Stratovania

The word "phobia" has an elan that doesn't quite fit "fear" or "ignorance."

I think people who say, "i got nothin' agin' em personally, they jest shouldn't get marriet" sound just like the folks who used to say "well, ye got yer good blacks and yer bad blacks, jes' like white folk." Translated: as long as they stay in their place, I got nothing against them. Further translated: if I can't control them, and my government can't control them, well, {we} gotta do something!!! They threaten me! (What would you call that but fear?)

No, I haven't honestly heard from anyone who didn't have some dumb reason born of fear for saying gay people shouldn't be treated like normal citizens. I have yet to understand how some gay guys getting married makes my marriage meaningless. Isn't that up to me and mister?

Sanctity of marriage? Hell, before people religiosized it, it was nothing but a contract to form a family unit that perhaps will include children. There has ALWAYS (in my lifetime and my parents') been the option for secular marriage that had nothing to do with religion, but was recognized by the states and the country. It's only since hyper-religious people got a taste of power that marriage has been appropriated as something "from God to his Chosen" - read one man and one woman.

I owe as much allegiance to the present definition of marriage in my state as I do respect for the flag my home state adopted in 1956, which incorporated the Stars and Bars, and tried to make it seem like Mississippi was nothing but wonderful white people, and the compliant darkies they employ as their janitors and maids. They better stay in their place!

From:

I have to wonder about people who claim that they get their ideas about marriage from the Bible, anyway. Sure, the Bible says stuff about marriage (like that rapists should marry their victims, for instance), but I don't think it really EXPLAINS it. It was presented as something that predated the religion.

From:

burningofroissy.livejournal.com

"well, ye got yer good blacks and yer bad blacks, jes' like white folk."

If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say, "There's white people and there's assholes, and there's black people and there's n*****s"...I could buy a really, REALLY big cluebat. Like, if there are good people and bad people, why even bother to divide it up by race?

Teh Stoopid...it burns...

...aaaand actually that comment was meant in reply to

suegypt. Oopsie.

Edited Date: 2009-06-05 02:08 am (UTC)

From:

I disagree that all people who oppose gay marriage are homophobic. I've heard from plenty of people who have gay friends or relatives -- and even some gays themselves -- who prefer status quo or a civil union law, and I wouldn't characterize any of them as fearing or hating gays. I'm not judging the value of their arguments, you understand! But people who are accepting of homosexuality and not afraid of gays are not, by definition, homophobic. Prejudice might be the more accurate term; my knee jerk reaction is that the word is offensive, but in its most general definition it could cover gay marriage opponents or almost anything else -- I'm prejudice against drug dealers, for instance.

From:

Well, part of what I was saying is that I think the word "homophobia" has come to mean ANY kind of prejudice against gay people, even if it isn't based on fear.

From:

Ah, I see -- I guess I was basically agreeing with you, then.

From:

rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com

I think ozma above me said it well, that somebody can be okay with gay people but not with their getting married, which may not be logical but is possible. What I don't get is when you say it another way: people who say they don't care if gay people are in gay relationships but they shouldn't get married. Because if you're just not, strictly, homophobic, you could be okay with the idea of someone being gay and so won't hate that person, but if you believe HOMOSEXUALITY, ie The Act, is wrong, then you wouldn't approve of them being in a homosexual relationship even if you like them. You wouldn't say "it's okay for them to have their relationships, but they can't get married," because that's BACKWARDS! It's better for them to "live in sin together" than to "make an honest man of each other"? And the only real reason one could have to oppose gay marriage is believing homosexuality (the act, not the personality trait) is wrong, so they couldn't really be okay with the living in sin.... What it really sounds like is someone who has made up their mind on an issue but hasn't actually thought it through, so they're just saying stuff.

From:

Well put, rockin. People who say they have no problem with homosexuals as long as they don't, um, homosexualize...., I'm sorry, that's ignorant at the very least, actively or passively homophobic. Maybe anti-gay would be more descriptive.

And those folks who claim that "their" God only wants heterosexuals to marry, and gay people have to make do without, are really saying "the Hell with you queers, God doesn't love you!"

From:

I also think it's crazy how a lot of people seem to preface a homophobic opinion with "I have gay friends, but..." I think I might find it difficult to remain friends with someone who thought my sexual preference made me unfit to get married. That's condescending at best, isn't it?

From:

I don't usually discuss this issue, because I actually do understand the arguments of (some of) the people arguing against gay marriage. Their view is based on what they see as the sanctity of marriage, rather than on whether being gay is wrong or not -- so their point is that an institution should be "defended" rather than that homosexuality itself is wrong. (Although by its very nature that argument would tend to dictate that homosexuality is wrong, wouldn't it?) I'm talking about people who are truly conflicted, because they themselves can also see the point of proponents who think that argument is circular.

It sucks being able to see both side of an argument -- takes all the fun out of arguing.

I'd like to propose a compromise: Make ALL marriages civil unions, equal in every way as long as it's between two people. (We'll leave polygamy for some future generation.) That will be the legal definition, and the legal term. "Marriage" will then be something conducted in a church, according to the dictates of that church's belief. Since those terms are only for legal purposes, anyone who's in a union is free to call themselves married, since for all intents and purposes they are, but if they want to go the extra religious step they're welcome to.

From:

Yeah, I actually think the government only recognizing civil unions is the best idea, but I don't hear any politicians proposing it. After all, sanctity isn't really the business of the government, is it? I have a feeling it wouldn't go over well with the crowd that thinks prayer should still be mandatory in public schools, though.

From:

See my comment below. The government DOES only recognize civil unions. Right now, they are called marriages, and some are blessed in a church or temple. The sanctity is added, like gilding a lily.

From:

I think someone needs to tell that to the Religious Right.

From:

I think prayer should be *allowed* in public schools -- I prayed every test day! But I don't know anyone who thinks it should be mandatory, including my Christian friends. (But then, I don't hang with the extremist crowds.) I'm not a big fan of making anything mandatory -- or banning anything -- that doesn't directly effect health and safety, and sometimes not even then. Dont' get me started on zero tolerance laws.

No, sanctity isn't the business of government, although morals has to be, to a certain extent. (i.e., is it morally okay to shoot a guy because he peed on your flower bed? Nope.) What we have to understand about the modern politician is that they aren't leaders, as they were in the early years of our country -- they're followers, endlessly blowing with the political winds and worshipping pollsters. If someone polled the idea of civil unions for everyone, I believe the average person would come out in favor -- then the politicians, seeing a majority vote, would then begin to push for it. Instead, they're all screaming "Gay marriage! What's next, threesome marriages? marrying goats? Marrying 12 year olds?"

Well, black people and women got the vote, and decades later we're still not allowing goats to vote. I'm just sayin'.

From:

I think prayer should be *allowed* in public schools

But is it ever not? If a public school student prays on his or her own, with no direction from anyone or insistence that anyone else join in, is that ever a cause for disciplinary action? Maybe it is somewhere, but that argument kind of strikes me as a straw man.

No, sanctity isn't the business of government, although morals has to be, to a certain extent.

True, but aren't most cases in which a secular organization regulates morality at least sort of based on whether a particular action will cause harm? That really doesn't come into play with the gay marriage issue.

What we have to understand about the modern politician is that they aren't leaders, as they were in the early years of our country

I suppose the real leaders are corporate and religious pressure groups, and possibly the electoral college.

As for "zero tolerance," I basically think it's another way of saying "zero brains." And maybe goats SHOULD be allowed to vote. Not sheep, though. They'd all vote for the same person anyway.

From:

Actually yes, some kids have been disciplined for praying in public schools, and I know of several cases where prayer has been banned completely. It's funny, because when I was in school we used to have convocations where all the kids gathered for a religious speaker, and even received little copies of the New Testament afterward. Some of the kids opted out and stayed in the library, but I always found them entertaining. They didn't have much of an impact on me, though: although I was raised in a churchgoing family, I didn't embrace Christianity until years later. And I'm still not very good at it!

You're right about the morality thing, but I wasn't trying to argue it on the gay marriage issue -- just making a comment in passing. My main point was on the state of today's politicians, who must have a lot of trouble getting around without a spine.

The thing is, we've turned vetting of a new candidate into such an intensive, detail oriented thing that the best and brightest don't even bother going into politics anymore. They got an OWI arrest 30 years ago, or had a child at 16, or published an opinion right out of high school that doesn't agree with the way they feel as an adult, and they know people will never let it go. So they stay in business -- or become lobbyists.

You're right, we have enough sheep!

From:

All marriages ARE civil unions. It's just that those who have a church wedding have their marriage blessed by their religious sect. It's a choice, an add-on, but the marriage is valid without the patina of religion. OTOH, if you held a marriage in a church, but didn't obtain a license from your state, you would not be legally married, and would be denied the priveleges that legal marriage conveys.

Most of the people who argue against "gay marriage" are really saying that if God will bless gay people getting married in his churches, etc., then what can they call their opposition but predjudice?

From:

That's my entire point -- it might be semantics, but calling them civil unions might be just semantics enough to act as the compromise, which could both allow everyone to get married and preserve the idea that churches can decide for themselves who *they* can marry. All civil unions would have the same legal standing, and churchs would still have the freedom to decide for themselves who God will and won't bless. There's always another church down the road that interprets the tenants of their religion differently.

From:

All civil unions would have the same legal standing, and churchs would still have the freedom to decide for themselves who God will and won't bless.

Yes, but my point is that the groups of religious people who are protesting so-called "gay marriage" are doing it because they want 1) marriage to be considered sanctified (even if a lot aren't) and 2) therefore gay people can't enter into the sanctity because what they do is "sin."

These groups are more than willing to ignore or even include heterosexuals in secular marriages, so that the only conclusion as to why they would marginalize gay unions would be because the people are gay, and being treated like anyone else getting married. In my perception, this means their own marriages would cease to have God's favor, even if gay marriages never were blessed in a church, because they define marriage not only as between "one man and one woman," but as a blessing from God.

From:

That's sort of why I find the "changing the definition of marriage" argument absurd. Marriage is, at its heart, a legal contract, right? So isn't insisting that God has to approve sort of changing the definition in and of itself?

From:

Ah, I see what you mean. I'm not aware of any churches around here who look at a marriage as official when it hasn't been conducted in a church, by the preacher. However, the churchs I know of would allow both gay and secular couples in, whether their union is sanctioned or not. Maybe it's an Indiana thing. But, as I've said, I don't hang with the extremists.

In any case, how I think things should go is often at odds with what actually happens.

From:

I'm not aware of any churches around here who look at a marriage as official when it hasn't been conducted in a church, by the preacher.

Yes, this is the way most people now "see" marriage, i think. But this means we all are letting religion define culture, even own it. When another group, such as gay and lesbian people, try to point out that, really, marriage is civil union first and foremost, with an option of blessing that might be mixed in by choice, all kinds of sects start circling the wagons and quoting scripture.

From:

Religion defines culture less now than it ever has in our history; while I have little respect for most organized religions, I can certainly understand why sincere religious people feel the need to circle the wagons. (Well, and unsincere ones too, since a lot of them make their money through religious organizations.)

The argument could be made that marriage started out as a religious institution, so the concept of civil unions being separate from marriage makes even more sense. I'm not making that argument, mind you -- I'm just throwing it out there.

From:

But DID marriage start out as a religious institution? I guess we don't know, since it presumably predates any written records we might have. But I think it more likely began as more of an issue of convenience than anything else, before it was taken over by governments and religious institutions.

From:

But you can't have marriage without written records -- how would they fill out the marriage certificate? :-)

From:

Well, carrying a big club goes a long way toward a man defending his claim on a woman.

From:

Heh -- you can carry big clubs all you want, but no man really knows the truth about life until -- or unless -- he figured out that women are really in charge.

From:

That might be true. Based on the resources I've consulted about the Stone Age, Wilma DID seem to be the true leader of the Flintstone household. {g}

From:

Yeah, well, at least Fred was a kind hearted idiot! :-)

From:

Hey, I said something well!

From:

billiedoll.livejournal.com

I have heard of one and only one reasonable opposition to gay marriage. By radically increasing the number of legally married couples, you increase the number of people who qualify for tax credits based on their marital status. Since less money goes into the tax system, government services suffer.

The fellow who said this explained it better, but that's the gist of it.

From: