Skip to main content

There is currently a quite well-written and passionate diary on the rec list entitled "It's not Obama I'm mad at; it's way too many of you".  Not suprisingly, it's currently on the very top of the rec list, which underscores the strange kossack desire to self-flagellate.  (We tend to love being told "we suck", here -- try finding comparable diaries on the top of RedState.)  ;)

But, once again, I really have to cringe when I read something like this:

You keep saying things like, "Just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't mean they're a homophobe or a bigot," even though there are no non-bigoted, non-homophobic reasons to oppose marriage equality.

To those, including the author, who share this view, I say:  Really?  You REALLY think that the majority of Americans who are opposed to gay marriage are homophobic bigots?  Even Obama and Hillary?  Even your best friend's mom?  I just can't share such a pessimistic world view.  Those advocating gay marriage from a "if-you-don't-agree-you're-a-bigot" perspective will not be successful.  You want the average American, who has been told their whole life that marriage is between a man and a woman, to all of sudden abandon those beliefs just because you're calling them names?  I think it would be far, far more useful to ask most Americans why they oppose gay marriage, and you'll find its almost always an issue of faith.

I'm going through my pre-marriage classes right now.  To Christians (note: should have been "To many Christians, especially Catholics"), marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having biological children.  That's it.  In the Catholic church you can't even get married if you're impotent.  Adoption options aren't enough -- you have to be able to biologically conceive and raise children as a couple.  That's the whole point.  It's God's plan, to Christians.  It's an article of faith that marriage was intended for this sole purpose, just like it's an article of faith that Jesus is God's son.  

As people here know, I'm about as adamant a pro-gay-marriage supporter as they come.  But that does not mean I believe my parents or other friends/relatives who disagree are necessary bigots.  Yes, of course, there are many Christians who are bigotted against homosexuality.  But telling a whole huge class of people that they are "bigots" if they don't fundamentally reject an enormously important tenant of their faith... well, frankly, that's pretty bigotted, too.  

(And yes, there are some Christians who even "hate" gays.  But to be honest, I've found a lot more gays who really, passionately, savagely HATE HATE Christians.  Even the author of the diary I'm responding to describes herself shaking with uncontrollable rage.  "Bigotry" goes both ways.)

I think the average American, who is generally Christian, has come a long way, frankly.  It was only 10-15 years ago that gay marriage support was virtually non-existent, and many Americans thought that any gay relationship should be illegal.  We've especially made strides recently.  In 2004, only 33% of Americans supported gay marriage -- only four years later, we're up to 39%.  In 2004, only 40% of Americans backed legal civil unions -- only four years later that's skyrocketed to 55%!  

So even if you still claimed that everyone who opposes civil unions and marriage was a bigot, do you really think the 16% difference in approval between "marriage" and "civil union" can still be explained by "hating" gays?  I don't understand this argument.  Those 16% who say "yes, gays can have civil unions absolutely identical to marriage in every way, just don't call it marriage" are not all (or, I suspect, even mostly) "bigots".  They are those who were taught that "marriage" is a church-sanctioned sacrament.  They believe, they have faith, that God created marriage for a single purpose that a gay couple (or an impotent couple) cannot biologically acheive.  To put it another way, suppose Scientologists started using words like "transubstantiation" or "baptism" in their rituals.  I bet the average Catholic would say "ya know what, if you want to have a ceremony just like a baptism, in which you dunk someone in water and have a church elder cleanse their sins, that's fine -- but, out of respect to our church, could you please find a different word than baptism?"  

I'm not agreeing with the position, here.  But I'm also not going to simply dismiss 60% of the country as gay-hating morons.

Incidentally, I do think that this is an issue that should be settled by the courts, not the vote, anyway.  A year after the Supreme Court outlawed state bans on interracial marriage in the 1960s, 53% of Americans, according to the New York Times, still believed it should be illegal for blacks and whites to intermarry.  In this case it was not so much a religious issue (the Bible really doesn't care about interracical unions) but one of traditions, how it's "always been done".  (A pretty hefty percentage of blacks also opposed legal interracial gay marriage, at the time.)  Now yes, a big percentage of those who opposed interracial marriage at the time probably were bigots, just as now a large percentage of those opposing gay marriage are probably bigots.  But not ALL of them, not then, and not now.  

You can't judge societies based on the values of a different generation -- for the same reason that Jefferson can still be admired as a great mind even though he owned slaves, which by today's standards would make him a monster.  People have to be given time to adjust.  When slavery was outlawed, yeah, it took a while for the average Joe in the south to hate slavery.  When interracial marriages were allowed (again, not that long ago), yeah, it took a while for the average Joe to find such unions acceptable.  Gay marriage will be the same way -- the courts will have to step in (this Prop 8 issue may hopefully have a domino effect in 2009), and people will be pissed -- but in time, they'll get over it.  And by the next generation, I'm sure my daughter will be incredulous when I tell her that, before she was born, two gay people weren't allowed to marry.  

In the meantime, however, I continue to oppose the shouts of "BIGOT!!!" at every average American who opposes gay marriage.  It has become the equivalent of shouting "ANTI-SEMITE!!!" at anyone who dares question elements of Israel's foreign policy.  As a straight man with the legal right to marry who I love, of course I can never know what it's like not to have that right.  But that's exactly why gays and lesbians need to reach out -- constantly -- to "homophobes" who don't understand.  The diarist even goes out of her way to ridicule the very idea of such discussion -- saying "telling us to reach out to them is like saying battered women need to reach out to their abusers".  What!?  With respect, that's just an ass-backwards strategy.  Just as the constant hurling of insults against an entire class of people, without any intellectual curiosity in finding out why the religious definition of marriage is so important to so many, is neither progressive nor helpful in advancing this important cause.

Originally posted to cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:53 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Does bigotry require hatred? (22+ / 0-)

    You seem to regard the words a synonyms. What happens to your argument if they aren't?

    Any friend of Rick Warren is no friend of mine.

    by Clem Yeobright on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:58:51 PM PST

  •  If you think it's all about same-sex marriage, (19+ / 0-)
    then you are clueless. Do you really think it's about all that? Well, if that was the case, then why is there no federal ENDA law? Why is there no federal Hate Crimes law regarding gays and lesbians? Why is DADT still on the books?

    You really think this is all about same-sex marriage??? American is homophobic!

  •  thank you (10+ / 0-)

    I am gay, and I have been avoiding Dkos like the plague. My life will be a lot worse if I become enveloped in hatred for Christian Conservatives, than if I just live and let live. Afterall, that's all I ever wanted from them. Just live and let live.

    Cliche, I know.

    I just don't want to spend all my time being angry and hateful. I won't let them defeat ME in that manner.

    Without a campaign to endorse, my sig line feels so empty.

    by exotrip on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:00:27 PM PST

  •  What the bloody hell? (14+ / 0-)

    To Christians, marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having biological children.  That's it.

    Find me one verse in the Bible, anywhere, which states that all married people must have children.

    You won't find one.

    My born-again hubby and I decided before we got married that we didn't want kids.  A Christian minister had no problem with this and married us.

    Where did you get your info?  

    It's hard to take the overall premise of your diary seriously when you level statements like this.

    Hard core Christian and hard core liberal...not an illogical combination at all.

    by penny8611 on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:01:39 PM PST

    •  I should have been more specific (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Judgment at Nuremberg

      To most Christian denominations, especially and particularly Catholics, this is true.

      "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:03:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When this becomes a Catholic theocracy (14+ / 0-)

        I'll give half a crap what your cult thinks.

        You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

        by abrauer on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:08:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That deserves a troll rate. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nova Land

          It's people like you that ruin causes like gay marriage.  No one likes nor listens to extremists.  Stop with the hate.  

          You do realize how many Catholic progressives there are, right?  Do you realize how many Catholics are on this blog?  Stop bashing people's faith.  

          •  Yep, that's right, it's all MY fault (0+ / 0-)

            I force the good religious heterosexuals to hate gays.  I hold a gun to their head and make them vote to strip rights away from other Americans.  I shove my marriage license in their hands and force them to rip it to shreds.

            The Catholic progressives on this blog are more than welcome to fix the evil in their own faith.  That's their responsibility because they CHOOSE to continue to be Catholics.  

            No one is born Catholic, or any other faith.  They can choose to change at any time and stop their hateful homophobic ways.

            You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

            by abrauer on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:11:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  References? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, Johnny Q

        We were married in the Methodist church.  It was a complete non-factor.

        As far as I know, the Catholic church is the only one where this is a factor.

        The church we recently left is a non-denominational Bible church.  Our pastor was FULLY aware that we chose to not have children, and fully endorsed our finally making it official when we decided that my husband would have a vasectomy.  This is the same church we recently decided to leave, after the overall tone took on a very ugly anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-Obama tone.  This same pastor who was railing against Obama from the pulpit was the man who totally agreed that not every person should be a parent.

        If you have any sources to cite regarding churches other than Catholic, please do.

        Hard core Christian and hard core liberal...not an illogical combination at all.

        by penny8611 on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:10:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Depends on the religion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Judgment at Nuremberg

          A search for Lutherans, Procreation, and Marriage reveals the (M-S) statement:  "We affirm that marriage is a God-given institution between a man and a woman.  We affirm that this one-flesh union reflects our relationship with our Creator and Redeemer.  We affirm that it is the means God has chosen for procreation."  I suspect that most religious denomations have some form of "we believe marriage is fundamentally for procreation" somewhere in the bylines.  :)  It's just the Catholics who are, perhaps, the most vocal and visible in adhering to this.  

          "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:17:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  then that shows how ridiculous this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q

            whole argument from "religion" is.  Religion is man made and variable.  Depends who you talk to.

            •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

              But I'm not the one arguing that religion is "right" here.  Religious people are.  We have to teach them that this isn't about their religion -- remember, Prop 8 passed in part because of all the ludicrous lies that were told about it (i.e., the Catholic church would have to shut down, etc.)  But it's tricky, because when most religious people think of the word "marriage", they just don't associate the term with a legal issue.  They think of it as a religious issue, even a sacrament.  Getting them to think of the word "marriage" as something other than their preconception is the hard part in all this.  

              "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

              by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:04:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Just abolish marriage as a state sanctioned (7+ / 0-)

              institution.

              This is all "ridiculous" frankly.

              We have no business telling religions that they need to change their view of the purpose of "marriage" and they have no business telling the state that you have to be treated as 2nd class citizens.

              therefore destroy the legal construct altogether since it's root is religious.

              Continue to allow religions to perform "marriages" which have no legal effect whatsoever.

              You want to have a civil union or contract? Great, come to city hall and sign it.  What happens in a church or what hey want to call what they do is not the government's concern. that's the way I'd do it.  

              Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don't pretend to understand. Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird

              by Judgment at Nuremberg on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:05:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think marriage started as a state sponsored (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Scientician

                legal contract and that religion co-opted it.  But otherwise, I agree with you.

              •  Let's leave 'marriage' to religious/spiritual (3+ / 0-)

                institutions, and require a civil union - available from the government to any two consenting adults - for everything else, including all legal standing. I commented on this in another diary:

                The only thing civil institutions like state government should grant is civil unions - to everyone.

                Let churches decide who they wish to marry - that's none of the government's business, and anyone wishing to have a 'marriage' - in a church, temple, whatever - is welcome to do so, according to their beliefs. But if you wish to have legal standing as a couple, you'll need a civil union.

                Government can't provide rights for some while denying them to others.

                I think this gets us to equal standing under the law faster than convincing religious adherents that they must sanction something they've spent generations opposing.

                "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." - Sarah Palin/Tina Fey

                by Pacific NW Mark on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:26:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  It's not even true of Catholics. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Actbriniel

        You are grossly misrepresenting Catholic teaching on marriage.

        In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament: a tangible symbol of the intangible.  The purpose of that sacrament is to provide a living symbol of the committed, sacrificial love of God for humankind.  The Church sanctifies marriage because, at its best, marriage provides a way to answer "Why would God send his Son to die in atonement for human sin?"  And the answer is, "Because I would die for your mom/dad, or for you kids.  I would never throw you away.  That's what love is all about."

        The intention or capacity to have children is not and never was a prerequisite for sacramental marriage.  A marriage can be sacramentally complete even if the spouses never have sex.  The sacrament of marriage is about love, not sex or procreation.

        You are confusing the Church's teaching on chastity with the Church's teaching on marriage.  They are not the same.  The Church teaches that sex is for the purpose of having children, and thus the sex act must have a potential for conception.  The Church does not teach that marriage is for the purpose of having children.

    •  He probably meant a dogma. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Marriage doesn't belong to your religion. (25+ / 0-)

    Marriage is a civil status governed by the state.  It doesn't need the permission or approval of your religion or god.  

    Kindly keep your religion out of our government.  

    •  But that's not how people see it (6+ / 0-)

      You think the average Christian couple thinks of their marriage as having anything to do with the legal document at all?  Do you think the average Christian couple honestly remembers "the moment" they got married as the moment they signed a document a few hours or days before (or after) the ceremony?  Of course not.  The average Christian couple thinks of their marriage as a religious institution, not an institution of the state.  They define the moment they were married by when the priest or preacher said "...what God has joined together let no man put asunder.  You may kiss the bride."  That's what marriage is, to most people.  It's not some state-sanctioned civil status.  It's a religious sacrament.  Which is why you have to explain to people that what gays (and, frankly, atheists) are talking about is the civil status only.  The term "marriage" is very much about God and religion, not politics, to these people -- and that's why you can't win over minds by simply telling them their religion is full of shit.

      "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:10:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blanket Statements R Us. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DelRPCV, Clues, homogenius, gustynpip, abrauer

        For a self-professed atheist you sure do know a lot about how Christian couples think.

        And also, apparently, how gays who wish to marry think.

        Which is why you have to explain to people that what gays (and, frankly, atheists) are talking about is the civil status only.

        I know gays who are Christian who would love nothing more than to have their union recognized by the Christian community.  I also know straight Christian couples who married in civil ceremonies only, nary a preacher or priest in sight.

        Hard core Christian and hard core liberal...not an illogical combination at all.

        by penny8611 on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:17:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fair enough (3+ / 0-)

          But that's a separate argument.  The current argument is getting marriage recognized by the STATE, not forcing private churches or synagoges to perform them.  What I'm saying is that the average married Christian probably doesn't think of "marriage" as a legal arrangment, but rather a religious one, and so it's difficult to start from a position of asking someone to redefine their religious faith.  It's better to explain the arguments from a fairness issue, a tax issue, etc.  That's how I finally won over my mom.

          "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:42:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  There's the problem. (5+ / 0-)

        Color me crazy, but I am concerned at the prospect that our laws be vetted by "the average Christian couple."

        If the "average Christian couple" thinks of their marriage as a religious institution, and not an institution of the state, as you claim, then why are they attempting to reserve the state institution for themselves, based on their religious beliefs?

        There is a distinct logical disconnect in your argument, imho.

        And, in full disclosure, I present this as an Atheist who doesn't care to meddle in your personal religious views (be they real or feigned), as long as you don't try to impose them on others.

        •  I'm not defending the average Christian couple (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          condorcet, vernonbc

          per se... but is there a vested interest in explaining to them why gay marriage should be recognized by the state?  Of course there is.  So we have to understand and educate, not just ridicule.  And trying to see the opposition to gay marriage from their point of view is, I believe, quite valuable.

          "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:06:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But the way you explain their view (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DelRPCV, TiaRachel

            doesn't explain why they want the state to mandate their religious views. It's not an issue of defending anyone, it's an issue of, as you state, understanding it.

            And working toward equality and trying to educate people on equal protection are not contradictory positions. To the contrary, they go hand in hand. So I guess I am missing your point.

            There is no reason that we should roll over on equality while we are working to advance it.

            •  Let me put it this way (0+ / 0-)

              Suppose you asked Catholics this question (defining "Holy Communion" as the Catholic Eucharist):

              Do you support the legal right of non-Catholics to take Holy Communion?

              I'm sure the overwhelming majority of Catholics would say no.  

              Suppose you then said:

              Do you support the legal right of non-Catholics to rent a hall, process in a line, and receive and eat a cracker and a sip of wine, and call it Holy Communion?

              Then I bet people would say "well.... I guess that's okay.... but do they have to call it 'Holy Communion'?  I mean, couldn't they just call it... a snack?"

              "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

              by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:08:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  She's saying that they don't get it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cartwrightdale, ye ye ye

              and that calling them haters and bigots and not engaging with them isn't going to win over the percentages the movement needs.

      •  I don't care how they see it. It is the law. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KathleenM1
      •  While I applaud your diary.... (0+ / 0-)

        your association of marriage with religion as a universal is a narrow perspective.  Marriage has a wide cultural social prenumbra, for lack of a better word.

        This shadow, this aura, is part of the wide social value of romantic love that is now based on a boy and girl, man and woman.

        No one will use this paradigm, but there is a literature of anthropology and sociology that would be useful in this discussion, but those in the profession would lose tenure, or at least their friendships, if they tried to subject this issue to this kind of an evaluation.

        So, the idiom developed for discussion social norms is rendered inoperative, and the two sides simply talk past each other.  And Dkos, is one of those sides, forced to excoriate the enemy and win the argument with labels such as bigot and homophobe.

        The discussion just doesn't get beyond this.

        •  But... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          condorcet

          ...I'M not arguing that marriage is tied to religion.  The people who oppose gay marriage are.  That's what they believe.  And so educating them as to the history and tradition of marriage, and why it should be a legal right, is so important.

          "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:09:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps religion is used for underlying reasons.. (0+ / 0-)

            that are called "homophobia" but are more accurately the channeling of the sexual impulse into socially accepted objects.

            Freud recognized what he called "polymorphous perversity in early human sexuality.  In other words without socialization a man will screw anyone and anything....his mother, sister, boy or girl.

            Structures of society, all society, depend on controlling this into the norms that have broad ramifications.  If I sound like a pompous ass, I'm sorry.

            But there are reasons for custom, even for castes that all societies seem to need.  Homophobia is not an individual disease, it is societal.

            What bothers me most about this issue is that a real conversation seems impossible.  I find this more frightening than gay marriage, either it's acceptance or rejection.

    •  There are two kinds of marriage. One is civil (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      homogenius, vernonbc, lompe

      and the other is religious.  I think religious people assume gays want to be married in church vs civil unions.  The present civil union is equivalent to 2nd class citizenship holder.. aka Puerto Ricans born and residing on the Island who cannot vote for the presidency.  

      If Christians were told crystal clear the fight is for civil equality in marriage I don't think many would oppose.

      •  Well, this is precisely (0+ / 0-)

        what the Yes on 8 camp asserted during the campaign. So, if some believe this, it is because that is how the 8 campaign was advanced.

      •  Just get rid of the word "marriage" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Renee, vernonbc, Kathy S

        when it comes to the civil arrangement.

        Problem sol-ved.

        Churches can do whatever the hell they want (with no legal effect) but it will keep some people happy.

        You call your relationship "marriage" all you want, but city hall should only offer civil union documents to ALL.

        Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don't pretend to understand. Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird

        by Judgment at Nuremberg on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:09:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree. Marriage just like intercourse can (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vernonbc

          imply many different things.  But I say the same to the gay community who keep saying Marriage and are opposed of civil union because it doesn't sound equal.  

          That was one of my points long ago.  Why insist it be called a marriage vs civil union if you will be getting the same rights?  And they will go on and on how they want the word marriage... etc.

          •  It's equal if everyone has a civil union (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Judgment at Nuremberg

            That would take away the confusion for the Christians who oppose it too. Sure, if gay people and straight people all legally have civil unions (like they do in Quebec) and the rights are identical I don't think that many gay rights activists would complain.  But frankly I think the people fighting against equal rights right now would fight that just as hard.

            •  I was thinking the same thing too. Why would (0+ / 0-)

              gays be upset over civil union if it granted the same equal rights to each partner?  If the difference is in name only, that is ridiculous.  I read canada had civil unions for gays and everyone was happy without complaints or calling for a name change.  

              What prompt this anger were blacks voting for prop 8 yet Warren gets the backlash.  I don't get it.

              •  I'm not sure I made my point clear (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Judgment at Nuremberg

                I think that we should abolish civil marriage for all US citizens. Then I think anyone gay or straight who wants to be recognized as a committed couple could apply to the state for a civil union which would have all the same privileges that a civil marriage has now.

                I don't think there is a situation in the US where civil unions for gay people provide the same rights that civil marriage does.

                This anger was not prompted by blacks voting against prop 8. This anger was prompted (in large part) by the last 8 years of Republicans using gay equal rights as a wedge issue to get out their Christian base. People being mad at the blacks on this issue were backlashing from the hate directed at us by the Republicans and Christians.  

    •  We shouldn't have churches granting civil status (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vernonbc

      Let churches confer whatever benefits they wish to claim through their ceremonies. All legal standing and benefits should require a civil union, available to (any) two consenting adults.

      "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." - Sarah Palin/Tina Fey

      by Pacific NW Mark on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:35:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That 16%... (7+ / 0-)

    was the 16% that thought blacks should go to school, just not with the whites. It's separate but equal, plain and simple.

  •  so, uh (7+ / 2-)

    did you pull down your pants for the priest?  

    Did he smile when you did it?

    When do I get to vote on your marriage?

    by tvb on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:02:28 PM PST

  •  I don't think... (11+ / 0-)

    ...you read the diary you reference very carefully.    

    This is indeed a moment.  And you will get some rocks and bottles soon.  And, indeed, that may not be good for this site.  

    Consider this a softly tossed rock.

    But the diarist was dead on, and it's only self-flagellation if you're straight.  To the rest of, it was I think damn near our voice.

    For the record -- to make me fully dismissable in this context -- I'm trans.  I do indeed meet right wingers who are, in person, quite decent.  And then they go to church and give money to people who work to insure that I can be fired or kicked out of my home or indeed thrown out of a grocery store because I'm not a damn human being, really.  Because moderate, careful people understand that sometimes you just can't have people like that around, you know?

    I value the relationships I have with more conservative people.  I would be unlikely to call them bigots, if they are kind people, most days.  But the word still applies, and half the reason I would not use the term is because I am afraid.

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:03:16 PM PST

  •  Hate (18+ / 0-)

    Oh goodness.  I'm angry at Christian denominations (like Mormons and Catholics, for instance) b/c they spend immense resources to demonize people like me.  Then they scare the hooha out of people by spreading lies about people like me.  Then they use that fear to "win" elections against people like me.

    And they hate me b/c some old book that's been translated many times sort of/kind of mentions it but scholars disagree on the meanings.

    But somehow I'm not supposed to be angry or, yes, feel hate towards those who seek to keep me from living my life to the fullest? Goodness.

    And as someone else said, homophobic doesn't necessarily equal hatred.

    Cheers.

    Formerly of Ann Arbor (AA). Now in Baltimore!

    by Matt in AA on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:03:43 PM PST

    •  I'm Mormon, and I don't hate you. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet

      I'm sure there are many Catholics on this blog, and not a single one of them "hate" you either.  Why the hyperbole?

      •  Hyperbole? (0+ / 0-)

        When I lived in MI in 2004, the Catholic Church was closing inner city Detroit schools while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to spread lies and fear about gay people in order to ban marriage equality in the Michigan Constitution. Mormons did something very similar in CA this time around.

        It's true, I guess, to say that not ALL Mormons and Catholics hate us.  But the powerful structure of those churches ARE working against us and have for quite some time.  

        When I think of who hates glbt Americans and who's spending the bulk of money and spending the most time working to make my life difficult and who is spreading lies and fear about us throughout the country I think of evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons.  I didn't make that up.  They earned that reputation.

        Cheers.

        Formerly of Ann Arbor (AA). Now in Baltimore!

        by Matt in AA on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:48:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Your right -- they aren't all Bigots (16+ / 0-)

    there are plenty of really stupid people in this country as well ...

    "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

    by josephk on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:04:58 PM PST

    •  I think, actually, that's fairer (3+ / 0-)

      People who oppose gay marriage are a lot more likely to be ignorant of the issues involved than anything else.

      "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:12:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the thing, though. (5+ / 0-)

        Prejudice, for many but not all people, stems from ignorance.

        Do you really believe that the family that lives in a poor, all-white town of 3000 in Mississippi would hold the same prejudices against black people if they were from NYC or Chicago, where they are much more likely to meet and interact with black people? I would say no, but it doesn't detract from their racism. Ignorance is no excuse.

        Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong. -Oscar Wilde

        by unspeakable on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:21:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But there is a difference between (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Liberal Of Limeyland

          homophobia and homoignorance.  The former depends on the latter, but the latter doesn't necessarily lead to the former.

          •  Except when the latter leads to (3+ / 0-)

            the creation of laws excluding gay people, the approval of such laws.

            That's not merely ignorance.  I am ignorant of much of Hispanic culture.  I don't want to pass laws against using Spanish in legal texts in the U.S.  Hence, I am not acting in a way that is effectively bigoted, at least not on that score.

            Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you. -- Fry, Futurama

            by LithiumCola on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:34:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But that's my point. (0+ / 0-)

              Homophobia depends on homoignorance, but being ignorant about queers doesn't necessarily lead, for example, to the desire to beat some up.  There are folks who are beyond the pale; there are others who say and do bigoted things because that's what they've been taught, and when they're provided with an opportunity to learn something different actually do so; and then there are still others who don't know much one way or the other, may well say something stupid and can be educated.

          •  Well, what's the difference? (0+ / 0-)

            I've never heard the term homoignorance. Explain it to me, please.

            Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong. -Oscar Wilde

            by unspeakable on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:35:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, there isn't. (0+ / 0-)

            Despite the latin, homophobia doesn't refer to an actual fear of gays, just an irrational prejudice.  Whether that irrational prejudice results from ignorance, stupidity, or other nonrational thinking is irrelevant.  The effect is the same.

  •  Look here's the thing (23+ / 0-)

    You can call it what you want. In the south, I think there were people who hated black people. Others just said, "That's the way things are.."

    The point is, it's about MY civil rights. What irritates me is when straight people feel it's something they should get to decide on: "Well, maybe I'm ok with it.."

    I don't give a rat's ass whether people are against it for good reasons or bad reasons, what I choose to do as an adult with another adult should be my decision and my decision alone. I'm not going to distinguish between Mrs. Green who really hates gay people and Mrs. Brown who has gay friends but opposes it for some other reason, if they oppose my civil rights, I see both as hostile to me.

    A fellow ain't got a soul of his own, just little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody - Tom Joad, Grapes of Wrath

    by gladkov on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:06:53 PM PST

  •  Bigot means what it means. (13+ / 0-)

    You're conflating "bigotry" with "hate" and "homophobia" here, and I think doing a pretty good job of confusing yourself.

    Sorry. Language is a bitch.

    To be human in 2008 is to rise in defense of the planet we have known and the civilization it has spawned.

    by beatpanda on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:07:36 PM PST

    •  And the result is the same (8+ / 0-)

      I'm sure there were lots of folks back in the day who were comparatively nice to their slaves, they were not the slave owner who cracked the whip etc. but they still let slavery happen, so for all intents ans purposes, they were just as bad.

      I really don't want to hear how nice someone is but who wants to deny me my civil rights, the result is the same. Just like Warren says he likes gays. I don't want to be his friend, I find him a repugnant pig. But his whole point is, "Well, I'll deny you your rights but I'll do it with a smile. I'll even give you a nice donut to make you feel better.."

      A fellow ain't got a soul of his own, just little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody - Tom Joad, Grapes of Wrath

      by gladkov on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:11:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have too much respect (8+ / 0-)

      for Tradition to allow these people to redefine bigotry.

      The diarist gives reasons for the bigotry and reasons not to call it bigotry, but not a shred of reasoning by which it is not bigotry.

      •  I do a little bit above (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sychotic1

        When debating whether someone who opposed black voting rights was a "bigot", under the traditional and dictionary definition:

        big-ot-ry  --  stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own

        We now know that the world is a sphere.  But surely not everyone who believed the world was flat -- because that's how they were taught their whole lives -- was a moron.  

        If you're taught you're whole life that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle choice, not only by your family and church but also by your schools growing up (as most did, until fairly recently), and you've never really known any gay people, your problem isn't so much "bigotry" as it is ignorance.  Bigotry has to have some component of choice -- if you didn't know any better, where was the "choice"?

        Most Americans just need a little more educational push over the top.  When they were growing up, there weren't really many openly gay people they could have met.  That's why the younger generation overwhelmingly supports gay marriage -- they know people, they've talked about it with people, and now they're smarter for it.  If we just cut out all the older Christians, say they're not even worth reaching, how does that help?  There is, I submit, a difference between bigotry and just not knowing any better (or, more to the point, never really, honestly took the time to think it through.)

        "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

        by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:51:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I do not know anything about this subject, (0+ / 0-)

    but like what is so important about gays getting married anyway except for whatever economic advantages conferred?

    And what are those eonomic advantages?  Just wondering?

  •  If people think that GLBT people should not... (10+ / 0-)

    ...be able to marry because then they would have the same rights as "normal people", what word would you suggest?

  •  I'm an agnostic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, condorcet, PalGirl2008

    I don't oppose gay marriage.  If gays want to get married, more power to them.  But I understand that to a majority of Americans, the term "gay marriage" is a non starter.  Do a poll about civil unions, you get one set of numbers.  Do a poll about gay marriage, the numbers change significantly.  Calling Obama a bigot does you no good.  It just makes you look unhinged.  And politically, it really won't help you win the support of a voting bloc you need to call their first President a bigot.  

  •  You don't speak for the church. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, TiaRachel, Mia Dolan

    It is true to Catholics that marriage is only for procreation. That is not the view of the majority of Protestants. We view sex as a beautiful gift of God for sharing. Procreation is only part of it.

    I agree with the basic point of your diary, that it takes people a long time to get used to a new idea. And sometimes they do better with the individual situation. (I recall a pre=election diary in which a ninety-year-old wanted to be sure his vote went for "that colored boy.") But I would prefer that you not assume that what is true of Catholics is true of the whole church universal.

  •  Best diary so far on this subject. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale, descartes11, Hope08

    I posted this in a lost thread.  I think it deserves a place here too:

    That's what Obama wants... to have the religious people leave the gay community ALONE.  In order for this to happen he has to make grace and bring Warren to an invite.  Warren needs to find a way to make redefine his comments on making gay marriage equal to that of incest, etc.  He needs to find a way to correct to his followers and I think Obama will help him find a way.

    Abe Lincoln responding to Douglass:

    Before the debate at Charleston, Democrats held up a banner that read "Negro equality" with a picture of a white man, a negro woman and a mulatto child. At this debate Lincoln went further than before in denying the charge that he was an abolitionist, saying that:

    " I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ... I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone."

    Here superior is equivalent to heterosexual and the slaves are equivalent to Gays in the sense of describing how Obama attempts to argue on insisting Christian followers can just leave the gay community ALONE.

    •  Interesting Abe Lincoln sounds like the Rick (0+ / 0-)

      Warren of civil rights for black people.  I don't think slaves had many options in picking their emancipator but I guess we did pretty well with this "bigot".  

      I think Obama wants to do more than have people leave gay people alone.  

      •  lol yes. I'm sure he wants to do more, but (0+ / 0-)

        equal rights opens the door for a multiple of opportunities.

        Leaving them alone is not voting against their rights.

        •  I would be interested to see.... (0+ / 0-)

          ....what percentage, of the 52% that voted for Prop 8, would have done so had they known it would mass-divorce 18,000 legally married couples.  I suspect many of them did, or at least hoped it would, but I also suspect that if the Proposition had included that language (i.e. "...and dissolve all current gay unions..."), that would have given enough people pause to see the bill go down in defeat.

          "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:55:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  no (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, Clem Yeobright

      to have the religious people leave the gay community ALONE.  In order for this to happen he has to make grace and bring Warren to an invite.

      This can't and won't work.  Picture if Bush had the President of Planned Parenthood on Stage for his inauguration.  Would the pro-choice movement give up on choice because Bush had "listened" to them or some such item of civility?  Would they feel "reached out" to?  And decide to stop their pesky defence of Roe?

      Fundamentalists will not ever let gay people alone just because Obama is nice to them.  This is a fundamental issue based disagreement.  It is not going to get smoothed over.  There is no middle ground acceptable compromise.  Gays are demanding their rights.  They will either get them or they won't.  

      Help build the Progressive Governing Majority at Open Left

      by Scientician on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:51:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

    I oppose gay marriage.
    I am not a bigot.

    The hell with all of you who say I am.
    I say to hell with you and any cause you espise, by raging venom in my and others directions.

    I dont call people slurs when i dsagree with them. and i dont expect to be called such either.

    i have received enough hateful comments from people whose iq i know to be high enough to know the differecne between bigotry and points of view about marriage.

    •  You at least support civil unions, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin

      right?  Don't mean to sound accusatory, but I want to clarify that before everyone rushes to assumptions.

      "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves! Be ye therefore as wise as serpents, and as harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

      by Setrak on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:17:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're a bigot n/t (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clues, KathleenM1, Mia Dolan, jessical, tcandew

      You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

      by abrauer on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:20:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I respect different POV's (9+ / 0-)

      For example, it is your POV that you are not a bigot, and it is everyone else's POV that you are.

      And, MARY! What a drama queen!

      I say to hell with you and any cause you espise, by raging venom in my and others directions.

    •  For someone (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pucknomad, jessical, abrauer

      who claims to avoid using slurs, you sure spend a lot of time telling perfect strangers "to hell with you."

      What a winning personality trait.

      •  you should read the stuff people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        democrattotheend
        have written in response to my perfectly calm and reasoned discussion points.

        its hate  mail akin to the right wing extremists. i am now sure there are left wing extremists....i have seen their hate in their writings today..they would probably go to any length to destroy those who disagree with them.

        •  OK fine (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Renee, TiaRachel

          I'll take your word for that without any corroborative evidence put forward by you. And I'll trust your evaluation as to what constitutes "perfectly calm" and what constitutes "hate."

          Oh and here's a news flash. It's possible to be a provocative prick while maintaining a veneer of perfect calm. It's even possible to espouse hatred with an attitude of complete grace and equanimity. It's also very common for people to conflate anger and outrage for "hate."

          All of which is to say that nothing you've written so far suggests to me that you have very much to add to the discussion, insofar as making any kind of positive impact.

        •  TAZ, Man calm down. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mrblifil

          Look, I haven't done a thorough investigation of your "calm and reasoned discussion points", but what the hell are you talking about? Who on this site would "go to any length to destroy those who disagree with them?"

          You're on a site dedicated to equal rights and freedom to speak out. You could be called a lot of names here but that's pretty much all you're gonna endure.

        •  I had to go and check (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mrblifil

          Your arguments in ChristieKieth's diary were incredibly stupid and people advised you of same.

    •  look... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pucknomad, TiaRachel

      I'm sure you have had some unfortunate things said.  I wish that weren't true.

      But go read the diary this guy is whining about.  It isn't about gay marriage, and it isn't about Warren.  It's about people who have reached their breaking point. And when you make observations like this, you're just, y'know, waving a red flg.  Insisting on the existing lines.

      ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

      by jessical on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:22:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd be curious to hear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q

      your non-bigoted objection to gay marriage.

    •  I'll take the bait. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q

      Why do you oppose marriage equality? What is your reasoning behind it? I'm truly curious.

      Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong. -Oscar Wilde

      by unspeakable on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:29:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  its the same reason that billions of people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        potato

        oppose it. and i truly mean billions.
        the 3 major religions of the world, christianity, islam and judaism teach us that gay relationsships are not allowed.
        i grew up learning that.
        i instinctively understand why this would be true as it doesnt make a whole lot of sense for same sex people to be intimate.
        Look, its a matter of faith, and deep faith.

        Now the question is of course, why having such faith and morality that has held me in such good stead for all of these years, would be 100% wrong, and that we ought to reverse all of tha and say that gay marriage is right.
        i believe that people should not be discriminated agianst, EVEN if i disagree with them. Therfore, full and equal legal rights is totally important.

        But. this is my reason. You can make fun of it.
        you can say what you will. but it seems to me to make a whole lot of sense.

        •  OK, you answered a different "why." (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel, condorcet, abrauer

          The "why" I'm asking about is why is there opposition to begin with. Many religions have been wrong before. Couldn't it be that they're wrong now?

          I don't understand how it can be considered a sin that I love some one of the same gender. Explain to me the moral evil of that because I just don't get it. I sincerely you hope you answer this because I've never gotten anyone to respond. Please tell me why my love is immoral.

          Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong. -Oscar Wilde

          by unspeakable on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:41:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for your question. (0+ / 0-)
            well, my understanding is not that your love is immoral. The question is whether acting upon that love is moral?
            For example, i was "in love" with certain people during young adulthood. but if acted upon that it would have been immoral.
            in this way, i truly beelive that gay marriage is only as immoral as premarital sex for heterosexuals.

            The key point is, i think that premarital sex is deeply immoral. But there should be a moral consistency.

            i dont have all the answers,
            i must say, i am not inhuman.
            i understand your point of view.

            i wish i wasnt called a bigot for my morality though.

            •  OK but the problem with that is (0+ / 0-)

              if you love someone, it is part of human nature to want to express that love physically. No religion can deny that fact. In other words, you say that my love isn't immoral, but acting on my love is. How do you reconcile that? I understand that you may not have the answer to that question, but I think it's worth it for you to ponder it.

              I'll repeat the question again because I believe it's important. If my love is not immoral, why is acting on it so? What other sin operates in the same way, where the emotion of it is OK but the action is wrong?

              Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong. -Oscar Wilde

              by unspeakable on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:52:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  see there is also a sense of fear (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                potato
                amongst heterosexuals.
                you are arguing from the premise that homosexuality is how you are born. that it is not environmental.
                There are those who argue the opposite.
                Though i must say that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that theformer view point is the correct one.

                Or should i say, as a scientist, i can say that i know that many traits have an environmental and a genetic contribution.

                now....i think that many parents would be concerned that if we allow gay couples are actively and openly accepted then, their children will think that being gay is awesome and will become gay.
                now i am articulating a fear.
                it may or may not have a bsis in reality.
                I really dont know.
                WHat i do know, is i dont want my kid to be gay because i believe, have always believed that God would frown upon him for that, and i wish him all of Gods favors and blessings.

                can i reconcile all thta you ask about, BTW.
                Not at this point in my life.
                What i can tell you , that of all the religious questions, this is a tough one i will be pondering for a long time to come.
                and i appreciate especially, that you asked me these questions.

                •  Let's turn the argument around ... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TiaRachel, Sychotic1, potato, unspeakable

                  If children become what their parents and teachers are, why are there any gay people at all? And why isn't everyone who went to parochial school a nun/priest?

                  It seems to me that you're grasping for some, any support for deeply rooted emotional beliefs. Surely you can see this, as a scientist? And just as surely, you should be able to determine that it's irrational, and certainly not a valid argument against gay rights / marriage.

                  I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

                  by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:09:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  but here's the rub (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sychotic1
                    faith is not a rational exercise.
                    and that is why....beliefs cannot be altered easily.

                    not to mention there Are rational reasons why gay relationships dont make sense on a species level, becuase they dont llead to progeny.
                    that seems to be a rational point.
                    and in accordance with a theory of evolution that suggests that species main prupose is to create progeny....an the animal kingdom....though it has also been documented that there are homosexual relationships amongst animals.

                    •  I have no cites for this ... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TiaRachel, abrauer

                      ... but I've read some really good sociological hypotheses that suggest gay members of the tribe, having no children of their own, are better able to care for their extended family and the tribe as a whole.

                      Plus gay people can & do reproduce - there's typically nothing broken in the plumbing that prevents procreation. Lots of gay folk have had kids in the context of faux straight marriages before coming out, and now, many fully out GLBTI folk have biological children via surrogacy, sperm donors, IVF, etc.

                      I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

                      by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:26:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If you take even a undergrad-level look (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        abrauer

                        at genetics (epigenetics, etc.), all of those faux-darwinian arguments just evaporate.  Even at a less detailed level, that's a misunderstanding of evolution.

                        in accordance with a theory of evolution that suggests that species main prupose is to create progeny.

                        Nah, that's not how these things work.

                    •  Homosexuality is a natural variation in the human (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TiaRachel, cartwrightdale, Johnny Q

                      species.  It's always been here and it always will be.  You can round us all up and exterminate us, stone every effeminate boy or mannish girl, and yet a percentage of all children will grow up gay.

                      Many cultures find it possible to accept our existence and even value our special gifts.  We are often the warriors and the spiritual leaders, the dancers and artists.

                      The Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality are themselves proof that it was existant in Biblical times, and it was the open acceptance of homosexuality in some cultures that caused others to be revulsed by them.  Just as the Puritans were especially outraged by the casual and permissive homosexuality of the native Americans and viciously exterminated them for it.

                      You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

                      by abrauer on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:42:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                      not to mention there Are rational reasons why gay relationships dont make sense on a species level, becuase they dont llead to progeny.
                      that seems to be a rational point.

                      But there's no reason that should affect tax issues, inheritance, or the myriad of privilages afforded to straight couples.

                    •  So, if we allow homosexuality (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cartwrightdale

                      heterosexuality and reproduction will cease to exist.

                      I am a revolting homosexual!

                      by MAJeff on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:29:51 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  think about your own sexuality (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cartwrightdale, Tam in CA

                  Do you think you made it up? That it was pushed on you by all the straight people in your life?

                  What about the gay people who were raised in god fearing homes, with no gay people in their lives at all. Who taught them to be gay?  

                  I'll tell you something, and I am sharing this with love. I tried to deny my gayness for a lot of years, I tried with all my heart. It's just something we are born with, and you won't know that unless you are born with it, but I wish that straight people could just take our word on this. Some straight people figure it out when their kids end up being gay, and hopefully the kids don't have to endure much rejection until they figure it out.

                  There is nothing but heartbreak in this judgment. Nothing.

                  And saying it's okay to be a gay person unless you act on it is hateful. I don't think you are hateful, but that idea is a hateful idea. It's like saying it's okay if you have brown eyes as long as you don't open them. I wish the faith community could understand that one thing.

                  There are so many glbt kids right now being raised in Christian homes, hating themselves for being who they are. And it really comes down to a moral question: are we going to let them be driven away from their families or are we going to make sure they know they are loved and accepted? My nephew has been rejected by his dad because his dad's church says being gay is wrong. Personally I think it's a sin to turn away from your own child for any reason.    

              •  That's sorta been everything for most of history (0+ / 0-)

                where the emotion of it is OK but the action is wrong

                Relationships and marriage have become so radically redefined in recent decades that there is now no rational basis to deny that right to homosexuals, while previously, the concept couldn't even be seen as being applicable.  For example, even if most of the non-Catholic religions didn't explicitly cite procreation as the foundation of marriage, it was be default because there was (theoretically) no sex prior to marriage and no way to have sex without children.  In some cultures/times, a homosexual relation might be seen on a par with pre-marital sex or infidelity in others, something abominable.  Why?  I have no idea, but I would guess that it would have something to do with not being able to produce children, which were essential for the functioning of society (farm labor, etc.) at those times.

                It's the engrained and ossified remnants of that past, and not a coherent philosophy that you're at odds with.  That's why there's no answer to your question.

            •  Oh, brother - THIS stinky argument again! (4+ / 0-)

              It's OK to BE gay, just never, ever ACT on it. Acting on the erotic facet of deep, abiding love for your soulmate is reserved for straight folk.

              Bigotry, pure and simple.

              I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

              by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:57:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's right (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sychotic1, Clem Yeobright

                Premarital sex is wrong.
                Gays aren't allowed to be married.
                Gays, therefore, have premarital sex.
                Which is wrong.
                Sinners.

                :)

                Now, to be fair, there is an argument to be made -- one I disagree with, but is not illogical -- that whether or not homosexuality is a choice has nothing to do with whether that makes it "right".  For example, being attracted to little kids is also generally not a "choice".  It's a mental defect.  Just because that's the way someone was born, and they can't control those feelings and desires and attractions, does not BY ITSELF mean they get to act on them.  

                The reason adult homosexual relationships don't fall into the same category (of course) is that they don't harm other people, and adults should get to do whatever they hell they like with each other in a free society.  But I think the "it's not a choice" argument is not by itself convincing.

                "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

                by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:16:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Religion is CERTAINLY a choice ... (5+ / 0-)

                  ... and it's protected by name in the Constitution.

                  So yah, the choice / not-choice argument has its weakness. Nevertheless, the religious right insists that it IS a choice (despite the growing evidence to the contrary) and then use that as a way to 1) equate it to other choices, like thievery; and 2) to insist that no legal protection is required.

                  Also, the majority of GLBTI folk will tell you it never was a choice.

                  I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

                  by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:48:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Another WHY (0+ / 0-)

            In a world with so many religions and so many different kinds of people in it -  

            Why would you think you had any right at all to make other people conform to your religious beliefs.

            I can see various religions and churches kicking members out of the church for behavior they don't condone, but do you really think you have the right to tell EVERYONE EVERYWHERE that they have to behave according to your religious beliefs?

        •  this is something to examine (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel, abrauer

          If you are a person of faith, it is worth examining what your particular text actually says as opposed to what you have been told it says.  I make no assumptions, but I'd recommend the exercise.  For example, there is very, very little in the Christian Bible to suggest that homosexuality should be condemned any more strongly than a host of other things we have no deemed acceptable (or at least not mortal sins).  I personally find it very hard to believe that the Christ of whom I've read would have opposed any loving relationship.

          And none shall think how very young we were.

          by The Crying Monkey on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:42:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  But it's not full and equal legal rights (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pucknomad, TiaRachel, abrauer

          if you have a state-sanctioned institution only reserved for some. So you can't say you are for "full and equal legal rights."

        •  Quibble -- (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pucknomad, abrauer, Johnny Q

          the 3 major religions of the world, christianity, islam and judaism teach us that gay relationsships are not allowed.

          1. separation of church & state.
          1. Several christian denominations perform same-sex marriages. Of judaism, only the orthodox varieties are completely opposed. Reform & reconstructionist judaism recognize same-sex marriage (in fact, my parent's rabbi is a lesbian whose marriage to her partner is not recognized by the state she lives in), and conservative judaism has dual rulings (based on millennia of jewish law) which in essence leave the decision on whether to perform/recognize same-sex marriage up to the rabbi/congregation involved.

          3)

          Now the question is of course, why having such faith and morality that has held me in such good stead for all of these years, would be 100% wrong, and that we ought to reverse all of tha and say that gay marriage is right.

          No-one's insisting that the entirety of your faith and morality is wrong. Unless the entirety (100%) of your faith and morality is bound up in the issue of heterosexual privilege.  And, c'mon. Nothing that your faith tradition has ever taught has turned out to be even slightly less than 100% true, accurate, and relevant? Really?

          •  thanks for that thoughtful reply (0+ / 0-)
            your point about judaism is well taken.
            as for, all or nothing...you are right, that the faith tradition have to be applied to the modern context.....

            my question to you.
            in all the years i have been to this site, and for all that i dearly love about it, why are people so hateful of religion here?
            religion is ab eautiful thing.
            There is even a lot about Rick Warren to admire.
            I truly believe that.
            And i think Obama believes that.
            and that is why the outrage here is so deeply disappointing.

            •  "why are people so hateful of religion here?" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TiaRachel, abrauer

              Honestly? It gets tiresome & tedious to make the necessary & very careful distinctions between, for example, pro gay rights Christians and anti gay rights Christians, so lazy folk (myself included, at times) simply lump them all together, label them "Bad" and scream their heads off.

              Plus, there are atheists, who tend to be fine with me being a believer, and then there are the anti-theists, who are just as bigoted in their own way as the homophobes.

              I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

              by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:13:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  We don't hate religion (0+ / 0-)

              We hate YOU.

              You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

              by abrauer on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:28:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Almost all the hatred of religion (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TiaRachel, abrauer

              that I've generally seen on dailykos has to do with those parts of religion which hurt people.

              when it forces a little girl to marry an adult.
              when it takes a knife to a girl's genitalia.
              when it stones a woman who's been raped.
              when it turns a blind eye to genocide.
              When it blames gays for 9/11.
              when it tries to make our government in it's own image.

              That list can become quite long is you start to think about it, and most of what you see as hatred of religion on this sight is probably an echo of this long list. As for the beautiful parts of religion - well I've never seen those disputed..

            •  Simple answer: they aren't. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pucknomad, abrauer, dcinroc

              More complicated answer: a great many people have been damaged (generally emotionally) by personal encounters with what I think of as Imperialist christianity. Whether it's officially Dominionist or not, this would be the kind of christianity which insists that everyone must live by their rules (or really should, because everything would be better). And those are rules which many feel to be limiting, self-destructive, and personally damaging.

              Yes, hardly anyone ever really talks about it (especially in the public sphere), but many people believe, based on experience and deep, quiet reflection, that the fundamentals of the loudest, most visible, christian faiths are soul-destroying. I suspect there are quite a few who'd quibble with my use of qualifiers there, too.

              I suspect that some of what you feel is hatred of religion is reaction from those  who have been damaged by the most abusive forms of it. It's also possible that, like many religious people, you experience an indifference to the principles of your faith (or a dismissal of its value to either their lives or to the common good) as an attack. I've met people who are deeply offended that I'm completely unmoved by their holy book, as if it's a hostile act on my part that yes, I've read their bible, and yes, I know their stories, and no, I don't believe. I can see where some of this comes from -- when you've got a religion with a fundamental article of faith being that everyone in the world should (and secretly wants to) join them, that all of its teachings are the best thing ever for absolutely everyone, if only they'd heard the news -- then coming across someone who says "yeah, no thanks, I'm fine with what I've got" can hit like a missile, even though the uninterested person didn't intend it as such (although being proselytized to yet again can be annoying enough to trigger at least snark).

              You might want to take a look at Street Prophets (there are links on the front page) sometime.

            •  Why are people hateful of religion? (0+ / 0-)

              They aren't.

              I'll go out on a limb here and say a very vast majority of people do not hate your religion.  What they hate are all your attempts to make the REST of us follow your religion.

              I think you're perfectly entitled to practice whatever you want.  However, when you start trying to turn your religion into laws that EVERYONE must follow, then you are going to get arguments.

              Really.  Believe whatever you want..encourage your church to throw out those people that don't follow your church doctrine.  It's all good.  You're entitled to all of it.  I wouldn't dream of going into your church and telling everyone there that they must follow some other church's rules, or my personal rules.

              What you are NOT entitled to is making the rest of us abide by your religious faith(s).  We hate that.  That's where the hate comes from.  This is not a particularly hard distinction to make, and I'm not sure why you fail to make it.  How would you like it if you moved to a primarily jewish or muslim community and they decided you could no longer eat pork or shellfish or that you couldn't leave your house on Fridays or Saturdays?  (And those are MINOR restrictions compared to the ones you'd like to impose)

        •  Everyone on the planet was wrong (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel, notcaesar

          about almost everything at some time in the past.  The world was flat and carried around on the back of a giant tortoise and the stars were gods and on and on. Ignorance is not something of which to be proud, nor is it a foundation upon which to build your world-view.

          You gotta give 'em hope. - Harvey Milk

          by abrauer on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:35:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  here is the problem with the religious arg (5+ / 0-)

          All Christian denominations pick and choose what parts of the bible they follow.  Unless your sect supports slavery, or screwing your servant if your wife is infertile, or a whole lot of other repugnant shit in the bible, they have picked an chosen what parts of the bible to believe.

          So when you next eat the abomination that are shellfish, or mix different types of fabric in your clothing, ponder why it is that the sections of the bible condemning homosexuality were taken as gospel by your faith and not those other parts.

          It's because the people doing the choosing were bigots themselves and liked those parts.  But they like shrimp so they ignored that part.

          Help build the Progressive Governing Majority at Open Left

          by Scientician on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:01:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  For what it's worth (0+ / 0-)

          I grew up being taught by my religion and family that it was wrong to marry anyone who wasn't the same race that I was. They used phrases from the bible, that whole unequally yoked thing.

          Just because you were taught that something was biblically unacceptable doesn't mean that teaching is correct. There are plenty of things in the bible that even the most pious people don't follow.    

        •  Lies (0+ / 0-)

          Not all Christian denominations oppose marriage between members of the same sex. Likewise, Reform Judaism supports marraige between members of the same sex as well.

          Not only are your views anti-gay bigotry, but you are privileging your "religious views" over the religious views of those who are United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, Reform Judaism, Metropolitan Community Church, and others.

          Legal marriage, being a civil and not a religious function, makes it all the more absurd.

    •  One group of people can marry. Another ... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, bluegrass50, abrauer, Johnny Q

      ... cannot, because the first group wants to keep the privilege to themselves yet cannot articulate any VALID reason for doing so. Exactly how is this not bigoted?

      Or, to paraphrase the immortal Bette Davis from "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" :

      Butcha ah, Blanche, yah ah a bigot!

      I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

      by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:31:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  why terminology is important (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pucknomad, TiaRachel, bluegrass50, dcinroc

      On this issue, the fact is that having "civil unions" for some and "marriages" for others is not sustainable.  Even if they are equally recognized under the law, they will not be in practice.  Furthermore, it is understandably galling that any alternative system should be created to treat any individual different than any other.  

      And none shall think how very young we were.

      by The Crying Monkey on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:31:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  sorry but you are (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pucknomad, TiaRachel, Johnny Q

      And there's no nice way to say it.  The reason is that there is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.  None.  All of the stated reasons are sophistry and rationalization.

      "I don't want to change the definition" - who cares about the definition?  Is anyone really such a language purist that they worry over such things, and if so, does every word definition change offend so much?

      "It will lead to polygamy, incest, bestiality" - No, it won't.  It hasn't in several countries that have gay marriage.  There's no "equal" right to marry your sister or multiple partners since no group currently has this right while others do not.

      I could go on, but the reasons are such nonsense, that the only reason a person could support them is to cover up some underlying non-rational sense that gay marriage is wrong because something is wrong with gay people.  Ergo, bigotry.

      Help build the Progressive Governing Majority at Open Left

      by Scientician on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:56:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you oppose it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      How does it hurt you or your marriage? Why should it be anyone's business besides those involved in it?

      If you're consenting adults and you want to get married, go for it.  More power to you.  Mazel Tov. No skin off my nose.  It's really none of my business unless I'm one of the people getting married.

      How the hell does the union of two boys or girls who love each other negatively affect anyone but the couple involved?

      "What if everybody thought like you?" "Then I'd be a damn fool to think otherwise."-- Catch 22

      by Johnny Q on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:59:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow.. this argument gets stupider and (6+ / 0-)

    stupider all the time..

  •  Define:Bigot (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TiaRachel, dconrad

    a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

    Just thought I would lookup the official definition before reading your diary.  Figured I would share..

    off to read the diary now..

    Need Support Barack? Give Joe Lieberman and Rick Warren a call. Maybe they can help you.

    by justmy2 on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:19:26 PM PST

  •  Yes, I do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LithiumCola

    they are bigots until they give up the ghost

  •  I am proud to be one of them who HATES them (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, mph2005, abrauer

    The extreme fascist fundamentalists should be sent to deprogramming/reeducation camps, and if that is insufficient, then there needs to be a place like Gitmo to deal with those creatures like Ted Haggard/Pat Robertson/James Dobson and their irredeemable followers.

    Proud to be a pro-"torture" Democrat.

    by IhateBush on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:21:07 PM PST

  •  The church was kind enough not (9+ / 0-)

    to pass a law making everyone but gays call eating bread "Communion with God" and when gays do it "something other than Communion with God."

    As it happens, though, marriage is something everyone gets.  Even atheists.  So your entire argument about how people should adjust because their religion is offended, doesn't wash.  They shoved their religion into everyone's throats in the first place.  No fair saying: it's for everyone but not for everyone.  That would tend to piss people off.

    Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you. -- Fry, Futurama

    by LithiumCola on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:21:15 PM PST

  •  Civil Unions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    democrattotheend

    I look at marriage as being primarily a civil (secular) function with a veneer of religiosity if the parties deem it necessary.  I support civil unions because I think that the formal equality inherent in such a relationship is the only important part of the whole "marriage" thing (inheritance, medical decisions, support, adoption, etc).  I do not support gay marriage because I think that forcing churces to give legitmacy to relationships that they do not like actually prevents the political achievement of more important formal legal equality (civil unions).  
    This doesn't make me a bigot.

    •  Forcing churches? (9+ / 0-)

      No church is forced to marry any couple they don't want to marry, whether in a state that allows same-sex marriage or not.

      The idea that churches would be forced to marry couples they don't want to marry just isn't true.

      •  Then There Is No Problem (0+ / 0-)

        With supporting only Civil Unions.  The problem is a PR/political one whereby pastors (etc) think that they are going to have to marry teh gay--supporting civil unions makes this messaging problem go away.

    •  I can not get married (10+ / 0-)

      in a Catholic church. Why? Because my first marriage was Catholic, and I'm getting divorced.

      Since I'm no longer Catholic, I don't give a shit :), however, I certainly (after my divorce is final) will be legally able to marry.

      Since the government can't force the Catholic church to marry divorced people, why would they be able to force any church to marry gay people?

      It's a stupid argument and always has been.

      What do you call a parent that believes in abstinence only sex ed? A Grandparent.

      by ChurchofBruce on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:32:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Churches can not be forced to marry anyone. (4+ / 0-)

        The issue is civil marriage. The church ceremony doesn't mean a thing to the state except for the spoken and witnessed vows and those can be done just as well at the court house.

        We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

        by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:37:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What Is The Difference (0+ / 0-)

          Between a civil marriage and  civil union?  Keep in mind that this all in response to accusations of mass bigotry if you support civil unions and not marriage.

          •  Equal protection under the law (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pucknomad, notcaesar

            If heterosexuals are granted the status of "married" then homosexuals are entitled the same status.

            Everyone is entitled to equality under the law.

            We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

            by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:27:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Status (0+ / 0-)

              What is the difference in actual status?  "Civil Unions" as I see them have all of the formal provisions of equality under law as "marriages."
              Marriages are a two step process of state consecration (through licensing) and religious consecration through ceremony; under civil unions only the first happens (as is the case with atheists now).  Am I missing something, or are we caught up in a labels game?

              •  no. civil unions do not afford the same (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                notcaesar

                protections and privileges as marriage.

                I really like Christmas.

                by RadicalGardener on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:52:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  How old are you Shawn? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                notcaesar

                That's not a dig, I'm just wondering if you're familiar with how the entire "separate but equal" thing played out WRT black civil rights.

                At law, when something is purported to be equivalent but the majority gets one designation and the minority gets another, it's inevitable that the minority's version will be encroached upon over time and become "equal" in name only.

                I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

                by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:53:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not Quite The Same (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  condorcet

                  According this site:

                  http://lesbianlife.about.com/...

                  a civil union is much the same as marriage except that it is only reocognized on the state level--something a federal law would change.  So, absent something else besides mere protestations that there are DIFFERENCES, which are not spelled out, I think that civil unions are the same in practice as far as formal secular political equality.  I am open to other arguments.

                  Seperate but Equal
                  Marriage/Civil Unions are not necessarily resource intensive on the state; and there is no reason to think that family law wouldn't treat both classifications equally. Otherwise, unless public servants process CU apps more slowly than regular marriage liceneses, it is hard to see  the "seperate but equal" arguement as being very compelling.

                  •  its expensive to discriminate against marriage (0+ / 0-)

                    If you are an employer who is picking an insurance carrier you have a strong incentive to ask about family rates and benefits.  If married couples/families are treated poorly it will effect your ability to hire and retain employees.  This is much less true of "marriage like" arrangements since they represent a much smaller slice of the work force, for instance common law marriages are not recognized by a lot of insurance carriers and most employers are unaware and/or indifferent to this. Adding civil unions to the list of marriage like arrangements won't change this dynamic... those that don't have to extend a right or privileged won't and employers won't really care if caring hurts their non-gay employees.

                    If its separate its not equal and not constitutional... that being said taking the unconstitutional step might help frame the debate when the Supreme Court finally resolves this.

                    •  Thanks for this. I had not thought of ... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blunami

                      ... non-legislated things like health insurance, etc. Seems like Jim Crow in drag looms large with "Civil Unions" versus "Marriage", unless Federal law dictates absolute equivalence other than the use of the word itself, in which case the absurdity should become screamingly obvious within a few years.

                      I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

                      by The Werewolf Prophet on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:32:49 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Good points. I assumed we both meant ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... truly equivalent, as in the exact same Federal benefits, just different in name only.

                    I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

                    by The Werewolf Prophet on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:28:48 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  That was done with grace, seriously n/t (0+ / 0-)
              •  Then you see it wrong (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, you're missing lots of things.

                The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that civil unions were discriminatory against gay couples, that they caused harm to gay couples. That is why gay couples may now marry in Connecticut.

                New Jersey had a commission which studied the matter, and their results were that civil unions don't work.

          •  there are tremendous legal differences (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            notcaesar

            which end up giving gays the short end of the stick.

            I really like Christmas.

            by RadicalGardener on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:51:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can You Share Some (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kathy S, RadicalGardener

              Pleaese? I ask sincerley.

              •  taxes, for one. child custody issues (0+ / 0-)

                and parenthood status are not made clear under civil union, for another.  perhaps they differ in different states, but i know that in CA they don't allow for people being able to get joint insurance policies.  there are probate issues, as well.  

                in other words, it's not as if civil union is just another word for a legal marriage.  it's a lesser status legally.  

                the whole issue of children and gay parenthood is a huge emerging area of law.  for instance, can the person who is not biologically linked just walk away from child support when a couple breaks up?

                I really like Christmas.

                by RadicalGardener on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:52:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  That marriage is real (0+ / 0-)

            And civil unions are a made up concept.

    •  Um... (4+ / 0-)

      You do realize that "marriage" was/is a legal term that existed well before the introduction of Christianity, no?

      NARAL and HRC endorsed Lieberman. Therefore, I can no longer endorse them.

      by LeftofArizona on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:38:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This has nothing to do with churches. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, RadicalGardener

      It has to do with the State. I believe the State should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Civil unions for all.

      •  that's right. and make it the source (0+ / 0-)

        of ALL pertinent legal rights, and revoke the right of churches to extend the legal right of civil union.  no more and no less.  let the spiritual and religious rite be known as marriage as well as the spiritual, emotional and psychological state of union.  pull the rug out from everybody, esp. obama.  religious opinions - and that's all they really are - have no place in this argument.  and i for one do not want to see a whole group of people - the lbgt community - spend their lifetimes fighting for what is self-evidently theirs to begin with, and i don't want government and judicial time, money and energy wasted on what is shaping up to be yet another never-ending 'abortion rights' fight.

        let's get this thing up and running for good.

        I really like Christmas.

        by RadicalGardener on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:50:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  this is NOT abortion rites (0+ / 0-)

          in the case of abortion you can make a reasonable argument that someone is being harmed.  There is no victim, no party who's rights need to be weighed against those being denied rights.  Its a clear cut 14th amendment issue and sooner or later congress or SCOTUS will get it right.  20 yrs later we will be looking at that decision more like Brown v. Board of Education than like Roe v. Wade.

    •  I posted a comment lower down (0+ / 0-)

      about exactly this: you one of the people that fears the equality laws will force their church to perform gay marriages. Education, education, education.

  •  Um, (7+ / 0-)

    To Christians, marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having biological children.  That's it.

    NO.  Christianity is a two-thousand year old religion, with adherents on every continent.  There's tremendous variety among Christians on every conceivable topic - and has been since the beginning.

  •  It's about whether we want to win or not. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    descartes11, nickrud

    I agree that the gay community has every reason to hate Christianity etc.

    I agree that the author here has a very good point about not alienating huge swaths of the population for their ignorance.

    It really becomes a question of whether you want to succeed in acheiving equality or not.  As annoying as it is you still need the "mob" of "ignorant plebs".  And it is safe to say that those who do not support equal rights do not neccesarily do so out of malice or spite than out of ignorance and apathy.

    In the end its a numbers game.  Right now we're slowly winning as the older generations pass on and the new generation is significantly more tolerant towards gays.  We can help speed up the transition or we can work against it by alienating the minds we wish to convince.  

    Seems like an easy choice to me.

  •  You can keep your Christianity (7+ / 0-)

    out of my government, thank you very much.

    I will remind you that Jesus himself made clear many times that judgement belonged to God, and while people may choose to pray together, usually, you should pray alone, in private. In public, your duty to God is not to preach or patronize, it is to do good, to be kind to your fellow beings.

    The example Jesus set was about human dignity and justice. And, the man after which your religion is named never had a word to say about homosexuality. He made no distinction of race, or gender, or sex. He did make clear again and again that we all have dignity and worth, and that God values us all.

    If you further understand the history of scripture, the bible in general, and the Gospel more specifically, and the history of how the document came to its present form, you would understand that it is primarily a document of corrupt clergy of the dark and middle ages. True scholarship of the gospel tells a story of love, tolerance, and acceptance, and a rejection of the old laws of fear and retribution.

    Food for thought. But still, the Founding Fathers took great care that your religion would not stand in the way of my right to the pursuit of happiness.

  •  The rule here is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    descartes11, bluegrass50

    if you are not as comfortable with homosexuality as GLBT community is, then you are a bigot.

    If you have any moral reservations about the practice of homosexuality, you are a bigot.

    Even if in spite of you personal moral convictions you support equal rights for GLBTs including the right to civil marriage, you are a bigot unless you can say "gay is good."

    We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:33:48 PM PST

    •  Listen, I read the convo had the other day. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      abrauer

      One commenter was specifically saying s/he wasn't calling you a bigot. The commenter was asking you why you think homosexuality is wrong. Your only response was that everyone calls you a bigot.

      If you could, it would be wonderful to explain to us why you think it is immoral.

      Notice, I have not called you anything. I am asking you respectfully to defend your position.

      Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong. -Oscar Wilde

      by unspeakable on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:37:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "If you have any moral reservations about ... (6+ / 0-)

      ... the practice of homosexuality, you are a bigot."

      Yup.

      My loving is not up for your "moral" consideration. Period.

      I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

      by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:44:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's pretty safe to say... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, notcaesar, Johnny Q

      ...that someone who continually and proudly trumpets his "moral reservations" about who other people are is not really the aggreieved party he claims to be.  

    •  And some people (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, notcaesar, Johnny Q

      ....have reservations about the intellectual capacity of blacks.  But they're not bigoted or anything, right?  

      •  Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sychotic1

        racist, natzi, and communist.
        Deep.

        We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

        by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:52:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Godwin's Law Violation! (5+ / 0-)

          You LOSE!

          I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

          by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:00:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  that's not a counter argument (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KathleenM1, TiaRachel, Johnny Q

          you still need to explain how there is difference between having "reservations" about blacks and having "reservations" about gays?  

          This country does not have the luxury to entertain idiocy as if it is reasonable. --Digby

          by Thought Crime on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:00:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Believing that certian sexual practices are (0+ / 0-)

            immoral is not the same a racism.

            Sexal acts refer to behaviors not persons.

            For example adultry is immoral according to my conscience. No I don't think adultry should be criminal, no I don't think I should treat people who commit adultry any different then I would treat others, unless I was married to them.

            We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

            by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:10:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  *sigh* (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Renee, abrauer

              My partner died more than 7-1/2 years ago, and I've been celibate since. And because his illness was a long one, we'd stopped having sex about 2-1/2 years prior to his death.

              In other words, no "homosexual acts" for me for more than a decade.

              But even so, it's not the beautiful woman at the deli counter ordering sliced ham that takes my breath away, it's the handsome deli manager, with his stunning blue eyes and salt'n'pepper hair.

              Homosexuality is not about sexual acts, it's about who you fall in love with, regardless of whether or not you ever act on it.

              I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

              by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:35:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You have the right to fall in love with whoever (0+ / 0-)

                you want.

                You have the right to have whatever sexual orientation you want or have whatever the case may be.

                You have the right to your instincts, morality, and conscience.

                You don't need my blessing or agreement to sex/love with anyone.

                I am speaking strickly of my own conscience and what I consider to moral sexual behavior.

                We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

                by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:42:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fine. Will you vote to give me full civil rights? (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm a vapid mystic with a special, cult-like religious relationship to the destroyed reactor at Three Mile Island. ~ H/T to NNadir

                  by The Werewolf Prophet on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:54:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes absolutely (3+ / 0-)

                    I have stated that many times.

                    I have fought for GLBT rights as if they were my own because I believe that each should be free to live by the dictates of their conscience as far as sex/marriage/family is concerned as long as it is with consenting adults.

                    The problem I am having with GLBT community here is that it seems that they expect everyone to simply drop their moral/religious/tradition/opinion or whatever objections they have to homosexuality as if those who hold those views had no right to their own judgment or conscience. I think it would be a much better tack to appeal to fairness and equality. IMO more Americans are likely to agree with the statement that "GLBT deserve the same rights that I have" then they are likely to agree with the statement that "Gay is good."

                    Catholics and Protestants didn't stop killing each other in Europe because they reached agreement on religion. The stopped killing each other because they learned to tolerate differences. IMO tolerance is a much broader avenue to full gay rights than telling people who have conscientious objections that they are bad people.

                    We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

                    by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I would... (4+ / 0-)

                    ...but I don't think it should be a vote that people get to decide.  Unlike most issues, civil rights guarantees should come from the courts, not the people.

                    "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

                    by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:15:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  but this isn't about sexual practices (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slinkerwink, Johnny Q

              it is about homosexuality as a state of being, not a a practice.  

              And even if it was about sexual practices, what right do you have to judge the practices of others that do no harm and do not involve you?  As I noted in my comment below, "because the bible says so" is not a moral argument, it simply an assertion of dogma.

              This country does not have the luxury to entertain idiocy as if it is reasonable. --Digby

              by Thought Crime on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:36:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  yes you are a bigot if (5+ / 0-)

      If you have any moral reservations about the practice of homosexuality

      Because homosexuality isn't a "practice" it's a state of being.  I'm straight, but I didn't choose to be straight.  It wasn't something I practiced.  It's just who I am, and I see no reason to believe the situation is any different for gays.

      As for "moral reservations"; the only arguments I've heard supporting the immorality of homosexuality boil down to "cause the bible says so".  Well that's not morality nor is it a rational argument, it's just irrational dogma.  There is a word for the irrational mistrust of something or some group, and that word is "bigotry".

      The issue here isn't whether you believe "gay is good".  The issue is why the hell would you justify the belief that being gay is evil?  You don't have to be "as comfortable with homosexuality as GLBT community".  You just have to recognize that if you are uncomfortable with homosexuality, that means there is something wrong with you not that there is something wrong with homosexuals.

      This country does not have the luxury to entertain idiocy as if it is reasonable. --Digby

      by Thought Crime on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:57:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No there are other reasons (0+ / 0-)

        than religous reasons for thinking that homosexuality is immoral.

        As I stated higher up in thread I would be happy to have a discussion about the moral/ethical issues involved with homosexuality on another diary even though I am sure with this audience I am likely to be skinned alive.

        We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

        by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:36:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  if your refering (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q

          to the faux-psychological arguments, then yes you would be skinned alive, and rightly so.  No credible school of psychology today considers homosexuality inherently harmful or indicative of a psychological malady.  

          You can't even argue that it's unnatural anymore, given the extent to which homosexual relationships have been documented in nature.  

          This country does not have the luxury to entertain idiocy as if it is reasonable. --Digby

          by Thought Crime on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:54:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are entitled to your opinion (0+ / 0-)

            and if I is okay with your conscience who am I to argue with you.

            Again I would be happy to have this debate on another diary at another time even thought I have little doubt that I will find any support or agreement with this community.

            We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

            by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:17:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  If I may step in (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wednesday Bizzare, condorcet, Kathy S

            It is indeed true that homosexuality has always existed in all mammals, and presumably always will.

            That said, something being "natural" does not, in itself, denote a right to legal practice.  Some people are born with extremely violent temperments.  They don't get to be any more violent than those who are born with extremely non-violent temperments.  That's where the issue of nature v. nurture gets a little off the rails for me.  For example, if your brain functions differently in a way that causes an irresistible sexual attraction to children, this is "natural" in the sense that it is not your choice, but that in no way entitles you the right to act on those impulses.  With homosexuality, of course, we're talking about two adults entering into a mutual adult relationship, and as such I can think of no logical legal or moral reasons to resist such a relationship.  But whether it's "natural" or not is kind of a seperate thing.  

            To put it further, I lack a functional pancreas, and as such, am a Type 1 diabetic, just like millions of others who have this non-preventible and non-curable disease.  Now, I certainly believe I have the same rights as any other American.  My condition is "natural" in the sense that it's not something I could have caused nor prevented.  However, and here's where it gets tricky, that does not mean I believe the human body is supposed to be designed without a functional pancreas.  

            One of the only "intellectual" arguments against homosexuality that at least can be rationally debated is, for lack of a better phrase, the "tab A / slot B" problem.  In that, you can make a fair argument that the physical gonads of mammals are indeed designed to have sexual relations in male-female coupling, for the purpose of producing offspring.  Sometimes, when arguing for full gay rights, I'll come across this counterargument -- i.e., "come on, the parts don't fit!"  But that's where the confusion lies, because you don't have to convince someone that homosexuality is genetically equal to heterosexuality, but only that homosexuality, as a trait, does not predispose someone from having lesser rights than a heterosexual.  To put it another way -- I'm not arguing that my lack of a pancreas makes as much design sense of having a pancreas -- I'm just saying that this characteristic has nothing to do with my humanity.

            "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

            by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:38:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know why I am a heterosexual (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cartwrightdale

              I don't know why others are homosexual.

              Try as I may I can't see the world through their eyes.

              As a male I have no doubt that I am God's gift to women, and to my wife in particular.

              The best I can do is say to the GBLT community that they are entitled to the same freedom/privacy/respect/civil rights that I am in their sex/family life, even though I disagree with their conclusions.

              So if I am bigot, then at least I am a bigot who is on their side.

              We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

              by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:57:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  You can have moral reservations (0+ / 0-)

      your morality is your own and its no ones business but your own.  What you can't do is deny people rights because they don't share your faith, morality, or whatever else you want to call it.  If you believe that people are entitled to fewer rights because they are different then you (and I'm not saying you do) then you are a bigot.

  •  Bigotry comes in many forms (4+ / 0-)

    A white man who wishes black men no ill, but would not want his daughter marrying one is a bigot.  He may not support legal segregation, or light crosses on fire like a Klan's man, but if he still sees black men as inherently unworthy of his daughter because they are black then he is still a bigot.  He is less extreme in his bigotry, and less dangerous, but he is still a bigot.  He may even be a good man, but he is still a bigot.

    There is no rational reason for opposing gay marriage.  There is only the assumption that a gay partnership is somehow inferior to a hetero-sexual partnership, and yes, that is a form of bigotry.  It is not as extreme or dangerous a form of bigotry as gay-bashing homophobia, but it is a form of bigotry none the less.

    This country does not have the luxury to entertain idiocy as if it is reasonable. --Digby

    by Thought Crime on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:35:04 PM PST

    •  Makes you think if were are all bigots in one way (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      2lucky, Wednesday Bizzare, condorcet

      or another huh?  Let me know when we find a perfect human being.

      •  yes, we are, exactly! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wednesday Bizzare, condorcet

        Bigotry is pretty much endemic to the human condition. Like lust or greed it's something that afflicts us all to one degree or another.  It's one of the downsides to human nature.  Just as we recognize the need to control the other dangerous impulses our nature gives us, we must also recognize the need to control the human tendency towards prejudice (and not to enshrine it in law).  Otherwise, as history shows, great harm will be done to both individuals and to society as a whole.

        This diary, frankly, indicates a dangerous self-deception on the author's part.  To proclaim that someone is free of bigotry is about as credible as claiming that someone is free of any other sin.

        This country does not have the luxury to entertain idiocy as if it is reasonable. --Digby

        by Thought Crime on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:07:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually I thought he was making the case that (0+ / 0-)

          everyone, including those who are complaining should look at themselves first before charging Obama with bigotry.... since we might all be one in one way or another.

    •  Actually, as a purely theoretical (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wednesday Bizzare

      argument, I can safely say that a white man can not want his daughter to marry a black man AND still not be a bigot.

      Due to the challenges that both parties (husband and wife to be) would have faced in the past, i.e. bigotry, threats, violence, etc.  It might be a perfectly reasonable position for said father to wish his daughter to avoid such hardship without being a bigot.

      Just sayin'

      There are bagels in the fridge

      by Sychotic1 on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:28:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree. They're not bigots, they're misinformed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, descartes11, Johnny Q

    I think my grandma is an excellent example. She just turned 90 yesterday, and she still has a problem with interracial marriage. I don't know why, I don't think she really knows why, she just does. It's how she was brought up, you just didn't see that back then. But is she a bigot? Absolutely not. She doesn't have a racist bone in her body. She's never shown any contempt for African Americans, she's never used a racial slur, nothing. Her mother was by all definitions a progressive liberal back in her day and actively worked with the African American community during the civil rights movement. And my grandmother learned well, as she's also a very liberal person. Hell, she was supporting Hillary in the primaries, but she wasted no time throwing her support behind Obama when he won the primary, and even had to work on some of her friends who didn't want to vote for him because he was black. But despite all this, for some reason, she doesn't like interracial marriage. But she's not a bigot.

    I think a lot of people against gay marriage are the same. Sure, some are just bigots, no questions asked. But I think most of them, much like my grandma when it comes to interracial marriage, are just misinformed and misguided. But not bigots.

    •  Well said. My mother is the same way. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1
    •  sorry but (3+ / 0-)

      your grandma is a bit of a bigot.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say, having never met her, that your grandma is probably a wonderful person (on the basis that most grandmas are).  So please don't think I'm attacking her here.  What you've described is a subtle, mild and mostly harmless form of bigotry, but it is a form of bigotry.  Being a little bigoted doesn't mean she is a bad person.  It's just one personality flaw, and we all have our flaws.  

      Bigotry is an irrational, negative view of or feeling towards something.  This could mean hatred, it could mean mistrust, or it could mean a vague discomfort.  The point is it's irrational and categorical.  

      Because of the way the human brain works, being associative and highly responsive to conditioning, bigotry is pretty much endemic to the human condition.  Like greed or lust, it is in our nature t develop prejudices.  This wouldn't be a problem but history shows that negative-prejudices (i.e. bigotry) directed against groups of people can be extremely harmful.  This means it is vital to recognize and address those prejudices, because denial just lets them fester and grow.

      This country does not have the luxury to entertain idiocy as if it is reasonable. --Digby

      by Thought Crime on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:22:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  so many flaws in your logic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KathleenM1, Johnny Q

    a church can decide whatever they want regarding church doctrine, the state doesn't get to. & your marriage, built as it is on a lie (you'll find that transgression in the decalog) is as valid as the marriage between two women, one of which has convinced a priest she is a man.
    you fail, i think, to address the main thing you are arguing - that there is a non homophobic, non bigotted reason to oppose gay marriage.

    who cares what banks fail in yonkers - as long as you've got a kiss that conquers.

    by rasbobbo on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:39:09 PM PST

  •  Shake my hand...psyche (0+ / 0-)

    I've argued with people like you long enough.

    respice adspice prospice

    by Steven Payne on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:39:27 PM PST

  •  Why you are a bigot (6+ / 0-)

    The diarist writes:

    I think the average American, who is generally Christian, has come a long way, frankly.  It was only 10-15 years ago that gay marriage support was virtually non-existent, and many Americans thought that any gay relationship should be illegal.  We've especially made strides recently.  In 2004, only 33% of Americans supported gay marriage -- only four years later, we're up to 39%.  In 2004, only 40% of Americans backed legal civil unions -- only four years later that's skyrocketed to 55%!

    In 1865 the average southern plantation had come along way.  Only four years earlier, the Negro was held in bondage.  By 1865, they had made tremendous progress, no more slavery!!  Yes, the Negro was still denied fundamental rights, but hey, eventually his time would come.  If only he would wait.

    Fast forward to 2008.  If only gays and lesbians would wait.  Surely their time will come.

    Who now would argue that those in 1865 who denied the rights of Negroes to vote were not bigoted?  Why are you not bigoted now, if you want gays and lesbians just to wait their turn?  After all, you have your right to get married now.

    The inescapable conclusion is that if you voted for Prop 8 you are a bigot.  Sorry if that hurts, but look harder in the mirror if you don't see it.

    •  I was Just About to make this point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mia Dolan, mojave sky

      but you beat me to the punch, and eloquently so.  Yes, just because slavery was supported by the majority obviously did not make it correct.  Why should gays wait, just because the majority is in the wrong.  

      Quite frankly I am surprised by this diarists tone.  It seems that just because this issue doesn't effect him, then it is okay to just wait it out until things change.  I'm sorry but I do not buy into that logic.

      •  i don't read it the same way (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sychotic1, cartwrightdale

        I don't think the diarist is saying anyone should "just wait" because the majority is wrong -  I think he's saying that the best approach is to acknowledge that the majority is wrong but that we've made huge strides in the last few years and the best best is to continue reaching out until the majority is in the right.  But that may be projection.

        And none shall think how very young we were.

        by The Crying Monkey on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:53:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a "lapsed" Catholic and a I married a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erzeszut

    Southern Baptist 7 years ago.  She was willing to have a Catholic ceremony (to make my parents happy, we are both non-religious), but I just couldn't go through with the show.  The idea of taking marital instruction from a guy whose has never been married seemed like a waste of time to me.  

    Good luck with that.

    "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

    by lordcopper on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:41:40 PM PST

  •  "article of faith" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TiaRachel

    based on what? The Bible? And it's an article of faith that it was written by God. And it's an article of faith that such a God existed and wrote this book. Could all this be wrong? Could we say that it's an article of faith that gay marriage is NOT sacreligious? That parts of the God-written Bible indicate acceptance of it? This is a book that can be interpreted in many ways. I have faith that Jesus Christ would believe that if two men or women wanted to be married, they should have that right.

  •  They are bigots in my eyes. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    supernova, Johnny Q

    Inside a church or out, that kind of intollerance has only sick roots.

    An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM PST

  •  bigotry? (6+ / 0-)

    cartwrightdale,

    The problem here is that those who oppose gay marriage are trying to impose their religious beliefs on gay people.  All that gay people are asking for is equal treatment under the law.  The Bible and the Church and the Koran and the I Ching and the Tibetan Book of the Dead are all irrelevant in this instance-- we're talking about a legal matter.  

    It's worth pointing out that gay people aren't trying to define how a Christian ought to live-- but Christians are always trying to define how others should live. It's getting old....

    Regulate banks, not bedrooms

    by Eagleye on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:46:12 PM PST

  •  then why doesn't the "Church" require (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KathleenM1, TiaRachel, Johnny Q

    a fertility test before marrying a couple?

    Besides, marriage is a legal contract enforced by the state.  It is not primarily religious. Religion has co-opted marriage.

    The argument that a legal marriage is dependent on religion is ludicrous. Then why isn't polygmy legal?  Even if a "religion" "believes" in it?

    Your "argument" is a house of cards based on false assumptions.

    •  "Religion has co-opted marriage" (0+ / 0-)

      Or perhaps the state has co-opted marriage???

      It's a very very old concept.

      perhaps the state ought to get out of the "marriage" business altogether.

      Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don't pretend to understand. Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird

      by Judgment at Nuremberg on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:14:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is very old.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Judgment at Nuremberg, Tam in CA

        ... and it was a matter for the state (or at least, the families and the local property-inheritance laws) long, long before it was made a religious sacrament.

        Marriage is ancient, and its purpose was to codify property (which in some cultures included the wife) and inheritance -- to perpetuate not only families but keeping that family's wealth IN the family, so to speak.

        And on those grounds -- the legal grounds of who inherits, who has the default right as "next of kin" or "parent" or "spouse", all the rights that centuries of law and tradition have granted to married couples with regards to their legal standing to each other, and to their children -- THAT is the historical meaning of what marriage is.  

        The church only got involved in marriage during the middle ages -- and the church's primary motivation at the time was still related to property and inheritance, and the orderly continuation of (wealthy) families.

        The whole religious argument about what marriage is supposed to be about not nearly as old as many churches would like you to think. Just look at marriages in the Old Testament -- where polygamy and concubinage were more the rule than the exception (at least, if you were a king or wealthy). Marriage has evolved along with society -- and it's due (past due, really) for some further evolution.

        The state has always had a far greater interest in the legal ramifications of marriage than the church -- whether a church performs a wedding is not important, but the legal document signed and filed with the court IS, and that's why this matters.

    •  A few points (0+ / 0-)
      1.  The Catholic church doesn't allow an impotent (or parapalegic, for the same reason) couple to get married
      1.  I'm not making the argument that marriage is dependent on religion.  I'm making the argument that to many people, marriage is a religious concept, not a state concept.  Therefore, the way to win over these people is to educate them as to the legal definition of marriage and why it's completely separate from the thing that they think of, in their head, when they hear the word marriage.

      "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:34:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  what you've done, here (10+ / 0-)

    is put a very rational, level-headed spin on the 'reverse racism' argument.  At the heart of your argument--probably your thinking--you've created a false equivalent:  anybody who doesn't like a category of people is a 'bigot.'  

    This is so easy to show as false logic, that I am surprised how often I need to do it.  

    Let's say a lynch mob called The Westboro Baptist church hurls rocks at a gay person's house. In their violence, the mob yells 'God hates fags.'  That is bigotry--we all agree on that.

    Now, let's say that the victim of that assault turns around in turn and says,"I hate all member of Westboro Baptist Church." That is not bigotry.  

    So, now let's assume that same victim watches a news report in which some non-Westoboro Church people are interviewed about the incident and a few people say, "As a Christian, I amagainst homosexuality." That again is bigotry--this time, bigotry in support of someone else's bigoted act, but bigotry nonetheless.  Now, the same victim of the same assault responds to that news report by saying,"I hate Christians."  That is not bigotry.

    The point here is that hatred in response to bigotry is not the same as the bigotry.

    What's happened in the Catholic church is that they have figured out how to massage this argument to make it seem like anyone who ever criticizes them are 'bigots' like all other bigots.  The Evangelicals have largely done the same.  And then...people who mean well, but have not thought critically about what is going on, come along and tell everyone to get alone.

    When you do that, you've used a false equivalency argument to enforce the current order--which is is a system based on bigotry against gays and lesbians, not a system based on bigotry against Christians.  

    So...don't do that.

    ---
    Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:51:32 PM PST

    •  Fantastic comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluegrass50
      This diary has been officially demolished.
    •  This comment is so flawed (5+ / 0-)

      Because some Christians stoned my home, I can therefore say "I hate Christians" and not be bigoted?

      Is that the same as saying "Some Muslims crashed into the World Trade Center" and therefore I get to hate all Muslims?

      Bigotry is bigotry, no matter who espouses it.

      •  hatred in response to bigotry can be bigotry (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        descartes11, nickrud, blunami

        if it is an irrational, categorical hatred, i.e. hatred directed against an entire category of people without reason.

        So, now let's assume that same victim watches a news report in which some non-Westoboro Church people are interviewed about the incident and a few people say, "As a Christian, I am against homosexuality." That again is bigotry--this time, bigotry in support of someone else's bigoted act, but bigotry nonetheless.  Now, the same victim of the same assault responds to that news report by saying,"I hate Christians."  That is not bigotry.

        Actually the victims expressed hatred of all Christians is bigotry.  It is an understandable bigotry, but it is bigotry none the less.  After all not all Christians are against homosexuality, so it is irrational to hate all Christians just because some of them are.  

        If the victim of the assault confined his hate to all Christians who are against homosexuality, then one could argue that's not bigotry but rather reciprocity.

        This country does not have the luxury to entertain idiocy as if it is reasonable. --Digby

        by Thought Crime on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:29:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm glad you pointed it out (0+ / 0-)

        because my typing finger hurts.

      •  no it's not (0+ / 0-)

        You're just replacing the word 'hate' with 'bigot,' which doesn't work. They are not synonyms.

        I say, "I hate all Yankees fans."  Am I a "bigot"?  Of course not.  Calling something 'bigotry' includes a claim that the people in that class are victims who suffer some kind of structural deprivation as a whole.  In some cases this gets tricky (e.g., can wealthy blacks be bigots against poor whites? Can Jews be bigots against themselves?), but for the most part those are philosophical questions not social realities.

        Someone who says they 'hate Christians' can be a bigot--in ancient Rome or in some contemporary Muslim countries, but not in the U.S.A.--unless that person is part of a hitherto unknown American group that routinely beats up Christians.

        ---
        Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

        by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:42:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  is violence necessary for bigotry? (0+ / 0-)

          bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices  ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance - Webster.

          Nope. Hatred is part and parcel of it, though.

    •  Disagree on a few points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      descartes11, condorcet

      Now, the same victim of the same assault responds to that news report by saying, "I hate Christians."  That is not bigotry.

      I can't quite make that leap.  The victim in question has decided to hate a whole class of people based on the actions of a few.  To me, that still qualifies as bigotry regardless of circumstances.  

      Suppose a white guy is beaten up by some black thugs.  By your defintion, if he then says "I hate n***ers", he's not only justified, but you wouldn't even call it bigotry?  Really??

      Beside that, though, let me quote a bit from one of my comments above.

      If you're taught you're whole life that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle choice, not only by your family and church but also by your schools growing up (as most did, until fairly recently), and you've never really known any gay people, your problem isn't so much "bigotry" as it is ignorance.

      Similarly, if you're taught your whole life that redheadedness is a sign of brain damage, by your family and church and even school, and you've never really talked to any redheads, and someone asks you if a redhead should be allowed to be President, and you say no, because redheads have brain damage, are you a bigot?  Or just ignorant?  There is a difference.

      It's the same reason people who believed the world was flat weren't necessarily stupid.  

      Education is the answer, not namecalling, or (reverse)-bigotry.

      "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:28:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you are making up a definition of bigotry (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TNThorpe

        If you want to say that its bad for people to say they 'hate' Christians.  Fine.  Do whatever you want.  If you think it's helpful. But to call it 'bigotry' is to make an additional claim: that there is a social problem in this country that leads to the suffering and structural deprivation of Christians called 'bigotry' against Christians. And that is simply not true.  Not true at all.

        To just reduce any form of "not-liking" to bigotry is tantamount to abandoning critical thinking.  You might as well say that people who hate Yankees fans are 'bigots,' which is clearly ridiculous, but follows the same logic as you put down.

        ---
        Tired of violent language from right-wing pundits? Buy my book: Outright Barbarous

        by Jeffrey Feldman on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:32:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  incredibly bad comment (0+ / 0-)

      it's not bigotry to hate all members of a group if some of their members hate you.

      you are insane.

  •  religious people used to argue against (5+ / 0-)

    inter-racial marriage and inter"faith" marriage.  Being against same sex marriage is just another case of that type of bigotry.

    To want to deny citizens the basic legal right to marry (which is a legal right, not a religious privilege) is bigotry, plain and simple.  To argue otherwise is foolishness or willful ignorance and deception.

    What if a Jew wanted to marry a Catholic both wanted to get married but both their churches said no? Could the state marry them?  What if a black and white wanted to get married and both their churches said no? Could the state marry them?

  •  There are, in fact, (5+ / 0-)

    no non-bigoted reasons for discriminating against a group of persons, any group, in any way, unless there are compelling health and safety issues such as in the Typhoid Mary case.

    You say :

    I think it would be far, far more useful to ask most Americans why they oppose gay marriage, and you'll find its almost always an issue of faith.

    Fine, and "faith" is a gloss-over of "religion" which is bigotry.  With rare exceptions, religion is all about "we're good & they ain't"; "we're better than they are", etc.  "We are chosen/enlightened or whatever."  There is no rational, non-bigoted basis for discrimination.  Religion is neither rational nor non-bigoted.  

    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

    by enhydra lutris on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:55:07 PM PST

  •  tipped for an attempt, however lame (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, cartwrightdale

    to help identify the next demographic that needs to be targeted for education about gay marriage - those who fear that part of the 'gay agenda' is writing the laws in a way that will force their church bless gay marriages. I know more than a few who actually believe that; they see no difference between civil and sacred marriage.

    We'll never get the fundamentalists, but they're only a quarter of the voting population if I remember my presidential polling correctly. In general I'm against the 50% + 1 political game but sometimes it's the only practical solution.

  •  Why are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale

    Christians constantly persecuted in this country? I mean seriously all they want to do is tell everyone else how to live. Is that so wrong? I mean wasn't this nation founded as a "Christian" nation? In God We Trust Christians to make all the big daddy decisions for the rest of us....yeeesh!

    "Television: A medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs

    by Rudini on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:11:57 PM PST

  •  Excuses, excuses (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clues, Rudini, RadicalGardener

    I was raised in the Baptist faith, and grew up in a very Catholic community.  I've attended many weddings in my life, and never once has the bride and groom been required to prove that they were able to procreate prior to the issuing of a marriage license or prior to the priest/preacher officiating the ceremony.  

    Not once.  

    Not once have a hetero couple beyond the age of procreation been prevented from marrying- not even if one was barren and the other wasn't.  They still married.  

    Not once have I learned of a marriage revoked or annulled by The Church (Catholic or Christian) because the couple was unable or unwilling to procreate.  Have you?

    Marriage, civil unions- such loaded words these days.  Many here say to be for one is to be against the other, vice versa.  

    It's a simple thing.  Religious marriages are recognized by our government as a legal contract, just as civil unions performed at the county courthouse without a religious aspect are recognized.  In order for equality to prevail, all people must be permitted to use the same accepted standard.  

    Our country isn't going to change the way we marry just to suit one community or the other (despite the fact that other systems make more sense).  Our system for wedding two people together, religious or secular, must be open to everyone in order for it to be non-discriminatory.  

    •  ? (0+ / 0-)

      Not once have I learned of a marriage revoked or annulled by The Church (Catholic or Christian) because the couple was unable or unwilling to procreate.  Have you?

      Of course I have.  I even had to sign documents attesting that I wasn't impotent, and you can google all sorts of news stories of, say, parapalegics being refused marriage, etc., for that reason.  And, I have an aunt and a second friend who couldn't get remarried in the Catholic Church because they had been divorced, for a more common example.  

      "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:31:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  divorced isn't being barren. the catholic (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clues, mamabigdog, Johnny Q

        church doesn't recognise divorce - everyone knows that.  but it doesnot require fertility on either side as a prerequisite.  you are wrong.  

        I really like Christmas.

        by RadicalGardener on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:38:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is just not true (0+ / 0-)

          The Catholic Church does not marry impotent people, period.  You're right that they don't require a fertility test, but you do have to sign documents attesting to non-impotence.  It's a canonical impediment.

          Physical capacity for consummation lacking [16]. While a couple need not be fertile, both parties must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates "true semen" into the woman's vagina. (See [1] for details.) To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[17] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[18] "In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt."

          There are at least thirteen formal impediments to marriage, including previous marriage, incest (biological, adoptive, or even god-parent-wise), etc.  

          As I earlier stated, fertility is no longer required -- but impotence is a dealbreaker.

          "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:47:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  But if you're willing to lie anyway (0+ / 0-)

        what difference do those documents make?  Do you have to provide any scientific proof that you're not barren?  Of course, that in itself would be a hoot-and-a-half!  The Catholic Church requiring scientific proof for anything!  

        I'm willing to bet that lots of people sign those documents with no idea they're unable to procreate, or while willingly lying because they know they have no intention of procreating.  The Church does nothing to prevent that, although I'm sure they would uphold an annulment requested by a spouse who "outed" the other spouse for "lying" on those documents when they wanted out of the marriage free and clear.

        Although, that is a very different thing than the Church going out an physically following up with couples it has married to see if they have indeed procreated as they promised.  

        •  Well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          condorcet

          The funny thing is, of course, if you followed proper religious teaching, and never had premarital sex or even masturbated, how the hell would you know?  

          (The document, I believe, had to be signed under a "to the best of my knowledge" requirement.)

          "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:48:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Naturally, which proves my point (0+ / 0-)

            That the Church really doesn't care about the "procreation" purpose.  It's just window-dressing for them to hide their discriminatory selves behind.  

            •  Well I don't know about that (0+ / 0-)

              I mean, what would explain their (still-current) ban on impotent people marrying, if it didn't have procreational roots?

              "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

              by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:57:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think we've established (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wednesday Bizzare

                that there is a consistent ban on impotent people marrying.  Clearly, you think you have evidence that they will ban it for those who are outwardly physically unable, but that is a tiny, tiny portion of the people who go to the Church to marry.  Even if that is has been the case in some instances, I don't believe it is consistently applied.  

                We do know without a doubt that people have married without intention or ability to procreate, both with and without the Church's knowledge.  Therefore, there is no consistency, and no active ban.  It is a strawman argument they make.

                •  It's a ban asmuch as you have to sign (0+ / 0-)

                  a document attesting to your non-impotence, and the church will annual the marriage if it turns out of you was impotent.  It's the "Physical capacity for consummation lacking" canonical impediment.  

                  "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

                  by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:13:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That document means nothing (0+ / 0-)

                    as you well know, as it was your intent to sign it even if you had to lie to do so.  

                    To hold up a document signed with no proof behind it does not constitute a ban.  Why do you continue to insist that it is?  

                    Again, as I stated before, The Church does not go out to check on those it has married in order to confirm that indeed, they have procreated.  It simply does not happen.  

                    Accept it for the window-dressing that it is.  Either that, or we'll just have to agree to disagree, because this is becoming tiresome.

  •  I agree. But what struck a cord (4+ / 0-)

    with me was ChristieKeith's repetition that the reaction isn't an organized one. It's a visceral one.

    Those who are angry aren't looking at the daily Gay Memo that reads "today act angry about the Warren thing and talk about how bigoted are the people who agree with him about gay marriage."

    That makes sense to me.

    I am worried about visceral anger as driver of policy, though.

  •  Nope. (6+ / 0-)

    If you "oppose" gay marriage, you are a homophobe and a bigot.

    Period.

    It's like being against inter-racial marriage.

    I'm not gay, but I have enough perspective to understand that.

    It doesn't matter what religion you subscribe to, being against inter-racial marriage is bigoted.

    People are bigoted against gays and lesbians.

    That's just a fact of life.

    In time, people like you will progress enough to be able to recognize their bigotry for what it is.

    But denial from folks like yourself doesn't hide the bigotry from those of us who have already progressed far enough to see it.

    •  the author doesn't really need this, but (3+ / 0-)

      he is not anti-gay marriage, in fact recommends using the courts 'cuz he doesn't see the votes coming soon enough.

      Incidentally, I do think that this is an issue that should be settled by the courts, not the vote, anyway.  A year after the Supreme Court outlawed state bans on interracial marriage in the 1960s, 53% of Americans, according to the New York Times, still believed it should be illegal for blacks and whites to intermarry.

      I've had conversations with 'moderate' Christians, who don't understand the difference between the sacred and civil marriage. That's the crack that needs a wedge. That's what this diary is about: many seems to have missed that.

    •  Gay marriage is a pretty new concept (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      descartes11, condorcet

      The first nation to legalize it was the Netherlands, just seven years ago!!  The whole notion of "should homosexuals be allowed to marry" is so relatively new that you can't even find gallup or any other polling data on the subject until fairly recently.  To the average American, especially middle to upper-aged Americans, the concept is absolutely baffling and foreign, even today.  If you've always been taught something, by your family, church, and schools, it doesn't make you a bigot to be skeptical of something new and different.  That's why education is so important.  

      "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:56:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It does make you a bigot... (0+ / 0-)

        If it were about race, it'd be bigotry.

        There is no excuse for it.

        There's just no way around it for you.

        •  Absolutely not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kathy S

          As I detailed in comments above, not everyone who opposed interracial marriage was a "bigot" either, not by any rational definition of "bigotry".  Again, many of them likely were, as I acknowledge on this issue as well.  But not all.  You can't be a bigot if you haven't had the proper education necessary to make certain judgments.  We are all a product of our education, from our family, church, school, and everything else.  The fact that someone isn't instantly able to reject 100% of what they've been taught on a subject their entire lives, and support an entirely new way of thinking, that in and of itself does not make them a "bigot".  And if you just dismiss them as a "bigot", you're giving them no chance to learn more, learn a different perspective they hadn't considered, and change their minds.

          "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

          by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:45:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Seriously, all of them can take a flying leap. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RevJoe, TNThorpe, abrauer, Johnny Q

    From the folks that brought you the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials?

    Please.

    Marry into what you want, but doing it based on a lie and then trying to bless everyone on the way out with the notion that somehow they're not the same bigots that brought those horrors on the world?

    Please.

  •  i was raised catholic and went to catholic school (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RevJoe, Johnny Q

    schools my entire childhood and adolescence, and i never ever heard it said that you can't marry if you are not going to, or can't have children.  i think you are quite wrong about that.  elsewise couples past the age of child-bearing would not be married in the church, which is false; they are.  and how would anyone know whether they could bear children unless they had tried or been tested, and being tested is not a pre-requisite for marriage in the catholic church.

    the argument anyway, is false.  you could just as easily say people who grew up with segreagated drinking fountains aren't bigoted if they oppose having blacks drinks at their fountain.  they are.  and it's not name calling to referto them by the word that applies.  

    I really like Christmas.

    by RadicalGardener on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:33:55 PM PST

  •  oh, please (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RevJoe, Clues, TNThorpe, Johnny Q

    Your argument doesn't account for the famous "soft bigotry of low expectations".  Let alone the crude bigotry of wrongful expectations.

    You may find it sort of amusing to try out what you learned in Catholic Education class on us.  Well, I spend a little more time on conservative forums than you do, I'm sure, arguing gay marriage.  And there are plenty of nasty holes in the Catholic attempt to justify their hetero-only marriage doctrine.

    First of all, nowhere is procreation per se a virtue or commanded in the Bible.  It's basically a Catholic accretion.  It is extra-Biblical despite vague attempts to justify it from that.  The Protestant theory that the Vatican orders it to achieve the world dominion of Catholicism is ugly but about the only way to make sense of the whole set of otherwise nonsensical doctrines against contraception and such.

    When it is pointed out that gay couples do have and do raise children, that leads to all kinds of bizarre excuses why those are somehow not real families and somehow defective.  That is where one form of the serious bigotry of the anti-SSM crowd is: an unwillingness to accept SSM couples with their children as the nuclear families they incontrovertibly are.

    As for the exceptional virtue of penovaginal sex, such that the constant arrangement thereof is inferentially so precious and difficult for people that marriage must be created around it to protect it...that is basically an argument for a fetishism.

    More seriously, religious anti-SSM people generally believe (though will not state this in public debate) that a hetero couple can achieve some form of spiritual experience in sexual experience with each other.  This they deny the possibility of to gay couples.  (For all the not very Christian talk about body parts supposedly not fitting together right, that gutter talk is just a bad faith dodge for what they really mean.)  How could they possibly know this to be true?  Well, they can't.  

    Yet absent any evidence they know it can't possibly be.  And that is unvarnished, classical, simplest bigotry and bigotry entirely on Higher Morality religious territory.  It contains a denial that gay people have souls.  Press your priest on that question sometime, of whether gay people have souls or are defective in that department, and see what happens.

    Serious soc cons realize they can't win the argument about bigotry, Maggie Gallagher (who you are channelling) notwithstanding.  That is why they are going over to this faux victim spiel of bizarre religious rights paranoia and claims of persecution by violent, atheist gay people.

    We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.

    by killjoy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:42:21 PM PST

  •  They just think gays are beneath them. NM (0+ / 0-)
  •  Get your religion out of my government! nt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clues, Rudini, RadicalGardener, Johnny Q

    nt

    God Bless America shouldn't mean God damn everyone else.

    by MelKnee on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:49:57 PM PST

  •  I may be too mild-mannered, but (7+ / 0-)

    calling people (especially those we don't know personally) "bigots" more often than not strikes me as needlessly inflammatory.  It's a judgement about what's in a person's heart, and most of the time we can't know that (again, especially with someone we only know through the media).

    However, gay marriage is one of those issues where I just don't see a strong rational case against it.  I truly don't understand the opposition, especially the impassioned opposition from so many people.  So when people are so deeply, emotionally opposed to something for what seems like weak reasoning at best, it's hard not to think that there is a lot of prejudice at work.  As Keith Olbermann asked in his special comment to those who opposed prop. 8: "Why does this matter to you?"  I don't understand that either!

    With Obama, by the way, I'm not convinced he actually is against gay marriage.  I suspect he may have simply chosen not to test the conventional wisdom that someone who openly supports gay marriage could never be elected President. When I've heard him try to explain his opposition, his arguments don't hold water, and he's certainly smart enough to KNOW they don't hold water. Sometimes he'll even successfully refute his own argument -- for example, referencing religious beliefs but then quickly acknowledging that that's not an acceptable reason for prohibiting gay marriage in law.

    But anyway, with gay marriage and other gay-related issues, the relevant question is not whether Rick Warren or anyone else qualifies as a "bigot" -- it's how best to win the argument and change society.  I don't know the answer to that, but I truly believe villifying the opposition on a personal level will do more harm than good. It hardens the opposition and in their mind confirms their worst stereotypes about gay people.  And it also turns off a lot of people who might otherwise be persuadable. I'd actually compare it to anti-abortion activists who call pro-choicers "baby killers" and other similar names.  They would argue to the ends of the earth about why they believe the term is accurate, but that doesn't change the fact that it enrages pro-choicers (as well as probably a lot of people who are ambivilant on abortion), makes it easier for pro-lifers to be cast as fringe nutcases, and has probably changed exactly zero minds about abortion.

    •  Oops: (0+ / 0-)

      As Keith Olbermann asked in his special comment to those who opposed prop. 8:

      Meant to say SUPPORTED prop 8 (I suppose that was obvious...)

      •  Great special comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laura in WA

        I watched that one a couple times and got quite choked up.  

        I would also like to passionately proclaim that not everyone who opposes legal abortion is "anti-choice" or "anti-woman".  But that's for another diary.  :)

        "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

        by cartwrightdale on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:22:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  LOL. (0+ / 0-)

          Um, yes.  Opposing legal abortion makes a person "anti-choice," because that person wishes to remove the right for a pregnant women to choose an abortion.

          Wanting to take away someone's (legal) choice is absolutely, positively, 100% "anti-choice."  The semantics don't get much clearer.

          I would also call the same person "anti-woman," but I think the argument is fuzzier there.

          Liberal (adj.): Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

          by erzeszut on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:56:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •   I agree to this extent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet

      In a racist society, everyone is unavoidably racist to some extent -- black, brown, or white, invidious distinctions at some level are inevitable once the distinction of race gets a foothold.  So it's not really even meaningful sometimes to identify someone as racist.

      The most salutary thing you can expect in a racist society is that its members are not complacent about a damaging fact of their society, and themselves, that is not easily eradicated.  That demands awareness, vigilance and the will to change, both yourself and society.  We are all well advised to take the Hippocratic oath:  First, do no harm.

      And sexism -- don't even get me started about sexism, the most intractable of all prejudices.  What good does it do to call anyone a sexist, when I don't know anyone -- ANYone -- who doesn't act upon some unwarranted belief about a difference between males and females.

      Nevertheless, I don't know how to discuss or make sense of certain important political ideas without resorting to these descriptions, and so you end up dealing in degrees of prejudice.  When someone calls Obama a bigot with regard to gay rights, it may not be exactly in the same way that Rick Warren is a bigot, but the term doesn't seem inaccurate to me.  As you suggest, Laura, I'm just not sure it's a useful distinction.  And whether or not we call Obama a bigot, in honoring Warren he has undeniably honored bigotry.  And done harm.

    •  Yes on 8 folks don't THINK they are bigots.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dcinroc

      ...but only because they don't see it.  I don't mean to be inflammatory.  I don't like name-calling and I almost never do it.  This is an exception.  How else can you get their attention.  Maybe if enough people call it what it is, the truth will sink in.  The diarist is obviously a very intelligent person and maybe will eventually get it.

  •  man! this is a stupid diary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TNThorpe, abrauer

    I really like Christmas.

    by RadicalGardener on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:58:57 PM PST

  •  Heteronormative supremacist diary # 1784 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, RadicalGardener, abrauer, dcinroc

    there oughta be a law.....

    and the reason there's lots of what you call "self-flagellation" here is that Dkos doesn't march in lockstep, unlike the gay-hating morons and yes BIGOTS at RedState and elsewhere.

    I thought I liked streusel, but really it's strudel. It's like pie, but all rolled up.

    by TNThorpe on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:25:04 PM PST

  •  THANK YOU! for this diary. (0+ / 0-)

    the constant shouts of BIGOT are quite disturbing.

    •  Don't act in a bigoted manner (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pucknomad, DelRPCV, Clues, RadicalGardener

      and maybe you won't be referred to as a "bigot."

      See? Not that hard after all, is it?

      "Some people pay for what others pay to avoid." -- Howard Devoto

      by droopyd on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:56:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  huh? your knee jerk reaction (0+ / 0-)

        to a call for civility and reasoning rather than visceral anger is exactly the problem.

        what in that statement is bigotry? please tell.

        •  It sounds more like whining to me. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pucknomad

          And I'm sick and tired of hearing people whining about being referred to as a bigot. When in fact they hold views that a not inconsiderable number of people consider to be bigoted.

          If you don't like being referred to as a bigot, maybe you need to check out why people might think that you are.

          And just 'cuz someone posts here and is a "progressive" does not mean that they can't hold hard to some bigoted viewpoints.

          "Some people pay for what others pay to avoid." -- Howard Devoto

          by droopyd on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:16:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well in response (0+ / 0-)

            i could have said "it sounds like you've got a stick up your ass" but i guess that would make me a bigot since you know, we're not allowed say anything anymore.

            and again, you can keep avoiding the question, but which part of my statement was bigoted? maybe you should come off your high horse and let me know..mmkay?

            you can keep flying off the wall angry, throwing around extreme terms like "bigot" bc it makes you feel good, but you're not going to get anywhere.

            •  Well in response to your response... (0+ / 0-)

              Sensitive much? I didn't call YOU a bigot, darling. At least not yet.

              I was merely commenting on the incessant whining of people who seem to take umbrage at being called a bigot.

              I have no knowledge of whether you have ever been called a bigot. Or whether it is or is not appropriate for you to have been so called.

              But if you have been called a bigot, then my comment above stands.

              Generally, if someone is being referred to as a bigot, there's quite possibly a legitimate reason for it.

              Usually the person acting in a bigoted manner will not recognize that his or her actions amount to bigotry, even if other people do recognize the bigoted behavior.

              Maybe you'd like to take the stick from my ass and stop beating the dead horse you rode in on.

              "Some people pay for what others pay to avoid." -- Howard Devoto

              by droopyd on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:20:45 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Not nearly as disturbing as the bigotry. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, Clues, RadicalGardener

      If the campaign was all about "inclusion," where is the KKK representative at your inauguration?

      by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:57:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So if I support separate but equal public schools (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Endangered Alaskan Dem

    can I also be called "not a bigot"?

    I mean, the schools are equal right?

    And I know for a fact -- from first-hand experience no less! -- that the water in the "white only" and "colored only" water fountains is exactly the same. So supporting racially segregated water fountains is clearly something that "not a bigot" would do.

    "Some people pay for what others pay to avoid." -- Howard Devoto

    by droopyd on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:55:43 PM PST

    •  Today, you would be called a bigot (0+ / 0-)

      And rightfully so.

      But, if you had always been taught that "separate but equal" was right, by not only your family but also your church and your government and your school, and you had never really seen that separate but equal was unfair, then no, you would not be a bigot.  You would be uninformed.  That's the difference.

      "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

      by cartwrightdale on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:15:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, in this day and age anyone who claims to be (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pucknomad, EdSF, Tam in CA

        merely "uninformed" about "teh gay" is being more than a little disingenuous.

        It's not like "teh gay" hasn't been at the forefront of consciousness in this country for the past 25-30 years.

        Hell, it seems like "teh gay" is all that some people think about.

        "Some people pay for what others pay to avoid." -- Howard Devoto

        by droopyd on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:19:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think... (0+ / 0-)

        you might be confusing teachable with unteachable bigots.

        Uninformed or not, it's still bigotry, still prejudice, but might be teachable.

  •  I heard some Christian "leader" on the news (7+ / 0-)

    the other day talking about how we should not change the "5,000-year-old definition" of marriage as between one man and one woman.

    I wondered how long it's been since Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

    I wondered how long it's been since we changed the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman of the same race."

    I wondered how long it's been since we've grown accustomed to multiple marriages after divorces.

    I wondered how long it's been since we were required to marry barren widows of our brothers.

    I wondered where anybody ever got this notion of a "5,000-year-old definition" of marriage as between one man and one woman.

    If the campaign was all about "inclusion," where is the KKK representative at your inauguration?

    by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:01:48 AM PST

  •  Faith. God's plans. Oh dear, ummm...thinking..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clues

    "... marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having biological children.  That's it.  In the Catholic church you can't even get married if you're impotent.  Adoption options aren't enough -- you have to be able to biologically conceive and raise children as a couple.  That's the whole point.  It's God's plan, to Christians."

    Not a Catholic (thank god) so I don't know the truth of that but I'll accept it as a fact of Catholic teaching. It's circular enuf reasoning to be for real. Raising children. Only reason for marriage. God's plan. And you got that idea from where? The Bible? Where in the Bible does it say that? Oh, well, your church told you so, made that interpretation for you.....from some verse, somewhere? Of course, they would know. Perfectly logical!  

    Sounds more to me like the Vatican's plan to make more Catholics.  

    "To thine own self be true and it must follow as the night, the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." - Shakespeare

    by Soulmentor on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:54:49 AM PST

  •  Oh, and about those politicians.... (0+ / 0-)

    like the ones you mentioned. They aren't bigots. They just know where the votes are. You just need to know the difference between a bigot and a hypocrite and then you will get it.

    "To thine own self be true and it must follow as the night, the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." - Shakespeare

    by Soulmentor on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:06:15 AM PST

  •  Damn!! Doesn't anyone have a dictionary?!?!?! (0+ / 0-)

    "To thine own self be true and it must follow as the night, the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." - Shakespeare

    by Soulmentor on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:07:56 AM PST

  •  A paragraph of nonsense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dcinroc

    And yes, there are some Christians who even "hate" gays.

    No shit! How many would that be? Just a few? and the quotemarks around the word hate is a nice touch. What? it really isn't hate, just a slight Christian disapproval?

    But to be honest, I've found a lot more gays who really, passionately, savagely HATE HATE Christians

    Really? that's amazing given that we're so outnumbered and what bold, italic fervor you ascribe to people you obviously know so well. Sorry, most of us find the opposite to be true and believe me we've suffered as a result of it. You know, as in a lot of that good Christian hate talk (gays are pedophiles) finds it's way to the baseball bats that crack our skulls open on city streets, or into the minds of our LGBT youth providing just enough self-hatred to make them 3-4 times more likely to kill themselves and even into the pants of gang-rapers that brutally atttack lesbians. In any event, do you seriouly believe that there isn't a very strong reason why gays might resent Christians, when Christian churches (most notably the Catholic one) have fought tooth and nail for years against every single right gays have fought for and we're not just talking marriage here, we're talking housing and employment rights which we are denied in 33 states in no small part owing to Christian hatred flowing through Christian money and Christian influence (privilege). And what have we done to them to merit their hatred? Call them bigots? Sorry, it's more like that we have sex that threatens them.

    Even the author of the diary I'm responding to describes herself shaking with uncontrollable rage. "Bigotry" goes both ways.

    And here's the biggest piece of nonsense. When she said she was shaking with rage, it wasn't at Christians, it was at the garbage written on this site over the past week by diarists and commenters who have attacked us. I'm afraid that means diarists and commenters like you and I'm afraid she's right.

  •  What do you do when irreconcilable positions.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tam in CA

    collide?

    By nature, I am not much of a shouter and avoid "loaded" words like bigot. However, I have also talked to, round-tabled with and otherwise dialogued with opponents of gay rights (including marriage) for a few decades.

    My experience is that once the Bible enters the picture, the dialogue is over. The words may continue to flow, but there is no "dialogue".

    I am not going to argue theology, because that is irrelevant to my rights, though I will argue the seperation of church and state, which is really the crux of the matter anyway.

    Furthermore, in my experience, yes, opponents of same-sex marriage ARE bigots. All of them. Does that mean that they are raving hate-mongers? No. But, it does mean that they see me as a seperate class of humanity (though sometimes not quite human either).

    Perhaps, if I ever heard an anti-marriage argument that wasn't predicated on some form of prejudice, then I'd change my mind. Simply excusing bigotry as "tradition" doesn't change the fact that it is bigotry.

  •  I've heard all this before (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, Clues

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:23:32 AM PST

  •  Is it not bigotry, when (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, Clues, Tam in CA

    you decide your religion is so right it can control the civil actions of others?  

    Is that not just as disturbing, that people in a nation that is supposed to be free from the fetters of a State religion believe their own religious beliefs should limit the rights of others?  

    And is it not equally disturbing that we have become so poisoned by the idea we must "respect" religious ideas that an obviously bright and progressive fairly long-time contributor to Daily Kos thinks this demonstrates good will, rather than an incredibly evil underlying slouch toward fundamentalist Christianism, where gays (and Jews, and Hindus, and Muslims, and athiests, and and and) are stripped of their rights, all in the name Name of imaginary beings?

    Truly terrifying.

    The United States will end, not with the "Ka-BLAAAAM" of a bomb, but with the "Thump" of a Bible dropping heavily upon our Constitution.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 04:30:33 AM PST

    •  It's because... (0+ / 0-)

      ...the majority is always right. See, they are more than willing to let you believe how you want, but if they're in the majority and they all vote a certain way, that's just tough luck. They would also agree that the majority in Nazi Germany was right, along with the majority of slave owners, and the majority of men denying women their rights.

  •  Good GigglyWiggly - diary couldn't be more flawed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, dhonig

    First, I find this diary offensive and silly purely from a logical debate point of view.  

    The author tries to make a number of points about why people opposing gay marriage are not bigots, and muddies them all up with weird personal anecdotes about the catholic church (which don't seem to be true, or at least don't seem to be logical).  But stripping away the chitchat, the points seem to be:

    I think it would be far, far more useful to ask most Americans why they oppose gay marriage, and you'll find its almost always an issue of faith.

    This is the diary's main premise -  that bigotry and intolerance are not bigotry and intolerance if they are based on someone's religion.  The idea is that if your religion tells you to behave in a certain way, it's perfectly understandable and acceptable that you should require every other being on the planet to follow the same restrictions.

    The diarist attempts to separate himself from this view, in giving the impression that he does not feel this way himself, but he insists that we not call these people bigots, because, after all..they have religious reasons for wanting to keep certain others in second-class status.

    The diarist then posits that if a bigot doesn't HATE someone, then it's not bigotry.

    So even if you still claimed that everyone who opposes civil unions and marriage was a bigot, do you really think the 16% difference in approval between "marriage" and "civil union" can still be explained by "hating" gays?

    Not only is this equivalence incorrect, but it leaves one with a sort of icky mental image of the religious right running around saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin."  (And leaves me personally with a vivid mental image of the pink and fluffy Dolores Umbridge which I'd rather not have first thing in the morning, thank you very much.)

    Later, the diarist attempts to make the point that if ignorance can be proved, then the person is not a bigot.  Also wrong.  Ignorance may be a leading CAUSE for bigotry, but it doesn't negate it or excuse it.

    I'm not agreeing with the position, here.  But I'm also not going to simply dismiss 60% of the country as gay-hating morons.

    Your argument, as stated in the title is not whether people hate gay people.  It's whether these people should be called bigots.  

    And so, why not dismiss them?  You've nearly proven by this point that these are ignorant, religious bigots.  These are people who insist that all the rest of us follow their religious beliefs because they are too bigoted to allow the rest of us our own belief systems.  You can't seriously make the argument that , because there are so many of them, they aren't bigots.

    In summary -  you are mixing your arguments to the point where you're really making no point at all.

    Your argument that people who oppose gay marriage are not bigots is not supportable.  Your own statements assign them a great deal of religious bigotry.  (Which extends far beyond the issue of gay marriage).

    You then attempt to make the argument that all people who oppose gay marriage do not hate gay people.  This shows a profound grasp of the obvious.  We all knew this.  (And now I've got the mental picture of Dolores Umbridge again, thanks very much.)

    Author's note -  I am not a member of the GBLT community, except insomuch as I am a friend to the community.  I am, however, sick and tired of the religious community trying to tell me what to do, and feeling like they have every right to do so.  Religious people have every right to throw non-conformists out of their church, but they need to stop trying to throw us out of the world.  We won't go.

    •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

      This is a thorough, thoughtful, well-reasoned, and rational rebuttal to my diary.  I wish there were more of these.  :)

      Some of your critique of my equating "bigotry" and "hate" are valid only if you read my diary in a vaccuum, however.  Since the diary was a direct response to another diary which was equating bigotry with hatred, then to properly rebut this, I had to at least attempt to explain how and why bigotry is not always "hatred", or at least that, if you're assigning "hate" as a fundamental component of "bigotry", then I certainly don't think 60%+ of the nation fits that definition.

      However, my primary quibble with your response would be with this:

      This is the diary's main premise -  that bigotry and intolerance are not bigotry and intolerance if they are based on someone's religion.

      This is not how I'd define the thesis statement of this diary at all.  I'm not defending beliefs because they come from religion, any more than had they come from any other source.  I'm certainly not stating that religion gives one an excuse to be bigotted.  My fundamental point was one of strategy moving forward, understanding where religious people are coming from, and how calling them "bigots" is unhelpful, and, in my mind, often inaccurate.  It's not just "religion", it's family, school, etc., that has taught individuals their whole lives that marriage is between a man and a woman.  You're asking them to abandon a life-held concept in a remarkably short amount of time.  The first nation in history to approve of same sex marriages was the Netherlands, just seven years ago.  You can't even find Gallup or other polling data on American views of same-sex marriage until the end of the 20th century -- it was a concept that wasn't even discussed or debated openly until relatively recently.  I remember when the subject came up with my grandmother not too long ago, and her reaction was the same as most older people (i.e. "what?  a guy marrying a guy?  what are you talking about?")  It's a completely foreign concept to many, many people.  And, as most foreign concepts, your instincts are to cling to what's familiar, especially if you've tended to think of "marriage" as a religious concept, not a state-sponsored arrangement.

      Suppose you went back to the time where nearly everyone believed the earth was stationary.  It's what they had been taught their whole lives.  But there was this growing Galileo-fueled minority who insisted that, actually, the earth revolved around the sun.  As is the case of gay marriage, younger people would have likely been more willing to hear such alternative viewpoints, as they hadn't yet had decades of belief under their robes.  But the older generations would dismiss it as poppycock -- because it simply went against everything that they've ever believed.  Is this necessarily "bigotry" of new ideas?  Quite possibly.  But is it universally "bigotry"?  I don't think so.

      Now, suppose your aim was to convince a majority of people that this new theory was correct.  Which would work better:

      1. Call people who still support an earth-centered universe "idiots", or
      1. Patiently and respectfully explain, in scientific and practical terms, why this new theory is actually superior to the way they've always viewed the universe

      Again, the point of this diary was a direct rebuttal to another diary which insisted the proper course was to not talk to anti-gay-marriage supporters at all, to shun them, to call them bigots, and move on.  This, to me, seems a strategy doomed to fail, which constituted the second part of my argument.  Nearly all the comments to my diary have been about whether opposition to gay marriage, in itself, necessarily constituted bigotry, which was the first part of my argument.  To this, it seems the line whether you agree with me or not has a lot to do with your own personal definition of "bigotry".  (And, I suppose to a lesser extent, whether having views that, on a particular issue, are "bigotted", whether that makes you a "bigot" as a universal descriptor.)  

      A few hundred years ago, do I think that those who still believed, until proven otherwise, that the sun revolved around the earth, were idiots or bigots?  No, of course not, for reasons of presentism in addition to common sense.  Today, do people who have always been taught, by family and religion and the government and school and, well, because that's just how things have "always been", are all those people "bigots"?  Or are many of them just those whose human nature is skeptical of sweeping new concepts?  Given the age breakdowns of gay marriage support in opinion polls, I'd argue the latter.  

      "Don't hope for a stronger America. Vote for one." - John McCain. I agree!!!

      by cartwrightdale on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thoughtful diary. I'd like to see how your (0+ / 0-)

    tip jar fares.  Anyone who hydrates you for this diary proves your point.  Thanks for presenting some food for thought.  

    Having credibility when making an argument is the straightest path to persuasion.

    by SpamNunn on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:52:58 AM PST

  •  By this reasoning, enslaving blacks is A-OK (0+ / 0-)

    because it's based on people's religion.

    "And he (Noah) drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon their shoulders and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

    - (Genesis 9: 20-27)

    St. Augustine was all for it:

    "for it is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin."

    - The City of God, Book XIX, chapter 15

    The Bible thinks slavery is just dandy:

    Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.

    - 1 Peter Chapter 2:18

    5
    Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ,
    6
    not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart,
    7
    willingly serving the Lord and not human beings,
    8
    knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

    - Ephesians Chapter 6:5-8

    9
    Slaves are to be under the control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction, not talking back to them
    10
    or stealing from them, but exhibiting complete good faith, so as to adorn the doctrine of God our savior in every way.

    - Titus Chapter 2:9-10

    Go ahead, enslave the black people, after all, if your Bible says it, it's not bigotry.  Right?

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

    by dhonig on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:23:44 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site