The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

cavfancier wrote:

My real problem with conservatives however, is that by definition, they often fail to be visionary, and recognize the possibility that progressive legislation may even benefit them in the end, no pun intended.

Once the GOP decides to cut the apron-strings from the religious right and actually act like real leaders, maybe we'll see some of this 'Bush as a uniter' thing he keeps railing on about.

Don't see whart either of these comments has to do with the question here. I'm not too sure what "being visionary" has to do with any of this, but I do believe the views I presented are compatable with the various "visions" the contending parties bring to this issue. I have merely looked to find where the conflicting views could be resolved without injury to either contending party, and attempted to retain as much if the visionary principles of our political system as I could in outlining a solution. The label "progressive legislation" is as misleading as is the term "homophobia" as both are used here - merely meaningless words, thrown like rocks at the "opposition".

Moreover. you implicitly assert that the GOP is led by the "religious right"; that this prevents them from becoming "real leaders"; and that abandoning his positions on this matter is required if he is to become a "real uniter". All of these are perjorative and arguable inferences, not related to the topic of this thread, and which beg the very question we are discussing.

If a gay couple could have all the rights a hetero couple can have, and we simply called that pairing a "legal partnership" instead of a "marriage", that would seem to satisfy both the needs of the homosexuals to have equal rights, and the heteros need to preserve the title of "marriage" as sacred, and pertaining only to man/woman pairs.

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage

I guess I'm a part of a simple-minded minority who thinks that this all boils down to rhetoric.

If a gay couple could have all the rights a hetero couple can have, and we simply called that pairing a "legal partnership" instead of a "marriage", that would seem to satisfy both the needs of the homosexuals to have equal rights, and the heteros need to preserve the title of "marriage" as sacred, and pertaining only to man/woman pairs.

Nah - that would depend on whether the movement was pro- or anti- interracial marriage.

Don't argue with me, Blatham, I got nukes!

I believe the word 'homophobia' is being cast about rathe loosely on this thread and in some parts of the national discourse as well. Strictly speaking, the word means fear or adversion to homosexuals. Very often in context it is used to describe anyone who opposes any element of the political agendas of homosexual advocacy groups for any stated reason (the implication being that their motives must involve some hidden form of intolerance. The latter aplication is patently false and misleadig.
Um...and what is this 'agenda' we hear so much about? Can you elucidate it and point to the websites or documents that support your elucidations? And to whom do you refer when describing those 'homosexual advocacy groups'? As to the definition of 'homophobia' in play here, it has been stipulated previously.

I have no opinion as to the supposed exclisive origin of homosexual behavior, and I note the science on this matter is far from clear or complete. Is it nature or nurture?. I don't claim to know, but strongly siuspect there are elements of both in the rather broad range of behaviors that are labellrd as 'homosexual' - some likely highly determined by nature and others possibly be both upbringing and even choice. In this ares, subject only to matters of serious import in maintaining public health, and the general rights of people of all prefereces from being protected from excessive displays of unwanted sexual display of any type, I see no justificatiion for denying homosexuals or heterosexuals any rights in this area, and certainy none for focsing on homosexuals in particular.
On the 'science' issue, whether or not we will ever be able to tie genetic or physical structures to all or even most specific propensities or specific behaviors is not assured. So, we can turn elsewhere than to biology or genetics for clues. That homosexuality is ubiquitous in humans (found in every cultural group and time period) and as it is common in many other animal species as well (see earlier link), the 'it's not natural' argument is about as compelling as newsletters from the Flat Earth Society. But that's irrelevant in any case.

In this context I see no reason to deny homosexuals civil sanctions, and legal protection for their unions. Their interest in this is untrinsically no different from that of heterosexuals.
The point is, of course, that as these state referenda noted above go much further than what you describe, we ought to be honest about WHAT THE ACTUAL INTENT IS, and we ought to be clear on WHO is driving this movement.

However I do not believe this should come at the cost of dismantling or diluting the social and economic compensations and protections the state has wisely created to sustain and protect those who will produce and raise the children who will become ther next generation of our citizens.
Here's where you get set to fly enthusiastically off the rails.

These benefits and protections have eroded significantly in the last several decades with the precipitous decline in the quality of our public schools, revisions to the tax code, and the increasing intrusivenss of the state in regulating family matters, and undermining some aspects of parental authority. Why add more to this loss and why do so in a manner that, on its face, denys the merit of meaningful benefits to those who will produce and raise our next generation.
The 'why' is well expressed in the majority opinion of the Massechussetts finding. But your assumption of 'dilution' as a consequence has no empirical basis. None. It is a claim of the same nature as, "Interracial dating will dilute and damage white european culture and values. How long before no one plays piccolo and all we have left is the standup bass?"

If the family is 'in danger' (an assumption), and if this sociological change has mainly negative consequences for the community (another assumption), and if you wish to engage in social engineering to remedy this supposed problems (while maintaining principles of personal liberty), then which causal factors ought to be your target? Why not, for example, aim at Fox for its consistent promotion of sleeze into America's livingrooms? Why not aim at economic factors and policies that take both parents out of the home so that they can afford that home? Why on earth pick homosexuality? Because it is like six toes. Because it has, for many, the 'ick' factor. Because cultural conservatives always try to control sexuality.

Finally, so many predictions of the liberal wise men, in particular Erlich's "Population Bomb" (of just 35 years ago) have proved themselves to be so utterly wrong, that we are correctly prudent to question them. The fact is we aree cnfronted with decreasing population and a decreasing inclination of our best-performing to produce and raise children. This should be an important consideration in the formation of an equitable policy that meets the real needs before us.
What? Permitting homosexuals the full rights of marriage presents a risk of human depopulation???? Homoism will spread like a virus and boys will no longer get boners looking at girls???? Or are you suggesting we do what we can, via policy, to ensure white folks have as many babies as Mexicans?

For all of these reasons, I favor allowing the states through their normal legislative processes to authorice formal cormal civil unions, commitment ceremonies, or whatever we wish to call them - except matrimony. THe laws regulating property ownership, divorce etc, should be sonstructed along the lines in use for divorce. However the direct and indirect economic benefits conferred on them should be available only to hrterosexual masrried couolrs,
Why not follow your logic all the way and deny marriage status to those who plan zero children?

It would niggle a bit if gay people weren't allowed to call themselves married. I mean it still seems so pointless... why not?

But if that were the price of getting the rest of the benefits, I'd go with it... and hope that the last little semantic barrier would fall down the line.

BTW Matrimony is a sacrament, no one is proposing the government be involved in that. Government should get out of the marriage business altogether, it confuses too many people who can't make the distinction between the civil action and the religious rite. Everyone should be civilly joined by the government then if they want, they can get maried in a church.

8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.

8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.

8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.

8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.

8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.

8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.

8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.

8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.

9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.

9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."

10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).

10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.

11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.

12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.

12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.

1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.

2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.

3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.

4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.

4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.

6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.

6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"

7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the photographic displays at Abercrombie & Fitch and go to a cool store to begin shopping.

8:30 p.m. Light dinner with catty homosexual friends at a restaurant you will be "over" by the time it gets its first review in the local paper.

10:30 p.m. Apple martinis at a debauched gay bar, trying to avoid alcoholic queens who can't navigate a crowd with a lit cigarette in one hand and a Stoli in a cheap plastic cup in the other. Make audible remark about how "trashy" people who still think smoking is acceptable are.

12:00 a.m. "Nightcap at your place." Find out that people lie in bars, too.