Good.
No, not quite. A person could be not homophobic, but still racist, for example. A person who is not homophobic is, by definition, not bigoted against gays, of course.
An oxymoron.
No, the word “homophobe” means “someone who is bigoted against gays.”
Okay, so if someone doesn’t have anything against gays, but doesn’t support same sex marriage, then they are not bigoted.
Unless you’ve decided that being against SSM makes one homophobic. But I think that’s ridiculous. You can call the position held by Democratic politicians on SSM many things, but they certainly weren’t homophobic in most cases. Hillary Clinton was about as chummy with the Human Rights Campaign as you can get and Obama and the gay political community’s friendship was quite real. I don’t think he was a closet homophobe and I doubt you do either.
To clarify, you can genuinely believe *yourself *and your friends not to be bigoted and *still *be bigoted anyway. Humans have great powers of rationalization and self-deception, very great powers.
If you accept different treatment and different levels of legitimacy for those with a particular characteristic, then you’re acting in a bigoted way, which despite any denials you might make to yourself or others makes you a bigot.
See: T. Geisel on the subject of Sneetches, if that helps.
OK, I’ll bite and respond to you.
Marriage is not just a word. I would say that no one pro SSM has advanced that as their point but this conversation has so much repetitive blah blah blah that I may have missed it. I don’t think it’s just a word though.
You are right about marriage being the cornerstone of a stable society. It encourages people to commit to and support each other no matter what…in sickness and in health, as it were. It encourages a mindset that makes people think less selfishly and put their family before themselves on a consistent basis. It assures that children — both natural and adoptive----- are cared for. The support network provided by marriage lessens the burden of the state when it comes to caring for it’s citizens.
So why would it not be in the best interest of society and the state to broaden that cornerstone and allow access to the institution of marriage to same sex couples? Wouldn’t that increase social stability?
If you believe that broadening marriage to include same sex couples denigrates or deteriorates the institution of marriage, then you must also believe that all homosexuals suffer from some sort of character or moral deficit that precludes their full participation in this socially beneficial institution.
And that, my friend, is bigotry.
I agree completely. When someone starts off a sentence with, “I’ve got nothing against black people, but…” then you know what’s coming.
However, I think who is and isn’t a homophobe is a pretty clear distinction and many of the public figures who opposed SSM in the past but do so today weren’t homophobic.
I still concede that the position could have been bigoted, but that’s not the same as motivated by homophobia or animus towards gays.
What do you think would be a non-bigoted reason to oppose SSM?
The reasons stated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They were clearly not homophobes before coming around on gay marriage. And the gay community certainly didn’t treat them like “the lesser of two evils”. They were treated as valued allies.
This would imply that only 18 months later, people who still hold the views they have abandoned are not necessarily motivated by homophobia.
Yes, many politicians, since that’s the type of person you cite, were most likely motivated more by political calculation. Many who oppose it today, and perhaps even some who favor it, undoubtedly are as well. But it’s still accepting subjugative treatment of a class for on no rational or defensible basis. And it’s also true that bigotry is learned, it can be unlearned, and those who have done so deserve to be recognized as having done so.
I think by definition, anyone who opposes SSM is a bigot in regards to our gay citizens. It may not be their intention for it to be malicious or hateful but it still fits the definition.
If someone says “I have nothing against black people but I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one” are they still a bit racist?
The fact that bigotry agasint gays is a product of decades religious and societal indoctrination and will take generations to fade, doesn’t make it not bigotry.
I don’t see any reason to respect beliefs that I consider morally wrong because they are based in someone’s religion. Personally I don’t see excessive mocking or ridiculing of those beliefs as productive, but I understand those who feel the urge to do so and follow that urge. The religious indoctrination that painted our gay citizens as sick and perverts has done an immense amount of harm to many people and many families. Most people who oppose SSM refuse to see that reality and acknowledge it, but they’ll still complain when someone calls them a bigot. Not much sympathy from me.
Why? What is the reason to otherwise support gay rights in every area except marriage.
Such as Hillary Clinton, she specifically cited ‘religious and moral’ reasons why she was in support of DOMA. Obama also cited his religious beliefs for not supporting SSM. Were they supportive in other areas? Certainly. From all evidence, this still was a form of religious bigotry, but seems to have been the last bit they needed to get past as far as LGBT issues go.
Knocking off the attempted “Bill and Hillary” slams, I ask you once again: What do you think would be a non-bigoted reason to oppose SSM?
Miller said the exact opposite of this. You can’t quote that post and then act like he agreed with you.
What do you expect? They were far superior to the alternative.
No, that’s the opposite of what I said.
Yes, that’s the position that I’ve been consistently arguing for since the last century.
Obama wasn’t a closet homophobe. He was, in fact, quite open about it, when he came out and said he didn’t think gay people should be allowed to marry.
I think the president was saying what was poltically expedient and it’s irrelevant to speculate on what his personal opinion was.
The problem I have is that for some time those that oppose SSM have had no logical or reasonable argument for that opposition. They’ve tried to rerame it to appear reasonable and failed. As then evidence mounts and all the objections are dismantled they still stubbornly cling to their right to an opinion and belief.
If someone believes that drinking or gambling or dancing or watching porn is a sin and choose not to do it that’s fine. When they make a concerted effort to try and prohibit others from doing so by making the laws of the land conform to thier religious beliefs, that’s a problem.
Yes, that’s the position that I’ve been consistently arguing for since the last century.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it makes you a homophobe. It’s an indication that you are a homophobe, either actively or passively. (Passively: You are against SSM because you fear change, for example; you are reflecting your culture’s homophobia without having taken a reasoned position of your own.)
As this thread and countless others have demonstrated, there is zero overlap between “not homophobic at all” and “against SSM.”
Okay, I understand your arguments. The “homophobic” thing just piqued my interest again because “homophobia” seems to have a much more narrow definition than “bigotry”.
My own opinion about homosexuality has always been the same as my opinion on pork: it’s a sin to eat it, so I don’t eat it. Your mileage may vary.
personally I think the argument of SSM is over in the sense that the opposition has no logical argument left and no moral one either. Now it’s just a matter of time and generations passing before old attitudes are replaced and new ones become the norm. No different than other equal rights issues we’ve had in this country.
Why would it be a “sin” to eat pork or be a homosexual?
Surely the reason was not that marriage between people of different races was “not marriage”, but that it was miscegenation and opposed on those grounds. (Vile grounds, but that’s a given.) Admittedly I’m ignorant of American statutes on the subject and you may well be able to show me a historical definition of marriage that excluded partners of different races, and if so I’m open to being educated.
No, there were many places in the US in which interracial marriage was illegal outright. That was true as recently as 1967, before the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia.