Cheat Sheet

Perhaps then, srexley, it would be more accurate to say that people who are against same sex marriage are bigots rather than saying that people who are for hetero marriage are not. Wouldn't it follow that people who are for hetero marriage are then against same sex marriage and then wouldn't it also follow that they are bigots? Do you catch the circular logic here?

Definition of bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

From that definition, I'd say that people who are for hetero marriage and who are against same sex marriage, those people are bigots. One of two things can happen: You can change your way of thinking to include in people's rights, the right to marry the person of your choice OR you can change the definition of bigot. But you can't have it both ways.

"hfb1053
Perhaps then, srexley, it would be more accurate to say that people who are against same sex marriage are bigots"

No, it would not be accurate at all. I am against changing the definition of marriage, and am in no way bigoted. It may feel good to call those with opposing views nasty names, but it just divides folks and creates animosity.

"Do you catch the circular logic here?"

No as there is no logic in calling folks who believe in traditional marriage bigots. You can call people who hate gay people bigots. But to suggest that people that would like to keep the traditional definition of marriage hate gay people is dishonest. I realize you may honestly believe that everyone against gay marriage is homophopic or does not like gays, but if that is the case, you are wrong. I note that you avoided my question about whether gays that are against gay marriage are bigoted against gays? Are they, or do they get a pass?

"Definition of bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Sounds more like you are a bigot then as you seem intolerant of "those who differ" with your opinion on what the definition of marriage should be. This has no bearing on whether one is "partial to one's own group". It has to do with changing the definition of marriage. Slightly less than half the population would like to do so and a slim majority does not want to. A percentage of folks from both sides are bigots, but not based on how they believe marriage should be defined. The current definition of marriage has worked well for society and makes perfect sense to me, and that does not mean I have a problem with gay people.

"From that definition, I'd say that people who are for hetero marriage and who are against same sex marriage, those people are bigots."

This is just a reflection of your disdain (bigotry?) against people with different views. It is a way to marginalize your opposition and attack their credibility. It is a dishonest and mean spirited "argument" imo.

I'm sure people who wanted to perpetuate laws against mixed-race marriage didn't like being called biggots either. There is no such thing as "traditional" marriage. Every marriage is different and it is personal between those who are married. Calling it "traditional" is just a justification for biggotry. Meanwhile, committed same sex couples are not being given equal protection under the federal laws, leading to personal tragedies, such as lack of medical coverage, bankruptcy when one partner becomes terminally ill (federal laws protect hetero married couples by leaving the home and some money for the healthy spouse to live on but with a same-sex couple, the feds take everything from the ill spouse to support him or her, even they built everything as a couple - this often forces the healthy spouse to have to sell the family home and/or declare bankruptcy). Any "traditions" that cause that much pain to other human beings NEED to be broken.

bitaproductions - "this often forces the healthy spouse to have to sell the family home and/or declare bankruptcy"

Personally I think there are ways this can be handled without changing the definition of marriage. But it is an example of putting forth a legitimate argument to support your position. Calling those with a different view "biggots" is not. It hurts your cause. Presumably it feels good to vent against those on the other side of an issue, but it is counter productive and it divides people.

I note too that you have avoided my question about whether gay people that support the current and historical definition of marriage are biggots. Are they? I really would like to hear an answer on this and am puzzled by the avoidance of this question. Hmmmm.

You're only a bigot if you believe that the government should force the religious beliefs of some on all citizens. There are plenty of churches who grant same-sex marriage - why should their religious beliefs not be recognized by the government when others' beliefs are?

It's an issue of religious freedom.

srexley - The problem with the other team calling its opponents bigots is that it is an effective conversation stopper. If your total response to your opponent is to insult him, your response isn't expected to be reasonable. If you are a bigot, why is the other person interested in your opinion? It is a way of telling you to shut up. When they tell us to shut up with the bigot accusation, they are inviting the same type of response from us, and they deserve it. If they are not willing or able to recognize that each side in this debate has reasonable arguments, they are saying that there can be no debate or compromise. They are saying that they prefer a war.

So do not give them a debate-- give them war. They are the bigots when they behave this way. They are the ones that justify going after a person's job or business if they disagree with them, as they did in California and Maine. I mentioned that and never got a single advocate of theirs to say that this kind of attack was morally wrong. We cannot and should not stoop to their level and attack the livelihood of their leaders or threaten their lives as they did in Maine. We must point out that this is the strategy they have chosen. We must publicize the threats, the attacks on livelihood, and the true bigotry of their stand. Several on the Daily Beast have talked about revolution-- an absurdity. When they speak of absurdities, show their absurdity to the public. When they speak hatred, show their hatred to the voters. Since they wish to define this in terms of hatred, let them bear the obloquy for their spreading of hatred. They chose the rules-- make them play by them.

gak001 - "You're only a bigot if you believe that the government should force the religious beliefs of some on all citizens"

Nobody is forcing any religious beliefs on anybody. There is nobody that is barred from getting married. A gay person can marry, but since they do not want to spend the rest of their lives being married to someone of the opposite sex, they CHOOSE not to marry. But there are many that want to change the definition of marriage, and call those who want to keep the traditional definition bigots.

Why do you think they will not answer the question about whether a gay who is against changing the definition a bigot? Strange how silent it goes when I bring that up.

You know what's also a conversation stopper and highly offensive... telling someone they are not allowed to have the same legal rights as other citizens. If you don't support extending those legal and non-religious rights to gays, then denying you have a problem with gay people is a lie... because if you didn't have a problem with them, you would treat them as equals.

And some straight people (not sure the percentage) are against straight marriage too. That is a personal choice, but in a free and equal society everyone should at least have that choice.

"A gay person can marry, but since they do not want to spend the rest of their lives being married to someone of the opposite sex, they CHOOSE not to marry."

Sorry srexley, but you don't know what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with not wanting to be with an opposite sex partner. In fact, most gays tried very hard to change themselves to like those of the opposite sex, grew up in opposite sex households, knew only of opposite sex relationships their whole lives. They want to have a normal and easy time in life and that means wanting to fit into our traditional society. But from personal experience in all this, I can tell you that who you fall in love with is not a choice. You can chose to ignore it your whole life, but it is still there. And when you don't have a choice over who you fall in love with then you don't have a choice regarding marriage, plain and simple.

But you're not a gay so I will forgive your lack of understanding on the matter.

Why are you so concerned with "the definition" of marriage? Unless you're a really a dictionary, your concern over "the definition of marriage" seems disingenuous. How will letting gay couples marry affect you? (Leaving gender aside), Religiously, marriage is an affirmation of a sacred bond between two people and of their lifelong commitment to one another, and legally, marriage confers certain rights and privileges to a couple. Unless I'm missing something, the only way I can see this affecting you directly if you're is if you're married and in the closet (or you're afraid your wife may be). Quite frankly, I think allowing gay marriage does more for straight marriage, by encouraging people to come out of the closet (and protecting us straights from sexless marriages and subsequent divorces).
As (I'm assuming) a heterosexual man, I'm sure you wouldn't want to be forced to choose between having your relationship recognized (by the state) or committing to only have sex with a man for the rest of your life - that's a terrible choice for anyone who is only attracted to women to have to make. So why do you want to force it on lesbians? And vice versa (for heterosexual women and gay men).

sagaderisa - "Why are you so concerned with "the definition" of marriage?"

I am not that concerned about it. My main post was regarding my concern about folks who want to change the definition of marriage thinking everyone who doesn't is a bigot. And changing the definition of marriage is what is happening now. I happen to think it is disingenuous to call it a rights issue as all have the right to marriage. But marriage as currently defined is between one man and one woman. That a gay person would choose not to enter into this relationship makes more sense (to me) than changing the definintion of marriage.

"So why do you want to force it (choosing between marriage and only having sex with someone) on lesbians? And vice versa (for heterosexual women and gay men)."

I don't want to force anything on anybody. Marriage between a man and a woman has garnered some benefits as society has deemed it to be a benificial relationship for society. Nobody is forced to marry (or not marry) in our society, but there is nothing wrong in my view with keeping the definition as it is. With the gay marriage argument is seems that these benefits are indispensible and constitute a reason to get married. What about single people that have really good life long friends? What about brothers or sisters? What pair of people (or could it be more than a pair?) should we confer these benefits on?

Just my thoughts on it. I don't view it as discrimination, and my primary point was that calling folks like me (the majority) bigots is not cool, and it is counter productive. I think the gay marriage movement is actually losing a bit of steam, and I think it is because honest and tolerant folks don't like to be called bigots.

Still nobody has answered whether a gay that is against gay marriage is also a bigot. I won't hold my breath on that one.

heres the problem that i'm seeing here... you seem to be a rational person. why are you against people getting married? theres no logical reason to be against it... theres no danger to our society if/when it happens. massachusetts has had gay marriage for years and the state hasn't imploded.

i mean... theres no reason other than "i don't like it" that you should be against it...and frankly if thats the only reason thats no good enough. the benefits outweight the cost of some people just feeling icky about it.

if someone who is against gay marriage can produce some actual evidence on how gay people getting married will hurt the country then i will stop thinking that said people are just idiots who don't like gays.

"Still nobody has answered whether a gay that is against gay marriage is also a bigot." No, not a bigot. Just a moron.

So, SRexley, you don;t think gay marriage is right... Do you think gay couples who have lived together for years should be allowed to receive benefits from insurance? Or be allowed to pick up their loved one at the morgue for burial ? (the gov. of RI wants to bar that) Or be joined in a civil ceremony (you don't have to call it 'marriage' if it scares you) to allow the state to recognize their legal status as partners?

Two loving, committed individuals who happen to be of the same sex should be allowed the same benefits and opportunities as heterosexuals. If not, it is what it is: bigotry. Period.

Morlock - "you seem to be a rational person. why are you against people getting married?"

I'm not. I think getting married is a great thing.

"theres no logical reason to be against it... theres no danger to our society if/when it happens."

I can't say for sure whether any damage will come to our society if the definition of marriage is changed. For me, it dilutes the importance of marriage. And I think in the long run it will hurt society somewhat. I could be wrong, and your line of reasoning is a legit way to debate the topic imo.

"said people are just idiots who don't like gays."

This is where your "argument" devolves into the common tactic of vilifiying your opponent. Since you cannot understand how someone does not see it the way you do, you figure they are "idiots who don't like gays". It does not matter that plenty who support traditional marriage have no problem with gays and are quite the opposite of idiots. Since everyone has avoided my question, I'll put it to you. Is a gay person that is against gay marriage an "idiot who doesn't like gays"?

Or is there a special exemption for them. My guess is that you feel they are idiots, and are undecided about whether the don't like gays.

nickmagoo - "not a bigot. Just a moron. (gays who are against gay marriage)"

Too bad there is so much disdain for those with other views.

"So, SRexley, you don;t think gay marriage is right... "

I don't think it is A right. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. As it has been through most of recorded history.

"Do you think gay couples who have lived together for years should be allowed to receive benefits from insurance?"

I do. And I believe you can designate anybody you want to be a beneficiary on your insurance. If I am incorrect on this (and I don't think I am) I would be for changing a law that says that your insurance beneficiary cannot be your gay partner.

"Or be allowed to pick up their loved one at the morgue for burial ? (the gov. of RI wants to bar that) "

I believe a gay person should be able to pick up a loved one at the morgue. If the governor of RI is against it, I would not support that position.

"Or be joined in a civil ceremony (you don't have to call it 'marriage' if it scares you) to allow the state to recognize their legal status as partners?"

I am for civil unions.

"Two loving, committed individuals who happen to be of the same sex should be allowed the same benefits and opportunities as heterosexuals."

But they do. Many are trying to give them the "right" to change the definition of marriage. I say they are fully protected under the laws of our country. They can even marry if they would like. But since they are attracted to the same sex it would not make much sense as marriage (as currently defined) is between one man and one woman.

"If not, it is what it is: bigotry. Period."

As explained. They have every right that heterosexuals do. So it is not bigotry. Marriage is a man and a woman, civil union or domestic partner should be the term for committed gay relationships that want the BENEFITS (not rights) of marriage.

Seems fair, doesn't it?

srexley - It's awfully hard to be bigoted against your own kind. The government is establishing a religious practice, raising certain conservative Christian interpretations of the Bible and marriage over other interpretations. Either civil marriage is civil marriage or it's religious marriage. If it's civil marriage, then they shouldn't discriminate against same-sex couples. If it's religious marriage, then it shouldn't be recognized by the state at all. It's not a difficult concept.

jasonsabio - "Sorry srexley, but you don't know what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with not wanting to be with an opposite sex partner."

You are missing my point. I am just stating that they could marry if they wanted to. ie, there is no law against getting married. But since marrige is between a man and a woman I would think a gay person would not want to be married. I do know what I am talking about, you just don't agree with it. I am not commenting on whether being gay is a choice.

"They want to have a normal and easy time in life and that means wanting to fit into our traditional society."

You are probably right here. But calling folks who believe in traditional marriage bigots does not help with this cause. That is my main point for writing my post.

"You can chose to ignore it your whole life,"

They don't need to ignore who they fall in love with. But a civil union or domestic partner seems like a reasonable term as opposed to redefining marriage.

"But you're not a gay so I will forgive your lack of understanding on the matter."

I appreciate that you have not called me a bigot or idiot. If this truly is the case with me (and folks that are for traditional marriage), then well thought out arguments that explain why they don't understand will go a lot further than calling them bigots. As stated earlier, I believe that is actually hurting their cause. Support for gay marriage has actually gone down the last few years, and I think the vitriol and intollerance against those who see it as I do is a big reason for that.

srexley,

Time for you to answer some questions.

Why are you against religious freedom? Don't you agree that marriage is a religious institution? Are you really all for letting Big Government tell churches what they can and can't practice as religious tradition? So why are you against letting churches decide whom they want to marry? Nobody wants to force any church to marry gays. They just want to stop Big Government from stepping in and telling them they can't even if they want to. Again, are you really against religious freedom in America?? Are you for Big Government? Are you a liberal?

I can appreciate sentiments of not wanting to cause "division", though I think it is important to point out that among the many things that is causing divisiveness in this country is spending so much time debating whether or not homosexuals should be granted equal protection of the laws (in regards to marriage and other issues) instead of spending our time and energy on the spiraling costs of health-care, the war against Islamic extremists, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan, high unemployment, the climate-crisis, inadequacies in education, government corruption, etc.

Some on your side no doubt expect us to give up on our struggle to gain the same rights & privileges that heterosexuals enjoy, but that's not about to happen. Nor should it. Nor would you if you were in our place. Something you cannot, really, comprehend.

In this debate our very livelihoods are at stake here. For you, it's merely your personal comfort levels and a desire to have your religious beliefs enforced by the government.

@srexley
I know you're really proud of yourself because you think you've found a convenient out for your prejudice against same-sex couples marrying. So before your head explodes I'll take your question about homosexuals who oppose same-sex marriage.

First of all, that I know of, in my entire life I have only met one homosexual who doesn't support same-sex marriage. The few celebrity-types that I've heard speak about this issue don't favor same-sex marriage because they don't value religion and so frankly they don't give a damn one way or the other, they'd rather not fight another ten years to win marriage win we could have a (second class) substitute sooner.

And then there are others who believe that marriage should not be recognized by the government at all, that it is some sort of slight on single people... I don't share their viewpoint.

I'd point out to you that, like all other groups of people, we have our self-loathing types as well. And for those that are willing to sell out the rest of us for their convenience and laziness, well, the phrase "Uncle Tom" comes to mind.

You wrote that you "don't want to force anything on anybody." Then I would suggest to you that you should stop doing so. By that I mean, stop marginalizing the needs of same-sex couples, stop supporting laws which effectively deny equal protection under the law to homosexuals and same-sex couples.

You wrote, "Marriage between a man and a woman has garnered some benefits as society has deemed it to be a benificial relationship for society."

I agree. And I would suggest to you that marriage, i.e. committed relationships based on love and shared responsibilities, are beneficial to society regardless whether the partners in the relationship are the same race or opposite races, the same gender or opposite genders.

We as a society should be encouraging stable relationships, not demonizing them and not denying them to those who seek them.

You wrote, "I think the gay marriage movement is actually losing a bit of steam, and I think it is because honest and tolerant folks don't like to be called bigots."

There is nothing honest nor tolerant about denying equal protection of the laws to homosexuals, including denying same-sex couples the same veritable right to marriage that opposite-sex couples are awarded freely, based on nothing more than religious beliefs, personal beliefs/prejudices, and fears about what 'might' happen if, god-forbid same-sex couples are treated under the law the way opposite-sex couples are.

You wrote in regards to not being supportive of marriage, "I'm not. I think getting married is a great thing."

Then you should support those who genuinely seek it; stop trying to forbid it to them.

You wrote, "I can't say for sure whether any damage will come to our society if the definition of marriage is changed. For me, it dilutes the importance of marriage."

It amazes me that you really don't get how insulting this is. I know it must be difficult to relate to when you don't ever have to face this sort of remark, and the discrimination, and the legal prohibitions and second-class status, but you should really sit yourself down once in a while and ponder to yourself what it would be like to have your relationship cast in such a negative light, to have the choice of marrying your chosen partner denied to you not just by your church which may not approve, but by your own government.

"I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. As it has been through most of recorded history."

I disagree. By the way, the definition of "marriage" has changed greatly from culture to culture and era to era throughout history. And not just the roles of the partners involved, but also societal notions about inter-racial mixing, inter-religious mixing, polygamy.

Lastly, you claimed, "As explained. They have every right that heterosexuals do. So it is not bigotry. Marriage is a man and a woman, civil union or domestic partner should be the term for committed gay relationships that want the BENEFITS (not rights) of marriage.
Seems fair, doesn't it?"

First of all, no, we don't have the same rights. Depending on the issue and where in the country, we're denied employment, service in the military, housing, adoption, marriage, insurance benefits, and even in states where we can marry we are denied federal marriage protections and benefits, which include private benefits inherent in this, due to DOMA.

And no, it doesn't seem fair at all. There is no way to construe it as such.

Using your argument for a separate marriage-like contract for homosexuals, I suppose you feel that it would have been fine to give inter-racial couples in 1967 some sort of alternative marriage to satisfy those racist bigots who believed so strongly that interracial mixing wasn't traditional or biblical or decent or whatever...?

The argument that has been made for a couple of generations now is that separate is not equal. And that's why, overall, we reject the alternative to marriage solution.

I realize that not every person who opposes same-sex marriage is necessarily bigoted against gay people overall. I think some folks are simply ignorant of homosexuals, perhaps they've had bad experiences with a few of them and so they use that as a justification (AslanLeon deliberately does this in every thread on the subject), and some are simply misguided due to all the stereotyping and negative propaganda they've been exposed to.

Certainly the level with which so many of these people will go to rationalize why it is reasonable and even imperative to deny the right/privilege of marriage to same-sex couples suggests a bigoted viewpoint. Every excuse under the sun is made. As one argument is debunked, another is thrown up in it's place. It amounts to a total refusal to recognize homosexuals and same-sex relationships as in any way equal to heterosexuals and opposite-sex relationships. Indeed, a stubborn refusal to accept any rational explanations as to why institutional discrimination is not consistent with egalitarian principals.


I don't know what your views are on interracial marriage, I suppose it doesn't matter. And I don't know what you consider those people who oppose interracial-marriage to be. Living in the Midwest I've known quite a few people who oppose interracial-marriage and even interracial-dating, several in my own family. I believe at best that these people are racist, prejudiced. Some of them I would even consider bigoted in their rhetoric and treatment of interracial couples. They have all sorts of unsophisticated reasons for believing what they do, everything from God and nature to the children.

Again, I don't know where you come down on this, but I would definitely consider anyone who would go to the voting booth to pass a law banning interracial marriage to be a bigot. Thank goodness that such a thing wasn't introduced to the ballot box or else interracial marriage would still be illegal in some states or localities. Indeed, recently a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana thought he had every right to deny an interracial couple marriage.

Now I've had people tell me I'm intolerant for not respecting the beliefs of those who believe that GOD made racial distinctions for a reason, and that interracial coupling defies GOD's plan. To me this is absurd, but if that's how they want to characterize it then fine, I'm intolerant.

I can understand that some of you genuinely believe that it's really different when judging same-sex relationships as being "unnatural" or for some reason unworthy of being recognized by the government, but it smacks of a very convenient rationalization that you have invented to evade responsibility for your beliefs. I don't think you have any actual legitimacy in claiming such. At the very least, you really don't have much cause to expect to be respected for it.

I'd like to add that while some of you find it so simple for us to be magnanimous, you might find that if you were in our place, if others in the majority were describing your relationship and indeed the possibility of marriage to your partner as 'destroying the fabric of society' and ultimately leading to the 'downfall of civilization' and these same folks happily vote to deny you civil rights (including but not limited to marriage) and squeal with delight as civil rights that have been granted to same-sex couples are stripped from them (California and Maine), that the term bigot would seem quite apropos.

By the way, in spite of incessant claims by AslanLeon, referring to person's who espouse and vote their personal prejudices as "bigots" is much less of a "conversation stopper" than voting for and passage of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT which bans common rights/privileges for a segment of the citizenry.

Don't worry, Aslan, yes, this is war and we know it. That's why some of us don't bother with the niceties.

Those who stand for justice and those who stand opposed will battle over equality and the denial of it, and your "team" and the agenda of intolerance, contempt and persecution you promote is going to lose.

We will continue to point out the lies, the disinformation, the hate, the efforts to demonize and dehumanize, efforts to deny due process to those of us you have deemed inferior of it. And you can continue to claim we are bigots in doing so - your argument in favor of injustice and intolerance is losing.

As I've explained to you already in other threads which you disappeared from, the tide is turning, opinions are changing. Your own numbers illustrate this. Within a decade we will have won equality on nearly every front that people of your ilk have long tried to deny us. And in less than a generation the slight majority against same-sex marriage will become a majority for it.

We'll still have to fight against the constitutional discrimination that the advocates of the anti-homosexual agenda have shamefully instituted at the state level just like interracial couples before us, but this, too, we shall overcome.

Alas, all of this will not come without our determined efforts to defeat the ignorance, the disinformation, the prejudice and the hatred. And that is what we do. No matter how important it is for you to toil to deny the civil rights of others, protecting our civil rights is more important to us.

Yes, this is a war for justice for all. And though we lost California and Maine, we've won elsewhere, on so many fronts, and there are a lot more wins to come.

It is a remarkable time we live in. Get used to it.

I really did mean what I said, I appreciate your civility on the discourse. And I appreciate that you really are trying to be fair and supportive of homosexuals. While I honestly don't find that it is at all consistent with principles of tolerance and egalitarianism to oppose same-sex marriage or gays serving openly in the military, you haven't displayed hostility or prejudice towards homosexuals.

I'd be interested in debating with you further on other issues. You are much more reasonable, not showing a clearly biased, anti-homosexual agenda in your remarks, unlike bloggers like AslanLeon.

Even if we have no other recourse in regards to same-sex marriage to agree to disagree, I have a feeling that both of us might be surprised by just how much we agree on some other subjects.

Again, have a good evening.

dragonscorpion - It has been nice debating you as well. I've read your other responses and have some thoughts on them as well, but too tired to put the effort in. One point you made about me beating the "what about gays that are against gay marriage" is off the mark as far as my reasoning for the repeated questions. That was strictly because nobody would answer it. And I think it would be interesting to know the percentage of gays that do oppose it. If it is 1%, it means nothing. If it was 50% (and I am sure it is not that high) it would mean a lot. That nobody would answer it (until you did) was bothersome, so I kept throwing it out there until someone did. It had nothing to do with me being proud of the argument, but I thought it a relevent point and was fishing for a response.

This may surprise you. But I think you are winning this debate. The long and short of it is that I do not think homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals, but do view traditional marriage as the type of relationship that is worthy of having benefits bestowed upon it by society. A stable family unit comprised of the people that create and rear the new humans seems like a good model to put at the top. That said, you bring up some good points about the value of stable and commited gay relationships as well.

I will most likely answer some of your points in the near future. But if I don't get to it, I will jump in and debate on other issues as well. You certainly seem like a clear thinking individual, and it has been interesting and enjoyable to exchange views with you. As you probably have guessed, I am fairly conservative. But I enjoy the exchange of ideas with folks that come from a different perspective. And I respect all views that are honestly held and well thought out.

Have a great night.

~srexley wrote: "One point you made about me beating the "what about gays that are against gay marriage" is off the mark as far as my reasoning for the repeated questions. That was strictly because nobody would answer it. ... That nobody would answer it (until you did) was bothersome, so I kept throwing it out there until someone did."~

Understandable. It was a relevant point to raise. Forgive the cynicism, I've encountered this sort of thing before, a same-sex opponent who argues a controversial point that doesn't get addressed initially and then it is paraded around as some sort of proof that same-sex proponents have no case or are inconsistent, etc.

On this point, I'd planned to mention it before but apparently forgot, I was going to say that I suspect that others involved in this thread, who as far as I can tell aren't homosexuals, didn't feel comfortable speaking for the community as a whole. While I'm certainly no official spokesman, by any means, I not only am knowledgeable about the perspective of homosexuals about same-sex marriage, but as a member of the community I have more first hand experience than heterosexual proponents of same-sex marriage.

I don't think anyone was trying to avoid your question, but at the very least, considering how many times you had brought it up they should have at minimum admitted they couldn't explain this seeming inconsistency or voiced why they didn't feel comfortable explaining it. I can only assume that they could have felt such a reluctance might have been used as anti-same-sex marriage ammunition.

I'd like to ask you some questions on your perspective. On what basis do you believe that same-sex marriage should be opposed? Do you believe same-sex unions should be allowed? If so, why? What do you think about permitting gay adoption? Do you agree with the sentiment that businesses should be permitted to discriminate against homosexuals on the grounds it might 'hurt their business'? Do you believe that same-sex attraction is an innate orientation or a conscious (or subconscious) choice?

Thank you for your time. I appreciate the kind words. I'm sure we'll cross paths again. Though you are a conservative, and I'm definitely not in regards to most subjects, we may end up on the same side of some issues.

It's a shame that the Daily Beast doesn't offer private messages, but maybe you'll check out my blog sometime. Take care.

To continue on our discussion. By the way I also appreciate the civil discourse and non-confrontational approach. I think you are trying to be balanced and that's difficult to find these days. To simplify things a bit and make for easier reading, I decided to group your comments together by subject as much as possible.

~"The part of the debate that has been skipped with your premise is whether homosexuals have equal protection under the laws. It seems to me they do. Is marriage a "right"? I am not arguing that gays should not have equal protection as I believe they do." ~ srexley

Hmmm... Whether we have it or whether we should? Constitutionally, we should. Obviously some don't agree with this, but no one ever makes a legitimate case as to why we shouldn't. At best they haul out the 'it's a choice' argument, or the 'behavior shouldn't be protected' argument, or the 'it's not natural' argument, or the slippery-slope 'next we'll have to protect pedophiles, etc.' which are all absurd, easily debunked and indefensible from a legal perspective.

Now some argue that we already have equal protection of the laws, but in fact we do not. Depending on where you live in this country, in most places we can be denied employment for no other reason than our orientation. We can be denied service in the military for no other reason than not completely hiding our orientation or not avoiding to get 'outed' by someone with a personal grudge against us. We can be denied adoption. And, of course, unlike heterosexuals, we can't marry our partners.

~"As far as the military goes, I can see the logic in a sense. To me it makes sense to have separate men and women showers for instance. There is a sexual component to common showers that could make some folks uncomfortable..." ~ srexley

Now we're getting to what I was talking about earlier. There are often claims that this same-sex marriage opposition isn't an attempt to treat homosexuals as second-class, rather 'well, I just don't want to change the definition of marriage'. But I have found that when you start getting folks to discuss just how much they do support equality under the law, the claim unravels.

It's really quite an affront to tell patriotic Americans who just so happen to be homosexual that their service isn't wanted. And again, the reason has NOTHING to do with any inability to carry out their duties, it's all to satisfy the comfort levels of heterosexuals...

I would imagine it has to be incredibly difficult to hide your orientation. Can you imagine working alongside the same people day in and day out under close quartered hostile conditions and never once utter any words about your partner back home? Always speaking of your personal life as if from the perspective of a heterosexual?

As for the practicality of ending DODT. On the front lines showers are a luxury. In a combat zone separate showers can be a luxury. I think it's a good idea to make accommodations where possible, but I think it's merely an assumption that such accommodations are guaranteed.

Segregation in the military is nothing new, women were barred from serving, blacks could not be officers and often had to be part of their own units. Why? To appease the sensibilities (prejudices) of men and whites. In no way do I find this even remotely reasonable. I would say the same for our segregation.

As for how detrimental it would be if homosexuals were permitted to serve openly in the military, nearly 30 nations, including Israel, U.K., France, Germany, Canada, Australia allow homosexuals to serve openly in their military. I am unaware of any serious problems that have arisen from this.

(continued)

~"I equate calling the opposition a bigot to saying the folks for gay marriage want to ruin marriage for Christians and people that view marriage in the traditional way." ~ srexley

In regards to your being proud of your question 'why aren't gay people who oppose same-sex marriage bigots'. I made the remark because you brought it up in nearly every post, waving it around in everyone's face like a prize that you'd found some sort of loophole that could be used to shut everyone up on their premise that actively opposing same-sex marriage is a bigoted thing to do.

By the way, the overwhelming majority of those I've encountered who oppose same-sex marriage and strongly advocate that marriage law should not apply to same-sex couples, perpetuate the very example you provided - same-sex marriage would ruin the "traditional" or "Christian" institution of marriage.

Again, I'm not clear on just what basis you oppose it considering that you don't seem to have a personal issue with us, you don't seem to think we are less than, dangerous, inferior, etc. and yet. If for what other reason than it would in some way damage society?

~"You are correct that I cannot put myself in your shoes. But I see gay folks as every bit as productive and accomplished as any other group. I have worked with a lot of them in my previous career (in print/advertising) and saw no limit to how high they wemt in the business and social world." ~ srexley

I'll take you at your word for that. This is where I see a distinction between the closed-minded bigots harboring personal prejudices about homosexuals, and those who, for some reason just aren't comfortable with the idea of same-sex couples getting married.

Truly, in my experience many of those who have made similar comments to yours, or have remarked that its just the marriage issue that bothers them, ultimately they end up arguing that employers shouldn't have to hire some homosexual as it may 'hurt their business', or why homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military, etc.

I must say, it is bewildering how someone can say of a group of people what you have here, and yet still believe it perfectly appropriate to codify in law that these people and their partners cannot enter into the same civil contract that is open to most any heterosexual couple nearly without question...

I don't know how you reconcile this.

~"I am honest, and I am tolerant, but have a different view of marriage. I view being gay as a lifestyle more than a trait like race, but maybe I am wrong on this." ~ srexley

What an unfortunate choice of words. This is where I see your side marginalizing us by reducing our relationships to a "lifestyle". You say that you're honest, okay, then here is some truth. All relationships include a "lifestyle". Heterosexual relations are a "lifestyle". Practicing Christianity is a "lifestyle". All of these involve choices. Choices which, except in our case, are seen as good, healthy, noble, etc.

Let's be intellectually honest and agree that like heterosexual relationships, and interracial relationships, homosexual relationships are a choice. But sexual orientation and who people fall in love with, is not a choice.

~"On the other point, comparing race and sexual orientation is to be a bit of a stretch imo." ~ srexley

I understand your point. I think there are a lot of compelling arguments in favor of same-sex marriage that opponents are finding it very difficult to argue against. Certainly the point of society having a compelling interest to encourage stable relationships is a very strong case, one that unravels the oppositions claim that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed on the basis that homosexual relationships are unstable or dysfunctional.

As for comparing race and sexual orientation, this mistake is made often. The argument isn't actually a comparison of race and sexual orientation, it's drawing an analogy to similar situations - i.e. prohibitions against civil marriage between interracial couples on the basis of tradition and religion vs. prohibitions against civil marriage between same-sex couples on the basis of tradition and religion.

~"It would certainly matter if I was against them [interracial marriage] (I'm not). That would actually prove that I am a bigot." ~ srexley

I find it fascinating that there is a consensus among a lot of folks these days that opposing interracial marriage is "bigoted", not just a difference of opinion (though a generation or two ago this was the opposite). I note that such a belief is not dismissed as merely a difference of opinion, but rather it is defined as "bigoted". And yet these same folks go on to claim there is nothing bigoted about opposing same-sex marriage for intrinsically the same reasons. They go on further to claim we're being belligerent by referring to such opposition as bigoted. It strikes me as terribly hypocritical.

You asked if I thought sexual orientation is the same as race. I believe that sexual orientation is as inherent, as innate a part of one's nature as ethnicity, yes. Do I think it is genetic? I believe it is biological, yes. Can I explain why a "gay gene" hasn't been found? One, a lack of study. But this is improving. Two, as in nearly all cases of genetic traits, I think sexual orientation will be found to result from a combination of genetic markers, not one gene.

~"I don't think they have any sound reasoning from The Bible or God to be against interacial marriage." ~ srexley

I don't either, but they certainly did. Or still do. But this is, of course, beside the point, in our nation one's religious interpretations is not enough to codify law around it. We don't deny marriages based on the teachings of a church or religion. Nor should we. But that is just what is occurring as same-sex couples are denied marriage. It is on the basis of religion, subjecting homosexuals to the religious interpretations of non-homosexuals. It's not fair, not reasonable, and not constitutional.

~To my comment: "I would definitely consider anyone who would go to the voting booth to pass a law banning interracial marriage to be a bigot."
you responded: "So would I."

That's interesting. Why? Moreover, why in the case of interracial marriage but not same-sex marriage? Afterall, both are a choice.

(continued)

~"This can be looked at both ways. Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, so traditional folks would say that you are forcing them to change what they believe to be marriage." ~ srexley

I'd like to draw to your attention to a comment toward the bottom of the thread, "Traditional marriages were arranged by tribes or families to keep property and assets within chosen groups. Sometimes this involved marrying siblings and other blood relatives (eeeew!). Also, the bride would move in with the husbands parents to help them in their old age. That is traditional marriage. What we know as 'marriage' today is a modern concept that is in no way "traditional" as the bible would see it."

And I'd add that polygamy has been practiced in various cultures at various times throughout history, including among Semitic cultures.

To sum this up, we are no more "forcing" the "traditionalists" to change their definition of marriage anymore than repealing anti-miscegenation laws forced racist "traditionalists" to change their definition of marriage. Ultimately, I would suggest that "traditionalists" don't have a right to be comfortable in their beliefs, but homosexuals do have a right to equal access to the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy.

~"So is the ability to create children even a component of what is marriage?" ~ srexley

Under the law as it is now, no. Nor do I think it should be. I think it is important to focus on what the purpose of marriage is to our society today, rather than merely focusing on some fanciful notions that we selectively claim it it has historically been.

To me, marriage can provide a stable environment to a home, it can encourage a couple to pool their resources, be a more productive part of their community, provide for their family (including but not limited to children). It does provide a benefit to society.

We no longer deny marriage to couples on the basis of race or religion. We don't deny marriage to those who cannot or choose not to have children. We don't deny marriage to older couples who seemingly aren't going to live a great while longer and certainly aren't going to be procreating.

I don't see much wringing of hands over these assaults on marriage or insulting claims they are 'neutering' the so-called 'purpose' of marriage - procreation.

I would argue that there is far more to marriage than procreation or even child-rearing, and seeing as how the state does not enforce prerequisites on the ability or desire to have children, using the inability of same-sex procreation (sans surrogates) as a justiciation for denying same-sex marriage is, to me, a red-herring.

On gay opposition to same-sex marriage:
~"I have seen no polls (and I wonder about that), and have only heard anicdotal evidence from talking heads on tv that say that there are some. 1%, 10%, 20%? I don't know." ~ srexley

I couldn't give you any figures either. I don't know of any studies on this. Some might assume this is deliberate.

Really, I think this whole thing came up because several years ago (I remember this clearly as I was adamantly against it), there were some prominent voices in our community that seemed quite satisfied with just pursuing same-sex unions and weren't interested in "marriage" per se. I'm not religious, and personally I'd like to see all "marriages" become civil unions, get the state out of it, but it occurred to me and to a lot of us that inventing some sort of alternative name or contract was creating a "separate but equal" solution.

To a lot of us this isn't acceptable. We're not willing to settle for some second class pseudo "marriage" to appease the sensibilities (prejudices) of heterosexuals. If it takes 10 or 20 years longer, we'll have exactly what you do. Obviously, some in our community don't agree, they want instant results.

You and others have talked about how our "name-calling" has resulted in losses for us as otherwise indifferent folks have turned out to vote against us. To some extent this may be true. Mostly there are things on the ballot that simply weren't before. But I think you will find the same is true for us, these two losses have motivated a hell of a lot of us to fight harder than ever, and to call out the anti-gay rhetoric & efforts to deny our civil rights for what it is - bigotry.

I hope I covered everything that you'd brought up. If you have any questions or need clarity on something I'd be happy to do so. I do appreciate the lengthy discussion and the civil debate. I did have a good day, by the way, thanks for the well wishes. I hope you have a good evening.

Rhonda will be disappointed to be left out.

Dems...

You are a dishonest fool.

Save yourself more embarrassment.

Demsdisorder - You want to be married to farm animals too, in addition to being married to Sarah and Plant? OK. It is online for all to read.

They have rights to.............what? Oh, did you mean "too"?
Why do people want to keep homosexuals from being as miserable as the rest of us?

There's real validity in your remark. Marriage is the business of love and as such, it guarantees certain rights to the people who are married. That is the issue; not about what some god says to it's followers. God A says one man, many wives; god B says one man, one woman, god c says one man, prepubescent girls, etc.

So then if it's the legal benefits (and also obligations, in such cases as divorce) one is after, why must marriage be the avenue for one to receive these benefits?

It is true that marriage was around before legal benefits. I think benefits should be a purely government thing, between any two people (or hell maybe even more than two), but it baffles me as to why conservatives are looking to use the government to restrict marriage in the church. Not only is this hypocritical to their anti-big government stances, it is inviting the government to further restrict their religious practices. Just as no church should be forced to marry gays, if a church chooses to marry gays, they should be allowed without government interference, right conservatives?

God willing.

Hoisted by their own petards, as it were. :-P