We could expect such a person to be swayed by arguments that religions should not be permitted to enforce their morality by legal fiat in america, right? Unless they wished or seriously believed they lived in a dictatorial theocracy ruled by themself, I mean.
It’s a priviledge that’s pretty firmly installed in the constitution, though, what with the aftermath of that whole slavery thing. Is there not a legitimate argument to be made that in this country, an argument from equal rights gains additional weight by being explicity enshrined by our government (where religious philosophies are explicity excluded by the first amendment saying to “make no law respecting an establishment of religion”).
I’m aware that this argument would not work if you lived under the rule of the Taliban or whatever, but then, we’re not talking about such places.
Why? You are assuming some corrolation between inspiration and eventual capitulation. Basically the assumption of bigotry assumes that hate drives the person. There is no reason to believe that every person who opposes SSM on religious grounds hates homosexuals, only that they believe that it is proscribed by God.
Right, but voting on a moral issue from religious principles does not violate the establishment clause. It is not establishing a religion for individual lawmakers to reach a consensus based on a shared morality. The fact of the matter is that most mainstream religions, at least in their more traditionalist and conservative wings think that there is something wrong with homosexuals. So it is not favoring Christianity over Islam as such to vote in a way that both religions can agree on. The establishment clause does not mean areligious, it means ecumenical. It means everyone can come to the table, not that some people are barred from the table for being too religious.
Religion is not an excuse it’s a reason. Intra-religious dissent has no bearing on the validity of claims made. You are just choosing a side in the intra-religious debate.
People have used both words, the problem here is that this discussion has been more about whether or not confirming liberal biases is justified than it has been about the actual topic, thus the nitpick over the word ‘bigot’.
Acceptance can be programmed in. What’s your point? No matter what you believe a large part of your belief structure comes from constant ritualized repetition. Behavioral programming does not make something invalid.
begbert2 To clarify. People think that stealing should remain illegal because it is immoral. That doesn’t mean that they hate shoplifters. I’d imagine a great number of Christian parents have children who shoplifted and still love them very much. Just as some Christian parents of homosexuals love their children very much, but just don’t approve of their lifestyle.
OK, nearly 700 posts in, and I am still waiting for the answer…
What is the problem that those against SSM have with it?
Given:
Nothing is being taken away from OSM (Opposite sex marriages)
No one who is not involved will be affected (excluding government clerks who will have a slightly higher work load)
No church will ever be forced to recognize or honor SSMs if they don’t want to.
Giving different rights to a group is not equal protection. Giving a different name to SSM unions is not equal.
If the above is true, here is my question:
What is(are) the reason(s) for people to oppose SSM? What is it that outweighs the rights for people in same sex relationships from having equality with OSMs under the law?
Either my assumptions are wrong, or I am missing something.
I live with my 89 year old Methodist grandma, and I have had a number of conversations with her regarding this and other gay rights issues.
At first, she was against SSM, but not strongly. When I asked what her reasons were and if they are more important than my right to equal protection, it boiled down to her respect for the word “marriage” – she is dismayed at how people just hop from bed to bed and get divorces 3 times before lunch. She thinks that applying the word “Marriage” to SSM would be further deterioration of it’s meaning. When I pressed her on it, she said ‘Well, you should have the same tax advantages, I guess, but couldn’t you call it something else?” I respectfully and lovingly disagree with grandma on that last point. This is the most reasonable argument I have ever heard, and I still don’t buy it.
The only other reason I could see would be the slippery slope – if we allow this, what about polygamy? What about non-romantic unions (such as siblings or long time roommates who share income and would get some tax advantages out of it)? What about the legal problems that would arise? The answer to that is no lawyer has ever passed up the chance to jump into a legal grey area – that’s where they get lots of billable hours, and a chance to go to the Supreme Court!
I would like to hear from actual opponents, not people with an extremely refined definition of the word “Bigot” :D. Please avoid the use of the word “Icky”.
I can understand that, but why should your religious belief trump mine? What would you loose if I can marry the future other Mr. Nation?
(Bolding Mine)
I largely agree with this post, but I come to a different conclusion:
We all share the moral that stealing and murder is bad - there is no debate on that. Not all Americans share the moral that SSM is bad.
Most is not all. A democracy should defend the minorities from the tyranny of the majority - the other way around is usually not necessary.
[Caution Rant ahead]
In my opinion, people that are too religious are always at the table, but the people who are NOT religious are usually not there. You speak of equality between Christians and Muslims, but what about non-western religions and atheists? This is similar to voting in the past – at first they gave all white men the vote, not just land owners – then all men of all colors, then finally women (then later went back and made it so minorities could vote for real :eek: :D). The “religious power structure” (don’t read too much into that term) looks around the table and says “every one is here”, while ignoring the disenfranchised that are locked out in the cold, looking at you through the window like Tiny Tim…. (oops, having a dramatic moment;)). The Christians, for practical purposes, have recognized Jews and Muslims as peers, but it seems to me that atheists and non-Jehovah religions are just ignored [/Rant].
So I draw the conclusion that we should protect the minority, especially one that has been a target of hate crimes in the recent past. There is disagreement about what is moral in this case, and it is reasonable, since much of the opposition is religion related, to make allowances for those of the non-dominant religion to have equal protection when there are debatable* morals involved, and no clear reason to deny these rights besides religious and personal taste reasons.
Theft and murder being “bad” are non debatable moral argument in that it is pretty well agreed that they are bad. Even though people may debate exactly where the line is, a clear cut case is always bad. Lying being “bad” is debatable because there are cases where it might be better not to be completely honest – thus no law against lying, except on the witness stand, where it counts. SSM is debatable as demonstrated by the debate right in this very thread:D.
Dag
Because you define a simple descriptive term as “name calling”.
And in what way are they not “bad” ? If supporting a position that harms others and doesn’t even benefit or protect yourself isn’t bad, what is ?
Exactly. Frankly, what does it matter if someone became a bigot because of what his grandpa told him when he was three ? Yes, his beliefs have historical causes, but they don’t have any underlying reason to them. They just are, which is why they are so indefensible. They just are.
There are plenty of arguments that have more than one reasonable, moral side; this just isn’t one of them. We aren’t discussing tax policy or the respective merits of interventionism versus isolationism. Like segregation, equality for women, torture, and so on there is a right side and a wrong side. It is not some sort of law of physics that both sides in a dispute are equally valid.
Yes.
It’s not a “silly proposition” if you think that opposing SSM IS, in itself, an act of bigotry.
Can you at least be self-consistent? Then we can discuss your excluded middles. The “quote” of yours I was responding to was “democracy is a crock and that we should all be subjects of a theocratic dictatorship”. Placing one particular sect’s notions over democracy would, in effect, be the latter. Not the former, obviously. Or maybe that isn’t obvious.
Heal thyself.
Also dead wrong. The purpose is to get the subject to consider that their views may not only not be founded in religious doctrine after all, and to help them see what those views appear to be to those not under that spell. It is not on the childish level you appear to understand better than actual debate.
While this argument gets no purchase with those who wish to see the word marriage expanded to include same sex unions, it is probably the the strongest motivation for opposition to SSM. Those who hold this view see the change in the definition of the word marriage as a world-altering event. It is, for them, similar to declaring that the words parent and child no longer have stable definitions and that families are merely arbitrary constructs of law that have no intrinsic reality. This is probably why divorce is actually higher in a number of more traditionally conservative regions in the U.S. than in more liberal areas: among the conservative groups, unions must be recognized in the context of marriage while among more liberal folks, coupling and even child-rearing can occur in serial relationships without actually going through an act of marriage. It is possible that the number of sexually based housekeeping relationships–even successive or serial ones–is steady across the whole of society, but that the group that perceives the need for marriage simply goes through the process of marrying to establish households and divorce to sunder them while groups that have less concern about marriage often move into and out of many such relationships without going through the paperwork and legal ceremonies to confirm the relationships. In such a situation, the folks whose world view includes a specific perspective that “family” is dependent on marriage will see any varying definition–whether it is same sex marriage or cohabitating “without benefit of clergy”–as a threat to their entire understanding of the world.
Arguments that revolve around “equal rights” or similar appeals simply make no sense to them, any more than claims that marriage includes the meaning of opposite sex commitment makes no sense to people who think that SSM is a necessary change to current society.
The two sides are speaking different languages using the same words and can never understand what the other side means.
This is not to say that there are no barriers to the concept of SSM from various religions or that the simple fact that many people view homosexuality as icky plays no part in the opposition, but the primary motivation for such opposition has far more to do with a perception of and and an understanding of the world than it does to religious beliefs or hatred of that which is different.
Few folks demanding that the opposition give a good “reason” for that opposition are going to understand that they are being given a reason, but that neither side tends to have the capacity to actually recognize what their opponents are saying, even when they use the same words.
But does that actually work? How many times have you talked to someone about same-sex marraige, and when they said “I’m against SSM” and you said “Why?” and they said “I dunno, I just am” and you said “Then you’re a bigot” did they then say, “You know, you’re right. I am a bigot. I have seen the light, I shall now support SSM because you called me a bigot when I opposed SSM for no good reason.”
You really think the purpose of calling a bigot a bigot is to get the bigot to realize they’re a bigot and therefore be motivated to stop being a bigot? You honestly think that’s a good way to build support for SSM?
The reality is that self-righteousness is a drug. It feels good to know you’re good and the other guys are bad.
Just because you turn out to be right doesn’t make self-righteousness any prettier. You’re not interested in convincing people who currently oppose SSM, you’re interested in labeling them as evil.
The problem with this approach is that if they really are evil bigots who will never change then there’s no hope for SSM, since it is a minority position in this country. The only way to enact SSM is to convince people to either support SSM or not oppose SSM. And if you can’t do that then we’re never going to have it.
So which is more important? Legalized same sex marriage, or making sure everyone knows that people who oppose same sex marriage are evil?
And how often has NOT calling them a bigot changed their mind ? How often has ***anything ***you say changed their mind ? Bluntly stating what they are has about as much chance as anything else does of changing them ( almost none ). And at least it’s honest and warns others.
No; it’s to acknowledge that they are fundamentally irrational, hate driven people who will probably never be persuaded. That we’ll just have to put up with them until old age gets rid of them.
OK, then we can call them all legal unions or whatever:rolleyes:, and let churches do marriages unrelated to the state – of course most church wedding people will want the two to coincide. As long as there is no government imposed legal difference between SSM and OSM, I will be satisfied that I am not being made a second class citizen. It is about equality – if it is really about an attachment to a specific definition of a word, then I am willing to allow that to be my martyr for this cause as long as there is no legal distinction or different names.
Aside from genetic relationships, aren’t families that include marriages a legal and (hopefully) emotional construct?
I honestly don’t get why the meaning of a word is more important than the rights of a fellow human being. I am a wee bit resentful that people regard the meaning of a word as more valuable than treating a fellow American fairly :(. Oh well, continent of origin has also been used to treat people unfairly for centuries… it is taking a long time to fight this ignorance!
OK, lets assume we are talking with a Christian who is cool with mixed-ethnicity marriage, and is cool with Muslims living next door, etc… would that person not be able to understand that someone of a different religion has different ways of doing things and has equal rights? Why would my use of the word “Marriage” be any different than being tolerant of Muslims? I mean. If they run into it face to face, they could just be rude on a personal level and say things like “how are you and your…er um…roommate doing?”
What is it that made the people that were undecided the in the days before the election decide to vote yes on 8? If the contest was about a change from the legal term “marriage” to “union”, and making “marriage” a word with no legal meaning, would that have been enough to swing the vote the other way?
That seems to be the case more often than not, based on how much of this and many other threads are about the meaning of words.
[tongue in cheek rant]
I understand that some people who believe in magic think that bad things will happen if they do homo things, but why can’t I be in charge of making my own magical decisions? What part of the spell book says to go out and be rude to us? That one guy (he is introduced about the middle of the book, and the rest is pretty much about him, he looks like a hippy in a toga) said “if you have never done a bad thing, then you can be the first to assault this prostitute with a rock”. He also is supposed to have said a lot of other things about tolerance and love and peace and stuff. I find it odd that these magicians ignore that example and cast bad spells by being rude to those of us who are homos and don’t think the magic spell book says to be mean to homos, and those of us that don’t even think that the magic spell book really works.
I am not a practitioner of the magic, but I was brought to weekly magic introduction and singing sessions at the local Methodist “house of the maker and place to do the big magic spells” (like a Christmas play), so I am familiar with their magical system.
Does that communicate my POV in a language that the people that are for stable word usage and against freedom can understand?
[/tongue in cheek rant]
You are right, we do talk past each other a lot.
Dag
So why the fuck are you bothering trying to persuade people to support same sex marriage? Those that don’t support same sex marriage are all evil fools who will never ever ever ever ever ever ever change. There’s no hope persuading them to not do evil things, because they do evil things because they enjoy evil. So why don’t you just shut the fuck up about it?
The reason you don’t shut the fuck up about it is because you don’t really believe that you can’t persuade people to support same sex marriage. Obviously there’s a large number of people who can’t be persuaded. But take a look at the poll numbers. Support for same sex marriage is growing, and it’s growing faster than opponents of same sex marriage are dying. That shouldn’t be possible, according to you.
The religious can trot out all their bullshit about how immoral SSM is, but my opinion of it is irrelevant? Why do they get a pass? Why is their position relevant but not mine? In fact, I’d say, why the hell is their position even being considered at all? This isn’t the United States of Bible Study.
Of course it doesn’t happen all at once, or easily. Don’t be silly. Repetition, especially from a varieyt of sources, does have a cumulative effect anyway. It took many years for segregationism, for instance, to die out, and only after the constant erosion of the mental defenses that supported it finally succeeded.
True in general, but be very careful about attributing that motivation in specific cases. Bigotry is the same kind of “drug” too, don’tcha know.
This discussion would be greatly improved by the avoidance of such comical caricaturing. Thank you.
If so, not by much anymore, and by a helluva lot less than just five years ago. The exposure and discussion of motivations has had a great effect already. What, do you think it was going to happen without a little constructive confrontation? What ever does?
Well then tell us what your opinion of them tells us about their reasons? Tell us how your disapproval enlightens us to the reasons people have for opposing gay marriage?
I told you my opinion. Anyone who says that SSM is immoral because of what religion has convinced them is misguided at best and bigoted at worst. My disapproval of that is paramount, because I don’t give a shit what the bible says about homosexuality, and neither should any US law.
That one guy (he is introduced about the middle of the book, and the rest is pretty much about him, he looks like a hippy in a toga) said “if you have never done a bad thing, then you can be the first to assault this prostitute with a rock”. He also is supposed to have said a lot of other things about tolerance and love and peace and stuff. I find it odd that these magicians ignore that example and cast bad spells by being rude to those of us who are homos and don’t think the magic spell book says to be mean to homos, and those of us that don’t even think that the magic spell book really works.