Tell me what you think and why...

If homosexuals want to practice their lifestyle in their own privacy, they have the freedom to do so. But, to make the entire society accept their lifestyle and be on par with heterosexual marriages is NOT right. By making homosexual marriages legal, it will in essense say that society accepts the homosexual lifestyle. And that belief is not something that can be forced upon everyone.

That is the biggest load of crap Ive heard. Its FORCING people to accept the homosexual lifestyle? Its nobodys business whom is married to whom, so exactly how would it be FORCING people to accept homosexuality? There are benefits that come along with a legal marriage, and why should gays be denied those benefits? If its OK for colored people to marry, or for jews to marry, it should be OK for gays to marry too.

Or, why are those benefits there in the first place? Why should society reward a heterosexual couple for deciding the marry?

Or what about forcing heterosexual beliefs onto others? Or is that OK because its "normal"?

Osteng, how do you figure that two men/women consenting to marrying each other is forcing anything on you. Just because you would not marry another guy doesn't mean that you can "force" you beliefs/morals on others. If two people love each other and are committed to making a relationship work together, I personally don't care who they are or what they look like or (heaven forbid) whether they kiss in public. I also have no problem with gay/lesbian couples adopting and raising children.

-Kisov

Otseng, you may not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but it does exist, and there are many same sex couples that are as equally committed to one another as there are heterosexual couples. Why should they be denied the legal protections that are granted by marriage? It should not be the role of the government to decide what is moral and what is not unless the act being committed infringes upon the rights or freedoms of another. Homosexuality in no way infringes upon your rights as an individual.

Kisov, I also believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt and raise children. That may be another interesting thread to start.

Have all of the relationships you want, but leaglizing marriage..no way. It will have a tough sell where I live. There is more to it than "life style" etc. There are issues such as medical ins. etc. A wealth of issues.
We have enough problems with divorce as it is. I'm sure there are some partnerships out there that are long lived and stable, but I am also certain there a a bunch that are not. It is just adding one more problem!

... another hot topic ...

Why is it forcing me to accept it? Cause if gay marriages were legit, I'd HAVE to accept their legal status as a married couple. It would be the law that is forcing me to accept it. I might not like it, but I'd have to accept it.

You bring up colored people and jews. Well, what about having polygamous marriages? Or multigamous marriages? Or marrying an 13 year old? Or an incestuous marriage? Since we can't have these things, aren't all these people also denied the benefits of marriage?

One difference between a monogamous marriage and a homosexual marriage is that the male and female human bodies are designed for monogamous marriage. Sexually, it is apparent that males were not meant to marry each other. The other difference is that monogamous marriages have been accepted by ALL societies for milleniums. None of the other forms of marriage have been accepted by all societies. Thirdly, and most importantly, I believe that the institution of marriage was created by God. And the marriage of Adam and Eve sets the pattern of what a marriage was originally designed as.

Who says homosexuals are denied any rights? They have the same rights as everyone else has in this country. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. (Of course, this is not their sexual preference.)

Forced beliefs/morals are what our Constitution and laws are all about.

Tell me why:
1. walk around naked
2. play music too loudly in the privacy of my home
3. I have to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle.

As possibly the only openly gay participant here (that I know of), I suppose I should address this issue - and as personally as possible. However, before I get to the subject at hand, I'm afraid I must indulge in a typical off-topic rant:

What the hell is a "homosexual lifestyle"? Forgive me for being crude, but are you claiming that I've got eight inches of lifestyle?? Homosexulaity is not a "lifestyle choice". In my experience - and the experience of every gay man and lesbian that I've ever met (which has been quite a few), sexual orientation is inborn, genetic, God-given, predetermined, whatever you wanna call it - it is there from birth. Did any of you heterosexuals out there make a "choice" to be affectionally attracted to the opposite sex? Did you contemplate your "lifestyle options" before deciding to which sex you physically respond? If a single one of you has, I'll accept your use of this "lifestyle" nonsense.

More important, are any of you wondering why homosexuality is so qualified? To me, it seems that this rhetorical trick simply makes discrimination easier. "Those choosing this lifestyle should not be treated with equality" sounds a lot better than "Homosexuals should not be treated with equality". Even something like "Those who adopt the African-American lifestyle may practice being black in privacy, but they shouldn't expect to be accepted as equal" is a bit more palatable than saying "Those born black are inferior." People can get away with the distancing effect of dismissing sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice" because, unlike most other inborn minority traits, homosexuality isn't as apparent as say gender, race, or physical disability. But that does not mean that minimizing the minority status of homosexuals is any more fair than writing off the disabled as "those who choose the wheelchair lifestyle".

Apologies for straying from the subject, but the inherent prejudice exhibited by almost all of you in your use of "lifestyle" (unconscious or not) could not go unchallenged. I'll get back to the topic at hand shortly...

Wertz, you are absolutely correct, and I apologize for my phrasing. I in no way think that there is such a thing as a "homosexual lifestyle", its just a way to address the problem.



What about polygamous marriages? Or incestuous marriages? I dont think they should be illegal either, and before you jump on me for promoting incest, let me clarify: There is such a thing as WILLING incest. I am not referring to child abuse. IF two consenting adults want to marry, let them. And from my understanding it may be legal to marry a 13 year old, if the parents consent to it.



This is also utter crap. And if you believe this, you are living in a fantasy world. THE SAME RIGHTS? I dont know if you realize this or not, but MOST anti-discrimination laws DO NOT include homosexuality or any sort of sexuality for that matter, so that means someone can be fired for being gay. Also, gay couples are usually NOT allowed to add their partner onto health benefits, is that the same right as everyone else? I think not. They arent allowed to adopt children, although heterosexual couples can. You may not agree with it, but it still means that homosexuals DO NOT have the same rights. And this is minor in comparison, but it says that if you are a gay male and have had anal sex, you can not donate blood. But what it should say is, if you have had anal sex you can not donate blood. These are not the same rights as everyone else.



Male and female bodies were NOT designed for "marriage". They were designed for sex, and thats what they do. Its absurd to think that anyone is "designed" to marry. And just because monogamous heterosexual marriage has been accepted for ages, that means there is room for no more acceptance? Is it merely IMPOSSIBLE for any and all societys to deal with a different sort of marriage. Will we explode with so much stimulus? And while you believe that marriage is an institution of God, we have a little thing called the seperation of church and state. So legal marriages in this country ARE NOT always religious, which should mean that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Marriages in our society (you know, the 21st century) are legal bonds and nothing more. You can get married by a justice of the peace, and that isnt religious. There are many people that choose non-religious ceremonies, so not all marriage is created by a god.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are basically saying is that because their is a possibility that couples could get divorced, gay marriage should not be legalized. Heterosexual couples get divorced all the time. Do you believe that we should ban heterosexual marriage as well?



I agree with Kimpossible on this one. As long as each party consents, excluding children, what is the problem?



Wrong. They don't have the right to marry the human that they are in love with. They have many difficulties obtaining family medical care, and their chosen spouses don't receive the rights that a heterosexual spouse receives under marriage, including the ability to make major medical decisions regarding their spouse if anything bad happens.



I'm bisexual, and I used the term lifestyle, as well. It was in no way to offend or undermine the status of homosexuals as minorities. I chose that word, because of my own personal philosophies regarding sexuality, but I won't go into that on any deep level here because I think that the nurture vs. nature issue deserves its own thread. I do think that the term lifestyle, because of the sub-culture that has developed around homosexuals, can be appropriate depending upon the context. I'm sorry if I offended you.



Kim, I agree with you 100%. Marriage is an idea that has developed over time. It is not a natural instinct among humans, and it is not always religious. People get married for many different reasons, but this thread is about gay marriages being recognized by the government. Homosexuals can already have their own spiritually based marriages, it is the legal protection that is sought.

Wertz, I agree with you on the point that homosexuals did not choose their sexual orientation (for the vast majority). Though it would be interesting to see a discussion on nature vs nurture.

Last word on "lifestyle" (I hope): I don't find the term overly offensive - and may have sounded more severe than I intended - but I do see it as part of what feminists used to describe as "the language of oppression" (this was back when political correctness used to be perceived as a good thing). Heterosexuals are just heterosexuals. Homosexuals, on the other hand, lead, practice or adopt "a homosexual lifestyle". This tends to make one's sexual identity (if, of course, one is gay) seem no more profound than a fashion statement.


To the topic at hand, then: I'm not as ardent a campaigner for "gay marriages" as many gay men and lesbians are - mostly because I've been able to find a way around most of the benefits accorded heterosexual couples. I am fortunate, for example, to have found an employer that recognizes domestic partnerships (homo- or heterosexual) and can, therefore, include my partner in my health benefits and life insurance. We've also been able to finagle a joint bank account and have been careful to look after things like live wills. While it would not be possible in this country, we were able to exploit a loophole in Ireland which allowed us to foster two kids. (Well, actually, we fostered one apiece as single parents.) We rent rather than own property and have usually got both our names on any given lease.

My partner and I have been together for over twenty-two years now (longer than any heterosexual couple that either of us know in our age group) and don't seem to have required a certificate to define our commitment to each other. However, for many in this country, the inequality regarding marital status can be crippling - and it's not just the lack of a ceremony for declaring their love for each other. Gay couples can't jointly own property as a rule (try getting a mortgage as a gay or lesbian couple!), most are not covered by the health care packages of their spouses, they can't foster or adopt children (even though studies have indicated that homosexuals tend to be somewhat better parents - and teachers - than heterosexuals), they are not entitled to the same tax breaks as straight couples, they can't automatically benefit as "next of kin" in the event of the death of a spouse, they can't jointly purchase insurance protection, etc.

I've known gay men who have lost partners and who were forbidden by the (often distant and alienated) family of the deceased to even attend their loved one's funeral. As we saw a year ago, the surviving partner of a gay man who helped crash the hijacked plane which was possibly headed toward the White House was not entitled to the same benefits as the spouse of every heterosexual victim of the September 11 attack - even if they spent their last moments eating a donut rather than storming a cockpit. This is outrageous.

Marriage in this country is primarily a financial arrangement. The fact that most gay relationships last longer than most heterosexual marriages, contrary to popular stereotype, without the socially recognized ceremonial, often without the support of close family - and with all of the societal prejudice against gay relationships - attests to the sorry state of heterosexual marriage and the fact that it is often simply a matter of financial convenience. There is, therefore, absolutely no excuse for failing to recognize domestic partnerships of any description.

Those who argue against gay partnerships from some moral position (the sanctity of marriage, "the protection of the family"), should know that they are putting forward an argument which is seriously flawed. The "holiness" of matrimony is solely about procreation: it is to give a religious blessing to the production of offspring and create an allegedly nurturing environment in which to rear children. Those who argue against "gay marriages" on religious grounds, on the basis of family values, or for the protection of the nuclear family should be aware of the fact that, by the logic of this argument, all marriage benefits should be denied to all heterosexual couples unless and until they produce offspring. If either member of a married couple is infertile, they should also be denied the rights granted to child-producing heterosexuals forever. If this sounds heartless to you, you are absolutely right. It's just as heartless as denying these rights to loving, committed same-sex couples.

There are many gay men and lesbians, even in long-term relationships, who are not interested in emulating their straight counterparts, who see marriage as some kind of bourgeois affectation, and who celebrate the difference implied by their innate sexual orientation. (Were it not for the kids, I'd nearly fall into this category myself.) For those who would like to have their commitment legally recognized, though, there is no excuse in this country for such inequality to still exist. I am surprised that, among civilized people, it is still even a matter of debate.

The marriage issues aside, anyone who thinks that gay men and lesbians in the US are treated with equality knows (and, possibly, cares) very little indeed about equality.

The only other issue worth addressing here was raised by someone who, in this instance, seems to have left the second syllable off of his/her name. This is the patently absurd notion that "forced beliefs/morals are what our Constitution and laws are all about". I've addressed this ludicrous bit of nonsense in other threads (the first coupla postings here on the First Amendment, for example, or the posting here on our representative form of government), so I won't repeat them here. Nevertheless, I am astounded that our education system is so bad that people can reach their majority and still have such wrong-headed conceits about their own country and its most essential documents. No wonder the Bush regime has been so successful in dismantling those documents.

The only thing I got out of your post above, and your posts in the links you provided are YOUR opinions, YOUR assertions, and YOUR ill concealed ad hominem attacks.

What a GREAT way to debate!

Without our opinions, how do we debate, particularly in a thread that asked what we think?

Clue: I'm afraid that, faced with YOUR opinion I couldn't resist the (pretty unconcealed) ad hominem reference to your handle. Though attempting levity, that was probably out of line. However, MY opinion is based on long study of this country's history, its essential documents (such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, over two hundred years of the Congressional Record, etc.), and forty years of following current events. Some of those are cited at the links I provided.

I know that the quality of education in the US has been in steady decline since I was in school (shortly after the Civil War, if memory serves), so I can only assume that having a desperately bad teacher somewhere along the line may account for where you came up with a notion which is so diametrically opposed to the laws and Constitution of the United States of America with which I am intimately familiar. Even having been raised in a John Birch household, educated in the central Pennsylvania public school system (and, in case you have no idea how conservative that is, an old joke has it that Pennsylvania's got Pittsburgh on one end, Philadelphia on the other, and Alabama in the middle), having lived all over this country and met all kinds of people, and having participated in a wide variety of political discussion boards, I have never ever heard something so astonishingly, misguidedly, insanely wrong as "Forced beliefs/morals are what our Constitution and laws are all about."

Forgive me if, in my utter state of flabbergast, I overreacted slightly and seemed to get too personal. Your statement, however, is antithetical to everything I've ever been taught, ever read (in all the primary sources listed above), ever heard, ever known about this great country. Were your statement even close to the truth about our laws or our Consitution, I would have left the US long ago for the relative freedom of, say, Iraq.

Has anyone else here ever heard of this country's government and legislation being based on "forced beliefs/morals"? Or even someone seriously suggesting that that was the case? Anyone?



Apologies, all, for yet another off-topic post, but I did feel I had to respond.

Jaime/Mike: Is there some facility for moving such tangents elsewhere - or a way of simply leaping to a new thread to pursue distractions raised during the course of a discussion?

You know, you can stop with the verbosity. I get your point - YOU are an expert on the subject, I (supposedly) am not. Your intimidating tactics are noted (if not effective).

If this topic (morality in our laws) were so obvious, it wouldn't be such a contested issue, now would it??

For another viewpoint from the one that you are so obviously familiar with:

Restoring The Constitution

Positive Neutrality

The Separation Illusion

Faith of Our Founding Fathers

And by the way, why is it that a person cannot walk around naked in public? Is it because there is something 'wrong' with that? Well, guess what? When you talk about something being 'right' or 'wrong', and encouraging or prohibiting such behavior, then you are mandating ... MORALITY!

I know. Wertz just made it sound like *HIS* opinion was a foregone conclusion and should be accepted by all. I was just pointing out that is just what they are - opinions. He hasn't really 'proven' anything.

Clue: Any chance of your ever responding to this forum or the content of my postings?

The relative merits of MY opinion are the stuff of another thread (if worth pursuing at all). I was merely citing the sources of my opinions as they were challenged. I, too, have read much commentary on the Constitution (including the LaHaye book you cite - which, in MY opinion, is revisionist tripe). I generally prefer going to the source itself, rather than someone's biased reinterpretation of that source. Difference between us, I guess.

I don't believe I ever claimed that my opinion "'proved'" anything. As you've raised the question, though, the absence of "forced morality" from our primary government documents is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

Again off-topic, but public nudity is a matter of "community standards", not "morality". Were nudity legislated on moral grounds, there would be no legal naturist societies (or venues) nor clothing-optional beaches in this country. There are over four hundred. A triumph of your "forced morality"?

I have no idea where you think "morality" figures in terms of loud music or motorcycle helmets - perhaps you've had too much of the former or too little of the latter.


Now: do you have anything to say about gay marriages, maybe? If not, please take this elsewhere. Start a "Wertz has Opinions" thread or something.

The source is a good place to start. But you also need an understanding of the events, upbringing of the people involved, etc. of the times.


I hate to reiterate myself but … why are there 'Sunday Laws' then?

Let's face it. Morality and the law are inevitably intertwined. Why? Because people write the laws. And people bring into the arena their values, ideals, etc., everything that makes them who they are. And this is going to influence them (and the laws that they write) one way or another.


Oooh, good point! Except you forgot to state what the 'community standards' are based on. Well? Huh??


Sure I do. But it would ultimately be based on MORALITY. Which is off limits, according to you.

Oh and since you're so big on asking rhetorical questions, I'll return the favor. Can you tell me why you feel the need to resort to petty name calling in a debate? Seems pretty immature to me for a person of SUCH stature.

Clue: This, I believe, is the source of your confusion. A sense of "right" and "wrong" is present in any ethical code - be it based on religion, a secular humanist philosophy, political economy, phenomenological observation, existentialist speculation, or matter of fact. "Community standards" can likewise emerge from any of the above. Obviously, you are a person with strong religious beliefs and that may well be the source of your sense of right and wrong. Trust me, I have feelings about right and wrong, good and bad, acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior, which are every bit as strongly held as yours. But my feelings are in no way connected to any religious sense of "morality". I can accept that others, like yourself, have different standards for judging right and wrong. So could our Founding Fathers. Can you?

If you had been saying something like "Ethical values and the law are inevitably intertwined", I would have no problem with some of your claims. Of course lawmakers and Constitution framers "bring into the arena their values, ideals, etc.", but there is nothing - nothing - to indicate that those "values, ideals, etc." were ever solely and exclusively based on some Judeo-Christian sense of morality. Indeed, there is a wealth of evidence to support the fact (and I mean fact, not opinion) that our Founders were much more profoundly influenced by the French Enlightenment and the nascent humanism of their age than by any kind of religious impulse.

In an attempt to drag this thread back to the topic, I obviously need to point out that I never implied that morality was "off limits" in you or anyone else forming or stating a personal opinion. What is off limits, as far as I'm concerned, is attributing your own sense of morality to those who wrote our Constitution. So, please, feel free to argue with all the moral fervor you can muster - just don't insist that others harbor the fantasy that Thomas Jefferson would share what I presume to be your judgmental condemnation of an entire class of people based on a single badly translated verse from Leviticus.

Finally, I don't believe that I have engaged in "name-calling" here. If I have, that was wrong - at least by my ethical standards. Show me where (hopefully in a new thread) and I will apologize with all due respect. But, believe me, when I do indulge in name-calling, it is seldom petty.

As the selfless morality of your belief system would clearly never allow you to slight another participant here in any way whatsoever, I'll assume you were being totally honest in your reference to my stature. I have no idea on what you base your assessment, but I can assure you that this discussion board is wholly egalitarian and your praise is, therefore, entirely out of place. If you're referring to physical stature, I'm only 5' 6" - in which case, you're just wrong (the kind of "wrong", like your presumption about our Founders, which is based on matters of fact). Thanks anyway.

One more time: If you have nothing to say about the topic at hand - gay marriage, you might recall - please, please, please do not post to this thread again.

Cyan: Apologies for my part in enabling the derailment of this thread. Perhaps you should start it over again in the hope that participants (myself included) can actually stick to the topic.

Wertz - I think you're being a bit harsh on clue. I think she has been attempting to address the topic at hand.

Now I can't speak for her of course, but I get the idea that she was addressing it from the most basic level of "right" and "wrong" as she sees it (which happens to be based on the Bible).

Cyan asked us to tell her what we think and why. Clue's "why" may not satisfy you, but that should not deter her from posting in this forum.

Jaime: As I mentioned above (we may have cross-posted), I have no problem with Clue basing an opinion on his/her sense of morality. But I cannot countenance anyone attributing their own beliefs to a group of men for whom I have the most profound respect, our Founders. If Clue wants to say "I think homosexuality is wrong", that's fine. If s/he wants to say "The framers of our Constitution thought homosexuality was wrong", that is not fine. It is wild speculation with nothing to back it up except wishful thinking and gross presumption.

Clue's "why" consisted of claiming that "forced beliefs/morals" are the basis of our Constitution. That is just plain incorrect - though, granted, it sounds marginally better than the rest of his/her argument: "lesbians shouldn't marry because I have to wear a motorcycle helmet" [I paraphrase ever-so-slightly].

Don't sweat it Jaime. I haven't been too offended. In fact, I think Wertz ended up agreeing with me. I will attempt to demonstrate below.


Sorry, but I'm not the one confused here.


I TOTALLY agree.


Still no problem here.


Aha! This is where YOU are confused. Did I ever state this? Here is my original quote.


Can you please point out where I wrote 'Judeo-Christian'?

I was responding to following statements.



Using the definition of 'morality' or 'ethical values' that you have put forth above, we should BOTH come to the same conclusion of how fallacious these comments were. That was the ONLY point I was trying to make.

Maybe the confusion stemmed from my post being in a thread that was titled 'Gay Marriage'? If this is the case, then I AM SORRY for the confusion that I have wrought. But since the above statements were made in this thread, I thought it would be most comprehensible if my reply was posted in the same thread.


Even if I conceded this point, you would have in NO WAY contradicted what I was trying to assert in the first place. IN FACT, you might have even proven my point because 'the influence of the French Enlightenment on our Founders' would have affected their morals, ethics, and values and hence, the laws that they would have helped to write!


Well, now that you have demonstrated how emotional and subjective you can get, I'm a bit hesitant to do so.

My first intent, in a debate, is not to offend anybody. I can, for the most part, participate in a calm and reasonable manner. But when it becomes obvious that the opposition cannot return the courtesy, then I will bow out.

Clue:

Aha! This is where I may have been confused had I so characterized your statement on the basis of your first posting. I did not. It was only after you cited a number of sources for a viewpoint with which you presumed I was unfamiliar that I used such a description. If the works cited do not reflect your viewpoint, then forgive me for making an erroneous assumption. But, if they don't, why on earth were you citing them?

Restoring the Constitution is concerned with "the contemporary battle for religious liberty". The subtitle of Positive Neutrality is Letting Religious Freedom Ring. The Separation Illusion: A Lawyer Examines the First Amendment seems to speak for itself. Having read Faith of Our Founding Fathers I know that LaHaye argues - speciously, if at rather great length - that our Constitution was based on "Judeo-Christian moral principles". I have since looked into the three books you championed which I had not read. I have yet to find a single reference or review which refers to any religion apart from Christianity or a system of morality based on any other faith in these works - and all three are primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with the First Amendment issue of the separation of church and state (arguing, as far as I can tell, against such Constitutional separation). All four books, then, are arguments for the centrality of Judeo-Christian morality in American politics and legislation (though only LaHaye, as far as I can tell, gives Judaism much shrift). You didn't have to say anything about Judeo-Christian morality - your authors did so for you.

If you are now claiming that your morality is not informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition in the least and that you cited the above works out of spurious whim, then you are quite right: we are in total agreement. Judeo-Christian morality has no place in American law - and nothing at all to do with our Constitution.

On what grounds, then, are you seemingly opposed to gay marriage?

Clue, I see the point that you're trying to make, specifically with the issue of walking around naked. That is, indeed, a case of forced morality by the government.

I don't, however, believe that forced beliefs/morals are what our constitution is about. People came to this country seeking freedom from opression, and we have built our society partially based on this concept.

I don't know if you voted in the poll or not, but up to this point in the thread, you haven't actually stated what your personal veiws on gay marriage are. I don't want to assume, so to avoid further confusion, would you please post what your veiw is and why? Thanks.

Okay, Cyan. Since you asked so nicely, I will acquiesce. But I must first warn the reader that what I am about to write might be objectionable to some, maybe even many. Here goes.

Let me start by putting forth some terms as defined by Merriam-Webster.

normal - 2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

natural - 2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

deviant - : deviating especially from an accepted norm

I propose that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, and deviant behavior. Therefore, I would not want to sanction something that I consider as such.

Clue: As you put this forward as a proposal rather than an opinion, I must vote "nay". If you've read the Nurture vs. Nature forum, you will find that homosexuality is very natural indeed, in that it occurs naturally in nature. Homosexuality has been observed in all higher mammals and several species of bird. A majority of clinical research (as well as my own anecdotal investigation) indicates that homosexuality is inborn (some scientists even claim to have identified the "gay gene"). Granted, it is not a dominant feature among homo sapiens - or a majority trait. Neither is red hair. By your narrow definition, then, redheads are unnatural and, therefore, deviant. Fine. You're entitled to that belief. But you are never going to convince me that redheads should, therefore, never be "sanctioned" and should be refused the right to marry.

For that matter, women are more prevalent in nature than men. By your argument, men are unnatural, hence deviant, and should also be denied the right to marry. I guess you're arguing, then, that only lesbians should be allowed to wed. That can't be a majority opinion. Does that make you deviant?

Thanks, by the way, for responding personally and honestly - rather than attributing your opinion to our Founding Fathers.

I've read this thread. And from what I can tell, only opinions have been stated.


I would LOVE to see some sources here rather than your say so.

I'll even grant you that homosexual behavior has been observed in animals in the form of same sex cuddling or kissing much like you would see in human behavior between two close relatives/ friends of the same gender. But an instance when a fe/male animal is having sexual intercourse with another fe/male animal? I will definitely need some sources.

Even in the rare instance where you could find an example, I would still maintain that it is in the minority when compared to the whole animal kingdom and my description of homosexual behavior as being abnormal would still stand.


Sure, I acknowledge that redheads are deviant. They would probably too.


Given your assertion, men could be considered deviant. But (to clarify) I was stating that I would not want to sanction homosexual behavior, not the person himself.


Yes, I admit I'm deviant, under certain circumstances. Does that concession give any weight to your arguments?

Yes, it does - if "deviancy", by your definition, is to be used as a criterion for discrimination. By the narrowest reading of dictionary definitions of "normal" and "deviant" we are all deviant in one way or another. I don't see how, why, or where you begin making distinctions. If the Bible is your standard, then any sexual relations which are not solely for the purpose of procreation are sinful - and should be illegal. Those not intending to have children (or who are unable to have children) should be forbidden to marry, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. To me, this is a bit harsh. So is judging (never mind legislating against) any one who in any way deviates from some norm.

In your world (or at least using your argument), discrimination against any minority can be rationalized and justified. Not in mine - and not in our Founding Fathers'. If you wish to consider gay men and lesbians deviant, that is your right. But it is not your right to force others to refrain from marrying; that is no more morally acceptable than gay men and lesbians forcing you to marry a member of your own sex. Your own personal considerations, Clue, are no sound basis for the laws of this country - nor should they be.


You seem to be asserting that it's okay to be homosexual so long as one is celibate - or so long as one denies one's nature and forces oneself to mate against one's natural inclination. This makes no more sense than saying "I would not want to sanction left-handed behavior. Left-handed people themselves are okay. So long as they don't use their left hand for anything and are forced to behave like right-handed people, I'll let them live."


I will provide sources for the observation of homosexuality in the animal kingdom in the Nurture vs. Nature thread, where the issue first arose.

Though I come from the traditional country -- China, I agree the gay marriage. There're more and more homosexuals in China now and they held many gay activities in public or secret. In China doctors think homosexuals have the psychosis before, but now doctors have modified this idea. I don't think homosexuals are the special people in the society. I think they are the normal person like us. Love can surpass different countries, races, skin colors, age etc.. Why love can't surpass different sexual. They haven't a mistake. They only love the person whose body structure is the same as his\hers. Everyone has the right to choose the lover who they want to marry. No one can prevent them. I think it's important to respect people's choices and lifestyles. It's important for everyone to live happy in the world. If homosexuals are happy to stay with their lovers, why you want to separate them? There is no absolute thing in the world. Opposite sexual don't attract each other necessarily. If the person isn't happy to live with the opposite sexual, do you think his/her life is significant? Love is the important factor in human life, which can overcome all difficulties and social conventions.I know the society can't accept these people completely now, but I believe that with the time gone, people will accept and understand them finally.

jiandeng: I must agree that love is the key.

Deviancy should one criterion. I never said it should be the ONLY one.


But we all DO make distinctions, don't we? The question is, on what do we base those 'distinctions' on?


Ha ha. This is your own FAULTY interpretation of the Bible. Please don't mislead people to further your own agenda.


I am not proposing to legislate anything AGAINST certain forms of deviant behavior. I just don't want to SANCTION such behavior.


Really. Since you have presumed to know what world I am coming from, then you won't take offense if I assume what your world to be like. It seems to me that in your world, you can rationalize an 'anything goes' attitude.


I'm not preventing anyone from getting married. Correct me if I'm wrong, but gay marriages are being performed all the time.


Maybe not. But we have already established that there has to be SOME kind of basis for the laws of ANY nation. Whether (and I quote) 'be it based on religion, a secular humanist philosophy, political economy, phenomenological observation, existentialist speculation, or matter of fact.'

The question is, why is your 'secular humanist philosophy' considered to be more VALID than my supposed 'religious' viewpoint? Shouldn't all viewpoints be taken into consideration? But it seems that you would just automatically do away with ANY kind of a religious viewpoint, no matter how convincing such viewpoint is.

You seem to be so fond of our Founding Fathers. Stop gutting their intent then and put 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' back into our laws!

[quote=clue,Nov 22 2002, 05:17 PM][quote=Wertz,Nov 22 2002, 03:25 PM]Yes, it does - if "deviancy", by your definition, is to be used as a criterion for discrimination. By the narrowest reading of dictionary definitions of "normal" and "deviant" we are all deviant in one way or another.[/quote]
Deviancy should one criterion. I never said it should be the ONLY one.[/quote]
I did not suggest that you said it should be the only criterion (indeed, I'm already convinced you have many criteria for discrimination). I don't believe anyone's perception of deviance should be one at all - nor do I believe that intent can be found anywhere in our Constitution.

[quote=clue,Nov 22 2002, 05:17 PM][quote=Wertz,Nov 22 2002, 03:25 PM]I don't see how, why, or where you begin making distinctions. [/quote]
But we all DO make distinctions, don't we? The question is, on what do we base those 'distinctions' on?[/quote]
Yes, obviously we do. I would argue in favor of distinctions only being made on the basis of social vs. anti-social. To me, there should be no such thing as a victimless crime. If there's no victim, there's no crime.

[quote=clue,Nov 22 2002, 05:17 PM][quote=Wertz,Nov 22 2002, 03:25 PM]If the Bible is your standard, then any sexual relations which are not solely for the purpose of procreation are sinful - and should be illegal. Those not intending to have children (or who are unable to have children) should be forbidden to marry, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. To me, this is a bit harsh.[/quote]
Ha ha. This is your own FAULTY interpretation of the Bible. Please don't mislead people to further your own agenda.[/quote]
My apologies. Could you please cite book, chapter, and verse where recreational sex is advocated - or even sanctioned - in the Bible (either Old or New Testament will do)? I'll be happy to amend my agenda on the basis of the pertinent passages. Thanks.

[quote=clue,Nov 22 2002, 05:17 PM][quote=Wertz,Nov 22 2002, 03:25 PM]So is judging (never mind legislating against) any one who in any way deviates from some norm.[/quote]
I am not proposing to legislate anything AGAINST certain forms of deviant behavior. I just don't want to SANCTION such behavior.[/quote]
May I assume that this means you don't feel there should be any sodomy laws on the books of any state in the US then? Do you really advocate the decriminalization of oral sex, anal sex, prostitution, bestiality, sex with minors, and incest, regardless of the gender of the participants? I suppose you're in favor of all that waltzing around Main Street naked, too - especially without a motorcycle helmet. Or is some deviant behavior less deviant than other deviant behavior? Who decides what is too deviant, Clue? You, an admitted deviant?

[quote=clue,Nov 22 2002, 05:17 PM][quote=Wertz,Nov 22 2002, 03:25 PM]In your world (or at least using your argument), discrimination against any minority can be rationalized and justified.[/quote]
Really. Since you have presumed to know what world I am coming from, then you won't take offense if I assume what your world to be like. It seems to me that in your world, you can rationalize an 'anything goes' attitude.[/quote]
You are quite correct - so long as what 'goes' does not impinge upon the rights of any other citizen - and is, therefore, consensual. I guess I was correct, too, and you have no problem with discrimination against minorities.

[quote=clue,Nov 22 2002, 05:17 PM][quote=Wertz,Nov 22 2002, 03:25 PM]But it is not your right to force others to refrain from marrying; that is no more morally acceptable than gay men and lesbians forcing you to marry a member of your own sex.[/quote]
I'm not preventing anyone from getting married. Correct me if I'm wrong, but gay marriages are being performed all the time.[/quote]
Okay, you are wrong. Some couples go through the motions of some kind of civil ceremony - but it is not recognized by the state as a marriage. These couples do not share the rights of any heterosexual married couple.

[quote=clue,Nov 22 2002, 05:17 PM][quote=Wertz,Nov 22 2002, 03:25 PM]Your own personal considerations, Clue, are no sound basis for the laws of this country - nor should they be.[/quote]
Maybe not. But we have already established that there has to be SOME kind of basis for the laws of ANY nation. Whether (and I quote) 'be it based on religion, a secular humanist philosophy, political economy, phenomenological observation, existentialist speculation, or matter of fact.'

The question is, why is your 'secular humanist philosophy' considered to be more VALID than my supposed 'religious' viewpoint? Shouldn't all viewpoints be taken into consideration? But it seems that you would just automatically do away with ANY kind of a religious viewpoint, no matter how convincing such viewpoint is.

You seem to be so fond of our Founding Fathers. Stop gutting their intent then and put 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' back into our laws![/quote]

I believe I was speaking of ethics being based on "religion, a secular humanist philosophy, political economy, phenomenological observation, existentialist speculation, or matter of fact", not laws.

I don't believe I ever claimed to embrace a secular humanist philosophy, did I?

If you're implying that I am in any way attempting to abbreviate your right to practice your religion, you are quite wrong. I believe I have indicated several times that you are quite free to hold whatever beliefs you please and to publish whatever opinions based on those beliefs which you so choose. I only have a problem when you suggest that legislation should be based on those beliefs or when you erroneously attribute your beliefs to others - such as the Founding Fathers of whom, you're right, I am quite fond. Well, maybe not the Adams brothers, but most of them.

I think we should talk a little bit about nature. Here are some random ideas for you to think about.

1. Marriage is not natural. It is an idea that has been developed over time by humans.
2. Sex is natural, and homosexual behavior does exhibit itself in the wild. I don't know the percentages, and from reluctantly observing male dogs' mounting behavior (I have two male pugs), I can determine that often this behavior is less sexual and more an act of dominance. I don't believe this is always the case, though. When dealing with animals, instinct rules supreme, and animals don't have the moral code that humans have telling them not to indulge in certain types of stimulation. They know what feels good, and they do it.
3. Humans differ from animals, because of our ability to reason. Our species has learned to control its natural instincts. We manipulate nature, as well, and I don't know that using the laws of nature to define human behavior makes for a solid argument, especially since some of mankind’s greatest achievements have involved the manipulation of nature.
4. Some scholars argue that the concept of "romantic love" did not develop until later in history when technology had developed enough to allow for leisure time.
5. Humans have a tendency to believe that all things natural are good, and things that go against the grain of nature are bad. This generalization doesn't take into account all of the advances of civilization that have either gone against nature or succeeded in controlling nature.
6. Perhaps Homosexuality is nature's own response to a growing population problem that has the potential of destroying the planet…a natural way to balance the number of people on Earth who are breeding in order to level out the numbers of people on the planet.
7. If scientists were able to prove that homosexuality is caused by a completely natural gene in the body, would your views change or would your personal ideologies still cause you to view homosexuality as being deviant behavior?

I can but agree that marriage itself is unnatural (for homo- and heterosexuals), as is monogamy. This should be obvious to anyone who has ever met a man. As marriage is completely a matter of societal habit, there's no reason at all - apart from prejudice - that homosexual marriage should not be as commonplace as heterosexual marriage.

It's also clear to me - on the basis of clinical research, as well as personal experience and personal investigation - that homosexuality is also perfectly natural. Not only does it "occur" in nature, it is widespread. There's also much evidence now to suggest that homosexuality in humans is genetic, not an acquired trait. I have addressed much of this in the Nurture vs. Nature thread.

One amusing item I came across recently regarding Natural vs. Unnatural was in a review of Bruce Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance from Planet Q News: So those who condemn homosexuality are the true deviants. I love that.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG!

Care to tell us why?

How would any straight person feel if they weren't allowed to be with their spouse in the hospital if they were very ill, or in an accident? What if something happened to your spouse, but the police wouldn't release any information to you because you're not 'legally together'? The only thing I would ask any straight person to do is to consider what it would be like if the roles were reversed. How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot and heterosexuals were the oppressed minority? How do you think it feels to be harrassed in the streets by misguided, ignorant people who can't mind their own business? I think its important for everyone to consider these things before jumping to rash conclusions about gay people. If the shoe were indeed on the other foot, I think people's opinions about with-holding rights based on "Lifestyle" of others would drastically change.

I actually agree with Wertz here. I have actually lived with a gay couple for 4 years. Sure, there are some stereotypical things about gays but , they are people just like everyone else that happen to like the company of the same sex. The only thing I would say about "gay marriage" is that it cannot be called that. For the simple fact that marriage is really defined as between a man and a woman. Now, that being said we SHOULD have a word that means the same thing for gays. Gay union is one possibility..or mabe lifetime committed couple...you get the idea.

Back to lurking,

Darcaine

I need oxygen!

Those Federalist Papers are essential documents? Whoops, wrong thread.

Of course they are - especially if one is trying to assess the potential for a highly partisan imposition of morality on our constitutional law. The same could be said of the Congressional Record - and if you think that document is free of hucksters (presuming that's the oblique reference you're making here), Hugo, you haven't been paying attention!

One thought, the thing that places us ubove the rest of the animal world is the fact we can control our sexual urges or other things. I would hate to take this topic and place human being acts as simply genetic with no real choice. One human being that CAN'T control his urges is Mike Tyson. I consider him an animal. Anyone that that can't control their behavoir and simply stating it's genetic isn't really placing themselves above a typical animal. As human beings we have choice.

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

The most significant part of the declaration of independence is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." For someone to act in direct contravention of the Declaration, IMHO, they must demonstrate that any behaviour to this end that would be restricted (legalized gay marriage) would pose as a direct infringement on other people's rights.

But if gays aren't allowed to marry doesn't that say that the gov't endorses intolerance/unfairness toward gay people?

CP

1. Go for it, I don't care.
2. Hey, it's your eardrums. If you don't mind the hearing loss, neither do I.
3. You shouldn't have to. You should do it, but you should do it without it being a legal requirement.

I don't see any *legal* problem with gay marriage, though of course many churches may have problems. So? If you're gay, don't get married in a church that's against it. End of theological problem.

Full disclosure: I may be a bit biased on this one and in more than one direction, being openly bisexual but also a (mostly) theologically conservative Christian.

Homosexuality is at best a natural inclination and at worst behaviour resulting from abuse.
Resolve that homosexuality is the first and I would vote yes. But I have not seen any conclusive evidence that homosexuality isn't a result of sexual predators grooming young people to satisfy their appetites.

Would you make a special case for marraige for between victims of sexual predators? That doesn't make any sense to me. Our time is better spent figuring out a way to help them.

Have you seen a single piece of evidence that proves that homosexuals ARE sexual predators who prey on the young? I sure haven't... unless you consider Pat Buchanon a scholarly source.