Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
My goal is neither to perpetrate hatred nor violence. I'm simply indifferent on this particular subject because it resides outside my monkeysphere. I don't see how that can be particularly loathsome or bigoted
Yes, but it allows for it to occur.
You don't even need to have true support for their rights, only for the goal of limiting the pervasiveness of adgenda driven institutional control over the populace, especially when the adgendas are inherently at odds with the general benefit of society.
If an institution was disriminatory towards a certain racial group, you don't need to be part of that group, or know someone who is to dislike those actions or policies with regards towards any group.
If an institution was built to financially exploit the fears, or ignorance of a certain subset of people, you don't need to be caught in that web to dislike, and oppose this method of exploitation.
And by doing nothing, or remaining wholely apathetic to those conditions actively encourages people to use those tactics. If there is no retalitory pushback for practices that collectively we would like to discourage, they will be successful, and thus more likely to be carried out in perpetuity. Vocal minorities only have a small segment of the power quotient neccessary to make those positions untenable in even the strictest of game theory dissections of their successfulness. And if they have a high proportionality of successfulness, they will exist, and entrench themselves deeper into society at large.
Your whole argument is based on the belief that the anti-gay marriage argument is about suppressing gay rights or intolerance of the gay community. Therein lies our difference of opinion. Most people I know who are anti-gay marriage have absolutely no opposition to civil unions and equal rights for gay partnerships. Most of them simply believe the term marriage to hold religious meaning and are of the opinion that the Christian religion does not allow for gay relationships, which consequently leads them to believe that allowing gay marriage would somehow debase their religion or the religious value of their own marriage.
There is an unfortunate side-effect in that civil unions don't actually provide equal rights and are often viewed differently in the eyes of most people, but that's not really the intention of most people who are against gay marriage, at least as far as my observations go.
Some caveats:
* There are extreme religious nuts who directly contradict my observations. I believe them to be in the minority of the religious opposition, however.
* I disagree with the preservation of "marriage" as a religious doctrine, and fully support the idea that it should apply equally to all partnerships. I just don't see any intentional malice in the opposing view, generally speaking.
Edited, Oct 2nd 2009 12:50pm by BrownDuck
