Gay marriage

[beemerman2k]

There are many people who are pro-marriage and see value in preserving it in its current state.

 

In what way do you see it's "current state" changing with gay marriage? How does that effect your marriage?

 

We are not anti-gay in the same way we are not anti-first cousin. I love my first cousins but I don't think I should be able to marry them.

 

And therein lies the problem. At the end of the day, you do not honor the idea of individual freedom, do you? You ultimately feel that all of society should conform to what you think is appropriate, and you are more than willing to employ the LAW to enforce your standards upon everyone else.

 

To me, this IS the ultimate problem here. OK, fine, you feel this way about gay marriage, I respect your right to do so. But do you respect the right of others to feel and do differently than you would? That's ultimately what freedom means, you know -- for each person to pursue their own life, liberties, and happiness.

 

Do you feel you are being forced to marry your first cousin? Do you feel you are being pressured into marrying someone of the same gender as you are? Is that what you think this is ultimately going to lead to? If you don't want to marry your cousin, don't! And if you don't want to marry someone of your gender, don't! How hard is this, folks? I don't get it.

 

All people deserve respect and are entitled to human rights. Love is a human right but marriage isn't.

 

No? Why not? Says who? Then what you are saying forces people into a sex without marriage state, right? Didn't even the Apostle Paul say, in 1 Corinthians 6 if I recall, that "it is better to marry than to burn"? What you're saying is, "no, this segment of the population is going to be forced to burn in order to somehow, in some abstract and ill defined way, protect the other segment of the population". And I'm trying to figure out how this "protects" traditional marriage and I am not getting any answers here either.

 

I don't see it effecting hetero marriage one iota, not one bit, zippo.

 

Finally, nobody is forcing churches to recognize gay marriage, this is only and all about government. Law. Period. People get married all day, every day, that most churches wouldn't endorse, bless, recognize, or approve of. Visa marriages, lust marriages, Vegas marriages, serial marriages (sorta like some of the most vocal opponents of gay marriage :smirk:) -- plenty of people "redefine" marriage all the time.

 

This isn't about "church marriage", it's about "government, legal, secular marriage".

 

One last critical question: WHO gives one the right to be married? If it's not a right, but a privilege, WHO gives anyone the right? The church? The state? WHO?

 

Watch it, because if you say "God", then you have a lot to answer for. Marriage is in shambles in our society. God authored this mess? Is that what you're saying?

[ratfink]

There are many people who are pro-marriage and see value in preserving it in its current state. We are not anti-gay in the same way we are not anti-first cousin. I love my first cousins but I don't think I should be able to marry them.

 

All people deserve respect and are entitled to human rights. Love is a human right but marriage isn't.

 

 

 

So if your cousin told you he was going to marry his boyfriend in Massachusettes and he asked you to be his best man. How would you respond? Remember you do Love him.

 

I'd respectfully decline. It would be hypocritical of me to stand as a witness to something I disagree with. I wouldn't be best man to anyone who was getting married and I didn't agree with the marriage. For instance, if my cousin met a girl and decided to marry her after knowing her for two weeks, I would object to that. I would not be in the wedding party putting my seal of approval on it. Marriage is serious business to me.

 

Helluva way to demonstrate what you profess as "love" for your cousin. He would probably just write it off as homophobia. We often do not see ourselves as others do.

[moshe_levy]

Watch it, because if you say "God", then you have a lot to answer for. Marriage is in shambles in our society. God authored this mess? Is that what you're saying?

 

The religious crowd is upset that God (via the Church) has already sactioned gay marriage, just as they have sanctioned interfaith marriages. When I married my Catholic wife, we found no shortage of either priests or rabbis who would marry us (a Jew and a Catholic). Orthodox? No. Conservative, even? No. But reform rabbis? No problem. Same with the Christian equivalent of "reform" Jews. Plenty of 'em, right in the phone book. Those same religious figures would marry gays - and do, in many states. So the issue of God is settled, then. (Of course some will say that these priests and rabbis are not real religious figures, sorta like what many said about Jesus during his time. Funny how that goes). So gays can go to their churches, and get married, without every setting foot into your church, which may look down upon it for whatever reason (...fear...). Explain again how that takes anything from you? (...silence... crickets....)

 

And now we are left with the state. A clear cut case of equality under Law. We are left with the same crowd who often repeats as its mantra "smaller government" and "individual freedom" as THE HIGHEST IDEALS suddenly looking to government (the federal government, no less) to get into our bedrooms, tell us who to love, when to love them, and what ultimately the limits are on said love. Small government, indeed! Individual freedom, indeed! Horseshit. Cheap lip service from even cheaper minds which cannot defend their positions on any rational, factual, logical, or historical basis.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

Horseshit. Cheap lip service from even cheaper minds which cannot defend their positions on any rational, factual, logical, or historical basis.

 

-MKL

 

OK, calm down Moshe. I'm a bit wound up, too, but let's lay off the sauce here for a bit.

 

pharvey has the unpopular distinction of representing a certain perspective in this country, and therefore he's catching all the flak for it :smirk: But let's remember, he's only vocalizing his own perspectives, and I thank him for doing so.

 

He didn't author this law, he didn't create this mess, he simply doesn't agree with my or your point of view as to how to deal with it.

 

I'm frustrated, too. But let's try our best to be polite in the midst of our anger.

[pbharvey]

Marriage is in shambles in our society. God authored this mess? Is that what you're saying?

 

Of course God ordered religious marriage. Legal marriage gets its authority from the state. I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with marriage including making laws which affect people according to their marriage status.

 

Once marriage is redefined as anything other than one man - one woman, then its Katie bar the door. Marry your boyfriend, marry two boyfriends, marry a cousin, marry your own child...everyone should have a right to marriage.

[ratfink]

I'd respectfully decline. It would be hypocritical of me to stand as a witness to something I disagree with.

 

Your statement seems very much judgemental to me.

 

I'm no scholar of The Good Book but isn't there something in there about "judge not lest you be judged"

 

Isn't it hypocritical also to be judgemental when the Bible cautions against it?

 

[JayW]

I am opposed to gay marriage because it is not good for our country. Let me explain:

 

The family is the very building block of our society, and therefore how we define it and promote it is critically important. Few would argue with the assertion that a mom and a dad living together with their own chidren is the ideal environment in which to raise our future adult citizens. Such children tend to feel more secure, are better students, less likely to be raised in poverty, less likely to go to jail, and less likely to require government support as adults. That is not to say that children raised in non-traditional families cannot thrive and do very well, but the odds are better if they have a mom and a dad at home both participating in the process of launching him or her. Fatherless homes and motherless homes are not the ideal, period.

 

Our society should be doing everything it possibly can to promote this ideal family unit, and should certainly do nothing to dilute or discourage it. If 2 gay men raise a girl, then who is going to be her role model for how a woman should behave? If there is no father in a home, then it is more difficult for a young man learn about musculinity and what it really means to be a man. Many boys in such circumstances never do, and often end up as broken, irresponsible adults. Ask any daughter with a great Dad if she does not cherish that relationship. Indeed, it will almost certainly profoundly (and positively) affect her relationships with all the other men in her life too.

 

Another good non-religious argument is that the gay lifestyle is not a healthy one, and therefore should not be encouraged. Those who practice homosexual activity are at increased risk for many infectious diseases and other health complications compared to their peers. This is why the Red Cross will not accept blood from the gay population. There are some very significant public health issues at stake here. Heterosexual monogomous couples need not fear any STD or having to contend with gay bowel syndrome.

 

I have gay friends, acquaintances and patients. I really enjoy many of them and certainly do not hate them or wish them ill will. My marriage options are exactly the same as theirs. Even if one argues that it is discriminatory to exclude gays from marrying each other, that does not mean it is a bad idea. There are some people you just cannot marry - your sibling or parent for example. It doesn't matter how much you love each other or if you chose that attraction or not, or if you were genetically predetermined to be sexually attracted to your own family. Laws disallowing such marriages are discriminatory, but necessary and wise.

 

Does a gay couple getting married affect me? Well, it is not really about me, but even so, yes it does. It changes the very building block of society and the fabric of who we are and how we define ourselves. It also affects what our childen are taught in school such that young minds will be encouraged to feel free and explore avenues that are best left unexplored. In the end, we will have even fewer traditional families, which has been the gold standard a loooooong time for some mighty good reasons. May the traditional family model prosper and its numbers increase!

 

Jay

[pbharvey]

I'd respectfully decline. It would be hypocritical of me to stand as a witness to something I disagree with.

 

Your statement seems very much judgemental to me.

 

I'm no scholar of The Good Book but isn't there something in there about "judge not lest you be judged"

 

Isn't it hypocritical also to be judgemental when the Bible cautions against it?

 

I'm sure some would see it that way. I'm not judging anyone, just following my conscience. If my religious beliefs say a man shouldn't marry another man, then I shouldn't stand in front everyone as a witness to that. The best man puts his approval on the marriage right?

[beemerman2k]

Thank you, Jay, poor pbharvey has been weathering all the flak all by himself!

 

OK, I am going to take some time and think about what you wrote before I respond. Fasten your helmet, though, as the ride might get a little bumpy :smirk:

[Dave McReynolds]

Is it? I would argue it's a semantic two-step shuffle that tries and fails to cover up the underlying and very ugly prejudice that is inherant in that stance. It is true only insofar as indeed, in some areas you cannot stay on true message and sell it. This is more a testament to the backwards electorate you're selling to than the central point you're trying to make.

 

Were I to say for example, that just because I feel blacks should drink at separate fountains, doesn't mean I am racist - would you believe it? Were I to substitute any other race / creed / religion for "gay," proceed to tell you how they should be denied their civil rights, and then in the same sentence tell you I am not discriminating make any sense to anyone who is actually paying attention?

 

Of course not. One of Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths is "Words mean things." Absolutely, undeniably true! Homophobic literally means "afraid of homosexuals." It's a perfect description of those who seek through big government to deny law abiding tax paying gay people their civil rights. Why is it perfect? Because we have already very firmly established (NOBODY has argued against this point so far, in 20+ pages!) that the anti-gay agenda is not founded on reason, nor on fact, nor on logic, nor on history. It is, in fact, founded in fear and on inertia. Oh, and on biblical interpretation too (which, one can easily argue, results in fear and intertia in this case).

 

Argue otherwise, if you can. Share with us how the anti-gay agenda is founded on anything but fear... If you can. If you cannot, the label fits. Perfectly.

 

Again, you refuse to consider that someone could be anti-gay marriage without being anti-gay. I'm sure you're right in that there is a component of the anti-gay marriage movement that is anti-gay. But there's another component that is not. If the polygamists had enough power to mount a movement, then they would be opposing that as strongly as they oppose gay marriages. In, fact, given the hostility that you've shown every time the subject of polygamy has been raised, does that mean you would join them in opposing polygamy? Why? Are you afraid of polygamists?

 

When you accuse a member of the anti-gay marriage movement who is not anti-gay, but is pro one-man-one-woman marriages, of being afraid of gays, you lose your audience, plain and simple. They know they aren't afraid of gays, and when you say they are, they conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

It's very similar to people accusing those in favor of tighter enforcement of immigration laws of being prejudiced against Mexicans. Some probably are, but the vast majority just want to stop the illegal immigration. Whey they're accused of being prejudiced against Mexicans, and they know they aren't, it just cuts off any possibility of meaningful communication.

 

Oh, and Limbaugh says "words mean things?" Would one of those words be "slut" by any chance?

 

Even though I don't agree with their conclusion, and would attend a gay wedding if any of my friends decided to have one, I believe there is more to be gained by at least starting with the assumption that most of those opposed to gay marriage are reasonable people, and to try to understand where they are coming from. For example, you and I agree that no logical reasons have been stated in this forum for prohibiting gay marriage. Assuming those opposed to gay marriage are reasonable people (at least, some of them are), why would that be? Can you ask yourself that question without going into a tirade of polemics? Because trying to put yourself into the opposing position at least raises the possibility of understanding and change. Not trying leads to generations of hatred, such as we see with the Israelis and Palestinians, or the Bosnians and Serbs, and how is that working out for them?

[ratfink]

I am opposed to gay marriage because it is not good for our country. Let me explain:

 

 

If 2 gay men raise a girl, then who is going to be her role model for how a woman should behave?

 

Heterosexual monogomous couples need not fear any STD or having to contend with gay bowel syndrome.

 

 

 

Jay

 

I'm not gay but I raised my daughter as a single parent. She had plenty of female role models. Among them my sisters and the wonderful lesbian couple next door. She's in a hetero marriage and I have a 2 month old grandson I absolutely adore, where did I go wrong?

 

Hetero butt sex is probably much more prevalant than you might think.

[Whip]

Hetero butt sex is probably much more prevalant than you might think.

 

That is one sentence I never expected ..... especially at BMWST.com

 

 

...not that there is anything wrong wit dat.

 

 

[moshe_levy]

For example, you and I agree that no logical reasons have been stated in this forum for prohibiting gay marriage. Assuming those opposed to gay marriage are reasonable people (at least, some of them are), why would that be? Can you ask yourself that question without going into a tirade of polemics?

 

David, I can answer that, very easily. The obvious definition of a reasonable person is one who engages in reason as a matter of his thought. Reason guides his primary thoughts and his actions, and is the standard his uses. So here we have been asking for reason to advocate, and have been getting zero reason. ZERO reason. Therefore, the position as articulated by the anti-gays has NO reason, and therefore it is not a reasonable position.

 

As Ayn Rand said, "Check your premises." Here, your premise is 180 degrees off. Simply stated, UNreasonable positions are not held by reasonable people. Period. Just like prejudiced views are not held by unprejudiced people. Don't turn the words around and say "I'm not anti-gay, I'm pro marriage!" Go read the slogans of any neo-nazi group you want. NONE of them say anti-anything. ALL of them say "pro-white." What's the difference, when ultimately you're advocating the state oppress minorities for NO reasonable, rational, logical, factual, or historical reason? Please tell us.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

I would not be in the wedding party putting my seal of approval on it. Marriage is serious business to me.

 

I agree! Marriage IS serious business (there goes the "separate but equal argument" of "awww, civil unions are the same thing" some have been making). But let us engage in consistency.

 

Let us go down the OTHER side of the slippery slope. After all, every hill has an upside and a downside. We have only been focusing on ONE side of polygamy and other red herring nonsense which hasn't actually happened where gay marriage is allowed. So since we can now theorize irrespective of reality, let us focus on the other side, using the same exact standards advocated by the anti-gay crowd.

 

From them we have heard that only hetero marriage is a stabilizing force that is good for children. We are then told that the omnipotent savior in this case is usually the villain - the government. But this time government knows best! "I'm here from the government, and I'm here to help." Yes, the state in this case must bear its full weight on homosexuals before they marry, because gay marrage is NOT a stabilizing force and therefor not good for children. Sounds good so far!

 

Obviously, now that we ban gays for not marrying for these reasons, for consistency's sake, we must apply the law toward ALL marriages that are not stabilizing forces or are bad for children. Remember, when the law is equal, it is a blanket which covers EVERYBODY. It has no common sense and very little nuance. That is its nature, and any third grader knows this.

 

So, going to the obvious conclusion, now that you have empowered government to tell us what marriages stabilize society and are good for children, what do we do with the quickie Vegas marriages? The Kardashian marriages? What about marriages for money? Mills-McCartney? What about hetero-marriages to secure citizenship? Shall I go on?

 

If you're to be consistent, you will now come out and defend the government's right to take those marriages away also. What shall we do to the offenders? Fine them? Tax them? Put them on trial? Jail time? Because the standards are stability and children. So tell us: After the big government you advocate is done trampling the rights of gays, what will you be advocating be done about hetero marriages which (by government's definition, I suppose) do not add stability and aren't good for children. Please tell us.

 

-MKL

[mickeym3]

Many good points on all sides...but ultimately a decision that individuals must make along with a myriad of other issues that mainly serve to polarize rather than unite. Personally, the President playing it for political purposes and yucking it up with the Hollywood bunch he courts is polarizing and makes those with a conservative mindset only more entrenched and less open to constructive dialogue.

[JayW]

I'm not gay but I raised my daughter as a single parent. She had plenty of female role models. Among them my sisters and the wonderful lesbian couple next door. She's in a hetero marriage and I have a 2 month old grandson I absolutely adore, where did I go wrong?

Jay

 

I am not suggesting you went wrong. It sounds like you did great under the circumstances. Fatherless homes and motherless homes have no alternative but to look outside the home for gender role models. This can compensate for the lack of one in the household, but is not ideal.

 

All of us had many gender role models we looked to as we matured that helped form the man or woman we ultimately became. My point is that the most important ones are the parents at home and one of each gender is the ideal.

 

Jay

[beemerman2k]

Many good points on all sides...but ultimately a decision that individuals must make along with a myriad of other issues that mainly serve to polarize rather than unite. Personally, the President playing it for political purposes and yucking it up with the Hollywood bunch he courts is polarizing and makes those with a conservative mindset only more entrenched and less open to constructive dialogue.

 

What you say may well be the case (the President is using this for political purposes), but I would argue that it only adds to the unreasonable-ness that Moshe is calling attention to (people becoming more emotionally entrenched in their views).

 

If your views are based on reason, argue your reason. If based on emotion, at least recognize that fact and own up to it. One thing I think Moshe and I have in common (and Dave Reynolds and Scott Adams and...) is this: if your position on a matter is not firmly based on reason, fact, history, objective rational and verifiable data, then your views are not fit for consumption.

 

I would never argue, "because I think...I advocate a law". NO! I better say, "this data shows, verifies, proves, establishes...and therefore I advocate a law". If I cannot at least present my case in those terms, I'd get laughed out of the debate within my circle of friends. "Sit down James before you hurt yourself", they would say. Any educated person appreciates the fallability of "hunches" and the illuminating nature of data. Data removes emotional bias, discourages prejudice, and guides the otherwise blind.

 

In any case, the President has nothing to do with this thread, so let us leave him out of it.

[beemerman2k]

Jay, can you show that the existence of gay marriage robs children of the opportunity to be raised in what you consider to be an "ideal" marriage? Are children being raised by gay couples today going to some how transfer at some point to a hetero couple, but if we had gay marriage they would not? How does gay marriage rob a child of an ideal home? Can you share an example of a child being raised by a straight couple who would otherwise be raised by a gay couple if gay marriage were recognized by law?

 

My point is that I don't believe it would make one single solitary difference.

[moshe_levy]

Jay's point's underlying premise is that a heteroseual couple is always the ideal - mom and dad, married, in a loving relationship. In fact as we have demonstrated that may (or more often NOT) be the case. There is NO standard used. None.

 

So he compares the most elite situation on one side which actually has no standard whatsoever outside of gender (quickie marriages, marriage for money, for greed, for citizenship, etc. etc. are all OK) with homosexual marriage, which is automatically equated with promiscuity and disease, etc. The fallacy of such an argument is obvious, and further is EXACTLY the same argument as was used to once prevent blacks from reading or being educated under punishment of law.

 

The argument creates a self-serving vicious cycle: Blacks aren't allowed to learn or read under punishmen of law. Which leads to: Blacks are stupid! That's why they can't read!

 

Now we have: Gays aren't allowed to marry and display their commitment under punishment of law. Which leads to: Gays are promiscuous and disease-ridden!

 

Same thing. Same stupid, backwards, historically wrong thing, all over again. The more things change....

 

-MKL

[Nice n Easy Rider]

I'm not yet commented much in this discussion and will refrain from doing so since I'm not sure I can keep from letting my emotions take over. All I'll say is I'm grateful that the younger generations appear to have much more open minds than those that preceded them.

 

Young people lead way in changing gay marriage attitudes

 

By Christopher Burbach

WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

 

Nearly two-thirds of adults born in 1981 or later favor same-sex marriage, according to a survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

 

“Folks of that generation know more lesbian and gay individuals, because people feel more comfortable coming out,” said Jay Irwin, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. “That exposure to individuals has helped to normalize them ... and remove some of the mystery.”

 

To be sure, the country as a whole is still deeply divided on the issue. The latest Pew poll shows that 47 percent approve of allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, and 43 percent disapprove. Gallup's most recent survey showed 50 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed. That's pretty much a dead heat.

[Quinn]

Would children being raised by single parents or gay couples be in less stable environments if gays were allowed to marry? Would there be more gay sex if marriage was allowed for them? Are two gay people raising a child together worse than one? Still don't see a downside to allowing it.

 

-----

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Would children being raised by single parents or gay couples be in less stable environments if gays were allowed to marry? Would there be more gay sex if marriage was allowed for them? Are two gay people raising a child together worse than one? Still don't see a downside to allowing it.

 

-----

 

 

It doesn't seem to take but a few questions...

[JayW]

How does gay marriage rob a child of an ideal home?

 

Because an entire gender is missing from the parenting unit. Other gender role models - coaches, teachers, neighbors (good or bad) - will then be the ones to demonstrate for the child what a man or woman "should" act like. This can work fine if the models are good ones, but we cannot always choose who these people are. Any good psychology textbook will tell you that the most important and influential gender role models for a child are the ones in the household. Most any adult raised without a Mom or a Dad will be able to tell you how it negatively affected them.

 

I recognize that many traditional families are dysfunctional. This is not an argument in favor of gay marriage. If the traditional family is broken, then let's try to fix it. All other things being equal, this model is the ideal foundation and starting point for raising children. Any other family unit will have to compensate for what is missing. One of the main difficulties I have with gay marriage is that the politically correct position is that it is equivalent to traditional marriage in every way. This is simply not true, and failure to acknowledge this has profound implications for children.

 

I have a lot work to do, so will excuse myself from this conversation for now. I'll rejoin tonight if I have time.

 

Jay

[Ken H.]

The family is the very building block of our society, and therefore how we define it and promote it is critically important. Few would argue with the assertion that a mom and a dad living together with their own chidren is the ideal environment in which to raise our future adult citizens. Such children tend to feel more secure, are better students, less likely to be raised in poverty, less likely to go to jail, and less likely to require government support as adults. That is not to say that children raised in non-traditional families cannot thrive and do very well, but the odds are better if they have a mom and a dad at home both participating in the process of launching him or her. Fatherless homes and motherless homes are not the ideal, period.

That’s a common argument used. But be well aware that there is zero evidence, anecdotal or statistical to support it. Not one single study anywhere on the planet where gay marriage is or where it isn’t allowed has shown that children fair worse in any way in same sex lead families than is opposite sex lead families. The evidence just doesn’t exist.

 

Our society should be doing everything it possibly can to promote this ideal family unit, and should certainly do nothing to dilute or discourage it. If 2 gay men raise a girl, then who is going to be her role model for how a woman should behave? If there is no father in a home, then it is more difficult for a young man learn about musculinity and what it really means to be a man.

But see, some, myself included, would argue that ‘role modeling’, that a male farther should teach a boy how to be a stereotypical “man”, or a female mother a girl how be the proper women, in and of itself is problematic. It puts artificial pressure on youth to conform to stereotypes. Rather than fostering a family environment where the young person can become the best individual they can, regardless of predetermined ‘adult roles.’ And besides, just because a family is lead by a same sex couple doesn’t in and of itself mean each parent can’t or doesn’t take on one or the other more traditional role. There’s nothing to say one of the men, or women might not be more comfortable in, and thus have a traditional-like ‘father’ or ‘mother’ role.

 

Another good non-religious argument is that the gay lifestyle is not a healthy one, and therefore should not be encouraged. Those who practice homosexual activity are at increased risk for many infectious diseases and other health complications compared to their peers. This is why the Red Cross will not accept blood from the gay population. There are some very significant public health issues at stake here. Heterosexual monogomous couples need not fear any STD or having to contend with gay bowel syndrome.

STDs are an issue regardless of demographic. And it is a red herring argument here. The subject at hand is not STDs it’s gay marriage. The risk of spreading STD’s is less with monogamous couples regardless of sexual orientation. (BTW, do you know what segment of the population has the fastest growing level of STDs in the USA? Single heterosexual men over 60. Because they don’t hardly even know what a condom is. Let alone be willing to go buy and use one.))

 

also affects what our childen are taught in school such that young minds will be encouraged to feel free and explore avenues that are best left unexplored.

Young minds will explore this regardless. We can’t stop what people/children think about. Besides, your statement hints of a belief that by the subject being more open, a child might ‘become’ gay. Instead of a recognition that a person’s sexual orientation is internalized.

 

[Mike]

. . . .stupid, backwards, historically wrong thing, all over again.

 

-MKL

 

Moshe, at this point I'm going to call you and everyone else out regarding this thread. I'm picking on you only because this is the most recent example of several instances where folks have taken to insulting others.

 

It's fine to argue morality. It's fine to argue religion. It's certainly fine to argue what the law should or should not be. But, it's not alright--at least not here on BMWST--to call others stupid, backwards or otherwise address them in an insulting manner. We're better than that . . . we ride BMWs.

 

Again, with apologies to Moshe for picking his quote out of many others whose words I could have quoted, it's gotta stop.

 

Speaking as the most moderate of moderators, I'm going exercise a scorched earth policy the next time I see this here, up to and including banning the user from OT, either for a given time period or for time immortal. Not gonna consult with the other Mods, just gonna do it. My ban button trigger finger is itchy, I have a round chambered and the safety is clicked off.

 

Thanks for listening . . . and carry on.

[EffBee]

I've stayed out of the discussion. Now I'm in.

 

Mike, as every other Mod/Admin, has my full support on this. We've been watching, reading, seeing more and more wording that is entirely intolerant and perhaps bordering on hateful, creeping into this thread. And even if it is intolerance of the intolerant, it's still wrong. If you can't express yourself or your dissatisfaction without resorting to pejoratives, turn in your keyboard.

 

At the same time, there have been dozens of absolutely wonderful, if not brilliant explanations of personal perspective, all written within the boundaries of the rules and guidelines. MOST of you should be very, VERY proud. I know James very much wanted to bring such elevated communication to the forefront in this discussion. And I thank him as he has succeeded.

 

However, for a few others, I don't care whether you prefaced your participation in another thread thanking the Mods for their willingness to let the topic evolve, or whether you've tried to explain away your attitude by suggesting you "argue to win" because that's the way you were brought up, it doesn't fly here. And I'm not excluding anyone. You know who you are and if you're not sure, send me a PM and I'll tell you whether or not it's you.

 

Personal attacks and insults are not allowed. Period.

[beemerman2k]

This has been an absolute thrill ride of a thread. I knew it was going to be contentious as soon as I saw it, but it has even exceeded my expectations. If we can keep things civil, this topic has the legs to go on into the distant future, much to the dismay of the moderating team

 

I love threads like these; this is when you discover just how capable you are in communicating what you think you know. This is where my mind grows and my horizons expand. And for the record, I don't find this kind of rich debate anywhere else, not even on Facebook. When I find myself going to bed at night thinking about this subject, checking in during the 3AM walk to the bathroom, and then catching up on things when I awaken, I am engaged! I love threads like this one

 

BUT, I absolutely agree with the other moderators, things must stay civil. I know how difficult this is as I got fairly heated as well. I've had to apologize to members in threads like this one and offline via PM. Once I get immersed into a matter, I do lose the ability to think objectively and to moderate effectively. This is where I appreciate the assistance of the other mods, but also from those who are engaged in the debate, like what Ken H did yesterday.

 

OK, things were getting to be a bit rowdy in here. I hope we can be civil, yet somehow continue this matter with the same level of fire and enthusiasm as we always have had. No one here is anyone's enemy; we all simply represent viewpoints that others find objectionable. But let's not confuse each other for the forces out there that actually act, or don't act, on the matter. Positions here mean nothing with respect to positions out there in that even if one side could beat the other side into submission, it changes nothing.

[beemerman2k]

In a manner of speaking, this thread has been one great big polygamous marrying of the minds with my same sex brethren

[Mike]

In a manner of speaking, this thread has been one great big polygamous marrying of the minds with my same sex brethren

 

Time for a group hug:

 

[beemerman2k]

That's about as close to a group hug as we are gonna get in this thread

[Ken H.]

Well I hope I personally haven’t been too antagonistic to others in this thread... so far haven’t gotten a PM so... I’m hoping not. But if so I appologize.

 

Putting on the other hat for a minute (well maybe just holding it) I do think it’s worthwhile acknowledging that this subject isn’t one just based on rational, supporting data, logic, etc. (Like say maybe on the climate change subject.) But rather, because it is one so tightly woven with religious morality beliefs, there is an emotional, ‘no logic required’ component of the anti-gay marriage crowd that cannot, nor should not be ignored. Remember, logic AND emotion are key necessary components of the human condition.

 

We who view this issue as a logical thing; ‘why shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry?’ or the ‘who’s harmed?’ argument (that I myself have made here), if we have any hope of ever changing minds, need to look at and be prepared to address the emotional component of the opposition too. Which is what Mathew Vine’s project was all about. Heck that guy took two years, TWO YEARS out of his life to study what the Bible (because Christianity is his religion) really says about homosexuality and then created a one hour presentation on his findings. Which I’d dare to guess less than 0.01% of the anti-gay crowd has ever bothers to watch. (BTW I can’t draw a distinction between anti-gay marriage and anti-gay; to me it’s two sides of the same coin.)

 

My point is there are some people with which logic will never win. Indeed it’s irrelevant. “God says it’s a sin and you’ll burn in Hell”, end of discussion.

 

So the challenge of those of us pro-gay rights is to discover how we can address not only the logical side of the anti-gay movement but also their emotional/religious based objections too. Ideas? How do we get people beyond the concept of gay people are bad people? Or even ‘good people’ just doing bad things?

 

 

[moshe_levy]

In a manner of speaking, this thread has been one great big polygamous marrying of the minds with my same sex brethren

 

Time for a group hug:

 

 

To the mods, especially James who has endeavored so hard to wrangle this discussion into a civil atmosphere, I too apologize if I went too far. I was attacking a mindset, not the person who holds it per se. A good case can be made that you cannot separate the two, but my intention here was to focus on the mindset and not on the individuals who hold it. I appreciate this forum and the work that goes into maintaining the environment we all enjoy here.

 

That said, I am reminded of a debate I engaged in during high school. The subject was the Israeli / Palenstinian conflict, a hotly debated topic if there ever was one. After my opponent was done with a long and carefully worded diatribe against Israel, I proceeded merely to read from his political party's platform, which not only didn't recognize the country of Israel, but explicitly called for its destruction. I did not waiver from reading from his own pamphlet, and just repeated that section a few times so it sunk in. This is where he was coming from. I did not address any of his other points, though it was obvious I did not agree with them.

 

Eventually when he saw I wasn't moving from reading his platform, he relented, and accused me of being intolerant of his point of view. The room went quiet, since "tolerance" is a PC buzzword that usually stops debates cold. So, I asked if anyone in attendance could explain the characteristics of mindset that asked someone to "tolerate" a call for his own destruction, using only kind, tolerant words. Nobody could do it. And so, the lesson I learned then and perhaps forgot here in the passion of it all, was that sometimes, the other side's words are enough. One need not attack them, but rather to merely expose them. Have them explain themselves, deeper and deeper, until the underlying motivations are exposed for the world to see. Reasonable men and women who are listening will then do the rest for themselves as far as deciding which side makes more sense, and all you can do is hope that there are more reasonable than unreasonable people paying attention.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

And so, the lesson I learned then and perhaps forgot here in the passion of it all, was that sometimes, the other side's words are enough. One need not attack them, but rather to merely expose them. Have them explain themselves, deeper and deeper, until the underlying motivations are exposed for the world to see. Reasonable men and women who are listening will then do the rest for themselves as far as deciding which side makes more sense, and all you can do is hope that there are more reasonable than unreasonable people paying attention.

 

First of all, I think this is spot on. My only caution is that you truly let the words sink the ship. Sometimes, especially in the political world, they attempt to do this, but then they so fill the narrative with their own biases they lose their punch.

 

But secondly, I think we really do need to seek first to understand. Only then can we properly engineer an effective response. As I drifted off to sleep last night, I wondered if we weren't addressing each others views from completely different platforms. Just because facts are the ultimate criterion for one side, doesn't mean they are for the other. Sorta what Ken is getting at with his latest post.

[ratfink]

When people come together to build walls in defense of their principles, they probably feel good that they have lots of like minded company, a group effort.

 

Walls are a funny thing though because they are going to effect personal relationships as well. Those close to the wall builder will probably avoid open, honest communication in an effort to breach the wall. The wall builder may have some redeeming social traits that attract people to them, or in the case of family they may have a captive audience that wants more than anything to please and gain approval, even if they have to hide their true feelings and emotions.

 

So the wall builder finds themselves in a little self built prison that prevents them from truly knowing the ones they are closest to.

People that live like this have my sympathy, even more so their family members have my sympathy. This is a far from ideal way to live as a family but it happens all too frequently in my opinion.

 

I probably sound like a broken record and I'm not gonna apologize for that. The folks that are probably the most important in this discussion are following it but not participating. If the discussion has had one iota of positive impact on any of them it is well worth it. If I get banned from OT it is likely a good thing for me.

[JayW]

also affects what our childen are taught in school such that young minds will be encouraged to feel free and explore avenues that are best left unexplored.

Young minds will explore this regardless. We can’t stop what people/children think about. Besides, your statement hints of a belief that by the subject being more open, a child might ‘become’ gay. Instead of a recognition that a person’s sexual orientation is internalized.

 

Ken I want to challenge you on these points in particular. Teachers and those in authority can absolutely and profoundly affect what children think about. More importantly, a convincing adult can also determine - or even force - the conclusions they come to.

 

With respect to internalized sexual preferences, the party line is that sexual orientation is predetermined and inevitible, but I do not agree, in spite of what I was taught at The OSU College of Medicine. My prediction is that we will never find the elusive "gay gene", at least not in same sense that, say, eye color is determined. I submit that sexual orientation can be heritable, but that is not nearly the same thing. For example, if one is born with genes that result in athleticism, good coordination, being tall and black, then there is a decent chance such a person would eventually be an excellent basketball player. It does not mean they WILL be, but given the proper encouragement and nurture, they COULD be. In the same way, people can inherit characterisitics that may predispose them to same-sex attraction, but it also takes particular environmental or life experiences for the tendencies to actually play out that way. My assumption here of course is that it is better if those tendencies are never encouraged and that such a person would better off as a heterosexual. Some may disagree with this assumption.

 

On another note, the genetics card is often played by the LGBT as an argument that the gay among us had no choice in the matter, but that same card is somehow never applied to the transgendered individual. :S. A topic for another thread I suppose, or not.

 

Thanks for your insightful comments.

 

Jay

[beemerman2k]

JayW, thanks for your insightful comments.

[ratfink]

My assumption here of course is that it is better if those tendencies are never encouraged and that such a person would better off as a heterosexual. Some may disagree with this assumption.

Jay

 

What if it leaves a youngster so conflicted that they become suicidal?

 

[JayW]

My assumption here of course is that it is better if those tendencies are never encouraged and that such a person would better off as a heterosexual. Some may disagree with this assumption.

Jay

 

What if it leaves a youngster so conflicted that they become suicidal?

 

Internal conflicts are a part of growing up, are complex and best handled on a case-by-case basis with the parents acting as head coach and cheerleaders.

 

Transient same-sex attractions are also very common (and normal) in older children and young teenagers. A good way to fan the flame of internal conflict is make a big deal out of these feeling and tell a child experiencing them that they are probably gay or bisexual. After all, gender attraction is internalized and predetermined anyway, so just go with those feelings, in fact, embrace them. NOT!

 

Jay

[tallman]

We seem to have moved fro legal union to sexual orientation.

Different topics, IMO.

 

But, since child rearing is part of recent posts I'll ask a question.

 

Who provides a better child rearing environment.

Serial marriage practitioners (multiple legal unions/multiple divorces/multiple children, multiple "family" groups, less likely to be full time parent as custody issues arise), or

a couple who maintain a stable home environment and provide a nurturing child environment day in and day out allowing the child to

develop without the baggage associated with a family that has multiple divorce/marriage custody issues?

 

I ask seriously as I deal with this serial marriage phenomena every day.

I have one where he has 9 legal unions (we know of) in Florida, got divorced on March 31, married on April 1, has 2 domestic violence injunctions from last two wives, has an adult son who lives with him who is also a serial domestic partner abuser, multiple felony arrests, multiple children, half siblings, step children,

and generally sux as a parental unit.

 

Good family experiences are not exclusive to heterosexual couples and conversely bad ones can be found in too many cases.

 

Sexual orientation seems to be no guarantee of good or bad environment to raise a child in.

[moshe_levy]

I ask seriously as I deal with this serial marriage phenomena every day. I have one where he has 9 legal unions (we know of) in Florida, got divorced on March 31, married on April 1, has 2 domestic violence injunctions from last two wives, has an adult son who lives with him who is also a serial domestic partner abuser, multiple felony arrests, multiple children, half siblings, step children,

and generally sux as a parental unit. Good family experiences are not exclusive to heterosexual couples and conversely bad ones can be found in too many cases.Sexual orientation seems to be no guarantee of good or bad environment to raise a child in.

 

Tim, this was exactly my point above. If we are now empowering big government to regulate homosexual marriage because it does not add stability to society, nor a good place to raise children, are we simultaneously to turn a blind eye to the issues you raised above? If we do, and effectively say to one group "NO minimum standard" and the other "NO chance no matter how stable and loving" what clearer definition of legalized discrimination is there?

 

This is the "other side" of the slippery slope. Those who argued the slippery slope going down only one side perhaps forgot that every hill has multiple sides.

 

-MKL

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Powerful questions, Tim.

 

This illustrates the flagrant hypocrisy of the anti-gay marriage crowd. If their concern is the "integrity of marriage", then they have an awful lot of work to do before they can afford to focus on gay marriage.

 

How about they seek to invalidate all marriages beyond that of the first wife?

 

How about they regulate the conditions of marriage in the first place? (no convenience, no immigration, no other marriages)

 

How about they measure the validity of a hetero marriage based on whether they are raising productive children?

 

[Ken H.]

We seem to have moved fro legal union to sexual orientation.

Different topics, IMO.

 

But, since child rearing is part of recent posts

Yes its somewhat of a different topic, but because one of the anti gay marriage arguments most often put forth is that it leads to bad parenting; I think it’s related. And of late a couple of post in this tread that gay parents, if from no other reason that by default more exposure to gays, some how encourages more children to be gay. So I think the argument is worth addressing as it is in context with a gay marriage discussion.

 

Ken I want to challenge you on these points in particular. Teachers and those in authority can absolutely and profoundly affect what children think about. More importantly, a convincing adult can also determine - or even force - the conclusions they come to.

 

With respect to internalized sexual preferences, the party line is that sexual orientation is predetermined and inevitible, but I do not agree, in spite of what I was taught at The OSU College of Medicine. In the same way, people can inherit characterisitics that may predispose them to same-sex attraction, but it also takes particular environmental or life experiences for the tendencies to actually play out that way. My assumption here of course is that it is better if those tendencies are never encouraged and that such a person would better off as a heterosexual.

But there-in lays the core argument/difference - a presumption that being homosexual is somehow inferior to being heterosexual. An idea I reject. Sure because someone is gay they are going to potentially be subject to more harassment (of many kinds) throughout their lives, but so are members of any visible minority. And the problem isn’t the difference(s), the problem is the harassment of/about them. But beyond that, why do you think, “such a person would better off as a heterosexual”?

 

Rather, I think the superior straight vs. gay environment is the one that allows someone to be most true to themselves. One that removes the influence / burden / obstacles / pressure of the constant ‘who/what am I?’ question, so they can focus on achievement in the many other aspects of their lives, beyond, irrespective of, their sexual orientation.

 

Admittedly a family/school environment that tries to sway a young person to be gay when they feel they are straight is just as bad as one that tries to sway a young gay person to be straight, but I think there are far more of the later than the former. Gay parenting couples are far more likely to let their children be whatever they want to be because they’ve ‘been there’. They know the pain and anguish of constant pressure to be something they are not. (But that too is a bit of an evolving generational thing as most parents today are still of the age where when they were kids; suppression of homosexual thoughts in children was still very much the rule.) Environments that allow a person to discover their own sexuality are the ones that have the best odds of creating stable functional self actualized adults.

 

I’d like to see some statistices (but I don’t know if they exist) of % of gay children with heterosexual parents, vs. with gay parents. I’d bet there is no statistical difference.

 

There are so many aspects of what makes a person a balanced, stable, contributing, talented, maximizing their potential adult. Sexual orientation and marital status is actually a rather minor component of it all. The sooner we recognize and acknowledge this, the sooner it can be relegated to the ‘no big deal’ list; sooner we can concentrate on other obstacles; the sooner society will be better off.

 

[Ken H.]

This illustrates the flagrant hypocrisy of the anti-gay marriage crowd. If their concern is the "integrity of marriage", then they have an awful lot of work to do before they can afford to focus on gay marriage.

 

How about they seek to invalidate all marriages beyond that of the first wife?

 

How about they regulate the conditions of marriage in the first place? (no convenience, no immigration, no other marriages)

 

How about they measure the validity of a hetero marriage based on whether they are raising productive children?

You’re right James, but it’s the glass house argument. I’d like to see the discussion (not just on BMWST but in the public at large) go beyond ‘heterosexual marriage needs to get it’s act together before it attacks gay marriage’, to some real discussion about why gay marriage in and of itself, as a stand alone subject, is perceived by some as being so darn bad.

 

It’s honestly a bit of a total puzzle to me. It seems to me that all the arguments, including most of the religious quote based ones; quickly fall flat when faced with even the slightest bit of critical analysis. It seems to be a 100% emotion driven position. But even in that context those opposed seem to be at a loss for words to even explain why they feel that way.

 

???

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Homosexuality is a taboo that has been in place for many generations. For an example of something that is similarly taboo, compare with public nakedness on public beaches. It is permitted on certain restricted beaches in the US, and commonly to extent of bare breasts in Europe. There is probably no logical reason why anyone shouldn't be able to go naked on any beach they want. But it would be hard to convince anyone that nudists' civil rights are being violated, for the simple reason that there aren't very many of them and they don't have the power to press their case. People oppose public nakedness because the idea is repugnant to them. If more and more people want to go naked in public, then at some point, the public will have to ask themselves if their repugnance has any rational basis. That's where we are with homosexuality.

 

Not all customs that have no logical basis should be abandoned. Many of them originated as survival strategies far back in human pre-history for reasons that made sense then, and still make sense now. In time, we will discover if abandoning the taboo against homosexuality was a good idea or not. After less than a generation of experimentation in this area, I would suggest that the jury is still out.

[moshe_levy]

Ken,

 

Obviously feelings drive that side of the argument more than reason, logic, facts, or history. Why they feel that way may in fact be quite natural. I won't pretend that when I see two guys making out on some TV show, that I'm not a little grossed out - I am. It's not my thing, for sure, but it doesn't take anything away from me if two guys make out, get married, or whatever. And I certainly don't let my feelings translate into some fervent belief in government's power to regulate marriage for some and not others. Perhaps some people let it go that far, but under objective analysis it falls short, as you said.

 

Early in the thread I raised the idea of protecting a neo-Nazi's right to parade on my street. Some may confuse this with my agreeing with the Nazi, which obviously isn't the case. But my belief in the First Amendment is proven by the extent I will defend the speech of those I disagree MOST with.

 

And so it is here with the equality under the rule of law. If you believe in equality under the rule of law, that doesn't mean for people who look, smell, and worship just as you do. It means everybody else, too.

 

If you believe in government's right to regulate marriage for some, it must be for all. If the standards are stability and a good home for children, alot of heterosexual couples are going to be on the receiving end of government's wrath, aren't they? Unless "not all animals are created equal" to quote Orwell.

 

-MKL

[Paul Mihalka]

Homosexuality is a taboo that has been in place for many generations. For an example of something that is similarly taboo, compare with public nakedness on public beaches. It is permitted on certain restricted beaches in the US, and commonly to extent of bare breasts in Europe. There is probably no logical reason why anyone shouldn't be able to go naked on any beach they want. But it would be hard to convince anyone that nudists' civil rights are being violated, for the simple reason that there aren't very many of them and they don't have the power to press their case. People oppose public nakedness because the idea is repugnant to them. If more and more people want to go naked in public, then at some point, the public will have to ask themselves if their repugnance has any rational basis. That's where we are with homosexuality.

 

Not all customs that have no logical basis should be abandoned. Many of them originated as survival strategies far back in human pre-history for reasons that made sense then, and still make sense now. In time, we will discover if abandoning the taboo against homosexuality was a good idea or not. After less than a generation of experimentation in this area, I would suggest that the jury is still out.

 

Comparing nudity with homosexuality is a bad example. You can tell a nude person to get dressed. You can't tell a gay person to become "straight". I think the foundation of the prejudice toward homosexuals was the belief that it is a voluntary decision. Today we know that it is a condition that is built into the person by birth. How can you declare that being gay is a sin when by religious beliefs God made the person that way?

(Just in case, I'm 110% heterosexual )

[ratfink]

Homosexuality is a taboo that has been in place for many generations. For an example of something that is similarly taboo, compare with public nakedness on public beaches. It is permitted on certain restricted beaches in the US, and commonly to extent of bare breasts in Europe. There is probably no logical reason why anyone shouldn't be able to go naked on any beach they want. But it would be hard to convince anyone that nudists' civil rights are being violated, for the simple reason that there aren't very many of them and they don't have the power to press their case. People oppose public nakedness because the idea is repugnant to them. If more and more people want to go naked in public, then at some point, the public will have to ask themselves if their repugnance has any rational basis. That's where we are with homosexuality.

 

Not all customs that have no logical basis should be abandoned. Many of them originated as survival strategies far back in human pre-history for reasons that made sense then, and still make sense now. In time, we will discover if abandoning the taboo against homosexuality was a good idea or not. After less than a generation of experimentation in this area, I would suggest that the jury is still out.

 

Pre-Marital sex is also among the taboos. I certainly counseled my children against it. My parents counseled me and my siblings against it and our chrch forbade it. So in the case of a child with a strong, undeniable, non-transient predisposition to homosexuality how can you tell them it's best to wait until they are married to act out on it, when gay marriage is against the law?

[cengebardt]

ALL marriage should be illegal. How can a product that will fail outright 50% of the time , and if it doesnt fail outright, there is probably a 50% chance that there will be problems with it, be legal? (Tongue in cheek. I "bought" it and it has worked well for me!!)

[moshe_levy]

Not to stray too far off topic, but that 50% figure goes under the "figures lie" banner.

 

To get to that, what is done is the total number of divorces per year are calculated against the total marriage pool. So, as you can see, this is not an accurate way of figuring things out.

 

You can imagine what would happen, for example, if we tabulated, say, infant mortality this way? Take all the babies that die in a given year and compare them not to all babies born that year, but to all people who were born and are still alive?

 

Kinda skews things a bit....

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm not sure you meant what you said. By your comparison with infant mortality, wouldn't that mean that the actual stats were much worse than 50%?