The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

The policy at Bob Jones university which disallowed interracial dating had nothing whatsoever to do with racist sentiments. It was merely an aesthetic matter...white people look better beside other white people and black people match other darker folks. Of course, a Maori and a Haida or Chinese together pair off nicely too, being sort of National Geographic exotic.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
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?

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.

A homosexual marrying a member of the opposite sex... What you would call, a Lavender Marriage?

Are you insane? Surely a homosexual marrying a person of the opposite sex would be even more of an abomination to the concept of marriage than homosexuals marrying homosexuals! If those being marriaged are not in love, surely that is the greatest abomination to the institution of marriage in our day we have ever known!

With the exception of those who undergo lavender marriages to escape detection, surely the law prevents homosexuals marrying because homosexuals would never marry a heterosexual!

That law discriminates them by legally preventing them from marrying whom they want to marry, whereas with heterosexual couples, this is not a problem.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

Read more then.

As if I have the time to read 150 pages.

Although, I have just figured out how to use the search pages, so I'll use that. A much better suggestion than your, "read more then" comment.

Quote:

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

Quote:

I have no idea how you made this deduction. Could you explain to us how to came to this conclusion?

Very simple. Let's look at her paragraph sentence by sentence and examine it carefully, shall we?

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

This, I am taking to mean as civil union, unless I am clearly mistaken.

Foxfyre wrote:

I would support that if every homosexual in the world miraculously became straight this afternoon.

Here, the key word is "if", a word indicating a condition or choice is involved in the phrase that follows it. The use of the word "if" suggests that she would support civil unions for homosexuals, but only on the condition that they stop being homosexual. Since that's not going to happen, the use of the word "if", to me, effectively signifies that she doesn't support civil unions for homosexuals.

Quote:

Quote:
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. 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.

With the exception of "brothers marrying sisters" and "martians marrying men or women" which is genetically wrong for the former and impossible for the latter, most of your examples cannot be compared to homosexuality because of the lack of consent.

Of your examples, only "brothers marrying sisters" is even remotely comparable and even then, not so, because brothers can beget children with their sisters.

You, however, have not stated why you oppose those examples of marriage, though. Could it be because you find such marriages offensive and disgusting and wrong? You have proved nothing with that post about your lack of contempt at homosexual marriage. All I can see is that your definition of social degenerates includes more than just homosexuals.

Am I wrong? You clearly oppose a woman marrying a vibrator, because that is a meaningless marriage that degrades the concept. You clearly oppose man marrying animal for the same reason. What other reason is there?

If social degenerates, inferior disgusting perverts, are allowed to marry, then that degrades the concept of marriage. If you oppose marriage for the examples you gave for that reason, then how is your opposition to homosexual marriage any different?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Marriage has been around longer than the state. The fact that the government makes you get a license means nothing. That is a civil contract that should be open to any couple wishing to bind themselves together. Marriage is a religious expression between two people in the eyes of their chosen God. Changing that in a nation in which 70% are christian will not happen.

It's actually closer to 80% [2001] but why quibble about facts when you're discussing something with a conservative, right, McG?

McG: "Marriage is a religious expression between two people in the eyes of their chosen God."

Thank you, McG, I couldn't have expressed it better myself. Last time I checked, even conservatives believed homsexuals and lesbians were people. Are there new talking points out that I'm not aware of that has changed this?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Very simple. Let's look at her paragraph sentence by sentence and examine it carefully, shall we?

Foxfyre wrote:
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.

This, I am taking to mean as civil union, unless I am clearly mistaken.

Foxfyre wrote:
I would support that if every homosexual in the world miraculously became straight this afternoon.

Here, the key word is "if", a word indicating a condition or choice is involved in the phrase that follows it. The use of the word "if" suggests that she would support civil unions for homosexuals, but only on the condition that they stop being homosexual. Since that's not going to happen, the use of the word "if", to me, effectively signifies that she doesn't support civil unions for homosexuals.

No, she is saying she would support the idea of a civil union regardless of the fact a person is homosexual or not. You are reading far more into what she said.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
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. 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.

With the exception of "brothers marrying sisters" and "martians marrying men or women" which is genetically wrong for the former and impossible for the latter, most of your examples cannot be compared to homosexuality because of the lack of consent.

Of your examples, only "brothers marrying sisters" is even remotely comparable and even then, not so, because brothers can beget children with their sisters.

You, however, have not stated why you oppose those examples of marriage, though. Could it be because you find such marriages offensive and disgusting and wrong? You have proved nothing with that post about your lack of contempt at homosexual marriage. All I can see is that your definition of social degenerates includes more than just homosexuals.

Am I wrong? You clearly oppose a woman marrying a vibrator, because that is a meaningless marriage that degrades the concept. You clearly oppose man marrying animal for the same reason. What other reason is there?

If social degenerates, inferior disgusting perverts, are allowed to marry, then that degrades the concept of marriage. If you oppose marriage for the examples you gave for that reason, then how is your opposition to homosexual marriage any different?

Notice one thing about all those combinations, none of them are one man and one woman with no previous relation. I exaggerated to make that point. You appear to have missed that.

0 Replies

I've always said McG should be the official interpreter of posts on A2K because he seems to pick up on the writer's intent even when others are unintentionally or intentionally being obtuse. He accurately interpreted mine on this issue.

Having said that, I think that a religious ceremony and/or a religious interpretation of marriage is a second voluntary layer on top of the civil contract and is unnecessary for any who do not have or share religious beliefs.

For those who see marriage as the underpinning for the procreation and/or rearing of children and who believe society has suffered untold negative consequences as marriage has been eroded, marriage as an institution is to be preserved and not further weakened. I know a number of people who are not the least bit religious who share that view.

Perhaps people of faith are even more strong in their opinions on this matter, and as the large majority of Americans are of Christian, Jewish, or other faith that are advocates for marriage, McG is right that there will be strong effort to preserve the institution of marriage as it has traditionally been defined.

I think the large majority of people of faith would have no problem with a legally recognized civil union for all who for whatever reason cannot or choose not to marry.

To recap:
1. Marriage is defined by law almost everywhere as a union between a man and a woman subject to specific legally enforced criteria built into the law.

2. Any citizen regardless of race, ethnicity, political or economic standing, gender, or sexual orientation may marry according to the laws of the
state. Such marriages are recognized by all the states.

3. Persons who for whatever reason cannot or choose not to marry are often in need of the benefits and advantages afforded in the marriage contract such as hospital visitation, automatic community property, automatic right of inheritance, tax advantages, etc. etc.

For these I support a civil union by which such persons could bind themselves into a family unit with all the listed benefits. Those that wished to have an additional religious ceremony to mark the event could certainly do so.

4. There is no reason that such civil unions could not be recognized in all states as marriage is recongized.

5. This is a win-win solution for everybody.

I further think that those who continue to take an all or nothing approach to this are going to continue to see the backlash of more state amendments locking in marriage to protect it and leaving all the others out in the cold. A more reasonable approach toward a win-win solution can get everybody the necessary benefits they want and need. There are many legal problems to work out, but nothing is impossible for those committed to solving them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

For those who see marriage as the underpinning for the procreation and/or rearing of children and who believe society has suffered untold negative consequences as marriage has been eroded, marriage as an institution is to be preserved and not further weakened. I know a number of people who are not the least bit religious who share that view....

What have homosexuals done or what will they do to "weaken" marriage? Why penalize homosexuals by denying them entry into a civil institution because the heterosexuals have historically screwed up their own marriages? You are casting stones at those who have done nothing to harm you or your marriage or the marriage of others.

0 Replies

I am casting no stones whatsoever. I can't imagine why you would interpret my remarks that I was.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Very simple. Let's look at her paragraph sentence by sentence and examine it carefully, shall we?

Foxfyre wrote:
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.

This, I am taking to mean as civil union, unless I am clearly mistaken.

Foxfyre wrote:
I would support that if every homosexual in the world miraculously became straight this afternoon.

Here, the key word is "if", a word indicating a condition or choice is involved in the phrase that follows it. The use of the word "if" suggests that she would support civil unions for homosexuals, but only on the condition that they stop being homosexual. Since that's not going to happen, the use of the word "if", to me, effectively signifies that she doesn't support civil unions for homosexuals.

No, she is saying she would support the idea of a civil union regardless of the fact a person is homosexual or not. You are reading far more into what she said.

Well, why didn't she say so?

Foxfyre wrote:

I've always said McG should be the official interpreter of posts on A2K because he seems to pick up on the writer's intent even when others are unintentionally or intentionally being obtuse. He accurately interpreted mine on this issue.

Look, I had a problem with the words you used.

This phrase, "I support a civil union regardless of whether the person is a homosexual or not" is much clearer and is less ambigious and would have been a better choice of words if that is what you meant to convey.

I saw the word, if, and to me that meant there was a condition for your supporting a civil union. There was no reading between the lines. That is what I saw, that is what I read, that is what I interpreted.

Tell me, what does this phrase mean to you?

"I would admit that George W. Bush is a great leader if pigs can fly".

This sentence, however, "I would have supported Winston Churchill if I had been alive at the time", clearly means that I would have supported Winston Churchill.

However, because you used an impossibility tagged on to the word, if, I took it to be similar to the sentence of George W. Bush and flying pigs I gave as an example.

It was like you were saying, "I will support civil unions between homosexual men, when pigs fly."

However, this has become an attack on Foxfyre and I apologise. I was merely trying to defend myself, but it seems that sometimes defence and offence can get mixed up without one even knowing.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting you, Foxfyre, but it was the general wording of your paragraph that made me misinterpret you in the first place.

McGentrix wrote:

Notice one thing about all those combinations, none of them are one man and one woman with no previous relation. I exaggerated to make that point. You appear to have missed that.

You also appear to have missed that your example of brother and sister is an example of one man and one woman with a previous relation.

You also appear to have missed my question of what makes you think that it is wrong for a marriage to be conducted if they aren't one man and one woman who have had a lovely relationship and wish to take their love of each other further?

There must be a reason as to why you think it's wrong.

Oh and Ms. Law, thank you very much for providing me a quote from Foxfyre that shows exactly what I have accused her of implying. By saying that homosexuals marrying are going to weaken the institution of marriage, that is saying they are somehow making it more meaningless and degrading it.

How?

The only reason I can think up of is that they are inferior, social degenerates. (I don't believe that, of course, but what other reason is there?)

Of course, now that I think about it, I'm sure Foxfyre gave a different reason about how it would be better for children to have one father and one mother, but wasn't it proven that a family didn't have to have one father and one mother, as long as the parent concerned could do the role of both?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Oh and Ms. Law, thank you very much for providing me a quote from Foxfyre that shows exactly what I have accused her of implying. By saying that homosexuals marrying are going to weaken the institution of marriage, that is saying they are somehow making it more meaningless and degrading it.

How?

The only reason I can think up of is that they are inferior, social degenerates. (I don't believe that, of course, but what other reason is there?)

Of course, now that I think about it, I'm sure Foxfyre gave a different reason about how it would be better for children to have one father and one mother, but wasn't it proven that a family didn't have to have one father and one mother, as long as the parent concerned could do the role of both?

So, because you can not think of another reason, there can't be one?

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, why didn't she say so?

I have said so again and again and again. That you don't have time to read everything already posted on A2K is understandable. Neither do I. But if you choose not to read all that, it is rather presumptious to dismiss references to it as immaterial to the argument.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

So, because you can not think of another reason, there can't be one?

Well, you're not providing another one, except that you think it's wrong. If I can't think up of one on the same level and if you don't provide one on the same level, what else can we say about the matter?

I have said that the underyling reason as to why you think it is wrong, is because you think homosexuals are degenerates and socially inferior. This is my assumption, based on a difficulty to grasp any other reasonable explanation.

Thus, if you want to prove me wrong, you must argue against that. However, you have neither denied it outright nor made an alternative argument, other than, it's wrong because its a tradition and you can't change tradition.

Why can't you change tradition?

Perhaps we should start this all over again from scratch, because clearly a break down in communication is occurring.

EDIT: I've just noticed that Foxfyre had more to her post.

Foxfyre wrote:

For those who see marriage as the underpinning for the procreation and/or rearing of children and who believe society has suffered untold negative consequences as marriage has been eroded, marriage as an institution is to be preserved and not further weakened. I know a number of people who are not the least bit religious who share that view.

Perhaps people of faith are even more strong in their opinions on this matter, and as the large majority of Americans are of Christian, Jewish, or other faith that are advocates for marriage, McG is right that there will be strong effort to preserve the institution of marriage as it has traditionally been defined.

I'm not arguing against this, but I'm asking, what is the underlying reason for thinking that any change to tradition would weaken marriage?

Quote:

I think the large majority of people of faith would have no problem with a legally recognized civil union for all who for whatever reason cannot or choose not to marry.

Exactly.

Quote:

To recap:
1. Marriage is defined by law almost everywhere as a union between a man and a woman subject to specific legally enforced criteria built into the law.

2. Any citizen regardless of race, ethnicity, political or economic standing, gender, or sexual orientation may marry according to the laws of the
state. Such marriages are recognized by all the states.

So, you're in support of homosexual marriage now?

Quote:

3. Persons who for whatever reason cannot or choose not to marry are often in need of the benefits and advantages afforded in the marriage contract such as hospital visitation, automatic community property, automatic right of inheritance, tax advantages, etc. etc.

For these I support a civil union by which such persons could bind themselves into a family unit with all the listed benefits. Those that wished to have an additional religious ceremony to mark the event could certainly do so.

Yup, this is clearly saying that you're in favour of homosexual marriage now, unless of course you're insinuating that homosexuals aren't people.

Either that or you're being ambigious again.

0 Replies

Wolf, anything that suggests that marriage as it is currently defined and intended is unnecessary or irrelevent weakens it. The results should be obvious to anybody who follows social trends in this country, but to understand what marriage is and how it strengthens a community and a nation requires more time and space that is appropriate here.

I have no objections to homosexuals marrying as that is none of my business. They just have to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like the law requires everybody else to do.

That I support legally recognized family groups for homosexuals and everybody else, who for whatever reason cannot or choose not to marry, is a viable alternative for those who cannot or choose not to marry.

I have honestly looked to see if there is anything ambiguous in my point of view. I can see nothing ambiguous there. And I have been 100% consistent in this view over the last year of posts on A2K on this and several other threads.

So far many have accused me of many unflattering things related to my point of view and I have seen pages of fuzzy and ill defined emotional arguments attempting to debunk it, but so far not one person has given me a single good reason to see that a different point of view would be more viable or constructive.

0 Replies

This might be of some interest though I don't see that the same-sex marriage issue and pro-choice vs pro-life issue is connected:

Pro-Choice Voters Divided Over Same-Sex Marriage
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters

July 7, 2005
July 13, 2005-- The emergence of same-sex marriage as a political issue is creating new challenges for the pro-choice movement.
Pro-Choice voters are evenly divided on the topic of same-sex marriage--48% favor the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman while 44% are opposed to that definition.
Pro-life voters overwhelmingly support the traditional definition of marriage.

Among all voters, 66% favor the traditional definition of marriage while 28% are opposed. Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters say they are pro-choice while 41% are pro-life.

Combining these two hot-button social issues, 36% of voters are pro-life and favor the traditional definition of marriage. Twenty-five percent (25%)are pro-choice and favor the traditional definition of marriage. Twenty-three percent (23%) are pro-choice and oppose the traditional definition of marriage.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters say that the abortion issue is very important when considering a Supreme Court nominee. Another 30% say it is somewhat important.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters say that abortion is morally wrong most of the time. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree.
Fifty-three percent (53%) believe it is too easy to get an abortion in America. Just 18% believe it is too hard, while 22% say "about right." Among pro-choice voters, 27% say too easy, 31% too hard, and 33% about right.

Thirty-two percent (32%) say that overturning Roe vs. Wade would make abortion illegal. Forty-seven percent (47%) say it would be up to individual states to set their own laws.
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of American voters say it would be best for the Supreme Court to establish rules governing abortion. Fort-seven percent (47%) would prefer rules established by the state legislatures.
A related survey found that 58% of Likely Voters say that Senate Democrats should vote to confirm a qualified conservative nominee for the Supreme Court.

Earlier survey data showed that 42% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. Nearly as many, 41%, have an unfavorable opinion. Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is viewed favorably by 55% of American voters. Just 17% believe she is politically conservative.

During the battle over Judicial nominations earlier this year, just 22% of Americans had a favorable opinion of the filibuster compromise reached by fourteen Senators.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
Our publications provide real-time information on consumer confidence, investor confidence, employment data, the political situation, and other topics of value and interest. We provide daily updates on the economic confidence of Consumers and Investors. Our consumer data generally identifies trends two to six weeks ahead of traditional consumer confidence measures

LINK

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am casting no stones whatsoever. I can't imagine why you would interpret my remarks that I was.

I don't think your "imagination" is as limited as you pretend. No special powers of interpretation are required to understand exclusionary snobbery (or bigotry) when someone harps that their special club will be tarnished if members of a despised group are allowed to join.

0 Replies

That is unbecoming of you Debra. THere is no bigotry here. And there is no exclusionary club if anybody and everybody can join it. "Tarnished' is your word; it is certainly not one I have used or even implied. YOu have often accused me of basing my opinions on personal feelings. Well. . .how is what you just said not basing your opinion on personal feelings?

0 Replies

Deb is right, fox. You are exactly as unbiased about homosexuality as Bob Jones university was innocent in disallowing whites to date blacks. Blacks, after all, were just as free to date as whites were. No incursion on any liberty therefore. Certainly no racism in evidence. Just upholding the tradition, sanctity and purity of that which is natural.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Reporting from the front line I can assure you all that the overwhelming consensus in the Cock&Wallet is against same sex anything of significance.

sp

That's also the name of a match-maker service here in town.

0 Replies

Deb is wrong as are you Blatham. Try if you can to show anywhere in any post I have made that I have discriminated against homosexuals in any way directly or by implication. Show where I have shown bias in any way related to homosexuals. You won't be able to do it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Deb is wrong as are you Blatham. Try if you can to show anywhere in any post I have made that I have discriminated against homosexuals in any way directly or by implication. Show where I have shown bias in any way related to homosexuals. You won't be able to do it.

You allow that people of the same sexual persuasion can have legal unions but you don't want them to have marriages. You can offer no reason for that except that you want to maintain a tradition. This is a vile use of tradition to facilitate discrimination against these people and against some religions.

You and McG argue that marriage is a religious thing [repubs are big on no government interference in private lives] then you express a desire for a law to be established to prevent some religions from expressing their chosen beliefs, their right to marry same sex people.

Again, for no reason except to exclude. That is discrimination based on sex. And you hide behind this specious argument to salve your conscience, or support an untenable position?

That's bigotry, Foxfyre!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Wolf, anything that suggests that marriage as it is currently defined and intended is unnecessary or irrelevent weakens it.

Where did I say it was unnecessary or irrelevant?

If I thought it was such, then why would I be arguing for the right for homosexuals to marry another homosexual if it was unnecessary and irrelevant?

Quote:

I have no objections to homosexuals marrying as that is none of my business. They just have to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like the law requires everybody else to do.

But they won't do that. You have an objection for homosexuals to marry who they want to marry, isn't that right? That is basically what you're saying. You're saying that they should they marry, but not someone they love.

If they're not going to marry someone who they don't love, what is the point?

Quote:

That I support legally recognized family groups for homosexuals and everybody else, who for whatever reason cannot or choose not to marry, is a viable alternative for those who cannot or choose not to marry.

Yet, in a previous post you then said they could marry if they wanted to. Are you saying that they can have a legally recognised family group and then on top of that have a religious ceremony, only that they must marry someone of the opposite sex i.e. someone who isn't going to be legally bound to them.

That is even more of an abomination to marriage than letting homosexuals marry!

Quote:

I have honestly looked to see if there is anything ambiguous in my point of view. I can see nothing ambiguous there. And I have been 100% consistent in this view over the last year of posts on A2K on this and several other threads.

No, you haven't.

If you had been unambigious, you would have said things like,
"I support civil unions for homosexuals but not marriage." But take a look at your posts again.

There's clauses with ifs and buts, and limitations on your support of civil union and in another post you said they could marry without clarification and then in the next post, you said they could only marry another person of the opposite sex.

Quote:

So far many have accused me of many unflattering things related to my point of view and I have seen pages of fuzzy and ill defined emotional arguments attempting to debunk it, but so far not one person has given me a single good reason to see that a different point of view would be more viable or constructive.

There was no fuzzy logic on my behalf and definitely no emotion. I am merely intepreting what you're saying and repeating it without the double speak.

Though, I've argued against your view on civil unions, I certainly don't disagree 100% on it. There are some things that seem contradictory in your view on civil unions, but certainly, for homosexuals to have all the priveleges of marriage without having to do the religious ceremony is a good way forward.

However, this topic isn't "Should Gays have Marriage or Civil Union?" It is, "Is the anti-gay marriage movement homophobic?"

Currently, neither you nor McG have proven that the anti-gay marriage movement is discriminating against homosexuals by preventing them from marrying the person they love.

By advocating that they can marry, but only someone of the opposite sex, you are saying that they cannot marry the person they love. Sure, they may love someone of the opposite sex, but probably not as much as their same sex partner.

To clarify, let's turn the topic around on its head shall we?

Let us pretend that the law has been changed and that now heterosexual marriage is illegal, but homosexual marriage isn't.

Is the anti-gay heterosexual marriage movement heterophobic?

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know