Progress is also good, but it remains true that we aren’t exactly at “majority support” yet. And it’s not guaranteed to keep climbing either. I hope it does, obviously, because that’s a very good thing for me. We’re just not there yet.
I’m from a Muslim country, and among Muslim Americans same sex relationships are taboo. While Muslim support for same sex marriage crossed the 50% mark a couple of years ago, it’s completely rejected within the community itself. (Almost no Muslim Americans identity as LGBT, and virtually no mosques will perform same sex marriages: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres....) But the many Muslim Americans who oppose same sex marriage don’t oppose the “existence” of gay people. They believe, consistent with their religion, that marriage is for procreation and government sanction should only be extended to heterosexual relationships. They are also probably ignorant on the issue of sexual orientation being an innate trait. My aunts don’t want to grant government sanction to same-sex relationships, but it’s unfair to say they’re a danger to the “existence” of gay people.
I want to commend you both for having a civilized conversation about something that can get very heated.
Speaking from my own (ex-Christian) upbringing, I got only the vaguest references to people being gay as a child/teen except that they were all sinners. I certainly couldn't have held a rational conversation about it because, aside from references inside the church I didn't know any gay people (maybe I did, who could know).
It wasn't until I reached adulthood and left that community behind that I began to realize the way LGBTQ* people are and were demonized within certain christian circles.
The argument that marriage is solely for procreation, and/or the property of religions doesn't really hold water. Christians I have come across, seem to think they invented marriage, which is just not even close to historically accurate.
As to procreation only, this is fraught with the way laws treat things like next of kin, power of attorney and tax benefits. None of those things, have anything to do with procreation and yet they're a big part of marriage.
On the positive side @drewbug01, over the course of 15 years I have gone from incredibly uncomfortable with the whole thing (because of upbringing), to some of my best friends being from those communities. There is progress, and with any luck there will continue to be progress.
> On the positive side @drewbug01, over the course of 15 years I have gone from incredibly uncomfortable with the whole thing (because of upbringing), to some of my best friends being from those communities. There is progress, and with any luck there will continue to be progress.
I'm happy to hear that; it is actually good to hear. I really do think things are getting better, albeit perhaps too slowly.
My own background is similar to yours (ex-Christian, not knowing LGBT people growing up, etc). What you said resonates with me quite a bit.
> While Muslim support for same sex marriage crossed the 50% mark a couple of years ago, it’s completely rejected within the community itself.
Honestly, this is one of the reasons I don't like to reach for statistics in this kind of debate - because of what you've highlighted here. The numbers on the survey say one thing, but they paint a rosier picture than reality.
> My aunts don’t want to grant government sanction to same-sex relationships, but it’s unfair to say they’re a danger to the “existence” of gay people.
I consider my relationship with my husband to be a core part of my identity (certainly not the only part, of course). It's a major part of who I am and how I move about the world; how I exist within it and relate to it. And this is what straight people do, as well - and for them, it's considered absolutely normal (and society even encourages it in some ways).
What's unfair, to me, is to say that my "existence" is only relegated to physically living - life is about a lot more than that. We're not talking about killing the gays, here. We're talking about people who'd like to force the gays back into the closet so that they don't have to hear about relationships that they think are an affront to their religion.
Your Aunts aren't calling for the extermination of gay people, and that's good. But we shouldn't pretend that "they can live" is tolerant.
---
As an aside, we're pretty far into the weeds with this, although I think what we're talking about is still important to discuss. My original comment, last night, was about how the policy can harm people, and how it can be abused - not so much about what we're discussing now.
It's frustrating to see the goalposts in these discussions move from "most of us agree the state shouldn't do anything to penalize same-sex couples" to "we should litigate what's in the heart of Rayiner's aunt".
It's quite hard when people keep hearing "and now I want your Aunt to accept gay people, fully, in her heart" when all I keep saying is "some people might use this as cover to harass gay people, because that's historically what they've done."
I also find the goalpost moving extremely frustrating, but we should be clear about who is actually moving that: the people reading calls for "acceptance" into discussion of a shitty thing that happens to LGBT people at work.
I would have a personal problem relating to or associating with anyone who held anti-LGBT beliefs in their heart, the same way I'd never work with anyone who believed Black people were in any way inferior to other people.
But this litigation of what's inside people's heads, when what they're publicly advocating for and voting for is the position we're asking of them in the first place, just makes me think we're surveilling for people to be angry at, because it gives us a dopamine hit.
We're not being asked to associate with anyone's aunt here and I think we should try to keep to the topic at hand.
> But this litigation of what's inside people's heads
Nobody is advocating that here, why do you keep bringing it up? This seems like something you feel is happening but that’s not what we are talking about at all.
> We’re not being asked to associate with anyone’s aunt here and I think we should try to keep to the topic at hand.
...you and other commenters brought up the Aunt. I don’t know if you’re confused, or what; but I didn’t bring the Aunt up in the first place. It arose spontaneously as a straw man up-thread.
You said that “objection” “to the very existence” of gay people “is far and away a position held by those who also profess conservative political values.” I don’t think that fairly characterizes people with socially conservative values, such as my aunts. That’s not a straw man, that’s an example to address your core point.
> I consider my relationship with my husband to be a core part of my identity (certainly not the only part, of course). It's a major part of who I am and how I move about the world; how I exist within it and relate to it. And this is what straight people do, as well - and for them, it's considered absolutely normal (and society even encourages it in some ways).
> What's unfair, to me, is to say that my "existence" is only relegated to physically living - life is about a lot more than that. We're not talking about killing the gays, here. We're talking about people who'd like to force the gays back into the closet so that they don't have to hear about relationships that they think are an affront to their religion.
There's two senses of the word "existence" here - one is physically living and being present in the world (ie: not dead). The other sense is "projecting outward from yourself," as in interacting with others and having relationships with other people in your life, moving through and impacting the world somehow around you. The latter sense is what I'm talking about. It's philosophical, but important.
To move it out of the realm of your personal relationships and fully into mine, let's replace your Aunt with my Aunt. My Aunt has expressed to me that she doesn't want to ever hear about me being gay, to the point of asking me not to bring a significant other around her children, lest they know that I am not straight.
That's the kind of "opposed to my existence" that I'm talking about - they don't want to kill me, but they want me to be entirely muted and silent; present but not really participating as a human being. Preferably, they'd like me to pretend to be "straight" if at all possible, including therapy to change myself. It's not for my benefit, obviously.
That's what I'm trying to get at, and I still think it's fair to say that people professing conservative political values like my Aunt (maybe yours too, who knows) would very much like me to be "seen, and not heard" - back in the closet pretending the actual substance of my life doesn't exist because it's more convenient for their worldview, and changing myself to suit their narratives whenever possible. I very much see that still reflected in modern conservative politics - see the debates about whether or not cruelties like "conversion therapy" should be banned, whether or not trans people are allowed to live their lives openly, etc.
---
Please note: your Aunt only came up because you brought her up, but I'm not trying to bash on her repeatedly. We can talk about mine instead for a handy point of reference, or someone else entirely. Bringing family into this makes it a lot harder to talk about, and we can instead pick a different point of reference. Denigrating family members isn't what I'm trying to do here, and I hope that much is at least obvious.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-mat...
And based on the trend, it will cross 50% imminently (if it hasn't already).