Poll: Proposition 8: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry in a fashion legally recognized by the state?

[cobra_ky]

Being gay is no more a choice than being straight or being Chinese or being Scottish is. Being Catholic is a choice. Being a fan of Englebert Humperdinck is a choice.

Actually, i don't think any of those things are really a choice.

My opinion on this is that the entire "gay marriage" issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with actual "RIGHTS" and every thing to do with two sides fighting over a damn "word", a "term".

Gays in many states INCLUDING california already have recognized provisions for CIVIL UNIONS which are essentially the same thing as "Marriages" except they don't USE the word "Marriage", which seems to make a great deal of people butt-hurt (pun intended).

As I see it, Gays really just want to be able to get "married" only to win some sort of self-righteous battle in which they get to "win" something meaningless... the right to be as MISERABLE as every other person who made the mistake of walking down the aisle for all the wrong reasons. As soon as they realize that being Married also means that they can be DIVORCED and someone can take half their shit (no pun intended) AND collect alimony payments/child support they will regret all this nonsense of fighting a moral word-war with the moral conservatives and religious institutions.

On the other hand, the Moral-police religious institutions are wasting their time fighting over the same useless issue. Look, the thing is very simple... step aside, let the Gays have their "marriages" in name. And then refuse to honor it, if you feel that strongly. The government cannot force a religious organization to change it's beliefs or practices. If the Catholic church decides as a policy it will NOT marry homosexuals and it will not recognize any such marriages made by the state or rogue Priests/off-shoot religious groups, then there is nothing that can be done. The government cannot FORCE the Catholic church, Protestant church, or Islamic community to marry and accept the marriage of homosexuals.

So sure, they get to mark "married" on their tax forms at work. Whoop dee doo, big deal. I wouldn't stand in the way of that. And neither should any church.
Let homosexuals get state marriages if it makes them happy and more importantly, makes them shut up.
Once they have that, they will have exhausted anything worth bitching about.
You can change the LAW but you can't change people's beliefs or minds through force. Give them what they want, and the homosexual fad will eventually fade away like the free-love hippy movement.

Thats my opinion, i'm entitled to it.

heh, it's funny you think it's a "fad", but i can understand your sentiment. the reason the word is so important, at least in the U.S., is that there's really no such thing as <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seperate_but_equal>seperate but equal social institutions. So long as they are called two different things, they will be treated differently by virtue of that alone. That difference will be dminished rights for homosexuals.

Indeed. And a black man had the right to hold a relationship with a white woman in the South in 1935, it was simply a right he could never exercise because he and the woman would have been killed in so horrible a fashion the SS itself would turn away in disgust. Oh, and don't try and be clever. It dosen't suit you. Your entire argument is based on a silly attempt to say "look, Im a bein' clever momma!", rendering it down to a particularly eregrious example of utter, abject pedantry and stupidity.

Now, on to my argument, wiseass. What objection do you have to the extension of the marriage contract to include 'Two consenting adults', as opposed to 'a man and a woman.'

Again, a black man and white woman could not marry in the south in 1935. thankfully we changed the definition of marriage in order to allow that.

Also, i do not believe your tone is conducive to a civil, well-reasoned, discussion of the issue.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

heh, it's funny you think it's a "fad", but i can understand your sentiment. the reason the word is so important, at least in the U.S., is that there's really no such thing as <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seperate_but_equal>seperate but equal social institutions. So long as they are called two different things, they will be treated differently by virtue of that alone. That difference will be dminished rights for homosexuals.

And it's that sort of thought that I fear will keep arguments going a good long time... Look I get it that gays just want to do things that straight people want to do, but lets be honest with ourselves... you can change LAWS, you will never change minds and hearts. People can learn to TOLERATE, but we have somehow managed to also misapply THAT term over the decades as well.. TOLERATE =/= ACCEPT. I can TOLERATE working next to someone who raped someone in his younger days, served his time, and is now trying to live a normal life. I GET that. I just don't have to ACCEPT it.

You see, people seem to think that the only option in life is a complete and utter unification when in reality, humans are divisive by nature. We desire to be individualized and unique and generally speaking many would do what they need to or act in ways they normally wouldn't to ATTAIN notice.

This, as I see it, is where Gays run into their biggest problem... this desire to be overt, not just out of the closet but IN YOUR FACE gay. Seriously, it's one thing to work with someone who finds that he is attracted to men, but quietly goes about his day doing average people things. When asked, he should have no fear to say "Yes I am gay and here is my husband" or whatever.
But being BORN gay does not automatically turn you into a DIVA. Being loud, brash, and OBNOXIOUS while lisping all over the place and generally acting like every caricature of a homosexual we have ever seen is often times seen as part of "gay persona", imitated, and ultimately ridiculed. That is not something you are BORN with, it's an attitude and behaviour of a SPECIFIC stereotype that is LEARNED and wholly embraced.

Thing is, once you bundle the understanding of human psychosis, the NEED to be seen as "special" and "unique", the human desire for attention, and lastly, our innate desires for sex (every human has them), it's not hard to imagine a few people falling onto the "gay train" simply because it turns heads and results in lots of sex, two things most humans spend their entire lives chasing after.

That is why I think it's a "fad". Because realistically, if nobody made a big deal out of their being GAY, there would be no big issue in SOCIETY with being gay. What people fear is the perversion of homosexuality... such deviant behavior is naturally repulsive. Just as people who cant "help but love 8 year olds" is equally repulsive to many.

Which brings up it's own issue that has often been misapplied and ill-thought... but if people can't help being gay, then why should society also frown upon pedophiles, who strong science also supports are incapable of changing who THEY are? Many Pedos have a disposition for it... they will always find children more sexual attractive than older adults, they can't help it. Same argument with gays... but how do you determine that you are born with a specific propensity towards sexual deviance? One can assume a certain number of genetic mutations, to be sure, but again I have to wonder... If people are born gay and cannot help themselves, then why are we punishing pedophiles, who arguably may have been born that way and cannot help themselves (many of them cant, no matter how much therapy you throw at them, similar to the "gay" situation).

Ultimately however, I think society has taken a turn down a dangerous path... the irony of the advent of so many special interest groups is that they will end up dividing us even more than before... All of these groups, demanding equality by seperating into powerful little groups representing only ONE special interest at a time... Black Equality, Women's Suffrage, Gay Equality, Illegal Immigrants, The Rich, the Poor... really it seems the only person who is truly being discriminated against openly is the Single White Straight Male, who is always under assault, I assume for being some sort of standard they never intended on becoming.

I've gone off on some sort of tangent here, but to bring it back home, gays need to stop and seriously consider what they are doing and choose their battles carefully. Is fighting over a WORD (marriage) really that important as just being able to live happily in whatever way they choose in society? I would prefer to be able to blend in and just be part of society, rather than drawing non-stop attention to myself bitching about every issue I can find.
Maybe thats just me. Maybe I was born that way.

Again, a black man and white woman could not marry in the south in 1935. thankfully we changed the definition of marriage in order to allow that.

But I'm not sure that parallel applies here...
In 1935 were black and white couples freely and openly walking around without being discriminated against violently? Are Gays being lynched and beaten and killed on SIGHT some where that I'm unaware of because I see gay couples EVERYWHERE.. in fact sometimes it seems that the reason I see them everywhere is because they are going out of their way to BE seen..
There is no reason whatsoever for two 30 year old men in a mall to stop every 15 feet and make out. I understand that Heterosexuals get to do PDA all over the place, but how many people do you see literally making out in public past the age of 17 and that also do not illicit feelings of revulsion when they do so?

You see, my biggest problem with the comparison of Gay issues to African American issues is that the two are so incomparable it's almost OFFENSIVE to try to marry the two. One was persecuted, often violently, and treated like a second hand citizen both openly and culturally simply because of their skin color, while the other is only identifiable by their chosen actions. Blacks cannot 'hide' they cannot 'blend in'. Second, Gays did not spend any amount of time being second class citizens, considering that many of them are white men to begin with. There is no obvious visual cue that made them easily discriminated against.

In the situation of marriage, in 1935 there ALSO was no BLACK/WHITE civil UNION. NO provisions were even MADE for there to be an opportunity for seperate but equal. It simply was not allowed and would result in a violent and brutal death should it have been discovered. Here, if it's discovered two guys are living together and having sex, people shrug and keep on moving... nobody shows up in the middle of the night to drag the Top away to hang from a tree while repeatedly raping the bottom to death to "teach them a lesson".

Thus I don't feel that the "blacks couldnt marry white women in 1935" argument works adequately because blacks couldn't stay ALIVE in the South until the 1960's where as if there was ever a seditious gay "purge", a Gay version of Rosewood that existed, I would be very interested in hearing about it.
Comparing Gay issues to Black issues is like comparing women's issues with animal rights... the two shouldnt be compared at all.

 

[jimtheviking]

Being gay is no more a choice than being straight or being Chinese or being Scottish is. Being Catholic is a choice. Being a fan of Englebert Humperdinck is a choice.

Actually, i don't think any of those things are really a choice.

Well, being gay, straight, Chinese or Scottish isn't a choice, which was my point. But the converts to Catholicism, for example, certainly made their choice to adopt their new faith. You can't just adopt a sexual orientation, though. You can repress one, but you can't ignore it.

 

[cobra_ky]

Being gay is no more a choice than being straight or being Chinese or being Scottish is. Being Catholic is a choice. Being a fan of Englebert Humperdinck is a choice.

Actually, i don't think any of those things are really a choice.

Well, being gay, straight, Chinese or Scottish isn't a choice, which was my point. But the converts to Catholicism, for example, certainly made their choice to adopt their new faith. You can't just adopt a sexual orientation, though. You can repress one, but you can't ignore it.

Well, choosing to join the catholic church certainly is a choice, but it's not like you can change your theological beliefs spontaneously. it's like the difference between choosing to engage in gay sex, and being attracted to gay people. one is a conscious action, the other is simply how you feel on the matter.

Enjoying humperdinck is the same way. you can choose whether to listen or not, but you don't have any real conscious control over how the music makes you feel.

 

[cobra_ky]

heh, it's funny you think it's a "fad", but i can understand your sentiment. the reason the word is so important, at least in the U.S., is that there's really no such thing as <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seperate_but_equal>seperate but equal social institutions. So long as they are called two different things, they will be treated differently by virtue of that alone. That difference will be dminished rights for homosexuals.

And it's that sort of thought that I fear will keep arguments going a good long time... Look I get it that gays just want to do things that straight people want to do, but lets be honest with ourselves... you can change LAWS, you will never change minds and hearts. People can learn to TOLERATE, but we have somehow managed to also misapply THAT term over the decades as well.. TOLERATE =/= ACCEPT. I can TOLERATE working next to someone who raped someone in his younger days, served his time, and is now trying to live a normal life. I GET that. I just don't have to ACCEPT it.

you can change the hearts and minds of a population, it just takes a few generations to do so.

This, as I see it, is where Gays run into their biggest problem... this desire to be overt, not just out of the closet but IN YOUR FACE gay. Seriously, it's one thing to work with someone who finds that he is attracted to men, but quietly goes about his day doing average people things. When asked, he should have no fear to say "Yes I am gay and here is my husband" or whatever.
But being BORN gay does not automatically turn you into a DIVA. Being loud, brash, and OBNOXIOUS while lisping all over the place and generally acting like every caricature of a homosexual we have ever seen is often times seen as part of "gay persona", imitated, and ultimately ridiculed. That is not something you are BORN with, it's an attitude and behaviour of a SPECIFIC stereotype that is LEARNED and wholly embraced.

Honestly, i think that flamboyant gay stereotype is a result of Homosexuality being discouraged by mainstream society and forced into a subculture, where only the loudest individuals are noticed. you see a similar thing with any political movement: the most radical voices draw most of the attention and the more reasonable moderates get marginalized. As the gay community gains acceptance that is the sort of thing you will see less and less of, simply because it won't be as shocking or as big a deal to mainstream society.

Thing is, once you bundle the understanding of human psychosis, the NEED to be seen as "special" and "unique", the human desire for attention, and lastly, our innate desires for sex (every human has them), it's not hard to imagine a few people falling onto the "gay train" simply because it turns heads and results in lots of sex, two things most humans spend their entire lives chasing after.

Again, people don't seem to have any control over what they find attractive. If you enjoy homosexual sex, then you are by definition a homosexual. I can't imagine why someone who simply wanted attention would choose to repeatedly engage in sex that disgusted them when there many, many other, simpler ways to get noticed. I won't say it's inconceivable but it seems incredibly unlikely.

That is why I think it's a "fad". Because realistically, if nobody made a big deal out of their being GAY, there would be no big issue in SOCIETY with being gay. What people fear is the perversion of homosexuality... such deviant behavior is naturally repulsive. Just as people who cant "help but love 8 year olds" is equally repulsive to many.

this is fallacious, I'm afraid. No mistreated minority ever overcame discrimination by shutting up and taking it. Without opposition, the oppression continues unabated. If gay people hadn't "made a big deal" over it, sodomy would still be illegal.

Which brings up it's own issue that has often been misapplied and ill-thought... but if people can't help being gay, then why should society also frown upon pedophiles, who strong science also supports are incapable of changing who THEY are? Many Pedos have a disposition for it... they will always find children more sexual attractive than older adults, they can't help it. Same argument with gays... but how do you determine that you are born with a specific propensity towards sexual deviance? One can assume a certain number of genetic mutations, to be sure, but again I have to wonder... If people are born gay and cannot help themselves, then why are we punishing pedophiles, who arguably may have been born that way and cannot help themselves (many of them cant, no matter how much therapy you throw at them, similar to the "gay" situation).

Because pedophiles, when they act on their sexual desires, cause lasting harm to an individual child, who is incapable of giving consent. Homosexuals on the other hand, simply have sex with a consenting partner, and society is slowly coming to the realization that no real harm comes of it.

Ultimately however, I think society has taken a turn down a dangerous path... the irony of the advent of so many special interest groups is that they will end up dividing us even more than before... All of these groups, demanding equality by seperating into powerful little groups representing only ONE special interest at a time... Black Equality, Women's Suffrage, Gay Equality, Illegal Immigrants, The Rich, the Poor... really it seems the only person who is truly being discriminated against openly is the Single White Straight Male, who is always under assault, I assume for being some sort of standard they never intended on becoming.

and fat people. seriously though, i think the problem is that for too long, society acted as if Straight White Men were the only people who mattered, and social institutions were designed to cater to them and no one else. I think the only way to have true equality is for all these minorities to come out, and have an honest, meaningful dialogue about the issues they face.

I've gone off on some sort of tangent here, but to bring it back home, gays need to stop and seriously consider what they are doing and choose their battles carefully. Is fighting over a WORD (marriage) really that important as just being able to live happily in whatever way they choose in society? I would prefer to be able to blend in and just be part of society, rather than drawing non-stop attention to myself bitching about every issue I can find.
Maybe thats just me. Maybe I was born that way.

maybe. and I'm sure there's plenty of homosexuals who agree with you. but there's also plenty who don't, who want the civil rights that they deserve, and i don't see any reason why they shouldn't have them.

In 1935 were black and white couples freely and openly walking around without being discriminated against violently? Are Gays being lynched and beaten and killed on SIGHT some where that I'm unaware of because I see gay couples EVERYWHERE.. in fact sometimes it seems that the reason I see them everywhere is because they are going out of their way to BE seen..
There is no reason whatsoever for two 30 year old men in a mall to stop every 15 feet and make out. I understand that Heterosexuals get to do PDA all over the place, but how many people do you see literally making out in public past the age of 17 and that also do not illicit feelings of revulsion when they do so?

For every gay couple you see doing that, there are countless others who are terrified when they go out with their partners in public. I don't know the statistics on PDAs but i'd be willing to bet that heterosexuals engage in them much more often.

You see, my biggest problem with the comparison of Gay issues to African American issues is that the two are so incomparable it's almost OFFENSIVE to try to marry the two. One was persecuted, often violently, and treated like a second hand citizen both openly and culturally simply because of their skin color, while the other is only identifiable by their chosen actions. Blacks cannot 'hide' they cannot 'blend in'. Second, Gays did not spend any amount of time being second class citizens, considering that many of them are white men to begin with. There is no obvious visual cue that made them easily discriminated against.

I would argue that gays still are second class citizens, since they don't enjoy the same marriage rights as other americans. They still are at risk of violent persecution from many individuals. Personally, as a Jew, another minority that can simply "blend in", i take offense to the notion that i should have to hide my cultural background simply because i can.

In the situation of marriage, in 1935 there ALSO was no BLACK/WHITE civil UNION. NO provisions were even MADE for there to be an opportunity for seperate but equal. It simply was not allowed and would result in a violent and brutal death should it have been discovered. Here, if it's discovered two guys are living together and having sex, people shrug and keep on moving... nobody shows up in the middle of the night to drag the Top away to hang from a tree while repeatedly raping the bottom to death to "teach them a lesson".

i don't see why the lack of a black/white civil union is relevant. the point is they deserved and were granted full marriage rights, not civil unions. Around this same time the Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" schools.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who would be willing to show up in the night and do exactly what you describe.

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#2000-2009>here's a partial list. I linked just to the current decade because i found the whole list to upsetting to read through.

Thus I don't feel that the "blacks couldnt marry white women in 1935" argument works adequately because blacks couldn't stay ALIVE in the South until the 1960's where as if there was ever a seditious gay "purge", a Gay version of Rosewood that existed, I would be very interested in hearing about it.
Comparing Gay issues to Black issues is like comparing women's issues with animal rights... the two shouldnt be compared at all.

Homosexuals were persecuted and murdered in Nazi concentration camps, according to many accounts they were treated even more poorly than the Jews. Unlike the Jews, however, after the war they were denied reparations and some were even convicted and reimprisoned using Nazi evidence.

Prior to the rise of Hitler, Germany was home to the most accepting culture in the world with regards to homosexuality. This was decades after Rosewood.

i have no problems comparing gay issues to black issues to women's issues to jewish issues. it doesn't matter which group suffered more than the others, it matters that they suffered at all. hatred is hatred and intolerance is intolerance and they're wrong regardless of who they're directed towards.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

you can change the hearts and minds of a population, it just takes a few generations to do so.

Why? Why must people change to suit the beliefs of one relatively minor group of people who practice an activity that many find distasteful? I hate to use this argument, but if people just accepted that some people like having sex with 12 year olds after a few generations their hearts and minds would change too, right?
See just because people can change their mind doesn't mean they should or need to. What do we benefit from it? As long as gays can exist in society without being oppressed (which for the most part they are NOT, not even close), then what more is there to do? What you advocate goes far beyond simple "tolerance" and create an advantage for a special interest group that by modern standards, needs none.

Again, people don't seem to have any control over what they find attractive. If you enjoy homosexual sex, then you are by definition a homosexual. I can't imagine why someone who simply wanted attention would choose to repeatedly engage in sex that disgusted them when there many, many other, simpler ways to get noticed. I won't say it's inconceivable but it seems incredibly unlikely.

Not at all. Humans are very sexual creatures and sex is very powerful psychologically. For example, are the majority of people who commit crimes innately gay? The reason I ask is because there is much reported homosexual behavior that occurs in prisons between it's male inmates, yet many of them would attest that they are NOT gay. This, among other examples and even stories of people who became "straight" after being gay leads me to a personal belief that homosexuality is merely a choice or at the very least psychologically driven, not genetically.

Because pedophiles, when they act on their sexual desires, cause lasting harm to an individual child, who is incapable of giving consent. Homosexuals on the other hand, simply have sex with a consenting partner, and society is slowly coming to the realization that no real harm comes of it.

You are right here, but what about situations where the child is 13-16? It's hard to argue that a child is not making a decision to engage in such activity with an adult at that age, even if they can be more easily convinced to do so. Consent in some form can be considered and provided. And then there is sexually transmitted disease issue the Gay community itself acknowledges is becoming a problem.. it's not that gays are more susceptible, but ironically because they tend to have more sex than straight people... namely because there is no fear of pregnancy and other deterrents, and because males are highly sexually driven and if you have a group of sexually charged people together sex is going to happen and often. So to say there is no harm is to make light of the situation unneccessarily. Sure, homosexuality wont end the world, but it's not exactly without it's own complications.

maybe. and I'm sure there's plenty of homosexuals who agree with you. but there's also plenty who don't, who want the civil rights that they deserve, and i don't see any reason why they shouldn't have them.

How is the use of the term "marriage" a civil right? Again, it isnt like they are being PREVENTED from being together, from dating, from doing all the things hetero-couples are doing. They can even have CIVIL unions. The argument that their civil rights are being violated doesn't really hold water here because there is no "right" being violated. The term Marriage is originated in the church to begin with, so even if the GOVERNMENT wants to call it that, it cannot FORCE religions to wed gays or acknowledge any such unions.
I for one would never acknowledge such a union as a Marriage no matter how many laws are passed. I suppose I should be punished for having a belief like that, which is what will happen eventually... thats the greatest problem of all with these arguments.. it's never about equality, it's about forcing someone else's beliefs onto someone else. If you do not believe in homosexuality openly you will be silenced, you will be punished, you will be forced to accept it, even if you do not want to and should be free enough not to. Gays want acceptance at the cost of someone else's right to disagree with their lifestyle. In essence it's all about POWER, who has it and who wields it, and they want to be the ones to wield it just so they can call the shots and tell people how and what to feel. Not that it's necessarily right the other way round, but I'm sure you get my point... in order for Gays to GAIN, someone else must LOSE. In order for things to improve for them, something must deteriorate for someone else.
Thats the way the world works.

For every gay couple you see doing that, there are countless others who are terrified when they go out with their partners in public. I don't know the statistics on PDAs but i'd be willing to bet that heterosexuals engage in them much more often.

Thats probably because they are the MAJORITY. There are FAR more heterosexuals than homosexuals. So naturally you would expect those numbers to rise. But then again, most people find ANYONE making out in public to be distasteful. I just don't notice many hetero couples doing it to get a reaction out of people.

I would argue that gays still are second class citizens, since they don't enjoy the same marriage rights as other americans. They still are at risk of violent persecution from many individuals. Personally, as a Jew, another minority that can simply "blend in", i take offense to the notion that i should have to hide my cultural background simply because i can.

I would argue that civil unions are exactly the same as marriage rights, just without the actual TERM and without the CHURCH's involvement. I would also argue that the cases of violent persecution of homosexuals is very low, perhaps a fraction of what it is of other races, in fact it's probably less than that of White Straight Males in this country at this point.
And as an African American, I take offense to the notion that choosing to display your cultural background and wearing it as an irremovable mark, (a scarlet letter that can never be removed, always making you a TARGET) are remotely comparable. You can be Jewish and practice your beliefs all the live long day in the privacy of your own home and enjoy a relatively quiet life.
As a black man, I risk my life just going out of my house everyday, considering that if I dont stumble into a bunch of racists, I might meet my end at the hands of my OWN people...

i don't see why the lack of a black/white civil union is relevant. the point is they deserved and were granted full marriage rights, not civil unions. Around this same time the Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" schools.

It is relevant in that the right for a black man to marry a white woman (or vice versa) is not comparable to a gay man wanting to marry another man as opposed to a civil union. A civil union is every bit the same as a marriage in almost all cases. That wasn't an option to blacks in the 1930s. Hell back then, Civil unions would have been MUCH more preferable to a NOOSE.
My point is that while gays enjoy comparing their 'fight' to that of other minority groups, specifically African Americans it's VASTLY different. Gays could hide themselves for the most part, avoiding persecution and slowly changing the system over time. Of course they didnt have to do this because homosexuality has burst onto the scene and for the most part been accepted with open arms into society in the past 20 years, where as discrimination against blacks continues unabashedly in almost every sector and in some cases appears to be getting WORSE.
And while I will not say that the gay community has not undergone persecution, they NEVER endured ANYTHING resembling what African Americans had to go through, not even CLOSE. There was virtually a lynching an hour going on in this country at one point... the statistics are shameful if not staggering. homosexuals NEVER endured such open hatred and threat. Not even close.

i have no problems comparing gay issues to black issues to women's issues to jewish issues. it doesn't matter which group suffered more than the others, it matters that they suffered at all. hatred is hatred and intolerance is intolerance and they're wrong regardless of who they're directed towards.

I do. Gays are not a homogenous group. They are comprised of people who made the determination to engage in such activities or at least, to openly do so. There are no gay bloodlines, no gay race.. gays come from all walks of life and races. To me they can pick and choose their battles by that very virtue that all they need to do to avoid trouble is to stay silent and blend in. That ability alone in my book excludes them from being able to claim the same suffrage as women, blacks, indians and even Jews. The latter cannot choose who they are or wish to be, they only ARE. Two gay men living together can simply claim to be roommates and thats the end of the story. A black man can't pretend to be "white" and most women can't successfully pretend to be MEN. Even Jewish people have certain features that distinguish them physically.
Gays do not have that burden.

That said, I think I will end this conversation here before someone accuses me of hate speech or rhetoric and attempts to have me silenced by reporting me.
Chances are it has already happened.
But let us simply leave it at this.. live and let live.

 

[cobra_ky]

That said, I think I will end this conversation here before someone accuses me of hate speech or rhetoric and attempts to have me silenced by reporting me.
Chances are it has already happened.
But let us simply leave it at this.. live and let live.

i'm sorry to hear that. i've found this to be an enlightening and enjoyable conversation. I don't believe anything you've said here is even close to a reportable offense. All the same, I understand if you don't wish to respond, but please let me address your arguments one last time. If you don't wish to read through the entire post, let me summarize:

As a purely legal (and not a religious) matter, the term used for heterosexual and homosexual partnerships should be the same. Whether the term used is "marriage" or "civil union" is immaterial, all that matters is that our government treat these partnerships identically, down to the term used to describe them. Per the first amendment, the government can not and will not define "marriage" in the religious sense.

I apologize if I was unclear or even contradicted the above statement. If it's still not clear, please, read on.

you can change the hearts and minds of a population, it just takes a few generations to do so.

Why? Why must people change to suit the beliefs of one relatively minor group of people who practice an activity that many find distasteful? I hate to use this argument, but if people just accepted that some people like having sex with 12 year olds after a few generations their hearts and minds would change too, right?
See just because people can change their mind doesn't mean they should or need to. What do we benefit from it? As long as gays can exist in society without being oppressed (which for the most part they are NOT, not even close), then what more is there to do? What you advocate goes far beyond simple "tolerance" and create an advantage for a special interest group that by modern standards, needs none.

I'm not talking about individual people. I'm talking about generations as a whole. If future generations grow up with homosexuality as an accepted part of society then they'll be much less likely to be disgusted with it.

I'm not asking you to change, hell, i find gay sex disgusting too. I just think people should get out of the way and let homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. I don't see why it's an "advantage" to have the same word for gay and straight domestic partnerships.

Again, people don't seem to have any control over what they find attractive. If you enjoy homosexual sex, then you are by definition a homosexual. I can't imagine why someone who simply wanted attention would choose to repeatedly engage in sex that disgusted them when there many, many other, simpler ways to get noticed. I won't say it's inconceivable but it seems incredibly unlikely.

Not at all. Humans are very sexual creatures and sex is very powerful psychologically. For example, are the majority of people who commit crimes innately gay? The reason I ask is because there is much reported homosexual behavior that occurs in prisons between it's male inmates, yet many of them would attest that they are NOT gay. This, among other examples and even stories of people who became "straight" after being gay leads me to a personal belief that homosexuality is merely a choice or at the very least psychologically driven, not genetically.

that's a unique phenomenon resulting from gender-segregated prison culture, and it has more to do with dominance and power than actual sexuality. Let them out of prison, and the vast majority of those inmates will go back to women and never look back. I agree that sexuality is very much psychologically-driven (although there's strong evidence of a genetic component), but that's a far cry from homosexuality being a "choice".

Because pedophiles, when they act on their sexual desires, cause lasting harm to an individual child, who is incapable of giving consent. Homosexuals on the other hand, simply have sex with a consenting partner, and society is slowly coming to the realization that no real harm comes of it.

You are right here, but what about situations where the child is 13-16? It's hard to argue that a child is not making a decision to engage in such activity with an adult at that age, even if they can be more easily convinced to do so. Consent in some form can be considered and provided. And then there is sexually transmitted disease issue the Gay community itself acknowledges is becoming a problem.. it's not that gays are more susceptible, but ironically because they tend to have more sex than straight people... namely because there is no fear of pregnancy and other deterrents, and because males are highly sexually driven and if you have a group of sexually charged people together sex is going to happen and often. So to say there is no harm is to make light of the situation unneccessarily. Sure, homosexuality wont end the world, but it's not exactly without it's own complications.

Legally in the U.S., children aged 13-16 cannot consent to sexual activity. I don't know enough about child psychology or law to debate whether or not the age of consent should be higher or lower, but i see no reason to change it at the current time.

Gays actually are more susceptible to STDs, since they are a smaller community and they engage in forms of sex which can increase risks of transmission. These risks can be mitigated through condom use, however, and at any rate, society generally accepts that adults have the right to consent to potentially harmful activities if they so choose and do not harm anyone else around them. See drinking, skydiving, smoking, etc.

maybe. and I'm sure there's plenty of homosexuals who agree with you. but there's also plenty who don't, who want the civil rights that they deserve, and i don't see any reason why they shouldn't have them.

How is the use of the term "marriage" a civil right? Again, it isnt like they are being PREVENTED from being together, from dating, from doing all the things hetero-couples are doing. They can even have CIVIL unions. The argument that their civil rights are being violated doesn't really hold water here because there is no "right" being violated. The term Marriage is originated in the church to begin with, so even if the GOVERNMENT wants to call it that, it cannot FORCE religions to wed gays or acknowledge any such unions.

The government is constitutionally obligated not to mandate religion. The religious definition of marriage is irrelevant as far as the legal definition is concerned. However marriage is defined in law, it will not affect what churches can or cannot do in any way.

Let me make one thing clear however, that i don't have a problem with the term "civil union". My problem is that there are different legal terms for homosexual and heterosexual partnerships. If congress stripped the word "marriage" from the books and replaced it with "civil union", i'd be happy with that. i just want the legal term to be the same for everybody; then individuals can each define marriage however they wish.

I for one would never acknowledge such a union as a Marriage no matter how many laws are passed. I suppose I should be punished for having a belief like that, which is what will happen eventually...

i'm going to stop you right there. no one's trying to change what you believe about homosexuality. You have every right to be disgusted by the thought of it, as I am. But we both know they exist, they're going to be together either way, so why should it matter to us if they call their partnership a marriage or a civil union?

thats the greatest problem of all with these arguments.. it's never about equality, it's about forcing someone else's beliefs onto someone else. If you do not believe in homosexuality openly you will be silenced, you will be punished, you will be forced to accept it, even if you do not want to and should be free enough not to. Gays want acceptance at the cost of someone else's right to disagree with their lifestyle. In essence it's all about POWER, who has it and who wields it, and they want to be the ones to wield it just so they can call the shots and tell people how and what to feel. Not that it's necessarily right the other way round, but I'm sure you get my point... in order for Gays to GAIN, someone else must LOSE. In order for things to improve for them, something must deteriorate for someone else.

Again, this isn't about people's beliefs, it's about equal legal recognition and protection for homosexual marriages. It's about the legal code enforcing the notion that homosexuals are different, that their love and commitment is different and undeserving of the same term used for heterosexual marriage.

For every gay couple you see doing that, there are countless others who are terrified when they go out with their partners in public. I don't know the statistics on PDAs but i'd be willing to bet that heterosexuals engage in them much more often.

Thats probably because they are the MAJORITY. There are FAR more heterosexuals than homosexuals. So naturally you would expect those numbers to rise. But then again, most people find ANYONE making out in public to be distasteful. I just don't notice many hetero couples doing it to get a reaction out of people.

I meant proportionally by population, of course. Given randomly selected couples, I think a heterosexual couple is far more likely to engage in a PDA, since heterosexual couples generally have no fear of reprisal. When homosexual couples do engage in PDA, they generally DON'T want a reaction, since a lot of the time that reaction is verbally abusive or even physically violent.

I would argue that civil unions are exactly the same as marriage rights, just without the actual TERM and without the CHURCH's involvement. I would also argue that the cases of violent persecution of homosexuals is very low, perhaps a fraction of what it is of other races, in fact it's probably less than that of White Straight Males in this country at this point.

One could just as well argue that segregated water fountains were exactly the same, or segregated schools. Even given identical facilities and resources, the very fact of segregation enforced the notion that the races shouldn't mix, with the clear implication being that it was because African-Americans were inferior.

Attacks against homosexuals make up around 16% of all hate crimes. i don't know the statistics for straight white men.

And as an African American, I take offense to the notion that choosing to display your cultural background and wearing it as an irremovable mark, (a scarlet letter that can never be removed, always making you a TARGET) are remotely comparable. You can be Jewish and practice your beliefs all the live long day in the privacy of your own home and enjoy a relatively quiet life.
As a black man, I risk my life just going out of my house everyday, considering that if I dont stumble into a bunch of racists, I might meet my end at the hands of my OWN people...

It's unfortunate that you can't choose to hide your race, but if you could, would that really be an adequate solution? would you be happy hiding who you were all the time? even if you would be, I'm sure many African Americans wouldn't.

i don't see why the lack of a black/white civil union is relevant. the point is they deserved and were granted full marriage rights, not civil unions. Around this same time the Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" schools.

It is relevant in that the right for a black man to marry a white woman (or vice versa) is not comparable to a gay man wanting to marry another man as opposed to a civil union. A civil union is every bit the same as a marriage in almost all cases. That wasn't an option to blacks in the 1930s. Hell back then, Civil unions would have been MUCH more preferable to a NOOSE.
My point is that while gays enjoy comparing their 'fight' to that of other minority groups, specifically African Americans it's VASTLY different. Gays could hide themselves for the most part, avoiding persecution and slowly changing the system over time. Of course they didnt have to do this because homosexuality has burst onto the scene and for the most part been accepted with open arms into society in the past 20 years, where as discrimination against blacks continues unabashedly in almost every sector and in some cases appears to be getting WORSE.
And while I will not say that the gay community has not undergone persecution, they NEVER endured ANYTHING resembling what African Americans had to go through, not even CLOSE. There was virtually a lynching an hour going on in this country at one point... the statistics are shameful if not staggering. homosexuals NEVER endured such open hatred and threat. Not even close.

I'm not comparing the suffering of African-Americans to that of gay Americans as a whole. The magnitude of their suffering, relative to each other, isn't the issue. The issue is that both groups suffer at all, and it's wrong that they do. Killing someone because they're black is just as wrong as killing someone because they're jewish or gay. The same applies to denial of equal marriage (or civil union) opportunities.

i have no problems comparing gay issues to black issues to women's issues to jewish issues. it doesn't matter which group suffered more than the others, it matters that they suffered at all. hatred is hatred and intolerance is intolerance and they're wrong regardless of who they're directed towards.

I do. Gays are not a homogenous group. They are comprised of people who made the determination to engage in such activities or at least, to openly do so. There are no gay bloodlines, no gay race.. gays come from all walks of life and races. To me they can pick and choose their battles by that very virtue that all they need to do to avoid trouble is to stay silent and blend in. That ability alone in my book excludes them from being able to claim the same suffrage as women, blacks, indians and even Jews. The latter cannot choose who they are or wish to be, they only ARE. Two gay men living together can simply claim to be roommates and thats the end of the story. A black man can't pretend to be "white" and most women can't successfully pretend to be MEN. Even Jewish people have certain features that distinguish them physically.
Gays do not have that burden.

I think you underestimate how hard it is to hide who you are. There's a reason most gays "come out of the closet", it's because it's incredibly difficult to lie to yourself and everyone around you. It's especially difficult when your religion or sexuality or what have you is being denounced. There's also multiple cases of straight people being murdered because someone thought they were gay.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

snip for the sake of brevity

Such discourse as this can be fun and enlightening as long as both parties are willing to remain open minded and non-judgmental (I know, ironic considering my previously mentioned stances).

If you would like, I would be glad to continue this conversation in private. I'll email you my response.

Thank you, publically however, for a great conversation. We shall continue it elsewhere.

 

[Triple G]

Okay, I have to ask.
Are you retarded?

Not in an insulting way - are you literally retarded?
Because then you'd have an excuse.
As it is, I'm just not sure what to make of you.
You're either startlingly oblivious or startlingly stupid.
There can only be one.

Counter-question: Are you?

Because I'm totally trolling you and you act as if I'm serious. I don't care if some dude thinks that marrying another dude is ok or not. I just think that a marriage is there to support children better, because if you're married you pay less taxes and in some countries you even get supported by the state. As there is no reproduction in a gay marriage there is no real use for it except to exploit the state. So I just find it useless and a waste. If you want to marry because of moral beliefs, than hooray for you. I for example want to find a nice girl I can spend my life with, marry her and have 3-4 children. Also I think that "being gay" is against nature.

No offense to gay people, I can be friends with gays, and I tolerate them, I do not hate gays just because I think there way of life is against nature. For example I'm Russian-orthodox-Christian(no I don't believe that gays are against nature because of that, I base my opinion about this on reason and logic), and I believe that there is a god,I have my own personal proof of his existence, also I think it's way cooler to have a god and an afterlife except of thinking that there is nothing except our fucked up, materialistic life, but I tolerate atheists and their beliefs too, as long as they don't get in my face about how stupid I am in believing in such a thing like god. Most of my friends are atheist.

Ah yes, and I put "love" in quotation marks because I was talking about sex and not about love. Don't try to state something that you can't back up.

In the hope you're getting what I'm talking about now,
Triple G

 

[Triple G]

snip

Not really.

This happened a week or two ago, and to be honest, I couldn't care less what you said.
So I don't even remember it.

I guess I can see the "logic" in such a statement, though.
Most humans seem to be of the opinion that they are there solely to pass on their genes - if you don't, you're going "against nature."
Gay folk clearly don't do so.

Congratulations on your god, I guess.
I agree that it does sound really cool, but I also think it would be really cool to have a unicorn.
Maybe one day I'll see one, but until then, I have to doubt they exist.

I like the "most of my friends are [x]!" defense.

Like I said, I didn't really respond to anything that references an earlier post because it wasn't important enough for me to remember.
Chances are I still dislike you, though.

Dude, saying "I don't care for your arguments, so I didn't remember them" is a little bit cheap, isn't it? But still, I stated my point, you said you don't care. We're through. To repeat your statement: Chances are, I still dislike you.

 

[Legion]

snip

*snip*

Dude, saying "I don't care for your arguments, so I didn't remember them" is a little bit cheap, isn't it? But still, I stated my point, you said you don't care. We're through. To repeat your statement: Chances are, I still dislike you.

In all fairness, after reading your argument I kind of wish I could forget it, I haven't been on these forums in about a week and it's posts such as yours that I think are the reason why.

There is no logical or moral reasoning behind being against homosexual marriage. If homosexuality wasn't natural then it wouldn't exist beyond humanity, seeing as we are the only creatures who have the kind of self awareness to "invent" something like that; it does exist in nature, therefore it's natural.

Any opinion saying that it is not natural or is somehow wrong is based upon bigotry.