The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

I was not privileged to have a loving mother and father in the home; at least sane ones. I greatly envied my classmates most of whom did have loving, stable home environments.

Yes I would Joe, and I have never discounted that as a viable alternative for children who for whatever reason cannot have a mom and a dad in the home.

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes I would Joe, and I have never discounted that as a viable alternative for children who for whatever reason cannot have a mom and a dad in the home.

Then there should be laws to protect that "viable" alternative rather than demonizing that "viable" alternative into religious sin and evil by the neochristian right.

Dookiestix wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes I would Joe, and I have never discounted that as a viable alternative for children who for whatever reason cannot have a mom and a dad in the home.

Then there should be laws to protect that "viable" alternative rather than demonizing that "viable" alternative into religious sin and evil by the neochristian right.

No one on this thread has said this and I doubt most of us support that as an issue. How about you remove your hate of religion from the debate and instead talk about the issue at hand.

Baldimo wrote:

Dookiestix wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes I would Joe, and I have never discounted that as a viable alternative for children who for whatever reason cannot have a mom and a dad in the home.

Then there should be laws to protect that "viable" alternative rather than demonizing that "viable" alternative into religious sin and evil by the neochristian right.

No one on this thread has said this and I doubt most of us support that as an issue. How about you remove your hate of religion from the debate and instead talk about the issue at hand.

Excuse me, but the subject of this thread is about anti-gay marriage acts being homophobic in nature.

I don't hate religion. I just don't like those who USE religion to promote their political agenda on the basis of exclusion and hate. That IS what the neochristians are doing, as opposed to ordinary christians and other denominations who are more moderate and liberal, and who truly embrace (IMO) the true tenants of their faith.

You cannot deny that there is a faction of religious fanatics out there hellbent on demonizing whatever doesn't fit their political agenda. And it comes from many denominations which have their own version of extremism.

Until you deal with these groups who infuse their ideologies into the most powerful political party in this country today, homophobia in regards to gay marriage will continue to be used as a MAJOR wedge issue in Washington and upcoming elections. And it'll be mostly used by the rightwingers, because their constituency votes on those issues in greater numbers.

The recent (this month) resolution from the United Church of Christ allowing gay marriage is merely one example of christian (and other) denominations saying "we have no problem with gay marriage".

If the stance of supporters of equality for gays was driven by 'anti-religiousness', well then we'd have to now switch our positions and come out against equality for gays in marriage because it's actually religion we struggle against.

Such is the silliness of Baldimo's 'argument' above.

For myself, and I'm certain for all of us arguing for equality here, 'religion' is quite irrelevant. Except one corner of the matter:

- the push against allowing gay marriage, by which I mean the organizations and activism at the centre of this push, originates overwhelmingly from groups affiliated with a very conservative version of christianity (and a very conservative version of Judaism and a very conservative version of Islam). Were it the case that this push was originating with extremist Rotarians instead of an extreme faith stance, we'd have to point to that source. Which wouldn't make us anti-Rotarian, merely anti-extremism on this issue.

You could include a substantial chunk of Judaism and Christianity and all of Islam in the anti same-sex marriage crowd.

So because they don't agree with you on your idea to rewrite what marriage is, they are homophobes. Could it be that many of them don't want marriage changed?

Going on that line of logic then that would make you unpatrotic because you don't like the Bush admin or the current war. Remember I'm using your logic on disagreeing with people.

That homosexual 'marry' is irrelevent to me. As I have pointed out, I know of no law anywhere that says homosexuals cannot marry. They just have to do what the law requires of everybody else; i.e. everybody regardless of race, ethnicity, economic standing, gender, or sexual orientation is subject to the same law as everybody else.

That the definition of marriage as it is currently defined not be changed is relevant to me for reasons I have stated and restated througout this thread.

I strongly favor and would do what I can to accomplish a method by which all those who for whatever reason do not wish to marry can form themselves into legally recognized family groups providing certain benefits and protections not otherwise available to the unmarried. I would support that if every homosexual in the world miraculously became straight this afternoon.

To try to make this into homophobia just won't wash.

Foxfyre wrote:

That homosexual 'marry' is irrelevent to me. As I have pointed out, I know of no law anywhere that says homosexuals cannot marry. They just have to do what the law requires of everybody else; i.e. everybody regardless of race, ethnicity, economic standing, gender, or sexual orientation is subject to the same law as everybody else.

Erm, isn't there a law in your constitution that says that marriage is only something between a man and a woman, which clearly suggests that homosexuals are forbidden by law to marry? Or was it that the Republicans were merely trying to make it a law?

Quote:

That the definition of marriage as it is currently defined not be changed is relevant to me for reasons I have stated and restated througout this thread.

Really? What are they? I must admit it is a bit difficult for me to search through all 150+ posts, not to mention that every page (all 20 of them) I've been on does not really feature any reasons given by you.

Quote:

I strongly favor and would do what I can to accomplish a method by which all those who for whatever reason do not wish to marry can form themselves into legally recognized family groups providing certain benefits and protections not otherwise available to the unmarried. I would support that if every homosexual in the world miraculously became straight this afternoon.

I'm confused. So in other words, you don't support even civil unions for homosexuals?

Quote:

To try to make this into homophobia just won't wash.

But what else could it be? I don't see an alternative. As stated in my previous post, I don't really want to insult you by turning it into homophobia, but I can't see an alternative explanation and you're not giving any. I wasn't being sarcastic in my last post.

How can you be opposed to gay marriage yet not be homophobic? It seems almost contradictory because of the logic set in stone as the foundation of being against gay marriage.

I can be opposed to homosexual marriage because it imposes a governmental stipulation over a predominately religious event....

Marriage should be reserved and observed as a purely religious ceremony. For Catholics, marriage is as important as baptism, first communion and death rites. The government should not be involving itself in religion, right?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Every homosexual is entitled to get married to a member of the opposite sex. Every citizen has equal protection under the law. The fact that you choose to pretend to not understand this does nothing to support your argument.

'Tis you laddie who is flaunting his ignorance about. This tired old separate but equal stuff seems to work for closet bigots but it's just a rehash of a tired old pernicious USSC ruling.

I can be opposed to homosexual marriage because it imposes a governmental stipulation over a predominately religious event.

False and you know it or you should know it, McG. There have been civil marriages for a long long time; exactly how long, I can't say for certain but long enough to have settled this issue.

You're also being a very hypocritical Repub. Repubs don't want the government sticking its nose into their private affairs but this nose is big and intrusive.

The fact they are homosexual has nothing to do with. I am equally opposed to men marrying goats, brothers marrying sisters, women marrying vibrators, 3 men marrying the same woman, martians marrying men or women, dogs marrying cats.

Now the bigotry gushes forth. You've outdone yourself this time, McG, parading your ignorance around.

Marriage should be reserved and observed as a purely religious ceremony. For Catholics, marriage is as important as baptism, first communion and death rites. The government should not be involving itself in religion, right?

The illogic is stunning. But that's to be expected, given what you've written so far in this posting.

McG states,

"Marriage should be reserved and observed as a purely religious ceremony."

-->> I want my government to put that in law. --->>

"The government should not be involving itself in religion, right?"

McGentrix wrote:

I can be opposed to homosexual marriage because it imposes a governmental stipulation over a predominately religious event....

Marriage should be reserved and observed as a purely religious ceremony. For Catholics, marriage is as important as baptism, first communion and death rites. The government should not be involving itself in religion, right?

Marriage is not a religious event. Marriage is wholly a creature of the state. It may only be entered, maintained, or dissolved only in accordance with the laws of the state. No one can get married without obtaining a license from the state. No one can get divorced without obtaining a judgment of divorce in a court in accordance with state laws.

The fact that priests are authorized by law to formalize a marriage does not turn marriage itself into a religious event. Judges and other civil servants are authorized by law to formalize marriages.

A marriage that is formalized in a church is not more valid than a marriage that is formalized in a courthouse.

Simply because you choose to perceive marriage as a religious institution doesn't make it so.