is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

My point is that all the opposers are not necessarily bigoted, hateful morons. No doubt some of them are.

I agree with that. But frankly, I think the majority - not all - who oppose it are probably basing it on some level of bigotry (unlike Deckard, I'm very comfortable using that word ), or at the very least, ignorance.

[Deckard]

I don't like the argument of "we are using logic and reason, and you are biased" and some of the forceful language in this thread was implying

Sure. From my point of view, that's fair enough.

Btw - how about you give us a shorter name so we don't have to copy/paste it when typing?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

I agree with that. But frankly, I think the majority - not all - who oppose it are probably basing it on some level of bigotry (unlike Deckard, I'm very comfortable using that word ), or at the very least, ignorance.

Maybe so; I guess it all depends on what you call bigotry or ignorance. When people talk about that, they talk about race hate, the things that led to slavery, and the Holocaust. The issue is more complex than that. Would I rather sit down at a lunch table full of men or women? If I say men, could you ask me "why the men, do you not think men and women are equal?" Of course, but I don't think it's really a fair question. The reality is that the majority of straight people are not going to understand gay issues well, and pretty much all the gay people are going to be biased on them. I suppose you could call that bigotry and ignorance too, but I don't see it that way.

Originally Posted by Deckard

Sure. From my point of view, that's fair enough.

Btw - how about you give us a shorter name so we don't have to copy/paste it when typing?

You can just shorten it to 349...how do you think I feel when I have to log in??

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Maybe so; I guess it all depends on what you call bigotry or ignorance.

I go by the classic definition of bigotry, as in the Merriam Webster dictionary, where a bigot is defined as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

The vast majority of those who oppose same-sex marriage do so based on their religious beliefs that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin. For example in California, the campaign for prop 8 which constitutionally banned same-sex marriage was largely backed by the Mormon church. And two other groups largely responsible for voting the proposition into affect were hispanics and blacks - both of whom are traditionally strongly religious groups. So there are your groups that are "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". And of course their "obstinate opinions" manifested themselves in constitutionally stripping a minority group of basic civil rights, which I'd say falls quite neatly into the category of regarding or treating "the members of a group with hatred and intolerance".

As for ignorance, I again go by the standard definition: "the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness"

Where ignorance plays into it is that it doesn't appear to me that many people who oppose same-sex marriage have any idea what it would really mean. Allowing same-sex marriage would ONLY mean that the federal and state governments would legally recognize a same-sex marriage so that they can be afforded the same rights hetero married couples have in regards to filing joint tax returns, inheritances, hell - simply being legally recognized as a family member to your partner. It WON'T mean any private or religious group will be compelled to start performing same sex marriages, or that children will suddenly decide to become gay since it's legal for gays to marry, or that straight marriages will suddenly lose their value, etc. To believe or argue any of these fallacies is ignorance, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

When people talk about that, they talk about race hate, the things that led to slavery, and the Holocaust.

"Bigotry" has never been in reference to ethnic hatred alone. That's your own limitation on the definition being introduced.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

The issue is more complex than that. Would I rather sit down at a lunch table full of men or women? If I say men, could you ask me "why the men, do you not think men and women are equal?" Of course, but I don't think it's really a fair question.

I can't say I really follow the analogy you're using here about being asked a stupid question in regards to what gender you prefer to sit with. I don't mean that to call you stupid, I just mean that I see no connection between saying you're more comfortable sitting with men and being asked if you think men and women are equal as a result. It has nothing to do with equality.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

The reality is that the majority of straight people are not going to understand gay issues well, and pretty much all the gay people are going to be biased on them. I suppose you could call that bigotry and ignorance too, but I don't see it that way.

You're bringing "bias" back into the whole debate again, which I still don't understand. Honestly, it seems that you only invoke "bias" when it's in reference to points that counter your side of the argument. But to respond to your comments, sure, many straight people won't understand gay issues well. So what? Since when does not understanding a minority group's issues well justify stripping them of civil rights? As a middle-class white guy, I can't possibly understand all the issues faced by many African Americans as a result of this country's history of slavery, but I still recognize why they deserve basic civil rights. And sure, gay people are typically going to be "biased" on the issue of same sex marriage because of course they don't want to have their basic civil rights constitutionally banned. Again, so what? Do you believe that because you can call this a "bias", somehow it can be discounted? Aren't cancer patients going to be "biased" towards searching for a cancer cure? Does their "bias" somehow nullify the importance and goodness of their support for a cure? So what does a gay person's bias towards legalizing same sex marriage have to do with anything?

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

This is really a handful, so let me say this:

There is a difference between bigotry and ignorance, and I would agree that most of the prop 8 voters weren't really aware of what the bill was going to do. It's pretty obvious that religion is ultimately what brought this down, so I can't really argue that. The point I'm trying to argue is a lot smaller than what you're implying. I do think that the people who voted against gay marriage did so for religious reasons that are in themselves bigoted, but I don't think the people themselves were. I don't think your average prop 8 voter would really mind if a gay couple moved next door.
I don't disagree with your other point either; I realize that the whole thing is sort of a tangent, I just really don't like the idea that some posters have that Christians who vote down gay marriage are hateful, ignorant, fearful people that beat their wives and molest their children. The problem with any political internet discussion is that like 95% of the people who discuss political are liberal and anti-religion; so it just becomes one big circlejerk where you can say hateful things like that and nobody ever calls you out. Frankly it makes me sick.

Since when does not understanding a minority group's issues well justify stripping them of civil rights? So if there's a minority group that loved goats should they be allowed to marry one? It's not a civil right for gays to get married. In fact, I would argue that marriage is an institution and not a civil right at all. It's no more a civil right than getting a drivers license is. Of course, you can bring up the inter-racial thing too; okay, so even then, I wouldn't say not allowing me to marry a black girl is necessarily stripping me of a right; it's just a right that doesn't exist yet. Of course you could argue that way the institution is defined is unfair. But I just don't see it as "not allowing gays their rights", when they're talking about something that would radically change the definition of marriage.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I just really don't like the idea that some posters have that Christians who vote down gay marriage are hateful, ignorant, fearful people that beat their wives and molest their children. The problem with any political internet discussion is that like 95% of the people who discuss political are liberal and anti-religion; so it just becomes one big circlejerk where you can say hateful things like that and nobody ever calls you out. Frankly it makes me sick.

If you're refering to Sarcasmo's posts, I didn't take what he wrote as saying "Christians who vote down gay marriage are hateful, ignorant, fearful people that beat their wives and molest their children". Especially when he clearly stated that he himself is a religious married man, and I doubt he categorizes himself as the above. I just understood it as pointing out the glaring faults in viewing same sex marriage as a threat to the institution of marriage when there are already plenty of straight people out there as we speak who are trashing marriage, and that we ought to be worrying about instead. Basically, why is a same sex couple considered a threat when there ARE so many straight folks out there (religious or not) adding to the incredibly high divorce rates of today, being abusive to their spouses or children, etc. If opponents really want to "defend marriage", then perhaps that's where they should focus their attention.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Since when does not understanding a minority group's issues well justify stripping them of civil rights? So if there's a minority group that loved goats should they be allowed to marry one?

Okay, I'm going to ask you to justify this stunning leap in logic before I reply to it - especially since it's a comment that's already been addressed in my past few posts.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

It's not a civil right for gays to get married. In fact, I would argue that marriage is an institution and not a civil right at all. It's no more a civil right than getting a drivers license is. Of course, you can bring up the inter-racial thing too; okay, so even then, I wouldn't say not allowing me to marry a black girl is necessarily stripping me of a right; it's just a right that doesn't exist yet. Of course you could argue that way the institution is defined is unfair. But I just don't see it as "not allowing gays their rights", when they're talking about something that would radically change the definition of marriage.

You seem to have a different definition of civil rights than I do. Part of the generally accepted definition includes "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality" - primarily for blacks when first instituted, but it applies to many groups (excluding goat fuckers of course, because among other things, that's an issue of beastiality and being in a relationship with a party that's unable to express it's thoughts and desires).

And the simple fact is that the rights regarding marriage do exist, which is why those who penned, backed, and voted for prop 8 in California felt it necessary to actually create a constitutional amendment that specifically prohibited same sex couples from being able to marry. So they were very literally and actively stripped of their constitutionally guaranteed right to "social equality".

Since we're at the point where you're actually asking me to defend my position against goat fuckers - which I did in my parenthetical above incidentally - I'd like to ask you a question, and I'd really appreciate a serious answer. Keeping in mind what we've already discussed, what are the good, logically sound, non-discriminatory arguments against same sex marriage in your opinion, and why?

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I just really don't like the idea that some posters have that Christians who vote down gay marriage are hateful, ignorant, fearful people that beat their wives and molest their children. The problem with any political internet discussion is that like 95% of the people who discuss political are liberal and anti-religion; so it just becomes one big circlejerk where you can say hateful things like that and nobody ever calls you out. Frankly it makes me sick.

Ok now I get it. You're a Christian who has a problem with gay marriage but doesn't want to be known as a bigot who beats his wife and molests his children, and wants everyone in the world to know how hip you are that you don't mind if they move next door, per se.

But you're right, sometimes this place is a circle jerk, but then you're still making slippery slope comparisons between zoophilia and homosexuality after pages and pages Sean and Deckard giving solid challenges to your thinking. which means, the biggest circle jerk right now is the one going on in your head. start responding to people's thoughts if you want a meaningful contrast.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

Ok now I get it. You're a Christian who has a problem with gay marriage but doesn't want to be known as a bigot who beats his wife and molests his children, and wants everyone in the world to know how hip you are that you don't mind if they move next door, per se.

I'm Jewish and in support of gay marriage. Did you read my posts??

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I'm Jewish and in support of gay marriage. Did you read my posts??

sorry didn't read the I'm a gay loving jew post. All i've read is circumlocution and cant for pages cherry picking little grievances, that honestly has been not worth the effort to figure out exactly what's got your goad.

are you just angry with the world?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I'm reminded of Buggs Bunny's reverse psychology bit. I think he just got the ball rolling in that sort of way. I think.