6 ms·

> 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 argumen

by 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
  ...or split out religious marriages from state recognised marriages. If a religious bigot wants to discriminate against gay people, well, that's not great but up to them. When the state wants to discriminate against gay people that's worse, especially since "right to a family life" is a human right.
  - skylan_q 11y ago
    If a homosexual bigot wants to discriminate against christians, well, that's not great but up to them. When the state wants to discriminate against christians, that's worse, especially since "right to family life" is a human right. Oh wait, that's already happening and it's got a court ruling backing it: http://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-1439506296 http://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to...
    - jazzyk 11y ago
      No, the ruling is about treating every human being equally. Regardless of their religion, skin color, facial features, hair color, etc. Who is the "homosexual bigot" in your example? The judge practicing the law of the country ? Per U.S. Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal".
      - CalRobert 11y ago
        Comments like the last few are a great reminder of why maybe the government shouldn't be prescribing a particular sort of relationship as ideal. If you don't like gay marriage, that's great, don't get one! Go to a church that doesn't recognize them! If you do like gay marriage, cool - go get one! Either way, call yourself married! Or not! Fortunately the government can recognize things like shared decision making, inheritance, property ownership, etc. without having to recognize that some people held a ceremony and a party and others didn't.
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        You can only have equality before the law. The civil rights laws from the 60s were only justified due to the extraordinary nature of systemic and pervasive discrimination, which state governments encouraged and mandated since the end of slavery, in the South towards Black Americans. Unfortunately, what was then viewed as an extraordinary measure for an extraordinary situation, has now been expanded to every group imaginable and is now being used as a tool of social triumphalism. There is no crisis where gay couples are unable to find wedding bakers and photographers willing to serve them. I personally have no problem with homosexuality and gay marriage. But someone with religious convictions against it, should not be compelled to be involved. It's totally wrong to force a devout Christian photographer to participate in a gay wedding if he is opposed. What entitles you to his labor?
mrbabbage 11y ago
For lots of people, "marriage" is extremely intertwined with religious practice, and some religious traditions don't recognize same-sex marriages. It's not a matter of a specific desire to discriminate; for these people, marriage simply isn't a thing two men or two women can do. Furthermore, for the separate population of radical people on the left, they tend to be skeptical of the role of the state in shaping domestic relationships and structures, so they tend to advocate for the abolition of legal structures (like marriage) that privilege certain types of domestic relationships over others. You can even see this in the history of the LGBT movement in the United States -- before the 1980s and the AIDS crisis, LGBT activists fought far more often for the abolition of marriage, not for gay marriage.
- x0x0 11y ago
  And 70 years ago, those same religious people would have said miscegenation is against their religious practices. Similarly for inter-faith marriages. There are many examples of the mutability of their so-called religious practices. So let's not pretend it's anything but a dodge to avoid taking responsibility for their bigotry.
- rhizome 11y ago
  The rejection of gay marriage is entirely contained within religious practice.
shasta 11y ago
I'm in favor of gay marriage, but this position seems widely held and it's a little baffling. Marriage is itself nothing more than a cultural tradition. If you don't agree, go work out a logical derivation of why the practice of pairing up is optimal and report back. From that perspective, is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions? On the balance, I think gay marriage is a good idea, but I also think there's something to be said for going slow when abandoning traditions.
- MisterBastahrd 11y ago
  Marriage has specific social benefits that the government wants to encourage. It also helps to streamline certain bureaucratic processes. At the end of the day, it's simple: it's not your marriage, so why do you care?
- saganus 11y ago
  > is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions? Well, no. I guess not. And in that context, there will definitely always be a broad spectrum of those that want to keep traditions as such, and those that want change. But it seems that at least for this particular tradition, it gets trickier to just consider it "a tradition" since it is so intertwined with the legal definition, for some countries at least. So even though it's "just" a cultural tradition, it makes a big effect on the outcome of legal matters. I mean, I've seen groups that oppose same-sex marriage suggest calling that "legal relationship between two people" something other than marriage, giving it the same rights and that would be enough. The thing I try to imagine is, what would happen if some country would completely decouple the marriage term from the legal definition, if that would make things better or not. As long as every legal matter related to the definition of this new term is updated, and so referring to marriage would only be at the religious level (no other consequences than that), what would happen? would that be a good solution for most? or would it be maybe just enough ? I'm pretty sure there would be people disliking the idea of having a different term, however legally equivalent it may be, and probably they could give good reasons, but would it be the majority or a minority? I have honestly no idea.
  - 11y ago
skylan_q 11y ago
It's not fear of homosexuals. It's just that what they have isn't marriage.

by saganus 11y ago

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
...or split out religious marriages from state recognised marriages. If a religious bigot wants to discriminate against gay people, well, that's not great but up to them. When the state wants to discriminate against gay people that's worse, especially since "right to a family life" is a human right.
- skylan_q 11y ago
  If a homosexual bigot wants to discriminate against christians, well, that's not great but up to them. When the state wants to discriminate against christians, that's worse, especially since "right to family life" is a human right. Oh wait, that's already happening and it's got a court ruling backing it: http://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-1439506296 http://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to...
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    No, the ruling is about treating every human being equally. Regardless of their religion, skin color, facial features, hair color, etc. Who is the "homosexual bigot" in your example? The judge practicing the law of the country ? Per U.S. Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal".
    - CalRobert 11y ago
      Comments like the last few are a great reminder of why maybe the government shouldn't be prescribing a particular sort of relationship as ideal. If you don't like gay marriage, that's great, don't get one! Go to a church that doesn't recognize them! If you do like gay marriage, cool - go get one! Either way, call yourself married! Or not! Fortunately the government can recognize things like shared decision making, inheritance, property ownership, etc. without having to recognize that some people held a ceremony and a party and others didn't.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      You can only have equality before the law. The civil rights laws from the 60s were only justified due to the extraordinary nature of systemic and pervasive discrimination, which state governments encouraged and mandated since the end of slavery, in the South towards Black Americans. Unfortunately, what was then viewed as an extraordinary measure for an extraordinary situation, has now been expanded to every group imaginable and is now being used as a tool of social triumphalism. There is no crisis where gay couples are unable to find wedding bakers and photographers willing to serve them. I personally have no problem with homosexuality and gay marriage. But someone with religious convictions against it, should not be compelled to be involved. It's totally wrong to force a devout Christian photographer to participate in a gay wedding if he is opposed. What entitles you to his labor?

mrbabbage 11y ago

For lots of people, "marriage" is extremely intertwined with religious practice, and some religious traditions don't recognize same-sex marriages. It's not a matter of a specific desire to discriminate; for these people, marriage simply isn't a thing two men or two women can do. Furthermore, for the separate population of radical people on the left, they tend to be skeptical of the role of the state in shaping domestic relationships and structures, so they tend to advocate for the abolition of legal structures (like marriage) that privilege certain types of domestic relationships over others. You can even see this in the history of the LGBT movement in the United States -- before the 1980s and the AIDS crisis, LGBT activists fought far more often for the abolition of marriage, not for gay marriage.

x0x0 11y ago
And 70 years ago, those same religious people would have said miscegenation is against their religious practices. Similarly for inter-faith marriages. There are many examples of the mutability of their so-called religious practices. So let's not pretend it's anything but a dodge to avoid taking responsibility for their bigotry.
rhizome 11y ago
The rejection of gay marriage is entirely contained within religious practice.

shasta 11y ago

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but this position seems widely held and it's a little baffling. Marriage is itself nothing more than a cultural tradition. If you don't agree, go work out a logical derivation of why the practice of pairing up is optimal and report back. From that perspective, is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions? On the balance, I think gay marriage is a good idea, but I also think there's something to be said for going slow when abandoning traditions.

MisterBastahrd 11y ago
Marriage has specific social benefits that the government wants to encourage. It also helps to streamline certain bureaucratic processes. At the end of the day, it's simple: it's not your marriage, so why do you care?
saganus 11y ago
> is it really surprising that some people want traditional traditions? Well, no. I guess not. And in that context, there will definitely always be a broad spectrum of those that want to keep traditions as such, and those that want change. But it seems that at least for this particular tradition, it gets trickier to just consider it "a tradition" since it is so intertwined with the legal definition, for some countries at least. So even though it's "just" a cultural tradition, it makes a big effect on the outcome of legal matters. I mean, I've seen groups that oppose same-sex marriage suggest calling that "legal relationship between two people" something other than marriage, giving it the same rights and that would be enough. The thing I try to imagine is, what would happen if some country would completely decouple the marriage term from the legal definition, if that would make things better or not. As long as every legal matter related to the definition of this new term is updated, and so referring to marriage would only be at the religious level (no other consequences than that), what would happen? would that be a good solution for most? or would it be maybe just enough ? I'm pretty sure there would be people disliking the idea of having a different term, however legally equivalent it may be, and probably they could give good reasons, but would it be the majority or a minority? I have honestly no idea.
- 11y ago

skylan_q 11y ago

It's not fear of homosexuals. It's just that what they have isn't marriage.