NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is being prejudiced or intolerant towards gays called homophobia? Isn't it really sexism?

sex·ism -
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Isn't saying 'No, you cannot love or marry this person because they're not the sex you should like' gender-based discrimination?

And yes, I see the 'especially against women' part, but there are many more women than gay people.

Why is being prejudiced or intolerant towards gays called homophobia? Isn't it really sexism?

sex·ism -
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Isn't saying 'No, you cannot love or marry this person because they're not the sex you should like' gender-based discrimination?

And yes, I see the 'especially against women' part, but there are many more women than gay people.
No. Sexism is based on gender. Homophobia is based on fear of one form of human sexuality. It is not related to gender since both, males and females, can be homosexual.

Why is being prejudiced or intolerant towards gays called homophobia? Isn't it really sexism?

sex·ism -
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Isn't saying 'No, you cannot love or marry this person because they're not the sex you should like' gender-based discrimination?

And yes, I see the 'especially against women' part, but there are many more women than gay people.
you bolded the portion that answers your question. sexuality and gender are not the same thing.

..hm. That's true.

yay! problem solved!
:D

exactly. "discimination because of gender" only means discrimination because of the gender of the person discriminated against, and cannot be read as referreing to the gender of the person loved by the person discriminated against.


but what is worth noting is that homophobia, as somebody already mentioned, translates into "the fear of sameness", which should in this case be interpreted as the fear of sexuality directed at people of the same gender. but anyway, my point being that the word homophobia puts emphasis on the fact of that fear of the thing you don't know or are unfamiliar with, and i itself isn't really a word for hate against that thing, but rather the fear of it. but then, don't we always , like a reflex, first oppose what we don't know or seems weird to us?

I think homophobia is connected to sexism. I think many homophobes are afraid of the traditional division between men and women being torn down.

I think homophobia is connected to sexism. I think many homophobes are afraid of the traditional division between men and women being torn down.
i'd agree with that. i don't think i have ever met a homophobe who wasn't also totally dedicated to traditional gender roles.

Why is being prejudiced or intolerant towards gays called homophobia? Isn't it really sexism?

sex·ism -
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

"...social roles based on gender." Such as, "You are a man, therefore you have sex with a woman." So yes, by that second definition, homophobia could be considered sexism, in a sense, because it is directed against people because they don't conform to normal gender roles.

Well sexual partner preference is not the same thing as gender - unless you redefine gender beyond the tradional male'/female/neuter but then you are using a nonstandard definition and connot reference it to other defintitions based on standard defintions. Note that I am not equating gender with sex. but merely stating that it is not acceptable to confuse gender with sexual preference, a biological male may be of female gender and have a preferance for females as sexual partners (or didn't you see the Sally Jesse Raphael show on lesbians trapped in mens' bodies?). It is playing into stereotypes to confuse gender with sexual preference - there are lesbians who don't wear flannel and there are gay men who are not hairdressers, even if Hollywood wouldn't want you to think so.


As for the equivalence of percieved discrimination agaisnt homosexuals and homophobia, I see a form of viewpoint blindness, the innate belief that their viewpoint is the sole reasonable one and the only way a person can hold a different view is if they are not deciding according to reason.

i'd agree with that. i don't think i have ever met a homophobe who wasn't also totally dedicated to traditional gender roles.Great Bottle, when do you want to meet? I am a homophobe (opposed to homosexual marriage) but have no dedication to traditional gender roles (which causes problems).

Sexism is part of homophobia, but only really applies in cases of effeminate men or emasculate women.

I don't think being opposed to the marriage makes you a homophobe, disliking homosexuals themselves is homophobic your just shallow thats all :)

I don't think being opposed to the marriage makes you a homophobe, disliking homosexuals themselves is homophobic your just shallow thats all :)I have nothing against homosexuals. While I've never asked, I am pretty sure most of the men I've slept with are homosxuals, or at least bisexual. And I liked them enough to have sex with them.
But I am called a homophobe merely for opposing homosexual marriage. Maybe the people using the term are using it incorrectly by your standards. Nonetheless, they still use the term to describe people solely on the basis of an objection to homosexual marriage or other forms of "homosexual rights". It may very well be that they are stereotyping, "people who are opposed to homosexual marriage are all homophobic".

It's a rational problem. In order to give a rats ass who someone you'll never meet marries, you have to think that that marriage will have some sort of adverse effect to you, a phobia if you will.

Otherwise, why do you care? Traditionally the grooms parents would get a bunch of money from the brides to 'buy' her. We've grown out of a lot of stupid traditions, mostly by stopping and asking, "Why are we doing this?"

Unless we're going to invalidate sterile marriages or married people who don't intend to have kids, then really, there's no reason to not allow gay/lesbian marriages.

Dammit, I got off track. Only the first paragraph is relevent to the discussion.

It's a rational problem. In order to give a rats ass who someone you'll never meet marries, you have to think that that marriage will have some sort of adverse effect to you, a phobia if you will.I suppose my opposition to homosexual marriage is based on a fear, but not a fear of homosexuals. I'm just afraid of government dictating to society what a marriage is.

I suppose my opposition to homosexual marriage is based on a fear, but not a fear of homosexuals. I'm just afraid of government dictating to society what a marriage is.

*blink* Huh? You don't want homosexuals to be able to marry because you are afraid of the government dictating to society what a marriage is? :eek: I don't get it. That's precisely what they are doing by BANNING homosexual marriage!

I suppose my opposition to homosexual marriage is based on a fear, but not a fear of homosexuals. I'm just afraid of government dictating to society what a marriage is.
But by not allowing it, it already is-moreso than it is now. That fear is already realised.

Why is being prejudiced or intolerant towards gays called homophobia? Isn't it really sexism?

sex·ism -
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Isn't saying 'No, you cannot love or marry this person because they're not the sex you should like' gender-based discrimination?

And yes, I see the 'especially against women' part, but there are many more women than gay people.
People on these boards seem to get uptight about differentiating sex and gender, especially in these "homosexuality" threads. Sexes can be altered, genders can be adopted; some are sticklers for a definition of "gay" by sex only. I'm quite sure the homophobe doesn't differentiate when his/her fear kicks in. So yes, homophobia may very well be sexism. I think it would really depend on what part of the gay person or gay relationship causes their particular fear.

Dictionary.com states homophobia simply as a fear of (or hate of) gays and lesbians. I wonder how the homophobe feels about hermaphrodites?

One question, Does anybody here think that gay couples should recieve the same marriage rights as heterosexual marriages? I think that they should. Afterall, they are living liek any other heterosexual couple, just without the benefits.

I have nothing against homosexuals. While I've never asked, I am pretty sure most of the men I've slept with are homosxuals, or at least bisexual. And I liked them enough to have sex with them.
But I am called a homophobe merely for opposing homosexual marriage. Maybe the people using the term are using it incorrectly by your standards. Nonetheless, they still use the term to describe people solely on the basis of an objection to homosexual marriage or other forms of "homosexual rights". It may very well be that they are stereotyping, "people who are opposed to homosexual marriage are all homophobic".
I think it is just flung as an insult, perhaps by people who don't understand or care what it means. I've found many insults are flung that way, without thought or care so long as they hurt.

I suppose my opposition to homosexual marriage is based on a fear, but not a fear of homosexuals. I'm just afraid of government dictating to society what a marriage is.
buh? so, because you are afriaid of the government dictating to society what a marriage is, you believe the government needs to dictate to society what marriage means?

*blink* Huh? You don't want homosexuals to be able to marry because you are afraid of the government dictating to society what a marriage is? :eek: I don't get it. That's precisely what they are doing by BANNING homosexual marriage!No. society already has a defintion of marriage - consisting of a union between two people of different sex. Society is gradually changing its defintion to include people of the same sex, but society has not quite reached that point yet although many segments have. The most society is willing to accept is the "civil union", a functional equivalent for legal purposes to a marriage, and some segments of society are unwilling to even go that far. Just read the legal briefs and the decision in the Mass. case Goodridge and you see that the whole point of making homosexual marriage legal is to force society to accept what it currently finds unacceptable.

Well Will, do YOU personally think that gay marriages be recognized under civil law? I have had this conversation with several people over the past year, and not one has given me a complete answer. I do understand that it is a very difficult topic to choose sides on for most people and I can see in both lights; however, it kinda bothers me with the answers that I have been given. Right now I don't know where you stand, however, right now it seems to me that you do support the issue. Excuse me if I am wrong.

No. society already has a defintion of marriage - consisting of a union between two people of different sex. Society is gradually changing its defintion to include people of the same sex, but society has not quite reached that point yet although many segments have. The most society is willing to accept is the "civil union", a functional equivalent for legal purposes to a marriage, and some segments of society are unwilling to even go that far. Just read the legal briefs and the decision in the Mass. case Goodridge and you see that the whole point of making homosexual marriage legal is to force society to accept what it currently finds unacceptable.

You mean what the shrinking majority finds unacceptable. People are slowly becoming aware that gays are people.

I believe that marriage is an agreement and contract brought on by two people who are sincerely in love with each other who wish to spend the restof their lives together. the only reason why Bush (in my opinion) is against the issue is because of what the church believes. However, the church tends to to be hyprocritical (i don't know how to spell that word). People tend to fear something that they don't understand and have been raised up seeing only the stereotypical side of an issue or are just following what the "majority" seems to be siding on or what is most accepted in society.

Well Will, do YOU personally think that gay marriages be recognized under civil law? I have had this conversation with several people over the past year, and not one has given me a complete answer. I do understand that it is a very difficult topic to choose sides on for most people and I can see in both lights; however, it kinda bothers me with the answers that I have been given. Right now I don't know where you stand, however, right now it seems to me that you do support the issue. Excuse me if I am wrong.
I am all in favour of marriages being recognized under any system a couple, gay or otherwise, chooses to get married by --justice of the peace, church, common law, or shipboard captain.

Dictionary.com states homophobia simply as a fear of (or hate of) gays and lesbians. I wonder how the homophobe feels about hermaphrodites?
They don't have a problem with them, so long as they only fuck themselves. :)

buh? so, because you are afriaid of the government dictating to society what a marriage is, you believe the government needs to dictate to society what marriage means?No, society already has decided what marriage is, and homosexual marriage is not it.

?
sex·ism -
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

*emphasis mine.

Isn't this definition of sexism sexist itself? :p

No. society already has a defintion of marriage - consisting of a union between two people of different sex. Society is gradually changing its defintion to include people of the same sex, but society has not quite reached that point yet although many segments have. The most society is willing to accept is the "civil union", a functional equivalent for legal purposes to a marriage, and some segments of society are unwilling to even go that far. Just read the legal briefs and the decision in the Mass. case Goodridge and you see that the whole point of making homosexual marriage legal is to force society to accept what it currently finds unacceptable.

Like freeing slaves or women being allowed to vote or segregation? One of the things that makes a republic (slightly) better than a pure democracy is that there are certain inalienable rights that the majority is forced to acknowledge for the minority even if it disagrees. Otherwise, there'd never be progress.

I really could care less what people do as long as they don't hurt anyone. If being homosexual is indeed wrong, shouldn't we give people a choice? If people are straight because it is right, then aren't they morally better than those who are straight because of the fear of force?

Like freeing slaves or women being allowed to vote or segregation? One of the things that makes a republic (slightly) better than a pure democracy is that there are certain inalienable rights that the majority is forced to acknowledge for the minority even if it disagrees. Otherwise, there'd never be progress.

I disagree. It is the authoritarian mindset of the people that is at fault, not the idea that they are fit to rule themselves. Our culture itself is authoritarian, moreso than the government is. It is that that needs the most work.

How can someone pyshically be afraid of homosexuals? How many people actually get into a "Holy hell, I'm going to piss my pants I'm so scared" frenzy when they see/encounter a gay person?

As for myself, I'm not prejudiced to homosexuals. I don't cower in fear if I see two guys kissing. Would I try to avoid seeing two guys kiss? Yeah. But I'm not going to have a heart attack out of fear if it happens. On a personal note, I used to be far less tolerate of gays until I fell in love with my girlfriend, who is open about her bi-sexuality......

How can someone pyshically be afraid of homosexuals? How many people actually get into a "Holy hell, I'm going to piss my pants I'm so scared" frenzy when they see/encounter a gay person?

As for myself, I'm not prejudiced to homosexuals. I don't cower in fear if I see two guys kissing. Would I try to avoid seeing two guys kiss? Yeah. But I'm not going to have a heart attack out of fear if it happens. On a personal note, I used to be far less tolerate of gays until I fell in love with my girlfriend, who is open about her bi-sexuality......

Me!

Well, that's the most common misconception. Homophobes don't fear homosexuals. They fear homosexuality. And most(most. not all) homophobes fear it because they are frightened of latent homosexual fantasies of their own.

You know who started the whole anit-homosexual feelings? it was the Roman Catholic Church. Yeah, I'm catholic and all, but I disagree with them on soo many issues that I have created my own "religion". I am now a Roman-Catholic-Wiccan-Druid. I believe in some or most aspects of the three religions. the later two are more accepting of homosexuality and that's cool in more ways than one.

Let all Homosexuals gain all civil rights that accompanies marriage. It is their right to marry one another!!!! :fluffle:

Sex is biological, gender is determined by societies. Some societies have recognized more than two genders, accounting for those who are pre-disposed at birth to be homosexual. The aim to ban homosexuals being recognized by marriage is based on the fear of changing society. Even now in the U.S. we're talking about the ills of the "if it feels good, do it" generation of the 60's. There is a very strong element that still rejects the civil rights changes that occured.
Fear is more powerful than reason.

Fear is more powerful than reason.


You know what it suck that that is how the world is today. everyone is soo ignorant. the truth is jumping infront of you naked waving a colorful rainbow flag, yet you still ignore it and act like you don't see it at all. what is up with today's society?!?!?!


TODAY'S SOCIETY :gundge:

Like freeing slaves or women being allowed to vote or segregation? One of the things that makes a republic (slightly) better than a pure democracy is that there are certain inalienable rights that the majority is forced to acknowledge for the minority even if it disagrees. Otherwise, there'd never be progress.Segregation is an excellent example (the others aren't and puzzle me). Government in the hands of a few outspoken interests estabished a variety of laws in an effort to force a relucant society to accept the values endorsed by this minority despite the fact it was beyond what society was willing to accept at that time, and segregation came into existance. Eventually society was able to reestablish control over government and get rid of segregation.

No, society already has decided what marriage is, and homosexual marriage is not it.
society had once decided that slavery was acceptable, that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold property, and that the world was flat. why should i care what "society" thinks, if it is unjust or refuted by empirical evidence? hell, 70% of Americans believe that i am an inherently immoral person because i don't worship the Judeo-Christian God...i think that pretty much disqualifies that 70% from making any moral judgments :P.

Plus, please remember phobia is fear or hatred of...
see xenophobia, fear or hatred of strangers or guests.

I`m not homophobic , it`s a hatred not a fear ...

I hope that was sarcasm. If not you should be called "idiotic" bastard.

And to all religious nuts: if GOD gave us free will why would YOU take it away?

originally homophobia meant a fear of being homosexual. Then it transformed into a fear of homosexuals. It has been overused to the point that the phobia portion is now meaningless and is today just an insult used to insult people of different opinion than one supporting homosexual ideals.

By definition - phobia - is an intense, overwealming, debilitating fear. If you have ever really known someone who is phobic you would know what that is. The person who FREAKS out, shakes uncontrollably, just because the see a PICTURE of a spider.

Becuase of overuse, homophobia is now juat a meaningless insult - a last resort of the desperate - a first choice of fools. It has less definition and meaning than words like slut or fag.

originally homophobia meant a fear of being homosexual. Then it transformed into a fear of homosexuals. It has been overused to the point that the phobia portion is now meaningless and is today just an insult used to insult people of different opinion than one supporting homosexual ideals.

By definition - phobia - is an intense, overwealming, debilitating fear. If you have ever really known someone who is phobic you would know what that is. The person who FREAKS out, shakes uncontrollably, just because the see a PICTURE of a spider.

Becuase of overuse, homophobia is now juat a meaningless insult - a last resort of the desperate - a first choice of fools. It has less definition and meaning than words like slut or fag.

*sigh* totally and unequivocally wrong. try again, you have completely failed to grasp the English language.

The word homophobia was constructed by the heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals’ dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals’ internalised oppression. The word first appeared in print in 1969.

Homophobia is defined as the irrational hatred, intolerance, antipathy, or fear of homosexuals and/or homosexuality. The "phobia" ending does NOT, nor has it ever, meant that a homophobic person necessarily fears homosexuals, though that is often the case.

society had once decided that slavery was acceptable, that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold property, and that the world was flat. why should i care what "society" thinks, if it is unjust or refuted by empirical evidence? hell, 70% of Americans believe that i am an inherently immoral person because i don't worship the Judeo-Christian God...i think that pretty much disqualifies that 70% from making any moral judgments :P.If you don't care what society thinks, then why use government to force homosexual marriage down society's throat? The whole point of making homosexual marriage legal is to force society to accept homosexuality, at least that was the argument in Goodridge.

I think when you talk legislating policy, that's when sexual orientation becomes a gender issue.

If you make it illegal for people of the same sex to marry each other, you are saying they can't marry someone because of their sex. A gay person would be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex (even though they might not want that, it would be allowed) so you aren't banning gays from getting married. You are banning marriage based on the gender of the persons involved.

Thus it becomes a gender descrimination issue.

I`m not homophobic , it`s a hatred not a fear ...

If you actually think about it, you'll find that any hatred you care to name stems from fear in one way or another (and it is usually a strong fear that makes you 'hate' something.)


If you don't care what society thinks, then why use government to force homosexual marriage down society's throat? The whole point of making homosexual marriage legal is to force society to accept homosexuality, at least that was the argument in Goodridge.

Sometimes society needs to have things 'forced down its throat'. Society is terrified of what it doesn't know and doesn't understand and is deathly afraid of change, especially when the change is to do with the aforementioned unknown.

If you were sick, and someone offered you medicine to cure your sickness, but you were convinced it was poison, you'd refuse to take it. After they forced it down your throat, you'd realise it wasn't poison at all, quite the opposite in fact, and you'd be grateful that they forced it.

If you don't care what society thinks, then why use government to force homosexual marriage down society's throat? The whole point of making homosexual marriage legal is to force society to accept homosexuality, at least that was the argument in Goodridge.
Forcing it down our throats? I don't see anyone advocating forcing people to enter into homosexual marriages.

So by the same token, why should homosexuals have heterosexual marriage forced down their throats? It should be left up to consenting adults with whom they have relationships. It's called Pursuit of Happiness, and that's one of the so-called Inalienable Rights.

If you don't care what society thinks, then why use government to force homosexual marriage down society's throat? The whole point of making homosexual marriage legal is to force society to accept homosexuality, at least that was the argument in Goodridge.
i don't think the point of granting equal rights to homosexuals is to force anybody to support homosexuality or homosexual rights. i don't care if society likes gays, i simply believe all citizens deserve to be treated equally under the law. nothing about a homosexual relationship renders the participants unable to fulfill the obligations of a marriage contract, so there is no lawful reason to forbid them to enter such a contract and to have that contract recognized by the government.

people can hate gays as much as they like. people can hate blacks, or Jews, or women, or atheists as much as they like. but they cannot use their dislike of people who are different to deny rights to minority groups. i don't give a crap how they FEEL about it, and i am totally uninterested in wasting time trying to convince them. i only want the LAW to respect my rights, and the individual citizen can feel as pissed about that as he pleases :).

forcing the government to acknowledge homosexual unions doesn't constitute jamming anything down the throat of any individual citizen; if a law were passed requiring all citizens to have gay marriages THEN you might have a case, but i don't see that being proposed by anybody. the suggestion that giving gays the rights they deserve is "forcing" anything on the homophobes is ludicrous, and isn't grounds for a damn thing; allowing black people to eat in our nice white restaurants makes racists unhappy, but nobody gives a flying fark about that...why is the issue of homosexual rights any different?

i only want the LAW to respect my rights, and the individual citizen can feel as pissed about that as he pleases .


HEAR, HEAR!

allowing black people to eat in our nice white restaurants makes racists unhappy,

excellent analogy

Sometimes society needs to have things 'forced down its throat'. Society is terrified of what it doesn't know and doesn't understand and is deathly afraid of change, especially when the change is to do with the aforementioned unknown.

If you were sick, and someone offered you medicine to cure your sickness, but you were convinced it was poison, you'd refuse to take it. After they forced it down your throat, you'd realise it wasn't poison at all, quite the opposite in fact, and you'd be grateful that they forced it.I sort of agree with the first point, but disagree with using government to do so. To use your medicine analogy, it's like someone holds a gun to your head and says "I'll kill you if you don't drink this medicine to cure your headache". Sure taking the cure is better than having an headache, but is right to kill someone for not taking their medicine? Are you saying that people do not have the right to make thier own choices and it is right to force people to do what some else thinks is best for them? If I run the government then, is it right for me to make a criminal od anyone who watches more than two hours of TV a day, because it is better for them (in my judgement), or should I allow them the freedom to make their own decision regarless of what is best for them? I tend to go the freedom route myself, but I understand that many tolitatians are out there. Not that I am an absolute freedom advocate, I believe it appropriate for society to use government to force compliance eith things which threaten the existance of the society. To return to your medicine example, I consider it appropriate to hold a gun to the head of a person who is sick with a disease which will kill most of the population of the world if the person doesn't take the medicine, and force them to take the cure under threat of death. But here the caveat is that it muct be the survival of the society which is jepordized, not merely a benefit which might accrue - if the person takes a medicine, everyone in the world will live for two years longer because it will mutate into a life extending disease dos not justify using force to make the person take the medicine.

Everything government does has it's genesis in force, obey these laws or we'll do nasty things to you. If government does not have the right to use force it doesn't function well, for example without the threat of prison how much would any government collect in taxes? The question is not about whether the government has the right to use force, but whether or not the government should use force in any particular instance. Take taxes again, people might agree that building a school is a fine idea, but is it so fine an idea that anyone who does not wish to contribute money to it (pay taxes) should be thrown in jail? Until the society in question feels that is a fine enough an idea to justify throwing disenters in jail, the segment of society interested in building a school is unjustified in using government to force disenters to agree with their position, even though society will probably benefit from having a school.

i don't think the point of granting equal rights to homosexuals is to force anybody to support homosexuality or homosexual rights. i don't care if society likes gays, i simply believe all citizens deserve to be treated equally under the law. nothing about a homosexual relationship renders the participants unable to fulfill the obligations of a marriage contract, so there is no lawful reason to forbid them to enter such a contract and to have that contract recognized by the government.

people can hate gays as much as they like. people can hate blacks, or Jews, or women, or atheists as much as they like. but they cannot use their dislike of people who are different to deny rights to minority groups. i don't give a crap how they FEEL about it, and i am totally uninterested in wasting time trying to convince them. i only want the LAW to respect my rights, and the individual citizen can feel as pissed about that as he pleases :).

forcing the government to acknowledge homosexual unions doesn't constitute jamming anything down the throat of any individual citizen; if a law were passed requiring all citizens to have gay marriages THEN you might have a case, but i don't see that being proposed by anybody. the suggestion that giving gays the rights they deserve is "forcing" anything on the homophobes is ludicrous, and isn't grounds for a damn thing; allowing black people to eat in our nice white restaurants makes racists unhappy, but nobody gives a flying fark about that...why is the issue of homosexual rights any different?
Wow you really like playing with terms to confuse the issue don't you?

First off, unions between homosexuals and government recognition isn't the issue. I support civil unions and thought it was an excellent example of Solomonic wisdom when it came about, my personal proposal (which will never become law) is that govenment cease entirely to recognize marriages and only recognize civil unions, regardless of the sexes and/or genders of the participants. But civil unions are not the issue and have not been for some time, the issue is homosexual marriage - the right of a couple of the same sex to enter into a union resembling in all ways (except the sex of the members) marriage as defined by society and have it recognized as a marriage instead of just a union between two people of the same sex which resembling that which society calls marriage. But where does this right come from? Justify this right if you want to talk about rights.

I sort of agree with the first point, but disagree with using government to do so. To use your medicine analogy, it's like someone holds a gun to your head and says "I'll kill you if you don't drink this medicine to cure your headache". Sure taking the cure is better than having an headache, but is right to kill someone for not taking their medicine? Are you saying that people do not have the right to make thier own choices and it is right to force people to do what some else thinks is best for them?

<snip!>


It isn't, really. No-one is holding a gun to the head of society and saying "If you don't your medicine, I will take you out back, whip you senseless, then shoot you."

'Society' or in this case, 'the majority' is like a teenager. Totally convinced that it knows what is right and resentful of anyone who tries to tell it different. But just like a teenager, you have to let the majority make its own mistakes so that it can see for itself that it's being stupid. But once again, just like a teenager, you can't let a teenager make its mistakes if those mistakes are going to hurt others (the minority). This is where the government, like a responsible parent, has to step in and prevent the arrogant, dangerous majority from making that particular mistake, no matter how much they kick and scream that they hate you.

That, especially in a Representative Republic, is one of the functions of government. Without it, you end up with your society addicted to crack and selling its body to greasy old men.

Heh heh, yes, I certainly like my metaphors.

This distinction should be apparent in all unions, heterosexual and homosexual.

Marriage is what is publicly acknowledged by one's cultural peers. Civil union is the making of that bond legally liable. Heterosexuals can have a wedding, but they are not legally united until the marriage certificate is filed. Who cars what the legal paperwork is called--marriage...civil union...ball and chain...legal nuptual agreement.

If there is a box on the application that requires you check your gender, and you can be denied on that grounds, that is state sanctioned discrimination. Now if a church wants to refuse to perform cultural weddings on the basis of gender, that's where separation of church and state steps in. The state can acknowledge the union whether or not the church does. It's a legal contract.

Homophobia can be summed up as either an irrational fear, or irrational belief in my mind.

I suppose my opposition to homosexual marriage is based on a fear, but not a fear of homosexuals. I'm just afraid of government dictating to society what a marriage is.

You mean like defining it in a constitutional codicil as opposed to leaving it ot the whims of the fossil vote?:D

I don't understand the argument against gay marriage, I really don't. It doesn't destroy the institution of marriage, I mean straight couples have done that well enough. It doesn't harm a straight person's marriage. It just seems like a dictum of the majority to a minority. I'd have to agree that somethings are better forced down society's throat, i.e. desegregation of the 1950s.

I suppose my opposition to homosexual marriage is based on a fear, but not a fear of homosexuals. I'm just afraid of government dictating to society what a marriage is.
Then you must really hate DOMA O.o

Cannot think of a name said:
It's a rational problem. In order to give a rats ass who someone you'll never meet marries, you have to think that that marriage will have some sort of adverse effect to you, a phobia if you will.

I think this is a pretty valid point. I honestly wouldnt call "marriage" between a man and a man what I consider "marriage", but it really doesnt affect me. We all interpret things differently. Let em do whatever they want, it doesnt really affect what I believe in or my lifestyle. Though I'm not going to run out an crusade for gay marriage, a constitutional ban on it is very obvious paranoia to me....

BTW, doesnt each gay man kinda remove them for the competition for women...boosting the ratio of women to straight men in my favor?

Homophobes are just plain insecure. If they weren't around, I don't think I even have to discuss this stuff. Sex, no matter who's involved, is a private thing...if your over 18 at least, what you do with other consenting adults is your own damn business.

BW

BTW, doesnt each gay man kinda remove them for the competition for women...boosting the ratio of women to straight men in my favor?


Not when you subtract the gay women.

ALLOWING someone to do something is not "forcing acceptance" of gay marriage. You are allowing someone else to do something that does not affect you, not being forced to accept it yourself. I, for one, DONT HAVE TO ACCEPT IT AT ALL. Because I don't see how it changes things for me. If you see allowing gays to marraige as telling you "You must accept this." then thats half the prob right there. Let them have it in their lives, you certainly don't have to have (or accept) it in your own life.

Other than the fact that no one would PROHIBIT gays from marrying, which is just a statement on paper, how would it affect ANYONE who did not beleive in it or understand it?

BW

Dude! There's FAR FAR fewer lesbians than gay men. It's NOT equal by any means! Most homosexuals are MALE. BW.

Dude! There's FAR FAR fewer lesbians than gay men. It's NOT equal by any means! Most homosexuals are MALE. BW.
You cannot substantiate that as fact. The reason you might believe that is that women are expected to have close personal relationships with other women. no one notices, and few question whether they are involved sexually.

I would imagine that if you are a male, you would rarely have the occasion to be privy to the information unless the lesbian was outspoken about it.

but just because you are unaware of it makes it no less common.

If ur discriminative against homosexuals ur just scared coz ur 1

You mean like defining it in a constitutional codicil as opposed to leaving it ot the whims of the fossil vote?:DI'm not sure about the meaning of the last but I certainly dislike the idea of a consitutional amendment. Of course if a consitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman passes, it is a pretty strong indicator that society isn't anywhere close to accepting homosexual marriage. Amendments can be amended themselves (prohibition anyone), so an amendment would not forclose the possibility of society ever accepting homosexual marriage. I cannot support an amendment, but if one passes I would take it as a sign that I have gravely misread the temper of the times and that society is nowhere near ready to accept homosexual marriage.

You cannot substantiate that as fact. The reason you might believe that is that women are expected to have close personal relationships with other women. no one notices, and few question whether they are involved sexually.

I would imagine that if you are a male, you would rarely have the occasion to be privy to the information unless the lesbian was outspoken about it.

but just because you are unaware of it makes it no less common.Well I can sorta disagree, as studies have been conducted which show homosexualtiy to be 2 to 3 times as common in men as it is women. The problem is I don't trust the methediology of those studies. Just one point. men and women tend to define what constitutes sex differently / more men consider oral sex to be sex than women do for instance. Evidence exists which supports the contention but you really should examine it yourself and decide whether or not to accept it.

BTW, doesnt each gay man kinda remove them for the competition for women...boosting the ratio of women to straight men in my favor?

An amusing formulation of an attitude (straight male) I like goes like this.

Homosexual men don't bother me, it thins out the competition.

Homosexual women don't bother me, I mean I know why they find women attractive.

What I cannot for the life of me understand is the heterosexual woman, why are they sexually attracted to men?

There's a comedian who said,

"We're all a little gay. My friend then says to me, 'Hell no I'm not! I'm not the least bit gay!' So I ask him, 'Do you like porn?' 'Of course I like porn! You know that!' Then I ask, 'So you only watch pornos with two women?' 'No! I like to watch a man and a woman making love!' I ask, 'Do you like it when the guy has a tiny half-flaccid penis?' 'Hell no, I like big hard throbbing co- ...' *realization dawns* " -Ron White

Then you must really hate DOMA O.o
No, why? The Deffense Of Marriage Act does not prevent any jurisdiction (other than the federal government) from defining marriage any way it wants to. Nor does the DOMA prevent any same sex union or the members of said union from being treated as a marriage or the members thereof [i]except[/i[ that they may not use the words "marriage" and "spouse" for to refer to themselves for federal purposes. It does mean that the state of New York does not have to recognize a civil union from Vermont as confering married status to the people in the union, but it does not prevent the state of New York from doing so.

I don't understand the argument against gay marriage, I really don't. It doesn't destroy the institution of marriage, I mean straight couples have done that well enough. It doesn't harm a straight person's marriage. It just seems like a dictum of the majority to a minority. I'd have to agree that somethings are better forced down society's throat, i.e. desegregation of the 1950s.Now you've lost me. Segrergation was the government policy forced down society's throat, laws requiring seperate public accomedations and such. Desegregation was society's rejection of these laws and forcing the governments to comply with society's standards.

Well I can sorta disagree, as studies have been conducted which show homosexualtiy to be 2 to 3 times as common in men as it is women. The problem is I don't trust the methediology of those studies. Just one point. men and women tend to define what constitutes sex differently / more men consider oral sex to be sex than women do for instance. Evidence exists which supports the contention but you really should examine it yourself and decide whether or not to accept it.
Good point about oral sex. I hadn't even considered that, but that would skew the results. If the woman does not define her activity as sexual activity, then even she may not define herself as "lesbian".

It is a social meme that a woman that has a sexual interaction with another woman is not necessarily gay, but a man that has ever done it with another man IS DEFINITELY gay.

So maybe it's just that more gay men define themselves as gay than do gay women.

they may not use the words "marriage" and "spouse" for to refer to themselves for federal purposes.

READ: they don't get the marriage exemption on their tax return, or the privilege of bringing in a foreign spouse, or if they are a federal employee, they can't cover their partner on their insurance.

How is this not discrimination?

It is a social meme that a woman that has a sexual interaction with another woman is not necessarily gay, but a man that has ever done it with another man IS DEFINITELY gay.

So maybe it's just that more gay men define themselves as gay than do gay women.Yep, the meme is annother reason I distrust the studies. I haven't seen a single study showing Male homosexuality as more common than Female homosexuality that I entirely trust, and there are numerous different reasons. Sex and sexuality is a very touchy subject and I think any survey in the field should be reviewed with a highly critical eye for the methadology.

Now you've lost me. Segrergation was the government policy forced down society's throat, laws requiring seperate public accomedations and such. Desegregation was society's rejection of these laws and forcing the governments to comply with society's standards.
Because the incident at Little Rock was because everyone was RUSHING in for desegregation :rolleyes:

READ: they don't get the marriage exemption on their tax return, or the privilege of bringing in a foreign spouse, or if they are a federal employee, they can't cover their partner on their insurance.while this is true, there is nothing preventing congress from writing a regulation allowing homosexual couples to recieve a marriage exemption (or possibly the IRS, I'm pretty sure the wording of the law allows the IRS freedom to adopt a "domestic partner" standard). While admiting there is no right to bring in a foreign spouse of the same sex, there is no right to bring a foreign spouse of different sex either - again, there is nothing preventing a law allowing same sex foreign spouses to be brought into the country. As for the insurance, if DPBOA ever passes this will not be an issue. Again, while confering the status of marriage to homosexual unions would force all these things to occur, nothing in refusing to define homosexual unions as marriage prevents from occuring.

while this is true, there is nothing preventing congress from writing a regulation allowing homosexual couples to recieve a marriage exemption (or possibly the IRS, I'm pretty sure the wording of the law allows the IRS freedom to adopt a "domestic partner" standard). While admiting there is no right to bring in a foreign spouse of the same sex, there is no right to bring a foreign spouse of different sex either - again, there is nothing preventing a law allowing same sex foreign spouses to be brought into the country. As for the insurance, if DPBOA ever passes this will not be an issue. Again, while confering the status of marriage to homosexual unions would force all these things to occur, nothing in refusing to define homosexual unions as marriage prevents from occuring.
But the real question is: What is the real argument as to why homosexuals shouldn't be married? I mean Civil Unions in the eyes of the federal government are not recognized anyhow.

Because the incident at Little Rock was because everyone was RUSHING in for desegregation :rolleyes:
I point out that Little Rock was the government refusing to follow the dictates of society and cease the governments policy of maintaining seperate schools for the races. The stand off was caused by Govenor Faubus's using force in the form of the national guard to keep students from attending school in a desegregated manner. In this case the government was using force to subvert societies will and enforce the will of a minority on the majority.

I point out that Little Rock was the government refusing to follow the dictates of society and cease the governments policy of maintaining seperate schools for the races. The stand off was caused by Govenor Faubus's using force in the form of the national guard to keep students from attending school in a desegregated manner. In this case the government was using force to subvert societies will and enforce the will of a minority on the majority.
sorry, not quite: while the National Guard was brought in, thus muddling the matter of who is the "government" in this case, the National Guard was being brought in as a result of a local government official who agreed with the popular sentiment of the local population (very strongly anti-desegregation). the FEDERAL government passed the law requiring desegregation, despite the fact that the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS did not believe it was the right thing to do at that time. the majority of society didn't want desegregation in that school, yet the federal government enforced desegregation upon them any way because the rights of the minority are more important than the feelings of the majority.

I point out that Little Rock was the government refusing to follow the dictates of society and cease the governments policy of maintaining seperate schools for the races. The stand off was caused by Govenor Faubus's using force in the form of the national guard to keep students from attending school in a desegregated manner. In this case the government was using force to subvert societies will and enforce the will of a minority on the majority.
Are you insane? The FEDERAL government called in the 101st AIRBORNE to keep the public from killing the nine black students. The white members of society did everything THEY could to prevent it before the 10st was deployed. Why do you think there are films of citizens screaming at tose black students? The only reason desegregation began was because Eisenhower, despite his distaste for it, followed the ruling of the Brown v. Board which mandated the desegregation. There were protestors infront of the Supreme Court all the time during those years. People did NOT want desegregation. It's what they got.

But the real question is: What is the real argument as to why homosexuals shouldn't be married? I mean Civil Unions in the eyes of the federal government are not recognized anyhow.The second part is a seperate issue, but the reason is that a marriage is defined by society as a union between people of different sexes. Marriage is not a governemnt invention but a societal invention, and government does have the right to dictate to society what constitutes and marriage and what does not.

=But civil unions are not the issue and have not been for some time, the issue is homosexual marriage - the right of a couple of the same sex to enter into a union resembling in all ways (except the sex of the members) marriage as defined by society and have it recognized as a marriage instead of just a union between two people of the same sex which resembling that which society calls marriage. But where does this right come from? Justify this right if you want to talk about rights.
first of all, until gays are granted civil unions that carry the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage, i think civil unions very much ARE the issue, and every gay person i know agrees with me. just because you don't think it's an issue any more doesn't make that the truth :).

what the hell does "society" mean? at least 20% of America supports allowing gays MARRIAGE (not just civil unions), so do those people all not count as members of society? i'm not religious, and my heterosexual union won't be religious, so does that mean that i shouldn't get to call it a marriage simply because most Americans think marriage is religious in nature? are they "society" and i am not?

are gay people not "society"? does the will of "society" get determined merely by majority rule, and if so then doesn't that mean that anybody not in the majority simply isn't a member of "society"?

while this is true, there is nothing preventing congress from writing a regulation allowing homosexual couples to recieve a marriage exemption (or possibly the IRS, I'm pretty sure the wording of the law allows the IRS freedom to adopt a "domestic partner" standard). While admiting there is no right to bring in a foreign spouse of the same sex, there is no right to bring a foreign spouse of different sex either - again, there is nothing preventing a law allowing same sex foreign spouses to be brought into the country. As for the insurance, if DPBOA ever passes this will not be an issue. Again, while confering the status of marriage to homosexual unions would force all these things to occur, nothing in refusing to define homosexual unions as marriage prevents from occuring.
Then if it is the same in all respects, except for the name, then

WHO CARES?

If it walks like a marriage, and talks like a marriage, then for godssake CALL it a dang marriage.

Why would anyone argue over a freaking single word? Are you going to abolish the use of the word 'god' by atheists????

first of all, until gays are granted civil unions that carry the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage, i think civil unions very much ARE the issue, and every gay person i know agrees with me. just because you don't think it's an issue any more doesn't make that the truth :).

what the hell does "society" mean? at least 20% of America supports allowing gays MARRIAGE (not just civil unions), so do those people all not count as members of society? i'm not religious, and my heterosexual union won't be religious, so does that mean that i shouldn't get to call it a marriage simply because most Americans think marriage is religious in nature? are they "society" and i am not?

are gay people not "society"? does the will of "society" get determined merely by majority rule, and if so then doesn't that mean that anybody not in the majority simply isn't a member of "society"?
Ya know, I WAS going to post the thing more or less...but you know, it'd get repetitive. :D

The second part is a seperate issue, but the reason is that a marriage is defined by society as a union between people of different sexes. Marriage is not a governemnt invention but a societal invention, and government does have the right to dictate to society what constitutes and marriage and what does not.
the government isn't trying to. all gay people want is for the GOVERNMENT to legally recognize their unions as LEGALLY equal to heterosexual unions. most gay people don't give a damn if "society" accepts them, since they have been alternatingly marginalized, hated, feared, and ignored by society for their whole lives. most gay people old enough to marry have long since stopped caring what "society" thinks, they just want their rights.

Ya know, I WAS going to post the thing more or less...but you know, it'd get repetitive. :D
hehe, glad to hear there is a like mind around these parts.