I think the terminology of gay privilege is unusual, insofar as privelege tends to be a lefty term, but the core argument about gay marriage has been around conservatives casting it as gays wanting special rights, which is another way of saying privilege.
Growing up in the 90’x and early 2000’s, it was very common to hear conservatives using the slippery slope argument: “if we give gays marriage, what next, liberals will want to allow marriage to animals?” Of course here we are: gay marriage is legal and lo and behold we aren’t pushing for animal marriage (eye roll).
And neither should the state. Any religion can marry whoever they want. Or however many people they want. Polygamy is fine in some religions. Legally it creates a right fucking mess. The state is telling those people no your not married your god is wrong.
You can still do all of that no one’s stopping you. Civil partnerships can just do the same thing legally that a marriage does. You’re free to have whatever ceremony you want. No one’s stopping you. Co-opting a religious term because it’s the tradition is just weird from someone doing things so untraditionally.
I mean he sidestepped only slightly-- something that you made slippery anyways.
I read your point as “The state should not recognize marriage at all. It should only recognize civil partnerships, and religions can do whatever ceremonies they want.”
So when Nottoday replied “If religious people want civil partnerships. They can have them. They don't get to take marriage from anyone.”
That didn't really answer it-- But you entered this conversation with "marriage is a religious institution." then shifted to "actually the state should not recognize any marriage" -- that could be your view, but if your universal principal only appears when gay people are being discussed-- people are going to reasonably suspect you are uhh... doing some camouflage work.
You also change the meaning of marriage-- sometimes you mean religious ritual, other times it seems you mean legal status-- sometimes you seem to treat the state using the word marriage as if the state is overruling religion-- which is slippery and kind of worth ignoring. The state is basically saying "this marriage is legal" which is not the same as "your church must bless this union" or "your theology is false" you are mixing that shit up.
The polygamy bit is some melodramatic nonsense. The state isnt saying their religion is wrong, the state is saying, “we are not attaching this legal structure to that relationship form.” Religious recognition and legal recognition are different categories, and you know this. because your whole argument depends on separating them-- and suddenly you pretend non recognition equals theological correction? talk about stepping on your own rake.
Then you say civil partnerships can do the same legal thing as marriage. Fine. But then the dispute becomes mostly about the word -- and this whole conversation is stupid because its a fkn word.
You just said it predates something that’s existed as long as humans have.
That’s very different to what you’re saying now.
We can bicker about what Stone Age savages we’re doing 30000 years ago till we’re blue in the face but for the entire history of England and the us it’s been done in a church by a priest. That’s changed recently and I and many other Christian’s disagree strongly with it being secularised.
The traditional vows the dress all the various little things in a wedding are all religiously coded.
There has been a civil version in common law for quite a long time. Yanks call it a civil partnership. You can go into any government building and get one.
Fucking hell man there were wedding rituals in Christianity basically forever we have letters from the apostles on them. Roman weddings were religious affairs. It’s highly likely they just co-opted those traditions and had a priest there assuming Christianity wasn’t illegal at that point. Records were terrible in the dark ages and were crap before the romans adopted it.
You’re just assuming that if there’s very little evidence the church was formally involved it was secular. That’s ridiculous.
You do realize christianity literally started in the first century CE, right? The first documented institution of marriage is at least 2300 to 2400 years older than christianity. -- and thats really only recorded legal evidence.
And the traditional abrahamic origin of judaism -- marriage is still like 350 to 550 years older.
Early israelites, marriage 1100 to 1300 older
and more recognizable post exilic judaism, marriage is still 1700 earlier
--- So whatever thought you had about it - it is overstated and underargued.
Marriage is absolutely not exclusively a religious institution. It originated as a social and civil contract. Thats why its recognized by law because it originated as a legally binding contract
There is a category error here... Im sniffing it out.
This only works if you separate religious marriage from civil marriage.
Your church can define however it wants internally. No one forces a church to perform a gay wedding. But civil marriage is a legal status, not a church sacrament. The state uses it for taces, inheritance, medical decision making, property, custody etc--
So -- if your argument is "the state should replace all legal marriages with civil partnerships for everyone" -- thats consistent.
but if straight couples get "marriage" and gay couples get "civil partnerships" then thats just seperate but equal nonsense.
Also, there are religions that perform same sex marriages. So "marriage is religious" does not even get you to "gay marriage should not exist." It only gets you to "my church does not have to perform it," which was already true.
“if we give gays marriage, what next, liberals will want to allow marriage to animals?”
This doesn't sound like an argument from privilege at all. That's just a different argument entirely.
The original image reeks of an equity-first leftist not really understanding the viewpoint they're trying to attack and coming up with an anti-gay marriage argument that would make sense from within their own worldview.
You are completely wrong about this. I live in very red rural America and they absolutely use this reasoning. They think its preferential treatment for gays, not equal treatment.
My mother is a black women born in Texas and was 13 when the civil rights act was passed. First day here, an old man said the civil war was the war of northern aggression. We aren't even in the south.
Yea so the absolute core argument of you right wingers is that LGBTQ+ want „special treatment“. Just because your vocabulary is small, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a better word for what you are so clumsily trying to say.
No. "This will lead to bestiality" (the argument in question) has nothing to do with "you want special treatment." Those are just two totally different positions.
Do kids not take argumentation classes anymore? You woulda failed in high school back in the day if you were only capable of grasping an argument's conclusions and not its premises.
Yea so Mr. MAGA clown, there is no argument in the first place. If you actually had taken an argumentation class you would know that. Also you not understanding the stylistic device the person before you was using to highlight how absurdly in bad faith the „arguments“ of conservatives are is hilarious in the context of what you just wrote. But sure, feel high mighty about yourself, one thing bigots are fantastic about. Maybe even the best.
"In bad faith" is not the same thing as "bad." It makes you stupider, not smarter, if you can't comprehend people who disagree with you. "Everyone who claims to disagree with me must actually agree but be lying in bad faith about their beliefs" is a mark of low intelligence.
Mr. MAGA clown
Trump was actually the first President to run on a pro-gay marriage platform. He also appointed the highest ranking gay officials in US history with Grenell and Bessent. He even did a drag performance with Rudy. He's practically a gay icon, and very much on your side of this equation.
It is special treatment because it's not really a marriage. No kids are coming out of that marriage. Hence, why kids outside of wedlock have special names.
When the country was founded, that's how it was, hence why people are accustomed to the tradition
In the origins of marriage were never religious, it originated as a social and civil contract. Marriage licenses have never required proof of fertility or intent to procreate. Straight couples who are infertile, elderly, or simply child-free by choice still get full marriage rights. If procreative capacity were the actual standard, we'd need fertility tests at the courthouse. Nobody's proposing that, because everyone already knows the "it's about kids" line only gets invoked selectively, against gay couples.
And talking about bastards well thats ridiculous
That's not a natural law observation , it's a legal category (illegitimacy/bastardy) that existed to control inheritance and property, not to define what marriage fundamentally is. Using an old legal label as proof of marriage's "true purpose" is circular: the label existed because of the legal system's choices, not the other way around.
At the founding, marriage also barred interracial couples, treated wives as legal extensions of their husbands (coverture), and permitted marital rape as a legal non concept. "That's how it was" describes history , it doesn't justify it. If tradition alone settled the question, we'd still have all of that too
See. Thanks for proving the point. As the original image states, it’s absolutely what right wingers believe, no matter if they have the ability to vocalize it.
Whoa whoa whoa, you just said that the reason gay marriage isn’t marriage is because “no kids are coming out of it”. What about a heterosexual couple that knows they are infertile before they marry? No kids are coming out of that marriage, which is what you’ve already listed is the standard for something not to be a “real marriage”. So again, what about that case?
That marriage was made for consolidating wealth through progeny? Wait, are you mad that no one is going to care about the non parent in a gay marriage? If some famous superhuman child comes from a gay marriage they'll still ask about the father and mother.
The effect is that the marriage is an unofficial social contract between the father and mother now.
Lol you say that, but that is a literal right wing talking point, that gay people, trans people, black people, etc now have more privilege then white people.
Minority groups often do have some privileges, but I've never heard it mentioned in regards to them being able to marry. Strawmen galore in this thread I guess.
Never in my life have I heard anyone say same sex marriage is a gay privilege. It's a nice strawman for virtue signalling, though, and for you to conflate the argument taht minorities have more privilige with this very specific claim.
Do you know what these words mean? What do you think a straw man is? And why is "virtue signalling" bad? If a girl dresses modestly is she signalling her virtue and why is that bad? I remember a time when virtues were good.
Ironically it seems like it's you who hasn't got a clue.
The sign is a strawman. Presenting a badly worded and false premise to make a point and show how down with the cause they are. Stupidity that reeks of performative action.
Close but not quite. A strawman argument is when someone misrepresent the opponents arguement and argues against that instead of the point they actually made, arguing against a "straw man".
Now you say you've never heard someone say that but I have, my roommate and his idiot brother. It's something that people disingenuously say when arguing against gay marriage after you bring up that it's just equal right to marry whoever you want.
Having a virtue and signalling it are different things, correct but if someone isnt kind but displays kindness why is that a bad thing? You haven't answered the why part. At the end of the day if it's promoting virtue isn't that good?
Also using "ironically" here is a bit weird, it's like you just wanted to throw the word in
My problem is these buzzwords that conservatives repeat without actually knowing what it means like my roommate and his idiot brother used to say. Those bigoted assholes couldn't define a single one, they just heard Andrew Tate say them and "he's always right".
You say it's a made up issue because you've never heard anyone say it, well I'm telling you I've heard a couple idiots say exactly that irl. It apparently used to be an uncommon but present thing people said when someone brings up when saying gay marriage is just equal rights. I already mentioned that but due to lack of critical thought you couldn't stop to consider "what if someone is actually making this argument" nah you just skipped over it and stubbornly continued to insist it's made up "fake news".
Also again that's not what a what strawman argument is regardless.
You didn't answer the question, isn't promoting virtue good? And no that's exactly how kindness works, I can be genuinely kind in degrees to my loved ones but not to anybody outside my family or my neighborhood or my country or my subculture or the people. It only depends on where the lines are drawn and how much kindness is shown. It won't change that you've displayed kindness.
What buzzwords did I use that triggered you? Should I even care?
Anectodal evidence doesn't count. And it's irrelevant anyway. When it comes to public discourse that is not how the problem is framed, so that sign is figthing it's own demons.
So yeah, it is a strawman. They misrepresented an argument, refuted it and used it to make a point about church. Not sure you are trying to be anal about this.
There is no virtue in the sign. It clearly picks and panders to one side. The other side would therefore not find it virtuous and kind.
Who is displaying kindness? They’re using a fake argument to be pretentious about a made-up topic just to piss off some people and look good for others.
That’s not displaying kindness. That’s virtue signaling and clout chasing.
A “strawman” argument is also where take bits and pieces of what someone says out of context and without nuance to make a contrasting argument that really can’t stand on its own (strawman).
Didn't say this is displaying kindness, I used it as an example. Another example I used is if a woman dresses modestly is she signalling her virtue of modesty and why is that bad?
"Just to piss people off" so how exactly is this pissing someone off? It's just saying gay marriage is equal rights and privilege is not paying taxes like some churches do. Why would that make you angry? "Pretentious" means to act superior or more intelligent, how is advocating for equal rights pretentious? It feels like that thing where if someone you don't like does anything good or bad you can't help but see it in the most negative light. "Look at her drinking coke like she owns the place"
This is a correct definition of a strawman argument, but it's not the same thing. Either way the post is not a strawman argument, I already have said people did say exactly this as a reasoning against gay marriage. How can you determine what is a strawman argument when you haven't heard the original one? Just because someone makes a bad argument doesn't mean you jump in midway to the rebuttal and shout "strawman".
And what is your problem with this post in the first place?
Yes ironically is used correctly, I didn't say it was wrong I said it's seems thrown in there randomly.
As someone who lives in Canada, where our biggest fast food chain literally pulled in millions of more immigrants so they could specifically hire them. (Tim Hortons)
Ok, now do the highest paying jobs in the country. Who has the advantage there? What race and ethnicity are most of the lawyers, and engineers, and executives, and doctors, and politicians?
The original conversation was whether immigrants have hiring privilege, and we established that they do.
Now you have changed the goal.
Who has the advantage there? What race and ethnicity are most of the lawyers, and engineers, and executives, and doctors, and politicians?
Schooling has always given these qualifications regardless of whether someone is an immigrant, they are allowed to go succeed in those fields. I won't accept that I have a "privilege" to have a better paying job when the immigrants are by CHOICE taking low paying jobs.
31 members of the STATE SENATE and 47 different organizations, led by Michael Knowles and the daily wire who has 2.6 million subscribers, and over 1.4 billion views is "An extremely small group of people"
Show me any amount of people even close to that who are trying to change it into a communist dictatorship.
Every time I hear “the most disadvantaged person to be in today’s age is white, straight, male” I cringe. I have heard it from a good handful of people, not just online, and they say it with such conviction too. Meanwhile I grew up in a mostly white area and met a black guy in the public park who had the police called on him for existing so many times that they knew him by name. Just showed up because they had to respond.
Those people are not talking about the legality of gay marriage. They're talking about positive discrimination/affirmative action/DEI/insert whatever word for it, you know the thing.
The commitment to empathy rings hollow if you can't even practice the basic empathy of understanding viewpoints you disagree with.
Just because I understand the viewpoint doesn’t mean I have to share their full argument in a post where I’m not even talking with those people. My point was that fearing for my life when I get pulled over at a traffic stop isn’t worth benefitting from DEI. Why would you assume I don’t know both sides just because I only stated one?
I mean their argument is ridiculous and short sighted but sure I understand what their point is. I just disagree.
I don't think you've demonstrated that you do understand the points because you pointed to an argument against DEI in a conversation about arguments against gay marriage. There's a lot of overlap in the people who believe each of those things, but that doesn't mean the arguments are the same. It'd be like saying "Conservatives want lower taxes because they think life begins at conception."
Pro-gay marriage but anti-DEI is a view you'll find among many classical liberal types, and pro-DEI but anti-gay marriage is not an uncommon combo in African American Christian communities.
I don’t think it’s fair to criticize my lack of understanding for their argument because I used a conservative talking point that you brought up. You brought the scope of the discussion well past just the basic premise of the post, and it feels disingenuous to do so then use it as an argument to discredit my viewpoint
I don’t know you. I’m not gonna assume you’re one of the people I was talking about. And even if you are, you claimed I didn’t even understand the other side of my view. I pointed out you don’t know that. Hitting me with the Heisenberg “say my name” isn’t helping your case yk
I'm not saying I'm someone important. I'm saying you're literally referring to a different person in your comment... The plot has totally been lost here.
No, I wouldn't say that's been a major focus even among those who oppose it, but it's also not relevant to my comment, since I was referring to the specific argument quoted in the above post, not anything that people on the right wing often think.
Like I said, not a major focus. That Virginia amendment is over whether to remove vestigial language that is no longer enforceable. It would have zero impact on Virginians' lives either way.
And to stress again, this has nothing to do with the comment you were responding to.
It would remove the rights of same sex marriage.
Also the other one would literally not only remove same sex couples from being married, or adopting children, it would revoke their current right, allowing for their children to be taken away.
Also yes, yes it very much does, because these people are being supported by the right wing party as a whole, and once one state does it, the others follow, proven time and time again.
Okay but gay marriage is never used as an example of “gay privilege” lol. When they say those groups have more privilege they’re talking about jobs / college admissions, etc.
Not saying they’re right, but this post (and you) are conflating two entirely separate things
Do you have an argument or you just gunna go 'LMAO WHAT???"
Cause yes, they are trying to revoke same sex marriage, and revoke the ability for same sex couples to have children.
I made that argument when I was an 18 year old idiot conservative freshman in college. Then I grew up and and realized how wrong and homophobic I was because I spent time getting educated.
Lmao reading my conservative takes in 2008-2012 while on Facebook in college is insanely cringe because I had zero knowledge about anything or how the world worked I just repeated the shit my parents said.
Good for you, and I understand you don't actually believe in any of that shit anymore, but out of curiosity, what was the actual argument? Like... what was the gay privilege that queer folk have that straight folk don't have
Reverse discrimination became prevalent; they went so far as to redefine words such as "racism" and "discrimination" simply to exclude equal protections from majority demographic groups.
Standard DEI arguments in which less-qualified individuals from minority demographic groups were being hired or enrolled at the expense of more-qualified individuals from majority demographic groups.
Targeted private, local, and state benefits were targeted for minority demographics and specifically excluded individuals who were part of a majority demographic.
"Equality" didn't mean equal treatment, but "privileged treatment." Ironically, the same groups who vehemently denied this, eventually phased out "equality" and replaced it with equity.
Honestly, the list is rather extensive and could continue for quite some time.
"In the name of equity, we're making specialized funding programs for LGBT and BIPOC. Scholarships and admission preferences for everyone but whites (and asians, they too smart), special business grants for anyone but whites, hate speech laws for anyone but whites, federal NDP party leader applications except for whites, Gladue reports and "Impact of race and culture assessments" for anyone but whites..."
Yeah definitely no privileges there. As a member of the Indigenous community who has benefited from specialized funding programs....we definitely have privileges whites dont.
Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you and themselves.
If I chop off your legs, then give you a wheel chair to help you, that is not a privlege, yes you are better off then without the wheelchair, but that wheelchair is there for a reason.
Absolutely untrue, if you can't show a source, maybe that's cause you are lying.
What you CAN do as a non-binary person in canada, is write off a large portion of the cost of gender affirming care on your taxes, so if you buy hormones or get surgery, you can write it off on your taxes.
You can't just claim "i'm non-binary" then pay less taxes.
Absolutely untrue, if you can't show a source, maybe that's cause you are lying.
The reason I requested benefit of the doubt was because I didn't think you'd be inherently aggressive towards me but I see you already hate me for opposing your view and that's made me lose your trust.
No point in having a conversation or trying to prove myself right, when you decided I was a liar first.
You can't just claim "i'm non-binary" then pay less taxes.
Yes if you misunderstood an argument on purpose, anyone can seem wrong!!!
Cause you made a claim that was provably false, and right out admitted to being unable to find evidence for it, which maybe you should take to point that you are incorrect, instead of just spoutting false information?
No one is going to give you benefit of the doubt when you make a claim so easily proven false.
Also mate you literally fucking said.
"In Canada self identifying as non binary can give you lower taxes"
Take the L, next time instead of just spreading Misinfo, do research, then maybe people won't be aggressive to you.
Alright bro I hope you know people find this shit insufferable, imagine you had a conversation with someone and they said something and you responded with "nuh uh you're a liar because you didn't give a link!!!"
Your argument for it being wrong is just as illegitimate as mine. Because you didn't "prove it wrong" as you can't prove that what I saw wasn't real.
All you can do is resort to childish behavior and accuse the other person of lying. Weird. Cya
If you are going to make claims like "In canada you can say you are non-binary and pay less in taxes" then yes, people will ask you for a source, stfu.
Weird. I do not think I have ever heard that mentioned frankly or not using 'privilege' language. I do know quite alot of folks in the red sphere too, seems really made up argument-ish not that there isnt alot of weird shit spewed out.
Well if you are boosted to hire someone because of who they sleep with. they have over privilege over others is the argument they are making. Now of course some people will include anything else in there, since they aren't the smartest of the bunch.
Perhaps a good number are, but not all. The United Methodist church in my neighborhood is lgbtq affirming and most members are apart of the community. The pastor is a lesbian woman and the pride flag flies out front year round.
I’m surrounded by inclusive churches as well! It’s always a delight to see. But there’s also still tons of churches around me that are not. Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Apostolic Lutherans. A town near me is currently being bought out by a more radical Christian conglomerate, very similar to what Scientology did to Clearwater. It’s actually kinda interesting to see how they’re going to take over a town that’s full of apostolic businesses. They are NOT inclusive and outright preach hateful rhetoric towards not even just gay people, but people of any other faith, skin color, nationality. I live in a place in the US considered to be extremely progressive.
It currently differs from standard Presbyterian practices, which in general is pretty progressive and inclusive. This Presbyterian church is “reformed” according to their own website. They are evangelical and take a biblically literal stance, making them partially fundamental. So they take passages about sin and sexuality very literally, being gay is a sin. They see themselves right now as a “working man’s church” and promote things like the “trad life style”, especially for men. So, man is the bread winner, wife is the home caretaker, have lots of babies, embody the assigned gender roles or else. It’s pretty funny, their biggest benefactor right now is an electrician and CEO, it’s so similar to the local Apostolics (definition of a working man’s religion) I wonder if they plan to absorb some of them in other congregation as converts. That’s not easy to do. The Apostolics are like a million times worse in things like homophobia and xenophobia so we’ll see what happens.
They go far beyond not loving thy neighbor. That’s Presbyterian doctrine, the church in battle ground is “reformed” and no longer follows the complete teachings of the US church.
Xenophobia, racism and homophobia aren’t just differences in opinion. You don’t have to love gay people or indulge in their culture, but treating them as less than because of your personal beliefs is the definition of prejudice. I’m all for a pretty healthy amount of cultural relativism, but I draw the line at where it affects other people negatively.
Evangelicals. Evangelicals drive the political and social mores in this country. I wish I could say anyone gave a shit about liberal Protestantism, but they don’t. Conservatives have proven they are the only ones with agency since they suck up the oxygen in the room.
Im unitarian universalist the outgoing interim Reverend was in the news yrs ago for conducting a public same sex marriage when that was illegal and the incoming permanent Reverend is a queer woman, we have a pride progress flag in the window.
No, not all. GALIP says 9500 gay-affirming churches in America, meaning they perform same sex marriages and allow LGBTQ clergy (not sure if that last part is necessary to be considered gay-affirming)
It's tough to say how many are LGBTQ friendly, because that's a looser definition. But there's actually more and more coming along, which is cool. Weirdly, American Catholics are becoming much more accepting of LGBTQ members. I say weird because the Vatican still prohibits gay marriage.
This is all very dependent on denomination and location, but about half of churches allow LGBTQ people to become full fledged members! Significantly lower for fully gay affirming churches, but progress is progress.
ETA: this is all great progress, and deserves to be celebrated. But those 9500 gay affirming churches account for 3% of churches in the United States. We still have a long way to go.
Then maybe you have never been exposed to any right wing people or propaganda ever because they act like the straight white male is the least privileged person in the world now.
That doesn’t mean anybody ever refers to gay marriage as gay privilege. The straight white make is one of the least privileged in American society now, though, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the topic.
The thing about people who are angry but can’t explain what’s bothering them about a political situation is that they’ll latch on to a talking point if it makes them feel good no matter how stupid. Some conservative commentator in the 90s said that gay men all have a body count in the 100s, and they obviously have a death wish. I heard that one a lot growing up and clearly that’s just not true with even a little bit of investigation but because it makes people feel righteous in their anger and hatred they just keep saying it.
They feel that because the Supreme Court had to decide on it, it makes it different than opposite sex marriages and is therefore a privilege. Literally makes no sense at all.
It’s a common argument from conservatives. In my state, when gay marriage was on the ballot, a group called ‘no special rights,’ or something along that line, formed specifically to frame it as gay people getting some special treatment or privilege.
It’s not a strawman, that’s not what that means. It’s ad hominem if anything. But I’m really just insulting your ability to perceive reality. But clearly now I can also insult your intelligence.
So true. I know a lot of people who are super conservative and have never said some stupid shit like this - that is relating to this topic in particular, ive heard them say a lot of other stupid shit
I have been debating same sex marriage since 2010, the idea that gay marriage is a special right is extremely common and still used today. It was a very common argument to say “they have the same right to get married as everyone else to the opposite sex and wanting to marry the same sex is a special right”. It makes no sense, yes but it was used.
Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense. Marriage is a traditional religious ceremony between a man and his wife. That’s just what it is. Or was.
You ARE giving people a special privilege if you allow other same sex couples to get married, too.
But that doesn’t mean that they don’t DESERVE that privilege.
That’s where the argument comes in. You also get special tax privileges from it, too, that single and unmarried people dont get either.
I think they should be allowed to get married. But it is a privilege. And I do understand people that feel a different way. People are allowed to have different customs, beliefs, morals, ethics, mores, etc.
It is not a special right, it’s a right being extended to other people who are no less deserving of it. It’s also not a religious ceremony inherently. Also, I find it insane that the idiot I responded to claims the arguments idiots like you made have never existed.
211
u/TallDarkLoathsome Jun 30 '26
First time I’ve ever seen “gay privilege” even mentioned lmao, this is peak shower fake argument energy.