It’s like jazz. It isn’t dead, it just smells funny.
Homophobia usually (if not always) stems from religion, and the religious often play the “victim of bigotry” card when their homophobia is attacked. It’s disingenuous, as it’s like claiming that religion is akin to skin color. Sure, religion is a choice that adults make, even if their living environment makes vocal honesty about one’s feelings difficult or impossible. Adults decide whether or not to believe in a talking snake.
Gay couples can never have biological children, with or without assistance. They may have a child that is 1/2 a biological part of one member of the union.
“Ensuring paternity” is the same as child-rearing. Division of property is also a legal construct that can be dealt with outside of marriage.
The argument is that marriage is a vessel to bring the next generation into this world with a male and female role model. No, we can’t hold a gun to a single mother’s head or her baby daddy’s head to make them live together. We can’t force a married couple to stay together when they have irreconcilable differences. But we can reserve marriage to those couples who are capable of having biological children. Marriage ain’t about me, you or our happiness and sense of fulfillment in life. It’s about children.
And that belief is protected by the first amendment. Sexual orientation is protected by nothing in the Constitution.
In my experience, homophobia results from societal prejudices that did not originate with, (although they are often supported by), religious texts. The majority of the truly homophobic people of my acquaintance are not even particularly religious, so their attitudes toward homosexuality can hardly be ascribed to religion.
That said, my point was, initially, only that the words bigot and bigotry had not actually been defined in this thread, (or, really, in previous threads), despite the claim that it had been.
I am not going to go off on a tangent about religion that really has no bearing on the rest of the discussion.
Explicitly. Yet.
If people are going to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, perhaps it should be.
And, if Western society has begun to move toward more acceptance of homosexuality in all areas of life, (including adoption, marriage, etc.), then it is probably a good idea to enshrine protections for those activities in Law, to prevent future attacks on people of differing sexual orientation.
Wow. So no marriage for the snipped, barren or elderly?
My wife and I got married in our late 40s, after we were both “fixed.” I’m glad our marriage was allowed. Happiness and fulfillment are important. We have damaged any children either.
This is also true of plenty of straight couples. Of course, no doubt you’ll claim that’s different somehow.
Except it’s not. No one is trying to forbid infertile couples to not marry, or requiring couples to have children against their will. This nonsense that marriage is about children only comes up when someone is trying to forbid same sex couples from marrying.
That argument is just one more transparently obvious attempt to paper over the actual reason behind opposition to SSM; hatred towards homosexuals.
So? The 3/5ths compromise was at one point part of the Constitution; it’s hardly some infallible guide to right behavior. Given the pervasive bigotry against homosexuals, SSM and other such rights probably should be part of the Constitution.
Then let’s get 2/3ds of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states to approve it. Otherwise it is simply judicial activism.
People in Mississippi, Wyoming, or South Carolina have not signed on to gay adoption or marriage. These things have been the work of the courts. IOW, I don’t care what the latest ABA blast says about gay marriage or adoption; the people should decide this question, and the people will have different answers, even in the western world.
If a state decided that marrying infertile couples was so egregious that it wanted fertility tests conducted by the County Clerk, then I don’t see a constitutional problem. States have simply decided that for ease of administration they will not conduct such tests of opposite sex couples; and that shouldn’t be a constitutional issue.
I also don’t see a constitutional problem when two people of the same gender who present a per se infertility problem are denied a marriage license.
Then you don’t consider marriage a fundamental right, because all of those things would be an impermissible burden. Maybe you should invent a new institution, reserved for people who want to breed. Smarriage.
What’s the word for someone who considers the definition of a word to be more important than the happiness of people? The type of person who would argue that certain people should not have their loving relationship recognized because it clashes with the definition of a word? The type of person who feels that Prescriptivism is more important than Civil Rights, even though they wouldn’t recognize the word Prescriptivism if it written in 10 foot high letters.
Perhaps Bigot isn’t the right word, but I can’t quite find one that describes this behavior with an appropriate amount of disgust.
Which makes them no different from many heterosexual couples.
That doesn’t contradict SSM at all. All it opposed is one method of incorporating children into a family. What justifies pretending that that one method is the se method?
That’s real nice, tom. But I’m not seeing where I claimed the word “bigot” had been defined in this thread. Nor, on a quick review, do I see anyone asking for a definition. The meaning of the term does not appear to be in question in this thread, only the applicability of the term to opposition to SSM.
Which is, itself, a bit surprising. It’s not often that we have to wait to page six for someone to come in with the “But what does the word meeeaan?” wheeze. Can’t say as I expected it to be you to run in and fill that breach, though.
Thanks, tom. That’s mighty white of you.
So, opposition to SSM is not bigotry, because people are changing their mind about gay marriage, which means they weren’t obstinate in their opinion?
That’s just fucking stupid. Under that logic, George Wallace was never a bigot, because he changed his mind about segregation in the '70s. Neither was Robert Byrd, despite being an active Klansman. Neither was this guy, who had hate tattoos on his face, because he reformed and had them removed.
Gay marriage has been a major political issue in this country for going on twenty years, now. In those twenty years, there has not yet been a single internally consistent objection to legalized SSM raised anywhere, by any opponent of marriage equality. If an adult still, at this date, is opposed to SSM, despite the total dearth of evidence for any harm it could cause, and despite the overwhelming trove of evidence of the harm legalizing it could alleviate, then yeah, that person is being, at the very least, “obstinate.”
I would say that cleaving to the dictionary definition of a word, despite massive evidence that changing the definition would materially benefit thousands of people at no cost, is the very definition of “obstinate.”
Also, older people are generally less favorably disposed to gay rights across the board, so I’m not sure what you think you’re proving by breaking out opposition to SSM separately.
Yeah, Jesus, what the hell does religion have to do with the gay rights debate? Talk about a non-sequitur, amirite?
:rolleyes:
Uh huh. Tell me, tom, how many prominent leaders of the anti-gay rights movement don’t identify as religious? Can you name three prominent atheists in the last 20 years who have worked openly to oppose gay rights?
How is it not a choice?
People do not choose the religion they are raised in. Depending on the community, they can experience strong social pressure to remain in the religion they are raised in. So it’s a choice, but less of a free choice than, say, one’s favourite cheese, but a lot more of a free choice than one’s sexuality. Religion and sexuality are not analogous in terms of choice; I’m not sure what tomndebb’s point was.
As far as bigotry: if you don’t like the word, do you have a better word to describe those who tell me my marriage isn’t a real marriage, or that my relationship is less valid than a heterosexual relationship? What about people who describe my behaviour as sinful, at least in their lurid imagination—our public behaviour is in fact much more chaste than heterosexual couples, because we’ve been conditioned to fear the reaction of strangers on the street should we hold hands or kiss. You have no way of knowing our private behaviour, because it’s private.
The definition OurLordPeace offered wasn’t something he made up on his own; it’s a notion that has been floating around, including here on the SDMB, for quite a while.
You, yourself, noted that the word “bigot” has “come to mean” something different from what it once meant.
The primary utility of the “innate characteristics” clause is that it short-circuits the insane self-referential notion that has been attempted by many: “It’s also bigotry to be unfriendly toward bigots.” If mere behaviors are considered as characteristics that cannot be frowned upon except as bigotry, then it would be “bigotry” to ask loud, rude, offensive, cruel, or even vandalistic customers to leave a restaurant.
“Dude, you just shit on the floor. Get the hell out.”
“You’re just a bigot; you’ve got this thing against people who shit on floors!”
The “innate characteristics” idea is coming to be a connotation of the word “bigotry,” even if it hasn’t been stabbed into dictionaries yet.
Dictionaries are only able to give a very brief summary, a coarse description, of a word. If you want dictionaries to cover all possible details of a word’s use and implications – we’re gonna need a bigger book.
Well, we do have a word for this argument.
It is a straw man.