Is being against gay marriage homophobic?

[Wells]

To the good post thread this goes.  I’m glad you are able to begin to accept yourself.

The good news is I have 100% accepted myself and think I'm great. But posts like the ones in this thread make me mad because they send my mind back to when I was all depressed and sh**t for a minute (why I try to avoid them), and I also know there's a decent chance someone who's still all depressed and sh**t will read these posts and feel like, well, sh**t. Not good! (Also not like Fuzzy and celtic's posts on their own would single-handedly destroy someone's mental state, but whatever the opposite of helping is, is what they're doing.)

[Cold War Liberal]

Two pages later and this is still true:

[Fuzzy] also has not posted any evidence that God actually disapproves of gay people or gay marriage, possibly because there is not a verse in the Bible which can be incontrovertibly proven to state anything to that extent.

In fact I could probably find more verses supporting polygamy/polygyny/etc. than condemning same sex marriage or even homosexuality, but I don't have the time right now.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Please, stop acting sanctimonious that someone dared to compare one fight for equal rights to another historical fight for equal rights. Or that some gay people may harbor resentment towards people who are obviously deeply uncomfortable that they exist, no matter how they try to disguise it. It would be really helpful if some people accepted that they have certain beliefs which are just hateful and harmful and either changed it or shut up about it.

The two struggles are not identical, and not morally equivalent.  I am willing to accept SSM as a fait acompli, and view the act as something that's "on them" and leave it at that.  At no time have I advocated housing or employment discrimination, with the exception being religious employment.  And even there, the Democrats can refuse to hire a Republican as a trusted secretary and vice versa.  But SSM isn't about equal rights; it's about redefining marriage to have the term mean something it has never meant in the history of any society in history until recent years.  That's exactly how Obergefell differs from Loving, and claiming otherwise is, to be kind, simply not true.  This isn't good enough for the name-callers, apparently.

What many folks here want myself, and others here who, for Biblical reasons, are unwilling to say "God is OK with this!" based on Scripture, to recant, to publicly state that God, indeed, recognizes SSM as OK in His Eyes.  Failing that, we're expected to just shut up.  If not, we will be subjected to a campaign of vilification as vicious as those who advocate this can muster.  Indeed, I expect the campaign to come no matter what changes of heart anyone would have.  Living and allowing to live is no longer good enough; endorsement of SSM is demanded, or else.

What has happened in this thread is that a number of posters have tried to announce their intention to truly "play hardball".  They tried to do it as sub silentio as they could, but when asked about a specific strategy by activists to, essentially, retaliate against persons who, for Biblical reasons, cannot endorse this, they would not refuse to enter such a campaign of vilification.

http://holyjoe.org/poetry/McGin3.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was asked to contemplate this poem in the early 1970s in an English Final Exam.  There's a reason it's stuck with me all these years.  

[Mr. Smith]

No.

There. Done.

[Devout Centrist]

When I was a child, I attended a Catholic elementary school. Part of the curriculum for fourth graders and above was a mandatory course called 'Fully Alive', which served as a sexual education course. There was, of course, very little about sex mentioned in the book. The first time I ever learned about homosexuality was in this course. The 'practice', as it was described, occurred when two men or two women had sex with one another. This was deeply sinful, and while homosexuals shouldn't be hated, their actions are fundamentally opposed to the one, true God. At the time, I still had no idea what sex was nor why it seemed to matter so much to the writers of this book. All I knew was that, whatever it must be, it was clearly morally wrong.

The years went by, as they do, and I discovered around the sixth grade that I was attracted to both men and women. I tried very hard to suppress any thoughts that might lead to sin. After all, I was a good Catholic. I attended Mass every Sunday without fail. Surely I couldn't let my sexuality come between me and my relationship to God.

As I got older, the books became more graphic, too. Homosexuality was deeply wrong because, "sex between homosexuals does not result in procreation,". Without the possibility of children as a result of sex or the sacred bond of holy matrimony, my teachers argued, sex was sinful. Therefore, homosexuals could only embrace a life of pure celibacy. This precluded any romantic relationships, too. Love, they argued is reserved for men and women.

But, they also argued, homosexuals didn't deserve to be bullied or harassed. This was little comfort to me, though. I got bullied a lot in middle school and I don't think my classmates took that part of the lesson to heart.

While not as hateful as Evangelical viewpoints, it still left me with the impression that homosexuals couldn't live life fully. There is still something deeply discriminatory with this viewpoint. It meant that gay men and women could not fully enjoy life as people. And in many respects, this sentiment led me to reconsider my own relationship with Catholicism.

I hope more kids don't have the childhood I had. Perhaps one day, we can all fully enjoy what it means to be human. Ultimately, I wish more people would reflect on how they would feel if they were subjected to such ostracism. I don't think it's something I'd wish on anyone.

So, is opposing gay marriage homophobic? That's not for me to say. But the arguments against it certainly made me feel like less of a person.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Now we have a post above (I decline to quote it) that it is worse to discriminate against blacks than gays implying that that somehow mitigates the evil of discriminating against gays, and then the slippery slope argument, that somehow due to whatever, the public square cannot appreciate the policy differences between SSM and polygamy, so legalized polygamy is right around the corner. At least the post above did not go all the way down the slope, i.e., that SSM will lead to the legalization of a human marrying a dog.

God damn it folks, we of the LGBTQ community are human beings too, with real human feelings and emotions. We are not space aliens. Why or why cannot some appreciate that?

Discriminating against gays is still bad.  As for polygamy, I can't think of why restricting marriage by gender is any more discriminatory than restricting marriage by number.  And as I said, if SSM was legalized for personal liberty reasons rather than civil rights reasons, we wouldn't be having this problem.

There is a seething hatred coming out of Celticempire.  Short of the 'drag the f****t behind the pick-up truck' types, he's the most dangerous of homophobes.

He engages in sophistry... the veiling of something simple, visceral, and this case, evil and wrong, in terms of obfuscation, arrogance, and appeals to authority.

The road to hell is paved with the faith of people like you, Celticempire.

I don't hate anyone, I believe that hate is a sin.

Celticempire cited a homophobic blog that conflates homosexuality with pedophilia and uses the same tactic that anti-semites use to demonize Jews (cite a printed article that outlines a nefarious agenda by the Jews/gays to corrupt the coomon decent people of this nation)

Then goes on about how gays should just shut the f**k up cuz blacks had it worse and how dare we want equal rights... and that’s the post that got you all fired up, fuzzybear?  The best part is Im pretty sure he reported my response, too.  Pathetic little snowflake.

You are both toxic and you contribute directly to the suffering of others and yet you claim not only is it okay, but absolutely necessary as your ETERNAL SALVATION hangs in the balance.  Disgraceful.

I cited that blog because it's hard to find the full text.  Every other article only had one or two lines.  I did not report you, in fact, I've never reported a single post on this forum.

How am I a snowflake?  I'm simply giving my opinion.  I'm not shouting anyone down or demanding they stop speaking because I disagree with them.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The correct answer to thread title is obviously no, but I have never seen such off-topic and poor argumentation that sickens me enough to completely support the other team. Seriously - reevaluate your life choices. While opposition is not homophobic, this entire thread is severely homophobic and probably ought to be closed.

[Brittain33]

The reason same-sex marriage doesn’t require polygamy to be legalized is that whether they acknowledge it or not, the Supreme Court is sensitive to social trends, and by 2013 and 2015 same-sex marriage was a legal reality in many states and a social reality in all of them, accepted by at least a sizable minority in most states. The Supreme Court was catching up with what society was already ruling and with how millions of gays and lesbians were living their lives and raising their families.

Polygamy isn’t there. It probably will never get there. It will not be hard for the Supreme Court to draw a distinction and find reasons to sustain anti-polygamy laws. If the Supreme Court ever legalizes it, it will only be if our society has changed so much that banning polygamy feels like an injustice affecting tens of millions of people the way anti-SSM laws were.

[Torie]

The reason same-sex marriage doesn’t require polygamy to be legalized is that whether they acknowledge it or not, the Supreme Court is sensitive to social trends, and by 2013 and 2015 same-sex marriage was a legal reality in many states and a social reality in all of them, accepted by at least a sizable minority in most states. The Supreme Court was catching up with what society was already ruling and with how millions of gays and lesbians were living their lives and raising their families.

Polygamy isn’t there. It probably will never get there. It will not be hard for the Supreme Court to draw a distinction and find reasons to sustain anti-polygamy laws. If the Supreme Court ever legalizes it, it will only be if our society has changed so much that banning polygamy feels like an injustice affecting tens of millions of people the way anti-SSM laws were.

As you perhaps implied, there are policy issues that are different, such as potentially creating an undersupply of eligible women,  leaving a bunch of males who can't find spouses, potential abuse as a spouse marries spouse two, three or four who is younger, marginalizing the older spouse, and so forth.  The stories coming out of polygamous communities are not reassuring. But you explained well the most salient reason why this idea is not going to go anywhere for the foreseeable future.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Living and allowing to live is no longer good enough; endorsement of SSM is demanded, or else.

I take issue with you trying to victimize the oppressors so hard. The poor, evangelical Christians who have been oppressing gay people's most basic human rights and causing countless gay youths to hate themselves and live miserably are suddenly under attack and are demanded to endorse gay marriage? Please. No one is demanding anything, but we do point out that opposing it is discriminatory towards the LGBTQ community, who we view as equal human beings who deserve equal rights. Myself, I believe that opposing gay marriage is a homophobic view- one that, quite simply, discriminates against fellow human beings- but those who hold this view aren't necessarily homophobes at heart.

[Badger]

Is opposition to interracial marriage racist? After all, both have a long history of conservatives using the Bible to condemn each.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Is opposition to interracial marriage racist? After all, both have a long history of conservatives using the Bible to condemn each.

Dont worry...they’ll use the Bible to tell you why you can’t compare the two as well.

[Horus]

Yes, of course.

As the population reaches a critical breaking point, homosexuality is nature's way of dealing with the said crisis. Stable, strong families are needed for the surplus of children who will be neglected, and it is vital to have family units unable to reproduce. As the population crisis tapers off, so will the homosexuality "boom" that we are currently seeing. Homophobia is always bad, as homosexuality is vital for the survival of our species.

[Horus]

Gay couples should always choose adoption first. That's why we're here, to take in the neglected, downtrodden children who were unable to be cared for. I find surrogacy selfish, but not immoral.

[afleitch]

Gay couples should always choose adoption first. That's why we're here, to take in the neglected, downtrodden children who were unable to be cared for. I find surrogacy selfish, but not immoral.

So to clean up straight couples' mess?

[Horus]

Gay couples should always choose adoption first. That's why we're here, to take in the neglected, downtrodden children who were unable to be cared for. I find surrogacy selfish, but not immoral.

So to clean up straight couples' mess?

In many ways, yes.

[tallguy23]

LGBT person here.

There's a difference between being nice and being good to someone. A lot of people assume that if they are polite and kind to LGBT people that it doesn't make them homophobic (being nice). However, how you talk about LGBT people behind closed doors and how you vote is what determines if you're being good to them.

Anyone can be nice. Nice is easy. I'm more interested in if you're good to me.

[tallguy23]

To want to ban marriage between two adults who want to get married is indeed homophobic. Just like banning interracial was racist.

These are not equivilencies.  Of course, you are one of the intellectually dishonest posters on Atlas, so I expect this from you.

Marriage has, until the last decade, been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  Interracial marriage did not redefine the definition of the institution of marriage, which was formed as the basis for "family".  Indeed, "marriage" and "family" went hand in hand.

Same-sex couples cannot establish a "family" in and of themselves.  That's just a fact; someone else has to participate in the act somehow.  This redefines marriage, and in ways besides that of the "between a man and a woman" thing.  If the SSM advocates would stop asserting this "discrimination" nonsense, and be honest about SSM being a fundamental, judicially-legislated maneuver to allow same-sex couples the sort of benefits that heterosexual marriage brings, I'd have some respect for them.  People who compare Obergefell to Loving and insist it's the same issue have all the intellectual honesty of Donald Trump.

A straight couple I'm friends with can't have children. They are currently in the process of adopting. Are they not a real family because they can't procreate? Someone else is participating in the act by giving them a child to raise.

You must think about this again.