That might as well be the headline. In fact what has happened is that the Massachusetts Senate has voted to strike down a 1913 law that was being used to prevent out of state gay couples from marrying in the state. The House of Representatives is expected to follow suit later today and governor Deval Patrick has said he will sign the bill.
Which, considering that
This is significant because it means that
I suspect that the change has been hurried by
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
You know, I would consider my own marraige to increase in standing and value if it was available to more loving couples and was a truly modern institution. I’m not feeling moody today so I hope that opposing christians don’t feel too dour for once.
A ruling which provides further evidence that the "slippery slope" argument has merit.
No, I’m not getting into another argument about homosexuality with Claudia. But look at how things have changed in the last 5 years:
In 2003 the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws.
During the 2004 election cycle gay civil unions were the hot topic.
Then Massachusetts allowed gay marriage for state residents.
Then California allowed gay marriage for everyone.
Now Massachusetts is allowing gay marriage for everyone.
Back in 2003, a dissenting Justice Scalia suggested that by striking down the anti-sodomy laws, the court was starting on a slippery slope towards all sorts of abnormal behaviors, such as polygamy and bestiality. Given that we seem to be sliding down this slippery slope already, one wonders where we will stop.
Texas recently returned children from a polygamous sect to their parents after they couldn’t find evidence of sexual abuse. In spite of the fact that polygamy remains illegal. Perhaps that will be the next thing to be allowed?
Connor, you didn’t start your rant with the earliest date of the slippery slope nonsense. The repeal of anti-miscegenation laws. Let’s face it, for you guys, that was the beginning of the end.
[admin]: Comment slightly edited to remove profanity
"In 2003 the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws."
I don’t care if that is the beginning to a slippery slope to World War III. The very idea of such a law was a (pardon) friggen disgrace and stain on America.
"such as polygamy and bestiality."
Polygamy can work as well provided the people are right for it. However, we need to keep the legislative and privately economical aspects pertaining to marriage at a two-party level. So the real obstacle to polygamous marriage really should be the legal one, and one which will never be resolved. We don’t need church marriage to affirm the more important institution of family households in the first place.
Also, bestiality is impossible because there is such a thing as species, the capacity to communicate consent in a lover etc.
Heck, male dolphins nut on each other as well as male turtles. In fact, the more advanced the mammal the more switch-hitting. Lions, wolves, sheep - you name it. We have organisms that change gender and whatnot.
So getting rid of gender roles in the sexual arena but affirming transsexualism and homosexual tomfoolery seems to be quite a natural thing. Not saying that we need to embrace our nature in avery aspect, I am just saying that wanting to bed someone you can’t conceive a cub with is genetical and really is of no concern to anyone.
Race is not the same thing as sexual orientation. Race is genetic, unchanging, and is an identity. Sexual orientation might or might not be genetic, can be changed, and is a behavior. Contrary to your implication, us "guys" are not a bunch of racists, however satisfying that fantasy might be to you.
"I don’t care if that is the beginning to a slippery slope to World War III."
Umm, I don’t know about you, but I’d certainly have reason for concern if some course of action led to World War III. That’s the whole reason for being concerned for slippery slopes, they can lead to much worse things than they begin with.
And unless you’re impotent, bestiality is hardly "impossible".
Um, Connor, I don’t know if you know this or not, but the last time I checked, animals do not have legal standing. So even if some bestiality-marriage law passes, the dog can’t even sign the contract.
Did you even read the article you commented on?
An abundance of scientific studies show that sexual orientation has a biological origin, though the exact cause is known. Exactly zero scientific studies point to it being a choice. No credible medical association in the world thinks that "reparative therapy" has any credibility whatsoever, and such "therapy" is instantly suspect by being run exclusively by religious organizations with an ideological, not medical, basis. If homosexuality is a behaviour so is heterosexuality.
Your bigotry disgusts me Conner (to anyone offended, think of how you’d feel if Conner were talking about people of other races instead of other sexual orientations).
"Contrary to your implication, us "guys" are not a bunch of racists, however satisfying that fantasy might be to you."
It’s closer to racism than it is tosexualism (the belief that one sexuality deserves some sort of extra perk) seeing as sexuality is mostly biological in nature, especially male homosexuality. Sexuality is not a choice, and even if it was it wouldn’t be worse than/different from heterosexuality in any way that people like Connor is suggesting.
"Umm, I don’t know about you, but I’d certainly have reason for concern if some course of action led to World War III."
Umm, I really don’t know about you, but if the abolition of segregation or slavery had been leading to other legislation that may have been worse, would you have opposed that too? Anti-sodomy laws are insane, they needed to go and if there was a slippery slope after that then you would have to take that in stride.
Claudia, your a racist smears against black people make me ill. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton as well as many intellectuals like Dr. Thomas Sowell and countless other black societal leaders have stated just what I am telling you, that being black is NOT the moral equivilence of sodomy. Your insistance that it is - is just another testimony of what the left really thinks of black people. I suppose you also support the leftist abortion policy in my country that results in the termination of one black baby in three and government control of schools that has made generations of inner city black children that cant compete. You dare make the case that being black is like being a sodomite when there are a great many ex-homosexuals out there - I challenge you to find me an ex-black man. There are groups such as pfox and others that are made up of ex-homosexuals. I must give you credit for emotional honesty Claudia, most leftists try to hide their racism in ambiguous rhetoric, not you - you wear your racism on your sleeve.
LMAO, I’ve never been called a racist and thought it was funny, but you’ve actually achieved that. So because I believe homosexuality is biological (which is actually supported by evidence, unlike your bigotry) and that gays deserve equal rights, this means I am NEGATIVELY biased against blacks. Wow, you must be dizzy from all that twisting.
You’ll have to explain to me some time how thinking one group deserved equal rights is denigrating to the equal rights of others. It really is a testament to how hot the word like racist has become that someone actually feels they can use the word racist to justify homophobia.
I love how you use the word sodomite by the way. I’m always fascinated by the obsession with anal sex amongst the most passionate opponents of GLBT rights. I’ve NEVER seen this ever framed using lesbians as an example. Then again it would seem that your classic homophobe hates seeing men doing things that he might pay to see women do (not neccesarily your personal case, but the obsession with sodomy reminded me)
And so now you make the case that YOU are the expert on racism over blacks such as Jackson, Sharpton and Sowell. This shows that you are not only a racist, but also just plain stupid. And for the record, I believe that people who are homosexual or engage in sodomy are entitled to the same constitutional rights as all other Americans. I am not going to say that engaging in sodomy is the moral equivilent of being black, because it is not, even while you insist that it is. Sodomy is bad behavior; it is perfectly fine and honorable to be a black person. Your "argument" claims that anyone who does not make a moral equivilaice to being a black person engaging in sodomy is a "homophobe". I have no fear of homosexuals at all, and I helped the GLBT group on campus overcome a censorship problem they had with a staff member. I earned the respect of the GLBT club on campus because they know that while I understand that the act itself is bad behavior, I will stand up for their rights as I would any other student. I will fight for the constitutional rights of homosexuals all day long if needed, but I am not going to make a foolish case that the behavior is the moral equivilence of being black, or of even traditional marraige, because it just isnt. It is no wonder that you skipped over the fact that black Americans like Jackson and Sharpron and Sowell and so many others say that you are dead wrong, after all to you there are just simple black folk who dont know any better than you right? Polls show that black Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marraige, but to you, they are also just simple black folk who don’t know better. You also skipped My Point about PFOX - if it is biological - explain the existance of groups such as PFOX? By now it is clear that you simply lack the intellectual capacity to engage me on the substance of my best points, but then again, a racist like yourself would always avoid such substance to protect your emotional foibles.
Claudia - here comes the evidence…. http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=7609
http://www.robgagnon.net/Toledo%20University%20President%20Suspends%20Administrator.htm
Even Gay Patriot, who disagreed with her position, defended it - http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/05/15/on-crystal-dixon-the-problem-of-enda/
http://www.crystaldixon.com/
And by the way - this is also a testament to the lefts total disregard for free speech.
Claudia - you say that its all biological and no different than being black - Kinsey Institute and other studies say you are dead wrong…..
If you are right, in identical twins if one was gay than both be gay right>>…..WRONG
The Columbia and Yale authors of one twin study using an enormous and nationally representative sample of adolescents (30,000) concluded: "Less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences" (Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, "Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction," American Journal of Sociology 107.5 [2002]: 1179-1205). They found no significant difference in concordance rates for non-heterosexuality among identical twin pairs (6.7%) and fraternal twin pairs (7.2%), even though the latter are no more genetically "identical" than non-twin siblings. Moreover, they found that opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report same-sex attraction as same-sex twins; and that males without older brothers among opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report same-sex attraction (18.7%) than their male counterparts with older brothers (8.8%).
Even Edward Stein, a scholar of law and philosophy who is strongly supportive of homosexual unions, has challenged deterministic models of homosexual development. He posits instead a nondeterministic model that incorporates a significant role for choice—often blind, incremental, and indirect but choice nonetheless (The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999]). This is what the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review had to say about Stein’s book: "A landmark book…. It so pulls the rug out from under biological arguments for lesbian and gay rights that anyone from now on who appeals to such arguments will have to answer to Edward Stein’s objections"
How in the world did we get onto the subject of racism?
Really, this is false equivalency: Trying to cast aspersions upon someone by comparing their views ton a controversial matter to something widely condemned. Just because you find my views to be wrong doesn’t make them the equivalent of white supremacy.
And I have to say I’m surprised at how you’ve reacted to all this Claudia: I haven’t said that I hated homosexuals or wished them harm. Yet you claim to be "disgusted" by me. I haven’t claimed to be "disgusted" by you even as you’ve trivialized those who disagree with you on gays by claiming we think it’s "icky". Or the mocking way you’ve dismissed religious concerns on this same subject.
You could have said that you strongly believe in gay rights, and that you don’t believe in God or the Bible as a moral guide without engaging in personal insults.
Chuck, there are a multitude of studies that show that homosexuality has a biological base. Note that biological need not mean genetic, though something as complicated as sexuality will probably have multiple biological factors affecting it. There are plenty of studies on the subject. Go on PubMed, write "homosexuality" and then hit the "review" tab for overviews. Alternatively, you could look here for an overview.
In the meantime, please produce a single credible scientific or medical association that says that homosexuality is a choice and/or harmful and/or that "reparative therapy" is indicated effective or at the very least innocuous. You won’t because there isn’t. Not the American Medical Association, or the World Health Organization, or the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Pediatric Association.
But that isn’t actually the important part Chuck. The really important part is that it doesn’t matter if it’s a choice. There’s hardly any evidence that it is, but even if it were, that gives NO justification for vicious bigotry against them. Religion is likewise a choice, and non-discrimination against people of other religions is considered sacrosanct (except by the same fundamentalists who are often at the front lines of anti-gay sentiment). If two men were to choose to be in a relationship together (and commit <gasp> SODOMY…why that obsession BTW?) then that is NONE OF ANYONES BUSINESS. There are harming no one, they are two adults who go about their business, pay their taxes and wish to be afforded the same rights as anyone else. The anti-gay (I refuse to call people who are anti-gay families pro-family) front has categorically failed to produce any evidence of how homosexuality or homosexual relationships are inherently harmful to society or how accepting and encouraging monogamous marriage amongst gays somehow harms anyone.
If I am to accept that you consider homosexuality a choice that is additionally morally inferior to heterosexuality, I will maintain that I find the bigotry disgusting. If you say you hold no personal animosity towards gays I will take you at your word and say that I don’t find you disgusting, but yes the opinion.
I am aware that since you hold your opinions about homosexuality but aren’t a racist you don’t think that racism and homophobia are equivalent. I simply hold the opposite opinion, I believe they ARE the same, since I have yet to see the slightest indication that GLBT individuals deserve any better or worse treatment (and that includes under the law) than heterosexuals. For this I was (hilariously) called an anti-black racist by Chuck.
Again, I will not take back that I find the view itself repugnant, because since to me it is exactly like racism I would be lying, but I can accept that you are an otherwise perfectly decent individual, just as racist whites in the sixties could be perfectly decent individuals and even not hold particular animosity towards blacks, despite holding a horrible bigotry in their hearts.
Claudia - I see that you still are too gutless to address my points about how black people feel and think out your outrageous comparison of equalizing blacks to sodomy and similat behavior. I use the word sodomy to describe the behavior because that is what it is, I am not one who sugar coats things in colorful euphemisms to hide bigotry as you do against black people. There are plenty more studies that I can post. I also see that you were too gutless to address my point on twins. If they are genetically almost indiscernible as anyone can be, why is it that if only one twin is homosexual the other is no more likely to than anyone else in the population? You also avoided my point about PFOX and Exodus and other such groups of former homosexuals.
<br>
You say that people have failed to produce evidence that homosexuality are harmful to society… ok you asked for it - I will be posting the evidence soon.
<br>
Claudia - after watching you for some time I have noticed that you continually avoid your opponents best arguments and are always the first to pull the race card when you’re losing an argument as you did to Connor. It is clear to me, as well as others I wager, that you simply lack the intellectual capacity, emotional maturity, and/or intellectual fortitude to do so. I don’t like racists and I don’t like cowards and you Claudia are both and that is exactly how you should be treated.
Just to be clear, I never said a homosexual orientation was a choice. I just said that I think it’s possible to change. Like having a phobia, you don’t choose it but you can change it with therapy.
One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998).
<br>
Then, more recently, in the Archives of General Psychiatry– an established and well-respected journal–three papers appeared with extensive accompanying commentary (Fergusson et al. 1999, Herrell et al. 1999, Sandfort et al. 2001, and e.g. Bailey 1999).Bailey said, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence…The strength of the new studies is their degree of control." The first study was on male twins who had served in Vietnam (Herrell et al. 1999). It concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely to exhibit suicide- related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of this factor of 5.1 was associated with depression and substance abuse, which might or might not be related to the homosexuality. (When these two problems were factored out, the factor of 5 decreased to 2.5; still somewhat significant.) The authors believed there was an independent factor related to suicidality which was probably closely associated with some features of homosexuality itself. <br>The second study (Fergusson et al. 1999) followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties. The "birth cohort" method of subject selection is especially reliable and free from most of the biases which bedevil surveys. This study showed a significantly higher occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, amongst those who were homosexually active. <br>The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) which again showed a higher level of mental-health problems among homosexuals, but remarkably, subjects with HIV infection was not any more likely than those without HIV infection to suffer from mental health problems. People who are HIV-positive should at least be expected to be anxious or depressed!http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html
<br>
Of course - the affect that AIDS has had on our society is difficult to overstate. The PC crowd predicted a heterosexual epidemic of AIDS that never came to pass. So much for your claim that homosexual behavior has no social ills.
front has categorically failed to produce any evidence of how homosexuality or homosexual relationships are inherently harmful to society or how accepting and encouraging monogamous marriage amongst gays somehow harms anyone.
Actually it was proven for years that it was harmful. Then the debate was reshaped, reformed and the definitions narrowed. Now the basis upon which the argument was framed has been abolished and changed. Instead of religious and moral grounds its been changed to Constitutional grounds. The foundation upon which the argument is framed now has changed and as such those opposed to gay marriage or gays period no longer have the moral high ground they once enjoyed because its no longer a moral debate.
Im neutral on the subject. Just thought Id throw that out there for people to contemplate.
You make an interesting point RRRocks - there is no right to heterosexual marriage so how can there be a right of homosexual marriage? Now we "learn" that the definition of marriage that man has accepted for 5000 years was all wrong now that Claudia is here to "enlighten" us by playing the race card and avoiding everyone’s best arguments and evidence.
Chuck, if some black people are bigoted against GLBT people and find insulting that I consider GLBT rights to be equal to their rights, that’s their business (there are also plenty of perfectly tolerant black people, not to mention GLBT black people as well). They do not, in fact, own the word racist. And because I believe they are the same that doesn’t make ME biased against blacks, just favorable to GLBT equal rights. I’m not avoiding the argument, I simply find it so void of any direction that I’m not bothering to refute it.
I will say this though. You are free to try to say that I’m bigoted, though you should produce at least one tiny teensy little bit of evidence to that effect. Calling me an idiot (mind you, not saying that the viewpoint is idiotic, but the person) and a coward (or anyone else) is going too far for the standards of this thread, and will not be tolerated.
I see - now if black people don’t accept your racist claim that such behavior is the moral equivalency of being black THEY are now bigots too….. wow Claudia. Wow, talk about shameless. If you want to say that homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else than I agree with you 100% and that’s fine, but when you draw such a bogus and overtly racist moral equivalency don’t be surprised when you are called on it.
<br>
You claim that I called you an idiot - that is a lie. The word idiot only appears in posts YOU have made and in this line right here pointing it out.
<br>
Here is a piece of advice - if you don’t want your cowardly actions pointed out - don’t engage in cowardly actions like pulling the race card on Conner rather than taking his argument seriously - AND don’t engage in other cowardly actions by repeatedly avoiding the best arguments and evidence of others and last but not least - don’t threaten to censor or ban someone just because they accurately pointed out your behavior and awful tactics.
<br>
You sit there and DARE to claim that a word like "coward" goes too far in this thread when you throw words like "bigot" and "disgusted" at Conner for daring to post a point of view that you don’t like and can’t seem to make a decent argument against? Shameless indeed!
Chuch; You’re a friend, and I appreciate your comments, but this is an official warning. Don’t namecall, don’t accuse people of being a racist (especially not when it’s clear they’re not). As far as I know. those are tactics of the PC far left, not of others.
Michael - you just beat me to the punch - I was using Claudia’s own tactics against her to make this very point.
I was about to tell Claudia that if she doesn’t want the bigot or race card used against her then she should not use it first as she did against Conner to slander him.
<br>
While I genuinely believe that drawing the moral equivalency she did is racist and wrong - the real reason for my post - aside from beating her assertions with the evidence I posted; was to use her own tactics against her in hopes that she would learn a valuable lesson. I deliberately exaggerated my rhetoric to teach her that very lesson. I hope for her sake that you can impress upon her the value of that lesson. You were observant enough to see that I was using the tactics of the far left - indeed, I was using her own tactics against her in order to demonstrate this very point.
<br>
I was going to wait a few minutes before posting this because I wanted her to stir on my last post - as it contains a great deal of truth - especially about avoiding your opponents best evidence and arguments.
Michael and Claudia - now that you understand the true intent of my post - I hope that someone here will apologize to Conner for what Claudia said.
All the best <GRINS>,
Chuck
Chuck, I have explained to Conner himself what I meant by what I said. I have not changed my mind in the interim. I do consider his views on the matter bigotry and I revile such bigotry, but I did clarify that I do not extend my dislike of his opinion to his whole person (which admittedly wasn’t clear from the first comment).
Claudia, your last post adds up to a distinction without a difference. If someone has "bigoted" views than they are a bigot, if someone has "racist" views than they are a racist.
<br>
If you want to have one standard for posting here then by all means lets have one. So I will make a deal with you, if you don’t use the bigot card against perfectly fine people like Conner and myself than I wont use it against you. Fair enough?
Michael - if you have a minute pop on facebook will ya?
If you want to have one standard for posting here then by all means lets have one. So I will make a deal with you, if you don’t use the bigot card against perfectly fine people like Conner and myself than I wont use it against you. Fair enough?
<br>
Claudia, I await your answer.
I won’t apologize for using the "race card" because I never called anyone a racist Chuck. That particular privelege falls on you:
My first mention of race wasn’t even the first one in the thread. Michael Charles brought that up first. Then Conner said that race and sexual orientation were not equivalent and then I refuted that.
As for bigotry when I continue to find his (and your) viewpoint to be bigoted and therefore cannot take it back. I have likewise admitted that I should have been more clear that though I found the viewpoint repugnant (just as I find racism repugnant) I do not extend the feeling to the whole person unless it’s clear that the person is disgusting as a whole. A very close family member of mine (who is Jewish) is bigoted against Palestinians. Otherwise this person is a perfectly lovely individual who I love dearly. That doesn’t turn the sentiment into not bigoted. People are complex that way. I won’t call the sentiment this person feels anything other than bigotry because that is independent of the rest of the person. That someone is a wonderful person in other respects does not mean that confronting bigotry they may have is off-limits. I’m aware that you disagree that your viewpoint is bigoted, which is your absolute right of course. You almost certainly think I’m misguided and/or prejudiced in a plethora of other respects which I will probably not agree with.
As a last thought, it would be nice if you could explain to me just how I am a racist. You have accused me of anti-black bigotry, though I have expressed exactly zero opinions about blacks, good or bad, on this thread, so I’m curious to know how you can justify me being racist.
Claudia, perhaps you should just read the thread. To compare being black with the bahavior of others is a racist view that is most dishonorable. You keep saying that you have not said what anyone, and everyone can see that you have indeed said. You are trying to rewrite history.
<br>
You stated -"I have explained to Conner himself what I meant by what I said. I have not changed my mind in the interim. I do consider his views on the matter bigotry and I revile such bigotry" - and I rightly stated - "Claudia, your last post adds up to a distinction without a difference. If someone has "bigoted" views than they are a bigot, if someone has "racist" views than they are a racist." So once again you slander Conner with your nonsense.
<br>
Claudia, when you do not have a good argument you have a habit of calling people bigoted or homophobe or any such nonsense instead of just making a better argument. I will not stand by while you abuse people in such a way, so I made a decision to use your own tactics against you for a while in an effort to teach you something, and the first thing you did was imply a threat to censor, which by the way, I completely expected you to do.
<br>
Claudia I have news for you, when someome disagrees with you it does not mean that they are some kind of hate monger. So from now on make real arguments, back them up with verifiable evidence and stop dodging the best arguments and evidence of others.
<br>
Continue to deny what you did to Conner at your own expense if that is your wish, but all it will show if you do, is that you have absolutely no sense of introspective.
<br>
So once again -
If you want to have one standard for posting here then by all means lets have one. So I will make a deal with you, if you don’t use the bigot card against perfectly fine people like Conner and myself than I wont use it against you. Fair enough? It is better to make real substantive arguments.
<br>
Why? Because no rational person believes that Conner is a bigot who is acting out of hate. Everyone knows that when you point the finger and use words like bigot or homophobe, all you are really doing is letting others know that is is dangerous to disagree with you, for if they dare to disagree with you then you will slander them with the same baseless charge. It is nothing more than an attempt to silence others and an afront to free speech.
To be fair, I could in fact be a rampant homophobe. I have friends who call gays "fags" and joke about beating them up.
I’m don’t agree with those sentiments. But since, like my friends, I disapprove of homosexuality it can be hard to see the difference.
This is precisely why the debate was gradually turned from Moral to Constitutional grounds. It is why the Gay community had to seek out the assistance of the Atheist community.
The goal was to negate the powerful effect that church had in the moral fabric of life. As long as the Gay movement was arguing against a powerful institution that had been around for 2000 years then it was bound to be a losing battle.
Hence the need to reframe the argument. Herein lies the new assertion. American Taliban. Christians are evil. Why? To demagogue the Christian way of life which opposes the gay way of life.
Society changes over time. However the time needed to change societies perception of gays was not going to change fast enough and thus the need to demonize Religions as evil to change the argument from Moral to something else. In this case Constitutional. Now the debate is about rights under the constitution and that works in the gay movements favor.