Disciplined for disagreeing - the health of the discourse on gay marriage (Please read OP fully)

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Christina Summers, a member of Brighton and Hove City Council in Sussex, has been ordered to face a party disciplinary panel after voicing dissent over the issue.

 

For full story see here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9429730/Green-council-accu...

Now before we go into this, can I please beg for restraint in the matter of the content of this discussion. I don't want this to become another topic on the question of the legitimacy or otherwise of Gay marriage itself. What I want to discuss here, is the quality of the debate itself.

Simply put, I have a question. Are we moving into dangerous territory with the nature of this debate?

I am noticing this mainly from the side of the supporters of Gay Marriage. It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is branded as a bigot and a homophone, regardless of how nuanced and ultimately reasonable their position may be.

In this particular instance, not only have we seen people calling this woman a bigot and a homophobe, but also a fascist, and some even making the bizarre suggestion that she is mentally unwell for holding the opinion she does.

I am exceptionally concerned about the health of the discourse on this issue. It seems to me to have gotten to the stage that it has become necessary for the supporters of gay marriage to massively vilify any of their opponents and give them monikers and labels far far outside the realms of accuracy or even acceptability. Frankly, to suggest that people who disagree with you are mentally unwell, is absurd.

While I am aware that this kind of thing does happen on both sides of the debate, what I am noticing more and more is the fact that it seems to be the pro-gay marriage side who have managed to normalise the straw manning of their opponents. Is this the case?

Is the debate in poor health? What is wrong? Can it be resolved?

[Abreo]

I am noticing this mainly from the side of the supporters of Gay Marriage. It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is branded as a bigot and a homophone, regardless of how nuanced and ultimately reasonable their position may be.

It's a simple case of majority vs minority. Basically for a long time homosexuals have been denied rights and treated poorly and now they and the people who fully support them are fighting back. I won't argue that they do so fairly, just that if you knew somebody who had a terrible time growing up because of their sexuality that you might be oversensitive when you perceive other people as attacking them. Like I said, it's not fair but it's logically going to happen and there's not much you can do about that other than discourage bullying. 

In this particular instance, not only have we seen people calling this woman a bigot and a homophobe, but also a fascist, and some even making the bizarre suggestion that she is mentally unwell for holding the opinion she does.

 

I don't know the specific contents of her speech or her exact reasoning for believing what she does other than she's a Christian so it's hard for me to comment on this but it's probably the thing where a group has been disenfranchised for so long by hateful bullies than anyone who disagrees with that group is automatically perceived as a hateful bully. 

While I am aware that this kind of thing does happen on both sides of the debate, what I am noticing more and more is the fact that it seems to be the pro-gay marriage side who have managed to normalise the straw manning of their opponents. Is this the case?

 

That's just because the pro-gay side is slowly emerging as the majority opinion. When a disenfranchised minority starts to become the majority they often do so with a bit of overdue pent-up rage. Not to mention for pro-gays sexuality is something you're born with and isn't reasonably going to be a huge problem for anyone else so disliking homosexuality is like disliking someone's race. Whether or not you agree with this position it's important to understand it. 

Is the debate in poor health? What is wrong? Can it be resolved?

It's going the way you'd expect it to go. Things will be a lot less heated after gay-marriage has been legalized in the big western countries for ten years.

[Hutch Hogan]

It's going the way you'd expect it to go. Things will be a lot less heated after gay-marriage has been legalized in the big western countries for ten years.

Canada hasn't caught fire yet. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Like I said, it's not fair but it's logically going to happen and there's not much you can do about that other than discourage bullying.

Indeed, but its kind of bothering me that this isn't something the pro-gay marriage side of the debate seems to do. It seems to be an attitude of "We're right, and that allows us to use any tactics we like"

I don't know the specific contents of her speech or her exact reasoning for believing what she does other than she's a Christian so it's hard for me to comment on this but it's probably the thing where a group has been disenfranchised for so long by hateful bullies than anyone who disagrees with that group is automatically perceived as a hateful bully.

I can see your logic. It is kind of ironic that a culture that was so very generalised and marginalised against is now trying to do the reverse to someone else.

That's just because the pro-gay side is slowly emerging as the majority opinion. When a disenfranchised minority starts to become the majority they often do so with a bit of overdue pent-up rage.

Indeed, but they refuse to be called up on it. Is this not a concern?

Not to mention for pro-gays sexuality is something you're born with and isn't reasonably going to be a huge problem for anyone else so disliking homosexuality is like disliking someone's race. Whether or not you agree with this position it's important to understand it.

I can understand that position, but I think its more the people of that position that don't understand the other side. The notion that people don't have a "sexuality" as such, but just make sexual actions (the dominant opinion on the matter for 99% of human history).

[Abreo]

Indeed, but its kind of bothering me that this isn't something the pro-gay marriage side of the debate seems to do. It seems to be an attitude of "We're right, and that allows us to use any tactics we like"

 

I don't know if that is the response, it's more like everyone is being extremely defensive. For good reason though, it's not like there aren't a lot of hateful famous personalities that constantly preach against homosexuals. As far as I can tell the idea that you hate the sin not the sinner has only been made public as of late in regards to homosexuality.

I can see your logic. It is kind of ironic that a culture that was so very generalised and marginalised against is now trying to do the reverse to someone else.

That's not what they think they're doing though. Disagreeing with homosexuality for many people is akin to racism. It's more like attempting to get together with your friends so you can beat up your bully, from their perspective at least. 

Indeed, but they refuse to be called up on it. Is this not a concern?

Yes and no? It's important to remember that even if you don't hate homosexuals that other people will perceive you as trying to eradicate it (and I guess you do want it gone) and if you think about it that even makes nice guys who don't hate the sinner seem like bullies if you're not religious or don't understand why homosexuality could possibly be a bad thing. I mean in a world where people get angry on both sides over video games something like this is bound to not be a controlled discussion. So mankind's lack of desire to have controlled discussions is of concern but at the same time I really don't see how this would possibly be a controlled discussion at this point in time. In that sense everything is progressing as expected which means nothing is getting worse than expected. We always ought to aim for better but when we're where we 'should' be it's hard to be too worried about it. It'll get more heated before it cools down but it won't get better until the LGBT crowd stops being marginalized as a whole. Until they're treated equally by everyone around them are allowed to get married they and anyone who supports them will believe that they're standing up to bullies and that's bound to cause some venom. I don't know, it's just the way things work I suppose.

I can understand that position, but I think its more the people of that position that don't understand the other side. The notion that people don't have a "sexuality" as such, but just make sexual actions (the dominant opinion on the matter for 99% of human history).

Well I've spoken to a few people who disagree with homosexuality and I've heard many many famous personalities speak of it and maybe I don't know, you and a handfull of other people did so in a manner that doesn't come off as totally hateful. On top of that you're the only person I've ever heard you explain it as clearly as you just did (and have before). 

[Hutch Hogan]

I am noticing this mainly from the side of the supporters of Gay Marriage. It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is branded as a bigot and a homophone, regardless of how nuanced and ultimately reasonable their position may be.

I believe that this is the case as a result of three things:

1. The idea that same sex unions are a private matter.   That is that they do not interfere into the lives of heterosexuals.  This is compounded on the fact that sodomy laws no longer exist and same sex relationships already happen. 

2. The idea that denying same sex marriage is primarily founded on Christian morality. And government endorsing a continued ban of same sex marriage is that this is taken to subjugating people who do not believe in Christianity, as well as Christians who do not interpret Christian morality in such a way to Christian morality.

3. The idea of legal tolerance.  This is more easily understood with the analogy of economic systems.

Let's simplify it down to capitalism and communism.  Capitalism and communism.  If the entire world was turned into capitalism, you could still have communes (i.e. places where people enter into community and drop the right to property).  However, capitalism cannot happen inside of an communist system because there is no private right to property that is respected.

In the same sex marriage debate, there is the case where marriage of heterosexuals is permitted and the marriage of homosexuals is denied.  And there is the case where heterosexual marriage is permitted as is homosexual marriage.  Consider the difference for Christian churches that believe that homosexual marriage is permissible and seek to marry those individuals. 

This relates closely to the first point.  

I am exceptionally concerned about the health of the discourse on this issue. It seems to me to have gotten to the stage that it has become necessary for the supporters of gay marriage to massively vilify any of their opponents and give them monikers and labels far far outside the realms of accuracy or even acceptability. Frankly, to suggest that people who disagree with you are mentally unwell, is absurd.

To fairly assess the health of the debate, both sides had to recognize that there are extremists in both camps.  It is not uncommon to hear the phrase that "Same sex marriages invites the wrath of god".  Which is a gruesome sentiment when you think about it. 

Likewise you have people who behave abhorrently on the socially progressive side and make nasty threats. 

Though this debate quickly falls from the vitriolic battles that the media plays up shortly after same sex marriage is legalized.