Disagreement Isn't Necessarily Hate -- Even If Somebody Disagrees With Gay Marriage (Which I Very Much Support)
I'm an atheist and very pro gay rights, including gay marriage.
Actually, I don't want government in the marriage business, but as long as straight people can marry under government auspices and get rights and privileges from that, gay people must have that same right.
I also get that there's no actual evidence that there's a god, but people believe in god anyway. Silly and backward in my opinion -- rather like being an adult who believes in The Great Santa -- but as long as you don't try kill me for not believing, well, your belief is really none of my business.
And, in fact, I will defend your right to practice your beliefs, even if you don't want to make a cake for me because I don't believe in god or don't want to make a cake for my gay friends because you believe gay marriage is wrong. (And please note that we're talking about people's creative work here -- not saying emergency room doctors get to go all, "Well, you'll just have to bop on over to the next hospital" because somebody's gay or an atheist or otherwise not all in tune with their belief system.)
The insta-lie that the illogical (and those looking for a cause to grab hold of) put out there is that all people who aren't gung ho for gay marriage are bigots.
They are not. And I can say that while also thinking that it's rather silly to believe in god.
This post was precipitated by a @MichaelShermer tweet of a bit from a Frank Bruni NYT column that I liked and retweeted:
Liberals miss this by being illiberal. They shame not just the racists and sexists who deserve it but all who disagree. A 64-year-old Southern woman not onboard with marriage equality finds herself characterized as a hateful boob. Never mind that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton weren't themselves onboard just five short years ago.Political correctness has morphed into a moral purity that may feel exhilarating but isn't remotely tactical. It's a handmaiden to smugness and sanctimony, undermining its own goals.
This chickie kept right on missing the point:
@Ntashaia
@michaelshermer @amyalkon Help me understand- refusing bigotry makes me intolerant? GOP=less gov? Then why do want gov in people's marriage?
Lady, it's about understanding that not everybody who disagrees with you is a hater. Assuming that they are is truly childish.
Another piped up -- apparently throwing her tweet in the blender before posting it:
@expertwombats
@Ntashaia @michaelshermer @amyalkon Of course it makes you intolerant, that's the basic premise:right to hate asgoodas right to not be hated
@Ntashaia
@amyalkon I'm so confused as to what you're saying. As a liberal I can compromise but I will not compromise my rights to win their vote
The conversation went on a bit -- she seems a bit incapable of grasping the point. I tried again:
@amyalkon
.@Ntashaia I'll explain simply. A person who's Christian may not share Amy atheist's pro gay marriage opinion-but out of religion, not hate
And by the way, I respect the Christian lady I invented for my Tweets more than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (in their opposition until very recently to gay marriage) because she's doing it out of personal conviction and not political expediency.
I met a lady after I gave my TED talk (which should be posted soon) who told me that she goes out with her church group to give little baggies of stuff to the homeless. She was very happy that she bought a bunch of socks at the 99 Cent store to put in the bags. Think about it -- a simple thing most of us take for granted: a warm, clean pair of socks. Think of what that new pair of socks means to someone living outdoors.
Now, I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing a woman who's that involved with her church probably believes in god. It's even possible that she is opposed to gay marriage, though I haven't the slightest idea of whether that is or isn't the case.
If that is the case, I disagree with her. And if it is the case that she's opposed to gay marriage, might it be because that's what the church teaches her God doesn't go for -- and not because she hates gay people?
As the saying goes, "If you're against gay marriage, don't have one."
What I fail to see is the compelling interest in preventing others from doing so. This isn't like preventing someone from committing murder, a crime which produces a victim. If you're next door neighbors are a gay married couple, that's nothing to you. No one is forcing you to validate their marriage, acknowledge it, or have anything to do with them if you don't want to.
"When gay marriage was legalized, it caused my own marriage to fall apart," said no heterosexual ever.
Patrick at November 12, 2016 11:44 PM
The reason a lot of us opposed state sanction of gay marriage, is that we knew once it was the law of the land, the SJW putsch would begin against anyone who had ever opposed it, who wasn't a member of the democratic party.
Every double standard is actually an unwritten single standard. Look at the crap Peter Thiel endured for supporting Trump. Good thing he has enough money to punch back twice as hard.
The Democrats have succeeded in making the personal political, but they seem puzzled when character assassination bites them in the ass.
Don't all right thinking people agree with them after all?
Isab at November 13, 2016 12:47 AM
I advocated for gay marriage way back in the late 1970s and even gays said I was being silly.
Today, I truly do understand those who oppose gay marriage and their reasons why. Because it will not just stop with marriage!
The left will use gay marriage to punish those who do not agree with everything they want.
Just look at how they are going after bakers, wedding photographers, etc.
Next, they will be going after adoption agencies who believe that children should be placed in families with both a mother and a father. Shouldn't the agency be allowed to do what they think is in the best interest of the child?
The answer is NO - the left decides what is best and don't you dare think differently.
Just look at how they are trying to prevent Brexit and want to prevent Trump from taking office.
The "will of the people" doesn't apply to people they don't like or don't agree with.
Many on the left are truly fascist.
charles at November 13, 2016 4:55 AM
As a twice-divorced man, I have to ask proponents of gay marriage: why do you hate gays?
Rex Little at November 13, 2016 5:55 AM
In case it's not clear, the above is an attempt at humor. I put a "closing tag" at the end to make it obvious, but that got stripped out.
Rex Little at November 13, 2016 5:57 AM
When people asked me if I supported gay marriage, I would respond, "Of course I support gay marriage. Why should gays be spared the misery?"
Patrick at November 13, 2016 5:58 AM
One problem is people no longer ask the right question when talking about laws. Laws are not just about what one agrees/disagrees with, they are about what we want to put government force behind.
Two questions:
A. Should someone bake a cake for a gay wedding? I would say yes.
B. Should the government force someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding? I would say no.
Too often, we ask A then apply the answer to B.
What's worse, is when you are against a B option, you are accused of being against A. For example, I am adamantly opposed to an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old, but I am even more opposed to imprisoning the 18 year old and having him on a registry 50 years later.
And it is really sad that so many people either don't get the difference, or refuse to acknowledge the difference to enable controlling of others.
Trust at November 13, 2016 7:23 AM
Trust: I agree. The dangerous thing now is that college snowflakes want to get the state involved in what is often just rude or stupid talk or behavior. But once the state (or college) gets involved, you aren't just avoiding that person or calling them a jerk, you are tossing them out of school for their rudeness. It is weaponizing the sensitivities.
Craig Loehle at November 13, 2016 7:42 AM
If you disagree with a Right Thinking Person, it is because you are evil in some manner or form. Not a matter of opinion.
And being evil, the government should use force on you. Even lethal force, if necessary.
Because they see themselves as being on the Right Side of History. And it is to protect the innocent. And maybe it will cause you to get your head right, and the evil purged from you.
The further we get from the Salem witch trials, the closer we get to the Salem witch trials. No one expects the SJW inquisition!
As for gay marriage: divorce lawyers are people, too, and need a reliable stream of business.
Wut?
I R A Darth Aggie at November 13, 2016 8:48 AM
If you believe your opponents to be wrong because you believe that they're mistaken, you don't assign to them evil motives and simply accept their position and debate with them to change it.
If you believe your opponents to be wrong because you tell yourself that they're motivated by greed, racism, homophobia, et al, then you cannot simply accept them disagreeing with you. You must smash them.
Conan hte Grammarian at November 13, 2016 8:52 AM
Good one Rex.
For myself atheism is more of a puzzlement than gay. The good news is I'm a Numby - so many things are None of my business. It's a dying art really.
Canvasback at November 13, 2016 10:14 AM
I think it's a myth that being against gay relationships is due to religious reasons.
Plenty of non-religious societies around the world are hard core homophobes. I've met plenty of atheists here in California that don't like homosexuals.
Also if you ever browse gay websites you'll see what racists twats many of them are. And I remember an old lesbian in New York telling me how gay men used to bully her and all the lesbians that dared go to their bars (back in the day).
Going off on a tangent this reminds me how Yves Saint Laurent bullied the shit out of Tom Ford and Valentino is rumored to hate public displays of anything gay, often calling men fags (in the negative way).
Ppen at November 13, 2016 10:32 AM
Ppen,
Just because some people are against gay marriage due to religious reasons doesn't mean other people can't be against it for homophobic reasons or for other reasons as well.
Ben at November 13, 2016 11:15 AM
@Ben
No discussion of social issues would be complete without at least one person arguing that the topic is invalid because all people are too similar.
It is still puzzling to me that for all our technology and exposure to current and past societies and peoples, that there are many groups of peoples black/white/yellow/red/brown man/woman gay/straight/bi religious/atheist etc. etc., that there are many good and bad people in each subset.
It's baffling how more information than ever available yet such little wisdom comes from it. I guess the ease of life shields many people from ever really maturing.
Trust at November 13, 2016 11:26 AM
I meant to say above that for all our technology and exposure, we somehow cannot see that there are many good and bad people within each group.
Trust at November 13, 2016 11:28 AM
It is/was not about marriage (what "rights" could not/were not addressed via civil contracts).
It's about forcing a cultural change down people's throats.
Prove me wrong. Please.
Bob in Texas at November 13, 2016 1:20 PM
I believe the Church and the State messed up in using the term marriage to describe every civil union performed between two people with full state/federal rights. As soon as ANY 2 people married sans Church sanctioning, that's when things got weird. Had there been a clearer distinction of marriage with a separate non-religious term for a civil union that afforded the same federal and state rights as marriage, then I believe the Church would be able to get behind that and there would be no disagreement that any 2 people should be able to have the same rights as any other 2 people who were partnering up for life. I believe 2 people should be able to be "married." But I believe it would be much the same and much different if you had a term for those not married by the Church.
gooseegg at November 13, 2016 2:02 PM
Slightly off topic, but Amy, I understand about the socks. Here in Canada there is a charity, Project Winter Survival, that provides survival kits to the homeless to help them get through the winter...and socks are part of each kit. http://www.projectwintersurvival.com/about.php
(I'm happy to say that I've contributed time to help raise funds for them.)
Brad R at November 13, 2016 4:06 PM
There are a lot of different ways they screwed things up. I just find it hilarious that gays are piling into the marriage bandwagon when straights are abandoning it. Give it a decade or two and the marriage rate will be 30% for straights. I.e. marriage will just be for the gays and the rich. Poor people need not apply.
Ben at November 13, 2016 4:11 PM
Amy: And if it is the case that she's opposed to gay marriage, might it be because that's what the church teaches her God doesn't go for -- and not because she hates gay people?
Her favorite song is "I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)"
by Hall & Oates & God.
JD at November 13, 2016 6:23 PM
O font support gay marriage, I dont think the government should be in the business of rewarding relationships.
On top of that every states marriage laws are slightly different, add to that that every individual had their own idea of what marriage entails and none of it matches up.
If there were no automatic framework for marriage provided by the government people would be forced to talk about what they want out of a marriage as they created their own personal contracts
lujlp at November 13, 2016 7:04 PM
Evil Donald Trump is apparently fine with gay marriage, Amy. You can stop tearing your own hair out, now. You're welcome.
mpetrie98 at November 13, 2016 7:57 PM
"Hate" and "Phobia" and "Nazi" get thrown around way too much.
I am a hateful phobic nazi because I don't believe men magically become women because they say they feel like women.
The problem is the words get thrown around so much that if there every IS actually a hateful Nazi we won't be able to convince anyone because the words mean nothing anymore.
NicoleK at November 14, 2016 2:12 AM
In the states where bakers are compelled to bake cakes for gay weddings, sexual orientation is a protected status. It would be no more legal to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding than it would be to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between black people or an interracial couple.
And perhaps you think that there should be no protected status, and that bakers should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for any wedding they want to, for whatever reason, and allow the free market to decide whether it wants to do business with them.
I get that.
But at the same time, refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is seen as "not that big a deal." Don't force them.
While refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple would be met with outrage.
Patrick at November 14, 2016 2:43 AM
Patrick:
I get that.
But at the same time, refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is seen as "not that big a deal." Don't force them.
While refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple would be met with outrage.
...outrage and what else?
Pickets? Op-ed articles?
Or does "outrage" mean "enforcing OUR opinion by law"?
1. See Trust's excellent post above about the difference between "Should" and "Should be enforced by law".
2. Sorry - tolerance for other people's opinions is not a halfway thing.
3. Let's remember how we got here:
Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement of the 60s opposed GOVERNMENTAL discrimination based on race - most obviously LAWS that implemented apartheid in public venues - even against the business owner's wishes.
The Left piggybacked on this, playing on American's sympathies by telling us that to eradicate racism, it was necessary to introduce government regulation into all kinds of previously PRIVATE business and social arrangements.
Until then, the response to PRIVATE discrimination was PRIVATE action - everything from pickets and broadsides to opening colleges under black or catholic auspices.
But nobody ever entertained the notion that the GOVERNMENT would start mandating hiring quotas or getting involved in a privately held business' decision with whom to do business.
This level of governmental overreach was not "obvious" until the 60s. And people from back then would probably be "outraged" at the very suggestion that the government should persecute owners of a (private) bakery.
Even liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has asked exactly when this severe imposition on personal freedom will end - when will the grand goal of equality BEFORE THE LAW be achieved?
In the meantime the Left has constructed an entirely new system of government favoritism.
Ben David at November 14, 2016 4:02 AM
Why?
You are forgetting two fundamental issues here:
First, why does marriage as institution exist in the first place?
Second, the State has absolutely no interest in gay marriage; is has a great deal of interest in heterosexual marriage: that is where the vast majority of future taxpayers get their start; and the lack of heterosexual marriage has huge follow on social costs.
Government will be in the marriage business, because it has fundamental interests in it.
That, in and of itself, does not exclude gays marrying, but it doesn't mean gays must be allowed to marry, either. That is a non sequitur.
And you also lose sight of something else, which, given the Left's unquenchable urge to destroy, is only a matter of time.
The traditional definition of marriage was very clear cut. Having now included gays, it isn't any longer. Now, given your reasoning, where lies the boundary for marriage?
Jeff Guinn at November 14, 2016 6:40 AM
"I believe the Church and the State messed up in using the term marriage to describe every civil union performed between two people with full state/federal rights. "
That's true, in retrospect. Until the 20th century, it didn't matter very much because the civil side didn't convey anything other than a legal compulsion to stay together, and in that event the Church consequences of separating were far more severe than the legal consequences. (What about the restrictions on the rights of married women? That was a problem, but most single women didn't have those rights either, so marriage per se wasn't the cause of it.)
Two things changed in the 20th century: the rise of at-will divorce, and income based taxation replacing sales taxes as the primary source of revenue for many government units. Now the civil aspect of marriage matters a lot more than the Church aspect, and yet it is still working (or trying to) within a framework established by the Church. I advocate replacing the entire concept of civil marriage with civil unions, in which any two adults can engage, whether the relationship between them is romantic/sexual or something else. Civil unions should be governed by ordinary contract law, without the state acting as a third party with veto power. (There might be some exceptions that would have to be made for the welfare of children, but these should be narrowly tailored.) Let the churches continue to perform marriage ceremonies under any set of rules that they see fit, and the ceremony may coincide with the engagement of a civil union, but the church part of it would have no legal status.
Cousin Dave at November 14, 2016 9:10 AM
> Should someone bake a cake
> for a gay wedding?
Only if that person is, in fact, in fact, a professional wedding photographer.
Crid at November 14, 2016 8:00 PM
Shapiro:
Crid at November 14, 2016 8:10 PM
I've been called a hateful bigot because I don't believe in the existence of lady testicles. That's right. If you were born with XY chromosomes and a set of male genitalia you're a man and nothing will ever change that.
Unless you're one of the .005% of the population born intersexed, you're either male or female.
I simply don't understand how people who claim to believe in reality and science can seriously believe in the magical thinking involved in the whole 'genderfluid' nonsense..
JoJo at November 15, 2016 6:49 AM
Just because you claim something doesn't make it true Jojo. They can claim to be the science and reality group but it has always been magic thinking.
Crid, Can I assume you ment professional wedding cake baker? Or was it a joke I'm too dense to get?
Ben at November 15, 2016 9:53 AM
☑
Crid at November 15, 2016 10:26 AM
Leave a comment