The people opposed to same-sex marriage often cite religious reasons. What are they really afraid of?

Maybe they want to take a deeper and more detailed analysis of what everyone does in their own bedroom. Not only do they read our email and listen to our phone calls and monitor our spending. This “debate”, trying to institutionalize discrimination into the CA Constitution demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of those funding this initiative.
Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t be gay, and mind your own business, like momma used to say, “mind your own P’s and Q’s.”

I’m the mom of 2 children, and let me tell you, children don’t give a **** about the legal status of our gay neighbor’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE

I will never understand the opposition to gay marriage. I think one way to solve this problem is to separate legal marriage from religious marriage altogether. Any 2 legal, consenting adults should be allowed to have a legal marriage. The religious ceremony would be a separate event. That is to say that just because you have a religious ceremony, you wouldn’t be married legally unless you also filed for a legal marriage.

Oh no you didn’t!!! runs and hides

Just for the folks who don’t know me yet, let’s just say I’m pro-anyone-getting-married-who-wants-to.

@laureth Even brothers and sisters?? 0-o

I think more along the lines of what augustlan said.

Scamp, if they don’t procreate, what’s the problem?

It’s not what I’d originally intended, though, and I think you know that. :)

Because they think it’s wrong. It’s as simple as that. They think that it will destroy the nation. They think it will damage “family values” or something, or corrupt their children. “Think of the children!!!” They do not want the nation to legitimize, or perhaps even acknowledge, “the sin of Sodom.” (After all, who wants to get destroyed with fire from heaven?) But here is the sin of Sodom:

“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49–50)

There was an in-depth discussion of this issue, with lots of great points, here.

they’re not afraid of anything. they (we) oppose it because, according to the Bible, it’s wrong.

Phhhhtttttt. (That’s a raspberry, chutterhanban, which is the politest I can manage.)

I have two first cousins who are gay (one a lesbian and the other a homosexual) and you would never know it to look at them. They’re the nicest people in the world. If they want to get married to their partners, I don’t have a problem with it. It isn’t hurting anyone and they’re not foisting their lifestyle or beliefs on anyone else.

I’m a religious person and I understand that the case has been made that the bible says homosexuality is forbidden. Because I know people who have that lifestyle, I don’t think they should be persecuted or look down upon just because that is their preference in relationships.

It’s fear.

@Monty: Regarding your second comment: Some are willing to allow gay couples to have domestic partnerships, with all the same rights as marriage, just so long as they don’t call it marriage. Gays have argued that calling it something else sets them apart from the mainstream and denies their relationships the same legitimacy and dignity that marriage confers on heterosexual couples. And the California Supreme Court agreed when it struck down California’s law banning same-sex marriage.

I believe marriage should stay defined as between a man and a woman, but I also don’t have issues with homosexuals having domestic partnerships. Their argument is that it sets them apart from a hetersexual marriage, but that’s because it is different. I’m not really quite sure why it should be called the same thing?

@MontyZuma: “Can you make a deeper and more detailed analysis based on the outline above?”

Not really, because detailed analysis requires the use of some logical constructs and the anti crowd have no logical opposition. I think the word that appears the most frequent in the above responses is FEAR. Seems to be the only thing I can come up with.

“The most prominent theme in the pro-Prop. 8 ads is that if the initiative does not pass, public school teachers will be compelled to teach young children that men can marry men, women can marry women….”

Not being in the voting area, I hadn’t heard this one before. I realize it’s been many years since I’ve been in a public school system and 5 years since my youngest daughter graduated from HS. I really don’t recall any instance in my own education (or my 3 daughters) where marriage was a school subject in any respect.

@critter,
“I believe marriage should stay defined as between a man and a woman, but I also don’t have issues with homosexuals having domestic partnerships. Their argument is that it sets them apart from a heterosexual marriage, but that’s because it is different. I’m not really quite sure why it should be called the same thing?”

In what way is it different? Legally, the contract is exactly the same. Both are equally married, and both married in the same sense. So, why should one be called something different, if not to suggest that one of them is not a “real” marriage or a “lesser” form of marriage?

@chutterbanhan
”(we) oppose it because, according to the Bible, it’s wrong.”
But, as an American, isn’t it wrong to impose your religious beliefs on other people?

Familiar writing style there…

A lot of it boils down to the fear that they’ll have to explain “gay” couples to their kids, and they don’t understand it themselves.

@laureth How would I know that? You said “anyone that wants to”, and I was asking you to clairify. Would you marry your brother?

@Celticsfan. First of all, I’m not homophobic myself and secondly, I certainly respect your views because you have a right to voice your opinion as much as anyone.

No, I would not teach my male child to believe that sodomy with another male is okay. But, I wouldn’t be compelled to teach my child anything about homosexuality because I know if I raise my children correctly, they would grow up being informed about homosexuality anyway, along the way.

They would be able to choose for themselves whether they were going to alienate gay people, be homophobic, or be accepting of those who have that type of lifestyle even though they wouldn’t adopt it themselves. I would rather have my children be understanding and accepting rather than prejudiced and hating.

@BlueFreedom: I have some cousins that are straight people, but you wouldn’t know it to look at them. They’re really nice people. ;)

@Scamp: On a question asked about gay marriage, where I said that anyone who wants to get married should be able to, you immediately jumped to the most ridiculous, patently absurd conclusion and asked if I thought that brother/sister marriage was okay too, when clearly I was speaking to gay marriage rights. Why jump to the ridiculous just to make an argument for argument’s sake? And no, I would not marry my brother, because I am an only child.

@CelticsFan: Proclaim all you want, just as gay people proclaim all they want. However, I do not see gay people forbidding straight people to marry. There’s a very important difference there.

@Celticsfan, Do you teach your children that it’s ok to stick their penis in anything? I wouldn’t. That’s crazy. They are children for God’s sake. I would teach my child to keep his penis in his pants.

While we’re on that note, define natural.

Word has it that blacks can marry whites and it was once widely thought to be an abomination. Women are voting and owning property. What is this world coming to?

When it’s legal, (and it will be) you can call it domestic partnership and I’ll call it marriage.

Edit: It looks like I forgot to answer the main question here. The short answer is this: I think thou doth protest too much. Many times society’s pressure makes an individual repress their own homosexual tendencies. They go 180 degrees and scream about how they don’t like “homos”.

I would like someone to give us the Bible passage that says homosexuality is an abomination. I’ve never seen it anywhere.

But I’m most concerned about the issue of freedom of religion. It seems to me that any
churchlike entity that wants to dictate sexual behavior is free to do it, no matter how
foolish (and people will still get around it). But how can a nation which is supposed to
protect religious freedom dictate that one religion’s rules should be everyone’s?

SusanC: It’s back in the OT with all the other stuff that was supposedly done away with when Jesus “made everything new.”

Leviticus 18:22
‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.’

Here’s the verse in context, so you can see who else we’re not supposed to have sex with.

Boy it’s a good thing Soap Operas don’t have to adhere to Leviticus 18.

cprevite: Maybe they’re just Christian and don’t have to follow OT laws any more?

@laureth: True enough. Old Testament Soap Operas must have been more violence and les sex.

I think that there is an underlying disgust that we may be born with, and that’s what leads to some heterosexuals feeling viscerally that homosexual male behavior is creepy and ought to be banned.

I’ve read that there is a “yuck” factor that is inborn. It doesn’t just refer to homosexuality, but to a number of things that humans find disgusting in a kneejerk way.

I know that before I met any gay people, and before I had gay friends, the whole thing was very mysterious to me, and I couldn’t imagine anyone wanting to have gay sex. I kept seeing myself in that situation, and it was either a feeling of violation, or of disgust (depending on activity).

After I learned more about homosexual people, and some of them became my closest friends, my attitude changed. Now the couple in my college cohort that has been together the longest is gay. Of course, they can’t get married, though they want to.

So I don’t know if these attitudes are built into us or not. My suspicion is they are. However, it is clear that education can make the inborn disgust go away.

However, once this gets into a holy proscription, then reason and science no longer are involved. We are stuck in the inborn sense of yuckness. Unfortunately, this is but one of the plethora of faults religions have.

celticsfan, I teach my kid it’s OK to be happy and to be yourself. I wouldn’t encourage him to experiment with being homosexual if that wasn’t who he was, but if that’s who he turns out to be I’ll expect him to be happy and worry about who he is sticking his dick in, and not who other people are sticking their dicks in.

@celticsfan: For their sake, I certainly hope it doesn’t turn out any of your children are gay. Our best “couple friend” is a gay couple. They are married in their eyes, and our children have been aware of it forever. I’ve always told them that as long as their SOs are good people who treat them well, I couldn’t care less what color, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation they are.

It’s simple, I believe gay marriage is morally/ethically wrong. Perhaps my moral line is slightly different than yours. I know very nice people who smoke crack but just because doing drugs is what they do, doesn’t mean that our government should allow it. Just because it is engrained into people (homosexuals will typically state that it is just the way they are and they can’t change it), doesn’t make it right either. Jack the Ripper when asked if he thought serial killing was something engrained in him, he said yes, all serial killers do, but that doesn’t make it right. On a side note, I don’t want people thinking that I am comparing homosexuals with serial killers, because I am not. I stated that simply to argue that just because something is engrained in you, doesn’t make it right.

@Monty: Contractually they happen to be the same thing, but heterosexual marriage is different than homosexual marriage. Why does it have to be called the same thing?

And just because someone believes that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed (because their “ick factor” about homosexuality is so ingrained and inseparable from who they are), doesn’t make that right either. That particular argument can go both ways, Critter.

@Laureth: I understand that the argument can go both ways, I didn’t say it couldn’t. Again you stated that it was an ick factor. Not really the ick factor, but rather the fact that I believe it is wrong. I’m not afraid of, grossed out, nor annoyed of homosexuals. You guys feel that it is moral and I feel it is immoral.

@critter: do you believe it’s appropriate to legislate morality? Would you then support legislation to make the consumption of alcohol and tobacco illegal? After all, they do far more harm to this country than heroine and crack and marijuana and all the other illegal drugs combined.

How do you feel about government legislating morality?

@CelticsFan,
”...can u honestly sit there and say u would teach your male child that it’s ok to stick his penis in another man’s bottom?”

Just where do you teach your male child to stick his penis? Is that what you are really afraid of? Or could it be that your male child might discover he likes being on the receiving end?

And do you really think that preventing people from marrying is going to prevent their desire to do so?

“And forget about the religious aspect of this. It’s deviant and it’s not natural.”

How do you figure? It seems to come naturally enough to those whom it comes naturally.

@daloon,
“So I don’t know if these attitudes are built into us or not. My suspicion is they are. However, it is clear that education can make the inborn disgust go away.”

Homophobia does seem to be learned and amenable to unlearning, but one’s sexual orientation does not. I only mention this to bring out into the open the unstated premise that homosexuals somehow learn or choose to be homosexual. Its now fairly well documented that there are meta-genetic factors in play. That is to say, on top of one’s non-zero genetic probability of becoming gay in later life, each male child a woman has increases by 25% the likelihood that her next male child will be gay due to hormonal exposures in the womb.

People used to feel strong aversions toward people who were left-handed but, in the light of science, it came to be seen as barbaric to act upon it. Today, we are in much the same place with respect to homosexuality.

@critter1982,
“It’s simple, I believe gay marriage is morally/ethically wrong.”
“You guys feel that it is moral and I feel it is immoral.”

Then don’t do it.

“I know very nice people who smoke crack but just because doing drugs is what they do, doesn’t mean that our government should allow it.”

Why not? If they are nice people, they are obviously not hurting anyone. So, why should the government be intruding into their personal lifestyle choices?

“Jack the Ripper when asked if he thought serial killing was something engrained in him, he said yes, all serial killers do.”

That’s odd, because they never caught Jack the Ripper, nor would they have thought to ask back in 1888 whether he thought his propensity to kill was “ingrained.” By the way, I took a course in criminal profiling, and serial killers do not consider their killing to be “ingrained.”

“Contractually they happen to be the same thing, but heterosexual marriage is different than homosexual marriage.”

You have simply repeated your original assertion, which is without basis. As you concede, the difference is not in the substance of the marriage itself, but in the distinction you draw between people of different sexual orientation. There are all kinds of differences between people who marry, but very few of them warrant their own name.

If we are to apply your principle of calling marriage by a different name for each type of couple involved we would have to call a marriage between two blacks different from what we call a marriage between two whites, and something else again if the couple are of different races. Likewise, you might call a marriage between a Jew and a Christian by a different name than if they married within their religion. Or, you might draw a distinction between Christians of different denominations. The reason we don’t this is because such distinctions would be invidious and insulting.

@Monty: Using your argument as long as government isn’t intruding into their personal choices, then humans should be allowed to have sex with animals, ? Do you honestly think, that as long as your neighbor is having sex with his/her horse that it won’t affect anybody? Your so incredibly wrong! Oh and since we’re not hurting anybody we can go steal dead bodies from graves, and have sex with cadavers. We’re not hurting anybody right?
All laws are a derivative of some morality. Their existence presupposes that prescribing such action serves to make society in general safer, whether or not these said actions hurt “somebody” else.
Do you honestly disagree with every law which happens to be based on a morality that doesn’t hurt anyone else? And what exactly do you define as hurt; mentally, emotionally, physically?

As soon as you allow same sex marriage you legitimize arguments for marriages consisting of 3,4,5,6 partners. You legitimize marriage of children. You legitimize marriages consisting of a brother and a sister. You say why, I say why not? They love each other right, It’s who they are. It doesn’t hurt any parties not involved so why not?

And no I did not agree that the difference “was not in the substance of marriage itself”. I agreed that by law the contract is basically the same.

If it’s not different then why do homosexuals feel the need to celebrate their diversity and have parties in the streets to tell everyone that they are gay and proud of it? If it’s not different then why do they feel the need to have gay bars. The reason is, it is different. They have the same rights as married couples with civil unions. There is no reason for it to be called the same thing.

I didn’t mean to say Jack the Ripper I meant Charles Manson, I thought he had said that it was somebody in his head telling him what to do? I thought because these were serial killers, research has shown that it was engrained them. I will defer to you as you seem to be the expert though in criminal profiling.

I fail to see how the marriage of two consenting adults who love each other leads to the slippery slope of sex with animals, cadavers, children, or anything else that cannot possibly consent. It’s like saying that gay marriage is like a peanut butter sandwich. No relation.

@laureth: You absolutely just put words in my mouth. I never said gay marriage was a slippery slope to sex w/ anything…...Unless of course you weren’t talking to me then sorry.

Sex between two consenting adults is a whole lot different than sex with animals or cadavers. Marriage between two consenting adults is a whole lot different than marriage involving children or multiple partners. Legalizing/legitimizing one does not lead to the other.

@critter1982,
“All laws are a derivative of some morality.”

Except for those that aren’t—namely, the vast majority of laws which are purely regulatory in purpose. We all drive on the right hand side of the road, file our taxes on April 15th, and don’t put paint or lead batteries in the trash, we exclude hearsay evidence, we require certain elements of a contract—not because we are particularly moral in doing so, but because these things promote the orderly and efficient functioning of society.

“Do you honestly think, that as long as your neighbor is having sex with his/her horse that it won’t affect anybody? Your so incredibly wrong!”

Really? I don’t see how affects anybody else—unless you are concerned for the horse. Such behavior may disgust you or scandalize you, but it doesn’t damage you in any way.

“since we’re not hurting anybody we can go steal dead bodies from graves, and have sex with cadavers.”

Do you think the reason people don’t have sex with corpses is because the state says “they are not allowed to?” For your information, its perfectly legal to have sex with a corpse, and its only a misdemeanor to steal one.

“Do you honestly disagree with every law which happens to be based on a morality that doesn’t hurt anyone else?”

Off hand, I can’t think of one I agree with. If there is no element of harm, I don’t see any justification for the state intrusion, especially when the so-called morality being legislated reflects a narrowly sectarian religious point of view.

“As soon as you allow same sex marriage you legitimize arguments for marriages consisting of 3,4,5,6 partners. You legitimize marriage of children. You legitimize marriages consisting of a brother and a sister.”

No, you don’t. Allowing same-sex marriages does not repeal the laws against bigamy or incest, nor does it lower the legal age of consent. Nor, does it necessarily even open these laws to reconsideration on the grounds of questioning what harm they prevent. So, I’m afraid you are just blowing smoke here with your slippery slope argument.

“I did not agree that the difference ‘was not in the substance of marriage itself’. I agreed that by law the contract is basically the same.”

If the substance of marriage not the contract, what is its substance?

“why do homosexuals feel the need to celebrate their diversity and have parties in the streets to tell everyone that they are gay and proud of it”

Why do the Irish have St. Patrick’s day parades? Why do the Italians have Columbus Day parades? Why do the Chinese have Chinese New Year’s day parades? Why to Mexicans have Caesar Chavez and Cinco de Mayo celebrations? Why do Blacks have Martin Luther King celebrations? Does that make them different enough to call their marriages by another name? No, to do so would be discriminatory, insulting and, therefore, morally wrong.

By the way, Charles Manson suffers from schizophrenia, which is not “ingrained” or in any way typical of serial killers.

@MontyZuma: Great Answer. Lurve for you.

@MontyZuma: To answer your original question, many straight people are afraid of allowing gay marriage because of the same reason that they dislike homosexuality in general: because they believe that saying that homosexuality is okay will mean children will start “choosing the lifestyle” or other similar effects. “Letting little Timmy see a married gay couple might be what makes Timmy decide to become a homosexual!”
The sooner that people realise that being homosexual is not a choice, the sooner these prejudice views will die away.

The American Psychiatric Association has stated “some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.” However, the American Psychological Association has stated “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” (source)
I just can’t seem to stress this point hard enough.

@CelticsFan: Reading your post has made me feel violently ill. When people express attitudes of such hatred towards me because of something I cannot control, I want to hide away where no one can find me for the rest of my life. We are constantly scared shitless of people with these sorts of attitudes, because some people with these attitudes control and govern our lives and how you think we should lead them.

@Critter1982: You stated that “It’s simple, I believe gay marriage is morally/ethically wrong. Perhaps my moral line is slightly different than yours.” Can I ask why you believe that gay marriage is morally wrong? All morals can be justified in one way or another. For example, even though it’s not illegal, I believe it’s morally wrong to sleep with another person if you’re married because you are betraying the trust and commitment you put in to the person you have married. Hope I got my point across.

“If it’s not different then why do homosexuals feel the need to celebrate their diversity and have parties in the streets to tell everyone that they are gay and proud of it?”

Simply because we are entering a new era where we are becoming more and more accepted. For christ sake, Mardis Gras is two weeks of the year where we celebrate our diversity and the uniqueness that connects us.

“If it’s not different then why do they feel the need to have gay bars. The reason is, it is different.”

If you think about it logically, you might realise that gay bars, clubs and other similar venues are created for convenience, so that we can socialise and flirt and all those other normal dating behaviours, without the fear of getting bashed to death. I don’t understand what you believe this point proves.

“They have the same rights as married couples with civil unions. There is no reason for it to be called the same thing.”

Until it is called the same thing, we are lesser people. We are inferior. We aren’t allowed the same rights as you. We feel robbed of basic human rights. The fact that a man and a woman can marry even if they don’t love each other can still get married, while two men or two women who are in a committed, caring and loving relationship are barred from simply using that word.

Elaborating on my first answer ^ maybe we should call ALL legal marriage Civil Unions. Let the religious have the word marriage if they insist, but legally we would all be in Civil Unions. Whatever the case ends up to be, it should be the SAME WORD(S) for all legally sanctioned life partnerships.

Ooh, Augustian, I think that’s the best answer yet! It even separates Church and State and all that jazz. A++++, would agree again!

@August: I like your answer.
@chromaBYTE: Can I ask why you believe that gay marriage is morally wrong? All morals can be justified in one way or another. For example, even though it’s not illegal, I believe it’s morally wrong to sleep with another person if you’re married because you are betraying the trust and commitment you put in to the person you have married. Hope I got my point across.
There are laws and rules that govern our society. Furthermore, those rules are imperative for our survival. If we have good relationships with one another, that would improve the health of humanity itself. Furthermore I augmented my beliefs by determining what I believe to be right, and what I believe to be wrong. This was formulated through my direct relationships of my parents, friends, acquaintances, church, social situations, and basically my whole life evolved. Everybody has some code of morality which was defined by who they are and where they came from.

I absolutely despise the way that homosexuals are treated in our society, particularly from what I would call fellow Christians. But I would say that overall, the largest basis that I have for believing that homosexuality is immoral is based on my faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. Can I ask you what you base your morality on, in that you feel homosexuality is moral?

The real reason why “they” don’t want to allow homosexuals the right to marriage? People say it’s because it’s wrong or immoral or will corrupt their children but I seriously believe it’s because they just want to be assholes. They want to give gays a hard time because they don’t agree and don’t like them. It’s the same thing as the civil rights movement. Exactly the same. Blacks were viewed as dirty, less than whites, and were treated without a shred of dignity and respect. Right now, gays are going through the same thing. Eventually, it will be legal for them to be married. Not joined in a civil union, but married. So to all the people out there who think homosexuality is immoral and wrong, too bad. It’s going to happen whether you like it or not because it’s not about you and your feelings. It’s about them and their feelings and their love.

Unsanitary?
That’s just… really reaching. Srsly.

And the world isn’t going to turn all gay, just like it isn’t going to turn all straight. The world population isn’t going to die out because of the lack of procreative sex – we have too many people, actually. So that can’t possibly be a legitimate worry.

As far as immoral, well, you can choose what you think is moral or not, and so can I. However, I’d like to know on what basis it’s immoral – “because it is!” isn’t an answer. If you’re basing it on Old Testament rules, either follow them all (and don’t eat shrimp or wear poly-cotton blends) or get rid of them all as people claim Jesus did when he came to “save” people, assuming you’re Christian and not Jewish.

Why is it that the gay-tolerant people seem so open and friendly and it’s the people that take the moral high ground that turn so nasty? Curious, that.

is it just me, or does sex (any hole) just not rise to the level of being important enough for Gov. to get involved?
When did Gov. get into the morality business? Whose morality? Within what limits?
This is a slipery slope that leads to theocracy…

I guess the truth really does hurt…thats why you people removed my response. If you believe what I say is wrong, why hide it? Expose it to the world, similar to what you do with your gayness. Expose it to the rest of the world because you’re proud to be gay and ur able to challenge any attacks made on it. Unsanitary meaning sticking your pee pee in an exit, not an entrance. Why do gays always need people to spell things out for them? You’re only going to attempt to justify your lifestyle to me, in which you will fail miserably.

“you people removed my response”—my dog told me to do it—I hear voices about entrances and exits, and I cannot tell which one is which. Please help!

@Celtics: Perhaps you may not have noticed. but the vagina is also an exit.

There are some serious representatives of the shallow end of the gene pool making specious arguments here.

Homosexuality is not an abnormality, not a choice, and not limited to the human species. “Biological Exuberance” is a book written from the PhD thesis of Bruce Bagemihl, documenting the steady percentage of animals of essentially all species expressing homosexual behavior. For those attempting the religious argument, if God made all of the animals and God says that homosexuality is wrong, then I guess that means that God fucked up, hmm?

Clearly, logical argument is pointless with those who have closed, bigoted and mean spirited minds. Eventually, they too will become extinct.

@syz: Well personally I never stated that homosexuality is abnormal, not a choice, or limited to the human species. Secondly I’m not sure how you can logically use animal behavior to justify what is or is not moral?? My dog always steals my mom’s dogs toys and brings them over to my house. Does that mean because stealing and possesiveness is inherent in animals that it’s something that we as humans should reconsider as being an acceptable practice. Does that mean that God screwed up? IMHO, no.

Stealing is a cultural convention, while sex is biological. I don’t understand why some folks think it is there mission on this planet, during the brief and fleeting time they are here, to obsess and harp on others that have different proclivities.

When my gay neighbor comes home, he waves to me across the drive way, and then I forget about him, and do not care where he enters or exits or puts his “thing”.

Should we not focus on our own problems instead of injecting ourselves into the proclivities of others?

If you want to make the world better then lets get together to end the Iraq war. Who decides what is moral? And now you are going after my dog because he can’t tell exit from entrance?

Get off the gay thing, we’ve got bigger problems at hand and we need all the talent we can possible get. PS I’m not even gay.

@critter1982,
“There are laws and rules that govern our society. Furthermore, those rules are imperative for our survival.”

Not all of them. Laws need to be changed from time to time to reflect the evolving standards of civilization.

For example, up until the 1960s, it used to be against the law for people of different races to get married. But, this was an insult not only to the people involved, but an affront to the democratic principles of the entire nation. Likewise, it used to be legal for one person to own another, but now slavery is seen as an affront to human dignity, and an egregious crime. In this respect, morality improves over time, so the law should not hold morality back.

Historically, marriage has mainly been a matter of property rights. Up until the 1920s women could not own property because they themselves were considered property under the law. A child born into the world immediately became the property of his or her father who, not too long ago, held life and death power over his family. One may have made one’s vows to God, but the actual marriage consisted of a civil contract which transferred ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. As recently as 150 years ago(and in some places still), there was an exchange of money involved—either a bride price, or a dowry. The dowry reflected an amount the woman would have inherited if she were a male. But it passed from her family directly to her husband, along with control of any other property she might nominally own. In fact, marriage contracts contained all sorts of rules concerning rights of inheritance, the return of dowries, and the woman herself.

Over time, the subordinate status of women came to be seen as an affront to human dignity and inconsistent with the values of a democratic society. Women demanded to be treated as full persons under the law, and the law was changed to make them full and equal partners in marriage. In this respect, there is nothing so immutable or so essential to survival that it could not be improved upon.

“I would say that overall, the largest basis that I have for believing that homosexuality is immoral is based on my faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible.”

In other words, you don’t see any particular objective harm in homosexuality, but you believe that God doesn’t like it, so you don’t either? Can you tell me where in the New Testament Jesus says that homosexuality is immoral?

“Can I ask you what you base your morality on, in that you feel homosexuality is moral?”

First of all, love between two people is never wrong. But to shame and denigrate a person for loving strikes me as not only egregiously unChristian, but as perverse.

Second, homosexuality does no harm to anyone. To assert that it does without providing foundation or proof is to bear false witness. To denigrate and disparage people based on unexamined beliefs, or vague beliefs handed down from generation to generation based on misinterpretations of scripture, is both negligent and arbitrary. Scripture used to be invoked to justify slavery and the subordination of women; but that doesn’t make these things moral or right.

Third, for some people, homosexuality is an authentic and indelible part of who they are. Personal morality depends on a person being able to discover who he is, and to live openly society in a manner that is true to himself. To shame people who cause no harm into hiding—to marginalize a whole class of individuals and force them to be invisible—just to keep your children in the dark about their own possible homosexuality—is both selfish and counterproductive. To the degree you ratify discrimination and foster shame, you make it more difficult for the people around you to come to terms with their homosexuality. And, eventually this will redound to the detriment of someone you love.

Fourth, being in a homosexual relationship is better than being in no relationship. Relationships further a person’s maturity, and can inspire a person to live up to higher standards than he would otherwise set for himself. It is moral to grow as a human being. It is immoral to prevent a person from growing.

I lurve MontyZuma so much!

[Fluther Moderator:] If you have an opinion, talk about it in a mature way. Tossing around terms like “faggot” and going on the offensive with phrases like “when u fruitcakes finish crying and decide to report me” is not acceptable on Fluther.

Please read our guidelines before further participation. Send me a private comment if you have any questions.

MontyZuma you’re my hero.

Time to lighten the debate with some humour. I quote Wil Anderson:

“I believe that you should be allowed to marry who you love. But it was John Howard who said ‘Oh, but marriage is about the survival of the species!’
Did you know that more children are born out of wedlock than in? Marriage isn’t about the survival of the species, Lemon Rusky is about the survival of the species!”

@everyone but mostly critter1982
Would someone please bring up that those who claim to receive their morals from the bible/god/church do nothing of the sort. The bible has stories which are both moral and morally reprehensible. Those who believe they are receiving their morals from the bible are receiving their morals from the same place we all are, they have just chosen the parts of the bible that fit and ever so conveniently ignored the parts that don’t.

@CelticsFan
Why haven’t you brought up that anal sex (yes it has a nice clinical name) is not only practiced by homosexuals. What you are talking about is actually “sexuality” and not homosexuality. If you have a problem discussing sexuality with your children, then I recommend parenting classes. (ie. no, you don’t tell your 6 year old son “some guys will want to do it in the bum” the same way you don’t tell your 6 year old daughter “some guys will want to do it in the bum”) And also homosexual does not equal anal sex. Hell really, homosexual doesn’t even equal homosexual sex. This may be a mind blowing fact for you, but you can be a homosexual and a virgin. (sound of jaws dropping to the floor) How someone chooses to practice their sexuality (not choosing sexuality, but choosing how they practice) should not be left to the government to decide, but to those involved.

Back to critter1982
You have yet to explain how a homosexual couple living next door is harming anyone. However in every single one of your attempts at an analogy, somone is in fact hurting someone else. Murder does impose death on to an unwilling participant. Steeling and copulating with a corpse disrespects the corpse’s former life and the family and friends they have left behind.

Now if this gay couple next door were knocking on your door and asking you to consider becoming a homosexual or you will be going to hell. If they were to attempt to pass laws that would revoke rights deemed constitutional by the state. If they were to spends millions of dollars that could have been used to educate our children on tv adds that spew lies about you and defame your character. If they were to call you immoral while they themselves are the ones with questionable morality. Then you might be able to say they are hurting somone, but the nice gay couple next door isn’t the one doing that are they?

So much for my 1st amendment right…u ppl are so sensitive. TOO FRICKIN BAD. I stand my ground. There is no justification for this type of lifestyle. Did I strike another nerve there, mr. Patriot Act oops i mean mr. moderator??

[Fluther Moderator:] @CelticsFan: Fluther is a private community, and hate speech is not tolerated here. If you cannot express yourself in a civil manner, it will be removed. Contact me directly if you have an issue with moderation; do not derail this thread any further.

I’m in the Fluther Support chatroom for the next few hours.

OR CelticsFan, you could answers noon’s point directly.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. However, when you “answer” a well thought-out point by being defensive and argumentative, you reveal your argument to be lacking in factual merit.

@CelticsFan,
“I stand my ground. There is no justification for this type of lifestyle.”

Why should homosexuals have to justify their lifestyle to an hysterical homophobe like yourself? It seems to me that the burden is on you to explain why gays should not have the same right as you do to marry whom they please.

@MontyZuma:
“the burden is on you to explain why gays should not have the same right as you do to marry whom they please.”
Which he has completely failed to do the entire time.

@CelticsFan:
“There is no justification for this type of lifestyle.”
Number one, please stop calling it a lifestyle. We don’t have any choice in our sexuality. Maybe if you had bothered to do some research and kept an open mind you would have realised this.
Number two, we should not have to justify our love, especially to the likes of you. We are human beings, goddamnit. Start treating us like it.
Number three, as MontyZuma put it, how about you actually justify your own argument by giving us sufficient reason why homosexuals shouldn’t marry? All you’ve managed to do so far is insult us in your many attempts to start a flame war. Everyone else in this conversation has managed to back up their opinions intellectually with reason and common sense.

A question like this is to spark intellectual debate, which you so far have not participated in.

’@Noon: I don’t think that a homosexual living next door to my house is “harming me”. Can you point to a position that I have held that even states that? It’s obvious that you feel government should not be regulating morality. It’s obvious that you feel, if your next door neighbor happens to be smoking crack that they should just be left alone as long as they aren’t harming anyone else. I happen to disagree. I happen to believe that smoking crack is immoral and I believe it should be regulated. Similarly, I believe homosexuality to be immoral. I didn’t say it affects me directly. The worst that would happen is I would have to explain this to my child. I don’t have an issue with this because my kid will absolutely see it on television anyways. I don’t plan on raising my child in a bubble.

To your comment Those who believe they are receiving their morals from the bible are receiving their morals from the same place we all are, they have just chosen the parts of the bible that fit and ever so conveniently ignored the parts that don’t.
You don’t know me so tell me this, how you have the right or the knowledge to tell me that I conveniently ignore parts of the bible I feel to be inconvenient? I accept your right to an opinion whether I believe it to be true or not, but I absolutely wouldn’t question your right to have an opinion or the validity of your moral character. I would absolutely put you in the same category as I place Christian homophobes. You don’t have an issue with people as long as they agree with you, because I bet you believe you have one answer, “the right answer”! And since you already have all of the answers and you truly don’t want my opinion anyways, because of your presumed beliefs about Christians, I would rather not get into a discussion with you where you will continue to subscribe to debasing my moral character by assuming I conveniently throw out inconvenient parts of the bible. I wish you a good day and hope you can reconsider your presumed beliefs about all Christians, but if you want to continue your sweeping arguments I will stay out of the conversation.

I used to enjoy this site because people were capable of having a good discussion without attempting to degrade the opposing parties. I increasingly have noticed though that more and more liberals on this site find it difficult to allow a different opinion without questioning ones character.

Don’t listen to them critter1982, they’re just assuming that you don’t kill all unbelievers like the original testament tells you to. You might be a murderer. We don’t know you.

They’re assuming that you don’t support slavery or killing your children for minor acts of disobedience

Really they are probably just assuming that you’ve read through other threads were we’ve played out this old argument a million times.

You have to cherry pick the old testament to live within the law.

@bodyhead: Why do you assume that I follow old testament laws. Again your assuming. Wouldn’t it be better to ask and know prior to making general statements like the one above.

The quoted bible passage about ‘laying with a man’ is from the old testament. You said you didn’t cherry pick the bible to decide what to believe. (I’m just assuming you would think that this type of thing is immoral because they do preach that in most churches.)
.
(There is no bible verse in the new testament that supports your stance so I assumed that you were following the old testament.)

I pointed out the other laws you should be following.

You then stated that I was assuming you strictly followed bible as to what to believe (as oppose to cherry picking what you believe).

I just wanted to put that out there in plain site for you.

Anyway, your stance doesn’t come from religion. Bigotry doesn’t necessarily come from religion. It’s just a sweet added bonus in some cases.

@critter1982
I don’t think that a homosexual living next door to my house is “harming me”. Can you point to a position that I have held that even states that?
Sorry for me to assume that when you said this about bestiality you were not also making an analogy to a homosexual couple next door:
Do you honestly think, that as long as your neighbor is having sex with his/her horse that it won’t affect anybody?

I accept your right to an opinion whether I believe it to be true or not, but I absolutely wouldn’t question your right to have an opinion or the validity of your moral character.

How is you constantly saying that homosexuality is immoral not an attempt to invalidate my (and other homosexuals) moral character? Explain?

Why do you assume that I follow old testament laws. Again your assuming. Wouldn’t it be better to ask and know prior to making general statements like the one above.

If you don’t follow old testament laws, you have now proven that you have picked and chosen to remove half of the bible to fit with your current lifestyle. Also if you don’t follow old testament laws then can you please tell me where in the new testament homosexuality is claimed to be immoral?

And as for you always coming back to this neighborhood crack user you love bringing up. It is actually quite a week argument for you. First of all no where in the bible does it mention the immorality of crack. Also we as a society, not based on biblical morals, have decided that crack use is not healthy for us. But we have (for not particular reason) decided that alcohol, coffee drinking, and smoking are completely safe enough to regulate and not make illegal.

you guys are nuts. i’m not sure whether to laugh, cry, or just roll my eyes when i read some of these… :)

Who here has lost their job, home, or 401k as a result of gay marriage? Any of your children killed? Pet’s maimed? Have gay married couples foreclosed on your home? Denied you a medical procedure? Do gay people spike your pet food with Chinese melamine? Did they piss in your coffee?

We are pretty passionate about what thy neighbor does in his or her bedroom….

Is this an example of distraction, division, and irrational misplaced raw hatred from that bronze age book, known as the Bible?

Sorry for me to assume that when you said this about bestiality you were not also making an analogy to a homosexual couple next door

If you will take some time and re-read my statement and the statement by Monty prior to mine. I am in no way comparing bestiality and homosexuality. That would be completely imprudent on my part. My comment regarding bestiality was solitary criticism towards ChromaBYTE’s comment that “Why not? If they are nice people, they are obviously not hurting anyone. So, why should the government be intruding into their personal lifestyle choices?” No where do I reference bestiality and homosexuality. I wouldn’t do that. Please don’t take my comments of context to better your argument.

How is you constantly saying that homosexuality is immoral not an attempt to invalidate my (and other homosexuals) moral character? Explain?

I’m not questioning the validity of your moral character. I simply believe something different than you do, and I’m willing to accept that. I don’t like you any less, but I would not sit here and try to degrade your beliefs. The question was The people opposed to same-sex marriage often cite religious reasons. What are they really afraid of?, so I attempted to explain myself. I can understand your part of the argument, I absolutely do, but for me to sit here and question where you got your beliefs from is obsurd and completely off topic.

If you don’t follow old testament laws, you have now proven that you have picked and chosen to remove half of the bible to fit with your current lifestyle.

I don’t want to sit here and explain Christianity to you, because that would be way off topic, so I’ll do my best to keep it short. Christians who believe Jesus Christ as their savior do not follow old testament laws. Christians have always believed that the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply as Jesus Christ has fulfilled that prophecy.

Also if you don’t follow old testament laws then can you please tell me where in the new testament homosexuality is claimed to be immoral?

From the new testament.
Romans 1:26–27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet.”

@Miz: I don’t hate homosexuals and like I said earlier absolutely despise the way they are treated. The bible does not teach people to hate, but to love your neighbor as yourself.

Hey Critter, thank you for pointing out a new testament bible verse. That’s a great one to add to my collection. I mean this in all seriousness.

On that verse:

I just want to mention that J. Nelson said: “Paul didn’t write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship.”

So you can either use that verse to support a stance where you make yourself superior to your fellow man in God’s eyes or you can use it to condemn a temple worship ritual. Your choice.

@bodyhead: Feel free to interpret it anyway you like. You asked for a NT verse and I gave you one. Can I ask who J. Nelson is, and what his bias’s are?

@critter—love thy neighbor, but discriminate against them when given the opportunity.

@Mizuki: Please give me an example of how I discriminated. I have in no way made any prejudice comments towards homosexuality. You on the other hand in a separate thread seem to have some prejudice towards Christians and republicans.

Why am I being attacked for simply answering a question? Have I offended you in some way. I apologize if I did, but am only trying to expound on my opinion. I don’t represent hatred Miz so why do you feel at every opportunity you must try and “bring me down”?

@critter1982
“I happen to believe that smoking crack is immoral and I believe it should be regulated. Similarly, I believe homosexuality to be immoral.”

You have a bad habit of bringing up subjects like bestiality and sex with cadavers by way of analogy, and then later denying that they have any connection or relevance to your remarks about homosexuality. The quote above strongly implies that homosexuality, like crack, is “immoral” and likewise should be “regulated.”

However, crack is not simply regulated, it is prohibited by some of the most insanely punitive and disproportionate penalties in all of criminal law. By analogy, you would “similarly” extend these same draconian Federal mandatory minimums to homosexuality. In other words, you are no longer talking about “regulation,” you are talking about one of the most extreme and life-destroying punishments this side of the death penalty—namely, prison.

And, for what? Because you have some vague, intellectually flabby religious reason you can barely articulate? You profess to detest the way society treats homosexuals, and yet, in your intellectual laziness, you casually—even negligently—associate homosexuality with crack use. And, in so doing, tacitly advocate the punishment of homosexuals with some of the most obscenely overboard punishments our society has to offer. In short, you blithely endorse harm to homosexuals.

Again, I ask you how something can be “immoral” if there is no element of harm in it? Indeed, how can call yourself a Christian after tacitly recommending harm to homosexuals?

Here, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that the harm implicit in things you “just happen” to believe is unintentional due to negligence.

critter, J. Nelson does have bias. He’s one of those stupid liberal types who tries to love everyone in a Christlike manner.

He’s actually just a member of another forum. It’s not even important what he says. I was just making the point that even within the stringent reasoning of Christianity there’s different ways to interpret the same passages.

Here are some other thoughts on it
Human sexuality researchers and others who have studied the nature of sexual orientation might reject Paul’s belief that homosexuality is beyond the normal. Many religious liberals reject Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior, particularly when Paul’s support for the oppression of women, and his acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16) are considered. They might feel that this passage in 1 Romans should be rejected as immoral and outside the will of God, much as other biblical passages are immoral by today’s ethical standards and should be ignored—including those passages that regulated human slavery, required some hookers to be burned alive, advocated genocide, required victims of rape to marry their rapist, recognized the torture of prisoners, and required the execution of non-virgin brides

critter, it is just that you are so far out of mainstream that I don’t know where to begin

Actually Mizuki, he is the mainstream. Gay marriage is illegal in almost all states because of points of view like his. It is we who are out of the mainstream.

body—don’t let the hysterical frenetic MINORITY fool you into thinking they are the majority just because they are so abnoxious and obtrusive and so shrill.
Most Americans do not favor discrimination. Most Americans favor civil unions.
Remember, the Moral Majority is Neither.

@Mizuki: I do favor civil unions as I stated earlier. The homosexual movement favors gay marriage not civil unions. Perhaps you should read the whole thread and understand what we are talking about before making accusations.

critter—stop attacking me. Move on. If you are capable of doing so.

@Mizuki: I thought this was a discussion forum designed to be give and take? I’m not labeling you or attacking you. I did not call you a hysterical frenetic MINORITY or a flying monkey (another post) as you did to me. I simply mentioned an error in your argument. Now I can move on.

Flying monkey sounds like a complement.

I would love to be a flying monkey.

And Critter, he didn’t necessarily attack you up there. I’ve heard lots of people say that the moral majority is neither. He wasn’t targeting you specifically. I got him off on a tangent.

I do believe that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the political path even if a large group of lazy apathetic people disagree.

This thread actually has changed my mind on one thing. I favor calling all marriages civil unions. The state shouldn’t distinguish religious differences.

’@Monty: I brought up bestiality and sex with cadavers to engage you on a discussion not of homosexuality but rather that government IMO should regulate morality. You stated, “Why not? If they are nice people, they are obviously not hurting anyone. So, why should the government be intruding into their personal lifestyle choices?”. My argument to that particular statement was that in these circumstances where few people would argue the immorality of such a behavior, the government chooses to regulate. And by regulate, I mean to dictate a policy, not to allow in certain circumstances, but “abolish” it all together. Again it would be extremely imprudent of me to make these analogies if in fact that was what I was doing. But I’ll state again, it is not the case. I don’t compare the likes of bestiality and “cadaver sex” to those of homosexuality. That would be a ridiculous statement for me to make.

Based on your definition of regulation, no crack is not regulated. Based on my definition (dictating a policy), yes it is regulated, and I would absolutely disagree that by my analogy homosexuality should be criminalized the same way as crack dealers. In fact I would strongly argue that the federal regulations regarding using these types of drugs to be ridiculous in that the penalty is in excess of the crime. The inference I used regarding crack was again simply based on the morality of it not the punishment nor the act of it. I don’t believe it was negligence on my part but perhaps poor articulationl. My intention is for you to understand my issue with homosexual marriage and I felt utilizing an analogy, although admittedly probably not a good one, was for you to better understand my side of the issue.

Again, I ask you how something can be “immoral” if there is no element of harm in it? Indeed, how can call yourself a Christian after tacitly recommending harm to homosexuals?

Immorality by my definition is psychological rather than tangible. It is a word that can be intertwined with ethical which IMO means conformance to some sort of social standard. Something does not have to be physically harmful to an outside party IMO to be immoral. I sincerely regret any comment that I made that you felt was me recommending harm to homosexuals. I in no way meant to piss anybody off, imply harm to homosexuals, recommend that smoking crack, bestiality, or sex w/ cadavers was comparable to homosexuality, offend anybody, or represent myself in a hysterical frenetic way. I simply wanted to answer a question without being condemned to the likes of a homophobe, homosexual hater, or a discriminate. I understand that these types of issues are “touchy” and that people can get out of control and point fingers, but that again is not my intention.

Nice final critter.

I’m gonna go out and smoke some crack and have sex with corpses.

@Body: Can I come?? :)

I’m gonna go marry a python, or a box turtle….wtf

@Mizuki,
My cousin MontyPython might be interested, are you cute?

@critter1982
“I brought up bestiality and sex with cadavers to engage you on a discussion… [of what the] government should regulate.”

Fair enough. The point I am making is that the seemingly idle ideas you hold have real world consequences. When you advocate “regulating” crack, you articulate and defend a position on behalf of everyone who believes as you do. When you don’t speak up against the government’s unjust and draconian excesses, you implicitly ratify those excesses and tacitly endorse the egregious injustice our society perpetrates on crack users.

“So, why should the government be intruding into their personal lifestyle choices?”. My argument to that particular statement was that in these circumstances where few people would argue the immorality of such a behavior, the government chooses to regulate. And by regulate, I mean to dictate a policy, not to allow in certain circumstances, but “abolish” it all together.”

In general, I find your argument convoluted. It looks as though you are you saying that the government should step in and “regulate,”—i.e., abolish—behaviors that “people in general” find “immoral,” even if there is no objective element of harm in that behavior, and even if enforcing this “morality” causes serious harm to the people upon whom it is imposed.

In other words, it looks to me as though you have no respect for the integrity of your fellow citizen, or his right to follow his own conscience. Instead it looks as though you are willing let the government define what is “moral” and enforce it by any means necessary—sort of like the Taliban.

As long as you think its your “morality” that they are enforcing, you have no problem with it. The state can poke it’s nose into other people’s private lives, persecute them, throw them in prison, and perhaps even destroy them utterly. You don’t require even the most minimal check on state power—such as a showing of harm.

“Based on your definition of regulation, ... crack is not regulated.”

That’s not quite right. We have stipulated that your nice crack-smoking neighbors are not causing harm to anyone. They are consenting adults using the drug in moderation and in private. In other words, they are regulating their own behavior. There is no harm and, therefore, no need of further state regulation, least of all criminalization. Nonetheless, you are willing to tacitly endorse a draconian regulatory regime

“Based on my definition (dictating a policy), yes it is regulated, and I would absolutely disagree that by my analogy homosexuality should be criminalized the same way as crack dealers.”

So, why do you mention it in the same breath, in a pair of sentences that practically beg the reader to draw the analogy?

“Immorality by my definition is psychological rather than tangible. It is a word that can be intertwined with ethical which IMO means conformance to some sort of social standard. Something does not have to be physically harmful to an outside party IMO to be immoral.”

Immorality is “psychological”? “Entwined with ethical?” “Conformance to some sort of social standard?” What kind of vague bafflegab nonsense is this? Especially when you propose to put the armed might of the state behind it. You propose to interfere with people’s love lives. You propose (or tacitly endorse) government-enforced prohibitions—and all manner of suffering—inflicted on people in the name enforcing this flabby, inarticulate, insubstantial and baseless conception of “morality”?

You haven’t even begun to show how homosexuality, gay marriage, or drug use are in any way immoral, much less warranting a policy of prohibition (which seldom works anyway). Your intellectual negligence in these matters leads you to tacitly support policies that prohibit, persecute, and harm others. In this respect, I find your views inimical to the democratic values of American society—i.e., the rights to privacy, self-determination, personal integrity, and freedom of conscience. As a consequence, I find your views harmful and deeply immoral.

I just wanted to clear something up. The word “immoral” keeps getting thrown around a lot in this thread. I wasn’t 100% on what I thought the word meant, so I looked it up. I posted it here just to make sure everyone is on the same page. Apologies if I have insulted the intellect or vocabulary of anyone.

From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
immoral: (a) not conforming to accepted standards of morality
morality: (n) a particular system of values and principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, esp. ones held be a specified person or society

@critter1982: According to your statements critter, that “homosexuality is immoral”, you are, by definition, saying that “homosexuality does not conform to the standards of what is right or good behavior in a particular society” or in laymen’s terms, “homosexuality is wrong in our society”. Would you agree with that statement?

The entire point of this question is to work out exactly why people against gay marriages believe it to be “wrong”, and to a wider extent, why homosexuality is “wrong” in general.

critter1982, can you please detail exactly why you believe homosexuality is wrong? Please try and back up your claims (if you say “because the bible says so”, please use quotes and your interpretation) and avoid any further analogies that could be misinterpreted. Please understand I am not trying to attack you, I am merely trying to get this thread back on track so I can fully understand your reasoning.

Here are my reasons for believing homosexuality and homosexual marriage are moral in our society:

1: Homosexuality is not a choice. It is not something that can be controlled. It cannot be “reversed” in any form, and any attempts to usually cause major psychological damage.
2: On December 15, 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted the same measure on January 24–26, 1975. (source)
3: I believe that if something that occurs naturally and cannot be controlled, and attempts to reverse it artificially cause severe damage, a human trait was meant to stay that way, and that it is a natural trait.
4: Because it is a natural trait, people with this trait should be treated equally compared to other people even if they have a different trait that falls in the same section (sexuality).
5: Even if a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual civil union are exactly the same in terms of the law and government, by denying the title of marriage to homosexuals, the government declare us to be inferior. When a government supports an attitude like this, it makes the battle for equality all the harder.

@Monty: I’m not even quite sure why I respond to you. You obviously “convolute” my argument with your predetermined thoughts of what you think I believe. I mention that it was not my intention to imply these things yet you continue to babble on about “_implicitly ratify those excesses and tacitly endorse the egregious injustice our society perpetrates on crack users”.

I state that I believe in civil unions yet you argue that I, “Especially when you propose to put the armed might of the state behind it. You propose to interfere with people’s love lives. You propose (or tacitly endorse) government-enforced prohibitions—and all manner of suffering—inflicted on people in the name enforcing this flabby, inarticulate, insubstantial and baseless conception of “morality”?”

Oh and also my favorite, ”You haven’t even begun to show how homosexuality, gay marriage, or drug use are in any way immoral, much less warranting a policy of prohibition”

Honestly prohibition, when the hell was that even stated.

I understand you can’t seem to accept my right to an opinion based on my Christian beliefs, but why do you continue to harass me stating that, ”Your intellectual negligence in these matters leads you to tacitly support policies that prohibit, persecute, and harm others”

I still have yet to understand how I am harming anybody. I don’t even condone placing different standards on homosexuals than I do heterosexuals. So please continue to tell the people of fluther how I tacitly support the prohibition, persecution, and harm to others (your words exactly). Maybe they will read your threads and get pissed off at me like Mizuki did. Maybe you can bring people to your side of the argument by scaring the crap out of them by stating that the “homophobe” is violent and he wants to hurt you. I know how I feel, and the basis of my morality, and I no longer feel like attempting to explain it to anyone that feels the need to take my arguments out of context and use them for the betterment of themselves. So consider this my last response to you.

Oh and ”Immorality is “psychological”? “Entwined with ethical?” “Conformance to some sort of social standard?” What kind of vague bafflegab nonsense is this?

Use your dictionary and look the words up, but even chromaBYTE agrees with me on this one.

Latent homosexuality is thick and deep on this thread

Mitzuki: Are you missing a tilde?

My tilde is my business FYI

<= not so latent

Wow.

“Well how about a male pedophile who’s in love with a young boy?”

That’s the worst argument I’ve ever heard. Why on earth would homosexuality excuse pedophilia? You’re grabbing at the sun.

Why do you have such an irrational fear of homosexuals celticsfan? (me thinks your running away from something)

Oh, good grief. Get over yourself and crawl back into your hole.

CelticsFan -

Homosexuality is not hereditary. But it is also not a lifestyle choice.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you prefer blondes, brunettes or redheads? Big, medium or small breasts? Short, tall or average height girls? A girl with some meat on her bones or one that looks like she needs to eat a sandwich? Are there any features in a woman that turn you on more or less than any other? Do you have a type?

And where did this “type”...this “preference” come from? Were you pre-programed from birth to respond to particular sexual stimuli but not others?

I’m straight…I have never felt sexual attraction towards a male. But there are some women who have made me feel physical attraction and others who have not. I did not experiment early in life to try to find what would make my cock hard. Just happened.

Being gay is no different. Instead of being turned on by a particular type of person of the opposite sex, these people are turned on by particular types of persons of the same sex. It is 100% natural, something that happens.

How do I know? Well, theoretically, I know that I did not choose what would turn me on (or off), it just is what it is. I suspected that the same is true for all of humanity. Today I know a number of gay people and they confirm, yep…that’s how it was for them, too. Another part of this argument that you proved yourself…as you say, “homos can’t be all that happy to receive the backlash they get on a daily basis.” So, you’re telling me that despite the persecution of narrow minded morons who think they are demonic and shouldn’t walk the same earh or share the same soil as them, they are nonetheless going to choose a lifestyle that sees them be ostracized, denied civil rights and even in some cases murdered.

You know, it was less than 50 years ago in this country that the majority of America felt the same way about black people…that they weren’t entitled to the same rights as everyone else…that too was something they could not help, but oh well, some people thought they were evil or demonic. The same thing happened to the Jews in most of Europe about 70 years ago…they were turned into soap by people who think the way you do.

Bottom line is, we’re all human beings. The problem with the marriage debate is this…marriage has been around for aeons. Then when we started to form governments and we wanted to package a set of inallienable survivorship rights that would come along with a lifelong commitment to another person, we called that marriage as well. The law co-opted what was essentially a religious/ceremonial concept.

So, really, marriage means two things…it means ceremonial marriage and legal marriage. And some people feel threatened that their ceremonial/religous marriage is going to be diluted and they don’t want the tenet of their religious beliefs to be dictated by government…indeed we are allowed separation of Church and State in our Constitution, therefore, we can’t make any case that says we should force your church to observe a union it finds to be foul and unjust. But legally, what we are talking about is rights

If you build a life with someone, someone who makes you happy, it shouldn’t matter what’s between that person’s legs when it comes time to say whether or not you can get health benefits on your partner’s medical plan, or whether or not you can be the beneficiary of their insurance policy, or whether or not you can visit them in the hospital if they are dying, or whether or not you will get custody of the child you adopted and raised together, or whether or not you will get to keep your home or if some fourteenth cousin you’ve never met is going to stake claim to something they have no right to based on having a deeper blood relation than you do, thus depriving you of the home you helped pay for. That’s sick and inhuman. So call ALL legal marriages civil unions, let people voluntarily sign up to give these rights to whomever they choose, and it’s no skin off your ass, so you stay out of their business and they won’t tell you what you can and can’t say in your church.

My marriage did not have a religious component, my wife and I don’t follow any one religion, it doesn’t make our marriage any less legal, and it doesn’t mean that my wife’s brother who has been with the same wonderful guy for a decade shouldn’t be able to have legal rights to visit him in the hospital should something happen to him.

As for the whole slippery slope/pedophilia/necrophilia/beastiality argument, no one has ever tried to tie these things together with homosexuality other than those who oppose it. Legal marriage is a contract. A contract under law is simply a legal agreement between two parties who are of sufficient age and who have the mental capacity to enter into such an arrangement. The idea that people are in training until their 18 works both ways…based on what you’re saying you’re prepping a girl for a guy to stick his penis in her vagina at age 18 and have it be legal and acceptable socially…the only difference is that one you find “icky” and the other is AOK.

Well, you’re not the moral gatekeeper of the nation, OK? Just like narrowminded fucks in the past who’ve had to learn to live side by side with blacks, you’re going to have to learn to live side by side with gays. I promise you they’re not going to try to suck your dick, and you’re not going to get gay germs all over you if you touch one. You can go ahead and love women exclusively, and that’s OK with anyone, but when you start to apply your morals to everyone else and you don’t even fucking understand that this is a basic human rights issue that is about letting people be happy as long as they’re not hurting anyone else, you have crossed the line. It is narrowmindedness like this which has kept people in the closet to their detriment, which has caused the hateful and stupid to hurt and kill people for no reason other than to whom they are naturally attracted. You don’t have to like it, you just have to accept it…they’re queer, they’re here, get used to it.

“In fact, I would probably run them off the sidewalk had I been walking on the same side.”

Dude…

pathetic.

I disagree that half of the fluther is homosexual. I’m straight as an arrow. I’m just not a bigot.

I’m straight but not narrow

Does anyone sense a “holy war” against those with different proclivities here, and this thread is the battle ground?

Warriors, show us your flag!

@CelticsFan: Honestly, are you promoting the killing of homosexuals by running them off the sidewalk? Your pathetic and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

@critter1982
I’d prefer someone just come out and say they want to run me off the side of the street because I’m demonic. That is just stupidity, and I know how to handle that.

Although someone who considers homosexuality immoral and is not able to articulate why. Or someone that thinks our government should legislate morals by not allowing homosexuals to marry but in the same breath grant them all the rights under a different name. Now that I find scary. The one thing I have to say for CelticsFan is that he has an opinion and has been very clear about it, one might even say articulate. Now I believe him to be an absolute moron, closed minded bigot, but he has made his point very clear. You on the other hand have spent most of this forum skirting around your own issues. You’ve set up several analogies, and then blamed everyone on the forum for making the logical conclusions any critical thinker should make. You have been asked several times to explain exactly why, for you, homosexuality is immoral, but have failed to do so.

For me it’s clear, CelticsFan is crazy. But you? You’re confused.

@Noon:

I thought I’ve mentioned it several times that based on my Christian beliefs I find homosexual marriage to be immoral. I even gave you a verse from the NT in which backs up my statement. What else would you like from me?

Straght female, here, absolutely disgusted by Celtics Fan. I just want to puke. Seriously.

One thing no one has really hit on specifically (I mean in this language…the substance is there), is that the whole idea of why we should call all legal marriages one thing and all religious/ceremonial marriages another thing is because to allow gays to marry but to call it something else is creating a “separate” type of marriage that is “equal” to the other type of marriage. Anyone remember “separate, but equal” from their history classes? We tried that once before…didn’t work so well.

I need someone to impose their “morality” on me….critter can you help?

FYI, I’ve got a bible quote that says to stone to death my children if they don’t listen…..Can anyone else share some Bronze Age Mythology that they literally live their life by….Sacrifice any goats recently?

@Mizuki: How am I imposing my morality on you? What am I proposing that doesn’t allow you to follow your beliefs? In all honesty I want to know.

“based on my Christian beliefs I find homosexual marriage to be immoral”

And how am I imposing that on you?

Because I disagree that homosexual marriage should be called a marriage? Or that I don’t have an issue with civil unions?

@critter1982
You impose by assuming that your morality should be in law. I assume that this thread is in response to what is going on with Prop 8 in california, pardon my assumption if I’m wrong.

And yes, you have said that based on your Christian beliefs, and then quoted a passage that is just as easily interpreted to not pertain to the concept of same sex union we have today. It’s a passage that is still very much in debate by biblical scholars as are many of the passages written by Paul.

So what you are left is that you have based you “Christian morals” on your own interpretation of that one passage. Since you have not been able to produce anything else, I’m sorry that I don’t feel a small two line passage of a book that has nothing to do with my life, nor our government. (Freedom of Religion means all religions not just one interpretation of one book)

As an ordained minister in the great state of Arizona, I am more than happy to perform MARRIAGE services (or handfastings, etc.) for ANYBODY- regardless of gender.

You all deserve that right.

If gay people don’t belong on this planet, I’m at a loss to think of where else they might belong.

If there is a gay planet somewhere else, though, I’m sure it’s much more fabulous than this one. ;)

@laureth
…if sparsely populated.

@Noon: There are several other passages that reference homosexuality in the NT, so no my “Christian morals” are not simply based on one passage. Secondly, in the OT a whole city was destroyed (story of Sodom) because of homosexuality. Third, the general consensus and overall position of the Evangelical Christian Church regarding homosexuality is that it is immoral based on biblical teachings. These are biblical scholars that study the bible daily that make these statements and decisions.

So even though I accept that homosexual couples have the right to the same benefits of a heterosexual marriage by law, I am still imposing my morality on you? If that is the case that I am imposing my morality on you simply based on what we call it (marriage/civil union). Then is it not true that by allowing homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage to be called the same thing, it is you also imposing your morality on me? I ask this in all honesty.

Sodom was destroyed for being unkind to their poor folks and inhospitable to guests, not homosexuality.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it (Ezekiel 16:49).

@Laureth: Very true, the story of Sodom is also under scrutiny and can be interpreted in various ways. Jude 7 provides a commentary on Genesis 19. The NT reference states that the sin of Sodom involved gross immorality and going after strange flesh. The phrase “strange flesh” could imply homosexuality.

The explanation that sex had anything to do with Sodom’s destruction is a story that came along a long time after. The Israelites knew it was a story about hospitality. When Lot (a good religious man if ever there was one) offered up his two virgin daughters for the crowd to rape, it is a demonstration of his knowledge that they were not there for homosexual reasons. It all comes from an ambiguous translation of the word that meant “to know,” both in the intellectual and sexual sense.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sodom.html

Homosexuality was not “strange” in those days, either. It’s likelier to do with the two angels that were visiting Sodom. That would have been strange flesh indeed. We need to look at Sodom as the people of the day would have seen it – not expecting them to keep our “modern” views of gay people as being somehow unnatural.

@laureth: Agreed but the basis that this word did not reference “to have sex with” is that statistically this word more often means to “get acquainted with”. Additionally, we know from the OT that homosexuality was a sin based on other scripture.

Homosexuality may have been an OT sin, but that doesn’t mean it has anything to do with Sodom’s demise. Bringing it up as such is misleading – especially since you know the backstory.

Besides, as I’ve said before, either all the OT sins were done away with when Jesus said so, OR you should really be careful to follow all the prohibitions, not a cherrypicked few.

@Laureth: I didn’t bring it up to be misleading but it is my belief, which I admit has been interpreted in other ways.

I disagree with your second statement though and here is why. The OT law wasn’t actually completely done away with when Jesus came. In Matthew Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets (the Old Testament); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” IMO what Jesus was saying was that He wasn’t coming to completely do away with the law. He was coming to fulfill the righteous demands of the law. Specifically, Jesus came as a sacrifice for all of mankind so that His followers would no longer need to make animal sacrifices as demanded by the Law – Jesus would be the ultimate sacrifice. Christians would also no longer need a priest to be an intercessor with God for them because Jesus would act as that intercessor.

So Jesus’ coming fulfilled the Law but did not completely do away with it. What it did was replace the rigid demands of the Law with the grace of God. Furthermore, it established Jesus as the final interpreter of and authority over the Law and its meaning. In the NT Jesus quotes from the OT criptures and clearly shows that they are still valid. However, in Matthew, Jesus also restated some of the Old Testament laws Matthew 19:18–19, modified some of them Matthew 5:31–32,33–37, 38–42, 43–47. intensified some of them 5:21–22, 27–28, and revoked some laws entirely Mark 7:15–19. I put these passages in for reference, but I don’t want to have to type all of these passages out. They should be easy enough to google.

Jesus wasn’t advocating the traditional Jewish adherence to the Law, and he wasn’t dismissing it altogether either. What he did was to declare what the meaning of the law truly meant in his coming and the NT.

I think they are afraid that if it is legally-sanctioned,
it will also be more culturally-accepted as being okay.

This poses two main problems for them, I think.
One, being represented by a government that supports homosexuality offends them.
Two, they think that their kids will “pick up” whatever society deems okay.

They probably believe in the second statement for two reasons:
They believe that homosexuality is a choice.
And if that were true, that their kids can’t “think” for themselves.

I mean, that totally makes sense right?
Heck, they let the Bible think for them.

So, Critter, if Jesus fulfilled the law but didn’t abolish it, why do you seem to only pick out a few of the OT sins to be upset about? Homosexuality is in there, sure, but so were a lot of others. Why does homosexuality provoke such a visceral response, and not, say, a man eating a shrimp cocktail, wearing mixed fibers, or lying with his wife during that time of the month? Are these not all abominations unto the Lord?

It’s not a primary source, of course, but here’s some interesting commentary on Jesus and OT law:
http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

@Nimis: I disagree with your statements. Homosexuality doesn’t offend me. I have absolutely no resentment for homosexuals. I would make an analogy here but I’ve learned my lesson :), people might mistake it for something else.

Secondly, I don’t believe my children will not “pick up” what society feels to be okay. I don’t happen to believe that homosexuality is a choice. I don’t deny that homosexuals are physically attracted to people of the same sex. Sexual behavior on the other hand is a choice, any behavior is a choice.

I don’t allow the Bible to think for me. I study and research the bible for guidance on how God tells me to live my life. Simply because I read the Bible does not mean I am incapable to think for myself!! What leads you to that conclusion??

I like the way I brought up the confusion over Sodom way up there ^, but nobody replied until someone else said the same thing way later. But yes, you’re right, laureth.

I saw it aidje, but I brought it up again because someone had it wrong.

@CelticsFan,
You are doing a great job of demonizing yourself. In showing us the extent to which you are ruled by an irrational hatred, you demonstrate the futility of trying to reach you by rational argument, so I think we can all safely dismiss you as unworthy of our further attention.

@Critter1982,
I don’t see anywhere that Chromabyte agrees with you. I see where he tries to get you to clarify your assertion that “homosexuality is immoral.” To this end, he asks if you if you agree with the statement that “homosexuality does not conform to the standards of what is right or good behavior in a particular society” or in laymen’s terms, “homosexuality is wrong in our society”?

Since you can’t be bothered to explain yourself, I can only surmise that you do agree. But doing so by no means establishes that homosexuality violates any societal value, or any societal standard of right and wrong behavior. You say homosexuality is wrong but you won’t (or can’t) HOW or WHY it is wrong.

You allude to “my Christian morals” but you have yet to name even one of them, much less one of them that is incompatible with homosexuality. You cite St.Paul’s almost incomprehensible passage in Romans as if to suggest that St.Paul’s disapproval of homosexuality somehow reflects Jesus’ or God’s disapproval. That’s why I asked you if you could quote me any passage where Jesus denounces homosexuality.

All of St. Paul’s epistles addressed problems that were disrupting local Christian communities. In Rome and Corinth, the problem was not with homosexuality itself, but the disruption caused by keeping of slaves for sexual purposes, and passing them around within the church. In Rome, there was the additional problem of Christians slinking off to engage in pagan sexual rites, which could be of the same or opposite sex. In this respect, St. Paul’s pronouncements are grounded in some sort of practical principle, not some free-floating metaphysical notion of “sin.” In other words, with St.Paul, there is always an articulatable harm to the community associated with his notions of immorality.

I ask no less of you. If you are going to assert that homosexuality is “wrong”—and force me to live by a policy based on that premise—the least you can do is articulate which “Christian value” is at stake. Just because St.Paul seemed to have an objection to homosexuality 2,000 years ago doesn’t mean that that objection applies to day.

If you are going to ask me to endure the stigma of a second-class form of marriage for the sake of your “morality” you should be able to articulate what it is. Saying that morality is “psychological” says less than nothing. It implies that your “morality” is subjective and ungrounded. Likewise saying that it is “Entwined with ethical?” sounds even more vacuous. And “Conformance to some sort of social standard?” borders on the idiotic. There are all sorts of social standards to which one might conform—gender-appropriate behavior, etiquette, aesthetic standards, linguistic convention, etc., etc.—that have nothing to do with morality by anyone’s definition.

@Laureth: My explanation. (I did not intend for this to enter into a religious discussion but in order for me to better represent my side of the discussion, I was told to no longer use analogies and discuss my beliefs based on quotes and my interpretation of the Bible) According to the NT God no longer dwells among believers by residing in the temple (Jewish belief). Because of the Trinity, God now resides within believers by the acceptance of the Holy Spirit. His internal presence though calls for holiness on our part. Jesus demands that we do not sin, and that our sin has become separate from unclean things (in the physical/tangible sense). However, the NT redefines the terms “clean” and “unclean”. “Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean. This says exaclty what it means, what comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. So anything that comes from within including out of men’s hearts and minds come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, and arrogance. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.

The laws that you reference are ceremonial laws, laws that people could identify with back “then”. It’s important that Christians not simply do away with OT laws but to rather identify what that particular law meant back in the day, determine the difference b/n the initial audience, and the believers today, develop a Universal principle (something many Churches and the Evangelical Church has somewhat fell short on), correlate that principle with NT teaching, and then apply it. It is absolutely not my intention to cherrypick these laws to make my life easier. Trust me, there are plenty of laws that I could have broken to make my life a lot easier.

Does this make any sense to you Laureth. I truly want you guys to understand my logic whether you agree with me or not. Christians in general are considered homosexual haters by the mass population, and it is something I internally struggle with and how to get my views and points across with sounding like a homophobe, or a hater.

Critter, I can understand what you’re saying when you put it in a rational (well, as rational as religion gets) way. I understand that you feel that homosexuality is immoral for you. And even though you say you agree it’s not a choice, and you’re not against the idea of civil unions, you seem to be saying that even though you believe God put it in a person’s heart to be homosexual, it’s still a sin. Got it.

From your post just now, though, it sounds like sin is something between People and their God. It sounds like Jesus is saying, “Before you worry about what other people are doing, make sure you’re not sinning first.” And if you believe that homosexuality is immoral, then by gosh, you can be not-homosexual all you want. However, is it really your provenance to say what others can or cannot do, based solely on the relationship between you and your God?

Also, a quibbling point: if it is the things that come out of a man that make him unclean, then it is merely the homosexual thought and not the action that is a sin – am I getting this right? If the old ceremonial laws are no longer valid, but what is in your heart, then, like Hamlet said, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” Even if a person does not act on a homosexual thought – the thought alone is the sin… but they cannot choose the thought.

Quite a bind that God puts them in.

Critter: Fair enough.

Shouldn’t have replied to this thread while I was a bit agitated.
Found out my little niece is spewing stuff about Prop. 8
when she is much too young to understand it either way
and I think it’s because of the church she goes to.

@Laureth: ”Also, a quibbling point: if it is the things that come out of a man that make him unclean, then it is merely the homosexual thought and not the action that is a sin – am I getting this right?”

Matthew 5:28, Anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart”. Now does this mean that every time a man or woman has a lustful thought that he or she sins against God, and can one commit the sin of adultery without actually performing the act? Not really…..

James provides an argument for this. He said that every person is tempted to sin by the lure of his own evil desires but does not actually sin until the evil desire is conceived in the mind. Sin conceived in the mind leads to its completion (Don’t remember which verse this is?)

So what’s the difference between looking at someone with lust in your eye, and having evil desire conceived in your mind? It sounds rather like splitting hairs.

Well James tells you to reject these thoughts. That’s to say in my marriage if I saw some hot chick strolling down the street with tight pants and a tight shirt, it’s likely because of the way she is dressed that provocative thoughts would enter my mind. At the point if I no longer recognized that these thoughts were bad and I happened to embrace these thoughts, I would become sinful. It’s not simply that you have these thoughts but the fact that you embrace them or even support them by smacking her lovely lady lumps.

@laureth Fair enough. :-) I’m glad that the point found its way into the discussion, in any case.

@critter1982: I plead that you read this article and tell me what you think about its comments. I found quite a lot of interesting information in it, and I actually learnt a lot about Christianity and the Bible in general, even though I consider myself to be non-religious.

“I was told to no longer use analogies and discuss my beliefs based on quotes and my interpretation of the Bible”
I actually asked to please discuss your interpretation of the Bible, as it reveals more into the exact reasons why you believe that homosexuality is immoral.

Again, please read the article and tell me what you think. Try and read it with an open and neutral mind.

It’s good that we’re trying to figure out each other’s ideals, but that article contains a large amount of interpretational bias because it was written by a gay Christian. Now I know, it could be said that there is the same bias if written by a straight Christian. But still, either way, it’s comes down to interpretation. As in any passage or ideal in the Bible, one has to decide whether to believe his or her own interpretation, the interpretation of his denomination, or maybe the interpretation of the majority. It just depends.

@ chromaBYTE: That being said, I praise (lurve) you for working to see another side.

Sorry, folks, no gay marriage in Arizona.

I have to retract my earlier offer. Sorry. :^(

LOL @ that ridiculous article. That article was no different than an Islamic extremist taking passages from the Quran out of context to justify their deviant behavior and support their own interests. How lame is that…

Right, because that’s not what you’re doing at all…

(taking passages out of context to justify your own hatred)

If nothing else has come out of this thread, I’ll bet you now have first hand knowledge of what they’re “really afraid of”, now don’t you, Monty? ;)

Now that Proposition 8 has passed (dammit), and similar laws in other states did, too…

Who will join me in an effort to turn all legal marriage into civil unions (or some other generally agreed upon term)? If the damn word “marraige” is so freaking important to the religious right, why don’t we just let them have it? If all legal contracts pertaining to romantic partnerships were called something else, the word would eventually lose it’s power and meaning. Marriage would come to mean a strictly religious ceremony, with no legal rights tied to it.

Note that I do not mean to imply something separate but equal. I mean all of us, gay or straight, would have the same name for our legally sanctioned life partnerships.

I’ve been on that boat for years…

Likewise. I’m not really comfortable with the government presiding over marriage; augustlan’s solution would fix that.

Ok, so now…how exactly do I get involved in this, and make it happen?

No flippin’ clue.

I asked the collective. I hope the wonderful people here will have some ideas!

@augustinian,

“Who will join me in an effort to turn all legal marriage into civil unions (or some other generally agreed upon term)?”

I don’t see any practical way of accomplishing this, so I propose something more direct and to the point:

If Christians are willing to deny me the dignity of being treated as an equal by forcing me to accept a lesser form of marriage on the basis of their beliefs, then I am no longer willing to respect the legitimacy of their beliefs.

Christians have demonstrated by their recent actions that they are willing to use the power of the state to marginalize and shame homosexuals. In so doing, they have demonstrated that their true aim is to turn this country into a theocracy. They have shown their complete lack of regard for the separation of Church and State—and their contempt for the values of a democratic society—equality, tolerance, privacy, freedom of conscience, and respect for human rights. In this respect, Christians have demonstrated that they are both immoral and un-American.

Accordingly, I commit myself to denouncing anti-gay Christians as both un-Christian and as enemies of our democratic society. I commit myself to exposing them as fascists, unworthy of our nation’s tolerance and respect. I commit myself to exposing their hostility to science, reason and reality. I commit myself to exposing their intellectual dishonesty, and the immorality of their irrational, divisive, superstitious, irresponsible and ridiculous beliefs. I further commit myself to driving them out of politics, defunding their political organizations, debunking their propaganda, publicizing their scandals, and generally protesting any public display or expression of their beliefs.

What I propose to do to them is, essentially, what they are trying to do to me; namely, render them politically impotent and invisible in society. I welcome anyone who cares to join with me in this endeavor.

@Monty: While I see your points entirely, my initial reaction to your proposal is that it may do more harm than good. It may make the GLBT community even “scarier” to those people, who would then just dig in even harder. The other thing to remember is that not all Christians (or only Christians for that matter) feel that way! The vocal minority is heard from much more often than the silent majority. Of course, as a straight woman, I certainly have less vested in this change than you do, and would defer to whatever path the GLBT community decides on. I truly want to do whatever I can to right this wrong. It offends my sense of justice and fairplay – it offends my morality – to see one segment of our population singled out and made to feel “less than”. I’m going to have to give it some more thought, though.

And then the Christians will point and say, “See? We were right at denouncing these homosexuals as the beginning of the end of society. They don’t love God and they shouldn’t be tolerated.”

I know it’s easy for me to say as a white male that patience and vigilance are what is necessary, but I truly think that is the quickest path to equality. I live in a big city where it’s perfectly OK for straight couples and their kids to go to the gay pride festival, where no one is bashed, where no one is ridiculed for holding their same sex partner’s hand, etc. The hardest part about acceptance is familiarity…in your bigger more urban areas, these kinds of things don’t fly as well, because people are used to homosexuals integrated into society. It’s your areas where it’s just not all that commonplace (on the surface, as a percentage I’m sure rural communities have just as many homosexuals as urban areas), it’s sadly kind of a self repeating cycle. People don’t come out of the closet because they don’t feel they can because they’re not accepted in smaller communities, and the smaller communities are never forced to accept them because they don’t make themselves known, because they’re afraid.

I think the election of a black President doesn’t heal all of our racial wounds, but it does reflect on the progress of our society. And as we know, liberals of all stripe tend to do much better around the major population centers and not as well in the rural areas…it’s because people are inherently afraid of change and how it will affect them. The best way to make this change is to force them into it. But I think what the real issue is, and where I agree completely with Augustlan (well I agree with everything Augustlan says, but especially here), it is offensive to my morality that we discriminate against people and deny them certain rights to which EVERYONE should be entitled. To me it’s a civil rights issue as I said before. But I think the problem is, if you’re not hit upside the head with it every single day, you can ignore it, you can shut it out, and you never get beyond the “it’s just plain wrong stage” to the stage where people can actually see how real and good people are hurt by laws like this. I don’t think the majority of people who vote against these laws are people who hate gay people, I think the majority just have been led to believe it’s wrong, or it’s gross or whatever, and the problem becomes that when they’re able to shut it out of their consciousness (made much easier when homosexuals stay “in the closet”) they don’t have to deal with the fact that people are being denied survivorship rights and such based solely on something they have no control over.

I think education is what is necessary here, and you can’t present it like sitting in class, I think it has to come in forms that people will choose to partake in, like popular culture…movies and TV. It may sound trite, but I think things like Will and Grace or Queer Eye actually built a great deal of mainstream acceptance that wasn’t there before (I mean when Ellen kissed Laura Dern on her sitcom, Dern was blackballed from Hollywood for 4 years, and that was in the 90s…now Ellen is married to a woman…well was, anyway).

We keep pushing forth by making it more commonplace in our culture, and more and more people will be receptive to the message that these types of positions are inhuman. Then as the youth achieves voting age and the folks who are set in their ways die off, you’ll see a sea change in regards to acceptance of sexuality like we’ve seen in regards to acceptance of race. At that time, these laws will begin to be struck down. But remember, progress HAS been made and continues to be made, but no civil rights movement can come without setbacks. Though I feel deeply for you, I don’t think radicalizing the issue is going to do anything but hurt some innocent people. Remember, the religous right is a fringe element in our society, it’s not the majority.

Thanks, Dale…I’m blushing!

There are some Christians who don’t hate. There are some (no matter how few) who legitimately just see homosexuality as a sin. I know that doesn’t sound tolerant either, but it means no hate.

In the same way that lying is wrong and isn’t allowed in a court of law, Christians see homosexuality as wrong and vote against a homosexual marital union. Again, I know this doesn’t sound much better than those who are intolerant and filled with hate, but I assure you that this is different.

For example: I have done many things wrong in my life and have even lived in sin for a pretty long period of time. (I understand that some people wouldn’t view what I did as sin, but I’m assuming Christian values here.) I was living in sin but still carrying on my life with people treating me well—in this same manner is how a tolerant Christian should treat a homosexual (a normal person committing a sin against God just like every other human).

Because of this similarity, other than the governmental restrictions (the same ones as lying, etc.), homosexuals should not be treated any differently.

I tried to say that as accurately as I could, but if any of it sounded intolerant or harsh, it was just because it’s written down and has no body language or tone along with it. None was meant to be argumentative.

Well, I’m sure it’s true that there are many who follow the “love the sinner, hate the sin” line of reasoning. While I understand that you are not being hateful, that is not good enough. The thing is, you (in the general sense) are attempting to legislate your version of what is immoral (or a sin). I think it’s pretty widely accepted that lying in court is wrong. Murder? Stealing? Ditto. Those things do affect other people negatively. However, we do not all agree that being homosexual is wrong. It does not have any demonstrable negative affect on anybody else. By denying them the same rights we have, you are having a negative effect on other people. This country is not bound by biblical law, nor should it be.

’@Monty: (I just can’t stay out of this conversation) To your comment, ”If Christians are willing to deny me the dignity of being treated as an equal by forcing me to accept a lesser form of marriage on the basis of their beliefs, then I am no longer willing to respect the legitimacy of their beliefs.”

I think that you are choosing to fight your battles with the wrong group of people. If the US government is going to allow morality to be legislated I don’t see any reason why Christians wouldn’t base their vote on what they believe to be the truth, I don’t see any reason why atheists wouldn’t vote based on what they believe to be the truth, or homosexuals to vote what they believe to be the truth. Is this not the fault of the government for allowing citizens to even vote on a bill that regulates morality? If you truly feel that morality should not be regulated because it is in the eyes of the beholder, I don’t see how you can condemn Christians for what they believe and yet say nothing about the government which allows its citizens to impose their morality on society?

I was truly disappointed that South Dakota didn’t pass the ban on abortion (would have allowed abortion in cases of rape, incest, and health risks dealing with the mother). I don’t blame the people that voted against this bill as they have the right to vote one way or the other and I certainly don’t blame or ridicule their particular belief, and I absolutely won’t commit myself to denouncing pro-abortion citizens as enemies of unborn children (although some people do). IMO it’s the government that has failed me.

@chutterhanban: If people believe that homosexuality is immoral, then they have all the opportunity they want to not be homosexual (or to hide guiltily in the closet if they are). The big difference is that some people seem to want to legislate their morality so that other people are forced to live by those morals, even if they do not, themselves, have the same moral code. This is the part that I do not understand. Moral codes are between people and whatever their deity is (or, in my case, is not).

I do not believe in God, because I see that as a misguided belief. I do not want to take away your belief, because making you believe my way would be wrong. My belief is for me only. However, other people think that their morals are for the whole world, and will not be happy until everyone shares their belief. Why can’t they leave well enough alone?

quote from critter1982: ”If the US government is going to allow morality to be legislated I don’t see any reason why Christians wouldn’t base their vote on what they believe to be the truth.”

@ augustlan, laureth: That sentence summarizes what I was trying to say much better than I did. It’s just my vote.

Thanks, critter.

Why do we legislate? In particular, why do we feel it necessary to ban behavior that the majority of the electorate or the majority of legislators find objectionable?

Usually, it seems to me we legislate in order to provide some benefit to voters. If you are going to pass a ban on gay marriage, then the voters or the legislators must believe this benefits society in some way.

Clearly a lot of folks see harm in gay marriage. It doesn’t matter that there is no scientific support for any of these alleged harms, if enough people believe it, that’s the way they vote it.

Some of the belief in harm seems to come from religious texts. These texts are seen to be divinely inspired by believers. For unbelievers, they are rules written by men that encapsulate the best of the knowledge of the time.

“Knowledge,” of course, is informed by more than investigations of natural phenomena. Even when informed by such investigations, many mistakes can be made, and harm found where it does not exist. So beliefs can be mistaken.

Unfortunately, when mistaken beliefs are written down in holy texts, it becomes a problem. Holy texts can not be wrong, by definition. Well, people who believe the texts are holy, and those of the rest of us who are influenced by such people are screwed, if the information in the holy texts is wrong.

The only way change comes, as Dale suggested, is over time. Succeeding generations are different. In time, a majority people may come to understand that gay marriage poses no harm, and that bans on it are ridiculous.

In my view, morality is an algorithm for determining the greatest good for the greatest number. Moral discussions focus us on long term future consequences of current actions. Moral directives are designed to push us towards actions that will achieve benefit for us in the future, as opposed to now.

Sometimes moral codes are mistaken in this goal. It will be corrected, eventually. And none of these arguments will hold water until a majority of people experience the lack of harm from gay couples. Sure, we can push the fact that what happens in private between consenting people doesn’t harm society. We can push principles of civil rights. But I believe the courts won’t rule in our favor until enough people believe the same thing. Enough may be less than half.

It may make people uncomfortable to think of what happens in private between consenting adults, and in fact, I believe that is the source of the belief in the immorality of of homosexuality. People believe is is abnormal and catching. As long as enough people believe that, homosexuals won’t have marriage rights. I have no idea how many is “enough.” But I do think we are at a tipping point.

@augustinian
@laureth
@dale

“my initial reaction to your proposal is that it may do more harm than good. It may make the GLBT community even “scarier” to those people, who would then just dig in even harder.”

You’ve got to be kidding! A group of Christians have just passed a constitutional amendment making me a second-class citizen in my own country. And now you are basically advising me (and other gay people) to just shut up and take it, because if we stand up for ourselves and call Christians out when they behave like fascists, it might make us seem “radical” and “scary” and provoke them to do something even worse! Let me ask you this: If you happened to see somebody being beaten in the street, would you advise them not to hit back because that might incite their attacker to beat them harder?

I’m sure you think your hearts are in the right place, but what you are really telling gay people is that when it comes to standing up to fascists and bullies, “You’re on our own.” Pursuing equality by being “patient” and “vigilant,” is really a prescription for doing nothing, as if the Christian right will simply die of old age. What you are really proposing to do is sit back and wait while the right-wing beats us black and blue. Apparently you don’t see the creeping theocracy they represent for the fascism that it is—or, if you do, you don’t think its ever going to get around to persecuting you.

Frankly, I’m not sure which is worse, the ignorant, superstitious haters who actively deny us equality, or the kindly sympathetic Christians who know better but let the haters get away with their mischief. The latter rationalize their lack of engagement by offer us lame demoralizing advice: Don’t be confrontational. Don’t make a fuss. Don’t speak truth to power. Don’t call out the right-wing for it’s dishonesty, or it’s contempt for democratic values, or it’s blithe indifference to other people’s rights. If Christians point and say, “See? We were right in denouncing these homosexuals.” it will be because they are standing alone in opposition.

@chutterhanban,

“There are some Christians who don’t hate.”

Just because you aren’t seething hateful intentions doesn’t mean you aren’t complicit in evil. Its quite possible for one group of people to injure another out of intellectual laziness, ignorance, cowardice, indifference, mindless conformity, or simply because they can. Just because you may think something is the right thing to do, doesn’t make it so.

Prop 8 was put on the ballot by a tiny minority of vocal haters. They reason the proponents chose a constitutional amendment was to get around the California Supreme Court, which had already overturned a law banning gay marriage on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. In other words, the Supreme Court had previously considered and rejected the religious argument, equating homosexuality with sin, in favor of the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law.

Proposition 8 doesn’t make homosexuality illegal; nor is it a referendum on “right” and “wrong” (even though it has been sold to Christian voters as such). The sole legal effect of Prop 8 is to single out and punish homosexuals for being homosexual by depriving them of a constitutional right. In this respect, the sole purpose of Proposition 8 is to serve as a vehicle of religious persecution—which is something I find, both unAmerican and unChristian.

“There are some…who legitimately just see homosexuality as a sin.”

People may sincerely believe that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn’t make it so. However, even if you could get everyone to agree that it was a sin, you can not deprive a person of a civil right for what is essentially a religious reason, especially not such a basic right as equal protection under the law. Even criminals retain the right to be treated equally under the law.

“In the same way that lying is wrong and isn’t allowed in a court of law, Christians see homosexuality as wrong and vote against a homosexual marital union.”

Homosexuality is not like lying. Lying is wrong because there is a moral basis for judging it to be so. Bearing false witness leads to injustice, and injustice leads to harm. Indeed, you can not have legitimate basis for judging something immoral or wrong without an element of harm. Otherwise, society would be riddled and hamstrung with irrational prohibitions and taboos.

Unlike lying, there is no element of harm in homosexuality and, hence, no legitimate basis for judging it to be immoral or wrong. Vague references to “Christian belief” are insufficient to establish such a basis—and any such claim would be inappropriate anyway, since it would be a violate the 1st Amendment prohibition against the establishment an official religion.

@critter
“If the US government is going to allow morality to be legislated I don’t see any reason why Christians wouldn’t base their vote on what they believe”

In theory, our Constitution specifically prohibits the government from favoring any particular religion. Unfortunately, the Constitution is enforced by the US Supreme Court, which consists of nine justices who depend on the Executive Branch (i.e., the “government”) to enforce its decisions. At the head of government, we have a Born Again Christian president who doesn’t particularly respect the Constitution, and who simply ignores the Justices whenever he feels like it. As a consequence, “the government” allows a lot of things that would normally be prohibited.

The Christian Right is taking advantage of the situation by pushing its own increasingly theocratic agenda. So, your question is basically asking is, “What’s wrong with that?” As if injecting religious notions of “sin” into law, and using the law to reward your friends and persecute your enemies is the right thing to do if “the government” lets you get away with it.

“If you truly feel that morality should not be regulated because it is in the eyes of the beholder, I don’t see how you can condemn Christians for what they believe?”

One of the problems with Christians injecting their notions of “sin” into civil law, apart from being totally offensive to everyone else, is that these intrusions have no moral basis. In other words, there is no element of harm, or any other element of compelling state interest. In the case of banning gay marriage, for example, the law serves no legitimate regulatory purpose, insofar as it promotes no identifiable social good and abates no identifiable harm. Its sole purpose, therefore, is to persecute homosexuals for morally baseless reasons.

Monty,

I for one never said shut up and take it. I for one never said not to stand up for yourself. And I never implied patience alone.

I said patience AND vigilance. Vigilance means when pushed, push back. It means never lay down and take the abuse. It means strive to educate. It means point out the idiocy of narrowmindness. It means use your brain and your words as tools. It means donating your time and your money to the effort. It means encouraging people to stand up for what is right. I would never let a bully beat up an innocent person…if the bully could clearly take both of us I would call in the authorities to intervene rather than leave two bloody corpses, but I would stand on the side of righteousness.

My point is, any civil rights movement takes time, because people don’t change overnight. But when you try to force people to change more quickly than they are ready to change, you create a counterproductive effect, where they shrink away further.

Again, I will use the analogy of Ellen Degeneres and her sitcom. When her character came out and kissed Laura Dern, it was a HUGE FUCKING DEAL. Some TV stations refused to carry the show, both the show with the kiss, and the show itself in some markets. Almost everywhere in the country, the show ran with a disclaimer. Religous groups bought up huge blocks of advertising, advising gays who were watching that there was hope for change (i.e. we can convert you to being straight). Laura Dern did not work in Hollywood for 4 years. Homosexuality was scary.

A few years later, we started to see more and more shows with gay characters, and the idea just became de rigeur. Today, they show women tongue kissing several times a night on Girls Gone Wild commercials. Showtime had two television shows solely about the sex lives of gays and lesbians. The world has become MORE accepting.

If you look at the parallels between discrimination against blacks vs. discrimination against homosexuals, you will see that acceptance is a steep hurdle to climb. Lynching a black man is not as commonplace as it once was…indeed it hasn’t happened in many years. Should black people be satisfied with that…HELL NO! Should they say, well we were owned 150 years ago, and now we have a black President, we should just cut our losses and shut up when someone calls us niggers? HELL NO.

Same with homosexuality. Gays and lesbians are killed too for being themselves…but when’s the last one you heard of? So, gays aren’t in any systematic way being killed, does that make systematic discrimination right? HELL NO. Does that mean gays and people who have gay friends and family or who just don’t think it’s right to deny people equal rights should shut up and take it? HELL NO. You misunderstand me completely.

My point is that though I support MUCH of what you say (I indeed try to expose hypocrisy wherever I see it NOW), I don’t think refusing to recognize or respect their religious beliefs, which is what you said, is the way to go. More specifically, this I can get behind…

“I commit myself to exposing their hostility to science, reason and reality. I commit myself to exposing their intellectual dishonesty, and the immorality of their irrational, divisive, superstitious, irresponsible and ridiculous beliefs. I further commit myself to driving them out of politics, defunding their political organizations, debunking their propaganda, publicizing their scandals,”

This, “and generally protesting any public display or expression of their beliefs,” this, “I am no longer willing to respect the legitimacy of their beliefs,” and this, “I commit myself to exposing them as fascists, unworthy of our nation’s tolerance,” are things I can not get behind. In short, I agree with words often (incorrectly) credited to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend the the death your right to say it.” In other words, what upsets me about what you say is that you are essentially stooping to their level, “they are taking a fundamental right away from me, so I in turn will seek to deny them their fundamental right to free speech.”

That is no way to win friends and influence people. I have no problem with you actively seeking to “marginalize” them, but I believe the best policy is to speak the truth, speak it loud and clear to anyone you can get to listen. Because here’s the thing. If people right now are 50/50 on the line in California, that means in the rest of the country they’re probably 60/40 siding with the morality police. If you come out and attempt to abridge their rights to free speech, you come off as an anti-american loon, and those in the 40 who are wavering peel away from the 40 and add to the 60, because now they have this vivid visual of this gay activist who wants to push a “radical agenda”. You and I and most intelligent thinking people know that isn’t true, but when we speak of the public at large, we have to accept that a large swath of it is neither intelligent nor thinking. Many people act only out of emotion…if you are the catalyst that angers them, they transfer that anger onto your movement and you actually LOSE ground.

If however you combat narrowmindedness with logic, hate with love, war with peace, and emotion with emotion (i.e. every time you hear someone who thinks it’s wrong for religious reasons, instead of chastising their entire belief system, which is going to make them shut down and turn against you, appeal to the better side of their Christian nature and assume they don’t realize the human cost of their beliefs…tell them about why denying you the same basic human rights that others have is inhumane and ask them what would Jesus do?).

I guaran-fucking-tee you that will bring about the change you seek more quickly than what you are proposing. It’s a subtle difference, but I’ll stand by you 100% in your fight to marginalize stupidity, hypocrisy, narrow-mindedness and hatred, but I will not stand by you at all in a fight to suppress expression of these things. Because every time these wrong ideas are expressed, it is another opportunity for you, me and everyone who stands with you in this fight, to prove why these ideas are wrong. And though there are some you may never convince, you must not seek to shut them up, because they are the ones providing you with the ammunition you need to win this war.

@ MontyZuma: I couldn’t disagree with you more. I just spent a lot of time sharing my opinion in an extremely tolerant fashion and you tore it to shreds. You should know how hard it is to share an opinion on this website. I don’t care if you’re a Christian, a homosexual, a Muslim, or, dare I say, CelticsFan… everyone deserves a voice.

Right, everyone deserves a voice, and those whose voices are on the side of righteousness and truth should use those voices to combat the ignorance of those who would seek to discriminate and hate. Tear the hatred to shreds with logic, don’t seek to silence its expression…that’s how you bottle it up and turn it into resentment.

Monty: I am quite offended when you imply that I think you should be patient, or lie down and take abuse. Look up ^ and see that I FULLY SUPPORT gay marriage rights, and am actively looking for a way to make it happen, as soon as possible! I was just trying to give you a little friendly (and logical) advice (ie: Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face). If what you propose hurts your cause, then what is the point in doing it? Protest, take to the streets, boycott companies that don’t support your cause, be very vocal in a LOGICAL way. I’ll be right there by your side. If, however, you become no better than those who would deny your humanity, I will let you do that by yourself. Meanwhile, I’ll still do everything I can to ensure that you get the right to marry. However, it may be a bit more difficult to demand your rights be enforced while you are actively trying to take away someone else’s.

@Monty: I think you know me well enough from that other site to know that I’m not saying “roll over and play dead.” I see many shades of grey between “play dead” and some of the actions you describe – although, having gone back and re-read them, I have to say that many seem appropriate.

I guess what I’m saying is this. If a cop, for example, “racially profiles” someone who is innocent and arrests them, there are many courses of action that the guy can take. Some, like going through the system and fighting the legal fight, are slow but responsible and make him look like an upstanding guy in a bad situation. However, if he punches the cop in the face, not only does that look really bad, but it erases from the public all sympathy for a man being wrongfully arrested.

By protesting Christian beliefs as invalid, by reacting in a warlike fashion, you are playing into their hands and they will be able to point you out to the rest of the public as someone who is an enemy. (I bet that lots of Christians would love to do this and actively look for examples to point out to their congregations.) The public will not have sympathy, they will not see you as someone who has been trodden upon, they will only see you as Black Panther-esque when they would prefer to deal with a MLKjr. No one doubts that black people were horribly discriminated against, but Malcolm X scared people worse, whereas MLK attracted more flies with honey, if you know what I’m sayin’.

California’s Proposition h8 was a sharp blow, but the gap between those who voted yea and nay was much closer than it’s been before. Attitudes are changing, even if they’re not changing as quickly as we would like. It’s true that justice too long delayed is justice denied, but what is the good of pressing for that justice when it only compels the opposition to amend all of their state constitutions against your cause? I think that rather than being a thorn in the side, the best course is to stand up and be that lavender-tinted “normal” person that is no longer someone they can hate because we have become friend, neighbor, and coworker rather than a demonized “other.”

Well said, laureth. Your arrest analogy was a great example of what I meant, too.

@ laureth: some of the best analogies I’ve ever seen on this site

To all,
I hope you appreciate that I can only react to what you actually say, not what you retroactively say you mean. Also, you should be aware that what you don’t say can speak just as loudly as what you do.

@dale
”I said patience AND vigilance. Vigilance means when pushed, push back.”

Actually, dale, vigilance means, “the act of carefully watching, or the condition of being alert.” It doesn’t mean pushing back when pushed, nor does it imply action of any kind.

“I never implied patience alone.” Well, dale, if you don’t talk about action, you sort of do. If you go back and carefully reread your post, the only thing you recommend besides “vigilance” and “patience” is “education.” But your description of education is conspicuously lacking any element of personal action. Indeed, it seems to refer back to patience, since education seems to mean society being educated by the like of Will, Grace, and Ellen.

“The best way to make this change is to force them into it. But..”

Ah yes, “But… I agree completely with Augustlan (well I agree with everything Augustlan says, but especially here)” where Augustinian says, “my initial reaction to your proposal [of unrelenting confrontation] is that it may do more harm than good.” And this, coupled with a conspicuous absense of any mention of support for my proposed campaign of confrontation.

“I for one never said shut up and take it. I for one never said not to stand up for yourself.”

No, you just “completely agreed” with someone who thinks it would do more harm than good.

@laureth,
Next laureth pipes up with, “And then the Christians will point and say, “See? We were right at denouncing these homosexuals as the beginning of the end of society. They don’t love God and they shouldn’t be tolerated.” which I interpret as being in strong agreement with Augustinian that I shouldn’t be confrontational because it might seem “scary.”

Now I know laureth, and I know that her heart is in the right place. But I also know that she doesn’t always think before she speaks, and that she has an alarming tendency to blurt out the worst possible thing at the worst possible time. In this case, she is the third person to pile on in agreement with Augustinian. So, I hope you guys can see how I might get the feeling that I am not being supported here, at all.

@chutterhanban,
“I just spent a lot of time sharing my opinion in an extremely tolerant fashion and you tore it to shreds.”

You presented me with a fallacious argument attempting to justify why you think its okay to take away my constitutional rights for your baseless religious reasons and you expect me NOT to tear it to shreds? Do you seriously think that just because you spent a few minutes writing your opinion down that you are entitled to automatic acceptance?

Now, I don’t dispute your right to have or express an opinon, but that doesn’t mean I can’t dispute the opinion itself. As soon as you “go public” with an opinion, you open it to public criticism and attack. In this case I find your argument illogical and your moral claims baseless. In my view, they are socially harmful and unworthy of further attention and respect.

My point about confrontation simply this: every time you open your mouth, I am going to examine what you say. And if I find your arguments deficient, either in logic or moral foundation, I am going to rip them to shreds and expose you to the world as the toxic twit that you are. If you don’t like it, come up with better arguments, or shut the fuck up.

@dale
“That is no way to win friends and influence people. I have no problem with you actively seeking to “marginalize” them, but I believe the best policy is to speak the truth, speak it loud and clear to anyone you can get to listen.”

Meek and docile silence is no way to win friends either. Dialogue is possible with those whom it is possible, but its quite clear from the present dialogue that people like critter and chutterhanban are totally immune to rational argument. If Proposition 8 has taught us anything it is that these measures pass because the silent majority votes for them. And the silent majority votes for them because they don’t think things through. So, the indicated remedy here is to drive a wedge between the True Believers and their fellow travlers. And that requires one to confront and expose the weaknesses of the True Believer’s arguments. If being a lightening rod for criticism antagonizes some True Believers, oh well, we didn’t start this war. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by being dferential or respectful of True Believer’s arguments, since to do so endows them with a credibility they don’t deserve.

@laureth
“By protesting Christian beliefs as invalid, by reacting in a warlike fashion, you are playing into their hands and they will be able to point you out to the rest of the public as someone who is an enemy.”

So, what are you saying here, laureth? It sounds a lot to me like “shut up and take it.” As you may recall from our time on Askville, Christians had no trouble bopping into discussion groups and proclaiming “Jesus is Lord” and then telling non-believers they were going to Hell—until some of us started kicking the snot out of them. Now they either stick to themselves or they dialogue respectfully, which is all I ask.

Also, as you may recall from our previous discussion on this very same question, the other side has absolutely no qualm about lying, distorting the relevant science, dragging in inflamatory red herrings, or simplymaking stuff up. They are absolutely batshit crazy and you might as well confront them because it is suicide not to.

It would be stupid to think we can win over people like CelticsFan by being respectful and nice. In getting confrontational, we provoke him into revealing what an absolute jerk he is—which, one hopes, will give pause to people who think they share common cause with him.

@dale,
“and generally protesting any public display or expression of their beliefs,” this, “I am no longer willing to respect the legitimacy of their beliefs,” and this, “I commit myself to exposing them as fascists, unworthy of our nation’s tolerance,” are things I can not get behind.”

Let’s substitute “Nazis” for “Christians” and see if you can get behind it then. In Germany, they don’t tolerate public displays of Nazi symbols or any rallies or public meetings of Nazi party members. Now, I realize that Christian aren’t as closely associated with fascism as the Nazis—but some of them are. There are Dominionists, successionist theocrats, neocons, members of the Christian Identity, white supremacists, and cross burners who use Christian symbols and a fractured form of doctrine as a cover for fascism. (If you need a reading list to be convinced that this is real, I can refer you to one.) Suffice it to say, that if I see a bunch of Christians having a rally to do another Prop 8, or to repeal a woman’s right to an abortion, I am going to picket. You may think me a loon, but I have already been victimized by these religious knuckleheads, and I’m not going to take it anymore.

I see absolutly no reason why I should accept the legitimacy of these views, or treat them with respect.

“what upsets me about what you say is that you are essentially stooping to their level, “they are taking a fundamental right away from me, so I in turn will seek to deny them their fundamental right to free speech.”

I don’t know who you are quoting here, but is sure isn’t me. I am not proposing to take away their right to free speech, so much as to neutralizing it by countering them with rational arguments. What I actually said was, “What I propose to do to them is, essentially, what they are trying to do to me; namely, render them politically impotent and invisible in society.” I don’t expect to actually accomplish this, but I do expect that the effort will cause them to more carefully consider what they say before they open their lying fascist mouths.

@all,
I’m glad to see that there is more sympathy and agreement than there first appeared, and I am truly appreciative of the support you do offer.

So what about the snowballing divorce rate among those privileged to partake in marriage? I thought marriage, under the churches definition, was a relationship bound in the eyes of god which could not be broken. How about the unprecedented numbers of young straight people today who make their babies and live together without the holy sanctions of marriage. Wasn’t that an abomination as recently as the 70’s?

@ Monty: Next time, worry about ripping on someone like CelticsFan, not me… he’s the only person in here who really doesn’t like you. Or at least, try to realize that I’m not him and I have no problem with you. I love that you have an opinion and that you infuse it with as much logic as possible, but it doesn’t help your cause to tell someone who did you no harm to ”shut the f*** up”

@deepseas72
What’s your point? I don’t know of any church that sanctions the things that you’re pointing out.

Montyzuma-

Reading your recent (double) post, I note that many of the people you shredded share your viewpoint.

They may not agree with you exactly, and they may not parrot the exact same viewpoint that you hold, but that is the beauty of diversity.

You are being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, and you are alienating friends.

I appreciate your point of view, but frankly, I’m tired of watching this belaboring, and won’t be following this thread any more. Good luck.

[Fluther Moderator:] Duplicate removed. :)

@ richardhenry: can you do something about removing MontyZuma? :)

You see, Monty…you get too radical and you alienate people who might be on your side, as evidenced by chutterhanban’s last comment. All I was trying to say….

@All in the “it’s immoral” camp: After thinking about your moral objections (based on your religion) over the last several days, I have something more to say.

There are many religions currently practiced right here in the United States. Many of them have moral objections to different things than you. Examples: Mormons do not smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or coffee, and do not eat chocolate. Jews do not eat pork, rabbit, lobster or shrimp – among other foods. In the strictest households, they must maintain 2 sets of dishes and pans, even 2 refrigerators in order to prevent mingling of meat and dairy products. Hindus do not eat beef. Some Christian sects prohibit music and dance. The list goes on and on.

Do you eat cheeseburgers? You’re violating Hindu and Jewish law. Ever have a beer, or a glass of wine? Violating Mormon law. Listen to the radio…maybe even boogie down? You get the point…we are all in violation of someone’s religious beliefs. The difference is, no one is trying to pass a secular law to make sure you can’t eat chocolate, bacon, or lobster. No one is trying to prevent you from dancing your heart out. No one is insisting that you buy an extra refrigerator.

Regardless of some other religion’s moral objection to a given practice, you are free to partake in it. It’s exactly the same thing. I urge you to really think about this. Look deep in your heart, and realize that your religion based moral beliefs should not a law make…especially one that marginalizes and hurts human beings.

@critter1982: “IMO it’s the government that has failed me.”
That’s the first thing you’ve said that I completely agree with. The government has failed you? You’re still allowed to marry.

“Certification of the results [of Proposition 8] will result in a change to California law, retroactive to November 5, restricting marriage rights to opposite-sex couples only.” (source)

November 5th was my 18th birthday….

@Knotmyday,

“You are being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational, and… frankly, I’m tired of watching this belaboring, and won’t be following this thread any more.”

Translation: “Your anger and pain are starting to bore me; so if you are not going to shut up, I’m going to leave.”

Let’s pass a constitutional amendment making your marriage illegal and see if you don’t have a few choice words to say about it.

@chutter,
What I said was, “I am going to examine what you say. And if I find your arguments deficient, either in logic or moral foundation, I am going to rip them to shreds and expose you to the world as the toxic twit that you are. If you don’t like it, come up with better arguments, or shut the fuck up.” In other words, “put up or shut up.”

But, given your powers of selective hearing, all you heard was, “shut up”—which suggests that, at some deep level, you recognize that you are incapable of making better, more rational arguments.

Indeed, upon being faced with that realization, your first impulse is to ask for my removal from the conversation (!)—a gesture which only goes to show your anti-intellectual, anti-democratic, and fascist-leaning sentiments. Let’s get real here: You were never sympathetic to my side in any of this, and you never will be, and the only thing that has changed is that things are now out in the open between us.

@dale,

“You see, Monty…you get too radical and you alienate people who might be on your side, as evidenced by chutterhanban’s last comment. All I was trying to say. . . .”

Yes, dale, I hear you loud and clear. Defending myself by offering a crisp rational rebuttal to chutterhead’s baseless and illogical argument is just “too radical” and “alienating” for such people to endure. I should therefore want to consider making less effective arguments—or no argument at all—so as not to risk annoying some blathering twit who gets up on his hind legs to opine how he thinks its okay to deny people equal protection under the law just because he happens to regard their private behavior as “sinful.”

Apparently, exposing the flaws in such people’s reasoning is “too radical” and “alienating”—but denying people their constitutional rights, reducing them to second-class citizens, and chucking our democracy in favor of a theocracy, somehow isn’t? After all, I’ve no reason to get upset here; no reason to make a fuss; certainly no reason to hurt people’s feelings by besting them in a fair debate. Yes, I read the subtext of your message loud and clear: “Just shut up and take it.”

And, to make matters worse, when chutter finally reveals himself for the fascist fellow traveler he is by calling for my removal, instead of coming to my aid and calling chutter out on the inappropriateness of this request, you dump on me. Instead of sticking up for me in any way, you reiterate your totally unsupportive and demoralizing advice, that I should not appear “too radical” by confronting my opponents in fair debate.

You call yourself a friend? Right at the moment I need you most—i.e., right when my opponent is seeking my removal from the powers that be—you say nothing about it. Instead of taking this opportunity to defend me, you turn on me and say, in effect, “See what happens when you try to defend yourself? You might want to consider not doing so.” That, my friend, is a stab in the back.

Chutter’s request is an attempted a mugging. (Actually, he is asking the Fluther cops or government to do it for him, since he is incapable himself.) And what do you do? Do you intervene on my behalf? No, you pile on.

In this, as in every case, what you don’t say speaks louder than what you do.

@augustinian,
Thanks for finally moving the conversation in a positive direction.

@ Monty:

1. If you’re so good at what you do, why did augustinian have to move the conversation in a positive direction? Couldn’t you have managed yourself?

2. I wish there were statistics that included things like a user’s ratio of “Great Answers” to all given answers. Yours would do nothing less than make me laugh out loud.

3. I think you should pack a few more letters at the end of your title—it gives you much more insight into life. I mean, let’s be real, I really don’t stand a chance against you, right?

@chutter,

1. Apparently Augustinian hasn’t moved the conversation in a more positive direction, since no one has answered her question (or mine for that matter). So now we are now back to you and your inane off-the-point snarkiness.

2. I notice that you have been a member since June 19th—about 4.5 months—and you have a score of 634. I’ve been a member since October 15th—about 3 weeks—and I have a score of 587 without even trying. (You could have looked this up before you shot your mouth off—but, hey, if you were smarter you might have thought of this and spared yourself the humiliating comparison.) For your information, my ratio of “Best Answers” on Askville is 86%, out of 131 questions.

3. I think your posts speak for themselves. In this last one, for example, your arguments are all personal ad hominems. In your previous post, you asked the moderator to remove me from the forum because, like the little fascist you are, you don’t really believe in freedom of speech, or in honest debate, so you look to the powers that be to enforce your point of view. If you had a rational argument to make, no doubt you would have made one. But, since you don’t the only thing you can do is make a fool of yourself.

Bee-jway, neen hen boo-tee-tyeh duh nan-shung!

hey look at me everybody! I’m a little fascist!!! I’m best friends with hitler and musselini!!! YAY!!

thanks, montyzuma, for helping me find my true identity!

A general note: When I use the terms “fascism” and “fascist” I am using them in their original precise descriptive sense, not as name-calling epithets. Since people seldom use these terms in their original meaningful sense, I offer the following as clarification:

“This may surprise most educated people. One of the more common government strategies today, especially in developing regions is fascism. Fascism is commonly confused with Nazism. Nazism is a political party platform that embraces a combination of a military dictatorship, socialism and fascism. It is not a government structure. Fascism is a government structure. The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.”

“Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state.”

“Until the Civil Rights act of 1964, many parts of the US were Republic for whites and could be considered fascist for non-Caucasian residents. Fascism promotes legal segregation in housing, national resource allocation and employment. It provides legal justification for persecuting a specific segment of the population and operates behind a two tiered legal system. These two tiers can be overt as it was within Nazi Germany where Jews, Homosexuals, Catholics, Communists, Clergy and the handicap were held to one set of rules and courts, while the rest of Germany enjoyed different laws.”

“Or it can be implied and held up by consensual conspiracy, (people know it is wrong but do nothing to stop it or change it. Through lack of action, they give consent), as it was in the deep South for African Americans and others of color. In Fascism, one segment of society is always considered less desirable, sub-human or second class.” (more)

As you can see, Proposition 8 creates a legal distinction which defines gays as separate and unequal from the rest of society—in fact, the proposition specifically attacks our equal treatment under the law. As such Prop 8 furthers the fascist agenda of the religious Right, with the tacit complicity of those who say and do nothing to oppose it. So, in this respect, I am using these terms advisedly.

Fascism has additional defining characteristics which are important to recognizing its early political manifestations. It is also strongly associated with religious fundamentalism. It should not be surprising that fascism can have both a political and a religious expression, because they both spring from an underlying anti-democratic sensibility.

@chutter: Your 3rd point, above ’I think you should pack a few more letters at the end of your title—it gives you much more insight into life. I mean, let’s be real, I really don’t stand a chance against you, right?’ kind of smacks of anti-intellectualism, which really doesn’t further your cause, either.

Yeah, I know. Probably shouldn’t have said that. But, it is true. It doesn’t matter how good anyone else’s argument is, Monty will be right because he has 4 graduate degrees. There’s no “beating” him. Plus, I was showing the thread to some friends and halfway got peer-pressured into responding like a 6-year-old.

Either way, my bad.

@MontyZuma: I know it’s incredibly easy to get angry at those who oppose us. But unfortunately lashing out in anger isn’t going to help our cause, it will most likely only hinder our progress and move their view of us to be even more negative. We must stand up for what we believe in. We should teach, but we should never silence. I know it’s incredibly difficult. You’re angry and frustrated. I’m angry and frustrated. We all are. But lashing out at other people’s beliefs so viciously sinks us down to their level.

To everyone that opposes gay marriage, I have a hypothetical situation for you.

Say I have had a partner for 6 years. We love each other very much. We have our own house home. We’re thinking about kids sometime in the not too distant future.

Now say that the whole entire decision about whether my life partner and I are allowed to marry has been handed down to you. No one else, the decision rests in your hands.

Please tell me directly, to my face, why you are not letting us get married. And while you are telling me this, think about what you are feeling. If you feel one ounce of uncertainty or uneasiness in your decision, think about why you are feeling this.

Please give us your response and your feelings on your answer.

@chromaBYTE,

“But lashing out at other people’s beliefs so viciously sinks us down to their level.”

Please explain to me how you think I have been vicious.

And then at which point I descended to their level.

I’ve known Monty since I came online over on Askville a year and a half ago. For whatever reason, the first questions I was interested in were questions that he and a couple of other folks who answered rather completely answered. My first impression of this world was of a very exciting intellectual discussions with people who actually researched their answers.

SO I thought that’s how it was with everyone. I prepared long answers and was prepared for lengthy discussion.

As it happened, I got that sometimes, and other times I didn’t. I didn’t realize that these places were also about social networking. I didn’t realize there were many folks who had not been trained as researchers.

I learned, though. While I’m usually on the same side of an issue as Monty (as I am here), there were times when we didn’t see eye to eye. I’ve also argued with him about strategy, in the past.

I think a lot of people don’t understand what happens when a person writes at length, like Dale and Monty. Maybe a lot don’t even read the whole thing. I know I don’t. It’s just too much, and I don’t have enough time.

There are times when I enjoy detailed discussions. There are times when it’s too much. There are times I’m glad people are advocating strongly for what I believe is right. I’ve seen this question in several places, and it seems to me like nobody gets it. We talk round and round, usually about religion, but since few people can see beneath religion to what gives rise to religion (they don’t feel a need to look past “God” because somehow it seem sacriligious to understand where these ideas come from), these talks don’t get anywhere.

So it makes me sad to see both acrimony and lack of serious scientific investigation. It seems to me that feelings matter more than science. Emotions are stronger than intellectual curiousity.

Maybe it’s a generational thing. Each succeeding generation is smarter, learns more, and is more capable. I just don’t see how there can be any progress when you can’t even get people to see what the issues are.

@daloon,
This is a good opportunity to give credit where credit is due: I borrowed this question from daloon, who first asked it on Askville about 4 months ago. There was a heated debate with several waves of debaters, with over 1,300 responses in all. I must say that the caliber of discussion is higher over here, but the argument tends to bog in the same places, and for much the same reasons.

Its difficult for people to listen to someone who questions deeply held beliefs and assumptions they have taken for granted for most of their lives. The mind seems to unconsciously throw up defenses; people tend to hear only what they want to hear; they dismiss inconvenient facts; and they become strangely immune to the compelling logic of arguments. Indeed, if you are too good in deconstructing people’s assumptions and rebutting their belief-based arguments, they tend to react as if they have been subject to a vicious personal attack. And their first impulse is to silence you.

The temptation is to hold back in order to be conciliatory. But there is a dilemma in doing so: how can you prevent the world from sliding into fascism when the fascists themselves don’t even know that they are espousing fascism? How do you counter people who blithely advocate beliefs and actions that are outrageously intolerant and disrespectful as if it were the thing to do? How do you complain, when making a fuss only makes the problem seem to be about you—since, after all, you’re the only one who seems upset? If you respond in kind, then you are accused of sinking to their to their level. And if you do nothing, the juggernaut rolls on.

It is a genuine dilemma. How do you stand up to fascism, when people no longer recognize fascism when they see it—and who are in denial about advocating it? How do you cut through the the short attention spans, the intellectual dilettantism, and the glib and superficial cliches that people think in?

One note on acrimony, none felt here. But I will stick by everything I’ve said. I see this as a non productive discussion at this point and was not about to add anything more to the fray, however, I want to point out that in particular my comment in response to chutterhanban’s quip about banning Monty I think spoke for itself when you saw Monty’s response to it. To accuse me of allowing facism to succeed makes Monty in my opinion (and only in this particular case mind you) seem completely off his nut. Clearly the quip about doing something to ban Monty was a joke and meant in good humor (hence the little smiley face). I see nothing “calling for your removal,” Monty, and my point is, was, and will continue to be that you are becoming what you hate. You are actually talking about not respecting peoples’ rights to free expression or free exercise of their religion. If we start taking away people’s rights to be ignorant, your comments will be the first ones removed in my not so humble opinion. You repeat that I’m saying to shut up and take it, and if you could read my comments with a rational mind and not a pissed off, overly emotional mindset, you’d see I’m 100% on your side, yet you’ve painted me as a facist sympathizer who thinks that you have no right to express yourself. Nonsense, and as I know you’re not that incredibly stupid enough to believe that, I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, and stop trying to purse my words so that you can continue to work yourself up into a bigger and bigger tizzy so you will have some more verbal invective to hurl my way. If that is not possible for you to do, then let me simply start over.

My position is as follows:

I believe gay rights are the civil rights/human rights and should be inalienable…i.e. all humans should have equal rights.

I believe we should all do what we can to fight injustice, ignorance and hatred.

I believe we need to educate some and marginalize others.

I believe we need to do this by being keenly attentive and by taking APPROPRIATE action at APPROPRIATE times.

I do not believe we will solve anyone by “giving them a taste of their own medicine.” Indeed, I think this is injurious to the larger cause as it alienates those who might be sympathetic and paints YOU as the more radical party, even though YOUR ideas make more sense.

I believe the response you are getting from those of us who are on your side, and your attacks against those who support you, just not in the way you want us to support you (because we see you going in a counterproductive direction we believe you may later regret having taken), which is leading you to be combative, hostile and shrill. If you are turning off your most ardent supporters, imagine the PR impact you are having on those who have yet to pick sides.

Again, not angry with you, just feel that you are blowing our differences out of proportion and allowing your perception to poison the well in a way that is alienating people (myself included). Doesn’t mean I support your cause any less, or that I don’t still respect your opinion, I just think you’re kinda going off the deep end, and I think it’s a function of how close you are to the issue.

Which leads me to conclude this…I respect your opinion and your right to articulate it, even though I think at times you’re wrong and unfair to me in your assessment of me. Just like I respect the opinions and right to articulate their opinions of other people who might spew ignorance in your direction. I think it behooves each of us to fight back against such ignorance with the truth. I will not however be convinced that we should become facists ourselves and try to clamp down on their rights to express their ignorance (to paraphrase Mark Twain, “it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”). If you and I and everyone committed to the cause of social justice stands up and presents the factual, articulate and well reasoned counter point to the ignorant, hate filled point of those on the wrong side of history, we will win this war more quickly than if we stoop to their level. I believe history backs me up on this one.

But that said, some lessons we must learn for ourselves, and this may be one of those lessons for you, Monty.

Good day.

And one last thing I’d like to point out less you decide to try to parse my words yet one more time.

You look at CelticsFan’s original posts, and look at the response I typed and tell ME that I’m saying you should just shut up and take it. In the war for hearts and minds, well, I got 7 great answers…by far the most for this thread…it means my arguments have struck a chord with far more people than those on the other side. This is what happens when prejudice and ignorance try to argue their point, and reason and logic point out why it’s bullshit. I’m trying to lead by example and keep you from going a direction that won’t win you any friends or influence any people. And I did not need to deny CelticsFan his rights to express his ignorance, I let him spout it and put him in his place. A subtle difference, but one if you understand what I’m articulating, I think you’ll see how you’ve misconstrued what I have been trying to teach you, grasshopper.

@ dalepetrie: I’ll say on behalf of myself and anyone else who agrees… we really appreciate your level-headed answers. That’s what I like to see!

@MontyZuma:
Please explain to me how you think I have been vicious.
And then at which point I descended to their level.

Your earlier post:
I further commit myself to driving them out of politics, defunding their political organizations, debunking their propaganda, publicizing their scandals, and generally protesting any public display or expression of their beliefs.

Isn’t this exactly what they attempt to do to us? I can’t see how repeating their hostile actions back at them is going to help our situation at all. We’re trying to promote tolerance.
Are they going to be more accepting of us if we tell them that, because of their beliefs, they’re not worthy of our tolerance and respect? No. It will only create more hostility between the two opposing sides and make things worse.
We don’t want to fight them. We want to turn them over to our side. There is a massive difference.

I commit myself to exposing their hostility to science, reason and reality. I commit myself to exposing their intellectual dishonesty, and the immorality of their irrational, divisive, superstitious, irresponsible and ridiculous beliefs.

I believe this is the “right” way to go. However, telling them that they’re stupid and wrong isn’t the way to go about it. Try not to say “you’re wrong and I’m right”. Try and say “have you looked at it from this point of view?”.

What I propose to do to them is, essentially, what they are trying to do to me; namely, render them politically impotent and invisible in society.

Invisible to society? Like how we are/used to be? No one deserves that. At all.

Monty, we’re on your side. But we don’t want to fight. We don’t want to argue. We want peace. Acceptance and tolerance is not going to be achieved by persecuting those we are against in exactly the same way that they persecute us.
We need to stand up for what we believe in. But not as a weapon to silence other’s beliefs. Otherwise, as I said before, we become as narrow-minded and low as the ones we are up against.

Before you stated that “Pursuing equality by being “patient” and “vigilant,” is really a prescription for doing nothing, as if the Christian right will simply die of old age.”
I don’t interpret “patience” to mean do nothing. Social acceptance is a long process. Augustlan is advising everyone not to expect a quick fix, that will change people’s opinions overnight. Narrow mindsets can only be changed by constant vigilance, with education, discussion and debate. Because this is a long process, we must be patient, but we should never do nothing.
After the first women’s rights meeting in the United States was held in 1848, 70 years would pass before women would be allowed to vote.
Debates about same-sex marriage have only really begun. Yes, we have a long road ahead of us. But it will come. We just need to wait for the rest of the world to catch up.
In the meantime, we’re going to need all the patience we can get.

PS: We’re up to 204 responses. Has to be a fluther record.

@chromabyte,

“I can’t see how repeating their hostile actions back at them is going to help our situation at all. We’re trying to promote tolerance.”

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. But we are not dealing here with people with whom we have a simple disagreement. We are dealing with people who do not believe in tolerance—who are, in fact, hostile to the entire range of democratic values—tolerance, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, self-determination, diversity, human dignity, due process, equality under the law—which, as proud “conservatives,” they lump together and sneeringly deride as “liberalism.”

I repeat, this is not some idle difference in philosophy. We not dealing here with people who are interested in respecting the rights of people they regard as “sinful,” or listening to what they have to say. We are dealing with people who have already made up their minds that homosexuals are inferior. This is not some idle chat room debate; they have crossed the line by taking political action. We are now engaged in a cultural war. To deny this by pretending that “we’re all just good friends here,” only makes the war more one-sided than it already is.

We are dealing with people who are politically mobilized, who really do see themselves as engaging in a war of “good” against “evil.” They have already spent $20 million on it, and they see themselves as vindicated and “blessed by God” by their victory. These are not people who are interested in dialogue or being won over to other points of view. If anything, they now feel emboldened at having set a precedent which seems to validate their sense that it is perfectly alright to use civil law as an instrument of religious persecution.

We are dealing with people who have strange irrational beliefs, and who are not about to question these beliefs no matter how compelling one’s reason or facts. These are people who, if not checked, will not feel the slightest compunction about imposing an authoritarian theocracy on the rest of us. We are not dealing here with people who can be won over by rational persuasion. These are not people who are content to practice their religion in private, these are people who believe that they hold God’s own Absolute Truth and, as a consequence, believe they have an evangelical mandate to proselytize. As we have seen in this discussion, they see absolutely no reason not to force their beliefs on the rest of us. We are dealing with people who don’t just have a theocratic agenda, but who have already taken concrete steps to put it into effect.

Dialogue only works when people acknowledge that there are other valid points of view besides their own. Here, we dealing with people who absolutely convinced that they are right, and who accordingly despise pluralism, diversity and even the idea of dissent, which they regard as “against God.” Despite their patriotic lip-service to “America” and “Democracy,” their actions show their hostility to democratic values.

“Are they going to be more accepting of us if we tell them that, because of their beliefs, they’re not worthy of our tolerance and respect? No. It will only create more hostility between the two opposing sides and make things worse.”

These are not people who are open to persuasion, these are people who have already made up their minds, and who are acting on their beliefs. They are hostile to everything America stands for, and yet they persist. Why, I ask myself, are they able to carry on without the slightest sense of embarrassment?

Part of it has to do with being True Believers and being psychologically incapable of self-examination and self-doubt. The rest of it is because we let them. Nobody calls them on the stupidity and unacceptability of their beliefs.

“telling them that they’re stupid and wrong isn’t the way to go about it.”

This doesn’t mean you have to be stupid in the way you go about it. Obviously, you want to appeal to rational norms, cultural mores and democratic values in showing how these beliefs are stupid and unacceptable. And, of course, you don’t want to be such a jerk about it that it distracts from your critique. But you are under no obligation to respect people for holding despicable views.

Suppose these were White Supremacists who had just enacted a law making it legal to treat Blacks as inferior. Would you accept their rationalizations and racist beliefs as legitimate and worthy of respect? Or would you step up and denounce them as illogical, despicable and un-American whenever and wherever you could, until the whole society was aware of why such views are unacceptable and why.

Why do you suppose that people are embarrassed to utter racist beliefs in public? Do you think its because they are no longer racist? Because nice liberals won them over by being so doggone nice? Or do you think its because we, as a society, refuse to tolerate such views, and demand the firing of someone who gratuitously calls Black women, “nappy-headed hos”? Are sexist beliefs any less objectionable?

“Try not to say “you’re wrong and I’m right”. Try and say “have you looked at it from this point of view?”.

Do you really think the problem is that they haven’t heard the liberal Gospel of be nice to people regardless of race, sex, religion, national origin or sexual orientation? If so, then you are committing the same sort of error as those bible thumpers who ring your doorbell and ask you if you’ve heard that Jesus has died for your sins. This is all stuff they know and reject as liberal claptrap. So, your chances of converting them are about the same as a Jehovah’s Witness winning somebody over in a doorstep conversion.

I have no trouble with people holding private views. But, once they express their views in public, they are no longer private. The reason people express their views publicly is to elicit other people’s validation. They want to know if their views fall within the bounds of normality and acceptability. In this respect, one must be zealously vigilant and point out those views which anti-democratic and unacceptable. People have a right to seek vindication through public opinion, but they don’t have a right to automatic acceptance and respect for their views, because there are some views that are incompatible with a tolerant democratic society.

“Invisible to society? Like how we are/used to be? No one deserves that. At all. ... [W]e don’t want to fight. We don’t want to argue. We want peace. Acceptance and tolerance is not going to be achieved by persecuting those we are against in exactly the same way that they persecute us.”

I can understand and, to some degree, respect your desire to make peace. But, we’ve just been politically raped! And the rapist is not only just at large, but thumping his chest in gloating triumph. And now, we are getting all sorts of advice from our “friends” about how we shouldn’t be dressing so provocatively. Do you get what I am saying? The other side already thinks of gays as pussies. There’s no point in reinforcing this stereotype by being so agreeable and conciliatory. Especially, since, in a war of words, we are more than capable of holding our own. We should be pushing back with, well, a vengeance.

Once again, you don’t have to be stupid in the way you go about this. Most of the people we will be encountering in forums like this are fellow travelers—i.e., people who didn’t personally instigate Prop 8, but who nonetheless supported it because they got swept up in a wave of emotion and didn’t think it through. Naturally, one will want to take a measured case-by-case response, but I see no to treat these people as if they were coming from a principled position. That would imply they thought the matter through; that they weighed their religious beliefs against our democratic values and made a conscious decision. The religious rationalizations in favor of Prop 8 so far have been contemptible—not simply because they are against my interest—but because there is no rational or moral basis for them. If people are not ashamed for holding such views, they should be made to feel ashamed, because it is simply unAmerican to bring religion into politics.

“Narrow mindsets can only be changed by constant vigilance, with education, discussion and debate.”

Not when you are dealing with fascism, and that is what we are dealing with here.
You not only have to push back, you have to push back as though your life depends on it, because it does. Tepid responses like “patience” and “vigilance” just don’t cut it. You have to be willing not fight people who are locked into a fascist mindset, since they are not amenable to reason; they are not capable of intellectual honesty; and do not subscribe to tolerance, human rights, or fairplay. Such people should be made to feel ashamed for openly expressing an opinion that homosexuals should be denied equality under the law because some people regard their behavior as “sinful.” I am not saying that people don’t have a right to their opinions, they just don’t have a right to unconditional acceptance and respect.

“This is not some idle chat room debate; they have crossed the line by taking political action. We are now engaged in a cultural war.”

You’re delusional.

Not to mention you talk too much.

@chutter
It’s not as if Monty is the first to say it. Wikipedia even has an article on the term. I’ve seen it most often used by evangelicals. iMonk talks about “the culture wars” a fair amount (in a very negative way, of which I highly approve). I consider myself a conscientious objector.

interesting. i love me some wikipedia :)

Well, here’s the deal.

In a “normal” election year, prop 8 would have passed in California.

It did not pass this time, not because of the right wing evangelicals (who make up 10% of the electorate), but because of an increased African American vote, a function of Obama being the candidate.

White voters opposed prop 8 by narrow, but significant margins.

African Americans supported prop 8 by 2 to 1 margins.

A white liberal may ask, “how can a repressed minority vote in repression for another minority?”

I certainly wondered that.

And I got my answer, via this article in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cannick8–2008nov08,0,3295255.story

It is written by a black lesbian, who I believe voted against prop 8 herself, but who, despite spending 2 years getting out the vote for Obama and getting African Americans in the most impoverished areas of LA to register and vote, did nothing to really say, “and while you’re at it, why not vote no on prop 8?”

Why wouldn’t she want to push that. Well, she…like many of the people she was reaching out to, see gay marriage as a boutique issue for, and funded by, white gays. They are actually offended when whites assume they can just pull out the “civil rights” card and assume that blacks will equate what they have gone through (and are still going through in terms of wage disparity, discrimination based on a difference they CAN’T hide in a closet, and via massive social issues such as poverty and HIV which they consider a greater priority).

As it turns out, whites in charge of the no on prop 8 seem to have taken it for granted that blacks would just fall in line based on this argument, and they did not go into the communities where blacks live and face real and much more dire issues than whether or not they can get married.

It’s all about perspective. And the yes on Prop 8 people DID reach into these communities. And they equated gay marriage with attacks on their religious rights. Which illustrates I think an important point, in how this is best handled.

Do you a) attack the religion and refuse the narrowminded their rights to even spew this garbage, or do you

b) Combat this garbage by reaching into the same communities they reach into and countering it with facts which will make their “information” look ridiculous in comparison.

I opt for b, because in my mind, particularly when we’re talking about issues that are tied up into religion, if you attack the religion, you lose the people you’re reaching out to in the first place.

I agree we are engaged in a cultural war but in 2000 and 2004 we were losing, and despite the ground lost, I contend that in 2008 more ground was gained in more important places and we should leverage our wins rather than carpetbombing where we’ve lost.

Losing Prop 8 sucks, but you know what, this is one state you’re talking about. There are many other states that have successfully pushed this direction. A few have pushed back. Eventually, the issue of jurisdiction will come up. This will be fought at a federal level. And if we worry more about persuading the persuadable than about eliminating the unpersuadable, I think we’ll win the war. That is, find the GOOD people out there and appeal to their better nature, because there are more GOOD people who are supporting BAD policy because they don’t understand the proper context, because the right face of the issue has not yet been presented to them in a way that connects to them on a human level. It may seem the more passive approach, but I’d argue it’s more an offensive strategy, while seeking to eliminate dissent is more of a defensive strategy and has a much smaller upper limit on progress.

@ MontyZuma
Sorry I couldn’t have chimed in sooner, but if I could hit “great answer” more than once for you, I would have

@ dalepetrie
I find your argument about not having “reached into” in the Latino and African American communities manipulative and deceitful. Let’s face it, the leaders of both the yes on 8 and no on 8 are all white men. I find what the yes on 8 campaign did by “reaching out” to the Latino and Black voters was use them as pawns in the little game they decided to play. They did not go out into those community to educate them into making an informed decision, they played to their religious believes and fed them lies and propaganda. I was personally the recipient of a yes on 8 voice mail in Spanish which did just that. I don’t think the right answer is to then, as another group of affluent white males, to go into the same community and manipulate them into voting no on 8.

It’s already been said that the no on 8 campaign didn’t do enough, fast enough and I agree. But in our defense, we ALREADY HAD OUR RIGHTS. It was stupid for us to assume that people would recognize that and let us be. We misjudged the yes on 8’s willingness to run a dirty campaign, but that is what they did. And they did not “reach out”, they manipulated an already marginalized group for they own ends.

PS: I’m adding Latino because they also in large part voted yes on 8.
PPS: I’m an not an affluent white man, but could play one on TV. ;-)

Noon – first of all, it’s not MY argument, read the article. The problem though as the author describes it is that it seemed to many in the black community that this was an issue at the very fringe of the civil rights movement, not a priority, and that the communities she visited (south LA, Watts, really impoverished areas) saw NO mailers, no visits, no outreach of any kind other than TV advertisements, while they did get fliers and visits from the Yes camp. I wasn’t there, I don’t know, but she also claimed that it often seemed that the face of this movement was white, and they seem to only come to the minorities when they need something, never in a sort of cooperative way. Like for example, No on 8 could have gone into these neighborhoods to create voter registration drives, at which time they could have said, “we’re helping you do this to help you overcome poverty, HIV, etc., can you help us achieve this goal.”

So I kind of resent the deceitful comment.

@dale

Jasmyne Cannick, the Black lesbian activist you cited doesn’t see gay marriage as a “real” civil rights issue when compared to the human and civil rights problems of black people—i.e., incarceration, felony disenfranchisement, HIV, lack of health care, unemployment, homelessness, poverty, etc. She resents white gay men for being able to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to preserve the “luxury” of being able to marry, when blacks still have so much further to go. At the end of the day, its a question of energy. Does she spend it on getting her community out to vote for Obama, or trying to explain to a skeptical audience how same-sex marriage is in any way relevant to blacks?

The lack of support for homosexual rights is not all about—or even primarily about—religion. There are all kinds of gender assumptions in the black community—about manhood and power; street values which associate aggression with masculinity and homosexuality with weakness; sexist attitudes toward women, etc. Like the n-word, these are things that whites can not even bring up, much less address—and would only look patronizing if one attempted to “educate” them.

“There’s nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue. If and when I choose to, I know how to say what needs to be said. Many black gays just haven’t been convinced that this movement for marriage is about anything more than the white gays who fund it (and who, we often find, are just as racist and clueless when it comes to blacks as they claim blacks are homophobic).”

As you can see, she’s not trying to win us over with conciliatory reasonableness, she’s in your face and telling you like it is. Basically, she’s saying, “Stop your sniveling, white boys, you don’t have it nearly as bad as us.” And, by the way, “If you want something from us, you are going to have to treat us like we matter, and work through our leadership.” Like a lot of fed-up black people, you could say she’s got kind of an “attitude.” That might alienate you for a minute, but it keeps you mindful of just who you are talking to.

“Do you a) attack the religion and refuse the narrow-minded their rights to even spew this garbage, or do you b) Combat this garbage by reaching into the same communities they reach into and countering it with facts which will make their “information” look ridiculous in comparison.”

Obviously it would be stupid for a white person to go into the black community and trash their religion, or deny anybody anything—and I can’t believe that you would suggest that this is even remotely close to anything I am advocating. I’m not sure what you Plan B would actually consist of, so I can’t comment.

“I agree we are engaged in a cultural war but in 2000 and 2004 we were losing, and despite the ground lost, I contend that in 2008 more ground was gained in more important places and we should leverage our wins rather than carpetbombing where we’ve lost.”

First of all, what do you mean “we” straight boy? And, second, nobody is advocating carpetbombing. That would be indiscriminate and stupid.

What I am talking about is taking advantage of the many opportunities presented in forums such as this, to point out the absurdity of certain religious beliefs—especially, the incipient fascism inherent in right-wing religious fundamentalism. And my reasons for doing so will not be because I am homosexual but because I find fascism inimical to American democracy.

@dale I would read the article but it isn’t coming through on my end, link looks broken. And umm….Still deceitful. Problem with the no on 8 was not HOW we campaigned, but the fact that we didn’t campaign until it was too late. It’s not like the no on 8 sent out pamphlets to the white upper class. We just didn’t campaign because we were relying on people realizing how despicable removing a group’s rights would be.

I live in the heart of the Castro district of San Francisco (Literally across the street from the rainbow flag at Harvey Milk Plaza) and we didn’t start seeing no on 8 posters in our neighborhood until a couple weeks before the vote. Honestly even on the day of the vote, I was actually shocked it had passed.

As for African American’s feeling like the face of the gay movement is white, that is a problem that the gay-community-of-color is feeling as well. As a non-white-gay-person, I often don’t feel like the gay community represents me. And much like Monty just said, I would be offended if some white person told me they knew the best way to handle my community. Even more offended if they were to deliberately set up shop in my community with the specific purpose of “reaching out” by telling me how to vote and why.

There is even a similar problem within the queer community when it comes to trans rights. There are many who feel that we can just brush trans issues to the side till we get the gay issues sorted out. The human rights campaign has received much flack for their lack of support when it comes to trans issues.

Really I’ve lost my own train of thought, and just need to come back to the point. The no on 8 people should not be blamed for not reaching out as a reaction to how yes on 8 reached out. The yes on 8 campaign played dirty, and did not have the best interests of black and latino voters in mind.

MontyZuma -

I’m reacting to your words, “I am no longer willing to respect the legitimacy of their beliefs.” I contend that’s denying their right to worship, vs. fighting ignorance with facts, that’s what we’ve been going back and forth about.

By “we” I’m talking about “we” people who are committed to civil rights for all humans, it has nothing to do with whom I want to screw. In your summation, I think I realize that you and I are on the same page and have been all along but there is an issue of semantics. You posted a diatribe in which you not only committed to fighting their ignorance, but to not respecting their religion. THAT is why I’ve been trying to say, hold up, back up for a second…you don’t do your cause any good by denying them civil rights because they have done the same to you.

@Noon – google “No on 8 white bias”, you should find the article. I’d suggest you read it before you call it deceitful (and I’ll do you the favor of assuming you’re calling her argument deceitful and not my honest reaction to it). I however don’t think she was being deceitful.

And at the risk of being called deceitful again, read this article….I really respect their point of view on this site:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html

Religion has often been used as a form of control. Do X or suffer consequence Y. Religion also often claims to be the all-knowing, always-right answer to how to live your life. If they admit that maybe their viewpoint against homosexuality is wrong, it sows the seeds of discontent and doubt in the followers. They may start thinking, “well what ELSE has the bible been wrong about?” And then they leave or explore other religions. Which is exactly NOT what they want.
It’s the same reason why marijuana is still illegal in many places – the power in charge cannot admit they were wrong without having further speculation put upon them.