Why is same-sex marriage such a controversial issue?

[Pushed To The Left]

Most mainstream Democratic candidates will say they support civil unions for gays and lesbians, but that they are against gay marriage. To me, it just seems like an issue of simple fairness. Why is giving a group of people the right to legally marry each other such a huge threat to so many people in America? There are so many issues that seem so much more controversial. Same-sex marriage would harm absolutely no one. It would annoy some knuckle-draggers, the same way interracial marriage annoyed them, but they would get over it. Yet there are politicians that want to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION just because they are so terrified of two men or two women getting married!! What is wrong with Americans?

[Erika]

1. I'm not against gay marriage

whatsoever. This was a GOP thing used to scare the right wing.

[lvx35]

2. Adoption is a major issue in people's minds.

Some think the children are at risk because its a perversion, but most just aren't sure that same sex parents are natural for kids. To me its pretty obvious that a kid is a hell of a lot better off with ANY loving parents than without, though.

[Erika]

4. Loving adults is what is required

The abuse by male/female adults towards their kids is utterly sickening. Day after day, article after article. But some sick organization like family focus says Gays are bad?

They will be held answerable to their blindness.

[mondo joe]

28. That is idiotic. There are gays and gay couples raising kids right now. I'm one of them.

What a loony argument.

[lvx35]

59. I know. That's the funny part...

There are so many gay parents already, and their kids are fine. My step-brother was one of them, (gay mom) he grew up up a lot more acceptable even by right wing standards than me (Served in Marines, businessman) with my strait parents!!! :)

[CarbonDate]

3. I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question?

It's controversial because so many people hate gays. So many people hate gays because the Church has decided that Leviticus 18:12 is more important than Leviticus 11:9-12.

[RB TexLa]

58. Leviticus has always red like a set of health laws to me

[k_jerome]

5. easy, because most people in this country, Democrats included....

are bigots.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. thank you.

(maybe i am wrong but from what i remember of your posts, you are not gay. i thank you for supporting the glbt movement)

[k_jerome]

25. racial minority, not gay...

i consider our struggles one in the same.

[ThomCat]

47. Very true. And if people would recognize their prejudices

maybe they might actually face them and do something positive. Instead, people blissfully assume they aren't bigots while blindly supporting bigotry.

[k_jerome]

57. i am very frustrated with some posts that seem to trivialize...

civil rights. the fundamentalists are not the biggest threat to equality.

[Greyhound]

95. Bingo! Here's an unoficial recommendation to your reply.

:kick::thumbsup:

[burrowowl]

6. Don't know?

In many civilized countries people get 'married' or have a civil union recognized by the State and if they want they go get married in church. But the State union is the only one recognized. And to think that marriage was the last sacrement to be invented by the Church and only for assuring the 'proper' transmission of nations, territory, etc. by the nobility and/or rich (later the excuse was that parents would be responsible for their spawn).

[illinoisprogressive]

7. I cannot see why the wingers find it so threatening. I think they are so stupid.

[Greyhound]

97. Then don't look to closely at many of us, you will be disappointed. n/t

[Oeditpus Rex]

8. The Dems play it halfway

because they don't want to risk votes. :eyes:

[patrice]

9. Because a lot of men are actually attracted to other men.

That's a problem, because they think it negates everything they and their ancestors have sacrificed about themselves for their relationships to women. It confuses them about who they are. If men aren't basically competitive and adversarial with one another, what are they?

The converse of this may be true of women too, but, it's probably just my bias, I think women just don't have as much trouble with it for some reason.

It shouldn't be such a problem.

Love, real love, should be the primary value. We should not be afraid of it. It's VERY sad that we are.

[Bucky]

18. I am NOT attracted to Wesley Clark. I deny it. I deny it with every fibre of my being. It's NOT TRUE

*sob*

[patrice]

62. I am! !

And, of course, that has NOTHING to do with whether I/we think he'd make a good president or not. ;)

[Karenina]

21. Yuk, yuk!!!

yurbud Donating member (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-23-05 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. The real reason men oppose gay marriage


By Les Veeryl


Legalizing gay marriage will undermine marriage and family for one simple reason: most men find it extremely difficult remaining heterosexual.

Only cultural pressure forces us to seek the company of women and competition with other men drives us to find the most attractive women, just as it drives us to buy the biggest SUV.

This is also why once we have gone to all the trouble seduce a woman, our sexual encounters are so brutal, brief, and disappointing for the woman. As much as we try not to think about it, it’s just not a man.

Most women become unconsciously aware of this over the course of their marriage, which is why they cut their hair progressively shorter and cultivate the physique of John Madden, hoping the resemblance will catch our eye and rekindle our original feigned passion.

The cultural norm of heterosexuality forces us to channel our desires into sports, so we have the excuse to touch each other in violence that society would not allow in love. As we grow older, this pattern continues with male exclusive outings like golf, hunting, and fishing. Wealthy men feel less of a necessity to preserve the façade of woman lovers and have male only clubs, where than can merrily chat naked in steam rooms and smoke cigars.

It is torture enough to be forced by our wives to watch Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and see the care-free life of abandoning society’s blind devotion to procreation. I have to remind myself that it’s just a TV show, that there aren’t really people like that in the world.

But what if men were allowed to marry?

That could be enough to push many of us over the edge.

If I knew society would tolerate my true orientation, what would stop me from telling that blonde guy at the club that he looks good in the shower, and then asking him out for more than a beer? And unlike a woman, who requires months of pleading and showering with gifts before sex, another man would gladly give it up in the parking lot on the way to get the beer.

What would make my son, a handsome running back who just started shaving his chest, strive to achieve at school and establish a career if he knew instead he could simply find an older sugar daddy to marry who will shower him with gifts and pedicures?

President Bush has proposed banning gay marriage not out of ignorance prejudice or spite, but personal necessity. On a trip to Canada a while back, he said to the Prime Minister’s press secretary:

Well, you got a pretty face. You got a pretty face. You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway.Text


More recently, he actually had a gay prostitute pretend to be a reporter in White House press conferences as some sort of role-playing fetish.

If even our president can barely restrain his homosexual impulses, isn’t obvious that a constitutional amendment banning marriage is all that stands between us and a fashion-conscious, color-coordinated, poodle-walking Armageddon?

[patrice]

61. I wondering if there will, eventually, be somekind of adaptation

in the system and/or in women to change the relationships in ways that make men less attractive to men again and more attractive to women, on the average, again. A simple example of what I'm talking about is women who refuse to depend upon men financially.

And so the pendelum swings and swings until everyone is attracted to everyone else. Not my particular cup of tea, but Good!!! anyway. I am very tired of all of the struggle over sexual orientation.

:hi:

[Karenina]

103. I'm not sure I understand you

Men's attraction to men has NOTHING to do with women, as I understand it. Women able to free themselves from the economic bonds also free themselves from the lies of the men to whom they are attached. I wish we could all just accept each other, live and let live...

:hi:

[JackRiddler]

106. This says a lot!

Satire, but barely. It says why, in answer to an earlier thread, racism is an -ism, but homophobia is a -phobia. For whatever reason, the language hit on the essential drive behind the prejudice: Men fear their desire for other men, or even for the company of men. The majority are certainly homosocial. Almost as large a number engage uneasily in (deniable) homoeroticism, which as we all know is the subject of all that butt-slaping etc. in sports. And some very large proportion would try sex with other men, if it were to become socially acceptable.

They play repressed social games I call "homo chicken," in which they test out verbally just how gay they might be, but in which the goal is to suddenly withdraw and appear to be the less gay. (This is analogous to the game of "chicken" in which two cars aim straight at each other and the one who turns first "loses." Try defining this term to a guy in a bar; if he's sufficiently homophobe he may take it as an invitation to violence.)

Accepting same-sex unions as marriage (the terminology here is important) would indeed lead to a welcome breakdown in social/sexual repression, which is the true nightmare scenario of the fundamentalists and many others beyond them. The world will be a different and better place.

But that's speculative and should be irrelevant. The issue here is obvious: equal rights, freedom to choose, allowing to all people the same advantages (and duties) of the legal covenant. The Democrats are simply wrong not to champion this openly, and the right time is now. The RW will try to use this issue again in '08, I believe it's lost its impact.


* note that sexism is commonly an -ism, a miso-(gyny) and an (patri)-archy. So a lot must be going on there...

[Karenina]

108. Satire, but barely.

Perfect description JR!

[Ravy]

10. It has to do with the term "marriage".

Churches use is as a religious service, and Justices of the Peace and Elvis Impersonators use it to define a civil union. Some people think of a marriage as a Holy union before God, some think it is a state-scanctioned license affording responsibilities and rights between two consenting adults. Both are right, and as long as the right wing can get by with using the confusing term, and as long as the GBLT community demands that that term (marriage) be applied to their union, there is a standoff.

In my mind, all government sanctions should be termed "civil union" whether between heterosexual couples or homosexual couples... and if someone wants to get a church ceremony after that, then go for it. I think using the term civil union in such a way is the quickest and surest path to end the blatant discrimination.

[Tesha]

17. Bingo.

> In my mind, all government sanctions should be termed
> "civil union" whether between heterosexual couples or
> homosexual couples... and if someone wants to get a
> church ceremony after that, then go for it.

Bingo.

Tesha

[cmd]

22. and people's perception of the "perfect wedding"

anything outside the picture of the lovely bride in a white gown standing at the alter with a handsome groom grates against that "perfect" image.

I agree with Ravy. The legal act of a civil union between partners is the thing that counts. If someone wants to blow a lot of money on a fancy church
wedding after that, so be it.

[B3Nut]

34. Shallow, prefabricated idea of perfect our society has

we as a society really need to get over it. My wife and I were married in a pavilion at a zoo, for what that's worth. No dresses, no tuxes, just khakis, glof shirts, and my dad trying to smash the piece of cake my wife was trying to feed me into my face, failing, and being chased by yours truly. :) Put my family together in one spot, and hilarity inevitably ensues...

And if a gay couple wants to get together and call it a marriage, civil union, baked potato, whatever...that's their business, none of the government's business, and for damn sure none of the business of fundamentalist busybodies with nothing of any real value to contribute to society. As long as sincere love is there, it's all good. Life's too short...

My wife and I aren't threatened by the idea of a gay wedding...how that's supposed to threaten our marriage I'll never figure out. Beats me...

Todd in Beerbratistan

[Pushed To The Left]

104. I once heard a RW caller on a talk radio show say "now they want to take my marriage!"

The right wing has absolutely no logic on this issue whatsoever.

[mondo joe]

27. That's really bullshit. Most who are opposed to same sex marriage are ALSO

opposed to civil unions.

Just look at the recent state amendments denying ANY recognition of same sex couples.

Just try to come up with the number of loudest voices AGAINST same sex marriage who instead propose civil unions.

[cmd]

36. That's because it was packaged together n/t

[Ravy]

40. It isn't bullshit at all.

Polls show most people support civil unions, but also that most are opposed to same-sex marriage.

State amendments also have to do with state's rights. The current lay of the land let's opponents have the argument "Are you gonna let Mass. judges tell our legislature what to do?"

Having the federal government recognize civil unions as the only civil contract for unions removes the "holy matrimony" and state's rights issues from the debate. After all, you aren't legally married by any church ceremony (I don't think) unless you have a valid license from the state first. It is the license that is the issue. Who performs the ceremony could be made immaterial to the argument.

You are probably right that most that oppose same sex marriage also oppose civil unions, but that doesn't make my argument bullshit at all. It is the ones that *DO* support civil unions yet oppose same-sex marriage that tip the scales in favor of equal rights when added to proponents of same-sex marriage

[mondo joe]

63. Then you'd better look at HOW MUCH people care or approve - because

you don't find many people on the right or the left putting forth Civil Union initiatives or bills.

The majority may be marginally in favor of civil unions, but they aren't the ones fighting the fight.

Furthermore, I'd argue that civil unions ONLY got appealing when marriage became a possibility.

[Ravy]

109. That was part of my point.

Many on the left don't support civil unions because they consider it "less than a marriage". So, those that would offer the same rights to all are split on the issue, while those opposed get their will.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. LOL

Yeah, right.

[sam sarrha]

11. married straight people are now a MINORITY... marriage is a social failure, 60% fail so if people

didn't remarry several times it would me a very minor minority

[sam sarrha]

12. so we have a minority dictating to us our morality.

[Solly Mack]

13. Because some people are idiots. Some people are cowards

Some are both. Some are calculating and manipulative. Some are just plain hate-filled and mean. Some are chock full of fear and low self-esteem. Some are all of the above. Some are a combination of the above.

but that's just my opinion...

[ThomCat]

48. It's not just an opinion. It's a pretty good evaluation

of how things are. x(

[bowens43]

14. It all comes down to religion.

A bigoted, hateful, vengeful God tells them they will burn in hell for an eternity if they don't persecute those who are different then they are.

[and-justice-for-all]

15. Religious dogma is central to this issue...

...It is those folks who want to push their so-called "morality" onto everyone, even those who do not subscribe to their dogma. They feel that they are superior and everyone who is not in lock-step with them/their ways is subhuman. Its an intrusion into the private lives of 2% of the population, they are control freaks and dominist...

It can be called whatever you want, but no matter it is MARRIAGE. A private instituion that 2 people enter into with out the help of the Fundi nuts and its none of their fucking business who someone wants to marry. If we can not marry then they can NEVER devorce, I think thats a fair compromise.

This issue sets me on fire!

[Tesha]

16. Because it can be used to whip up Republican votes.

That's it.

Nothing else to it.

Tesha

[Seldona]

19. Two reasons.

Latent homosexuality, and religious based intolerance. While they do overlap, they really are two distinct pathologies imho.

[jonnyblitz]

20. religion makes people into bigots. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

44. Not always...

twelve years of Catholic school turned me into an evolution believing, mo-lovin', interracial dating, feminist who opted not to get married or bear children. :D And all of this was not to spite my religious schooling, but because of it.

Thank you to the Dominican sisters of Immaculate Conception!

[mentalsolstice]

77. Many of the nuns I know are really hip and very progresssive! n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. bigotry. cowardice. pettiness.

[deepthought42]

26. I've never understood it...

My first reaction was "They can't get married already? This is the 21st century, right?". I suppose I was ahead of the times years ago...

Some people are afraid of change, and afraid to think. It's a shame...

[raccoon]

29. Because it's a threat to a patriarchal society.

In a patriarchal society, the husband(a man) is the boss of the family. If two men marry, or two women, who's going to be the boss and who's going to be the subservient one?

[redqueen]

35. Good point!

We can't let anyone get the idea that there shouldn't be "masters" and "servants", now can we?

[raccoon]

39. Love the cartoon! nt

[BlooInBloo]

30. Because "the gay" is ICKY!

[BoneDaddy]

31. It is because

they are trying to appear mainstream and are pandering to the relgious in this country.

[Bill McBlueState]

32. "Same-sex marriage would harm absolutely no one."

Exactly. And here in Massachusetts, we've got proof of that. Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of conservatives to go around in this state, and none of their heads exploded when gay people were allowed to get married. We've had gay marriage for nearly three years, and nothing's changed, unless you're a gay person who got married.

[redqueen]

33. Easy: because bigotry against homosexuals is still tolerated.

Hell, it's condoned.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. and advertised. and propogated.

have i mentioned i love you...and i think you are super cool?

cos i do!

[redqueen]

52. Awwwwww

:blush:

Maybe, but I like hearing it again!

Te amo tambien, chica! :hug: :loveya:

[conscious evolution]

37. It is a Bright Shiny Object

Along with guns and abortion,Gay marriage is one of those knee-jerk reaction topics the rightwing uses to distract the sheeple from the real issues facing our country.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. screw you people who dont think my rights are a real issue.

[JackBeck]

43. Excuse me?

My struggle for being treated as an equal citizen in this country is a VERY REAL issue.

One that I face every breathing moment, of every single day.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. you do? here i thought you were some bright shiny object free floating in space.

:hi:

[JackBeck]

71. ...

:pals:

[ThomCat]

45. Well, we know of one more person who thinks civil rights

is nothing but a distraction. :eyes:

Just becuase it doesn't affect you, it's not important? What irony, considering your username.

[conscious evolution]

54. A question--Why does the GLBT

community face such hatred and harassment?

[ThomCat]

55. Because misogyny has imbedded gender roles deep

into our culture (and most cultures). And any violation of those gender roles causes mass outrage and resistance.

Because people's first reaction is to dislike people who are different.

People people who benefit from homophobia have very little incentive to do anything about it.

[conscious evolution]

68. And how often have people who are different been used as

a scapegoat?Been pointed at as the source of troubles?
Unfortunatly,history shows that people who cast asparagus quite often do it to distract or deflect attention away from real issues.Even more unfortunatly,GLBT's have proven to be a favored bait for those who are into casting.They know someone will always buy into it.
Homophobia as a BSO has been around for centuries.It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

[ThomCat]

69. The fact that homophobia can be used as a diversion

doesn't mean that homophobia should be ignored. If you do that, you're throwing us under the bus.

They are able to use homophobia as a distraction because it's a real, serious issue. Challenge the issue and make some progress, then you've taken away their ability to use it as a distraction. If we do it your way, you give them their homophobia and concede that it's okay.

[JackBeck]

70. That's a great post, ThomCat.

:thumbsup:

[ThomCat]

74. :)

:hug:

[myrna minx]

78. Excellent reply.

:applause:

[conscious evolution]

87. I do challenge homophobia

I also ignore it quite often.By ignoring it I mean I sometimes refuse to allow a homophobe to make it into an issue.Sort of a who cares/Idon't give a fuck type of answer
example
Homophobe:Two people of the same sex are having sex
Me:I don't give a fuck.Who cares what others do in the privacy of their bedroom.
H:Gays want to hold hands or kiss in public
M:Who cares?
H:They want to get married
Me:I don't give a fuck
HThey want to raise children
Me:Idont give a fuck.Frankly it is none of my business what other people do in their personal life.

Treating it as a non issue with those who would try to do so takes the wind out of their sails,so to speak.It gives them the impression that they are beating a dead horse.
Letting them even think it is a valid issue just invalidates and emboldens them.

[ThomCat]

88. But it IS a valid issue.

In all of your examples are very different from telling gay people to ignore homophobia. In all of those examples you are conveying a message to homophobes. You are telling them that being gay is no big deal.

Here on this thead, the message is being delivered to GLBT people. We're being told, in so many words, "lighten up," "calm down," and "that homophobia isn't worth dealing with."

It's the exact opposite message delivered in the other direction.

[conscious evolution]

89. I'm not telling gay people

to ignore homophobia.I'm telling homophobes to ignore gay people.Just like they should ignore the color of people's skin.Or what religion others follow.

To me homosexuality is no big deal.It's just the way some people are and there is nothing I can or wish to do about it.

[mondo joe]

102. And civil rights are no big thing to you either. Or not a REAL THING.

What a pukefest.

[mondo joe]

82. You didn't ask me, but the answer is: it doesn't matter.

For the record, I am not a person who particularly gives a shit about TV commercials, or who likes me or doesn't.

I do, however, care about equality of rights, and that those rights are not violated.

There are a number of things that don't trouble or upset me to anywhere near the degree they do my fellow gay DUers. But if you don't consider equal civil rights a REAL ISSUE what the fuck do you think the REAL ISSUES are?

[conscious evolution]

See post 93

for what I think the real issues are.

[conscious evolution]

94. See post 93

for what I think the real issues are.

[mondo joe]

100. That is inexcusably fucked up of you.

Civil rights are a REAL ISSUE.

NOw if you want to talk about priorotizing all the real issues, that's one thing. But to shove civil rights into the NOT A REAL ISSUE category is inexcusable.

[JackBeck]

84. You've got me.

But this country's original inhabitants didn't have a problem with us. And they still don't.

[mondo joe]

64. Equal civil rights IS a real issue.

Fuck you very much.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. lol.

good one!

[myrna minx]

76. Fundamental human rights are not shiny objects.

:eyes:

[mentalsolstice]

80. I think your evolution is in a coma! n/t

[Bluebear]

91. Snap!

[LostinVA]

86. What real issues, like equal civil rights for all?

THAT "bright shiny object"? LIke equal rights for gays and reproductive/medical rights over their own bodies for women?

What? I can't hear you.

*crickets*

Yeah, I freaking thought so.

[conscious evolution]

93. Sorry for the delay in answering you.

I'm all for civil rights for everyone.And I support candidates that stand for them.
However,My main consideration in politics these days is in ending the war.A war that could easily go thermonuclear if those in power remain unchecked.If that happens any debate over gay,civil or or any type of human rights will be totally moot and irrelavent.
How relevant are rights if there is no one around to enjoy them.
As far as I'm concerned ending the war is priority #1.When that happens then I will put my full energies into other issues.I won't ignore them but they are not my priorities either.
As far as I am concerned just about any issue that is not related to ending the war is a Bright Shiny Object.

[donco6]

98. Ever heard of multi-tasking?

The human mind is an amazing thing.

Well, most of them anyway.

[conscious evolution]

99. Fuck you too

I am multitasking.
Reviewing blueprints for bid solicitations,listening to C-Span,and responding to posts qualifies in my book.
If I had 4 hands and two keyboards maybe I could respond to more than one post at the same time.

Since so many have decided to snark out on this thread I have decided to quit replying to anymore responses at this time.

[donco6]

101. Gee, I get to be last! Thanks.

[Bluebear]

90. Bright shiny object, sheeple, any more trendy little bon mots you care to toss in?

:eyes:

[mnhtnbb]

38. Because bigotry is alive and well in the Land of the Free

[porphyrian]

49. People are so weak in their purported faith that everything threatens it.

People who make constant overtures to prove their piety are most often trying to convince themselves as much as everyone else, who they fear will find out about it, and they are trying to control the behavior of others rather than face their own failure to live up to the standards they demand from others.

[HuffleClaw]

50. i don't think it is

but the fundies and the media sure like to tell us it is. i find it damn funny to watch politicians squirm around the issue. i'm reminded of our local MPP who came to the annual gay pride christmas dinner and gave a little speech in which she not once uttered the word 'gay' or 'homosexual'. and this whole 'civil union' bit. WHO THE FUCK do they think they are fooling? marriage is marriage now matter what ya call it. i think the FIRST question to a politician who uses such weasel language should be 'would you call a black woman and a white man's wedding a 'civil union'? that would illustrate the simple bigotry behind such weasel words right quick.

[Dastard Stepchild]

51. Because it's wrong!!

Wrong, I say. Why? Why, you ask? Well, let me tell you why. Errrr... Cuz' gay sex is gross. And a woman should find a good man and a fine man should find a nice lady. That's just the way it is. THE WAY IT IS. And the Bible and my pastor told me so. And I never wanted to screw a man, and I'm a man, so no one should do it, or honor it, or think of it, or respect it or anything like that. They warp kids, too. Sick, sick, sick.

:sarcasm:

[swimboy]

53. And Godly marriage has ALWAYS been between ONE man and ONE woman

That's why the word CONCUBINE isn't even in the Bible!

:sarcasm:







Hi, Marlys! :loveya:

[Dastard Stepchild]

67. Eeek!!

Hello! :)

How are you?

:loveya:

[Rob H.]

56. It isn't just Republicans who vote against it, either

Here in Tennessee, where gay marriage has been illegal since 1996, iirc, an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman passed last November by a margin of 81% in favor, 19% opposed. I'm proud to say that I'm one voter in the 19% who voted against it, but unfortunately that means that some of my supposedly liberal brothers and sisters must have voted for the amendment, given such a huge margin of passage. Shame on them all.

[leftyladyfrommo]

65. Got Me. I really could care less. I think marriage for anyone is kinda stupid. n/t

[JackBeck]

66. That's fair.

But when you are denied over 1500 federal and state rights, many in the GLBT community and our straight allies do care.

[leftyladyfrommo]

105. I don't think gays should not be able to marry if they want.

For whatever reason.

It's important to them. And it doesn't hurt me in any way.

I just don't see what all the big tado over it is.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. I have an idea about this, lets stop calling it "same-sex marriage"

Lets start calling it something like "Equal Marriage Rights".

I'm dead serious about this, let me explain why. The fact is that the majority of the country supports Civil Unions but they don't support "Gay Marriage" or "Same-sex Marriage". The two are identical except for naming (also for the federal benefits for married couples, but most people aren't aware that these won't apply if we just legalize Civil Unions in the states).

How things are named can swing peoples' perceptions in a poll by a huge amount. In order to get the majority of Americans to support cutting the Estate Tax all that the Republicans had to do was start calling it the "Death Tax".

I think a large part of the people who support Civil Unions are people who just aren't that concerned with the way other people live their lives. But even those people have been culturally conditioned to a certain degree of homophobia. Hearing the word "Gay" or "Same-Sex" with marriage in the same sentence may set off negative reactions because of this culturally conditioned homophobia.

Therefore when we talk about this issue I think that we should just replace words like "Same-sex" and "Gay" with words that make people feel good like "Equality". Language can make all of the difference in the world.

[ThomCat]

81. I agree. But unfortunately, the media swings right

and they frame the debate and determine the language. :(

We should be fighting to change that language.

[dorkulon]

75. Not defending bigotry, but...

isn't it kind of cool that we're arguing about gay marriage, rather than whether gays should be allowed to exist at all?

Just saying that, even twenty years ago, the thought that this would be a real issue would have been considered ludicrous. A few decades ago, interracial marriage was controversial. We are, slowly, progressing toward a more equal society.

Just something to keep in mind: on social issues, we're gradually winning.

[ThomCat]

85. Yes, but we're gradually winning because some of us

fight like hell. Some people wait for society to evolve, but it doesn't work that way. We have to drag society, kicking and screaming. Each step forward is another bitter fight.

It seems that our straight allies are always willing to help us fight for that last step, but not the next one.

[HughBeaumont]

79. Because only white, straight people should be married.

And never should that claustrophobic mindset be pinpricked.

Like health care, this should be a HUMAN RIGHT FOR ALL. End of fucking sentence.

[mentalsolstice]

83. Doncha know? It's a threat to straight marriages?

My spouse and I have lived in a neighborhood, were at times we've had gay couples living on both sides of us and across the street. And let me tell ya, our marriage has gone to hell in a handbasket! Not a day goes by, I don't think about calling a divorce atty., and it's all because of those nasty gays! :sarcasm:

[AbbyR]

92. I read through the whole thread just to see if anyone said this...

Does anyone think a part of it is just typical right-wing corporate American money interests? Yes, I know, there are idiot homophobes, but I can't help but think that some of it is Mr. Big Boss thinking he might have to pay insurance benefits to a gay married couple and their kids, or that someone might have inheritance rights if gays were allowed to marry.

I have no idea if that's true, but I find it so hard to believe that anyone would want to stop two people who love each other from getting married that I figured it had to be money.

Yeah, I'm a cynic.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

96. Ignorance and fear.

[Dracos]

107. Religion

when you remove religious dogma "gay is sin" bullshit from the argument you have nothing left.With out the religious dogma it becomes obvious you are arguing in favor of discrimination.