Frankly, I find this true in general. There are just some things that are indefensible, and trying to defend them would make even the most intelligent people sound like sputtering idiots.
No, I think there are folks who think about it much more deeply than that. People who I would not be afraid to charactarize as “good” folks. Yeah, the bigots are out there, and they’re usually the loudest and most obnoxious, but there are plenty of folks (my in-laws, more than likely) whose live-and-let-live attitudes are sorely tested when some traditions get shaken up they way, say, the MA SJC did recently in my home state. These aren’t hateful, spiteful people. They’re not virulently homophobic, and aren’t out to hurt anybody. However, they are Christian, and have grave misgivings about institutionalization of what appears to be completely contrary to Scripture (let’s not get into the argument here about the supportability of such scriptural interpretations; suffice to say it seems pretty cut-and-dry to some people, including myself). I’m not a man of faith. I have absolutely no objection to gay marriage whatsoever, and have gay friends who I would love to see given rights and responsibilities commensurate with their emotional commitments, just as I am. However, I think it’s dangerous to cariacaturize some of the dissenters. It’s these middle-of-the-road folks who are simultaneously reachable (because they have brains and use them), and alienatable (because they’re not bad people, and don’t appreciate being called ugly names like bigot because their values may seem old-fashioned to some).
A friend of mine is a Korean-American woman who is about the most devoutly Christian individual I have ever met. She hasn’t what I would consider a bigoted bone in her body. She’s also fairly convinced I’m going to Hell. Still, she’s nice to me, likes to talk about lots of stuff besides Jesus, is extremely intelligent (3.9 GPA from Wellesley College, of all places, since it’s supposed to be Lesbo U), and is genuinely caring towards every person I’ve ever seen her interact with. She made great friends with one of our old secretaries, who is pretty much the stereotypical bull-dyke. How this was possible baffles me, quite frankly, but that’s just it: These things aren’t easy to figure out or put into boxes. I have a feeling she’s living like a bona fide Christian, which is a rare thing. She judges not, loves others as she would have herself be loved, and would lovingly vote down gay marriage any day of the week and twice on Sunday because it is contrary to God’s chosen way, plain and simple. She doesn’t have to hate you to not recognize your lifestyle as legitimate. She’s not ignorant. Misinformed, in my oppinion, but I can’t bring myself to dislike her. She’s not worthy of my contempt; quite the contrary, she gives a great deal of herself to charitable works (both faith-based and secular), and really is a mensch as far as I can tell.
The nature of the political peril right now is oversimplification and impatience. Misunderstand the majority of the folks who are against (or, at least, not in support of) gay marriage at this juncture, and the damage could be severe. These aren’t the type to carry signs and spew vitriol at “faggots and dykes”. They’re your neighbor, maybe your friend’s uncle and aunt, plain folks. They don’t care what you do in your bedroom, but they might care if you force them to confront it. They’re not ready. I bet they will be someday, because deep down they are decent people. I hope so, anyway. But they’ve inherited attitudes and beliefs about what is acceptable and what is not that won’t be so easy to shake, sadly, and putting them on the defensive with accusations of bigotry won’t make them come around any more quickly.
I’m sorry, Loopydude, but I’m sure there were a great number of loving, Christian mensches in the crowd that stood outside Little Rock Central High School that day in 1957, too. And yet they considered themselves justified in attempting to storm the building to extract those nine black students.
Mensch, schmensch. They have no say in my civil rights. It’s almost impossible for the average gay man or lesbian to look those people in the eye and NOT see someone who hates them. Someone who is perfectly willing to see them rot in hell before they’ll allow them to marry the person they love.
This is not an academic exercise for us, either. This is our lives. This is our love. This is a matter of our rights, which the majority does not have the option to vet before we can exercise them.
They told the civil rights leaders of the 50s and 60s to slow down, too. Speak softly, don’t disturb the whites. Just be patient, time will tell. Well, that didn’t work. True civil rights for African-Americans didn’t happen until people started demanding them. True civil rights for the queer community won’t happen until we turn up the heat and the rhetoric. We are not asking for gay marriage. We are demanding it as our constitutional right. It’s time to stop whispering and hoping the straight people won’t hear us, because it doesn’t matter anyway. We can whisper, we can yell, we can sing, because the straight people can’t GIVE us rights. They can only stop denying them to us.
And the people in the way are in the way, and I don’t really give a damn why they believe they should be in the way. I just want them OUT OF THE WAY.
Aha! At last it rears its head. Those biblically minded citizens are referring to Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”
Here’s what I don’t get. Maybe some of those BMCs can explain it to me.
-
Leviticus also says that trimming one’s beard and sideburns is against the rules. Yet, I notice that most of the men condemning homosexuality on biblical grounds tend to be conspicuously well groomed. Is hell going to be overrun with clean-shaven men, or is it okay to ignore some biblical strictures but not others? (Click here for a refresher on the Laura Schlessinger letter.)
-
Sometime AFTER Leviticus was written, didn’t another guy come along and say that the GREATEST commandment was to “love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself?” Didn’t this guy slightly outrank the author of Leviticus?
Help me out here, BMCs. I’m genuinely confused.
I agree with what you say here Jayjay but I also think you do a great disservice by willfully ignoring a very valid point from Loopydude. If you cannot see the issue in any other way than “us vs. them”, “with or against”, or “black and white” then I fear you are going to miss the opportunity to reach the middle-of-the-road types. In addition, you risk losing what can be your most effective allies.
I do not see anything to support you painting Loopydude’s points as endorsing you to “slow down” the progress towards civil rights. It is simply a reminder that everyone who is not 100% with you is not also 100% against you. Quite honestly, in this fight you will need all the help you can get.
Personal ancedote if I may: About a year ago, my wife and I attended another (straight) couples open house who had been long time friends of ours. They had purchased a turn of the century victorian in a neighborhood that is in the process of gentrification. As may be expected, a large percentage of the “new money” in the neighborhood included urban gay couples. As my wife and I are interested in property in this same neighborhood we were introduced to a gay man who lived down the street and who was interested in selling his property. We chit-chated, talked about the neighborhood, design and decorating tips, etc. He offered a tour of his home and we gladly accepted and walked down the block and were graciously shown his home. He explained why he was selling, that his partner of 8 years recently relocated out of town and he was selling the house and joining him. Needless to say, we got along just great and although we were not interested in his house (too expensive) we were enjoying the conversation and having a jolly good time.
An hour or two later, for some damn fool reason, the conversation at the party turned to politics. Now I am a conservative, generally vote Republican, but otherwise an all around good guy who enjoys the good natured kidding I get from my more liberal friends (including the friends who were hosting the open house). Jokingly, one of my friends at the party made a comment in regards to some dumb issue (taxes? minimum wage? I’ve forgotten) about me something to the effect of “Don’t ask MeanJoe, he’s an evil Republican!”. Completely tongue-in-cheek kind of comment - no offense meant or taken, right? Wrong.
Our new “friend”, who for the last few hours had been a source of fantastic conversation, taken us into his home, shared details of his personal life with us which we clearly approved of and sympathized with, immediately and to the shock of everyone in attendence attacked me verbally. Now, before any one gets all uppity, I am not saying this is indicitive of “all gays” or some such nonesense so just bear with me a moment - his behavior was beyond boarish and in bad taste. Since my new friend learned I was a republican - I was called an “oppressor”, a “liar” and told that he wishes he’d never admitted me into his home. I was informed in no uncertain terms that I was nothing but a bigot and homophobe before he dramatically informed the host he was leaving. :eek: Can you say ‘Drama Queen’? Haha
Now, what the hell is the point? The point being, if I was a person similar to what Loopydude has described, do you think I would ever consider modifying my position in light of such militant behavior? Would anyone with reservations respond favorably to being called derogatory terms? Fortunately, I took his comments as nothing more than poor manners, false assumptions, and not indicitive of the position of most rational adults (gay or straight). Even as an evil Republican, I can be quite level headed at times. 
My biggest regret in the whole affair was the sadness I felt that he decided to make me his enemy instead of seeing that I was indeed his allie. Can you see a similarity to your position in this? Now of course I, being a middle class white conservative Republican type guy, do not know what it is like to have to fight for my civil rights. Perhaps if some of you are correct I may find out if Pres. Bush gets re-elected (see, I can make fun of my own party too!) Although I cannot “understand what it is like to be gay” I can look around at the injustice in the world and imagine that the frustration must be immense so I do not begrudge your desire for change NOW. I would imagine, if I were in that position, I’d not be as flippant in dismissing people who may possibly help me.
With that, I’ll shut up as I’m going in circles trying to find a better way to express my point. I hope no offense is taken and someone can perhaps better express what I’m getting at here. As always with ancedotes, this is just my experience in one situation and not representative of all people, places, or things. We all can learn from it though.
Peace,
MeanJoe
In my experience it doesn’t usually seem to be the beliefs themselves, but rather the way in which the member tends to react when their untenable position is torn to shreds - rather than acknowledging the responses and trying to answer the hard questions, there is a tendency to start sulking and complaining about cliques and hive-minds, after all, everybody disagreed with me, even though I am absolutely right, and the only way that could happen is if they are somehow conspiring against me. - Even at this point, The mods don’t generally seem to intervene, unless it is ruining the thread, but the banishment seems to happen once the member in question decides to take things further and start throwing personal insults about, or spamming threads or some such.
I don’t think many people have been banned for the fact of having an unusual or unpleasant opinion in itself.
Unfortunately, this position isn’t reasonable for more than five minutes, because it isn’t reasonable to think that in a society governed by the rule of law, not the rule of the Bible, and in a society where equality under the law is supposed to be guaranteed to all citizens --even if their “lifestyles” are “sinful” or even “abominations” according to some interpretations of the Bible – that the law should nevertheless conform to Biblical principles when they run counter to legal principles which must be based upon logic and not faith.
Let’s rephrase that, to show how insidious it is – they don’t care what you do so long as you know your place and don’t attempt to assert your rights to equal treatment under the law. Keep your life held in abeyence. Continue to hope and pray that you don’t want to own a home, or get sick, or die, or have children who need the assurance of a legally secure home. Don’t want to move overseas, or adopt a child or enjoy any of the 1,300 laws that would apply to you if you or your loved one were simply born in a different body.
Indeed, stay quiet and behind closed doors because it’ll bother all the good, kind people who haven’t made up their minds about equality if their little world gets shaken up a little so that others may live freely. Don’t rock their boat! Their peace of mind and security that nothing in the world will ever change because they’re happy and they’re protected and they have what they need is FAR more important than your equality. How dare you be so selfish as to think that these good, solid citizens should ever have a moment of discomfort or have to confront a provocative thought about important, fundamental issues of liberty just because you’re citizens too?
Please. I’m nauseated just imagining that this argument could be acceptable to anybody. Don’t press for what’s yours because it will upset “nice” people?
Good thing this thread isn’t in the Pit.
It’s not even denying. Denying is too passive and gentle a word for this. This is, as it stands right now, a very vocal, very extreme minority using inflammatory and (as often as not) inaccurate rhetoric and flat-out scare tactics in order to guarantee action out of fear and misunderstanding from enough of the vastly overwhelming majority and confusion and apathy from another swath of the vastly overwhelming majority to repress, oppress and dominate a minority which hasn’t, unfortunately, the same kinds of political power as their most vehement opposition.
The people in our legislatures, the people in the most senior levels of our governments who are opposing gay marriage aren’t just kind, nice people who have some reservations about gay marriage but are overall okay with whatever it is people do in “their private lives.” They believe truly the kinds of garbage that has been spouted right here in this thread, that homosexuality is no different than beastiality or pedophilia and that the presence of gays living openly in society is not just “problematic” or “sinful” but something which is unacceptable. They don’t want gays to exist. They don’t want them working with them, they don’t want them anywhere near children, they don’t want them anywhere in any position of any influence, and I truly believe that they’re upset about the Lawrence decision not because it represents “judicial activism” but because it allowed people to be put in jail for the most intimate and personal of choices and behaviors and they liked that idea because it helped retain control through fear and the threat of prison and the only logical conclusion which can be drawn from the positions these people have taken is that gays do not belong out here with the rest of us “decent” people and so maybe they should all be in prison or locked up somewhere, where the rest of us can’t be infected with their sickness.
Double check the rhetoric Rick Santorum or Dick Armey have spewed, tell me I’m wrong.
In other words, continue to play nice and placate the people who aren’t on board with the idea of fundamental rights for all citizens because they’re important? Feh. Civil rights for people of color happened without worrying about placating the lumpy, apathetic middle, civil rights for gays can (and should) happen without them too.
Here’s the problem – your anecdote isn’t on point as an analogy because your “new friend” presumed things about you without evidence. There’s evidence here. We’re talking about people who are on record as opposing equal rights, so no one is acting presumptively by dismissing those people in the quest for equal rights. They are in the way. They can move or they can be moved or they can be run over. It’s up to them. Right now, people are trying to move them in both directions, and it seems frighteningly that the opposition side is having more success, that means it’s time to push harder.
There is no justification in law or logic for oppressing and denying rights to a group of minority citizens. Those who want to make up false and faulty rationale, those who want to play semantics games, those who want to hem and haw and act like they can’t make up their minds between right and wrong are working in concert with the oppressors, and should be treated thusly.
It’s time to take the gloves off. This is a battle about people’s lives and there is no reason to continue to tiptoe around the issues being nice. Making nice doesn’t make change.
I have a feeling being black and being gay aren’t entirely analogous issues. Most, if not all of the problem whites had with blacks was sheer ignorance, pseudoscience, and xenophobia. Sure you could point to some misunderstandings of the story of Noah’s son Ham in the Bible (it was Canaan who was cursed, nost Cush, who was the father of Sudan and Ethiopia), but nobody can argue with a leg to stand upon on scriptural grounds that it’s bad to be black.
Marriage is a sacrament to some, plain and simple. No matter how tolerant some individuals are, you’ll have a hard time arguing with them that God approves of men and men being joined in Holy Matrimony. It’s just a different sort of thing.
I don’t want to rub in painful truths, but as far as I can tell, the homosexual is universally discriminated against. I can think of no major theistic religion that traditionally condones same-sex marriage. That means all races and creeds discriminate against gays, at least in their conservative segments. I can think of no culture that doesn’t look upon marriage with some degree of spiritual significance, and I can’t think of a single culture in which homosexuality is traditionally elevated to the status of normative, especially in the realm of conjugal union. Gay marriage is a major, damn-near universal paradigm shift. This is a different animal than ethnic plurality, as far as I can tell. And it’s not an easy issue to argue on grounds of reason and science, because the source of the objection can be almost immune to arguments of evidence-based logic. It’s an issue of faith! For people to come around, they’re going to need to let go of some aspects of their faith, which I doubt they, in their minds, equate with Jim Crow. Is forcing the majority to accept state sanction of “sexual deviancy” a violation of their religious freedom, since they had no opportunity to vote on it? And when they do get to vote, what will happen? Where does the separation of Church and State lie here? I honestly don’t know.
But I wouldn’t underestimate the problem. It’s all a question of tactics, not what should or shouldn’t be in a just world. That’s all I’m saying. Maybe I’m wrong about the tactics, but I don’t think I’m wrong about the distinctive qualities of homophobia.
I don’t doubt that there are, both in the upper levels of the current administration, within both political parties, and at the grocery store, local bar, and just about every where else people who hold this extreme belief(s).
I do not subscribe to your characterizing everyone who is not 100% in agreement on the issue into this description though. So yes, IMO you are wrong.
Really? Are you sure it happened without the middle? You do not think that Martin Luther King’s words did not reach into homes and shift people’s attitudes? Do you believe it was a conversion process, with blinding lights of truth descending from above so that within five minutes all accepted the error of their ways or rejected it and choose to forever live in sin? Perhaps, crazy as it sounds, not everyone resolves deeply held moral contradictions within 5 minutes and should not be completely dismissed a being bigots or whatever nasty word du joir you choose. You sure some of those who went into the South from up North and worked doing voter registration, etc., were not formerly a part of the lumpy, apathetic middle?
I am not quite sure what you are getting at here. He presumed, because I treated him with respect, interest in him as a person, compassionate to his relationship problems, clearly demonstrated that I had no issue with his being gay in fact treated him no differently based upon his sexuality because it had absolutely no bearing to me in any way, shape, or form that he had no evidence? So, someone jokingly calling me a “evil Republican” is evidence? If that is how you see things, then I doubt we’ll ever agree since we fundamentally see the world very differently.
You won’t find me arguing you should be concerned about the extreme end of the spectrum who will not be convinced either way. The “Jesus hates fags” crowd will not be convinced, just like the “Kill the jews” crowd and the “Hang the niggers” crowd will continue to sit in the stew of their own ignorance and hopefully become more and more irrelevant as society evolves right beyond them. It is a shame you cannot discern between them and those that are in the middle of a moral/ethical/legal contradiction and who are attempting to work out the conflicts.
Well, finally something we do agree on. So, people are trying to move the great “middle” from both directions but up until this point you (and others) have advocated that those in this middle should be labeled a bigot, slapped on the ass, and ignored completely in your burned earth strategy. You cannot see the problem there? Your definition of “push harder” is to label them all bigots and ignore them completely because you do not need them. Well, I guarantee you that those against you do need them, want them, and will pander to them - could be why they are having more success as you’ve pointed out?
You are right, there is no justification in law or logic for oppressing and deny rights to a group of minority citizens. Sadly, not everyone comes to that point of view in a matter of five minutes. Some of them, a great majority I think, require a good deal of time and exposure to change their deeply held beliefs. You certainly do not have to wait for all of them to get there, I nor no one else that I can tell has said you should. It is your militant dismissal of them that is of concern. As you dismiss them, refuse to acknowledge that they are in a position to either support your goals or work against them, I guarantee you that the message from the “we hate gays” crowd will be the only one they’ll hear. Congratulations. What did you win again?
Well, I agree it is about lives and I agree it is time for change. I’ll remain a supporter of equal rights for gay/lesbian couples, whether that be civil unions or marriage. I’ll also continue to try to reach the people who seem on the fence but who appear to be reachable, for a great deal of gay and straight people have been in that position at one time or another. I do feel a sense of regret that you, and others, feel those people should be written off. That is your choice, and in spite if you branding me with the same labels as those who seek to terminate your existence, I’ll still be happy for you (and many others) when the day comes that you get the changes so overdue.
MeanJoe
Posted by Loopydude
Well, Think again. It has the status of normative, here.
For crying out loud. Two people LOVE each-other. What’s wrong with that?
[I’m thinking Augusta and that other homophobe *[can’t search, right now]* are sad sods. Maybe some kids who discovered their feelings for the same gender themselves - and are scared to death of it. ~ Or they’re just plain dumb]
I’m a happily married man, to a wonderful loving woman. I believe in the sanctity and institution of marriage, and I have absolutely no problem with a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman. I do not believe my love for my wife is any different than someone who is homosexuals’ love for their partner.
Thos who stand behind the bible and it’s teachings and believe it is an abomination for a man to love a man are for getting the commandments that they proselytize about. Something about loving your neighbor as yourself. Pretty clear to me, staright forward concise…No mention of gender what-so-ever.
Ha, I really should stop answer posts addressed to Loopydude but why not one more? 
I think the operative word there is “traditional”. I freely admit I am not very familiar with the social history of Amsterdam but I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that the normative nature there evolved from a more traditional. I honestly do not know if that is the case and would like to know.
Not a single thing and I do not think Loopydude, nor myself, are advocating that there is something wrong with that. Now, a good portion of the rest of the world may disagree with you, me, and Loopydude which is the ugly truth he pointed out - Amsterdam being one exception it would seem. 
I have no idea what you are saying there.
p/s JayJay I’m so sorry you still see hatred in people’s faces. I’m not sure what to say to you. Around here, the homophobia just stopped at a certain moment. Maybe because some well-known, loved, TV personalities simpy said: I’m gay. I’m going to marry my friend.
It has been some time ago and I was too young to actually experience a homophobe, so maybe there was a struggle to get accepted here, too.
Anyway: I wish you all the best and good luck.
It sure will be nice when we can say the same thing here. Wow.
MeanJoe
[BMean Joe**
It means: I can’t go back a page or two. [this board won’t let me. ] I wasn’t addressing you.
And like I said: I guess it took some time to get used to gays, but it is so long ago, I can’t remember.
And the Netherlands aren’t they only ones who see homosexuals as people like you and me. “Normal” [whatever the hell that may mean] Scandinavia, I believe, thinks the same. Although I’m not sure if gays can marry in church there.
For crying out loud, I don’t fine ANYTHING wrong with that. I’m not talking about how I feel about this. Quite frankly, if I had my way, I’d get the gubmint out of the marriage game entirely. I deeply resent a state-sanctioned presence in my personal affairs, and if I could amend the Constitution, I’d make it illegal for our govt. to regard me as anything but an individual social and fiscal entity, regardless of my relationship and religious status.
Not in my lifetime.
What we’re talking about is the people who do have a problem with same-sex marriage, and what makes them tick. What I see is some folks here have concluded that, well, since there’s no rational explanation for such objections, anti-gay-marriage types must be ignorant, hateful bigots. I’m asserting that the prolem is far more complicated than that. Most of these people know homosexuals are here, queer, and they’re plenty used to it. The believe in gays having basic civil rights. They don’t hate homosexuality. Many of them fully accept that being gay is normal, natural, and simply the way God made some people. However, in spite of all this, they do NOT support gay marriage (as of yet), because they haven’t gotten over the prohibitions of their faith. They can do this, and perhaps will, but…well, this is faith we’re talking about. Remember my friend from Wellesley? You know, the summa cum laude Christian fundamentalist? She doesn’t believe in evolution! So try to get your mind around that: She was a biochem major, worked in a biomedical lab, Darwin’s theory of evolution is, without argument, the foundation of all modern biology, and she honestly doesn’t believe it! I have no explanation for this, I can’t understand it, and am not even going to try. I don’t have faith, so it’s unfathomable to me. Before meeting her, I probably would have figured, had I heard about her from somebody else, that she was a complete idiot. She’s not. She’s so smart it’s almost frightening. Music? She’s good at it. Art? She can draw a stunning likeness of me in about five minutes. Educated? She’s one of the most diversely knowledgible individuals I have ever met. Politics, religion, science, art history, poetry, literature, you name it, and she’ll kick your ass in it.
Faith is a powerful thing. Ignore it at grave peril. It is the answer to the question of the OP, and it is a thing that many hold dear to their hearts. To misunderstand and misrepresent the faithful is political suicide, as far as I can see. These things take time and dialogue.
For crying out loud.
GAH!! I know I have it somewhere!! A study linking Homophobia quite strongly with arousal…
I’ll try to dig it up, it was in a text book we used when I first started here.
Can’t wait for your textbook, Phlosphr. Seeing you’re around so much longer than me, here. Very important.
Got it! Linky-Linky
1996! I knew it the year I started here. Big contoversy… Sorry homophobes, empirical evidence at it’s best.
Then your friend is an ignorant fool, no matter how many shiny degrees she has. You cannot be an intelligent person and a creationist. Just like you cannot be a humane and decent person and against gay equality.
That’d be like being a decent, intelligent person and against interracial marriage. It just can’t happen.