I pit anti-gay-marriage rhetoric!

[rjung]

As I’m sure most Dopers know by now, there’s been a recent spike in gay-marriage-related chatter here in the United States – first with the surge of marriages in San Francisco, and now with George W. Bush’s push for a Constitutional Amendment defining “marriage” as solely between a man and a woman.

News coverage of this stuff always follows the same pattern:

1. Pro-gay-marriage folks talk about wanting equal rights and equal protections under the law. They cite specific examples, such as power of attorney, health benefits, hospital visitations, inheritance, etc. etc.

2. Anti-gay-marriage folks talk about how they want to protect marriage, using vague-n-fuzzy buzzwords. “We want to protect the children,” “preserve marriage,” etc. etc.

This bullshit makes no sense whatsoever! SHUT UP!

“Protect children”? Protect them from what, you ignorant fucks? I have a four-year-old son, and if gay marriages become legal, the only way he’s going to be threatened is if a gay couple breaks into my house and hits him with a hammer. Do you really believe that’s what will happen, or is “protect the children” just meaningless bullshit to cover up your own intolerance?

Double that for “protecting marriage,” too – I do not believe for one micro-second that if gay marriages become legal, swarms of lesbian couples will prowl the streets, rushing heterosexual couples into divorce court. I know you idiots don’t believe this either, so stop the stupid fucking bullshit!

You people want to oppose gay marriage? Fine, go ahead, it’s your right. But at least have the honesty to admit that your real objection to the whole thing is because gay marriages offend your religious sensibilities, and that you have no intelligent, secular reasons for your bigoted position. This is all about codifying your religious teachings into law, and nothing more!

…but then, if you admitted this, then it’d be blatantly obvious to everyone that the whole idea of banning same-sex marriages is un-fucking-constitutional, and the effort would go down in flames, wouldn’t it? I guess that aptly sums up the whole anti-gay-marriage movement: a big steaming pile of deceptive rhetorical bullshit with no legal basis to stand on.

I’d ask all you idiots to bend over so I could shove the Clue 2 x 4™ up your collective asses and knock some sense into your brains, but I wouldn’t want to give you homophobic losers the pleasure. So instead, I’ll steal from George Carlin and say unfuck you!

[htns]

Amen! Perfect rant!

[LVgeogeek]

rjung, I agree with you 100%. Well said.

[Bricker]

So you’re saying you’ve read all the threads here on the Boards, and not once did you see an objection to federally-required recognition of same-sex unions that was not religiously-based?

Really?

Think hard.

[Ghanima]

Not in the media, no. Here on the boards I’ve seen a few weak non-religious arguments, none of which really stand up.

I totally agree with the OP. In fact, I watched “Amistad” the other night, and I kept laughing because some of the crap that the characters say about slavery is practically word-for-word what one hears about gay marriage nowadays!

As for me, I’m incredulous that Bush would do such a thing. It seems really insane to try to enact an amendment that restricts rights and legislates hate, and I fervently hope that the US people don’t stand for it.

[Bricker]

@Ghanima

Not in the media, no. Here on the boards I’ve seen a few weak non-religious arguments, none of which really stand up.

Just to make sure we’re not talking about different things…

I’m talking about opposition to federally-forced recognition of same-sex marriage – that is, for example. a finding in the federal constitution of a right to same-sex marriage that would require every state to offer same-sex marriage.

You haven’t seen any secular arguments here on the boards other than weak ones that don’t stand up? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Duke]

A few days ago I saw a “debate” on CNN that featured a guy from Focus on the Family or some other conservative group. His non-religious “arguments” against gay marriage were so pathetic as to be laughable. He had exactly two of them:

1. “No other culture for 3000 years has ever accepted gay marriage.” Firstly, historically incorrect; secondly, what kind of argument is “Well, we’ve always done it this way, so we must continue”? Even if it’s wrong?

2. In response to his opponent asking how gay marriage affected his own: “If somebody is passing counterfeit $5 bills down the street, does that affect you?” Hmmm, that analogy pre-supposes that gay marriage is a “counterfeit” marriage. Take that away, and the analogy falls apart.

If that’s really the best that gay-marriage opponents can come up with without appealing to religion, it’s pretty weak.

[Duke]

@Bricker

You haven’t seen any secular arguments here on the boards other than weak ones that don’t stand up? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Bricker, I’m pretty sure the OP was talking about

News coverage of this stuff

not arguments here on the board.

If memory serves me, you’re referring to objections to federally-forced recognition of gay marriages. What rjung refers to are objections to the idea of gay marriage itself. Those two things seem close to apples and oranges to me. The thread you and many others were involved in here was based on case law and precedent; the exchange that I referred to in my last post, for example, seemed to be based on nothing serious.

[Gomez]

This article on Mykeru.com neatly eviscerates anti-gay marriage rhetoric. Check it out.

[troub]

On the local news the other night one of the reporters was interviewing some lady involved in a protest organization or something (against gay marriage).

They asked her why she was protesting.

“The definition of marriage should not be changed from the way it has been for centuries.”

So you’re opposed to gay marriage?

“I have to protect my family and my children.”

Protect them from what?

<dumbfounded look on the lady’s face, then became visibly angry>
“Protect them from having the definition of marriage changed!”

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[yojimbo]

Bricker there are a lot of threads about this situation. I haven’t read them all. Could you link me to where these arguments where made and save me a lot of time. I’d be interested coz of the stuff I’ve read I haven’t seen any strong secular arguments put forward.

Thanks

[lissener]

I would like to redefine marriage as being between my ass and George Bush’s lips.

[MrTuffPaws]

Bricker,

Ya know, I have been trying to put this off, but I just can’t any longer. FUCK YOU!!!

Fuck you and your fucking “Bricker Amendment”. Your fucking reasoning on this issue sucks donkey balls.

This is not an issue of the SCOTUS will push the issue down the states throats or not. This is an issue of discrimination against persons of a certain sexual orientation.

True, if left to the states, someone will come along and push the issue. They can push it all the way to the SCOTUS, therefore taking it out of the state’s hands completely, but did you ever stop and think that this is the way our system works? Feds trump state, you know that, and now you are throwing a fit about it. It has been this way ever since the Constitution was put into place.

Even your wording of your amendment inspires hate. Do you really want one state to discriminate against one group, while another does not? What the fuck are you thinking?

Now, don’t get me wrong. A lot of your reasonings make sense, but you have gone fucking insane on this issue.

[Homebrew]

@Bricker

So you’re saying you’ve read all the threads here on the Boards, and not once did you see an objection to federally-required recognition of same-sex unions that was not religiously-based?

Really?

Think hard.

Think at all Rick. You’re intentionally rewording the OP’s words to set up your fuckin’ strawman. The OP said he’s seen no non-religious opposition to same-sex marriage that made sense. There’s nothing in his OP to offend your “strict constructionalist” bullshit. You’re being dishonest and fucking offensive here. . Fuck off, you santimonous pompous arrogant lying ass.

[Superdude]

And, of course, we can’t forget the narrow-minded people among us. I found this little tidbit on a baseball website, in a forum called “non-baseball.”

I do not believe that people are born g.ay. I believe that at some point in a person life it became easier for them to be g.ay. Maybe they were uncomfortable around the opposit sex when they were children and therefore turned more towards the same - lots of children are shy around the opposite sex when they are young - it does not mean that they are g.ay. However, if this turnig towards the same sex for comfort makes things easier for the, and they are aware of the term homosexuality and how it is not so acceptable in socieyt - they may take their confusion to that level as to call themselves g.ay if only to give them some type of meaning and understanding of themselves. Given time - I believe that all people can and will become attracted to the opposite sex once they have found the right person - but if they are pushed or feel it easier to declare themselves g.ay and follow that road - then they will never have that chance.

To quote Bugs Bunny, “what a maroon.”

Of course, this is also the same site that gave THIS bit of wisdom, concerning abortion, and rape/incest:

There is no clear matter of responsibility for becoming pregnant butk still there is that life. I cannot say that it is wrong for a woman who has been forcebly raped or forcebly become pregnant through incest to abort the child. However, it also seems that she still has some responsibility to that life within her regardless of how it came about.

Methinks the fight against ignorance is going to take a LONG time.

[yojimbo]

Found your argument Bricker.

Crapolla IMO

[Brutus]

@rjung

…You people want to oppose gay marriage? Fine, go ahead, it’s your right. But at least have the honesty to admit that your real objection to the whole thing is because gay marriages offend your religious sensibilities, and that you have no intelligent, secular reasons for your bigoted position. This is all about codifying your religious teachings into law, and nothing more!

Errr, no. I am opposed to gay marriage. I am also opposed to judges interpreting a 200+ year old document in order to change a 2000+ year old institution, bypassing popular input on the matter. I am also an atheist. The last time I checked, atheists do no have religious teachings.

[Otto]

Well sure, Brutus, but you’re a total prick.

[Homebrew]

@Brutus

Errr, no. I am opposed to gay marriage. … I am also an atheist.

So being an irrational bigotted fucker is better than being a religiously bigotted fucker? Either way you’re a bigot with no rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

[Bricker]

@Duke

Bricker, I’m pretty sure the OP was talking about not arguments here on the board.

If memory serves me, you’re referring to objections to federally-forced recognition of gay marriages. What rjung refers to are objections to the idea of gay marriage itself. Those two things seem close to apples and oranges to me. The thread you and many others were involved in here was based on case law and precedent; the exchange that I referred to in my last post, for example, seemed to be based on nothing serious.

I wasn’t sure. While he starts out talking about gay marriage opponents in general, he includes this line:

…but then, if you admitted this, then it’d be blatantly obvious to everyone that the whole idea of banning same-sex marriages is un-fucking-constitutional…

That line suggested to me that perhaps the OP was suggesting that recognizing same-sex marriages was a constitutional requirement, since banning them was violative of the constitution. That certainly raised the spectre of a federal constitutional mandate for states to recognize same-sex marriage, and of course I believe there are plenty of strong and non-religious objections to that end.

But I wasn’t sure that idea was included in the OP’s reach. Certainly the thrust of the first few paragraphs were simply a complaint against the ill-formed arguments of same-sex marriage opponents, so I thought it was possible that the latter sentence was simply a wave of hyperbole, rather than a serious assertion that there was no solid argument against a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

That’s why I asked the question, and, when it seemed unclear still, clarified the question.

@Homebrew

Think at all Rick. You’re intentionally rewording the OP’s words to set up your fuckin’ strawman. The OP said he’s seen no non-religious opposition to same-sex marriage that made sense. There’s nothing in his OP to offend your “strict constructionalist” bullshit. You’re being dishonest and fucking offensive here. . Fuck off, you santimonous pompous arrogant lying ass.

Ah, yes, the ever-tolerant Homebrew. I trust my explanation above clears things up.

@MrTuffPaws

This is not an issue of the SCOTUS will push the issue down the states throats or not. This is an issue of discrimination against persons of a certain sexual orientation.

But I contend that the federal Constitution doesn’t have anything to say about that. Not everything is fixed by the federal constitution. This is one such issue.

True, if left to the states, someone will come along and push the issue. They can push it all the way to the SCOTUS, therefore taking it out of the state’s hands completely, but did you ever stop and think that this is the way our system works? Feds trump state, you know that, and now you are throwing a fit about it. It has been this way ever since the Constitution was put into place.

Massachusetts’ example seems to put the lie to the concern above. Massachusetts has a constitution with nearly identical language to the federal constitution, yet it provides its citizens with greater freedoms than does the federal version. Massachusetts has determined that under its constitution, the state must offer same-sex marriage. That court decision is unreviewable; it cannot be overturned by the US Supreme Court. While I would have preferred to see the action come from the legislature, at least it came from the state, not the federal government. Marriage is an issue for the states to decide.

Even your wording of your amendment inspires hate. Do you really want one state to discriminate against one group, while another does not? What the fuck are you thinking?

I am thinking that you must not want any meaningful distinctions between states. The names may differ, but I guess that you want all state laws to be more or less the same. I don’t. I believe in self-governance and a system of dual sovereignty. The Constitution contemplates that marriage is an issue for the states, not the feds.

I do not oppose full and equal status under law for both same-sex and opposite sex unions. I’d be perfectly happy to see “marriage” become a term of religious art, and have the state sanction civil unions, period, without regard for the gender of the two people uniting.

But dang it, if we are going to live in a country of united states, then the states have to have some meaning. Federal constitutional law should not impose a same-sex marriage requirement on states.

And THAT is a non-religiously argument against a federally-required recognition of same-sex marriage forced on the states.

• Rick