Huh?
On my mobile device so cannot easly get the cite (will later if you want) that shows somewhere around 1,200 benefits that accrue to those getting married.
Two biggies off the top of my head are the rights to make medical decisions for a spouse and inheritance rights.
That’s unfair.
I personally know some gay black men. There is not anything inherent to being black that makes them dishonest. Likely there is some cultural factor at work that statistically would seem to make the group disposed against gay rights.
I think the OP is looking for those reasons.
Almost 1/3 of states already recognize civil unions. CA is the perfect example. The differences between a Domestic Partnership and a marriage are pretty small in CA: Domestic partnership in California - Wikipedia
Despite that, proponents still claim it is about ‘rights’. It isn’t. Both sides are simply stamping their feet about the word ‘marriage’.
Your sentences could apply to anything. Therefore, categorizing something you disagree with as “dishonest” does not advance the debate at all.
For example:
“People who believe in free market in light of the evidence are being intellectually dishonest.”
“People who believe in socialism in light of the evidence are being intellectually dishonest.”
“People who believe in abortion in light of the evidence are being intellectually dishonest.”
“People who believe in pro choice in light of the evidence are being intellectually dishonest.”
“People who believe in [whatever I disagree with] in light of the evidence are being intellectually dishonest.”
You have overused the word “dishonest” to the point that where I’m not sure you know what it actually means.
No, sir, it is not the slightest bit unfair. It’s what Der Trihs is saying. It’s the logical conclusion from his own words and it’s not unfair to call him on what he’s saying. I cite his post made yesterday at 11:24 PM server time.
Der Trihs says that the only reason a person could be opposed to gay rights is dishonesty. He’s adamant in this claim and brooks no disagreement or nuance.
It has been conclusively shown that the majority of African-American are opposed to gay marriage. If anyone opposed to gay marriage must be dishonest - as Der Trihs claims - then most African Americans are inherently dishonest. There is according to Der Trihs’s very clearly worded claims. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a genetically inherited trait for dishonesty - it could be learned dishonesty - but nonetheless the trait is there, according to Der Trihs.
And I’d like him to explain that, because I don’t buy it.
Until same-sex marriages are recognized in all 50 states, with the exact same rights as heterosexual marriages, it most definitely is about rights.
No.
All the cases you cited have reasonable positions to be made on both sides. They are absolutely debatable.
More appropriate would be someone who claims the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese. They hold to that opinion and decline to be bothered with any evidence to the contrary.
Further, I would say in the cases you cite it would be intellectually dishonest if you pushed your side of those arguments (whatever side that may be) with no consideration of the opposing viewpoint. It may well be you have considered the other viewpoint and think it is insufficient to change your views but you still should give them the argumentative credit they are due.
To just ignore the other side and shout your opinion is intellectually dishonest.
I think what Der Trihs is saying is that, in this case, when the evidence is examined and the arguments considered there is precious little (if any) room to hold to a bigoted stance.
(bolding mine)
Why is this thread about black people when the operative factor–which glaringly jumps out at you in the very title of the story you linked to–is not race but religion?
It’s no secret that there’s conflict between Christianity and homosexuality. We talk about it all the time on this board. The piece you linked to could just as easily be talking about white ministers and churches being divided over gay marriage, but it probably wouldn’t occur to you to portray the issue as racial when its white folks being discussed. And yet, the racial aspect dominants attention when the subject is black Christians. It’s like, WTF?
There seems to be an expectation that when it comes to homosexuality, blacks are supposed to be immune to religious influence. They are supposed to somehow rise above the indoctrination that everyone else gobbles up without scrutinity, and draw parallels between themselves and gays just as on the basis of being minorities. And if they fail to do this, they aren’t called ignorant, they are called hypocrites…which presumes that blacks are against gay rights even though they believe that gays are just like them.
This is flawed thinking and it reveals that many people on the pro-gay marriage side don’t understand the beliefs of their opponents very well. Blacks (and whites) who are against SSM don’t think gays are “just like them”; that’s the whole point! If they thought that way, the whole Leviticus thing wouldn’t apply.
Strategically speaking, holding blacks to a different standard than whites is only going to engender hostility and resistance, so it’s also a counterproductive exercise in addition to being unfair and racially biased. Treating blacks differently than their white counterpoints for no reason other race is a textbook example of one minority group pitting itself against another. So it’s ironic (and dare I say hypocritical) to go on and accuse blacks of being the ones guilty of that.
I do not know if you are married but pretend you are.
Now imagine you go on a cross country road trip and as you pass from state to state your status as married changes. Married here, not there. Have full rights in one place, limited in another, none in the next.
Now imagine you get in a car accident in a state that does not recognize your marriage and you need to make a life-or-death decision for your spouse because she is in a coma. Whoops! Sorry, you’re not married there. Go sit in the waiting room and they’ll get back to you.
Also, make sure you live in a state that recognizes inheritance rights. Lose your job and can only find one in another state that does not recognize it? Bad luck for you.
I’m not aware of any slam dunk evidence. To me, that irrefutable biological evidence would be in the form of the specific genome identified by scientists. And to further prove that they found the exact genome, they would splice genes and deliberately create offspring that were gay or not gay at the flick of switch. That type of evidence would erase most doubts.
The closest we have to biological evidence is identical twin studies; and there is wiggle room in those statistical findings to be interpreted one way or the other.
Just about all evidence about gays are anecdotal and surface level observations: I just “know” that gay people are born gay because, geez… just LOOK at the way they act… how COULD it be any other way?
I could apply that surface level observation to astronomy: I know the sun orbits the earth because, just LOOK AT IT — the sun obviously goes around the sky. If the earth were moving around the sun, we’d be experiencing windy air currents 24 hours a day.
I believe that gays are born gay. I also know that most people believe gays are born gay. But I don’t kid myself into thinking my position is supported by irrefutable biological evidence… to do so would be… intellectually dishonest.
There’s also the perception in the African-American community that homosexuality is not an African phenomenon. Many African-Americans hold the belief that the Europeans brought homosexuality to Africa with them, that it didn’t exist in Africa before the colonial period.
It’s another one of the reasons that so many gay African-American men are “on the down-low” while dating or being married to a woman. You can perform gay sex acts as long as nobody knows, but you can’t “be gay”.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that religious people may consider homosexuality a choice? This would not necessarily require someone to believe we are born asexual and that we all decide our sexuality at some point. The assumption is that we are all born straight and some choose to live a deviant, sinful lifestyle. Hell, if I remember correctly, not too many years ago the gay community claimed it was a lifestyle choice because they did not want to be viewed as having a genetic “problem” that needed to be “fixed”.
You need to take the evidence in total.
There is compelling evidence that there is a genetic basis to this. Of course finding a “gay gene” is not a simple matter. It may well be a combination of genes.
Then there is the “choice” aspect suggesting it is not genetic or at least in-built. Simply ask any sexually mature human on the planet if they “chose” their sexual orientation. Anecdotal? Well, maybe but it is something pretty much every human alive experiences. Ask a hetero person if the only thing keeping them from being gay was societal prohibitions. Pretty sure they would all say no matter how accepting society became of homosexuals they would remain attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Then consider even if it is a choice why anyone would choose it given the stigma associated with it and the lack of rights and so on. You’d have to be nuts to be someone who just sat there and thought, “Well, I find men and women attractive…what the hell, I’ll be gay.”
Then you are left with an “immoral” argument. That derives from religion and we have freedom of religion in this country which also mean freedom from religion. It is not appropriate for a Christian (or what have you) to say their religious book says homosexuality is bad so therefore it must be stopped. Ask a Christian if they would be content if Jews got control and banned all pork products because their religion demands that.
Then go for it “hurts” heterosexual people. Don’t even know how that case could be made at all. What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business and has no impact on anyone else in and of itself. Heck, there are a lot of homosexual people out there having sex today and have been throughout human history. Society has not collapsed as a result of that yet.
Not sure what you are left with after all of that.
Well, first remember what Der Trihs’s opinion of “religious people” is.
But second, a quite large proportion of “religious people” do not “consider homosexuiality a choice” in any meaningful sense. Those who do are loud and mouthy, to be sure, but of 500,000 law abiding black people living in a metropolitan area, and three black men who knock over an all-night convenience store, guess which group makes the news?
There isn’t one single reasonable reason for absolutely anybody to be against gay marriage, being black doesn’t make you any more or less hypocritical for taking a homophobic stance like that.
Yeah…I didn’t mean to imply that all religious people feel this way. I’m just trying to explain how religious belief (especially the fundamentalists) could lead to the belief that being gay is a choice. If the bible states that homosexuality is wrong then those who take the bible quite literally must conclude that it is a choice. Or they have to believe that God deliberately made people gay even though it is wrong.
You didn’t state any compelling genetic evidence in any of the paragraphs you wrote. No DNA analysis. No blood analysis. No urine analysis. No PET scans.
Heck, you can examine an unborn child to determine biologically, if its a boy or girl. You can also examine fluid from the womb to determine if there’s Down’s Syndrome.
You have no genetic tests comparable for determining biological basis for gays. Maybe someday, but not today.
Simpling “asking” people is not scientifically rigorous enough and is pseudo-science – any anthropologist and sociologist will be happy to point that out.
If someone asked me if my sexual orientation was a choice, OF COURSE I’d say “no.” I would say my feelings were innate. The clever social scientist would counter that I was exposed to opposite-sex couples holding hands in the park, and watching them kiss on TV, and not having a dominating mother, etc. etc. It’s all “environmental” which led to me to having normal behavior.
We both agree that gays are born that way but your application of logic in trying to prove it is incorrect.
I feel confident that irrefutable biological evidence will come eventually. The medical technology to detect it is just not here yet.
Maybe not definitive but I didn’t say it was definitive. I said there was compelling evidence.
Gay men are not exposed to those societal pressures and inputs? I have a gay brother, we shared a room and everything growing up. I am thoroughly heterosexual. What dramatic differences to inputs did he have that made him gay but not me? What societal inputs did the fruit flies below have to make them gay?
I think when it is the common experience of everyone on the planet regardless of society (including many that are outright hostile to homosexuals) anecdote rises to something more.
In this country, within the last 50 years, there have been regularly enforced laws:
And, of course, even now there are plenty of places where it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay, throw them out of rental housing, throw them out of school, etc, because it is not a protected class. Unlike ethnicity or race, it’s still common for gay people to be shunned and kicked out by their families upon coming out.
So, no, gay people were not specifically used as slaves (though, of course, some slaves were gay). But they have certainly been shunted into certain neighborhoods (never heard of the pink ghetto?), criminalized, denied human dignity, denied rights, bombed, beat, battered, and murdered, simply for being gay. To suggest that gays and lesbians have had some sort of easy ride through US history and are now simply whining because they want to use the word “marriage” is to either be stone ignorant or willfully dishonest.
(In some other countries, the punishment for being gay is death, but I’ll stick to the USA on this debate.)
Without even bringing the silly Black vs Gay topic of this thread into this discussion, there is a big difference between the experiences of people who belong to a historically oppressed visible minority vs those who belong to a historically oppressed non-visible minority. A non-visible minority does have the power to choose if/when they want make themself visible depending on any given situation. This is a power visible minorities don’t have.