"I'm Not A Homophobe! I Just Don't Believe In Gay Marriage"

[DiamondSkin]

I don't think you can compare the blacks civil rights movement to gay marriage equality. Blacks had it much worse but I understand your point.

And the Jews suffered three genocides.

I won't even get into the Native Americans.

I guess the blacks were just being a pest with all their complaining, no?

Anyway I hope you reconcile with your friend.

It's not worth burning bridges over these kinds of things but good luck with whatever you decide to do.

We may reconcile. I'm willing to debate with her.

But her opinion is the same after that than we have differences that a friendship cannot stand on.

I won't be friends with a person who thinks less of me. I have self respect and pride as a gay person.

 

[DiamondSkin]

If you're against gay marriage, you're homophobe plain and simple.

Well I can't argue with someone who's already made up their mind.

Just because I'm not so quick to label someone a homophobe and I actually care about the reasons why they think what they think, doesn't make me less of a person, "'insecure", a "plain and simple idiot", or "self-disrespecting".

:]

If you're not so quick to label a homophobe, than why so quick to label a racist.

After all we need to 'understand' them...

 

[hungrybrownbear]

^I'm that that quick to label people racists either! Stop comparing them, you need to find other venues to get your point across. Using race as a crutch isn't going to convince, because there's always someone who's going to tell you that its not the same (because its not).

:]

 

[soccerboy029]

I'm a super strong believe with the view that you get more flies with honey than vinegar - she may be on the fence, but completely pushing her away doesn't give her the chance to see you with your life partner, living as happily as two married people do, showing her that there's NO reason two gays can't be married.

I'm not saying that you don't have the rights to do it, I'm just saying that taking things in stride tend to be more beneficial for everyone.

 

[DiamondSkin]

^I'm that that quick to label people racists either! Stop comparing them, you need to find other venues to get your point across. Using race as a crutch isn't going to convince, because there's always someone who's going to tell you that its not the same (because its not).

:]

I'll compare a racist to homophobe because they're both prejudiced and there a direct parallels of racism, sexism and homophobia.

You just don't WANT to see the parallels because it would invalidate many of your views and arguments.

If homophobia is just as bad as racism, than it would mean alot things to you that you don't want to admit.

Thus homophobia to you is just a "differing opinion".

Because the blacks had it 'worse'.

The Jews and Native Americans say hi...

 

[hungrybrownbear]

^ you're comparing racism to not just homophobia, but to people who don't believe in gay marriage. There are gay people that don't believe in gay marriage. What, are they homophobic towards themselves?

I agree with you. Homophobia is bad. Sure. Racism is bad. Sure. Racism is bad in the ways that Homophobia is bad. Sure.

That's not what we're talking about

What you are trying to do is establish your claim that people who are opposed to gay marriage, are homophobes. The only substantial evidence you provide is racial prejudice. This is a cop out.

Maybe this wasn't clear before but I'm not arguing on a basis of whether homophobia is as bad as racism, I'm arguing that you can't automatically label someone as a homophobe just because they don't agree with your opinion of how marriage should be. That is a form of prejudice in itself.

 

[AlinCanada]

Wow....What a lively topic..And yet for me slightly old news. As I have been legally married for 5 years to my husband of the past 14 years. What does that mean if someone challenges me like that. Oh I don't support gay marriage but I like you ok. Sorry that makes that person a two faced cracker.

And yup I would dump them like yesterdays garbage. I have heard gay friends in the past say how they did not support gay marriage and I have responded that they must be full of self hate and loathing to believe that they are worth less then someone else.

Anyway you slice it not having the right is someone saying you are worth less then someone else.

 

[bankside]

Diamondskin, your ex-friend is clearly an ignorant rube.

What is interesting to me is why this is even a debate on this forum. The problem there is "relativism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

This is the ridiculous idea that we need to give credence to every silly proposition coming from someone else. Thanks, sociology, way to go!

Anyway, this explanation will not make relativism go away on its own, but hopefully you now understand why so many people are on here defending this woman's "right" to her moronic, ignorant, homophobic "opinion."

We may need to solve the problem of relativism before we can effectively deal with the problem of homophobia.

 

[ibill1]

Let's see... She thinks that she's above him and deserves special rights that he doesn't get.

She's not a friend. She needs to be taught how hateful she is. She only has gay friends so she can say "some of my friends are gay."

I don't know if that is true but I couldn't be a friend with someone who feels I don't deserve the same rights as they have. It's never happened to me but I wouldn't cut them out without telling them why. I would say "Look, I don't think our friendship can progress any further since you feel I don't deserve the same rights as you have". I'm too old to hang on to a friendship like that. So, I agree with the OP except he probably should explain why so she knows her discrimination has consequences, like losing a friend.

 

[fetaby]

Long and short,

We are capable of producing a gay renaissance in America...
DiamondSkin,,, do the damn thang.

I'll send you 5 bucks thru paypal, to get it started...

 

[gsdx]

I don't know why you're arguing with this guy. He's 'racist' against dogs, for crying out loud, and he's offended when people delete him as a Facebook friend.

He's self-contradictory and he does the same things to others which he condemns other people of doing to him.

At least I found where he sits:

 

[Dolmance]

Yeah. They think we're just for sex in secret and women are for marriage and introducing to their "friends."

I happen to be bisexual and in love with my gay partner, and if he got down on one knee and asked me to marry him this instant, I'd say yes without a second's hesitation.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I happen to be bisexual and in love with my gay partner, and if he got down on one knee and asked me to marry him this instant, I'd say yes without a second's hesitation.

well there's the exception that proves the rule.

 

[BabiGayPimp]

The moment you say that a person of any color, sexuality or religion is "OK as long as..." you're no longer tolerant of that color, race or religion.

Marriage is marriage is marriage no matter who the two parties are. The "laws" of the marriage do not change just because of the gender of the parties involved.

So essentially what this person is saying is "I don't want you to have the same benefits and laws on your side as straight couples do."

Stacyphierce, I completely agree with you that people opposed to marriage equality are saying that they don't want gay couples to have the same benefits and laws as straight couples do.

They are clearly biased against gays.

However, I still think that marriage is historically and legally tied to gender concepts and roles, and that legalizing gay marriage represents an invasion of"Mars" and "Venus," in the minds of many.

I once said "faggotry is a feminist issue" and I think that's still true to some extent.

I suppose it is possible, even likely, that we will have gay marriage without ever resolving those thorny gender issues, but they'll still be percolating in the background.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Well I may as well throw my opinion in......

DiamondSkin, there are two scenarios that have been COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN in this thread......

1. What if someone is fully supportive of full gay rights, but prefers the term 'civil partnership' or a similar term to describe what they would like?

2. What if someone stated truthfully that they were NEITHER for OR against gay marriage, and were ambivalent / neutral / non-committal on the subject?

I am gay, and I share both of the above views.

Let me be clear. I would NEVER actively stand against gays marrying, nor would I actively vote to deny them rights. Nor am I morally opposed in any way - I'm an atheist.

But I do think that especially in the United States, the gay community has become somewhat obsessed with A WORD, one which speaks to me of a MAINSTREAM HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLE, one where the bride and groom cut the cake, throw the bouquet, and go on honeymoon, before settling in the suburbs with picket fences and raising 2.4 children.

WHY WOULD ANY SECULAR GAY MAN WANT TO EMULATE THIS LIFESTYLE?

I strongly feel that the gay community should instead be saying:

"We'll let them have THEIR lifestlyle. It's not OURS. But we'll fight for every right for ourselves that THEIR religious marriage ritual brings them. But we'll call it something else."

So the real fight in the United States should be with those states, mostly in the mid-west and deep south if memory serves me right, which still deny civil unions or partnerships to their inhabitants.

Then the fight should be taken to other countries in the world where gays might be found beaten to death, in shallow graves, or swinging from ropes.

Surely this is a more important issue on human rights, freedom and dignity?

Or should we continue to have polarised arguments, and play with words?

Think about it.

 

[fetaby]

Well I may as well throw my opinion in......

DiamondSkin, there are two scenarios that have been COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN in this thread......

1. What if someone is fully supportive of full gay rights, but prefers the term 'civil partnership' or a similar term to describe what they would like? Impossibility... If a person is in full support of gay rights, the notion of calling a life long bond/commitment by anything other than the most popular and thus agreed upon term is counter productive and thus damaging to the cause.. That's a paradox. You can't be in support and not supportive at the same time.. If even one gay person wants what is signified by marriage by default anyone who is entirely in support of gay rights must conform to that gay's needs. Yes? While we are different in respect to who we bed, we are not different in respect to how we feel love. Thus the need for the same term.. If marriage is a commitment of love between two individuals, it should not matter the gender of the individuals involved.

2. What if someone stated truthfully that they were NEITHER for OR against gay marriage, and were ambivalent / neutral / non-committal on the subject? If they truly felt that way, there would be no need for them to state anything. By stating they don't care, they are supporting the status quo. And the status quo is descrimination.

I am gay, and I share both of the above views.

Let me be clear. I would NEVER actively stand against gays marrying, nor would I actively vote to deny them rights. Nor am I morally opposed in any way - I'm an atheist. But are actively doing so by being passive.

But I do think that especially in the United States, the gay community has become somewhat obsessed with A WORD, one which speaks to me of a MAINSTREAM HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLE, one where the bride and groom cut the cake, throw the bouquet, and go on honeymoon, before settling in the suburbs with picket fences and raising 2.4 children.

WHY WOULD ANY SECULAR GAY MAN WANT TO EMULATE THIS LIFESTYLE?
We all have different views of what love is, love doesn't feel quite the same to anyone.
I strongly feel that the gay community should instead be saying:

"We'll let them have THEIR lifestlyle. It's not OURS. But we'll fight for every right for ourselves that THEIR religious marriage ritual brings them. But we'll call it something else." HOw can one human, have a different lifestyle than another human. The only other different "life"style availble is death. We are human, but different; not, different = not human, or zombies.. Are you a zombie?

So the real fight in the United States should be with those states, mostly in the mid-west and deep south if memory serves me right, which still deny civil unions or partnerships to their inhabitants.

Then the fight should be taken to other countries in the world where gays might be found beaten to death, in shallow graves, or swinging from ropes.

Surely this is a more important issue on human rights, freedom and dignity?

Or should we continue to have polarised arguments, and play with words?

Think about it.

True. About the loss of life in other countries, I respect your feelings on that. But now I ask what are you doing to help them? Instead of criticizing those who are preparing for war, you sit behind a screen of indifference throwing (playing) those same words you chastise. Wow. That is truly something.

Before you can run you must walk.. Before you walk you must crawl.. Before you crawl you must decide to move. Movement = activity = activism > pacifism on this issue.

 

[hungrybrownbear]

I don't know why you're arguing with this guy. He's 'racist' against dogs, for crying out loud, and he's offended when people delete him as a Facebook friend.

He's self-contradictory and he does the same things to others which he condemns other people of doing to him.

At least I found where he sits:

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Arguing with him is futile.

This is duly noted.

 

[dpnice]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Arguing with him is futile.

This is duly noted.

Of course this can be taken both ways and some of us may have the same impression about your opinions.

We are discussing a principle to which every civilised nation should attain; that of equal rights to all its citizens in the eyes of the law.

Now certain groups have had to fight to attain this equality, some have achieved it, homosexuals have not.

I accept that the nature of discrimination has been different towards blacks and homosexuals in America but that doesn't change the fact that both were and are fighting for a principle - equal civil rights.

I also accept that blacks had absolutely no rights before standing up and fighting for them; okay gays can vote, aren't segregated etc. But this still doesn't change the principle of equal rights for all citizens; homosexuals do not have equal rights.

Therefore I find the two situations comparable, different but still related to the achievement of a principle.

I think that some people need to rethink their definition of "homophobe". Someone who refuses you equal rights has a reason for doing so and it can only be that they believe fervently that you don't deserve them, that you have no rights to them. In such a situation one must surely assume that they believe you to be inferior and in my opinion that is the definition of a "homophobe".

Assuring people that you like gay men but are against gay "marriage" is incompatible; you are refusing them the same equal rights of which you benefit and subsequently according to my definition you are "homophobe".

 

[hungrybrownbear]

^Um, how am I racist towards dogs. how do i "do the same things to others which he condemns other people of doing to him."

Anyways. my point isn't that you guys are all wrong, and that I love making friends with people who don't support gay marriage.

I'm just saying don't be so quick to alienate people who disagree with you. Why should there be any bad impression in that?

Seriously, you want to call people homophobes the split second you hear any slight indication of it, that's not going to solve any problems.

OH you don't support Gay Marriage, YOU MUST BE A GAY HATER. I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO YOU NOW EVEN THOUGH I'VE BEEN FRIENDS WITH YOU FOR 4 YEARS.

OKAY, that shows them doesn't it? That makes them want to agree with you now!

How is this opinion of mine inane in any way?

I've been personally attacked by cowards who can't construct a differing opinion/argument. All just for disagreeing and saying why.

 

[bankside]

I was never raised with marriage as a religious concept. Maybe people in your country are raised differently.

But in my earliest childhood recollections of the concept of marriage, I was equally aware that a wedding could take place in a church, or a hall, or city hall, and that there was government paperwork involved without question.

And I'm sure others disagree, but in my own experience, I am innately, intrinsically drawn to the stability and lifelong companionship, romance, adventure, and union exemplified by marriage. I am not built any other way. It appeals to me emotionally and intellectually, and it does not seem in the most minute way to be a pretence of heterosexuality. Marriage already is gay. The government just needs to wake up to that fact.

Once again, the word for that sort of union is "marriage." The question is "Will you marry me?" NOT "Will you civil-unionize me?" NOT "Will you be my Designated Life Partner?" and not even "Will you gay marry me?"

It is marriage, plain and simple.

It also comes with benefits; I can be there for my guy in the hospital. He is the beneficiary - automatically by marriage - of a wide variety of protective financial arrangements if I kick the bucket, and it is my right to engage these arrangements because I have the choice to say "Will you marry me?"

For anyone to come along and say that my husband should be deprived of those benefits, beyond an assault on the dignity of our relationship, is really committing theft. Those things belong to him just as surely as if I had married a woman.