Opposing Gay Marriage Doesn’t Make You a Crypto-Racist

[Torie]

I concur with the author (a liberal). I put the article up, because in my view, there is a certain lack of tolerance in the hood about opposing viewpoints held in good faith. Something to ponder anyway. Thank you.

[memphis]

They may not be the exact same issue, but they are completely analogous, and, to be honest, the populations against line up rather neatly. I'm not sure what you mean by "good faith" Plenty of hateful and hurtful viewpoints are sincerely held. Sincerity doesn't make them any less heinous. Further, the notion that conservatives are somehow the victims here is flatly preposterous. Since you're the one who made the comparison and are so concerned about tolerance and "good faith", make the case why supporting racism in good faith isn't ok (which I presume you believe) but behaving the same toward gays isn't.  All this article offers is an appeal to tradition and a flatly false claim that religion was not behind the racism of the old days. I'm very underwhelmed by the poor case presented.
PS: The right wing article trolling act is stale. You need a new act.

[bedstuy]

Conservatives generally have no idea what intolerance is because they've never experienced intolerance.  Someone disagreeing with your opinion or calling your ideas stupid is not intolerance.   If you don't want to risk someone disagreeing with your opinion, keep it to yourself, simple as that.  

[Cassius]

Methinks this thread is going to end badly.

[AggregateDemand]

I'm skeptical about the "benefits" of giving same-sex couples access to a dying heterosexual institution with centuries of ingrained legal bias towards heterosexual couples and millenniums of cultural bias towards heterosexuality.

Heterosexuals don't even trust marriage themselves, yet questioning SSM will cost you your CEO job. What would we do without "progressivism"?

[Torie]

Yes this thread is not going too well. The narrow point is that just because folks are flat ass wrong on an issue, and they are if they oppose SSM in my opinion, does not mean they are bad people, to be loathed and disdained, in the way probably bigots and racists in general should be. And some adhere to the point of view of the religious hierarchy of their Church on this matter, e.g., some Catholics. That is where they place their trust.  I find that mitigatory. Obviously, others do not.

[afleitch]

Yes this thread is not going too well. The narrow point is that just because folks are flat ass wrong on an issue, and they are if they oppose SSM in my opinion, does not mean they are bad people, to be loathed and disdained, in the way probably bigots and racists in general should be. And some adhere to the point of view of the religious hierarchy of their Church on this matter, e.g., some Catholics. That is where they place their trust.  I find that mitigatory. Obviously, others do not.

What if the issue was interracial marriage? I mean, if we replaced that as the issue and not SSM. That didn't reach '50-50' acceptability until the early to mid 90's, which wasn't a lifetime ago. Would it be right to disdain of people who still hold that view (or people who still do today)? If they cited religious justification, the doctrines of which they place their trust in, would that mitigate it for you?  If you were in business then and helped run a company where many employees were in an interracial marriage, or in 1994, were children of interracial marriage and the ethos of the company was to be inclusive and opening, would it make sense to have someone who opposed interracial marriage as it's CEO? Would that company be guilty of a lack of tolerance because it was not comfortable with someone who still held that view in charge? Would the person who opposes interracial marriage be the real 'victim' here?

[Torie]

What major religion opposed interracial marriage in the time frame to which you refer alfteich? And what is the public policy reason to oppose interracial marriage other than just racism? As to SSM marriage, some believe, for reasons not empirically based, but sometimes for reasons of genuine confusion about cause and effect, that SSM would have a collateral deleterious effect on society, such as undermining the institution of marriage, getting it away from procreation, and so forth, all wrong headed ideas, but not per se grounded on hatred, bigotry and prejudice.

Having said that, it is just cruel really, when you get down to it, to deny folks the ability to marry whom they love, and can be a great psychological hardship, just in the way staying closeted can be, due to fear of being disdained. There is among some folks, a lack of empathy. So the idea is to get some of these people to see the light, and there is hope, because many of them are not hateful bigots.

Ah, the intolerance of youth, sometimes (been there, done that, myself). Nobody should have any power until they reach 40.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes this thread is not going too well. The narrow point is that just because folks are flat ass wrong on an issue, and they are if they oppose SSM in my opinion, does not mean they are bad people, to be loathed and disdained, in the way probably bigots and racists in general should be. And some adhere to the point of view of the religious hierarchy of their Church on this matter, e.g., some Catholics. That is where they place their trust.  I find that mitigatory. Obviously, others do not.

Sometimes it's hard to figure out who are the misguided and who are the bigots/racists.  They sound a lot alike quite often.

[AggregateDemand]

What if the issue was interracial marriage?

You should be asking yourself, "why do we have to keep revisiting marital issues?".

You'll eventually conclude is that marriage law is not about love or relationships. Instead, marital law is about regulating relationships that traditionally produced biological offspring, who inherited genetic traits from both people within the marriage. That's why it's illegal to marry your siblings. The presumption of paternity is why divorce courts are particularly hard on men, even if they aren't the biological parent.

Over the years, state governments and the federal government have violated Equal Protection to give special privileges to married people to offset their parental responsibilities. Violating Equal Protection has caused a litany of socio-economic problems for unmarried people. The public sector doesn't care. Economically-speaking, everyone cannot get treated with kid-gloves, and sympathy for parental difficulty is political gold. Discrimination persists because both sides support it, regardless of the rhetoric.

Liberals support SSM because it has virtually no effect on the socioeconomic paradigm in the US, and they are delighted to have an new micro-demographic to exploit for political power.

[afleitch]

What major religion opposed interracial marriage in the time frame to which you refer alfteich? And what is the public policy reason to oppose interracial marriage other than just racism? As to SSM marriage, some believe, for reasons not empirically based, but sometimes for reasons of genuine confusion about cause and effect, that SSM would have a collateral deleterious effect on society, such as undermining the institution of marriage, getting it away from procreation, and so forth, all wrong headed ideas, but not per se grounded on hatred, bigotry and prejudice.

It does not matter how big or small a religion is. If you consider religious justification for opposition a mitigating factor, then it need not matter how big the opposition is. It can also be a personal religious view without attachment to a church body. You say yourself that the reasons for opposing SSM are often not empirically based. The fact that there is over 100 years worth of collective data across several decades now, in terms of recognition of SSM in jurisidictions across the world and corresponding social data/trends means nothing to these people. But in formulating both public policy and good business practice, it should matter. Is being uncomfortable with certain people having access to rights a fair reason to accommodate that in public policy?

You say that opposition to interracial marriage is 'just racist'. Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Given that only a small minority (though still about 15% in the USA according to Gallup) oppose interracial marriage and no one is trying to win souls or votes in opposing it, it is very very easy to say that without repercussion. Things become simply 'obvious' in time. A significant number of influential political organisations and religious organisations that move against SSM either concurrently, or have in the past, opposed all LGBT rights, so you can conclude, despite their protestations, that their opposition to SSM is 'just homophobic'

But let's rewind back to 1995. It's basically pre-internet which makes things harder, but studies such as the National Survey of Population growth were misused to demonstrate that interracial marriages ended earlier than other marriages; younger marriages, higher divorce rates (50% higher), decreased family stability and so on. The study linked to a significant number of studies that agreed with that assertion, conducted in the 1960's that are now buried in the 'what the f-ck were we trying to prove' annals of social sciences. Was there a mainstream movement to oppose interracial marriage once the Supreme Court had decided? No, but if there was, you can be assured that those who opposed it would be appealing to 'statistics' and unsubstantiated claims of instability and therefore dismissing the integrity of such marriages from the get go.

[afleitch]

What if the issue was interracial marriage?

You should be asking yourself, "why do we have to keep revisiting marital issues?".

Given your posting history, I think you should be asking that question of yourself

[Torie]

Yes, I suppose one could make the case that certain classes of marriages should be banned, because statistically there is a higher divorce rate, but that would be one of the weakest cases ever made on an issue in the history of mankind almost, would it not? In any event, this SSM thing is a continuum, not some bright line situation, where you are the devil on one side of it, and an angel on the other. I do understand the anger though. But I have found, that in the end, the one who is angry tends to be the loser in the sense that it tends to leave one feeling miserable, and absorbs so much energy that might be better used elsewhere, or in using different tactics. Your mileage varies I guess, alfteich. That's OK too.

[Lief 🗽]

This guy's three points are all nonsense and/or inaccurate. People have already pointed out how racism did have religious roots, but his argument that gay marriage is trying to radically re-define an ancient institution is also disingenuous. Up until about a half century ago, marriage was essentially a property agreement transferring ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Redefining marriage as an equal partnership was much more radical than current attempts to allow it between people with the same genitals. But opposition to both "re-definitions" is wrong and bigoted and reinforces existing societal inequalities that we should be doing everything in our power to do away with.

Sorry that bigots feel offended that people are daring to point out their bigotry. Hopefully the fact that society is constructed by and for their social group is enough to console their hurt feelings.