Why drop the discussion to this level? This really doesn't help.
i realize i put it in very blunt terms, but i think that this is the core of what's going on. i know this because i remember very well being a teenager and dealing with an emerging sexuality.
i think boys, in particular, are taught that part of the definition of being straight is not being gay. while that seems intuitive, i think it's a much more complex process than we might think. by denigrating and mocking and defining yourself against homosexuality, you therefore assert your heterosexuality, which subsequently further defines your gender identity. homosexuality does threaten traditional norms of gender conduct, i do understand that.
this is insanely complex, and hard to get into in any sort of depth here. but the closest parallel i can find is sexism. men also define themselves as men by how they are different (and, yes, better) than women. while much progress has been made in this area, and women are accorded respect by men that they would never have gotten even 30 years ago, when it comes to sex and sexuality, there are very concrete notions of "being a man" that homosexuality subverts.
believe me, i've lived this. i was an athlete in high school and college, and as a swimmer, when you live in a Speedo and shave your body twice a year, there was probably more casual homophobia to compensate for any perceived lack of masculinity on the part of a male swimmer.
And that is why, in my opinion, the voters are turning down gay marriage. I think that most believe that homsexuals already have their civil rights protected under the current laws and that civil unions offer the same priviledges as marriage. They do not see the need to pass a new law that does not add to these rights but is a mere social statement.
firstly, this isn't true. in some states, gay people cannot adopt. in some states, it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay, to deny housing to someone because they are gay. there are protections afforded to women, minorities, and various religious groups that are not afforded to gay people. very real discrimination still exists.
what marriage would do is instantly remove any of the (yes, bigoted) reasons for said discrimination.
civil unions exist in some states, but not everywhere, and there's no uniform set of rights. what happened in Washington last Tuesday, for example, was a law passed that strengthened the state's already existing civil unions to make them essentially equal in rights to a marriage. while that is certainly good news for gay couples in Washington, it does beg the question as to why we need to create a totally separate category.
it really, really is the same argument that predicated desegregation in the public schools. the blacks had their schools. filled with black students with black teachers. the had books and desks and pencils and paper. why desegregate? they are, on paper, "equal" to white schools? it's the exact same thing here.
what marriage equality would do is eliminate this entirely separate category of relationship. conservatives talk about reducing government, making it simpler, increasing liberty, etc. doesn't the creation of civil unions needlessly complicate a very simple thing? if gay people were allowed civil marriage, they would be subject to the same laws as straight people. no need to create anything new.
*that* is the genuinely conservative position.
But it does seem likely that eventually voters will endorse gay marriage so I wouldn't get too worried.
my guess is that by 2020, most states will have something very close to it.
certainly, the losses in CA and ME are heartbreaking. but if you compare the vote in CA in 2008 to the one in 2000, you see huge progress. i would imagine that had a vote like that happened in Maine just 10 years ago, it would have been 80% against marriage equality.
progress is slow.
the Selma boycotts were in, what, 1955? the Civil Rights Act wasn't until 1964, and civil rights were actually moving too fast even for JFK at the time.
i also wonder how the voters of AL would have voted had they been asked if black students could attend the University of Alabama.
No, I do not.
[...]
I have no vendetta or active hatred toward homosexuals. I do not consider myself a bigot. I am simply a conservative male that occasionally like to discuss/debate some of the current "hot buttons."
i think this is fair, and i should probably be more clear.
i do not think you actively hate gay people. but by your own admission, you are ignorant. you don't know gay couples. my grandparents were all lovely people, but they were all more than a little bit racist. much of that comes from lack of exposure, and living in a time when casual racism, and dividing people up by their perceived social category, was perfectly acceptable and reinforced.
children understand gay couples instantly. there's nothing all that weird to them about Uncle Adam and Uncle Steve. it's only when that's reinforced that it's weird, or wrong, that it becomes an issue. children may notice a difference, just like they'll notice that people are from different races, but they have to be taught the historical baggage and learn the judgments. they learn when their parents avoid trick-or-treating at the house of the gay couple down the street. they learn when their peers start playing "smear the queer" and calling each other "fag" and "homo" and calling things "gay." an enormous amount of work has been done over the past 30 years educating children about sensitivity to people who are different from them -- from different races (do kids use the N-word nearly as much as the used to?) to different religions (doesn't anti-Semitism seem positively insane these days?) to even those with special needs (do we really use "retarded" anymore when we want to call someone stupid?)
work needs to be done. and the best thing that i can do is to come out, be out, talk about myself and my life, and by virtue of being myself you'll come to realize that i'm not all that different from you. certainly, yes, there are differences, but are such differences enough to create an entirely new category of relationship so that you can maintain your distinction from me? is making that distinction all that important? would we have "white marriage" or "christian marriage" or "post-menopausal marriage?"
Could a mod please split it so we can get back to discussing each topic individually?
