Hypocrite? Homophobe?

[Miss Chicken]

Or both?

I was talking to a woman about the possibility of Australians having to vote on whether to allow gay marriage. The woman proudly said she would vote against marriage equality. I was taken aback because I know this woman is non-religious and I don't think there is many reasons beyond religious one to oppose marriage equality. When I queried why she would vote against it she informed me she was against all marriage. I then asked her what steps was she taking to outlaw straight marriage if that was her true objection. She just shrugged her shoulders. So do you think she is a hypocrite/homophobe?

While we are on the subject I posted these two pictures on a Facebook colouring page only to have them removed for being inappropriate. One woman said they were disturbing.

 

[hux]

Do people have to campaign for things before they're allowed to believe them?

I also believe all marriage should be private and have absolutely no government involvement whatsoever. The idea that personal relationships need to be sanctioned by the state is ridiculous.

That being said, gay marriage had to happen first as a matter of addressing centuries of legal and cultural inequality and oppression. Give it a few years to settle though and then we can start the process of abolishing all state involvement in human relationships.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I was talking to a woman about the possibility of Australians having to vote on whether to allow gay marriage. The woman proudly said she would vote against marriage equality. I was taken aback because I know this woman is non-religious and I don't think there is many reasons beyond religious one to oppose marriage equality. When I queried why she would vote against it she informed me she was against all marriage.

It's probably just her lame attempt at sidestepping that she finds gay marriage and homosexuality icky without (in her mind) looking like a bigot. "I'm not just opposed to gay marriage, I'm opposed to ALL marriage. Look how unbiased and egalitarian I am."

 

[Amaris]

Yeah, "I'm opposed to all marriage," because that will fucking work when one has to commit to any civil requirement as a couple.

 

[urbandefault]

I can't find the recording I heard of a gathering a while back, but there is a small movement to break down, dismantle, and eventually abolish marriage as an institution. Probably a bunch of hooligans.

 

[Garak]

I thought you could marry anything in Australia.

 

[urbandefault]

I thought you could marry anything in Australia.

 

[Miss Chicken]

It's probably just her lame attempt at sidestepping that she finds gay marriage and homosexuality icky without (in her mind) looking like a bigot. "I'm not just opposed to gay marriage, I'm opposed to ALL marriage. Look how unbiased and egalitarian I am."

That is what I think. I have known this woman for many years and I though I have heard her say she would never get married I have not heard her denounced straight marriage outright before and I know she has attended straight weddings.

 

[hux]

And anti-capitalists drink at Starbucks and own iphones.

It's a crazy, mixed up world out there.

Maybe this woman knows what she thinks and you should probably spend less time wondering if she's deceiving you. Maybe buy Some DVD's? West Wing is very good.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Yeah, "I'm opposed to all marriage," because that will fucking work when one has to commit to any civil requirement as a couple.

To be fair, for people who are actually serious about the proposition of getting government out of the business of sanctioning our relationships, just abolishing marriage isn't the end of it. They also want to institute family contracts to deal with matters like you're talking about - disputes would still be managed by the courts or by legal arbitration, but there would be no requirement for government to sanction the contracts to initiate them.

In the short term, I'm in favor of marriage for lesbian and gay people to equalize things for them. In the long term, I actually favor what I have described above, as a method of handling legal equality for poly relationships, as well.

 

[Velocity]

Marriage is a contract that gives legal rights to people, which everyone should have. But people also should have the right to their own thoughts and beliefs and not be ridiculed for them. We can never really know what is in someone else's heart. I find all the shaming distasteful.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Marriage is a contract that gives legal rights to people, which everyone should have. But people also should have the right to their own thoughts and beliefs and not be ridiculed for them. We can never really know what is in someone else's heart. I find all the shaming distasteful.

They do have the right to their own thoughts and beliefs, and no one has suggested otherwise; that is a strawman. This woman is perfectly entitled to find gay marriage immoral. Where it becomes a problem is when she uses her personal opinion to try and deny the rights of others when it has no affect on her, as she would be doing by voting against marriage equality.

You talk about finding the "shaming" distasteful (not sure how you can shame an anonymous woman who won't see this, so I'm assuming you're pitying other homophobes who might read the thread), but completely leave out the other half of the equation where people who act on these beliefs are shaming same sex couples for just wanting to have the same rights and legal protections that everyone else takes for granted. Why the double standard? And I use the term double standard loosely because only one side has a legitimate claim to being upset about being criticized here, and it's not the bigots.

Social and political movement on this issue has come astonishingly fast compared to many other civil rights achievements, but that's from my perspective on the outside of the issue since my rights aren't being impeded. To a person directly affected by it, whose rights to express their love for the ones they want and to have legal protections the same as everyone else are being trampled on, the change probably can't come fast enough.

I'm tired of hearing how we're supposed to pussyfoot around the issue to protect the feelings of bigots who didn't learn from the last civil rights movement or the one before it or the one before it. Quit being an anchor dragging everyone else down with you (general you).

 

[Avro Arrow]

When I queried why she would vote against it she informed me she was against all marriage. I then asked her what steps was she taking to outlaw straight marriage if that was her true objection. She just shrugged her shoulders. So do you think she is a hypocrite/homophobe?

Well, technically a hypocrite. But probably mostly just lazy. Marking a little 'x' on a piece of paper? Yeah, that's easy, she can do that without breaking a sweat. Actively working to tear down an existing institution that's been in place for millennia? Well, y'know, that's a lot of hard work, what with organizing rallies and protests, and lobbying government and such, and there'll be a lot of opposition, and, well, those Facebook posts aren't going to read themselves, so...

(And I can't rule out the possibility that she is also a homophobe, but it is possible she's telling the truth about being against all marriage.)

But if you do have a referendum, I hope it passes. Bonne chance!

While we are on the subject I posted these two pictures on a Facebook colouring page only to have them removed for being inappropriate. One woman said they were disturbing.

Um... that one *is* deeply disturbing. A miniature bear? That wears glasses? And can READ?? *shiver* How they can just sleep there peacefully with that right there beside them is beyond me.

(Don't get me wrong, the colouring is lovely, and you've done a great job with it! But that little bear creeps me out. I can't help thinking the book it's reading is titled "How to Kill Humans in Their Sleep in Five Easy Steps (With Pictures!)", or something.)

And, OK, yes, the upside-down "this side up" box also disturbs me, but I sense that is more a specific reflection on my personality, rather than anything that would offend a random person on the internet.

 

[Miss Chicken]

The pictures are from a colouring book based on the writings of Josh Lanyon. Josh writes murder mysteries where the protagonists are gay men.

In the book that that picture is based on, the hero used that bear (which is a bookend) to successfully defend himself against a murderer.

 

[Avro Arrow]

^ Oh, it's a bookend? Well, now I just feel foolish.

 

[Timewalker]

Or both?

I was talking to a woman about the possibility of Australians having to vote on whether to allow gay marriage. The woman proudly said she would vote against marriage equality. I was taken aback because I know this woman is non-religious and I don't think there is many reasons beyond religious one to oppose marriage equality. When I queried why she would vote against it she informed me she was against all marriage. I then asked her what steps was she taking to outlaw straight marriage if that was her true objection. She just shrugged her shoulders. So do you think she is a hypocrite/homophobe?

While we are on the subject I posted these two pictures on a Facebook colouring page only to have them removed for being inappropriate. One woman said they were disturbing.

This picture is highly inappropriate. They should be putting up bookshelves, instead of letting their books languish in packing boxes for one second longer than necessary. And while I found the bear a bit odd, it's less that the bear can read (after all, my favorite webcomic is about a group of stuffed animals who play D&D when their owners aren't around), than how the bear's glasses stay on.



Seriously... there's not a thing wrong with either picture, and FB is staffed by idiots.

It seems a bit odd that your country would have a vote on it. Here in Canada we just woke up one morning to find that the legislation had been tabled in the House, it passed all three readings, the Senate passed it, and the Governor-General (on behalf of Her Majesty) signed it into law.

(Well okay, it didn't happen quite that way for anyone following the news, but the essence is that there was no public referendum)

This was in 2005, when Paul Martin was Prime Minister. Yes, he had an uphill argument with some people - his Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party opponents in Parliament, and a bunch of bishops/archbishops (don't recall exactly who) who threatened him with excommunication from the Catholic church.

Martin told the church that he considered his religion to be a private matter that he never brought to the House with him, and that he had a duty to ALL the citizens of Canada. That's a concept that seems to escape politicians who want to overturn this legislation - some of them really, really wanted to do that while Stephen Harper was the PM. I will give Harper credit for enough intelligence to know that it would have been political suicide for his party to try it, though.

To answer your original question: Yes, and yes. I think she is both a homophobe and a hypocrite. Nobody is going to force her to get married to anyone if she doesn't want to (she should be grateful to have been born now instead of several hundred years ago, when she probably wouldn't have had any choice; for most women it was either marriage or the convent or the brothel).

And no heterosexual marriages will suddenly become undone if gay marriage becomes legal. Peoples' wedding documents didn't spontaneously combust, their wedding photos didn't break or get torn up, their rings didn't turn to plastic, and their children weren't suddenly rendered illegitimate (or whatever the modern term is nowadays).

Canada survived this, and despite that twit in Kentucky's best efforts, the US will survive it, and so will Australia.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I think it was the admin of the group that took the picture down, not Facebook themselves. I had it up in other colouring groups and I asked people why the other group removed it and some people came up with imagative reasons such as It isn't healthy to stand around in swampy water.

I am hoping that it won't take a plebiscite to bring gay marriage in Australia. For a start, civil rights should not be voted on and secondly organising such a vote is a huge waster of money as most opinion polls show the majority of Australians want gay marriage. Unfortunately the very small Christian Right has too much influence over politicians here.

It is a bit embarrassing that we will be one of the last Western countries to bring in gay marriage.

 

[Naira]

It's not only Australia. We only recently had civil unions allowed for same-sex couples here in Greece, so similar debates and opinions are fresh to me. I realized that a much smaller percentage than I thought feels comfortable about the matter, it is still some kind of taboo.

What I find intriguing is that many people have such strong feelings about how completely strangers must live their lives. To be blunt, I don't care much because I am not gay myself (not a correct approach, I know, but an honest one), however, I cannot understand why to oppose other people formalizing their relationships, having tax benefits etc.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Yes, both of those are examples of homophobia. I don't know if the first woman is a hypocrite or just evasive.

I also oppose marriage in principle (the whole history of human bondage thing bugs me, and one of my biggest pet peeves is women changing their names), but to outlaw it would be compromising people's rights, not protecting them. When I support marriage equality, it's the equality part I care about, not the marriage part.

 

[Timewalker]

Well, women don't have to change their names anymore, at least not in this part of the world. And from what I understand, in the province of Quebec it's actually frowned on for a woman to change her last name upon marriage.