Why are people so against gay marriage?

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looking at the demographic breakdown of voters on that issue it's pretty clear there were other reasons Prop 8 passed. Blacks and Hispanics voted heavily in the "Yes" category. That's an indication of cultural influences in addition to religion. Neither the Black or Hispanic cultures are very accepting of homosexuality. In fact, if you look around the world at cultures that are very male dominant - iow, cultures where machismo and being a man's man rule the day - you'll notice that homosexuality is not well received.

In addition there's the traditionalists. Those people are the ones who firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, with no exceptions. They haven't come to their conclusion based on "the Bible says so." They simply don't want to see the tradition of marriage redefined.

While I'm a full supporter of gay marriage myself, I can understand why many people are averse to gay marriage and have dissenting opinions. Their opinion is just how they believe and those trying to deem them all to be "bigots" are doing themselves a great disservice. Applying such derisive labels accomplishes nothing and makes those who support gay marriage appear to be intolerant themselves, and ultimately no better than those the levy the accusation upon.

If 50 years ago I honestly felt that blacks and whites shouldn't get married because it makes it difficult on each of their lives and that of their children, and that the two peoples are just too different, and that interracial marriage was still socially taboo across the country, and I had no hate for either group but felt each group wasn't being discriminated against because each could still marry anyone they wanted within their own race, and I then went and voted in favor of a state ballot initiative that would limit marriage to people of the same race, then for all my good intentions and rationalized arguments, I'd still be furthering bigotry.

I don't see why bigotry advocated on behalf of cultural tradition is any less reprehensible than bigotry advocated on behalf of religion.

I do agree that screaming "bigot" into someone's face is not likely to change their opinion on the subject, but let us also not shy away from approprietly labeling bigotry when we see it out of fear of hurting someone's feelings.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Please tell us what harm does it do you to allow mongamous gay couples the same happiness you wish you could find for yourself in a heterosexual marriage?

The question becomes what is your line you don't cross for marriage?

Same Sex is okay, but how about brother/sister? What about a man and his sheep?

Why should the line be redrawn somewhere else but still not allow some groups to share the happiness of a heterosexual marriage?

Or should we not have a line at all, everyone can be married to everyone simultaneously (we don't want to leave out those polygamists from enjoying the freedom of marriage).

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Harvey
Please tell us what harm does it do you to allow mongamous gay couples the same happiness you wish you could find for yourself in a heterosexual marriage?

The question becomes what is your line you don't cross for marriage?

Same Sex is okay, but how about brother/sister? What about a man and his sheep?

Why should the line be redrawn somewhere else but still not allow some groups to share the happiness of a heterosexual marriage?

Or should we not have a line at all, everyone can be married to everyone simultaneously (we don't want to leave out those polygamists from enjoying the freedom of marriage).

What? You want black men to be able to vote? What's next, women?! Why don't we just let everyone vote, clearly we cannot just expand the right to vote to just blacks, soon every person regardless of age or nationality will be able to vote for president, drawing lines is a pointless exercise. Soon you'll have 4 year old's in Nigeria voting for the US president!

Or just maybe...

One of my professors offered, to combat the slippery slope argument, what he called the Sticky Staircase. Imagine being on one level (hetero marriage), and in order to get to the next level (gay marriage) you have to fight and claw and pull for a long time with a large base of public support. And once on that level, any further change will require another monumental effort with a widespread support base.

That situation seems to me more plausible than gay marriage leading to the eventual marriage rights for polygamists and goatfuckers. About 40% of the country is fine with gay marriage, and the agitation has been widespread only for about a decade now. How much social agitation for polygamous marriage is there? How about we cross that bridge when we get to it?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looking at the demographic breakdown of voters on that issue it's pretty clear there were other reasons Prop 8 passed. Blacks and Hispanics voted heavily in the "Yes" category. That's an indication of cultural influences in addition to religion. Neither the Black or Hispanic cultures are very accepting of homosexuality. In fact, if you look around the world at cultures that are very male dominant - iow, cultures where machismo and being a man's man rule the day - you'll notice that homosexuality is not well received.

In addition there's the traditionalists. Those people are the ones who firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, with no exceptions. They haven't come to their conclusion based on "the Bible says so." They simply don't want to see the tradition of marriage redefined.

While I'm a full supporter of gay marriage myself, I can understand why many people are averse to gay marriage and have dissenting opinions. Their opinion is just how they believe and those trying to deem them all to be "bigots" are doing themselves a great disservice. Applying such derisive labels accomplishes nothing and makes those who support gay marriage appear to be intolerant themselves, and ultimately no better than those the levy the accusation upon.

If 50 years ago I honestly felt that blacks and whites shouldn't get married because it makes it difficult on each of their lives and that of their children, and that the two peoples are just too different, and that interracial marriage was still socially taboo across the country, and I had no hate for either group but felt each group wasn't being discriminated against because each could still marry anyone they wanted within their own race, and I then went and voted in favor of a state ballot initiative that would limit marriage to people of the same race, then for all my good intentions and rationalized arguments, I'd still be furthering bigotry.

I don't see why bigotry advocated on behalf of cultural tradition is any less reprehensible than bigotry advocated on behalf of religion.

I do agree that screaming "bigot" into someone's face is not likely to change their opinion on the subject, but let us also not shy away from approprietly labeling bigotry when we see it out of fear of hurting someone's feelings.

You're comparing racism to sexual behaviour, which is not comparing apples to apples. We can and already do discriminate based on a person's sexual behaviour as many behaviours are against the law. Some others that aren't against the law are not well received within society. Should we also extend marriage beyond being just two people so those in multi-partner relationships can be legally married? After all, having multiple partners is not against the law, only them being married is.

My point about screaming "bigot" is this. Supposely those of us who accept gay marriage are the enlightened, fair-minded, tolerant ones. When we start describing those of the opposing opinion by using derisive terms the claims of being enlightened, fair-minded, and tolerant fly right out the window. It's as basically the same as some homophobe calling a gay man a i love you, and rationalizing it by exclaiming, 'Well, he IS a i love you. I'm just labelling him appropriately. So what if I hurt his feelings?'

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

That plus you do not need to be a bible thumper in order to be a homophobe. Homophobia that is strong enough to the point that you will vote to deny the rights of others like that is no better than racism and sexism. It is exactly the same. The only difference is how it makes one "feel" during today's day and age, but just remember that how one feels today about it is probably very similar to how people viewed and felt about racism in the past.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of some of the other states, like Florida, where similar amendments won by 60%+ of the vote.

Still, for Prop 8 to pass at all in a highly liberal state like CA is pretty unbelievable and it wasn't all bible thumpers voting Yes. An interesting tidbit rom the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8nov06,0,2331815.story

The campaign against Proposition 8 also did relatively poorly in Los Angeles County, where voters were divided almost evenly. By contrast, on the other high-profile social issue on the ballot, Proposition 4 on abortion, the liberal side carried Los Angeles by a margin of almost 200,000 votes.

I doubt it was the bible thumpers voting No on Prop 4 then turning around and voting Yes on Prop 8.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

That plus you do not need to be a bible thumper in order to be a homophobe. Homophobia that is strong enough to the point that you will vote to deny the rights of others like that is no better than racism and sexism. It is exactly the same. The only difference is how it makes one "feel" during today's day and age, but just remember that how one feels today about it is probably very similar to how people viewed and felt about racism in the past.

Yup, they're just about the same. But you really can't expect much more from the ignorant. Luckily it'll be legal within a matter of years, not decades.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of some of the other states, like Florida, where similar amendments won by 60%+ of the vote.

Still, for Prop 8 to pass at all in a highly liberal state like CA is pretty unbelievable and it wasn't all bible thumpers voting Yes. An interesting tidbit rom the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8nov06,0,2331815.story

The campaign against Proposition 8 also did relatively poorly in Los Angeles County, where voters were divided almost evenly. By contrast, on the other high-profile social issue on the ballot, Proposition 4 on abortion, the liberal side carried Los Angeles by a margin of almost 200,000 votes.

I doubt it was the bible thumpers voting No on Prop 4 then turning around and voting Yes on Prop 8.

Just 10 years ago the tally was 62-38% to ban gay marriage in CA. A 10% improvement in a decade says a lot. It's just a matter of time at this point.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

That plus you do not need to be a bible thumper in order to be a homophobe. Homophobia that is strong enough to the point that you will vote to deny the rights of others like that is no better than racism and sexism. It is exactly the same. The only difference is how it makes one "feel" during today's day and age, but just remember that how one feels today about it is probably very similar to how people viewed and felt about racism in the past.

That's kind of the point I'm making. There are those in here claiming it was religion that caused Prop 8 to pass. I disagree with that. While it was surely an influence, there were other large influences as well.

I'm not even sure it's correct to label those who voted for Prop 8 to be homophobic either. A phobia implies fear. While I guess it's easier to vent against those who voted for Prop 8 by applying a pejorative like homophobia, that's an oversimplification. If a person's belief system is that marriage is a tradition between a man and a woman only, they simply may want to retain that tradition and not have that tradition redefined. That opinion doesn't necessarily imply fear, hate, or anything of the sort against gays.

 

[Pacemaker]

I think that gay marriage should be legal, but equal protection under the law doesn't qualify because they are technically equal. Someone who is a man cannot marry a man whether or not he is gay, and a man can marry a woman whether or not he is gay. So both sides are technically equal (even though functionally they are not).

IMO, as long as you don't force churches to perform the ceremony against their will there is no reason to not allow gay marriage.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: Harvey
Please tell us what harm does it do you to allow mongamous gay couples the same happiness you wish you could find for yourself in a heterosexual marriage?

The question becomes what is your line you don't cross for marriage?

No, the question is as I posed it. What harm does it do you to allow mongamous gay couples the same happiness you wish you could find for yourself in a heterosexual marriage?

Same Sex is okay, but how about brother/sister?

There are genetic reasons to avoid incestuous inbreeding. However, the ban is not universal. Incest.

Incest refers to any sexual activity between closely related persons (often within the immediate family) that is illegal or socially taboo. The type of sexual activity and the nature of the relationship between persons that constitutes a breach of law or social taboo vary with culture and jurisdiction. Some societies consider it to include only those who live in the same household, or who belong to the same clan or lineage; other societies consider it to include "blood relatives"; other societies further include those related by adoption or marriage.

The most frequently reported type of incest is father-daughter incest. Incest between adults and prepubescent or adolescent children is a form of child sexual abuse that has been shown to be one of the most extreme forms of childhood trauma, a trauma that often does serious and long-term psychological damage, especially in the case of parental incest. Prevalence is difficult to generalize, but research has estimated 10-15% of the general population as having at least one incest experience, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse. Among women, research by Russell (1986) and Wyatt (1985) has yielded estimates as high as twenty percent.

Consensual adult incest is very rare. Consensual incest between adults is criminalized in most countries, although it is seen by some as a victimless crime.

Most societies have some form of incest avoidance. The incest taboo is and has been one of the most common of all cultural taboos, both in current nations and many past societies, with legal penalties imposed in some jurisdictions. Most modern societies have legal or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages. However, in some societies, such as that of Ancient Egypt, brother?sister, father?daughter, and mother?son relations were practiced among royalty. In addition, the Balinese and some Inuit tribes have altogether different beliefs about what constitutes illegal and immoral incest.

What about a man and his sheep?

Your particular preferences are not part of this discussion. :laugh:

Why should the line be redrawn somewhere else but still not allow some groups to share the happiness of a heterosexual marriage?

Back to the same question I posed. Why should you give a damn if gay couples enjoy the same rights as you?

Or should we not have a line at all, everyone can be married to everyone simultaneously (we don't want to leave out those polygamists from enjoying the freedom of marriage).

Nope. Wouldn't want to leave out yet another bogus straw man argument. :roll:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker
I think that gay marriage should be legal, but equal protection under the law doesn't qualify because they are technically equal. Someone who is a man cannot marry a man whether or not he is gay, and a man can marry a woman whether or not he is gay. So both sides are technically equal (even though functionally they are not).

And before interracial marriage was legal, a black man could marry a black woman even if he didn't love her, and a white man could not marry a black woman even if he did love her, so "equality" existed there too.

This line of argument is specious. Recall the SCOTUS reasoning in Pace v Alabama, criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure. Loving v Virginia explicitly threw that in the garbage under the equal protection clause.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of some of the other states, like Florida, where similar amendments won by 60%+ of the vote.

Still, for Prop 8 to pass at all in a highly liberal state like CA is pretty unbelievable and it wasn't all bible thumpers voting Yes. An interesting tidbit rom the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...8nov06,0,2331815.story

The campaign against Proposition 8 also did relatively poorly in Los Angeles County, where voters were divided almost evenly. By contrast, on the other high-profile social issue on the ballot, Proposition 4 on abortion, the liberal side carried Los Angeles by a margin of almost 200,000 votes.

I doubt it was the bible thumpers voting No on Prop 4 then turning around and voting Yes on Prop 8.

Just 10 years ago the tally was 62-38% to ban gay marriage in CA. A 10% improvement in a decade says a lot. It's just a matter of time at this point.

Sure. Eventually the entire country will catch up too, in time. We're moving towards that day but it's not here now, which is why all the footstomping and sour grapes seems like a lot of wasted energy. It doesn't seem to be contributing anything beneficial to the situation. If anything, it's detrimental in the short run. If we want people to be fair and open-minded shouldn't we demonstrate that quality ourselves?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But Prop 8 passed with over 60%, in freakin California. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that those were all bible thumpers voting "Yes."

The final tally was 52%-48%, nowhere near 60%+.

That plus you do not need to be a bible thumper in order to be a homophobe. Homophobia that is strong enough to the point that you will vote to deny the rights of others like that is no better than racism and sexism. It is exactly the same. The only difference is how it makes one "feel" during today's day and age, but just remember that how one feels today about it is probably very similar to how people viewed and felt about racism in the past.

That's kind of the point I'm making. There are those in here claiming it was religion that caused Prop 8 to pass. I disagree with that. While it was surely an influence, there were other large influences as well.

I'm not even sure it's correct to label those who voted for Prop 8 to be homophobic either. A phobia implies fear. While I guess it's easier to vent against those who voted for Prop 8 by applying a pejorative like homophobia, that's an oversimplification. If a person's belief system is that marriage is a tradition between a man and a woman only, they simply may want to retain that tradition and not have that tradition redefined. That opinion doesn't necessarily imply fear, hate, or anything of the sort against gays.

I was not directly labeling all of those who voted Yes to Prop 8 as homophobes, but I will say that the religious influence and/or a strong enough degree of homophobia amongst enough people are by the far the majority of causes for that amendment having been passed.

I understand that there are some out there who simply want to preserve tradition, but one must remember that the vast majority of that tradition's strength and influence stems from religion. You have your exceptions, but they are by far a minority in California and this country in general.

The bottom line here is that equal rights to the citizens of the United States is much more important than any of the other reasons presented by Prop 8 and that is why I believe that such a thing should never be voted upon. Being able to vote against equal rights for US citizens is in direct violation of what I and many others believe this country stands for regardless of the language in any law. It's funny how so many people are still willing to vote against equal rights of certain citizens as long as those citizens are not people they care about or themselves. It is fucking bullshit and we should be a lot better than that by now, but clearly we are not. It is nothing short of embarrassing to be represented by those assholes.

If we are ok with voting against equal rights to one defined group of citizens in this country such as homosexuals then what other groups are acceptable? Who is next? Am I or anyone I love a part of that classified group of people? Are my rights as a US Citizen truly secure or are they subject to be taken away by those who simply do not care about who I am and what I do because of something about myself that I did not choose and cannot change?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I was not directly labeling all of those who voted Yes to Prop at as homophobes, but I will say that the religious influence and/or a strong enough degree of homophobia amongst enough people are by the far the majority of causes for that amendment having been passed.

I understand that there are some out there who simply want to preserve tradition, but one must remember that the vast majority of that tradition's strength and influence stems from religion. You have your exceptions, but they are by far a minority in California and this country in general.

The bottom line here is that equal rights to the citizens of the United States is much more important than any of the other reasons presented by Prop 8 and that is why I believe that such a thing should never be voted upon. Being able to vote against equal rights for US citizens is in direct violation of what I and many others believe this country stands for regardless of the language in any law. It's funny how so many people are still willing to vote against equal rights of certain citizens as long as those citizens are not people they care about or themselves. It is fucking bullshit and we should be a lot better than that by now, but clearly we are not. It is nothing short of embarrassing to be represented by those assholes.

Equal rights are conferred upon us based on specific qualities like race, sex (as in male or female), and religion. I don't believe that sexual preference is a consideration because that would open up a can of worms that nobody truly wants to see opened.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Equal rights are conferred upon us based on specific qualities like race, sex (as in male or female), and religion. I don't believe that sexual preference is a consideration because that would open up a can of worms that nobody truly wants to see opened.

In CA you already cannot discriminate against someone based on sexual preference in almost any area of business. Sorry, but that can was opened long ago, and the only worms found were in the maggoty meat of bigotry. god i hate metaphors

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Equal rights are conferred upon us based on specific qualities like race, sex (as in male or female), and religion. I don't believe that sexual preference is a consideration because that would open up a can of worms that nobody truly wants to see opened.

In CA you already cannot discriminate against someone based on sexual preference in almost any area of business. Sorry, but that can was opened long ago, and the only worms found were in the maggoty meat of bigotry. god i hate metaphors

In the business of marriage you can, at least for the time being.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
...
Equal rights are conferred upon us based on specific qualities like race, sex (as in male or female), and religion. I don't believe that sexual preference is a consideration because that would open up a can of worms that nobody truly wants to see opened.

You want to expand on that, or just make vaguely menacing sounding noises about it?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
...
Equal rights are conferred upon us based on specific qualities like race, sex (as in male or female), and religion. I don't believe that sexual preference is a consideration because that would open up a can of worms that nobody truly wants to see opened.

You want to expand on that, or just make vaguely menacing sounding noises about it?

There's really nothing for him to expand upon, as I stated CA already provides equal protection in nearly every facet of public life for gays so there no pandoras box waiting to be opened by gay marriage. CA has already conferred protection based on sexual orientation. Has MA collapsed yet? What about Canada? Belgium? It's another slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Legend]

Because if you don't ban it, God will burn your home.

instantrimshot.com

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
...
Equal rights are conferred upon us based on specific qualities like race, sex (as in male or female), and religion. I don't believe that sexual preference is a consideration because that would open up a can of worms that nobody truly wants to see opened.

You want to expand on that, or just make vaguely menacing sounding noises about it?

I already expounded on it some. Where sexual preferences are concerned, we already discriminate. Multiple partners can't get married. Do we also accommodate them? Aren't we discriminating if we don't?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
...
Equal rights are conferred upon us based on specific qualities like race, sex (as in male or female), and religion. I don't believe that sexual preference is a consideration because that would open up a can of worms that nobody truly wants to see opened.

You want to expand on that, or just make vaguely menacing sounding noises about it?

I already expounded on it some. Where sexual preferences are concerned, we already discriminate. Multiple partners can't get married. Do we also accommodate them? Aren't we discriminating if we don't?

I was talking more about your statement that nobody truly wants to see this "can of worms" opened. That seems like a pretty big assumption, and one that doesn't seem real obvious to me. We can't give some people equal rights based on sexual preference because then EVERYONE would want equal rights? Well yeah, that's kind of the point...

 

[Jschmuck2]

Is he making the polygamy argument again?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Legend

Because if you don't ban it, God will burn your home.

The bigots passed Prop. 8, and right now, California's sitting in the middle of fire storms. Guess that wasn't the answer. :shocked: