• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homophobia by any other name

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since this is the place for friendly discussion of hot topics civilly. I figure I should bring the gay debate in it's totality here and get reasoned and real input without all the emotional bashing from either side.

OK first I want to ask some questions and we can go from there.

I have for the most part supported the rights of gay men and women outside of redefining marriage.

I understand and support gay couples having all the legal benefits of marriage. I do not support it being called a marriage as morally to me alone it is not.

Why does me supporting and standing by my ethics seem to be so wrong?

My argument is purely semantic in nature, so it is not really all that important. I do not bash or discriminate against gays. I treat them no different than anyone else, but two men or woman do not make a marriage, a union of sorts yes, but not a marriage. Even though I explain this in great detail and why, I am still called homphobe and told that I hate gays?

Chime in and really let me know how you feel.

I really want to know.
 
Last edited:

reefedjib

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I completely agree with you, so I am not any help other than to support your perspective, BD.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Since this is the place for friendly discussion of hot topics civilly. I figure I should bring the gay debate in it's totality here and get reasoned and real input without all the emotional bashing from either side.

OK first I want to ask some questions and we can go from there.

I have for the most part supported the rights of gay men and women outside of redefining marriage.

I understand and support gay couples having all the legal benefits of marriage. I do not support it being called a marriage as morally to me alone it is not.

Why does me supporting and standing by my ethics seem to be so wrong?

My argument is purely semantic in nature, so it is not really all that important. I do not bash or discriminate against gays. I treat them no different than anyone else, but two men or woman do not make a marriage, a union of sorts yes, but not a marriage. Even though I explain this in great detail and why, I am still called homphobe and told that I hate gays?

Chime in and really let me know how you feel.

I really want to know.
Why did Rosa Parks want to sit in the front of the bus?
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
When you say you support gay couples to have all the same legal benefits that a married couple have, then you are basically supporting SSM. Because legally, forget what you think about it socially, or religiously, that is SSM. And legally, there is no reason to separate the two unions. It would be redundant.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why did Rosa Parks want to sit in the front of the bus?
Because she was tired and did not feel like moving. The last thing she wanted was to become part of the civil rights movement.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When you say you support gay couples to have all the same legal benefits that a married couple have, then you are basically supporting SSM. Because legally, forget what you think about it socially, or religiously, that is SSM. And legally, there is no reason to separate the two unions. It would be redundant.
No. I do not support gay marriage. I support civil unions. morally and spiritually, they are not the same. I see marriage as a religious institution, not a secular one.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
No. I do not support gay marriage. I support civil unions. morally and spiritually, they are not the same. I see marriage as a religious institution, not a secular one.
And if these civil unions have the same legal benefits as marriage, then it is marriage, secularly. And there is no reason to divide the two by a word. Marriage you get from the state is a secular one, that is the one LGBT Americans are fighting for. If I wanted a religious marriage, I could do that no problem. It wouldn't be hard to find a church that would do it, and support it. There is no reason to fight for that, but there is a reason to fight for secular marriage, that is what is happening.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And if these civil unions have the same legal benefits as marriage, then it is marriage, secularly.
No. It would be a civil Union as I said. If you want to call it that, I have no problem.

And there is no reason to divide the two by a word. Marriage you get from the state is a secular one, that is the one LGBT Americans are fighting for.
And as long as they fight to redefine what a marriage is, I cannot in good conscience support it. If they want broader support, call it something other than a marriage.

If I wanted a religious marriage, I could do that no problem. It wouldn't be hard to find a church that would do it, and support it. There is no reason to fight for that, but there is a reason to fight for secular marriage, that is what is happening.
And that is fine. Just don't expect Christians to support it on any large scale.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
No. It would be a civil Union as I said. If you want to call it that, I have no problem.
If it is nothing more than a legal contract with all the same benefits as marriage then why would the state make another contract?

And as long as they fight to redefine what a marriage is, I cannot in good conscience support it. If they want broader support, call it something other than a marriage.
I know this is your religious belief, but we are talking about secular marriage here, and it is different than religious marriage. The only way to keep the word marriage from being anything other than a religious institution, you would have to take it out of government. The way marriage is now, to the government marriage is nothing but a secular institution.

And that is fine. Just don't expect Christians to support it on any large scale.
I don't, and I have the right to pick what churches I attend.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If it is nothing more than a legal contract with all the same benefits as marriage then why would the state make another contract?
I don't think they will. Does not mean I have to accept it morally. I mean I rally against adultery and the ease of divorce as well.

I know this is your religious belief, but we are talking about secular marriage here, and it is different than religious marriage. The only way to keep the word marriage from being anything other than a religious institution, you would have to take it out of government. The way marriage is now, to the government marriage is nothing but a secular institution.
I would be very pleased if they did that. Then gay couples and heterosexual couples would get married for the right reasons and not for financial gain and benefits etc.

The problem here is I know eventually gay marriage will be legal. Maybe not in my life time, but it will happen. The writing is on the wall. But it means for me on more immoral sin added to a long list of things destroying our society.

This is not the fault of the gays who want it. If they were married by churches who support it, I would have no issue as it would not be an endorsement of immorality by the state. We have to much immorality endorsed by the state already.

I don't, and I have the right to pick what churches I attend.
You certainly do. Be true to yourself.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I would be very pleased if they did that. Then gay couples and heterosexual couples would get married for the right reasons and not for financial gain and benefits etc.

The problem here is I know eventually gay marriage will be legal. Maybe not in my life time, but it will happen. The writing is on the wall. But it means for me on more immoral sin added to a long list of things destroying our society.

This is not the fault of the gays who want it. If they were married by churches who support it, I would have no issue as it would not be an endorsement of immorality by the state. We have to much immorality endorsed by the state already.
The thing is immorality is subjective, and making laws based on morality isn't very reliable. Especially in things that don't hurt anybody. Laws should be based on protecting the freedom of the citizen, and things that hold a specific state interest.

And I hope SSM is a reality by the time I am ready to get married, I wouldn't want my future kids to suffer, because me, and my wife couldn't have all the same benefits, given to married couples. And I plan on having a religious ceremony no matter what.

You certainly do. Be true to yourself.
I will, and you do the same.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The thing is immorality is subjective, and making laws based on morality isn't very reliable. Especially in things that don't hurt anybody. Laws should be based on protecting the freedom of the citizen, and things that hold a specific state interest.
Oh I agree, but cant really comply. I am first and foremost loyal to my God and family, then almost as an afterthought my country. I want a secular government and appreciate it, but I must follow my own moral code even in matters of state.

And I hope SSM is a reality by the time I am ready to get married, I wouldn't want my future kids to suffer, because me, and my wife couldn't have all the same benefits, given to married couples. And I plan on having a religious ceremony no matter what.
Well good luck to you then.

I will, and you do the same.
You know? you are all right for a liberal gay person. ;) :lol:
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Oh I agree, but cant really comply. I am first and foremost loyal to my God and family, then almost as an afterthought my country. I want a secular government and appreciate it, but I must follow my own moral code even in matters of state.
And that is basically where we differ. I don't consider my religion when making political decisions. I think it is up to the person to be moral, and good, and not leave it up to the state. Especially when not everyone agrees on what the term moral actually stands for. I believe the State should do what is best for the people, and the country, and not try to force everyone to live moral lives.



Well good luck to you then.
Thank you, even though all of that is years off.

You know? you are all right for a liberal gay person. ;) :lol:
Just make me look good in the anti-SSM pamphlets ;)
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No. I do not support gay marriage. I support civil unions. morally and spiritually, they are not the same. I see marriage as a religious institution, not a secular one.


Let me ask you chocolate rev, what if another religion, say a Buddhist sect called joining two women or men together a "marriage" would you take issue? See my position is similar to yours, Like others I view a marriage as between a man and a woman, but it is not my place to tell someone else that what they have is not a "marriage", nor is it the governments business telling two people they can not do certain things because it is not a "marriage".....


I for one have no problem with wiley mans wacky church of the sand god marriages a "marriage", what I would have a problem with would be the state dictating to catholics or protestants that they must marry two men, two women, or a goat and a bicycle as it affects me not. It's a label, one that unless I am being forced to accept that label as I see it in my own spiritual world, I have no issue with.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,266
Reaction score
50,279
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Since this is the place for friendly discussion of hot topics civilly. I figure I should bring the gay debate in it's totality here and get reasoned and real input without all the emotional bashing from either side.

OK first I want to ask some questions and we can go from there.

I have for the most part supported the rights of gay men and women outside of redefining marriage.

I understand and support gay couples having all the legal benefits of marriage. I do not support it being called a marriage as morally to me alone it is not.

Why does me supporting and standing by my ethics seem to be so wrong?

My argument is purely semantic in nature, so it is not really all that important. I do not bash or discriminate against gays. I treat them no different than anyone else, but two men or woman do not make a marriage, a union of sorts yes, but not a marriage. Even though I explain this in great detail and why, I am still called homphobe and told that I hate gays?

Chime in and really let me know how you feel.

I really want to know.
There is nothing wrong with supporting and standing by your ethics. Where people take exception is that you are doing so in a way that impacts others. The difference is what you and your church call the union, and what the government calls the union.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let me ask you chocolate rev, what if another religion, say a Buddhist sect called joining two women or men together a "marriage" would you take issue? See my position is similar to yours, Like others I view a marriage as between a man and a woman, but it is not my place to tell someone else that what they have is not a "marriage", nor is it the governments business telling two people they can not do certain things because it is not a "marriage".....
If a church does so, it's OK. The difference is it is not the US government legitimizing the gay lifestyle as normal, it's not.

I for one have no problem with wiley mans wacky church of the sand god marriages a "marriage", what I would have a problem with would be the state dictating to catholics or protestants that they must marry two men, two women, or a goat and a bicycle as it affects me not. It's a label, one that unless I am being forced to accept that label as I see it in my own spiritual world, I have no issue with.
Again if it was just a religious church issue, I would have no problem because it is not someone using the government to legitimize it.
 
Last edited:

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,266
Reaction score
50,279
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If a church does so, it's OK. The difference is it is not the US government legitimizing the gay lifestyle as normal, it's not.
It would not be the government saying it is normal, it would be the government saying it is acceptable.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is nothing wrong with supporting and standing by your ethics. Where people take exception is that you are doing so in a way that impacts others. The difference is what you and your church call the union, and what the government calls the union.
Yep, I know this all to well. This is part of the reason I reject it.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,280
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Always an interesting topic. :)
My position on gay marriage can be difficult to explain. I am torn between the ideals of strict Libertarianism and Social Conservatism.

I have no issue with the legal entity of marriage as it is nothing but a simple tax for the state. Each state has its own interpretation, its own set of rules, its own definitions and its own laws for marriage. To disallow ubiquity of marriage everywhere, we should promptly repeal the 14th amendment specifically equal protection. I also would welcome repealing marriage laws altogether.

I do have major religious and philosophical reservations with allowing anything other than one man and one woman within that institution. As long as marriage is an option in my state, I will fight for that. My state should have the sole discretion to define what marriage is and how much to levy. If my state "votes" and then allows gay marriage, I would respect the decision of the public at large. Because another state choses to do so, that should not effect my state in the slightest.

I do not think that being gay is cool. Nor do I think it is wrong. It isn't evil or a disease. Is it also not a popularity contest. It is what it is. It does not come with a special set of "rights" or special privileges because one claims to be unique. We are all human. Rights are about individuals not couples or cultures.

If a person choses (yes I believe this) to be gay and have that lifestyle, they are also choosing that responsibility within their social sphere. But that goes for every social group. Mixed race marriages are mostly successful when they do not make a big deal out of it within communities that do not accept that. That is just smart to do in that area. It other areas, it might be more common and acceptable.

I'm not saying to hide, but be wise and be selective about which battles to fight. In my opinion, common sense not so common any more. A gay person is no less or better than anyone else. It is unfair to expect or demand special privileges. In my opinion, yes they are asking or demanding special privileges for gay marriage without changing the laws. If the laws are wrong - right them.

My guess is that most people do not want to see same-sex people kissing in public or holding hands. It is disrespectful for anyone to do so, regardless of their chromosomes. I'm not asking for closets to be shut nor am I asking for locks on all windows and doors. Utilize the system, but do not try to forcibly change my personal societal norms. I am not trying to change nor am I trying to judge any one else's norms. It would be stupid of me to go to a friends house or known unique norms area and ask them not to kiss or stand on their head because *I* might be offended. Equally, it would be dumb of me to kiss my partner or stand on my head if that is not acceptable in the situation I am in...

Heh unsure that made any sense at all.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It would not be the government saying it is normal, it would be the government saying it is acceptable.
And again therein lies my problem. It is not acceptable.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,493
Reaction score
50,043
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This debate segued into other aspects of the issue, which is fine, but the original question was something like:

"Why am I a homophobe just for opposing gay marriage?"


The question was never answered.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Question to people against SSM: How would allowing SSM harm you, or your marriage in any way?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,222
Reaction score
14,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Question to people against SSM: How would allowing SSM harm you, or your marriage in any way?
It would harm my future marriage in that it would be considered morally equal to a homosexual union. Does it necessarily matter if we are physically harmed or harmed in any other way? I can't support something I believe to not be marriage. I have no problem with civil unions or letting homosexuals serve openly in the military. I do have a problem when it comes to redefining marriage.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
It would harm my future marriage in that it would be considered morally equal to a homosexual union. Does it necessarily matter if we are physically harmed or harmed in any other way? I can't support something I believe to not be marriage. I have no problem with civil unions or letting homosexuals serve openly in the military. I do have a problem when it comes to redefining marriage.
Marriage by the state is a secular institution, and there is no reason to deny LGBT Americans that. If you don't want to have the word marriage supporting something you don't believe in, then I suggest pushing to get the word marriage out of government.

Also I have to ask, why is the religious beliefs of people who are against SSM more important than other people's beliefs that homosexuality, and SSM aren't wrong? Because there are many churches that believe that. And if you do believe it is a moral issue, then why is it the state's job to force people to live moral lives?
 
Top Bottom