Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would ask the person what he meant by it, and go with that.

 Manchu wrote:

 feeder wrote:
whereas gay marriage only effects those parties getting gay married

If that were true, there would be no point in all the time and effort that folks have put into creating gay marriage. We're not just talking about a private relationship here (where "we don't need no piece of paper" as Joni Mitchell said). This is a public, legal institution, and therefore does affect parties beyond the spouses. Indeed, that is the point - not that you would know it from the sloganeering (on both sides).

How does the gay couple across the street being married or not affect my life? Or anyone at all beyond their social circle?

For a long time I've subscribed to the "Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married." meme as true.

I don't see how the existence of gay marriage could affect (literally, actually affect) anyone who isn't getting entering into such a marriage.

 Manchu wrote:
You're not asking a question,

That's would be why I haven't used any question marks

you are offering (really forcing) a false dilemma.

Maybe I've misunderstood your position, but rather than actually address my attempt to engage it "meaningfully" you've chosen to respond with "tit-for-tat" remarks about logical fallacies and;

And you're not the only one.

generalizations that I'm part of some ambiguous but evidently bad "other," because it's not possible that anyone could disagree with you legitimately. Honestly it all comes of as trying to befuddle disagreement with an embellished, but nonelaborate lexicon.

 insaniak wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Like back in the day a woman couldnt work so if she got married and had kids, if she was married she still got some of his money for the safety of the kids.

So... Not really applicable to modern Western society, then?


Just calling it something else isn't the solution. It puts us back in 'black people sit in the back of the bus' territory. I mean, they shouldn't have any reason to complain... The seats are the same as those up the front, right?


Why does your personal definition of marriage automatically get exclusive use of the word?

Not really because one of them does not have to mean something demeaning. kinda like what is your consul of choice? ps4 or xbox1? neither is a bad thing but some people prefer something different.

Same as legally I was common law "found the name from the wife" for 3 years before we got married. No one gave me crap when I said we where common law. So if you where in a same sex relation ship and people said this is your spouse yet it is my Y. ect.

Different names for things does not mean one is less then or more then the other they are just different.

p.s. my meaning doesnt get to be right I am just trying to find a middle ground. So no one will be happy but no one will be too pissed lol.

OgreChubbs wrote:

Different names for things does not mean one is less then or more then the other they are just different.

If they're the same, there is no point in having a different name for one of them...

p.s. my meaning doesnt get to be right I am just trying to find a middle ground. So no one will be happy but no one will be too pissed lol.

Why do we need to find a middle ground, here?

If someone bails me up in the street and tells me that I'm not allowed to use my surname, because he has the same surname and feels that it belongs to him alone, should I change my name to something else that we're both willing to settle for?

Or should I just tell him to mind his own damn business and carry on using the name?

 Manchu wrote:
I think this is where a lot of people can agree. But there are some people who are really, really offended by the notion that, if you invite me to your gay wedding then I will come, I will bring you a present, I will even feel genuinely happy for you and wish you and your spouse the enjoyment of many happy years, but yet it will always be just a "marriage" (with the quotation marks) in my heart of hearts. To pull it away from the issue of sexual orientation, the same thing applies about a divorced person getting "remarried." So in my mind, the courteous and therefore right thing to do is simply keep what is in my heart of hearts where it is in that sort of situation. But it's the hypothetical aspect of it, I guess you'd say, that people object to because the real argument comes down to are ABC beliefs the right ones or XYZ, even considering it is perfectly possible for people with both beliefs to coexist peaceably and courteously. The thirst for that conflict is what really baffles me.

Given that Catholicism considers homosexuality to be against nature I'm not sure how you can sincerely state that you would feel "genuinely happy" for the hypothetical couple. You really can't see how someone would be offended by you viewing their marriage as 'lesser' than the marriage of a different couple with a different assortment of genitals, or that handing someone a gift while sincerely believing that they are living in a perpetual state of sin might give them pause?
Fundamentally those are all just feelings though.
As with the OPs questions, ultimately the only question that matters is, would you oppose gay marriage? Beliefs only have any real meaning if you are enacting them in your life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Like back in the day a woman couldnt work so if she got married and had kids, if she was married she still got some of his money for the safety of the kids.

So... Not really applicable to modern Western society, then?


Just calling it something else isn't the solution. It puts us back in 'black people sit in the back of the bus' territory. I mean, they shouldn't have any reason to complain... The seats are the same as those up the front, right?


Why does your personal definition of marriage automatically get exclusive use of the word?

Not really because one of them does not have to mean something demeaning. kinda like what is your consul of choice? ps4 or xbox1? neither is a bad thing but some people prefer something different.

Same as legally I was common law "found the name from the wife" for 3 years before we got married. No one gave me crap when I said we where common law. So if you where in a same sex relation ship and people said this is your spouse yet it is my Y. ect.

Different names for things does not mean one is less then or more then the other they are just different.

p.s. my meaning doesnt get to be right I am just trying to find a middle ground. So no one will be happy but no one will be too pissed lol.

Ok....but I can go buy either an XBox or a PS4....or both. Youre describing a situation where one group has access to both and another only has access to one, but it's ok because they are 'totally the same'.

Try to describe anything like that while substituting a racial minority for homosexuality and see how that feels.

 plastictrees wrote:

Given that Catholicism considers homosexuality to be against nature I'm not sure how you can sincerely state that you would feel "genuinely happy" for the hypothetical couple.

During World War One, Pope Benedict XV took a position of neutrality, and attempted to negotiate peace throughout the war. That didn't stop predominantly Catholic Italy, and France from fighting. Being Catholic does not innately tie someone down to every minute detail of Catholic dogma, anymore than being American requires someone to carrying a shot gun, wave a flag, and pontificate about freedom. I grew up Southern Baptist more than anything, i don't think there are any points of faith on which I completely agree with them.

@LoH

Okay - in good faith, I'll summarize the view I have attempted to lay out: Opposition to expanding civil recognition of marriage to gay couples does not necessarily entail hatred of gay people - neither hypothetical nor actual nor conceptual nor personal. I think the main reason that leads otherwise rational and well-meaning people to believe the contrary claim, which is a false dilemma and a pretty nasty bit of rhetorical bullying, is that they consider marriage, at least for the purposes of this issue, as first and foremost a kind of political right to which some group of people are entitled and which group can be expanded by exercise of political will. Considered purely in that manner, I can "support" (read: not oppose) so-called gay marriage, which is more properly described, again in the sense of positive law, as the expansion of certain legal rights to people who did not previously enjoy them. There are people who would oppose even this understanding of gay marriage (call it an "expanded definition of marriage") on the grounds that marriage, even in the context of legal rights, should be considered as something more. Keep in mind, I don't personally agree with this position (I don't think the state has any authority beyond the law) - but even so this position does not require hatred of anyone for any reason; it generally just means they have a much more reverential view of the state. Now the absence of a necessary relationship between opposition and hatred does not mean there can never, in any given case, be such a connection - obviously.

@plastictrees

I'm not sure that I understand your question. My assent to the teachings of my faith does not preclude me from feeling genuine happiness for friends' delight that their loving relationship is recognized by the civil authorities for the purposes of accessing certain legal rights. I don't much sympathize if they take offense knowing that I do not consider that formal, legal relationship to be an authentic marriage in the religious sense. My understanding of marriage has very little to do with legal requirements imposed by the state and very much to do with my Catholic faith. Now - I have seen this kind of thing plenty of times, where someone who doesn't qualify for a sacrament is offended by the fact that they should not receive it ... like when a Protestant wants to take communion at mass. This makes no sense to me. Why do you want to be in communion with us but not share our faith? (= a paradox) The problem is, they think the host is a prize and they are just as entitled to the prize as anyone. But actually the sacrament is called communion for a reason: it is the reality of our solidarity in faith. Similarly, I know gay Catholics on both sides of this issue - some who understand and accept the elements of sacramental marriage and some who don't accept it. Now, if you're asking me whether I'm scandalized that there are Catholics out there that disagree with the teachings of our faith on some issues ... no, that's par for the course. Faith encompasses a truth a lot wider than any political issue. Sadly, not a few Catholics stay bitterly angry "at the Church" their whole lives long, for whatever reason.

 Manchu wrote:


Okay - in good faith, I'll summarize the view I have attempted to lay out: Opposition to expanding civil recognition of marriage to gay couples does not necessarily entail hatred of gay people - neither hypothetical nor actual nor conceptual nor personal. I think the main reason that leads otherwise rational and well-meaning people to believe the contrary claim, which is a false dilemma and a pretty nasty bit of rhetorical bullying, is that they consider marriage, at least for the purposes of this issue, as first and foremost a kind of political right to which some group of people are entitled and which group can be expanded by exercise of political will. Considered purely in that manner, I can "support" (read: not oppose) so-called gay marriage, which is more properly described, again in the sense of positive law, as the expansion of certain legal rights to people who did not previously enjoy them. There are people who would oppose even this understanding of gay marriage (call it an "expanded definition of marriage") on the grounds that marriage, even in the context of legal rights, should be considered as something more. Keep in mind, I don't personally agree with this position (I don't think the state has any authority beyond the law) - but even so this position does not require hatred of anyone for any reason; it generally just means they have a much more reverential view of the state. Now the absence of a necessary relationship between opposition and hatred does not mean there can never, in any given case, be such a connection - obviously.

I've understood all this. My response to it is that I don't think you can unequivocally determine that something isn't prejudiced, bigoted, hateful, etc etc etc because you don't think it is. Other people exist, and they can take issue with your position Having a religious dichotomy in which civil marriage, and religious marriage are different things is not an unassailable bastion in which you can oppose something and never be called any of those words. That's not how people work, it's not how religion works, and it's not how language works. Wishing it so does not make it. Hate, prejudice, and bigotry aren't stone tablets. They're fluid concepts. I think it naive to believe that any position is unquestionable, and arrogant to presume anyone questioning it must be part of some rhetorical bully squad.

 Manchu wrote:

@plastictrees

I'm not sure that I understand your question. My assent to the teachings of my faith does not preclude me from feeling genuine happiness for friends' delight that their loving relationship is recognized by the civil authorities for the purposes of accessing certain legal rights. I don't much sympathize if they take offense knowing that I do not consider that formal, legal relationship to be an authentic marriage in the religious sense. My understanding of marriage has very little to do with legal requirements imposed by the state and very much to do with my Catholic faith. Now - I have seen this kind of thing plenty of times, where someone who doesn't qualify for a sacrament is offended by the fact that they should not receive it ... like when a Protestant wants to take communion at mass. This makes no sense to me. Why do you want to be in communion with us but not share our faith? (= a paradox) The problem is, they think the host is a prize and they are just as entitled to the prize as anyone. But actually the sacrament is called communion for a reason: it is the reality of our solidarity in faith. Similarly, I know gay Catholics on both sides of this issue - some who understand and accept the elements of sacramental marriage and some who don't accept it. Now, if you're asking me whether I'm scandalized that there are Catholics out there that disagree with the teachings of our faith on some issues ... no, that's par for the course. Faith encompasses a truth a lot wider than any political issue. Sadly, not a few Catholics stay bitterly angry "at the Church" their whole lives long, for whatever reason.

"I'm genuinely happy for your legal union, but you aren't married according to my personal view, you have a disorder and, as of right now, will be going to hell." must be a difficult card to track down.
I'm not saying there is hate there, but at a certain point, what's the difference? The juicer they wanted and stating the above with a smile instead of yelling it with a frown?
Why Catholics would have good reason to be angry at the church is a whole other horrible discussion.

@LoH

I don't think your response makes any sense.

If you mean, a given person may or may not be motivated in their stance by some degree of hate - well sure. I have never argued otherwise.

If you mean, by opposing gay marriage, a person is unquestionably and necessarily acting from hatred ... then, intentionally or not, you're part of the rhetorical bully squad.

@plastictrees

Look - gonna make this very simple - I don't have time to waste on strawmen.

What strawmen? If that isn't what you believe then your views aren't in line with those of the Church. If that is what you believe then I think it's a bit disingenous to be baffled that anyone would be offended that you hold that opinion of them.

Anyway, it's clear that, for some people not believing in gay marriage doesn't mean opposing its legal adoption, which I guess is the point of this discussion.

@plastictrees

Do you bother to fething read what you quote:

 plastictrees wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
So in my mind, the courteous and therefore right thing to do is simply keep what is in my heart of hearts where it is in that sort of situation.

as opposed to:

 plastictrees wrote:
"I'm genuinely happy for your legal union, but you aren't married according to my personal view, you have a disorder and, as of right now, will be going to hell." must be a difficult card to track down.

and

 plastictrees wrote:
The juicer they wanted and stating the above with a smile instead of yelling it with a frown?

If you can't manage to actually respond to what I post, rather than just airing out your anti-Catholic sentiments, then please consider this my last response to you.

It's a bit weird that you consider paraphrasing what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states about homosexuality is "airing out your anti-Catholic sentiments".

I was genuinely trying to explore how you rationalised your stated faith with your actions, partly because I am making my way, or struggling, through RCIA at the moment.

I apologise if I caused any offense.

 Manchu wrote:
Now - I have seen this kind of thing plenty of times, where someone who doesn't qualify for a sacrament is offended by the fact that they should not receive it ... like when a Protestant wants to take communion at mass. This makes no sense to me. Why do you want to be in communion with us but not share our faith? (= a paradox) The problem is, they think the host is a prize and they are just as entitled to the prize as anyone. But actually the sacrament is called communion for a reason: it is the reality of our solidarity in faith.

That's a really bad analogy. Communion in your church is a purely religious thing, with no meaning outside of your church. Marriage isn't. When people advocate for gay marriage they are referring to a "marriage" that has nothing to do with your religion, not insisting that gay couples should be allowed to participate in the Catholic marriage rituals in your church.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think your response makes any sense.

If you mean, a given person may or may not be motivated in their stance by some degree of hate - well sure. I have never argued otherwise.

If you mean, by opposing gay marriage, a person is unquestionably and necessarily acting from hatred ... then, intentionally or not, you're part of the rhetorical bully squad.

I'm saying (well, skittering around it because it seemed nicer but that's obviously not working) that your position looks a lot like the proverbial Southern gentleman who doesn't hate gays because he has gay friends who are married, but they'll never be as good as his heterosexual friends who are also married. It's obviously not the exact same thing, but surely you can conceive how that plays out in the minds of others? Neither you, nor I, are the sole arbitrators of what is and is not hate. Hate, bigotry, and prejudice are social standards. They expand, and they retract, and dissent is not dismissed by calling up a bogeyman.

 Manchu wrote:
If you mean, by opposing gay marriage, a person is unquestionably and necessarily acting from hatred ... then, intentionally or not, you're part of the rhetorical bully squad.

Attempting to label the other side of the debate the "rhetorical bully squad" is pretty hypocritical given your opposition to other people using terms like "bigot" to describe your side.

Also, simply declaring people who disagree with you to be the "rhetorical bully squad" doesn't mean their argument is wrong. You can claim that it isn't about hatred, and maybe you can even convince yourself of this fact (after all, most people don't want to admit to themselves that they're doing something wrong), but in the end it still comes down to hatred. Every argument against gay marriage is either open hatred, or so obviously absurd that the only way any person could possibly believe it is if they hate gay people and just want a polite excuse to talk about in public.

What you are saying is almost identical in form to the argument that "I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix" and similar excuses for racism and segregation. We don't hesitate to label that racism and hatred, so why should we hesitate when the same kind of argument is applied to gay people?

What I consider anti-Catholic is mischaracterizing what I actually said, that I would keep my beliefs to myself when stating them would be inappropriate and offensive to friends, by insulting me, insisting that I would instead of needs behave offensively as well as insincerely as a matter of my faith. As for you going through RCIA, the sooner you learn this the better: Catholicism isn't a game and the catechism isn't the rulebook. If you have sincere questions about this, feel free to PM me. I have gone through the whole thing myself, from hard atheism to here, and may be able to help.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's obviously not the exact same thing

It's not even close but the whole exercise is irrelevant because the only issue is whether opposing gay marriage necessarily and unquestionably entail hating gay people. If you claim it does you set up the false dichotomy, you either support gay marriage or you hate gay people.

 Peregrine wrote:
Attempting to label the other side of the debate the "rhetorical bully squad" is pretty hypocritical

I don't think you understand hypocrisy. What I'm criticizing is threatening slander as part of a rhetorical trap, which is bullying.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, simply declaring people who disagree with you to be the "rhetorical bully squad" doesn't mean their argument is wrong.

Agreed but I addressed why the tactic in addition to being bullying is also a bad argument. Speaking of bullying:

 Peregrine wrote:
What you are saying is almost identical in form to the argument that "I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix"

No, the issue of marriage between a man and woman of any race or races is not the same thing as the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex, self-evidently. The question of "form" is irrelevant, you (and LoH) are just trying to tar me with the racist brush.

 Peregrine wrote:
That's a really bad analogy. Communion in your church is a purely religious thing, with no meaning outside of your church. Marriage isn't. When people advocate for gay marriage they are referring to a "marriage" that has nothing to do with your religion, not insisting that gay couples should be allowed to participate in the Catholic marriage rituals in your church.

You have your wires crossed, this was in response to a tangent. The analogy is perfectly apt because the issue of that tangent was Catholic religious beliefs rather than legal rights. I spelled out my thoughts on the latter as well:

 Manchu wrote:
I think the main reason that leads otherwise rational and well-meaning people to believe the contrary claim, which is a false dilemma and a pretty nasty bit of rhetorical bullying, is that they consider marriage, at least for the purposes of this issue, as first and foremost a kind of political right to which some group of people are entitled and which group can be expanded by exercise of political will. Considered purely in that manner, I can "support" (read: not oppose) so-called gay marriage, which is more properly described, again in the sense of positive law, as the expansion of certain legal rights to people who did not previously enjoy them.

It is functionally equivalent even though the same arguments were used against it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Every argument against gay marriage is either open hatred, or so obviously absurd that the only way any person could possibly believe it is if they hate gay people and just want a polite excuse to talk about in public.

That is absolute nonsense. In fact, virtually all claims of the structure "every X is Y" generally come down to just being a load of prejudiced nonsense.
To proof this claim you would need to list every single argument against gay marriage ever made in the history of man, and then prove for every single argument that it is either open hatred or absurd. Do you now see why this claim of yours is untenable?

 Peregrine wrote:

What you are saying is almost identical in form to the argument that "I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix" and similar excuses for racism and segregation. We don't hesitate to label that racism and hatred, so why should we hesitate when the same kind of argument is applied to gay people?

That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.

 Manchu wrote:
No, the issue of marriage between a man and woman of any race or races is not the same thing as the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex, self-evidently. The question of "form" is irrelevant, you (and LoH) are just trying to tar me with the racist brush.]

The strange "coincidence" in the states though, every argument used to prevent interracial marriages is now being used to prevent same sex marriages. The same group opposed both, basing their opposition on what the bible teaches. So we can see the connection between the racism then and the bigotry now.

I'm not trying to dogpile on you here, but when people agree with bigoted positions it can come across as being a bigot. Not that I'm saying you are, it's just really hard to separate the two, especially in chat discussions.

sirlynchmob wrote:
every argument used to prevent interracial marriages is now being used to prevent same sex marriages

I don't think so, although I don't know every single argument against miscegenation that was ever made. But I think the crucial one against gay marriage, not at all relevant to interracial marriage, is that actually prior definitions of marriage, broadly speaking, in terms of what you actually found in, say, ecclesiastical law, did not have anything to say about the race of the parties (makes sense considering race as understood in the context of US opposition to interracial marriage was only invented in the 18th-20th centuries), whereas the sex/gender of the parties was.

@IronCaptain

I find that someone genuinely interested in discussion is prepared to accept that the other people involved fall somewhere between zealous agreement with every point he makes on the one hand and being an evil __ist/___phobic moron on the other. And if those are the only options he offers, he's probably wasting your time. On that note, I'm going to go spend my time more usefully.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.

How are they different? A visible minority as opposed to an invisible one?

It's not even close but the whole exercise is irrelevant because the only issue is whether opposing gay marriage necessarily and unquestionably entail hating gay people. If you claim it does you set up the false dichotomy, you either support gay marriage or you hate gay people.

I have no choice but to disagree. It's very close, and while nuance can make all the difference in the world people I find struggle with nuance and it's not even remotely irrelevant. If anything it gets to the heart of why the issue is so contentious. What entails "hate" is not clear. it is nebulous.

 Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
every argument used to prevent interracial marriages is now being used to prevent same sex marriages

I don't think so, although I don't know every single argument against miscegenation that was ever made. But I think the crucial one against gay marriage, not at all relevant to interracial marriage, is that actually prior definitions of marriage, broadly speaking, in terms of what you actually found in, say, ecclesiastical law, did not have anything to say about the race of the parties (makes sense considering race as understood in the context of US opposition to interracial marriage was only invented in the 18th-20th centuries), whereas the sex/gender of the parties was.

Here's the top 5ish. it's a simple google search to find many comparisons between the two.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/4708

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

sounds like everything said about same sex marriages to me. But feel free to look for more, they're easy to find.

Man, I could have sworn Iron Captain said something about repeatedly comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage... I wonder what that was...

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think you understand hypocrisy. What I'm criticizing is threatening slander as part of a rhetorical trap, which is bullying.

You're criticizing it by giving it the exact same kind of label that you object to having applied to yourself. And it isn't a "rhetorical trap" to criticize you just because you don't like the conclusions people draw from that criticism.

No, the issue of marriage between a man and woman of any race or races is not the same thing as the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex, self-evidently. The question of "form" is irrelevant, you (and LoH) are just trying to tar me with the racist brush.

No, of course it isn't the same, that's why I said the argumenst are almost identical in form, not exactly the same. And sorry if you don't like being associated with racists, but maybe you should stop using their arguments? The sole objection to the comparison between gay marriage and racism/interracial marriage seems to be "I don't want to be called a racist", not any meaningful differences between the two situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That is absolute nonsense. In fact, virtually all claims of the structure "every X is Y" generally come down to just being a load of prejudiced nonsense.
To proof this claim you would need to list every single argument against gay marriage ever made in the history of man, and then prove for every single argument that it is either open hatred or absurd. Do you now see why this claim of yours is untenable?

Do you really think that nitpicking the ultra-literal definition of "every argument" is a persuasive argument? I suppose I will concede that it is theoretically possible that someone, somewhere in the world once made an argument that isn't either open hatred or absurd, but can we limit this discussion to the arguments that have actually been part of the political debate over gay marriage?

That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.

Why? Do you actually have an argument for why they are different, besides "I don't like being associated with racists"?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Man, I could have sworn Iron Captain said something about repeatedly comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage... I wonder what that was...

Spoiler:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Every argument against gay marriage is either open hatred, or so obviously absurd that the only way any person could possibly believe it is if they hate gay people and just want a polite excuse to talk about in public.

That is absolute nonsense. In fact, virtually all claims of the structure "every X is Y" generally come down to just being a load of prejudiced nonsense.
To proof this claim you would need to list every single argument against gay marriage ever made in the history of man, and then prove for every single argument that it is either open hatred or absurd. Do you now see why this claim of yours is untenable?

 Peregrine wrote:

What you are saying is almost identical in form to the argument that "I don't hate black people, I just think that the races shouldn't mix" and similar excuses for racism and segregation. We don't hesitate to label that racism and hatred, so why should we hesitate when the same kind of argument is applied to gay people?

That is a red herring. Homosexuality and race are not the same thing, they are very much different issues.

Except we know the main arguments against both, and while they are their own marriage issues, the people opposing both had a whole lot in common. Note the common source used against both.

We can easily figure out the basis of their positions, it's not at all untenable.

a) open hatred/bigotry
b) group think, going along with the hatred to fit in, or they were raised by group A so they blindly go along with it, or just to lazy to think about why their siding with bigots
c) indifference, they don't care about the issue as it doesn't directly affect them so they remain quiet on the issue.

it's somewhere in the indifference area that you would start to see people who would agree with the egalitarian view, but as they say, all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. But those in direct opposition towards equality are somewhere down the slope towards bigotry, I'd imagine it's a type of bell curve if we plotted it out.

"Due to my belief system, I find homosexual marriage to be wrong or not a actual marriage and should not be classified as such"

Is how I would interpret it which is fine, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. Now if it was more like "Due to my belief system, I find homosexual marriage to be wrong and anyone that promotes or participates in it should -Insert bad things here- " then its not okay.

OK, event though this has gone totally off the rails, Ill play.
I am opposed to you going to church. I do not think religion is a good thing. I fail to recognize your right to go to church.

Now from your point of view as a catholic, seems to be a bit of malice there doesn't it. Now look at this.

I am opposed to same sex marriage. I do not think same sex marriage is a good thing. I fail to recognize your right to marry your loved one.

Both simply interchange religion and same sex marriage. If you were hearing how a large group of influential people were constantly criticizing your right to go to church, making laws against it you might start looking at this issue a little differently. I am pretty sure, knowing how religion works, there would even start to be some form of insurgency forming in the U.S.

It is a matter of separating your religions views with what is legally right. If it is legally right, then its ok. In fact there is nothing to be said by anyone opposed outside of the walls of your church, because you are then in opposition, to the rights, of a group of people to act, what they can do, how they can live their lives. This goes in direct opposition of the rights I have sworn to defend, and continue to do so.


BLUFF, when someone hears you don't agree with their standpoint, there can usually be a civility and an understanding reached, because in the end who cares.

When someone hears you do not believe they should be able to, or have their marriage recognized, it is entirely a different thing and will usually be met with a bit of misbelief that you could "hate" this action and people doing it. It is not a far stretch or long reach to get this impression. so do not be mad when you are labeled as intolerant for taking this view. Accept that this is an intolerant view, just as you expect them to accept your view.