Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

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

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Opposition to same sex marriage: Valid political position or bigotry?

This topic contains 43 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by Coach Rich Coach Rich 2 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 50 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #497425
    TomOver
    TomOver
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Not surprised by this video. (R)evolution(s) in how humans conceptualize and act on—individually and collectively— gender, sex, sexuality, and reproduction inevitably encounter reactionary responses. Some of them are within religious frameworks while others are within legal and scientific frameworks.

    This evolutionary process defies the comprehension of queer folk ourselves, not only homophobes.

    As said before, prefer ‘queer’ as a widely and flexibly inclusive term, over the linguistically awkward ‘LGBTQ.’

    ‘Queer’ also denotes compatibility with, if not obvious connection to, other (r)evolution(s) in human self-understanding such as veganism, anarchism, and deep ecology.

    #497426
    TomOver
    TomOver
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    ExileOn6thSt said:
    I was raised in an ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian family and one of my siblings is queer. In my parents’ worldview, getting people to ‘heaven’ is the only thing that matters. They believe that homosexuality is a sin, and so they firmly believe that the only way to love their child is to try to change her. It would be a sin for them not to according to their church. It’s tragic, and in my experience that particular church has been hurting a lot of people for a long time. But on the personal level I can see how some people think that opposing gay marriage is out of love rather than hate. Definitely not true for all cases though (the video above, for example).

    That being said, by the time this discussion gets to the political sphere, there seems to always be an irrational element of fear and bigotry. Given the supposed separation of church & state, the most reasonable solution seems to be having the state not deal with ‘marriage’ at all. The state should grant civil unions to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Leave it to religious groups to define ‘marriage’ for themselves – some will be LGBTQ friendly, some won’t – but that shouldn’t determine what legal rights and benefits people have.

    The logic of saving someone else’s soul could be carried to the extreme. High profile intellectual and in some ways conservative queer, Andrew Sullivan, some years ago reminded us that perhaps some—though certainly not all— of the people who burned other human being at the stake sincerely believed the torment they inflicted was far better than allowing that person to burn in hell forever.

    See the etymology of ‘fag’ and the Italian ‘finocchio.’

    #497428

    labi
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    cmpunk4life said:
    Its not right to make a kid bare the burden of having to go to school and get embarrassed.

    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.

    #497429

    labi
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    ExileOn6thSt said:
    In my parents’ worldview…homosexuality is a sin, and so they firmly believe that the only way to love their child is to try to change her. It would be a sin for them not to according to their church…I can see how some people think that opposing gay marriage is out of love rather than hate…That being said, by the time this discussion gets to the political sphere, there seems to always be an irrational element of fear and bigotry.

    Unfortunately, I think there’s an irrational element of fear and bigotry even in cases where you might see “love rather than hate” – in other words, it’s not the political sphere that brings it. I don’t think ceding marriage to the discretion of the churches that choose to accommodate that fear and bigotry is the answer. (Until churches are ready to give up any claim that the ceremonies they choose to perform are what grant the legal rights related to marriage, that is, which I don’t really see coming.)

    #497430
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    I wonder what polygamists think of gay marriage.

    #497431
    Schoolboy
    Schoolboy
    Participant
    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.

    #497432

    dubdave00
    Participant
    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?

    #497433
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant
    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.

    #497434
    jackoh
    jackoh
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Opposition to same-sex marriage = bigotry.

    Opposition to the entire institution of marriage = sanity.

    #497435

    dubdave00
    Participant
    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.

    #497436

    derm
    Participant
    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.

    #497437
    SusanB
    SusanB
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

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

    #497438

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    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.

    #497439

    cheap
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    gay marriage,civil unions…blah blah blah

    this shit’s getting older than the Kardashian broads.

    #497440
    DavidF
    DavidF
    Participant
    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. :)

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 50 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?