A GQ question with an answer that will probably land here anyway so I will just start here.
Several of the yes on 8 crowd I have crossed paths with lately feel that homosexuality is a choice therefore does not deserve any kind of protected status. However despite the common path to follow the religion of ones parents/family we are free to pursue other religions almost without question.
I as an athiest could wander into most any church and eventually be accepted as part of the group.
Even if homosexuality were a choice, how in the eyes of religious folk does one justify their choice of religion being protected if choice of sexual orientation is not. If anything I would tend to think that such a train of thought would lead to greater protection of homosexuality than religion.
Presumably, some of these people don’t think arbitrary religious choice should be protected. (But I suppose the mainstream Yes voters aren’t that loopy)
Excellent question, drachillix. I would think that the choice of who to love and how was at least as important as the choice of which deity to worship.
Well, religion is a choice that’s constitutionally protected. But more generally, people who are opposed to extending rights to gays don’t think that just because they think being gay is a choice. They think that being gay is a wrong or immoral choice, and that increased acceptance of homsexuality is dangerous or detrimental to society.
They don’t; they only think their religion should be protected. Religious freedom for those religions which support same-sex marriage is a non-issue to them, despite the fact that “religious freedom” was actually a rallying cry for Prop 8. But don’t expect consistency or rationality from religion, anyway; you’re bound to be disappointed.
I know disagreeing with you is not answering the question, but in my experience, this is becoming an increasingly rare opinion.
Most of the intolerants that I’ve spoken to, now accept that a person can be predisposed towards homosexuality. So homosexuality is not a choice, but having sex with the same gender is.
The same as with paedophiles – no-one would choose to be a paedophile; there must be genetic and environmental causes. But that doesn’t mean paedophiles shouldn’t fight against their desires.
In answer to the OP though, intolerance of homosexuality requires a fair dose of hypocracy and ignorance. Very rarely does anyone use a philosophical, moral or sociological argument for banning homosexual marriage, and when they do their arguments are very obviously irrational.
Ultimately, it’s a case of “The Book says it’s wrong, I feel as though it’s wrong, so it’s wrong”.
Actually I take this part of my post back. They do use arguments, it’s just that the arguments are an attempt to rationalise the way they already feel, and hence are usually pretty poor arguments.
It is a little ironic that the Bible verses cited in an anti-homosexual context (I COR 6:9-10) is part of a chapter that essentially seems to be saying to leave judging of these things to the diety not to the courts.
I can provide an anecdote. My grandmother is a Baptist. The other day we were talking on the phone and apropos of nothing, she said, “Well, there were some unhappy people in California the other day, and I’m glad they were unhappy!” I said, “Why would you be glad? They weren’t hurting anybody”, and she spat, “It’s an abomination! Those queers think they can…” and she just went on a rant. And by her use of the word “abomination”, I understood that she feels it her Christian duty to put a stop to it, although it doesn’t affect her in the least. It was shocking to hear all this hatred coming out so suddenly, although we’ve had this conversation before and both know where we stand. It made me realize once and for all that nothing will ever change her mind. I think there are a lot of people like her that will have to die before this can pass. There’s no use in talking about it.
Well, to be fair to those who base their political votes on what the Bible says, there are a number of other passages in there that seem to speak against homosexuality, and another handful of passages that affirm male-female relationships as the norm. But your point is still valid.
Are there any significant religious groups that don’t want choice of sexual orientation protected? As I’ve established (see thread below) the major religious groups worked overtime to make homosexuality legal, at the same time that some secular groups worked overtime to keep it illegal. As a result, homosexuals now have the right to have sex with who and when they wish, subject to the same restrictions as heterosexuals. (i.e. partners must consent, no children having sex with adults, not in public, and so forth.)
Prop 8 was about state-recognized gay marriage, or in other words about the government giving the same recognition of married status to homosexual couples as to heterosexual couples. Some people view that as a legitimate case of protection, others view it as changing the definition of marriage.
Well, Richard Land, who was at that time, at least, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said of the Lawrence v Texas decision (which said that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional):
This is nothing new. Prostitution is a choice, but I suspect many more people think prostitution should be illegal than who think gays should not be legally allowed to call their unions “marriage”.