Gay Marriage Ban?

[Zuruck]

What's the big deal with it? You people against it, why? Gay couples are on the streets, in the movie theaters, maybe even in the stall next to you, why not left them have it? You ban it, they will still be gay, your kids still might see two men kiss in public, so what's the big deal? If two people are happy together, let them be!

[Testiculese]

Religion + (-intelligence) + (ego * bigotry)

I really don't see why gay people even care. Then again, I have no interest marriage as it's defined, nor do I have any interest in religion as it stands.


GodHatesFags membership is picking up, I hear...

[Avder]

I really don't see why gay people even care.

Its the same reason you get a marriage license when you get married, and I pointed this out in another thread: financial perks. If the government would just get out of the marriage business, this would be a null issue.

[Clayman]

Its the same reason you get a marriage license when you get married, and I pointed this out in another thread: financial perks. If the government would just get out of the marriage business, this would be a null issue.

Wow, I agree with Avder for once, heh.

The reason is simple: some people believe that moral gray areas should be legislated upon others.

[Dedman]

I am with Zuruck on this one. I have been married for over 15 years and I still havenâ??t figured out how two people of the same sex getting married could possibly threaten my marriage.

[Will Robinson]

...Gay couples are on the streets, in the movie theaters, maybe even in the stall next to you, why not left them have it?....

Actually having a gay couple in the stall next to me is the one part I don't agree with

I say, if they have a gay church proclaim them married then so be it. Just don't demand other institutions do so and the government needs to get out of the middle of it.

It would be nice if the self esteem of a small minority wasn't so delicate that the majority has to compromise one of the cornerstones in the foundation of family that has served us so well for centuries.

Like it or not being gay is unusual and children discovering their sexuality are vulnerable to a combination of developing urges and runaway emotions...the option of homosexuality shouldn't be a choice to them, if you follow me.
After all if it's not a choice to be gay it shouldn't be an artificial choice for a youngster who is confused. It seems only right that homsexuality be kept in it's proper context, presented in the proper perspective, there are many genetic abnormalities that we don't pretend aren't unusual.

[Bet51987]

I know I'm going to take heavy bashing for this but hey....I'm me and I have opinions too.

People don't choose to be Gays or Lesbians, it was the way they were born, and so I believe that they have rights too.....but with limits.
If it was up to me, I would protect their rights to live together as a couple with all the rights and protection that are given to "normal" (you know what I mean) people, with the exception of marriage as we know it. I would make something different like a contract that is recognized by courts, so if one dies, the other is considered the spouse.
The limits?.....No adopting children....ever, never.
They have to understand that their not normal and respect that.
Bettina

[Avder]

I think its a choice. A disturbing choice, but a choice none the less. As far as I'm concerned, what they do with eachother behind closed doors is up to them, and its their business, not ours, and especially not the governments. I'm of the opinion that people should be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors so long as it doesnt end up hurting other people. If that inclueds two men doing.....that...then so be it, and I sure as hell dont want to know about it, and I dont wanna see you marching down main street proclaiming that youre proud you did it. Do I rub your noses in it every time I do it with a woman? No. So shutup and get out of my face. You made your choice and if push came to shove I'd fight for your right to make that choice, but damn, I dont wanna hear about it.

I think that about clarifies my views on homosexuality. I think its disgusting, but theyre adults, they can do what they want with themselves.

[Bonz]

I think its a choice. A disturbing choice, but a choice none the less. As far as I'm concerned, what they do with eachother behind closed doors is up to them, and its their business, not ours, and especially not the governments. I'm of the opinion that people should be able to do whatever they want behind closed doors so long as it doesnt end up hurting other people. If that inclueds two men doing.....that...then so be it, and I sure as hell dont want to know about it, and I dont wanna see you marching down main street proclaiming that youre proud you did it. Do I rub your noses in it every time I do it with a woman? No. So shutup and get out of my face. You made your choice and if push came to shove I'd fight for your right to make that choice, but damn, I dont wanna hear about it.

I think that about clarifies my views on homosexuality. I think its disgusting, but theyre adults, they can do what they want with themselves.

I couldn't agree with you more, very well put.

[kufyit]

Why is that no one (at least an overwhelming majority) that is ACTUALLY GAY says it's a choice, but only the (predominantly) right wing HETEROSEXUALS that claim to have some pathetic view "what's right and what's normal"?

[Will Robinson]

Why is that no one (at least an overwhelming majority) that is ACTUALLY GAY says it's a choice, but only the (predominantly) right wing HETEROSEXUALS that claim to have some pathetic view "what's right and what's normal"?

I've never met a gay person who said it was their choice to be gay, they all said they knew they were gay from an early age. I know of straight people who chose to have gay sex though.

[Bet51987]

Why is that no one (at least an overwhelming majority) that is ACTUALLY GAY says it's a choice, but only the (predominantly) right wing HETEROSEXUALS that claim to have some pathetic view "what's right and what's normal"?

Because to Gay and Lesbians it's not a choice.

Edit
Oops....you beat me to it....

[Vertigo 99]

as someone who goes to a college where 1/3 of the male population is gay, and who has a lot of gay friends, i can reaffirm to you it is NOT A CHOICE.

[roid]

how's the population of orphanages going?

i'd rather a kid grew up with gay adopted parents than no parents at all.

growing up with gay parents would be better than having only ONE parent, who's not in a stable loving relationship. Most(?) kids these days grow up with only one parent, that's not good either.

[Ferno]

discrimimating against those who are different than the 'normal' people.

Anyone sense de ja vu?

[Tyranny]

No.

You guys talk about people as if they're a whole new species, a whole seperate race or something. They're the same as you and I cept they have sex within the same gender. You're also clutching at straws when you try to make a comparison with civil rights Ferny. This isn't the first time you've done that either and I know exactly why you do it.

Some of you act as if this is something that has been just uncovered for the first time sometimes. Like homosexuals have only been around for the last half century

You can trace instances of bi-sexual and homosexual behavior all the way back to the beginning of written human history. Is it the norm? No but we as a species have some weird tendencies influenced by our upbringing and the environments we face day in and day out. Some people just end up getting their wires crossed.

If people can swing bi-sexually it's not really all that hard to accept that some people prefer just the same gender as they are. ugh, its no use really because some of you still spew the same rhetoric everytime gay issues come up anyways.

roid, one is also better then none. I've noticed that gay relationships tend to be overly emotional and subsequently unstable. Especially within female relationships. I'm not sure if this is the case with the majority of gay relationships, but I've already noticed watching friends of mine who are gay go through relationships like mad. I'm sure thats pretty normal for younger gays. The midlifers sure don't seem to have many noticeable problems.

If you wan't my answer to this question it's pretty similar to Vader's. I don't see the big problem with allowing them the same privileges as straight married couples. A part of me however does not agree with changing the definition of marriage. I still feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. Make a new word for christ sake. We invented the languages we speak and constantly add to it. What would it hurt to make a new word that defines gay unions and is on the same grounds as marriage?

I know, I know, easier said then done....

[woodchip]

Me agree with Vader? Well I do here. Well said Avder.
Oh by the way...dolphin males exhibit gay relationships.
Just thought I'd throw that in the mix.

[Avder]

The apocalypse must be near if were in agreement eh woody?

[Zuruck]

seems that we all kind of agree in point that it's not the biggest deal in the world, why is there a majority that seems to think it is?

Tyranny, who is changing the "definition" of marriage. All marriage contains is two people that say we love each other and would like to show that publicly. What is so wrong about two men or women having that? I just don't get it...I'm not gay, I have a great girlfriend, but that is someone else's choice.

[Tyranny]

Z, just in case you're not completely sure what the definition of marriage is...

mar·riage

1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.

Now see, it's a legal boundary for them. If they can change how 'marriage' is legally and societally defined then they've virtually defeated the equal benefits problem because those benefits entitled to straight couples who are married now should logically also apply to them by law.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have these benefits. All I'm saying is that their sticking point won't work for the majority of us who believe that marriage IS between a man and woman.

So what I'm suggesting is that they still push for having equal legal benefits but settle with the whole perception of marriage issue. Legally being equal or the same doesn't make the situation better because people still won't consider you the same no matter how many laws say you are.

No matter what you do there will always be intolerant people. However, if you're already accepted by some people the situation will gradually become better and the end results are that you get what you want in the long run and settle for whatever our legal system wants to call it.

[Ferno]

Tyr: spare me the strawman catchphrase.


Look.. if you ban someone from doing something based on a single difference from the average, that's usually considered discrimination. is it not? It's the year 2004. you'd think we would have moved past this crap. But as it seems, history is repeating itself again.

you can't bar someone from working somewhere based on their religion, creed, color, or gender preference, so why is it suddenly ok to stop them from marrying?

besides, what's wrong with letting two gays marry? is it because they'll ruin the sancity of marriage? If you answer yes, then I have another question. There's a 50% divorce rate. it shoots to two out of three divorces when a man and woman under 25 marry. So how does barring two gay people from marrying affect this? If you really don't like it, don't marry a man

It's funny. The claim about same-sex marriage being wrong somehow implies that if banned it would affect the divorce rate.

Here's the real reason why the divorce rate is so high: Most men and women rush into marriage before actually getting to know the person. some couples actually hide things from each other until their married and when those traits come out it, tears at the marriage. Some women use marriage as entrapment by getting pregnant before marriage, and they can use it to screw the husband at any time and take half of what he has worked for all his life. Throw a kid into this and you can really screw up that kid. As someone who has witnessed not one but two divorces, I speak from experience

Just because that definition is in the dictionary doesn't mean it's a law of nature. Marriage is a human thing. which means it has flaws. human flaws. Also, the definition of marriage was written before anyone knew what a gay or lesbian is using today's definitions of the two words.

Also it's not a legal boundary. In the eyes of the law, all a marriage means is that it now sees two people as a single entity and those two people now can use the same last name in contracts, leases, and other credit applications. Maybe you should ask a an attorney about how the law sees marriage Tyr.

[Tyranny]

It really is pointless debating this for me because no matter how many times I keep repeating the same thing, Which is "I don't give a flying ★■◆● if they have the same rights!", I keep getting the feeling you think I'm somehow against their rights or against giving them the tax write offs as straight married couples get. ★■◆●ing bull★■◆●.

You can call it marriage if you guys want, it really makes no difference to me. Blacks have equal rights, but they're still not looked at as the same. Same thing applies to all the other minorities. They have the laws and rights backing them up but do they still get treated differently? Yes, because they're still considered different by a lot of people. I don't look at any of that ★■◆● when race is concerned. Black, white, we're all the same damn species for christ sake. I'm just trying to figure out what the big f'n deal is over stupid ass semantics.

Hey, we just make this shiat up as we go anyways right? Has nothing to do with me so whatever. I don't give a damn anymore. It's so unimportant I don't know wtf I'm going with this post or what I'm trying to say anymore. Maybe if I started posting ★■◆● that made absolutely no sense it might make sense Ferny.

I'm just a tad upset because, well...it feels like I'm being goated into debating something so insignificant. So heres a quick summary on my opinion so as not to make any further confusions.

Should Gays have the same benefits as straight couples: Yes
Would it hurt for the definition of marriage to be changed to include gay couples: No
Would it hurt to keep marriage seperate in definition but still grant gays the same rights: No
Do I give a rats ass whats decided: Thats an emphatic H3LL NAW.

Sometimes people just can't have their cake and eat it too.

Thank you.

[roid]

hmm, new terms to define gay marriage.
i'll start off with:

GAYAGE

[Drakona]

The problem with the 'bigotry' argument for gay marriage is that it's based on the idea of relational equality, not for individuals, but for relationships. It's not saying that all individuals deserve an equal right to marry--that they already have--it's saying that all relationships (within certain bounds--and therin's the hypocracy) have an equal right to become marriage. And this is not a premise everyone holds--nor is it terribly self-evident.

Not all things are equal in the same way, you know. All religions are equal under law, and that means the government favors none, and has nothing to do with any of them. All individuals are equal under law, and that means the government treats each one with the societal merit he or she deserves--punishing those who commit crimes, and rewarding those who do public service. (It doesn't mean that the government agrees to treat every individual the same all the time, like it agrees to with religions). All opinions are equal under law, meaning the government won't come after you for voicing yours--but it certainly feels no compunction about putting certain opinions into law!

Societies have had a history of rewarding faithful, permanent, loving heterosexual relationships for their building of family and ultimately society through child-bearing and rearing. Why should that change? Societies have had a history of rewarding some relationships over others--in ours, monogamous relationships over polygamous ones, consensual relationships over betrothals/arranged marriages, faithful relationships over open ones, and romantic relationships over strictly legal ones. Some of those things are rewarded legally, some socially, but the bottom line is that nobody suggests that all relationships are equal in value and that we ought not judge between them. That's crazy--open-mindedness to the point of stupidity. Of course society judges between them! That's not bigotry, it's normal, moral procedure!

The argument, too, assumes that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones--in every way except obvious things like the ability to bear children without outside help. Perhaps they are and perhaps they aren't--not all of society agrees on this. But what frustrates me is that people come at the argument with the assumption that a priori homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones.

Wait one cotton pickin' minute, guys. I'm all for gender equality, but men and women aren't interchangable. There's no guarantee romance between homosexuals is going to be the same as romance between heterosexuals--in fact, psychologically speaking, I'd expect it to be wildly different just because men and women are different! Maybe those relationships will work out and do all the things heterosexual relationships have done--or maybe they won't! Supposing that they have to, or that if society judges them as different and less valuable, it's being bigoted is just silly. That's not tolerence, that's totalitarianism. That's asking me to throw away my devotion to truth, in favor of a devotion to moral stylishness or enlightenment--something I as a scholar REFUSE TO DO. I should judge from reality, judge from experience, never from self-righteous preconception.

If you want a warrant for a society that judges homosexual and heterosexual relationships differently, look at homosexual and heterosexual communities. It's on the communal level that society makes its judgement about what relationships it approves of, and which are valuable. If you see the homosexual community producing stable, faithful, loving, relationships--if you see them producing relationships that inspire the admiration of their communities, then you will see communities that accept homosexual relationships. If you see homosexual relationships forming a healthy base for families on a regular basis, then you'll see communities that accept homosexual families as healthy ones. And if you don't, you won't. It's really that simple.

I know what I've seen--I know there are differences between the two communities. And people that keep telling me I'm coloring things through bigotry only insult my intelligence. I tell you, I had a lesbian roommate; I've watched Gavotte on the DBB for the time he's been here; I had a long conversation with this gay guy in the hospital ER. The campus occasionally has GBLT events, and I sometimes watch or read the reports from them. These are dear people, and I love many of them--but don't try tell me that the people, that the communities are equivalent! That is sheer silliness. There is a gay culture. There is, indeed, a gay sexual culture, with its own values, accepted practices, blessings and curses. And it's different from the rest of culture, with different themes and values--and that's just reality. On my view, the people who are trying to force reality into their preconceptions are the people who say there isn't one! (And the people who argue all cultures are equal in value strike me as trying so hard to be righteous that they make themselves stupid. That's PC BS. Of course cultures aren't equal in value. Some are productive, some are destructive. This is perfectly evident to anyone who isn't desparately trying to be morally elite.)

It simply isn't true that you can't legislate morality. Civilization consists of legislating morality. Rather, you can't legislate morality that isn't already culturally accepted. Laws reflect culturally perceived justice--they always must, or culture will rebel. Civilization consists of forcing culture's values and morals on its fringe members.

If marriage is something that this culture as a whole has a meaningful picture of, if relationships are something that this culture as a whole feels it can morally judge, if the topic is something that this culture as a whole feels is morally important enough to put into law, then laws will be made, and they'll be legitimate laws. That's my take on moral/legal issues in general. If you're outside the mainstream enough that the laws go against you, you can't justify forcing your views on culture--you'd only make the culture rebel!

This debate isn't about bigotry. That's a line that one side feeds itself, because it makes them feel better about their opposition. (Everyone likes to believe the other side is stupid...) There are anti-gay bigots in the world, no doubt about it. But when you see these anti-gay-marriage laws passing with numbers like 60% or 70%, something's got to trigger in your head. If these people are all evil bigoted hicks, where the heck are they coming from? Is that much of society really that much out of touch with fundamental American values? Where have they been for the last four decades when all the civil rights stuff was going down?

No, this debate isn't about bigotry. It's about a couple other things. It's about judging relationships--like I talked about above. Some people think you can't judge relationships, and think that's a moral value--like religious tolerence. But most of society doesn't buy that--we judge relationships all the time--respecting some and disapproving of others, though tolerating all--and that's our moral prerogative, thank you very much.

But in a larger sense, this debate is about marriage. It's about what marriage is. That's a dialogue that needs to happen, and I think it's a crying shame that one side of the debate is so busy crying 'bigot' that we can't have an intelligent conversation about it. Nonetheless, I think a lot of the culture has a common picture of it--common enough to warrant the idea that it has a cultural definition. Marriage in this culture--as an ideal--is monogamous, faithful, permanent, loving, romantic, sexual, the core of a family, bears children, raises children, includes a husband and wife, includes a father and mother, and warrants social respect.

Some people come at this with an eye toward criticism, and commit what I call the "cat" fallacy. A cat is an animal that has two ears, two eyes, fur, claws, and a tail. Are there cats without ears? Well, yes--but that doesn't mean that "cat," as an ideal, doesn't essentially include ears. Even though there are cats without any one of those pieces, if you take enough pieces of the cat away, you don't have a cat anymore.

There are marriages that don't involve children--the couple doesn't have children, and doesn't adopt them. But marriage, on average, involves children--and taking away the concept as inessential is like taking the ears off the cat. There are marriages that don't involve sex, marriage that don't involve love, marriages that don't involve child-bearing, marriages that don't warrant social approval, marriages that aren't permanent, marriages that aren't sexually faithful. Nonetheless, these are all essential pieces of the cat. As you take them away, you have more and more of a "technical marriage"--something that is still legally a marriage, but which nobody considers to really be one.

Society's view of marriage excludes homosexual marriage. It just does. Bearing children, the roles of husband and wife, the roles of mother and father, the essential character of man/woman romance as the core of a family--these are essential pieces of marriage as we conceive of it.

Should we conceive of it that way?

That's the question. That's what culture needs to talk about. That's where we have a clash of cultural values, that's what this debate will eventually decide.

This debate isn't about health insurance for non-traditional families. It's obvious to anyone who will look that faithful, committed gay relationships ought to allow for sharing of health insurance or certain other legal supports that marriage gives. But then, isn't this true of any non-traditional family, regaurdless of whether the people involved are having sex, involved romantically, etc.? Shouldn't the bachelor taking care of his elderly mother, the man and his two 'wives', the boyfriend/girlfriend/friend living with them, the sisters living together... all have those sorts of benefits? This is a separate, and in some ways broader, issue. This makes sense to address through some sort of legal recognition of a 'household'--perhaps civil unions can do the job, if indeed this is a job that should be done. But the 'health insurance' point for gay marriage is simply made too narrowly to be the real motivation for the argument. If these people were really worried about the plight of non-traditional families, they'd be arguing a bit more broadly for all of them.

The 'choice' argument is a red herring as well. There are lots of things that society feels fine rewarding or disapproving of, regaurdless of whether they were chosen or not. People don't directly and freely choose to be alcoholics, but society frowns on that. Some people can't really help becoming violent or abusive--either due to conditioning or insanity--but society still frowns on it. In the end, there are a lot of things we choose that society tolerates, and a lot of desires and opinions that we don't directly choose--and society still frowns on us acting on them. How society treats the individual, morally speaking, does depend a lot on whether the individual had a choice. You don't punish people for being insane. But society still has the right to judge the actions of people as beneficial, destructive, valuable, or unwanted--whether or not their desires for those action were of their own choosing.

In the end, I think the debate is about approval. One side wants society to approve of gay relationships. Not just to value gays as individually equal to everyone else, not just to tolerate gay relationships as the personal domain and choice of the individual, but to actually validate gay relationships as valuable to society, admirable, worthy of the same sort of social respect that marriages have.

Should they have that respect? Some people think so, but it's not a foregone conclusion. And forching the conclusions abusively on people by calling them bigots, rather than winning them over persuasively by showing them equal relationships, is a sorry way to go. I have my own conclusions--I think homosexual marriage will never work, and it would be a mistake for society to allow it. But my mind could be changed--a lot of people's could. So here's advice for my ideological opponents:

You want society to approve of gay relationships? Have gays build relationships that command respect! Having television and hollywood portray them that way only gets you so far, too--I mean, have day-to-day homosexuals, the ones that everyone has contact with--build relationships that command respect. Found families, endure decades, be examples of selfless love, inspiring romance, and stable unity. It is that simple. Social morals don't change through legislation, and they don't change through calling people names. They change through opening eyes to everday reality. If you want honest, wholehearted celebration of gay relationships, you need to have gay relationships everywhere that command respect. Sure, people need their eyes opened sometimes. But it takes a Martin Luther King Jr. to change culture. All a Roe v. Wade does is divide culture and incite rebellion.

Stop calling people bigots and hicks. Start understanding their ideas of marriage, their morals for relationships, and engaging their concerns. Name calling only alienates people--and moves you and your cause out to the cultural fringe, where you'll be tolerated, but not exactly celebrated, by society.

[Ferno]

Tyr: JTFR, I can't force someone to feel something. If they feel something, maybe it's because I've hit on a bit of truth.

I've always been a bit of an artist. If I have evoked a feeling from someone, that usually means I've accomplished something.


I never said it was the same as civil rights. I've only said that it was similar in the respects that they're being segregated in a way.

[Tyranny]

I was angry because I got the feeling that I wasn't really being listened to. I'm fine with gay rights, but I'm not fine with being told what marriage should be. I've already made up my mind about what it means to me.

Drakona, can you write my posts from now on?

[DCrazy]

What really pisses me off is when people say "Why do you want to ban gay marriage?" It's always been that way. We're not working to ban anything. The real question is "Why do you want to alter marriage to allow gays to marry?"

[Will Robinson]

Well done Drakona!
I think I'll just print that out and save myself the trouble of trying to explain it to people. From now on anyone who trys to tell me the people in 'Jesusland' elected Bush out of bigotry will be met with the smackdown of your explanation.
And if their ears are clogged and it doesn't sink in then I'll have your words transfered to stone tablets and proceed to lay the smackdown directly upon their hollow heads

[sheepdog]

I have four good same gender friends* who have been in longstanding committed and productive relationships. One couple is gay, the other lesbian. My lesbian friends have two daughters, each woman is the natural mother of one of their lovely daughters (one of whom is getting ready to enter college next year). I am trying to imagine a loving, wise God or a responsible, democratic government that would deny these wonderful parents the right to marry in the eyes of church and state. Can't do it.

Margo

*couples, but I can't think of a good way to say that!

[Pugwash]

I really don't see why gay people even care.

Its the same reason you get a marriage license when you get married, and I pointed this out in another thread: financial perks. If the government would just get out of the marriage business, this would be a null issue.

what "financial perks" do married couples get? a married couple pays less tax if they file seperately instead of as a couple.

the law promises equal right to all. if any people have the right to the legal state of marriage then surely all people should have that right regardless of gender.

IF church and state are truely seperate the question of moral correctness is irrelavent.
if YOU dont like it or it goes against your religous beliefs that is irrelavent also.

[Zuruck]

After several vain attempts to read the entire Drakona novel, my opinion still has yet to change. From what I have gathered so far, Tyranny and Drakona feel that marriage is defined as man and woman and that is how society has had it for the longest time, so in respect of our morals, why change it? Right?

For the longest time, blacks were considered 3/5 of a person, women were relegated to the kitchen and not involved in anything. Think about it Drakona, if people didn't stand up and try to defeat those "morals" you would not be allowed to post here without Lothar's permission.

Those that advocate civil unions that allow them to have the tax breaks and whatnot, why not let them have the stupid little certificate that says they are married? Is it going to break the apparent fiber of this country? I think gay marriage is the least of what people should worry about when it comes to this country.

[Will Robinson]

...the law promises equal right to all. if any people have the right to the legal state of marriage then surely all people should have that right regardless of gender.....

I think that's the issue, there is no RIGHT to be legally married. The governemnt has just co-opted the definition that we the people have given them.
Now we the people have said 'No, marriage is for one man and and woman.'
It's like Drakona said, if the perception of the majority was that all gay couples family status was as Margo described her gay friends family status then 'we the people' would give the governemnt a new, more inclusive definition to work with.

It seems it's inevitable that it will be accepted but only when 'we the people' see it as the right thing to do. A handfull of activist judges, mayors and some marching gay rights activists don't get to shortcut the path to social evolution if in fact that is where we are going.

[Will Robinson]

After several vain attempts to read the entire Drakona novel, my opinion still has yet to change. From what I have gathered so far, Tyranny and Drakona feel that marriage is defined as man and woman and that is how society has had it for the longest time, so in respect of our morals, why change it? Right?

Wrong. And if you actually read what Drakona wrote, and comprehended it you would be enlightened.
The fact that you find her few paragraphs overwhelming only illustrates you don't have the fortitude to engage in the debate. So you instead characterize her point as something it isn't so you can wrap your brain around it comfortably as something to belittle.
Try again.

[Iceman]

I second that Will. Z you do that quite frequently here ... post something based upon personal opinion or bias and neglect consider to the alternative viewpoints offered to you. Why do you even bother? Obviously Drakona spent a great deal of time considering your points and contrasting them with hers. Can you not afford her the same respect? After all, you started the thread ...

[Birdseye]

Wrong. And if you actually read what Drakona wrote, and comprehended it you would be enlightened.

I know I'll take flack for saying this, but I think it was just one long rationalization to deny someone equal treatment based on pre-concieved biblical world views.

The problem with the 'bigotry' argument for gay marriage is that it's based on the idea of relational equality

See, this is where you lose me. It's like reading "I think therefore I am" and then having to read the rest of the book.

Societies have had a history of rewarding faithful, permanent, loving heterosexual relationships for their building of family and ultimately society through child-bearing and rearing. Why should that change?

Nothing changed. Nothing will change. Societies will still have heterosexual marriage. Gays marrying does not mean the moral fabric erodes from the universe.

But what frustrates me is that people come at the argument with the assumption that a priori homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones.

See, that's where people can say you are bigoted.

Wait one cotton pickin' minute, guys. I'm all for gender equality, but men and women aren't interchangable.

Yeah see, there is thing called being "Gay"

There's no guarantee romance between homosexuals is going to be the same as romance between heterosexuals--in fact, psychologically speaking, I'd expect it to be wildly different just because men and women are different!

Oh my god, SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT!!! RUN!!!!!

That's asking me to throw away my devotion to truth, in favor of a devotion to moral stylishness or enlightenment--something I as a scholar REFUSE TO DO.

Holy moly, we've gone from 2 people that love each other that would like legal recognition to throwing your devotion to truth away. Wow. Interesting rationalization but I think you've strayed quite a bit.

If you see homosexual relationships forming a healthy base for families on a regular basis, then you'll see communities that accept homosexual families as healthy ones. And if you don't, you won't. It's really that simple.

Actually, it's really not and I know you are smarter than that. There couldn't be a scenario--noo---where gay people are doing a good job but nobody notices or decides to just keep them down?

I had a lesbian roommate

Well now, you must be right then! I have a lesbian sister, so that makes me right too!

These are dear people, and I love many of them--but don't try tell me that the people, that the communities are equivalent!

Nobody said they were the same. The same thing happened with different races. They don't look the same but now they have equal rights. Think about it!

There is a gay culture. There is, indeed, a gay sexual culture, with its own values, accepted practices, blessings and curses. And it's different from the rest of culture, with different themes and values--and that's just reality.

OH MY GOD NO THEY HAVE SEX???????????????

If you're outside the mainstream enough that the laws go against you, you can't justify forcing your views on culture

(cheering) Yeah screw minority rights!!!

That's a line that one side feeds itself, because it makes them feel better about their opposition

Actually, it makes the users of the word feel bad when it's said. America is depressingly blind right now. Hopefully in 50 years when gays aren't being treated as animals or second class citizens we'll get to look back on it like we do now with the civil rights movement.

A handfull of activist judges, mayors and some marching gay rights activists don't get to shortcut the path to social evolution if in fact that is where we are going

Hehe, "social evolution"

You want society to approve of gay relationships? Have gays build relationships that command respect!

See, this is where the bigotry plays in. Gays already have relationships that are perfectly respectful.

It's funny, when it comes to the "institution of marriage" we'll deny couples that want to committ themseles, but accept the divorces of 50% of the nation, show "Married by America" on tv, etc.

BTW, I can't believe you used that cat analogy. Even you mentioned plenty of couples don't have children. It sounded like in the analogy you made mutant cat, one that had a non-existant body part ;p


It's funny you centered on wanting to discredit the calls of bigotry but there really is no point in attempting that. From what I understand it is written into your religion so I think it's the text and not you I blame.

[Lothar]

I think it was just one long rationalization to deny someone equal treatment based on pre-concieved biblical world views.

And by beginning with that assumption, you failed to give the post proper respect or consideration. Instead, you line-by-lined it without understanding it. Most of your single-line responses were lame caricatures based on your preconception (though at least you had the kindness to tell us about it at the start so we didn't have to wonder.)

Go back and try again, and this time, do it with an eye toward understanding rather than an eye toward criticism.

[Birdseye]

I read the whole argument and that was my conclusion. There was nothing new, nothing enlightening. This is where we disagree.
I should have put that point last.

Anyway, this debate really can be done in a very concise manner.

Drakona and others don't believe a gay relationship is worth a straight relationship.

It's a simple difference and I don't see how I can convince her otherwise. Not mentioning the bible in this debate would be like ignoring the elephant in the room--it's a big factor in the entire gay debate.

Convincing her of the opposite would involve dethroning her religion, which is a pretty large task.

[Will Robinson]

I don't know that gay marriage is any less valuable than straight marriage, I tend to beleive it can and will be an equal state one day. I do know that presenting homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality to children discovering their sexuality will present problems that aren't needed. That may sound mean but it's true.

Women at one time didn't have equality and no single activist mayor or group of women with the help of a sympathetic judge were able to short cut their way to the equality women have today. It didn't happen until the vast majority arrived at the conclusion that it was where they wanted to be. This debate that's taking place today is part of the process. You can't just declare your point of view to be correct and expect the masses to bend to your will. The attitude of superiority that many have today with all their talk of 'Jesusland' etc. does nothing to help the cause and exposes the intolerance of your side.
You may laugh at the phrase 'social evolution' but that's what it is isn't it?

[Drakona]

Tyranny, Will, thanks. I wasn't sure if what I wrote was good, but it is at least the way I see things. I'm glad I speak for you as well.

Margo, that is a good start. Beyond the couple you described, I know there are conservative gay relationships in the world--I've been to web sites for conservative gays, and for evangelical gays. Those are the sorts of relationships I am watching--to see how successful they are. And those are the sort of people I'd like to meet and get to know--to be able to gauge how much like a marriage it really is. But that is a start--a step in the right direction. If the community as a whole went that way--if gay relationships as a whole led to healthy families, beautiful romances, admirable community-building alliances--I would be a lot closer to endorsing gay marriage. I'd have to think long and hard about my conception of marriage, in that case. And almost certainly the rest of society would be won over.

I know I'll take flack for saying this, but I think it was just one long rationalization to deny someone equal treatment based on pre-concieved biblical world views.

Yeah, Birds. That's why I got props for it from Tyranny and Will Robinson. The whole 'atheist' and 'questioner' personas are cover--really, we're a team of committed Christians, serious Bible scholars, and fierce evangelists.

Seriously, I know it is a standard strategy for you to guess at people's motives for writing things and respond to those, instead of their arguments. The thing is, you're so often wrong--this time you were blatantly wrong. You didn't respond to my arguments, you line-by-lined my post and mocked it. Probably because you thought I had no arguments and was just rationalizing. Maybe because you think the gay marriage issue collapses to simple civil rights, and if I'm on the other side than you, I must be too dense to grasp the idea of civil rights, too blinded by bigotry to understand the idea of individual equality, and too thoroughly seared through by HATRED FOR GAYS to be able to reason. Think about that for a minute, though. Does it really make sense to cast me in that light?

Whenever you read something with an eye toward criticism, instead of an eye toward understanding, you fail as an open-minded thinker. And this is what you just did to me: you put me in a box, pre-judged me, and read my post looking for things to mock, not looking to understand. Don't do that.

What I wrote was honest. This post has been coming for months, and that's the product of a lot of culture observation and soul-searching. Supposing that I'm dishonest, that deep down inside I'm evil and hateful, that I'm too dense to understand equal rights gets you nowhere. Stop calling me a bigot, and start understanding--start listening to my conception of marriage, my concerns about gay communities, my interests in moral relationships. Start engaging my concerns. Name-calling only alienates me (and the broad majority of the country that agrees with me!)

Drakona and others don't believe a gay relationship is worth a straight relationship.

It's a simple difference and I don't see how I can convince her otherwise. Not mentioning the bible in this debate would be like ignoring the elephant in the room--it's a big factor in the entire gay debate.

Convincing her of the opposite would involve dethroning her religion, which is a pretty large task.

Hahahaha... mention the Bible, people lecture you on separation of church and state. Don't mention the Bible, people accuse you of ignoring the elephant. I'm tempted to explain my own conceptions of homosexuality as a sin, where they come from, and how certain I am of them--just to show you how wrong you are, and to get everything out on the table. But I doubt you'd believe me anyway. You'd just guess at why I wrote those things, tell me what my real reasons and beliefs are, and dismiss anything I said. So how about I just tell you that what I wrote above was honest, and that my assessment of culture is open to change--but intolerant bludgeoning and condescending mockery aren't going to do the trick.

[Bold Deceiver]

But what frustrates me is that people come at the argument with the assumption that a priori homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones.

See, that's where people can say you are bigoted.

People could say it, but they'd be wrong in the context of the institution of marriage.

In fact, I happen to know, as an intellectually honest young man, that you would defend Drakona against such a despicable accusation. Why? Because to your great credit, you personally hold that, all things being equal, a child is better off with heterosexual parents than gay parents. I'll link it for anyone who needs to collect on a bet.

Now, if that is where "people can say you are bigoted", then please direct them to me. I'll be happy to handle their misperceptions and foul charges of bigotry.

Not everything is an "equal rights" issue. Incest is an impediment to marriage in most countries; fathers don't have the right to marry their daughters, polygamy is against the law in the United States, and inter-species marriage hasn't yet found sanction anywhere, to my knowledge.

Most people believe that the state should confer equal rights on every issue, but that's just ludicrous tripe that leftist elites feed upon, sloshing around in trough set up by liberal politicians looking for votes and voter dependence.

The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution merely requires the barest, minimalist reasoning for a state discriminating between its citizens. It's one of the easiest tests in law; unless it falls upon a suspect classification (like race). Everything else is "fair game" (to quote Mary Beth Cahill, Democratic Campaign strategist, as she referred to Liz and Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter).

Homosexuality isn't one of those classifications. Neither is NAMBLA. Neither is California Sheeplovers for A More Tolerant Society. You get the point.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled Christian bashing.

BD