Gays Against Gay Marriage?

Genegirl83

Hey guys,

I've been wondering about the sub-population of gay people (however small) who are against gay marriage. Now, I don't mean against marriage, specifically gay marriage.

In my own personal opinion, in my mind, I believe this HAS to be a case of internalising homophobia, low self esteem (subconciously?) and bargaining.(Similar to the stage in grief. In this case it essentially goes something like "Yes I'm gay but I mean, I align with straight people. I don't deserve the same rights, I am less and I'm totally cool with it so now straight people will be cool about me too. That's what I am.. The "cool" gay. I am less and I'm totally OK with that.) OK that's a little blasé but from a simplistic, rationalising point of view. Do they think they are selfless, martyrs for the "greater good"? They constantly say they are accused of being "Self-hating gays", which they vehemently deny. I must respectively question this. I'm not saying they are even aware of their issues with self, but surely there must must be some issue there given that there doesnt seem to be a good, secular argument against gay marriage. To be honest, if there were studies that said gay marriage or the raising of children by homosexuals was harmful to society I would ABSOLUTELY think twice about going ahead with it.

But how can someone be of absolute sound mind and firmly believe they are needlessly less deserving of rights than others? I mean, through my own studies I've always noticed that a psychologically healthy brain is a little bit selfish. Psychologically speaking, selflessness isn't necessarily desirable. It can just be a case of having poor boundaries. Boundaries require someone to be a little selfish and self preserving and in a healthy dose... What is wrong with that? I question their true mentality with this in mind.

To me it's kind of like an African-American in the US going "Black people are more likely to commit a crime. We should have harsher sentences for black people, consequentially. We deserve harsher treatment." Even that is slightly more factually based than the gays against gay marriage who usually spew the normal "redefining marriage" thing or "Was invented for the good of children", both of which are easily debunked unlike actual crime statistics. My point is I question an individual who would extend discrimination to themselves when it clearly isn't justified.

I have seen gays against gay marriage get inordinately and disproportionately angry during civilised marrige equality debates and always found it very disconcerting as a proud, gay woman.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

baby and crumble

A friend of mine is completely against gay marriage. Shes been in a relationship with her girlfriend for well over a decade. She reckons marriage as an institution is completely pointless as it's just the state interfering in human relationships, and that her relationship doesn't need external validation. She is a bit radical 70's feminist/ hippy and wants to get back to that kind of way of being queer- you know, underground, radical, seen as being different from the rest of society and revelling in it. She also thinks the fight for equal marriage in western countries detracts from the fight for basic human rights for the gay community in other countries, and even in western countries. There are still many laws in place that make it legal for the state to discriminate against you in the countries where equal marriage exists.

Honestly is wrecks my head, because while I agree that there are bigger issues for the gay community in Russia, or most of Africa, that's no reason to accept poor treatment in other arenas in other countries. I get that mental health and suicide rates are much higher for gay and trans individuals, as that's something that needs tackling but I feel like she looses sight of the fact that if a young person grows up knowing that they can get married with full protection in law, that those negative feelings which spur on those high rates of mental health problems will lessen.

Daith

baby and crumble wrote: »

A friend of mine is completely against gay marriage. Shes been in a relationship with her girlfriend for well over a decade. She reckons marriage as an institution is completely pointless as it's just the state interfering in human relationships, and that her relationship doesn't need external validation.

So would it be fair to say that she's not against gay marriage per se but marriage itself?

SpaceTime

It's one thing being against marriage itself - that's a different argument entirely.

However, I think what you're seeing is a bunch of conservative groups with an anti-gay rights agenda searching out a few gay people who are opposed to gay marriage and saying : see! even gay people disagree with this.

The reality in Ireland at the moment is that a huge % of the population is in favour of same sex marriage.

76% of the population is in favour and only 20% opposed according to polling organisation that usually are very much spot on when it comes to public opinion.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/majority-irish-voters-support-lgbt-marriage-gay-graham-norton

You're going to continue to hear plenty of noise, and also plenty of confusion with the US debate. The simple facts in Ireland are that it's not really hugely controversial at all.
No political party is opposed (most are strongly in favour) and there's large majority of the population in favour.

The arguments I've seen online here tend to be pulling stuff in from the US debates all the time or conjuring up the 1950s.

Frankly, whether a % of gay people are opposed to gay marriage or not is really not even relevant. You'll always get some people who have contrarian points of view for a whole variety of reasons. They're entitled to express that opinion, however the rest of us don't have to agree with them.

Bear in mind there were women opposed to the idea of giving women the vote in the early 20th century! It doesn't mean that their opinions held any more validity than anyone else opposing the idea at the time.

Being gay isn't a political philosophy, it's a sexual orientation. So, you're going to find people with all sorts of opinions who are GLBT. So, you're inevitably going to find some people who are deeply conservative and also gay. It's a bit of a conflicted position, but that's life.

Genegirl83

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

I completely understand the ideas against marriage. In fact I agree entirely in theory that the state should not have a role in a relationship between 2 people. In reality however, I would definitely get married. I think there's a time and place for political ideals but protecting my family would be paramount to me. Having all the principles in the world wouldn't console me if I couldn't sign a simple form for my child.

With regards the anti-equality gays...
I totally agree they are a conservative ploy but I'm interested in what you guys think about them? Some seem so articulate in their self deprivation. I've also heard that certain US evangical groups are "recruiting" a certain irish gay against gay marriage.

I'm very interested in their mind set. Especially their inability to have any solidarity with their gay communities and understand that even if it's not right for them, it's very important to a large group of people who have struggled in life the same way they have.

Utterly baffling?

Genegirl83

baby and crumble wrote: »

A friend of mine is completely against gay marriage. Shes been in a relationship with her girlfriend for well over a decade. She reckons marriage as an institution is completely pointless as it's just the state interfering in human relationships, and that her relationship doesn't need external validation. She is a bit radical 70's feminist/ hippy and wants to get back to that kind of way of being queer- you know, underground, radical, seen as being different from the rest of society and revelling in it. She also thinks the fight for equal marriage in western countries detracts from the fight for basic human rights for the gay community in other countries, and even in western countries. There are still many laws in place that make it legal for the state to discriminate against you in the countries where equal marriage exists.

Honestly is wrecks my head, because while I agree that there are bigger issues for the gay community in Russia, or most of Africa, that's no reason to accept poor treatment in other arenas in other countries. I get that mental health and suicide rates are much higher for gay and trans individuals, as that's something that needs tackling but I feel like she looses sight of the fact that if a young person grows up knowing that they can get married with full protection in law, that those negative feelings which spur on those high rates of mental health problems will lessen.

Also,
I too think there are huge issues internationally with gay rights but charity starts at home and I think we need to look after those in our own society first. Countries like Uganda and especially Russia are so far beyond our help at the minute, we need to focus on ourselves first. I think we need a united West as one large body that maintains its economic and social prowess even after instilling gay marriage. I believe we need to focus on our own societies before we start trying to "improve" others and hope that the tolerance and equality we establish is contagious. I feel nothing but great sorrow and regret for the way the Russian Orthodox Church and Doma have treated gay people but we can do nothing. That's the worst part. I feel the most proactive thing we can do is demonstrate that gay marriage has not caused The West to collapse.

SpaceTime

Baffling, perhaps.

However, it's nothing unusual and seems to happen in most situations like this.

A (usually small) % of any population simply do not like what they see as radical change and will automatically support the status quo, regardless of how ridiculous that status quo might be!

I think that's what you're seeing here.

You'll also get people who are deeply conflicted between being gay and being socially or religiously conservative. The two things don't really sit well together although, you'll get a % of people who find themselves in that position because being gay is something you just are where as social conservatism is something you're usually educated / brought up into.

The result is that you will get people who are both, despite the fact that the two situations clash.

Genegirl83

SpaceTime wrote: »

Baffling, perhaps.

However, it's nothing unusual and seems to happen in most situations like this.

A (usually small) % of any population simply do not like what they see as radical change and will automatically support the status quo, regardless of how ridiculous that status quo might be!

I think that's what you're seeing here.

You'll also get people who are deeply conflicted between being gay and being socially or religiously conservative. The two things don't really sit well together although, you'll get a % of people who find themselves in that position because being gay is something you just are where as social conservatism is something you're usually educated / brought up into.

The result is that you will get people who are both, despite the fact that the two situations clash.

SpaceTime

Have you heard of Mr. Waghorne? I know he is a conservative but as someone with many fiscally conservative ideals, I still find him a tad strange. How can one be conservative and entirely comfortable with their sexuality like they claim to be?

Another Mr. Manning. I saw him debate on an RTE show and it was honestly quite shocking. Extremely aggressive individual very self righteous and argumentative against an experienced legally trained individual.

Do you know if he is conservative or just cracked?

qweerty

Useful Idiots.

Genegirl83

qweerty wrote: »

Useful Idiots.

So you think it's simply a case of a pawn in its purest form?
Hmm... I don't know. Waghorne is especially (worryingly) intelligent. That's the part that unsettles me. I'm worried as a political philosopher he could write a thesis on being a "useful idiot" and surely (in theory) would recognise if he were one... Right? Logically?

SpaceTime

Genegirl83 wrote: »

SpaceTime

... How can one be conservative and entirely comfortable with their sexuality like they claim to be?

Being comfortable isn't necessary. You'll get people holding all sorts of totally conflicting views, especially around stuff like this and especially where religious or quasi-religious social mores, formerly taboo subjects etc come into it.

You get similar arguments from people about religious topics like where they're quite liberal but then suddenly snap back to hardcore catholic, protestant or whatever particular dogma they were brought up with on one or two particular issues that they will not let go of.

It's just human psychology! It's not always logical.

Just count yourself as lucky that you're able to think outside the box on social issues!

Genegirl83

SpaceTime wrote: »

Being comfortable isn't necessary. You'll get people holding all sorts of totally conflicting views, especially around stuff like this and especially where religious or quasi-religious social mores, formerly taboo subjects etc come into it.

You get similar arguments from people about religious topics like where they're quite liberal but then suddenly snap back to hardcore catholic, protestant or whatever particular dogma they were brought up with on one or two particular issues that they will not let go of.

It's just human psychology! It's not always logical.

So then is your argument similar to mine in that, despite their protests of not being self-hating... they are self hating at the core? Is this a simple case of cognitive dissonance whereby they are speaking out against gay marriage etc in order to sort of justify their own feelings?
A mind hates to hold conflicting views after all. Sometimes I do worry about merely simplifying them.
Do you therefore think it is absolutely impossible to be absolutely comfortable (truly so) with your own sexuality and to also speak out/disagree with gay marriage?

baby and crumble

Daith wrote: »

So would it be fair to say that she's not against gay marriage per se but marriage itself?

Yes and no. She thinks marriage in General is not something to aspire to, but she sees equal marriage as something problematic. She has on many occasions stated that for her, being gay isn't a fight to love someone but to f*ck someone. Which I find odd since she obviously loves her gf. For her, being gay is a subversive act, and getting married is the exact opposite. Like it's aping straight relationships.

SpaceTime

Well, it's denying yourself rights, so there has to be some level of conflict.

How they internalise that and see it however, is hard to generalise about.

All I'm saying is that you'll always find people like that on any major social argument.

I mean, you have to remember that we're a post-Victorian society in many ways (as are most English speaking countries). That was an era where everything was about 'respectability' and self-oppression when it came to anything that was not 'respectable'.

Most of us have moved on, but some haven't and Ireland kind of hung onto that for about 20+ years later than Britain did.

It's only really in recent decades that we've embraced the idea of individualism and individual rights and you're bound to get people still locked into old ways of thinking to a degree.

Genegirl83

baby and crumble wrote: »

Yes and no. She thinks marriage in General is not something to aspire to, but she sees equal marriage as something problematic. She has on many occasions stated that for her, being gay isn't a fight to love someone but to f*ck someone. Which I find odd since she obviously loves her gf. For her, being gay is a subversive act, and getting married is the exact opposite. Like it's aping straight relationships.

She's a woman. As such her brain is structured a certain way which causes her to seek out empathy, companionship and sex that firmly has strings attached. I am respectively doubtful that is her true feeling if she has had a 10 year relationship. If being gay was purely a subversive act I genuinely doubt that we would even be this far in terms of tolerance for gay people.

I see what you mean about her stance. A little radical, no?

Ambersky

I think you can get a clearer picture of what is happening if you look first at the belief systems that being gay fits into.
So rather than thinking
"I am gay And if I align myself with the straight world "
Its more like
"I am Christian, or a good citizen that believes in the values of our society, And Im gay"

If you are gay but you grew up with a whole set of moral values and rules for behaviour which would to your mind secure a safe and good community for you, your family, friends and acquaintances, that for you rather than a satisfying sex life your yourself, could be the most important thing.
You would probably really believe these values are good for anyone to live by, they would be seen to bring great comfort to the majority of people you know and to go against them and risk change and uncertainty, perhaps bringing unhappiness to not only yourself in the long run but to society at large would be a huge risk.

We usually take for granted the belief systems we live by, they are the background soundtrack to our lives. Some of those beliefs vary in nuance and importance from one individual to another but often collectively within a country a community and a generation, they develop as a kind of mutually agreed set of values. You know kind of like the celtic tiger generation taking the availability of money for granted.

I think a lot of the current generation who take gay rights for granted often dont look at their own set of values. To my mind there can be quite a lot of individualism within that belief system, which isnt always a bad thing, but which needs to be looked at and recognised just as much as the values of those who are anti gay marriage do. I think this individualism makes it all the more difficult for those who take their own values for granted to understand the viewpoints, decisions and values of those who hold the community to be more important than the individual.
The politics of the individual is about what is good or true "for me" and sometimes there can be a lacking in understanding or even interest of the systems individuals are influenced or controlled by.

SpaceTime

I think though what you're looking at is a society (and I don't just mean Ireland, but Britain and the US too) that has gone through incredibly rapid change in the last 30+ years.

Gay rights have really only become the mainstream norm in the last couple of decades and even more recently for things like marriage rights.

While most of the population is taking that in its stride (and by all accounts Ireland's actually polling as the most pro-gay marriage country ever polled!) a small % of the population will inevitably have a problem with it.

What you'll find is that as more gay people get married, those views will just fade away as the new social norm becomes established.

If you think about it, denying women the vote in the 1890s-1910s was a 'respectable' (but totally oppressive and wrong) point of view. However a significant number of people held it.

Fast forward even 20+ years and it was practically unthinkable to deny women the vote.

I think you're going to see exactly the same thing with same sex marriage.

Links234

baby and crumble wrote: »

Yes and no. She thinks marriage in General is not something to aspire to, but she sees equal marriage as something problematic. She has on many occasions stated that for her, being gay isn't a fight to love someone but to f*ck someone. Which I find odd since she obviously loves her gf. For her, being gay is a subversive act, and getting married is the exact opposite. Like it's aping straight relationships.

Reminds me of Julie Bindel

Genegirl83

Ambersky wrote: »

I think you can get a clearer picture of what is happening if you look first at the belief systems that being gay fits into.
So rather than thinking
"I am gay And if I align myself with the straight world "
Its more like
"I am Christian, or a good citizen that believes in the values of our society, And Im gay"

If you are gay but you grew up with a whole set of moral values and rules for behaviour which would to your mind secure a safe and good community for you, your family, friends and acquaintances, that for you rather than a satisfying sex life your yourself, could be the most important thing.
You would probably really believe these values are good for anyone to live by, they would be seen to bring great comfort to the majority of people you know and to go against them and risk change and uncertainty, perhaps bringing unhappiness to not only yourself in the long run but to society at large would be a huge risk.

We usually take for granted the belief systems we live by, they are the background soundtrack to our lives. Some of those beliefs vary in nuance and importance from one individual to another but often collectively within a country a community and a generation, they develop as a kind of mutually agreed set of values. You know kind of like the celtic tiger generation taking the availability of money for granted.

I think a lot of the current generation who take gay rights for granted often dont look at their own set of values. To my mind there can be quite a lot of individualism within that belief system, which isnt always a bad thing, but which needs to be looked at and recognised just as much as the values of those who are anti gay marriage do. I think this individualism makes it all the more difficult for those who take their own values for granted to understand the viewpoints, decisions and values of those who hold the community to be more important than the individual.

OK I think this is certainly a good point but don't you think this correlates what I mentioned about "healthy selfishness"? About how individuals sometimes have to act for themselves in certain situations or is it a case they have no boundaries? In which case they could be classified as having esteem issues in that they forsake the happy trajectory of their lives (protected family rights etc) for a greater good or something similar?

Genegirl83

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think though what you're looking at is a society (and I don't just mean Ireland, but Britain and the US too) that has gone through incredibly rapid change in the last 30+ years.

Gay rights have really only become the mainstream norm in the last couple of decades and even more recently for things like marriage rights.

While most of the population is taking that in its stride (and by all accounts Ireland's actually polling as the most pro-gay marriage country ever polled!) a small % of the population will inevitably have a problem with it.

What you'll find is that as more gay people get married, those views will just fade away as the new social norm becomes established.

If you think about it, denying women the vote in the 1890s-1910s was a 'respectable' (but totally oppressive and wrong) point of view. However a significant number of people held it.

Fast forward even 20+ years and it was practically unthinkable to deny women the vote.

I think you're going to see exactly the same thing with same sex marriage.

What would you say about a woman who felt it was right to deny her the right to vote? Out of interest. Would you say she felt she was inferior even if she protested otherwise?

SpaceTime

Genegirl83 wrote: »

What would you say about a woman who felt it was right to deny her the right to vote? Out of interest. Would you say she felt she was inferior even if she protested otherwise?

Well, it's her right to have an opinion on the issue no matter how completely and utterly wrong that opinion might be. I'm in favour of freedom of speech but, I am not in favour of protecting people from being offended when criticised for having ridiculous points of view.

So, I think for example in the gay marriage debate, this notion of people expecting to be able to be utterly opposed to gay marriage on religious or other rather irrational grounds leaves them open to being criticised heavily.

...

And yes, I'd say that she had quite likely adopted a dogmatic view of her place in society and that she was basically conforming.

The downtrodden often adopt those kinds of views - look at how the class system worked for centuries. The working class kept themselves in their place in many respects by becoming locked into a notion that that was their place in society and that's how thing were and will always be.

Ambersky

Genegirl 83
they forsake the happy trajectory of their lives (protected family rights etc)

I dont think that anti gay marriage people are behaving illogically and the pro gay marriage crowd are all logic and reason.
Its all a risk, there is for and against and I think we on either side need to look at our own assumptions and reasoning acknowledging that as well as looking at the reasoning of the other side. We are out there presenting the most socially acceptable and least threatening models of gay marriage which apparently, according to research, are middle aged lesbian couples in very long term relationships. So we are kind of deliberately putting forward a particular reality.

Out gay families are a fairly new social phenomena so thats a gamble to some conservatives. Some gay people who are anti gay marriage may also have seen some of the less than happy outcomes of gay relationships. Again having a relationship may not be the most important thing to some anti gay marriage activists. In fact the emphasis on happiness being achieved by a trajectory that leads to monogamous coupled marriage is somewhat questionable. Im not saying happiness cant be achieved that way but the huge emphasis on it could leave a huge gap for those of us who find our relationships dont match that model and for those of us who find ourselves single for example.

Im not anti gay marriage. Im uncomfortable with the idea that those who are anti gay marriage are delusional or completely illogical. If you are looking for reasons to understand someone you need to be open to the idea that those people are not idiots and that there must be something that they value more than something you value. Its not all righteousness on the pro gay marriage side and idiocy on the anti gay marriage side. Not addressing those comments at any individual poster in particular.

Genegirl83

SpaceTime wrote: »

Well, it's her right to have an opinion on the issue no matter how completely and utterly wrong that opinion might be. I'm in favour of freedom of speech but, I am not in favour of protecting people from being offended when criticised for having ridiculous points of view.

So, I think for example in the gay marriage debate, this notion of people expecting to be able to be utterly opposed to gay marriage on religious or other rather irrational grounds leaves them open to being criticised heavily.

...

And yes, I'd say that she had quite likely adopted a dogmatic view of her place in society and that she was basically conforming.

The downtrodden often adopt those kinds of views - look at how the class system worked for centuries. The working class kept themselves in their place in many respects by becoming locked into a notion that that was their place in society and that's how thing were and will always be.

OK you've given me a very interesting perspective on how these beliefs are acquired.

So then it could be implied, since there is a clear feeling of inferiority in the individual through whatever negative repetition and opinion the person experienced (the person would now denounce their own rights), that a person who denies themselves certain rights are never of complete sound mind in regards to the part of them that is being discriminated against? So the woman feels inherently inadequate being female through the opinions and ideas she has been exposed to and thus feels she is undeserving of a vote and a gay man against gay marriage, by the same token, feels he is undeserving of the rights of legal marriage.
So it could never achieve a level of comfort with his/her sexuality that a gay person in favour of gay marriage could achieve? As this would be impossible.

baby and crumble

Genegirl83 wrote: »

She's a woman. As such her brain is structured a certain way which causes her to seek out empathy, companionship and sex that firmly has strings attached. I am respectively doubtful that is her true feeling if she has had a 10 year relationship. If being gay was purely a subversive act I genuinely doubt that we would even be this far in terms of tolerance for gay people.

I see what you mean about her stance. A little radical, no?

Just a smidge. She's vegan too.

I mean I respect that those are her views. We are very different, I would like to be married and have kids and a house and a dog. I'm sure there's lot of reasons for that, but I like the quiet life, staying in, settling down. Everyone is different. I don't feel I need anyone's approval to do those things but I don't see why I should be treated any differently than my brothers, for example. Equal marriage being an option for us doesn't somehow take away from their rights. Its not like there's a finite number of marriages allowed in the state at one time so if the gays are allowed in then it makes it tougher for straight people!!!! It being there doesn't mean you HAVE to get married. I don't understand anyone protesting the extension of any human rights, whatever they are. It's bizarre to me.

baby and crumble

Ambersky wrote: »

We are out there presenting the most socially acceptable and least threatening models of gay marriage which apparently, according to research, are middle aged lesbian couples in very long term relationships. So we are kind of deliberately putting forward a particular reality.

Are we? 90% of the publicity I've seen in this arena is either m/m or young and femme women.

SpaceTime

Genegirl83 wrote: »

OK you've given me a very interesting perspective on how these beliefs are acquired.

So then it could be implied, since there is a clear feeling of inferiority in the individual through whatever negative repetition and opinion the person experienced (the person would now denounce their own rights), that a person who denies themselves certain rights are never of complete sound mind in regards to the part of them that is being discriminated against? So the woman feels inherently inadequate being female through the opinions and ideas she has been exposed to and thus feels she is undeserving of a vote and a gay man against gay marriage, by the same token, feels he is undeserving of the rights of legal marriage.
So it could never achieve a level of comfort with his/her sexuality that a gay person in favour of gay marriage could achieve? As this would be impossible.

I don't think 'sound in mind' is an appropriate term.

You can be 100% sound in mind and have some very odd views.
I would say it's more a case of social conformity to what you see as 'normal' because you've been basically educated in or even indoctrinated in that particular world view.

Social change always requires convincing people of a new set of social mores and that can include people who are actually directly (and positively) impacted upon by that proposed change.

I think with gay people, you also have to factor in that society really was very oppressive toward them for a long time. So, for older gay people who grew up and became adults before the 1990s in particular, you'd have to accept that many of them became very used to oppressing themselves and having probably a quite strange perception of themselves.

Basically, I'd say if you were born before about 1977 and you're gay and live in Ireland (or in fact most English speaking countries) you'd a pretty hard time of it and had to hide your sexuality. For people born after that period, it's quite a different world where gay rights were rapidly becoming normalised in the 1990s and into the 00s at an ever-increasing speed.

On the plus side though, I think Irish society is showing itself to be very open to the idea of same sex marriage (probably far more so than our political leadership was).

It's remarkable that Fine Gael in particular seems to have adopted a very cautious approach to gay marriage when about 76% of the public is in favour of it! Just shows to me that they're extremely out of touch with the electorate.

Ambersky

Are we? 90% of the publicity I've seen in this arena is either m/m or young and femme women

You are right the middle aged couple was part of the early campaign the point being however that the job of any campaign is to present as favorable an image as possible, one that is most likely to get votes and not to necessarily present a true and accurate picture. Pro gay marriage presents as positive a model as they can not as accurate as they can.

Genegirl83

Ambersky wrote: »

I dont think that anti gay marriage people are behaving illogically and the pro gay marriage crowd are all logic and reason.
Its all a risk, there is for and against and I think we on either side need to look at our own assumptions and reasoning acknowledging that as well as looking at the reasoning of the other side. We are out there presenting the most socially acceptable and least threatening models of gay marriage which apparently, according to research, are middle aged lesbian couples in very long term relationships. So we are kind of deliberately weighing the facts towards our own opinions and desires.

Out gay families are a fairly new social phenomena so thats a gamble to some conservatives. Some gay people who are anti gay marriage may also have seen some of the less than happy outcomes of gay relationships. Again having a relationship may not be the most important thing to some anti gay marriage activists. In fact the emphasis on happiness being achieved by a trajectory that leads to monogamous coupled marriage is somewhat questionable. Im not saying happiness cant be achieved that way but the huge emphasis on it could leave a huge gap for those of us who find ourselves single for example.

Im not anti gay marriage. Im uncomfortable with the idea that those who are anti gay marriage are delusional or completely illogical. If you are looking for reasons to understand someone you need to be open to the idea that those people are not idiots and that there must be something that they value more than something you value. Its not all righteousness on the pro gay marriage side and idiocy on the anti gay marriage side. Not addressing those comments at any individual poster in particular.

I'm just giving marriage as an example of what could in theory make a gay person happy. Given that most people (not all, obviously) desire family and a sense of belonging. And so, if you are going to desire that, how could it ever be logical to not want that family to have as much protection as possible? It's counter-intuitive.

I don't necessarily think the pro-marriage side are presenting "an idealised" version of what constitutes a gay family. As a scientist, I have to believe the data that states the children of same sex families fair just as well as any other child. Therefore when anti-marriage proponents declare that this is not the case I can't help but feel they are illogical.

To my knowledge there has been little differentiation between how children cope between two fathers and two mothers and I think that if there was evidence that children were not in optimal environments with two loving fathers, this would certainly be peddled by the anti-marriage troop as surely this could classify two fathers as sub-optimal after all? And a legitimate piece of evidence like that is something they currently do not have.

You're right. They may have seen less than happy gay relationships but also...
A) They're far more likely, by law of averages, to have seen highly dysfunctional heterosexual relationships. Hardly a day goes by some ghastly pair haven't been implicated in child abuse.
You're right, homosexual families are newer but that also means they are less likely to have seen many dysfunctional families and predicting them to be dysfunctional is merely speculation with no place in discourse.

I will not consider someone anti-marriage so long as they present they're arguments succinctly and honestly. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The scientific evidence speaks for itself and once that is out there and documented personal opinion must take second place to the facts.

qweerty

Genegirl83 wrote: »

So you think it's simply a case of a pawn in its purest form?
Hmm... I don't know. Waghorne is especially (worryingly) intelligent. That's the part that unsettles me. I'm worried as a political philosopher he could write a thesis on being a "useful idiot" and surely (in theory) would recognise if he were one... Right? Logically?

Looks like I was a useless idiot: I only read the OP before posting, and didn't see reference to Waghorne.

I was vaguely aware of him, but I had a Google to refresh my memory. He certainly seems pretty impressive: National Youth Orchestra, World University Debating, Masters at LSE, Cato Institute, PhD in Philosophy, etc. But, ignore the person, and address the argument. And I think it's flawed. He contends that marriage is being redefined "as merely the end-point of romance", when it should remain the structure for child-raising by a mother and father. I'm not in the mood to fully make a counter argument, but I propose that the definition of "marriage" has evolved from its traditional, religious origins, and is now seen as recognising the bond between two life-partners - irrespective of children. Waghorne's reasoning may be very profound when compared with that of some shallow-thinking gay person who just wants to have what they feel they deserve, but that doesn't mean that he has come to the correct conclusion. Many very intelligent people have been wrong in such situations, and it's likely that Waghorne is one of them.

Genegirl83

baby and crumble wrote: »

Just a smidge. She's vegan too.

I mean I respect that those are her views. We are very different, I would like to be married and have kids and a house and a dog. I'm sure there's lot of reasons for that, but I like the quiet life, staying in, settling down. Everyone is different. I don't feel I need anyone's approval to do those things but I don't see why I should be treated any differently than my brothers, for example. Equal marriage being an option for us doesn't somehow take away from their rights. Its not like there's a finite number of marriages allowed in the state at one time so if the gays are allowed in then it makes it tougher for straight people!!!! It being there doesn't mean you HAVE to get married. I don't understand anyone protesting the extension of any human rights, whatever they are. It's bizarre to me.

Of course! I totally agree. And the constant mention of "children need a mother and father" constantly implies that gays are going to somehow take the children from heterosexual couples. I mean obviously a child will have 2 parents where possible. That's a totally void point they make. Why would they not? Obviously gay adoption extends to children where CLEARLY their biological mother and father was not possible. It's not like it was a competition between them and a gay couple for the child.

I agree. Anyone in contention of another's harmless happiness deserves a well placed raised eyebrow.

Ambersky

I think there are two different questions being answered here.
One is why would, lets call them conservative gays be anti gay marriage.
The other is what is the logic behind the arguments in favour of or against gay marriage.
These are two different questions and one clouds the other I think.

Conservatives have a set of values they live by and they come to conclusions based on those values.
People who believe in gay marriage tend to be more liberal and they too have a set of values that influence the conclusions they come to.
I think it is a case of negative stereotyping to paint conservatives as illogical, delusional, self hating, brain washed, older people.
The beliefs of conservatives can be argued with thats the second question what is the logic behind their arguments and do they stand up to scrutiny.

Genegirl83

SpaceTime wrote: »

On the plus side though, I think Irish society is showing itself to be very open to the idea of same sex marriage (probably far more so than our political leadership was).

It's remarkable that Fine Gael in particular seems to have adopted a very cautious approach to gay marriage when about 76% of the public is in favour of it! Just shows to me that they're extremely out of touch with the electorate.

I agree. FG are the one party I have trouble believing actually believe in gay marriage. In your opinion, if labour had been in power, would the constitution simply have been amended or would a referendum still have gone ahead?

qweerty

This is from a piece by Una Mullally of the Irish Times:

"In the most recent poll on marriage equality in Ireland, conducted by Red C for the Sunday Business Post and RTE Prime Time, 83% of women polled expressed support for marriage equality in a referendum context. But that number fell to 63% support amongst men. When the statement “I believe in equal rights for gay people, but I have some reservations about same sex marriage” was posed, 46% of women polled agreed with it, rising to 52% of men. The statement “I have some reservations about adoption by gay couples” was supported by 40% of women polled, and 41% of men. Yet another anomaly on the poll found that 14% of women and 26% of men agreed with the statement “People in same sex relationships should be able to have the same rights as traditional families.” 43% of women polled agreed that “People who oppose same sex marriage rights are homophobic”, while 38% of men agreed with that statement."

Homophobia in sport: a gender issue? | Irish Times

Genegirl83

qweerty wrote: »

Looks like I was a useless idiot: I only read the OP before posting, and didn't see reference to Waghorne.

I was vaguely aware of him, but I had a Google to refresh my memory. He certainly seems pretty impressive: National Youth Orchestra, World University Debating, Masters at LSE, Cato Institute, PhD in Philosophy, etc. But, ignore the person, and address the argument. And I think it's flawed. He contends that marriage is being redefined "as merely the end-point of romance", when it should remain the structure for child-raising by a mother and father. I'm not in the mood to fully make a counter argument, but I propose that the definition of "marriage" has evolved from its traditional, religious origins, and is now seen as recognising the bond between two life-partners - irrespective of children. Waghorne's reasoning may be very profound when compared with that of some shallow-thinking gay person who just wants to have what they feel they deserve, but that doesn't mean that he has come to the correct conclusion. Many very intelligent people have been wrong in such situations, and it's likely that Waghorne is one of them.

I absolutely agree. His points are very manageably argued and essentially I feel they are just slightly more intellectualised versions of some of the other anti marriage arguments of some less prominent, less articulate opponents. I firmly believe he is wrong despite his clear intelligence. I'm just deeply interested in the mind of a person who would willingly deny themselves these rights. Or even their gay brothers and sisters who have struggled their whole lives.

That was my true inquiry: can the full acceptance of your sexuality and the choice to deny yourself rights ever co-occur? Is the easy answer that you are NOT accepting of your own sexuality at your core.

qweerty

Genegirl83 wrote: »

I absolutely agree. His points are very manageably argued and essentially I feel they are just slightly more intellectualised versions of some of the other anti marriage arguments of some less prominent, less articulate opponents. I firmly believe he is wrong despite his clear intelligence. I'm just deeply interested in the mind of a person who would willingly deny themselves these rights. Or even their gay brothers and sisters who have struggled their whole lives.

That was my true inquiry: can the full acceptance of your sexuality and the choice to deny yourself rights ever co-occur? Is the easy answer that you are NOT accepting of your own sexuality at your core.

I think they can co-occur so long as one doesn't value that right.

I just noticed from another of his articles that he is religious - have we our answer?!

Genegirl83

qweerty wrote: »

I think they can co-occur so long as one doesn't value that right.

I just noticed from another of his articles that he is religious - have we our answer?!

I would think so. So no secular ones? Ha, almost disappointing. Perhaps Manning is religious. I'm not sure.

Genegirl83

Ambersky wrote: »

I think there are two different questions being answered here.
One is why would, lets call them conservative gays be anti gay marriage.
The other is what is the logic behind the arguments in favour of or against gay marriage.
These are two different questions and one clouds the other I think.

Conservatives have a set of values they live by and they come to conclusions based on those values.
People who believe in gay marriage tend to be more liberal and they too have a set of values that influence the conclusions they come to.
I think it is a case of negative stereotyping to paint conservatives as illogical, delusional, self hating, brain washed, older people.
The beliefs of conservatives can be argued with thats the second question what is the logic behind their arguments and do they stand up to scrutiny.

I believe strongly in many fiscal conservative policies which have careful thought and most importantly, evidence. I absolutely support a conservative to uphold their conservative values... So long as they comply with evidence. If they don't then it's just propaganda.

Saying a child NEEDS a mother and father to be a rational, well adjusted adult is such a conservative view that simply contradicts the evidence and thus it is wrong to claim this when it is not proven.

Ambersky

Genegirl83 said
I don't necessarily think the pro-marriage side are presenting "an idealised" version of what constitutes a gay family. As a scientist, I have to believe the data that states the children of same sex families fair just as well as any other child. Therefore when anti-marriage proponents declare that this is not the case I can't help but feel they are illogical.

The "family" is not a perfect institution either gay or straight. We have on both sides been presenting family in its idealised form in this campaign.
The data which compares same sex with opposite sex is just stating that both sides do as well.
Im not arguing that gay families dont do as well. Im attempting to understand why some gays are anti same sex marriage, Im looking at what they may or may not have seen within our commuinty, Im not arguing if they are right or wrong to come to that conclusion Im seeking to understand, its a different thing.

Genegirl83

Ambersky wrote: »

The "family" is not a perfect institution either gay or straight. We have on both sides been presenting family in its idealised form in this campaign.
The data which compares same sex with opposite sex is just stating that both sides do as well.
Im not arguing that gay families dont do as well. Im attempting to understand why some gays are anti same sex marriage, Im looking at what they may or may not have seen within our commuinty, Im not arguing if they are right or wrong to come to that conclusion Im seeking to understand, its a different thing.

I totally understand your position. You're right, both sides can present an ideal and that is fine so long as both sides are doing this. It just resets the argument back to an equal position and neither side is disadvantaged by the other sides misrepresentation.
Do you not believe they're prejudice leads them to their conclusions then?

Cabaal

Gay people against gay marriage isn't such a crazy idea,

Sure there were many women that were against the very idea of women being given the right to vote, there were also many women against women being allowed to work after they got married. In this day and age we see such women as backwards for wanting to not allowing women to vote or to continue to work after they got married.

Thankfully more progressive views won those arguments, just like more progressive views will enable gay marriage to become a reality in more and more countrys.

Its an awful shame that some people are against the very idea of them being treated as equal,

Ambersky

Im not arguing who is right or who is wrong. Im presenting an argument that says that conservatives like us have reasons like we do for the conclusions they come to, understandable reasons and that there is within this thread a display of conservative prejudice taking one side to be all right ( pro same sex marriage) and the other side to be delusional, illogical, self loathing, old and outdated.

Genegirl83
Given that most people (not all, obviously) desire family and a sense of belonging. And so, if you are going to desire that, how could it ever be logical to not want that family to have as much protection as possible? It's counter-intuitive.

Not everyone experienced family as a protection or found their sense of belonging within it. Im not sure how big a part logic plays in what actually happens within the family which is one of the last institutions in Ireland still awaiting examination of the things that happened to people within it.

qweerty

Genegirl83 wrote: »

I would think so. So no secular ones? Ha, almost disappointing. Perhaps Manning is religious. I'm not sure.

Ha! It's no fun when their position can be dismissed on the basis of their faith!

J_E

Genegirl83 wrote: »

SpaceTime

Have you heard of Mr. Waghorne? I know he is a conservative but as someone with many fiscally conservative ideals, I still find him a tad strange. How can one be conservative and entirely comfortable with their sexuality like they claim to be?

Another Mr. Manning. I saw him debate on an RTE show and it was honestly quite shocking. Extremely aggressive individual very self righteous and argumentative against an experienced legally trained individual.

Do you know if he is conservative or just cracked?

Both of them are completely insufferable people on that subject, it's clear that Paddy has issues with his own sexuality and tries very hard to fit with the 'in crowd' of conservative people he sees. He can't talk about any issue without trying to shoehorn it into a ridiculous US political left vs right sort of thing. It's kind of tragic. Mr. Waghorne has been described as a 'plus de la roi conservative', which sounds about right. I'm not even bothered with the politics, just know that both of them when it comes to the issue of sexuality and religion are both very intolerant and contradicting in their views.

It's usually just a case of moral upbringing conflicting with sexual orientation.


I also find that an opposition to gay marriage (not from the perspective that marriage itself is broken) usually boils down to a prejudice against gay men (rather than women which people seem to mind less, for some reason) and the 'disgusting' idea of what goes on in the bedroom, and worried that kids will get exposed to it. (again, they will always mention the children)

Genegirl83

Cabaal wrote: »

Gay people against gay marriage isn't such a crazy idea,

Sure there were many women that were against the very idea of women being given the right to vote, there were also many women against women being allowed to work after they got married. In this day and age we see such women as backwards for wanting to not allowing women to vote or to continue to work after they got married.

Thankfully more progressive views won those arguments, just like more progressive views will enable gay marriage to become a reality in more and more countrys.

Its an awful shame that some people are against the very idea of them being treated as equal,

Yeah in fairness... It's a fairly crazy thing. Maybe not if you're a gay catholic or unhappy with your own sexuality but there aren't many of them and that's for a reason. It's an oddity.

There's still this "helpless little woman" spectre with some women still. I agree. But I think not voting is a different beast. Not working and staying with children is something some women feel compelled to do, biologically. More so than men. Denying your right to vote I feel is to effectively deride your own capacity to dictate political discourse like men can.

Genegirl83

Ambersky wrote: »

Im not arguing who is right or who is wrong. Im presenting an argument that says that conservatives like us have reasons like we do for the conclusions they come to, understandable reasons and that there is within this thread a display of conservative prejudice taking one side to be all right ( pro same sex marriage) and the other side to be delusional, illogical, self loathing, old and outdated.



Not everyone experienced family as a protection or found their sense of belonging within it. Im not sure how big a part logic plays in what actually happens within the family which is one of the last institutions in Ireland still awaiting examination of the things that happened to people within it.

I don't personally believe it's unfair to continually recognise certain conservatives as backwards when a new issue arises. It might now be unfair if we hit a political stalemate and people slam conservative opinion as some pseudo-intellectual blood sport but I think it's fair to identify them as backwards when they are being backwards I.e. falsifying scientific data.

It's the proverbial: calling a backwards spade a backwards spade.

Genegirl83

qweerty wrote: »

Ha! It's no fun when their position can be dismissed on the basis of their faith!

Haha, I totally agree! They usually get religious and I assume the "Oh well run along you little scam, ye!" position.

Ha, that, when I read it back is actually so dismissive.

Meh...

Genegirl83

Cydoniac wrote: »

Both of them are completely insufferable people on that subject, it's clear that Paddy has issues with his own sexuality and tries very hard to fit with the 'in crowd' of conservative people he sees. He can't talk about any issue without trying to shoehorn it into a ridiculous US political left vs right sort of thing. It's kind of tragic. Mr. Waghorne has been described as a 'plus de la roi conservative', which sounds about right. I'm not even bothered with the politics, just know that both of them when it comes to the issue of sexuality and religion are both very intolerant and contradicting in their views.

It's usually just a case of moral upbringing conflicting with sexual orientation.


I also find that an opposition to gay marriage (not from the perspective that marriage itself is broken) usually boils down to a prejudice against gay men (rather than women which people seem to mind less, for some reason) and the 'disgusting' idea of what goes on in the bedroom, and worried that kids will get exposed to it. (again, they will always mention the children)

I emphatically agree with everything you're saying. And in it's own way this to me, like warping scientific data, is yet another example of conservative distortion. They would NEVER find a secular gay person with healthy self esteem who would support their cause. Their gay pawns, although projected to be free of self-loathing, simply could not be free of it! And it's so depressing in Waghorne's case, as he is clearly such an intelligent, gay man.

I mean, surely they most know that regardless of the conservative circle they travel in they will always be looked down on, purely by default? I mean it is the conservative belief after all!

I also agree, it is mostly directed at gay men. As a gay woman I am the first to admit I don't believe the world is as vicious to lesbians. I will say though, at least Manning isn't a lesbian. I think that would split the gay movement in Ireland horribly. Imagine a lesbian who spoke out against the potential of gay men to parent? I think that would create major problems that traditionalists would capitalise on.

SpaceTime

Genegirl83 wrote: »

I agree. FG are the one party I have trouble believing actually believe in gay marriage. In your opinion, if labour had been in power, would the constitution simply have been amended or would a referendum still have gone ahead?

The constitution can only be amended by referendum in Ireland. There's no other way of doing it.

I think Enda in particular put it on the back burner though. 2015 is ridiculous. Its also going to make the campaign far, far too long.

This should have been done in 2013 or before this summer.

Two possible reasons:

1. Enda is / was afraid of frightening the conservative element in FG so took his time to show France and the UK could do it first and to get a sense if how the electorate are reacting.

Being Taoiseach is more like being chair of a board rather than executive like a UK Prime Minister. Your job is to keep the show on the road and keep a coalition of very different views (even within FG) together.

2. Labour and more liberal elements in FG want it as a show piece of their forward looking, gay friendly credentials for the upcoming general election.

You have to remember FF and FG don't really have a defined philosophy other than maybe economic pragmatism. They're centrists and basically populist pragmatists. They'll pick and choose policies that they think will get them seats.

They're also very broad internally and can have everything from social liberals to conservatives.

Irish politics doesn't fit the traditional left v right dichotomy.

Genegirl83

SpaceTime wrote: »

The constitution can only be amended by referendum in Ireland. There's no other way of doing it.

Hmm. I'm not sure about this. A few solicitors, one in human rights does not believe this is the case. I'll admit, I've heard that it is amendable and that it isn't. I'm not all that knowledgeable in law myself so ill concede I'm not sure.

Fianna Fáil would APPEAR more adaptable on this issue than FG. I was suprised by that.

eviltwin

I can understand gay people who don't agree with same sex marriage. What I can't understand is a gay person who will vote to prevent other gay couples having the option.

Genegirl83

eviltwin wrote: »

I can understand gay people who don't agree with same sex marriage. What I can't understand is a gay person who will vote to prevent other gay couples having the option.

Do you mean you can understand a gay person who doesn't want to be married to someone of the same sex or someone who is gay and thinks gay marrige is wrong in principle?