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

The BBQ Pit
101

First of all, my apologies for not posting sooner; I am doing this at lunch at work right now. My keyboard at home is busted…the q,w,e,r,t and y keys do not work, and even trying to post something the would suggest that my keyboard was not working and I would be back resulted in total gibberish. Hence the long Fourth of July weekend delay.

Anyway…
Jack Batty

“… me … Brad Pitt … three gallons of canola oil … and four hours of hot monkey sex … what’s that do for ya?”
A severe case of the willies, but it doesn’t make me want to march in the streets in protest.

Polycarp

“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.”
Flamefest indeed, because I don’t think this is a topic, like that of using the word fat, that people are willing to discuss reasonably. There is simply too much emotion and societal impact/history/whatever involved.
Why do I have a visceral reaction? Dunno; it is, after all, a visceral reaction, one that is not reasoned and considered. Prior to about 1984, I had had no interaction with gays at all (and please…don’t give me that reply that I did, but just didn’t know about it. Let’s not get sidetracked on minutae and semantics, OK? I KNOW that I probably met some gay people, but they didn’t let on or tell me, etc. But I didn’t have any interactions with them AS GAYS). I was in Champaign, Illinois at a local bar on Green Street when a guy came to my table and asked me to dance. A simple enough request, but I have to tell you that I was stunned. The details are kind of fuzzy, but I recall politely telling him, no thanks…and then practically running out the door. I have been “hit on” often enough since then that it makes me wonder what sort of vibes I’m giving out. I have gotten to the point where I can look him right in the eye and say, “No thanks, I’m not gay.” and move on.
With my skin crawling all the time.
Can I come up with a rational explanation? Probably not. The closest that I can come up with is the simple biological fact that the human species is designed to reproduce with the union of a man and a woman. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman will not produce a child. Period. Two men can adopt a child or two woman can either adopt or carry a child to term via artificial insemination, but in any case that child, at the core, is produced by the union of a man and a woman.

There are probably plenty of arguments by gays countering this idea, but what I’m trying to do is put forth a possible idea as to why I get this visceral reaction.
There is that saying that while I may not agree with your opinion, I will defend to the death your right to express it. Or something like that. Perhaps one day I CAN “Be a truly fine human being and be in favour of gay marriage despite that crawly feeling.”, PriceGuy, but right now, all I can do is re-iterate what I said before, that I consider marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Disclosure: I am getting married August 18th to a very wonderful woman. Does this influence my feelings as to what I have just discussed?

dunno

:shrug:

102

So, Toaster, if you had the power, would you legalize gay marriages or not? That’s really the question at hand.

Esprix

103

My answer would be no.
And yes, I know how this is going to make me sound. But as has been said before, “It doesn’t follow that being against gay marriage is being against gays. Marriage is, after all, more a cultural than legal.”

I am NOT against gays. I just happen to feel that marriage is an act of union between a man and a woman. That, I guess, is my cultural background and upbringing.

104

Then Toaster52, you are, in fact, against gays. You believe that gay people are not worthy of being considered “married.” You believe that your sexuality, that your values, that your upbringing and ideas of what constitute cultural ideals are superior and those of gay people and who believe in legal gay marriage are inferior. And you admit that your belief in the inferiority of gay people and their desire to be legally married is based on nothing more than your personal revulsion at the idea of gay marriage.

There is a name for people who think and speak as you do. The name is “homophobe.” Sugar-coat it with your “you can be against gay marriage without being against gay people” bullshit all you want but what it comes down to is that you have an irrational fear and are willing to exclude millions of people from a cultural institution because you’re frightened of the idea.

Good luck with your marriage. Lucky for you somebody was revolted by it enough to pass a law against it. I’d appreciate it, though, if you would refrain from discussing it further because the idea of two people of the opposite sex getting married and having sex with each other makes my skin crawl.

105

Hmmmmm…well, I’m heading home. I’ll respond tomorrow.

See you then.

106

Sorry, Toast, but I’m with Otto on this one - yer a 'phobe, in both the discrimination and the “fear of” definitions, IMHO.

I will ask one more question, though - if you had the power, would you legalize civil unions for same-sex couples, with all the same rights and responsibilities as a marriage but using a different word?

Esprix

107

I’m baaaack…

Esprix, yes I would, no questions asked. So why am I so recalcitrant about applying the same to marriage? It is, after all, not much more than a matter of semantics there.
Otto, I appreciate the satire; but I think you went down a slippery slope rather quickly.

I admit to being a homophobe; that is, someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuals, although perhaps fear may be too strong of a word. Maybe dislike? I am a true arachnophobe, so I know what the meaning of irrational FEAR is; this is not the case here.

However, that does not lead to my believing my cultural upbringing is superior or that of homosexuals is somehow inferior. As an example, my fiances son is an avid devotee of hip-hop music.

Bleahhhh…

I don’t like hip-hop; hell, I even detest it at times. However, as a music lover, I can recognize it as a valid art form and be willing to accept the fact of its existence and be further willing to stand by his love of that music. And I am not judging one form of music as being superior to another.

Doesn’t mean that I have to like it myself. Much less be required to include it in my music library.

Does that make me a hip-hop phobe?

108

Toaster, please, let’s not get into the “the word ‘homophobe’ is an etymological misnomer” discussion - it’s been done to death. Accept that it is used as the equivalent of racism, sexism and anti-Semitism and move on.

You also might want to check out this thread for a further discussion of “civil unions” vs. “marriages.”

Esprix

109

I accept that homophobe is “used as the equivalent of racism, sexism and anti-Semitism…”, but I don’t agree that it should be. However, as you said, it’s been done to death.
I checked out the other thread and shortly came across this by Dewey: “While I share the view that these decisions ought not be made by the judiciary, and while I share the view that it might not be appropriate to term homosexual unions as “marriage,” I do believe that the civil benefits of marriage ought to be extended to homosexuals…”, which is pretty much in line with what I stated as my belief before.
None of which still explains why I get the willies thinking about gays and gay marriage.

110

Whose belief system do you think should be enshrined in law? Yours, in which same-sex marriage is illegal because the thought of it makes you ill, or mine, in which same-sex couples are free to enter into legally recognized marriages? You say yours should, and you base that on what? Your upbringing. It is not a stretch at all or a single step down the slippery slope to state that you believe your cultural mores are superior to those of the average homosexual who thinks he or she should be allowed to marry in peace.

Don’t like the term “homophobe”? The less-than-stylish shoe fits, so wear it. If you don’t like it applied to your views then you can consider your views to be heterosexist. Or straight supremacist. Whatever word you want to attach to it, you and your viewpoint are fucked up.

And I wasn’t being the slightest bit sarcastic. The thought of you marrying and having procreational sex, with the likely result that you will pass along your sick shit to another generation, really does make me sick.

111

You are the only person that can properly answer that question. Maybe this exchange has been helpful in helping you consider what your views are and why they are what they are.

112

jackson, no kidding. I had a close friend who maintained that any viewpoint that you cannot argue for is one not worth having. I have been mulling over this position of mine for years and still haven’t been able to satisfy myself. Evolution vs Creationism? No sweat. Religion? No problem. Homosexuality?

No progress.

sigh

Otto, I guess that puts us on the same level, then. Your belief system makes me sick, while my belief system makes YOU sick. How, then, does that make your position superior to mine? Because I seem to be getting the idea that you consider yourself superior to me.

Let me try out this thought: you would want me to be respectful of your ideas/positions, correct? Then why is it that you cannot be respectful of MY ideas/positions? (Please re-read my posts and remember that I am NOT against equal rights for gays, including civil unions for gays with all the legal rights pertaining thereto.)

113

Because Otto doesn’t seek to limit your rights. You, however, do seek to limit the rights of every gay man and lesbian in the U.S. His view is more freedom. Yours is imposing. That is why his view is superior.

114

The difference I see, Toaster52, is that under Otto’s system you are free to have recognition for the relationships you want, whereas under yours he is not free to have recognition for the relationships he wants.

Your system restricts other people from being able to do something they find very important; his system restricts other people from being able to dictate other people’s behaviour because of the rumblings of their intestines.

115

Toaster52

I think you are dealing with the question. If you are open-minded and seek the truth, it will come to you.

Personally, I do not see how any harm could come from allowing same sex couples to marry. I had a very good friend that was shunned at a funeral of her significant other. What transpired was an ugly display of the worst kind. This kind of legal recognition would not immediately change attitudes but it would go a long way toward defining a more open, thoughtful, and respectful future.

As for the thought of it making you ill - be specific. Is it the act of sex between two same-sex folks that makes you feel ill? Or is it the thought of you somehow being part of it that makes you ill? Just wondering, and forgive me if that would be too intrusive.

116

Ah yes…it’s time for another chorus of the “You Don’t Tolerate My Intolerance So You’re Intolerant” song! The song every homophobe/heterosexist/str8 supremacist knows by heart and inevitably sings whenever his bullshit is challenged.

Find another song to sing.

117

No, Otto, the proper answer is, “You’re free to think or believe what it pleases you to think or believe. And your right to act on those thoughts or beliefs ends one inch from where my right to act on what I think or believe begins.”

118

I honestly think that it’s none of ANYONES business wether gay people get married or not just like it is with str8 people. I am all for marriage between 2 people that love eachother REGARDLESS of their sexual status. I happen to be bisexual and was living with a woman in NC for 5 years before she died. I wasn’t allowed to have the benefit of giving her insurance coverage and this potentially cost her her life because she wasn’t able to get the medical care she needed (she had cervical cancer and couldn’t afford to go to the drs to get the preventative testing so we didn’t know till it was too late) The reason a great woman died is because I wasn’t allowed to get married and provide her with the support she so desperately needed. I think the psycho christian right needs to step the fuck back and get out of other peoples marriages.

119

Toaster: *I checked out the other thread and shortly came across this by Dewey: “While I share the view that these decisions ought not be made by the judiciary, and while I share the view that it might not be appropriate to term homosexual unions as “marriage,” I do believe that the civil benefits of marriage ought to be extended to homosexuals…”, which is pretty much in line with what I stated as my belief before.

None of which still explains why I get the willies thinking about gays and gay marriage.*

This attitude, and the fact that it seems to be shared by perhaps millions of people, is at the heart of the “two-pronged approach” to the issue that I’ve suggested before:

Prong 1: Extend the civil benefits of marriage to homosexuals by legalizing an equivalent form of “civil union” or whatever that is not explicitly called “marriage”.

Prong 2: Encourage both homosexual and heterosexual couples to pick the “civil union” option for their legal pairings, but to use “union” and “marriage” interchangeably when informally referring to their status (except when they need to spare the feelings of those who get the willies at the thought of gays being married).

This way we avoid the stumbling block of the deep-seated irrational repugnance to the idea of “gay marriage” that so many people seem to feel (I’ll never understand it, but I’ve seen it enough times to believe that it’s genuine), and can legalize the benefits of marriage for gays without so much opposition and backlash.

Then over time we can work on the cultural level to encourage the realization that “union” and “marriage” are really fundamentally the same thing. Thirty or forty years down the road, perhaps, someone will file a lawsuit on the grounds that having “marriage” and “civil union” be two separate entities is discriminatory, the courts will agree, and the whole thing will finally be a non-issue.

120

Are Bill and Hillary Clinton homophobes?

As near as I can tell…they don’t appear to believe that gay people are worthy of being considered “married”.

Thanks to JohnBckWLD for the link to the Hillary Clinton interview…while she seems to favor granting same sex civil unions some of the same rights as “marriages”, she apparently doesn’t think that mariage is an appropriate institution for gays.

We can point out whether her desires are better or worse than Dubya’s, but it seems that earlier posters are suggesting that an attitude like Senator Clinton’s is indicative of at least some homophobia. So are the Clintons homophobes? Are legislators (in either major party) who feel the same way homophobes as well?