The Lamest Argument Against Gay Marriage

The BBQ Pit
41

Thanks, yes, this is the point I was trying to make. But it works both ways. Those that are this way are ignorant, not necessarily purposely evil and idiotic.

Those that seem to be willfully ignorant of the rights of people (and again, as broken hearted as I am, God bless 'em if they’re lucky enough to find someone), are not necessarily horrible evil people. Get to know them AlSO. And yeah, in doing so, showing that gay people aren’t as a whole representive of the motorcycle humping weirdos you see in the Saint Patty’s Day Parade.

IMHO, those that are against gay marriage for reasons other than religious are going to be the easiest to convince.

The religious objection is something else again. Like most people, I don’t know what the answer is there. I still feel twinges of pain due to the conflict of faith and care of my fellow humans myself. I was raised in the baptist church, and though still a christian, I’m no longer a member of the baptist church, too many ridiculous doctrines (before you even bring the hypocrisy and hatred into it).

Perhaps I should offer an “ask the former baptist” thread? (kidding). I do know that in the case of those against gay marriage due to religious reasons do so because of what their faith states (bible says homosexuality is a sin).

That’s a much more difficult hurdle to jump than that of the comparitively mere “homosexuality is icky” protest (all sex that someone other than YOU are engaging in, is “ICKY” imho :D).

My opinion on how to “win” in the case of those with a religious protest? Take the religious aspect out of it. Marriage has long been a combination of a religious institution and a legal one. It seems, that making it either/or, would more quickly open the door toward making both sides of the conflict happy.

Make “marriage” the traditional married in the church under God, marriage, strictly one of one’s specific faith.

Allow legal union (whether atheist couple, or gay, or whatever), as a strictly legal one.

As to the “what do we call them”. I am not saying it’s RIGHT, but I’m saying it’s EXPEDIENT, to allow christians to keep the illusion that **marriage **is “man/woman”. And the way to do that is to title gay marriage as such, or as Civil union or some such.

Yes, I know, it’s not “right”. But as I asked in my previous post do we want to be right? Or do we want to win? Besides, in common language, out in every day life, by and large, it would be CALLED marriage by a lot of people anyway.

And as for those arguing against it now, even if you waited until you made people LEGALLY call it marriage, those against it for whatever reason wouldn’t anyway. So if the idea behind forcing the issue on what it is to be called is to “make them see that homosexuality is normal” that won’t happen anyway.

Don’t know if it helps or not, but that’s my 2 cents worth from having grown up in the church, and having quite a bit of knowledge of the mindset, and what WOULD work in getting them to perhaps vote differently next time.

42

<Puts F. U. Shakespeare on The List.>

43

That’s the one! When I first moved here, I was dumbfounded by the drivel he spews. Now it’s like a train wreck. I cannot turn away! Coming from the lefty oasis of BC to Calgary was quite the shock, let me tell you.

And I swear, he rails on about gay marriage more than gay people! Seriously, what is his obsession.

For that matter, why do straight folks seem to care about this issue so much more?

44

I think you both address a really critical point here. I cringe when I hear the rhetoric against gay marriage, not because they oppose the idea of union but because the callers invariably start off with comments like “The gays” or “Those people”, and you can hear the disgust dripping from their voices. I often wonder if this might be a generational issue, here in Canada at least.

My mother is pretty homophobic. She tries, but there’s something “ingrained” in here. She seems to be ok with a friend of mine she’s met who is gay, but still subscribes to the whole "he’s young and doesn’t know what he really wants philosophy. Wheras, my dear gay friend and his boyfriend kissing in front of me phases me no more than the hetero equivalant.

That being said, the Stephen Harper (Canadian “right” politician) keeps bringing up the polygamy argument. I would never say it here for fear of destroying the progress made for gay marriage, but my reaction to this is always, so? As long as it isn’t abusive or cultish, I’ve known some non-traditional couples in my time that, if they all three had married, wouldn’t have been the end of the world. I just really can’t bring myself to care about the lifelong arrangements of strangers.

45

I believe you. Coming from Sask. it wasn’t quite as big a shock, but this is a Capitalist province, no doubt about it.

Ragin’ Rutherford seems to have only two themes to his shows - gay marriage and BSE. Oh yeah, he rants about politics sometimes, too. We pretty much listen to his show for the comic relief.

(I’m with you about the polygamy/polyandry, too. If a bunch of people want to get married, and everyone involved is a legal adult and knows what they’re getting into, why is it such a big deal?)

46

Legal recognition of gay marriages does a lot of good for our society, in my opinion, and would be simple to integrate into our current legal system. Recognizing polygamous/polyandrous relationships as marriages creates a whole host of legal problems (power of attorney, custody and visitation rights for a divorce, property distribution from a death without a written will, to name a few) and doesn’t really provide any societal benefits, again in my opinion. If some mature adults enter into those relationships I have no problem with it, but I don’t want to imagine the legal entanglements that might occur if something goes awry.

47

What people aren’t realizing, or perhaps don’t WANT to think about is that it’s not truly an issue of intelligence. If it were, then imho, the answers would be easy.

It’s a question of emotion. The “answers” to many people against homosexuality, or marriage for homosexuals are ones of emotional pain or in the latter, seeking pleasure (I don’t mean just sexual, I mean the whole specturm, seeking love acceptance etc). Psychologically, even the most intelligent people make our most “important” decisions based on how we FEEL about something rather than how we think about it.

Really, it’s the most basic psychology. We, like most creatures, are motivated by two factors in life. Pain, and pleasure. Avoiding the first, seeking the latter.

The “gay issue” is a horribly painful one for people on both sides of the issue. Until those seeking gay marriage rights realize and USE this, rather than simply dismissing anti-gays as 'evil and moronic" and so on, they’ll continue to find themselves butting their heads against a brick wall.

Those who are anti gay, or anti gay marriage aren’t doing it out of stupidity or evilness, but from pain avoidance. So, reduce or eradicate the pain associated with how they view homosexuality, and you’re going to have a much easier time accomplishing what you want.

Of course, (sorry not to beat a dead horse), people can just keep on being mad, and trying to make it “right” because of the principle of the thing. “That’s stupid, why should we give ‘THEM’ any way to not be in pain, WE’vE been in pain all these decades etc”…but that won’t get you to WIN, only be right…and only be right amongst the choir so to speak.

48

Gay marriage and breast self exam??? :confused:

49

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, aka Mad Cow Disease.

Although I thank you from the bottom of my … heart for the mental image. :wink:

50

Oh, thank you so much for that. All my office mates think I’m insanse, I’m laughing so loud, but I suppose you’re missing context. All I can hear is Dave Rutherford raging on about the Liberal conspiracy to foster Breast Self Exams. LOL.

Ok, so update.

I’m listening to the radio this morning and good ol’ Dave is doing an “editorial” piece about some judge who let off a drunk driver because the kid he hit was liable for his own actions (no cite, not even sure if it is true). He then says something like, “Along the lines of gay marriage,” and goes on the say why this is a stupid decision. Huh?

Oh, gar! The drivel in this province is slowly killing my soul.

51

While I appreciate the lecture so very much, perhaps you shouldn’t take the Pit as a real-world example of the work done in this area. You could start with Jonathan Rauch’s book Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America to see that people are working to change hearts and minds. Perhaps you missed the HRC’s Marriage License ad (PDF) which appeared in various nationally circulated papers. Did you ignore Dennis and Judy Shepard’s PSAs? Siince you’re in Alaska, I probably didn’t make it to your door when I was canvassing and talking with people before the anti-gay amendment passed here in Missouri.

I’m so sick of being patted on the head and told to “be nice”. You know what? The Civil Rights movement in this country teaches us that good things don’t come to those who quietly put up with the shit. Someone has to stand up and say “I’m not moving to the back of the bus.” Malcolm X was as important to the movement as Dr. King.

52

IMO, 'Brew, it takes both kinds of effort to win. I’m celebrating a small victory, myself – as a result of calm, reasoned argument, from me and others, a former moderator of Christian Forums stepped down and is publicly opposing their stance on homosexuality issues – because he saw nothing but empty rhetoric on one side and intelligent argument on the other. He’s one of the folks that can be won by the sort of approach that Canvas Shoes suggests and that I specialize in. I can think of two or three women over there who were intensely homophobic in their posts, who rethought their attitude and took what I consider a more Christian stance regarding your rights, from similar discussions.

At the same time, I concede that satyagraha is never going to defeat the Dobson Empire, and that being loud, obnoxious, and noisy is making the point that people’s lives are being ruined by such assholes.

But probably the most important victory is one that matt_mcl and Priam touched on briefly something over a year ago, but which has not won much press or debate here: the typical young person – teen or young adult – is inclined to a live-and-let-live philosophy – “You’ve got a right to live your life the way you want, same as me, and I’ll stand by you when some jerk decides to dump on you about it, if you’ll do the same for me.” You have to be my age to know how vastly different that is from the 1950s and early 1960s. But it’s the one that will make all the difference, twenty or thirty years from now.

53

CanvasShoes, you’re not saying anything that pretty much every single gay person hasn’t already A) figured out for themselves and B) been told about a hundred thousand times from well-intentioned straight folks like yourself. Yeah, calm, reasoned discourse is the best way to change hearts and minds etc. etc. This is not news to any of us. See, this is still the Pit, and while calm, reasoned discourse can happen here, and often does happen here, that’s not the primary purpose of the forum. The Pit’s here so that people can cut loose and work some anger and frustration out of their system. And there’s no one who needs that more than people who’s lives and loves are being exploited for political capital, who are having their most intimate relationships turned into a public referendum. Out in the real world, if I meet someone opposed to SSM, I will be reasonable, kind, and patient. But when I’m in here… fuck them. Just fuck the lot of them, the ignorant, backwards, bigoted shits.

What I’m saying is, can we please be allowed to use this space for that purpose without the well-intentioned, but largely clueless, sanctimony from people like yourself? Because, really, as much as I know you mean well and are trying to help, I’m getting really fucking sick of hearing that in every single goddamned pit thread about gay rights that I read.

54

And it’s not as though Dr. King just encouraged people to be “really nice to all the white folk” in order to win them over. Support for civil rights happened when people actively resisted - the most common method amongst Dr. King’s people being the time-honored tradition of sitting one’s ass down somewhere and not leaving. Hey, it ain’t blazing guns, but it wasn’t meek either. The Civil Rights movement was anything but meek and polite, and I wonder whether the straight people who condescendingly tell us we ought to be nicer are simply terribly ignorant of history or just uncomfortable with our taking an equal place in society.

There’s no reason to be an asshole. But history has shown that being polite has seldom worked in these circumstances. And how come this is stated every time the issue comes up? No one says to a black person, in regard to racism, “Try to act a little whiter, and try to see where the guy’s coming from. I mean, there’s two sides to every issue.” Why does polite society recognize gay rights as something that reasonable people can disagree on, while it doesn’t recognize racism in the same way?

In the last few years, I’ve ruthlessly cut people out of my life - notably, a large portion of my family - who don’t share my views on the subject. It turns out I’m a hell of a lot happier now; I’m quite thrilled actually not to visit with people whose visits always ended up filling me with silent rage.

Who knows what the future will bring? But frankly, changing minds over an issue like this is rare either way. And no one told Dr. King to wait until white people were okay with it until he acted; the process of legal recognition advanced social recognition - after all, it’s obviously acceptable to discriminate against someone whom society already officially recognizes as inferior.