Question for liberals

[Senator Clarence]

As I think most of you know- I am a supporter of gay rights and I am proud to say that...I also believe it is the right side of history having lived thru the civil rights movement. I would've voted for whatever the pro-gay side of Amendment 1 in NC was but I see many of you who criticize those who were on the other side in a unique way....you say that they are likely to be gay themselves

I understand there have been anti-gay politicans who have been shown to be gay- Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Gunderson, etc... but there have also been pro-gay politicians who were shown to be gay- Barney Frank, the old Governor of NJ, Eric Massa, etc...

Common sense would make me think those who are anti-gay marriage, gay adoption, and the like probably are the LEAST likely to be gay- just as it'd be pretty unlikely to find a Jewish Nazi (an extreme comparison). What makes you assume that they are gay- or is it just a ruse to push their buttons?

[Keystone Phil]

"Whatever the pro gay side of Amendment 1 was..."

Oh, this will be great.

[dead0man]

A.There was a study recently that showed that anti-gay people are often hiding their own gayness...there was a thread about it here somewhere
2.the husband of Michelle Bachman is gay and everybody knows it but him
III.it's a funny idea...for a gay basher to be gay...it's like Hitler being Jewish.  Funny ideas are more likely to be repeated.

[Governor Scott]

I never meant to imply that all gay marriage opponents are gay, I was merely referencing a study that suggests homophobia is psychologically connected to unexpressed homosexual feelings, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a supporter of the Amendment has some gay tendencies.

The resulting misinterpretations and flame wars led to my closing of it.

[ZuWo]

I never meant to imply that all gay marriage opponents are gay, I was merely referencing a study that suggests homophobia is psychologically connected to unexpressed homosexual feelings, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a supporter of the Amendment has some gay tendencies.

The resulting misinterpretations and flame wars led to my closing of it.

Scott, as much as I consider you a thoughtful and intelligent poster in general, you should tone down your rhetoric towards those who for some reasons do not support gay marriage.
Constantly implying that people who are against gay marrage are gay themselves, calling them all "bigots" or making equations such as being against gay marriage = being against interracial marriage or pro-slavery does not help your cause. Well, it may help you on this forum because that's the general attitude here, but I think you are intellectually able to argue for your point of view by using more respectful and more appropriate words.

[Senator Napoleon]

Clarence: You answered your own question in the OP.

ZuWo: Slaveowners also thought abolitionists should have been calling them "property rights defenders". It would have been a mistake to let them set the terms of discussion.


EDIT: No, I am not comparing gay marriage to slavery. Don't even try it.

[Joe Republic]

"Whatever the pro gay side of Amendment 1 was..."

Oh, this will be great.

It's not like Clarence was in a position to vote either way on it. 

[ModerateCoward]

This is what you would call an attempt to show what Tweed would call passion, because let's be honest most neo-liberals lack it. I mean sure jokes are fine, considering that there jokes made at the expense of the gays, but starting an entire crusade against opponents of gay-marriage may help gay marriage be accepted by a year or so faster, but it distracts leftists from real issues of everyday class struggle.

[ZuWo]

Clarence: You answered your own question in the OP.

ZuWo: Slaveowners also thought abolitionists should have been calling them "property rights defenders". It would have been a mistake to let them set the terms of discussion.


EDIT: No, I am not comparing gay marriage to slavery. Don't even try it.

There's a reason I addressed Scott in my post and not you. Indeed, I believe that Scott is a poster who is in general genuinely interested in respectful debates of controversial issues, while you aren't. I think these words by Alcon actually sum up your forum activities very well:

"counterproductive and juvenile"

[afleitch]

I never meant to imply that all gay marriage opponents are gay, I was merely referencing a study that suggests homophobia is psychologically connected to unexpressed homosexual feelings, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a supporter of the Amendment has some gay tendencies.

The resulting misinterpretations and flame wars led to my closing of it.

Scott, as much as I consider you a thoughtful and intelligent poster in general, you should tone down your rhetoric towards those who for some reasons do not support gay marriage.
Constantly implying that people who are against gay marrage are gay themselves, calling them all "bigots" or making equations such as being against gay marriage = being against interracial marriage or pro-slavery does not help your cause. Well, it may help you on this forum because that's the general attitude here, but I think you are intellectually able to argue for your point of view by using more respectful and more appropriate words.

Well given what we know about the spectrum of human sexuality; knowing both what it is and most importantly what it isn't denying us the right to marry; the right to financial security with the people we love and the inheritance, next of kin, property, seperation and other such rights that straights can get through signing a bit of paper is to me bigoted.

It pains me to think all I want to do is to be able to have the right to marry, yet flick through newspapers and see divorces, forced marriages, passport scam marriages, moral preachers marrying for the 6th time and some two penny tart getting married yet again just so she can appear in the front page of magazine. Gays aren't responsible for running marriage into the ground, so what other 'damage' do you think we can do to something thats already been cheapened?

[Simfan34]

I never meant to imply that all gay marriage opponents are gay, I was merely referencing a study that suggests homophobia is psychologically connected to unexpressed homosexual feelings, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a supporter of the Amendment has some gay tendencies.

The resulting misinterpretations and flame wars led to my closing of it.

Scott, as much as I consider you a thoughtful and intelligent poster in general, you should tone down your rhetoric towards those who for some reasons do not support gay marriage.
Constantly implying that people who are against gay marrage are gay themselves, calling them all "bigots" or making equations such as being against gay marriage = being against interracial marriage or pro-slavery does not help your cause. Well, it may help you on this forum because that's the general attitude here, but I think you are intellectually able to argue for your point of view by using more respectful and more appropriate words.

It pains me to think all I want to do is to be able to have the right to marry, yet flick through newspapers and see divorces, forced marriages, passport scam marriages, moral preachers marrying for the 6th time and some two penny tart getting married yet again just so she can appear in the front page of magazine. Gays aren't responsible for running marriage into the ground, so what other 'damage' do you think we can do to something thats already been cheapened?

This is perhaps the crux of my support- gay marriage expands the views of those who sincerely desire it. I'd say more, but Shibboleth would be sure to come in here and start going off about my pretension.

[ZuWo]

I never meant to imply that all gay marriage opponents are gay, I was merely referencing a study that suggests homophobia is psychologically connected to unexpressed homosexual feelings, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a supporter of the Amendment has some gay tendencies.

The resulting misinterpretations and flame wars led to my closing of it.

Scott, as much as I consider you a thoughtful and intelligent poster in general, you should tone down your rhetoric towards those who for some reasons do not support gay marriage.
Constantly implying that people who are against gay marrage are gay themselves, calling them all "bigots" or making equations such as being against gay marriage = being against interracial marriage or pro-slavery does not help your cause. Well, it may help you on this forum because that's the general attitude here, but I think you are intellectually able to argue for your point of view by using more respectful and more appropriate words.

Well given what we know about the spectrum of human sexuality; knowing both what it is and most importantly what it isn't denying us the right to marry; the right to financial security with the people we love and the inheritance, next of kin, property, seperation and other such rights that straights can get through signing a bit of paper is to me bigoted.

It pains me to think all I want to do is to be able to have the right to marry, yet flick through newspapers and see divorces, forced marriages, passport scam marriages, moral preachers marrying for the 6th time and some two penny tart getting married yet again just so she can appear in the front page of magazine. Gays aren't responsible for running marriage into the ground, so what other 'damage' do you think we can do to something thats already been cheapened?

Why should it be bigoted to take an approach to the definition of the term "marriage" that differs from that of gay marriage supporters? Throwing around the term "bigot" against those who dare to have another opinion and define "marriage" in a way that does not contain the union between people of the same sex is intellectually lazy.
You see, whatever definition of "marriage" you come up with, you will run into problems in terms of discrimination. The way many gay marriage supporters approach this topic seems to be the following: Men and women can marry, and so should men and men and women and women be able to marry. But what about brothers and sisters (or brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters)? What about the marriage of one man and ten women, i.e. polygamy? However you define the marriage laws of a state, you will discriminate against a certain form of marriage. That's in the nature of things or in the nature of marriage laws, I should say. Hence, it is plausible that one draws the conclusion that solely the standard (= by far most frequent) form of marriage should be legally acknowledged in order to keep the law relatively simple and straightforward.

[afleitch]

I never meant to imply that all gay marriage opponents are gay, I was merely referencing a study that suggests homophobia is psychologically connected to unexpressed homosexual feelings, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that a supporter of the Amendment has some gay tendencies.

The resulting misinterpretations and flame wars led to my closing of it.

Scott, as much as I consider you a thoughtful and intelligent poster in general, you should tone down your rhetoric towards those who for some reasons do not support gay marriage.
Constantly implying that people who are against gay marrage are gay themselves, calling them all "bigots" or making equations such as being against gay marriage = being against interracial marriage or pro-slavery does not help your cause. Well, it may help you on this forum because that's the general attitude here, but I think you are intellectually able to argue for your point of view by using more respectful and more appropriate words.

It pains me to think all I want to do is to be able to have the right to marry, yet flick through newspapers and see divorces, forced marriages, passport scam marriages, moral preachers marrying for the 6th time and some two penny tart getting married yet again just so she can appear in the front page of magazine. Gays aren't responsible for running marriage into the ground, so what other 'damage' do you think we can do to something thats already been cheapened?

This is perhaps the crux of my support- gay marriage expands the views of those who sincerely desire it. I'd say more, but Shibboleth would be sure to come in here and start going off about my pretension.

I just haven’t heard a legitimate reason as to why gay marriage harms marriage. In Scotland, which has had civil unions since 2005, the divorce rate for male-female couples was 37%; a figures that’s been constant for about 20 years now. The annulment rate for gay civil unions over that period of time was just 3%. Committed gay relationships are stable. In the western world 1 in 3 marriages ends in divorce and the average new marriage lasts just 7 years before ending in divorce. As contracts go, it’s one of the least stable you can enter in to.

So marriage as an institution is f-cked. It really is. It was never perfect at any point in it’s history but all the damage that is being inflicted on marriage has had nothing to do with gays. So marriage for me, is now about the value and worth of individual marriages. My mum and dad have been together for 37 years. I know two men who have been together for just as long. Those are unions that work. There are straight and gay unions that don’t work. If two men or two women can get together and make it work why not let them? Even if it breaks down why not allow them the shot at it? Why deny marriage on account of sexual orientation? As I pointed out above, if marriage was about collective stability and longevity and life-long commitment then empirically speaking, it should be taken away from straight couples and given to gays as they are less likely to bail. But if it’s about the individual couples and what they make of it, why deny marriage to two consenting adults who love each other?

[Senator Napoleon]

There's a reason I addressed Scott in my post and not you. Indeed, I believe that Scott is a poster who is in general genuinely interested in respectful debates of controversial issues, while you aren't.

You hold many beliefs, almost none of which can be substantiated by fact. Good day.

[afleitch]

However you define the marriage laws of a state, you will discriminate against a certain form of marriage. That's in the nature of things or in the nature of marriage laws, I should say. Hence, it is plausible that one draws the conclusion that solely the standard (= by far most frequent) form of marriage should be legally acknowledged in order to keep the law relatively simple and straightforward.

Let me put it this way and expanding on the above.

Why do you think that people who’s sexual orientation is towards people of the same sex be denied the right to marry someone of their own sex? Bear in mind all they are seeking is a level playing field; to be allowed to have a corresponding relationship to man-woman marriage based on their orientation. What you mentioned; brothers, sisters, polygamy is not trying to create a level playing field; it’s trying to do something else. Given what we know about the innateness of sexual orientation, denying gays the right to marry on the basis of a natural (though not common) and non conscionable characteristic is as absurd as saying someone cannot marry because of their skin colour or any other trait you choose to pick out.