Honestly, what's the big deal about Gay Marriage?

07/10/2008 12:43:07 AM · #1151

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...I might rather point to something like atheism which I am more strongly against)

This is a curious statement. The implication is that you're "more tolerant" of people who believe in competing deities than those who don't believe in any of them. Why should it make a difference if disbelief in your particular religion takes the form of atheism or buddhism, etc? That strikes me as bizarre.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

His assertion is that some of these moral beliefs can be logically shown to be false, but this is not necessarily true.

Really? Where did I say that? I only suggested that for some people the "wrongness" is simply an extension of belief (not really right OR wrong).

07/10/2008 12:46:19 AM · #1152

Originally posted by coronamv:

Well not without violating a few laws yes but the point is what are Homosexuals asking for? Acceptance? The ability to get the economic benefits of being married?

Hey you forgot inheritance protections and being able to visit my dying partner in the hospital.

The last thing I want is someone with an axe to grind to take away half my home right after my partner dies alone in a room full of beeping machines. It happens.

07/10/2008 12:55:54 AM · #1153

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I might rather point to something like atheism which I am more strongly against)

This is a curious statement. The implication is that you're "more tolerant" of people who believe in competing deities than those who don't believe in any of them. Why should it make a difference if disbelief in your particular religion takes the form of atheism or buddhism, etc? That strikes me as bizarre.

To believe in another god is more similar to my own worldview than to reject them all. I don't see that as bizarre. Sure, I disagree with them on lots of issues, but whether god exists is not one of them.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

07/10/2008 01:18:13 AM · #1154

I never quite know where to reply in these things. The quotes soon get nested into obscurity.

Originally posted by Mousie:

Granted, the ruling I referred to (some info) was specific to the field of education, but the argument is sound and both I and the Supreme Court of California feel that it is a broadly applicable.

A marriage license is a secular contract granted to you by the government, not a private club, and the government has laws that forbid discrimination in this context. The underlying question at issue here is whether homosexuals are a protected class or not, but this is just an attempt by conservatives to say "It's not discrimination, they're not a protected class, and legal discrimination only applies to those!", not whether it's acceptable for the goverment to discriminate against anybody when rendering services in this context. I personaly believe we ought to be a protected class, since I feel the direct effects of anti-gay bias every day of my life.

To address your second example, it is, right now, perfectly legal for gays to serve in the military, and they do so under Don't Ask Don't Tell. The only legally acceptable discrimination is to forbid them from discussing their homosexuality, paired to the rather shaky promise of not being asked. This is completely different for heterosexuals, who are under no such obligation, hence the discrimination. It interests me that gays can do anything a heterosexual can do in the armed forces, except say certain words. This would seem to undermine the argument that gays are incompatable with military service, and provide evidence that the true source of any drop in morale or effectiveness are the actions of the people responding to those forbidden words.

I'd also like to contest your use of the word 'accepted' to characterize the issue of gays and discrimination in the military. I would posit that it is, in fact, an hotly contested issue. This very debate seems to bear that out.

1) If your claim that California's support for your position is evidence to the affirmative can I not simply point to the 48 remaining states that do not support such a position as evidence to the negative?
2) You state your case too strongly. If the government has laws to prevent such discrimination, why is gay marriage widely disallowed? Either 48 states are in flagrant disregard for the law or you are incorrect. My guess is the latter is more likely. 26 states have constitutional definitions of marriage. 18 more have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. (source wikipedia) None have been struck down by the Supreme Court. So currently the law seems to stipulate that states can decide for themselves what constitutes a marriage. This does not speak to whether this is morally right or wrong, but it does speak to the standard of current law. You cannot simply assert that current laws disallow discrimination against gay marriage. I do not believe the second amendment should mean we can all carry handguns, but I cannot assert that current law says this as the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

Originally posted by mousie:

So you are telling me that the most efficient way to fight for and acquire a slew of legal rights (that should already be mine, based on the assumption that civil unions are acceptable) is to get the federal government... a government that actively and repeatedly tries to write discrimination targeted specifically against gays into the Constitution of the United States... get them to propose a completely parallel system of law identical to marriage, with all the overhead that entails to promulgate and guarantee those rights, when I can simply get my state to legalize marriage locally, and existing laws guarantee my rights across the nation in a legally contestable way that, in my opinion, has a very good chance of succeeding?

Should I also give you a 10 stroke handicap?

I get confused here. What do you want? Do you want to have your union to afford you certain rights or do you want to have your union called a "marriage"? I'm never clear why gays make their task harder than it should be. If people avoided the hot buttom term "marriage" they could probably gain much more support for their cause in gaining rights afforded under such a union.

Originally posted by mousie:

You have a point that there is a difference between defining marriage as "a union between a man and a woman" and "A Christian union between a man and a woman", but the underlying rationale given is almost always that the Bible tells us so. Furthermore I feel that it is simply selfishness for one group to claim that a word only applies to them because they don't want to be associated with another group. I don't see conservatives up in arms about the wonderful marriage of peanut butter and chocolate that are Reese's. Will it be a criminal act to repeat that sentence once such a law passes?

And yes, I think that forbidding businesses from operating on Sunday for religious reasons, or even tradition, is abjectly unacceptable and feel that the constitution supports my opinion.

I have NEVER heard anybody in public office state that marriage should be defined in such a way because "the bible tells us so". I've certainly heard it mentioned that it should be defined this way because the majority of people consider it so.

Originally posted by mousie:

Gay marriage is not a continuum. I can either get married or I can't. It is not a slippery slope scare tactic, so I don't accept your argument. People are, right now, trying to permanently ban even the semblance of marriage from my life at the federal level, and have actually, today, written this position into the constitutions of their home states. It has already happened. If you would like, I can find you at least one state where such a law is being used to deprive health benefits for the partners of gay couples because it is "marriage-like"... but I would prefer you trust me because I'm lazy.

Again, I have a hard time arguing this point because I'm not strongly against gay marriage.

Originally posted by mousie:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me with civility and clarity. I hope people on any side of this issue can follow your model. :)

No problem. I would say my view toward homosexuality is complex. I do not condone it and ultimately I feel it to be wrong for more reasons than just "the bible says so" (although I would say that would be among the reasons). OTOH, I feel homosexuality is at least partially genetic and I do not think simply being gay means one is simply "evil". I have had close friends (read: best friends) who are gay. I didn't simply push him away when I found out, but I also can't simply just ignore it. Like I said, it's complex.

Message edited by author 2008-07-10 01:22:01.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

07/10/2008 01:35:49 AM · #1155

Well the simple truth is in this country and around the world the majority rule. I'm not going to say the majority is always right, but it is hard to win if your not in the majority. Also hospitals are private corporations so who they choose to let in seems to be an issue between you and them. Granted I do agree with you Mousie what is the real point of them picking and choosing who is allowed to see someone in the hospital. As for the inheretence issue another good point. I think private companies also should be able to set their policies on issues such as this and you should be able to choose which company you wish to use. This way the free market system is allowed to work and prosper. Govenment should step back and let the natual course of action or evolution take place. In life if I go to a resterant and they don't satisfy me then I dont go back. If enough people feel the same way then they close. If I put my money in a company and then they dont produce a product to my liking then I take my money or what is left and move to another that better suits me. If I am wrong then I pay for it, If I am right then I benefit from it. Then My choices reflect my actions and I become responsible for my future and destination. Personally I would rather make my own choices then let government choose for me.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/10/2008 01:39:47 AM · #1156

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

26 states have constitutional definitions of marriage. 18 more have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. (source wikipedia) None have been struck down by the Supreme Court.

None of those have been challenged/litigated to the Supreme Court. State-sponsored discrimination in education was the law from 1865 to 1954, but that didn't make it right -- the wheels of justice grind slowly.

Also, the California decision is based on the State Constitution, not the US Constitution, and the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction unless it can find a complete contradiction with the Federal Constitution.

Message edited by author 2008-07-10 01:40:29.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/10/2008 01:43:50 AM · #1157

Originally posted by coronamv:

Also hospitals are private corporations so who they choose to let in seems to be an issue between you and them.

Nope -- issue of visitation and medical decision-making is enshrined in statutory law, and applies to all hospitals, public and private.

Also, please find me a hospital somewhere in the country which does not take Federal and/or state money -- once you do that (actually, as long as you offer "accomodations" to the public), you are not allowed to discriminate.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

07/10/2008 03:01:39 AM · #1158

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I never quite know where to reply in these things. The quotes soon get nested into obscurity.

I'll try to keep it a bit more brief this time!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just because something is doesn't mean it is right. I somewhat naievely and in the face of overwhelming evidence like to think that things generally progress towards the betterment of all humanity, certainly here in the United States. That first one, two, then three states (let's not forget my childhood home Vermont which at least made civil unions legal) starting down the path towards marriage equality is a much better indicator of true right and wrong than the traditional distaste of the majority.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Although I don't feel it's my obligation to provide a list, however complete, of my motivations for wanting something when debating a specific facet of it, I'll answer your question. I want both. I want certain very important rights and more importantly the guarantee that the government will protect me when they are infringed, none of these rights having anything to do with anybody else's personal behavior or expression of faith on their own time or property. I also want it to be called marriage for procedural reasons that aid my struggle to get my upcoming marriage recognized the same way nationally, so I don't need to literally fear for my or my partner's safety whenever I leave the state. I want to know what my rights are. I want the peace of mind that comes from not having to second guess my actions. I was recently in bangalore, India... the experience of being in a foreign place with foreign rules is very, very unsettling for me. Can you imagine it? This same unsettled feeling is very real for me when I travel around the United States. Always second guessing. Always on the look out.

Oh man, I said I'd try to keep it short, but I am failing.

It's just so important to me. To us. My family wants to call it a marriage. My partner's family wants to call it a marriage! There are like fourty of those guys! We all want to be one big family in the eyes of the state and the law. It's not 'gays'! It's people! It's just people! I've lived my life striving to live up to my parent's standard, be the best goddamn husband I can be for my partner, trying to be ethical and a good neighbor and live the dream even if it's pretty simple, while constantly being told I'm living a sham marriage, and the only people really making it hard on me are those who would deny me the same opportunities and responsibilities that they reserve for themselves in the name of a tradition that isn't even all that old.

And again, I sincerely do not believe that conservatives will accept civil unions any more than they do marriage, and that recent events demonstrate this! I simply can not trust a majority who's rhetoric frequently calls for people like me to not just hide from view but to die, prevents me from marrying who I love, and employs my description as the single most used insult on the freakin' internet.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Unfortunately I have heard just that from the mouths of public officials, but I read up on gay news a lot. They tend to focus on that sort of thing.

Also, that's why I said underlying. if you will, please do me the favor of providing a few arguments that are not based on biblical rationales, or, more loosely, tradition (given that many faiths have widely different traditions). I think it's a bit disingenuous to detatch the rule of the majority from the underlying rationales for the majority's choices. They are one and the same.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Again, I have a hard time arguing this point because I'm not strongly against gay marriage.

At least do me the courtesy of acknowledging the very real and non-scare-tactic nature of referring to actual events occurring in the recent past as a valid basis for concern about their possibility in the future. I think my argument is acceptable even without very much context.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Since you're being forthcoming, do you feel homosexuality is wrong for any reasons that don't have to do with morality, and if not, upon what are you basing the non-Biblical aspects of your moral justifications for opposing homosexuality?

As a gay man (who can therefore speak for all of us), I want to take you to a quiet corner and warn you that saying something along the lines of "but some of my friends are gay" is probably achieving the exact oppostie of what you hope for, since it's parroted (and I use that word very deliberately) all the time by the most irrational of participants in these sorts of debates. It's simultaneously charged and worn out. It's almost code for "stop listening to anything I say"; when the eyes glaze over. I think this is driven in part by a perception that it is the virtuous opposite of guilt by association, just about as valid, and not particularly pertinent in the context of debating marriage equality, not who you know. It's kinda gauche. Granted you were using it to make a point about the complexity of your relationship with homosexuality, but you're the exception. :)

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

07/10/2008 05:39:57 AM · #1159

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But then it's back to that same, "Take what you can get and be quiet." argument.

It *IS* a complete deal, and until it is, it's *STILL* discrimination.

That sentence, "I'm never clear why gays make their task harder than it should be." is specious and repugnant.

It's like kinda dead or a little pregnant.

Either it's discrimination, or it's not.

ETA: I'm not gay, but *I* want it all because it's right.

Message edited by author 2008-07-10 05:42:51.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

07/10/2008 06:54:25 AM · #1160

Doc, I would have never thought....

Message edited by author 2008-07-10 07:07:19.

mjwood0

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/10/2008 09:53:27 AM · #1161

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by coronamv:
Well not without violating a few laws yes but the point is what are Homosexuals asking for? Acceptance? The ability to get the economic benefits of being married?

Hey you forgot inheritance protections and being able to visit my dying partner in the hospital.

The last thing I want is someone with an axe to grind to take away half my home right after my partner dies alone in a room full of beeping machines. It happens.

Unfortunately, you're not alone here. In the wonderful state of NY, even my wife has no say in my medical care should I become incapacitated unless proper forms are filled out. Just because we have a "legal" marriage as defined by the government, we still have no rights to each other's medical information.

The same form which gives her rights over my medical wishes could name anyone -- same sex or otherwise.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

07/10/2008 10:46:03 AM · #1162

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm never clear why gays make their task harder than it should be.

Ditto... from the opposite point of view. If the solution is to call gay marriage something else, then why can't "traditional" marriages be called something else? Call 'em "Religious Unions." If you demand exclusivity, then you should be willing to accept it yourself. The claim here is that the term "marriage" would be somehow corrupted... not by gold diggers or spousal abuse, but by two people who share a devotion to each other. Huh?

Q: If two people love each other, what possible difference can it make to a third party whether they're male or female? A: It seems that opponents imagine some "unnatural" sex act as immoral and can think of nothing else. Nevermind that "traditional" couples can engage in unnatural acts, too. If the legality of heterosexual marriage were at stake, the ONLY distinction you could make is the matter of procreation, but having children is NOT a requirement of marriage. Quite a few traditional couples don't (or can't) have kids... and there's nothing else that couldn't equally apply to gay marriage. IMO, these arguments can only be manifestations of prejudice and homophobia... about someone else's private life!

Message edited by author 2008-07-10 11:30:47.

milo655321

Nikon D70

07/10/2008 11:51:20 AM · #1163

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I might rather point to something like atheism which I am more strongly against)

This is a curious statement. The implication is that you're "more tolerant" of people who believe in competing deities than those who don't believe in any of them. Why should it make a difference if disbelief in your particular religion takes the form of atheism or buddhism, etc? That strikes me as bizarre.

To believe in another god is more similar to my own worldview than to reject them all. I don't see that as bizarre. Sure, I disagree with them on lots of issues, but whether god exists is not one of them.

scalvert,

I believe DrAchoo is riffing on a concept found in C.S. Lewisâ�� Mere Christianity. Hereâ��s a quote from his chapter entitled â��The Rival Conceptions of Godâ��:

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole word is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest one, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic- there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

Since itâ��s C.S. Lewisâ�� concept to which I believe DrAchoo is alluding, Iâ��ll address my criticism to the quote. Because different religions make assertions about things which cannot be tested (is there a single god, multiple gods or a â��life forceâ��?), says nothing about the validity of the assertions and, therefore, can be discarded for that very reason.

Consider three mathematicians who are unable to read a math problem and yet one insists that the answer will be 91, the next insists 95 and the third insists the number 97. Given the situation, can one reasonably conclude that the answer will be somewhere in the 90s? Of course not.

Theists cannot even agree on the number gods much less its/their nature, yet C.S. Lewis takes this disagreement as evidence that one of them is likely correct. It does not follow.

07/10/2008 12:49:35 PM · #1164

Food for thought:

Gays that get married in California may face arrest and imprisonment in their home states.

Same-sex couple face jail time

And people wonder why gays insist on the same protections everyone else has.

Message edited by author 2008-07-10 12:52:02.

07/10/2008 12:50:56 PM · #1165

Originally posted by Mousie:

This is a hard enough discussion to have face to face when we can have the full benefit of voice inflection and body language. I'll try my best, but please recall things posted on the internet are easily misinterpreted. I realize I'm basically saying, "hey, I don't agree with your lifestyle" but I'm trying to say it with a measure of respect for you as a fellow human being.

I would place homosexuality under a larger umbrella of cultural hypersexuality. Our culture is inundated with sex. We see it everywhere in advertising and in our entertainment. Society has pushed the basic principle that "if it feels good, it must be ok". We are hedonists. This is true in the food we eat (obesity is rampant) and in the sex we engage in. I would contend that there are lines which cause personal harm if they are crossed. Some simple examples would be having sex too young or having multiple partners over your life. These things do insidious harm to an individual (some not so insidious such as STDs) over time. In other words, just because we have two consenting adults who are willing to do something doesn't make it healthy. I don't think swinging or group sex or casual sex is good for an individual. This makes it "wrong". We can even call it "sin" if we realize the term means "to miss the mark". It isn't the best way; the golden path.

Homosexuality, IMO, falls in this category. Now, it's somewhat different because most gays are likely gay as a product of genetics and environmental exposures. I doubt many gays made some conscious decision to become gay. However, even if a gay man is a product of things beyond his control, the actions produced by such "wiring" (for lack of a better word) may still be harmful. Trying my best to not invoke insult, I would equate it with being an alcoholic. Alcoholism has a genetic component. Being an alcoholic is likely beyond the individual's control. They did not choose to be alcoholic. However, we do not condone binge drinking or other harmful behaviors just because they have a predisposition to such actions. Perhaps I can say that being gay is not harmful, practicing a gay lifestyle is (at least in my opinion).

So in the end I would characterize homosexuality as an outgrowth of our hypersexualized, hedonistic society. Some societies seem to have higher rates of homosexuals than others and it may be the genetic predisposition found in some individuals is fertile ground for the environmental influences of such societies.

So at no time did I mention the Bible. Certainly it will warn against the harm of sexual immorality, but it is not necessary for the argument.

Message edited by author 2008-07-10 12:52:14.

07/10/2008 01:10:23 PM · #1166

Originally posted by milo655321:

C.S. Lewis- being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic- there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

Point taken, Bill. It's like a group of people debating an unseen animal they believe to live at the center of the earth: one says it's a duck, one says it's a cat, one says it's a variety of animals, and yet another insists it's a tree. Though they may bitterly disagree with each other and each offer claims that his animal of choice led him to that conclusion, they at least agree that SOMETHING must be there, and that's preferable to someone who doesn't believe anything lives at the center of the earth. Even in matters where no proof is possible, any affirmation feels better than denial I suppose.

Getting back to Jason's larger point of tolerance, though, differing beliefs will tend to overlap and conflict in different areas. We demonstrate tolerance by letting people believe and practice what they like... within reason. For example, in the U.S. most people wouldn't interfere if a Catholic wanted to marry a Jew, but incest and gay marriage are taboo (hold that thought). OK, so who gets to decide what's within reason? In a secular country like the U.S. it's NOT a simple matter of 'majority rules.' It's usually an issue of protection from harm- guarding against child abuse and genetic defects in the case of incest. Who are we protecting by banning same sex marriage? We may not agree with that lifestyle, but it's not our place to determine the private decisions of consenting adults who aren't harming anybody, and our own beliefs- even as a majority- do not override the rights of others.

07/10/2008 01:16:47 PM · #1167

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

However, even if a gay man is a product of things beyond his control, the actions produced by such "wiring" (for lack of a better word) may still be harmful. Perhaps I can say that being gay is not harmful, practicing a gay lifestyle is (at least in my opinion).

Aside from the potential for persecution, in what way is practicing a gay lifestyle any more harmful than a heterosexual one?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/10/2008 01:37:03 PM · #1168

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, even if a gay man is a product of things beyond his control, the actions produced by such "wiring" (for lack of a better word) may still be harmful. Perhaps I can say that being gay is not harmful, practicing a gay lifestyle is (at least in my opinion).

Aside from the potential for persecution, in what way is practicing a gay lifestyle any more harmful than a heterosexual one?

A few I can think of
1) Healthwise, anal sex is a much higher risk for STDs and other complications.
2) All surveys I have seen (and I do realize the highly difficult nature of accurate sexual surveys) show the typical homosexual has many more partners than the typical heterosexual. Multiple partners raises your risk for 1) above, but also does the same insidious harm to one's psyche that multiple partners does for heterosexuals.
3) Repeated homosexual sex continues to reinforce patterns which the typical brain is not designed or evolved to have. As a more obvious analogy, a shoe fetishist, by indulging his fantasy, makes it more and more difficult to have normal sexual experiences without shoes. In other words, we see a further progression away from the norm.

Some of the above can be avoided somewhat by choices made, but not completely. Heterosexuals are also at risk for some of the above, but that doesn't mean the potential for harm does not exist in the homosexual lifestyle.

Once again (maybe I do this every post), I am venturing into uncharted online territory. Who has ever tried to have a rational yet blunt conversation about why they do not agree with homosexuality in a respectful way? Try to give me the benefit of the doubt here concerning my motives.

citymars

Nikon D700

07/10/2008 01:52:40 PM · #1169

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...Try to give me the benefit of the doubt here concerning my motives.

Will do. If you don't mind me jumping in here, however, I see in your arguments a couple of unintentional prejudices I'd like to address. Mainly, equating homosexuality as a possible product of a hypersexualized culture. If a married man has trouble staying monogamous, or if a straight person has multiple partners, no one blames their innate sexual preference for their sexual behavior. Yet if a gay person has multiple partners, it's seen as a result of their sexual preference.

I suspect that gay men (I'll leave women out of this for the moment) do have more sexual partners than straight men. Maybe because in male/female relationships, it's the woman who generally applies the brakes. Or maybe it's due in part to a lack of societally (?) approved structures for gay courtship.

I also find your assertion that "Repeated homosexual sex continues to reinforce patterns ... (causing) a further progression away from the norm ..." to be rather bogus. Norm for whom? It seems to me you are objecting to a gay person's acceptance of their true nature, hoping still for them to see the light and return to heterosexuality.

Anyhow, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts in a respectful manner, and will continue to try to do so myself, if I decide to stick with this thread!

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

07/10/2008 01:53:27 PM · #1170

I think Shannon hit it on the head. It is a lifestyle and as long as it does not interfere or harm anyone else then where is the problem. On the other hand teaching tolerance and that it is right is not fair to someone who diagrees with it. Maybe they just don't want to hear it or have their children have to listen to it either? I will be honest i don't care to be hendered by a gay parade or a christmas parade. Every year I have to wait 2 to 3 hours to get to my home due to the roads being blocked due to some protest or parade. I could care less about the activity then the fact I can't get home. So when these comunities of people block a public road to celebrate or protest I get angry. I did not pay my taxes so they coud stop me from getting home. Yeah that is selfish but have you ever gone to the grocery store loaded up on perishables and then watch them spoil due to a parade on your route home?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/10/2008 02:08:19 PM · #1171

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Society has pushed the basic principle that "if it feels good, it must be ok". We are hedonists. This is true in the food we eat (obesity is rampant) and in the sex we engage in. I would contend that there are lines which cause personal harm if they are crossed. Some simple examples would be having sex too young or having multiple partners over your life ...

... or eating at McDonalds. Surely making the Big Mac illegal would have a greater positive impact on the public's health and well-being than banning gay marriage.

07/10/2008 02:16:04 PM · #1172

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Try to give me the benefit of the doubt here concerning my motives.

Will do. If you don't mind me jumping in here, however, I see in your arguments a couple of unintentional prejudices I'd like to address. Mainly, equating homosexuality as a possible product of a hypersexualized culture. If a married man has trouble staying monogamous, or if a straight person has multiple partners, no one blames their innate sexual preference for their sexual behavior. Yet if a gay person has multiple partners, it's seen as a result of their sexual preference.

I suspect that gay men (I'll leave women out of this for the moment) do have more sexual partners than straight men. Maybe because in male/female relationships, it's the woman who generally applies the brakes. Or maybe it's due in part to a lack of societally (?) approved structures for gay courtship.

I also find your assertion that "Repeated homosexual sex continues to reinforce patterns ... (causing) a further progression away from the norm ..." to be rather bogus. Norm for whom? It seems to me you are objecting to a gay person's acceptance of their true nature, hoping still for them to see the light and return to heterosexuality.

Anyhow, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts in a respectful manner, and will continue to try to do so myself, if I decide to stick with this thread!

If multiple sexual partners is harmful to an individual, I don't particularly care how you get there. If homosexuality is at an increased risk for multiple sexual partners (again for whatever reason), then it is at an increased risk.

As far as what qualifies as "norm" I think that's clearly obvious. If a million men were surveyed and asked "have you ever had sex with a woman?" and "have you ever had sex with a man?" you'd see a big spike on the first and a small spike on the second. Statistically speaking, heterosexual sex is the "norm".

And Paul, I agree. We all know Big Macs should be illegal or at least come with a warning.

Finally, I want a dollar for every time Jeb uses the word "specious". He seems to have taken a liking to it. ;)

07/10/2008 02:16:32 PM · #1173

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So in the end I would characterize homosexuality as an outgrowth of our hypersexualized, hedonistic society. Some societies seem to have higher rates of homosexuals than others and it may be the genetic predisposition found in some individuals is fertile ground for the environmental influences of such societies.

So at no time did I mention the Bible. Certainly it will warn against the harm of sexual immorality, but it is not necessary for the argument.

I suppose it would have no bearing on the situation if you knew that my partner and I have sex just about as often as the stereotypical heterosexual couple once they're married... not much. Once a month if even that? We do not want to get married to have sex, we already have more than enough. It's a separate issue.

He is my second partner. My first relationship lasted 2.5 years, the second for 13 so far. Gays and gay sex are not necessarily hypersexualized, and I feel you're punishing a particular class for an endemic issue that many of its members are not even a part of. And on top of it, it's a double standard... okay, we're hypersexualized as a society. But heterosexuals CAN eventually 'do it' for the right reasons, with the blessing of society, and gays simply can't. Apparently, there is NO level of gay sex that is acceptable, it is ALL wanton and hedonistic, but straigts get a pass even if they don't have babies. They just get married. Any adult can have a few drinks, and they are not necessarily an alcoholic. A homosexual can't have ANY gay sex without it being a problem, even if they've NEVER had sex with a woman. How is this nuanced, fair, or equitable?

I'd also suggest that being gay is as much about NOT liking sex as it is liking sex. I do not like sex with women. I think it's kinda gross and icky. (Sound familiar?) I never spent my college years hounding after drunken cheerleaders just to bang and forget them. I don't catcall women in short skirts or ogle their tits when they wear tops that deliberately flaunt them. I do almost everything possible to literally hide my sexual expression from public view. It is often necessary for homosexuals to do this to avoid conflict! This is the opposite of hypersexualization.

When you see the sexuality of gay pride parades (which I personally find a bit distasteful) I can guarantee this is the direct result of living in a climate of oppression and feeling like you're about to explode, and all the pent-up stress and relief that you can be yourself in public comes spilling out on one day of the year and people act like idiots, just like any other big dumb celebration. I don't see people trying to ban Mardi Gras. "Show us your tits" is practically a national catchphrase! If there was one class of people that hypersexualizes society in a way that's thrown in my face day after day, it'd be young heterosexual adults. I've even seen them screwing at bus stops and concerts! Really, do you, on a day to day basis, feel like gays are pushing *sex* at you? Typically, all I hear them yelling about are their rights and protections and marriage and law, since there's NOTHING stopping us from, you know, actually having the sex.

For the moment, anyway! The threat of jail for 'sodomy' (which is the only sex gays can have) was only recently struck down by the courts. it's not like these laws really stopped anyone from having 'gay' sex, even married dudes, but I worry that this sort of law could easily go back on the books, and that my private sex life could be criminal again depending on where I travel, even in the US. Acquiring marriage rights bolsters my case that my relationship is acceptable in the eyes of the government, and makes it harder to pass anti-sodomy laws in the future.

I'll even go a little further... if I take your statements at face value and parse them logically, it would seem to me that the only prudent course is to allow gays to marry, since it will (at least if the reasoning of the conservatives is correct) reduce hypersexualization in culture by promoting stable pairing instead of premarital (extramarital, technically) sex and promiscuity. By supposedly promoting responsibility and commitment. If you think that society is too sexual and that marriage is the bedrock for holding it together... let the *stereotypically* promiscuous get married! Maybe a good, committed partner is just the thing they need to fly right. Give them something to wait to have sex for! Why are you still on the fence about marriage equality? This is one issue your morailty seems to directly address!

Again, you say the issue is with hypersexuality and hedonism. Ignoring that I don't agree homosexuality is hypersexual, I feel you're still morally judging the expression of sex. That morailty must come from somewhere. What is behind the curtain? What is the justification? You can't just say that sex or hypersexuality is wrong, there has to be a reason. What is that reason if not the traditions of your faith, and by extension, culture?

And finally, some societies have 'fewer' homosexuals because they repress them, crimialize homosexual behaviors, and even kill them. Gays are in all cultures, and trying to determine the quantity at face value is impossible when many gays refuse to self-identify for fear of reprisal. Here in the US we have the luxury of being seen without neccessarily being abused. That environmental influences could have more of an effect on the outward expression of homosexuality in a culture than the citizens of that society actively assulting anyone who expressed it seems rather implausible to me.

07/10/2008 02:23:11 PM · #1174

I do not question your motives, only your points...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) Healthwise, anal sex is a much higher risk for STDs and other complications.

So I take it you support lesbian marriage? Unsafe sex is not the exclusive domain of homosexuals by any stretch, and the increased risk is nowhere near that of other groups (heroin abusers, South Africans...)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

2) All surveys... show the typical homosexual has many more partners than the typical heterosexual.

Probably ALL widows and divorcees who remarry have had multiple sex partners, so I don't think we can automatically assume this requires federal protection.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

even if a gay man is a product of things beyond his control, the actions produced by such "wiring" (for lack of a better word) may still be harmful.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

3) Repeated homosexual sex continues to reinforce patterns which the typical brain is not designed or evolved to have.

So we're protecting people from the harmful behavior of reinforcing a behavior that may be harmful? Holy circular logic, Batman! It sounds more like the "harm" is the risk of reinforcing behavior that you don't agree with. I repeat my earlier post that someday we'll finally discover the faulty gene that results in a abhorrent distaste for chocolate, thus restoring their normal cocoa-loving values.