Same-sex marriage

[Emma_85]

I'd also like to add something... I can totally understand why gays in the US want to have the right to marry - it's about more than just tax stuff and all, they want to be recognised. Here's an article that made my mouth drop - when gays are treated like this in the US, it's no wonder they are doing all they can to fight back:

Group gives grant to expelled gay student
Christopher Curtis, PlanetOut Network
Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / 05:53 PM

SUMMARY: James Barnett made headlines when his Dallas-area high school expelled him after he admitted he was gay. Now an LGBT scholarship organization has pledged to help the honor student.

High school senior James Barnett made headlines in December, when Trinity Christian Academy, a Dallas-area private school, expelled Barnett after he admitted he was gay. Now a national LGBT scholarship organization has pledged to help the 18-year-old honor student.

On Tuesday the Point Foundation, which supports academic achievement in higher education for LGBT students, awarded Barnett an academic honorarium to help him attend college later this year.

"We are pleased to present this honorarium to James, an outstanding student turned away simply because of his sexual orientation," said Vance Lancaster, executive director of the foundation. "This is a sadly common and very real example of why Point Foundation scholarships are necessary."

The grant amount will be determined after a financial review in the spring, the organization said.

In an interview with the PlanetOut Network, Barnett spoke of the recent hardships he faced at school and at home because of his sexual orientation.

"Private schools need to let it be known where they stand on the gay issue," he said. "Had I known that Trinity was going to expel me, I would have moved to (a different school). Life does really get rough in high school."

"About a year ago, I was suicidal from the pressures of being a gay kid in a private school," Barnett revealed. "I felt like I was the only gay kid."

Then Barnett discovered gay chat rooms on the Internet, which lead him to one run by XY magazine. At last Barnett could talk to people his own age, he said. But when XY told its Web site users it planned to charge for the service, Barnett panicked. "If you haven't told your parents (you're gay) you can't have them see a credit card charge to XY magazine," he said.

So Barnett created his own Web site, my-boi.com, which doesn't charge users. Barnett insists the site is not for "hook-ups" but to alleviate the sense of isolation many people his age experience when they first come out.

Word of the Web site got out around the campus of Trinity Christian Academy, and soon Barnett found himself summoned by the school's chaplain.

"The chaplain asked me if I was gay and I said, 'Yeah,'" Barnett said. "I had no idea that this was going to get out because I thought this was simply counseling."

Barnett waited until his parents were summoned. "When I saw my mother she said, 'What did you do?'" Barnett said.

The school principal then told Barnett's parents their son was gay and told Barnett he could either leave quietly or be expelled for violating the school's "immoral behavior" clause of the student code of conduct.

Brian Chase, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, told the Dallas Morning News the school was within its rights to force Barnett's expulsion. Texas, Chase noted, has no law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"Trinity did what they did for image and political reasons," Barnett said, claiming he harbored no ill will toward Christian conservatives.

"The Christian conservatives I've met have only loved and embraced me." Barnett considers himself a Christian conservative, and revealed he voted for President Bush during the November election.

After being expelled, Barnett's parents took him to counseling in the hopes they could change their son's sexuality. "And they got shot down. They were told they are the ones with a problem," he said.

Despite the obstacles he faces, Barnett believes his story is very important for other LGBT students. "I didn't know this was happening to other kids across the nation. I thought this was a unique case. But apparently not."
----

The school principal then told Barnett's parents their son was gay and told Barnett he could either leave quietly or be expelled for violating the school's "immoral behavior" clause of the student code of conduct.

[Eureka]

I am also happy that most blacks marry blacks and most whites marry whites here. If they all mixed then the purer races of each would disappear that's to say we would have no blacks, we would have no whites, two races which are different and this is a good thing. We would just have a mixture which is boring as less people would be visibly different. Michael Moore's idea of 'let's mix to stop racism!' is foolish and would cause pandemonium in our society.

Now you're just baiting.

[klewlis]

Socially:

I have no problems with the idea of a "civil union", granting various benefits, as distinct from a religious "marriage". However, that causes me to ask the following questions (and I am simply pondering, not announcing my verdict):

what is the purpose of the benefits enjoyed by marriage anyway? Aren't the tax breaks and other laws meant to benefit a family for the purpose of raising children? These things are meant to make it easier to support many people on 1 or 2 salaries, and to enhance the lives of the children involved. In that case, I don't think it should matter WHO is raising the children. If there is a single parent, two heterosexual parents, two homosexual parents, a group of involved family members, etc, they should receive benefits for the sake of the children, not simply for whether or not they are married.

And I speak as a single person who is quite miffed at the fact that my friends' auto insurance rates drop the day they get married--regardless of age or driving record--while mine remain unchanged simply because I am still single. That is unfair and discriminatory in my mind. Am I less responsible than my friend because I am single? I think not. Regardless of sexuality, why should a couple with two incomes and no children receive certain financial benefits, while a single person does not? In addition, my roommate is a single mom with a child. If I am committed to this child (as I am) and am involved in his life and growth and am one of his caretakers, then why shouldn't I receive financial aid for that, even though my friend and I have a purely platonic relationship?

Socially, in my mind, it is not "marriage" that matters but the children, for whom all of this was created anyway.

Theologically:

Marriage was never created to simply be a financial or civic benefit to the parties involved, although those have always been side effects. Marriage was created to be a reflection of God himself, and his love for his people. The Bible repeatedly compares God and his People to a Man and his Wife--complete with unconditional love, respect, teamwork, joy, nurturing, and growth. The ideal human marriage (unattainable of course but an ultimate goal) would be a reflection of that. The children produced in such a marriage would be happy, healthy, and safe. This is the ideal. And of course we are not able to attain that to perfectly, but we can certainly try. In any case, there is no room in the picture for a homosexual relationship, nor for an absentee parent, or any number of other possibilities. These things will definitely happen, but only because we live in a fallen world where perfection escapes us. We simply have to make do with what we have and attempt to follow God as closely as we humanly can.



Should all of us have the same rights and privileges as citizens? Absolutely. But then I should get some tax breaks too. :P At least separating the ideas of "civil union" and "marriage" would solve part of the problem.

Then I wonder why that seemingly reasonable solution is not acceptable to many people. I think that many homosexual couples are looking not just for equality, but for absolution by religion, and that is what they are usually not receiving. But that is a matter for the Churches, not for the government.

just my random thoughts. :)

[Emma_85]

Random comments:

First - I am not a subatomic particle! I am a free man! Comparing human behavior to particle interractions is an extreme metaphorical stretch. This may be intolerable hubris, but I think I'm a bit more complex than an electron.

Second - everyone talking about reproductive fitness, or rather the lack of same, for gay people is making another extreme simplification, this time of genetics. Most things about our bodies and thus our minds are complex interractions among many genetic components. There is no reason to believe the whole complex mass of behavior of physiology that goes with reproduction is located on a single gene.

So, if we assume for the moment a genetic component to homosexuality, it's not necessarily the case that a single genetic switch has caused it. It could also be the result of a particular combination of genes, or perhaps some recessive allele. So long as those separate components result in greater reproductive fitness for people who get them separately, the occasional lesser fitness will persist in random individuals who get the double- (or triple- or however-many-) whammy.

i think the whole thing is still being debated. there are quite a few theories on this at the moment and everyone claims their theory to be the correct one. eg.:

Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

or

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg17723884.900
uh... I hope this link works for non-subscribers...

[Emma_85]

Socially:

I have no problems with the idea of a "civil union", granting various benefits, as distinct from a religious "marriage". However, that causes me to ask the following questions (and I am simply pondering, not announcing my verdict):

what is the purpose of the benefits enjoyed by marriage anyway? Aren't the tax breaks and other laws meant to benefit a family for the purpose of raising children? These things are meant to make it easier to support many people on 1 or 2 salaries, and to enhance the lives of the children involved. In that case, I don't think it should matter WHO is raising the children. If there is a single parent, two heterosexual parents, two homosexual parents, a group of involved family members, etc, they should receive benefits for the sake of the children, not simply for whether or not they are married.

And I speak as a single person who is quite miffed at the fact that my friends' auto insurance rates drop the day they get married--regardless of age or driving record--while mine remain unchanged simply because I am still single. That is unfair and discriminatory in my mind. Am I less responsible than my friend because I am single? I think not. Regardless of sexuality, why should a couple with two incomes and no children receive certain financial benefits, while a single person does not? In addition, my roommate is a single mom with a child. If I am committed to this child (as I am) and am involved in his life and growth and am one of his caretakers, then why shouldn't I receive financial aid for that, even though my friend and I have a purely platonic relationship?

Socially, in my mind, it is not "marriage" that matters but the children, for whom all of this was created anyway.

As I said, I think this is not about tax breaks really... the gay population in the US is fighting for this because they think it will help them to be accepted in society. And gay couples could adopt children just as men and women get married without ever having any children.
The tax breaks and all that were of course put in place for the children, but I think the whole system needs an overhaul. Get rid of those tax breaks and just give some for each child sort of thing, here the state gives you money for each child, like 300 a month for each child? something like that anyway, maybe less now...

[Turpissimus]

what is the purpose of the benefits enjoyed by marriage anyway? Aren't the tax breaks and other laws meant to benefit a family for the purpose of raising children? These things are meant to make it easier to support many people on 1 or 2 salaries, and to enhance the lives of the children involved. In that case, I don't think it should matter WHO is raising the children. If there is a single parent, two heterosexual parents, two homosexual parents, a group of involved family members, etc, they should receive benefits for the sake of the children, not simply for whether or not they are married.

Some benefits are meant to do this, others not. In the UK for instance if someone holding a lease in their name dies then their unmarried partner could easily be chucked out of their home at a time when they're going through great personal distress. Also, if someone dies intestate (that means without a will, for the laymen) then their partner gets nothing. If someone has an accident and is critically ill in hospital, their partner won't be able to see them. Since humans do quite often fall in love with another member of the species, and want to share life's ups and downs with that one person, it seems to me to be sensible to have an institution set up to deal with this fact of human nature. Deses wants to bring up polygamy or scholarly unions or whatever, and it seems that he doesn't think people arrange a good deal of their lives to care for the partner with whom they have a sexual and emotional bond. I disagree.

Bear in mind, klewlis, that marriage raises your tax/benefit liability as often as it cuts it. Previous to 1984(?) in the UK, and until very recently in the US, the income of married partners was aggregated and treated as the income of one person - you can imagine this pushed you into a higher tax band. In the UK still, if you live with a partner of the opposite sex, you're treated as living with them "as if in a marital relationship" for benefit law purposes. This means that their income is treated as if it were yours, potentially cutting your access to, for example, housing benefit. For same sex couples, oddly, this restriction does not apply. For capital gains tax, a great many of the anti-avoidance provisions are set up to catch married couples who might otherwise transfer assets around in circles to avoid paying taxes. Making these rules apply to homosexual couples would plug a tax loophole that a sufficiently commited couple could exploit. Ironing out the laws and making sure they apply to everyone equally would seem to me to be a sensible thing to do.

And I speak as a single person who is quite miffed at the fact that my friends' auto insurance rates drop the day they get married--regardless of age or driving record--while mine remain unchanged simply because I am still single. That is unfair and discriminatory in my mind. Am I less responsible than my friend because I am single? I think not. Regardless of sexuality, why should a couple with two incomes and no children receive certain financial benefits, while a single person does not? In addition, my roommate is a single mom with a child. If I am committed to this child (as I am) and am involved in his life and growth and am one of his caretakers, then why shouldn't I receive financial aid for that, even though my friend and I have a purely platonic relationship?

I'm sure you know this but this has nothing to do with the government. Actuarial scientists probably know that married men/women take fewer risks and adjust premiums accordingly - in just the same way that men get cheaper annuities and women get cheaper car insurance.

The Bible repeatedly compares God and his People to a Man and his Wife--complete with unconditional love, respect, teamwork, joy, nurturing, and growth. The ideal human marriage (unattainable of course but an ultimate goal) would be a reflection of that.

You are aware of course that the institution of marriage is not limited to those societies who base their moral code on that of the ancient hebrews.

Then I wonder why that seemingly reasonable solution is not acceptable to many people. I think that many homosexual couples are looking not just for equality, but for absolution by religion, and that is what they are usually not receiving. But that is a matter for the Churches, not for the government.

As I said earlier, SSM seems to be a dead proposal in the UK. Noone pushes for it, not even gay rights activists. Thinking about your "religious absolution" idea, I wonder whether this is because the UK is a more secularized society.

[Turpissimus]

Interesting, but fairly irrelevant

Personally, I agree with many of the posters on this board:

(a) separate religious and civil marriage. One can be called civil partnership or whatever, the other stays in church. If the society, like the UK, is fairly secularised, it doesn't matter if the institution is called marriage.

(b) give tax breaks based on children, rather than the marital status of their parents. If you require a tax break to stay married, your relationship is probably too messed up to be worth saving.

Finally, it occurs to me that I was probably quite insulting to klewlis' religious beliefs in my last post. I apologize.

[Deses]

As I said, I think this is not about tax breaks really... the gay population in the US is fighting for this because they think it will help them to be accepted in society.

That's a very strange aspiration. Personally, I would prefer if gay people put their minds together and solved some big problem. Achieved world peace, or something. Surely, the society would then shower them with blessings and privileges they never dreamed of. Imposing their own semantics on an established institution? Yeah, that's a real good way to gain acceptance. Not to mention that people don't like paying more for their health insurance etc. and ultimately seeing increased taxes.

And gay couples could adopt children just as men and women get married without ever having any children.

So that at a tender age a neighbor tells little Johnny (son of Adam and Steve) that he is actually adopted?

[Turpissimus]

Not to mention that people don't like paying more for their health insurance etc. and ultimately seeing increased taxes.

True, but I doubt gay people are happy about the moderate subsidy they give us. And, as I say, the tax advantages of marriage, at least in my country, are grossly overstated. This would appear to be more about tenancy, inheritance tax (which of course, doesn't affect those in the US), hospital visits, next of kin issues - that kind of stuff.

The idea that heterosexual couples will be up in arms because gay people suddenly have the same rights they do...well, maybe you live in a different kind of society than I do. Perhaps the people who surround you are ignorant selfish fools.

And gay couples could adopt children just as men and women get married without ever having any children.

So that at a tender age a neighbor tells little Johnny (son of Adam and Steve) that he is actually adopted? Smile

Firstly, most adoptions are carried out quite late in life, often after quite serious sexual of physical abuse. I think these kids would be all too aware of the facts of life by the time they meet their first gay couple.

[Deses]

The idea that heterosexual couples will be up in arms because gay people suddenly have the same rights they do...well, maybe you live in a different kind of society than I do. Perhaps the people who surround you are ignorant selfish fools.

It is strange that the well-informed unselfish smart people that surround you rarely grant you the simple pleasure of hearing and intellegent word.

Hopefully, my position is clear. I support human unions that would be recognized on a much wider basis than genital interaction. Such unions should be diversified depending on their actual needs and capacities. It would be very nice if we could stay away from semantic conundrums.

Firstly, most adoptions are carried out quite late in life, often after quite serious sexual of physical abuse. I think these kids would be all too aware of the facts of life by the time they meet their first gay couple.

Sure, unwanted little babies are better off in orphanages. Who wants to deal with diapers and all? Clearly, no well-informed unselfish smart person.

[Turpissimus]

Sure, unwanted little babies are better off in orphanages. Who wants to deal with diapers and all? Clearly, no well-informed unselfish smart person.

I'm not certain what misapprehension you're labouring under here. Most adoptions are carried out late in life because that's when the kids are taken from their (abusive) parents.

Secondly, I see no evidence that my friends, or my colleagues at work would be angry about extending the meagre tax breaks marriage gives to gay couples. No-one gets angry about it, or would blame gay people individually or as a group if they got what the rest of us have. If you live in a different kind of society, which must surely be one based on ignorance and intolerance, tell me. I don't see how extending these "benefits" further to your hypothetical scholarly couples will assuage this anger.

[Deses]

I'm not certain what misapprehension you're labouring under here. Most adoptions are carried out late in life because that's when the kids are taken from their (abusive) parents.

Statistics would be irrelevant here. The case of the messed up little Johnny does not improve whether he is among 1 or 30 percent of adopted children when broken down by age.

Secondly, I see no evidence that my friends, or my colleagues at work would be angry about extending the meagre tax breaks marriage gives to gay couples. No-one gets angry about it, or would blame gay people individually or as a group if they got what the rest of us have. If you live in a different kind of society, which must surely be one based on ignorance and intolerance, tell me. I don't see how extending these "benefits" further to your hypothetical scholarly couples will assuage this anger.

You have lingered long enough on the type of society I live in, haven't you? People here hardly get upset about anything other than bad wheather and the ever climing cost of gasoline. They could probably overlook an increase in insurance rates if they knew that it is done for a good reason. What I am trying to say that there can be more reasons and they are no less worth public attention than homosexual hugs and kisses. If there is a way to extend the same rights to more people wouldn't that be more palatable? I believe, in France civil unions are more broadly defined. Is my position so hard to understand?

[klewlis]

I'm not certain what misapprehension you're labouring under here. Most adoptions are carried out late in life because that's when the kids are taken from their (abusive) parents.

That is not the case in Canada, although I could not produce any bonified numbers. I work with children "in care" and know that it is MUCH easier to find an adoptive home for a baby or even toddler than it is for older children. Rather than being adopted out, most older children who are removed from their biological families end up spending the rest of their childhood in group homes and foster homes. Few of them are adopted because adoptive parents don't want the problems that come with that--it's easier to adopt a baby who has had no negative history.

[klewlis]

I'm sure you know this but this has nothing to do with the government. Actuarial scientists probably know that married men/women take fewer risks and adjust premiums accordingly - in just the same way that men get cheaper annuities and women get cheaper car insurance.

It was simply an example of one of the many financial benefits to getting married.

But anyway, most provinces in Canada have public auto insurance, so it IS regulated by the government. :) And regardless of the fact that it may statistically prove favourable to them, it is still ultimately unfair to me.

The Bible repeatedly compares God and his People to a Man and his Wife--complete with unconditional love, respect, teamwork, joy, nurturing, and growth. The ideal human marriage (unattainable of course but an ultimate goal) would be a reflection of that.

You are aware of course that the institution of marriage is not limited to those societies who base their moral code on that of the ancient hebrews.
;)

I was stating my theological position. What other people believe or don't is irrelevant.

As I said earlier, SSM seems to be a dead proposal in the UK. Noone pushes for it, not even gay rights activists. Thinking about your "religious absolution" idea, I wonder whether this is because the UK is a more secularized society.

Many Canadian provinces have already legalized gay marriage. Others are refusing. The federal government is currently faced with the debate and the ability to overrule the provincial legislations. There is even talk of a national referendum on the matter. So it is now the hot topic of the day.

[Turpissimus]

OK Deses. I suspect you and I actually agree here. There is no mention in the Civil Partnerships Act that the couple has to be engaging in physical love. The fact that most people will assume they are is of course irrelevant - the government can't do anything about that.

The case of the messed up little Johnny does not improve whether he is among 1 or 30 percent of adopted children when broken down by age.

Do we have any evidence that kids of gay couples are more messed up than those of their heterosexual peers. Is it personal experience, or something? I don't see it.

If there is a way to extend the same rights to more people wouldn't that be more palatable? I believe, in France civil unions are more broadly defined. Is my position so hard to understand?

Another instance of us agreeing. Maybe my reading comprehension skills do need work. But I still feel that (a) most people aren't that worried about gay folks and their "kids", (b) any society that has a kind of virulent hatred and concern over this issue isn't in the best of moral health and (c) society tends in the west to organize itself around pairs of people who have formed a sexual bond - any system of family law formed in this context will reflect this.

I'm sure you can understand why I would suspect you of bigotry. Viz:

Personally, I would prefer if gay people put their minds together and solved some big problem. Achieved world peace, or something. Surely, the society would then shower them with blessings and privileges they never dreamed of. Imposing their own semantics on an established institution? Yeah, that's a real good way to gain acceptance. Not to mention that people don't like paying more for their health insurance etc. and ultimately seeing increased taxes.

So gay people have to achieve world peace before they get health benefits for their partners? You surely can't mean this - it's an appalling double standard. Naturally it's easier to motivate large groups of people with an issue that directly affects their lives. Surely that's not hard to understand. And you can see why this might lead me to believe that there is some kind of prejudice lurking here. Remember:

(a) in the US, because of the way your constitution is structured, having the same institution for straight and gay couples would provide them with a degree of legal protection from local/state authorities with less than enlightened world views.

(b) in the UK, a wrecking amendment was proposed by Baroness O'Cathain was proposed in the House of Lords, which would have extended the Act to situations like your scholars. Those who supported it were not paragons of forward-thinking citizens. This is why I suspect you might be up to some sort of trick here. Be that as it may, if you really feel your scholars should get the benefits of a married couple, strange as that assertion is, the legislation proposed in the UK would not stop them.

I work with children "in care" and know that it is MUCH easier to find an adoptive home for a baby or even toddler than it is for older children. Rather than being adopted out, most older children who are removed from their biological families end up spending the rest of their childhood in group homes and foster homes.

This is not inconsistent with what I said. The number of infants adopted is almost insignificant in the UK. Getting adoptions in the later years of life is difficult of course but it does happen, and we should do all we can to ensure that the pool of potential suitable adoptors is as large as possible. Also, being told you're adopted is not the psychologically scarring experience some people seem to assume it is.

[Deses]

Do we have any evidence that kids of gay couples are more messed up than those of their heterosexual peers. Is it personal experience, or something? I don't see it.

Evidence would have to be gathered by experimentation, of course. But to be on the safe side I will exclude my own kids from that, if I can help it. You would have to try hard to convince me to act otherwise. Children who lost their parents do not have such an option. In their case, everything will be decided by those well-informed altruistic smart people who are apparently in no short supply, if your estimation is correct. So, the experimentation will go on. Let us wait.

So gay people have to achieve world peace before they get health benefits for their partners? You surely can't mean this - it's an appalling double standard.

What a curious turn. Too bad it is not in line with the previous conversation. What we were discussing was that gays are trying to gain acceptance. Now, you figure it our for yourself what is more likely to achieve this goal: stirring a controversy or solving a large-scale problem?

I really cannot add anything else to my position, unless, to my horror and utter embarrassment, you will again find reasons to consider me a bigot and a selfish ignorant fool.

[Turpissimus]

I really cannot add anything else to my position, unless, to my horror and utter embarrassment, you will again find reasons to consider me a bigot and a selfish ignorant fool.

I was very careful not to include you in that category. Look who I did include:

The idea that heterosexual couples will be up in arms because gay people suddenly have the same rights they do...well, maybe you live in a different kind of society than I do. Perhaps the people who surround you are ignorant selfish fools.

The fact that you assume I was slighting you is revealing.

In any event , I'm pleased to have concluded this discussion with us apparently agreeing.

[Deses]

Well, you did say that you were inclined to suspect me in begotry. It is good to know that I clarified your words for your own future reference. I must say that to my greatest sadness I cannot be called a bigot simply because I hardly ever side with one of the sides in any conflict. Now, to be a bigot I would have to be siding with some definable strata of society. No such luck.

The fact that you assume I was slighting you is revealing.

In case you don't understand, you very distinctly accused me again. I no longer remember of what exactly. No doubt, this statement of mine is even more revealing, but I just cannot help it.

In any event , I'm pleased to have concluded this discussion with us apparently agreeing.

Indeed.

[Episcopus]

I believe that there have been too many words, therefore I should like to interpret my results graphically, where electronegativity is not precisely the ability of an atom to attract covalently bonded electrons but more figuratively relating to the consquent polarisation i.e. d+/d- which indeed attract oppositely charged poles on other molecules.



As you might have observed the curve for the homosexuals is basically a 1/x reciprocal hence the inverse proportion signifying electronegativity = k/K Ohms, where k is a constant. Whilst the pink line is of evident inverse properties the blue line is straight and values easily read. The two intersect points are the respective electronegativities and KOhms of bisexuals to whom at one pole there is negligible resistance compared to that of the less electronegative specimen.

[klewlis]

lol

[Kasper]

At present, I am not in a relationship. Yet I am immensely curious to know how you would react if I said I was in a homosexual relationship.

Glottal - sorry to react so late to this. I apologize if I have come across as having something against gay people, I really don't - each to their own. So if you were in a homosexual relationship I'd say good for you. I just wondered whether you consider all romantic relationships oppressive, which was the impression I got from your previous post. I'm not against gay marriage, I'm not for it either.

Further I have no intention of debating this stuff any further, as no-one ever convinces anyone of anything in an internet debate, although I find it interesting to read others' opinions.

[Bert]

I am curious if many of the arguments used here, would also be used to defend or condemn marriage between three or more partners.
(Or between members of the same family.)

[klewlis]

Further I have no intention of debating this stuff any further, as no-one ever convinces anyone of anything in an internet debate, although I find it interesting to read others' opinions.

Don't be too sure. On occasion I have had my opinions swayed by internet debate. And in cases where I am not swayed, I am still enriched by the discussion--it gives me a broader viewpoint and helps me to see any possible holes in my own position. :)

[Kasper]

in cases where I am not swayed, I am still enriched by the discussion--it gives me a broader viewpoint and helps me to see any possible holes in my own position.

I agree that this is the great value of these debates.

[benissimus]

As I said, I think this is not about tax breaks really... the gay population in the US is fighting for this because they think it will help them to be accepted in society.

That's a very strange aspiration. Personally, I would prefer if gay people put their minds together and solved some big problem. Achieved world peace, or something. Surely, the society would then shower them with blessings and privileges they never dreamed of. Imposing their own semantics on an established institution? Yeah, that's a real good way to gain acceptance.

Surely you realize how ridiculous this sounds. I hope you can see how this would cause offense.

Have you ever heard of an entire people being given priveleges for unified deeds of valor? Maybe all the women should have got together a hundred years ago to feed all the poor people; surely they would have been given the right to vote. Or maybe if the black people had all got together 50 years ago and brainstormed the plans for a perpetual motion machine they would have been given the privelege to eat in white diners. I don't think so. In every case the group has had to get what they wanted through more direct avenues.


I am in a homosexual relationship and it is unsettling, to say the least, that I am forbidden from ever being married because of conditions that are entirely out of my control.

[csentiusleontius]

I agree wholeheartedly, though I am at a loss as to why anyone would want the "right" to be married.

Benissime, I agree wholeheartedly with what you have just posted, but I am having trouble reconciling this post with your first post in this subject as quoted above.

[benissimus]

I was being a little sarcastic in the first post. I simply meant that I have no desire whatsoever to be married, but I may change my mind and of course I do not like to be denied what other people take for granted, whether I actually want it or not.

[csentiusleontius]

Yes, and fair enough too. Tell me, in California would you be entitled to enquire about your partner's condition if he were hospitalized ?

[Deses]

Have you ever heard of an entire people being given priveleges for unified deeds of valor? Maybe all the women should have got together a hundred years ago to feed all the poor people; surely they would have been given the right to vote. Or maybe if the black people had all got together 50 years ago and brainstormed the plans for a perpetual motion machine they would have been given the privelege to eat in white diners. I don't think so. In every case the group has had to get what they wanted through more direct avenues.

Fine job taking my words out of context. Turpissimus suggested that gay people really don't care a whole lot about marriage per se, but are simply using the issue to gain acceptance. Which seems very odd to me. If you want rights - try to get rights. If you want to achieve acceptance - try to achieve acceptance. It is very strange to assume that rights will bring acceptance. Racism is still alive and well in many areas and women still could be much better off in the workplace and on the whole. And I don't hear about minorities and women championing their cause under the banner stating: "Hey, we can vote! You should respect us!" In the framework of innate rights this just would not make sense.

[Turpissimus]

Fine job taking my words out of context. Turpissimus suggested that gay people really don't care a whole lot about marriage per se, but are simply using the issue to gain acceptance.

I don't believe I said that at all. Ironic, eh?

I can totally understand why gays in the US want to have the right to marry - it's about more than just tax stuff and all, they want to be recognised.

As I said, I think this is not about tax breaks really... the gay population in the US is fighting for this because they think it will help them to be accepted in society

I believe I did say that the tax advantages of marriage are over-estimated, but I did outline the various other benefits marriage brings - immigration, hospital, wardship etc. On the contrary, I believe marriage has a great deal of legal significance.

[Deses]

I don't believe I said that at all. Ironic, eh?

Yeah, the irony is just breathtaking, no doubt.

It was Emma_85. My mistake. You were simply the first one to misinterpret my words. I am terribly sorry. After all, we seem to be in agreement.

[Kopio]

Here's an article that made my mouth drop - when gays are treated like this in the US, it's no wonder they are doing all they can to fight back:

High school senior James Barnett made headlines in December, when Trinity Christian Academy, a Dallas-area private school, expelled Barnett after he admitted he was gay.

Well.....this isn't really too hard to believe. First off....it's a private school, they can kick out anyone for anything, second, it's a religious private school, which means they can kick someone out for not conforming to their religious "standards"

FWIW, I go to a private Christian University, and I have to sign a theological statement upon graduation in order to recieve my diploma, if my theology differs greatly from the institution's they will not give me a degree. I also have to abide by a number of draconian rules that (thank God) have begun to loosen up. At first, I couldn't dance (ala Footloose), or drink, smoke, wear my earring (one that personally hacked me off immensely), or view rated R movies.....a lot of those have loosened up, but some are still in place. Bottom line is, the teaching staff at this university are very good, I agree with them theologically, so I am willing to put up with their silly rules until I graduate.

[Turpissimus]

At first, I couldn't dance (ala Footloose)

That sounds like the Taliban! Does it actually say in the Bible that dancing is forbidden? I'm sure one of the prophets must have dropped into a jig on one occasion. Hansome reel? Do-Si-Do?

[klewlis]

At first, I couldn't dance (ala Footloose)

That sounds like the Taliban! Does it actually say in the Bible that dancing is forbidden? I'm sure one of the prophets must have dropped into a jig on one occasion. Hansome reel? Do-Si-Do?

Dancing's definitely not forbidden, and King David himself was prone to dancing (in various fashions) as a form of worship to God.

The feelings against dancing arose more from the idea that much public dancing tends to be sexual in nature. No Christian has a problem with, say, ballet or other types of more formal dancing. On the day-to-day, the problem comes with club dancing and stuff like that.

Anyway, I am quite conservative and yet I am taking hip-hop and belly dancing. :)

[Ianamunra]

Why do i get the feeling that the majority of people on this website are gay or gay friendly? I mean God! What the hell is this website? A ga advocacy?

[benissimus]

Why do i get the feeling that the majority of people on this website are gay or gay friendly? I mean God! What the hell is this website? A ga advocacy?

Damned liberals!

So is there something wrong with being gay or gay friendly? In the former case, I would like to know your reasoning and in the latter I would like to know why you are at war with tolerance.

[Marcus Regulus]

Have to vote no.

As a conservative Christiain I beleive there a rules set forth by God because he knows better than I what is good for me -- he made me and knows how I would best function the rules are their to prevent me from harming myself. The Bible is pretty clear on this issue -- homosexuality is something God does not like at all. It is not the way he created us.

I dislike the term of the gay advocacy of 'homophobe' because it emotionalizes the issue and makes it difficult to engage in conversation on the issue because of the name calling from my point of view.

I have a rational problem with homosexuality because it is portrayed as natural. I have a few questions:
1) If it is so natural than why does it not naturally produce more of the human race? and 2) if it is so natural why does it involve the use of organs other than sexual ones or artificial stimulation to achive sexual activity? In a heterosexual relationship these things natually occur without artifical means. In Homosexuality this is not the case -- there is an aspect of artificiality to it.

Most of the 'love' I see in such relationships is reactionary as well -- it is a reaction to bad relationships with people of the opposite sex, not a love that grows out of natual causes. At best it is platonic and erotic, not true love at all in a 'agape' sense for your Greek people.

I do not have a problem with homosexuals themsleves but homosexuality is a sin to me. But I treat it as a pastor the same as I would drunkeness or adultery or theft or murder. It is a violation of God's commands and must be repented of. If homosexuals attended my church I would let them, but they must understand they won't be members any more than the guy who is the town drunk, nor are they going to be allowed to do things in front of my people in a way that offends others any more than the town drunk would be allowed to down a fifth of Scotch in front of the kids. Sorry, but I don't even let my heterosexual couples make out in the back pew.

To those kicked out of Chrisitan Schools for this -- duh?!? It's a Christian school and it is expected you will sign up for the rules as well as the education -- transfer out before you get kicked out! Show some intergrity and just admit you don't live up to the standards that they TOLD YOU IN ADVANCE YOU WOULD HAVE TO LIVE BY.

I would like to know why you are at war with tolerance.

I don't really think this is a fair question because I know how intolerant the homosexual side is of us religious folks -- we are expected, yea forced, to be tolerant of them but they don't have to be tolerant of our viewpoint. Tolerance is a myth -- no one is tolerant., Everyone is 100% biased toward their own position until proven otherwise through persuasion or arguement or reason or revelation from God or whatever. Tolerance is another emotionally charged idea designed to make the other side look bad by labeling in any debate.

The point is about gay marriage and based on the nature of this debate people should be free to disagree with it given the format -- even if they are in the minority like myself. 'Tolerant' people should be tolerant of this or they are not tolerant at all.

I am sad to see so many have given up on marriage but I think that is largely the church's fault for not teaching very clearly on what marriage was designed to be. My marriage is wonderful becasue I work very hard to meet the needs of my wife and she works very hard to meet mine. It is mutual self-sacrifice, not mutual self-enslavement. It was never designed to be about subjection, just mutual submission.

To the one who want to have an opinion on multiple partner marriages -- Yipe! most people have problems with one why would you want more. Biblically, poligamy was allowed for men with multiple women but none of those situaition are ever presented as the ideal in fact most of them were bad. Be single and celebite, or married to one person of the opposite sex for life is the best. In such situations there are no unwed mothers, sexual diseases, emotional scars, etc. etc. Seems constricting I suppose -- but it is the safest route in my mind for people and for society.

As for gay marriage as a legal issue -- I don't think the state should force me to recognize something or do something I beleive is wrong. If they force me to marry homosexual couples or recognize them as married then I am sorry, they are violating my religious beleifs and in the US that means the First Ammendment. The state has told me to stay away from them on other things, I would kindly ask them to do the same on this issue. This isn't just a state issue it is a religious one and perhaps there is wisdom in just letting it lay.

Should homosexaulity be crime -- no. Shocking for some of my friends to hear me say that, but it is about religious issues, not a state one. The state should just let it lay where it is. The state really has no right to label it as a crime.

Let's see how much tolerance I get from the tolerant people now.

[annis]

Let's see how much tolerance I get from the tolerant people now.

Er. It is always vexing to be compared to a murderer over what, to me, seems an absurdly superficial matter. But your post otherwise seems good-natured, and I'd like to make a few points.

First, you discuss the "natural" question. This has been touched on several times earlier in the thread. However I suspect that you and I are are going to come at this by way of incompatible arguments - I'm an atheist, and evolution presents no particular challenges to my philosophical commitments. That homosexuality could be completely natural, regardless of the reproductive challenges it obviously presents, is no problem. I touched on it earlier in the thread. (I personally consider all "it's natural!" arguments unsound from the start. Dying in childbirth is natural, parasites are natural, hurricanes are natural. I don't see people arguing in favor of them. A different subject, requiring a separate thread.)

But this question of tolerance is a problem. Perhaps this requires a different thread, too. The crux: how much can a commitment to tolerance accomodate intolerance? That is, must tolerance be absolute, or can one rightly condemn those trying to subvert or destroy it without undermining the fundmental goal of tolerance? Your trailing question, quoted above, implies not. I'm not so sure. I support democracy - but a constitutional democracy that forbids the majority, in the grip of some fad, the right to deny rights to some smaller group. I support free speech, but have no problem with the idea that shouting "fire" in a crouded theater is punishable. So other civic virtues for which I have some respect aren't absolute, either.

If one has a philosophical commitment to tolerance, I don't see how it's a contradiction to argue against a stance that seeks actively to undermine it (or seems to), or which holds it in contempt.

EDIT: some day, I will be able to spell correctly before I hit "Submit"

[benissimus]

As a conservative Christiain I beleive there a rules set forth by God because he knows better than I what is good for me -- he made me and knows how I would best function the rules are their to prevent me from harming myself. The Bible is pretty clear on this issue -- homosexuality is something God does not like at all. It is not the way he created us.

Since I don't believe in God or anything supernatural that is spoken of in the Bible, whatever rules are set out to us in the Bible are irrelevant to me. The result is that these arbitrary rules written therein, once enforced, oppress me and millions of other people for no logical reason.

I dislike the term of the gay advocacy of 'homophobe' because it emotionalizes the issue and makes it difficult to engage in conversation on the issue because of the name calling from my point of view.

I dislike the term as well, because it suggests that there is fear, which there clearly is not (except perhaps on the subconscious level). I do think it is a term we need though, just like "racist" or "sexist".

I have a rational problem with homosexuality because it is portrayed as natural. I have a few questions:
1) If it is so natural than why does it not naturally produce more of the human race? and 2) if it is so natural why does it involve the use of organs other than sexual ones or artificial stimulation to achive sexual activity? In a heterosexual relationship these things natually occur without artifical means. In Homosexuality this is not the case -- there is an aspect of artificiality to it.

I wholly agree with Will on this one. Scarcely anything we do in the modern world is natural, including the convention of marriage itself. When you use the word "natural", you really mean "heterosexual". Your first question suggests that love between elderly, impotent, or sterile couples is unnatural. To your second question, I answer that every type of sexual activity practiced by homosexuals is also practiced by many heterosexuals.

Most of the 'love' I see in such relationships is reactionary as well -- it is a reaction to bad relationships with people of the opposite sex, not a love that grows out of natual causes. At best it is platonic and erotic, not true love at all in a 'agape' sense for your Greek people.

Unless you are a homosexual, I don't think you can have the slightest idea what homosexual love feels like. Homosexuals are not attracted at all to members of the opposite sex - it takes more than being burned by a woman (or man) to do that. A lot, if not most, of homosexuals know or suspect they are homosexuals before they ever have a relationship, which evades your explanation that most are reactionary. Even reactionary relationships are common among heterosexuals.

I would like to know why you are at war with tolerance.

I don't really think this is a fair question because I know how intolerant the homosexual side is of us religious folks -- we are expected, yea forced, to be tolerant of them but they don't have to be tolerant of our viewpoint. Tolerance is a myth -- no one is tolerant., Everyone is 100% biased toward their own position until proven otherwise through persuasion or arguement or reason or revelation from God or whatever. Tolerance is another emotionally charged idea designed to make the other side look bad by labeling in any debate.

The statement you quoted was aimed at the previous poster who was speaking derogatorily about people who are merely "gay friendly". The way that person said it sounded very much like "n*gger lover" and I cannot regard that as anything other than intolerant.

I believe most homosexuals (in the USA) are Christian, so you are making an extreme exaggeration when you say that homosexuals are intolerant of religious folk.

As for gay marriage as a legal issue -- I don't think the state should force me to recognize something or do something I beleive is wrong. If they force me to marry homosexual couples or recognize them as married then I am sorry, they are violating my religious beleifs and in the US that means the First Ammendment. The state has told me to stay away from them on other things, I would kindly ask them to do the same on this issue. This isn't just a state issue it is a religious one and perhaps there is wisdom in just letting it lay.

I don't think anyone here wants to force you to marry gay couples. There are plenty of religion-neutral methods for obtaining legal marriage. I doubt you would even have to recognize it, like the Catholic church with second marriages. It really does not affect you in any way, so why are you forcing other people to adhere to your beliefs? Why don't you yourself respect the First Amendment?

Should homosexaulity be crime -- no. Shocking for some of my friends to hear me say that, but it is about religious issues, not a state one. The state should just let it lay where it is. The state really has no right to label it as a crime.

It is good that you do not think of homosexuality as a crime, but what about homosexual sex? It is pretty hard to have an intimate relationship without sex, so by forbidding someone sex you detract a large part from their relationship.

Let's see how much tolerance I get from the tolerant people now.

I hope you don't regard anything I said above as intolerant. If so, I would like to know which.

[Emma_85]

Here's an article that made my mouth drop - when gays are treated like this in the US, it's no wonder they are doing all they can to fight back:

High school senior James Barnett made headlines in December, when Trinity Christian Academy, a Dallas-area private school, expelled Barnett after he admitted he was gay.

Well.....this isn't really too hard to believe. First off....it's a private school, they can kick out anyone for anything, second, it's a religious private school, which means they can kick someone out for not conforming to their religious "standards"

FWIW, I go to a private Christian University, and I have to sign a theological statement upon graduation in order to recieve my diploma, if my theology differs greatly from the institution's they will not give me a degree. I also have to abide by a number of draconian rules that (thank God) have begun to loosen up. At first, I couldn't dance (ala Footloose), or drink, smoke, wear my earring (one that personally hacked me off immensely), or view rated R movies.....a lot of those have loosened up, but some are still in place. Bottom line is, the teaching staff at this university are very good, I agree with them theologically, so I am willing to put up with their silly rules until I graduate.

I think I'd be annoyed about not watching R rated movies and dancing (I don't wear ear-rings anyway )... I suppose it is a private school, but I would have thought it would be like private companies - even if you have a private company you still just can't discriminate people that work in your company, that's just illegal...
You must understand that to me this sounds just as bad as if the school had forbidden all blacks to attend.