Fuck you, Stephen Harper, you homophobic piece of shit...

[Sam_Stone]

Let’s try it this way:

Are there arguments against bigamy or polygamy that are not rooted in the hatred of people who have multiple wives or husbands? Can you think of ANY? Anyone? Beuhler?

Marriage as the legal and moral foundation of the family unit is a pretty strong element of our cultural structure. There are arguments against messing with it that are essentially rooted in cultural conservatism, which says that you don’t mess with a culture that works unless there is a very, very compelling reason to do so. There are unintended consequences. Just as there were unintended consequences to other social changes - everything from the pill to women’s emancipation to the liberating aspects of the automobile on teen life to the rise of two income families and the widespread use of day care. People make the argument that expanding the definition of marriage weakens it and waters it down, and makes it less useful as a social construct. And since conservatives tend to see family and community as the core of society, this worries them. They don’t have to be homophobic to hold these beliefs. Many of the people against gay marriage are fully in favor of civil unions - they just don’t want the institution of marriage messed with.

And before anyone jumps down my throat, I have to reiterate that I support gay marriage, and not just by voting. I helped set up a gay wedding for friends, and I was their photographer as well. But I recognize that the people who are against it are not all evil homophobic bastards. I have respect for their opinions.

Except for the homophobic bastard opinions. Let’s not water down the meaning of the word homophobe by applying it willy-nilly to anyone who disagrees with you. That lets the real homophobes off the hook and lets them blend into the crowd.

[Hamish]

@Lockz

There IS a difference between how he might vote as an M.P., representing his constituents (and possibly his own), and the official party position (which may or may not conflict with his). If the party position is a free vote, and he votes against, that doesn’t mean that the party is anti-gay rights.

Have you paid any attention to these people’s voting records? Here is a database of every MP’s voting record on motions related to gay rights. I typed in the names of as many prominent members of the new Conservative Party as I could think of, and they all got F’s on their gay rights report card.

I can’t think of a single gay-positive comment ever made a member of this party. Elsie Wayne is notorious. Stockwell Day is notorious. Breitkreuz has a nasty reputation, too. I’ve posted the reasons I’m leery of Harper above.

(For comparison, the Liberals run the gamut from A’s (Liza Frulla) to F’s (Dennis Mills), with Paul Martin getting a B. The only NDP candidate to get less than an A was Bev Desjarlais. I believe the grade is assigned mostly on the basis of the voting record in the House of Commons, though I’m not entirely certain)

Ok … so Chrétien was stacking the courts. Isn’t that a bad thing anyways? Shouldn’t the courts be neutral instead of being biased?

Um, I was posting that comment as an example of something absurd Harper had said. Do you have any evidence that he was stacking the courts? It wouldn’t fit with Chrétien’s strategy on gay marriage, which was to stall and hope that the issue blew up in Martin’s face.

Yes … and Spencer was fired from the position after he made those comments.

Yes, but take a look at his position. He was a member of Harper’s shadow cabinet, in an ominously-named position of “family values critic.”

“Family values” is not a neutral term. It’s a code word among the anti-gay crowd for maintaining the unequal, heterosexist status quo. Unlike most shadow cabinet positions, it does not have an equal in the cabinet itself – there is no Minister for Family Values. Nor does the NDP have a “family values critic.”

And presumably, if Harper appointed Spencer to such a position, he knew a thing or two about the man’s positions. Maybe he didn’t realize how extreme they were – I don’t think even Harper wants homosexuality illegal – but he must have known that Spencer was anti-gay when he put him in that position. You don’t put a person in a shadow cabinet position without knowing a little about their views on the subject.

[Hamish]

@Sam Stone

Marriage as the legal and moral foundation of the family unit is a pretty strong element of our cultural structure. There are arguments against messing with it that are essentially rooted in cultural conservatism, which says that you don’t mess with a culture that works unless there is a very, very compelling reason to do so.

I think the answer to this argument is fairly simple: if someone doesn’t consider discrimination against LGBT people a “compelling reason,” I would have to ask “Why not?”

That brings us back to square one, doesn’t it? Back to hatred and/or the values of a religion I don’t share? After all, you have a very low opinion of a group of people to decide they don’t have a right to equal participation in a society.

[Lilairen]

@Sam Stone

Are there arguments against bigamy or polygamy that are not rooted in the hatred of people who have multiple wives or husbands? Can you think of ANY? Anyone? Beuhler?

Bigamy is marriage fraud. Whether or not polygamy ever gets legalised, marriage fraud should remain illegal, just like any other form of fraud.

The majority of arguments I’ve seen against polygamy have been rooted in factual error (like the notion that it’s sexist) or bigotry (it’s just wrong); those people who argue in terms of technical legal difficulty generally see no particular reason to object to legal polygamy provided that someone can address the legal issues involved to their satisfaction.

Marriage as the legal and moral foundation of the family unit is a pretty strong element of our cultural structure. There are arguments against messing with it that are essentially rooted in cultural conservatism, which says that you don’t mess with a culture that works unless there is a very, very compelling reason to do so.

The culture is already changed, though. People are forming families centred around two people of the same sex, and this is not something which can be prevented or stopped. (People are also forming multiple-adult families, but that’s mostly beside the immediate point.) That genie has been out of its lamp all my life; I don’t imagine that there are many gays who would commit to a life of secrecy or celibacy or form unsatisfying mixed-sex relationships just to change the cultural norms back to ones that justify claiming that families are only made of heterosexual pairings.

Personally, I wish those people who call themselves “social conservatives” would stop contributing to the destruction of the venerable institution of marriage by preventing it from being used for its intended purpose: recognising the formation of family. I know a good number of people who consider the concept of marriage to be morally bankrupt because it’s unavailable to gay couples or poly families and none who are going to get divorces or avoid tying the knot just because same-sex couples are getting access to marriage.

[Miller]

@Sam Stone

Marriage as the legal and moral foundation of the family unit is a pretty strong element of our cultural structure. There are arguments against messing with it that are essentially rooted in cultural conservatism, which says that you don’t mess with a culture that works unless there is a very, very compelling reason to do so. There are unintended consequences. Just as there were unintended consequences to other social changes - everything from the pill to women’s emancipation to the liberating aspects of the automobile on teen life to the rise of two income families and the widespread use of day care. People make the argument that expanding the definition of marriage weakens it and waters it down, and makes it less useful as a social construct. And since conservatives tend to see family and community as the core of society, this worries them. They don’t have to be homophobic to hold these beliefs. Many of the people against gay marriage are fully in favor of civil unions - they just don’t want the institution of marriage messed with.

Yeah, but what unintended consequences? The problem I have with this argument is that… well, it’s not really an argument at all. “If we allow gays to marry, something bad might happen. We don’t know what, but it might be really, really bad, so we should never, ever allow gays to marry,” is Chicken Little bullshit. The exact same argument can be equally applied to quite literally anything, and I have major difficulty believing that a reasonably intelligent person could put it forward as a serious concern. But, then again, there are a lot of people out there who are nothing like reasonably intelligent, aren’t there? So, I guess you’ve got a point: not everyone who is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot. Some of them are simply idiots. I will attempt to keep that in mind in future debates on the topic.

[MEBuckner]

@RickJay

Your first cite is a gay man who opposes a HATE CRIMES bill, not a gay marriage law.

Just to show I’m an equal opportunity nitpicker…

At first I thought the first cite was just about a gay man opposing hate crimes, too, but the article goes on to detail that Tom Beddingfield (a young gay Republican) is also opposed to gay marriage, using the often-heard “slippery slope” argument about NAMBLA, incest, etc., etc., etc., as well as claiming that gay marriage is an example of a minority group wanting “special rights”.

Of course, that raises the question of whether or not someone who is gay can himself be homophobic.

[matt_mcl]

@MEBuckner

Of course, that raises the question of whether or not someone who is gay can himself be homophobic.

…answer: yes, and I often find myself on the shoveling end of 'em.

[Annie-Xmas]

I know a very religious person named Stephanie Harper. For a moment this thread title really amazed me.

[RickJay]

@MEBuckner

Just to show I’m an equal opportunity nitpicker…

At first I thought the first cite was just about a gay man opposing hate crimes, too, but the article goes on to detail that Tom Beddingfield (a young gay Republican) is also opposed to gay marriage, using the often-heard “slippery slope” argument about NAMBLA, incest, etc., etc., etc., as well as claiming that gay marriage is an example of a minority group wanting “special rights”.

Of course, that raises the question of whether or not someone who is gay can himself be homophobic.

I’d say it is certainly possible.

And I think a few posters are being unfair to Sam Stone. He did in fact post an argument against gay marriage that is not homophobic. I never hear anyone actually USE this argument - including Sam, who doesn’t even agree with it himself - but it is indeed an argument that is not necessarily rooted in hatred. So he did answer the question.

[Gorsnak]

@RickJay

I’d say it is certainly possible.

And I think a few posters are being unfair to Sam Stone. He did in fact post an argument against gay marriage that is not homophobic. I never hear anyone actually USE this argument - including Sam, who doesn’t even agree with it himself - but it is indeed an argument that is not necessarily rooted in hatred. So he did answer the question.

I think it’s being very generous to call “But something bad might happen!” an argument. Properly speaking, the law of unintended consequences is just a burden of proof sort of deal. It suggests one should have a compelling reason to change things. But once one has a compelling reason (and allowing all people equal participation in societal structures surely is that), then it has no further weight. None whatsoever. So, it’s not an argument against gay marriage. To insist that it is is to insist that the very fact that gays have been oppressed and excluded from society in the past is a reason to continue doing so. And I trust I don’t have to explain the basis for that sort of thinking.

The “diluting the definition of marriage, weakening the institution” isn’t even coherent. It’s literally meaningless. How does one dilute a definition? How would doing so weaken anything? I understand what the words mean by themselves, but arranged in that order, they’re simply nonsense. To the extent that this statement carries any weight at all, what it really means is “if we let gays get married, that’s giving tacit societal approval of their relationships, and that will wreck marriage as a whole - after all, if gays can marry, being married obviously can’t be anything worthwhile.” And that certainly is homophobic. How could anyone think that gays being married would make marriage “less useful as a social construct” in the absence of homophobia?

So no, I don’t think people are being particularly unfair to Sam.

[Gorsnak]

To be fair, I do know one argument against gay marriage that’s not necessarily based in homophobia.

A thoroughgoing conservative christian advocate of theocratic government could make such an argument. Now, there are some caveats to be made, because the very fact that a couple not-particularly-clear passages of scripture are so fervently believed to be proscriptions of homosexual activity is itself rooted in homophobia. But one can imagine a person adopting the anti-gay interpretations out of respect for traditional authority, whilst being oblivious to the homophobic nature of that authority. Second, a thoroughgoing conservative christian advocate of theocracy is obviously also going to have to argue for legal strictures against divorce, adultery, and many other such things. To think that gay marriage shouldn’t be legal for scriptural reasons, but to take no issue with adultery, etc, would be to pick gays out for special treatment, and I don’t see any likely basis for this besides homophobia.

If anyone knows somebody like this, they are free to hold the person up as a shining example of non-homophobic opposition to gay marriage. I, meanwhile, will hold the person up as a shining example of the very antithesis of freedom and equality.

[Sam_Stone]

The point of my post was not to defend this argument. If you’ll recall, the claim was made that there are no arguments against gay marriage that are not rooted in homophobia. I offered an example. And I didn’t make it up - I see that argument being used all the time. I don’t happen to agree with it.

I just went to the ‘about.com’ page on Gay Marriage, linked here. Not only do they have the argument I described, But they list five other arguments, only one of which can really be considered ‘homophobic’. John Kerry opposes gay marriage. Is he homophobic? He’s been pretty strong on gay rights his entire career.

There is also the religious objection - some people simply see marriage as a religious union between men and women, as ordained by God. They see marriage as a holy sacrament, and don’t want it distorted. Many of these people fully support civil unions and giving gays full rights of married couples - they just don’t want what they see as a foundation of their religious life messed with. I grew up in a Mennonite community, and they don’t even approve of divorce (or remarriage after divorce) on the ground that a marriage is a sacred bond before God. You can divorce legally, but under God you are still married. So you can’t re-marry. In fact, doesn’t the Catholic church require an annulment before you can re-marry?

These things should suggest that marriage is seen by many to be something a little more special than just a legally binding document. Some of those people oppose gay marriage simply because they don’t feel it is God’s will. Obviously, being an agnostic I don’t believe that. But I do have respect for the opinions of others, and understand that not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobe.

[Gorsnak]

Sam, you once again have completely failed to make your point. When we’re talking about “opposing gay marriage” in this thread, we are talking about opposing legal recognition of gay marriage. Catholics, or your childhood MB community, who oppose divorce generally do not oppose divorce being legal. They merely think it’s always immoral, and won’t recognize the religious validity of remarriages. That doesn’t mean they think divorce or remarriage after divorce shouldn’t be legally recognized. Of course, as I mentioned above, there are some few who do, but they’re theocratic asshats, and since Stephen Harper isn’t campaigning to legislate against divorce, etc., he’s clearly not in that group.

Opposing legal recognition of gay marriage on religious grounds whilst not opposing divorce, etc., is homophobic, because it’s picking out gays for special treatment.

Second, pointing to the myriad of mainstream American “liberal” politicians who oppose gay marriage is meaningless. They’re pandering to the huge block of socially conservative voters who are homophobic. John Kerry will say anything he thinks will sway swing voters in Missouri and New Hampshire. I have no idea if the man really believes gays should be treated as second class citizens or not. If he does, then yes, he is homophobic, though obviously not as homophobic as his amendment-supporting competition.

[Gorsnak]

And I don’t see any non-homophobic arguments in your about.com link, there. Could you explain which ones you think qualify?

1. Gay Couples are Unnatural

Obviously homophobic

2. Marriage is Sacred and a Sacrament

Discussed in my previous two posts

3. The Institution of Marriage Will Be Undermined

Undermined how? I know of no explanation for what ‘undermined’ could possibly mean here that isn’t homophobic.

4. Marriage is for Raising Children?

Irrelevant if non-homophobic, since gays can raise children, and some straight couples don’t. The only way to make this into an actual argument against gay marriage is to assert that gays are less well suited to raising children than straights, or some similar homophobic horseshit.

5. Gay Marriage: What’s The Point?

This is one of two possible arguments. One take is that marriage is an outdated institution that ought to be abandoned, and gays are fools for buying into it. This isnt’ homophobic, but it isn’t an argument against gay marriage either. It’s an argument against marriage, period. The other take, and this is suggested in the link, is that there’s no need for gays to get married since they can fill out a few legal forms to approximate the legal protections of marriage, and after that who gives a fuck what the govt thinks of one’s relationship. This is homophobic, since it’s denying gays full participation in society.

[Sam_Stone]

1. Gay Couples are Unnatural

Obviously homophobic

I agree. This is the one argument I see as homophobic.

2. Marriage is Sacred and a Sacrament

Discussed in my previous two posts

Inadequately. You’re stretching to do define this as a homophobic argument. To many people, marriage is a sacrament not to be messed with. They could give a rat’s ass about gays - the argument against expanding the definition of marriage is simply that it destroys their sacred tradition. Just like many Catholics were unhappy when Vatican II got rid of the Latin mass - or are they anglophobes?

3. The Institution of Marriage Will Be Undermined

Undermined how? I know of no explanation for what ‘undermined’ could possibly mean here that isn’t homophobic.

Widening the definition causes it to lose focus. To a lot of people, it simply works like this: You meet someone, if you decide you want to live with them forever, you marry them and seal a bond before God. This bond is the umbrella under which you have children, and the lifelong bond provides stability and forms the basis of a family unit. It’s good for children, it’s good for the community, it’s good for the country. And most especially, it’s part of God’s plan. In my community, they are just as opposed to our modern conventions of easy divorce and remarriage, because they think it weakens the most fundamental institution in life, and is an affront to God. These are good, decent people who I just don’t happen to agree with. I don’t have to hate them, or call them homophobes, or in any other way belittle their position. I can respect what they believe while disagreeing with it.

4. Marriage is for Raising Children?

Irrelevant if non-homophobic, since gays can raise children, and some straight couples don’t. The only way to make this into an actual argument against gay marriage is to assert that gays are less well suited to raising children than straights, or some similar homophobic horseshit.

Well, they are less well suited to raising children because they can’t have their own. Well, not yet, anyway. They either have to adopt, or one partner can be impregnated or impregnate an outside party. You may think this is no difference, but a lot of people would disagree. The fact is, the child in the relationship does not share the genetic makeup of the parents. Whether that affects the familial bond, I don’t know. I do know it is not exactly the same as children raised by the parents who spawned that child. The genetic linkage is broken. Again, some people see this as important, and in some ways I agree. I just started working on a family geneology, and I’ve got albums around of all my ancestors. I can look back and see the people I descended from. I can spot features in them that I share. It tends to give you more of a sense of belonging. In rural communities like the one I came from, this is a big deal. The people that live there are surrounded by kin. Family is a big, big deal. In the city, not so much. This is probably why you find more resistance to gay marriage and other means of changing the family unit in rural communities as opposed to cities, and by elderly people as opposed to young professionals. Family and marriage is just a big damned deal to some people, and they don’t want it messed with.

This is, at its base NOT a homophobic argument. It doesn’t matter that we’re talking about gays - it could be anything else that seeks to redefine marriage. It’s the institution itself they are trying to protect.

Once again, the original claim I was refuting was that there are NO arguments against gay marriage that are not rooted in homophobia. I think I’ve shown that there are. You yourself gave one - John Kerry is against gay marriage because he wants to be elected. So he opposes it without being a homophobe.

[Sam_Stone]

Forgot this:

Sam, you once again have completely failed to make your point. When we’re talking about “opposing gay marriage” in this thread, we are talking about opposing legal recognition of gay marriage. Catholics, or your childhood MB community, who oppose divorce generally do not oppose divorce being legal. They merely think it’s always immoral, and won’t recognize the religious validity of remarriages.

Isn’t that what a civil union is supposed to be? Most opponents of gay marriage support civil unions. In other words, they want to give gays all the legal rights of marriage, but without intruding on the institution itself.

Again, I agree with you about this. I support gay marriage, and I agree with your argument above. But there are people who disagree, and that does NOT make them homophobic by definition.

[ElvisL1ves]

{looking out at the Massachusetts sky} Yep, still there. Hasn’t fallen one bit.
'Course it’s only been a couple of weeks. Maybe we should give it time.

Well, gee, guys, given an choice between “Something bad *might * happen if we change” and “Something bad *is happening * because we *haven’t * changed”, there doesn’t seem to be much to discuss.
gorsnak, since you mention Kerry, he’s for allowing gays full legal rights, but he neither supports nor really opposes the M-word. He also supports letting states make their own decisions on the matter (a classic conservative view). Bush’s position is to support an amendment banning legal rights, states rights notwithstanding. There is no basis for saying Kerry is more guilty of vote-grubbing than Bush.

[Gorsnak]

Good God, Sam, I understand you don’t buy the conclusions, but you’re sweeping a hell of a lot of anti-gay sentiment under the rug here, and you’re consistently conflating religious ceremonies with civil institutions.

@Sam Stone

Inadequately. You’re stretching to do define this as a homophobic argument. To many people, marriage is a sacrament not to be messed with. They could give a rat’s ass about gays - the argument against expanding the definition of marriage is simply that it destroys their sacred tradition. Just like many Catholics were unhappy when Vatican II got rid of the Latin mass - or are they anglophobes?

You’re completely missing my point. The Catholic Church does not oppose legal recognition of marriages between divorcees. The Catholic Church does oppose the legal recognition of same sex marriages. Why the difference? The Catholic Church is perfectly free to maintain their own sacred tradition. Doing so is not the responsibility of the government, nor does the CC demand that the government do so with regards to divorce. So what, other than anti-gay sentiment, motivates this singling out of gays? Perhaps it’s expedience - perhaps the CC would fight to make divorce illegal if they though there was any chance they might succeed. This potentially puts them into the non-homophobic theocratic asshat category, except for considerations regarding scriptural interpretation, which we needn’t discuss here. Your MB community (I presume they were MB’s, since I don’t know of any GC’s these days who take issue with remarrying divorcees, but I suppose I could be wrong) certainly is being homophobic. They don’t have theocratic tendencies, or at least they’re not supposed to. In the land but not of it, and all that. What do they care what the government does or doesn’t recognize? The government does all manner of things they think are religious anathema. Why should they presume to oppose government recognition of gay marriage, if not out of some specific antipathy for gays?

Widening the definition causes it to lose focus. To a lot of people, it simply works like this: You meet someone, if you decide you want to live with them forever, you marry them and seal a bond before God. This bond is the umbrella under which you have children, and the lifelong bond provides stability and forms the basis of a family unit. It’s good for children, it’s good for the community, it’s good for the country. And most especially, it’s part of God’s plan. In my community, they are just as opposed to our modern conventions of easy divorce and remarriage, because they think it weakens the most fundamental institution in life, and is an affront to God. These are good, decent people who I just don’t happen to agree with. I don’t have to hate them, or call them homophobes, or in any other way belittle their position. I can respect what they believe while disagreeing with it.

You aren’t making any sense. All of the ‘stability, family, etc’ considerations are equally applicable to gay marriage. Thinking that gay families are less worthy of recognition is homophobic. All this bullshit about “diluting” or “losing focus” is utterly meaningless until you flesh it out, and if you’re going to flesh it out as “marriage promotes family and social stability, and allowing gays to marriage will not promote family or social stability” then you sure as hell are homophobic, or the word has no meaning. And then you go off on a religious tangent again.

Well, they are less well suited to raising children because they can’t have their own. Well, not yet, anyway. They either have to adopt, or one partner can be impregnated or impregnate an outside party. You may think this is no difference, but a lot of people would disagree. The fact is, the child in the relationship does not share the genetic makeup of the parents. Whether that affects the familial bond, I don’t know. I do know it is not exactly the same as children raised by the parents who spawned that child. The genetic linkage is broken. Again, some people see this as important, and in some ways I agree. I just started working on a family geneology, and I’ve got albums around of all my ancestors. I can look back and see the people I descended from. I can spot features in them that I share. It tends to give you more of a sense of belonging. In rural communities like the one I came from, this is a big deal. The people that live there are surrounded by kin. Family is a big, big deal. In the city, not so much. This is probably why you find more resistance to gay marriage and other means of changing the family unit in rural communities as opposed to cities, and by elderly people as opposed to young professionals. Family and marriage is just a big damned deal to some people, and they don’t want it messed with.

Sheesh! Do you really not get it? Who can or cannot have biological children is utterly irrelevant, as you should perfectly well know. Most lesbians can get knocked up if they like, though they’d need a donor, just as many straight couples do. And there are lots of straight couples that can’t have any biological children, and nobody thinks that’s relevant to whether they should be allowed to be married. This is such a fucking canard that it amazes me that you’d trot it out. And then you launch into how important family is! Well of course it’s important! Why the FUCK do you think gays want to form families?!? And again, if a person thinks that gays are somehow anti-family, then that person is obviously homophobic. End of story.

Once again, the original claim I was refuting was that there are NO arguments against gay marriage that are not rooted in homophobia. I think I’ve shown that there are. You yourself gave one - John Kerry is against gay marriage because he wants to be elected. So he opposes it without being a homophobe.

1. That’s not an argument against gay marriage. It’s a motivation to oppose it, but it’s not a justification for opposing it.
2. It’s rooted in homophobia. Not John Kerry’s, but rather in the (perceived) homophobia of swing voters.

[Gorsnak]

@Sam Stone

Isn’t that what a civil union is supposed to be? Most opponents of gay marriage support civil unions. In other words, they want to give gays all the legal rights of marriage, but without intruding on the institution itself.

Sam, do you truly not understand the difference between religious marriages and civil marriages? A religious wedding ceremony is the santification of a relationship according to whatever religious tenets are applicable. A civil marriage is governmental recognition of a particular legal relation between two people. The one has nothing to do with the other besides the fact that they’re frequently enacted simultaneously.

Civil unions, in the sense they’re usually discussed, are a seperate (and purported equal) legal category enacted specially for gays.

[RickJay]

@Gorsnak

Good God, Sam, I understand you don’t buy the conclusions, but you’re sweeping a hell of a lot of anti-gay sentiment under the rug here, and you’re consistently conflating religious ceremonies with civil institutions.

You’re completely missing my point.

Actually, G, you’re the one badly missing the point. Sam is attempting to cite arguments against gay marriage not rooted in homophobia. He is not saying they’re correct. You’re arguing with a nonexistent opponent.

An argument doesn’t necessarily have to be RIGHT, or even entirely logical. There are arguments against the truthfulness of the Moon landings. They’re all stupid and ignorant, but they’re arguments.