Some examples: [ul]
[li]“Polygamy has a historical correlation with the mistreatment of women.”[/li][li]“Polygamy also has a historical correlation with less fortunate males being discarded.”[/li][li]“We’d have to create an entire new legal framework, and no one can even agree on what it should be.”[/li][li]“Humans tend towards polygyny, not polyandry; it’s bad for society to have a large percentage of men who can’t find a mate no matter what.”[/li][/ul]
As opposed to same sex marriage, where nothing at all untoward happens in nations that allow it, despite the doomsaying.
Why would it?
If someone believes blacks are inferior due to the Curse of Ham, does that make them any less of a racist? The idea that Bronze Age superstitions are some sort of get out of jail free card is absurd.
I’d think that gay-marriage supporters would be the last to say something like “it’s bad for society to have a large percentage of …” or argue against needed changes to our legal framework. Don’t both apply to gay marriage as well? I haven’t done any real research on the subject, but aren’t there at least some studies showing higher rates of domestic violence in gay relationships? Wouldn’t that pretty much be a direct correlary to your first point?
No. SSM just expands who is allowed in the institution; it doesn’t require a new framework any more than allowing interracial couples did. And anti-SSM people have been given the opportunity again and again to come up with some plausible negative effect to society, and failed.
I’ve never heard that. I have heard that the police tend to look the other way in cases of male/male domestic violence, in hopes it will escalate to murder.
I must have missed the part when Cathy said that his ideas were “still evolving,” the way Obama had. He didn’t leave the door open to new ideas, and that’s very different from Obama’s statements. I don’t expect people to be born with all the right ideas; only to be open to new understanding and rational discourse.
Anyone who advocates limiting people’s rights is diminishing them as human beings. And I, as a member of the group in question, resent Cathy labeling me as less than human, even though he never met me. That’s hateful and bigoted.
Obama consistently said he would remain neutral. His comments expressed he had personal reservations about SSM. He did not wish to actively promote SSM but did not want to impose his personal beliefs on others.
Cathy on the other hand believes his religious views should be expressed in law and actively funds organizations that blame gays for any national tragedy we endure.
When I google domestic violence statistics gay, I get lots of hate sites which do indeed claim that domestic violence is greater among gay couples than married straight ones. Cites are scarce, however.
I do get one site with cites, and that’s at a website called Abuse Victim Hotline. Their POV seems to be on domestic violence, not gay relationships pro or con, so I’m far more inclined to believe them. Here’s what they have to say:
Heck, I’d’a thought American blacks, with their own civil-rights struggles still in living memory, wouldn’t be keen to stymie the efforts of others, but there you go.
The necessary changes to the legal framework consisting of dabbing Wite-Out on the forms that say “Bride’s name:” and “Groom’s name:” and replacing them with “Spouse #1’s name:” and “Spouse #2’s name:”.
… and that’s about it. The hypothetical adaptation for group marriage is somewhat more involved. Personally, I favour a structure comparable to a legal partnership, like a law firm or a medical practice, where each partner has a certain percentage of equity, mechanisms exist for voting on the partnership’s collective actions, and methods exist to bring in new partners or releasing existing ones.
Dan Cathy also said: “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.”
Obama never described same-sex couples as “inviting God’s judgment on our nation”, or anything remotely in that neighborhood. In fact, he couldn’t invoke religion too much, seeing as he belonged to a church that supported same-sex marriage.
Not sure if it’s fair to say that legalizing ssm is just a matter of White Out on some legal forms. Family courts have been dealing with these issues for years when it comes to children. It’s not always that simple.
But just because it’s hard, doesn’t mean it can’t be done. I’ve never accepted that logistics should be a blockade to justice.
One of the problem with modern civil rights is that every little faction seems determined that their suffering and oppression was uniquely evil and extreme, and they and they alone deserve help. I’ve seen entirely too many debates about civil rights turn into a circular firing squad with various blacks/gays/women/Jews/transsexuals/whatever arguing over who has suffered the worst, and how everyone else’s injustices don’t matter because they don’t compare.
Whether it’s bigoted or not, it was the default position in almost every human society for thousands of years. I’m inclined to cut them a little slack for that.
A lot of very important tradition going back thousands of years is involved in a marriage and starting a family. Gays should be allowed civil unions but not marriage. I am not biggoted and I do not hate. I have opionons like everyone else.
Tradition led us to institutionalize persons with disabilities. Tradition led us to condemn epilepsy and food poisoning as evidence of witchcraft. Tradition led us to slavery, then segregation. We’ve done a tremendous amount of harm because of tradition. We are smarter now, time to stop oppressing people and treating them as outcasts.
The institution of slavery was also the default position for society for thousands of years; I’m not going to give any slack to a homophobe any more than I would to a slaver just because their particular variety of evil is old.
Yes, but there are people you can teach and people you can’t. People who hold such positions because that’s what they were taught and never had reason to think differently are not the same as people who know damn well that their position is discriminatory and pursue it anyway. Both positions are homophobic but one may be changeable with a bit of education and finesse.
I’m going to have to ask for an example of these difficulties. The only one that comes to mind is picturing some really dumb judge who by default gives custody to the mother, and is utterly duh-baffled by cases where there is no mother, or two of them.
But that would require a really dumb judge. I’m talking “Of Mice and Men” Lenny dumb.
This. The OP cherry-picked (quite possibly unknowingly) one of Cathy’s less objectionable statements, but it was the rather moronic “inviting God’s judgment” quote that got press traction and got people riled up.