Homosexual Marriage; Why not?

[richyoung]

"While in school, did you EVER:
1.  Hear anything BAD about the United Nations?
2.  Hear anything GOOD about the pre-WWII isolationist movement in the US?
3.  Hear anything BAD about Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
4.  Hear anything GOOD about Richard Nixon?
5.  Hear anything GOOD about private gun ownership?
6.  Hear anything BAD about the anti-war movement in the 1960's US?
7.  Hear anything GOOD about the Confederacy?
8.  Hear anything BAD about Abraham Lincoln and the Union?"

I went to high school from 1979 to 1983.

To answer your questions...

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. No.

4. HELL yes. Detent with China.

5. Yes. Certainly helped along by the fact that during hunting season there were probably a dozen or more hunting rifles in the school lock up, which had be brought to school by students.

6. Hum... Good question, I honestly don't remember.

7. Yes.

8. Yes.

How much of the "yes" material came out of the texts, or was otherwise "official" doctrine on the matter?

[Firethorn]

+1 to BrokenPaw and DrAmazon

BrokenPaw said it better than I could.  Marriage gives people rights and privilages far beyond taxes and insurance.  It generally gives inheritance rights, guardianship privilages in case one becomes disabled, etc...  Still, look at the Terry Schiavo case.  The husband eventually won out.  There have been cases where the courts and hospitals ignored contracts and letters of intent and gave guardianship to the parents of gays, who then proceeded to deny the long term lover/partner all access because they disaprove of gays.

I say get the states out of the 'marriage' business and go to straight civil unions.  At the same time we should take the oppertunity to clean up divorce law.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The thing that really bothers me about gay marriage is that the leftists have set themselves up as the sole arbitor of the national culture.  If they say that the culture will change to accomodate gays who want to call themselves "married", then the rest of us have to go along with their pronouncement without question.

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.  They don't get to make these decisions for everyone else.

Words have meaning.  "Marriage" means "man and woman, forever".  Marriage has held that definition for as long as it has existed as a word.  Marriage does not mean "man and man" or "woman and woman" or "man and woman, but only for a few years" or "man and woman and man" or "man and dog" or whatever else you might come up with.

I don't have a problem with people involving themselves in any way they see fit.  If it makes you happy to live with your gay lover for the rest of your life, then I'm happy for you.   But those arrangements are NOT a marriage.  That's not a moral judgement or condemnation, it's a simple statement of fact.  "Red" is not the word that describes the color of grass, "hot" is not the word that describes the temperature of ice, and "marriage" is not the word that describes a lifelong homosexual relationship.  "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

The big gripe levelled by the gay community is that they aren't being treated fairly by their insurance companies, employee benefit plans, inheritance, taxes, and so forth.  Well, if that's the case, the appropriate solution to negotiate a more equitable arrangement with the insurance companies and employers and so forth, or to acquire a power of attorney for the partner.  It is NOT appropriate to try to re-engineer the national culture to serve your own selfish needs.

[richyoung]

Rich, you're doing it again.

Age brings experience, and experience viewed though the lens of intellect leads to wisdom.  But that does not mean that one who is merely 17 cannot have wisdom; it merely means that he has less experience from which to draw.  But a man with years of experience and a clouded intellect may nave no wisdom at all.

Consider that a man with 17+1 rounds in his Glock, and who shoots it sideways, may hit the mark occasionally, but will probably score less than a guy with a six-shooter and the patience to have studied.  Years are like cartridges.  Having more of them doesn't mean you'll be on target more; it just means you've got more chances to get it right.

So let's leave the ad-hominem "you're too young to have an opinion, kid" rhetoric out of it, and consider what Winston says on its merits rather than in the light of your august years and his relatively brief life experience.

It wasn't intended as an attack - rather, and observation of fact, and a response to his "I guess"" crack.  If it was percieved by him or anyone else as an attack, I appologize - that was not my intention.  When attacks start, the exchange of ideas ends, as everyone defends themself, and their ideas as analogues of themself, rather than seeking enlightenment.
 

the push for homosexual marriage is DRIVEN by the desire to get medical benefits (heretofor primarily reserved for married couples and their dependent children...) for AIDS stricken gay men by "marrying" (either legitmately, or as a sham a la "Desperate Housewives") to pay for those expensive "drug cocktails" that keep them alive.

Cite, please.

"But especially with the advent of AIDS, economic justice issues moved to the core of radical gay politics. AIDS brought home the crises of housing, income, and, particularly, health care that poor Americans face every day to thousands of gay men (and a smaller number of lesbians)including many from comfortable backgrounds. It made plain the gaping holes in the United States patchwork private health insurance system. It pushed activists to challenge the health care institutions and pharmaceutical corporations whose policies, they argued, were literally killing them.

To promote marriage, however, is to accept a privatized framework for meeting basic needs such as health care. As Lisa Duggan wrote recently in The Nation, "Marriage thus becomes a privatization scheme: Individual married-couple-led households & privately provide many services once offered through social welfare agencies. More specifically, the unpaid labor of married women fills the gap created by government service cuts. & So there is an economic agenda, as well as surface moralism, attached to calls for the preservation of traditional marriage. The campaign to save gendered marriage has some rational basis, for neoliberals in both parties, as a politics of privatization."

from http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0504gluckman.html

"Marriage & Medical Benefits:

Marriage was meant to provide for children, not matrimonial hop-scotch to procure medical benefits for the reckless lust of homosexuals who care more about their partner-of-the-month than their own medical safety. As described in Part 1, there are approximately 120,000 in California with HIV/AIDS, an extremely expensive illness to treat which will have a huge impact on medical insurance costs. Dr. Ron Valdeserri of the CDC confirmed the fear of mutant viruses and states HIV infections are on the rise, "This could be an indication that the drugs that have revolutionized HIV care in the United States are losing their efficacy due to mutant viruses." (9)

Activists contacted me and claimed "California state law already provides medical benefits to same-sex partners." This simply isn't true. California law, AB 25, requires the POSSIBILITY of medical benefits is offered to employers by the insurance companies as a package for domestic partnerships IF EMPLOYERS so choose. Activists then claimed that many employers are already providing benefits to domestic partnerships, in fact, "everyone they know" which causes me to wonder if that is why medical insurance has been skyrocketing in California recently, with more employees paying co-payments while receiving less coverage. Less employers are offering medical benefits at all! This bill (thanks to Davis) recently passed in 2001.

from:http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/shroder/040229

Yes, I can pontificate baselessly as well.

You are the one who just mentioned ad hominem attacks, yet you commit them yourself...

Knowing these two people gives you the authority on what gay people want, then?  Gosh.  I know an awful lot more black people than two.  I suppose that qualifies me to speak at the next NAACP meeting.

...adding attempted reducto ad absurdio to your ad hominem repertoire?  Needs work...

Yes?  So?  While in school, did you EVER have a 4-gigahertz computer sitting on your desk?  And so what if you did or did not?

Rrelevance to discussion?

People learn from things besides school.

SOME do - others never learn anywhere.

In fact, the clever of wit use school to learn the mechanics of thought (reading, writing, mathematics) and learn what to think from other sources.

The reasons that gay people wish to get married are, by and large, exactly the same reasons that straight people want to get married:  They want to have their union legally recognised, they want the survivorship benefits, they want next-of-kin rights in situations where one partner is (for instance) in a hospital.  All of this makes perfect sense.  Currently it's possible for the family of a gay man to deny hospital access by the man's partner, because only "family" is allowed to decide who may and may not visit a patient.  That's wrong right there, because it denies gay couples equal protection under law.

WRONG - a gay man has JUST as much "right" to marry as a stright man - he just has to marry a woman, just like a straight man.  The rest of your objections could be easily addressed with a thing called a "power of attorney" - except that most gay men are too busy hopping from partner to partner to fill out such paperwork.

The primary objections to gay marriage come from one of three premises:  religious/moral objections, "purpose of marriage" objections, and legal/financial objections.

The first come from the religious belief that homosexuality is wrong.  And that's ok, up to a point.  People have a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong.  And if they believe that, they ought not to engage in it, and then everyone would be happy.  Unfortunately many groups aren't happy just following their own rules; they have a psychological need to make sure everyone else is following their rules as well.

Religious people have JUST as much right to political power and to exert pressure, collectively or otherwise, as any other balkanized special interest group.  Again, if your position for change can't win a majority in a democracy, its going to be a long hard road - unless you can convince 5 of 9 supremes to violate their oaths of office and "magic" your position into law, in violation of the Constitution, but not, unfortunately, precedent.

The people who object to gay marriage on moral grounds are confusing the issue of malum in se and malum prohibitum.  They believe that homosexuality is, by its very nature, wrong, and they fail to understand that when two consenting adults choose to do something, it's not possible for malum in se to apply.  Because they're consenting.

If I can be forced to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, and my drinking and smoking be heavily taxed and regulated,  on the argument that my "dangerous behavior" causes health care costs to rise for everyone, then the sodomistic activities that have spead AIDS, the new "black death", as well as skyrocketing rates of other diseases, can be regulated for the very same reason.  When I don't have to "click it or ticket" anymore, then let the anonymous AIDS parties ensue...

The second sort of objection is the "purpose of marriage" objection.  It says that the purpose of marriage is to create children.

Wrong - its to create a stabile environment in relationships that are very likely to produce children, without invading the privacy of everyone to determine actual proclivity and fertility.  The absence of children is exactly why neither gay adoption or marriage is needed.

... there are straight couples getting together and breaking up all the time, just as there are gay couples doing the same.

NOT "just as" - NOTHING approaches the level of promiscuity that gay men demonstrate.  

Churches get very, very upset when the government tries to tell them what they can and cannot do.  They cry, "The church and the state must be separated!".  But the moment anyone appears to be doing something that goes against their own doctrine (but which is not malum in se), they want the government to pass laws based upon the definitions of right and wrong put forward in their own holy traditions.

Its called a "judeo-christian" heritage.  Get over it.  Like it or not, this nation was, and is, a Christian nation, with attendant principles.  Want different principles?  Either convince 50.1% or move.

[Trisha]

So much changes in just twenty years now.  The world is much smaller as information (all types, including spin/propaganda/revisionism, etc ad infinitum) becomes accessible at speeds approaching the velocity of propagation/2 globally.  Any person is faced with the overwhelming realization that it is not practical to do other than keep periodic tabs of some sort (synopses) on a self-determined prerequisite skillset (sociologically speaking) of topics.

At best, one might manage a "Reader's Digest" of sorts on a dozen or two specifics during any given month - so, for sanity's interests I suppose, one generalizes by best-intentioned extrapolations.  Topic-specific scholars become more sourced as information overload swamps consciousness; and there are real pitfalls in far-reaching dependence on any single source for any opinion/perspective, yes?

Polarization of social groups/demographics would seem to be in the best interests of any over-reaching governance structure as the masses would be more readily monitored that way (if demonstrable and repetitive cause/effect facile control wasn't dependable enough for policy goals).  What to do?

If one senses an uncharacteristic feeling of uncertainty on challenge of their opinion of an issue, slow down!  Take the time to invest in yourself and do some research.  Think, and work on actual discussion (the old discourse process of thesis vs antithesis yielding an incremental synthesis remains as valid today as it ever did) - like I see here. . .

There's hope that the collective 'we' may find our way to continue grow and adapt to the pressures, demands, and overload today presents and tomorrow soberly promises.

"Animal Farm" meets "The Zero-Sum Society" meets "1984" meets "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters" meets "Godel, Escher, Bach" meets etc. . .

[Perd Hapley]

Words have meaning.  "Marriage" means "man and woman, forever".  Marriage has held that definition for as long as it has existed as a word.  Marriage does not mean "man and man" or "woman and woman" or "man and woman, but only for a few years" or "man and woman and man" or "man and dog" or whatever else you might come up with.

....But [the above] arrangements are NOT a marriage.  That's not a moral judgement or condemnation, it's a simple statement of fact.  "Red" is not the word that describes the color of grass, "hot" is not the word that describes the temperature of ice, and "marriage" is not the word that describes a lifelong homosexual relationship.  "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

This is simple fact.  Notice that HTG does NOT say that woman and woman and woman and man is not a marriage.  This type of polygamy has usually been considered actual marriage, even if it was not acceptable in many communities.  If you really want to know what "the big deal" is, consider that a minority (though a quickly growing one) has pronounced that a basic societal institution must be changed to accomodate a type of relationship that has heretofore not been considered marriage.  One cannot say the same for interracial marriage - those have been honored in many cultures throughout history.

While I agree that it should be easier for pairs or groups of people to arrange their affairs as they wish, there is no reason why homosexuals should expect to receive the benefits of monogamous heterosexuality.  If homosexuals truly wanted marriage, they would simply marry someone of the opposite sex.  But marriage is not what they want.

[BrokenPaw]

from http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0504gluckman.html
from:http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/shroder/040229

When I asked for cites, I didn't mean "cites from polititically-motivated publications that agree with you".  I meant "cites from neutral sources."  I would like to see a survey, perhaps, of gay people asking them why it is that they want to be able to marry.  

Oh, and quotes from "activists" do not represent the main base of gays and lesbians any more than quotes from abortion-clinic bombers represent the main base of pro-life people.

Yes, I can pontificate baselessly as well.

You are the one who just mentioned ad hominem attacks, yet you commit them yourself...

Not ad hominem.  Sorry, try again.  I was pointing out that it's easy enough to fabricate invective.  I did not attack you, sir.  I called your statement baseless.  And I hardly think there's anything pejorative about the term "pontificate".

...adding attempted reducto ad absurdio to your ad hominem repertoire?  Needs work...

Let's recap.  You stated that you knew two whole gay people, in response to someone asking how it was that you knew so much about their agenda.  I responded in kind, saying that I know even more black people, so I must have a handle on their agenda.  

Oh.  I see.  Your logic obviously carries water, whereas my use of the same logic to demonstrate the flaw in yours is somehow lacking?  Gosh.

Yes?  So?  While in school, did you EVER have a 4-gigahertz computer sitting on your desk?  And so what if you did or did not?

Rrelevance to discussion?

None at all.  Which was my point.  Why does what someone learned or experienced in the public schools automatically determine their entire comprehension of the world?  To wit:  during my time in the public schools (the base, anti-Christian, liberally-oriented public schools) I accepted Jesus as my personal Saviour and Lord.  Despite the school's alleged agenda.  Then, after I left school, I did research on my very own, and came to realize that a different path was the right one for me.  

You cannot lay the intellectual corruption of today's your entirely at the feet of the public schools, and you cannot assume that anyone who has a viewpoint different that yours must have gotten it from the public schools and is otherwise devoid of independent thought.
 

People learn from things besides school.

SOME do - others never learn anywhere.

Yes?  And?

WRONG - a gay man has JUST as much "right" to marry as a stright man - he just has to marry a woman, just like a straight man.

Straw man. It's just as wrong as if you lived in a country that had an official and legally-enforced religion.  Say, "Islam".  If you said, "I want the right to practice my own religion," and I said, "You have the same rights as everyone else...you have the right to be muslim".

It's not about people having the right to do what you want them to do, Rich.  It's about them having the right to be free to do what they want, absent causing harm to others.  If I want to marry a cat, unless you can demonstrate in some concrete way how that harms you, you've no legitimate cause to object.  

You have the right to object, of course, but forcing a law to prevent it is thuggist statism just as much as passing a law to keep the law-abiding from having guns just because you fear them.

The rest of your objections could be easily addressed with a thing called a "power of attorney" - except that most gay men are too busy hopping from partner to partner to fill out such paperwork.

Ad hominem.  Try again.

Religious people have JUST as much right to political power and to exert pressure, collectively or otherwise, as any other balkanized special interest group.

Well, yes, of course they do.  That part's not in debate.  They have the right to say anything they wish.  That doesn't mean that what they say is right.

Again, if your position for change can't win a majority in a democracy, its going to be a long hard road - unless you can convince 5 of 9 supremes to violate their oaths of office and "magic" your position into law, in violation of the Constitution, but not, unfortunately, precedent.

If my position can't win a majority, then chances are it won't change the law of the land.  Oh, but wait!  We weren't talking whether a majority agrees or not.  We were talking about the reasons behind why the majority feels the way they do.

I'm going to guess, Rich, and (seriously) please forgive me if I'm wrong.  I'm going to guess that you're opposed to abortion, because you believe it to be morally wrong.  Yet it's legal in many places in the country.  Does the existence of that legal status change in your mind the rightness or wrongness of the base issue?  I'm going to further guess that it does not.

Whether or not gay marriage is legal isn't the point of this debate.  Whether it should be, and what the reasons for and against it, are the points of this debate.  Saying, "More people agree with me than with you" doesn't change the underlying truths.  

500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat.  Did them all agreeing on that point make it so?

If I can be forced to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, and my drinking and smoking be heavily taxed and regulated,  on the argument that my "dangerous behavior" causes health care costs to rise for everyone, then the sodomistic activities that have spead AIDS, the new "black death", as well as skyrocketing rates of other diseases, can be regulated for the very same reason.

Somewhere, way back in the hinterlands of my youth....I recall a saying my father used...what was it?  What could it have been?  Oh yes:  "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Sorry, defending an injustice by pointing out a different injustice is worth zero Debate Points.

When I don't have to "click it or ticket" anymore, then let the anonymous AIDS parties ensue...

Ad hominem.  The people who want to have "AIDS parties", as you put it, are not waiting for legislation.  The people who are hurt by the lack of legal gay marriage are the men and women who are in secure, long-term committed relationships, and who want the same legal recognition as straight folks who are in secure, long-term committed relationships.

Wrong - its to create a stabile environment in relationships that are very likely to produce children, without invading the privacy of everyone to determine actual proclivity and fertility.  The absence of children is exactly why neither gay adoption or marriage is needed.

If that's the case, then why allow a sterile man or woman to marry at all?  The absence of children is exactly why neither adoption or marriage is needed.

NOT "just as" - NOTHING approaches the level of promiscuity that gay men demonstrate.

Very well.  I will grant you that point.  I don't know it for a fact, but I can't refute it with facts either.  So a bunch of gay men are promiscuous.  So what?  What does that have to do with the non-promiscuous ones getting married?  A bunch of college kids are promiscuous, too.  Should we ban straight marriage as a result?

There are an awful lot of gang-bangers in the inner city gangs who kill each others with guns.  What does that have to do with law-abiding people buying guns for legal purposes?

Answer:  Nothing.  Just like the promiscuity of a vocal few has nothing to do with the rights of others.

Its called a "judeo-christian" heritage.  Get over it.  Like it or not, this nation was, and is, a Christian nation, with attendant principles.  Want different principles?  Either convince 50.1% or move.

Ah!  The ever-popular like-it-or-get-out debating tool!  Hmm.  There are all sorts of things that are part of the "Judeo-Christian" heritage that we would not stand for today:  Public stonings for minor crimes.  Crucifixion for thievery.  Drawing and quartering.  Burning or drowning for mere suspicion of being a witch.  More or less the entire Spanish Inquisition.  A Crusade or two.  Minor stuff like that.

This is not a Christian nation.  It is a nation that was formed by many people who were Christian, and some who were not.  The principles of the nation are evidenced in its laws.  The nation's laws supported slavery for more than half a century.  If this country were guided by the Judeo-Christian heritage, how can slavery have ever existed at all?  Either the heritage itself is flawed, or its implementation in law was flawed.  And if the latter is true, how can we be certain that it's not still flawed and in need of correction?

-BP

[BrokenPaw]

If homosexuals truly wanted marriage, they would simply marry someone of the opposite sex.  But marriage is not what they want.

Um...what?

You're saying that if they truly wanted to have a committed, long-term, legally-protected relationship with the person they love, with next-of-kin rights, inheritance rights, and so on...they'd marry a person they don't love, because...that...makes some sort of sense?

I'm honestly completely baffled.  
-BP

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There's no reason to be baffled, BrokenPaw.  

Marriage means a lifelong, committed, home/family-building relationship between a man and a women.  Nobody is preventing any gay or lesbian individual from entering into a marriage.

Gays don't want marriage, they want want a man/man or woman/woman relationship.  Neither of those arrangements constitute a marriage.  Gays want something that isn't a marriage, but they wanna mis-label it as a marriage.

Nobody is telling them they can't have a marriage.  Nobody is telling them that they can't have a lifelong, loving, happy relationship with someone of their same sex.  But simple reality is that it's impossible to have both at the same time.  The two are mutually exclusive.  They're self-contradictory.

[BrokenPaw]

Marriage means a lifelong, committed, home/family-building relationship between a man and a women.  Nobody is preventing any gay or lesbian individual from entering into a marriage.  The thing is, gays don't want marriage, they want something different.

Oh.  Yes.  You're correct.  What they want is the legal recognition of their stable, long-term male-male or female-female relationship.  The same legal recognition that the government already gives to the union of "marriage" that the church has defined (and is free to define) as "one man, one woman".  

If we're going to pick nits about the term, then the rest of the debate is meaningless.

But the point still stands that the government has no business saying "these two consenting adults are legally recognised as kin, whereas these two are not and cannot be, because it's wrong in the religious canon of someone else."

-BP

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If the question is one of legal recongition, then grant the appropriate legal recognition to gays who've entered into a lifelong relationship.  Work out the details with the insurance companies, use a power of attorney or change the law to accomodate for next-of-kin issues, and so forth.  

Just don't call that a marriage.  It isn't.  Calling it a marriage is offensive to those of us who practice any of several religions, to those of us who hold traditional American/western values, and to those of us who respect the critical importance of families and marriages.  Social re-engineering is not something the State should be empowered to do.

If gays want a marriage, they can have one.  If they want a State-recognized partnership with their same-sex partner, then they can have that instead.  But they can't have both at the same time.

[AJ Dual]

I'm in line with those espousing the Libertarian principle that the only governmental interest in "marriage" should be contract law. A "couple" negotiates and draws up their co-habitation contract, then goes to the church of their choice if they even want to, to get "married". The churches that want to "marry" same-sex couples can, and the churches that don't, don't.

My wife and I do know several gay people, (community theater, go figure) and on the issue, they are all over the map. It seems to me that there are three distinct camps in the "gay community" over the gay marriage issue.

1. The large group of gays that wants gay marriage as a "civil rights victory", whether they're personally interested in being married, or not.

2. The smaller group of gays that is in a long-term committed relationship, and perhaps has a legitimate feeling of being discriminated against that the cannot codify their relationship in the same way as hetero couples.

3. The other large (and silent) group of gays, that thinks gays who want to be married are "crazy" and feel it's forsaking what they view as one of the few (to them) advantages of being gay, namely avoiding the financial burdens of marriage/family, and the loss of social and personal freedom they enjoy.

Where that leaves us, I don't know. I can say that I do agree with those that homosexuality has always been with us, and always will be with us. (A tired example, but Ancient Greece, Rome, etc. come to mind&)  Despite the massive increase in social acceptance, being openly gay still carries a huge personal stigma, and I can't fathom anyone "choosing" to be gay, any more than I "chose" to be hetero. The thought of being either physically or romantically attracted to another man is so alien to me, I can only personally conclude there's a biological mechanism behind most homosexuality, although I recognize that proof has not yet truly been found.

However, I also think that those who are pointing out that they believe the gay marriage movement is in part a cynical ploy to exploit the Insurance/AIDS/Marriage connection are onto something. To those who demand "proof" of it, it's brought up by proponents themselves in every state that's having a gay marriage battle right now. And the Libertarian contract solution would solve it, because under a Libertarian system that allowed same-sex marriage contracts, insurers would not be forced to insure anyone they didn't want to. If gay marriage were suddenly legal, and all insurance carriers refused to cover same-sex spouses. Too bad.

The gay community, and it's supporters would, of course, be free to form their own insurance company. Good luck.

Although in the meantime, I think that the inheritance and medical custody issues are overblown. They're easily addressed through wills, trusts, and durable powers of attorney. The maudlin example of a partner being refused the right to see or consult in medical decisions for his or her partner dying of AIDS by unnactepting family is trotted out constantly. I'm sure it's happened, but I'm also sure it's rare. And now that the gay community is aware of the problem, they should have powers of attorney drawn up if they are in a comitted relationship. I haven't looked, but I'd be very surprised if there weren't gay-rights or community groups that offer this service pro-bono...

That's what I like about Libertarian solutions to problems. Everywhere a Libertarian policy creates a new freedom, it also takes away the "free lunch" that would allow people to avoid the consequences of such freedom as well.

In the meantime, I intend to vote against gay marriage referendums or proposals, and for politicians that oppose it, not on any particular grounds against gay marriage per-se, but because I believe the state does not have an interest in it. I am against the state's current interest in "conventional marriage" as well, and I see no benefit to extending that improper interest to other classes of people. To do so is like saying my neighbor was mugged, so it's only fair I should be too.

[zahc]

It is NOT appropriate to try to re-engineer the national culture to serve your own selfish needs.

No it IS appropriate to try to re-engineer a bigoted national culture to promote freedom and equality.

What is NOT appropriate is attempting to uphold the status quo to serve your own selfish, religious needs.

[BrokenPaw]

If the question is one of legal recongition, then grant the appropriate legal recognition to gays who've entered into a lifelong relationship.  Work out the details with the insurance companies, use a power of attorney or change the law to accomodate for next-of-kin issues, and so forth.

This is more or less what I was talking about.  Get the government out of the "marriage" business, let the churches "marry" as they see fit.

I'm sorry that the use of the term "marriage" as applied to gay couples offends you.  But objection over the term used should not invalidate the underlying principle.  Some people will refer to it as "marriage", no matter what its official term is, just as many people will refer to a facial tissue of any brand as a "Kleenex".  Doesn't mean it's accurate, but it is part of common usage.

And while the Christians may think that the fact that the term "marriage" is theirs alone to use, it's not; a Justice of the Peace can perform a "marriage".  That makes it a non-religious term;  if it's non-religious, it can apply to anyone the state says it can apply to.

Even those of us legally joined in a wild-and-crazy hedonistic Pagan ceremony in the woods refer to ourselves as "married".  

It's just a word, folks.

-BP

[roo_ster]

What you have is a group that rejects and flamboyantly breaks the norms that are held by the vast majority.  IMO, fine, let them go about their norm-breaking on their own dime and in their own home.  They merit tolerance, not acceptance for their acts and choices.

Where I (and the vast majority) get irate and lose sympathy is when the norm breakers want to make the rules for everyone and glom onto a term and institution that already has meaning.

So sorry, but bents don't get to make the rules for straights.

Oh, gov't does have an interest in marriage.  It is awfully hard to have a country without the births of new citizens.  Also, a gov't that is looking out for the security of its citizens understands that male/female marriage is the best way to ensure that men are less destructive and children more likely to be successful...thus costing citizens fewer dollars in support and fewer crimes to clean up afterwards.

[Gewehr98]

I'm sorry that the use of the term "marriage" as applied to gay couples offends you.

Crocodile tears, from what I've read of the previous dialogue on the thread.

Religiously, I find homosexuality an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.  Morally, I find it repulsive.  

However, it does seem quite fashionable to be gay in today's society, and more than once I've considered that aspect of being upwardly mobile as an incentive to espouse such a lifestyle.  However, my religious and moral objections still take precedent.

Regardless, I will not persecute or go out of my way to make life miserable for those who choose that path. I'm relatively open-minded, but not so open-minded my brain fell out.  I was fortunate enough as part of my military career to monitor, inventory and exhume graves in Bosnia/Serbia, and have seen the worst of mankind when they don't particularly like another group.  (Put that into your 17 year-old pipe of San Francisco wisdom, Winston, and then ask us why we think your opinion needs a little more time to mature)

However, those institutions I find sacred, to include marriage, I will most definitely defend from that which I find abominable and repugnant.  I'll do that by what appears to be the only means legally available in this day and age - by lobbying and voting.  Hopefully, I can contribute another 40 years or more of grief to those who would have Christianity labeled "a passing fad".  

Mike, that reminded me of when I carried my rifle to school on the school bus prior to 1980, and nobody so much as batted an eye.  We had Junior Rifle Club on Thursday afternoons in the grade school locker room, where there was a rimfire backstop set up at 50 feet, and we had 3 separate relays of shooters, the program was so popular.  Could you imagine that type of program trying to exist today?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It is NOT appropriate to try to re-engineer the national culture to serve your own selfish needs.

No it IS appropriate to try to re-engineer a bigoted national culture to promote freedom and equality.

What is NOT appropriate is attempting to uphold the status quo to serve your own selfish, religious needs.

Sigh.  I'm a bigot, just because I hold a diferent viewpoint than you.  (And they say ther we are the intolerant ones...)

There is nothing unfair or discriminatory or uequal about the status quo.  Gays are as free to marry as straights.  The rules apply equally to everyone:  any man is free to marry his wife, and any woman is free to marry her husband.

If there are benefits or legal standigs afforded to straight couples but denied to gay couples, then let's change that.  But we don't need to coerce everyone else into accepting a new definition of marriage in order to accomplish that.

And while the Christians may think that the fact that the term "marriage" is theirs alone to use, it's not; a Justice of the Peace can perform a "marriage".  That makes it a non-religious term;  if it's non-religious, it can apply to anyone the state says it can apply to.

Therein lies the crux of the matter.  Marriage transcends religion and Christianity.  You're right, marriage is non-religious.  But marriage also transends government and the leftists.  They didn't create marriage, history did.  Yet they act like it is theirs to do with as they please.  And the rest of us have to go along with their whims, or else be called bigotted or backwards or discriminatory or whatever.

I have a problem with that.  I don't try to make my own rules whenever it suits me.  I consider it to be arrogant and self-centered when other people do.

[Trisha]

Some posts could be verbatim transcript from "Straight Talk Radio" hosted by the Bennetts. . .

Fascinating, insightful thread as a whole; please, continue!

[richyoung]

When I asked for cites, I didn't mean "cites from polititically-motivated publications that agree with you".  I meant "cites from neutral sources."

Neutrality, or lack thereof, has no bearing on VERACITY.  Do your "line drawing" somewhere else please.

I would like to see a survey, perhaps, of gay people asking them why it is that they want to be able to marry.

A survey of pedophiles and rapists would reveal that "the victim wanted it", a survey of Nazis would reveal that their concentration camp/cremetorium victims were "subhuman"  - doesn't make it true.... what was that about NEUTRAL sources again???

Oh, and quotes from "activists" do not represent the main base of gays and lesbians any more than quotes from abortion-clinic bombers represent the main base of pro-life people.

As one who remembers the great "Heterosexual AIDS epidemic" that was used to politically coerce research funding all out of proportion to the actual need for a disease that is 100% preventable, I am a little sceptical and search for hidden agendas - and the extremist always drive the agenda, esp. with incrimentalism.

Yes, I can pontificate baselessly as well.

You are the one who just mentioned ad hominem attacks, yet you commit them yourself...

Not ad hominem.  Sorry, try again.  I was pointing out that it's easy enough to fabricate invective.  I did not attack you, sir.  I called your statement baseless.  And I hardly think there's anything pejorative about the term "pontificate".

You don't consider accusing one of "pontificating baslessly" as an ad hominem attack?  I don't think that is a credible postion.

...adding attempted reducto ad absurdio to your ad hominem repertoire?  Needs work...

Let's recap.  You stated that you knew two whole gay people,...

No, I mentioned two out of the MANY gay people I have known - but I am becoming used to a lack of intellectual rigourousness in your posts, so lets go on...

 

You cannot lay the intellectual corruption of today's your entirely at the feet of the public schools,...

Yes I can.  In fact I did so - and I think you will find the majority agrees with me, seeing as how the public school system has a largely captive audience whom they then proceeed to brain wash under the GUISE of "educating" them - many never realize the difference.

It's not about people having the right to do what you want them to do, Rich.  It's about them having the right to be free to do what they want, absent causing harm to others.  If I want to marry a cat, unless you can demonstrate in some concrete way how that harms you, you've no legitimate cause to object.

in a democracy, some things ARE left to the wil lof the majority.  Since our currrent Constitution has NEVER been "interpreted" to allow gay marriage, get an ammendment passed... IF you can.  Otherwise, shut up and deal with it.

The rest of your objections could be easily addressed with a thing called a "power of attorney" - except that most gay men are too busy hopping from partner to partner to fill out such paperwork.

Ad hominem.  Try again.

Nope. Established fact.  You try again.

500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat.  Did them all agreeing on that point make it so?

You are having a real problem with facts.  All educated people knew otherwise - else how did Columbus get the idea to try to sail to India?

If I can be forced to wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, and my drinking and smoking be heavily taxed and regulated,  on the argument that my "dangerous behavior" causes health care costs to rise for everyone, then the sodomistic activities that have spead AIDS, the new "black death", as well as skyrocketing rates of other diseases, can be regulated for the very same reason.

Somewhere, way back in the hinterlands of my youth....I recall a saying my father used...what was it?  What could it have been?  Oh yes:  "Two wrongs don't make a right."

I recall a saying, too - "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, (or the gander dressed as a goose, for that matter...)

The people who are hurt by the lack of legal gay marriage are the men and women who are in secure, long-term committed relationships, and who want the same legal recognition as straight folks who are in secure, long-term committed relationships.

Who gets to decide what "marriage" means?  Society.  Want to change what it means?  COnvinve society.  That hasn't happened yet.

If that's the case, then why allow a sterile man or woman to marry at all?

Because some "sterile" men aren't, because there are such things as sperm banks, andin the last analysis, its none of the state's business who is, and isn't fertile.

Its called a "judeo-christian" heritage.  Get over it.  Like it or not, this nation was, and is, a Christian nation, with attendant principles.  Want different principles?  Either convince 50.1% or move.

Ah!  The ever-popular like-it-or-get-out debating tool!  Hmm.  There are all sorts of things that are part of the "Judeo-Christian" heritage that we would not stand for today:  Public stonings for minor crimes.

I'm not opposed to that in principle.  Ever had your tires slashed, or your garage tagged with gang graphitti?

Crucifixion for thievery.  Drawing and quartering.  Burning or drowning for mere suspicion of being a witch.  More or less the entire Spanish Inquisition.  A Crusade or two.  Minor stuff like that.

Got anything thats happened in, like the last 200 or so years?  Youknow, since there WAS a "United States"?

This is not a Christian nation.  It is a nation that was formed by many people who were Christian, and some who were not.

Wrong again.  The "In God We Trust" on the money is a reference to a Judeo-Christian god.  Both houses of the legislature open with a Judeo-Christian prayer.  The judicial branch swears in witnesses on a Christian bible, and many Christian holidays are official government holidays.  Chaplains are provided to our armed forces, the vast majority of them Judeo-Christian.  Many of the original Thirteen Colonies were founded by ...various Christian sects.  Hows that foot taste?

The principles of the nation are evidenced in its laws.  The nation's laws supported slavery for more than half a century.  If this country were guided by the Judeo-Christian heritage, how can slavery have ever existed at all?

There is nothing in the Judeo-Christian heritage that specifically prohibits slavery, although slaves arre admonished to be "faithful servants" as part of their obligation to God.  For that matter, how can slavery be prohibited, but young men, (and ONLY men....) forced into the armed forces against their will, possibly to die?

Either the heritage itself is flawed, or its implementation in law was flawed.  And if the latter is true, how can we be certain that it's not still flawed and in need of correction?

-BP

Fine - convince a majority that it needs to be.  Thats how it works.  That hasn't happened yet.

[Ron]

While in school, did you EVER:
1.  Hear anything BAD about the United Nations?
2.  Hear anything GOOD about the pre-WWII isolationist movement in the US?
3.  Hear anything BAD about Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
4.  Hear anything GOOD about Richard Nixon?
5.  Hear anything GOOD about private gun ownership?
6.  Hear anything BAD about the anti-war movement in the 1960's US?
7.  Hear anything GOOD about the Confederacy?
8.  Hear anything BAD about Abraham Lincoln and the Union?

High School Class of 82. No to all above.

Big government cannot be all things to all people.

The answer is not using government coercion to force Christian ethics on Gay folk or vice versa.

The answer is truly limited government. Get em out of the social engineering business.

[BrokenPaw]

Rich,

I will respond to your post.  Unfortunately I will be away from my computer from now through the weekend, so I won't be able to take the time to properly respond until probably Tuesday.

-BP

[cosine]

Religiously, I find homosexuality an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.  Morally, I find it repulsive.  

However, it does seem quite fashionable to be gay in today's society, and more than once I've considered that aspect of being upwardly mobile as an incentive to espouse such a lifestyle.  However, my religious and moral objections still take precedent.

Regardless, I will not persecute or go out of my way to make life miserable for those who choose that path. I'm relatively open-minded, but not so open-minded my brain fell out.  I was fortunate enough as part of my military career to monitor, inventory and exhume graves in Bosnia/Serbia, and have seen the worst of mankind when they don't particularly like another group.  (Put that into your 17 year-old pipe of San Francisco wisdom, Winston, and then ask us why we think your opinion needs a little more time to mature)

However, those institutions I find sacred, to include marriage, I will most definitely defend from that which I find abominable and repugnant.  I'll do that by what appears to be the only means legally available in this day and age - by lobbying and voting.  Hopefully, I can contribute another 40 years or more of grief to those who would have Christianity labeled "a passing fad".

My views exactly. Thank you, you saved me the trouble of having to type it all out.

[Perd Hapley]

If homosexuals truly wanted marriage, they would simply marry someone of the opposite sex.  But marriage is not what they want.

Um...what?

You're saying that if they truly wanted to have a committed, long-term, legally-protected relationship with the person they love, with next-of-kin rights, inheritance rights, and so on...they'd marry a person they don't love, because...that...makes some sort of sense?

I'm honestly completely baffled.  
-BP

If they wanted marriage, they would get married, and marriage is inherently heterosexual.  Homosexuality is a different kettle of fish.

[zahc]

Man, there are a lot of people that have totall hijacked the debate into arguing over the meaning of a simple word.

My lit teacher used to tell me that language truly is power. He was very right. I give up. Honestly, I can't understand why people can love a word so much as to refuse to give any ground or be realistic about how it's being used in the real world. As an areligous person, it's amazingly silly. Marriage...I think it means heterosexual marriage, and I use it as such. But lots of people don't, because to them marriage is not necessarily a covenant made before God, it something you can do in a courthouse and have reversed whenever you feel like it. That's what you get for involving government in your precious instutution. It's too late to take your word back now. There is no point in lobbying to protect the usage of a word! How is that more important than the real ramifications of the issue?

As I stated in the first post, the government should never intefered in marriage to start with. If that was the case than they wouldn't be corrupting the Christian's institution. Why can't the Christians see that and realize that the solution is not to attempt to get the government to enforce thier admittedly and necessarily intolerant viewpoints on a population that it has to treat equally under the law, but rather to wash their hands of the whole mess and separate their religous ceremonies from legal paperwork?

Again, the only answer that makes sense to me is that they enjoy using the government to shape society toward their religious goals, as people in this thread have admitted to explicitly or otherwise.

 I'm a religiously tolerant person, but when you stray from the non-aggression priciple and attempt to evangelicize not through example and teaching, but through coercion, you cross the line into being everything BAD that there is about religion, my hackles stand up, you end up grouped right with any other freedom-limiting tyrannical institution in my book.

[Winston Smith]

Just don't call that a marriage.  It isn't.  Calling it a marriage is offensive to those of us who practice any of several religions,

The New PC

And by new I mean extremely old. At least they can't burn me at the stake for thinking different anymore, just ridicule me.

I was fortunate enough as part of my military career to monitor, inventory and exhume graves in Bosnia/Serbia, and have seen the worst of mankind when they don't particularly like another group.  (Put that into your 17 year-old pipe of San Francisco wisdom, Winston, and then ask us why we think your opinion needs a little more time to mature)

I've seen a little bit of what mankind can do to itself too, and part of it is in the form of not acknowledging that others may be different from you yet still deserve the same opportunities.

You know, based on skin color, social status, gender, sexual orientation... or even age.

Sigh.  I'm a bigot, just because I hold a diferent viewpoint than you.  (And they say ther we are the intolerant ones...)

Don't try and make that out to be an ad hominem. Your opinion on this matter is bigoted because it's intolerant. And saying you can't be intolerant of intolerance is like saying you can't kill someone for trying to kill you.

So sorry, but bents don't get to make the rules for straights.

Obviously, and visa versa. That's called freedom.

There is nothing unfair or discriminatory or uequal about the status quo.  Gays are as free to marry as straights.  The rules apply equally to everyone:  any man is free to marry his wife, and any woman is free to marry her husband.

And all jews are free to go to the gas chamber.

That aint freedom my friend.

And the rest of us have to go along with their whims, or else be called bigotted or backwards or discriminatory or whatever.

How does this directly affect you? And don't talk about medical care costs, or insurance, because your argument right now is centered around the sanctity of marriage.

the public school system has a largely captive audience whom they then proceeed to brain wash under the GUISE of "educating" them - many never realize the difference.

the religious system has a largely captive audience whom they then proceeed to brain wash under the GUISE of "saving" them - many never realize the difference.

I am becoming used to a lack of intellectual rigourousness in your posts,

Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.



And seriously, the meanings of words change. It's okay. Society changes. And if you feel the need to not change with it, well, that's your right, but at least let it change around you. Seeing as it's none of your buisness.

And PS the promiscuity of gay men is due to the fact that they are men, not gay. It's a human thing, not a gay thing.