Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What they don't seem to understand is that feeling of superiority comes from the same place as hatred does and comes across as hateful. I think we need to stop saying their choices are based on hate and call them what they really are about. > I agree. I'm very conscious of using the word "hate" and only want to use it where it fits. I'm even careful not to call someone a bigot, full stop, even as I call them out for holding a bigoted position. I've been around 48 years, and believe me, I've met plenty of people who hate gay people. That IS the right word for some of them. In most situations, and I'm not proud of saying this, I've simply passed for straight with them, because some of them would bust your jaw if they knew you were gay. The hatred and hostility is palpable. I've met many MORE people, though, who don't have hatred, really. What they have is an odd sort of condescension. They simply do not consider us their equals. I see that around here, certainly, much more than hatred. And again, it reminds me of my segregation-supporting relatives from the 60's. Not hateful people, full stop. But they supported the hateful system of segregation and simply did not consider black people to be their equals. And all the while said (perhaps sincerely) that they didn't hate blacks. Maybe they didn't - but their position wasn't exactly admirable either, now was it? And many said they even "liked" blacks, or had "no problem" with blacks... as long as they didn't try to claim what "shouldn't" belong to them. (Like an equal place in society.) Because that was: a). Just the way things are b). The way things have always been c). The way God meant things to be. It's the same thing with us and marriage. To many folks, that's just not "meant" for us. Nothing against us, you understand - it's just: a). Just the way things are b). The way things have always been c). The way God meant things to be. Eventually, of course, the people on the receiving end of that sort of bigotry stood up and said "well, maybe that's not the way things should have been to begin with." And reaped the backlash. But ultimately, with the help of fair-minded people from the majority, beat the backlash and dragged those people kicking and screaming into a better society. Or, in our case, will soon.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster If anything, marriage should be the last thing straight people oppose when it comes to homosexuality. Marriage is the antithesis of what most folks consider homosexuality to be. Many think it's a phase or something that can be cured. They think it's a choice, popular in some segments of society. Homosexual relationships are all about sex. They are promiscuous. There's no love. It's an abomination. These are the attitudes we face on a daily basis. And now conservatives are fighting the fact we actually do fall in love and want to make lifetime commitments? It's bizarre.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Marriage is the antithesis of what most folks consider homosexuality to be.*** You just answered your own question. The Common North American Bigot is known for bearing a cheat sheet containing all the "REASONS" for their blatant prejudice. They can't just say "I hate them just because", they need something after the "because"..."because they're immoral", "because they're promiscuous", "because they live in sin", "because they are anti-family", etc... Imagine what they'll be left with when gay marriage becomes commonplace and typical (like mixed marriages). What if *gasp* gay marriage turns out to be even MORE successful percentage wise than "traditional" marriages. What then? Let's face it, gay marriage takes away a lot of their ammunition and exposes the bigots for who they really are. If a common bigot hates anything more than their chosen target(s), it's the bright shining light of reason, compassion, and sensibility.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct >>"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." << You know ... Obama accepted an invitation to a panel discussion on the LOGO Channel (the gay network) <a href="http://www.logoonline.com/" target="_blank">http://www.logoonline.com/</a> All the democratic candidates showed-up. Not one republican showed up. Obama was very well spoken and sold me on my vote for him. Laws can assign a name to "marriage" or call it whatever. I want all unions to be called civil unions with all the same benefits. If a couple chooses to get "union-ed" in a church - I propose THEN call it marriage. Marriage carries a religious tone for so many people. The Gays will win this in the courts. It will become law and many won't like it. Just like abortion.
Originally Posted By dennis-in-ct my point it ... we want the laws. To be Federally recognized in marriage is to give me 5000 more laws, rights and privileges. It is always the group WITHOUT rights that need to remind those who DO have rights not to take those rights for granted. In the political "food chain", we gays are at the bottom. I think many find comfort in keeping at least one group down on the food chain to make them feel better. Women voters? Segregation of Blacks???
Originally Posted By Mr F Banning same sex marriage doesn't only discriminate against gays, it also discriminates against both genders, bisexuals, asexuals or anyone else who may not identify as "Gay" yet may one day what to choose to marry someone of the same gender as them. This is not a "gay specific" issue, it's a major civil rights issue. What about hermaphrodites? What does the law say about who they can marry?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***What about hermaphrodites? What does the law say about who they can marry?*** That's actually an excellent question, although I'm not sure the term "hermaphrodite" is considered correct (a quick search yeilded no politically correct term except the vague term "intersexual"). It is quite a conundrum for this new California constitutional amendment (unintended consequences, eh?), when you consider that the definition of "one man" and "one woman" actually precludes any people with medical conditions such as this pretty much are barred from marrying ANYONE. Life's tough sometimes, eh?
Originally Posted By Mr F Defining "One Man" & "One Woman" is still sexist, and is discrimination against gender, which is a violation to California's Constitution, which is why the supreme court should not allow Prop 8 to be instated.
