i'm not sure if you're mistaking my name on purpose or not.
It wasn't on purpose, sorry about that.
Let's see if you can do better: is it possible to disagree with gay marriage and yet not be a homophobe?
i guess, right now, i can't do better. you got me. right now, i honestly don't believe that opposition to gay marriage, in a mainstream political context (i'm of course not including groups like bash back because they don't operate within a mainstream political network) cannot be motivated by homophobic beliefs.
Ok, so to sum up, anyone who disagrees with your political goal (gay marriage) is a homophobe. This seems extreme and unfair to me. How can you be so sure without hearing them out? And that's the real focus of the thread -- is it ethical to eliminate all dissent via boycotting? Why couldn't the CEO have explained his position and maybe kept his job? Hell, he could have said, "I was wrong." There wasn't even that opportunity. This is a recipe for a lockstep political philosophy -- which isn't good for democracy.
can you give me some specific examples of what could inform a negative opinion of gay marriage that are not specifically related to the fact that the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex does not fit the "traditional" concept of marriage? can you tell me if any of those examples pose a real threat to the legalization of gay marriage, or if people that hold those beliefs consider their opposition to gay marriage a primary tenet of their political ideology?
I believe a lot of backlash to gay marriage is related to the meaning of the word 'marriage' -- gay couples have had the right to civil unions for a while now, which provide for all the legal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage. So this wasn't really about securing rights -- they had them -- it was about securing
social normalization. And some people just aren't ready for that yet -- but that's okay, because gay rights leaders want to clash with these people. And, predictably, they're clashing.
Gay marriage doesn't worry me at all. Gay divorce will follow swiftly after. About the only rational argument I've heard for delaying or postponing "gay marriage" is that it would make it easier for male gay couples to adopt children. Traditionally, I hate arguments containing the phrase,
"but what about the children?!" but this is different. This person made the case that the gay mafia is so powerful that should an adopted child end up being adopted by gay parents who are abusing the child or not seeing to their needs, that it will be
politically impossible or
politically very risky to step in and take the child out of a bad environment. A child services bureaucrat will have to decide to help that child or keep their job. Because you just know that the gay leadership is going to destroy that person, there will be New York Times editorials galore, etc.
ad nauseum.Also, when adoptions are under being reviewed usually the principle concern is the longterm viability of the couple. Are you and your spouse going to get divorced two years from now, and leave this child in even more emotional turmoil? What if we discover that male gay marriages are statistically more unstable than hetero couples (I don't know if that's true or not, perhaps they're
more stable) -- you can again be absolutely sure that a gay activist somewhere will look at the adoption rate statistics of gay couples vs. hetero couples and declare that
the entire process is homophobic.Which, in practical terms, would mean that the bar will be lowered for gay couples, compared to hetero couples, when it comes to adoptions. Which means some kids will end up getting hurt for the sake of politics.
That's the only argument that ever made even an ounce of sense to me. My attitude on rights is this: yours end where mine begin. So, when a gay couple gets married, how does it impinge on my freedom? It doesn't, so where's the fire? My problem with the gay activist leadership in America is not that they want their rights, it's how they go about it -- it's more like a reign of terror than a movement. So someone who is worried about gay marriage
vis-a-vis gay adoption doesn't necessarily have anything against gays, they just don't want to see something as delicate as child adoption become politicized. And all the gay leadership seems to want to do is politicize
everything; everything relates back to homophobia for them.
I don't agree with this argument, but I believe this person did have the rights of children in mind, and I respected their sincerity, if not their argument. Gay couples should have their rights, despite their leadership not having an ounce of finesse or respect for others.
basically what i'm asking is if you know of any argument for why gay marriage should not be legal that actually has any political clout that ISN'T motivated by homophobia?
See above.