Are people who oppose same sex marriage homophobes?

[Solon]

Poll question: Are people who oppose same sex marriage homophobes?

I'm posting this, and one other poll, then I'm going to bed. There are only two choices, yes or no, and I really don't have patience for the wishy-washy excuses that are called Civil Unions, they are bullshit, as I'm sure everyone here knows, so no, there is not, and will never be an "other" option.

[Dragonfli]

1. Yes - no matter how much they lie to themselves

[Solon]

2. Kickity kick! n/t

[lunatica]

3. I oppose marriage, but only for myself after two failed ones

I just came to realize that we're not all cut out for marriage. I've always been much more content to be single.

[DailyGrind51]

202. Having been through a divorce myself, I consider marriage as punishment.

[mmonk]

4. Either that or misinformed.

[mondo joe]

5. To those voting "No" - it's okay. Someday,

when this is history and gays have equal rights, you can revise your history and pretend you didn't justify homophobia.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Not all who don't favor it are but those who "oppose" it are.

Not everyone who voted for prop 8 is a bigot. People can favor the status quo without giving it much thought.

But those who donated money, campaigned, put up signs, called in to radio shows, etc.. are anti-gay.

(I think 'homophobe' is a poor word to describe all opposition.)

[Maven]

7. When the president does it it's not homophobic.

It's so retro!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. Very Funny! (Just wanted to show I got it)

[Marrah_G]

8. Yes they are- they are no better then racists

No matter how they rationalize it.

That goes for my own family as well.

[cali]

11. oh, please. In Vermont, when civil unions were first enacted

almost 10 years ago, most people were against marriage equality. Now, nearly a decade later, the majority of people are pro-marriage equality. Suggesting that all those people who changed their minds are all bigots is foolish. I've seen first hand, many people who have had a change of heart. They aren't bigots.

[Solon]

16. Not anymore they aren't, bigots can change, doesn't mean they weren't bigots at one point in time.

Is Marriage Equality going to introduced in Vermont's next session?

[cali]

21. yes. it is going to be introduced this coming session

and hopefully it will be passed. I'm pretty confident about passage, but alas we have our idiot repuke gov who will veto it.

And no, a lot of the people I know just couldn't be considered bigots.

[cali]

9. some are some aren't.

And if you're gay or a lesbian, where would you rather live, Vermont or Oklahoma? Civil Unions are unequal but they at least provide legal protections for couples, and they can be used to push for full marriage rights.

[Solon]

14. Yeah, if you want to only want to stay in that one state...

damn the job and house!

Oh, and when has Vermont approved of Same Sex MARRIAGE? I haven't seen it yet, seems like you are stuck in Civil Union limbo.

[butterfly77]

158. They just want to prove a point..

so from what I can see it has nothing to do with legal protections or rights.

[terrya]

10. There are no legal reasons to oppose same-sex marriage.

As Justice Scalia said in his foaming at the mouth dissent in "Lawrence v Texas", which declared sodomy laws unconstitutional, the legal door to same-sex marriage is now wide open.

So, if there are no legal reasons to deny same-sex marriage, it's solely about hating homosexuality and gay and lesbian people.

[demwing]

52. You are only looking at it from one angle

I oppose all religious "marriages." All legal unions should be civil ceremonies, not marriages. Marriage should be set aside as a legal state, and put in the same pile as baptism.

[RandomKoolzip]

143. I think you nailed it, Terry.

Hope you're doing well, BTW. :hug:

In any case, it's absolutely fucking heartbreaking that this thing is virtually neck-and-neck.

[Orangepeel]

13. they are ignorant and closed minded, which can often lead to fear

Although I do think that civil unions are the fastest and most practical approach to getting to marriage equality (which is the only moral, fair and not ignorant or closed minded place to be).

[noamnety]

15. Yes.

If you think a marriage relationship is defined by the presence of one penis and one vagina, if you think it cannot be a marriage if two penises exist in the bed at the same time, you are a homophobe.

Doesn't matter whether you are an activist in that or not; if those are your beliefs, you are homophobic.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Not all of them. Does anyone actually beleive that Obama is a homophobe?

[Solon]

18. If he can't make the leap from Civil Union to Gay Marriage, what excuse does he have?

And please don't say Religion, that's bullshit right there, he's UCC for crying out loud!

And political expediency doesn't cut it either, he won this election, if he really doesn't believe in Civil Unions, but rather Marriage, now is the time to say so.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Actually, he left that church

But even if he hadn't, just because he is a member of a particular church, doesn't mean that he is in line with all of the beliefs and doctrines of that church. John Kerry is a prime example of this. Although he is a Roman Catholic, he is in favor of abortion rights and the death penalty, two things the Catholic Church opposes.

[Solon]

43. Yes yes, I know, and you are in favor of people voting on other's civil rights...

I heard all that vile shit from you before, the least you can do is shut up about it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

197. Would you prefer those decisions to be made by Bush-appointed judges?

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

148. He has to get re-elected in four years

And you can bet that they start thinking about that the day after they win the first election. That's, unfortunately, how politics works.

Although the more that we keep pushing this issue the harder it will be for him to take a firm "Civil Unions Only" stance. He managed to get away with opposing gay marriage while simultaneously opposing Prop 8 which is such a counter-intuitive stance that only a politician could possibly have it. And the only reason it worked is because voters were focused on the economy and not on gay marriage.

If there are another half a dozen contentious battles like Prop 8 during the Obama Administration he's actually going to have to take a real position sooner or later.

[mondo joe]

22. Or a liar. On or the other. NT

[Hippo_Tron]

147. No but I also don't believe Obama is genuinely opposed to gay marriage

There's a difference between a person seeking public office "taking a position" on something and what that person actually believes. Politicians take a lot of stances that run counter to what they actually believe.

[Seen the light]

19. Now do the exact same poll and ask if Barack Obama is a homophobe

Of course the results will be the complete opposite, despite the fact that he too opposes it.

[Renew Deal]

20. Wow

I'm surprised by these results. It shows that DU has a silent majority that doesn't consider their family, friends, and neighbors that don't support same-sex marriage yet "homophobes"

[IsItJustMe]

144. Life is seldom black and white.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. I think it really depends.

The newest thing is to attack support of civil unions as endorsement of "seperate but equal" but I think it does have the potential to be a valuable stepping stone to the eventual acceptance of gay marriage by the greater society.

I think the fact is, getting to the point where a majority of states--let alone all 50 states--recognize gay marriage is going to be a long, labor intensive process which involves the changing of social norms (social norms which I do believe should be changed, but social norms nonetheless). That just doesn't happen overnight like the flipping of a light switch. It's going to be a long, arduous process, which could potentially take several decades to achieve. There is a utility of the civil union process as a transitionary tool to a greater acceptance of actually achieving gay marriage.

The fact is, like it or not, there are a lot of people who support civil unions, support the right of gays to adopt, support gays serving openly in the military, are offended by anti-gay slurs, are horrified with acts of anti-gay violence like what happened with Matthew Sheppard, but in the same may not quite yet be comfortable with endorsing the concept of gay marriage at this current time due to prevailing social norms. There are a lot of people like that. I can think of my parents as one example. And I'm not going to stand here and call people like that homophobes, sorry. I'm not agreeing with that mindset mind you, but I just am not going to make the judgment call that just because someone may be slow to endorse gay marriage means they hate gays.

There's a problem with the phrasing of the question. Do all homophobes oppose gay marriage? Yes, for sure. Is everyone who opposes gay marriage homophobic? I can't say yes to that, I'm sorry.

I know you wanted a nice black and white, yes and no response, but I don't play that way. Black and white thinking is for republicans and conservatives, not for liberals.

[robcon]

24. Civil Unions are the answer.

"Marriage" has meant for centuries a union of a man and a woman. Let's leave that word to describe that union.

Civil Unions, or whatever one wants to call them, are fine. We don't need the word "marriage," we just need equality.

[Creideiki]

25. Civil MARRIAGE is the answer

Get a civil marriage from the State and a religious marriage from the Church if you want.

This isn't rocket science.

[robcon]

32. There have been civil marriages and religious marriages for centuries.

Why do you want to change that? Just give up the "marriage" word (which has meant a union of a man and woman for centuries) and the law will be neutral. Civil Unions (or whatever name is chosen) can be for man-and-woman or same-sex unions. The word "marriage" continues to mean a union of man and woman, as it has for a long time.

What's the problem?

[Creideiki]

53. Why do you think you're better than other people?

The real reason for not setting up two parallel civil structures is that if we do that, we'll then have to fight constantly to make sure that we don't get separate but unequal. And the inequality will follow quickly. Following a civil marriage and a religious marriage model gets rid of that.

And that doesn't even address the breach of the First Amendment when we decide that certain religions that don't recognize same-sex marriages get to trump the religions that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages today, including, oddly enough, St. Barry's old United Church of Christ.

So if we're not going to allow one religion to decide that its relationships are valid at the State level while denying another religion to do the same, we need the whole thing.

[boppers]

137. Marriage has *not* meant a man and a woman for centuries.

That's a BS RW talking point, written and used by people whose anthropology/human sexuality training is laughably poor.

Quick, what's a Berdache? A two-spirit?

[donheld]

27. Separate but equal is the answer?

[robcon]

33. Different names.

Not separate, but differently named. Either civil or religious ceremonies. Both equal in the law.

That's the best solution, IMO. There have been no same-sex "marriages" for the more than 200 years since the Constitution was ratified. Why is that, now, the only word that will be accepted by you?

If you want to recognize a right that has not been recognized before, that's fine. I agree. But you don't have the right to a name that has meant something different for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

[U4ikLefty]

135. Yeah different, like white-bathroom & colored-bathroom.

How gracious of you.

[Bill McBlueState]

177. wrong

"There have been no same-sex "marriages" for the more than 200 years since the Constitution was ratified."

There are a ton of them in Massachusetts, and people are getting along just fine there.

[Lex]

28. * Are people who oppose equal civil rights for black people racist? *

:shrug:

[rucky]

29. No. I don't think most of them really know why they're making a distinction.

except it's seen as a more practical path to acceptance. :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

30. I separate them into two classes of people.

The first are those who have thought about the issue, but yet believe in anything but marriage equality. They believe gay people really, truly deserve a second-class form of citizenship. They're homophobes. Convincing them to support gay marriage would require a major internal shift in how they view homosexuality and society.

The second are those who have not actually considered the impact that marriage inequality has on affected families, and who have only made their decisions based on the few talking points rattling around in their heads. These, I think, are many; acceptance of the status quo is most people's default opinion, and many people lack the experience or the background to be able to challenge that. They are not necessarily homophobes; there is a very real possibility of redemption through outreach and activism. They're the type of people who will completely change their views once they befriend a gay couple, or once they realize that a family member is gay--and who will do so happily, without requiring any sort of internal paradigm shift.

[MadBadger]

31. To all those who have voted yes..Are Hillary, Barack, and Biden all homophobes?

[robcon]

34. Equality is the key. The name "marriage" is not.

Neither Biden, Clinton or Obama are homophobes.

[MadBadger]

35. Thats why I answered no

There were only two choices, and those three are against same-sex marriage, but I dont believe are homophobes.

[Solon]

39. Civil Unions are a fucking farce, and so is everyone who supports them.

It really is that simple.

[MadBadger]

40. Ok, but I still dont think those three are homophobes.

[Solon]

42. They are either homophobes or moral cowards...

neither is a position I would laud as "good".

[Occam Bandage]

88. Bad as the latter may be, it is a position that your poll does not account for.

[Creideiki]

54. How about "heterosexist", then?

If we change the word, will that help you along?

[demwing]

No, it really is not.

I think EVERYONE who wants legal rights should get a civil ceremony, and "marriage" should be confined to the same level as baptism or confirmation - a religious ceremony that carries no social distinction or legal status.

Am I a homophobe?

[WeDidIt]

36. I'll answer that

Yes, they are.

They chose politically expedient positions on the issue of equal rights for all due to fear of what supporting basic human rights for GLBT people would do to them politically.

Because of that fear, they are by defnition homophobes.

[robcon]

37. In other words you don't believe Obama is against same-sex marriage?

I, for one, believe that his position is an honest belief by someone who wants equality for all.

You'd have to find some evidence, IMO, that Obama doesn't really want equality for gays. The fact that he doesn't want the name "marriage" assigned to same-sex unions is not evidence of that.

He is a very open man of integrity and conscience, IMO, and his position, which he's stated many times, is that the word marriage should be reserved for man-woman unions. Not homophobic. Not afraid of anything.

[WeDidIt]

45. If he's honestly opposed to gay marriage

he';s an even worse homophobe.

[MadBadger]

38. You have no proof that they believe that.

For all you know they are genuinely against gay marriage. Everything else you've said is just an assumption.

[WeDidIt]

41. IF they are genuinely opposed to gay marriage

then they are homophobes any way.

[MadBadger]

44. So you are going to go on record that Our President, SOS, and VP are either liars or homophobes...

right?

[robcon]

50. Ironically, the poster's DU name is "IWant AnyDem "

His/her posts suggest otherwise. He only wants Dems who agree with him, and he/sheis eager to slam any Dem who disagrees with him.

Obama said he opposed marriage for same-sex couples before he ran for president, he said it during the primaries and he said it during the General Election. It's on his website, in his speeches and in his interview with gay magazines.

Now, he's being slammed for homophobia?????

[MadBadger]

55. I mean I dont agree with him or the others and I dont like it

But I know they arent homophobes.

[Withywindle]

138. If they're against full civil rights for ALL citizens, then yeah, they're fucking homophobes.

Not a shocking idea really - lord knows our society is still riddled with them. I'd like to turn that "I have gay friends" bullshit on its head and say, well, ya know what, I have homophobe relatives. Sadly, I do. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Doesn't mean I"m going to cut a SECOND of slack for their desires to put their ignorant superstitions into law. I don't care about "religious" justifications. The idea that GLBT people and relationships are in any way inferior to straight ones ranks right up there in my mind with the centuries-old "Christian" European traditions of killing black cats and beating left-handed children. Those "beliefs" deserve the same amount of respect: none.

[Lyric]

65. To some degree, YES.

That's rather obvious.

[alwysdrunk]

76. This is why I voted no

I support gay marriage. I honestly don't believe these people are homophobes. Other people I know in life, I know their position on the issue, I disagree with it, but I don't think them homophobes or bigots.

[girl gone mad]

103. They certainly like to pander to homophobes to win votes. n/t

[demwing]

46. Can Anyone Oppose Anything

Without it being labled an irrational fear?

If so, then I'd say that one might be able to say they oppose gay marriages without being labled homophobic.

[Kitsune]

47. Wow, DU. Just.... wow.

I had no idea there were so many jerkasses here.

Silently hoping that there's a secret freeper invasion going on, but after the last couple of days that's a slim hope indeed...

[Deja Q]

48. Well, Elton John must be a homophobe according to all those folks who voted "Yes" to your poll

http://www.celebitchy.com/21719/elton_john_is_against_gay_marriage_says_civil_unions_are_for_same_sex_couples/

BTW: Elton John also happens to be gay. ;) :hi:

[JohnnieGordon]

131. Elton's an asshole contrarian who also defended the homophobe Eminem

And I haven't been a fan since. This may be news to you, but gays aren't actually obligated to agree with whatever any gay celebrity might say. And if that were expected of us, we should at least be able to choose which gay celebrity we're in 100% agreement with. I choose Boy George who was furious at Elton for defending Eminem and performing a duet with him at the Grammies. Boy George is much more fierce advocate of gay equality than Elton. And he does support gay marriage, for the record, even though he isn't interested in being married himself.

[stevietheman]

49. I'm gay and I voted no, as in "not necessarily"

Marriage between one man and one woman is indeed a tradition, no question in my mind, and gays like me are trying to up-end it, no question. But we are trying to up-end it for fairness reasons, and that's why I support it. And I can understand the opposition, as people don't want to give up on a tradition, no matter how they feel about gay people. I get it.

[Solon]

51. Bullshit excust, always was...

Anyone who is using the "tradition" argument is obviously just covering for their own homophobia.

[robcon]

56. Generalize much, Solon?.

Anyone??? No exceptions, Solon?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kwassa]

57. How do you know they are covering up homophobia?

People might simply be voting for what they believe in, not what they are opposed to.

[Solon]

58. If what they believe in is bigoted, its bigoted period...

And don't give me any bullshit excuses either.

[stevietheman]

66. Many may see a longtime tradition as just that. How is that hard to understand? n/t

n/t

[Solon]

68. Another excuse for bigotry.

I have absolutely NO tolerance for bigotry, period.

[galaxy21]

154. Its not excusing bigotry to have empathy

I disagree with anyone who doesn't believe in gay marriage, but I can understand why they might feel that way. It is a big step for people. The word "Marriage" freaks them out.

And, just to clarify, I have no empathy with the people opposed to all gay rights, and who hate gay people. But a lot of the people who vote against gay marriage are otherwise generally supportive of gay rights.


My point is: Vilifying 60% of Americans and calling them evil bigots is not going to help anyone.

[kwassa]

77. But it isn't bigoted unless .....

you can prove they are individually bigoted against homosexuals as a group. Each might vote based on a different reason, and you don't know what those reasons are.

You have to know what is in a person's beliefs in order to call them bigoted, and these votes would not prove that point.

[Solon]

93. If a bunch of different people voted to make interracial marriage illegal...

would it really be necessary for me to have to prove that each and every single one of them is a bigot? No, of course not, don't apply impossible standards here.

[kwassa]

96. What does calling them a bigot get you?

That is what I really don't understand.

Is it cathartic in some way to call someone you don't know, and whose beliefs you can only guess about a bigot, based on what you imagine their beliefs to be?

To call someone a bigot requires knowledge of the beliefs of the suspected bigot.

Or, are you trying to enlist them in supporting your position? I also suspect that many would support gay marriage if they were educated on the the issue, but that they have had no particular reason to think about it. Calling them bigots will not get their support, or win others to support gay marriage. Marriage between men and women is the thousand-year default position, and many have had no reason to consider marriage to be anything different.

If you think you can insult people into voting the right way, I don't see it as happening, and in fact a counterproductive strategy. What does calling someone a bigot get you?

[Solon]

97. You judge people on their words and actions, voting for or against civil rights is an action....

words are a way to find out their beliefs. Is it really so difficult for you to understand this concept?

[kwassa]

101. You jump to a conclusion that is not logically supported.

Is that so hard for you to understand?

It is possible to vote against gay marriage without even understanding that it IS a civil rights issue.

And thanks for ignoring my questions on the value of calling someone a bigot.

[Solon]

105. To be frank, I cannot see how anyone can be ignorant of this being a civil rights issue.

Its like that woman in California who had the restaurant owned by her family boycotted because she donated 100 dollars to the advocates for Proposition 8. The civil rights advocates gave her a simple choice, give an equal amount to them to fight to overturn Prop 8, or the boycott will be ongoing. She claims she left in tears after that, because she's Mormon, and that's what they believe. Well, boo hoo for her, she can rot for all I care, she places imposing her religious values on others much higher than the respect, dignity and civil rights of even her GLBT employees. It was pathetic.

She couldn't claim ignorance, being surrounded by GLBT people as she was, day in and day out, yet she still claimed it. And had a sob story to go along with it. You know, I was actually curious about what other people felt on the 'net about her story. First off, it wasn't widely propogated, which actually surprised me. Oh, Freerepublic and other conservative sites mentioned it, but I wasn't interested in their reactions, for it was predictable.

Instead I went to other message boards, those that are generally non-political, I found the story in a Second Life forum, a forum for an online Massive-Multiplayer Online Fantasy Game, and quite a few nonpolitical sites and blogs with comments. The responses actually surprised me, I would estimate that about only 1 in 10 people on any of these sites were sympathetic to her plight. Most people basically were of the opinion that she worked to destroy her employees civil rights, she deserves no sympathy.

I tell this now because if the majority of people on these sites can see this so clearly, and face it, on many of them, these are supposedly ignorant kids and basic trolls for various things. Yet, most of them supported the boycott. The minority, many of them, were openly homophobic, but were quickly drowned out by the supporters for civil rights. I don't think ignorance is an excuse anymore, and was never valid to begin with. If people like THIS can get, then so can everyone else.

[kwassa]

125. I think it is very easy to be ignorant of it as a civil rights issue.

Most of the voters are NOT surrounded by GLBT people and have not been educated on the issues, unlike the manager at El Coyote.

Many of them spend little or no time online.

How are they going to be educated on it? Why would they be educated on it?

The concerns of the gay community are probably not the concerns of most other communities, simply because each has a different dynamic and interest.

[girl gone mad]

120. Anyone who supports bigotry is a bigot.

This isn't rocket surgery.

What does it gain you to pretend that black is white? A lot of Germans looked the other way and pretended they weren't really bigots. Their children and grandchildren know otherwise and haven't forgiven them.

[kwassa]

127. This isn't rocket surgery?

Your joke is as cryptic as the rest of your reply.

Why don't you say what you mean, and stop speaking in slogans?

[galaxy21]

152. Are you really comparing people not backing gay marriage to what happened to the Jews in WW2?

Rolling Stone had a good article about why prop 8 passed, and partly it was an ad no on 8 did where they compared the treatment of gays to other minority racial groups. Needless to say, it pissed a lot of people off.


I'm not saying what happened in California was right. It was appalling. But, when people say 'gay people are at the back of the bus' it sounds...wrong. Gay people are not black people in the fifties or Jews in 1940s Germany. Even though I fully support gay rights and marriage, there's no point making comparisions like that.

[stevietheman]

64. In some cases, yes, in others, no. You can't know what lies in others' hearts. n/t

n/t

[musicblind]

71. There are many self hating gays. I have met them. It is sad.

Hell, I knew gays who voted for McCain and do not believe they deserve equal rights. I know gays who think they are going to hell and hate themselves for it. :( :( :(

[Solon]

94. That's simply horrible, no gay person should hate themselves...

and all of them deserve equal rights. :hug:

[dbackjon]

60. Yes. And those that vote no in this poll are in denial

[tomreedtoon]

61. You idiots ever hear of "invincible ignorance"?

Probably not, because it's a Catholic principle, and many people here can't tolerate or understand a religious principle. The idea is that a person who absolutely, positively cannot understand a truth is not evil.

There are people who, through training, tradition and bad personal experiences, cannot see gays as responsible human beings. You can argue it with them, point out examples that contradict their arguments, go the whole "political re-education" route. But they will never believe it. That does not make them evil.

But for the politically obsessed, anyone who comes against them are enemies and must be destroyed and humiliated, not understood or symapthized with. Kill 'em all, let God or whoever you worship sort 'em out. Say hello to Saint Peter, you evil homophobe...or whoever does his job, but in Hell.

[Solon]

63. Ignorance is no excuse, and as an Ex-Catholic I know all about that "principle". n/t

[Maven]

67. I can't believe this is fucking almost half and half.

[Solon]

69. Illuminating, isn't it. Almost half the people of DU don't take homophobia seriously. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

80. That is an invalid inference. nt

[jefferson_dem]

82. What else did you expect?

Much of the rhetoric on DU nowadays is simply the flip side of the same "fer us or agin us" false dichotomy bullshit Booosh used to shovel.

[Solon]

83. No it isn't, I view opposition to Same Sex Marriage to be as wrong as opposing Interracial Marriage.

Do you see it differently?

[Occam Bandage]

85. I entirely agree. However,

I also recognize that people who have not thought deeply or thoroughly about an issue--usually because they lack any personal experience with it--can support the status quo without any traces of bigotry or malice. If you ask a person, point-blank, if they believe that gay people are undeserving of basic human rights, including equal protection under the law, you will get an entirely different set of answers than if you were to ask them if they oppose gay marriage.

When the status quo is bigoted, many people end up supporting bigotry out of unthinking ignorance, not out of their own bigotry. That is not, of course, to say that many people oppose gay marriage because they honestly believe that gay people do not deserve the same rights that straight people do; certainly those people exist and are numerous. However, they aren't the whole picture, either. Those who uncritically support that status quo are not bigoted enemies; they are potential allies who need to see the harm that legal discrimination causes. For that reason, "are people who fail to support gay marriage bigots" is not the same question as, "Is legal discrimination bigoted," and certainly is not the same question as, "is homophobia important?"

[Solon]

86. I really think ignorance is no excuse...

If someone is really that ignorant about the issue, yet still outspoken about it, or moved enough to vote on it, I really don't know how they couldn't be bigoted.

[Occam Bandage]

87. How? It's easy. They're ignorant. Most people don't know how much they don't know,

because they have no reason to think about what they know nothing about. Many people who don't support gay marriage don't consider how their beliefs affect gay people, because they don't consider gay people either way.

Now, if they're going out of their way to oppose gay marriage--donating to Prop. 8, equating gay marriage to pedophilia--then they're almost certainly bigots, yes. However, failure to support a change in the definition of marriage is in many ways the default option (as any status-quo option is); something has to move you to change your support. For people with no experience with gay people (and with a mind unaccustomed to critically examining issues), there's very little to move them, and quite a few voices telling them to stay where they are. That's why activism and outreach are so important. Our goal isn't to shout louder than the other side, nor is it to convince the bigots to switch sides. Rather, it's to convince the dull, unthinking middle that the positions of the bigots are harmful. To effectively do that, I believe it's valuable to be able to distinguish them from the people who honestly and fully believe that gay people are not deserving of equal rights.

[kwassa]

92. Exactly, and you said it very well.

For many the vote is on the default they know vs. a new idea they haven't really thought about.

[Marrah_G]

111. The results of this brought me to tears

[MadBadger]

70. Thats what happens when there is only two choices

Im sure a lot of people's no votes are nuanced thinking Warren is a homophobe, but Hillary, Barack, and Joe arent.

[Solon]

74. What nuance, you either support FULL equal rights or not, there is no middle ground anymore.

FUCK! Can't you get that through your thick skull!

[Name removed]

72. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PresidentObama]

73. As a gay male, I voted no. Not always the case n/t

[musicblind]

75. As a gay male I voted yes because it is the case n/t

[Evoman]

78. Of course they are fucking homophobes.

If you are against two people of different races being married, your a fucking racist.

Your education, moral beliefs, degree of bigotry, etc has no relevance...you are a homophobe. You are not necessarily a bad person. You may be charismatic, friendly, nice...but your still a fucking homophobe.

The fact that almost half of you don't get it astounds me.

[Marrah_G]

189. This is why I like you so much!

[GarbagemanLB]

79. I voted no. I don't consider Obama or Hillary to be homophobes.

[jefferson_dem]

81. Not all are...

Dumb poll.

[Solon]

84. Why not, what's their non-bigoted excuse? n/t

[Maven]

91. So then, not all those people who oppose interracial marriage

are racists.

Would you agree with that statement?

[jefferson_dem]

95. I have trouble with such sweeping absolutist statements no matter the topic.

Generally speaking, I think those who oppose interracial marriage (however few) do so on "racialist" grounds. Most are racist. This analogy could be applied to those with attitudes on gay marriage as well.

I guess the first problem is...the label "homophobe" and how it's defined. Based on this poll, Obama, Hillary, Elton John, and several GLBTs I know are "homophobic."

Frankly, I'm sick and fucking tired of the "us versus them" "fer us or agin us" bullshit slash and burn, divide and conquer, tribalist politics...from the left and the right. But that's just me...

[uppityperson]

89. Equal rights, irregardless of sexual orientation, color, creed. eom.

[robcon]

98. Exactly. That is the position of our president-elect.

And it's mine.

[uppityperson]

106. WTF? Mixed message from you. I want equal rights, Obama wants civil unions, not marriages....

"His has said and written repeatedly and clearly that he does not want to allow same-sex marriage."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8004820&mesg_id=8008567

[laconicsax]

108. Sorry, that's not his position.

His position is separate rights, not equal rights.

[1awake]

90. I voted

no. But I think the vast majority.. very vast majority of those who oppose same sex marriage are homophobes to one degree or another. Sorry, I don't like using a broad brush, nor grouping everyone in into overly simplistic categories.

I personally think that this is a civil rights issue and this issue trumps almost all others. Obama should address this in his first six months of office.


~LK~

[robcon]

99. How does Obama address this?

His has said and written repeatedly and clearly that he does not want to allow same-sex marriage.

What does he need to address?

[1awake]

102. ..

Obama should address....

just because I state someone should address the lack of civil rights for people.. doesn't mean he is going to, or that he even plans to right now. When I say address.. I mean he should do everything in his power to allow for them to be finally given. In other words, just because he won't doesnt mean he shouldn't.

[Lyric]

110. WRONG. He said that he PERSONALLY feels that marriage is a man/woman thing.

He has NEVER said that he does not want to ALLOW gay marriage, and in fact, he supported the "No on 8" effort.'

Stop slandering Obama. He's no buddy to gays, but he's also not a totalitarian who's going to impose his religious beliefs on others via the law.

[robcon]

124. I was just responding to the post where he was supposed to do something about same sex marriage.

He's not likely to "do something" in a hurry, since he has made no promises, and defines marriage as only between a man and woman.

Not likel;y to get someone to "do something" if his heart's not in it.

[adoraz]

100. No

[Amimnoch]

130. Fair enough, so people who are against interracial marriages are not racist either.

by your own logic.

[adoraz]

134. Not true.

[demokatgurrl]

104. Of course- what other earthly reason could one

possibly have for wanting to deny a gay couple the same rights a straight couple has?

[robcon]

107. It's not denying rights. it's defining a union...

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman” - Barack Obama, in response to a question from pastor Rick Warren.

Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. That doesn't mean same-sex unions have to called the same name as man-woman unions.

[uppityperson]

112. Then they are not the same rights.

Different but equal is not the same rights.

[robcon]

115. If you're going to assert no equal rights because of the name 'marriage,'

I think you've got a very, very narrow problem with those who, like me, think that all people should have the same rights, but believe the definition of the word marriage does not need to be changed.

If the name civil union bothers you, I suggest you get over it, or create a different one. The issue of equal rights is not nomenclature.

[uppityperson]

116. I will create the word "marriage". Different does not=same.

and nomenclature is an issue. Change all to "civil union" then, if you dislike the word "marriage".

[mondo joe]

142. Separate is not equal. Learn a little history.

[mondo joe]

141. Fucking wrong. Marriage is a civil right. Equality before the law is a civil right.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

109. This poll will look a hell of a lot different in 20 years when people pull their head out of their a

ass.

[brianna69]

113. Everyone is now a bigot according to DU.

This place now makes me sick

[jonnyblitz]

114. BIGOTS make me SICK.

:puke:

[robcon]

117. Bigots make me sick; people who call those who disagree with them bigots makes me sick, too.

The poll in the OP is outrageous. The number of DUers who call people homophobes just for believing same sex unions can have a different name than marriages is awful.

[jefferson_dem]

123. This reminds me of the "why do you hate 'merca" bullshit the wacky right has shoveled since 9-11.

Torches and pitchforks in hand...

To the gallows for all who show the even the slightest hint of impurity!

[galaxy21]

153. I agree:

Apart from Spain and (I think) Sweden Europe doesn't have gay marriage. They have civil unions or strong gay rights, but most of them don't have marriage.

And Eurpoe's a very secular, tolerant place. It would be hard to say Eurpoe is full of homophobic zealots.

[mondo joe]

150. Which rights or group are you opposed to?

Let's be clear please.

[ncteechur]

118. Thanks for the push polling! Next time just tell me the results and I won't have to actually vote.

[Danger Mouse]

119. I voted no because I don't think it's quite THAT black and white.

[Phx_Dem]

122. I agree. If you're against affirmative action, does that make you a racist?

I'm for affirmative action and gay marriage, but I'm just asking the question because I don't believe people who are against either are necessarily homophobic or racist.

[cascadiance]

121. I voted yes, but I have some caveats here...

Ideally, there shouldn't be any legal ties between what some feel are the "religious" connotation of marriage, and what are given as rights/responsibilities to that are protected by law defined by "marriage".

Some say that the best way to do this is to define them separately. Everyone has a "civil union" (whether we call it married or not), that defines the legal rights for everyone, and that should be equal for all human beings as our constitution would and should demand it to be to be consistent with our bill of rights.

But there's an added issue of how the wealth of the laws on our books (federal, state, and local) that legally in SO MANY places codify "marriage" as a term that is necessary to be applied to define many of them. If one tried to change them to civil union in every instance, it would be a herculean if not impossible task. Therefore, there should be a federal law that is passed that states that every law currently on the books that ties "marriage" to a certain set of rights or responsibilities should apply to newly enacted laws defining "civil unions", to prevent these many "loopholes" that many homophobes on many levels will use to try and block equal rights if they are kept defined as they are currently.

That is why, for the time being, until we have such an "overriding" law, I feel one HAS to support same sex marriage rights to not stand in the way of gay people's rights and therefore not be looked on as homophobic.

Now as far as requiring people to call same sex couples "married" instead of other terms, I don't feel that in day to day discourse we can force people to call people certain terms. Just like you can't force people to call each other "girls" and "boys" if they are younger than 16 and "women" and "men" over 16. There are freedom of speech issues as well as freedom of association issues that should allow churches NOT to "marry" people they don't want to, or discriminate who they let in to the church (kind of like boy scouts do with gays now). But there should probably be some limitations of federal funding in the case of the scouts, and others, etc. if they want to exercise these rights at the expense of a whole category of taxpayers that would be forced to fund them.

By the same token, if a church WANTS to marry a same sex couple, other churches shouldn't be allowed to force that church NOT to marry same sex couples either. It should be their decision.

It's all about having equal protection rights under the law. Having the rights to free speech, and having the rights to free association.

We might not like groups that discriminate when considering who they have as members, but it is our right in a free society to do so. And I certainly don't like groups that discriminate against gays and wouldn't be members of such groups. But gay couples should be entitled to the same inheritance laws, child custody laws, adoption rights, and other legal rights the rest of us have. That should not be negotiable.

[AlCzervik]

126. I don't know to be honest, what i do not understand is why gay marriage is opposed

i've heard all the arguments and i just don't buy them, i don't.

[madmadmad]

128. ABSOLUTELY. BIGOTS AND HOMOPHOBES ALL.

[Amimnoch]

129. Yes. No different from "I'm not a racist, I just don't agree with interracial marriage"

Or I'm not Sexist, I just don't think a woman can be president.

It's civil rights people! Can someone be against interracial marriage, yet not be a racist?

It IS the same fucking thing!

You can't oppose gay marriage, yet not be a homophobe. PERIOD.

[pettypace]

132. I'm neutral on the issue

Couldn't give less of a shit either way.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

133. I'm glad to see you couldn't give less of a shit about civil rights

How progressive.

[mondo joe]

139. Wow, that's big of you. Why give a shit about cvil rights? NT

[RandomKoolzip]

136. Liberals who vote "no" may not self-identify as homophobes (of course they wouldn't)

But I pretty much see this as black-and-white, because I frame same-sex marriage as a human rights issue - in other words, marriage, as an activity, a construct, a symbol, a right, ought to be extended to any two adult humans who love one another (who aren't related to one another, of course - I shouldn't even have to mention this caveat and I'm only doing it for those "slippery slope" robots who think same-sex marriage will lead to a new, shiny Sodom in Middle America).

It sucks, because a lot of good people, who otherwise are progressive and educated and right on, all seem to get weird and squishy on this issue - it creeps them out, probably because of a combination of cultural conditioning and political expediency. So when they get accused of homophobia, they get defensive, of course. They LIKE gay people! "Sure, love whoever you want! Just don't buy one another rings and make it legal, for god's sake..." (You can almost see them squirming as they post.)

I, personally, take a harder line on same-sex marriage. For me, either you support same-sex marriage, or you're a bigot. What IS it, xactly, that prevents so many straights from accepting GLBTers as first-class citizens? I realize that not many people on the left, even on this site, are ready to take that leap into full acceptance. But sooner or later, those same people have GOT to get on board, because this shit is heading toward a real crisis point: the GLBT community is becoming increasingly radicalized and vocal, and it's going to get to the point (soon) when you simply won't be able to sit on the fence. They've also got to get on board soon because their apathy, their wishy-washiness, sends a message to their GLBT friends (okay, "their GLBT fellow planet-dwellers") that somehow the rest of the world, too, is reluctant to view them as fully human. And that fucking hurts. And hurt causes division, distance, and resentment. And resentment does not make for a unified progressive or liberal political movement. In the long run, then, their inability to accept GLBTers as fully human hurts all of us - maybe one day, these "progressives" who've voted no will internalize this fact.

[enigmatic]

168. I agree

Great post :thumbsup:

[last_texas_dem]

140. Some are, some aren't.

[IndianaJones]

145. wtf is up with this poll? nt.

[libnnc]

146. 89 DUers who can fucking kiss my ass

[Blarch]

149. give it up already.

[galaxy21]

151. No. Some of them are. But not all of them.

52% of Californians are evil homophobes who hate gay people? It's ridiculous. Gay marriage hasn't been passed in France. France is full of bigoted rednecks? Crazy.

If someone supports gay rights, but not gay marriage, they're on your side (just not as much as one would like). And labelling them a homophobic bigot is going to lead to them leaving the gay rights cause altogether.

And I'm fully supportive of gay marriage, by the way.

[JohnnieGordon]

155. Anything short of full equality is dehumanizing

And anyone who intends me to feel dehumanized is a bigot.

[galaxy21]

156. I don't think they intend to make you feel that way

A lot of people think its enough to support civil unions. Especially when they even have gay people (well, Elton John) telling them civil unions are enough. And it would be unfair to call them homophobic because they don't see themselves that way. They don't act that way in their own life.


I think if someone supports gay rights (although, not to the extent you want) calling them a bigot is self defeating. Are they going to respond well to being called that? And you going to change their mind? Probably not. They'll end up disliking you and will be even more unlikely to change their mind about marriage in the future.

[JohnnieGordon]

157. Many are only mild bigots and shaming them will be effective, actually

And from personal experience, there are very, very many people who don't think of themselves as homophobic, when they in fact are. And act as such, but perhaps not in a particularly overt way.

[galaxy21]

159. "shaming them will be effective"

I don't personally think someone can be 'shamed' into believing in gay marriage.

[JohnnieGordon]

161. Mild bigots are on the fence and just need a little nudge

They need to feel that opposing full equality for gays is socially unacceptable. It has to be brought to their attention anything short of full equality is bigotry. Support for gay marriage has been skyrocketing the last 5-10 yrs precisely because opposition to it is becoming increasingly associated with being a bigot. The angry backlash against Prop 8 increased support for gay marriage. Current polls show Prop 8 would be defeated if put up to a vote today.

Oh, and we don't need to convince every bigot on earth to change. The mild bigots who just need a nudge will give us a majority, and then gays will have their civil rights along with the other minorities.

[LibraLiz1973]

160. I am simply agog at the number of DUers that said no. I guess I understand why Obama thinks

it is ok to as a bigot to do the blessing on inauguration day.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solon]

163. Its not only unpopular, its against the rules...

1. We expect all of our members to support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. That includes the right to marry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

You don't belong here, and no its not based on your Christianity, but on your bigoted beliefs that you claim come from your religion.

[Splinter Cell]

165. Right.

The very idea that somebody respectfully disagrees with you on one topic makes them unacceptable to be in your presense is anti-democratic.

What is the use of a disscussion forum for people of a democratic mindset if there can be no discussion?

I do belong here, because I am a member that respectfully trys to share my opinion. If you can't disagree then the entire forum would be a moot point.

The kind of people that don't belong here are those who seek trouble, that troll, that don't have any democratic political beliefs. That would not be me.

We don't agree on one subject. Try and respectfully disagree instead of declaring who belongs where.

[Solon]

166. I didn't make up that rule, look who did, Skinner, one of the Admins of DU...

Look, and I'm telling you this because if you do continue to express this opinion you will be tombstoned. This isn't a threat, this is the honest truth, if you wish to stay here, its best to remain silent on this issue. I had the option of alerting on your post, but I decided not to, I cannot say the same for anyone else either.

If this is your sincere belief, I can't respect it, I hope you understand, but equal rights are equal rights, but maybe your mind can be changed, you seem reasonable, so perhaps, through exposure to DU's GLBT community, many of who are married couples themselves, you can have a change of heart. Because your belief that marriage is only between a man or woman is simply not true here on DU.

[galaxy21]

167. Even though I agree with gay marriage, I will say I think the rule is hypocritical

considering the guy LEADING THE PARTY doesn't even agree with it.

Also, 'beliefs you have to have' that's what they have over at FR, isn't it? I'm pro choice, but if someone on here is pro life, it's not that big a deal. I feel that way about a lot of issues. There isnt a list of checking points to be a democrat.

[Solon]

169. Democratic Underground is NOT part of the Democratic Party...

It does not officially follow the Party platform, nor is Obama its leader, the Admins are, and they set the rules. I don't view them as hypocritical at all, some viewpoints are not tolerated here, its a private site, they have the option of removing those who hold those views. Hey, many people have been talking about reaching out to those who disagree, well, I'm trying to do that right now.

[galaxy21]

Look at the situation though

'you have to be pro gay marriage, being against gay marriage will not be tolerated...now, lets go out and vote for the guy whose main campain talking point when appealling to conservatives is that he doesn't believe in gay marriage!'

As for reaching out to anyone who disagrees...dude, you called her a bigot in your first response post.

[Solon]

173. No I didn't, I said she holds bigoted views, that's my perspective...

yours may differ, or they may not, but I speak honestly with people, perhaps I should lie instead?

ON EDIT: As far as DU itself, even the Admins don't agree with the President all the time, and given this rule, I'm assuming they don't agree with him on his views on Same Sex Marriage either. This is nothing new, many organizations that support Democrats or Democratic politicians don't support them 100% of the time, and may actually hate some of their views. DU is no different.

[Splinter Cell]

176. Just want to point out...

I'm a guy. No biggie, just wanted to avoid confusion.:-)

[galaxy21]

179. You also said 'he claimed' his beliefs came from his religion

which to me, was very obviously,hinting he was a bigot and religion is just an excuse. I know you're trying to be civil on these boards though..


"As far as DU itself, even the Admins don't agree with the President all the time, and given this rule, I'm assuming they don't agree with him on his views on Same Sex Marriage either. This is nothing new, many organizations that support Democrats or Democratic politicians don't support them 100% of the time, and may actually hate some of their views. DU is no different."

Considering how gay marriage is such a major issue to people on here, it still seems odd. If gay marriage is enough of an issue to ban someone over, then why is it suddenly not an issue when it comes to promoting and raising money for a man who doesn't believe in it? One minute its 'the major civil rights issue of our times' then next its 'well,we can't agree with Barack on every little thing, can we?'

As much as I agree with gay marriage, I don't like the overreaction at one moment and then underplaying it the next. Either it is non negotiable or its not.

I think the admins on here like to say one thing and act another way, personally. Its easy to ban someone who disagrees with gay marriage, its a lot more difficult to turn your back on the democratic nominee for president.

[Solon]

180. Well, I don't believe such a belief on marriage can be religiously based...

and I emphasized that by saying personal belief rather than religious belief. Because, in a post further down, I demolished the argument that his beliefs about marriage is based on the Book he, as a Christian, believes is the Word of God.

[JohnnieGordon]

188. Many DU'ers voted for Obama as a lesser evil, and DU is aware of that

"why is it suddenly not an issue when it comes to promoting and raising money for a man who doesn't believe in it?"

DU raised money for the candidate DU'ers enthusiastically supported, and for the candidate many other DU'ers only voted for as a lesser evil. It took both groups for him to win the election, after all. When you only support a candidate as a lesser evil, it's a given that you don't take his every word as gospel. So there's no hypocrisy on DU's part, the fund-raising was for the enthusiasts and the lesser evilists. Nice try though.

*Edited to add the specific quote I was responding to.*

[galaxy21]

193. My response

"DU raised money for the candidate DU'ers enthusiastically supported, and for the candidate many other DU'ers only voted for as a lesser evil"

If he was always the lesser evil in people's minds, why is everyone so shocked about Warren thing? Many gay voters seemed as enthusiastic about as Obama as anyone else. I cartainly never got the feeling anyone was begrudgingly voting for him.

"So there's no hypocrisy on DU's part, the fund-raising was for the enthusiasts and the lesser evilists"

The admins having a rule that say 'a non pro gay marriage stance will no be tolerated' while promoting a man who has an anti gay marriage stance, regardless of their motives, enthusiam or lesser evilism, is hypocrticial, however you look at it. I'm not saying no one should have supported him, I supported him, but I think that specific rule should have been changed as soon as DU decided to embrace someone who didn't have a enitrely pro gay marriage stance.

"Nice try though"

Thanks.

[JohnnieGordon]

195. Not hypocritical, the fund-raising was for those us voting for the lesser evil too

It's totally absurd to say DU has to align with Obama's every position just because they raised money for his candidacy.

I cartainly never got the feeling anyone was begrudgingly voting for him."

So you're denying that anyone voted for him as a lesser evil? Try a big percentage of those who didn't support him in the primaries, for starters. Again, totally absurd.

[galaxy21]

198. "It's totally absurd to say DU has to align with Obama's every position just because they raised

money for his candidacy."

I wasn't saying take on his anti gay marriage stance, but certainly, if you've decided to embrace someone as president, despite their differences, why not accept other posters? Like I said, going by the rules, Obama would get banned if he started coming on here. Its absurd.

"So you're denying that anyone voted for him as a lesser evil? Try a big percentage of those who didn't support him in the primaries, for starters. Again, totally absurd."

I tend to think a lesser evil situation would be 'Evan Bayh versus John McCain." Voting for someone in the primary and then voting for someone else wouldn't always mean 'the lesser evil'. Especially since Barack and Hillary were 95% the same policy wise.

"Btw, Kerry and Obama probably both privately support gay marriage. As politicians, they're hesitant to say so publicly because of it might be used against them when running for office. "

Well I don't know how saying 'well, they're secretly for gay marriage...look it's obvious!' really helps justify it. Also, I think if Kerry did, he might as well say it now, since he's probably not running for president again.

[JohnnieGordon]

199. Thankfully, DU thinks equality is of the utmost importance

I wasn't saying take on his anti gay marriage stance, but certainly, if you've decided to embrace someone as president, despite their differences, why not accept other posters?"

Because they're standing for full equality, and providing gay people a haven from anyone telling them they don't deserve it. A busy forum with zero tolerance for anti-gay commentary is a rarity, and to the extent that DU makes itself that, it's very appreciated by gay DU'ers.

Voting for someone in the primary and then voting for someone else wouldn't always mean 'the lesser evil'."

Of course it doesn't *always* mean that, and that's not what I said. I said a "large percentage" of those who didn't support him in the primary, only voted for him as a lesser evil in the general. A lot of people suspected "post-partisan" = centrist, and there's certainly been no shortage of evidence that we were right about that. Therefore many liberals voted for him suspecting he'd end up being a Republican-lite. That's the very definition of a "lesser evil" to a liberal. Would Hillary have been just as centrist? Who knows, a lot of liberals certainly believe she would have. And many of them would've voted for her as a lesser evil too.

Well I don't know how saying 'well, they're secretly for gay marriage...look it's obvious!' really helps justify it."

Actually I just mentioned that in passing. And I didn't say it was obvious, I said it was probable. Their education level, age bracket, income and party affiliation, all in combination, point to a likelihood that they're pro gay-marriage. And it is obvious why they wouldn't reveal that publicly.

I think if Kerry did, he might as well say it now, since he's probably not running for president again."

Maybe he will, Gore used to say he was opposed to gay marriage, before he retired from politics and then announced his support for it.

[JohnnieGordon]

196. Also...

I think that specific rule should have been changed as soon as DU decided to embrace someone who didn't have a enitrely pro gay marriage stance."

The rule was announced right after they had raised money for Kerry's candidacy. Kerry also only supported civil unions, not marriage.

Btw, Kerry and Obama probably both privately support gay marriage. As politicians, they're hesitant to say so publicly because of it might be used against them when running for office.

[Splinter Cell]

170. I understand.

"if you wish to stay here, its best to remain silent on this issue."

I understand your point, and I want to point out that the only reason I made my post was to show that not everyone in the democratic party or that is a liberal agrees 100% on every issue. If I had wanted to stir the pot I could have made a nasty, snarky post. I didn't. I wanted to voice my opinion, without pissing on everyone who feels differently.

As far as being silent, I have been pretty much until this thread, and really didn't intend on saying much after it. However, in the context of what our party is about, and the fact that folks like yourself are fighting for what you believe is right and for your voices to be heard, I think the above quote is very ironic, even if very true. Thanks for the response.

[Solon]

172. Look, to be honest, I do think they are bigoted beliefs that you hold...

and the only reason I didn't flame you is because you seemed to have went out of your way to be as non-offensive as possible. As far as whether its ironic, as I said in the other post, DU is not part of the Democratic Party, its a private and independent organization, and the Admins make the rules. They don't follow the Democratic Party platform, nor should they need to. So in this context, that we should all be aware of, I find no irony here.

You are, after all, free to express your views on another website, or in real life as well. Know though, that on this particular issue, we would be opponents, not allies.

[Splinter Cell]

175. That's right...

When you say we won't be allies, that's fine, but we don't have to be enemies either.

The best way would be to have a civil discussion(like you and I have in this thread), and perhaps you could even convince me I'm wrong on this subject.

I'm not here to announce that I'm right and you're wrong on ANY subject. I just stated what I think, and if I'm wrong then by all means tell me why. That's the whole point. I would hope that the folks that operate the site can agree with that.

[Solon]

178. Well, the first point to bring up is that, since you mentioned you are a Christian...

The Bible never clearly defines marriage. Indeed, having read it myself, it seems there's a lot of "knowing" between people(especially in Genesis), and very few weddings. In addition, of the many married people shown in the Bible, from Abraham on down, well, it seems Marriage isn't between one man and one woman, but between one man, his many wives, servants/slaves, concubines, etc.

So I think this more or less demolishes the idea that one man/one woman marriage was always the "traditional" even in the Bible, and it seemed to have followed no known standards.

In addition, there is the simple fact that we have separation of Church and State in this country, and that also includes the simple fact that Marriage is removed from Church rites, or at least, that's an option anyone can take.

Even if you don't personally believe, because of some personal belief, that Same Sex marriage is correct, or the wrong definition. That should have no bearing on whether or not it should be legally recognized by the State, because it wouldn't affect you or your church at all.

Churches refuse to marry people for many different reasons that the State can't refuse people on. This includes inter-faith and inter-racial marriages, because you aren't a member of the church, and even because you were divorced before. These Churches aren't forced into marrying anyone, they are free to refuse anyone for any reason, they are specifically exempt from anti-discrimination laws because of the First Amendment.

The Government itself isn't exempt, so it has to marry these people through a Justice of the Peach anytime a couple ask them too. Except in the case of Same Sex Couples, who don't have that option. Legalizing Same Sex Marriage will do nothing to affect Churches, nor affect your Marriage(assuming you are married). All it does is force the State to recognize these Marriage, not you, not your church, just the State.

[harun]

181. Under your reasoning the majority of the Democratic party, including Obama wouldn't belong here

either. Which is, or course, BS.

[galaxy21]

182. Obama would get banned from DU?

Okay, I don't care how you feel about the issue, but that's a funny visual.

[Solon]

183. Like I said, I didn't make this rule, so if you have a problem with it, take it up with Skinner...

I'm just the messenger, after all, so don't attack me about it.

Of course, you have to be outspoken in your opposition to Same Sex Marriage.

[galaxy21]

185. its just the schizophrenic attitude on here towards it I disagree with

Personally, I agree with gay people taking their relationship wherever they like . If you disagree with it, as long as you support other gay rights, there's no major problem (but I will try to convince you otherwise in a reasonable manner). It's not non negotiable.

What I do dislike, and I think what we've seen on here is the culmination of all this, is the double standards about it. You have be pro gay marriage, but you're also encouraged to vote for a man who doesn't believe in it. And look at the result: you've got half the people who can't tolerate anyone who disagrees with gay marriage, and think the admins back them up, but half the people who are tired of it being non negotiable and resentful of what they see as narrow mindedness.

Honestly, I think we should have adopted the 'you can feel differently' rather than 'you have to feel one way' stance.

[Solon]

186. I think part of the reason is to avoid endless flamewars...

Like I said, I do feel its a bigoted point of view, and while I was being nice about it to the above poster, I don't have to be, and believe me, some posters(former posters now) have been less than nice about the whole thing, and I responded in kind. I'm not the only one who feels this way, it is a non-negotiable issue as far as the goal, and while Obama may not feel the same way, he is better than the Republicans. It may seem, at times, to be the difference between getting shot in the head versus getting hit with a shovel, but the difference is still there, and at least you have a better chance of surviving by getting hit in the head with the shovel.

This is one of those issues, like interracial marriage, that the Admins feels should not be fought over on this board. Strategy can be fought over(civil union as stepping stone to marriage), but not the goal of marriage itself.

[JohnnieGordon]

184. Alerted

They can at least get him to realize reich-wing rhetoric like "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" isn't welcome here. Just because Obama says it (and sometimes worse "God in the mix") doesn't mean it's welcome here.

[bread_and_roses]

164. Yes, of course they are, though I think the ONLY marriages recognized by the State should be "civil

unions." In other words, to be recognized by the State, all "unions" - same or opposite sex - have to be performed by a JP - or whatever functionary the State authorizes. Whatever rights, responsibilities, and privleges the State grants to one union are granted to any union. If people also want the recognition of their church, let them have a ceremony there, too - nothing stopping them. And, of course (as now), nothing compells any church to perform or recognize any marriage it doesn't want to. But church recognition would have no impact at all on State recognition.

[Solon]

171. Those are called civil marriages in all fifty states...

Really, don't argue with semantics on this issue, they are already called marriages, so let's just keep the word around. I have yet to hear people describe themselves as "Civil Unionized", ok?

[bread_and_roses]

192. Solon, I am not arguing semantics - I used the word "civil" merely to distinguish a union performed

by a JP from one performed by some religious figure. I don't think the State has any business recognizing any religious ceremony, nor conferring upon all or any religions the right to perform a State function. I don't oppose calling anyone's union a marriage - let anyone call it what they wish. The State can call it marriage too - the religious fundamentalist homophobes don't own the word, although they seem to think so. The point is the State's recognition. I don't think ANY marriage should be recognized by the State if it is only conducted by a religious functionary, and no religious functionary should be empowered by the State to conduct its' business for it.

I regret that anything in my post would lead anyone to think that I am condoning some sort of institution ("civil union") that is distinct from another ("marriage") - although I can see how the misunderstanding arises; I should have composed more carefully. Of course I'm not. Equal is equal, no parsing. Fundamental human rights are fundamental human right; civil rights are civil rights. No excuses.

I simply object to the "faith community" having an official role in any function of the State. I think it muddles things for too many people, who obviously have a hard time sorting out their authority figures when religion mixes in any way with politics - including invocations and opening prayers or whatever at any official State function. Away with them.

[Solon]

201. Oh, ok, I understand that, you do know that you can get married in a church...

without getting the license, a lot of churches allow that. Religious only marriages aren't uncommon, and I'm not talking about just between Same Sex couples either.

I can understand not wanting having a Cleric of any sort be given a license authorizing them to officiate over Marriage, and able to co-sign the Marriage license. Indeed, I think couples should have to go to court first for such things, and then, if they want to, go and have the ceremony done however way they wish.

Of course, I think in this case, that this was done more for convenience sake than actual encroachment by either government or religion into each other. Indeed, practically anyone can get a license to perform and co-sign legal marriages, indeed there are organizations that help people to do exactly that. I've heard of people that had friends or family officiate their weddings rather than Priests or Judges, I see no problem with that either.

Sorry if I flown off the handle, as I said, Civil Unions(as separate from marriage) is a bunch of bullshit, and fighting over the word seems silly, we already have civil marriages, extending them to encompass same sex couples is actually easier than getting rid of, or renaming it entirely. Hell, in most laws regarding marriages, there's already a gender neutral term used: "spouse".

[Sebastian Doyle]

174. In reality, all marriages ARE civil marriages.

True that many choose to have a religious ceremony, but the last words spoken by the Pastor/Priest/Rabbi/Imam/Minister/whatever are always the same:

By the power of the State of (insert name here) I now pronounce you.......

The ceremony is religious, but the authority to marry two people - any two people - comes from the state.

And it is that civil authority that should apply equally to all citizens.

[bread_and_roses]

194. My point is that no "marriage" performed ONLY by a Religious should be recognized

by the State. It doesn't matter what the words - you can be married by some Church and the State will recognize that marriage as a legal contract. You don't have to also have a State function. I don't think the State should confer the right to conduct its' legal business to any religion. And obviously there should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation in the State's conduct, any more than discrimination based on race is allowed. Nor should there any such thing as "seperate but equal" or "the same as but called different" in this function of the State.

What "Faith Communities" do is up to them, but it should have no legal status with the State.

[Hansel]

187. They all have their nose somewhere that it doesn't belong.

In someone else's business.

If you don't believe in same-sex marriage then don't marry someone of your own sex. It's that simple and it's really none of anyone else's business. So it's hard to see what other motive they have to oppose it than being homophobes. No matter how they try to rationalize it.

Gay marriage being against their religion is an excuse. They chose the religion. If my religion taught me that discrimination and hate against other people was okay, I'd drop it like a lead brick. Period.

[Tesha]

190. I despise the term "homophobes". But the people who oppose gay marriage...

...are certainly not supportive of gay civil rights so, by extension, are
not supportive of equal civil rights for all persons.

Tesha

[lostnotforgotten]

191. Closeted In Their Bigotry That They Are - But Yes They Would Be Homphobes

eom

[treestar]

200. Yes. There is no explainable reason for it

Marriage should be religious only and the state should just back out of it.

[Solon]

203. Hmm, I would argue that Marriage isn't owned by the religious, but belongs to everyone. n/t

[Political Heretic]

204. civil unions are not at all bullshit.

I really don't care of someone opposes the term "marriage" being connected to the 1,100 rights and benefits that heterosexual couples can now access when they are given to same sex couples. If they oppose that equality of secular rights and benefits being given same sex couples being called "marriage" fine. I don't think "marriage" should be the business of the state at all anyway. I think it is a symbolic and ceremonial commitment. If some churches choose not to bless certain kinds of unions so be it.

I don't know the answer to whether or not people who oppose same sex marriage are homophobes - maybe they are. What I know is that I really don't care about the label "marriage" - what I care about is equal protection, equal rights, equal treatment under sexual law. domestic partners of any kind should enjoy the same rights and privileges of heterosexual married partners under the law. Period. You can call it anything you want.

[Solon]

205. Civil Unions are a bullshit argument and I'll tell you why...

First, they are not equal right now, and because of the Federal-State system used in our government, it would be extremely difficult to make them equal, more so than Marriage.

In addition, Civil Unions right now(in addition to Domestic Partnerships, yet another term) are NOT exclusive for gay people to use. Straight couples can enter into Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships as well right now.

Not to mention that some states already have same sex couples that are legally married, in addition to still others beginning to recognize these marriages if not legalized them to be performed in their borders.

Now let's assume Civil Unions are all of the sudden made completely legal to Marriage legally, both on State and Federal Level. This would involve the rewrite of the several thousand laws and regulations for Marriage, on both State and Federal level, to duplicate and reword them to apply to Civil Unions as well. In addition, you will have to figure out a way to transfer Civil Unions to Marriages in some states, because some states already have Same Sex Marriages, but other have Civil Unions.

Now we wait for the courts to come in, and most likely they will say that Marriages in states that don't allow Same Sex Marriage must open up for homosexual couples, because Civil Unions will already be open for heterosexual couples in other states. And since both are equal legally, they must follow the same standards.

So this means we will have two parallel legal institutions in this country, both equal, both separate, and any couple can join them. Uhm, that seems a little redundant to me, not to mention confusing, add in Domestic Partnerships, and the number of equal institutions goes up to 3. Just what we need, laws in triplicate!

Do you see the legal nightmare, the Pandora's box, if you will, that would be opened up if you idea came to pass?

[Orsino]

206. They are homophobes, or they are appeasers of homophobes...

...even the practical ones who would have us forget that this is a civil-rights issue.