Gay & Lesbian Marriage? Some people think it's an outrage

[depakid]

I just had a conversation with a Southern Conservative family member about gay marriage. It didn’t start out that way- I called regarding family health business. He brought it up and despite my usual “you know, we shouldn’t talk politics & religion” thing, he was outraged and insisted on laying into me (I figured he needed to vent and I may well be the only progressive he knows who tolerates his shit).

First he starts out with “how dare the Mayor of San Francisco defy the will of California voters.” I replied that the California initiative he cited became a simple law- not a California or a Federal constitutional provision- and where laws come into conflict with Constitutions, laws fail. I began to cite a few examples of this (I almost got to Loving v. Virginia)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

but he cut me off with an exasperated:

Well, every decent person knows that marriage is between a man and a woman. You’ve been married, you know that. How can you say anything different? Well, I said, it seems to me that marriage today has (or should have) a lot more to do with love and commitment than with legitimizing children with a piece of paper or forming political alliances between families. If two people who love each other want to make that commitment and share the same rights and responsibilities that you and I have, then why not let them? It’s no skin off your ass. In fact, if you run through the tax brackets, you’ll see that it may even help a little with the budget deficit.

Then the Bible came out- and I cut off the conversation. He knows darn well that I’ve read the Bible- along with Apocrypha’s, and I just won’t go there with him anymore.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that gay marriage strikes a chord with some people that’s just not worth our discussing. There’s nothing you can say- and even if you get out the long knives- like I was tempted to, as in “well marriage must not be very sacred to you, seeing as how you used to call me to get reassurance that leaving X who you have kids with and cheat on, for Y who made you happier and feel more fulfilled was the ‘right’ thing to do,” there are some people you just can’t reach, regardless.

Hardcore Republicans know this and they’ll be using it as a serious wedge issue this year. How to defuse it? I don’t know, but I’d appreciate any thoughts.

[emanymton]

1. You Lose ...

when you use "their" argument. Use "YOUR" argument. It is about E-Q-U-A-L R-I-G-H-T-S!

To quote you, "trying to make is that gay marriage strikes a chord with some people that’s just not worth our discussing." Keep the issue straight on equal rights and then ask people why they want the government to tell them who they can be with?

“What part of equal rights do you not understand?”

“Which rights do you (the person you are talking to) want to give up?"

"And why would that person want to give up his/her rights?”

Bush Lied, People Died

[depakid]

3. It IS equal rights

yet try telling that to someone who doesn't get concepts like equality. It's not an easy thing to do- trying to give them something that they can relate to, especially when they've been dogmatized for much of their life.

[emanymton]

4. One issue At A Time

Simple points presented simply help.

Don't try to change their minds, let them do it for themselves. Keep the issue straight on equal rights. Ask why they opppose equal treatment of people?

[buckeye1]

7. Hear,Hear!

Well said. If the fundies really want defend marriage, its time to outlaw all divorce.
Only once have we amended to take rights away(Prohibition) and that was wisely repealed. The FMA is un-American.

[burrowowl]

2. In the Middle Ages,

marriage finally got to be a sacrement. But, it was for the rich to share RICHES. Surprise!
Many did not marry. In fact, marriage is the only sacrement where a priest is only the witness. The 2 people give it to themselves.
Are these sanctimous Repugs basing thier stuff on: (God forbid) old Roman Catholic stuff?
What God has put together, let no man put asunder ....
Hmmmm!
In most cultures, marriage is an arranged thingie, going back to property again.
It wasn't til the 19th century and Romanticism that the idea of people loving each other could marry (again upper crust).
The poor did what they always did, even in the Middle Ages, I'll stick with you baby.

[FG9942]

5. Marriage is the only contract that has externally enforced limitations

It is only a Christian concept to limit marriage between two persons.
one man and a woman. In many societies marriage can involve more than one partners and it was none of the state's business to bar
Mormons to just two person families.

Until we get rid of state enforced monogamy, it is equally logical or illogical depending on your point of view to limit it to two persons of different sexes.

If you allow two persons of same sex to marry then what prevents more than two persons to get married to form a family?

[Joe Momma]

6. it is an outrage because the bible told me so

[knight_of_the_star]

8. Can't argue with history

Every time someone wants to talk about how is it sacred sacrement and all that stuff, I bring up these little gems:

1.) Marriage existed before monotheistic religious philosophy. There IS historical evidence to prove that.

2.) Marriage, up until the last 200 or so years, was done for political and economic reasons. Nothing to do with procreation or love or anything like that.

[DieboldMustDie]

9. Why stop the conversation when the Bible comes out?

Is this guy against remarriage after divorce? The Bible is! In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus states quite clearly that this constitutes adultery, which, by the way, is punishable by stoning, same as homosexual behavior. A lot of people who consider the Bible the "Literal Word of God" are still perfectly willing to disregard passages they find inconvenient. ;)

[emanymton]

10. It Might Be Fun To Confuse Them ...

but it doesn't help advance the equal rights issue. ;/


Bush Lied, People Died

[Joe Momma]

11. did christ say

that this was punishable by stoning?

[depakid]

12. Because we've been there before

Some people have selective intepretations that are easily bent when their own interests are at stake, yet find the very same principles hard to apply others. I've lived my entire life among people like this and I still don't understand it.

[countmyvote4real]

13. egual is equal or it's not

Here's my sarcastic post on another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1123305&mesg_id=1123499

How gay marriage would effect us heteros negatively?

• Gays will just do it better - fabulous ceremonies and a better success rate. Of course, that doesn’t count if they marry Liza Minnelli. Then all advantages are off.

• There will be less people to feel superior over in a legal way. Everybody can still hate people for their race, religion, politics and sexual persuasion, but hate will have to be “equal” under the law. That only leaves the French to deride. Bummer.

• The children will be confused when there’s no longer a mixed message about equal rights.

• Parents of same sex couples will gain a child of the same sex instead of the opposite sex “they wished they’d always wanted.”

• The Bible will be exposed for not really codifying marriage as being between a man and a woman or a dog and a cat. At it’s best the Bible (if you strive to live by either the Old or New Testament) will be found to have further contradictions in a world thousands of years later. At it’s worst, family pets will sue.

• This is a mixed one. Desirable neighborhoods will become more desirable. Property values will probably go up. Not good for taxes, but great if you’re selling.

• Polygamous families in Utah will have to have multiple husbands.

* It will revoke the sanctity of a marriage. Well maybe so IF your God (whatever) was paying attention to these events. Marriage is as sacred as you believe it to be and yet it still requires a license from the state. Hmmm. Might be a nice way to weasel out of something not so sacred anymore.

Sarcasm off.

I can’t think of any real reason why gay marriage should be a threat to any heterosexual marriage. It’s just stupid and hypocritical to think otherwise.

Equal is equal or it’s not.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. my 20 yr old son said...

something interesting while listening to the news with me the other night- if the whole presumption of gay marriage is about (as they claim) preserving the 'sancity of marriage'...
then WATCH OUT-!! because the next thing you know it will be against the law to live with someone 'outside of marriage'
or to divorce-

those 2 things are more of a detriment to the "sanctity' of the institution, than having people (regardless of thier sex) commit themselves 'leagally' to one another-

i think he's got a good argument there-

the divorce rate among 'christians' is the same, or higher than the general public last i heard-