Do you support Same Sex Marriage?

[afleitch]

A few of those who are in general opposition to SSM have some internalised issues they need to address.

[Supersonic]

A few of those who are in general opposition to SSM have some internalised issues they need to address.

What do you mean?

[Ban my account ffs!]

A few of those who are in general opposition to SSM have some internalised issues they need to address.

What do you mean?

Perhaps you give too much leeway to the conservative minded people you surround yourself with?

I have lots of conservative friends, but I don't let their attitudes shape my views on gay issues, least of all gay marriage.

I'm not saying you do either simply because I don't know you very well... I just hope you're being honest with yourself for your own sake.

That said.. I've only been to England once... and it was almost all spent in Birmingham.  Seemed like a genuinely nice place, actually... despite the way it is perceived by the rest of the English

[Torie]

A few of those who are in general opposition to SSM have some internalised issues they need to address.

What do you mean?

It is probably unwise to speculate what the buffed Scottish hunk was thinking about, but the usual instant analysis and "diagnosis" is an insecurity about one's own sexuality or masculinity. Another less in your face diagnosis might be fear of the reaction of peers or parents.

[DC Al Fine]

A few of those who are in general opposition to SSM have some internalised issues they need to address.

What do you mean?

It is probably unwise to speculate what the buffed Scottish hunk was thinking about, but the usual instant analysis and "diagnosis" is an insecurity about one's own sexuality or masculinity. Another less in your face diagnosis might be fear of the reaction of peers or parents.

Does the "vocally opposed to gay marriage ergo homosexual" fallacy have a name?

[Torie]

A few of those who are in general opposition to SSM have some internalised issues they need to address.

What do you mean?

It is probably unwise to speculate what the buffed Scottish hunk was thinking about, but the usual instant analysis and "diagnosis" is an insecurity about one's own sexuality or masculinity. Another less in your face diagnosis might be fear of the reaction of peers or parents.

Does the "vocally opposed to gay marriage ergo homosexual" fallacy have a name?

Sure, the "fearful f****t fallacy."  My bf threw another "diagnosis" on the table - interpellation. I didn't think of that one. That means the societal practice of labeling folks ("hailing them as it were), and if you don't gay bash, some might fear the consequence is that they will be "hailed" as f****ts. Now at this juncture I would consider that a supreme complement, but many would not, and don't have the money and skill to put someone away if they  punch you out because you don't seem tough enough on the fags. So even if the gay bashers are not closeted, they might fear being hailed as closeted. Oh the horror, the horror!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's easy to assume that opposition to gay marriage is a simple reflection of hatred or bigotry or self-loathing, but I think to make such broad assumptions is almost as bad as what the traditionalists are guilty of. Marriage is deeply spiritual to a lot of people. There's something reverent and meaningful about "the way it has been done" for hundreds if not thousands of years. I understand the urge to respect that. At the same time though, I personally believe that government can't deal in the spiritual elements of this issue and must instead treat it like any other policy matter (erring on the side of fairness and equality).

But yep, I get why a lot of people disagree with me. A lot of them are really good people, too. I believe in my heart of hearts that where someone stands on same-sex marriage isn't an indicator of their overall character. I really hate when the issue is used as a sort of disqualifier.

[Enderman]

I really hate when the issue is used as a sort of disqualifier.

For me, abortion views are more of a disqualifier...
then tax viewsnd SSM follow...

[Peter the Lefty]

It's easy to assume that opposition to gay marriage is a simple reflection of hatred or bigotry or self-loathing, but I think to make such broad assumptions is almost as bad as what the traditionalists are guilty of. Marriage is deeply spiritual to a lot of people. There's something reverent and meaningful about "the way it has been done" for hundreds if not thousands of years. I understand the urge to respect that.

It's difficult to respect that when the reason why it's been that way for all those years has been because of bigotry and the marginalization of the gay community. 

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

I thought Republicans here were more socially liberal than the mainstream R's for the most part. The fact that 10 republicans voted against SSM is surprising considering I've seen probably less than 10 positive social PM scores across the board.

But there is practically no reason why gays should be denied a privilege that straight people take for granted.

[Supersonic]

A few of those who are in general opposition to SSM have some internalised issues they need to address.

What do you mean?

Perhaps you give too much leeway to the conservative minded people you surround yourself with?

I have lots of conservative friends, but I don't let their attitudes shape my views on gay issues, least of all gay marriage.

I'm not saying you do either simply because I don't know you very well... I just hope you're being honest with yourself for your own sake.

That said.. I've only been to England once... and it was almost all spent in Birmingham.  Seemed like a genuinely nice place, actually... despite the way it is perceived by the rest of the English

I'm not quite sure where you're coming from, I support same sex marriage. You're implying that I don't. I do have a positive 'S' score, but still. Admittedly, a late convert to the cause.

You think Birmingham is good? Well, that's a rare attitude I have to say! Hah.

I thought Republicans here were more socially liberal than the mainstream R's for the most part. The fact that 10 republicans voted against SSM is surprising considering I've seen probably less than 10 positive social PM scores across the board.

But there is practically no reason why gays should be denied a privilege that straight people take for granted.

A theory is that those in opposition don't like to say so openly now as they'll be hounded. Whatever your opinion of that.

[tmthforu94]

Yes, and it's disappointing that most Republicans out there are still saying no. We're the party that cares about what goes on in the bedroom but not in the boardroom.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Nope and I never will.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The lone "No (D)"... kindly change your avatar if it is indeed red. 

[7,052,770]

Saying "no" is no longer a legitimate political belief anymore than being pro-Jim Crow is.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Saying "no" is no longer a legitimate political belief anymore than being pro-Jim Crow is.

Not really. While the tide has changed, it does not say in the Bible that Blacks should be segregated. It does say that homosexuality is a sin. At the same time, the Bible also preaches tolerance and love for all people, and it says that all people are sinner by the fact that they exist. Religious opposition to gay marriage is legitimate, but very theologically incorrect.

[Hifly]

No (D)
As everyone knows already, I staunchly oppose redefining marriage. However, I do support civil unions which grant the same fullest rights to those who by definition do not wish to get married in the legal and factual sense.
Virtually all my friends do support this however, and as frustrating as I find it, we agree to disagree.

[7,052,770]

No (D)
As everyone knows already, I staunchly oppose redefining marriage. However, I do support civil unions which grant the same fullest rights to those who by definition do not wish to get married in the legal and factual sense.
Virtually all my friends do support this however, and as frustrating as I find it, we agree to disagree.

So you're OK with redefining it to "two people of the opposite sex who love each other" and can accept that fundamental change, but you can't accept the much smaller, less fundamental change of allowing same-sex couples too?  Completely and utterly illogical.

[Hifly]

No (D)
As everyone knows already, I staunchly oppose redefining marriage. However, I do support civil unions which grant the same fullest rights to those who by definition do not wish to get married in the legal and factual sense.
Virtually all my friends do support this however, and as frustrating as I find it, we agree to disagree.

So you're OK with redefining it to "two people of the opposite sex who love each other" and can accept that fundamental change, but you can't accept the much smaller, less fundamental change of allowing same-sex couples too?  Completely and utterly illogical.

Well, the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage is still; "The union of one man and one woman, recognised by law, by which they become man and wife". There's nothing to change.

[© tweed]

I would vote 'yes' on such a ballot initiative, but it's of no importance to me and would never be a stand-alone focus of my activism.

[7,052,770]

By far the most common historical marriage was one man, and whatever number of women he could acquire by force or negotiation.

The idea of "one man, one woman, who monogamously love each other" has only become common in the last couple centuries, and in some countries still isn't. THAT is the radical redefinition of marriage.  If you can support such a revolutionary change of thinking in what "marriage" is, it's mind-boggling that you can't also support the comparatively minuscule edit that same sex-couples are OK too.  It just doesn't stand to any kind of logical scrutiny.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

By far the most common historical marriage was one man, and whatever number of women he could acquire by force or negotiation.

The idea of "one man, one woman, who monogamously love each other" has only become common in the last couple centuries, and in some countries still isn't. THAT is the radical redefinition of marriage.  If you can support such a revolutionary change of thinking in what "marriage" is, it's mind-boggling that you can't also support the comparatively minuscule edit that same sex-couples are OK too.  It just doesn't stand to any kind of logical scrutiny.

Harry, why are you bantering with this person?  Like you said, being anti-gay marriage is no different than being pro-Jim Crow back in the day.  They are not worth talking to on this subject.  

Democrat to Democrat, I think our party has made up our mind on this one.  I'm not normally one to say "fall in line", as different factions within a party are essential.  However, I make an exception for this issue.  This is a Civil Rights issue and in my mind, to be a Democrat you must absolutely stand for equal rights. 

[Hifly]

However, I make an exception for this issue.  This is a Civil Rights issue and in my mind, to be a Democrat you must absolutely stand for equal rights. 

Cool story bro.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

However, I make an exception for this issue.  This is a Civil Rights issue and in my mind, to be a Democrat you must absolutely stand for equal rights. 

Cool story bro.

52 of us think it IS a cool story.