The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Setanta, I'm curious for your opinion on my posts. I don't mind if it's acrid.

I do not believe "homophobic" accurately describes the above position, ignorant as it may be.

0 Replies

You know what's funny?
I don't think that being homosexual is a "curable" disease, but I'm sure that homophobia IS!

That's gold! I'm going to write that one down...

0 Replies

There was nothing "acrid" in my response. Such characterizations simply heighten the adversarial tenor of the conversation, while contributing nothing to understanding.

I see that you do not provide an answer to the question of why you consider that the practice of homosexual relations might be bad for someone. Rather, you simply deny that it can be homophobic to think in that manner. You may well understand, in that case, why your arguments will lose credibility with your interlocutors.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There was nothing "acrid" in my response.

I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I only meant I was prepared for your opinion, even if it would be strongly against mine. Honestly, no offense intended.

0 Replies

Well, Boss, i came back here to point out that for long as you contend that homosexuals need to be "protected" from the consequences of their sexuality, without adducing a plausible and non-judgmental reason for the statement, others here are justified in considering your motives as being based on homophobic principles, for however good your intent may be.

0 Replies

I've just finsihed my study on Australia legalising homosexual marriages - and I have come up with the affirmative, based on constituitonal, religious and of course, governemnt and legal observations. How do I post an article in word doc on to A2K - is that possible?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There was nothing "acrid" in my response. Such characterizations simply heighten the adversarial tenor of the conversation, while contributing nothing to understanding.

I see that you do not provide an answer to the question of why you consider that the practice of homosexual relations might be bad for someone. Rather, you simply deny that it can be homophobic to think in that manner. You may well understand, in that case, why your arguments will lose credibility with your interlocutors.

In a thread devoted to proving that any negative thoughts on homosexuality are homophobic, I thought it best to start by describing a single case where it is not.

0 Replies

pragmatic wrote:

I've just finsihed my study on Australia legalising homosexual marriages - and I have come up with the affirmative, based on constituitonal, religious and of course, governemnt and legal observations. How do I post an article in word doc on to A2K - is that possible?

On the toolbar at the top of your document, go to "Edit," then click on "Select All" under that rubric. Click on the "Edit" tab again, and select "Copy."

Then come to this site, at which you can either choose to initiate a thread, or to respond to an existing one. In the "Post a reply" windon, right click in the upper left hand corner, and then select "Paste."

Voilà, your self imporant pretentiousness . . . er, i mean, your penetrating analysis . . . will be revealed for all to see, just as soon as you click on the "submit" button.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

When determining whether the state has violated the Fourteenth Amendment through a discriminatory classification, we look at the STATE laws. Therefore, we go to the state statutes (not Britannica.com) to find the definition of "marriage."

Yes, but when Setanta makes a factual statement on what marriage has always been about, Britannica is a more reliable source on the relevant history than state laws are. That's why I quoted Britannica.

Debra_Law wrote:

Marriage is a personal relationship arising out of CONTRACT.

Among other things, yes. But contracts can only bind people that are parties to it, and a marriage between Alice and Bob confers obligations on other people too. So your point about marriage being a contract is not the whole story.

Debra_Law wrote:

"It is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage."

Yes, but the rationale for having an institution can include objectives that are not sine qua nons.

Debra_Law wrote:

When looking at a typical state statute that defines marriage, it cannot be denied that the state discriminates based on the gender of an individual's intended spouse. At one time, state statutes discriminated on the basis of the race of an individual's intended spouse-- and those state statutes were declared unconstitutional because they infringed on the fundamental right to marry.

You are implying, without actually making the case, that gender-based discrimination is as suspect in the eyes of the Supreme Court as race-based discrimination. According to Jay Feinman's Law 101, that is not the case. Feinman, a liberal law professor at Rutgers, sums up the Supreme Court's gender discrimination jurisprudence as not involving one of the "suspect classes" of discrimination that requires a strict scrutiny test. According to him, the Supreme Court requires intermediate scrutiny -- meaning "intermediate" between "being narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest" and "having a rational relation to a legitimate state interest". Of course, Feinman also says that nothing in the constitution says it is supreme law, and you easily debunked that. I am prepared to be debunked again.

Debra_Law wrote:

The Massachusetts Supreme Court considered this argument rejected it under the most deferential standard applied to state laws: the rational basis test.

The federal Supreme Court is not legally bound by the opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's as to whether the proscription of gay marriage fails the rational basis test. And as you said yourself in an earlier post, the federal constitution sets a floor as to how strictly a test is applied. This suggests that the federal Supreme Court, even if it agrees with the Massachusetts court's interpretation of the Massachusetts constitution, may well be less strict in the tests it requires -- and legitimately so. But the federal Supreme Court may well not agree with the reasoning of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. And for what it's worth, I don't either. I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court has been overbearing in its decision.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Voilà, your self imporant pretentiousness . . . er, i mean, your penetrating analysis . . . will be revealed for all to see, just as soon as you click on the "submit" button.

Well, well well - I await your verdict.

0 Replies

SCoates, here is the logical sequence by which your statement has been condemned.

You state that some people may have: ". . . come to the conclusion that homosexuals have strayed and generally be concerned for their spiritual wellfare." So the question is, strayed from what? A further question is, how is their spiritual welfare endangered? A rather obvious conclusion is that those who are concernced with the spiritual welfare of homosexuals are concerned because they consider it abnormal and sinful. Then we're right back to square one, where such attitudes are justifiably condemned as arising from fear or hatred of homosexuals. When someone reads scripture, and says that it teaches them that homosexuality is bad, for whatever good intentions they may have, they are repeating and perpetuating a hateful and homophobic tradition.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The problem which arises from substituting a term, "civil union," for marriage is that other jurisdictions are free to ignore the legal ramifications of what is not a marriage.

I would have thought that the "full faith and credit clause" of the federal constitution binds the states in both cases (civil union and marriage). On the face of it, they both seem to be among "the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State". You seem to be saying that marriage is, and civil union isn't. If so, why?

0 Replies

States are not required to give full faith and credit to other state's laws which are not commensurate with their own, or which have no equivalent in their own jurisdictions. If you were joined in a civil union in one state, and relocated to a state which has no provision for civil union, they would in no way be obliged to recognize your union as the contractual equivalent of a marriage. Similarly, if you drink alcoholic beverages in that state at the legal age of 18, removing to a state in which the legal drinking age is 21 will result in you being legally denied the right to purchase alcoholic beverages for another three years. The full faith and credit clause does not oblige states to alter or make exceptions to their legal code to accomodate the legal codes of other states.

0 Replies

pragmatic wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Voilà, your self imporant pretentiousness . . . er, i mean, your penetrating analysis . . . will be revealed for all to see, just as soon as you click on the "submit" button.

Well, well well - I await your verdict.

I await your post . . . did you post it in a thread? Did you start a new thread? I've not seen it.

Edit: Scratch that, now i see it . . .

I'll get back to you on this--have your girl call my girl and we'll do lunch.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, Boss, i came back here to point out that for long as you contend that homosexuals need to be "protected" from the consequences of their sexuality, without adducing a plausible and non-judgmental reason for the statement, others here are justified in considering your motives as being based on homophobic principles, for however good your intent may be.

Every opinion is judgmental. And implausible does not mean impossible.

I am not contending that homosexuals need to be protected. I am trying to be objective. For example, if we jump forward 50 years to a point where I presume homosexual discrimination will have been severely weakened by liberal victories... If a history book were written about our time, I think it would be accurate to include a paragraph that many religious leaders thought that homosexuality was something which could be cured, and should be cured, and tried to force their opinions on the country.

I do not believe it would be appropriate to say it was because of hate or fear, because those motives are presumed. It WOULD be accurate to say that many hated and feared homosexuals, but not to state that that was the sole cause for discrimination.

To better explain my reasoning, if we go back to post Civil War america, and study discrimination against African-americans. I do not believe the sole reason for discrimination was from hate or fear. I believe there were otherwise good people who were simply taught that blacks were inferior. They weren't given a reason, and they simply trusted their parents, or society.

Can I prove it? Of course not. Even if I found a person who fit that description I would have no way to prove it to anyone.

I do not condone a condescending attitude toward anyone, especially those who already receive enough discrimination, and I regret that my comments were perceived that way. I am describing things that do happen, but I cannot explain why.

If I misinterpreted the facts, I still did not accuse homosexuals of anything.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Similarly, if you drink alcoholic beverages in that state at the legal age of 18, removing to a state in which the legal drinking age is 21 will result in you being legally denied the right to purchase alcoholic beverages for another three years. The full faith and credit clause does not oblige states to alter or make exceptions to their legal code to accomodate the legal codes of other states.

I don't think the alcohol example is a good one, but what if you were able to marry at 16 in one state? Wouldn't the other states have to acknowledge the marriage? I'm just trying to figure this out.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Yes, but when Setanta makes a factual statement on what marriage has always been about, Britannica is a more reliable source on the relevant history than state laws are. That's why I quoted Britannica.

My remarks were a statement from authority, and the authority is no more and no less than my more than forty years of reading history. I would assert that anyone who reads the history of western civilization with an eye to the institution of marriage will quickly realize that its function is the securing and preservation of rights in property.

However, your statement to the effect that " . . . Britannica is a more reliable source on the relevant history than state laws are." is equally a statement from authority on your part. State laws in fact, in their recognition of the nature of the contract, tend to support the point that marriage is an institution concerned with rights in property.

I contend that the historical record backs up my statement that marriage is concerned with rights in property, and not instituted to further procreation. That is the basis for my statement from authority. What's your excuse?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The full faith and credit clause does not oblige states to alter or make exceptions to their legal code to accomodate the legal codes of other states.

Thanks -- this makes sense. In this case, the obvious solution seems to be to create a nationally standardized 'civil union' status. By entering this status, the parties can confer to each other all rights and duties that are theirs to confer, but they could not impose any obligations on the rest of society, and they could not reap any benefits that come from the symbolism of marriage. Ideally, the state would get out of the business of defining who is married and who isn't, and would leave this question to social customs and religious institutions.

Would you be fine with that?

0 Replies

fredjones wrote:

I don't think the alcohol example is a good one, but what if you were able to marry at 16 in one state? Wouldn't the other states have to acknowledge the marriage? I'm just trying to figure this out.

Well, you're getting the apples to oranges thing confused here. The example about alcoholic beverages was just to point out to Thomas that the full faith and credit clause does not oblige states to suspend or abrogate their own legal code.

However, i've already made the point about marriage vis à vis civil union--which was my point in the first place. If you married at age 14 in North Carolina (that is, or at least once was, the age of consent in that state) and moved to another state, yes, the comity clause requires that state to recognize the validity of your marriage, in that they would have a marriage statute of their own, and no compelling interest in denying comity. In the case of alcoholic beverages, their compelling interest would in fact be the basis for their statute setting a higher drinking age.

If you were joined in a civil union at age 16, and moved to another state which did not recognize civil unions as binding contracts, my previous remarks obtain.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I contend that the historical record backs up my statement that marriage is concerned with rights in property, and not instituted to further procreation. That is the basis for my statement from authority. What's your excuse?

My excuse is that different sources are authorities on different topics. Responding to you, I had stated a contention about the history of marriage, and had backed it up with the most reliable source I could get hold of (Britannica). Debra objected, apparrently suggesting that statutes would have been a more appropriate source to refer to. I disagreed because I believe that on history, encyclopedias are more reliable sources than statutes, though possibly less than reliable than decades of reading history. But decades of reading history weren't at my disposal, so I didn't use that source.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know