(Not Really) Resolved: People who oppose homosexuality deserve no respect!

The BBQ Pit
1

Well, I was just looking through the back archives, and I noticed someone calling for tolerance of the catholic church’s stance on certain issues? Why should me respect it, however? Because religion is a complex issue? Because millions of people feel a certain way, and to be social, you shouldn’t degrade them? Because it isn’t nice to put down people? Because it hurts your position? Well, all those are good reason (besides the millions of people one), but I am unable to se why such reasons aren’t applicable to sexuality.

Also, just like how when one reason to oppose gay marriage is shot down, opponents to it bring up another one, and pretend “The old one was never shot down, they just feel like showing a different reason” I have another reason. You are a horrible person if you oppose freedom for opposed groups (to the limits imposed by common sense, however.) After all, I seem to recall hearing the statement “A countries greatness is measured by how it treats its women and its minorities.” I suppose that makes you a horrible person who wants to drag their country down.

In other words, what I am saying can be expressed by two simple phrases.

  1. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

2)STFU.

Now, I am fully aware my opinion on this matter is irrational, and furthermore is antithical to free speech. Well, this is the pit, and I have seen stupider, more freedom opposing opinions then these here, so I don’t see a problem.

P.S. Much as I would love to blame the Christian bible for each and every little thing, it is still, after centuries of agreements, up in the air over whether or not the bible actually condemns homosexuals. However, I know for a fact that catholic teaching do. They claim they do not, but simply oppose homosexual acts, and proscribe celibacy for them. Yeah, that’s not degrading homosexuals in the least, as opposed to their claim that heterosexuals can get married, and have all the sex they want, provided they don’t use birth control. To borrow a phrase, that’s “wack.”

P.S.S. I am aware that there is already a pit thread on this topic. However, at this point it has chased off all the opposition, and has turned pretty pleasant. I do not want to crap all over the “era of good feelings”, to use a phrase, it is experiencing. Also, should anyone use arguments already put down in GD, or in some other forum, and want me to respond, they will be disappointed, for I will ignore them. Not the ignore list kind, but simply the not answering kind. Try a different tack, and try again. (I don’t really expect a rational response, but it just feel good to get this down in writing)

2

So, basically you are saying that John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, among others deserve NO respect. None. You would spit in their faces if they walked by.

You are to be commended for your consistancy.

3

I think that is a bit of a convulted reading of the OP Mr. Mace. I believe Mr. Plaid was referring to the specific issue of gay marriage and he argued that the anti-homosexual argument should not be respected or tolerated.

4

My take is that it is just a slightly more nuanced version of the “But Clinton got a blowjob so it is ok for Bush to do X (X being whatever evil thing he happens to be doing that Neo-Conservatives feel that they must defend)”

5

Yeah, polarization. That’s the ticket!

6

I wasn’t aware that those folks I named had given a pro-homosexual argument against gay marriage. Or even a homosexual-neutral argument. They gave the same arguement that most everyone else gives-- that marraige has historically been between a man and a woman, and shouldn’t be changed.

7

The OP is an idiot.

He has advanced this view before. He’s not interested in the reasons one might oppose same-sex marriage, or the conditions. If you are arguing against the imposition of same-sex marriage by any means necessary, then you’re a bigot.

Oddly enough, I disagree. I favor same-sex marriage. I think it’s the right thing for us to do. But because I also favor self-governance, and federalism, I oppose a finding of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and I oppose state judicial imposition of the scheme.

As a voter, I would vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment permitting same-sex marriage. As a state legislator, I would propose and vote in favor of laws permitting same-sex marriage. As a state governor, I would sign such legislation.

As a judge, I would not find a constitutional requirement for same-sex marriage. (Unless, of course, one had been passed as I speculate in the preceeding paragraph).

That position is cause for the OP to decide I am a bigot.

8

Nope. The OP is saying we should have NO respect for folks who “oppose homosexuality”, and by extention don’t support gay marriage. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. I never mentioned Bush. I never said it was alright for Bush to do anything.

Saying the OP just painted with a broad brush would be an understatement. That’s the “nuanced” argument I’m making.

9

Right. And the OP never mentioned Clinton. It looks to me as if you assumed that he was Pro-Clinton or a Democrat or Liberal based on his politics surrounding Gay Rights, and so figured that you would get a dig or two in.

This is not to say that you may not have a point. It is true that a lot of us were pretty pissed at Clinton and the Democrats on the limp way that they have handled the debate on Gay Rights and have not fully voiced those feelings out of a misguided desire to present a united front. I just don’t see it in the OP and I don’t see what you are saying as having any relevance to the OP.

10

Not resolved at all is right.

You’re spraying your opinion everywhere and it’s self-contradictory.

I don’t oppose homosexuality.
However, I do oppose gay marriage.

I do NOT oppose, in fact, I actively support, the movement to grant same-sex couples the exact same rights (and obligations) under the law as mixed-sex couples.

Where does that put me? You’re using a distinction I routinely draw to make one of your “points,” yet you’re perfectly willing to restrict my Church’s right and duty to interpret the will of God.
So who’s the bigot?

11

This is a rhetorical question, right? I mean, obviously, the bigots here are the members of the oppressed minority that want the same access to societies institutions as everyone else. What other logical conclusion could one draw?

12

What part of “broad brush” do you not understand?

For the record, I support SSM and DO think it’s wrong for Bush, or any politician, to oppose it. So let’s be clear… I am NOT saying that if Clinton didn’t support SSM it’s OK for Bush not to support it.

But, as **Bricker **has said, the OP is idiot. He doesn’t want deabte, as he’s said, so let’s just give him what he wants: He’s an idiot who talks out of his ass.

13

John Mace, I get that the OP is painting with a broad brush. As a rule of thumb, I tend to frown on that but I will say that in this instance I do understand it. We are currently in a period of time that is extremely hostile to a lot of us, and frustration is running high. There seems little that we can do on this front that will not result in us loosing even more ground than we have historically gained because of Neo-Conservative backlash. What seems so obviously right and just to us is met with hate and bigotry. We are getting pretty fucking angry and tired. Keeping all of that in mind, I tend to cut folks some slack

14

See, there’s the problem, though.

Scott Plaid draws no distinction between a religious ceremony and a secular designation.
I support the access of everyone to the latter. Everyone.
It does not make me a bigot, however, to insist on adherence to the tenets of a religion as a condition of the former.

15

Happy Scrappy Hero Pup, To be fair, though, the State is in the business of Marriage. When I went to marry my wife, I got a Marriage Certificate from the State, not a Civil Union certificate. At this time, there is no real distinction between the religious and secular institutions.

I do understand the argument that the Church should be allowed to bestow or deny marriage as it sees fit, but practically speaking it is far too late for that. The State simply gives too many benefits under the umbrella of marriage.

16

Thanks. Binarydrone, treis, but

, ,nothin’. My OP is not relevant to anything at all, but instead angry ranting, for which I put pen to paper (finger to keyboard?) for in order to calm me down. That is not to say however, I am not prepared to defend it, as an exercise in discussing things, plus an opportunity for me to call the opposition jerk-offs, seeing as how this is the pit, and all.

No, spitting would have meant I once cared about them, which never did, and would go out of my way to sacrifice some spittle to show my disdain, However, should they be in the middle of the road, and should I be driving, I would not slow down, for that would not take any extra effort to do so, unlike your example.

But really, while I don’t like the fact that Clinton went back on his promise to get rid of "Don’t ask, don’t tell, I still think that he, and the others have, and would make better presidents then any repubs of recent memory. Also, I am willing to become president of the Hillary fan club, despite my not knowing anything about her, to balance out all the hate I see at the possibility of her becoming president.

Oh, and Bricker, like I said, while you might claim to favored gay marriage, that doesn’t make it true. Read the following year old thread, calledWhat are you getting out of all this, Bricker?, and this time, please try and see, if you are not a bigot, how all your arguments line up with theirs. Personally, I believe that since you believe it is just fine and dandy for the church to keep lying about the effectiveness of condoms, that if you are not a bigot, you are certainly (self?) deluded.

And last, Happy Scrappy Hero Pup. ** Binarydrone** has already answer more succinctly then I could have.

P.S. Since I have begun typing this, H.S.H.P. has made the claim that marriage is a religous ceremony. :smiley: ::Wipes away tears of laughter:: No, marriage is both a religous, and a secular term, and furthermore, in reality, governments had the right to the term first.

17

So first, a review. Scott Plaid is a noisy ninny who likes to spout platitudes about politics and pass them off as punditry. Bricker is a strict constructionist (who will straight-facedly call you a hypocrite if you belief in the legitimacy of other forms of constitutional interpretation. Fuck. It’s hard to alliterate with legal language.)

Fetch me some smelling salts, I think I might faint from the shock.

That would be you, fella.

What I love is the anti-gay marriage folks’ playing both sides of the issue. You see, marriage is a governmental institution, and thus government is obligated to set forth restrictions on it. However, it is a religious institution, so government is obligated to allow individual religious groups to set their restrictions on others’ marriages.

Either marriage is religious, Happy Scrappy, in which case it’s a matter for individual churches to decide, or it’s secular, in which case it’s irrelevant whether forms of it contravene church doctrine. After all, divorce is common, and you can get remarried afterwards - but the Catholic Church is not therefore legally obligated to perform or recognize marriages of divorced people. Equally, were gay marriage legal, folks down at the local Baptist church would be able to refuse to perform gay marriages, not recognize ones performed in other places, and condemn us queermos to hell to boot. But that’s not good enough for Happy Scrappy here.

You see, Happy Scrappy thinks that churches are entitled to use the secular power of government to enforce religious doctrine on nonbelievers. It’s not enough for him to use religious authority - his church should be able to rule over the government, too. So his church gets to decide that a Unitarian Universalist church can’t perform gay marriages either, even though a UU church would be perfectly happy to do so. Pray tell, Happy Scrappy, how do we determine which church gets to decide government policy for the rest of us?

The agenda of the Religious Right is damn ugly when you look at it closely.

18

I gotta agree that **HSHP **is making a nonsensical arguement by confusing civil marriage with religious marriage.

Seems like one of the best arguments in favor of SSM is sitting right in front of us-- it’s been legal in MA for a year now (almost exactly to the date), but you never even hear a peep about it. This sky, apparently, didn’t fall after all…

19

BTW, thanks for digging that up. For weeks now I’ve been meaning to dig that up and ask Bricker (who opposes gay marriage therein) to explain it in light of later posts that suggest he’s always supported it.

20

What a lip-locking, liver-headed, large loud of literation. :)Oh, and you are quite welcome for the link. Here is another one of my favorite bricks.

Neither did it in Europe, where five years ago it became legal to marry a man to a man. BBC News | EUROPE | Dutch legalise gay marriage