It’s possible that he’s not anti-gay himself but will push anti-gay policies for political purposes. That’s all I’m saying. Trump is a perfect example of this behavior.
I will agree Trump is an opportunistic con man who has no deeply held convictions beyond what’s best for Donald Trump.
VD Jance may be the same, I don’t have enough data on him for sure. But public policywise he is clearly anti-gay rights and or equality. If that makes him anti-gay or not, I’ll leave that philosophical debate to you.
2 Likes
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to
If you’re willing to throw your allies under the bus to help yourself out then you’re not a very good ally.
I mean, Vance didn’t have to specifically state that he opposed the Respect For Marriages Act. He could have declined to comment or said something like “it’s already the law and I don’t see it getting overturned; hey let’s talk about the economy.”
But he didn’t. He took a position, in 2022, when he did not need to.
Guessing Thiel doesn’t give two shits about other people’s Gay Rights. His privilege trumps (not intended) all that.
As a rich person, he is likely concerned only with his pile of money, and how to make it bigger.
However he can get allies to his cause (his money), he does it. Sen from Ohio needs to be anti-gay, cuz Hicksville, but he will make sure my pile is safe. So be it.
From what I’ve read, Vance isn’t anti-gay per sé, but he seems to have…disappointment with native-born Americans who don’t get married, stay married, and have lots of kids.
While I didn’t see that he’s come out in support of the belief in the “great replacement”, he does seem to hold a few views that are “great replacement” adjacent.
1 Like
He’s a powerful politician. I don’t actually give a shit what he believes in his heart of hearts. I care what policies he will push onto the rest of us.
As twig said, Trump has probably paid for a few abortions, but he’s still one of the most anti-abortion politicians out there, measured by effectiveness. We’ve had anti-gay politicians who engaged in gay sex. They are still anti-gay.
3 Likes
When campaigning for his Senate seat, he was opposed to the “Respect for Marriage Act”, which codified federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
He didn’t frame his opposition in 'phobic terms, but several of his other policies make it clear that he feels the government should focus on promoting sex and marriage strictly for baby-making purposes, a position that is clearly disadvantageous as regards non-breeding couples.
Context matters. In particular, there is a difference between not advocating for establishing new rights vs not wanting to protect existing rights. Obama didn’t support gay marriage in 2008, but he thought that civil unions would be sufficient and did advocate for repeal of DOMA. Even without the judiciary legalizing gay marriage, Obama was a step forward for gay rights. Vance has said that he would oppose a bill whose primary purpose was to protect gay and interracial marriage after sitting SCOTUS justices indicated that they were open to repealing those rights. That is a large step backwards.
Vance is also opposed to trans rights if we want to expand to the larger LGBTQ community.
1 Like
so by your def, the majority of religious person are anti gay?
Many religious people support gay rights.
1 Like
If the religious person is against rights for LGBTQ people, they are anti-gay.
If the religious person is for rights for LGBTQ people, they are not anti-gay.
As far as I see, @twig93 never mentioned religion, at least not in the subthread you replied to, so perhaps I missed something. You’ve conflated religion with being anti-gay, which is only true for certain religions or certain sects within religions. Even in the anti-gay religions/sects, some people do not believe such things.
For example, my childhood sect of Christianity - the Lutheran-Missouri Synod - is an explicitly anti-gay organization, whereas Lutheran - ELCA Synods are pro-LGBT.
1 Like
A quick Google search returns that 44% of Christians favor or strongly favor same-sex marriage being legal, while 48% oppose or strongly oppose it. Views about same-sex marriage among Christians - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center
Only some religions or sects of those religions oppose gay marriage. Large swaths of Christian sects are fine with homosexuality - some Lutherans, some Methodists, Unitarian Universalists, some Presbyterians, not to mention the plethora of modern-age United Church of Christ-style sects and others I can’t list off the top of my head. I can’t speak as definitively to Muslims and am not bothering to research it.
Being against rights for gay people is an anti-gay stance. Some religious people base their anti-gay viewpoints on their religious beliefs. Some religious people think that it’s wrong according to a god, but it’s not the government’s place to enforce religion on citizens.
1 Like
I’m being pedantic here. The term “anti” means “against” so when you use the term “anti-gay” it should mean “against gays”. It’s quite possible to be against gay marriage while not being against being gay, I believe Obama had this view back in 2008. I don’t think you would label Obama as being “anti-gay”.
Another example to illustrate: if you think abortion limits the rights of women then you would say that people who are against abortion are “anti-women”. But many women in USA are against abortion and surely you wouldn’t label them as “anti-women”?
I think you might have some subtle point, but the abortion argument has no parallel meaning since men can’t get pregnant.
If it were possible that men could become pregnant, and religious people took the position that “men should be able to have abortions, but not women” then they would in fact be anti-women.
I would agree with what you said earlier, that religious people are more likely to be anti-gay. That’s because they try to mind the traditions and scriptures of people in the past. People in the past were anti-everything.
I think that saying an entire group of people are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as other people because of their race/gender/sexuality/religion/…, at a minimum it is accurate to say they have an anti-[group] viewpoint. In online discussion, that does tend to get oversimplified as “they are anti-[group]”, although in reality one should look at more than a position on a single litmus test issue to draw that conclusion.
As I said earlier, I don’t think JD Vance is a homophobe. But I do think that his opposition to the Respect for Marriage Act and his collective statements calling essentially for special status for active breeding couples over all other individuals or families are sufficient to suspect that he’s anti-gay, and possesses the more insidious form of bigotry – subtle and non-blatant, but nevertheless quite present.
1 Like
Episcopals are pretty pro-same-sex-marriage.
1 Like
I think maybe you, yourself, need to define what circumstances it’s okay to curtail peoples rights.
There’s definitely cases. We think it’s okay to take rights from children and pets for their own good.
I just think you need to define things more clearly.
If I believe that black people shouldn’t be allowed on airplanes, but I like black people, am I anti-black people?
1 Like
Why would you think they cant be allowed on airplanes? The reason is probably extremely racist therefore it is implausible that you “like black people”. This is not the same thing as opposing gay marriage within the context of viewing it as a religious institution. Just like you dont necessarily hate your cat even though you dont allow to go outside.
Back in the day, my preferred alternative for the then-popular “straight marriage / gay civil unions” was for the government to quit using the term “marriage”.
Let the government use “civil union” to describe the package of privileges and duties (regardless of the plumbing of the people involved), and leave the term “marriage” as term for religious or social/conversational use.
I remember some states taking the stance that purporting to solemnify “marriages” that didn’t conform to statutory requirements should be a crime…which creates a rather blatant conflict with (for example) those religious groups that view marriage as a sacrament, the eligibility for which should not be dictated by secular authorities.
1 Like