The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

They have no more right to impose their beliefs than any person that believes in nothing.

Their rights are being infringed on. Their rights to believe and follow the God of their choosing. Their right to celebrate their love of their diety in public. Their right to keep their sacred traditions from being corrupted.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Abraham Lincoln wrote:
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

This country was founded upon the far-reaching and enlightened concepts that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and all men are endowed with inalienable rights. As a nation, we have expanded those concepts to include women, blacks . . . all of mankind.

Far be it from me to disagree with Abraham Lincoln, and with the moral conclusions you draw from his speech. I even agree that same sex marriage is a good idea. I am only disagreeing with the allegation of homophobia to the opponents of same-sex marriages, and to the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment proscribes that only couples of different sexes be allowed to marry.

Debra_Law wrote:

Therefore, if another person frames the issues in a manner that entitles them to fundmental rights while justifying the notion of depriving others of their fundamental rights . . . well, I guess it's their right to do so. But, I can vehemently disagree.

Of course you can, but your point I was responding to was that you can't understand them, and I think you really don't. Let me try to explain it with a silly but obvious example of a marriage to which you would react like the religious right reacts to same sex marriage: Somebody shows up at city hall and announces that he intends to marry himself. On being refused a license, he claims that he has an equal-protection right to marry whomever he wants. It so happens that he wants to marry himself, so his rights are being violated if marriage is defined as requiring more than one party. How do you respond to his Fourteenth amendment argument? Perhaps by alleging that the Fourteenth amendment isn't what this is about, it's about the definition of marriage, and marriage, by definition, requires more than one partner? That it's not about his equal rights, it's about the nature of the contract? If so, how do you distinguish this argument from the argument made by the opponents of same-sex marriage?

0 Replies

That is nothing less than horseshit, McG. Religionists are not infringed from expressing their beliefs publicly, unless and until they attempt to use the resources or the facilities of a secular state to do so. No one has the right to use the secular state as a platform for the proselytizing of their superstition. It is just plain nonsense to suggest that one's rights are infringed upon when they are prevented from imposing on others. No one prevents the religionists from believing in and following the god of their choosing. They are simply not allowed to impose that on others.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

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.

The opponents of gay marriage really need to get on the same page here. Either marriage laws are fair and equal to everyone (as Ticomaya maintains) or else they're not (as CoastalRat suggests). On the one hand, equality and fairness are what we expect from our laws, but then Ticomaya needs to explain why we should think that the law, which prohibits both homosexuals and heterosexuals from marrying persons of the same sex, is something other than illusory fairness and sham equality. On the other hand, if marriage laws deviate from our basic tenets of fairness and equality, then CoastalRat needs to explain the justification for this departure.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

The opponents of gay marriage really need to get on the same page here.

I'm not sure we aren't, but if we aren't, I do not believe there is any such requirement ... certainly not because you have concluded so.

Joe wrote:

On the one hand, equality and fairness are what we expect from our laws, but then Ticomaya needs to explain why we should think that the law, which prohibits both homosexuals and heterosexuals from marrying persons of the same sex, is something other than illusory fairness and sham equality.

No, I don't need to explain anything. There will always be a group of folk who feel slighted by a certain law, and maintain that it isn't fair. I certainly feel no compulsion to provide an argument of why a prohibition of SSM is not fair, any more than I feel a need to argue why the prohibition of possession of marijuana isn't fair.

0 Replies

A prohibition on the possession of marijuana is predicated upon a contention that this is a dangerous drug which will harm the possessor, and entails a high potential of the proliferation of its use due to the social context.

I would be interested to see someone attempt to apply the same standard to gay marriages, and explain in what regard such a contract could be shown to be harmful to the participants and others in society.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
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.

The opponents of gay marriage really need to get on the same page here. Either marriage laws are fair and equal to everyone (as Ticomaya maintains) or else they're not (as CoastalRat suggests). On the one hand, equality and fairness are what we expect from our laws, but then Ticomaya needs to explain why we should think that the law, which prohibits both homosexuals and heterosexuals from marrying persons of the same sex, is something other than illusory fairness and sham equality. On the other hand, if marriage laws deviate from our basic tenets of fairness and equality, then CoastalRat needs to explain the justification for this departure.

I knew I shouldn't have come back to this thread. Curiosity is a terrible thing sometimes. Joe, you seem to believe that everyone who opposes gay marriage should have the same reasons for doing so. Opinions as to why gay marriage should not be made legal will vary among those who oppose it.

Personally, I think you misunderstand Tico here. If you ask, I think you will find that he too believes that the current laws on marriage are being applied equally and fairly to everyone, thus no discrimination. Some may not like the law and feel it is unfair (Tico's point) but that does not mean it is discriminatory. I could be wrong and Tico and I really do disagree on this, but again, both are just opinions and while obviously they both cannot be right, it does not mean we both cannot oppose gay marriage based on our own opinion.

Gosh, hope that makes sense.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

A prohibition on the possession of marijuana is predicated upon a contention that this is a dangerous drug which will harm the possessor, and entails a high potential of the proliferation of its use due to the social context.

And I'm sure you'll agree there are a great number of folks who would argue that marijuana is not a dangerous drug, that it doesn't harm the user, nor is it a "gateway drug." These are folks that push for its decriminalization or legalization, and I'm sure they don't feel it is fair that they aren't able to legally engage in the behavior they choose, while alcohol possession and consumption is perfectly legal.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
The opponents of gay marriage really need to get on the same page here.

I'm not sure we aren't, but if we aren't, I do not believe there is any such requirement ... certainly not because you have concluded so.

Perhaps it's not a requirement, but it would certainly make things a lot easier for those of us trying to understand the anti-gay marriage position.

Ticomaya wrote:

No, I don't need to explain anything. There will always be a group of folk who feel slighted by a certain law, and maintain that it isn't fair. I certainly feel no compulsion to provide an argument of why a prohibition of SSM is not fair, any more than I feel a need to argue why the prohibition of possession of marijuana isn't fair.

What a terrific response! It should be on the masthead of the National Review:

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death anything except my response to it" -- Ticomaya, 2005

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

[Personally, I think you misunderstand Tico here. If you ask, I think you will find that he too believes that the current laws on marriage are being applied equally and fairly to everyone, thus no discrimination. I could be wrong and Tico and I really do disagree on this, but again, both are just opinions and while obviously they both cannot be right, it does not mean we both cannot oppose gay marriage based on our own opinion.

Gosh, hope that makes sense.

It made sense to me, and I think you are correct on all your points.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Personally, I think you misunderstand Tico here. If you ask, I think you will find that he too believes that the current laws on marriage are being applied equally and fairly to everyone, thus no discrimination. Some may not like the law and feel it is unfair (Tico's point) but that does not mean it is discriminatory.

I agree: I also think that's Ticomaya's position. I also think it's wrong, but I believe I characterized it correctly.

CoastalRat wrote:

I could be wrong and Tico and I really do disagree on this, but again, both are just opinions and while obviously they both cannot be right, it does not mean we both cannot oppose gay marriage based on our own opinion.

Gosh, hope that makes sense.

I am convinced that you and Ticomaya disagree on this. And you're correct: if you disagree, you can't both be right. I'm just trying to figure out if only one of you or if both of you are wrong.

0 Replies

First observing that Setanta is both insulting and wrong concerning his own unique interpretation of straw man and to most others he disagrees with, which fact I will not further comment on and willattempt to ignore, the point is that the vast majority of Americans do see value in the traditional family and do not wish to have the definition changed. It does not automatically follow that these same persons have any problem with those who for whatever reason do not wish to or do not have opportunity to enter into traditional marriage to adopt other means to acquire benefits and protections that they desire.

There is no physical or legal or cultural or financial or social barrier to gays or anybody else marrying somebody of the opposite sex. That they choose not to do so should not be the problem of everybody else anymore than the choice of those who do not want to go to church should be the problem of those who do. (This last part I threw in to accommodate the anti-traditional-marriage group's fixation on religious reasons for wanting to preserve traditional marriage.)

To conclude that those who want traditional marriage preserved are homophobic or against equal rights or all religious fanatics is utter nonsense.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

And I'm sure you'll agree there are a great number of folks who would argue that marijuana is not a dangerous drug, that it doesn't harm the user, nor is it a "gateway drug." These are folks that push for its decriminalization or legalization, and I'm sure they don't feel it is fair that they aren't able to legally engage in the behavior they choose, while alcohol possession and consumption is perfectly legal.

However, there is a body of scientific evidence to the effect that smoking marijuana is at least as harmful, and many scientists contend, more harmful than smoking tobacco. I rather doubt that you'll be able to find a body of scientific evidence to the effect that the contractual alliance of two people of the same gender does phyical harm to the participants or others. I consider the argument that this is only a case of objecting to a law with which one does not agree, as is the case with the drug laws, is simplistic and disingenuous. One can adduce evidence of the dangerous character of drug use. Do you then contend that one could reasonably adduce evidence of gay marriage being harmful to the participants, or to society at large?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

First observing that Setanta is both insulting and wrong concerning his own unique interpretation of straw man and to most others he disagrees with, which fact I will not further comment on and willattempt to ignore . . .

A classic and feeble attempt at a parting shot. When you restate, and in the process mis-state, someone else's argument, because it will be more convenient to demolish the argument as you have stated it, as opposed to the manner in which it has actually been presented, you have erected a straw man. Once again, for however unpleasant it is for you to have your statements denied, and your rhetorical style characterized in an unflattering manner, it does not constitute a personal remark, and you are only insulted because you choose to take offense.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
No, I don't need to explain anything. There will always be a group of folk who feel slighted by a certain law, and maintain that it isn't fair. I certainly feel no compulsion to provide an argument of why a prohibition of SSM is not fair, any more than I feel a need to argue why the prohibition of possession of marijuana isn't fair.

What a terrific response! It should be on the masthead of the National Review:

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death anything except my response to it" -- Ticomaya, 2005

While I would consider it a great honor to be quoted in the National Review, I'm not sure but I suspect the quote has been taken out of context, or perhaps simply invented.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

First observing that Setanta is both insulting and wrong concerning his own unique interpretation of straw man and to most others he disagrees with, which fact I will not further comment on and willattempt to ignore . . .

When I was but a newbie here at A2K, it was explained to me that Setanta was someone who was good at expressing his ideas without personal attacks, and I should emulate him. (This unsolicited advice came to me even though I was not engaging in personal attacks at the time.) His path and mine have only crossed a few times, but I have certainly never seen anything to substantiate that early advice.

0 Replies

Cheers to you as well Ticomaya. On the entire subject of opposition to gay marriage, i think another banner would be appopriate:

If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

-- Anatole France

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I am convinced that you and Ticomaya disagree on this. And you're correct: if you disagree, you can't both be right. I'm just trying to figure out if only one of you or if both of you are wrong.

Not to belabor the point since in my opinion it is not exactly important, but I think Tico and I are in perfect agreement. We both believe that current marriage laws are being applied equally and fairly to all Americans. We both believe that the gay community believes these laws to be discriminatory toward them. We have both argued that nearly every law written will be seen by someone or some group as being unfair to them (re: my example of tax laws), but that does not mean we should change the law just because someone or some group yells loudly that it is unfair to them.

I don't see any difference in Tico's position and mine. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying in thinking that our arguments are diametrically opposite and incompatible. If so, I apologize for being so dense.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
And I'm sure you'll agree there are a great number of folks who would argue that marijuana is not a dangerous drug, that it doesn't harm the user, nor is it a "gateway drug." These are folks that push for its decriminalization or legalization, and I'm sure they don't feel it is fair that they aren't able to legally engage in the behavior they choose, while alcohol possession and consumption is perfectly legal.

However, there is a body of scientific evidence to the effect that smoking marijuana is at least as harmful, and many scientists contend, more harmful than smoking tobacco. I rather doubt that you'll be able to find a body of scientific evidence to the effect that the contractual alliance of two people of the same gender does phyical harm to the participants or others. I consider the argument that this is only a case of objecting to a law with which one does not agree, as is the case with the drug laws, is simplistic and disingenuous. One can adduce evidence of the dangerous character of drug use. Do you then contend that one could reasonably adduce evidence of gay marriage being harmful to the participants, or to society at large?

My use of the example of "possession of marijuana" was to illustrate that arguments can be made on both sides as to the issue of the "fairness" of the law. While I'm aware there is scientific evidence to support the position that marijuana is dangerous and should not be legal (and frankly I'm surprised you agree, as I had you pegged differently), I'm sure the supporters of marijuana legalization could point to scientific evidence that supports their position that marijuana is less dangerous than alchoholic liquor. Be that as it may, I was not trying to suggest I had empirical evidence I would adduce that would suggest SSM is harmful to participants or society; nor am I suggesting that none exists.

0 Replies

Having smoked marijuana casually all of my adult life, and even before, i speak from personal experience in saying that the evidence for damage to the lungs is compelling. My point has been that the objection to laws prohibiting gay marriage is based upon the concept of equal protection, which is basic to our legal system. I do consider alcohol and tobacco to be two of the most dangerous drugs known to mankind, and therefore consider laws against marijuana use to be hypocritical. Nevertheless, i can see the compelling interest the state has in prohibiting or regulating the use of dangerous drugs such as marijuana or alcohol.

I see no such compelling interest of the state in prohibiting gay marriage. Miss Law has quoted in this thread a relavant portion of the Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia decision, and quoted it quite extensively in another thread. The Commonwealth Attorney arguing for Virginia in a case arising from their laws prohibiting marriage among different "races" failed in the attempt to make a case that allowing blacks and whites to marry would have deletrious effects upon the Commonwealth and its citizens. I agree completely with her linking the issue of gay marriage and that of interracial marriage. I can see no compelling interest of the state in prohibiting such marriages, nor have i yet seen evidence advanced here to suggest that the state has a compelling interest in such laws. It is further worth noting that the great majority of state marriage laws and regulations prior the the rise of this controversy were mute on the subject of the gender of participants. I rather believe that as the future unfolds, prohibitions on gay marriage will be seen as the moral and legal equivalent of the prohibition once made against interracial marriage.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know