There's no such thing as being against gay marriage but not discriminating.
I agree, but I think the point bob is making is sort of legitimate - in some ways I think it's detrimental to be overly aggressive towards people who hold views which might even be considered immoral. When people are (to put it bluntly) mean or angry at you, it's hard for you to think rationally about why you're wrong or even comprehend rational arguments, even when the meanness is combined with a fair explanation for why the immorality might be the case. I think, just as with anything, it's easier to learn when taught in a way that is not tinged with aggression: I've seen it myself, that people are much more likely to understand your perspective and even convert, if you simply approach them gently about things.
On this line of analysis, it's probably worth mentioning that often people who don't appreciate that their views are immoral are not wilfully ignorant, or even completely close-minded. If, however, you are aggressive in attacking these sorts of people, they are all the more likely to get defensive about where they stand and less likely to accept opposing beliefs, given that they come to associate said beliefs with anger, aggression, and in some cases even attacks which whilst not necessarily personal come across as such. Again, a reasonable tone and gentleness is likely to come across better than hitting them on the head with a hammer; it's the same thing as teaching.
So following my own words, I'll do my best then to explain as calmly as possible why you can't be opposed to gay marriage without being discriminatory. Marriage is an institution we celebrate because it provides a certain sense of symbolic and legal empowerment for people in dedicated relationships, right? And we keep this in place because we endorse people being in said relationships, since that helps create families, helps people participate more securely as citizens in society (for some; usually the type who would choose marriage), etc.
By extension then, the rejection of gay marriage is suggesting that first of all, we do not value homosexual relationships as being on the same level as straight ones. This is problematic because:
a. At an initial level, it signals to said people that they are recognised by the state as an "other", whose sexual preferences cannot co-exist with a central concern (marriage) of society and
b. Perhaps more problematically, it does not really seem to be founded upon anything other than the fact that homosexuality is same-sex love (other arguments against gay marriage are usually built upon unsound premises, such as the idea that same-sex couples cannot raise families as well as heterosexual ones), and so we are basically just denying these people rights again based only on the idea of their sexual preferences.
Hopefully this makes sense to people
Home
Help
Search
Login
