If you haven't already, you really should read this piece by Cathie, who explains (quite correctly, I might add) that if you're opposed to same-sex marriage, you're not being thoughtful and taking a different position, or engaging in civil discourse, or anything of the sort. You're being a bigot. Deal with it.
To say that you think there should be a public discussion on the subject is like saying you want a public discussion on, say, whether blacks or aboriginals should be allowed to vote. Or whether Catholic priests sexually abusing altar boys has both benefits and drawbacks. Stuff like that. But the obsession surrounding the issue of SSM inspires a couple of technical questions.
If wingnuts are opposed to "same-sex" marriage, are they OK with marriage between an openly gay man and an openly gay woman? (Technically, that's not "same sex," is it?) Perhaps these two want the official status of marriage for, say, tax purposes. Or so they can adopt in places where that's available only to married couples. Or whatever. The question remains -- would the wingnut wankers be all right with that as a "marriage"?
Or what about between a couple where the "woman" used to be a man before the "operation"? OK? Not OK? Reasons? What if both partners had sex-change operations so that they're still, technically, of different sexes? Fine? Not so fine? Totally abhorrent?
OH, MY ... so much illogic, so little time to drag it outside and beat it to death with an ax handle. But ... what the heck. In the comments, "Anonymous" scribbles:
So if you don't support gay marriage, you're a bigotted homophobe.
I never wrote "bigotted homophobe," I wrote simply "bigot." Nice try at a strawman. (And it's "bigoted." We here at CC HQ are big fans of literacy.) In any event, fabricating someone's words is dishonest and sleazy. Please don't do it again. Onward.
Alright, so what about all the gays who don't want gay marriage to be legal? They do exist. (Look for information on Canada's own "Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism.") Are they bigotted homophobes, too?
Now that's an interesting bit of logic. Without even looking that group up, I find it fascinating that their existence could be used as a counter-argument.
So there are gays who oppose SSM, and their opinions should be considered? Using the same logic, there are numerous women who feel quite strongly (not surprisingly based on their religious beliefs) that women should stay home, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Does this mean their opinions should be enforced on other women who don't agree with them? That certainly seems to be what you're saying.
In fact, there are an increasing number of Christians who are questioning the divinity of Jesus. Perhaps their opinions should be inflicted on other Christians who don't agree with them. I trust you can appreciate the absurdity of your position, yes?
You're being a bigot against conservative Christians and are trying to force YOUR beliefs down their throats ...
You are, of course, utterly deluded, since no one is forcing any beliefs down any conservative Christian throats. But I'm pretty sure that argument is a complete non-starter with you so I won't even bother to flesh it out. Even I recognize when I'm wasting my time.
BY THE WAY, Anonymous, if I went looking for this "HOPE" group, please tell me that it wouldn't be based on fundamentalist Christianity. That would kind of blow your entire argument out of the water, wouldn't it?
ABOUT THAT "HOPE" GROUP: No, I couldn't resist. A quick invocation of Google and we have, for example, this:
Canada should not be changing its marriage laws just to accommodate a "tiny, self-anointed" minority within a minority, says the head of a national homosexual group.
Only between 2-4% of Canadians are gay or lesbian, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE) executive director of John McKellar told the Calgary Herald. And of those, he said, "less than 1% are interested in same-sex marriage or even domestic partnership legislation. In other words, federal and provincial laws are being changed and traditional values are being compromised just to appease a tiny, self-anointed clique."
Well, now, that's an interesting position. See, on the one hand, we're told that the existence of SSM will result in the "wiping out an entire society in just one generation." Whoa. Powerful stuff, that SSM. And yet, at the same time, we're told that the number of gays that want to marry is so insignificant as to make SSM a waste of everyone's time.
Just once, I'd like to hear an anti-SSM argument that doesn't make its speaker seem like the world's biggest dumbfuck. Just once.
How about this for a radical concept:
If you don't like SSM, don't have one.
If you don't like abortions, don't have one.
If you don't like god, don't go to church.
If you don't like anything else, keep it to yourself and let me do the same!
Um ... you're new here, aren't you? :-)
Cathie's "logic" is laughable. No wonder you like it.
So if you don't support gay marriage, you're a bigotted homophobe. Alright, so what about all the gays who don't want gay marriage to be legal? They do exist. (Look for information on Canada's own "Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism.") Are they bigotted homophobes, too?
If you support gay marriage, you're not being thoughtful and taking a different position, or engaging in civil discourse or anything of the sort. You're being a bigot against conservative Christians and are trying to force YOUR beliefs down their throats - just like you complain what they allegedly are doing to you, and that would make you a hypocrite, too.
What about intersex individuals? In cases like these it is complete about genetics and the old fashion rightwing montra "it a chosen life style" fails like a wet paper bag?
Anonymous#1, lol, did you just gone the blogosphere? Seriously, not being insulting or anything, give yourself a month of reading blogs and,... well give a month ;-)
Anonymous#2, if thise gays who don't want to get married don't have to. No one is forcing them, but they do not have the right to take away the rights of others. It is just like voting, you have the right not to vote, but you do not have the right to stop others from voting. Your point is a classic pickled and smoked red herring. Also, if conservative religious types don't support gay marriage, so be it, they don't have to marry a gay person or even go to gay a marriage. Nor are we saying that religous leaders have preform the mariage services either.
Like I said, nice red herring, is a conned or pickled?
HOPE is not an organization. It is the pathetic bleating of one man who either pretends to be gay or who is hopelessly full of self- hatred. He isn't qualified to say anything about anything - some people just take him seriously because he claims to be gay and yet opposes gay rights. McKeller was part of a full page anti-gay ad taken out in the Globe and Mail by Ken Campbell (whatever happened to him?) and his wacko religious group about 8 or so years ago, who were freaking out about homos taking over the planet. The HOPE website McKeller helpfully included in that hateful ad linked to a heterosexual porn site (i am NOT kidding).
As for the assertion that there are real gay people who oppose same sex marriage, you really need to grab a brain. There are many gay people who don't want to get married, just as there are many straight people who dont want to get married. But they do not think that their own choice in life should limit other people's choices. According to your logic, because the woman in the office down the hall from me does not believe in marrage and so lives with her male partner, no other heterosexual couple should be able to get married either. Time for you to crawl back onto the turnip truck and go home.
There's no evidence that "Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism" consists of anyone other than John McKellar.
By the way, "anonymous #2," your position is clearly that those folks who are in favour of SSM are ramming their beliefs down the throats of others who don't accept it.
In what way is that substantially different from the conservative wingnut position of being anti-choice, and ramming that position down the throats of those who think differently?
Seriously, explain to me how one position is hypocritical and bigoted, while the other isn't. We're waiting.
My favourite blog. Good for informative dialogue and a few laughs when you call a spate a spade. When you are a Canadian that lives in a Red state, you have to have a sense of humour!
The best comments from Cathie's post had to be from...The Phantom! He said: "That post of yours is what I like most about the Left, Cathy. No principled discussion of values, no civilised give-and-take of reasoned debate. Just choose up sides and go for the throat." Of course, he does just that.
You should read his funny "Victory is ours!" post from his blog. You can just see him dancing around in his jammies after the election.
"In what way is that substantially different from the conservative wingnut position of being anti-choice, and ramming that position down the throats of those who think differently?"
Ah, the "they did it first" defense. Amazingly, that is the defense you chided me earlier for supposedly using. Thanks for showing your hypocrisy once again, CC. You are a fool and everytime you post it shows.
"You are, of course, utterly deluded, since no one is forcing any beliefs down any conservative Christian throats."
Oh, no. Of course not. You're just "not forcing" them to accept homosexuality as normal by "not forcing" them to accept gay marriage.
I never said anything even remotely like "You did it first." I asked (quite clearly, as everyone else can see) how you can accuse supporters of SSM of ramming their beliefs down your throat, when you apparently have no trouble ramming your anti-choice beliefs down everyone else's throat.
That's the question that is now on the table. Either address it the way it was asked, or fuck off and stop wasting my time.
Is demanding tolerance of your intolerant views an argument for or against tolerance?
Apparently, the only thing keeping religious fundamentalist men from shacking up with dudes and smoking pole night and day is that 1)The Bible says it's wrong - right next to where it says that eating shellfish is an abomination, and 2) They don't get joint tax filing status.
I mean, really, what manly man would want to couple with anything as soft and inferior as a woman? Real men like hard, muscular bodies.
CC, anytime I need a good rant, this is the page I come to. Keep it up, Please.
Anonymous #2, because I am an optimist, I will try to explain this to you one more time. Lets just say, for arguements sake, there are two couples, Couple A is a man & woman, couple B is are both men. Both of these couples want to get married. Couple A also happen to be fundamentalists who think Gay=evil. Now, in a place without SSM, couple A can do what they want (get married) and couple B can't. Couple A is happy because their views are the law, couple B is unhappy because they can't have their relationship legally recognized. Transplant these two couples into another society, where SSM is legal. Couple A and B can both get married freely. Couple A is still happy (because they can still get married legally) but so is couple B. Couple A is just upset whenever they happen to think about couple B. In which society are rights being more severely infringed upon? Now, just for a thought experiment, pretend couple B is an interracial couple, in the same situation. Or how about couple B wants to marry for love but their parents have promised them to other people. Or how about couple B are the fundamentalists, but they live in a state where their religion is suppressed so they can't have a marriage according to their beliefs. The point is that it is far worse to tell other people what they can and can't do in their personal lives than it is to allow them to do what they want and make other people just mind their own buisness.
What's the big deal about same sex marriage? I was married in 1985 and it's been the same sex for two decades.
Post a Comment