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.

gotcha. well then, now on to the task at hand. i think what the article did was fair.

i assume the problem you have is that the owner could have been mischaracterized.

i doubt that you or my friend would fall victim to this and i don't have much sympathy for someone who does. they should communicate better. especially when talking to the liberal lame-stream media.

what cathy said is not nuanced, it's euphemistic.

this is what a stupid person says when they are trying to be tactful and it utterly fails. he's obviously trying to avoid saying "i don't want gays to be allowed to marry."

if he was mischaracterized (which i highly doubt) i don't really feel bad for him. if he's not actually against gay marriage he should have given a much more precise answer.

i doubt that anyone who says what cathy said would ever complain about being mischaracterized in this way (edit: other than to dishonestly save face). had you been interviewed, i bet your soundbyte would have been much different.

Sure. What does that have to do with whether government is involved with marriage?

Do I have the moral right to get married at a Mormon temple if I'm not Mormon? Do I have a moral right to have the Catholic church honor my marriage if I'm Jewish?

The blanket idea that everyone is exactly the same in every way is silly. Distinctions exist. And that's not automatically a moral failing.

That depends. Are we saying that skin color ALONE creates a fundamental difference between different men. If so, then not racist. Tall people are fundamentally different from short people (in the same sense of the word "fundamental"). That doesn't make someone height-ist.

If you mean it to be something MORE THAN skin color (such as, different species, not human, etc.), then yes.

But as you can see, this is far from a necessary conclusion.

And you draw this concept of marriage from where? And why does everyone have to agree with you?

Your position reminds me very much of a lot of stances that people take, in the sense that there is not much substance to your position. You are saying little more than "I think it should be this way."

However, in order for you to justify your position to yourself, you're using strongs words to try to characterize the other in a negative light, rather than presenting an affirmative case as to why someone should agree with you.

All I see is a "first principle" that doesn't actually seem to imply what you need it to, and then I see emotionally loaded language. The "main argument" appears to be almost vacuous ("I take that as a first principle.").

Yes. I'm not worried about this individual incident in particular (though I still see this as a contrived controversy). But more about what you can and can't do while being true to the original statement.

To be fair, the original interview was given to a "friendly" media outlet, and then it was picked up and reframed by other media.

Marriage is already involved with government whether we like it or not. As long as that remains true - and there is no reason to think it won't be for a long time - it is disgusting to discriminate against homosexuals.

I don't think churches should be forced to perform gay marriages, if that is what you are asking.

And yes distinctions exist, but for someone to do blatant discrimination based on a distinction (ie no marriages for gays, only straights) they have to demonstrate why this distinction is RELEVANT. So why is it relevant? Why should two people who love each other not be able to be married because of their sexual orientation? Don't even try to evade this question.




If you are going to have a government ban on marriage based on this skin colour, you have to show it is a RELEVANT DIFFERENCE otherwise people will rightly accuse you of racism. Of course, different skin colour is known to be IRRELEVANT to just about anything. Which is why people who make decisions based on it are called racists. Likewise, sexual orientation is a difference, but not a relevant one.

This is incredibly simple stuff.



AIt is incrediably common for people of all backgrounds to recognize marriage in the terms I described as love and commitment and the like. The only time when it is NOT described in those terms, that I am aware of, is when people try to apologize for their discrimination against homosexuals then it becomes just this thing between a man and a wife. Well at one point in time the consensus of people also found that it was only for people of the same race. Now we call those people racists.

However, in order for you to justify your position to yourself, you're using strongs words to try to characterize the other in a negative light, rather than presenting an affirmative case as to why someone should agree with you.[/QUOTE]Strong words are the appropriate response to such blatant examples of discrimination in society. This is why it is appropriate to say that discrimination of blacks in schools is racist. Yes it is inflamatory, but it is correct to be so.

Of course, the burden of proof is entirely on the side doing the discrimination. So if you think it is correct to discriminate, please justify it. I have never - not once - heard a justification of this discrimination that is even the remotest big reasonable and you have not even begun to offer one here.


But let me get you on record for clarity sake: if a vote is put to you to either legalize gay marriage or not, how do you vote?

Further, are you saying you REJECT this principle: "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 would be able to". If so, WHY?

Before you answer "how do you vote", remember God has forbidden man made legislation in Deut 4:2.

Great. So if you vote on zero other issues this is an acceptable answer. However, if you only use it for this issue that is special pleading.

Regardless, you can still answer questions like "is it wrong to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation?" and the like without voting.

This position is different from the one that you seemed to argue. This is a "practical matter" but your argument is "moral" (and "morality" trumps "practicality"). The argument I'm making is that government SHOULD get out of the marriage business, and you've said that even if it happened, it doesn't fix things. This is an inconsistent argumentation.

Right. So it's not a "moral right" for a homosexual couple who has access to a civil union (when the government ONLY has civil unions) to maintain marriages as understood by religious groups. There's a valid distinction there, and a form of discrimination that you'll allow.

There is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of marriage.

If you believe this to be the case, then you're disconnected from history. Same-sex unions have been recognized at many points in history, but they were very often viewed as being different from heterosexual unions. (For example, pederasty is a specific type of recognized homosexual union that is not a marriage.)

Throughout history, the debate about whether same sex marriages should be allowed has been a point of controversy. In order for this to be the case, there must be some viewpoint that declares marriage to be between heterosexual couples.

At this point, I want to point out that you've constructed yourself a "logically" unassailable position. By this, I mean that every single instance in which I can find a disagreement about the structure of marriage (that is, someone who thinks it should be between a man and a woman), you can automatically declare it to be an "apology" for discrimination. Therefore, under the logic that you present, you cannot possibly be wrong.

Why? Because you say so? Or is this another one of your "first principles"?

I think the reason why you can't see it as being "even the remotest bit reasonable" is because you've defined yourself into a happy little cocoon in which you can be nothing be right.

I vote against. (Therefore I must be homophobic, right?)

If a vote is put to me to de-legalize heterosexual marriage, I vote for it. (Therefore I must be heterophobic, right?)

The black-and-white perspective you want to bring is a clear example as to why it is that the type of logical error that is committed as in OP is dangerous for actual conversations about actual issues. Demagoguery works in multiple directions, and you may not want to believe you're doing it, but you are.

You have failed to make a logical argument up to this point, and are merely taking emotionally charged words to create the illusion of having put forth a meaningful position. I've shown you that you've fallaciously set yourself up with your concept of what marriage is (that it's about two people who love each other and never about gender... despite the fact that gender has been a historically demonstrated division). The most you've gotten for yourself is a "first principle" and you haven't even taken the time to understand my objection to your application of it! (See below.)

I don't reject the principle. I reject that the application of the principle means what you think it means. There are people who want to live their lives together who can be married in a Mormon ceremony, and there are people who want to live thier lives together who can't. Doesn't this mean that they are not able to share their lives to the "same extent" as other members of society?

If you think it is, then I think you're ignorant. This is a highly complex social, religious, and political issue with far reaching implications.

chick fil a is delicious derr

If you want to argue that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage - and that argument is entirely separate from any consideration of gays - then that is fine. However, it is incredibly unlikely to happen and serves no purpose. It is just word play. Government remains involved we just call it a different word. So it is proposing this pie in the sky solution that is ONLY about the changing of a word.....and we are changing this word for the sole purpose it seems of not having to resort to the horrors of actually allowing people who love each other to marry.

Nobody should be forced to do something without a clear benefit for this being the case (like jailing murderers). This means it is wrong for the government to prevent marriages just as it is to force pastors to perform a marriage. I mean would certainly encourage pastors to do this and would attempt to explain to them the problems associated with discriminating against people based on arbitrary characteristics, but I would not want it forced on them.



I asked you why gender was relevant? Presumably you DON"T think skin colour is a relevant distinction even though a long history of people have thought that. So why on earth would gender be relevant? I don't see how your reply addresses this at all.



Oh I know that discrimination against LGBT members is millenia old (and I don't see how this helps you) I am just saying that my description of it being something about love and commitment and the like IS commonly accepted by others....they just want to tack on the discrimination whenever the issue comes up.

I assume most people agree that discrimination without purpose is wrong. So if blatant discrimination is happening - and surely you agree that it is - then it needs a justification for why it is acceptable. Do you have ANY SHRED of a justification?



Fine. Then give me such a reasonable justification for the continued discrimination.



Presumably. But I will give you opportunity to give a non-homophobic explanation for this. But what you have said is that despite marriages being part of the government - and there is no momentum to change this...even in your proposal it would be at best a word play - you are unwilling to change the continued discrimination? WHY? What possible argument could there be for this?



How does it not apply? If you agree that two people who love each other should be able to be married, why would you vote to continue the ban on two people of certain types who love each other being married? The Mormon bit seems entirely unrelated. Who cares?



What are these far reaching implications? People who love each other can now marry. That is good and prevents the significant bad of denying people who love each other the ability to marry. What is the bad? Does it hurt anybody else? If you think this is a complex issue, please explain your justification for the continuation of this bigotry. What complex thing am I missing? Seems as clear cut to be bad as it is clearly bad for a ban on interracial marriage.

As with all previous discussions for you, you have yet to say one word about WHY you believe as you do. You just obfuscate around the details and play semantics and other nonsense. So please, please, do not hide away and give a clear justification for why you think it is okay to allow the discriminatory ban on people who love each other marrying to continue.

You might say that "it serves no purpose" but I think it stands as a perfectly reasonable policy position to take. I also think that it's possible to generate support for this type of position as it placates MANY voting blocs simultaneously. (Separation of church/state people should go for it, lots of religious independents who are sympathetic towards gay rights would find it acceptable, and people who just want to put a stop to the nonsense would go that way as well.)

Yes, it's going to take time and hard work to go through it all, but the long term benefits (in my opinion) outweigh the short term work of getting this cleaned up.

It's not really horrible. Once you're set free from the government defining things, people will be free to express their marriages in all sorts of ways. But again, the primary issue here is definitional.

Is this another "first principle"? How many "first principles" do you have?

You don't see it because you're too caught up in your own belief system.

Again, you're free to characterize it however you want. But what you're really doing is spinning around in your own little bubble that has no bearing on reality.

There are many formulations of marriages in which love plays no part (such as "political" marriages in early tribal societies -- in which marriage is given as a truce between different groups -- or arranged marriages). Unsurprisingly (to me), all of those marriages were male-female. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story. The millenia of discrimination has never been about some *actual* disagreement about the nature and structure marriage, even though we see examples of cultures that accept same sex unions while NOT calling them marriages.

So until you're able to come back to reality and at least consent that history happened, your position is really nothing more than you asserting yourself repeatedly without any support.

It depends on what you require for a "purpose." It also depends on whether that purpose needs to be explained in legal terms, or social terms, or religious terms (or if religious terms are even allowed).

Again, this is demagoguery. Here's the game you're playing: "I'll make up some ad hoc rule and then hold you to it."

I've told you. It's a matter of definition. If I say triangles have three sides, and you say they have four, am I engaging in "continued discrimination" by telling you that you've got it wrong?

Because we disagree on definitions and concepts.

It's only unrelated because you're too trapped in your own thought bubbles. You have to give me a meaningful statement of what this whole "same extent" business actually means. I've shown you that there are people who have access to something that others do not, and yet it's not really an issue. And they made it an issue, they STILL wouldn't get it.

The far reaching implications fall with respect to the history that you reject (this is an important issue for many people, and has been for a long time), it has long term legal consequences (if we get marriage out of government now, it will reduce these types of issues in the future), and it's complex because it involves the interplay of many, many, many systems of thought that need to work together in order to reach a positive outcome.

The reason why is that you're not engaging in an actual conversation. I can give you historical refutation, and you won't hear it. I can demonstrate a "non-homophobic reason" to reject gay marriage (because I reject government marriages completely), but you won't accept it. You're basically just reciting a collection of personal talking points. Your position is gratingly shallow.