Why is gay marriage such a lightning-rod topic?

I'm certainly not arguing that churches be permitted to sponsor sex crimes!

Raising this issue is a bit of a red herring, Miller...

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
Well put, Shapeless!

My own modest proposal is that gov't get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches. Gov't would hand out the benefits equally to hetero and homo domestic unions.

The churches can be as inclusive or exclusive re marriage as they already are in other regards.

I have spoken...

Even I would go along with you on this one D.

Sadly, this is one compromise the gay community seems unwilling to make.

.............................................................................
You're kidding aren't you? HAve you forgotten all the sexual abuse cases against Roman Catholic
priests that have appeared over the past decade? Before they evaluate the actions of others, let the Churches clean up their
own PEWS.

Quote:
gov't get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches.

I don't think you will get argument from anyone that the Catholic Church needs to clean up their own pews. But since that has absolutely no bearing on a discussion about gay marriage, I'm not sure why you would bring it up other than to denigrate catholics.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

. . . But the gay community does not wish to compromise. They don't want a partnership document (as opposed to a marriage document), but insist they be allowed to marry. This leads many to question that their motives are much more than just gaining the financial benefits of marriage. . . .

Gay people have MOTIVES? Ooooooh noooooooo! That fearful thought is ghastly and scary. What motives could the gays possibly have that would inspire them to reject "compromise" and insist that they be "allowed" to marry the same as their heterosexual counterparts?

Perhaps that MOTIVE is born of an unwillingness to be deprived of equal rights under the law (a constitutionally guaranteed right) and an unwillingness to be relegated to a status of second-class citizenship. Oy! Those are ghastly and scary motives indeed.

I am not trying to persuade you that your fear of gay motives lacks legitimacy or validity. You are incapable of being persuaded. That's why the issue is divisive. But, the numbers on your side of the divide are waning. I take solace in knowing that your fears will not prevail as time marches on.

0 Replies

Debra, you seem to be under the impression that I fear gay marriage. Actually, I don't fear it at all. As many have said and I agree, it will have little bearing on my life one way or the other as far as I can tell. What I may believe about the ultimate motive behind the push for gay marriage is of little concern as far as the issue itself. In fact, I would even agree that eventually, gay marriage will be legal. Surprise, surprise. But until it is, people have a right to voice their opinions and to campaign either for or against it as they see fit. Calling those who disagree with you bigoted and prejudiced is just plain stupid on your part and counter-productive in getting gay marriage to be accepted in this country.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

And Debra, once again you prove my point that those who argue for gay marriage cannot see past their own views and admit the others can hold a particular view of their own without actually being bigoted or prejudiced.

I understand that you reject the notion that discrimination against gays is based on bigotry and prejudice. It makes you feel better about yourself if you can somehow engage in deniability that you yourself find to be plausible. However, no one on your side of the gay-marriage divide has ever presented a valid or rational argument that somehow legitimates state-imposed discrimination against gays.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

However, no one on your side of the gay-marriage divide has ever presented a valid or rational argument that somehow legitimates state-imposed discrimination against gays.

Face it Debra, you would not consider any argument rational or valid because in your mind there is none. Just as many on the other side don't consider any of your arguments valid or rational. That's why there is this divide, and until the two sides are ready to stop the mis-characterization of the other side there will be little productive discussion on this issue.

0 Replies

Quote:

They don't want a partnership document (as opposed to a marriage document),

I believe most gay folk would be happy with this, as long as it conferred legal and financial rights the same as marriage.

CR, Deb is correct that no valid or rational argument has been presented by those who wish to deny rights to gay couples. I'm not prejudiced, and I understand that people have different opinions on the issue, and those opinions may be valid, but the arguments to back those opinions up are not. All arguments against gay marriage fall down to either slippery slope arguments, or 'tradition' arguments, neither of which hold up to even the most cursory examination.

I would challenge yourself or anyone to present a compelling and rational argument as to why certain Americans should not be able to enjoy the right to happiness that other Americans do...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As I understand it, gays just want equality in law and in name.
That there are those who support gay unions yet refuse to recognize it as a marriage.
It's not entirely dissimilar to allowing blacks to ride the bus, yet permitting them to only sit at the back.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Debra, you seem to be under the impression that I fear gay marriage. Actually, I don't fear it at all. As many have said and I agree, it will have little bearing on my life one way or the other as far as I can tell. What I may believe about the ultimate motive behind the push for gay marriage is of little concern as far as the issue itself. In fact, I would even agree that eventually, gay marriage will be legal. Surprise, surprise. But until it is, people have a right to voice their opinions and to campaign either for or against it as they see fit. Calling those who disagree with you bigoted and prejudiced is just plain stupid on your part and counter-productive in getting gay marriage to be accepted in this country.

Why is gay marriage such a lightning-rod topic?

Certainly, the anti-gay marriage people have the right to voice their opinions. They have a right to campaign against equal rights for gays. This is America. We tolerate HATE-SPEECH and public parades sponsored by the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazi organizations. That doesn't mean that we must compromise with the hate-mongers and allow their discriminatory political views to become (or remain) the law of the land.

Those of us who despise discrimination that is borne from bigotry and prejudice are unwilling to compromise. Why should we agree (accept a compromise) that irrational discrimination should be allowed to exist within our society simply because it's presented in a watered-down version? (E.g., those gays won't compromise and accept something LESS than marriage.) Why should they compromise anymore than the blacks should have been forced to compromise and accept something LESS than sitting in the front of the bus or face a lynching for being uppity?

That is WHY the gay marriage issue is such a lightning-rod topic. It DIVIDES people. You cannot convince people that state-sanctioned discrimination against gays is somehow acceptable when it's obviously NOT acceptable.

The neo-conservative politicians grab hold of these divisive issues based on their constituent's irrational bigotry and prejudices and use those issues to distract, divide and conquer.

Nevertheless, thanks to forward march of time, the use of the gay-marriage issue is becoming less and less effective.

0 Replies

I hope this doesn't degenerate into name calling.
It seems to me that many of the more activist leaders in the gay community decided to go for the gold ring rather than the brass ring. If they hadn't used the word "marriage" but instead had cloaked the issue as a civil union affording the partners the same rights that a husband/wife union has, this would not be an issue at all. But they did decide to use the word "marriage." And as a result they missed the gold ring; they missed the brass ring.
I can appreciate the comment comparing this to allowing blacks to ride the bus but requiring them to sit in the back. It took far too long to get rid of that silliness. But they were on the bus, getting from home to work and back.

0 Replies

The use of the word "marriage" has significance in a legal sense. The Federal government--as represented by the Interanl Revenue Service most glaringly, although there are other benefit considerations--grants benefits to married couples. They do not grant the same benefits to partners in a civil union. Whatever a particular state does with regard to marriage, a civil union just does not cut it for a couple who expect to enjoy equal benefits with regard to the Federal government. Some examples would be survivor benefits and visitation rights at a Veterans Hospital, the free burial plots and death benefits afforded to the survivors of veterans, among a host of small, but in the aggregate, significant benefits which apply to a married couple, but not the partners in a civil union.

0 Replies

mags314 wrote:

Why is gay marriage such a lightning-rod topic?

Because it allows politicians to build a reputation of standing up for values -- and do it on the cheap, without sacrificing any money of the interest groups that financed your election campaign. As a bonus, it distracts from a war of Iraq that is going nowhere, a national debt that's mounting, and a culture of corruption that people are beginning to get pissed off about. All of this makes gay marriage a very convenient card for politicians to play.

0 Replies

thank you, Thomas, for that succinct and perceptive reply.

0 Replies

mags314 wrote:

thank you, Thomas, for that succinct and perceptive reply.

...as well as inaccurate reply. thanks Tommy!

0 Replies

I hear what you are saying, Setenta. I am simply suggesting that the smarter approach would have been to, for example, change the IRS rules to remedy the inequities you cited. ("Senator Setenta offers an ammendment to the amendment... Allinfavorsayayeallopposedsaynayintheopinionofthechairtheayeshaveit")

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

mags314 wrote:
thank you, Thomas, for that succinct and perceptive reply.

...as well as inaccurate reply. thanks Tommy![/quote

How so?

0 Replies

A Misstep in Bush's Quest for Historical Redemption

Excerpt:

Quote:

. . . if Bush is hoping that his validation will come from future generations, why on earth is he yet again coming out in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment?

. . . free societies inevitably progress toward greater tolerance and greater equality. Old biases tend to die off with the people who hold them. Does anyone really doubt that gay marriage will be a fact of life in most parts of this country within a generation? In the few years since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, public opinion has already shifted considerably. Polls consistently show that most younger Americas have no problem with allowing gay couples to marry. So the writing is clearly on the wall. Future generations will almost surely view the Marriage Protection Amendment (and its state counterparts) in the same light that we now view anti-miscegenation laws. Indeed, I suspect even most social conservatives realize this, which is why they are frantically trying to take advantage of popular opinion while it is still on their side.

I always marvel at this phenomenon. Why is it that each generation of social conservatives thinks that it will be the one to stop history's march? They never seem to realize the power or inevitability of the processes they're opposing.

Bush, of course, is under no such illusions, which makes his decision all the more strange. He knows the MPA won't pass. And as Steve Benen points out, he has to know that his 11th hour support of the amendment is unlikely to satisfy his fundamentalist base. And I doubt that Bush himself personally supports the MPA. So why bother endorsing it? Why publicly support a measure that future generations will overwhelming view as nothing more than a statement of ignorance and bigotry?

For someone who is so clearly hoping for historical redemption, this is certainly a counter-productive move.

0 Replies

You know, what surprises me is that Clinton--Bill--the guy who doesn't have to worry about re-election campaigns--is for the marriage amendment.

Does anyone know why? I don't take him to be a homophobe.

0 Replies

Shapeless wrote:

This was on Best-of-Craigslist some time ago. Nos. 5 and 7 are my favorites.

Quote:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

That is truly wonderful!!!!!!!

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

You know, what surprises me is that Clinton--Bill--the guy who doesn't have to worry about re-election campaigns--is for the marriage amendment.

Does anyone know why? I don't take him to be a homophobe.

IMO, he was pandering to the so-called "values" voters because doing so was politically expedient at the time. I suspect, if supporting rather than opposing gay marriage was politically expedient, he would have done so. He probably falls into the "say whatever it takes to get elected" category. What his genuinely-held personal beliefs on the issue may be, I don't know.

0 Replies

Why is gay marriage such a lightning-rod topic?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know