How to Hate Gays, a Guide

Commentator Michael D:

Try this on for size. I live in RI, originally from MA. MA illegally legalized gay marriage. Two women from RI got married in MA immediately after the illegal legalization took place. Now, 3+ years later, the two women want a divorce but can’t get it in RI because they don’t acknowledge MA’s illegal legality. They are forced to either, one moves to MA for the prescribed amount of time to get the divorce there or, be a couple of bitches and attempt to force RI to acknowledge same sex marriages (divorces). I think if you are gay then you have a condition that can be fixed but don’t try to force it down my throat (pun intended). Pushing your unnatural agenda on states (made up of people) and then using the illegal legalization to force it upon another state is insane. The concept is mind boggling, the tactics are reprehensible. The right to have sex with the same is to me your right to free speech, beyond that I do not wish to hear of the deviant factions of our society. Thank you.

Let’s start with the severe logic flaw.  If two people get married, this does not effect anyone.  How are two people living together as a married couple any more repulsive than two unmarried people living together?

And why the fuck should we care about what repulses a bigot?

At some point we need to have this conversation.  Loudly.  If Jill and Alice get married, how does that affect Michael?  How does it shove anything down his throat?  On the flip side, if Michael prevents Jill and Alice from getting married, he is clearly shoving his beliefs down their throats.  It is a simple argument.  Why should the beliefs of one group of people prevent another group of people from acting in an otherwise safe and legal fashion?

Michael calling these women “bitches” for attempting to act like any other married couple with rights is offensive but sadly unsurprising coming from a small minded fool who views homosexuality as unnatural and deviant.  But it is instructive with regards to the debate over Gay Rights.

There is no justification on the anti-Gay side.

There is no argument that doesn’t involve forcing a barbaric interpretation of one religion’s revered text upon the entire populace.  There is no way to justify inequality without resorting to the worst tactics, hypocrisies, lies and uninformed hatred.

Advertisements

24 Responses

  1. Please excuse this OT

    People, do not miss this:

    http://blueherald.com/2007/10/al-gore-not-running-for-president-yet/

    ffto: I’ll be back to read this important post.

  2. Thanks for the link!

  3. “Illegal legality”

    What in heavens name does that mean?

  4. “There is no argument that doesn’t involve forcing a barbaric interpretation of one religion’s revered text upon the entire populace.”

    I support all sexualities. Although, I am aware of an argument against gay marriage. It’s not religious at all.
    It’s probably not fair, but it’s logical.

  5. Rafael,
    These types of arguments don’t lend themselves to the most… articulate explications.

    owenmcleod,
    uh, care to share? The only thing I can think of is reproduction. But in a society with overpopulation, orphans, and the technology to reproduce by other means, how does that have any bearing? A loving home is a loving home.

    Besides, it wouldn’t be logical. We don’t require straight couples to reproduce in order to remain married.

  6. I don’t hate and I’m not a bigot, nor a xenophobe, nor a racist, or even hateful.
    The fact is that I don’t want to hear about anyones sexual preference not yours or anyones.
    The fact is that you have this legal institution of a religious marriage yet we’re supposed to have separation of church and state (conundrum or political hypocrisy?)
    The fact is that they ran to MA to get married then they shouldn’t expect RI to entertain their divorce as RI didn’t make the exception (to the law) to marry them.
    The fact is that it’s an attempt to force RI to accept MA’s laws. The fact is that the judges that acted to make the union of same sex a legality in MA did so without following judicial guidelines and procedure and therefore it is not legal by lawful means.
    The facts are that insisting that the case be heard in RI is a joke and a burden regarding an issue that RI chose not to take up.
    The fact is that I don’t find homosexuality repulsive and never said so, so please don’t put words in my mouth. I find it unnatural, to be sure, as it negates the possibility of procreation.
    The fact is I never said that they couldn’t get married either, I said that if they were so moved and motivated to get married in MA then they should get divorced there. Please don’t twist my meaning.
    You really consider me a small minded fool??????
    fitness I consider them bitches for what I indicated (insisting on getting divorced in RI) not what you fabricated (that I said they have no rights). You really act like a liberal there. Twist it for your argument if you like but it’s not a very astute approach as I wrote it the way I meant it.
    Guess I’ll keep my thoughts to myself from now on so as not to provide you with anymore outrageous entertainment that you can showcase as the rants of a small minded fool. Unbelievable…..

  7. I’ve always understood that the gay rights movement was about bringing equality. Although, as far as I can see, every person, regardless of sexuality, has exactly the same (and equal) rights.
    It is the ‘blanket’ of legislation which angers homosexual lobbyists. They don’t want to have equal rights as other people; they want to have their own set of rules.
    Most current laws allow any man and woman to get married, without mentioning sexuality. A gay woman can marry a straight man if she wants to; a gay man can marry a gay woman if he wants to. All is well providing the other is of the opposite sex.
    It’s the simple fact that a gay man/woman wouldn’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex which has ignited debate.
    I think that most current laws are perfectly equal and indiscriminate.
    But, I also think that current laws only accommodate heterosexual couples. They’re not necessarily anti-gay, they just haven’t taken what gay people want into account.
    Perhaps homosexual lobbyists would be more successful if they were campaigning for NEW rights and laws, not to CHANGE the current rights and laws.
    After saying all that, I’d like to make clear that I do support all sexualities, I was just pointing out that I can understand one aspect of the opposite side of debate, (which, yes, is usually argued with religious ‘morals’).

  8. owen that whole “argument” made no sense. The point is that they can not marry each other. If they wanted to marry somebody of the opposite sex they would have.

    And Michael, what guidelines would that be, if was the MA Supreme Court that made it legal? Last time I checked it was the Supreme Courts of each state that defined their own state understanding of their constitution. Now under the Constitution “full faith and credit” clause a marriage in one state should have legal consequences in all 50 states, otherwise you could only marry and divorce in your home state. Yes, Congress passed a law saying that the states could ignore that, so they are in legal limbo right now.

    And as for fixing the condition, how exactly do you go about fixing that, if in fact it needs any fixing at all?

  9. And how is legalizing gay marriage ramming anything down your throat (literally or otherwise). It has no impact on your relationship or your marriage (if you are married).

  10. Rafael, I believe that what I wrote makes great sense.
    As you said, “If they wanted to marry somebody of the opposite sex they would have.”
    The laws are equal. They just don’t cater to everybody’s wants.
    That’s not discrimination… Is it?

  11. Michael D,
    I’m sorry Michael, but calling what they are doing “unnatural”, “deviant”, and a “condition to be fixed” is hate. It is not rational, it is not justified. It is bile.
    That said, I do agree that the idea of religious marriage does cross the church state line, and personally think the idea of having states only perform civil unions for everyone, and letting individual churches choose what to consecrate is a great idea.
    As for having RI accept MA’s laws, that is a “leave it up to the states” kind of view. A human rights view is everyone have rights, and every government, local, state, federal, or even world, should respect those rights, period. That is my view.
    As for a burden not to take up, that same argument could have applied to racist southern states during the civil rights movement. It didn’t hold water then, and it doesn’t now.
    If you are saying they have to move just to enjoy the same freedom as straight couples, yes, you are saying they cannot get married. Putting unreasonable burdens on people because of some prejudicial concern is a means of prohibiting their freedom, and forcing your beliefs on their lives.
    Not in all things, of course not. I think with regards to racism and homophobia, yes, you are being a small minded fool. I think on other issues, such as torture, or even better, the war, or your idealistic adherence to the constitution, you display humanity and a very noble politics. I believe good people can have very shitty beliefs and ideas, just as surely as awful people can have very good beliefs and ideas.
    Michael, you’re calling them bitches for attempting to asset their rights, plain and simple. You are saying, in RI, that they do not have the same rights as straight couples, and they are bitches for standing up for themselves. There’s no twisting on my part…
    I hope you do share your thoughts. The bad ones need to get aired out, and the good ones need to be said. But just as you can criticize me and what I say (and you are more than welcome to do both), you can expect that people will respond to what you say on this site. If you say something racist or homophobic, myself or another commentator might actually call you on it. You could use this to reflect upon the wisdom of said comment, rather than the wisdom of speaking up at all.

    owenmcleod,

    It is the ‘blanket’ of legislation which angers homosexual lobbyists. They don’t want to have equal rights as other people; they want to have their own set of rules.
    Most current laws allow any man and woman to get married, without mentioning sexuality. A gay woman can marry a straight man if she wants to; a gay man can marry a gay woman if he wants to. All is well providing the other is of the opposite sex.
    It’s the simple fact that a gay man/woman wouldn’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex which has ignited debate.
    I think that most current laws are perfectly equal and indiscriminate.

    Then you clearly do not understand equality.
    Imagine the law said only marriage within a give race was allowed. You could make the same broken argument, that blacks and whites enjoy equal rights. Black people can marry black people, white people can marry white people. That does not make any sense. You should be able to marry whomever you want, regardless of race, creed, or sex.
    It is very anti-Gay to say you can have heterosexual marriages, but no homosexual ones. And to pretend that is equal! The cheek!

    Rafael,
    Exactly!

    That is an unproductive question, I think. Historically its involved shocking “therapy” and other forms of torture and self hate imposed on “deviants”.

    Rafael,
    Another most excellent point. Gay marriage does not, in any way, impact striaght people. The only thing that could would be a straight person being upset just thinking about it. And who cares about that?

    owenmcleod,
    Yes, yes it is discrimination.

  12. Then owenmcleod, why create a legal difference?

    What makes one acceptable and another not?

    There was a time when it was illegal for people of different races to marry, it was thought unnatural and deviant. Ask yourself why and how that changed and then apply it to the current situation.

  13. Yes fitness, and you know where that leads…straight to the Minneapolis Airport bathroom!

  14. fitnessfortheoccassion,
    I feel that I have a very clear understanding of equality.
    Laws are equal in the sense that they are the same for everyone, regardless of any variables.
    Whining about any ‘unequal’ law is foolish, because (technically) no such law exists.
    Laws don’t discriminate; it’s the lack of laws which discriminate.
    Hypothetically, say the current laws on heterosexual marriage didn’t change; but there was a NEW law introduced to allow homosexual marriage… The initial law (which people are currently complaining about) is still exactly the same, but people wouldn’t be concerned about homosexual discrimination because there is a new law which accommodates their needs.
    My point is; every single law created is most certainly ‘equal’. Ironically, it is usually this equality which makes people feel that the law is ‘unequal’.

  15. Rafael, I don’t believe that one sexuality is more acceptable than any other.
    You must realise that I am a homosexual. I do think that I should be allowed to have legal recognition with my partner. I, however, do not think that current laws are discriminating against me. Exactly the same laws are applied to me as every other Australian; in the eyes of the law, I am not different.

  16. Deviant = Craig
    Unnatural = occurs nowhere else in nature
    fixed = NAMBLA

  17. I am certainly not a racist or a homo phoebe. They wanted to take advantage of MA laws and they did. I’m not denying them any rights I’m merely stating that it was ok to take that course to get what they wanted in the first place and should see no problem with taking the same course to undo it. Good for the goose good for the ganderish. I feel that this is a tactic to introduce the legislative process of the subject to RI. If you don’t see my point then state it that way but don’t call me me hateful, it’s just not true, and know that I am not afraid of my gay friends and I don’t think a human should be able to marry a goat or a computer. I also know gay men that are Craigish and have told them as I tell anyone that I do not want to know about sexuality other than my own and my partners, it is a private subject and should be kept so. Do you want to hear how I “do it”? I doubt it.
    Am I being nondescript or do you think I am being tactically vague? My own black brother in law finds the tactic of using race for leverage racist so again where do you get your definitions from? The ACLU? I believe in my heart that good people deserve respect and equality and bad people deserve NOTHING. That doesn’t present an argument for me being bias or racist or hateful it represents an ideology of fairness. Was the link to small minded an attempt to showcase my thoughts as weak minded and foolish? I haven’t seen that tactic on your site until now and I’m not sure if I should be flattered or insulted. How should I feel about that? I think I ramble in the morning so off to coffee I go.

  18. Michale D….

    Never see males display total dominance? Or male dogs for that matter?

  19. Are we talking sex or society Rafael?
    Hierarchal Alpha dogs asserting their dominance or men finding men so intimately attractive that women are disregarded as mating possibility and therefore committing the rest of their lives and existence together?
    I’ve seen both and understand the differences if that’s what your point is. What is your point? I’m talking about societal behavior being legitimized by sexual preference not establishing a pecking order. I’m sure you and fitness believe I’m looking way to far into this but it’s for the occasion is it not?

  20. I’d like to explain myself where I possibly could have done so initially to avoid misconceptions. My position on the MA marriage issue is based partly on my own personal account. I was treated unfairly and illegally for my own divorce in MA but I followed the laws and played by the rules.
    I was married for 15 years and lived in MA the entire time. I moved to RI when we separated. The MA legal system was fine with me getting married but seemed to have issues with my divorce. I intended to represent myself in the divorce proceedings and was told, in a very abrupt fashion, from the judge that “being as I am the person in the black robe Michael I’m going to give you some advice, coming to court without a lawyer is like going into surgery without a surgeon” and was immediately dismissed and not allowed to speak to the court. This is a violation of my rights and a violation of the law. I was livid. How could a judge do this to me? On the record? It was just wrong. I talked to an attorney and found out that because I had been a RI resident for the prescribed amount of time that I was able to obtain a divorce in RI but not the custody portion (which takes much longer) as the kids were MA residents for longer than they were of RI. The distance I moved from the ex is less than 2 miles yet the MA court system couldn’t allow joint physical custody because of state boundaries. Therefore I was ordered to pay child support against my and my ex’s wishes (mutually agreed divorce is not allowed over state lines).
    Now at this point narrow minded individuals will be screaming that I am a hypocrite but this would be inaccurate. I wanted to move on with my life and relationships and was burdened with the MA red tape to achieve my divorce expediently (two + years of separation). I did what I was allowed to do by law. I didn’t attempt to dictate the law I can only obey it. The simple premise is that If RI would not allow my divorce I would have played by the rules and dealt with the hand I was given. I would not have attempted to usurp the laws and rules because “I am a special individual with special rights because I am different and being judged exclusively because of my differentness”. It’s not right. If the law says you can or cannot do something, then you can and should use the same “rights” that you exploited (going to MA to get married) to achieve your means, to attain your ends (not insisting that RI divorce you). Does any of this make sense or am I just rambling and missing the big picture? A little help here…..

  21. Every time I come to this site I find another reason to like it. Seriously on any other site this would have completely devovled into serious name-calling and flaming. Here, it gets close but doesn’t quite reach the level totally inane.

    Owen: you really aren’t making any sense…or maybe you don’t understand how this law is written in America, I know I don’t understand how it is written in Australia. By your logic, and I will try to explain this without using the race examples already used: if there was a law that said “Women can’t vote” the law discriminates against women. Period. I think we can agree there. Now, that law could, by your logic, be enforced “equally.” That is, if you take that law and apply it to a man trying to vote, he would be allowed to vote. And then when a woman walked to the voting booth, the law, equally applied, would prevent her from voting. Voila! Equality under the law!!!

    Not quite.

    The law unreasonably prevents homosexual unions. It tells heterosexuals they can marry whomever the other chooses. It tells homosexuals they cannot…they must choose a heterosexual partner if they want to get married. Now, I can see why, you might think this equal enforcement, but it’s equal enforcement of a discriminatory law.

    And, for all this talk about “I obey the laws, I don’t try to change them and that somehow makes me good or moral” where did you come up with that? Seriously. This country, hell! every country is made of a continuously adapting body of laws. Do you think we vote legislators into office or elect/appoint judges because they have the magical ability to do that ex nihilo? They are representatives (at least half the time). They listen to our demands….the demands of a changing world…and adapt the law accordingly. Laws are not just statutes, btw, we live in a country where laws are created anew each time a judge makes a decision on a case too. But in both cases the laws are changing because people stand up and say “man that ain’t right!”

    Now, I’m not saying you shouldn’t obey the law. Some laws are just plain bad and should be broken as a form of protest. But most laws should be changed from within the system…appealing court decisions, lobbying congressman, staging demonstrations, petitions etc. But don’t act like obeying the law makes you a hero. Most of this country’s heroes were people that challenged shitty laws (Boston Tea Party, Martin Luther King, Eugene V. Debs.)

  22. No! What makes me good and moral is my power of observation and my upbringing not laws……

  23. Just for the record. Here is the legal process that was illegally side stepped.
    Feb. 4, 2004 – Acting on a request from state lawmakers, the SJC clarifies its earlier ruling, saying only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples – rather than civil unions – are constitutional.

    Feb. 11, 2004 – Massachusetts Legislature opens constitutional convention with debate on a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage and adjourned a day later deadlocked, after failing to pass three separate proposed bans on same-sex marriage.

    March 29, 2004 – State Legislature approves proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but legalize Vermont-style civil unions.

    March 31, 2004 – State Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly says gay marriage will apply only to Massachusetts residents because of a 1913 state law that prevents out-of-staters from getting married in Massachusetts if they are ineligible for marriage in the state where they live.

    May 4, 2004 – Gov. Mitt Romney’s top legal adviser warned city and town clerks that issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples will make the marriages void and could result in legal repercussions for the clerks.

    May 17, 2004 – Marriages of gay couples begin in Massachusetts.

    May 18, 2004 – Romney’s administration demands copies of all marriage-license applications filled out by gay couples in Provincetown and three other cities that openly defied the residency requirement for same-sex marriages.

    May 19, 2004 – The Democrat-controlled state Senate votes overwhelmingly to repeal the 1913 law that Romney used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. The repeal died after it left the Senate.

    May 24, 2004 – Reilly issues cease and desist orders telling clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples.

    June 18, 2004 – Eight couples and more than a dozen municipal clerks file lawsuits challenging the 1913 law used to block out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

    July 13, 2004 – A lawyer for the out-of-state couples asked a superior court judge for an injunction blocking the state from enforcing the 1913 law, saying it violates both the U.S. Constitution and Massachusetts law.

    August 18, 2004 – Superior Court Judge Carol Ball rejected the challenge to the 1913 law barring out-of-state gay couples from marrying.

    October 6, 2005 – A lawyer for the out-of-state couples argued before the SJC that the 1913 law “sat on the shelf” unused for decades until it was “dusted off” by Romney.

    March 30 – The Massachusetts high court rules that nonresident gays cannot marry in the state.

  24. And in response to the “it’s legal in MA” comment you made elsewhere on this site, it isn’t legal in MA. You can’t get a drivers license in a state you don’t live in either.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: