Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

I'm tired of the Republican future thread having morphed into a gay rights debate, so I'm gonna tryt o move the debate over here. Here's my position, based on some of what was mentioned over there:

1: I , like many people, find homosexual behaviour unacceptable. I do not believe that it benefits society for society to endorse it, though I do believe that people should be allowed to do what they want.

2: I believe that a lot of the Gay marriage laws are "back door" laws that will result in the teaching of our children, in schools, that such behaviour is acceptable and is normal, desirable, and to be encouraged. THAT I oppose, and thus oppose measures that I believe will lead to such teaching in the school. I agree with Gnarff that people should be told in school that homosexuals exist, and that as people they may be very nice people, and that anyone who performs a violent act on a homosexual will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just as if they perform a violent act on ANY member of society.

3: Beyond that, the inclusion of books that promote or 'normalize' homosexual behaviour in the curriculum, persecution of people who peacefully express an anti-homosexual opinion, and otherwise trying to socially engineer society to accept what many in the society do not accept is wrong and will always be opposed by a component of society -- and not just some 'lunatic fringe'

Let the battle begin!

 

...and the "discussion" is over before it begins. Let's save us all some time...

Until we can agree on a set of facts upon which to engage in discussion it renders all subsequent arguments moot and unproductive. Obviously, your side chooses to believe that being gay is a choice one makes and is therefore nothing more than a temptation that is to be resisted. Myself and others like me insist on basing our opinion on the fact that being gay is not a choice and is therefore not a failing of character - as your "I don't approve of their behavior" mode of argument implies. Your side also can't seem to recognize the inherent contradiction in saying "these are nice people who shouldn't be attacked," while at the same time adopting an "anti-homosexual" position that they are immoral, wrong, in your own words, of no benefit to our society, and should be subject to a lesser set of rights than straight people. Either they're bad and should be resisted, or they're good and should be promoted. You can't seem to take a truly neutral position that they should be respected as equals and left alone. And then comes your claims that the gay lobby with their gay "agenda" are bullying you and Gnarff's inevitable idiocy about how merely asking to use the term "marriage" is a vicious horrible act of bigotry the evil gays are "shoving in my face" in their effort to rip free the fabric of society... and we're back to frustrated again. Lather rinse repeat. Drink, cry. Dot dot dot.

My side will not accept that gays are the immoral religion-hating perverts you claim they are, and your side will not accept that gays are as capable of leading moral lives, keeping the covenants of their own marriage and raising happy, healthy, well-adjusted children as straight couples are. No amount of reasoned argument or speaking on God's behalf is going to satisfy either side, at least among the half-dozen or so SP sadists who keep coming back to this particular circle of rhetorical hell.

So you'll excuse me if I don't throw my hat in. I've finally stopped giving a sh*t.

I've spent several years and countless threads trying get certain people here to see reason on this issue and it's gotten me nothing but mod warnings and premature grey. I'm done trying.

 

Considering that every defense of marriage vote has always won and therefore the gay lobby is 0 for whatever, I believe LKD is making an accurate statement when he said "Like many people"

I'm not sure what the genetic/choice issue has to do with the discussion. I personally believe that it is a little of both.

And now the countdown to screaming "You are a homophobe" begins 3...2...1.

 

It has everything to do with it.

Either the entire gay community are really straight people just being perverts and making trouble for its own sake, or they're gay by nature and this state will not change (nor do they feel they are doing anything wrong). Like being of a different race, we as a society can either accept this group for what they are and include them, force them to change to be like us, or make them operate under a separate and lesser set of rights. Obviously you can't change someone's race, but your side seems to think that can be done with gays, which if you ask any gay person they'd tell you is impossible and ridiculous.

So either they should be accepted for what and who they are and deserve equal treatment under society's laws, or they should "get with the program" and be like everyone else, therefore they needn't be included since the need for change is on them. Are they for real, or are they merely "behaving unacceptably?" Which is it?

Nice pre-emptive victimhood on the homophobe comment, by the way. You've mastered the art of being insulted before you've actually been insulted. Awesome.

 

DR, it's funny how you presume that the 'homosexuality is a choise' position is just a belief, yet fraise the 'homosexuality is not a choice' position as a 'fact'. Just how have you proven this 'fact'?

Here, also, you seem to make a groundless assumption. It is not the people we disapprove of (at least not I), but rather the behavior. There's a world of difference, as anyone who's ever been a close friend of an addict can tell you. Likewise, any parent should be familiar with this distinction.

Too late, we've already roped you in.

The fact that they've resulted in mod warnings may be a hint that you've gone about it the wrong way.

Here's an interesting discussion in and of itself. Is 'what you are by nature' necessarily acceptable? There are plenty of rapists and pedophiles that make the same arguement. Psychology has noted a number of mental disorders that are either genetic and biological in origin (schitzophrenia) or at least incurable (personality disorders like sociopathy). Medicine has even identified genetic conditions (Down's Syndrome) that are untreatable. These things at the least require special attention, while at most require drugs, intensive therapy, severe punishment, etc. They may be recognized as incurable, but that doesn't mean they are accepted in society. Now, many of those have obvious 'downsides' and present dangers to the individual and/or others, or at least present obvious difficulties to society. I'm not arguing for a second that homosexuality necessarily falls in that category, but it does bring up the issue of just how acceptable a thing may be on the basis of it being 'natural' or 'unavoidable'.

To be fair, it's hardly unwarranted. Those terms have been hurled around before.

 

*sigh* Did you hear that? *doink, doink* Two more gray hairs. This is honestly the last thing I'm saying here.

I'm really not going to try to prove the self-evident anymore. Common sense proves this 'fact,' but again, your religious beliefs require you to believe this can't possibly be so, and I'm finally accepting that. And again, that's part of why this debate is over before it begins.

This is not groundless. This 'behavior,' their physical and romantic attraction to the same sex, is part of their identity. Since this unchangeable trait is your sole basis for your treatment of them, and they are equal to you in all other ways, you are by definition being discriminatory of them as people.

So fine, let's prohibit this 'behavior.' It won't change the way they feel, it will only create more problems by forcing these people to be something they are not. For you to get your way they will either have to be celibate for life or enter loveless marriages, having relations they find as distasteful as you would gay sex. What kind of a solution is that? It is no more fair to ask them to never engage in said 'behavior' just because you don't like it as it is to ask you never to have relations with your wife. If they had a problem with YOUR 'behavior,' would you stop doing it? Of course not. So having a problem with their 'behavior' is a non-starter. It's non of your business, and no one is trying to make it your business.

No, it just means I've lost my temper on occasion, and my mild masochistic streak compels me to attempt to reason with the unreasonable. Few things make me lose my temper like a relentlessly obtuse opponent (not you). I've gone about this in the most honest and direct way I can, only to grow frustrated. Like a sport you suck at no matter how hard you work to improve, I'm simply saving myself the aggrevation.

Oh sweet Jesus.

Thank you. Another impeccable example of why you don't have the right frame of mind to have this discussion rationally. Comparing rapists and pedophiles, who are victimizing people in the most heinous way, to consenting adults who victimize no one, is as insulting as it is stupid. You aren't interested in treating gays as equal people who deserve respect and fair consideration when you think in these terms. How many times must we point that out? We've been doing it for years. Next comes the bestiality and necrophelia arguments, equally as dumb and insulting. I'd like to think you are better than this, Nog, so I'm stopping here before I...herm, lose my temper. Point is - you can disclaim "I'm not arguing for a second that homosexuality necessarily falls in that category" all you want, but by even making the comparison at all, that's exactly what you're doing. There are enough similarities between you and the 9/11 terrorists that I could make a valid comparison if I wanted to, but I don't. Why? I try my best not to be a total a**hole. Most of the time.

Whether it is treatable, natural or unavoidable or not misses the point. Gays exist. They will always be gay, they aren't going away, and they do indeed provide valuable contributions to our society, whether you admit it or not. Artists, doctors, scholars, scientists, even your local post office...all have openly gay people among their number and their being gay is neither a benefit or a burden to their potential and contribution to the world. Can you say that for rapists and pedophiles? How about people with downs syndrome? Or do you have some other offensive or irrelevant comparison I haven't thought of yet?

Until you can stop thinking of gays as lesser beings, and you quite clearly do, this is all pointless. There are people in the world, even people of faith, and those who voted against marriage equality for gays, who are persuadable on this issue. You, Snook, and especially Gnarff, aren't one of those people, and I accept that. Which is why I'm no longer bothering with these discussions here. While you do side with the majority, the number of adamantly anti-gay people in America are thankfully shrinking steadily, and I'm confident that one day my gay friends and relatives will be able to enjoy the same freedom to marry and raise a family as they choose and in peace that I do. Until then, the best I can do is try to reason with those who are open to it. I now see that, on this issue, I'm wasting my time here.

So please, don't rope me in again.

 

I'm sure he phrases it this way because he has talked to a few gay people in his life. I do not know many people who are openly gay. (Although I probably know far more gay people than I realize, I just don't know that all of them are gay.) Of the six people I know personally who are openly gay (four women and two men), all of them state emphatically that they did not decide to be gay. That they were born that way. That God made them that way if you would prefer to look at it from that perspective.

When they look back at when they entered puberty, they even can say in retrospect that they were gay back then, although at the time they weren't entirely sure of what being gay meant. There are many other people who I have talked to who are gay (although I am not personal friends with), and all of them, without exception, say they did not decide to be gay, any more than DR and I decided to be straight.

When every single gay person I know says they did not decide to be gay, and were born that way, I tend to believe them, as who would know better whether or not being gay is a choice than someone who is in fact gay? Furthermore, given how badly society ostrocizes people who are gay, why would anyone willingly make that choice?

Finally on the behavior issue. I know I've said it before, but like DR, I'll repeat myself. Many people who characterize it simply as a behavior issue tend to view homosexual lifestyles as a temptation, much like any other sinful activity. But the thing is, for them it's a temptation because they are already gay. It's not something like smoking, where everyone starts with a clean slate and virtually anyone can become addicted. For me, engaging in gay sex is not a temptation because I'm not gay. So I think that characterizing it as a simple behavior badly misses the point. Take former Senator Larry Craig, who got caught trying to solicit a blowjob in the men's room of a Minnesota airport. He didn't just break down in a moment of weakness and decide to try and get a blowjob from a guy. He did this because he is, in fact, gay.

 

Consent must be respected, as well as public decency laws (like no open sex acts in a public place). In 48 of 50 states they must realize that marriage is NOT part of that legal framework.

What we want is control over how that discussion comes up and what is taught. Changing the laws and forcing it into the discussion may bring this up before the parents feel the children are ready to learn about it, and there may be drastic differences in the content involved.

The law would apply the same for all. Marriage is explicitly defined as between a man and a women. The majority of the 1000+ rights would be granted without requiring a change to the definition of Marriage, and exist regardless of a formal marriage. These rights would also not be gender specified, making the rights available to gay couples in a way that does not impact Religious people one iota. The problem is that certain activists put the rights on the back burner to force their beliefs on the rest of us--who in this case have a big problem with their beliefs! As long as the activists keep picking fights, then the cause of Gay Rights will suffer.

WE have no control over our attraction at all. It's not my choice that height is a turn on. It's not a choice whether you find certain colour eyes or hair sexier than others. For some, even gender plays into the equation.

Homosexual attraction is no different from any other attraction to that which is taboo. For the basis of a fair comparison, we shall assume that the object of the attraction is one where consenting sexual relations will not result in incarceration. It therefore would be no different than attraction to a married woman or a blood relative. It is socially taboo and would draw scorn from those many of around you if they knew. It is the behaviour of having sex with another man, a married woman or a blood relative that is the sin, not the temptation.

Is it my business if a guy has sex with his buddy, his buddy's wife, or his cousin? NO. Do I want to know this? NO. Should it be criminalized? NO. Is it morally wrong? YES. Separation of Church and State means that these things are not criminal offenses, and otyher laws would protect those involved from abuse for their transgressions, but it does not make them right. That's why it's called tolerance--we tolerate it but we don't particularly like it.

It's no different from seeing the positive qualities in someone else, but pointing to a behaviour that they engage in that you don't approve of. For example, if you considered smoking to be wrong, you could say how nice and helpful they are, but it's the smoking that's wrong. THIS JUST IN: NOBODY'S PERFECT! By your logic, you would in turn hate everyone, because at some point, they all sin.

You can and should as long as they don't try to use the state to override your religious belief...

Flamed 6 or more posts before I post in the thread? That has to be a record. *me takes a bow*

You really don't understand. If anything was ever sacred to you, imagine seeing someone try to co-erce the government to desecrate it. That happened in my country when we had NO opportunity to oppose the measure. Thank God that the people in 30 of 50 states have stood up for what's right.

It is the activists and radicals that I have a problem with. The activists that want to take something sacred and reduce it to just a legal doccument, so they can put the state at odds with the religion--a conflict the state will win. Then you get a radical group called Bash Back demanding the dissolution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint, and threatening them with destruction. If you've actually paid attention to my ideas you'd know that the rights can be granted without changing the definition of marriage. How can the quest to re-define marriage be anything less than an act of bigotry against the Religious faithful?

It's no skin off my nose if they NEVER get the rights they deserve. I just want them to shut the **** up and stop trying to desecrate what I (and over half of 30 states) consider to be sacred. It's not about hatred, but some of us that try to defend our faith get just as frustrated.

When you flame a guy before he even posts in the thread, it's not a surprise.

It is not their choice to feel tempted more stongly towards that variant of sex, but that doesn't make it right. Legal or not, they will still find those of the same sex tempting. While I don't advocate criminalization, I can't endorse it either. Who's trying to deny who the middle ground?

Marriage originated in Religion, and as such the state had no business sticking their nose into it in the first place. We suffered this because we believe it's important that Marriage be sanctioned and protected. But now there is a minority that wants marriage redefined in a manner contradictory to the religions that did nor revolt when the state put regulations on the ordinance of marriage. This cannot be allowed. And these religions are doing what they can to prevent this.

If the the rights that are applied to married couples under law cannot be extended to gay couples without redefining marriage, then it is the marriage laws themselves that are tragically flawed. Considering that they are drafted by politicians, I shouldn't be surprised...

I do not, nor have I ever denied this. I oppose the notion that there is nothing wrong with what they do. Their sins are their business, not mine. But at the same time, I don't want them changing the definition of what many of us (as in the religious faithful and the majority of 30 of 50 states) consider sacred. You assume that we can't differentiate between a person and what they do. You further presume that we can't discern between the good and bad thins they do. Both of these assumptions are false. Remember that assume = ass/u/me, or making an ass of you and me. I don't need any help making an ass out of myself. Introduce me to a beautiful woman and enjoy the show...

Until you can stop thinking of the religious faithful as lesser beings, and you quite clearly do, this is all pointless. My accusation holds the same value as your accusation of us.

I'm just as confident that gay couples can gat all the rights that straigh couples enjoy without redefining marriage. You still can have a ceremony to celebrate the union if you please, but leave the sacred ordinance of Marriage out of the discussion. Until the activists are willing to do this, gay rights will continue to suffer.

No, you're wasting your time here because you refuse to consider an alternative that allows for gay rights that doesn't involve the state *****-slapping the religious faithful into compliance with your warped definition of tolerance.

That's the same with ANY attraction. What we are attracted to is not a conscious choice. But society reserves the right to ask that attraction be channeled into certain boundaries. Sarah Palin is smokin' hot. She'd also married. I'm asked by society in general not to flirt with her or try to seduce her (not that I could) because she's "off limits". Society asks that I not act on my desire for a married woman. Just the same, society does reserve the right to ask that of me, they reserve the right to ask that homosexuals not act on their attraction. Society is under no obligation to legitimize these unions.

I'll disagree with that. God does not push people into situations where they will be tempted to sin. Temptation, in this case the attraction to that which you cannot pursue, comes from Satan.

Look at it another way. We all start with a clean slate sexually. What temptations we give in to are written on that slate. Fornication and adultery are sins regardless of the gender of the partners invloved. If you were to become tempted by a woman other than your wife and give in, that would be just as bad as if you had given in with another man. The difference is that they start with the more difficult and painful temptation for that which can NEVER be right.

 

Gay people are responsible for society being as good as it is!! Yes you need the straights to pre-create however, society is more than pro-creation. Some of the best designers, hair dressers and actors are gay!

Anyway, to be more serious

What is wrong with people being gay? From a religious point of view saying that homosexuality is wrong is a load of bull. For a start, God created man in his own image and he created everybody equal. Secondly (and I know I'll get somebody whining about this so don't bother) there are texts written at the same time as the bible that say Jesus was Bi. Thirdly, God is all forgiving so it doesn't matter if being gay is a sin.

Telling kids about it in schools is important. You can't 'promote' being gay as a lifestyle choice, you either are or you aren't. Anybody who is ignorant to believe that you can choose clearly doesn't have the intellect to be saying anything important (again, bring on the whining). Kids will always single people out for being different (they have too especially if they want a career in politics), it's part of growing up, fair enough it's not the nicest part. However, as they get older, they stop picking on the fat kid or the ginger kid. Without teaching them that being gay isn't a bad thing, they'll never stop picking on the gay kid. In fact, people sometimes feel justified in physically, verbally and mentally bullying gay people.

Another attitude that is ridiculous is that 2 women together is sexy and a massive turn on but 2 men is just sick. There's no difference!

 

Basically it comes down to this, straight men think women are attractive. So you take the women are attractive thought, and multiply it by two, and you get double attractive (basic explanation, lol). By contrast other men are not attractive to straight men, and so you add two of those, and it is double unattractive! (can't you tell I'm good at math ).

(I want to add my to this discussion/arguement, but unfortunately I don't have the time right now- this response has been in the window for an hour or so- so I will just leave it at this comment for now)

 

True enough, though I'll take issue with the "simply" modifier. My point is that I do not believe that our genetics dicates our behaviour, not doe sit excuse it. My genetics may predispose me to all sorts of things, but it's not an excuse for ACTING in a particular way -- genetics are not a straitjacket that totally abrogate any decision making ability on our part.

I also never said that I do not believe that gay people are useful to society. I said I do not see institutionalizing gay marriage as being useful to society.

I too have talked to some gay people in my time. My fourth brother, for example, is gay -- or at least bisexual. He was living with his partner for about 10 years, but as many relationships, both gay and straight, do, they broke up. My brother is now married to a woman and they have 2 kids.

I also dated a girl for a while after high school. After we broke up she started dating women and told me "yup, I'm gay, I've been gay since I was a little kid!" Four years later she informed me that she "had made a mistake" and wanted to date me again. I was otherwise occupied at the time and so turned her down. She's now married to a guy and has 3 kids.

Do both of these people have genes that predispose them to liking members of the same gender? Very probably. Did that change their abilities to make choices in their lives? Nope.

Now two instances does not a scientific study make. I accept that, so please don't bother pointing it out to me. My point is that no number of studies will ever convince me that genetics determines behaviour. Also bear in mind that I love my brother and I still love * (what shall I give her as a code name? I'll call her "Red" because of her beautiful hair that still haunts me to this day.) So I'll do a pre-emptive "stick it" to those who say I am at heart a genocidal bastard because I disagree with their behaviour. It is possible to disagree with someone and not want to kill them.

I can accept that people will make decisions with which I do not agree -- that's the basis of a pluralistic society. But when they want to alter the accepted** definition of something that I think is important, thereby changing the society in which I live, then I will speak up. They have a right to speak, so do I and my fellow traditionalists. I'm all for letting them live their lives the way they want. But if they want me to say I agree with their choices and want me to support those choices being promulgated in our schools, that's not gonna happen.

*Don't tell her that, though, it'll creep her out!

** accepted as in "over 2000 years of being defined as between a man and a woman by every culture that I know of."

 

OK, let's go there. We can even use the Sarah Palin example that you brought up. I'd like to show that there is a big difference between that example, and that of being attracted to a member of the same sex.

You think Sarah Palin is attractive because she is smoking hot. The problem is that she is married, and thus "off limits" as you say. However, there are unmarried smoking hot women you could be attacted to, in which there would be no reason not to act on the attraction. That is to say, there are alternatives in the pool of people you find attractive who are not "off limits". However, with gay relationships, since ALL members of the same sex are "off limits" there are no alternatives in the pool of potential partners that you find attractive.

The only way your example would work would be if you were attracted to Sarah Palin BECAUSE she was married. I do not think that is what you were suggesting, but if being married is what made Sarah Palin smoking hot, then the comparison would work, because all married women are "off limits". If you were only attracted to married women, you'd be in the same predictament as someone who is gay, in that there would be no acceptable alternatives in the pool of people you find attractive.

Here's what I fail to grasp - I don't see how any two people getting married, regardless of their religion, regardless of their gender, regardless if it's secular, regardless of whether the people getting married fit my definition of marriage or not, change the significance of MY marriage in any way. Marriage is a very special thing, but it's also a very personal thing. The thing that makes my marriage special is what my wife and I bring to the marriage, and there's no group of other people getting married that will ever be able to change that. Not only do gays getting married not change the significance of my marriage (and I was married in a Church that does not acknowledge gay marriage), but gays getting married are INCAPABLE of changing the significance of my marriage. They cannot change the way my wife and I feel about each other, and they cannot change the reasons why we got married in the first place.

EDIT: I also don't get the "they will teach this in school". I have gone to public school my entire life, and I never had a discussion involving marriage in any of my classes. I really don't see where gay marriage would fit into the studies.

 

The States must be different than up here in Liberalville -- crap like this comes up in our classes all the time. And God help the soul who voices a dissenting opinion. In fact (I need to find a link) one university had spies in the dorms making sure no one said anything "homophobic" -- that is to say, anything not Politically Correct.

Aldeth, if your schools are really quiet about this sort of thing, can I come down and couch surf at your place for a week while I look for a job and a place of my own to stay?

Gee, Silvery, you're right - -I never realized I had no intellect before, thanks for telling me. I've converted!

Come on, sweetheart, you don't really believe that, do you? I can admit that even though someone disagrees with me what they have to say is important and that they have an intellect -- often an extremely powerful one. That's just as bad as if I said "anyone who has same sex attraction is too dumb to even talk to, and if they do try to communicate their position, they're just whining" -- that's hardly a valid debate tactic!

 

We definitely need more homosexual men in this world. And they procreate as well, with lesbian woman, and what prevents them for being sperm donors. Shoot, I'd give my left testicle if there'd be more gay men in this world. Why? Well, more women available, that's why. Simple.

It also means that population growth problems would become pretty interesting as homosexual couples don't procreate at the same rate as heterosexuals...

...aand we're probably pretty safe in expecting the numbers of homosexual men to increase, what with all the estrogenic chemichals around.

I have nothing against homosexuals, as long as they don't try to hit on me (which has happened, on several occasions...erm...yuk...)

 

No problem, but keep in mind that Maryland is one of the more liberal places in the US. We're not Masachusettes, but we're about the most left-leaning state outside of New England you'll see.

But seriously, we never covered marriage of any type - gay or otherwise - in our schools - not even in sex ed. (Then again, it kind of makes sense - there is no requirement to be married in order to have sex.) To be fair though, we never would have covered gay marriage when I was in school, because it was not nearly the hot-button issue it is today. But that said, since we didn't cover traditional marriage either, I think it is fair to say it's not something that would be covered in classes.

That's never happened to me. You must look like a pretty boy! The only mistaken identity I have ever had happen to me is many people think I'm Jewish based on how I look. And ever since I've grown my goatee long airport security always thinks I'm an Eastern European terrorist. Which is a pain - but at least I have US government ID.

 

Sure it's valid, have you heard a political rally?? And no, I don't belive it but, to be honest, if you want to say that same sex marriage has no social use and homosexual behaviour is offensive then surely I can make up whatever crap I want to about your intellect?

 

Sorry hun, it was a badly made point xxx