Opposition to same sex marriage: Valid political position or bigotry?

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

Opposition to same sex marriage: Valid political position or bigotry?

[44 posts] [22 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 12 months ago by Coach Rich
Latest reply from Twixlen

Tags:

No tags yet. Add them below.

« Previous 123 Next »

Schoolboy
Columbus
Login to Send PM

myliftkk said:
Any one particular church can choose to union whichever particular unions it wishes to grant within the confines of the law. The ability of gays to marry within the confines of the law doesn't mean any particular church has to grant/perform the union itself.

Marriage, to the extent that it exists, would seem to predate any particular "church" doctrine on the matter, since the concept of a contractual union between two people, even if primarily for the purposes of child-bearing or property-swapping, is found in many cultures without "churches". If religious-entities wish to give up in its entirety, the lay power to confirm a legal union, then I'm sure they can probably keep their word "marriage" for themselves (not that they would ever give that up).

Maybe I'm wrong, but the power already isn't the "church's". You still have to have a license from the government.

Posted 12 months ago #
dubdave00
Dublin
Login to Send PM

Part of me sees this question as somewhat flawed.

Debating exactly what qualifies someone as a bigot, or a racist, homophobe, socialist, anti-American, anti-Semite, communist, sinner, zionist, ageist, right winger, left winger, etc, is all too often a waste of time. This is not to say that these characteristics do not exist in the absolute, but it is to say that they're often overused and thus, stripping these words of their original power.

You want someone to actually come around to being ok with same-sex marriage? You're not going to win them over calling them a "bigot" and kicking them off your property anymore than a religious person wins an atheist over calling them a "heathen" and telling them to get off their property.

And if most of us are honest, we use those loaded words to
A) Validate our own moral or worldview
B) Showcase group identity allegiances
C) Switch the debate from the question at hand to questioning a person's character

So the real question then becomes, do we really want these people we label to come around to our moral/worldview or are we just looking for a way to bolster our ego?

Posted 12 months ago #
Snarf
Dystopia
Login to Send PM

dubdave00 said:
Part of me sees this question as somewhat flawed.

Debating exactly what qualifies someone as a bigot, or a racist, homophobe, socialist, anti-American, anti-Semite, communist, sinner, zionist, ageist, right winger, left winger, etc, is all too often a waste of time. This is not to say that these characteristics do not exist in the absolute, but it is to say that they're often overused and thus, stripping these words of their original power.

You want someone to actually come around to being ok with same-sex marriage? You're not going to win them over calling them a "bigot" and kicking them off your property anymore than a religious person wins an atheist over calling them a "heathen" and telling them to get off their property.

And if most of us are honest, we use those loaded words to
A) Validate our own moral or worldview
B) Showcase group identity allegiances
C) Switch the debate from the question at hand to questioning a person's character

So the real question then becomes, do we really want these people we label to come around to our moral/worldview or are we just looking for a way to bolster our ego?

I think it's less of a moral/worldview to approve of gay marriage than it is common sense.

I suppose it's safe to say I think those that don't approve are opponents of common sense.

Posted 12 months ago #
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM

Opposition to same-sex marriage = bigotry.

Opposition to the entire institution of marriage = sanity.

Posted 12 months ago #
dubdave00
Dublin
Login to Send PM

Snarf said:
I think it's less of a moral/worldview to approve of gay marriage than it is common sense.

I suppose it's safe to say I think those that don't approve are opponents of common sense.

If the opponent sees it as "wrong", the proponent sees it as "right", then it's a moral/values/worldview (pick your semantics) issue. Clearly, the opponent's value system is in conflict with the proponent's value system.

Posted 12 months ago #
derm
Grandview
Login to Send PM

labi said:
Growing up, I used to hear people object to interracial marriage for this same reason. Obviously (to me), making it legal will make it more common, therefore less potentially embarrassing, so there's no reason to carve out this exception to the rest of marriage's benefits. Plus, as pointed out above, kids are the least likely to find gay marriage (or being gay, period) to be embarrassing anyway.

My 100% Italian grandfather married my 100% Irish grandmother and they had to move from Pittsburgh/family to Cleveland at the turn of the 20th century to avoid the stigma of an international marriage. How times change and adapt. One unfortunate consequence was that as he was right off the boat, he spoke fluent Italian, but forbade it in his house as he wanted a 100% acclimatization to the new country. So my mom never learned Italian and thus I did not growing up either.

Posted 12 months ago #
SusanB
Hungarian Village, Columbus' fastest growing Gayborhood!
Login to Send PM

Don't like Gay marriage? Then don't have one.

Posted 12 months ago #
jbcmh81

Login to Send PM

dubdave00 said:
Part of me sees this question as somewhat flawed.

Debating exactly what qualifies someone as a bigot, or a racist, homophobe, socialist, anti-American, anti-Semite, communist, sinner, zionist, ageist, right winger, left winger, etc, is all too often a waste of time. This is not to say that these characteristics do not exist in the absolute, but it is to say that they're often overused and thus, stripping these words of their original power.

You want someone to actually come around to being ok with same-sex marriage? You're not going to win them over calling them a "bigot" and kicking them off your property anymore than a religious person wins an atheist over calling them a "heathen" and telling them to get off their property.

And if most of us are honest, we use those loaded words to
A) Validate our own moral or worldview
B) Showcase group identity allegiances
C) Switch the debate from the question at hand to questioning a person's character

So the real question then becomes, do we really want these people we label to come around to our moral/worldview or are we just looking for a way to bolster our ego?

This seems like a vast oversimplification of the situation. No one can force another to change their opinions unless they are open to do so, so that seems like a moot point to me. You're not convinced until you take the time to do your own homework, and whether you think the other side is being offensive to your position in no way exempts you from making the choice to ignore the evidence of the other side or not. The bottom line here is that what you personally believe is your choice, no one else's. If someone promotes bigotry and then gets called out for it, the reality of the situation is not that the person promoting bigotry simply needs to be understood and tolerated. People don't change that way, and it only serves to validate bigotry itself.

Posted 12 months ago #
cheap
Westgate
Login to Send PM

gay marriage,civil unions...blah blah blah

this shit's getting older than the Kardashian broads.

Posted 12 months ago #
DavidF
Elysium Fields
Login to Send PM

cheap said:
gay marriage,civil unions...blah blah blah

this shit's getting older than the Kardashian broads.

And once again you bring such a valuable point of view to the discussion. It's important to remember when engaging in public discourse it's of utmost importance to speak very slowly and use short words. Pictures of cute kitties help too.

On a completely unrelated note, I'd rather be trapped on a desert island with a dozen evangelical christian vegans than one person who makes it his mission to piss all over any discussion of anything just to show us how above it all he is.

I totally respect your shallow, irrelevant point of view and wouldn't want any part of my response to be taken as an insult or a thread derail. I just want to make sure all points of view on this thread are being acknowledged. :)

Posted 12 months ago #
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM

Schoolboy said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but the power already isn't the "church's". You still have to have a license from the government.

But that church still has the ability to refuse.

Posted 12 months ago #
Cookie
Flyntonville
Login to Send PM

cheap said:

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.

Posted 12 months ago #
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM

DavidF said:
And once again you bring such a valuable point of view to the discussion. It's important to remember when engaging in public discourse it's of utmost importance to speak very slowly and use short words. Pictures of cute kitties help too.

On a completely unrelated note, I'd rather be trapped on a desert island with a dozen evangelical christian vegans than one person who makes it his mission to piss all over any discussion of anything just to show us how above it all he is.

I totally respect your shallow, irrelevant point of view and wouldn't want any part of my response to be taken as an insult or a thread derail. I just want to make sure all points of view on this thread are being acknowledged. :)

*slow clap* - I love this so much.

As for who gives a shit - *I* do. Gay people do. People who know and love the gay people in their lives do. Everyone should care, because it's a civil rights issue. Imagine if there was a law that said dickbiscuits couldn't post to internet messageboards?

And I disagree with the religious pass - that's some highly selective bible reading and is borne out of fear and ignorance.

Posted 12 months ago #
Cookie
Flyntonville
Login to Send PM

On the plus side, now there's an animated gif to illustrate everyone's reaction to seeing that Cheap responded to a thread.

Posted 12 months ago #
mwood

Login to Send PM

lifeontwowheels said:
But that church still has the ability to refuse.

Of course individual churches currently do and will continue to have the ability to refuse to marry any couple for any reason. As an atheist, I currently cannot force a Catholic church to marry me.

This issue is entirely governmental. There will always be churches against the practice and they will not be forced to conduct gay (or unapproved straight) marriages.

Posted 12 months ago #
mwood

Login to Send PM

dubdave00 said:
Part of me sees this question as somewhat flawed.

Debating exactly what qualifies someone as a bigot, or a racist, homophobe, socialist, anti-American, anti-Semite, communist, sinner, zionist, ageist, right winger, left winger, etc, is all too often a waste of time. This is not to say that these characteristics do not exist in the absolute, but it is to say that they're often overused and thus, stripping these words of their original power.

You want someone to actually come around to being ok with same-sex marriage? You're not going to win them over calling them a "bigot" and kicking them off your property anymore than a religious person wins an atheist over calling them a "heathen" and telling them to get off their property.

And if most of us are honest, we use those loaded words to
A) Validate our own moral or worldview
B) Showcase group identity allegiances
C) Switch the debate from the question at hand to questioning a person's character

So the real question then becomes, do we really want these people we label to come around to our moral/worldview or are we just looking for a way to bolster our ego?

While I agree with the essence of some of this, I think you discount the power of social pressure against bigotry. I think we are quickly approaching the point in the fight for homosexual equality that we can start to socially punish those who are in the minority.

While racism is certainly alive and well in small pockets of the country, the vast majority of people don't want to be associated through friendship or romantic relationships with outspoken racist bigots. This is rapidly becoming the norm for outspoken homophobic bigots as well. This is how we move from 60% support to 90%.

Posted 12 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM

cheap said:
blah blah blah

If you don't have anything to contribute to a topic, don't post in it.

Thanks for understanding. Back on topic, please.

Posted 12 months ago #
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM

mwood said:
While I agree with the essence of some of this, I think you discount the power of social pressure against bigotry. I think we are quickly approaching the point in the fight for homosexual equality that we can start to socially punish those who are in the minority.

While racism is certainly alive and well in small pockets of the country, the vast majority of people don't want to be associated through friendship or romantic relationships with outspoken racist bigots. This is rapidly becoming the norm for outspoken homophobic bigots as well. This is how we move from 60% support to 90%.

Not to offend, but this makes me think you haven't spent much time in the south. Bigotry is alive and well and thriving and more out in the open now than it's been in 30 years. And since it was validated by the previous GOP presidential campaigning, it is undaunted. They are determined that they are right - that anyone who thinks otherwise is godless and in need of saving.

Posted 12 months ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

Twixlen said:
Not to offend, but this makes me think you haven't spent much time in the south. Bigotry is alive and well and thriving and more out in the open now than it's been in 30 years. And since it was validated by the previous GOP presidential campaigning, it is undaunted. They are determined that they are right - that anyone who thinks otherwise is godless and in need of saving.

Fascinating take on revisionist history: The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights

...

But conservative Republicans — those represented politically by Goldwater, and intellectually by William F. Buckley and National Review — did oppose the civil rights movement. Buckley wrote frankly about his endorsement of white supremacy: “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” More often conservatives argued on grounds of states’ rights, or freedom of property, or that civil rights leaders were annoying hypocrites, or that they had undermined respect for the law.

Rick Perlstein surveyed the consistent hostility of contemporary conservatives to the civil rights movement. Ronald Reagan, like many conservatives, attributed urban riots to the breakdown in respect for authority instigated by the civil rights movement’s embrace of civil disobedience (a “great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they'd break, thundered Reagan”). Buckley sneered at the double standard of liberal Democrats — in 1965, he complained, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey attended the funeral of a white woman shot by the Klan for riding in a car with a black man, but did not attend the funeral of a white cop shot by a black man. The right seethed with indignation at white northern liberals, decrying the fate of their black allies while ignoring the assaults mounted by blacks against whites.

..

Filed under: The More Things Change, The More Some Things Remain The Same

Posted 12 months ago #
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM

^ That link ping'd a virus scan alert on my computer... FYI...

Posted 12 months ago #