23
   

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 07:36 am
McGentrix wrote:
Nope. That's it. That is the extent of my arguement against gay marriage. I have noted many times that I am all for the government getting COMPLETELY out of the marriage business and granting only civil unions between consenting adults.

I refuse to accept the demise of my wifes beliefs though. Therefore, I will refuse to accept homo-sexual marriage as it would be without a clarification of seperation of church and state. I refuse to have the government force it's judgement on any religious institution. I refuse to accept a future than bans religious belief.


What on earth do you mean?

How does giving gay people normal rights ban religious belief?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 07:41 am
Because too many people want to eliminate it as they see religion as a threat. It doesn't directly link to gay-marriage, but listen to the arguements being made.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 07:47 am
Please justify your view that allowing gay marriage will result in the elimination of marriage!

I mean, don't just say that lots of folk get cross about many christians' prejudice - justify how your wife's religion woul be banned!!

I am waiting with bated breath for this one...

Edit: Damn - I meant: Please justify your view that allowing gay marriage will result in the elimination of christianity!
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 08:16 am
HoT wrote:
Quote:
All are equally protected except for the class of "designated victims".


It seems to me that the designators of the victim class are the perpetrators. We wouldn't know if someone was a Jew-hater if he only shot his rifle at buildings, but when he limits his aim to synagogues we catch right on.

When three thugs pound on the head of the turban clad individual while yelling words to the effect of "We're beating you up because the way you look makes us feel icky." I think we all all capable of making the leap of logic that the assault might not be a crime of property but might involve a challenge to the thugs belief system of exclusion and that they have selected this individual to perform an act of violence on, ignoring all others nearby because they fit the thug's notion of the norm.

The victim is not just a victim of an assault, that's unfortunate enough, he's the victim of the assault because the perpetrators selected him based on their beliefs. That's the hate part.

Joe Nation
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 08:25 am
Joe Nation wrote:
HoT wrote:
Quote:
All are equally protected except for the class of "designated victims".


It seems to me that the designators of the victim class are the perpetrators. We wouldn't know if someone was a Jew-hater if he only shot his rifle at buildings, but when he limits his aim to synagogues we catch right on.

When three thugs pound on the head of the turban clad individual while yelling words to the effect of "We're beating you up because the way you look makes us feel icky." I think we all all capable of making the leap of logic that the assault might not be a crime of property but might involve a challenge to the thugs belief system of exclusion and that they have selected this individual to perform an act of violence on, ignoring all others nearby because they fit the thug's notion of the norm.

The victim is not just a victim of an assault, that's unfortunate enough, he's the victim of the assault because the perpetrators selected him based on their beliefs. That's the hate part.

Joe Nation


Do you think people miss such simple reasonable logic on purpose to support their beliefs?
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 08:33 am
Another champion of logic has joined the discussion - the more, the merrier.

"Assault" is never a crime against property, for starters, and is already criminal, whether the victim wears a turban or not. Second: why is a synagogue, in particular, more protected than an Episcopal church, say, or a Buddhist temple? Unless you can answer those questions you have no argument in support of "hate crimes legislation".

Worry not, with the vacancies coming up in the US Supreme Court all such legislation will be thrown out as inconsistent with the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 08:42 am
Falwell has been the driving force behind this amendment for the last year. That alone should make one wonder about its legitimacy as a real social concern, IMO.

Also, I think many are missing the thrust of the original post. The wording of the amendments voted on will not just ban gay marriage, but also civil unions. The titles and promotion of the amendments was misleading. (purposely?) Do civil unions intimidate, ick you out, or threaten your own heterosexual marriage?


http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/crossafire-6.png
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 08:44 am
Instigate wrote:
A side note:

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


I think we should take one issue at a time. But you might be right that it might be more a matter of distaste rather than religious beliefs for the general population stance on gay marriage.

I am wondering how many of those people that voted to ban gay marriage actually have any close relatives or friends that are gay. My sister is gay and we have kind of knew it since she was young although she didn't "come out" until she went to college. Our family has always been fundamentalist christians and my dad has always been very strict on men and women being in their proper roles as far as looks and behavior. We went through a lot of tough years but now we have finally gotten to a point where my sister lifestyle is accepted by my family up to a point. She has a had a partner for some 13 years or so and her partner has a disease (can't think of the proper name for it but it is the one where everything hardens until they die, it is a horrible one). It has been so sad to see such a vital woman get so frail. When she finally has to go to the hospital and is laying on a bed dying I just hope that there are some understanding people in the hospital so that my sister can visit her. Most of her own family has died and my sister will be all she will have in the end to comfort her. For that matter I hope I will be able to visit her in her last days.

When it is personal I think people look at it differently. Just look at the way Cheney acts about it. You get the feeling that he feels differently about this whole issue just by his facial expressions when it is brought up.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 08:48 am
HofT wrote:
Another champion of logic has joined the discussion - the more, the merrier.

"Assault" is never a crime against property, for starters, and is already criminal, whether the victim wears a turban or not. Second: why is a synagogue, in particular, more protected than an Episcopal church, say, or a Buddhist temple? Unless you can answer those questions you have no argument in support of "hate crimes legislation".

Worry not, with the vacancies coming up in the US Supreme Court all such legislation will be thrown out as inconsistent with the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution.


If someone chooses episcopal churches to vandalize then it is in the same category as the one joe mentioned.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 11:57 am
I am in way over my head, but I am really enjoying the swim.

HoT wrote:
Quote:
"Assault" is never a crime against property, for starters, and is already criminal, whether the victim wears a turban or not.


My bad: I meant to write it as assault being a physical crime, thus:

Quote:
I think we are all capable of making the leap of logic that this assault might not be a crime of violence against a person, but against a particular kind of person whose presence might involve a challenge to the thug's belief system of exclusion and that they have selected this individual to perform an act of violence on, ignoring all others nearby because they fit the thug's notion of the norm.
(edited portion in blue)

What I am saying, badly I agree, is that all assaults are not created equal. There would be no assault in this case without the turban. This assault comes from the hate within the prepetrators and is an act of terrorism, a crime with a message for those beyond just the primary victim. That's a greater crime than simple assault.

Quote:
Second: why is a synagogue, in particular, more protected than an Episcopal church, say, or a Buddhist temple? Unless you can answer those questions you have no argument in support of "hate crimes legislation".


It's not, it the people who frequent there who are the target not the building. If the crimes alleged were directed solely at Episcopalians to the exclusion of other religious sects mightn't one wonder if the perpetrator had a particular and exclusive jones against the Episcopalians and might not we designate therefore a particular kind of criminal law to those acts?

We already designate Sexual Assault differently from Assault and Domestic Assault is regarded yet differently, even criminally differently, in regards to punishment.

Why not hate as as severe a motive as sex-hate, why not say if the motive goes beyond the punch in the face of the victim that the crime does too?

Those guys in Texas who chained their victim to their pickup and dragged him to his death didn't want to kill a man, they wanted to kill a black man and they wanted their actions to speak beyond that dusty stretch of farm road.
Is the Supreme Court going to say that such actions aren't heinous enough in their design to be beyond even our most harshest laws?

Hate exists. Hate exists as a significant motive in some crimes, it ought to be dealt with as such.

Joe Nation
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:03 pm
Quote:
think we should take one issue at a time. But you might be right that it might be more a matter of distaste rather than religious beliefs for the general population stance on gay marriage.


It's BOTH.

Earlier, HoT mentioned the 'ick factor'. Earlier still I referred to 'visceral disgust'. Homophobia is clearly not a consequence of Baptists.

But there are two points to bear in mind.

One, the groups and organizations working to ban gay marriage and, as the lead in here demonstrates, to put whatever legal impediments and penalties in place such that homosexual couplings are discouraged in the community are exclusively religious groups and organizations - mainly radical christian zealots. If anyone can find me a single group not so identified, I'll send them twenty bucks.

Second, even if there is an 'ick factor', so what? That might speak to how we go about prudently strategizing towards equality for homosexuals, but it tells us nothing about what we 'ought' to do. An 'ick response', or any other evidence of a cultural norm or taboo (specific to a region or cultural group) in violation, tells us ONLY that such a response can or does occur. And every bit of progress we have made towards liberty and equality - please get this one folks - has been at the expense of some cultural norm or taboo. In Vancouver, there have been a large number of very violent gay beatings, including murder. The preponderance of those convicted have been from the Sikh community and skinhead groups. The 'ick factor' in all its purity and glory.

There is NO argument seeking to keep or place homosexual behavior in some second or demonized class which holds water. Not one. Such behaviors exist broadly in the animal world and are ubiquitous in human societies, so any argument from nature sits in support, not in opposition. Arguments claiming damage to others in the community are spurious, one for one, without empirical basis. Arguments from biblical authority are exactly that.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:16 pm
The Catholic Church is a mainly radical christian zealot organization?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:18 pm
McGentrix wrote:
How does defining marriage as "marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.'' constitute homophobia?

If it said "The law says fags do not deserve any rights." I would say that it smacked of homophobia. But it doesn't say that.


I didn't realize this was a semantics discussion.....
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:20 pm
Quote:
the groups and organizations ... are exclusively religious groups and organizations - mainly radical christian zealots.


I think the Catholic Church falls into the religious group category......
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:22 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
How does defining marriage as "marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.'' constitute homophobia?

If it said "The law says fags do not deserve any rights." I would say that it smacked of homophobia. But it doesn't say that.


I didn't realize this was a semantics discussion.....


You don't seem to realize a lot of things. A semantics discussion is exactly what this is. An argument over the definition of the word "marriage". Neither side seems willing to negotiate the definition so the debate wears on.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:23 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
the groups and organizations ... are exclusively religious groups and organizations - mainly radical christian zealots.


I think the Catholic Church falls into the religious group category......


Ok, I'll buy that.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:25 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
How does defining marriage as "marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman.'' constitute homophobia?

If it said "The law says fags do not deserve any rights." I would say that it smacked of homophobia. But it doesn't say that.


I didn't realize this was a semantics discussion.....


You don't seem to realize a lot of things. A semantics discussion is exactly what this is. An argument over the definition of the word "marriage". Neither side seems willing to negotiate the definition so the debate wears on.


Oh but I understand you...... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:26 pm
Smile

Now where were we? Oh, yes.

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic.

And what Blatham said above.

Joe
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:31 pm
How could an anti gay marriage amendment be anything other than homophobic?

The bigger question is, is homosexuality an air born or a blood born contagion? How does one catch this disease? And if it's not a contagious disease, then why be afraid of it?

How big a pussy do you have to be to be afraid of something you can't catch and can't hurt you?

These are some of the questions I'd like answered......
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2004 12:32 pm
for those who haven't seen this wonderful piece, no longer available at the Times archive, so I'll paste it...
Quote:

Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name

Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

Squawk and Milou, male chinstrap penguins,
are among several homosexual pairs at the Central Park Zoo
in Manhattan. Homosexual behavior has been documented
in some 450 animal species, one researcher says.

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.

"They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach.

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."

But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?

The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.

Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, `The females are very affectionate.' "

Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.) Last summer the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law.

"Sexual Exuberance" was also cited in 2000 by gay rights groups opposed to Ballot Measure 9, a proposed Oregon statute prohibiting teaching about homosexuality or bisexuality in public schools. The measure lost.

In his book Mr. Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild.

Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds, too, may persist for years.

Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity.

Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex.

Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on the topic was that "people don't want to do the research because they don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality."

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

For Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, their homosexuality "is about bond formation," she said, "not about being sexual for life."

She said that studies showed that adult male dolphins formed long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Ms. Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added.

But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable," Mr. Bagemihl said. "We look at animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support for the nurture side as well." He cited as an example the ruff, a type of Arctic sandpiper. There are four different classes of male ruffs, each differing from the others genetically. The two that differ most from each other are most similar in their homosexual behaviors.

Ms. Zuk said, "You have inclinations that are more or less supported by our genes and in some environmental circumstances get expressed." She used the analogy of right- or left-handedness, thought to be genetically based. "But you can teach naturally left-handed children to use their right hand," she pointed out.

Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."

But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."

Mr. Bagemihl is also wary of extrapolating. "In Nazi Germany, one very common interpretation of homosexuality was that it was animalistic behavior, subhuman," he said.

What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think."

"You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate."

In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction."

"Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why are we surprised? People are animals."
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 07/20/2024 at 06:59:52