The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

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.

Give it up Fox. It is their belief that if you have a different opinion or thought than they do about this issue, then you are obviously bigoted and despise gays. After all, that is the whole point of this thread, to paint anyone who opposes same sex marriages as hateful toward gays.

No matter how reasonable your views may be, you will not convince them. So you may as well walk away.

0 Replies

CoastalRat is too correct on this issue.

I will bow out now. No sense in talking to a wall.

0 Replies

I will respond to Wolf who at least attempts to have a reasonable discussion on this:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

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

Wolf wrote

Quote:

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?

If you will reread my sentence, I am not saying that you said that. The only reason the current laws are in place are to protect children that are a presumed possibility of a marriage. The laws that are in place governing marriage make zero sense when there is no presumption of procreation beween the two persons married. How long do you think it would be before the whole issue of what marriage is was challenged on that basis alone?

Fox wrote

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.

Wolf wrote

Quote:

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?

That they won't do that is irrelevent. Some straight people also won't do that. The legal definition of marriage is a contractual agreement between a man and a woman. I oppose same sex couples, straight or gay, of whatever race, ethnicity, politicoeconomic status marrying as that distorts what marriage is supposed to be. Show me a law anywhere that says marriage requires two people to be in love in order for there to be a valid marriage. It's all about the children and keeping the geneologies and blood lines clear.

And tell me why a ceremony called something other than marriage for those who choose not to marry cannot be just as meaningful and special for those who choose not to marry but wish to be legally joined for life?

Fox said

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.

Wolf said

Quote:

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!

Homosexuals can marry but they have to follow the law and marry somebody of the opposite sex just like everybody else has to do. If a gay person chooses not to do that, it does not in any way mean s/he is prevented from doing that. What is so difficult to understand about that?

I support some kind of legal provision providing the same protections and benefits for everybody else, straight or gay who cannot or choose not to marry. As there would be no presumed procreation of children in such an alternate arrangement, there would be no need for many of the restrictions that are necessary in the marriage laws. This would not be marriage. This would be an alternative provision for those who cannot or choose not to marry. There is no reason such an arrangement could not be religiously sanctioned or that it could not be just as special and meaningful as is marriage.

I can't see why that is so difficult for you to understand or why in your mind that would be an abomination.

Fox said:

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.

Wolf said

Quote:

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.

I have very clearly said I support civil unions for homosexuals AND anybody else who for whatever reason cannot or chooses not to marry. I have said that homosexuals can marry under the existing laws; they do have to follow the existing law. And I have been 100% clear that the legal definition of marriage is a contractual union between a man and a woman. If you haven't noticed there is no third sex. Gay and lesbian people are also either men or women.

Now if you cannot understand that, I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. You (and some others) seem to be determined to make more of that than what I have clearly stated. There isn't any more to it. It is exactly what I said, and you and others attempting to put a different meaning or even content in my words is just plain disingenuous.

Fox said

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.

Wolf said

Quote:

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.

The only fuzzy logic you are using is what appears to be a deliberate refusal to accept my comments at face value. You appear to be wanting very much to make more of them that what I have said.

What I have said is very clear. Marriage is a legally recognized permanent contractual relationship between a man and a woman governed by specific laws. I and most other Americans do not wish to change that definition because the definition builds in particular benefits and protections for children. Anybody who chooses to do so and can find somebody who wants to marry them can marry. Sexual orientation is irrelevent under the law. Everybody, gay and straight, plays by the same rules. The rules require everybody to marry somebody of the opposite sex. That's it.

I don't care what anybody's sexual orientation is and I certainly do not think less or more of any person because he or she is gay or lesbian. I understand very much the problems that gay couples and straight unmarried couples or groups have when it comes to shared income tax filing, hospital visitation, shared insurance, rights of inheritance, etc. etc. I am very much in favor of coming up with a solution for these unmarried people. All unmarried people who want it. Not just gays.

I have no problem with a religious ceremony for the unmarried who wish to profess their love and devotion to each other. I don't care what they call it. Legally, it cannot be marriage if they are same sex or more than two people, but they can call it anything they want other than marriage.

Wolf writes

Quote:

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.

Where we differ is you seem to wish to single out homosexuals which in itself is discriminatory. I wish to include homosexuals with everybody else and treat homosexuals like everybody else. There is no requirement for a religious ceremony in marriage. There should be no requirement for a religious ceremony in a separate civil union. There is no reason there could not be a religious ceremony for either however.

Quote:

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.

Again there is no requirement that the parties involve love each other in any marriage statute. There is no requirement that parties involved not love each other in any statute about anything. Whatever a union is called has zero effect on whether two people love each other.

Quote:

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?

While this analogy borders on the absurd as the marriage laws are in place specifically to protect any children produced as a result of the marriage, if there was true discrimination as you theoretically propose here, I would advocate the heterosexuals coming up with their own word and fighting for protections for the children.

It cannot be homophobic if the rules apply to everybody and not just homosexuals.

I prefer to work toward a win win solution for this issue and celebrate the success of its achievement. Those who insist on an all or nothing outcome and brand as bigots and homophobics all those who do not share their point of view will just have to stew in their own prejudices and bigotry.

And with that, I am going to take CR's and McG's advice and end this circular argument and follow them out.

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.

What does 'discriminate' mean to you?

You hold that marriage ought to be denied to two men or two women.

You hold that the state ought to (justifiably can) deny either man's or either woman's personal choice regarding who they wish to marry.

You desire these legal limitations and this state-mandated incursion on personal choice for homosexual couples, but not for heterosexual couples.

You discriminate and do so here on the basis of sexual orientation.

0 Replies

Quote:

Give it up Fox. It is their belief that if you have a different opinion or thought than they do about this issue, then you are obviously bigoted and despise gays. After all, that is the whole point of this thread, to paint anyone who opposes same sex marriages as hateful toward gays.

CR
Only pages back, you acknowledged that the author of this thread did not have the intention of painting anyone who opposes same sex marriage as gay bashers. Nor is that the intention of many (most?) here arguing the case of equality and inclusion.

This is a principled stance. The principle is equality - to extend the notions and values which underlie the constitution (and its principles) to a group previously held (by some, perhaps even by the majority) as lesser or even contemptible. It is the same principle as that which pushed to end segregation of blacks, or to end the barriers to interracial marriage, or to end the exclusion of women from office and the voting booth.

The arguments advanced by people such as deb are careful and methodical.

I've made reference twice now to the Bob Jones U policy which disallowed interracial dating. I could find, as you likely know, quotes from that institution's leaders that this policy was not racist or bigoted. It is even possible they would have believed that to be so. Yet, it clearly was a racist policy.

0 Replies

I love the way you shortened your name to Fox later on in the post, specially seeing as Wolf O'Donnell (whom I based my username on) is the antagonist of a videogame character by the name of Fox.

Foxfyre wrote:

That they won't do that is irrelevent. Some straight people also won't do that. The legal definition of marriage is a contractual agreement between a man and a woman. I oppose same sex couples, straight or gay, of whatever race, ethnicity, politicoeconomic status marrying as that distorts what marriage is supposed to be. Show me a law anywhere that says marriage requires two people to be in love in order for there to be a valid marriage. It's all about the children and keeping the geneologies and blood lines clear.

Sorry, but that last sentence sounded very Nazi to me, about clear blood lines. I'm sure it was unintentional though, because Lords know, no one wants to be anything like the Nazis (except Neo-Nazis, of course).

A straight same sex couple? I swear, your posts are confusing me to no end with strange oxymorons and contradictions.

Quote:

And tell me why a ceremony called something other than marriage for those who choose not to marry cannot be just as meaningful and special for those who choose not to marry but wish to be legally joined for life?

But you called it a marriage in one of your previous posts. That's my point. You called it a marriage. Either that or a religious ceremony. I can't quite remember at the moment, but I know it's one of those things.

You said gays could be joined legally through civil unions, something we agree on. But then you went further to state that they could have a marriage (or you might have said religious ceremony, which to me, implied marriage) on top of that, which confused me, because I was sure you were against homosexuals marrying homosexuals.

Foxfyre wrote:

Homosexuals can marry but they have to follow the law and marry somebody of the opposite sex just like everybody else has to do. If a gay person chooses not to do that, it does not in any way mean s/he is prevented from doing that. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Please, don't repeat yourself. I understood you the first time.

I was merely stating that the law prevents them from marrying the person they love. Whereas a straight person can love the person they love. Is this not discrimination, to not allow someone to marry the person they love because of their social group?

Foxfyre wrote:

I support some kind of legal provision providing the same protections and benefits for everybody else, straight or gay who cannot or choose not to marry.

So do I. This is not the point we're disputing.

Quote:

As there would be no presumed procreation of children in such an alternate arrangement, there would be no need for many of the restrictions that are necessary in the marriage laws. This would not be marriage. This would be an alternative provision for those who cannot or choose not to marry. There is no reason such an arrangement could not be religiously sanctioned or that it could not be just as special and meaningful as is marriage.

So, what you're saying is that homosexuals can have a religious ceremony, except that it isn't the same as the heterosexual ceremony.

Foxfyre wrote:

I can't see why that is so difficult for you to understand or why in your mind that would be an abomination.

No, you misunderstand me. I never once said that that would be an abomination.

It's just that I got the general impression that you would only allow marriages for homosexuals as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex, whom they clearly don't love. This would in effect, be a sham marriage, which is I believe an abomination to the sanctity of the concept of marriage.

Foxfyre wrote:

Fox said:

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.

Wolf said

Quote:
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.

I have very clearly said I support civil unions for homosexuals AND anybody else who for whatever reason cannot or chooses not to marry. I have said that homosexuals can marry under the existing laws; they do have to follow the existing law. And I have been 100% clear that the legal definition of marriage is a contractual union between a man and a woman. If you haven't noticed there is no third sex. Gay and lesbian people are also either men or women.

Now if you cannot understand that, I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. You (and some others) seem to be determined to make more of that than what I have clearly stated. There isn't any more to it. It is exactly what I said, and you and others attempting to put a different meaning or even content in my words is just plain disingenuous.

Now the only reason I told you that's what I thought you said, it because that is what your wording meant.

The only reason it looks as if I've analysed your words too deeply, is because I gave a step by step explanation of every single phrase in that one sentence, which I analysed.

The sentence you used generally implies what was stated in the quoted part above.

I'm sure you didn't mean it, but that's the meaning of the sentence you used. I didn't overanalyse it. That's what "if" means, a clause added on to something that makes the previous phrase redundant in certain cases.

Foxfyre wrote:

The only fuzzy logic you are using is what appears to be a deliberate refusal to accept my comments at face value. You appear to be wanting very much to make more of them that what I have said.

What I took your sentence to mean, is what I, as I understand it, to be as face value already. That is what I was arguing, that the sentence was at face value and that was what the sentence meant.

Foxfyre wrote:

What I have said is very clear. Marriage is a legally recognized permanent contractual relationship between a man and a woman governed by specific laws.

I and most other Americans do not wish to change that definition because the definition builds in particular benefits and protections for children. Anybody who chooses to do so and can find somebody who wants to marry them can marry. Sexual orientation is irrelevent under the law. Everybody, gay and straight, plays by the same rules. The rules require everybody to marry somebody of the opposite sex. That's it.

I am not disputing the legal definition and I have never disputed the legal definition, so why you insist or repeating this point over and over again is beyond me.

What you're advocating in the case of homosexuals marrying people of the opposite gender, is a loveless marriage. You are advocating a marriage that would not protect the children, because they will not be brought up into a happy functioning family.

Sexual orientation is relevant under the law, because law prevents a loving couple of a certain sexual orientation from marrying. This is the case.

Frankly, I couldn't care less whether homosexuals have a religious ceremony or not. However, I'm merely stating what I can see to be the case.

Foxfyre wrote:

Where we differ is you seem to wish to single out homosexuals which in itself is discriminatory. I wish to include homosexuals with everybody else and treat homosexuals like everybody else.

Hahaha! You think I'm discriminating against homosexuals?

I am one!

We are deliberately singling out homosexuals in this topic, because this topic is about homosexuals marrying. This isn't about infertile couples that can't procreate being prevented from marrying. This is about homosexuals, the only group in your country that cannot legally marry the person they love.

Now, you wish for homosexuals to be treated like everybody else, which is all good and well. However, I'm merely pointing out that they're not being treated like everyone else because of the definition of the law, which prevents man from marrying man and woman marrying woman.

This is because, unlike heterosexuals, the law prevents them from marrying the person they love. This is not the case with heterosexuals. They can marry the person they love, because as a definition of being heterosexual, they love the person that is of the opposite sex and would want to marry the person of the opposite sex.

This is the discrimination I'm talking about and have been talking about.

Foxfyre wrote:

Again there is no requirement that the parties involve love each other in any marriage statute. There is no requirement that parties involved not love each other in any statute about anything. Whatever a union is called has zero effect on whether two people love each other.

Clearly there isn't in quite a few cases.

Some are called Arranged Marriages, others Bad Marriages.

I get the impression that you want the end result of a marriage to be a happy, fully-functioning family with children that are loved and will grow up well-adjusted into society. Is that not true?

If it is, why on Earth would you be advocating a marriage in which there is no love? Actually, "advocating" maybe too strong a term to use, but you certainly suggested that homosexuals could have it.

One without love would be a bad marriage. The parents would split up and there'd be no father figure or no mother figure, which goes against what you believe to be right.

Foxfyre wrote:

It cannot be homophobic if the rules apply to everybody and not just homosexuals.

That statement is clearly wrong in principal.

The same rules used to apply to blacks and whites in the Southern States. Blacks could not enter restrooms for whites and vice versa. This was discrimination against race, yet it applied to everybody.

Foxfyre wrote:

I prefer to work toward a win win solution for this issue and celebrate the success of its achievement. Those who insist on an all or nothing outcome and brand as bigots and homophobics all those who do not share their point of view will just have to stew in their own prejudices and bigotry.

And with that, I am going to take CR's and McG's advice and end this circular argument and follow them out.

Circular argument?

Yes, it has become a circular argument, but it's certainly not my fault. You clearly didn't understand what I was trying to say, so I had to repeat myself. You still don't, even after using simple words and examining every argument in detail.

None of you even attempted to answer one question:

Why is it not legal for people of the same sex to marry and what is the underlying reason?

Have any of you actually answered that question?

0 Replies

Dear sirs,

It is my belief that marriage is not a commendable institution. It is in my humble opinion the relic of a barbarous age. The arrayal in silk and lace of a woman like an item of confectionery nauseates me. I am delighted to say that many people in Europe no longer marry. Smile

Let us not encourage homosexual men and women to extend the life of this abhorrent anachronism. It is simple to make contracts for property.

Warm regards, Smile

Goldmund

0 Replies

Hi everyone,

Bernie is ok now, but he had a heart attack this morning. It was very frightening, but we got lucky. Here are the details:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57423&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I'll keep you informed from there.

0 Replies

Here's what science, i.e., psychiatry, psychoanalysis and psychology have to say about the subject.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/18/3

Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

Psychiatry News September 16, 2005
Volume 40, Number 18, page 3
© 2005 American Psychiatric Association
Services

From the President

. . . Homosexuality was part of our diagnostic nomenclature until 1973, when the Board of Trustees removed it from the DSM. This change was supported by the membership when a referendum to overturn the Board's decision was defeated in 1974. Since then, research on the nature of homosexuality has uncovered its strong links to genetics and biology. As the science has advanced, so have APA's actions. In 2000 APA endorsed the concept of same-sex civil unions. This year, by action of the Assembly in May and the Board in July, we endorsed legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage (Psychiatric News, June 17, August 19).

APA's action to support legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage is based fundamentally on the research evidence. Many studies have now established that marriage is associated with clear benefits, including better mental and physical health. It is a stabilizing force in our society that enables individuals to make public their commitment to each other and receive acceptance and support from others. Further, research indicates that same-sex partners have the same capacity to form long-term relationships as do heterosexual individuals. To deny this recognition increases the stigma and related distress often experienced by gay and lesbian individuals in other facets of community life.

Against such compelling evidence, opponents of gay marriage cite religious faith and an ideological belief that the institution of marriage is threatened when same-sex partners can participate. In our civil society, which respects freedom of speech, all views should be heard; however, one strain of religious thought (among many) is an inappropriate basis for the official position of APA. APA's position deals with same-sex civil marriage only. And APA has concluded that fears about the future of society have no basis in evidence.

Clarifying the science is just one task of APA. Another is to be true to its implications. The biological basis of sexuality has important implications for civil rights. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals are citizens who deserve the rights and benefits of full participation in society.

Their children deserve fair treatment as well. Measures to improve the mental health of parents have a definite, positive impact on the children in the family. It stands to reason that these children would feel more accepted in the community knowing that their parents are legally married. Marriage also offers more legal options in the case of divorce, such as joint custody and visitation. APA's endorsement of same-sex marriage is a recognition that science can forge a path toward a more decent society.

Although APA is the first medical society to endorse the legalization of same-sex civil marriage, we have been preceded by the American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, and National Association of Social Workers. . .

The APA position statement "Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage" is posted on APA's Web site at <www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200502.pdf>.

0 Replies

Huh?

I didn't bother to come back to this silly thread until now, Fox.

(Sorry Blatham, I just can't bear to watch them turning themselves inside out to come up with these ridiculous arguments and tortuous rationalisations.)

If you say gays cannot marry you are bigoted. I don't mean you are some slavering, knuckle dragging beast who bashes gays up and thinks they are to blame for Katrina and should be burned at the stake, I don't think you are a bad person or actually consciously ill intentioned towards gays, but you are denying them full rights as citizens and christians.

Whether you think you have the orders of some imaginary friend, or not.

Others who believe in the same imaginary friend are able to rationalize away its supposed fiats re this, just as you do not support murdering adulterers, or doing a variety of other insane things, that this friend also enjoins upon you.

If you have dispensed with the stoning of adulterers and weird dietary requirements and the other effluvia of a primitive people's god, yet do NOT dispense with your discrimination against gays, I have no choice other than to call you homophobic, somewhere in your being.

Tell me you are not when you call upon the adulterers to be stoned to death etc.

This kinda reminds me of slavery times.

Some christians merrily supported slavery with biblical crap about the children of ham, or some such nonsense. Seems to me people can always find food for their bigotry in that book. Like people who oppose womens' rights and ordination can.

While some christians were happily seeing their bigotry as holy, others were actively engaged in the fight for abolition and risking their lives smuggling slaves up north.

The biblical call for racism now seems bloody specious, doesn't it? But, there they were, making the same kind of sophistical mobius loops of themselves to justify slavery as you lot do now to justify your not seeing gayness as fully equal.

Sure, you aren't advocating enslaving gays, but you label them as sinners and not able to enjoy the full fruits of your chriatianity, second class citizens.

Which side are you on?

0 Replies

Quote:

If you say gays cannot marry you are bigoted.

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

After all the convoluted rationalizations we have seen on this thread, it boils down to being partial to one's group, heterosexuals and intolerance of homosexuals.

The fact that this thread has gone on for so long as bigoted anti-gays try to rationalize their desire to dicriminate speaks volumes.

0 Replies

Can gay people marry? Yes or no?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Can gay people marry? Yes or no?

In 1955, were blacks allowed to ride on city bus back-seats in Little Rock, Arkansas? Then clearly there was no racism in Little Rock as everyone could ride on buses.

Quote:

The Normality of Gay Marriages

Published: September 17, 2005
There's nothing like a touch of real-world experience to inject some reason into the inflammatory national debate over gay marriages. Take Massachusetts, where the state's highest court held in late 2003 that under the State Constitution, same-sex couples have a right to marry. The State Legislature moved to undo that decision last year by approving a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and create civil unions as an alternative. But this year, when precisely the same measure came up for a required second vote, it was defeated by a thumping margin of 157 to 39.

The main reason for the flip-flop is that some 6,600 same-sex couples have married over the past year with nary a sign of adverse effects. The sanctity of heterosexual marriages has not been destroyed. Public morals have not gone into a tailspin. Legislators who supported gay marriage in last year's vote have been re-elected. Gay couples, many of whom had been living together monogamously for years, have rejoiced at official recognition of their commitment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/17/opinion/20sat2.html

0 Replies

And then of course there's the confusion within the gay community itself.

Naturally I could not avoid this subject since it is near to me. As a gay man I know that one of the biggest obstacles faced in the issue of homosexual marriage is from the men and women themselves. Not all of us can really grasp hold of the idea of same sex marriages. Until a few years ago I myself could not figure it out. Sure I got the idea of civil unions but to call it marriage? Even now I have some level of difficulty with the matter and I do not jump up and down wildly (as some of my compatriots do) when word of 2 men or 2 women getting married is told to me. I hear the news and usually say little or nothing.

Now, if a homosexual man who has been a homosexual his entire life has difficulty absorbing this fairly new idea into his life and thoughts; how can the entire gay population (or anyone else for that matter) expect this to be universally accepted overnight?

What helped me was to realize that I have no difficulty with inter-racial marriage, inter-faith marriage so why with 2 people of the same gender? I can't find an answer and so I am beginning to better adapt to this.

How did my views land where they did? Upbringing. Cultural standards and pre-set values which were screamed at me from every last nook and cranny from the day of birth.

Give it some time, things are changing and for that there is reason to smile.

0 Replies

Oh, I agree.

I just do not see that as a reason not to challenge people when they dress their socialisation/bigotry up in fancy words and call it god, or nature, or some damn thing.

Anyway, antigay people should be overjoyed to see gay people marrying. Hell, aren't about 50% of them gonna end up as miserable as 50% of heterosexual married people? Share the misert equally, I say.... :wink:

0 Replies

sturgis wrote:

Quote:

Now, if a homosexual man who has been a homosexual his entire life has difficulty absorbing this fairly new idea into his life and thoughts; how can the entire gay population (or anyone else for that matter) expect this to be universally accepted overnight?...

Give it some time, things are changing and for that there is reason to smile.

These sorts of changes do not come easy - and the precedent examples are the ones we all know...disallowing women the vote, separate entrances or blacks, disallowing blacks and white to intermarry, keeping Jews out of the country club ("They can start their own goddamn Jew golf courses so don't tell me they aren't free or equal!")

But dlowan's got it right - it's a duty of citizenship in the community of humans to trounce with big shoes on bigotry when it reveals itself.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Can gay people marry? Yes or no?

In 1955, were blacks allowed to ride on city bus back-seats in Little Rock, Arkansas? Then clearly there was no racism in Little Rock as everyone could ride on buses.

Quote:
The Normality of Gay Marriages

Published: September 17, 2005
There's nothing like a touch of real-world experience to inject some reason into the inflammatory national debate over gay marriages. Take Massachusetts, where the state's highest court held in late 2003 that under the State Constitution, same-sex couples have a right to marry. The State Legislature moved to undo that decision last year by approving a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and create civil unions as an alternative. But this year, when precisely the same measure came up for a required second vote, it was defeated by a thumping margin of 157 to 39.

The main reason for the flip-flop is that some 6,600 same-sex couples have married over the past year with nary a sign of adverse effects. The sanctity of heterosexual marriages has not been destroyed. Public morals have not gone into a tailspin. Legislators who supported gay marriage in last year's vote have been re-elected. Gay couples, many of whom had been living together monogamously for years, have rejoiced at official recognition of their commitment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/17/opinion/20sat2.html

You didn't answer the question. Would you care to give it another try?

0 Replies

Why are you so fixated on men marrying, Baldie?

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Why are you so fixated on men marrying, Baldie?

If you read you will see I have mentioned both. Stop trying to point the subject at me. You do this often. So you know I will be absent from the board starting in the next few days. Just so you don't ask again.

0 Replies

Please, Baldimo, to thine own self be true. Your posts revael that when you think about gay marriage, you think about men.

Most people are a lot happier when they get in touch with their true selves.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know