Miss California?

[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]

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.

[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

[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)?

[Rubystars]

BroomJockey, thanks for answering my question in regards to your particular branch of paganism. It just seems to be a little confusing to me in a way. Some pagans believe in a God and a Goddess, and believe in fertility magic, so I wasn't sure how that meshed with being accepting of homosexuality.

As for left wing Christians, well, left wing Christians let people like the late term abortionist Tiller be a deacon in their church. I have a lot more of a problem with them than I do with any gay person.

My belief is against homosexual marriage being considered a valid marriage. I guess to you that's nothing better than "I say so". No matter why I oppose it though, shouldn't I have a right to say I don't want it officially recognized?

[Slytovhand]

I'll add just a couple of things from the pagan viewpoint..

Firstly - to many pagans, it's about the soul and the spirit of the person, not the body (which is why I keep coming back to 'human beings' on this... still haven't seen a single mention of it in response, too, I might add...). Love is the magic, not the sex.. so it doesn't really come into it.

Secondly, if you look at the idea that there is a God and Goddess (which, in the terms of 'creators of the universe still looking down upon us', I don't..), then that's the way those individuals are. And it is far more important to be true to yourself than to change to someone elses (even if its' everyone else's) ideas and ideals about you... 'to thine own self be true'.

And lastly, I suspect you'll be highly surprised (and shocked, and perhaps disgusted) to find out, certainly in a shamanic tradition, that homosexuality, cross-dressing, bi-sexuality, trans-gender tendencies, etc, are all considered hallmarks of a good shaman. It's representative of being able to 'cross over' between the worlds - in this and the others. So, when a person exhibits such things, they are looked upon with awe, respect and reverence for the power and innate wisdom they have. (yes, I'm using the term 'shamanic' loosely... the word specifically applies only to the Tungusku people, but it has been attached to many cultures that use similar techniques).

Btw, you will find a high percentage of 'pagans' (what Broomjockey said is quite true... it's a pretty broad brush-stroke!) are either gay or lesbian, and if not, then certainly quite pro- in that regard. One thing I didn't mention up there on the Wiccans - the male and female, masculine and feminine, and Godd/Goddess energies are in all of us.. some manifest different percentages of it at different times. Balance is good! Just as there is Yin within Yang, there is Yang within Yin... one is the seed of the other... and other esoteric stuff....

[Rubystars]

Slytovhand, thanks for the explanation. I really find that to be fascinating and I appreciate your taking the time to lay it out like that for me.

I guess I didn't really respond to the point you raised about it being more about human beings loving one another than the sex because I am in agreement that gays and lesbians are human beings with feelings and that they should be treated with kindness and compassion just as any other human beings. I was really only trying to respond to the debate points, so sorry if I missed that one.

[BroomJockey]

. No matter why I oppose it though, shouldn't I have a right to say I don't want it officially recognized?

Sure. But this isn't a free speech issue. It's a human rights one. Throughout history, the tendency has been more rights for more people (women and blacks being the easiest and more prominent examples). As time marches on, you'll probably find yourself on the wrong side of this issue. Why your *opinion* should have any bearing on what two consenting beings are allowed to do, when their actions literally have no bearing on your life (after all, homosexuals can kiss in public where same-sex marriage is banned, so you won't escape same-sex displays of affection).

My final comments on this topic will be these: You cannot prove positive damage by allowing gays to marry. You can't even prove negative damage. Yet despite your complete lack of evidence to support your opinion, and remaining firm in the face of evidence contradicting said opinion, you desire to limit the actions of other free-thinking beings. This attitude is basically the definition of fanaticism. That's why these are my final comments. You can't convince a fanatic they're wrong. If fanatics are to change, it needs to come from within.

[Rubystars]

I wouldn't see it as being on the wrong side of the issue. I'd just see it as being in the minority viewpoint on the issue. That probably will happen, because more and more this is being taught about in public schools, which teaches young children the left wing point of view.

I don't see what "evidences" go against the fact that the government will be officially recognizing and condoning homosexual marriage. That's what I've had a problem with through this thread. I don't want official recognition of homosexuality.

[Rubystars]

Why do you think it would be unhealthy for society to allow gay marriage?

It will destroy the standard of a man and woman being married and having kids as being the basic unit of society.

[Cat]

Sometimes, its good for the "standard" to be changed and amended. Societies must evolve.

(hey RI....I love ya, you are a pretty state.....but get with the rest of New England already! )

[smileyeagle1021]

My belief is against homosexual marriage being considered a valid marriage. I guess to you that's nothing better than "I say so". No matter why I oppose it though, shouldn't I have a right to say I don't want it officially recognized?

yes, you have the right to say you don't want it recognized. Hell, yell it from the rooftops and spread the word from shore to shore, from the rural heartland to the urban centers of humanity. Say it to every person you can find, as many times as you'd like. Please don't stop saying it. Both my grandfather's fought to protect that right for you, please don't squander it.
What at issue here isn't your right to say whether or not you agree with something... what is at issue is the constitutional rights of a minority.
Banning gay marriage violates at least two amendments, it violates the first amendment in that it restricts religious freedom. There are churches that do recognize gay marriage that are now being told they cannot perform them the same way they would for their straight parishioners. As long as when it is allowed no church is forced to recognize a gay marriage, then they're religious freedom is left in tact. There is precedent for limiting freedom of speech and religion when there is a greater community interest protected... this typically has only been exercised in extreme cases such as human sacrifice though. Banning gay marriage also goes against the 14th amendment where it specifies "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because I am gay and would not marry a woman (Utah is the capitol of gay men trying to marry women to 'cure' themselves, all it's done is lead to more broken families, and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone much less inflict it upon them) I'm now told that I can't have the same protections as a married heterosexual.

Oh, and you said you'd be interested in the stats of how many gays are promiscuous vs how many heterosexuals. That, while it would be interesting for the discussion, is also irrelevant. Saying that a large number of homosexuals are promiscuous therefore they should not be granted marriage rights makes about as much sense as saying a lot of blacks have drug problems therefor no blacks should be allowed to buy sudafed or a lot of white people file for bankruptcy so no white people should be allowed to take out loans.
Are you really going to say to me, that I should be denying the same rights, privileges and protections, not even because I'm promiscuous, but because others who have their orientation in common with me are? Using that same standard, you shouldn't be married either because straight people, who have nothing else in common with you but their orientation are promiscuous as well.

[Rubystars]

yes, you have the right to say you don't want it recognized. Hell, yell it from the rooftops and spread the word from shore to shore, from the rural heartland to the urban centers of humanity. Say it to every person you can find, as many times as you'd like. Please don't stop saying it. Both my grandfather's fought to protect that right for you, please don't squander it.

Pro-gay people have the right to say what they want to say too, in my opinion.

What at issue here isn't your right to say whether or not you agree with something... what is at issue is the constitutional rights of a minority.
Banning gay marriage violates at least two amendments, it violates the first amendment in that it restricts religious freedom.

You made the point that churches might not be able to perform gay marriages in the same manner they perform them for straights, but what about the gays that have been pushing to force churches not to be able to discriminate? Some people want churches who have a moral problem with homosexuality to be forced to hire gays for positions in the church and/or to marry them. Some say if a pastor speaks out against homosexuality that he should have his tax exempt status called into question. How do you feel about those issues?

Banning gay marriage also goes against the 14th amendment where it specifies "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because I am gay and would not marry a woman (Utah is the capitol of gay men trying to marry women to 'cure' themselves, all it's done is lead to more broken families, and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone much less inflict it upon them) I'm now told that I can't have the same protections as a married heterosexual.

I don't think gay people should get married at all, unless they're bisexual and then they should choose to be with someone of the opposite gender that they're truly attracted to and in love with.

I don't really think the equal protection clause was meant to include gay marriage, but that's a debate that will go on.

Oh, and you said you'd be interested in the stats of how many gays are promiscuous vs how many heterosexuals. That, while it would be interesting for the discussion, is also irrelevant. Saying that a large number of homosexuals are promiscuous therefore they should not be granted marriage rights makes about as much sense as saying a lot of blacks have drug problems therefor no blacks should be allowed to buy sudafed or a lot of white people file for bankruptcy so no white people should be allowed to take out loans.

I think the stats here may be relevant. There was at least one post earlier in this thread (forget who posted it now) that said most homosexuals are moving toward monogamy now. However if homosexuals mostly engage in casual sex and not monogamy, then what's being portrayed as "a committed couple for 20 years who can't get married" really isn't representative of the gay community. That's why I think it's important for us to find this out.

Are you really going to say to me, that I should be denying the same rights, privileges and protections, not even because I'm promiscuous, but because others who have their orientation in common with me are? Using that same standard, you shouldn't be married either because straight people, who have nothing else in common with you but their orientation are promiscuous as well.

I think you should be protected as far as your life and property and safety are concerned but I don't think that you should get together with someone of the same gender and call that marriage. Call it a relationship, but it's not a marriage. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and I guess I'll always feel that way about it. It's not my intention to deny you or any other homosexual of any basic human rights. Sorry if it seems that way.

[smileyeagle1021]

You made the point that churches might not be able to perform gay marriages in the same manner they perform them for straights, but what about the gays that have been pushing to force churches not to be able to discriminate? Some people want churches who have a moral problem with homosexuality to be forced to hire gays for positions in the church and/or to marry them. Some say if a pastor speaks out against homosexuality that he should have his tax exempt status called into question. How do you feel about those issues?

on that issue we probably are in agreement. I think the people who want to force churches to be more open and accepting are stupid at best, bigots at worse. I do know people who want the Mormon church to be forced to accept gays because they hate mormons and know that will hurt the church. I seriously doubt that's the majority though. I know of personally only one person who advocates for churches to be forced into condoning/accepting homosexuality... one out of hundreds of people I've had the discussion with.
Stupidity doesn't discriminate on orientation, there are stupid gay people just as there are stupid straight people.

I think the stats here may be relevant. There was at least one post earlier in this thread (forget who posted it now) that said most homosexuals are moving toward monogamy now. However if homosexuals mostly engage in casual sex and not monogamy, then what's being portrayed as "a committed couple for 20 years who can't get married" really isn't representative of the gay community. That's why I think it's important for us to find this out.

and once again you side step the issue. We aren't talking about a community image or even what a large number of people do. We are talking about individuals. You just judged me based on the stats of the community. I've read that to mean that you feel that because a large number of the community is only interested in casual sex and isn't interested in being part of a committed couple therefore all gay people are only interested in casual sex. Even if that's not what you're saying, your still saying I should be treated differently because of the actions of others. Please, you say you don't hate gay people and don't want to infringe on rights, reconcile that with your very blunt statement that because some homosexuals are promiscuous that it shouldn't even matter about those who aren't. Please reconcile that statement with your repeated claims that I'm a deviant and that I don't deserve the same tax benefits or government protections. Please, I'll wait.

[Nyoibo]

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'll chime in with mine too.

Basically, love is sacred, any form of love, provided it is for love and not just lust and gratification, should be cherished.

It will destroy the standard of a man and woman being married and having kids as being the basic unit of society.

That's already destroyed, look at the number of single parent families, the divorce rate, the number of people living to gether having kids out of wedlock, or the number of people married or unmarried who don't have children, the mother and father living together in matrimony with the 2.4 kids went out the window decades ago.

You made the point that churches might not be able to perform gay marriages in the same manner they perform them for straights, but what about the gays that have been pushing to force churches not to be able to discriminate? Some people want churches who have a moral problem with homosexuality to be forced to hire gays for positions in the church and/or to marry them. Some say if a pastor speaks out against homosexuality that he should have his tax exempt status called into question. How do you feel about those issues?

I'm in agreement with that, it's up to each religeon to make up their minds about it, and I don't think that they should be forced to accept something they don't agree with.
But look at it this way, it's the same arguement, people being forced to do something they don't agree with because of someone elses beliefs.

I don't think gay people should get married at all, unless they're bisexual and then they should choose to be with someone of the opposite gender that they're truly attracted to and in love with.

Not to nitpick, but then they're not gay, they're bi-sexual, different things.

I think the stats here may be relevant. There was at least one post earlier in this thread (forget who posted it now) that said most homosexuals are moving toward monogamy now. However if homosexuals mostly engage in casual sex and not monogamy, then what's being portrayed as "a committed couple for 20 years who can't get married" really isn't representative of the gay community. That's why I think it's important for us to find this out.

Most heterosexuals are moving away from monogamy, should we then take away the right to get married from heterosexuals?

I think you should be protected as far as your life and property and safety are concerned but I don't think that you should get together with someone of the same gender and call that marriage. Call it a relationship, but it's not a marriage. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and I guess I'll always feel that way about it. It's not my intention to deny you or any other homosexual of any basic human rights. Sorry if it seems that way.

So then you would support a civil union which gave them the same rights if it wasn't called a marriage, because if not, then it is your intention to deny them basic human rights.