I am very clear on the distinction you are trying to make, and I am telling you that it doesn’t matter to me why someone opposes my equality. I probably see it differently because I’m on the business end of the shit-shovel.
Well, actions and results can be homophobic too. But my point is that “same-sex marriage is wrong and opposite-sex marriage is acceptable” is a homophobic point of view, regardless of the ‘reasoning’ that leads to it, because it means that queer people and queer relationships are less acceptable and valuable than heterosexual ones, which is the short definition of homophobia. If you don’t see that this is so, we have nothing further to discuss.
That’s the real bottom line. People argued and fought against it, for whatever reason, and somehow, the world still didn’t end. And we are better for it.
If I can throw in my two cents, I’ve mentioned this in the GD thread but I think it fits here.
If someone is bigoted then it doesn’t matter *why *they are. It doesn’t matter if your dad told you that “queers are evil” every day until you believed it or your preacher told you from the pulpit that they’re damned sinners and an affront to God. The cause of the bigotry is irrelevant. Just because someone chooses to be a bigot because he believes God wants him to be doesn’t make him less of an asshole.
It’s the same thing as hating blacks because you think they didn’t side with Christ in the war in heaven and were marked with brown skin. How is that any more acceptable than skinheads who think blacks are less evolved?
People who oppose SSM on religious grounds are bigoted, it’s just our society likes to give stupid thinking based on religion a pass.
It depends on who might be asking the question. I personally don’t trust statistics that cannot be a) verified and b) inclusive of the widest swath of people.
If you ask 500 people in a nation of 300 million, that’s not enough. Second, you’re right. Be they donkey or elephant, if the change gonna come, the change gonna come. But. It would be better, I think, to truly have more people actually on the side of the angels than the ones who SAY they are.
I’m not talking about the Dobsonites or Chick Tract readers, I’m talking about the middle-of-the-road people that only need a gentle shove in a direction to go to that side. Wrapping yourself in a rainbow flag and screaming at the “breeders” will not change the mind of Mike the electrician in your favor. However having a beer and shaking hands with Mike and saying “look, just like you, I want to have a spouse, a familiy, and everything that goes with it, get to know me and you’ll see we’re similar” just might change his mind FOR SSM instead of against it. Conversely, if Mike runs into the militant crowd and is a little freaked out, that’s an opportunity for the faithful to grab Mike and play to his fears. “If teh gays marry it will ruin your marriage, turn your kiddies gay and invite all of us to Hell” Personally I prefer the beer and handshake.
It doesn’t matter just for the sake of time, but it matters because it takes people a while to accept certian ideas as real, let alone accept them as ‘good’. The process of this type of social change is a long one because it needs to be for the change to be real and permanent. It’s no different from the economy, actually. Meteoric rise is almost always followed by an epic fall. Better, I think, to gradually climb the hill, taking as many as you can with you than take the helicopter to hte top and find out the top isn’t suitable for standing. This gotta-have-it-and-right-now mentality reduces the depth of the struggle to news bytes and fodder for talking heads. Again, this war is not one that you will win screaming in the faces of the opposition.
No one is denying the oppression of either group, but you yourself made the link directly between the two things. It’s not apt, nor is it correct or accurate. You’re using this link conveniently to inflame passions, but they’re not the same. That’s not to say it isn’t bad, but when you link the two things the way you have, the link you’re making is dishonest to say the least.
It doesn’t work. It isn’t applicable and I don’t like it.
According to some here on the boards, legalizing SSM will lead to the downfall of American (read Christian) morals and civilization, and if you don’t agree with that, you’re a fucking moron. Those Christians who do not agree are not true Christians.
This apparently closes the book, and we are all supposed to agree.
And if you call someone a fucking moron in GD, you can just scuttle away and ignore it.
Really, logic has nothing whatsoever to do with the arguments of those who oppose SSM. They don’t want it. Whatever their “reasons” are make little difference.
They don’t want it.
They want to impose their narrow, outdated views of what is “moral” behaviour on the rest of the population. THEIR morals are right. OTHERS morals are wrong. Period.
I would agree that most people who pose “rational” arguments to oppose equal marriage are, very likely, simply uncomfortable with the prospect. This group is various, however, it includes people who are flat-out homophobic bigots (a smaller number, I suspect but cannot prove…) and people who could be easily won over.
Calling a bigot a bigot does not much matter to the bigot, he hates you anyway. But insulting the people you are trying to reach makes the goal that much harder to reach. Forcibly imposing justice is the last resort, changing hearts and minds is what works. And, I daresay, is working.
I’ll bet the true bigots were pleased as punch to see national media broadcasting pictures of gay weddings, they figured people would freak as they did. I think they were wrong, I think people looked at those pictures and thought, “Well, this a wedding! Only thing weird about it is the subjects. And that woman looks a lot like Aunt Ethel. And that guy looks a lot like Fred in Accounting. Wait a minute, that *is *Fred in Accounting!”
What the persuadable need to see is how undifferent gay people are, to see sexual preference as a pretty minor distinction. But seizing them by the lapels and screaming in their faces only makes change harder, and change is the goal.
Why settle for them accepting your wedding with grudging tolerance when with a bit of patience, you can invite them. And they will accept. And dance.
It doesn’t make a bit of difference if the reasons are hate, dislike, disgust, relious, political, ignorance, fear of change, laizness, or outright stupidity… The result is the same.
Since none of us are mind readers, we can simply say a person is known by his words and his deeds. It’s not what a person thinks that causes harm, it’s how he acts (or votes) on those thoughts. Discrimination/bigotry - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, and no amount of rationalizing or quibbling will change its “duckness”
And I have “issues” with that. Who appointed these people to be the arbiters of all that is moral and right? I sure didn’t. Let’s take some of the noisiest rabble rousers. Did they get elected by anyone? Mostly no. So where did they get the authority or the right to dictate how someone else should live?
OK, let’s argue it’s about what God wants. Do these people really dare (if they believe) presume to speak for God? How about other preachers who don’t teach the same thing? How about the people who belong to a different church, or no church at all?
You can’t say “Deus Vult” and walk away. It doesnt or shouldn’t work that way.
God spoke to me. He wants me to have your paychecks. Fork them over.
God told me He wants you all to wear floppy shoes and party hats.
Don’t question me, GHod TOLD me.
So there.
God has been used as the “authority” or “excuse” for any number of stupid things, including the burning of Elvis records. Just because someone name drops, doesn’t mean a damn thing to me.
Besides, I was born and raised Catholic, so (supposedly) I’m not a christian. Don’t DARE push your “personal jesus” on me. I don’t want your christian “morals”. I’m not a christian (according to some people). So keep your own religion to yourselves. I don’t have to follow it, and I won’t follow it. I have my own “plastic jesus”.
I think it’s important, not in terms of acceptability, but in terms of how you treat them. I mean, if I accost the man whose dad has gone on about evil queers and tell him I won’t stand for his religious bigotry, then he’s got two reasons to dislike me and my arguments. The first is that I disagree, which is unavoidable, but the second is that i’m misunderstanding his background and approach. I know that if someone characterised my desire for gay marriage to be legal as stemming from a belief that gay people are just better than straights, i’d be pissed off, and less likely to be reasonable or rational.
In terms of acceptability, then I agree, bigotry is bigotry - the source doesn’t make it more or less acceptable. But in terms of actual argument, a sweeping generalisation of all groups opposed, or an obvious uncaring attitude as to why a person thinks as they do, isn’t likely to win you any kind of interest in what you might have to say.
See, I detect very little “winning over” in these issues. I think force is the only way to enforce our true American ideals, because most Americans don’t really hold them. I don’t believe the people should have voted on this issue at all. It is obvious (to me, anyway) that this is a constitutional, HUMAN right; not something that the majority gets to sweep under the rug because they’re grossed out that some people perform Icky Fuck behind closed doors. Once the issue is forced, people do become accustomed to the fact that worlds are not colliding and the women and children are safe. But without the shove, people will continue to make shit up in their heads. They’ll continue to imagine calamity at every turn.
As I said some time ago, I am not advocating grabbing the aforementioned Granny Fuddy-duddy by the lapels and screaming at her as a method of effecting change. I do that in a lot of different ways, only a few (but some of the most enjoyable) of which involve screaming at people.
As a tactical decision I will frequently choose not to confront people with how bigoted they’re being as I try to change their minds. But that tactical decision does not change what homophobia is or the fact that various points of view are homophobic.
I agree with 'Luci on this one. I don’t think people are as backward as you think they are and that there are some middle-of-the-roaders. As far as constitutional rights, the constitution is the manifestation of the will of the people, so the majority absolutely gets to decide. I personally don’t see marriage as a fundamental human right, rather as something that’s been constructed by society and therefore regulated by society, albeit wrongly at this point
The constitution is a manifestation of the will of the people sometimes. I believe this subject, and Prop 8 specifically, are in direct violation of the spirit of Brown v. The Board of Edu. in that it is essentially dialing us back to “separate but equal”, which was voted unconstitutional. Now…some may say it’s substantially different, but it amounts to the same thing. By allowing a separate-but-(not so)-equal designation for gays, does that open the door to reversing Brown? This is a serious question, by the way. I’m by no means an expert on the Constitution, but this seems elementary to me.
Well, there is no national law now. I’m proposing a national law. What if the two laws were the same, just that gay couples were called civil unions? It’s not that hard to amend.
Who gives a shit if gays are allowed the same rights and benefits of married couples? Again, there aren’t two sets of governments to deal with, no separate drinking fountains, no separate trains or seats or entrances, etc.
Well, as a lawyer, I know something about the construction of laws, mostly to accommodate the codified common law, which are not gender neutral. Let’s just say that it’s as easy to say that civil unions will be afforded the same rights, protection, and obligations as what was previously defined as “married.” I agree, that it will be difficult – just as difficult as it will be to expand marriage to include same sex people. Or, put another way, if it were so easy, it would’ve been done by now. And, there wouldn’t be this DOMA bullshit to contend with.
Exactly this. There is a time and place for many different approaches, and sometimes those different approaches can manifest in me.
Sometimes the best thing for me to do is just walk away, like the time in the days before my father’s memorial service, when I walked into the living room just in time to hear my father’s best friend offer his opinion that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. He did not know that I was gay at the time, and there was no way I was going to to be able to participate in a civil outreach conversation at that particular moment, so I just kept walking and saved my ignorance-fighting for another day.
So, we “downgrade” pre-existing marriages (those performed in a courthouse), either through a law, or a Proposition, or rider on some other bill. They are no longer marriages. They become civil unions. No grandfather clause, no “prior to this date”, they are all simply “demoted”. Imagine the holy hell that would break loose.
As for the ease of making or changing laws (or even understanding them sometimes)… if it were easy, anyone could do it and guys like you wouldn’t have to bust your ass in college studying it.
Law is one of those things where the devil really is in the details.
I do so love it when you give a cite that doesn’t at all in any way refute what I said, but you present it as such.
This is almost as good as nitpicking when I wrote Akhenaten rather than Aten.
Congrats, try again.
And with Hitler, I didn’t specifically mean the Thule Society, I meant his notion of a Pan-Germanic consciousness and its appeal to German heritage that found its appeal in the antiquity of the German people. A true religion of the state.
But thanks for getting cites that back up my arguments for me.
Seems pretty central to the theme of throwing off oppression in the worker’s utopia to me.
