Tired of being called a homophobe?

[Blessed75]

That horse was dead before you even looked at it. There are no legitimate financial or legal arguments against same sex marriage. It's a fantasy. In fact, there are no legitimate arguments against same-sex marriage whatsoever.

The whole argument against gay marriage boils down to a personal "ick" factor and religious bias, and religious bias is *NOT* a legitimate argument.

Good post, I agree........

 

[burrow_owl]

The whole argument against gay marriage boils down to a personal "ick" factor and religious bias, and religious bias is *NOT* a legitimate argument.

Well, why isn't it a legitimate argument? If you mean legally, then you're probably right, but if you just mean in general, I have a hard time seeing what you mean. Additionally, religious motivation is clearly a legitimate reason for supporting the FMA, since amendments are incapable of negativization by courts based on the separation of church and state. Finally, morality (which in practice will often be difficult to separate from religious beliefs) is an acceptable basis of legislation (as the courts have repeatedly held).

 

[Arthur Dietrich]

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Pseudopneumoultramicroscopicsiliconovolcaniconiosis is a psychosomatic disorder which sometimes occurs in people who are taking care of sufferers of airborne silicosis.

Not to be confused with mnemnoticisticismalism, which is the habit of making lists.

Of course, these words should not be used if you suffer from hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, which is the fear of long words.

ha! Your puny words don't scare me! Now THIS:

kyyhkyslakkahillotaatelipalmusunnuntaikävelykatujuhla-
koristehedelmäkaramellimassatuotevalvontalaitteisto-
testauslaboratoriokäyttökertatulitikkuviinapiilohomo-
kaasulasersädehoitokotikaljakimblemestaruussarjakuva-
ristikkokilpajuoksuhiekka-aavikkoluonto-ohjelmauusinta-
vaalikokousedustusmeno-paluuruuhkabussivuoropysäköinti-
sakkolihakoukkuselkänahkavyöruusukasvimaamunajuustomaito-
rasvaimunestepinta-alahuulipunakampelaverkkomahalasku-
harjoitustyöaamukampapellavaöljykriisiapukeinolonkkalepo-
lomarusketusrajatietoteollisuuskiinteistömarkkinointi-
diplomi-insinööriopiskelijaperinnemaisema-arkkitehti-
kilta-aktiivihiiliteräsbetonivalurautaristisiitoshärkä-
pizzamaustevoipaperiroskapostimerkkisavusaunavastaprotesti-
marssivapautusliikevaihtoväliarvojoukkopakomatkaopas-
koirakantakorttitaikatalvisotakunniajäsenetupuolikuiva-
rehuvilja-aittakorpisuomaastohiihtoputkitiivistesilikoni-
rintataskuvaraslähtöliukumiinakenttäkeitinvesihanasaari-
ryhmätyömyyrävuosikurssikirjapainopistetulotukivarsikenkä-
kauppaopistoupseerikerhohuonepalveluammattikoulupoika-
tyttöenergiatalousaluelaajennustarvehierarkiakaavio-
suunnittelupäätöspäivävientisulkuporttiteoriapohjakunto-
urheiluruutuässäpariluistelutyylituomaripelimies-
voimisteluvideokulmakarvakuonokoppalakkipäämääräalennus-
tilataksimittarimatopurkkikeittoastiakaappipakastin-
yhdistelmälukkoseppähenkilötunnussanaleikkikalupakkipussi-
eläinkoeponnistuslautakuntalakitekstiseikkailuleiri-
telttakangaspuujalkasienipiirakkareseptivihkopakkaus-
muovikuularuiskumaalaustarvikevarastohyllymetrilakuavain-
naulakkovartiopäällikkötasogeometriavirhevaihtosähkökazoo-
pillihousupukupellehyppylankakeräkaaliaivovuotosuoja-
vaatekappalemyyntitykkilavatanssiaskelmoottoripyörä-
koppisiemenperunapalstajakoviivaintegraalioperaattori-
algebraoppilaitoskompleksilukusuoraveto-oikeusmurha-
asevarikkopilttuu

is a word.


As for homophobia. I agree with feral and actually PARTIALLY agree with drfeelgood. I do think there are people who suffer from an irrational disgust (possibly fear in extreme cases) towards homosexuality and maybe even homosexuals. The word has since been coined to include any towards of prejudice towards homosexuals for whatever reason and then some.

Here's the part where I agree. It does get taken too far at times and people become overly sensitive. Once two girls were talking very loudly near me when I was trying to study. I asked them if they could keep it down and they went and called me a homophobe. (those who know me will understand the irony of this).

I think it is stupid to think it's all part of some 'Gay Plot' though. People just latched onto the word. If you don't like it and find it offensive or something just say so. We'll understand. Don't make up conspirasies. I used to think my sister hated me when she called me names. Know what? I told her she hurt my feelings and she stopped. This was when I was still in elementary school, now. I had hoped everyone worked past name calling eventually.

 

[goodgirl]

the word "homophobia" bugs me too, since "phobia" is actually a medical term for a type of mental illness. I don't really cotton to being called crazy AND bigoted in the same breath -- especially since I'm neither.

However, I'm a big believer in people not being such dern crybabies all the time. I think too much time is wasted trying to haggle over whether to call people Latinos or Hispanics, African-Americans or Blacks or Negros or Afro-Americans, gays or lesbians or homosexuals or queers, etc. etc. etc. etc. blah blah ehhhhhhh so even though I find the language offensive, I'm willing to let it go (grudgingly).

 

[Corey]

Well, why isn't it a legitimate argument? If you mean legally, then you're probably right, but if you just mean in general, I have a hard time seeing what you mean. Additionally, religious motivation is clearly a legitimate reason for supporting the FMA, since amendments are incapable of negativization by courts based on the separation of church and state. Finally, morality (which in practice will often be difficult to separate from religious beliefs) is an acceptable basis of legislation (as the courts have repeatedly held).

How do you know your religion is right? Can you prove God exists?

If you cannot do those things, then your religion is a matter of personal opinion. Opinions do not constitute valid arguments for a position. By trying to force your religious opinions on others you are violating their rights.

I have an opinion that people who drive only the speed limit in the far left lane are idiots. Does that mean I am correct?

 

[burrow_owl]

Opinions do not constitute valid arguments for a position.

What would constitute a 'valid' basis for a position? After all, any normative conclusion requires at least one normative premise. One would be hard-pressed to come up with a normative proposition that isn't an opinion (as 'that which isn't factual').

 

[reverend B]

Well, why isn't it a legitimate argument? If you mean legally, then you're probably right, but if you just mean in general, I have a hard time seeing what you mean. Additionally, religious motivation is clearly a legitimate reason for supporting the FMA, since amendments are incapable of negativization by courts based on the separation of church and state. Finally, morality (which in practice will often be difficult to separate from religious beliefs) is an acceptable basis of legislation (as the courts have repeatedly held).

The only test legislation has to pass is the constitutional one. You have a right to your "ick" factor. In fact, noone can change it, regardless of the law, except you. You just don't have a right to legislate it, any more that I have the right to legislate my faith.

 

[goodgirl]

yes, Corey, you are correct.
but opinions are the basis for pretty much every position anyone ever had... even judges.

 

[burrow_owl]

You just don't have a right to legislate it....

Inasmuch as the 'ick' factor is the basis for the moral judgment that homosexuality is wrong, then your conclusion is just wrong as a matter of law.

 

[Corey]

What would constitute a 'valid' basis for a position? After all, any normative conclusion requires at least one normative premise. One would be hard-pressed to come up with a normative proposition that isn't an opinion (as 'that which isn't factual').

Evidence. This can be in the form of an analogy that is relevant to the position at hand or it can be empirical data.

I completely and utterly disagree that a normative premise is necessary. From what do you draw this premise? For the most part, I think that you'd find that the premises are logical fallacies anyways: argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad populum, etc.

 

[Corey]

yes, Corey, you are correct.
but opinions are the basis for pretty much every position anyone ever had... even judges.

They are called "opinions," but I'm thinking we need to define the terms more narrowly.

There are facts. These are objectively observable data points.

Then there are opinions. Opinions can be based on fact or the can be based on unprovable assertions. If an opinion is based on unprovable assertions, then the opinion is not a valid position in an argument.

Judges use the law to write their opinions. They have facts at hand to use.

 

[burrow_owl]

In coming to your conclusion that gays should be granted marriage rights, you have to rely on all kinds of normative/value premises, such as 'homosexuality is an acceptable mode of living', etc. There's no fact out there that corresponds to this proposition. For better or worse, moral judgments are a logically necessary component of reaching other moral judgments (David Hume was the first to note this - it's now called the is-ought gap).

re: judge's use of law: there's a clear gap between settled legal propositions and a new application. For gay-marriage rights, it's a case of extending legal precedent beyond it's original application. Much more is going on than just cold deduction.

 

[Corey]

In coming to your conclusion that gays should be granted marriage rights, you have to rely on all kinds of normative/value premises, such as 'homosexuality is an acceptable mode of living', etc. There's no fact out there that corresponds to this proposition. For better or worse, moral judgments are a logically necessary component of reaching other moral judgments (David Hume was the first to note this - it's now called the is-ought gap).

Sorry, my apologies...I was thinking in terms of social norms for some reason.

However that value judgment is based on empirical evidence. The leap is called inductive reasoning. Specifically, homosexuality has a biological and unchangeable causal factor; there is no psychological or physiological harm from the state of being gay; therefore, homosexuality is an acceptible (i.e., non-harmful) means of expressing sexuality.

I will grant that normative judgments are used in furtherance of higher order normative judgments. What I'm saying is that at some point, a valid position has some basis in evidence.

"Because God says so" does not constitute a valid position because A) there is no evidence God exists, and B) God gave no reasons for His proscription.

re: judge's use of law: there's a clear gap between settled legal propositions and a new application. For gay-marriage rights, it's a case of extending legal precedent beyond it's original application. Much more is going on than just cold deduction.

I'd say you are utterly and completely wrong:

The 14th amendment specifies that all people are equal before the law. The state (embodying the law) confers certain rights, privileges, and obligations upon couples they recognize as married. Gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to marry. Therefore, the Equal Protection clause is violated and gay/lesbian couples should be allowed to marry.

 

[burrow_owl]

The 14th amendment specifies that all people are equal before the law. The state (embodying the law) confers certain rights, privileges, and obligations upon couples they recognize as married....

As much as you or I wish it were so simple, it just isn't. If you want, I could get into the constitutional jurisprudence, but i don't wanna blather on if no one gives a hoot. The bottom line, though, is that the equal protection clause affords less protection for gender than it does for race. So, while one can readily see how anti-miscegenation were struck on 14th Amendment grounds, gay-rights advocates will have a significantly harder time (which is why, IMO, gay-rights groups are wisely sticking to the state courts - they must know that their odds aren't so good in federal court).

The next point:

The leap is called inductive reasoning. Specifically, homosexuality has a biological and unchangeable causal factor; there is no psychological or physiological harm from the state of being gay;

Reasonable people could probably differ about this, but let's assume otherwise...

therefore, homosexuality is an acceptible (i.e., non-harmful) means of expressing sexuality.

How is it a fact that anything that doesn't harm another person is morally acceptable? It certainly looks like an unprovable moral judgment to me, but if you have access to the Big Book of Moral Truths I'd sure to love to have a copy. Less snarkily, that's the non-empirical and unprovable assertion on which your conclusion depends. All I have to do is sub in a different minor moral premise (like, 'gayness is bad', or something, which is just as unprovable as 'that which doesn't harm others is OK'), and the opposite conclusion - gayness isn't OK - is the result.

 

[burrow_owl]

Alternately, this tangent on which we've gone has been a response to the claim that it's not acceptable for religious people to base their legal judgments on religious beliefs.

'So what?' seems to be a fair response to that. So long as it's legal for a legislature to base laws on morality (and it is, as the Supreme Court has held time and time again), I don't see how telling religious people that they're being 'invalid' is going to make much of a difference.

Put differently, if I were a religious right kinda person, I'd happily let people say my reasoning is invalid, and then just as happily continue to oppose gay marriage.

 

[Corey]

As much as you or I wish it were so simple, it just isn't. If you want, I could get into the constitutional jurisprudence, but i don't wanna blather on if no one gives a hoot. The bottom line, though, is that the equal protection clause affords less protection for gender than it does for race. So, while one can readily see how anti-miscegenation were struck on 14th Amendment grounds, gay-rights advocates will have a significantly harder time (which is why, IMO, gay-rights groups are wisely sticking to the state courts - they must know that their odds aren't so good in federal court).

Okay...here's the plain text of the First Part of the Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Please explain how the plain meaning of the text does not include gays and lesbians or gender.

...oh and as a side bar, they aren't going to the Federal Courts because the Republicans have been able to get right-of-center "judicial activists" into the system for 16 of the last 24 years.

The next point:

[about scientific and clinical findings]

Reasonable people could probably differ about this, but let's assume otherwise...

No reasonable people wouldn't because reasonable people will have read or accepted the science behind those statements. Those are observable data.

How is it a fact that anything that doesn't harm another person is morally acceptable?

That's a straw man. You're twisting my words. Harming the self or another is part of defining a behavior as dysfunctional. Homosexuality is not dysfunctional in the psychiatric sense because it causes no impairments in functioning either physiologically or psychologically. The whole point was that was not a normative premise.

 

[Corey]

Alternately, this tangent on which we've gone has been a response to the claim that it's not acceptable for religious people to base their legal judgments on religious beliefs.

Hmm...let's see. We have this little thing called the "Establishment Clause." It basically says that the "government" cannot establish a religion in any ways shape or form. By solely using religious beliefs as the basis for legal judgments, the Establishment Clause is violated.

Madison, Jefferson, and the others (who were a lot closer temporally to the religious strife of the previous couple centuries) wisely foresaw the need to disentangle matters of conscience from matters of governance given the violence that had ensued during the time of the Reformation.

'So what?' seems to be a fair response to that. So long as it's legal for a legislature to base laws on morality (and it is, as the Supreme Court has held time and time again), I don't see how telling religious people that they're being 'invalid' is going to make much of a difference.

Guess what...the SCOTUS has also held that laws that legislate morality need to have a compelling secular purpose.

Put differently, if I were a religious right kinda person, I'd happily let people say my reasoning is invalid, and then just as happily continue to oppose gay marriage.

 

[burrow_owl]

Harming the self or another is part of defining a behavior as dysfunctional. Homosexuality is not dysfunctional....

Ok. But it doesn't follow from this that homosexuality is morally acceptable. Presumably the argument against gay marriage would go something like this:

1) Homosexuality is morally unacceptable
2) The state shouldn't sanction that which is morally unacceptable
3) The granting of marriage rights is a kind of sanctioning
ergo:
C) The state shouldn't sanction gay marriage.

If you're trying to rebut (1), you have to rely at some point on an unprovable moral assertion. Mere non-dysfunctionality (as a psychological description) isn't the same as moral acceptibility, so it won't get you there. I can certainly think that a behavior isn't psychologically dysfunctional, while still holding that it is immoral. For example, many would contend that watching inappropriate content or something isn't a sign of dysfunctionality, but it seems clear that one could still find it immoral.

As far as 14th amendment jurisprudence goes, here's how it goes: first, the judge looks at what kind of classification is being used. Race, for example, is a 'suspect class,' and presumptively unconstitutional. So if it's a racial classification in a law, the government has to look to see if the government has a compelling interest in making the classification. If they do, the court will uphold the law, even though it treats different races differently. On the other hand, if it's not a suspect class, the law is presumptively constitutional, and the state merely needs to show that the law isn't crazy (that's not much of an exaggeration). So, for example, a statute that treats adults differently than children will probably be upheld. For some reason, the Supreme Court treats gender as semi-suspect; gender falls somewhere in between race and age, and probably closer to age (the post below notes that gender-based laws are presumptively constitutional). Given that, courts will treat the statute at bar with a fair amount of deference, meaning that the statute will probably be held constitutional.

This post on the Volokh Conspiracy explains it better than I could, if you're interested.

 

[burrow_owl]

Guess what...the SCOTUS has also held that laws that legislate morality need to have a compelling secular purpose.

Morality is a secular legislative purpose. Let's take a local statute that bans strip clubs. The court will say that, in order for the statute to be upheld, it has to have a reasonable purpose. The municipality says to the court, "the purpose of the law is tp protect public morality and decency." The court: "Ok. Public morality is an acceptable purpose for a law."

So held (Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 111 S.Ct. 2456, 1992 (?))

 

[Corey]

Ok. But it doesn't follow from this that homosexuality is morally acceptable. Presumably the argument against gay marriage would go something like this:

Go reread the post. I never said it made homosexuality morally acceptable. I said it made homosexuality an acceptable means for sexual expression.

Moral acceptability is a higher order argument.

1) Homosexuality is morally unacceptable

Why? That's the question...why is it morally unacceptable.

Pedophilia is obviously morally unacceptable because children are psychologically incapable of giving informed consent. What about homosexuality makes it morally unacceptable?

If you're trying to rebut (1), you have to rely at some point on an unprovable moral assertion.

Wrong...the asserter has to show evidence for (1). I think I can rebut (1) pretty easily without an unprovable moral assertion.

Mere non-dysfunctionality (as a psychological description) isn't the same as moral acceptibility, so it won't get you there. I can certainly think that a behavior isn't psychologically dysfunctional, while still holding that it is immoral. For example, many would contend that watching inappropriate content or something isn't a sign of dysfunctionality, but it seems clear that one could still find it immoral.

Never said it was. But clearly it can be used as evidence for a position that something is not immoral. And inappropriate content viewing can be dysfunctional.

As far as 14th amendment jurisprudence goes, here's how it goes: first, the judge looks at what kind of classification is being used. Race, for example, is a 'suspect class,' and presumptively unconstitutional. So if it's a racial classification in a law, the government has to look to see if the government has a compelling interest in making the classification. If they do, the court will uphold the law, even though it treats different races differently. On the other hand, if it's not a suspect class, the law is presumptively constitutional, and the state merely needs to show that the law isn't crazy (that's not much of an exaggeration). So, for example, a statute that treats adults differently than children will probably be upheld. For some reason, the Supreme Court treats gender as semi-suspect; gender falls somewhere in between race and age, and probably closer to age (the post below notes that gender-based laws are presumptively constitutional). Given that, courts will treat the statute at bar with a fair amount of deference, meaning that the statute will probably be held constitutional.

Now that's interesting. Thanks for the info.

This post on the Volokh Conspiracy explains it better than I could, if you're interested.

From the website:

This means that there's an eminently legitimate argument that society would be better off if male-female couples were set up as the preferred, most legally and socially sanctioned mode. It is plausible to think that future generations would be better raised by male-female couples than by same-sex couples. And it is plausible to think that on the margins the laws related to marriage may subtly shift some people, either through incentive effects or through the law's effects on social norms, towards male-female coupling and childrearing.

So...first things first. Does that mean we should not allow men or women physiologically incapable of children to marry. That's what a childrearing definition implies. Too old to have kids...sorry you're SOL. Don't want kids...too bad.

Secondly and most importantly there is NO EVIDENCE that having two parents of the same sex causes inpairments in children's functioning. In fact, some (less solid) evidence indicates that the children may develop better (e.g., developing more egalitarian attitudes).

Also in consideration...the recent Supreme Court case that struck down anti-sodomy laws (between consenting adults), especially anti-sodomy laws specifically target homosexuality. Presumably, you could interpret this as the Supreme Court saying private and consensual sexual behavior is not a form of morality that state has a compelling interest in regulating.