Politics and Homophobia

[In My Memory]

Minutes ago, I came across some of the most vile, hateful things I'd ever seen in my life - people absolutely cheering for the torture and murder of Matthew Sheppard, and saying they would feel no remorse if even more gays were tortured and murdered.

 

I hear this all the time from the conservative people I know. These people enthusiastically defend their hatefulness in the name of God, where they claim that homosexuality is unnatural and evil because its condemned in Leviticus and Romans. However, divorce is condemned just as harshly, but almost no one claims that divorce is unnatural and evil - these kinds of contradictions makes it obvious that anti-gay movement is motivated by irrational prejudice and the bible is nothing but a red-herring.

 

I dont believe anti-gay legislation has anything to do with morality, nor anything to do with god - its pure irrational bigotry. People oppose any legislation to raise gays from second-class citizenship, because they despise gays. They hate gays, they consider gays nothing more than disgusting perverts - the most unfortunate part is that these are the mainstream attitudes.

 

Among other things, some of the most striking things I've seen have been year after year the house majority republicans voting down expansion of hate crime legislation to include sexual-orientation, the disapproval of gays participating in the military, the hot-button issue of redefining marriage to exclude homosexuals, disapproval of gays adopting children, and more.

 

I am firmly convinced that years from now, the homophobes of today are going to be looked upon in the same light as anti-semites and racists of 50 years ago.

 

So thats my rant, I feel a little better to get it off my chest. It still makes me very sad

[Dak]

Whats a hate-crime?

 

the hot-button issue of redefining marriage to exclude homosexuals, disapproval of gays adopting children, and more

 

dont make the mistake of thinking that everyone who has an oppinion which goes against the percieved wishes of the majority of homosexuals is nessesaraly homophobic. Im against gay marriage and, in most circumstances, gays adopting childeren; but i am absolutely not homophobic, in any way shape or form.

[the tree]

Whats a hate-crime?

Belive it or not, it's actually defined in official legistation.

Wikipedia: hate crime

The US Congress (HR 4797 - 1992) defined a hate crime as: "[a crime in which] the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals."

 

IMM, such hatred is quite disturbing, especially as it has no basis to speak of.

 

Although I agree with Dak in that dissaproving adoption by gay couples doesn't really fall into homophobia, in fact I can see why Dak holds that opinoin.

[atinymonkey]

I wonder if we ever see Love Crime?

[alibabba]

I hear this all the time from the conservative people I know.

 

And you define "conservatives" as?

[Pangloss]

Tiny, stop using sex as a weapon! ;-)

 

You need to find new friends, IMM.

[cessna7686]

Dak, out of curiosity, why do you oppose gay marraige and in some cases adoption?

[Dak]

marrage is a religiouse ceromony, and most religions condem homosexuality.

 

im against religiouse people who go "my book says queers are evil, so noone should be allowed to be gay" and, for another example, a person should not be allowed to deny a homosexual a job merely because he (the employer) is a member of a religion which disalows homosexuality; HOWEVER, i do feel that it is their religion and they should be allowed to conduct their religiouse ceromonies how they wish.

 

if someone is, for example, catholic then technically they shouldnt be gay; if someone is not catholic then they have no right to demand a catholic priest to go against his beliefs and wed two homosexuals in a catholic ceromony.

 

thats why im against the propositions to illigalise refusing to wed two people a discrimination crime.

 

as to wether the ceromonies conducted voluntaraly by priests should count... im not against that (i completely fail to see the point, but its their lifes and it would harm noone).

 

im also against it in general, purely because i dont see the point and i dont feel that two people should have to feel the need to get up in public and formally anounse their love for oneanother, and the legal aspects are completely redundant in the abscence of a chance of the couple consieving, but thats just my personal view: i wouldnt sujjest they shouldnt be able to get married for those reasons (id sujjest they shouldnt, but not that they shouldnt be able to).

 

gays adopting childeren: i think it would be better for a child to grow up in a family with both a female and a male role-model. simple as that. although if one of the gay couple were an orphans relative then i think it would be best for them to go to the gay couple; i suppose if there were lots more orphans than people willing to adopt, then gays should be allowed but put at the bottom of the adoption list, simply, as i said, due to the fact that i feel the child would benifit immensly from a male AND a female parent (for the same reason, im against single people adopting).

[Sayonara]

marrage is a religiouse ceromony, and most religions condem homosexuality.

Apart from civil marriage, which isn't religious at all.

[Hellbender]

I am firmly convinced that years from now, the homophobes of today are going to be looked upon in the same light as anti-semites and racists of 50 years ago.

[Diatribe]Me too. Although I am not gay, I don't see why gays shouldn't have the same rights as non-gays do. If a religious group refuses to marry a gay couple, I may disagree with that decision, but I guess they have the right to do that, its their bigoted religious beliefs, but leave anti-gay legislation out of the government. I don't see how two consenting males being married and happy is hurting anyone and no one is twisting any conservative arms to do so, so leave them alone.[/Diatribe]

[Dak]

Apart from civil marriage, which isn't religious at all.

 

My oppinions on that are covered by this bit (although the wording makes it sound asif its not... i fixed it)

 

as to wether the ceromonies conducted voluntaraly by priests [and civil-mariages]should count... im not against that (i completely fail to see the point' date=' but its their lifes and it would harm noone).

 

 

im also against it in general, purely because i dont see the point and i dont feel that two people should have to feel the need to get up in public and formally anounse their love for oneanother, and the legal aspects are completely redundant in the abscence of a chance of the couple consieving, but thats just my personal view: i wouldnt sujjest they shouldnt be able to get married for those reasons (id sujjest they shouldnt, but not that they shouldnt be able to).[/quote']

 

 

tbh, im pretty much against the idea of non-religiouse marriages full stop (but again, not to the point where id want others to not be allowed to get married)

 

i was mainly trying to point out that not holding views which are homo-friendly isnt the same as homophobia (which seems to be far too common a mistake)

[Sayonara]

How can you use "I don't see the point" as a basis for objection? Surely it is a basis for holding no opinion?

[Dak]

i really dont like the social aspect of marriage. if two people love each other to the extent that they want to spend the rest of their lifes together, then i think that should be enough. they shouldnt feel obliged to get up and 'ok' it in the eys of society by getting married; society can go and violate itself with a cucumber, its the two peoples lifes and its of no concern of societys.

 

i also think that the love between two people should be enough to keep them together, and if that love disolves then so should the relationship, in a natural manner. marriage prevents that from happening, which i think is bad for both involved.

 

with a man and a woman, i think the forsed perpetuation of a loveless partnership is nessesary in the event that they fall out of love with oneanother, as they will likely bring childeren into the world, and marriage is a good way of increasing the chances that both parents will rais them, or if not atleast they will both financially support them.

 

with gays not yet having figured out how to procreate, ^that^ is not neccesary, and i feel it would be better to leave the way clear for a natural disolvsion of the marriage, should theire feelings for oneanother change.

 

hense im against gay marrage, but not, as i said, to the point where id try and stopem doing it. Its their life to do with as they wish (as long as they dont hurt anyone else). im also aware that most dont view marriage as dispassionately as i do.

 

what i am strongly against, is when people sujjest trying to forse religions to wed gays. it should be upto the religions wether they want to or not.

[cessna7686]

Dak,

There are a lot of reasons why a homosexual couple would want to be married other than just announcing their love to the world. I don't know what the laws are in the UK (I'm from the US) but here being married would give the partners certain legal rights that they don't have when not married. Just one example is that if one partner enters the hospital and the couple is not married the other partner has no say in what happens. However, if they are married then the other partner can make decisions about how his/her partner's care is handled. I also know it changes the couples tax situation, but I don't know any specifics. That's an interesting point you brought up about Catholic (or other religions) priests not wanting to marry gays. I never thought about how that would be effected if gay marraige were legalized. I guess it would become a discrimination case if the priest refused.

[Dak]

well, my reasons why i dont think gays should get married is more a wishy-washy personal oppinon type thing, but this

 

I guess it would become a discrimination case if the priest refused.

 

is what im firmly against. what right do gay people have to turn round to religiouse people and demand them to a)ignore the fact that their god has condemed homosexuals, and b)perform a religiouse ceromony on aforementioned condemed heathens, that c) is specifically desighned by god to unite two people of the opposite sex.

 

as far as im concerned, they have no more right than religiouse people have to turn around and tell gay people to stop being so-darned-gay because of something written in a book which the gay people a)probably dont give a poo about, b)would more-than-likely interpret differently anyway, and which was c) writtern by someone they may not even believe in.

 

religiouse people shouldnt boss others around about how to live their life if they dont subscribe to their religion, but also gays shouldnt attempt to boss religiouse people around about how to conduct their religiouse ceromonies if they dont subscribe to the oppinion that gays should be married.

 

as long as religions arent forsed into marrying gays, then i'd not rais an objection to it (although id still have one).

[cessna7686]

Does anyone know what would happen legally if gay marraige was legalized and a priest refused to perfrom the ceremony? Have there been any cases where a priest of one religion refused to marry a couple of a different religion (or a partner of a different religion)? That's the most similar situation that I can think of. Anyone know of cases like this?

[Sayonara]

is what im firmly against. what right do gay people have to turn round to religiouse people and demand[/i'] them to a)ignore the fact that their god has condemed homosexuals, and b)perform a religiouse ceromony on aforementioned condemed heathens, that c) is specifically desighned by god to unite two people of the opposite sex.

The same rights that anyone would reasonably expect if they felt that they were being discriminated against with the support of a religious philosophy.

 

For example, burglars. "Thou shall not steal" is a commandment, yet burglars are not barred from marriage. So the indignation arises because this makes the objection to gay marriage appear to be special pleading, and the onus falls on the church to show that it isn't.

[Pat Says]

I don't think it would be a discrimination case because it isn't public and it isn't for pay. It's the same as having an all girls/boys private school. (I think...)

[Sayonara]

I don't think it would be a discrimination case because it isn't public and it isn't for pay. It's the same as having an all girls/boys private school. (I think...)

You think that it's only discrimination if money is involved?

 

Litigation really has destroyed your society

[Dak]

The same rights that anyone would reasonably expect if they felt that they were being discriminated against with the support of a religious philosophy.

 

if the discrimination is kept within the church' date=' then why is that bad? the homosexuals are free to shun the church -- theres no [i']need[/i] for homosexuals to be members of a church, and other viable ways for them to get married exist.

 

one could look at it as 'religiouse people have the same rights anyone would reasonably expect if they felt that they were being preventing from worshiping as they saw fit with the support of a subset of the populance.

 

For example, burglars. "Thou shall not steal" is a commandment, yet burglars are not barred from marriage. So the indignation arises because this makes the objection to gay marriage appear to be special pleading, and the onus falls on the church to show that it isn't.

 

religiouse marrage is not desighned to be a union between an alarcenouce man and an alarcenouce woman, so theres no real reason why they should be. they desighn of marrage specifically requires one man and one woman. not two men or two women. many religions believ that is simply not marrage, and is an affront to god.

 

why should a religion be forced to go against what it believes in this case?

[cessna7686]

Thanks Pat, I think you're right. It's probably similar to the "management reserves the right to refuse service" in stores, restaurants, etc. It might be a discrimination case if the priest specifically says "I won't marry you because you're gay" but if the priests just says sorry, I won't do this service, than there wouldn't be any legal consequences. Any one else have thoughts on the discrimination part of this?

[Pat Says]

Edit: yeah, what cessna7686 is saying ^ (maybe that's what allows them to be selective... not neccesarily what I said... I was just trying to explain the reasons why I thought they allowed it).

You think that it's only discrimination if money is involved?

 

Litigation really has destroyed your society

Not completely, it isn't public either. Plus it is a religion and the government can't force them to change their religion to allow other people to join. I don't think the KKK has to allow black people or other minorities into their group. Same with the private schools. I think gay marriage under a priest would fall under the same category these things do (whatever the specifics are... I just gave pay and it being private as an example).

[Sayonara]

if the discrimination is kept within the church' date=' then why is that bad? the homosexuals are free to shun the church -- theres no [i']need[/i] for homosexuals to be members of a church, and other viable ways for them to get married exist.

 

one could look at it as 'religiouse people have the same rights anyone would reasonably expect if they felt that they were being preventing from worshiping as they saw fit with the support of a subset of the populance.

You seem to be disregarding the need to belong to the church that is felt by the homosexuals in question, just like you earlier disregarded the need that they may feel for getting married in the first place.

 

I don't see that you have any objective basis on which to decide that such needs can be tossed aside from this discussion, given that these are all questions of pursuing what's important to the human psyche.

 

 

religiouse marrage is not desighned to be a union between an alarcenouce man and an alarcenouce woman, so theres no real reason why they should be.

I don't know what alarcenouce is, but I assume you mean "a larcenous man".

If this is so then you have missed the point - if the bible defines the moral barriers to marriage, and therefore theft is grounds for being barred from marriage, then homosexuals are treated in a discriminatory fashion by comparison to theives.

 

they desighn of marrage specifically requires one man and one woman. not two men or two women. many religions believ that is simply not marrage, and is an affront to god.

why should a religion be forced to go against what it believes in this case?

My argument does not require them to go against their beliefs, but to justify them.

[Sayonara]

Not completely, it isn't public either. Plus it is a religion and the government can't force them to change their religion to allow other people to join. I don't think the KKK has to allow black people or other minorities into their group. Same with the private schools. I think gay marriage under a priest would fall under the same category these things do (whatever the specifics are... I just gave pay and it being private as an example).

It doesn't matter if it's public, private, deliberated by jury, or shat out of a horse's arse - discrimination is the allotment of rights or lack thereof based on a decision that is drawn from arbitrary characteristics.

[Pat Says]

So how do single sex schools work?