We're not talking about you or I discussing our position on SSM in a fairly private environment. We're talking about a public statement made to the media at a time when the issue of same-sex marriage is a hot-button topic, as you pointed out with Obama's recent "evolution". You don't read the media using the same rules as you do a discussion with your friends, family, peers etc.

By "political climate", I am simply referring to what is currently a popular political topic, and hence receives a lot of media attention (perhaps "political climate" was not the best choice of phrase, I don't know). When businesses make press releases or interviews on such topics, they [should be] well aware of how their position will be seen based on the phrases they use. In the media currently, I am happy saying again that "for traditional family/marriage" is accepted code for "against gay marriage", and at the same time you could tell me here semi-privately that you are "for traditional marriage" but ambivalent towards SSM.

As for you "fairness" Q: were you expecting anything different to what asdfasdf32 said?


Oh yeah, affirmative action - I'm not sure I see much similarity. Does the group that is against affirmative action consist only of non-minorities? If so, then perhaps you could try to argue a point, but as far as I was aware, affirmative action is not ONLY aligned with race.

My previous comment was obv exaggeration so can be ignored for discussion, but your statement here I'm not sure if its true. If were talking about legal definition then denying it to gays would be a negative attitude towards them?

I don't actually disagree with on this. I recognize (as a matter of reality) that this is what happens. You can say the same thing about any political operative making any statement at any time. But I still question the "fairness" of the implication. If we treat public discourse with blunt language and a lack of nuance, we negate the ability to effectively communicate thoughts and ideas that may be require parsing.

For example, my position (which I've mentioned before) can be characterized as both for and against gay marriage and for and against traditional marriage. The issue is resolved as a matter of trying to parse marriage in different ways (social contract, legal contract, religious concept).

Not really. To me, it reads the same way as the "FOR traditional marriage" conversation. Although the words don't mean it, you are basically automatically (and I think unfairly) implicated if you say it.

Meh -- All I would need to do is change the language to "affirmative action as applied to racial minorities."

what this guy said.

So isn't this thread really about media, and the shortcuts they take with language, whether by omission, by using sensationalism etc?

No, it wouldn't (necessarily) imply a negative attitude towards homosexuals. For instance, if you believe the legal definition of senior citizen is 65 and up, you're not having a negative attitude towards a 60 year old when he can't get his breakfast for half price.

right so that proves if the legal definition of blacks is slave then its not negative to hang them if they don't obey.

You can take it to be that. The question in the title is the following:

If the original article about being pro-traditional-family, does it change the meaning and context to reframe it as being anti-gay-marriage?

At a deeper level, what is a "fair" rendering of various statements? Does being "FOR traditional family" imply being "AGAINST gay marriage"? Does being "AGAINST gay marriage" imply "homophobia"?

I have legal posession of a car. It's a positive to use it to drive to work safely. It's a negative to crash the car. It's a negative to use the car to run over children.

I have legal posession of a gun. It's a negative to use the gun to shoot people at random. It's a positive to shoot it safely at targets in legally acceptable environments.

Legal posession does not imply anything about postives and negatives.

I'm lost in my sarcasm but i think we are agreeing the below is a silly comparison to gay rights.

This thread is, in many ways, about shortcuts that are used with language, but I don't necessarily think that "the media" is responsible for it.

In theory, the phrase "I support traditional marriage" COULD mean many things, and imply any of a number of policy preferences... It COULD mean support for polygamy and child brides (since those things all happened and were apparently widely accepted both in various religious texts and different cultures). It COULD support a ban on interracial marriages, which were seen as verboten for centuries... Theoretically, It COULD mean any number of thing, depending on how the individual speaker defined traditional marriage.

In practice, however, people who use the phrase "I support traditional marriage" in this day and age in America are using that phrase to imply a very specific thing, namely, support for laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman and therefore would not allow same sex marriages... And the reason why that phrase conveys that meaning is precisely because people who do not support same sex marriage wanted a cute and cuddly, focus group approved term to express that, "oh, no, we don't hate gay people, we just want to support and uphold 'tradition', and who could possibly be against 'tradition?''

For the most part yes to both questions. Of course people can mean different things by it, but at least in the political/media stage when someone says they support traditional family they are usually implying that they are against gay marriage and other nontraditional forms. It is one of those hook phrases that seems to mean one thing but is typically used to imply another. And I suppose it is possible for someone to come up with a non homophobic justification for being against gay marriage, but I have never heard of one.

Can you expand on your definition of what "homophobia" entails?

You're not exhibiting strong reading skills. My comment entirely accommodated the Wiki passage.

depends. what do you mean by "for" and "against?"

Are you quite sure?

I'm fairly confident that you might want to rethink your reasoning. The absence of information should not lead you to draw conclusions, right?

Pretty much what you expect the words to mean. "For" indicates that one is in favor of something, "against" indicates that one is contrary to something. One is a positive statement, the other is a negative statement. Both take a defined stance relative to a position (compared with the absence of a stance... Haven't we gone over this concept with the term "atheist"?)

I think if you want to get into that discussion it is best to bump the thread talking about whether being against gay marriage is necessarily homophobic. I would have to search for it as I don't remember the exact title. I think the first of these two is the only one really relevent to the OP:

i don't know what it exactly means to be in favor of something. since you're making a rather technical argument it's best to know exactly what those words mean, no?

i have a close friend who is a christian and would agree with the statement "I am for traditional marriage." but, he is also kind to gay people and would not want to cause them grief or hurt them.

his plan to solve the "problem" of gay marriage is to completely eradicate the word 'marriage' from government use and to issue everyone, gay or straight, civil union certificates instead of marriage certificates. 'marriages' would become strictly religious ceremonies.

yet, despite his benevolent stance toward gays, he clearly appears to be against gay marriage.

i have trouble picturing anyone who would make the public statement "I am for traditional marriage" while not being against gay marriage.

i can't imagine that person actually existing. they could theoretically exist but does that match any actual person? why would someone make that statement if they do not care whether gays are allowed to marry or not?

This is basically my position. The issue, then, is not with the definitions of "for" and "against" but rather with the definition of "marriage." Quoting myself:

As a note, I have typed up previously why this plan is not acceptable (last 1/3) : http://progressiveproselytizing.blog...-equality.html

Until you clarify what "homophobia" means, I don't think your position really makes sense.

I have general disagreements with the latter half of your characterization as well, but that's another thread.

Nothing I said is dependent on small nitty differences between various definitions of homophobia.

If it is confusing, simply replace every sentence with comparing someone who is arguing against marriages between blacks and white and me saying that the core problem is racism.

Today, we would never accept the idea that because gays and whites marrying was so unacceptable, we should instead only have the government recognize civil unions and then churches could discrimination on this basis as they liked. Identical situtation for gay marraiges.

You might think so, but I think you would be wrong.

Within many ethnic communities, a high value is placed on marrying within your own ethnic group (as in, someone might try to talk you out of dating/marrying someone of a different ethnicity). Is that a racist position (with the same meaning of racism as it is generally used)?

Contextualizing this into this thread: Can I be pro-ethnic without being racist?

I'm assuming that's what you meant. I also don't think that this viewpoint makes sense. The underlying position is that there is a fundamental difference between having two of the same thing and having two different things. Yes, they both share "two-ness" but that's not the only relevant feature.

I still fail to see why such a position is necessarily homophobic.

The main argument is not that it is homophobic, but that is morally wrong - and disgusting, I would add - to blatantly discriminate against people based solely on gender or sexual orientation. Two people who love each other and want to spend a life together should be allowed to do so to the same extent that any other members of our society should be able to and I take that as a first principle.

As for your "they are different" well sure, a black person and a white person have a fundamental difference and the fact that they just share "two-ness" is not a relevant feature. Would you not call someone who argued that way a racist? As it happens, the relevant factors in marriage are love for each other and a willingness to dedicate to oneself, something that is entirely separate from considerations of skin colour or sexual orientation.

It is because people are so willing to enable this disgusting discrimination based on horrifically bad arguments like the one you just suggested that immediate fail when translated to an example they themselves probably would agree is racist, that I suggest it is homophobic. Maybe you can quibble with some definition or other where you think this is not the case, but I really don't care. Stop enabling the discrimination first.