The Davis Square Community

Anti-love, that's funny.

From:

I use to call them the pro-hate people but I don't think it is as accurate. It isn't that they support hate so much as they oppose love when the people feeling it have the same genitalia.

From:

As ridiculous as I find the notion that marriage shouldn't be extended to all people regardless of gender and sexual orientation, a pet peeve of mine has always been those wildly innacurate labels. I don't think pro-hate is any more or less on point than anti-love. Anyway, yeah. No intent to offend.

From:

I think anti-love is exactly on point. That is the crux of the issue. The folks who are against gay marriage are against gay love it is the root of their agenda.

From:

You'd find more folks who are expressly against gay marriage than they are against gay love. That's all I'm saying -- anti gay marriage is the thing. Anti-love sounds misleading, like the folks who oppose it are demons or something.

From:

koloratur.livejournal.com

Would monsters be more appropriate? Or selfish, small minded assholes? Honestly...I can't see why people should tiptoe around the feelings of those who would deny two people in love the right to get married (and all of the legal benefits and protections that come with it.) No slam against you intended at all; I just can't find any common ground with or sympathy for people who oppose gay marriage.

From:

"Would monsters be more appropriate? Or selfish, small minded assholes?"

Only if you want to live in a world where people who have different backgrounds, different educational histories, and different cultures than you are, by default, considered monsters, selfish, or assholes...

I agree that fighting against marriage rights for all genders is a bad thing, but if you really want to help people move past that prejudice and fear of same sex marriage, then you have to at least take the time to understand why they are so afraid of same sex marriage and have become so passionate about fighting it, and find a way to see these people as human beings, just like you, who simply want to live in a world without fear. In other words, if you want equality, you have to treat people equally.

When someone you like does something that harms you, you are very likely to forgive them pretty quickly, understand that they aren't perfect and make mistakes, and do your best to help them learn more successful ways to live well in the future. You do this because you know that treating them like crap is not likely to help them grow and learn how to be a better person. So, if you think equality is a core element in your ideal world, then you have to treat even people you don't like the same (effective) way that you treat your friends when they screw up. If you don't think it's a good idea to call your friends small minded assholes or monsters... If you think that that tactic wouldn't help them be better people, then why on earth do you think it will work with anyone else?

Ultimately, what is the purpose of calling someone a monster? What good does it do other than inflate your own ego?

From:

From:

koloratur.livejournal.com

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree - I don't find anything sympathetic about people who would deny others basic rights. Where would we be if more people had just taken the time to *understand* why people didn't want black Americans to vote? Yes, gay marriage may be of a different magnitude (depending on the individual's opinion,) but it still amounts to a group of people being denied equal rights because of something that they cannot change. I will not treat people who preach hate and ignorance the same way I would treat a friend who "screwed up."

From:

The comparison of oppressions in this comment is sort of disturbing. Let's toss civil rights for black americans sixty years ago on the scale next to rights for gay folks who want to participate in a hijacked christian ritual today.

I think I'm out on this thread.

From:

ron_newman

Christian ritual? Plenty of Jews got married before there was any such thing as Christianity.

From:

It's true. But in America, it has been hijacked as a christian ritual, to the point where jewish weddings are both quite distinct from the mainstream and relatively few in number.

From:

ron_newman

Jews are "relatively few in number", but are we getting married at a lower proportion than the Christian population? I don't think so.

From:

artic-monkeys.livejournal.com

"it still amounts to a group of people being denied equal rights because of something that they cannot change"

What if it were something they could change? Should they not still have the right to choose it otherwise? I believe they should.

From:

That's ok, I understand your prejudice. It's natural to be afraid of people who threaten your lifestyle or beliefs.

From:

I like your emphasis on effectiveness in equality.

From:

ravenword.livejournal.com

"You'd find more folks who are expressly against gay marriage than they are against gay love."

I strongly disagree. I think that most people only bicker about the term "marriage" as a way to sidestep voicing their visceral distaste for same-sex relationships. "Give them civil unions," they say, "just don't let them think that they're the same as me, because that would debase me in some way." If "irregardless" can be in the dictionary, if "NOOK-u-lar" can be in the dictionary, then we can amend the damn dictionary for these loving couples.

I think the term "anti-love" is painting with a very broad and sensationalist brush, however. The equivalent would be referring to pro-marriage people as "pro-perversion" or something. I agree with the sentiment expressed by

agnosticoracle, but it wouldn't have been my choice of term either.

From:

Many folks are against gay marriage because they believe the institution is pure (I'm a wedding DJ; it's not!). Romans 32 cracks down on homosexuality, and seeing as western marriage has basically been usurped by mainstream christianity in the past two hundred and fifty years, I think there's a lot of confusion as to why gay folks don't want civil unions with comparable financial benefits. Some people (stupidly, spitefully) see it as a snub. They may not be against gay love, which we must remind ourselves does not always go hand in hand with marriage, but simply the 'infiltration' of a perceived christian instutition.

I'd rather see the majority of folks get civil unions, personally: straight, G, B, L, T, Q, I, or otherwise.

From:

Anti-love refers to the organizations that oppose gay marriage. Those organization Focus on the Family, et al are expressly anti-gay love.

From:

I think it's more that they fear love. Specitically, they fear that they might fall in love with someone of the same sex, and that would be wrong (according to the dogma that they've been brainwashed with). Thus all homosexuality should be punished, so that they aren't tempted to do it themselves. If they, themselves, weren't at least a little bit tempted (and the vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between total homosexuality and total heterosexuality, so it's a pretty good likelyhood that they are at least a little bit tempted), then they wouldn't care so much or spend so much time fighting it (in the world, and in themselves).

From:

I'm not convinced on the fear thing. It might be true in a couple cases (see: Ted Haggard), but if you asked James Dobson or Pope Benedict if they fear they might fall in love with another man I suspect they would say no. On the other hand if you asked them if they thought gay people should be celibate what do you suspect they would say?

From:

What people say and what is true is very, very often different :-)

From: