[BlackGriffen]

Bush seemed to hint at support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I'm wondering, Simey, would this be enough for you to drop your support of W? Or even the Republican party altogether?

I admit that the Democrats aren't exactly angels on this issue. With them, though, there's at least progress instead of regress or stagnation.

Small though that progress may be.

BlackGriffen

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Bush seemed to hint at support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I'm wondering, Simey, would this be enough for you to drop your support of W? Or even the Republican party altogether?

I admit that the Democrats aren't exactly angels on this issue. With them, though, there's at least progress instead of regress or stagnation.

Small though that progress may be.

BlackGriffen

Can anyone reply?

Gay marriage is gay.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Old news.

And you're right about one thing, the Democrats haven't done squat about the whole issue either.

In fact, it's a safe bet (if acts defining marriage already signed by the Clinton admin. and state laws here in Cali and other states are any indicator) that the majority of the country isn't too big on support of gay marriage at this time in history.

It'd be interesting to see any of the Democrat canidates open their flap in support of it. I haven't seen it yet- has anyone else?

[zigzag]

.

[Evan_11]

*sniff* *sniff*

I smell lame attempt at a personal attack.

So BG do you also post headlines over at:
As if its any of you or anyone elses damn business that Simey's gay.com

[chris v]

Any attempt to make an issue out of gay marriage this year needs to be viewed for what it is-- a diversionary tactic devised to play to the baser emotions, and thus incite, the social conservatives-- and summarily ignored.

CV

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Blacktroll:
Bush seemed to hint at support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I'm wondering, Simey, would this be enough for you to drop your support of W? Or even the Republican party altogether?

I admit that the Democrats aren't exactly angels on this issue. With them, though, there's at least progress instead of regress or stagnation.

Small though that progress may be.

BlackTroll

Regarding your point

The gay marriage thing is entirely political. W. probably could care less except that he relies heavily on the Christian Coalition vote. With the democrates its entirely an image thing. The dem canidates as it is are pretty effeminate and none of them want to look any more so by endorsing gay marriage. Could you actually see John Edwards 'the Breck Girl' talking about gay marriage?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
*sniff* *sniff*

I smell lame attempt at a personal attack.

So BG do you also post headlines over at:
As if its any of you or anyone elses damn business that Simey's gay.com

Smells can't come through the computer, so that foul odor is coming from you, somehow. I won't speculate further.

That said, Simey is the only gay Republican I know of, and a very faithful Republican at that. So, I was curious about his reaction, is all. Did it irk him? Does he just brush it off now? You know, that sort of thing.

Of all the people I regularly debate opposite of here in the lounge, Simey is the one I respect the most. So, contrary to popular belief, he's someone I'd buy a drink for... and then post all of the embarrassing things he'd say when I got him smashed!

BlackGriffen

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Smells can't come through the computer, so that foul odor is coming from you, somehow. I won't speculate further.

That said, Simey is the only gay Republican I know of, and a very faithful Republican at that. So, I was curious about his reaction, is all. Did it irk him? Does he just brush it off now? You know, that sort of thing.

Of all the people I regularly debate opposite of here in the lounge, Simey is the one I respect the most. So, contrary to popular belief, he's someone I'd buy a drink for... and then post all of the embarrassing things he'd say when I got him smashed!

BlackGriffen

You being a liberal must find that facinating then. Oh my a gay Republican. What's next a gay, black Republican? Oh thats horrendous. You dems are all issue based. Makes me think you're insecure.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
You being a liberal must find that facinating then. Oh my a gay Republican. What's next a gay, black Republican? Oh thats horrendous. You dems are all issue based. Makes me think you're insecure.

Lucky for me, I'm not a Dem.

And how do you pick your candidates? Based on some shallow affinity you feel for the persona worn in front of the camera? Let me list how I choose my candidates, in order of importance:

• Track record
• Issues
• My own perception of whether that person can handle the job.
• ...
• Reading tea leaves
• Flip a coin.
• ...
• ...
• ......!
• Belt buckle

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Old news.

And you're right about one thing, the Democrats haven't done squat about the whole issue either.

In fact, it's a safe bet (if acts defining marriage already signed by the Clinton admin. and state laws here in Cali and other states are any indicator) that the majority of the country isn't too big on support of gay marriage at this time in history.

It'd be interesting to see any of the Democrat canidates open their flap in support of it. I haven't seen it yet- has anyone else?

sadly, no I haven't heard of anyone coming out for it. I think the immense religious right voting bloc wields way too much undue influence on ALL politicians. Not so much by lobbying or money, but by the smear campaigns they launch against anyone who doesn't support "family values" in a way that pleases them.

[BRussell]

They all (the 5 major Dem candidates) say they oppose gay marriage but support civil unions, or some form of legal recognition for committed gay couples.

That seems like playing it both ways, but it seems to me to be a reasonable position. Marriage has both legal and religious bases, and so once you say "marriage" you're implicitly including religious-based marriage as well. "Civil unions" implies legal recognition only, without involving the religious and traditional aspects of marriage.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by BRussell:
"Civil unions" implies legal recognition only, without involving the religious and traditional aspects of marriage.

Civil Unions is liberal speak for we don't want to be direcly associated with gay people because Rosie O'Donnel is no longer popular with the soccer moms.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Civil Unions is liberal speak for we don't want to be direcly associated with gay people because Rosie O'Donnel is no longer popular with the soccer moms.

Damn, how'd you know? Been breaking into Democrats' computers again?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Bush seemed to hint at support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I'm wondering, Simey, would this be enough for you to drop your support of W? Or even the Republican party altogether?

I admit that the Democrats aren't exactly angels on this issue. With them, though, there's at least progress instead of regress or stagnation.

Small though that progress may be.

BlackGriffen

It's a little odd waking up and finding a thread directed so personally at me. I'll do my best to answer.

I didn't see the SOTU, so I didn't see what Bush said directly. From what I read, it didn't sound like he changed his position. That position sounds to me to be pretty weasely, but to the extent it's designed to appeal to what I consider to be bigotry, or at least obtuse ignorance, of course it upsets me. Unfortunately, gay people learn to expect this from politicians. Have you ever noticed that straight politicians of either party never say anything directed to gay people? The best we can hope for is something nice said about them. Statements come out like "I think they should be treated equally." Never "I think you should be treated equally." So even gay-friendly statements before general audiences (which are usually heavily qualified) remind me that I am a minority and that the best I can hope for is for one member of the majority to ask the rest for a little pity. It's quite insulting, and it leads me to have very low expectations.

You say that I am a loyal Republican. That's sort of true. But any political party is a compromise. We mainly here discuss foreign policy and perhaps economic policy. There I do have the most in common with Republicans. On a number of social policies, however, I have more in common with Democrats. Voting is a matter of deciding what matters the most, and who is actually responsible for the issue that you care about. It's upsetting that any president would wade into the issue of a marriage amendment. But I remember that the president has no direct role in passing a constitutional amendment.

I'm actually more upset about the fact that Virginia's House just almost unanimously voted to urge the US House of Representatives to begin the amendment process. That was a vote supported by Democrats as well as Republicans. I find that much more threatening than anything a president says because state legislatures do have a role in amending the constitution. This is also a much more authentic statement of where the parties really are on gay rights. Democrats natinally like to claim to be gay friendly, but it's amazing how many will vote for anti-gay things when it is expedient. This happens all the time at the local level, which is where it really matters.

Remembering that all parties are a coalition, I certainly wouldn't consider abandoning my party affiliation over this. If gay people are ever going to win equal rights it will be because we convince the majority that we ought to have them. You can't do that by giving up on persuading 50% of the country.

[Logic]

I was wondering about a couple of things. Does marriage in the States give you some legal/tax benefits? If the constitution would be changed to ban gay marriage will that ban any religious group from marrying gay couples?
And what happened to "being a republic to prevent tyranny from the majority"?

IMO the government should make sure all citizens have equal rights, not the opposite. But I also think that the government shouldn't force religious institutions to wed gay couples. And I can't understand how Simey can support someone who says the things Bush said. Voting for him would mean voting to make himself a 2nd class citizen. How could anyone vote for that? Simey, you said that "Voting is a matter of deciding what matters the most". Shouldn't this be at the top of your list? This is who you are while all other matters are something you choose to believe to be the right way to do things. Please elaborate


ps. BG I was going to start the exact same thread today


Disclaimer: I direct these questions to simey since he is the only gay republican I know of here. This is not meant as a personal attack or anything like that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Simey, you said that "Voting is a matter of deciding what matters the most".

No I didn't. I said "Voting is a matter of deciding what matters the most, and who is actually responsible for the issue that you care about. You dowdified me.

[Twilly Spree]

I for one support my president on this issue. I think gay marriages are wrong and should never be allowed. It is clearly stated in the Bible that members of the same sex should not consort with each other. I think it is sick.

Most Democrats and Republicans see eye to eye with me. Thank God.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No I didn't. I said "Voting is a matter of deciding what matters the most, and who is actually responsible for the issue that you care about. You dowdified me.

Oops, sorry. Just woke up

OK, if you add that to my post and then reply?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Oops, sorry. Just woke up

OK, if you add that to my post and then reply?

OK, but it is important given that the US has a divided government. Just because a president says something (good or bad) does not mean that he has the power to do anything about the issue. So you end up picking a candidate not only by what they say, but also by what they either will, or can, do. In this case, the president has no direct role. And to be honest, I think the comments on both sides are mostly electioneering. The exception is down in the state legislatures. But there the anti-gay forces are likely to be as much Democratic as Republican.

About your question. Yes, certain government benefits are tied to marriage. The list is rather long. The federal marriage ban would only affect the federal government. It wouldn't stop a religious organization marrying a couple, but it would make it meaningless in a secular sense. On the other hand, if a state allowed civil marriage it wouldn't require a religion to recognize it. All we are talking about here is secular marriage.

[loksar]

Simey! You are gay?! OMG. You have a redeeming quality in my eyes now. You don't remember me. Read my name backwards.

All this support of King George II and you are gay? How ironic.

Isn't it funny how conservative gays go around complaining about discrimination? How idiotic.

OMG, I love to attack you Simey!

[loksar]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
I for one support my president on this issue. I think gay marriages are wrong and should never be allowed. It is clearly stated in the Bible that members of the same sex should not consort with each other. I think it is sick.

Most Democrats and Republicans see eye to eye with me. Thank God.

Yes thank god we have people around here who don't believe the Bible!

Since when did the Bible become the constitution of the US? Since when did the bible become useful in the judicial system? I think men having sex with Simey is sick too. But I will defend his right to do it even if I don't want to see it against fascists like you!

[Troll]

What pissed me off about the SOTU was the WAY in which Bush spoke about this issue. I find statements like these HIGHLY offensive:

He precedes the discussion about gay rights with a lecture on children and sexually transmitted diseases. As an aside, he linked sexually transmitted diseases and immorality which just boils the blood! He could just as well have put a spacer between diseases and same sex marriage, but he chose to link the two. He presented it in this order: sexually transmitted dieseases and gays are threats to our nation and religion is the answer. That wasn't coincidence!

Three specific quotes to illustrate what I mean:
"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." How is recognising a gay marriage forcing your will on the people? And how is gay marriage a something that the nation needs to defend itself against? As a gay American, I'd be very worried given the methods the Bush Administration has adopted to protect the nation!

"The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight." - implying that gay people have no dignity or value in God's sight!

"It's also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions." - what happened to the separation of church and state? Religious communities are stronger than irreligious ones? And the state should force religion on communities to make them stronger?

This sounds like 18th Century Europe not 21st century America!

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, certain government benefits are tied to marriage. The list is rather long. The federal marriage ban would only affect the federal government. It wouldn't stop a religious organization marrying a couple, but it would make it meaningless in a secular sense. On the other hand, if a state allowed civil marriage it wouldn't require a religion to recognize it. All we are talking about here is secular marriage.

France dealt with this in a rather similar way to what some of you have alluded to. They created a "Pax" which is a contract of partnership recognised by the state and entitling the paxors to all of the state benefits attached to marriage. It is not just for same sex marriages but most of the people who are "paxed" are gay. Others who just don't believe that their unions need to be recognised by the religious and statal communities can also enter into a pax, although it seems that can get married realise the hollow point they'd be making!

I don't think this amounts to equality though. I think that even if you give the "other" pseudo-marital form the same benefits as marriage, the very fact that it is a separate form creates an inequality.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
As a gay American, I'd be very worried given the methods the Bush Administration has adopted to protect the nation!

As I have been trying to explain, it isn't really a matter for the Administration no matter what they say. In reality the portion you describe (which I didn't see, but certainly sounds objectionable to me) is probably not much more than election year red meat. The president can't do the things he says. Nor could a president turn the country into a tolerant place for gays and lesbians if he wanted to.

The real battle is cultural, and that can only be won by taking the long view and trying to convince the entire political spectrum that we are Americans like anyone else. The most effective weapon against anti-gay hostility is simply to live your life openly and just be who you are. Gay people really aren't much different to anyone else. As people see that, and if they find they have to respect what you are and do in other ways, then the issue kind of melts.

That's another reason why I refuse to be defined politically entirely by this one issue. I'd be somewhat uncomfortable in either party. The Republican party is where on balance I feel most at home. I'm probably more use there just being myself than I would be running away to the Democratic party where I'd be taken for granted and where I'd be forced to close my lips on every other issue where I disagree with them. To me, that would be the coward's way out.

This is a big change for society. I don't expect this to be completed in my lifetime. One of the things I fear is the impatience and political tone-deafedness of the left. I cheered when the Massachusetts court ruled the way it did. The court did the right thing when presented with the case. But I knew also that by litigating the case, the activists who won that tactical victory created a strategic disaster waiting to happen. When you go too fast, you create a backlash and if the backlash gets written into the constitution, we'll be screwed, probably for decades, if not forever.

The reason that social conservatives are pushing the issue is because they know that in the long run, attitudes toward gays and lesbians has been trending toward more tolerance. They need this amendment because they know that they will lose the debate in the long run. The best weapon they have is fear. By pushing too hard, we mobilize that fear. They do that by tieing the issue of gay rights to a host of other divisive left wing issues where the public has already decided that the judiciary can't be trusted to decide the matter.

Even though I agree with them on the bottom line, I view the left as extremely stupid on this and I really fear that they will create the monster we all fear. It's because they live in an ideological bubble and absolutely refuse to listen to anyone that disagrees with them. Worse, they try so hard to balkanize the country into mutually exclusive identity groups that ignore the fact that most people see themselves as more than just a label. The left's way is no way to win a social campaign when you are beginning from a minority position. You have to win coalitions and reach out, not polarize the issue in a way that ensures you will lose.

[Lerkfish]

I think its unfortunate in this day and age that homophobia is still influencing public policy.

I do not see the harm, even IF you* are homophobic, of allowing or sanctioning same sex marriage. Why would you* care?

The only thing it possibly threatens is some people's sensibilities about their own antiquated views of religion or morality...hardly something that causes tangible irreparable harm.

However, to NOT sanction it legally unduly restricts partners and their offspring in a very tangible way...health benefits, adoption and survivor's custody....those sorts of things that are very impactful on the union of same sex partners...many of which remain together as long or longer than heterosexual unions who enjoy the legal protections as a given.


I, for one, would appreciate it everyone would just get over it and stop letting it be such a divisive factor in political contests.

---*"you" here meaning generic "you"

[Zimphire]

Having religious beliefs that teach against homosexual relations is not homophobia lerk.

No more than me believing that adultery is bad makes me have fear or contempt for heterosexuals.

But I know how you supporters like to fling 10 cent words around to try to belittle.

That's just as bad as the homphobes you are sick of.

Oh and my beliefs are no more antiquated than yours. You just choose to purposely ignore things that don't fit your political stance.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Having religious beliefs that teach against homosexual relations is not homophobia lerk.

I find it hard to imagine that your anti-homosexual beliefs somehow do not amount to "aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (which is the definition of homophobia). Perhaps you could explain what those beliefs are and how they fall short of homophobia

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
You being a liberal must find that facinating then. Oh my a gay Republican. What's next a gay, black Republican? Oh thats horrendous. You dems are all issue based. Makes me think you're insecure.

Nope, not quite. I didn't start a thread about it, but I asked Simey some similar questions about the connection of conservatism and being (openly) gay. Cos that's just an interesting constellation, but not without precedence. But sometimes there is: within Germany's conservative party CDU (and CSU to be precise), there is a lesbian and gay union that are pretty much in conflict with some official policies that the party `stands' for. For me, this combination is just interesting.

But still, I wouldn't start a thread with someone's name in the title. I don't think Simey will post here.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
But still, I wouldn't start a thread with someone's name in the title. I don't think Simey will post here.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
I find it hard to imagine that your anti-homosexual beliefs somehow do not amount to "aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (which is the definition of homophobia).

Actually the definition is

ho·mo·pho·bi·a __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

That is the true definition. For something to be a phobia, fear must be present. If no fear is present, it's not a phobia.

Perhaps you could explain what those beliefs are and how they fall short of homophobia

I have no fear or contempt for homosexuals. I don't feel I am any better than they are either.

Like I said, I don't agree with adultery either.

Does that mean I too have ill feelings towards heterosexuals?

Of course not.

People can try to project hate or fear into it all they want. It's just not there.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Actually the definition is

ho·mo·pho·bi·a __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Source? According to Merriam Webster homophobia is "aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."LINK

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I have no fear or contempt for homosexuals. I don't feel I am any better than they are either.

Fear of homosexuals vests in a number of ways. I tend to see denying them equal rights as an expression of fear. That aside, the definition is clearly more inclusive today than you imply. Discrimination is part of it.

If you have no contempt for homosexuals, then why do you care if they get married or not? They want to get married. How do you say no without showing them contempt?

[Lerkfish]

yes, I was getting ready to ask a similar question:

if fear or discrimination is not the motivation for preventing same sex marriage by a constitutional amendment...then what IS the motivation for doing?

Hm?

[eklipse]

I thought that Bush's stance on marriage was perhaps the only positive note of his entire state of the empire speech.

Marriage - as founded in religious and historical tradition - is defined as the "legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife". If society feels that homosexual couples should be afforded the same rights/privileges/recognition under law currently granted only by marriage, then perhaps the laws regarding these benefits need to be readdressed. I don't believe that recognizing the demands for equality of one section of society should infringe on the customs of another section of society.

Tolerance towards others is all well and good, but, that is not to say that in the pursuit of tolerance it is acceptable to belittle an institution held sacred by many.

[kindbud]

"This is a big change for society. I don't expect this to be completed in my lifetime."


Unless you're in your 70's - I think you'll live to see it happen.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Marriage - as founded in religious and historical tradition - is defined as the "legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife". If society feels that homosexual couples should be afforded the same rights/privileges/recognition under law currently granted only by marriage, then perhaps the laws regarding these benefits need to be readdressed. I don't believe that recognizing the demands for equality of one section of society should infringe on the customs of another section of society.

Tolerance towards others is all well and good, but, that is not to say that in the pursuit of tolerance it is acceptable to belittle an institution held sacred by many.

I've never been able to emotionally understand this argument. Tradition has never struck me as a terribly good reason for excluding people from institutions. It's been used for everything from excluding women from the vote to justifying slavery and Jim Crow. A liberal ought to be uncomfortable with that.

First, your definition is a little shaky. Exactly where in our civil legal structure does that definition appear? I challenge you to find those words in any statute prior to about the mid 1990s, when gays and lesbians started applying for marriage licenses. Moreover, laws expressly contradict the part you have about "for life." Divorce is a legal fact. It's also practiced by about 50% of heterosexual couples, and gays cannot be blamed for this.

Secondly, your argument for excluding gays and lesbians doesn't make much logical sense. How could gays and lesbians "infringe on the customs of another section of society"? If I marry, how does this impact the marriage of any heterosexual? How are any one else's traditions impacted in any way? That would be like saying if Jews and Moslems can marry, that would undermine the traditions of Presbeterians and Catholics. Of course it doesn't, as long as you remember to mind your own business and not see society as being ordered solely to ensure that you have slightly more rights than others.

The only way that this could be seen to affect other people's traditions would be if we were pushing to force religious traditions to change. Of course, nobody is doing any such thing. All we are talking about here is civil marriage. Civil marriage is the governmental act of granting a marriage license, and the recognition of the contractual relationship that follows. It has nothing to do with religion, or even tradition, and certainly nothing to do with romanticized ideas about marriage. In the eyes of the law, Britney Spears' quickie Vegas marriage is as valid as the most solumn church ceremony. Actually, more so since church ceremonies still require state ratification. Why should I be denied as least as much legal respect as her marriage was?

At the end of the day, this seems to boil down to some vague feeling that if I get a piece of pie your piece of pie would taste less sweet. That's discrimination, pure and simple, and illogical to boot. Your slice of pie is your slice of pie. I can't make it sweet or sour and making my life miserable isn't going to make yours any better.

[Troll]

Originally posted by kindbud:
[i]Unless you're in your 70's - I think you'll live to see it happen.

I do to. We agree!

[Logic]

for the first time ever(and hopefully the last)

:: golf clap :: for simey

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I've never been able to emotionally understand this argument. Tradition has never struck me as a terribly good reason for excluding people from institutions. It's been used for everything from excluding women from the vote to justifying slavery. A liberal ought to be uncomfortable with that.

I just wrote exactly the same thing and then got an error and didn't post! Down to using exactly the same examples too. Almost scary how similar the posts were. The only part where they differed was when it came to talking about how sweet pie tastes! When I read that, I was like "Hmmm, how does he know?"

Good post.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
The only part where they differed was when it came to talking about how sweet pie tastes! When I read that, I was like "Hmmm, how does he know?"

It's the Homer Simpson argument. Mmmmm. Pie.

Actually, I think that either Andrew Sullivan or Bruce Bower came up with it first. Returning to the original post, one of the interesting facts is that gay marriage is an issue first advanced by conservative gays and lesbians. It's only recently that the left has embraced it. The same goes for military service.

[nonhuman]

On the president: It's true that the president does not have any direct power to enact a constitutional amendment, but he does hold significant political influence. If he's openly supportive of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage it does strengthen the case for such an amendment and probably the resolve of many of it's supporters. This president, in particular, has displayed a lot of skill at directing the attention and opinions of the public at large. I don't think his stance on homosexuality should be ignored because he technically lacks the ability to effect change in this area.

On the amendment: While I am greatly opposed to such an amendment (I really don't like seeing my friends shat on), I can also see that it could be a good thing in the long run. It is not impossible nor unprecedented for a constitutional amendment to be repealed. If such an amendment were passed, it would really solidify the opposition to it and probably bring out more of those who were less willing to openly detract it before. If the amendment caused significant social turmoil, the government would have no sane choice but to repeal it, and once that happened you can be sure same-sex marriages would win out overall (or at least some solution amenable to the gay community).

On homophobia: We all know what the etymology of the word is. And we really all aught to also know that the definitions of words can change over time. And we definitely all know that homophobia, in common usage, refers to aversion from or discrimination against homosexuals and not just to fear of homosexuals. This really shouldn't be an issue any more.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Troll:
"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." How is recognising a gay marriage forcing your will on the people?

This reflects the uniquely American concern that judges are usurping the role of the legislature and making law (i.e. "forcing their arbitrary will on the people") rather than just interpreting and applying it. Usually, however, this isn't really what's happening - usually it's just the losers complaining because they disagree with the court's interpretation. Accusing a court of "making new law" is, however, effective political rhetoric among people who don't really understand the legal process.

And how is gay marriage something that the nation needs to defend itself against?

It would be seen by many as an official acceptance of homosexuality, which they obviously can't stomach. Many of these same people like to brag about America being the "land of the free."

"The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight." - implying that gay people have no dignity or value in God's sight!

Actually, I think he intended the opposite - it's his way of saying "God wants us to love all men, just not that way."

"It's also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions." - what happened to the separation of church and state? Religious communities are stronger than irreligious ones? And the state should force religion on communities to make them stronger?

This sounds like 18th Century Europe not 21st century America!

I agree, but for some people, religious freedom isn't enough - they want our tax dollars as well.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by eklipse:
. . . I don't believe that recognizing the demands for equality of one section of society should infringe on the customs of another section of society.

Tolerance towards others is all well and good, but, that is not to say that in the pursuit of tolerance it is acceptable to belittle an institution held sacred by many.

So if I'm not Italian, I shouldn't be able to sell fettucine al fredo? The government should grant Italians an exclusive on that custom? That's effectively what you're saying.

Besides, the idea that there's anything sacred about Liz Taylor marrying 6 different men is laughable. Why should the law pretend that that's "sacred" while excluding 2 men or 2 women from enjoying the same privileges?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Source? According to Merriam Webster homophobia is "aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."LINK

There has to be fear mixed in with discrimination for it to be a phobia Troll. That is what I am saying.

Without the fear, there is no phobia. For that is what a phobia is.

Fear of homosexuals vests in a number of ways. I tend to see denying them equal rights as an expression of fear.

Well you can SEE it how YOU wish. I can tell you right now. No fear exists.

That aside, the definition is clearly more inclusive today than you imply. Discrimination is part of it.

Discrimination caused by FEAR.

If you have no contempt for homosexuals, then why do you care if they get married or not? They want to get married. How do you say no without showing them contempt?

I don't. I said I didn't go along with it. I never said I would try to stop anyone from doing it.
Big difference.

Again unless you can somehow prove I have fear, aversion to or discriminate against heterosexuals also, you really make no point.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
On homophobia: We all know what the etymology of the word is. And we really all aught to also know that the definitions of words can change over time. And we definitely all know that homophobia, in common usage, refers to aversion from or discrimination against homosexuals and not just to fear of homosexuals. This really shouldn't be an issue any more.

Aversion from or discrimination against homosexuals caused by fear.

Go ask someone in the know about such things.

They will tell you having religious beliefs about homosexuality does not = homophobia.

While the two can exist within each other. It's not always the case.

No matter how badly someone wants to make it so. Those people are just as bad as the people that they call homophobic. Yet they don't see it.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Aversion from or discrimination against homosexuals caused by fear.

Go ask someone in the know about such things.

They will tell you having religious beliefs about homosexuality does not = homophobia.

While the two can exist within each other. It's not always the case.

No matter how badly someone wants to make it so. Those people are just as bad as the people that they call homophobic. Yet they don't see it.

I am in the know, I have studied linguistics. More importantly, I have studied historical linguistics. I know that languages change over time. I know that the meanings of words change over time. And I know how they tend to change over time.

Homophobia has undergone a process known as semantic bleaching by which it's definition has become less extreme. It no long necessarily means fear. Instead, common usage has changed it to mean simply disapproving of or disliking homosexual behavior, which is a description you can not honestly deny applies to yourself.

You're right, having religions beliefs about homosexuality != homophobia. If, however, those beliefs drive you do decry homophobia and declare it immoral, then they do, in fact, = homophobia.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
It is not impossible nor unprecedented for a constitutional amendment to be repealed. If such an amendment were passed, it would really solidify the opposition to it and probably bring out more of those who were less willing to openly detract it before. If the amendment caused significant social turmoil, the government would have no sane choice but to repeal it, and once that happened you can be sure same-sex marriages would win out overall (or at least some solution amenable to the gay community).

Doubtful. The only precedent is the repeal of Prohibition. But prohibition was repealed because it upset the majority. A Federal marriage ban could never affect more than 5-7% of the population. Plus it couldn't cause "turmoil" because all it would do it maintain the status quo. It wouldn't throw people in jail (as Prohibition did), and it wouldn't even prvent gay relationships (we'd just shack up as we already do), it would just prevent people from tieing the knot.

It takes a lot to pass an amendment. You need 66% in both houses, and 75% of the state legislatures or by a constitutional convention called by 66% of states and itself passing the amendment by 75%. It's unlikely that a FMA would pass, but if it does, we'll be stuck with it for a very long time. You would need an awful lot of disinterested people to suddenly wake up and realize that they have done something awful and, in effect, apologize. Human nature mitigates against that. But on the brighter side, I think it likely that enough people will realize that the FMA is mean spirited to defeat it before we get to that point. A lot of people are also going to conclude that this isn't the kind of thing that should go into the Constitution.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I am in the know, I have studied linguistics. More importantly, I have studied historical linguistics. I know that languages change over time. I know that the meanings of words change over time. And I know how they tend to change over time.

Homophobia has undergone a process known as semantic bleaching by which it's definition has become less extreme. It no long necessarily means fear. Instead, common usage has changed it to mean simply disapproving of or disliking homosexual behavior, which is a description you can not honestly deny applies to yourself.

No it's been broadened to demean more people. That is all. Just because of my religious beliefs I am said to have a phobia now.

How nice.

I know what it is about nonhuman, and you still aren't in 'The Know"

I've read articles with psychiatrists. They will tell you religious beliefs don't mean someone is homophobic. They are trying to dispel this notion.

Why? Because it's silly. It is also a lame petty smear word to use to belittle someone's beliefs.

"Oh, he's a Christian? What a homophobe"

It's 100% nonsense. And everyone in the "know" knows this.

You're right, having religions beliefs about homosexuality != homophobia. If, however, those beliefs drive you do decry homophobia and declare it immoral, then they do, in fact, = homophobia.

Nonsense. Just because I deem homosexual sex as immoral doesn't make me homophobic.

I deem heterosexual sex outside of marriage immoral, does that mean I am heterophobic?

No, that would be silly.

[Logic]

[nonhuman]

If you want to deny accepted linguistic theory of semantic change over time be my guest.

The fact remains that the people who label others as homophobes do not believe that the lebelees are afraid of homosexuals (in my experience). This argument is only used by people such as yourself and seems to be nothing but a diversionary tactic to avoid the actual issue at hant.

Just for the hell of it: What do you think it means when someone says that a space is particularly claustrophobic? Does it mean that that space is afraid of tight spaces, or does it simply mean that it's a tight space? Other phobias have also undergone semantic bleaching such that they do not refer to an intense, irrational fear as was their original meaning.