Will Any Gay Marriage Opponents Here Admit to Gay Tendency?

Are you sick? The whole notion and behaviour of homosexuality is as repugnant to me as paedophilia. I oppose the whole deviant lot.

I oppose gay marriage and support civil unions. I have never been sexually interested in men, in the least. It grosses me out.

But if that's what someone else likes, hey, that's their decision (and their problem).

I'm opposed to heterosexual marriage. Should I confess to harboring some secret heterosexual tendencies?

I don't think that a man should be able to marry cattle. Does that mean I want to do more than eat my steak?

I doubt any would admit it. Let's just wait for the first big mouth on the national level to be betray himself in this regard. You know it's gonna happen sooner or later...

Crissee, No, I never have. I'll be straight to the end, but I don't believe in an amendment to the constitution to ban gay marriages, and I think Bush is abandoning that crusade. Any time we try to legally impose our beliefs on others of different persuasions, we jeopardize everything that we hold dear.

I don't think about whether gay opponents have to admit gay tendency (it wouldn's surprise me). I think that in the not too distant future, gay opponents will have to admit irrelevence.

Their shrill warnings and mean-spirited attacks on cartoon characters are already starting to be mocked by annoyed Americans.

Things are going pretty well in Massachusetts since gay marriage was legalized last year. Surprise! It hasn't hurt my kids, caused retribution from any pissed off diety or even damaged my heterosexual marriage.

Americans, except for those who have been taught to hate by their religion, will learn to accept gay marriage with a resounding yawn.

Personally, I couldn't really care less, one way or the other. But, it does seem that folks trying to make the change should have to get an ammendment passed saying that marriage is between 2 people, rather than those trying to keep the definition what it has historically meant in this country. We should have to pass laws to make changes, not pass laws to stay the same.

And, well said Idaho. I concur.

That doesn't make sense. You pass an amendment to change the constitution.

Currently, the constitution doesn't contain anything to keep people from marrying the person they love. The anti-marriage amendment is to change the constitution so that it will.

They're not admitting to homosexual tendencies, they're admitting to cannibalistic tendencies! Eek!

(Kidding.)

I really don't think opposition to same-sex marriage is because people are denying their latent homosexuality. Further, I think choosing to characterize it in this way won't accomplish anything.

That said, I think it's deplorable at best for someone to liken homosexuality to pedophilia. I doubt it comes from a latent homosexual tendency, but it's the worst of the opposition to gay marriage. People who are fine with unions and have problems with gay marriage are one thing -- people who recently talked about how all pedophiles should be executed and then puts gays and lesbians in the same category are something else entirely.

I don't think anyone needs to admit anything for Chrissee's post to have significance. On the contrary, the "homosexuality is gross" posts illustrate a fine point.

Perhaps she wonders, as do I, how some people can believe that homosexuality is both entirely voluntary and entirely repugnant -- inherently repugnant, apparently. As the story goes, homosexuality is so inherently "gross" that some cannot fathom the idea of being with another of the same sex. Many of that same lot appear to hold the belief that others voluntarily choose such a "gross" fate. Why people "choose" grossness is a question that begs answers. So the story then becomes that we choose our perceptions and preferences. That's a fine story, except why would someone choose preferences that make them the subject of constant derision. I find it odd that some people would "volunteer" to do something "gross" while subjecting themselves to animosity and foregoing the opportunity to marry. These are penalties that make the homosexual "choice" quite unattractive unless we admit that people have different inherent tendencies.

I can't believe the voluntary story until people start talking about their gay fantasies. I want to know that there are rewards to being gay. After everyone has admitted how wonderful it would be to have homosexual sex, then we can intelligently talk about this "choice" that many appear to make despite the penalties. As a straight man, I have no desire to be with another man. I don't think it's a choice because I, apparently like Bibliophile and cjsa, could never make this "choice" -- there is absolutely nothing appealing about the idea.

I can believe a genetic predisposition; that makes some sense of this otherwise convoluted story. Good post, Chrissee!

The purpose for suggesting an ammendment is that it is a way to allow the people, NOT judges, to decide, in order to prevent one state whos people oppose gay marriage from having to recognize a married couple from a state whos people support it. An ammendment saying that states are not required to recognize each other's marriage laws would accomplish the same thing.

Oh, that's an interesting take on it, Steppenwolf.

Very true.

Life is complex, and one explanation is not sufficient.

However, just as a cigar is sometimes not just a cigar, I believe that some fervently anti-gay people are likely to be in denial of their own homosexual feelings - some are just ignorant and/or have been brought up prejudiced.

Some have no excuse at all.....

Nope. It still doesn't make any sense.

Amendments are enforced by judges. An amendment would take away the decision from the people. The judges in our state (Massachusetts) allowed gay marriage specifically because of our constitution (whether this took away peoples decision is up for debate.)

You may prefer if the constitution took away rights, instead of giving them. But, arguing that an amendment to the constitution restricting who can marry somehow "allows people to decide" is ridiculous.

The right of gays to marry in Massachusetts was achieved through the process outlined in our constitution. The judges did what judges are supposed to do-- making a legal ruling based on their best interpretation of the constitution. Many of us in Massachusetts strongly agree with the decision (not that it matters).

You could argue that we should get rid of the judicial branch (or somehow cripple it) but then you would be advocating a dramatic change in our system of democracy. In Massachusetts we will probably vote, as outlnied in our constitution, on the issue next year, and the rights of people to marry as they choose will almost certainly be maintained.

To me, your insistance in a national definition of marriage that restricts my rights goes against my ability to choose, as a person and as a member of a state electorate.

Fortunately this is a moot point. The framers of the Constitution were smart enough to make it very hard to get an amendment through, and the people of America are smart enough to reject this one.

I found Steppenwolf's take interesting as well, but not flawless. As absurd as it seems that some people might choose gross or a path that makes them the object of ridicule; some do. From greasy hair to facial jewelry, somewhere along the way some folks decided they just wanted to rock the boat. I'm not contending this is a majority of homosexuals but it is most certainly some homosexuals. How many people experiment with homosexuality in college and simply decide it isn't for them? Do they carry a weaker form of the "gay gene"? Like Steppenwolf, I have no desire to be with another man... but that doesn't make me incapable of it, does it?

Now the marriage thing is being pushed as a tolerance issue... but that's only one side. Every wedding I ever stood in called it a celebration. And I don't think it's unfair to say that in celebrating something you're also promoting it. This is real, isn't it?

Some background info on me; since the author asked and I'd prefer to pre-empt some of the bigot accusations anyway:

I wouldn't hesitate to get my knuckles bloody if I saw bigots beating down a homosexual. Almost had to once. While out with a gay friend at a biker bar, I once stood as I answered the question "What are you a homo?" in the affirmative because it was time to stop the escalation of taunts before the stupidity wheels were irreversibly set in motion. Fortunately, I can look pretty scary when I'm angry… and as usual, that was enough.

At my best friend's wedding, some folks I knew were whispering and carrying on about our gay friend and mind you; these bigots are the people I call my friend's family. Their bigotry is hardly an issue, because it rarely comes up… and I'm not the PC Police. However, I could see this was bothering my friend, so I asked him to dance, and danced with him slow… purposely in front of them. Boy did we laugh at the: Now I realize that a few minutes of walking in someone's shoes isn't the proverbial mile… but that wasn't the point. Showing solidarity in both cases was sufficient to diffuse the ugliness of both situations... and give me just a little taste of the ugliness of bigotry.

So, now that you know I'm not a total bigot, let me make my point. Despite having total tolerance for homosexuality, I still don't think I want it to be promoted. Though I've seldom had occasion to experience the ugliness of bigotry for myself, I've glimpsed it enough to know I wouldn't want to anymore than I had too. While I certainly believe the consensus of people who'll tell you gayness isn't a choice… I believe that only applies to most gay people… not all gay people. Again, especially you ladies, how many people experiment with homosexuality only to find out it isn't for them?

Now, let's say I have a child and my child just happens to be one of these kids that does have a choice. Do I have to be a bigot to mentally cross my fingers in hopes my beloved child is spared the bummers intrinsic in going through life dealing with intolerant A-holes? If we can agree that it's not likely most gays choose the life that subjects them to extra ridicule, than don't we have to admit it's reasonable for parents to not wish such a life for their children? So, if I were such a parent, would it be unreasonable for me to object to various materials and the additional celebrations that promote a lifestyle that could lead my child to choose the path that almost certainly includes additional heartache? I think not.

In fact; the infallible law of large numbers tells me there has got to be some homosexual parents out there that feel the exact same way about wanting to protect their children from things that celebrate and promote a lifestyle that could potentially push their chooser-child off the fence on the side that would subject him or her to the bigotry of A-holes that might otherwise be avoided.

Since I have no faith in God or any religious writings, I've reasoned this out absent any of those considerations. I believe I have presented a scenario that is probably not applicable with much regularity. However, the law of large numbers pretty much insists this occurs this way occasionally exactly the way I've presented it here. It's not often forgetting to buy your regular lottery numbers is very important… but it has come up and it will come up again.

One question. Is this an elaborate self-deceiving theory I've concocted to cover my own closet bigotry from myself? I don't think so. <shrugs>

Ps. Damn, I'm long winded tonight. I can only imagine being religious and taking lots of written words as truths just because I do. I wasn't born with a brain that allows for that kind of thing (not claiming too smart... or too stupid... I guess I'm like doubting Thomas and Dude hasn't showed up yet :wink:). Anyway, the law says that people who believe such things have a right to and I think we all agree with that, so that in and of itself should be sufficient excuse for someone to object. Not recognizing this right is more than a little hypocritical because it is clearly a demonstration of intolerance for someone seeking to protect their religion. I'm not saying that the homosexual rights may not be a more compelling argument... it may very well be. But when I read a post like "I wish Christians would just suck a di%k...." I'm amazed that it isn't recognized for the obvious religious-intolerant bigotry that it is.

I have jerked off to lesbian porn many times...I guess this means I have homosexual fantasies....

Looks a bit like the old "I am not prejudiced, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry a black man, not because I mind, but because it will mean she is the target of folk who ARE bigots" to me Bill.