Shrub: "...marriage is between a man and a woman."

The BBQ Pit
81

I respect those people who still assert that the world is, in fact, flat instead of round. I in no way oppose their holding those beliefs or attempting to persuade others that they are correct. I think they’re utterly wrong, but I in no way want to shut them up.

Similarly, I respect those who oppose some odd construct of “gay lifestyle” based on religious or personal convictions. I would oppose any attempt to shut them up by force (For example, I am whole-heartedly against boycotting Michael Savage). The difference is a lot of people who hold such opinions would love to thrust their convictions down my throat. See the Defense of Marriage amendment currently being brought up. Another thread asking for rational, well-reasoned arguments against gay marriage that relied on the public good pretty much hit the bottom of the barrel.

As you say, respect is a two way street. I’m currently not getting a lot from people who condemn the “gay lifestyle”. My lifestyle, btw, mostly involves sitting around on the computer, in a classroom, with a handful of friends, or in front of the TV. I’ve been to a gay dance club once. I’ve yet to see, let alone be offered, drugs of any type. And, much to my dismay, I’ve not been seeing a lot of that promiscuity every fundamentalist seems so worried about.

82

Oh yay, it’s the “You don’t tolerate the intolerant so you’re intolerant” song! Fuck that stupid shit.

Why? His right to speak doesn’t guarantee him the right to an audience.

We’ve had this discussion once already, sweetie…

83

chula

prods at the net

I may have overspoken; the closest I can come to a cite on that is someone asking if anyone’s gone through all the treaties to which the US is signatory trying to figure out if this is relevant. (I would note, though, that if someone goes to that work – and I just spent a half-hour trying to go through Treaties in Force and can’t take any more of it – those treaties have equivalent force to the constitution, so no, DOMA wouldn’t rule. Article VI.) I also found cites for the general prevalence of comity, but that’s voluntary, and not with force of law – just custom, and a Canadian site noting that the United States argued for international custom being enshrined in national law as support for the idea that Canada should do the same. (!)

Obvious Guy:

Personally I’m against the “objects to the gay lifestyle” lifestyle. I find it morally abhorrent, but you people are free to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own homes.

84

I agree with Obvious Guy in a backhanded way, in that I think there is (or at least should be) a distinction between homophobia, the literal “fear” of homosexuals characterized by the heebeejeebees (spelling?) which Toaster52 talked about (“but my skin just crawls when I think [about gay marriage]”), and bigotry, that is regular old prejudice against gays. One doesn’t necessarily mean the other.

I fail to see how you’ve demonstrated either in this case, Dio.

85

If thinking about gay sex makes you feel oogy-then, well, DON’T THINK ABOUT IT.

D’uh.

86

As a point of order, Toaster’s “skin crawl” reaction didn’t come from thinking gay sex, but rather from thinking about gay marriage.

87

This whole … “Bush said this,”

“Oh yeah? Clinton said this,”

“Yeah! And Hillary said this,”

… like it makes a difference.

I voted for Clinton twice. I would have voted for him a third time if they’d have let me. But the day he says, “I don’t know if it’s necessary yet. Let’s let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court hearing. What I do support is a notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.”," is the day I call him full of shit too.

That’s just a specious argument. This isn’t about what Bill or Hillary Clinton said; it’s about what our current president said.

88

Spin.
Let Toaster give us the skinny.

Toaster, think about this … me … Brad Pitt … three gallons of canola oil … and four hours of hot monkey sex … what’s that do for ya?

89

Oh. Well, that’s different.

Really, who cares if gays get married? I HONESTLY cannot understand why so many people obsess over this!

(I’m NOT talking about people fighting for it, but the people fighting against it. It’s stupid)

90

I’m with ya Guin, it really is silly.

91

The term “homophobia” does not necessarily connote literal fear (if you want to be really literal about the Greek roots it means “fear of the same”) but a general dislike or hostility for gay people. It’s not a great word, and I think there must be better ones (“heterosexist” is one that is currently gaining some popularity).

A desire to deny a group of people the same rights that everyone else has simple based on personal or religious prejudice is bigotry. It’s the definition of bigotry.

Imagine someone saying, “I’m not a racist but the idea of interracial marriage makes my skin crawl.”

I see no difference between that sentiment and the one expressed by Toaster (although to his credit, it doesn’t sound like a feeling he’s proud of and he seems to recognize intellectually that it’s irrational and unfair).

GWB saying that marriage is “between a man and a woman” is really no different than saying it’s “between a white man and a white woman.” It’s the same kind of irrational, hurtful prejudice IMNSHO.

92

But you see how someone can be homophobic yet not bigoted, right? Although the inverse is probably less likely. I’m with you that it’s really not a good word, and I was a little uneasy about its exact definition (to my credit, I put fear in quotation marks :))

Racism is, of course, less complicated in that there isn’t the two word dichotomy (That is a word, right?). Please forgive me if I’m playing semantic games - it is a weakness of mine.

I personally can’t imagine my skin crawling at the thought of any sort of marriage; as I told Guin, I think that’s silly. However, what does make my skin crawl isn’t, strictly speaking, up to me. It certainly isn’t a concious decision. If it was, I’d be eating a lot more tuna sandwhiches (tuna making skin crawl is also pretty silly).

Since I agree that Bush’s statement is irrational, and I’m sure it’s hurtful to some, the only thing we’re really quibbling over is the prejudice part, and we’re not really even quibbling over that. Is homophobia as a subconcious reaction prejudice? Certainly. Is it the same as bigotry? Hrm. If marriage didn’t have thousands of other rights tied up in it, that would be a simpler question.

93

Well, I’ve said (probably too many times already) that I favor full-fledged marriage for gay couples, and that means that I think that both George W. and Hilary are full of huevos revueltos. But in the interest of fairness, it’s instructive to compare their comments. In close paraphrase:

Pres. Bush: We don’t need a constitutional amendment yet because nobody is authorizing gays to get married. When some state does will be the time to adopt the amendment prohibiting it.

Sen. Clinton: I’m opposed to gay marriage because I believe marriage is something between a man and a woman. But I support some kind of civil union for gays with some of the benefits of marriage.

Neither is particularly supportive. But the tone in which they’re expressed is as different as night and day: “I’m opposed to it, so let’s outlaw it” vs. “I don’t like it, but can’t we find a compromise?”

Toaster: I’m probably inviting you to a flamefest – but would you consider discussing why you have that visceral reaction? I think all but a few people here are willing to listen to reasoned argument even if we disagree with the premises it’s based on.

Obvious Guy: You wanna define “gay lifestyle”? and then we can talk. (Not a rhetorical question – last ten people I’ve asked what they meant by it refused to come up with an answer.) I think you’ll probably get disagreed with, but at least we can get a grasp on what it is that you’re objecting to. And you know, if you mean what a few people seem to mean by it, I think you might find people here, including a couple of the gay posters, who might even agree with you. But right at the moment, it’s one of those catchphrases, like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh sling around, that have no objective referent, just whatever people choose to mean by them at the moment. And nobody here is Humpty Dumpty; we like our words to have mutually agreed meanings!

Priam: If you ever visit Raleigh, I’ll be sure to take you down to the nicest of the local clubs, Legends. It’s a fairly loud, high-energy place, but friendly. I’ve been there a few times to see what it was like, and enjoyed it. (I’ll also make it a point to point out to you Matt Shepherd’s stool – the one he sat on when he had a few drinks with a writer for our local weekly, a couple of weeks before moving back to Wyoming. It’s etched in my memory, because I was sitting on it the week before the writer did a eulogy for Matt. If you’ve ever had a “There but for the grace of God go I” experience, you’ll know just how I feel!)

94

We’re getting into nuances of words but I think I can concede that someone can be inwardly prejudiced without being outwardly bigoted. Maybe “bigotry” should imply an active expressed hostility rather than a private feeling. I would not have pitted Bush if he had said that he personally opposed gay marriage but that they should still have a legal right to do it (IOW something akin to the standard, centrist politico stance on abortion). I might still think he was an ass but I would give him credit for following reason rather than personal prejudice.

95

My last post was addressed to Fred. I got simulposted.

96

Obvious Guy, when I use the term homophobe, I’m being generous. I assume that the person who acts prejudiced against homosexuals is simply expressing a deep, unreasoning fear. The alternative, that they have considered their position, and decided to be bigoted towards gay people based on some sort of twisted evil version of logic which lets them feel superior is just appalling to me.

If you prefer, I’ll use the term ‘straight supremacist’ for those who object to the more courteous word ‘homophobe’; it seems to sum their position up nicely.

97

Well, then you need to realise that that reaction is an irrational reaction that shouldn’t have any bearing on your expressed opinions. Be a truly fine human being and be in favour of gay marriage despite that crawly feeling.

98

I realize that the term “straight supremacist” has been around for a respectable amount of time (at least six months, to my personal knowledge), and that, consequently, I’m a bit late out of the gate as far as suggesting an alternative. Still, I think “heterochauvinist” has a nice ring to it, and perhaps doesn’t carry the same baggage, not having the dreaded “supremacist” dangling off of it.

99

Personally, I like the ‘supremacist’ dangling off it. I think people should have the courage of their convictions. If they’re going to insist on trying to keep an entire minority in second-class citizen status forever, then they have earned the right to wear pointy-headed sheets and burn crosses.

100

Point taken, MrVisible. But reasonable people can view the direct analogy to the KKK as overstated. That could make people who use inflammatory terms in their labels appear, shrill and, well, unreasonable.

Still, I’m only a supporter. I don’t walk in your particular shoes, and I would not presume to dictate how your rhetoric should be couched.

Also, I was really late with the suggestion. :slight_smile: