7 ms·

There's a world of difference between opposing gay marriage and supporting a white supremacist terrorist organization. They're not even remotely comparable. S

There's a world of difference between opposing gay marriage and supporting a white supremacist terrorist organization. They're not even remotely comparable. Specifically, it's entirely possible to oppose gay marriage on a number of grounds without being homophobic or bigoted; in my experience even as a young gay man in San Francisco, most of the people in my life who don't support gay marriage are perfectly reasonable, kind individuals who don't hate their gay friends. It's rather shallow to consider one's stance on LGBT issues through a single, limited lens, given that there are dozens of other issues (HIV, youth homelessness, alcoholism, depression) that affect the LGBT community.

Zigurd 11y ago
> There's a world of difference between opposing gay marriage and supporting a white supremacist terrorist organization. Not if you are gay and married. And, wow. You then go on to articulate positions that have, in fact, been used against racial minorities and to support miscegenation laws. Just wow. And you're not seeing that?
- dracht 11y ago
  Here's a gay man, which I would think gives him some authority, sharing his opinion on the matter of same-sex marriage, and here you are telling him his nuanced views are apartheid-enabling. These kinds of exaggerated reactions, false accusations and radical rhetoric is why I do not want to be associated with the self-proclaimed "progressives". To put it in your own terms: your type of demonizing slander has been used to support [insert horrible event].
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Your position, and that of the OP, rests on religion having a privileged place: It excuses bigotry. That's not nuanced. That's wrong, and the comparison to miscegenation laws, and the various excuses for those laws, is apt. You can't fit a dime between support of miscegenation laws and support for repeal of gay marriage.
saganus 11y ago
> it's entirely possible to oppose gay marriage on a number of grounds without being homophobic or bigoted How so? I mean, I really haven't heard any arguments against same sex marriage that were not homophobic, so I'm actually curious since the definition of homophobia in Merriam-Webster [1] is: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" I would thought that opposing to gay marriage would amount to discrimination against homosexuals, no? Edit: Can't reply to mrbabbage due to anti-flame filter or something, but I guess, if I understand correctly, the contention point is about how people define marriage. So if marriage is, in some people's view, something entirely religious-related, then for them it would not be considered opposing gay marriage as something related to discrimination, but related to not "breaking" said definition. For others, marriage would be just a religious-independent term, that signifies a certain set of life decisions (living with your partner, etc) as well as certain legal responsibilities and rights. Ok, I get your point now. And I was honestly not wanting to start a flame war, and was genuinely asking since I wasn't clear on this. I guess the debate then turns into whether as a community (for different values of community) we should consider marriage as a legal term devoid of any religious implication, or not. Edit2: I'm not even sure if people would even be able to agree on this, at least not for several generations. Edit3: Wow, not sure why I would get downvoted for asking an honest question. I am seeing the vote counter jump up and down. Very interesting. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic
- TillE 11y ago
  I think the common excuse is religious dogma. And don't you dare think about what that religious dogma comes from or what it implies.
- CalRobert 11y ago
  It's not specific to gay marriage, but I think we ought to remove government recognition of all marriages. It codifies assumptions about lifestyle that we don't need to accept as norm.
  - DanBC 11y ago
skylan_q 11y ago
There's a world of difference between opposing gay marriage and supporting a white supremacist terrorist organization. They're not even remotely comparable. You shouldn't have responded. :( The guy is obviously a troll.
azinman2 11y ago
Read my edit. I'm also a gay man in SF and I don't share your view point at all. Telling me I can't get married, have kids (intertwined issue), and live a normal life means you've denied me happiness and freedom of expression. There's nothing perfectly reasonable about that. Other issues that affect lgbt community aren't on topic -- eich donated to prop 8.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  You decided to compare many good people to terrorists. Don't be surprised by the blowback. If you don't want to distract from your point, consider picking a better analogy next time.
  - rhizome 11y ago
    You decided to compare people who deny gay marriage to good people.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      I know some that serve the homeless, some that help people get over addiction, some that treat AIDS, and some that help victims of violent crimes.
      - joshschreuder 11y ago
        So, if for example I prevented black people from voting, but then volunteered at a homeless shelter, I could be considered a good person? I can offset my discrimination by doing volunteer work?
        humanrebar 11y ago
        I'm not saying people can make up for doing bad things. I'm arguing against prejudice (as in judging someone before you meet them and judging people instead of individuals).
revelation 11y ago
There isn't, really. Give it a few years and they'll be considered the exact same. Don't be on the wrong side of history. (I'm sure we've had this conversation 100+ years ago on slavery. That didn't die in a single day, either.)
whatever_dude 11y ago
I'm sorry but that does not make much sense. Even if they don't "hate" their gay friends, they are pro limiting their rights and actually mandating on how they should live their life. It is the very definition of being bigoted. They're not perfectly reasonable, and they are not kind. They just like to think they are through a lenses that hides away some parts of the population. Edit: spelling
- dracht 11y ago
  Society at large is mandating the lives of everyone in ways that are much more serious and inhibiting than the inability to get married, so that's moot. Someone else's willingness to perform a religious ceremony on you is not a right. You could make the argument that married people receive benefits that unmarried people do not and that particular unfairness should be done away with, which is a very valid concern, but that was never the point. You stop caring about "rights" and "bigotry" when it no longer affects you or where it is deemed socially acceptable to do so - the single, the polygamous, the incestuous, they can get stuffed.
  - whatever_dude 11y ago
    > Society at large is mandating the lives of everyone in ways that are much more serious and inhibiting than the inability to get married That's a pretty bad comparison. Limits are in place to protect people's own rights and life. Someone getting married has no influence on someone else's life. Therefore it's an overreach and yes, it is bigotry. The fight for same-sex marriages is not about religious ceremonies and you should know that. It's about having the same rights as other non-same-sex couples in regards to property rights, inheritance, hospital visit, etc. No one said otherwise.

Zigurd 11y ago

> There's a world of difference between opposing gay marriage and supporting a white supremacist terrorist organization. Not if you are gay and married. And, wow. You then go on to articulate positions that have, in fact, been used against racial minorities and to support miscegenation laws. Just wow. And you're not seeing that?

dracht 11y ago
Here's a gay man, which I would think gives him some authority, sharing his opinion on the matter of same-sex marriage, and here you are telling him his nuanced views are apartheid-enabling. These kinds of exaggerated reactions, false accusations and radical rhetoric is why I do not want to be associated with the self-proclaimed "progressives". To put it in your own terms: your type of demonizing slander has been used to support [insert horrible event].
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Your position, and that of the OP, rests on religion having a privileged place: It excuses bigotry. That's not nuanced. That's wrong, and the comparison to miscegenation laws, and the various excuses for those laws, is apt. You can't fit a dime between support of miscegenation laws and support for repeal of gay marriage.

saganus 11y ago

> it's entirely possible to oppose gay marriage on a number of grounds without being homophobic or bigoted How so? I mean, I really haven't heard any arguments against same sex marriage that were not homophobic, so I'm actually curious since the definition of homophobia in Merriam-Webster [1] is: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" I would thought that opposing to gay marriage would amount to discrimination against homosexuals, no? Edit: Can't reply to mrbabbage due to anti-flame filter or something, but I guess, if I understand correctly, the contention point is about how people define marriage. So if marriage is, in some people's view, something entirely religious-related, then for them it would not be considered opposing gay marriage as something related to discrimination, but related to not "breaking" said definition. For others, marriage would be just a religious-independent term, that signifies a certain set of life decisions (living with your partner, etc) as well as certain legal responsibilities and rights. Ok, I get your point now. And I was honestly not wanting to start a flame war, and was genuinely asking since I wasn't clear on this. I guess the debate then turns into whether as a community (for different values of community) we should consider marriage as a legal term devoid of any religious implication, or not. Edit2: I'm not even sure if people would even be able to agree on this, at least not for several generations. Edit3: Wow, not sure why I would get downvoted for asking an honest question. I am seeing the vote counter jump up and down. Very interesting. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic

TillE 11y ago
I think the common excuse is religious dogma. And don't you dare think about what that religious dogma comes from or what it implies.
CalRobert 11y ago
It's not specific to gay marriage, but I think we ought to remove government recognition of all marriages. It codifies assumptions about lifestyle that we don't need to accept as norm.
- DanBC 11y ago

skylan_q 11y ago

There's a world of difference between opposing gay marriage and supporting a white supremacist terrorist organization. They're not even remotely comparable. You shouldn't have responded. :( The guy is obviously a troll.

azinman2 11y ago

Read my edit. I'm also a gay man in SF and I don't share your view point at all. Telling me I can't get married, have kids (intertwined issue), and live a normal life means you've denied me happiness and freedom of expression. There's nothing perfectly reasonable about that. Other issues that affect lgbt community aren't on topic -- eich donated to prop 8.

humanrebar 11y ago
You decided to compare many good people to terrorists. Don't be surprised by the blowback. If you don't want to distract from your point, consider picking a better analogy next time.
- rhizome 11y ago
  You decided to compare people who deny gay marriage to good people.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    I know some that serve the homeless, some that help people get over addiction, some that treat AIDS, and some that help victims of violent crimes.
    - joshschreuder 11y ago
      So, if for example I prevented black people from voting, but then volunteered at a homeless shelter, I could be considered a good person? I can offset my discrimination by doing volunteer work?
      - humanrebar 11y ago
        I'm not saying people can make up for doing bad things. I'm arguing against prejudice (as in judging someone before you meet them and judging people instead of individuals).

revelation 11y ago

There isn't, really. Give it a few years and they'll be considered the exact same. Don't be on the wrong side of history. (I'm sure we've had this conversation 100+ years ago on slavery. That didn't die in a single day, either.)

whatever_dude 11y ago

I'm sorry but that does not make much sense. Even if they don't "hate" their gay friends, they are pro limiting their rights and actually mandating on how they should live their life. It is the very definition of being bigoted. They're not perfectly reasonable, and they are not kind. They just like to think they are through a lenses that hides away some parts of the population. Edit: spelling

dracht 11y ago
Society at large is mandating the lives of everyone in ways that are much more serious and inhibiting than the inability to get married, so that's moot. Someone else's willingness to perform a religious ceremony on you is not a right. You could make the argument that married people receive benefits that unmarried people do not and that particular unfairness should be done away with, which is a very valid concern, but that was never the point. You stop caring about "rights" and "bigotry" when it no longer affects you or where it is deemed socially acceptable to do so - the single, the polygamous, the incestuous, they can get stuffed.
- whatever_dude 11y ago
  > Society at large is mandating the lives of everyone in ways that are much more serious and inhibiting than the inability to get married That's a pretty bad comparison. Limits are in place to protect people's own rights and life. Someone getting married has no influence on someone else's life. Therefore it's an overreach and yes, it is bigotry. The fight for same-sex marriages is not about religious ceremonies and you should know that. It's about having the same rights as other non-same-sex couples in regards to property rights, inheritance, hospital visit, etc. No one said otherwise.