples necessary to achieve that objective?

There are many people who have entered this thread and have objected to the title of this thread. They insist that they are against same-sex marriage, but at the same time, they insist that their reasons for discriminating against same-sex couples and opposing same-sex marriage have nothing to do with homophobia (moral disapproval of same-sex marriage based on irrational fears of or aversion to homosexuals or homosexuality). They insist that there are reasons, unrelated to homophobia, that justify a ban on same-sex marriages.

WHAT ARE THOSE REASONS? Merely stating indignantly, "I don't want to be branded as homophobic, I just don't agree with same-sex marriage," begs the question. It doesn't explain why your moral disapproval of same sex marriage alone should serve as a proper basis for treating homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples.

You must state your reasons for your disapproval of same-sex marriage. If your reasons embrace any moral disapproval of same-sex marriage, then you are embracing homophobia.

FOR ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THEY ARE NOT HOMOPHOBIC, please state a legitimate reason -- a reason that is based on something other than moral disapproval of same-sex marriage -- for excluding homosexual couples from the institution of state-recognized marriage.

0 Replies

A key to the attitude of opponents of gay marriages both in the society at large and in this thread is the great aversion they show to the term gay marriage. They insist upon the term same sex marriage, then they further sanitize it by writing SSM. One of our more irrational contributors here even denied that gay marriage is an accurate description, and insisted, with ever more feeble "logic," that same sex marriage is the only acceptable term. So i wonder, do these people envision some perverse, mephistophelean prospect of heterosexual men marrying one another? Or of heterosexual women marrying one another? What else can "same sex marriage" be but the marriage of homosexuals?

0 Replies

Joe wrote:
"Well, like I said: The law, as it currently stands, permits only one class of persons to have state-sanctioned affective relationships and to enjoy the rights and benefits that pertain to those relationships. Heterosexuals, in that respect, are clearly more equal than homosexuals. "

And people who make $20,000/year are more equal in the eyes of the government than people who make $80,000/year because tax rates are more beneficial for the lower income bracket. So I don't get your point? Any and all laws will be considered good by some people while being not as advantageous to others.

But I guess that escapes those who are trying so hard to make this a case of discrimination in order to win people over to what they want.

0 Replies

I also note how this topic has drawn outspoken conservatives of this site like flies to a dung heap . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I also note how this topic has drawn outspoken conservatives of this site like flies to a dung heap . . .

It's drawn a few liberals too. Did you have a point?

0 Replies

Well Debra, I will gladly give you permission to consider me homophobic. If it makes it easier for you to accept the widespread opposition to gay marriage, same sex marriage or whatever anyone here wants to call it. Consider us all homophobic.

Using religious reasons to oppose gay marriage is not an aversion or irrational fear of homosexuality. But if you want to continue to use you great knowledge and your obviously superior intelligence to insist that it is, I guess I have no alternative but to agree with you.

So, continue the name calling all you want. In fact, I would encourage you to do so. Saves you from trying to win over the attitudes of people to your way of thinking. It will only make the other side even more stubborn. So go ahead.

Me, I think I've said all I need to say. Y'all have fun. Meanwhile, the electorate in the country will continue to vote for amendments to guarantee marriage will be defined as it has always been defined, between one man and one woman.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I also note how this topic has drawn outspoken conservatives of this site like flies to a dung heap . . .

It's drawn a few liberals too. Did you have a point?

Yes, and it doesn't surprise me that you obtusely insist upon missing that point. As Hamlet insisted that the lady had protested too much, i'm pointing out that the contention that those who oppose gay marriage are homophobic has brought a sound and a fury of protest--too much protest--from those opposed to the idea, that they, personally, are not homophobic.

0 Replies

In fact, some of my best friends are homophobic . . . but i wouldn't want my son to marry one of them.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I also note how this topic has drawn outspoken conservatives of this site like flies to a dung heap . . .

It's drawn a few liberals too. Did you have a point?

Yes, and it doesn't surprise me that you obtusely insist upon missing that point. As Hamlet insisted that the lady had protested too much, i'm pointing out that the contention that those who oppose gay marriage are homophobic has brought a sound and a fury of protest--too much protest--from those opposed to the idea, that they, personally, are not homophobic.

Do you believe that everyone who opposes same sex marriage is homophobic?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I also note how this topic has drawn outspoken conservatives of this site like flies to a dung heap . . .

It's drawn a few liberals too. Did you have a point?

Yes, and it doesn't surprise me that you obtusely insist upon missing that point. As Hamlet insisted that the lady had protested too much, i'm pointing out that the contention that those who oppose gay marriage are homophobic has brought a sound and a fury of protest--too much protest--from those opposed to the idea, that they, personally, are not homophobic.

It's not a very good point then; just a big generalization with no merit.

0 Replies

Yes, CR, I agree. When the 'other side's' primary defense for support of same-sex marriages is that the 'opposition' is homophobic, it only polarizes the camps more than they already area. Related to your interpretation of my earlier post, you didn't misread me. I was not considering that same sex heterosexuals would also have the right to marry if they chose to do so. And it only stands to reason that if the reason for marriage is to gain the rights and privileges afforded to married couples, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that two old bachelors or two old maids just might chose to do that even though there is no 'coupling' going on.

0 Replies

The primary "defense" of gay marriage which has been adduced time and again in this thread is that marriage is a legal contract regulated by the state, between consenting adults, and that the restriction of it to heterosexual couples of opposite genders discriminates against an entire class of people. Characterizing your opponent's arguments in a false and simplistic manner because that description is easy to refute is the classic strawman, a forte of the Fox.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Using religious reasons to oppose gay marriage is not an aversion or irrational fear of homosexuality.

Why do you hide behind the shield of "religious reasons" to insulate yourself from personal responsibility? What are you saying:

"According to my religious teachings, homosexuality is an abomination unto God. God finds homosexuality to be disgusting and hateful. My religion has an aversion and irrational fear of homosexuality. Therefore, I have 'religous reasons' to oppose gay marriage. Don't blame me, blame God."

You are personally responsible for your beliefs (religously based or otherwise). You are personally responsible when you attempt to impose your "religious" beliefs (that homosexuality is an abomination) on others in society. Don't blame God for your aversion and irrational fear of homosexuality. Don't hide behind your religion; if it's your belief that homosexuality is an abomination . . . at least stand up, take ownership, and be upfront.

0 Replies

Setanta writes

Quote:

"Characterizing your opponent's arguments in a false and simplistic manner because that description is easy to refute is the classic strawman, a forte of the Fox"

And here is the ad hominem attack wrapped in a straw man which is the forte of Setanta. It is neither simplistic nor incorrect to state that all people, gay, straight, male, and female currently have identical rights under the marriage laws. The fact that one wishes the law to be different to better favor himself/herself is immaterial. There are few, if any, laws that do not exclude or disadvantage whole groups of people whether it be legal drinking age, speed limits, non-smoking areas, zoning regulations, or simply people who group together in a communal lifestyle and would appreciate benefits afforded married couples.

What you have is a huge majority of the population who for whatever reason see value in the traditional family and do not want that weakened or diluted by factoring in new and different definitions until marriage eventually has no social or civil significance whatsoever. The sensible approach is to pick a different word and do your own thing in a similar contractual arrangements. That is not discriminatory as those who opt not to participate in traditional marriage are nevertheless not barred from doing so by any social, economic, or cultural standard. Those who would agree to civil unions as a reasonable cmporomise would find a great deal of support and it would be useful to both gays and heterosexuals.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, CR, I agree. When the 'other side's' primary defense for support of same-sex marriages is that the 'opposition' is homophobic, it only polarizes the camps more than they already area. Related to your interpretation of my earlier post, you didn't misread me. I was not considering that same sex heterosexuals would also have the right to marry if they chose to do so. And it only stands to reason that if the reason for marriage is to gain the rights and privileges afforded to married couples, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that two old bachelors or two old maids just might chose to do that even though there is no 'coupling' going on.

Why shouldn't two "old bachelors" be allowed to marry? Why shouldn't two "old maids" be allowed to marry?

Marriage is a contract. The parties to the marriage contract toward each other mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support; they have a mutual duty to support each other out of their individual property and labor; they have a mutual duty to pay for necessaries. Whoever, without lawful excuse, deserts that person's spouse with intent wholly to abandon that spouse or who willfully fails to furnish such food, shelter, clothing, and medical attention as is reasonably necessary and sufficient to keep the life of the spouse from danger and discomfort and the spouse's health from injury, is guilty of a [crime].

Statutory Law: What constitutes marriage: Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between one man and one woman to which the consent of the parties is essential. The marriage relation may be entered into, maintained, annulled, or dissolved only as provided by law.

The state allows persons of the opposite sex to enter a marriage contract wherein the parties contract toward each other mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support.

The state prohibits persons of the same-sex to enter a marriage contract wherein the parties contract toward each other mutual obligations of respect, fidelity, and support.

Marriage is a fundamental right. Obviously, an "old bachelor" and an "old maid" are allowed to marry each other; but why can't two "old bachelors" marry each other? Why can't two "old maids" marry each other? Does the state classification that discriminates against same sex couples serve a compelling governmental objective or interest?

If so . . . what is that compelling governmental objective or interest? Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that moral disapproval alone is insufficient to justify a discriminatory classification. Is there any compelling governmental interest UNRELATED to moral disapproval for the state to allow opposite-sex couples to marry, but not allow same sex-couples?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Those who would agree to civil unions as a reasonable cmporomise would find a great deal of support and it would be useful to both gays and heterosexuals.

A number of jurisdictions have already gone that direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

Quote:

Civil union
Recognised nationwide in:
Denmark (1989)
Norway (1993)
Sweden (1995)
Greenland (1996)
Hungary (1996)
Iceland (1996)
Netherlands (1998)
France (1999)
South Africa (1999)
Belgium (2000)
Canada (federal)1 (2000)
Germany (2001)
Portugal (2001)
Finland (2002)
Liechtenstein (2002)
Austria (2003)
Croatia (2003)
Israel (2004)
Switzerland (federal) (2004)
Luxembourg (2004)
New Zealand2 (2005)
United Kingdom (2005)
Andorra (2005)
Recognised in some regions in:
Argentina (Buenos Aires, Rio Negro) (2003)
Australia (Tasmania) (2004)
Spain (Catalonia and 10 other regions) (1998)
Italy (Toscania, Umbria, Emilia Romagna) (2004)
Brazil (Rio Grande de Sul)(2004)
United States: VT (2000), NJ (2004), CA (1999),
ME (2004), DC (2002), HI (1997)

This doesn't, of course, address the concern of same-sex couples who have deep religious faith and want to be married in their faith. They want the rights of civil union as well as the religious meaning of marriage. They are clearly two distinct issues to many people.

I continue to puzzle over what heterosexuals feel they would lose if homosexuals married.

It seems to me that all of society gains when there are more couples who are willing to take the step of publicly committing to one another. Stability in relationships is something I've hoped we'd all encourage.

<who knew about civil unions in Hawaii since 1997? that was an interesting snippet I hadn't been aware of. Kinda like learning about the relaxed pot laws in Ohio and Alaska>

0 Replies

Thanks for the information, ehBeth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

Quote:

Civil union
Recognised nationwide in:
Denmark (1989)
Norway (1993)
Sweden (1995)
Greenland (1996)
Hungary (1996)
Iceland (1996)
Netherlands (1998)
France (1999)
South Africa (1999)
Belgium (2000)
Canada (federal)1 (2000)
Germany (2001)
Portugal (2001)
Finland (2002)
Liechtenstein (2002)
Austria (2003)
Croatia (2003)
Israel (2004)
Switzerland (federal) (2004)
Luxembourg (2004)
New Zealand2 (2005)
United Kingdom (2005)
Andorra (2005)
Recognised in some regions in:
Argentina (Buenos Aires, Rio Negro) (2003)
Australia (Tasmania) (2004)
Spain (Catalonia and 10 other regions) (1998)
Italy (Toscania, Umbria, Emilia Romagna) (2004)
Brazil (Rio Grande de Sul)(2004)
United States: VT (2000), NJ (2004), CA (1999),
ME (2004), DC (2002), HI (1997)

Interesting. A lower court in the State of New York recently ruled the state marriage laws unconstitutional because same-sex couples were denied the right to marry. Hopefully, the ruling will survive in the state's highest court and we can add New York to the list.

Same-sex "civil unions" (a marriage by any other name is still a marriage) have gained widespread acceptance in the international community. This is probably one of the main reasons why some people are advocating for a federal law designed to specifically prohibit the Supreme Court from taking notice of what is going on in the rest of the civilized world.

It is ironic that the United States of America claims moral superiority based upon our alleged freedoms and preaches to the rest of the world that they ought to adopt our way of life when the rest of the world is laughing at us and mocking us . . . because . . . in many ways, they are far more advanced in the area of civil rights than we are.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know