Miss California?

[BroomJockey]

Part of my reasoning for opposing gay marriage is based in my religious views. I've also talked to atheists and others that are against it though.

Here's a question I have for the pagans. If pagan rituals sometimes focus on fertility and male and female energies, and natural patterns of birth and death, then how does gay stuff fit into that? I've always wondered about that and I've never really understood it.

I've talked to a large number of Christians for it. More than 50% of my country decided same-sex marriage was a non-issue, and passed laws explicitly allowing it. And you'll note we've had fewer issues than your country, lately, if you really wanna try and derail this.

As for the second, speaking as one of the many varieties of pagan, I can tell you my "branch," (since saying pagan is like saying 'monotheist religions,' incredibly vague) has no issues with it. Sexuality was a non-issue. In fact, it was preferred to find someone that was a compliment to you, rather than force yourself to be something your not. Self-deception is basically the worst thing a person can do.

So, you have a working example of a society that works while allowing same-sex marriage. You have atheists against it, I have just as many Christians in favour. You have tradition, I have more traditions that say traditions should be discarded when the reason for them is gone.

So, do you actually have a reason you can point to that isn't "I say so" (hardly a valid reason to impose your will on other free-thinking people) or "My Bible says so" (can't make others follow your belief system, after all) that argues in favour of disallowing same-sex marriage, and why someone espousing that can possibly seen as a unifying force (the actual, original topic)?

[linguist]

Doing something that's always been done that way just because it's done that way is probably the least logical reason to ever be espoused.

"a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers, and divines."--ralph waldo emerson

[Rubystars]

I'm not "pushing for" anything. It's the gays that are pushing for their particular brand of sexuality to be recognized.

The ancient Greeks weren't Christian, that's true, but one of the oldest Christian churches is the Greek Orthodox church. Christianity is a relatively young religion though.

Just because something is traditional doesn't mean it should be followed, you're right about that part. I have just been referring to traditional marriage as another way of saying heterosexual marriage. I do think that the fact that man-woman marriage being traditional should be a factor in the debate, because it's one reason to consider why it has been that way. However it's not the end-all be-all factor.

Part of my reasoning for opposing gay marriage is based in my religious views. I've also talked to atheists and others that are against it though.

Here's a question I have for the pagans. If pagan rituals sometimes focus on fertility and male and female energies, and natural patterns of birth and death, then how does gay stuff fit into that? I've always wondered about that and I've never really understood it.

[BroomJockey]

That's still based around the man-woman marriage situation forming a new family.

But it's not what you're pushing for. Why? It's traditional. In fact, go back further. Greece. Lots of gays back then. They weren't ostracised in any way, shape, or form. Equal rights all around for men. That's about as far back as you can go, reliably. Or will you not go that far back because the Greeks weren't Christian? If you're pushing for man+woman standard because of your religious views, fine, they're your views. But don't dress it up as "tradition." It's tradition in some cultures that women are burned alive when their husbands die. It's tradition that women don't get to vote! There's 50 bajillion other traditions that a person could point to that the world is better off without. Doing something that's always been done that way just because it's done that way is probably the least logical reason to ever be espoused.

Of course, it occurs to me that if you try to argue that marriage is man+woman simply because of religion, and religious doctrine isn't supposed to inform governmental policy, you've rather forfeited the debate.

So, old tradition in the fine tradition of traditions better discarded, or religious stand that shouldn't form the backbone of the government's stance?

[Rubystars]

Your argument seems to be that the nuclear family is a traditional concept, therefore it is inherently better. BUT nuclear families are only recently the most common, but you're touting them as the best. It used to be you'd have 3 or 4 generations living under a single roof, and it was the height of selfish, evil behaviour to abandon your parents to live elsewhere, unless your siblings were well able to provide for them, and you could find good work elsewhere.

That's still based around the man-woman marriage situation forming a new family.

It wasn't until the 20th century that nuclear families became the norm, rather than the exception. So why aren't you advocating the *actual* tradition of having your grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, and everyone else in your family all living in the same place? Come on, strike a blow for tradition! Extended families or bust!

It might not be a bad idea for that to be more common. It does seem awfully cold and cruel to abandon elders in nursing homes. Of course there are some situations such as extreme dementia where a family may not be able to handle the situation without help, but I think it's best to avoid the whole putting the elderly into homes thing if possible.

[Rubystars]

Slyt, that was beautiful. I think everyone, both gay and straight, can agree, the sex is nice, but Slyt brings up a good point, it's not just about what a person is doing 'in the bedroom' (which btw, most people I know, gay and straight, sleep in the bedroom, sex being a secondary, if that high up, use for the bedroom), it's about who you feel comfortable holding hands with, who feels right when they sit next to you, who's touch will always send shivers down your spine, who's eyes will always pierce your soul, who it is that when you wake up, you think of first and think that life is worthwhile because of them, the person you look at and think is the most beautiful person in the world.
There are people on both sides, gay and straight, who have perverted that to be about nothing more than sex. I've known straight guys who have had sex with girls without even knowing their names... that doesn't prove that all straight guys are nothing more than sex hounds who want nothing more than to get into a girls pants. So why does this debate even bring up sexual promiscuity of gay men? Because some gay men are promiscuous all gay men should be punished?

I'd be interested in the stats on how many gays are promiscuous versus how many gays are in single partner, long-term relationships. Have there been any studies on this?

The judge wasn't talking about a strange man, he was talking about my uncle.

Well that would have been fine too, but I agree with the judge that if you were living with any family it would be ok.

You've said multiple times that a child needs both a father and a mother, and if that were true, then my father's mother would of had a legitimate complaint against my mother's ability to raise me and the judge should have ordered me to live with my married uncle.

I think that ideally, a child should have both a mother and a father in their lives. I think this is healthy. In your case, there were special circumstances where that couldn't happen, and you had the alternatives of living in two different situations with family members. I think that was ok.

And I do find the sexist undertones of your post interesting... introducing strange MEN who could do anything to a vulnerable child...

Here's what I meant by that. I think that it's bad when a single mother feels like she has to get married again "for the sake of the children". All it does is expose the kids to emotional turmoil and to potentially abusive "step fathers".

I didn't mean those guys were gay.

Care to explain then how my mother has a coworker who's son was molested and beaten by a straight woman who was hired through a babysitting firm?

Both straight and gay people can be evil.

Gender and orientation have nothing to do with a person's ability to be kind and compassionate and a good role model to a child, just as it has nothing to do with a person's ability to be a monster and a child beater.

I don't like the idea of gay couples adopting children, but you're right that their orientation doesn't mean that they will be abusive or anything like that.

[BroomJockey]

The family was traditionally seen as the basic unit of society. Now of course the nuclear family isn't held in as high esteem as it used to be unfortunately. Societies have an interest in seeing that what they promote and reward benefits them. I don't see how gay relationships benefit society in the same way that stable nuclear families do.

Your argument seems to be that the nuclear family is a traditional concept, therefore it is inherently better. BUT nuclear families are only recently the most common, but you're touting them as the best. It used to be you'd have 3 or 4 generations living under a single roof, and it was the height of selfish, evil behaviour to abandon your parents to live elsewhere, unless your siblings were well able to provide for them, and you could find good work elsewhere. It wasn't until the 20th century that nuclear families became the norm, rather than the exception. So why aren't you advocating the *actual* tradition of having your grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, and everyone else in your family all living in the same place? Come on, strike a blow for tradition! Extended families or bust!

[smileyeagle1021]

What a person 'does in the bedroom', who they hold hands with, whos eyes they look into, should be of no concern to anybody else.

Slyt, that was beautiful. I think everyone, both gay and straight, can agree, the sex is nice, but Slyt brings up a good point, it's not just about what a person is doing 'in the bedroom' (which btw, most people I know, gay and straight, sleep in the bedroom, sex being a secondary, if that high up, use for the bedroom), it's about who you feel comfortable holding hands with, who feels right when they sit next to you, who's touch will always send shivers down your spine, who's eyes will always pierce your soul, who it is that when you wake up, you think of first and think that life is worthwhile because of them, the person you look at and think is the most beautiful person in the world.
There are people on both sides, gay and straight, who have perverted that to be about nothing more than sex. I've known straight guys who have had sex with girls without even knowing their names... that doesn't prove that all straight guys are nothing more than sex hounds who want nothing more than to get into a girls pants. So why does this debate even bring up sexual promiscuity of gay men? Because some gay men are promiscuous all gay men should be punished?

ETA-

To me living with family is a much better option than introducing strange men into the house who could do anything to a vulnerable child, so in that case I agree with the judge. I do think the ideal situation is for a child to grow up with a mother and father who both love them though.

The judge wasn't talking about a strange man, he was talking about my uncle. You've said multiple times that a child needs both a father and a mother, and if that were true, then my father's mother would of had a legitimate complaint against my mother's ability to raise me and the judge should have ordered me to live with my married uncle.
And I do find the sexist undertones of your post interesting... introducing strange MEN who could do anything to a vulnerable child... I'm assuming you are also implying that said men are gay. Care to explain then how my mother has a coworker who's son was molested and beaten by a straight woman who was hired through a babysitting firm? Gender and orientation have nothing to do with a person's ability to be kind and compassionate and a good role model to a child, just as it has nothing to do with a person's ability to be a monster and a child beater.

[Rubystars]

Rubystars, on the topic of tax breaks. I could just as easily argue that The world has too many people on it, we should cut our population by at least a third, most humane way to do that is to prevent heterosexuals from having children... therefore, I believe the government should not give tax breaks to heterosexual couples, and tax them even more for having children... after all, to do anything else is to condone the overpopulating of the planet.

That policy would probably be a better sell in places that were more densely populated than the USA, but if you want to advocate for it, go for it. I may not agree with it but you have the right to advocate for what you believe in.

Doesn't that argument sound ridiculus? Most people would read that argument and think I was insane, the tax code doesn't promote overpopulation... and they'd be right.

I like it a lot better than China's policies of forced abortion, so in comparison to that it might not be so insane.

The tax code recognizes the efficiency of people entering into committed relationships and cohabitating... why then, is a gay couple in a committed relationship and cohabitating to be deemed any less efficient?

The family was traditionally seen as the basic unit of society. Now of course the nuclear family isn't held in as high esteem as it used to be unfortunately. Societies have an interest in seeing that what they promote and reward benefits them. I don't see how gay relationships benefit society in the same way that stable nuclear families do.

And yes, I know that that ideal is not written anywhere in the tax code, but I've had at least two different accounting professors point blank say that's what the government is after. Hell, it is more efficient for the government, they now only have to provide fire and police protection to one household rather than two, a married couple being more likely to have joint insurance through their employer lowers the cost of medicare/medicaid, with both of them able to work it is less likely if one is unemployed that they will file for unemployment while the other still has an income, I'm sure there are other examples, those are just the ones I remember from my tax accounting classes. There are plenty of economic reasons for the government to promote marriage besides it being the social norm, and on those grounds homosexuals should have even more reason for tax breaks because a homosexual couple isn't going to be popping out babies that will cost tax dollars to put through school, and if they are permitted to adopt they will reduce the burden on the foster care system, once again saving tax dollars.

They have higher rates of some diseases though, which may put a bigger burden on the health care system and raise insurance rates.

Also, on the discussion of the persecution of the Jews, you admit that none of it made sense, that it was a result of society first forcing the Jews into seclusion and then allowing that seclusion to bread distrust... so why then do you support forcing homosexuals into seclusion?

I would really prefer it if they kept the whole thing to themselves, but I don't want to legally force them into seclusion. What I do want is for them not to ask for the government to give official legitimacy to their actions.

And you mentioned that you did know some homosexuals that met the stereotype so therefore it isnt a stereotype... I hate to point this out, but's that's exactly what a stereotype is, basing one's image of the group as a whole based on an oversimplification from observing a small part of the group, there wouldn't be a stereotype about lazy mexicans if there weren't at least some lazy mexicans, nor would there be one about the penny pinching jew is some jews didnt penny pinch, likewise, there wouldn't be a stereotype about the flamboyount homosexual if there weren't any flamboyount homosexuals (that tidbit brought to you by Professor Blake).

Most stereotypes are based in some part on the truth, yes. The gays that I get along best with are the ones that act normal, not flamboyant. I will be nice to and tolerate having to work with a flamboyant gay or to serve them as a customer, but I wouldn't want to be friends with them on a personal level because I find that behavior to be highly distasteful and embarassing. I would be able to be friends with a gay that acted normal in public even if I didn't agree with everything they did.

Oh, and a will... you mean that thing that my father filled out that clearly stated I should inherit his entire estate... that same thing that was damned near legally contested by his mother, that thing that the only reason it was enforced was because under probate rules a spouse (my mother) becomes the default inheritor if the will is invalidated, and her decision after probate fell to her was to enforce the will? Oh yeah, those do a lot of good. Nothing beats a marriage license when it comes to probate rights.

I'm sorry that happened. Unfortunately the will of the deceased is not always followed. My grandfather was rich and his second wife got everything, leaving my dad out in the cold because he was the son of my grandfather's first wife. Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like to have inherited some of that money but it apparently wasn't meant to be.

And speaking of death of a partner issues, especially relevant to gay marriage and in particular adoption rights (since you reminded me of this with the topic of wills), my mother made it very clear that she had no intention of remarrying, she intended to live with her mother and have her and her mother raise me. My father's mother contested my mother's custody on the grounds that she would be unsuited to raise me because of her clear intentions not to remarry and thus introduce a new father figure into my life, she wanted custody of me to be granted to my father's brother. Do you want to guess what the judge ruled? I'll give you a hint, I didn't grow up with my uncle. That's right, the judge recognized that there was no legal precedent to require a child live with both a father and a mother, that a mother and a grandmother was a perfectly suitable environment for a child to grow up in. Really, taking that precedent, it doesn't take too much of a stretch to say that two fathers or two mothers would also be a suitable environment for a child to grow up in, and as it is that so many people have made it clear how important marriage is for a stable child raising environment, would it not be better for a gay couple to be married to raise that child in what could legally be considered a perfectly suitable environment?

To me living with family is a much better option than introducing strange men into the house who could do anything to a vulnerable child, so in that case I agree with the judge. I do think the ideal situation is for a child to grow up with a mother and father who both love them though.

[Rubystars]

I hope you had a good workout.

My answer to your question is this. Heterosexuality is the default sexuality, the normal way of doing things. To me marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman to begin with, so there is no need to justify it or earn the right to call it a marriage. It's only the different forms of sexuality that need to make a case that their types should be considered marriage.

[Rapscallion]

They are demanding the benefits of marriage, and for society to recognize them as normal, when they can never be validy "married" as they're not with someone of the opposite gender, and they will never be "normal".

I'm fresh back from exercise and desperately in need of a shower, so I'm going to tackle the rest of your post later. However, I want to ask you something.

How did you, as a heterosexual, earn the right to call your committed relationship a marriage? What did you do that's so special?

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

So then what, if there was another vote, and the majority came out in favour of gay marriage then if the government supports it it won't be something the majority find disgusting.

That's true. Maybe the gays should try again in a few years.

Because of people with your atitude.

Yep. People like me will never see this as normal and acceptable.

Yes please.

I want to see the poll too.

[Rubystars]

That's what you said before. Please provide me with this 'gay agenda'.

I'm not sure that there is a "gay agenda" that each and every gay would follow. I've read that some homosexuals are even against gay marriage due to the fact that it's acting too much like straight people.

The political agenda that has been pushed by gay rights groups involves teaching young children in school about homosexuality, allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children, and allowing gays and lesbians to "marry" each other and have it recognized in the same way that a straight marriage would be.

It's a hypothetical pastor. It's a generalisation of what I can hear from intolerant people.

So it's intolerant if someone doesn't agree with the above mentioned goals, right?

Both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail? All beliefs are right? I think not.

I made a mistake when I typed that. I meant to type that both have the right to fight for their beliefs to prevail. Just like with any political issue, there are going to be people on both sides of it. Both sides have a right to have their say, and to fight for their own agendas. If gays are going to agitate and demonstrate, then I have the right to say no to what they want too.

The jews were brought into this merely as an example of what your ideas of closeting gays would bring about - humans in groups will dehumanise humans of other groups who are vulnerable because of such actions.

I don't think it's fair to use Jews as an example really, because religious Orthodox Jews are against homosexuality too. Their Bible explicity prohibits male homosexual sex, and their traditions also prohibit lesbianism, though the punishments for the latter aren't quite as severe. Are you accusing them of dehumanizing other people simply because they find those acts to be inappropriate and sinful?

The net effect will be that they are harmed. There is already harm - financial harm through the lack of equal tax breaks, for example.

I don't think they should have tax breaks to begin with, because I believe a man and a man or a woman and a woman are not a valid couple.

Bringing in your views on closeting will bring real harm, as it did with the jews.
As people.

I have no desire to do physical harm to gays or lesbians.

Since the issue at hand is the Californian beauty pageant winner, or whatever it is she got stripped from her, then I think it may be more acceptable to have a poll that reflects the preferences of the US or California. If you want to provide a worldwide poll as well, then fine, but I do know that islamic countries would generate a high level of non-acceptance simply on religious grounds.

Got any of the above?

I'm not sure what a world wide poll would indicate but including the Islamic countries, the right wing Christians, and other religious groups that oppose homosexuality, I think we can reasonably state that the majority of the world is likely opposed to it. However I don't have a scientific poll.

California did have a chance to have an actual poll, when they got to vote on the matter of homosexual marriage. They voted against it. Therefore if Miss California is expressing that she is against it too, then she adequately represents California (except maybe San Francisco ).

I'm not sure how it is with the USA as a whole. I haven't looked for any recent polls yet.

A will is an extra step someone has to take - it's not a currently a standard of the state that they automatically provide for their loved ones. That's unequal. I consider that unacceptable.

The only reason I would consider it acceptable is that to me I don't think that those kind of relationships are equal anyway.

Exactly which special rights are gay groups demanding? Please spell this out for us. All I can see is a demand for equality, and that's not unreasonable.

Rapscallion

They are demanding the benefits of marriage, and for society to recognize them as normal, when they can never be validy "married" as they're not with someone of the opposite gender, and they will never be "normal".

[Nyoibo]

Since the government represents the people, if the government officially condones gay marriage, then it affects me because my tax money and my government will be encouraging something that the majority of people find to be disgusting. I'm not ok with that.

So then what, if there was another vote, and the majority came out in favour of gay marriage then if the government supports it it won't be something the majority find disgusting.

Cute but you still aren't addressing what I brought up. If something is normal, why do people have to insist that it is? Why is it not obvious and just accepted?

Because of people with your atitude.

Do you want to have a world wide poll?

Yes please.

[Slytovhand]

Most people would read that argument and think I was insane,

Umm... actually, I like it