If you say marriage needs to be "defended" from gays you are a homophobe

Lets not try to ignore this basic fact any longer, EVERYBODY who uses the phrases "defense of marriage" or "protection of marriage" to promote restrictions on gays getting married is homophobic.

They most likely will try to deny that charge, but just look at the literal meaning of the word homophobia. It literally means "fear of homosexuals", if these people are not fearful of homosexuals then why do they have to "defend" anything?

When can we get an elected official to stand up and speak the obvious truth, that the very terms "Marriage Protection Ammendment", and the "Defense of Marriage Act" are homophobic in their very titles?

...do you really think the Dittoheads will feel "homophobe" is an insult?

It doesn't matter whether or not they are insulted, either way it is the truth. Let the voters (most of whom are not dittoheads) know that if they vote for anyone who promotes these things they are voting for a person who is an outspoken homophobe.

But Teddy Kennedy calling them "bigots" certainly did. Frist whined and stamped his feet like a schoolboy.

Fundies even more so

Here is the definition of homophobia that the dictionary gives.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a Audio pronunciation of "homophobia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia

If you need to "defend" or "protect" your marriage from gays does that not indicate "fear of...lesbians and gay men"?

Some people truly believe that the sanctity of marriage should be between a man and a woman which IMHO would show ignorance not homophobia.

EDIT: spelling

"sanctity" of something? To those people the logical answer would be....."so don't marry the same gender if you have a problem with it".

By forcing it on everyone, they are in essence forcing their religious viewpoint or definition on the sanctity of marriage. This is why I'm hopeful something like this will never pass.

Definition of "sanctity":

1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.

"truly believe that the sanctity of marriage should be between a man and a woman"

That phrase actually makes little sense. Sanctity means holiness. The phrase 'the sanctity of marriage' means 'the holiness of marriage'. The holiness of x should be between a man and a woman? What does that mean? I think you meant 'some people believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman'. For some reason you have tossed 'sanctity' into the phrase. Why?

Take marriage out of the picture. Suppose tomorrow Rev Falwell decides that the bible limits the sanctity of operating a motor vehicle to men. Improbable? Saudi Arabia has just such a religion based law in place. Would you not agree that misogyny is at least one of the primary foundations of such a belief, regardless of the religious idiocy that provides the ideological framework for such a belief?

The point is that when people trot out 'sanctity of marriage' they are attempting to establish a framework, a facade, for their desire to take away the rights of homosexual families. The fact that they surround their bigotry in sanctimony, literally, does not eliminate their bigoted motives, it just makes them sanctimonious bigots.

then a claim that these are their 'true beliefs' is a bit incredulous. That is the OP's point here I think, even the idiots just mouthing words are doing so to avoid saying what they know is unacceptable: that they hate faggots, and instead are using the comfort words given to them by their minister or by the squawk box to mask their feelings.

Every 'sanctity of marriage' screed can be simply translated as 'I hate faggots'. If that word offends you, I'm sorry, the sentiment offends me and I am damn tired of the sanctimonious bigots hiding behind their defense of marriage crap.

ON EDIT: Just because certain people use certain words, doesn't mean I have to. It's like If they jumped off a bridge would you follow?

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

It could be construed that most homophobes are so deeply threatened by homosexuality because they're either closet cases or repressing those urges within themselves. It's a total projection of their own self loathing.

livable minimum wage, health care for everyone, good daycare centers, inexpensive and reliable mass transportation AND the laws came with no refererence to sexual orientation of the people who were married - but then I always was a dreamer.....

As it is written now - yes the laws are written to appeal to homophobes.

In that case it would most certainly not be homophobic, unfortunately that act exists only in our dreams.

and bury the current push to write prejudice into the constitution....

:hi:

Everyone seems to forget that it was our friend - Bill Clinton - who literally signed prejudice into law with DOMA - The Defense of Marriage Act - in 1996. DOMA defined marriage as "between a man and a woman".

Our record on prejudice with regard to gay marriage is absolutely nothing to brag about.

From "OUTSMART": http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/issue/i02-01/outright.html

Also not to be forgotten is Clinton’s support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. Recall that DOMA created the first-ever congressional definition of marriage, denying to future gay newlyweds all of the benefits of marriage accorded to opposite-sex couples under federal law. It also fueled a series of state DOMA laws, the opposition to which has consumed millions of gay dollars and countless hours of volunteer time.

I was blissfully ignorant in 1996.... my bad.

:blush:

of homosexuality on the Senate floor in support of DOMA. YEAH, THANK GOD for the Democrats..:eyes:

in promoting marriage equality is a losing strategy.

they will be pasted with supporting mariage equality -- ruthlessly so -- regardless.

triangulation on this is a loser.

here's a freebie for anyone who wants to win on the whole ridiculous "Marriage Protection" business. Don't waste your time pointing out how hypocritical all these divorced, cheating repubs are who are demanding that we "defend" marriage from the terrible threat posed by same-sex unions. In the first place, they'll reply that the high rate of divorce has nothing to do with opposing gay marriage, and in the second place, the Democrats are just as likely as they are to have divorces and extramarital affairs they'd rather not talk about--and they'll be right! Furthermore, what are you going to do, try to outlaw divorce? or even try to go back to the bad old days when it was difficult and expensive--and took YEARS--to end a marriage? In the meantime, people (mostly women) would be trapped in abusive relationships, prevented by the law from getting themselves and their children to safety. Is that really what the Democrats are proposing? Of course not. Instead, we need to AGREE that the institution of marriage is "under attack" and needs to be defended, but the threat is not from gay couples, who, after all, are only trying to sign on to the same loving, UNCONDITIONAL partnerships that marriage represents. What we need to go after are the things that are actually undermining the nature of those partnerships. I'm talking about the scourge of prenuptial agreements. Think about it: Here are two people who supposedly love each other SO MUCH that they are about to take a solemn vow to spend the rest of their lives together, but wait a minute, what's this? First they have to draw up a legally binding contract spelling out the limits they will accept in the event the marriage goes the way of one of George Bush's business ventures or wars? What the hell is this? Marriage, with an asterisk? I Love* you, will you marry* me? I promise to love, honor and cherish you, 'til death do us part, but if/when it all goes sour, you can forget about getting your hands on my portfolio, my house or anything you can't stuff in a Samsonite overnight bag on the way out the door! You want to define "marriage"? Fine. Let's start with a clear definition of the relationship itself, rather than who can and cannot enter into one. The uptight right keeps insisting that marriage is more than just another contract between two parties; that it is a "solemn" and "holy" bond, and the bedrock of our very social fabric. If that's REALLY the case, let's take the lawyers out of the equation right up front

They are the ones trying to inject the Holy Spirit and Baby Jesus into the mix.

I wasn't married in a church, I don't go to church, and my marriage is just as legal as anyone's.

Last week, AmericaBlog put out the call to dig up all the really juicy dirt about the "Ban-Gay" amendment supporters, so we could all throw it in their faces. I think it would more interesting to find out which ones have "Pre-nups" to protect their assets from the gold-digging clutches of their trophy wives. Me, I would agree that marriage SHOULD be considered just another contract, but they're the ones throwing out all the sanctimonious crap about "cheapening" and "trivializing" marriage vows. How many of them are going to the altar with their fingers distreetly crossed behind their backs?

If gays are allowed to marry, will heterosexual married couples then lose their rights? Will they no longer be able to visit one another in the hospital just like gay couples are denied today? Will they no longer be able to have automatic probate and survivors rights just like gay couples are denied today? Will they lose the right to adopt children, just like gay couples are denied that right today? Will heterosexual couples be discriminated against in housing, just as gay couples are today?
Gosh. Now I see the problem. It's no wonder that heterosexual couples fear gay marriage so much...

That is, according to every state that has voted on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Even Oregon and Michigan (blue states), they all believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

This is not complicated. If you were against interracial marriage, you were a bigot, too. And when Loving V Virginia was decided 80% of the country opposed interracial marriages. So, yes. 80% of the country was bigoted in that regard.

And the 55% of the country that opposes gay marriage equality are today bigots.

Btw, it was ACTIVIST JUDGES that decided Loving. Damn those activist judges. They just do whatever they feel like even when 80% of the country is against them.

Are you sure it might not be that you're considerably out of the mainstream of the American public, as opposed to the rest of us being "bigots?" Did you vote for those two "bigots" Kerry/Edwards a couple of years ago?

You *are* going to be fun. :D

I thought moral relativism was outre among conservatives?

Right and wrong are determined by polling numbers.

considering that national polling has support for full marriage equality at 35-40% of the public and in some areas, notably New England and New York, support for marriage equality commands a majority.

Sizeable minorities and outright majorities are usually within the mainstream of opinion, no?

The people who support marriage equality are merely ahead of the curve. Being bigoted about this issue does not mean they will not learn and eventually come to understand and respect equality for all.

The 80% of the country that opposed interracial marriage in 1967 had it forced on them by Loving V Virginia and they CAME TO UNDERSTAND that they were wrong on the issue and society progressed.

Arguing against gay marriage is virtually arguing against the entire history of human civilization. Human rights, since we were first sentient beings, have only moved in ONE direction - forward. That will be the same in this case, as well. Those who do not get on board the train of the expansion of human rights will eventually be rendered irrelevant.

History does repeat itself.

"protection of marriage"?

If anything, Kerry refused to endorse the referendums against gay marriages that were in OH and other states, though Clinton told him to do so. (He also voted against DOMA and FMA).

I know he has been playing with the word marriage vs civil union with full rights, but he certainly never used the words that the OP is invoking.

There is a lot of homophobia in this society, and just because the homophobes may vote in large numbers does not mean they are not homophobes.

You say I am technically wrong, but look up the definition of homophobia in the dictionary. If they need to "defend" and "protect" their marriage that indicates fear of gays, and that is literally what homophobia is.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156383,00.html

LINCOLN, Neb. — A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage (search), saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.

The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon (search) said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

The majority of people supported miscegenation laws too. It didn't mean it wasn't bigotry. I think it is ludicrous on the face of it to even act entertain the concept that gay marriage is somehow a THREAT to marriage. I mean in what way? Its bigotry because it has no possible basis in logic or fact to make the argument. Unreasonable fear or hatred is bigotry by definition. I don't care if the majority believes it decency DEMANDS that progressives fight bigotry whenever it raises its ugly head. You don't only fight the fights you can win you fight the fights that need fighting.

I keep thinking that any 'sanctity of marriage' is between my husband and me. We own it and we're responsible for it.

What about heterosexuals who only get married for convenience? I have a sibling who lived with someone for over a decade and the only reason they got married is because during a vacation she had a mild heart attack, needed medical assistance in the emergency room and he couldn't do anything about it. Her children had to hop on airplanes to sign the paperwork for her to be treated. They got married by a justice of the peace a month after their return from this ordeal. Why is this okay?

Make that 3 things: I was married in an outdoor ceremony by a retired minister turned justice of the peace. Does this make me any less married?

:)

Only the civil ceremony is recognized by the state, if you want to get married in a church, you go have a ceremony at a chuch, so there are 2 ceremonies. But only the civil one has force of law.
By the way, marriage was the last of the sacraments instituted by the Church in the Middle-Ages and was a way to protect the property of the nobles, etc. The common man usually didn't get "married" until much later.
That words like sanctity and sacred (re the flag) be used in civil as opposed to religious discourse is not only troubling but dangerous. The "in God we trust" on our money is blasphemous to many.

It was a stupid concept - just like "protecting the flag".

Protect it from what?

How many straight couples WON'T marry if Gays are allowed to marry?

How many straight couples WILL divorce if Gays are allowed to marry?

If gay marriages threatens a straight marriage - then the straight marriage already had serious problems.

that I'd caught the "gay disease" being spread by the AGENDA. This has led to my divorce and to me maxing out my credit card on hot pants (after I discovered the gay jeans).

:sarcasm: and ;)

I think the word marriage, and its antecedents in other languages, has meant the union of a man and a woman for thousands of years.

To say that the word HAS to be used for same sex unions, or one is labeled a homophobe, is illogical and nasty, IMO.

I support civil unions, and I don't care if they use the word marriage. But calling those who want to reserve that word as it has been used for thousands of years homophobes is reactionary, IMO.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a Audio pronunciation of "homophobia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobia

To use the words "defense of marriage" or "protection of marriage" suggests a "fear of...lesbians and gay men", if there was no fear why would they need to defend anything?

A few decades back the majority of the country thought that interracial marriage should be restricted, today we know that is a racist position. It is the same situation with restricting gay marriage, it is a homophobic position. I realize I am going to piss some people off when I say that, but sometimes you have to speak the truth even when that truth hurts.

It's a necessary statement of truth.

If some homophobe's going to be offended by it, they should be.

I'll note that I'm straight and religious, and I think the idea of "defending marriage" by restricting gay rights is absurd.

No one has been able to explain the mechanism by which gay marriage harms straight marriage. It's just a mindless phrase that people use as an excuse for their own distaste.

it's just another way to demonize gays, whining about their marriages being threatened......I'll quote the unknown lady who said it's not gays threatening my marrage, it's the woman trying to f*** my husband

Because let's face it - Straight couples have made a mockery of marriage for the past several milliniums with the crap they have pulled in the name of their "GOD" (and I'm a christian - I have no clue what faith some of these idiots are following). Marriage has been such a joke to me that I have done just about everything I can to avoid ever becoming married myself.

Personally I think gay couples deserve better :D

Having said this, I am in full support of the GBLT having the same rights as straight couples.