Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
You're still making a lot of assumptions that I'm not (yet?) willing to.
#1 - But with a serious dose of self-hatred? Would you concede that they could genuinely believe then? That it could be a matter of principle then?
|
Hardly more than it is a stance of principle for a person to believe that they are the anti-Christ. Irrational self-hatred is a pathological affect.
Quote:
|
#2 - It needn't be self-hatred. I'll bring up that one cliche, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They could believe that there's nothing wrong with them so long as they aren't actually participating in any sort of homosexual act.
|
If they're celibate...that probably puts them in another category entirely, one i haven't seen. In the Ex-gay movement for instance, the leadership turns over every few years. Guess why. You see, there's a reason why people have been outed. They didn't keep to themselves. And when these hypocrites asked their political victims to keep them safe...
Quote:
#3 - "Gay marriage destabilizes the institution" does NOT equal "affirmation of gay relationships is bad". Keep in mind the many people against legal gay marriage who have no problem with religious or nonreligious gay marriage ceremonies. Or the many people who don't mind the idea of civil unions.
#4 - They may not view it as a matter of second-class citizenry. Perhaps they view marriage as a function applicable only to heterosexual couples. Perhaps they don't view marriage as a right. (Libertarians in favor of removing marriage from the public sphere would agree.) Perhaps they view gay marriage as unnecessary catering to a minority group, like removing "In God We Trust" from our money. And perhaps those who are aware of situations like Gilda's would prefer that problem be fixed in a different way not altering the legal conception of marriage.
|
I live in an interesting place...being attracted to both men and women. I can't find a difference in how committed those relationships are, if they are worthy of recognition by marriage, or any other categorical matter. And i can personally tell you each one of those positions is untenable. Simply, there is no rational reason for claiming that queer marriage is not the funcational equivalent of hetero marriage. Treating people differently for unsubstantiated reasons is discrimination, a failure to regard the all as equal before the law. Would you make any of these arguments based on race? Or wouldn't that make you a racist?
Quote:
|
#5 - Dude, sometimes people just don't sufficiently examine their beliefs and don't see the flaws and unintended conclusions that you've been seeing.
|
If you want to live the unexamined life, then for God's sake stay out of politics and do not use the apparatus of the state to impose your unthinking views on other people. The right to be an idiot is a private matter, not public one. I would NEVER support the outing of a private citizen who simply wanted to be a closet case.
Quote:
|
There really are people out there who want to reserve marriage for heteros yet do not view gay couples as inferior. It's possible for the position to be devoid of any anti-gay sentiment.
|
Make any of those arguements above based on racial lines...and you'll soon see why i disagree with that.