The Lamest Argument Against Gay Marriage

[Jillyvn]

So, I was listening to our local right wing nut on the radio today at lunch, and they were discussing gay marriage. A caller phoned in and said THIS:

She started off by saying the in early Nazi Germany, in the 30's, Hitler gave equal rights to the "gays" (he did?!?), and used that as way to round them up and eliminate them come the Holocaust. She then compared the Liberal government to early stage facists and said that if we allow gays to marry, the liberals will use this as a way to track them down and persecute them at a later date.

Huh?

People are fucking nuts.

[Kyla]

Wow. That...that makes my head hurt.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, I'm not sure there is a "lamest" argument, because none of the anti-SSM arguments I've heard have any rational merit, so it's comparing zeroes.

[Liberal]

The OP contains a very lame argument indeed. But I think it is disingenuous and myopic to say that no anti-SSM argument has any rational merit.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Liberal

The OP contains a very lame argument indeed. But I think it is disingenuous and myopic to say that no anti-SSM argument has any rational merit.

Well, due credit to the "government has no business regulating any marriage" argument, but that's not really an anti-SSM argument as it is an anti-big government argument, that happens to touch peripherally on the issue of SSM. Outside of that, though, I agree with Bryan Ekers. There are no sound arguments against SSM.

[hajario]

I think you misunderstood him. It's still a lame argument but either he explained it incorrectly or you missed a key point.

Gays were given equal rights in the Weimar era prior to Hitler. Gay people were registered as a way to help protect their civil rights. The Nazis later used these lists to round up gay people.

Haj

[tdn]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, I'm not sure there is a "lamest" argument, because none of the anti-SSM arguments I've heard have any rational merit, so it's comparing zeroes.

Sorry, I can't agree. While all anti-SSM arguments are equally worthless, this one is far more equal than the rest. This one has several cites of worthless shit backed up by several layers of batshit insanity built on a foundation of shit. It is the Taj Mahal of shit arguments.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by hajario

Gays were given equal rights in the Weimar era prior to Hitler. Gay people were registered as a way to help protect their civil rights.

No they weren't. The treatment of gays improved in Weimar Germany, the first gay rights organizations started forming in the late Imperial and Weimar periods, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to repeal the homosexual sodomy law, but gays weren't given equal rights or registered in a national database.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Miller

Well, due credit to the "government has no business regulating any marriage" argument, but that's not really an anti-SSM argument as it is an anti-big government argument, that happens to touch peripherally on the issue of SSM. Outside of that, though, I agree with Bryan Ekers. There are no sound arguments against SSM.

I didn't say there are no sound arguments against SSM. I said that it is a mistake to dismiss every argument as being without any rational merit. An argument may be valid without being sound.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by hajario

I think you misunderstood him. It's still a lame argument but either he explained it incorrectly or you missed a key point.

Gays were given equal rights in the Weimar era prior to Hitler. Gay people were registered as a way to help protect their civil rights. The Nazis later used these lists to round up gay people.

Haj

Ah. I did not know this. Learn something new yada yada.

Still, the caller would then have us believe that we need to ban SSM because we need to protect those poor, defenseless gays. I ain't buying it.

[Chimpy]

I always thought one of the worst Anti-Gay arguments, was from my School Religion teacher and it went thus:

Gay relationships do not and cannot exist, as they are not in the bible.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Liberal

The OP contains a very lame argument indeed. But I think it is disingenuous and myopic to say that no anti-SSM argument has any rational merit.

Possibly, if that had been what I said, which it wasn't. My exact words were:

Originally Posted by me

none of the anti-SSM arguments I've heard have any rational merit

Emphasis added. I'll admit the possibilty of the existence of a rational anti-SSM argument; though I've never come across it. If you know of such an argument, please be so kind as to present it. I have my doubts such an animal exists, though. Surprise me.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Liberal

I didn't say there are no sound arguments against SSM. I said that it is a mistake to dismiss every argument as being without any rational merit. An argument may be valid without being sound.

I confess I don't understand the distinction.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Chimpy

I always thought one of the worst Anti-Gay arguments, was from my School Religion teacher and it went thus:

Gay relationships do not and cannot exist, as they are not in the bible.

That's a pretty easy one to counter. Where are the cars, computers and cretaceous carnivorous dinosaurs in the Bible?

[Excalibre]

Originally Posted by Liberal

The OP contains a very lame argument indeed. But I think it is disingenuous and myopic to say that no anti-SSM argument has any rational merit.

I've yet to hear one. But I'd love to find out which ones you find convincing, given that you're even less likely than I am to condone government interference in people's private lives.

[Dead Badger]

Originally Posted by Miller

I confess I don't understand the distinction.

Assuming Lib is using the terms in their stricter logical senses, as is his wont, it is the difference between an argument which is internally contradictory, and one which is not, but is based on false premises. E.g.:

"If all dogs are cats, then Boris my dog is a cat" is valid but not sound, since not all dogs are cats.
"If all dogs are cats, then Boris my dog is not a cat" is neither valid nor sound.

The Wikipedia entry is quite helpful on this one.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Chimpy

I always thought one of the worst Anti-Gay arguments, was from my School Religion teacher and it went thus:

Gay relationships do not and cannot exist, as they are not in the bible.

His Bible didn't have I Samuel 18-20 in it? Granted, whether David and Jonathan were bi* and had a gay sexual relationship is very hotly debated, but there is no question that they were two young men who loved each other very much and showed it physically. That to my mind qualifies as a 'gay relationship' even if they were celibate (at least as regards each other).







* Be cautious not to refer to them as gay -- both married and had children, and David's lusts for women are detailed and notorious. Jonathan died fairly young and his love life other than with David is not described, but it's known that he did leave sons of his body.

[Punoqllads]

Originally Posted by Excalibre

I've yet to hear one. But I'd love to find out which ones you find convincing.

That an argument is rational is in no way saying that it's convincing. It's rational to believe that recognizing gay marriages would require businesses giving health benefits to their employees to extend those benefits to their respective partners, driving up the cost of doing business or forcing those businesses to reduce everyone's health benefits.

Rational, yes. Moral, no. IMHO.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Dead Badger

Assuming Lib is using the terms in their stricter logical senses, as is his wont, it is the difference between an argument which is internally contradictory, and one which is not, but is based on false premises. E.g.:

"If all dogs are cats, then Boris my dog is a cat" is valid but not sound, since not all dogs are cats.
"If all dogs are cats, then Boris my dog is not a cat" is neither valid nor sound.

The Wikipedia entry is quite helpful on this one.

Thanks for the explanation. In that light, allow me to amend my earlier statement to, "Arguments against SSM are teh suXXors."

I trust no one will object to that.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Punoqllads

That an argument is rational is in no way saying that it's convincing. It's rational to believe that recognizing gay marriages would require businesses giving health benefits to their employees to extend those benefits to their respective partners, driving up the cost of doing business or forcing those businesses to reduce everyone's health benefits.

Rational, yes. Moral, no. IMHO.

I'll have to admit, this does sound temptingly close to a sound argument, but it can be assumed that straight couples can represent an even larger burden if the health benefits are extended to their children, of which they could in theory have a large number.

In any case, a number of insurance companies have extended 'life partner' benefits for some time, which I presume includes common-law heterosexual spouses as well. I don't know of any significant damage this has done to the industry. Got any figures?

[Gorsnak]

I came in here planning on making the point that Bryan Ekers made, but I was wrong. This argument is indeed lamer than all the other lame "arguments" made against SSM. It's the kind of lame that makes the polio-ridden cripple on a streetcorner in Calcutta look like an Olympic athlete.

That said, it's only slightly lamer than Stephen Harper's recent assertion that this is just the first step of the Liberals' agenda to legalize polygamy. Makes me want to move to Calgary Southwest just so that I can vote against him.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Miller

Thanks for the explanation. In that light, allow me to amend my earlier statement to, "Arguments against SSM are teh suXXors."

I trust no one will object to that.

Duly noted. The Archivist will list this as Argument #1337.

[rjung]

Originally Posted by Rebekkah

She started off by saying the in early Nazi Germany, in the 30's, Hitler gave equal rights to the "gays" (he did?!?), and used that as way to round them up and eliminate them come the Holocaust. She then compared the Liberal government to early stage facists and said that if we allow gays to marry, the liberals will use this as a way to track them down and persecute them at a later date.

Huh?

"We're restricting your rights to protect you, you ungrateful homos!"

Originally Posted by Rebekkah

People are fucking nuts.

The scary fact is that their vote has as much weight as yours.

[SPOOFE]

All I know is that my ears just switch off whenever I hear someone compare Current Issue/Group X to something the Nazis did. Did you know that liberals breathe oxygen? JUST LIKE THE NAZIS?!?!? Run for the hills!!!

[aurelian]

Originally posted by SPOOFE:
All I know is that my ears just switch off whenever I hear someone compare Current Issue/Group X to something the Nazis did. Did you know that liberals breathe oxygen? JUST LIKE THE NAZIS?!?!? Run for the hills!!!

Or when Current Issue/ Group X is compared to a simliar group that helped precipitate the fall of the Roman empire (which was caused, btw, by of a lack of fundamentalist-Christian morals).

[Miller]

Originally Posted by rjung

The scary fact is that their vote has as much weight as yours.

Well, with these people, at least there's always the chance that when they go to vote, they'll wander into a phone booth instead and spend election day trying to find their candidate's name in the phone book.

[Queen Tonya]

Whew, how fortunate the gays are to have the neocons looking out for them!

I overheard a similarly confuzzling rationale for opposing gay marriage on what I presume was some wacky AM station. The jist was that if we legalize gay marriage in X state is 16 and the gays are allowed to marry, why that means some hypothetical ol' gay man could marry an innocent boy merely 16!!
I kept waiting for them to extrapolate how this would be somehow worse than a hypothetical ol' straight guy marrying an innocent 16 year old girl but of course that never happened.
The entire argument was 'if gays are allowed to marry, age of consent laws won't change but gay children marrying is hellaciously worse than straight kids.'

I had to repeat "I'm sure the next caller brought it up" to myself nearly fifty times before I could sleep that night.

[Queen Tonya]

Umm throw in "age of consent" where I neglected to.

[Cat Whisperer]

Was that Dave Rutherford and his bunch on QR77, Rebekkah? Or Ragin' Rutherford, as I like to call him?

What amazes me about the SSM onfrikkin'going debates is that every time they start talking about it, the first thing people talk about is how it's going to lead to polygamy, and the second thing it will lead to is bestiality. Good grief, people. You need to put down your Alberta Report magazine and get out once in awhile.

(Gorsnak, if you do move to Calgary, you'll find lots of fellow Saskatchewanites, I assure you. )

[Gorsnak]

Originally Posted by featherlou

(Gorsnak, if you do move to Calgary, you'll find lots of fellow Saskatchewanites, I assure you. )

Oh, there are lots of idiots closer by to vote against; I don't think I have to move to the Kingdom of Ralph. I could, for example, move to the north end of town and vote against Maurice Vellacott, who's been making some rather inane comments on the subject of late. Or I could just stay put and vote against Yellich again, though I haven't heard her say anything. I don't expect I'll be able to top Mom and Dad, though, since they got to vote against Jim Pankiw twice. I can only aspire to such heights.

[matt_mcl]

"My home town of Hartford, Connecticut, just passed domestic partnerships. You go downtown and you give them your name and address and they write it down. You don't get anything; they just get your name and address. And I'm thinking, 'That's great; when they come to kill all the queers, they'll just go to my house first!'" - Maggie Cassella

[Ranchoth]

Say, what does this theory say about those courthouses putting up the ten commandments, and putting the "warning stickers" on science textbooks, and whatnot?

Maybe the Republicans are secretly adding lion cages to the nation's sports stadiums, or something?

Just goes to show...human looniness knows no bounds. It is the great gift and the great curse of our species.

[wolf_meister]

Musicat raised a good argument concerning other things that aren't in the Bible.
How about mentioning things that are in the Bible? Cain slaying Abel, God creating floods to wipe out 99.9999999% of the human race, God blowing up cities, etc. Yes, there's a nice source for moral direction. ARRRRGGGGHHHHH !!!!!

I live in Boston, Massachusetts - yep, the state where same-sex marriage has been legal for about six months. The state has not gone to Hell in a handbasket nor has it fallen off the face of the Earth. However, January, 2005 was the worst winter month in terms of snowfall. This obviously is a punishment from God due to the fact we have same-sex marriages in this state.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally Posted by tdn

Ah. I did not know this. Learn something new yada yada.

Still, the caller would then have us believe that we need to ban SSM because we need to protect those poor, defenseless gays. I ain't buying it.

NOTE, I do NOT agree with the caller, however I can see where they may have come up with that statement.

First off, it is a stupid statement on the caller's part. But I don't blame her/him for having thought it, however misguided. After all, there have been several similar statements made on this very board and IRL. That is, that there are those that have said that the fact that it's (gay marriage) been disallowed yet again, IS the next step in the rounding up of gays by pitchfork and torches by nightfall. It's entirely possible that the caller assimilated that mentality from his/her gay friends and/or acquaintances, but didn't understand its intent.

A lot of those posts and IRL statements were made shortly after bush was elected and in fact they made claim to the "fact" that now that bush was in office, that making gay marriage illegal was the first step toward making homosexuality illegal, and other stuff like that.

I don't know where he/she came up with the gay rights in Germany thing though.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Dead Badger

Assuming Lib is using the terms in their stricter logical senses, as is his wont, it is the difference between an argument which is internally contradictory, and one which is not, but is based on false premises. E.g.:

"If all dogs are cats, then Boris my dog is a cat" is valid but not sound, since not all dogs are cats.
"If all dogs are cats, then Boris my dog is not a cat" is neither valid nor sound.

The Wikipedia entry is quite helpful on this one.

Also, all circular arguments are valid. And in general, any argument is valid so long as all its inferences are drawn according to the rules of logic. But to be sound, an argument must meet two criteria: (1) it must be valid and not circular, and (2) all its premises must be true.

Your Wikipedia example is okay for illustrating the rule, but naturally it is seldom that easy to declare an argument unsound. Two people might view the same argument differently, one as sound and the other as unsound if, for example, one of the premises is that it is possible that God exists. The person who agrees with that premise will find the Modal Ontological Proof to be sound, whereas the person who does not will find it to be valid but not sound.

[bienville]

Originally Posted by Miller

Well, with these people, at least there's always the chance that when they go to vote, they'll wander into a phone booth instead and spend election day trying to find their candidate's name in the phone book.

They manage to get to the polls much more dilligently than those with the opposing viewpoint.



The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

Has anyone noted that he OP quotes the arguer are saying that "the liberals" will be the persecutors?

Makes perfect sense to me: the minute the liberals get into power, they will undergo a 180-degree shift. (Picture the evil-laugh speech given by Sideshow Bob right after he was elected Mayor). All the pro-gay rights rhetoric of the last fifteen years (which cost them all those elections) will be replaced by their true goal: to "persecute" homosexuals.

Wake up people!

[Grey]

The Liberal party is the current government of Canada.

[CanvasShoes]

Look folks. There's an old saying, which applies VERY well in this situation.

Know thine enemy.

How many people voted against gay marriage in those states this last election? Couple hundred million? So, they are all either stupid evil mouthbreathing troglodytes, or normal people with a differing viewpoint on this subject. (with the provision that OF COURSE each group has its stupid evil mouthbreathing trogs).

If they are stupid evil mouthbreathing troglodytes (SEMTs), then who cares what they think?

The trouble is, that whether they are SEMTs, or just normal people with a different viewpoint on the issue of homosexuality, they DO currently stand between gay couples and legal couplehood.

So, now what do you do? Keep on bringing up examples like this silly person? Or understand the reasoning behind it (know thine enemy) and use that to your advantage?

I don't personally understand any other reasoning behind it other than the religious one. After all, in my humble opinion, I'll ikely never get lucky enough to find the man of my dreams, so why SHOULDN'T people that have found " the one" at least get some happiness?

However, until those "in the fight" start to understand the reasoning behind it, and start working WITH that, rather than simply dismissing it as stupid evil mouthbreathing troglodytism then the fight is going to continue to be a losing one.

It will eventually happen, but it COULD happen a lot sooner if people would understand the motives of those against gay marriage (NOTE!! "Understand" does NOT = agree with). I think this is may be what another poster might have been getting at with his "valid" argument statement?

Choosing the cause of gay marriage as a way of shove it down their throats "we'll show 'THEM' gays are SO normal people" type thing is, as has been proven over the ages by normal human nature, is NOT going to work. People will always fight something forced upon them.

There are those, particularly in the religious side, that will never agree. This doesn't mean that they're right. But fighting to force them TO agree will only delay the right to marry, as was shown in the recent election.

Understand their objections, work with them and around them, then the change will occur at a much quicker rate.

[Polycarp]

I'm not going to quote Canvas Shoes' magnum opus in full, but she's got a really good point.

There are a lot of people out there who don't realize they know gay (closeted) people and whose opinions of gay people are formed from idiotic, homophobic, or comedy-level misrepresentations. And who cannot wrap their mind around the idea that two people of the same sex can love each other in the same way as they love their spouse, fiancé(e), or SO.

Add in the "'tain't right" fulminations of most religious groups, toned down from Swaggert-style denunciation to "While we affirm the right of homosexually oriented people to be sinners in need of Christ's salvation the same as the rest of us, Scripture teaches us that homosexual practice is indeed a sin...." or similar mealy-mouthed fence-straddling. Then throw in the "ick factor."

Net result: Nobody among them sees it as a question of civil rights, but as a debate about whether a legal status ought to be extended to people whom they "know" don't look at it in the same way as they do.

That's where education, in the sense of making the injustice clear, becomes important.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

There are a lot of people out there who don't realize they know gay (closeted) people and whose opinions of gay people are formed from idiotic, homophobic, or comedy-level misrepresentations. And who cannot wrap their mind around the idea that two people of the same sex can love each other in the same way as they love their spouse, fiancé(e), or SO.

Thanks, yes, this is the point I was trying to make. But it works both ways. Those that are this way are ignorant, not necessarily purposely evil and idiotic.

Those that seem to be willfully ignorant of the rights of people (and again, as broken hearted as I am, God bless 'em if they're lucky enough to find someone), are not necessarily horrible evil people. Get to know them AlSO. And yeah, in doing so, showing that gay people aren't as a whole representive of the motorcycle humping weirdos you see in the Saint Patty's Day Parade.

IMHO, those that are against gay marriage for reasons other than religious are going to be the easiest to convince.

The religious objection is something else again. Like most people, I don't know what the answer is there. I still feel twinges of pain due to the conflict of faith and care of my fellow humans myself. I was raised in the baptist church, and though still a christian, I'm no longer a member of the baptist church, too many ridiculous doctrines (before you even bring the hypocrisy and hatred into it).

Perhaps I should offer an "ask the former baptist" thread? (kidding). I do know that in the case of those against gay marriage due to religious reasons do so because of what their faith states (bible says homosexuality is a sin).

That's a much more difficult hurdle to jump than that of the comparitively mere "homosexuality is icky" protest (all sex that someone other than YOU are engaging in, is "ICKY" imho ).

My opinion on how to "win" in the case of those with a religious protest? Take the religious aspect out of it. Marriage has long been a combination of a religious institution and a legal one. It seems, that making it either/or, would more quickly open the door toward making both sides of the conflict happy.

Make "marriage" the traditional married in the church under God, marriage, strictly one of one's specific faith.

Allow legal union (whether atheist couple, or gay, or whatever), as a strictly legal one.

As to the "what do we call them". I am not saying it's RIGHT, but I'm saying it's EXPEDIENT, to allow christians to keep the illusion that marriage is "man/woman". And the way to do that is to title gay marriage as such, or as Civil union or some such.

Yes, I know, it's not "right". But as I asked in my previous post do we want to be right? Or do we want to win? Besides, in common language, out in every day life, by and large, it would be CALLED marriage by a lot of people anyway.

And as for those arguing against it now, even if you waited until you made people LEGALLY call it marriage, those against it for whatever reason wouldn't anyway. So if the idea behind forcing the issue on what it is to be called is to "make them see that homosexuality is normal" that won't happen anyway.

Don't know if it helps or not, but that's my 2 cents worth from having grown up in the church, and having quite a bit of knowledge of the mindset, and what WOULD work in getting them to perhaps vote differently next time.

[Maus Magill]

Originally Posted by F. U. Shakespeare

Has anyone noted that he OP quotes the arguer are saying that "the liberals" will be the persecutors?

Makes perfect sense to me: the minute the liberals get into power, they will undergo a 180-degree shift. (Picture the evil-laugh speech given by Sideshow Bob right after he was elected Mayor). All the pro-gay rights rhetoric of the last fifteen years (which cost them all those elections) will be replaced by their true goal: to "persecute" homosexuals.

Wake up people!

<Puts F. U. Shakespeare on The List.>

[Jillyvn]

Originally Posted by featherlou

Was that Dave Rutherford and his bunch on QR77, Rebekkah? Or Ragin' Rutherford, as I like to call him?

That's the one! When I first moved here, I was dumbfounded by the drivel he spews. Now it's like a train wreck. I cannot turn away! Coming from the lefty oasis of BC to Calgary was quite the shock, let me tell you.

And I swear, he rails on about gay marriage more than gay people! Seriously, what is his obsession.

For that matter, why do straight folks seem to care about this issue so much more?

[Jillyvn]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

I'm not going to quote Canvas Shoes' magnum opus in full, but she's got a really good point.

There are a lot of people out there who don't realize they know gay (closeted) people and whose opinions of gay people are formed from idiotic, homophobic, or comedy-level misrepresentations. And who cannot wrap their mind around the idea that two people of the same sex can love each other in the same way as they love their spouse, fiancé(e), or SO.

I think you both address a really critical point here. I cringe when I hear the rhetoric against gay marriage, not because they oppose the idea of union but because the callers invariably start off with comments like "The gays" or "Those people", and you can hear the disgust dripping from their voices. I often wonder if this might be a generational issue, here in Canada at least.

My mother is pretty homophobic. She tries, but there's something "ingrained" in here. She seems to be ok with a friend of mine she's met who is gay, but still subscribes to the whole "he's young and doesn't know what he really wants philosophy. Wheras, my dear gay friend and his boyfriend kissing in front of me phases me no more than the hetero equivalant.

That being said, the Stephen Harper (Canadian "right" politician) keeps bringing up the polygamy argument. I would never say it here for fear of destroying the progress made for gay marriage, but my reaction to this is always, so? As long as it isn't abusive or cultish, I've known some non-traditional couples in my time that, if they all three had married, wouldn't have been the end of the world. I just really can't bring myself to care about the lifelong arrangements of strangers.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Rebekkah

That's the one! When I first moved here, I was dumbfounded by the drivel he spews. Now it's like a train wreck. I cannot turn away! Coming from the lefty oasis of BC to Calgary was quite the shock, let me tell you.

I believe you. Coming from Sask. it wasn't quite as big a shock, but this is a Capitalist province, no doubt about it.

And I swear, he rails on about gay marriage more than gay people! Seriously, what is his obsession.

For that matter, why do straight folks seem to care about this issue so much more?

Ragin' Rutherford seems to have only two themes to his shows - gay marriage and BSE. Oh yeah, he rants about politics sometimes, too. We pretty much listen to his show for the comic relief.

(I'm with you about the polygamy/polyandry, too. If a bunch of people want to get married, and everyone involved is a legal adult and knows what they're getting into, why is it such a big deal?)

[Punoqllads]

Originally Posted by featherlou

(I'm with you about the polygamy/polyandry, too. If a bunch of people want to get married, and everyone involved is a legal adult and knows what they're getting into, why is it such a big deal?)

Legal recognition of gay marriages does a lot of good for our society, in my opinion, and would be simple to integrate into our current legal system. Recognizing polygamous/polyandrous relationships as marriages creates a whole host of legal problems (power of attorney, custody and visitation rights for a divorce, property distribution from a death without a written will, to name a few) and doesn't really provide any societal benefits, again in my opinion. If some mature adults enter into those relationships I have no problem with it, but I don't want to imagine the legal entanglements that might occur if something goes awry.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally Posted by Rebekkah

I think you both address a really critical point here. I cringe when I hear the rhetoric against gay marriage, not because they oppose the idea of union but because the callers invariably start off with comments like "The gays" or "Those people", and you can hear the disgust dripping from their voices. I often wonder if this might be a generational issue, here in Canada at least.

What people aren't realizing, or perhaps don't WANT to think about is that it's not truly an issue of intelligence. If it were, then imho, the answers would be easy.

It's a question of emotion. The "answers" to many people against homosexuality, or marriage for homosexuals are ones of emotional pain or in the latter, seeking pleasure (I don't mean just sexual, I mean the whole specturm, seeking love acceptance etc). Psychologically, even the most intelligent people make our most "important" decisions based on how we FEEL about something rather than how we think about it.

Really, it's the most basic psychology. We, like most creatures, are motivated by two factors in life. Pain, and pleasure. Avoiding the first, seeking the latter.

The "gay issue" is a horribly painful one for people on both sides of the issue. Until those seeking gay marriage rights realize and USE this, rather than simply dismissing anti-gays as 'evil and moronic" and so on, they'll continue to find themselves butting their heads against a brick wall.

Those who are anti gay, or anti gay marriage aren't doing it out of stupidity or evilness, but from pain avoidance. So, reduce or eradicate the pain associated with how they view homosexuality, and you're going to have a much easier time accomplishing what you want.

Of course, (sorry not to beat a dead horse), people can just keep on being mad, and trying to make it "right" because of the principle of the thing. "That's stupid, why should we give 'THEM' any way to not be in pain, WE'vE been in pain all these decades etc"......but that won't get you to WIN, only be right....and only be right amongst the choir so to speak.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally Posted by featherlou

IRagin' Rutherford seems to have only two themes to his shows - gay marriage and BSE.

Gay marriage and breast self exam????????

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by CanvasShoes

Gay marriage and breast self exam????????

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, aka Mad Cow Disease.

Although I thank you from the bottom of my ... heart for the mental image.

[Jillyvn]

Originally Posted by CanvasShoes

Gay marriage and breast self exam????????

Oh, thank you so much for that. All my office mates think I'm insanse, I'm laughing so loud, but I suppose you're missing context. All I can hear is Dave Rutherford raging on about the Liberal conspiracy to foster Breast Self Exams. LOL.

Ok, so update.

I'm listening to the radio this morning and good ol' Dave is doing an "editorial" piece about some judge who let off a drunk driver because the kid he hit was liable for his own actions (no cite, not even sure if it is true). He then says something like, "Along the lines of gay marriage," and goes on the say why this is a stupid decision. Huh?

Oh, gar! The drivel in this province is slowly killing my soul.