Opinion of people who oppose "redefining marriage"

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Utter filth. I consider them even lower than flat out religious anti-gay bigots, since at least their position is logical consistent albeit repulsive, and isn't taken seriously by anyone so kind of harmless now. This is just awful discriminatory Moderate Heroism for the sake of it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

OMG, they make use of argumentation that is outside the range of political values I consider valid, WORST PEOPLE EVA!

[Miles]

I mean, my grandparents oppose it...

[bedstuy]

It is an unprincipled tautological argument trotted out by idiots.  I've never heard  an articulation of this "I oppose redefining marriage but am alright with civil unions" argument that wasn't a pile of garbage.

For God sakes, just admit you're homophobic or trying to curry favor with homophobes.  You can't believe the law of the land should insult me and then tell me I shouldn't be insulted. 

[Kitteh]

I'm strongly in favor of redefining marriage.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I mean, my grandparents oppose it...

They're probably just not OK with homosexuality, which is certainly an immoral position but at least a logically consistent one. "Blah blah blah civil unions blah blah blah no need to redefine marriage blah blah blah traditional marriage no I don't hate gays, always traditionally between a man and a woman" is not a logical argument, or one worthy of any respect.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Not horrible people, I just don't agree with them.

[ElectionsGuy]

Not horrible people, I just don't agree with them.

This exactly.

People's social views are generally defined by religion and social surroundings. So I respect that and can understand people's views on the issue to a degree. With that said, I respectfully disagree with them. I won't vote.

[DC Al Fine]

FF just to protest BRTD's rant.

OMG, they make use of argumentation that is outside the range of political values I consider valid, WORST PEOPLE EVA!

Also this.

[TNF]

I'm strongly in favor of redefining abolishing marriage.

[Supersonic]

Not fussed.

[barfbag]

I'm not going to be partisan about this. Those who oppose gay marriage have every right to take their stance that those who support it do. Sometimes we forget those who go unheard.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not horrible people, I just don't agree with them.

This exactly.

People's social views are generally defined by religion and social surroundings. So I respect that and can understand people's views on the issue to a degree. With that said, I respectfully disagree with them. I won't vote.

I'm not talking about people who oppose same-sex marriage though. I'm talking about ones who claim to not be anti-gay and are even "OMG BUT I SUPPORT CIVIL UNIONS!!" but are still anti-gay marriage for absurdly worded Moderate Hero reasons, often involving those exact words "redefining marriage". This is really illogical and even more irksome than people who are just out and out anti-gay especially since the reasoning is often "I'm not anti-gay but I don't want to offend people who are." See bedstuy's post.

And please don't give me the crap that Obama actually sincerely opposed gay marriage prior to 2012 and had an actual "revelation" in 2012 rather than his official position just being based only on political concerns. In this case too I'm talking about people who aren't politicians or public figures and thus have no excuse.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh look, BRTD engaging in some silly hyperbole again.

[Maxwell]

Not the worst but aren't really paying attention to language. Words change definition all the time. I mean, what kind of caveman language would we have without Shakespeare? It's a flawed argument.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh look, BRTD engaging in some silly hyperbole again.

I thought you'd also be enraged by this pointless Moderate Hero silliness.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh look, BRTD engaging in some silly hyperbole again.

I thought you'd also be enraged by this pointless Moderate Hero silliness.

Do I dislike these sorts of attitudes? Yes. Pretty strongly. I don't, however, utterly and absolutely loathe them with a frenetic passion like you seem to do.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh look, BRTD engaging in some silly hyperbole again.

I thought you'd also be enraged by this pointless Moderate Hero silliness.

Do I dislike these sorts of attitudes? Yes. Pretty strongly. I don't, however, utterly and absolutely loathe them with a frenetic passion like you seem to do.

The problem is the complete lack of logic. It's infuriating.

I should also point out that in the US at least, marriage vs. civil union is no longer just a semantics issue. The SCOTUS struck down part of DOMA and ruled the federal government must recognize and provide federal benefits to same-sex marriages legal in their respective states, but there is no federal provision for recognizing civil unions, meaning a "civil union" in some state would not be eligible for it. So they're not even "separate but equal" anymore.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh look, BRTD engaging in some silly hyperbole again.

I thought you'd also be enraged by this pointless Moderate Hero silliness.

Do I dislike these sorts of attitudes? Yes. Pretty strongly. I don't, however, utterly and absolutely loathe them with a frenetic passion like you seem to do.

The problem is the complete lack of logic. It's infuriating.

95% of conservative arguments utterly lack any semblance of logic whatsoever. I don't see what's so special about this one.

And while SSM is certainly a significant issue, there are many I consider much more important, so I see no reason to focus my outrage so much on this aspect.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh look, BRTD engaging in some silly hyperbole again.

I thought you'd also be enraged by this pointless Moderate Hero silliness.

Do I dislike these sorts of attitudes? Yes. Pretty strongly. I don't, however, utterly and absolutely loathe them with a frenetic passion like you seem to do.

The problem is the complete lack of logic. It's infuriating.

95% of conservative arguments utterly lack any semblance of logic whatsoever. I don't see what's so special about this one.

And while SSM is certainly a significant issue, there are many I consider much more important, so I see no reason to focus my outrage so much on this aspect.

Pretty much any argument I can't comprehend tends to be infuriating (and not just on the right, there's plenty of logical fallacies tossed around on the left, see some of the dumb things True Leftists say in opposition to a strike against Syria. I was also greatly annoyed by some of the similarly dumb and fallacious talking points thrown around against the Iraq War before it happened ESPECIALLY since there was so many far more logical reasons to oppose the war.)

Like take abortion. I'm pro-choice. But I CAN understand why someone would be against abortion, or at least in most cases instead of all. So it's not that infuriating to me, unless it's ridiculously extreme or they're violent in it. But opposing SSM over silly semantical reasons is something that I absolutely can not comprehend in any way whatsoever and thus it gets the reaction I get here.

For another example, see gun control. The basic position on each side is understandable. I understand why people like to own guns and want to keep that right. I also understand why people are concerned about gun violence and want to restrict them believing that'll reduce it. However believing that you need guns to protect yourself from some government tyranny and private citizens being able to buy AK-47s is the only thing protecting the US from some totalitarian takeover of jackbooted thugs in black helicopters is f[inks]ing ridiculous and not something I can comprehend, so I pretty much regard anyone who uses rhetoric in that sense as a f[inks]ing psycho. Similarly simply mindlessly passing scattershot (no pun intended) laws against certain types of guns and accessories that have nothing to do with how dangerous guns are and won't accomplish anything in reducing gun violence according to all the experts (like the AWB or most bills Carolyn McCarthy proposes) is also not something that makes sense, and thus also irks me to no end.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Actually, the "redefining marriage" argument makes much more sense to me than the bullsh*t that Republicans spew on economic issues. It's rooted on the idea (which, sure, is stupid, but not logically inconsistent) that tradition is inherently good and that some things should just not be changed ever. The GOP economic rationale is based on the ideas (among others) that tax cuts will allow us to balance the budget, that government expenditure never creates jobs EXCEPT military expenses, and that individuals should not be "dependent on the government" but that Medicare is great.

[TDAS04]

Not all are literally horrible people, but neither are all people who may be a little bit racist. 

[Peter the Lefty]

Hypocritical HP's.

[ElectionsGuy]

Not horrible people, I just don't agree with them.

This exactly.

People's social views are generally defined by religion and social surroundings. So I respect that and can understand people's views on the issue to a degree. With that said, I respectfully disagree with them. I won't vote.

I'm not talking about people who oppose same-sex marriage though. I'm talking about ones who claim to not be anti-gay and are even "OMG BUT I SUPPORT CIVIL UNIONS!!" but are still anti-gay marriage for absurdly worded Moderate Hero reasons, often involving those exact words "redefining marriage". This is really illogical and even more irksome than people who are just out and out anti-gay especially since the reasoning is often "I'm not anti-gay but I don't want to offend people who are." See bedstuy's post.

And please don't give me the crap that Obama actually sincerely opposed gay marriage prior to 2012 and had an actual "revelation" in 2012 rather than his official position just being based only on political concerns. In this case too I'm talking about people who aren't politicians or public figures and thus have no excuse.

The reason people oppose redefining marriage is because the definition in the bible is the union between a man and a woman. This is an example of classic conservatism, or trying to keep things from changing. The reason these same people support civil unions is because it doesn't change the definition. For people you describe as not being anti-gay but only support civil unions, maybe their religion or family politics has something to do with that. What they're probably saying is I don't want to be anti-gay but I also don't support pro-gay policies. So in short, people who are obviously on the right, but don't want to be called homophobes by the left.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Not horrible people, I just don't agree with them.

This exactly.

People's social views are generally defined by religion and social surroundings. So I respect that and can understand people's views on the issue to a degree. With that said, I respectfully disagree with them. I won't vote.

I'm not talking about people who oppose same-sex marriage though. I'm talking about ones who claim to not be anti-gay and are even "OMG BUT I SUPPORT CIVIL UNIONS!!" but are still anti-gay marriage for absurdly worded Moderate Hero reasons, often involving those exact words "redefining marriage". This is really illogical and even more irksome than people who are just out and out anti-gay especially since the reasoning is often "I'm not anti-gay but I don't want to offend people who are." See bedstuy's post.

And please don't give me the crap that Obama actually sincerely opposed gay marriage prior to 2012 and had an actual "revelation" in 2012 rather than his official position just being based only on political concerns. In this case too I'm talking about people who aren't politicians or public figures and thus have no excuse.

The reason people oppose redefining marriage is because the definition in the bible is the union between a man and a woman. This is an example of classic conservatism, or trying to keep things from changing. The reason these same people support civil unions is because it doesn't change the definition. For people you describe as not being anti-gay but only support civil unions, maybe their religion or family politics has something to do with that. What they're probably saying is I don't want to be anti-gay but I also don't support pro-gay policies. So in short, people who are obviously on the right, but don't want to be called homophobes by the left.

In other words, they are trying to accommodate the asshats like BRTD as best as they can without contradicting there religious views, which I happen to disagree with.