Ustwo

I decided to make this a seperate thread since this is not a left/right issue in my mind, and we had two threads dealing with basiclly the same issues.

The fact that the US is very divided on politics in terms of left/right, but firmly against gay marriage makes me wonder why?

You would think this issue would be pretty close too, but even in states that will be happy to elect members of congress/senate that support gay marriage, the majority of people are opposed to them.

There is a disconnect here that goes beyond being a homophobe into the realm of taboo. Taboos are interesting because so many societies have the same taboos. Taboos seem to be almost instinctual, residing at a genetic level. You don't do something just because you don't. Early people did not know about genetics but they didn't think you should marry your sister either. Other mammals have the same 'taboo'. There are genetic benefits of course but I don't think horses, lions, elephants, or any of the myriad of animals which don't engage in incest under normal circumstances know this. Obviously there are exceptions to this and they are notable not because they are exceptions but because they are so rare.

Gay marriage strikes me as something at the same level. Its one of those things that you just don't do. Logic doesn't seem to apply. Now obviously there either must be some benefit to homosexuality (its not uncommon) or the genes/environment that control sexual preference must be rather fragile.

What I don't agree with is the concept of a gay lifestyle. Its not a lifestyle, you choose your lifestyle and I don't think homosexuality is a choice. Even in societies where homosexuality was encouraged, being a 'true' homosexual is considered wrong. Most people think of homosexuality as a perversion of sorts, and very few people would choose to be a pervert. It has carried the death penalty many times and I'm sure still does in parts of the world.

So I think the problem with those who want to see gay marriage legal, is that you are not fighting something that can be articulated. You are fighting is more like an engram then a logical debate.

Maybe someday they will be able to convince enough people that gay marriage is the right thing to do, but it will be an uphill fight and never fully accepted. In these days of birth control is there anything wrong with having sex with your sister? Odds are thats not going to change much either.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

"in these days of birth control "

that's the whole arguement right there. think of how long birth control was suppressed, banned, and taboo. think of how much of an uphill fight that was. think of how long it was assumed that "you just don't do that."

this fight did not begin yesterday...we have a history. but it is not been a long time since queer issues broke out in to the open as a topic of discussion. there is much left to be done...but we've all but just started. i have faith that there will be a day of justice for queers, when homophobia and discrimination are finally laid to rest.

TheKak

Intolerance takes time to beat, people will come around in a few decades (just like inter-racial marriage, ect).

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

OpieCunningham

A "taboo" is a very worthless attribute of logic.

I see the gay rights issue as being essentially identical to the civil rights issues of the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of people back then felt it was "taboo" to allow black people to sit at the front of the bus or eat at the same counter. It was indeed, "illogical" in their mind. Clearly they were mistaken. Just as anyone who opposes gay marriage today is mistaken.

The real issue here is that the term marriage is being used as a dividing force.

For those that oppose gay marriage it is typically due to two factors:

1- Marriage is a sacred act that transcends companionship. This excuse is used to refuse to accept that two people of the same sex can experience this type of love. And yet there are fully legal Elvis Chapels in Las Vegas offering such "love" in 5 minute ceremonies for heterosexual couples. If the real goal is to prohibit loveless marriages, there are plenty of places to start which do not include the sex of the people getting married.

2- Reproduction. The concept that a marriage is not real if the couple cannot reproduce. This too is nonsense - there are millions of married heterosexual couples who specifically choose not to reproduce and there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) who are technically incapable of reproduction whether they wanted it or not. There is no pact within marriage that mandates reproduction.

So essentially, the real issue is this "taboo". You may not want to call it homophobia, but I certainly do. There are lots of taboos in the world - that doesn't mean all of them should be converted into laws. You have the right to not marry a man due to your taboo, but you do not have the right to prevent someone else from doing so because you have an emotional aversion to the concept.

filtherton

I agree somewhat. I agree that homosexuality is a taboo, but in the context of a rational(ha!), civilized(allegedly) society taboos are unnecessary. We all have a conscious chioce in determining whether to question our perceptions and fit them to some kind of rational scaffolding. There is no rational basis for hating homosexuality and by extension homosexuals. There isn't even a rational basis to dislike it or them. There is no consistently rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry. I believe that an aversion to homosexuality would possibly be justified if homosexuality posed any sort of threat to the stability of our society. It does not, and i challenge anybody to prove, without silly stereotypes, that it does.
If you're correct than it says a lot about our species when we consistently choose outdated instinct over rational thought.

So stop the fucking presses, i empathize, somewhat, with the perspective of ustwo.

irateplatypus

the flaw i find in this is: shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who encourage a change in a culture's mores? people love to say this and expect their audience to automatically ascent to it. i'm not sure i agree with this and i'm positive no one could prove it.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OpieCunningham

No. Why should it? I don't have to prove my actions don't cause harm in order to engage in those actions, it has to be proven that they will cause harm in order for me to not engage in them.

Because we're innocent until proven guilty.

The only reason I can think of that could be claimed that homosexuality is a threat to society is because it has no means of direct reproduction (though even that will change as science advances). But if we're not going to worry about people that conciously choose to not reproduce even if they are able, this is a non-threat.

If you can't prove something is harmful - there's no reason to prohibit millions of people from doing it.

irateplatypus

hmm... call me crazy, but since changing the fundamental makeup of the basic unit of all culture and society (the family) is at stake... i'd want to know the implications first.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OpieCunningham

Unless it is applied to ALL of society and not simply those that choose it, the implications for society as a whole are non-existent.

There are a thousand things wrong with families. I'm not going to tell you how to raise your children or whether you love your spouse enough or in the right way and if you tried to tell me any of those things, I'd assuredly not accept it as law.

Again - the burden of proof is on the nay-sayer. I could claim that MTV is negatively impacting society and should be banned. If I can't prove it, I have no basis for attempting to enforce it.

Journeyman

Maybe by culture, but in this society, the burden of proof ought to be placed on those who encourage limiting freedoms.

European royalty thought incest was a good idea. Ancient greek soldiers thought homosexuality was a good idea. Just how "early" do you want to go? Say, before records about these things were kept? What evidence is there that prehistoric humans didn't have a small homosexual segment of their population?

If I understand you right, you're trying to say that gay marriages should not be allowed because a majority (read: 51% or +. note: 54% +/- of heterosexual marriages end in divorce) of people have what amounts to a gut instinct about these things. I'm not about to base the beliefs that drive my actions on something unless it is "something that can be articulated."

irateplatypus

as a general rule, i would usually agree with your reasoning. but, in this case, we're not talking about limiting freedoms... we're talking about making something that is illegal and changing laws to make it legal. it isn't a "freedom" to marry someone of the same sex, it isn't a right granted by the constitution. by the same logic you could say that any laws that have a moral component in their purpose are limiting freedoms. in some sense you would be right, but society would quickly degrade if we dispensed of all laws concerning morality. we grant the government the power to put limitations on behavior that falls into a moral realm. it's no good to saying that it's a freedom issue, it's a public mores issue. very distinct difference.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

adysav

People have been saying this about drugs for years.

OpieCunningham

The Constitution is not a declaration of rights, it is a limitation of rights. Gay marriage is not a right limited in the Constitution.

Additionally, gay marriage is not presently illegal on the Federal level. It is currently a right for which the limitations are to be assigned by the States. Many States are attempting to illegalize it, some are attempting to legalize it and the Federal gov't is attempting to change it's current policy to illegalize it everywhere.

Public mores take a back seat to millions of people's desires. It was a moral issue that blacks were not afforded the same rights as whites just 40 years ago. The moral was wrong then, it is wrong now.

filtherton

Changes in the mores of a culture are constant. Do you honestly believe that gay marriages will have a negative effect on our society? How exactly? Meet me halfway, let me assuage your fears.


The problem is that no one is advocating the changing of the fundamental make-up of the basic unit of all culture and society. I assure, this will not stop straight people from getting married and you'd have to have an odd relationship with your wife if two guys getting married effects it. During your formative years, how often did the genitalia of your parents come into play?


As a general rule i would say that laws that are only in place based on morality should be reexamined. Laws should serve the function of promoting order and striking an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the people as a whole. To often, morality amounts to what the loudest person/people in the room think/s. Sometimes when morality is codified it is nothing more than state sponsored foolishness, i.e. slavery, prohibition, prohibition of inter-racial marriage.

and... If a church decides that it wants to marry gay people and you oppose their efforts, you are limiting their religious freedoms, it's as simple as that.

rukkyg

The most likely way this situation will be resolved is through the supreme court, with it declaring banning same-sex marraiage as unconstitutional under the 14th amendment, just like every other civil rights issue. This process will occur sooner if Kerry can become president and appoint some somewhat liberal judges.

asaris

I don't think it helps the debate if we just call people who oppose gay marriage 'bigots'. I know a lot of these people, and while some of them are probably just bigots, some of them are more than willing to give well-articulated, valid reasons why the state shouldn't support homosexual unions. Can't we save the term 'homophobe' for those who really are bigoted against homosexuals, and those that disagree with their lifestyle. (Sexual tendency may or may not be a choice; lifestyle certainly is.)

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

rusti

Actually I think bigots is the proper word to use.
Interracial marriage was illegal in this country until 1967. Then the landmark case Loving v. Virginia went through 9 years of appeals. It took that long for courts to rule in their favor. They were arrested in 1958 and told by the Virginia Judge that "God did not intend for the races to mix."
Note of trivia, as of 2000 (i am not sure if it is so anymore) Alabama still bans black-white marriage. This is counter to the SCOTUS, but it is still in the books.

Imagine that, illegal until 1967. Think back, it really isn't that long ago. Several members of the Politics regulars here were alive then.
You could find many people through the 1960's who could give you well-articulated, "valid" reasons why the state shouldn't support interracial marriage. We could be nice and decline to call these people bigots, but it would be a disservice to those who fought for the right to marry someone of a different color.

Now please replace the applicable homosexual qualifiers in there to get the 21st centure version.

irateplatypus

i don't pretend to have citeable evidence that homosexuality has a detrimental effect on society as a whole. my post said that i'm sure you or anyone else does not have evidence to the contrary. both sides say those things so matter-of-factly when no one knows for sure. it's just another example of demagoguery.


right... because the difference between men and women starts and stop at their genitalia? you don't believe that any more than i filtherton. as for the rest of it... i think my sig sums up my position better than i could alone.

ok. but if you're going to take that stance... then you must also allow for child pornography, public nudity in all circumstances, no boundaries on decency in mass media... and the elemination of all manner of morally guided law. how can that be? because you would be taking your moral standard and enforcing it on someone else... the exact thing you are condemning in others.

so if i oppose the church doing something i'm limiting religious freedom, yet someone opposing my opposition is innocent? seems like a one-way street to me.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Superbelt

Sorry, that rusti post was me.
I'm at my parents place and the page came up under my brothers username, didn't notice till after I posted.

OpieCunningham

It is demagoguery to presume detriment, not to presume no detriment. I could claim any number of things are bad and should be illegal even though I cannot prove they are bad. That is demagoguery. Requiring proof that something is bad before advocating for its' illegality is logic.

irateplatypus

i made no such presumption about whether it was detrimental or not. in fact, in this thread the only thing i said i was sure about was that no one could be sure. in this wrinkle of the issue... i have no position. if you call the desire for proof of neutrality for a fundamental shift in culture and values demagoguery before i ascent to its acceptance demogoguery... then i am a demagogue.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OpieCunningham

I call the desire to illegalize an action due to an unsupported claim of harm to society the desire of a demagogue.

If that is not you, then that is not you.

If no one can be sure that something is harmful or not harmful, there is no logic to disapproving of it. That does not mean there is no logic to approving of it.

OFKU0

I don't look at gay marriage as changing culture and society, but rather more so adding to it. We have a segment of our society that are gay. This has been going on for centuries and the worlds population continues to grow. The reproduction arguement doesn't work here.

Can gays be good parents? ( through surrogate mothers, adoption) I would say probably as good as straight parents do.What would be the difference? Would people be afraid that gays will be turning out gay kids? If that is the case, then there are a hell of alot of married couples who fucked up badly by raising their kids to be gay.(humour) And I won't go the molestation route since we all know straight and gay people can do equally the same.

Are gays productive members of society and contribute to the well being of our society as a whole? Again what's the difference between gay and straight when it comes to basic fundemental morals? Damn, I knew this would come down to morality.

Speaking of such, here in lies the church. According to the church, homosexuality is immoral. Is murder, stealing, raping etc,... not immoral? Is it more immoral if a gay does it? Who decides and why? How can a gay be considered immoral especially by the church? Is the church jealous that some gays have a mind of their own and don't want to join the clergy? Maybe if there were more gays in the church, the alumnus wouldn't bugger children.

Speaking out of both sides of it's mouth, it seems to me the church doesn't understand gays in relation to everyone else or for that matter themselves. For an institution that relies on sanctity and solace as it's resolve, it sure doesn't practise what it preaches. But then again, it amazes me that so many people are drawn to religion in the first place, to be good honest moral folk Sunday morning but when it comes to something threatening such as gays, the judgemental chastisement of something they don't, and don't want to understand rears its ugly head, because someone tells then to think that. Why else would they be like that?

I don't know if it is hypocracy, sheer ignorance or just insular prejudices that drive people to decide what is right or wrong? I would think that being a complete individual and respecting and excepting all people equal would put one on the fast track to heaven when our number comes up. But why would it? If the bible teaches God's word as gospel, that being indifference towards some people, I guess to get into God's good books, one has to practise the same. Maybe God should have taken more that 7 days to create the world because it is one fucked up place, and always has been. Thank God? What the fuck for. Good thing too that there is a cross on top of churches rather than a San Diego sized Chickle Little up there or else people would be falling on their faces everywhere. The sky is falling, the sky,....

And finally government. Not much to say here just that as everything changes and the old guards die off, there is a time and place for everything. Gay marriage will have to wait a little longer. And it's too bad because the longer it takes the more those so intolerant will continue to aspire to the basic lowest common denominators in society while thinking they are actual better than some one else. Doesn't that happen when people decide someone elses business when it isn't theirs to begin with? Good thing gays don't bring up the 50% divorce rate. Maybe someone should decide what heterosexuals can or can't be married, have kids etc,..Jumpin' Lord Jesus, nobody has the right to do that now. How dare anyone even make such an imflammatory suggestion.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

martinguerre

queer families are already here. you absolutely do not get to make that choice. all you get to decide is if you're going to support their oppression. call me crazy, but since the lives of human beings are at stake, i'd want to know the implications first.

analog

I never understand why people feel the need to constantly hold back the freedoms of others, simply because it is not something they themselves want.

If it's not for you, then it's not for you. If I want to marry a man, as an example, my doing so does not affect your life one iota.

A gay couple is also much more hard-pressed to spit out 8 kids like some of us heteros do. *Hell, there are some religions which heavily advocate reproduction, resulting in many large families.* Right there you're saving a shitload on baby and child costs for healthcare and whatnot. Also, the population of the world could use the break. There are enough people on this planet as it is without husbands knocking up their wives every 11 months like they're going for an olympic medal in baby-makin'.

Why can't you just let them be?

EDITED: area marked in *'s at the request of a poster.

Mephisto2

I agree entirely with your sentiments; just not the stereotypical analogies used.


Mr Mephisto

analog

I hate to go so far off-topic, but I must answer this:

I am Roman Catholic. I am a practicing (going to church regularly) Roman Catholic. I was rasied Roman Catholic my entire life, went to religious education on up until Confirmation, the officlal "you're an adult now" sacrament, and received every other sacrament along the way. I have assisted in teaching religious education for several years, and had my own class for several years, all of which were grade 2, which carries 2 of the most important sacraments of all. My entire family on my mother's side is Roman Catholic, and most of my dad's side, and they've all been that way since Catholicism was formed, to the best of our knowledge. I love my religion, I study it, and I love my family.

Take offense if you like, but I believe the context of who it's coming from should change the perception a bit.

Oh, and I respectfully request that you remove the comment that my words were bigoted. This is clearly not the case.

**This post was edited for clarity after the post it refers to was edited by member request.**

Mephisto2

***This post was removed (by Mr Mephisto, and on his initiative alone) after he nearly fell off the mountain he had made out of a mole-hill.***




Mr Mephisto

analog

Not to carry this any further than it needs to be, but I've officially retracted my comment and edited myself accordingly. My apologies for any offense (though not intended) you may have incurred.

Side note: Everyone in every religion has a relation on some level who's been killed for their religion. It's nice to say that...

...but is quite irrelevent in this case, and makes me look like a bigoted asshole. I am neither a bigot, nor an asshole. In fact, i'm likely THE LEAST bigoted person on the face of the fucking planet. I love everyone. Making a comment based on my own experiences and perceptions of my own people does not make me a bigot, nor was my comment some sort of "slippery-slope" towards evil, as you seem to have painted it.

Also: havign more children was a sign of fertility and a love for God. They had as many kids as they could in the time they had to do it in, and were happier with each success. Perhaps "sport" is the wrong term to use to describe the fervent nature in which traditional Catholic families have children, but look at the facts. Who wouldn't work as hard and fast as they could to win more of God's favor? I hardly see how that could be offensive, but i've removed it anyhow.

Mephisto2

Did you see my last comment?

Mr Mephisto

gondath

Marriage itself is a pretty broken institution to begin with. It's amazing any segment of the population would be as vocal as they are about making legal something they are doing anyways. Let me explain one big reason why gay marriage irks me. For one, it's taking away attention from more important things going on in the world, namely in the Middle East and under the direction of a certain careless administration. This is not a time to argue for silly legal issues. Ignoring that, the gays aren't advocating changing the marriage laws to permit any kind of union, such as polygamy, incest, or even the dreaded beastiality. They are selfishly seeking gain only for themselves. That makes them no better than a special interest group without the sense to bribe anyone to get across their message. I'm not very fond of special interest groups. If they truly believed in personal choice and love and all that they claim to, then they mostly certainly would be trying to get marriage changed to allow for any combination of people, related or not, or even animals for whatever legal status it would give them in such a union. It's a shame that isn't what is happening here. Maybe if it was, I would consider being on their side. I stand firmly against gay marriage for these main reasons and more.

Superbelt

polygamy in many cases results in an underaged girl being promised and then brainwashed to a much older man. Incest carries a dangerous bullet of almost guaranteed birth defects and bestiality is cruel and unusual to the animals involved.

Homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage except for both have the same genitalia. Both enter into the agreement of their own free will.
To argue that they have to fight for those 'other' things is arguing the slippery slope and that is a losing argument.

smooth

Superbelt,

I'm pretty surprised to see you state these things because you are usually very well informed.

I would just encourage you to look into a few things:

1) that polygamy does not in many cases involve underaged girls married off to older men (I'm assuming you are using our cultural definition of underage, and by extension, limiting that statement to stateside)

2) the concept of "brainwash," which has been studied and refuted extensively

3) That incest carries with it the almost guaranteed, or even high probability, of birth defects (particularly, examine ethnographies documenting where various cultures' incest taboos and their functions arose from)


If I don't get too caught up in my stuff later this week, maybe I'll be able to drop some info back in here for you. Maybe roachboy has something at his fingertips, as well.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Kadath

As for polygamy, the only experience I can speak from is that my uncle is a Mormon and has three wives. I'm not going to lie; he's a bit of a nut on certain topics. He's passionately libertarian to the point of being separatist, he doesn't believe in income tax (though he pays it, he just wants something else) he hates property taxes and the fact that you can't truly own land in the US (eminent domain is always there to mess you up) and so on. His three wives are all lovely people. He has an ex-wife who was his first, was not interested in polygamy, and so they got a divorce. They have a very good relationship. His third wife is the widow of his best friend, who died of cancer -- he married her after his friend died to support her and her many children, as his friend was a Mormon as well. All his children are happy, friendly, polite, and two of them are old enough to be married with kids. They each have one partner and are not interested in pursuing polygamy.

So. There's my "insider's view" on polygamy. Granted, it's based on just one piece of anecdotal evidence, but I imagine it's more than most people actually know about the subject. I don't find the concept offensive or detrimental to society. As for incest, I can't get past it. I agree that in the age of birth control there should be nothing wrong with it, but I suspect wanting to have sex with someone who was raised as your sibling for many years indicates some sort of mental illness, though here I don't have the experience to speak with any authority (thank God).

So I'm for group unions as well as homosexual ones, but not for ones with those who can't consent (animals or underage individuals) and I don't think we're ready as a society to kick the incest taboo yet.

__________________
it's quiet in here

filtherton

Well, i can't assert that the sun will come up tomorrow, but based on my experience in sunrises up to this point i can assume that it will. When something is uncertain it is useful to make hypotheses about possible outcomes based on what we do know already. No one can absoluteley predict the future, that much is obvious. What i want to know is why you hesitate? What problems do you foresee, if any, and what is the basis for your belief that these problems need to be worried about?

You missed the point of my response so let me reassert. How exactly will allowing gays to marry change the fundamental unit of our culture, the nuclear family, in a way that is significant to its purpose as it seems to be defined for this discussion, i.e. raising and socializing children? Studies have shown that children are no better or worse off when raised by gay couples as compared to straight couples. Is this change you speak of anything more than superficial?



You don't understand my stance. An argument could be very easily made that child pornography is counter to the best interests of the members of our society. There are very compelling reasons to criminalize child pornography, compelling reasons which are noticeably absent from this discussion when it turns toward gay marriage. As for public nudity and broadcasting standards, europe is much more liberal than us in these regards and they seem to be doing all right. This is a scarecrow anyway.

Is there something in the first amendment about your perspective superseding the rights of all others? If that is the case, then i understand where you're coming from. If not, than i regretfully inform you that not being allowed to limit the rights of others is not in and of itself a violation of your rights.

roachboy

this again....

1. why should anyone, conservative or otherwise, religious or otherwise, care about who someone else chooses to love?

2. what possible legal grounds would there be for limiting the secular protections of the secular institution of marriage, drawing a line around who can and cannot avail themselves of it?

fact is there aren't any--which is why you have the after effects of a political mobilization coming from various religious groups to reframe the question as if it were religious...

these operate in almost any discussion of the matter, including here, and should maybe give folk pause, a chance to think about how easily and thoroughly the line between arguments that hold for a particular relgiious community and arguments across communities (belief versus politics) can be blurred in this generally reactionary political climate.


the effects of this mobilization is evident in the repetition of chicken little arguments...premise: the family is the basic building block of society. which would of course be fatally wounded if different kinds of families are legitimated--as if letting gay people avail themselves of the legal protections of marriage will cause a run on being gay and a wholesale abandonment of the bourgeois family unit--absurd logically, repellent politically.

i remember a particularly repulsive moment from one of the christian coalition videos that circulated amongst rural congregations in the fight over prop. 2: a guy stood in front of the acropolis and argued that the fact that athenian society had no problem with homosexuality meant that god had to smite it.

the video argument had the advantage of making the stakes clear that underpin the debate: for the christian right, gay people are a threat to civilization. which of course the chrisitan right gets to define. this "thinking" positions gay people in the same discursive space as terrorists....


is this bigotry?
curious coming from the same people who would otherwise be all about the personal responsibility angle politically to see motive being bumped from personal attitudes to god, which erase the possibility of bigotry by reducing the believer to a meat puppet carrying out/imposing a sanction legitimated by god...even as the judge not lest you be judged thing floats about in other, less foul areas of the same body of texts..no matter, obviously.

this fine logic has worked out really well in the past.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

student

Are you serious? It was up to the states to decide and then "the careless adminstration" decided they needed to get the support of the religious base and ban gay marriage federally by amending the constitution(actually write discrimination into it) I hate doing laundry, why don't we undo the abolishment of slavery so I can get me some slaves. It is nothing more than a distraction. First forget about Osama, IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ. Now forget about Iraq, BAN GAY MARRIAGE.

boatin

For me, the analogy of interracial marriage is a good one. Others have spelled it out better than I could, so let me make a challenge in a different direction for anyone that is against gay marriage:


How is gay marriage different than the issue of interracial marriage?

Because it's an analogy, I DO understand the difference between 2 men vs. a man and a woman. What I want to hear is how are the arguements against any different than the arguement against interracial marriage 50 years ago?

Because the arguments sound exactly the same to me...

filtherton

So it is now selfish to demand for yourself the rights afforded to others as a matter of course? Hmmm, sounds rational.

Okay, so the gays can't take your attention unless you give it to them. If you think that the middle east is being overlooked because gays want rights then perhaps your blame would better lay with those who lack forsight to make the middle east a higher priority.

gondath

I love how incest, polygamy, and bestiality become exempt from the argument, making it convenient and opportunistic to compare the poor gay agenda to blacks being oppressed. I find the comparison in the two wholey different situations insulting. It is definetely selfish to hypocritically deny to even acknowledge the right to marry for other similar groups when you claim to be acting out of what's fair and just. It's a joke.

Incest has the highest probability of birth defects among the inner family, such as brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. However, the chance is still miniscule and brith control has been available for many years now. We don't prevent people with other proven genetic disorders from having children, so why is their situation any different.

As for being against polygamy, now who is supporting a definition of marriage? Some have pointed out that studies have not conclusively proven that gay parents make bad parents. Mutiple parents have never been proven to be bad parents either. The divorce rate even supports the notion that humans are not monogamous by nature. Yet we have people throwing up words like love and committment as if reality reflects the evidence.

Now we reach the dreaded beastiality. In some states, it is not even illegal to have sex with your own animal. I say the states preventing it are wrong. Who can be the true judge of an animal's consent? Many animals are very affectionate. If you are going to claim love exists, biologically speaking, it is not possible for only one species to have a singular emotion.

I don't see the comparisons here as any kind of slippery slope. I'm not the one arguing against their validity. They have as much right to what they do as the gays, but I don't see anyone championing their cause. I won't get started on adding underage sex and marriage here... yet.