Why is SSM such a big deal?

[Del Tachi]

Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of the left using division and hatred as a political tactic.

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.  Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong: if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

Rather, the American left is much more comfortable using gay marriage as an issue to drum-up electoral support among the hopelessly young and mindlessly cosmopolitan for an agenda that actually comes at the expense of the working poor, racial relations and the environment.  Such is the problem when a center-left party tries to build a base by appealing to conservatives.

Hey, remember 2004 when Republicans used calls for the criminialization of homosexual activity as an effort to drum-up electoral support? Good times.

No.  No Republican candidate for federal office was saying that same-sex relations between consenting individuals should be illegal in 2004. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said that religion "has a right" to infringe on "gay rights". 

I just think its detrimental to public discourse in a society when otherwise good-natured, civil people are made into bigots just because they hold a moral objection to homosexual marriage that is consistent with religious texts and teachings across several centuries, its nothing new-fangled. 

You're still going to have to live with Christians and the Religious Right after SCOTUS strikes-down all statewide-SSM bans this summer, so I would suggest you learn to play nice at least. 

[Torie]

Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of the left using division and hatred as a political tactic.

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.  Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong:  if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

Rather, the American left is much more comfortable using gay marriage as an issue to drum-up electoral support among the hopelessly young and mindlessly cosmopolitan for an agenda that actually comes at the expense of the working poor, racial relations and the environment.  Such is the problem when a center-left party tries to build a base by appealing to conservatives.

It's 1) hatred or bigotry, 2) based on religious non data based religious dogma, or 3) both. So yes, not all those who oppose SSM are haters or bigots, just adherents to certain religious dogmas. But many of them are. Well I guess a fourth category are those who honestly believe there is a secular case to be made against SSM based on damage to society as a whole, as opposed to animus against gays. Let's call that group the shockingly uninformed, because at this point in the debate, that's what it is.

[Del Tachi]

Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of the left using division and hatred as a political tactic.

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage. Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong:  if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

Rather, the American left is much more comfortable using gay marriage as an issue to drum-up electoral support among the hopelessly young and mindlessly cosmopolitan for an agenda that actually comes at the expense of the working poor, racial relations and the environment.  Such is the problem when a center-left party tries to build a base by appealing to conservatives.

You can't talk about hatred and intolerance when you want your hatred and intolerance not only tolerated, but enshrined into the law for everyone.  People can't still believe homosexuality is wrong, immoral and that same-sex marriage is evil.  They just don't get the government to abide by their beliefs.

They can take comfort in the fact that marriage is a voluntary act among private citizens so they don't need to get a same-sex marriage unless they want one.

Indeed, in fact "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's".  Marriage in the United States is a civil ceremony, and the Religious Right should take no issue with the redefinition of a non-religious institution, IMO.

However, the crux of my argument is that the current toxicity surrounding the issue is not producing any sort of goodwill and that it would be in the best interests of both sides if we tried not to demonize the opposition.

[Del Tachi]

Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of the left using division and hatred as a political tactic.

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.  Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong:  if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

Rather, the American left is much more comfortable using gay marriage as an issue to drum-up electoral support among the hopelessly young and mindlessly cosmopolitan for an agenda that actually comes at the expense of the working poor, racial relations and the environment.  Such is the problem when a center-left party tries to build a base by appealing to conservatives.

It's 1) hatred or bigotry, 2) based on religious non data based religious dogma, or 3) both. So yes, not all those who oppose SSM are haters or bigots, just adherents to certain religious dogmas. But many of them are. Well I guess a fourth category are those who honestly believe there is a secular case to be made against SSM based on damage to society as a whole, as opposed to animus against gays. Let's call that group the shockingly uninformed, because at this point in the debate, that's what it is.

So, your point?

Historically, there are eugenicist elements within the pro-abortion community in the United States; however, the entirety of the pro-choice movement is not characterized in such a light.

Opposition to SSM =/= Bigotry 

[Slander and/or Libel]

Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of the left using division and hatred as a political tactic.

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.  Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong: if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

Rather, the American left is much more comfortable using gay marriage as an issue to drum-up electoral support among the hopelessly young and mindlessly cosmopolitan for an agenda that actually comes at the expense of the working poor, racial relations and the environment.  Such is the problem when a center-left party tries to build a base by appealing to conservatives.

Hey, remember 2004 when Republicans used calls for the criminialization of homosexual activity as an effort to drum-up electoral support? Good times.

No.  No Republican candidate for federal office was saying that same-sex relations between consenting individuals should be illegal in 2004. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said that religion "has a right" to infringe on "gay rights". 

I just think its detrimental to public discourse in a society when otherwise good-natured, civil people are made into bigots just because they hold a moral objection to homosexual marriage that is consistent with religious texts and teachings across several centuries, its nothing new-fangled. 

You're still going to have to live with Christians and the Religious Right after SCOTUS strikes-down all statewide-SSM bans this summer, so I would suggest you learn to play nice at least. 

Trying to legally ban SSM =/= having people say things you don't want to hear said about yourself.

[Torie]

Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of the left using division and hatred as a political tactic.

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.  Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong:  if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

Rather, the American left is much more comfortable using gay marriage as an issue to drum-up electoral support among the hopelessly young and mindlessly cosmopolitan for an agenda that actually comes at the expense of the working poor, racial relations and the environment.  Such is the problem when a center-left party tries to build a base by appealing to conservatives.

It's 1) hatred or bigotry, 2) based on religious non data based religious dogma, or 3) both. So yes, not all those who oppose SSM are haters or bigots, just adherents to certain religious dogmas. But many of them are. Well I guess a fourth category are those who honestly believe there is a secular case to be made against SSM based on damage to society as a whole, as opposed to animus against gays. Let's call that group the shockingly uninformed, because at this point in the debate, that's what it is.

So, your point?

Historically, there are eugenicist elements within the pro-abortion community in the United States; however, the entirety of the pro-choice movement is not characterized in such a light.

Opposition to SSM =/= Bigotry 

And that is wrong. But it is a fair comment to point out that much of the opposition to SSM is at bottom rooted in animus against gays, and the desire to keep them in a second class status, and that understandably angers much of the gay community, as well as others. The problem is more acute now, since we are so far down the road, legally, culturally, politically (it is not a career ender most places now to favor SSM), and based on a better understanding of the data and empirical evidence.

[CountryClassSF]

It would be a lot less of a big deal if we could stop hearing about it every day. Every time we pick up a magazine, SSM. Every time we walk down the street, SSM. Everywhere we go, SSM. It's put in our faces purposefully by some.

It would also be less of a big deal if 1st amendment rights were preserved of those of us who disagree - and we didn't have to live in fear of being ostracized, shamed, or losing our job (Ironic that its OK to the ENDA fans for someone to  lose their job because of a religious belief, BTW).

There are many libertarians on the Right who support SSM and religious liberty. Guy P. Benson, who recently came out, is one of them. If there was more of this on the pro-SSM side, there would be less controversy about civil marriage  if we didn't feel that our  fundamental rights were being threatened in the process.
 

[Slander and/or Libel]

You're lying. You would still oppose SSM on the same grounds you say you do now. You don't say you oppose it because people aren't nice enough to you.

[CountryClassSF]

You're lying. You would still oppose SSM on the same grounds you say you do now. You don't say you oppose it because people aren't nice enough to you.

No because It would be dishonest for me if I suggested that my personal experiences did not shape my view on the gay issue.

[Slander and/or Libel]

So you're saying that your position on this issue is materially shaped by your perception of how nice people are to you about it? That if you don't feel properly catered to, you're comfortable with fighting tooth and nail to keep an entire population from enjoying this right?

Super principled, dude.

[CountryClassSF]

So you're saying that your position on this issue is materially shaped by your perception of how nice people are to you about it? That if you don't feel properly catered to, you're comfortable with fighting tooth and nail to keep an entire population from enjoying this right?

Super principled, dude.

Well, many people say their position in support of SSM was based on the increased visibility of gays.  My opposition was.

[SteveRogers]

So you're saying that your position on this issue is materially shaped by your perception of how nice people are to you about it? That if you don't feel properly catered to, you're comfortable with fighting tooth and nail to keep an entire population from enjoying this right?

Super principled, dude.

Well, many people say their position in support of SSM was based on the increased visibility of gays.  My opposition was.

Do you understand how utterly disgusting that sounds? You oppose gay rights because in the modern world you are forced to acknowledge the reality that gay people exist?

When a straight man introduces you to his girlfriend, do you feel that they are putting their sexuality in your face? When a straight couple walks down that street holding hands, how is that not "flaunting" under your logic? When you pick up a magazine and see an article about straight weddings, do you complain about being harassed by the heterosexual agenda?

What you're saying is that it offends you when gay people act like normal human beings. 

[7,052,770]

I met my wife for lunch last week. We kissed goodbye on the way out of the restaurant. No tongue or anything excessive -- just a quick peck. No big deal. Nobody cared.

If a same-sex couple had done the same thing, there would have been some grumbling amongst the people eating at the restaurant. Possibly the same-sex couple could have been told not to return (probably not, but you never know with restaurant owners. Remember, we have a "religious freedom" exemption for businesses in Mississippi).

If two gays kissing non-gratuitously in a restaurant is flaunting their homosexuality, did my wife and I flaunt our heterosexuality?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If two gays kissing non-gratuitously in a restaurant is flaunting their homosexuality, did my wife and I flaunt our heterosexuality?

Yes, tho most places, yet not all, tolerate such flaunting.

[bedstuy]

If two gays kissing non-gratuitously in a restaurant is flaunting their homosexuality, did my wife and I flaunt our heterosexuality?

Yes, tho most places, yet not all, tolerate such flaunting.

If two straight people kiss in Chelsea or the Castro, nobody is going to scream at them or attack them.  That could absolutely happen to two gay people in many, many places around America.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If two gays kissing non-gratuitously in a restaurant is flaunting their homosexuality, did my wife and I flaunt our heterosexuality?

Yes, tho most places, yet not all, tolerate such flaunting.

If two straight people kiss in Chelsea or the Castro, nobody is going to scream at them or attack them.  That could absolutely happen to two gay people in many, many places around America.

I wasn't thinking of that.  Rather I was thinking of places where those in charge don't want any sexual flaunting, either homo or hetero.

[Slander and/or Libel]

But even in those places, heterosexual people will not be accused specifically of throwing their heterosexuality in people's faces. They'll be accused of acting appropriately. LGBT people will get an extra layer of opprobrium for reminding people of their existence.

[Brittain33]

Del Tachi, I'm pretty sure you can go back to 2003-2004 and find Republican federal officials calling the Lawrence decision wrongly decided. That meant they were arguing for the criminalization of gay sex. I certainly would concede that by that date, few were willing to say outright they wanted gay sex to be criminalized, but stood up for the principle that states should be allowed to do so if they wanted.

[CountryClassSF]

If two straight people kiss in Chelsea or the Castro, nobody is going to scream at them or attack them.  That could absolutely happen to two gay people in many, many places around America.

San Francisco bar owner in the Castro demanded straight people stop kissing. http://youtu.be/Cdt-KqccS2Y

[Slander and/or Libel]

If two straight people kiss in Chelsea or the Castro, nobody is going to scream at them or attack them.  That could absolutely happen to two gay people in many, many places around America.

San Francisco bar owner in the Castro demanded straight people stop kissing. http://youtu.be/Cdt-KqccS2Y

Seriously? A local news joint from 18 years ago is the best you can do?

[IceSpear]

The only losers to be made out of the SSM debate are Americans who honestly and ardently believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.  Now, this isn't to say that opponents of gay marriage have good reasons for their opposition - because, quite frankly, they don't.  However, the narrative that opposition to SSM is rooted in hatred and bigotry of homosexuals is just plain wrong:  if that were the case, we'd be seeing calls for the criminalization of homosexual activity, et cetera.

You realize that sodomy laws weren't overturned nationwide until 2003, right? You also realize that many of the same "sanctity of marriage" groups in the US were/are responsible for things such as the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda, right?

[SteveRogers]

If two straight people kiss in Chelsea or the Castro, nobody is going to scream at them or attack them.  That could absolutely happen to two gay people in many, many places around America.

San Francisco bar owner in the Castro demanded straight people stop kissing. http://youtu.be/Cdt-KqccS2Y

You're kind of missing the point entirely. Do you or do you not understand that it is the norm for straight couples to show affection for one another in public? Furthermore, do you have a problem with straight couples showing affection for one another in public?

[Marokai Backbeat]

If two straight people kiss in Chelsea or the Castro, nobody is going to scream at them or attack them.  That could absolutely happen to two gay people in many, many places around America.

San Francisco bar owner in the Castro demanded straight people stop kissing. http://youtu.be/Cdt-KqccS2Y

You do realize that the amount of gay people who are harassed or even outright banned from showing their affection in public far outnumber the reverse, right? And that that reverse number is practically non-existent?

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does that excuse what happened in the Castro?

[SteveRogers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does that excuse what happened in the Castro?

You're being deliberately obtuse on this point. Do you or do you not get offended when straight couples show affection in public?