How could loving, committed, Same-Sex marriages possibly bother you?

[Fontbone]

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
How could loving, committed, same-sex marriages possibly bother you?

[QUOTE]
I haven’t read this entire thread (most of first page and all of third), but as an intelligent, rational, person who is opposed to gay marriage, I figured I should give my reasons why. Most of the arguments presented, both by those who are opposed and those who are offering straw men to knock down, hold no real importance to me.

To me, it comes down to this: the soul has gender, and marriage in an eternal sense is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals choose to act in opposition to this basic nature. I do believe, as the scientific community in general seems to believe, that some people have an inborn tendency toward homosexual desires. However, I disagree with some of the people here in saying that that automatically makes the person homosexual. Alcoholism is transferred by the genes, that’s also an established fact. My family on my father’s side has a long history of alcoholism: if I were to take a single drink, there’s a good chance that I’d fall into the same trap myself. However, even if I have that tendency, because I’ve never had an alcoholic drink, I’m not an alcoholic. I’m not denying my true self, I’m not betraying my genetic nature in some way; I’m making the choice not to be an alcoholic. I see homosexuality the same way. Something that certain people have a tendency toward, but that can be denied, if that person so chooses.

So since homosexuality is NOT a predefined, predestined lifestyle, it’s a choice, and as I said, in my belief, a wrong one. I, however, am one of those “in the middle” types that was talked about that doesn’t care what other people do with their private lives. I don’t wave my personal beliefs on a banner, and I appreciate that most other people allow me to do as I will. I have gay friends, whom I love, and who are wonderful people. I disagree with their actions. That doesn’t mean I don’t love them. That doesn’t mean I hate them. I disapprove of their lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean I dislike THEM. If I could convey one thing to those people in this thread, it’d be that even if I dislike your lifestyle, it does not mean I dislike YOU. I don’t think “Jesus hates fags”. I think he disapproves of homosexuality. He loves the homosexual him/herself, despite his/her choices. If I’m to follow Christ, as I try to do, that’s what I have to do too.

(And loving someone does not mean approving of everything they do. If you love a child, you may not approve of them eating only cookies, even if that’s what they want to do. Sometimes, especially if you’re not directly responsible for the people you love, you have to let them make mistakes, so they can learn from them themselves, or because they have their freedom to choose. But please stop saying that because I disapprove of your actions, I hate you.)

So why am I opposed to homosexual marriage? Well, it goes like this: if homosexual marriage were allowed to have full equivalency with heterosexual marriage, it would add an unspoken approval of homosexuality to the general culture. I don’t have children now, but when I do, I’ll want to teach them my beliefs on homosexuality. It makes it much more difficult to teach them that something is wrong if they see it as a publicly accepted norm. Yes, I am responsible for teaching my children, and I accept full responsibility for that–I don’t expect society to raise my children. But I believe that part of the POINT of civilization and society is to provide the optimum environment for proper raising of children, and so whenever something becomes a threat to that, I oppose it.

Which brings up another reason I’m opposed to homosexual marriage: the children aspect. The family is the central unit of society. A family consists of a mother, a father, and children. Homosexuals are obviously unable to bear children, and so a marriage between them is inherently incomplete from the get-go.

I’ve spoken plainly, but I hope not harshly. If you have questions, feel free to ask, and I’ll do my best to answer. I wrote this fairly hastily, so I may have made some logical (or illogical) leap that I didn’t fully explain, but would be glad to do so if asked.

Fontbone

“Calvin: Verbing weirds language.”
“Hobbes: Perhaps in time we can make language a complete impediment to understanding.”

[Phlosphr]

First of all Fontbone welcome to the boards.

Secondly, I commend you speaking from the heart and I certainly do not think you spoke harshly. Though I disagree with your main assertion that you are opposed to Gay Marriage, I can not bash that as you were very articulate in your response.

However, from my point of view - as a 34 year old man married to a woman and trying to have kids now - I can not agree with this statement:

I don’t have children now, but when I do, I’ll want to teach them my beliefs on homosexuality. It makes it much more difficult to teach them that something is wrong if they see it as a publicly accepted norm.

Your fellow human being has the ability to do anything they wish and in my opinion should not be judged on this. Telling your children homosexuality is wrong can - tho not necessarily will - foster a new generation of discrimination. I see this as inherently wrong. I understand you have friends who are gay, and you purport that you love them just the same…So why teach your children that the lifestyle they live is bad not approved of. If you have a close friend who is gay and you teach your children that their lifestyle is wrong, yet act like you love them as a friend; this will be extremely confusing. Do you not agree?
Love of your fellow human beings is what is going to make the world and society at large a better place. No matter what lifestyle they choose. And choice is what we are talking about here. Choice, is something - in your eyes - that should be made early on in a homosexuals life, the choice being to denie an innate feeling of desire for the same sex. Maybe you could explain that a little more.

[KellyM]

@Fontbone

To me, it comes down to this: the soul has gender, and marriage in an eternal sense is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals choose to act in opposition to this basic nature. I do believe, as the scientific community in general seems to believe, that some people have an inborn tendency toward homosexual desires. However, I disagree with some of the people here in saying that that automatically makes the person homosexual. Alcoholism is transferred by the genes, that’s also an established fact. My family on my father’s side has a long history of alcoholism: if I were to take a single drink, there’s a good chance that I’d fall into the same trap myself. However, even if I have that tendency, because I’ve never had an alcoholic drink, I’m not an alcoholic. I’m not denying my true self, I’m not betraying my genetic nature in some way; I’m making the choice not to be an alcoholic. I see homosexuality the same way. Something that certain people have a tendency toward, but that can be denied, if that person so chooses.

To get a feeling for how offensive what you just wrote is, replace “The soul has gender” with “The soul has race” and replace “homosexual” with “interracial couple” (and edit grammar as appropriate). You’ll get a viewpoint that was popular in the mid-1800s – and totally abhorrent today.

Comparing homosexuality (a harmless variation on sexual attraction) to alcoholism (a clearly harmful addiction) is offensive as well.

I disapprove of their lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean I dislike THEM.

I have yet to find a person who actually practices this. Yes, many say it, but in my experience every last one of them really does dislike the people who “practice” homosexuality, even as they deny doing so. Perhaps you’re the first, but I doubt it.

[quote]
So why am I opposed to homosexual marriage? Well, it goes like this: if homosexual marriage were allowed to have full equivalency with heterosexual marriage, it would add an unspoken approval of homosexuality to the general culture.[./quote]Just like allowing interracial marriaeg added an unspoken approval of racial intermixing to the general culture. Horrors!

I don’t have children now, but when I do, I’ll want to teach them my beliefs on homosexuality. It makes it much more difficult to teach them that something is wrong if they see it as a publicly accepted norm.

Good! I want it to be difficult to teach intolerance, yes, yes, I do. Not to mention self-hatred, which is what you’d be doing in the event you had a gay child.

Which brings up another reason I’m opposed to homosexual marriage: the children aspect. The family is the central unit of society. A family consists of a mother, a father, and children.

False. Many families have structures that differ from this one. Or are you claiming that a widow and her children are not a family? Or a man and a wife who have been unable to have children? Is the union of Polycarp, his wife, and their adopted children not a family merely because the children were not born of their flesh?

Homosexuals are obviously unable to bear children, and so a marriage between them is inherently incomplete from the get-go.

Again, false. Many many many lesbians have born children. And, also, many heterosexuals are unable to beget children. Are their marriages incomplete?

Does adoption of children by an infertile couple “complete” their marriage? If so, why would adoption of children by a same-sex couple not do the same?

[Priam]

I’m tired right now. Please excuse the terse sentences.
I’m also really, really, really angry.

Could someone look up the logical fallacy which is applying one’s own personal experiences as though they applied to everyone? It’s probably something really cute in Latin which would raise the IQ of the post by at least 100 points, but me not smart tudae.

A person is an insanely complex interweaving of emotions, drives, thoughts, instincts, traits, etc… some of these things are more commonly found in women and some in men. This does not mean somehow a woman and a man mesh very well at all. It also doesn’t mean a man and a man could never mesh into a happy, stable, productive couple. A relationship is far more than the sum of its parts, and each is absolutely unique in its total composition. To simplify it down to “a man and a woman work forever but two men or two women don’t” is to do a gross injustice on the beauty which is romantic bonding.

Further, alcoholism and homosexuality are treated differently because one has no demonstrable inherent negative effects attached to it. No one is gonna get liver failure from dating another woman. No one is gonna become abusive just because they made out with a person of the same gender. Alcoholism is a disorder because of the terrible negatives associated. Homosexuality was cleared from the disorder list because the APA could not find evidence to support any sort of negatives of being gay.

As well, addressing another poster, if someone says that God made certain people (gays) the way they are and that God loves them, then one must ask “why?”. If God made people gay and God does not make trash then the feelings a gay person gets, the romantic longings for a person of the same sex, must be intended by God. Since God makes no evil, the romantic desires can not inherently be evil, only the way they are applied. If my romantic desires are pure and I act purely from that desire, then I can not be sinning in the religious sense, can I?

[spectrum]

@Fontbone

… as an intelligent, rational, person who is opposed to gay marriage, I figured I should give my reasons why.

To me, it comes down to this: the soul has gender, and marriage in an eternal sense is between a man and a woman.

Prove it. Prove souls exist, much less have a “gender,” or that “gender” has anything to do with whom we love. Relying on fabled notions of “souls” is not a rational position, particularly when what you’re trying to defend is utter, sheer, contemptable and pure hatred of other human beings.

Yes, if you call my lifestyle sinful, that is the same as hating me, and there is no getting around that.

However, I disagree with some of the people here in saying that that automatically makes the person homosexual. Alcoholism is transferred by the genes

Bigot alert. The “alcoholic” simile is a favorite of low-level gay haters. Alcoholism is a dangerous and deadly disease that destroys lives. No one is hurt by homosexuality. Try again.

So since homosexuality is NOT a predefined, predestined lifestyle, it’s a choice,

You have yet to prove that it is not predefined, nor have you proven that there’s such a thing as a “gay lifestyle.” Are all your men made of straw?

I, however, am one of those “in the middle” types that was talked about that doesn’t care what other people do with their private lives.

You just want to make sure that I don’t get medical benefits, tax benefits, power of attorney, power of inheritance and all the other things you get to take for granted. Yeah, you really don’t care, so long as I stay hidden in a closet, forced into back alleys, and never dare show my true face in the light of day.

I have gay friends, whom I love, and who are wonderful people.

You just don’t want them to have equal rights. You want them to be separated at times of illness. To not be protected from forced testimony in courts of laws. You want them to have to pay inheritance taxes that could force the survivor to have to sell his home. You want them to be less than you in the eyes of government.

Wow! You’re a wonderful friend!

I don’t have children now, but when I do, I’ll want to teach them my beliefs on homosexuality.

Oh goody. The world needs more ignorant brats.

It makes it much more difficult to teach them that something is wrong if they see it as a publicly accepted norm.

So instead, you want the world to teach MY children that I am wrong, that I am sick, that I am perverted, that I am less than other people? That my loves are not valid, that my emotions are not pure?

People like you are why I hate Christianity half the time. People like you have driven me away from religious faith more times than I can count.

Luckily, I don’t think God agrees with you. In fact, I think he detests liars, hateful bigots, like you. If there is a hell, it is reserved solely for people like you, who think they are better than others for nonsense reasons like race, creed or sexuality.

The family is the central unit of society.

Gays have families, too, and our families are just as valid and important as yours.

A family consists of a mother, a father, and children.

I’m gay, and I’m someone’s child. I will someday be someone’s father.

All this “family values” crap. Crap. What, are gays not part of the American family? Of our own families? Of the families we build? Screw you if you think your family with some woman is more proper or valuable than my family, that your children deserve to be raised in an environment protected by the rights and priveleges of marriage, but the children I will have do not.

Homosexuals are obviously unable to bear children, and so a marriage between them is inherently incomplete from the get-go.

I’ll be sure to tell my friend Tom that he doesn’t have children. His kids will find this surprising.

[mcms_cricket]

@Loopydude

…is extremely intelligent (3.9 GPA from Wellesley College, of all places, since it’s supposed to be Lesbo U)…

<slight hijack>
I don’t mean to sound touchy and I’m not overly upset or offended, but in a way, this comment is just as offensive as some of the comments by augusta or Quint Essence. I’m not sure what you meant by “Lesbo U” but a stereotypical comment like this tells me you have no personal knowledge of Wellesley at all - you just think you know.

Wellesley is, of course, a women’s college and does have a vocal group of lesbians, or at least it did in the late 80’s when I was there (class of '90 ) and I have no reason to think it’s any different today. It also has a vocal group of conservatives, catholics, Asian-Americans, Blacks, whites, liberals, moderates, blondes, brunettes, creationists, evolutionists, agnostics, atheists, etc. What Wellesley was (and is) known for is it’s celebration of diversity. There are women of all kinds that attend or attended Wellesley.

Sure, the lesbian student groups were vocal in trying to educate the rest of the student body about gay and lesbian stereotypes and issues, but they were no more or less vocal than any other group. A Wellesley graduate isn’t any more an automatic lesbian than an MIT graduate is an automatic nerd, or a State University graduate is automatically a party animal who wasn’t smart enough to go a private college. (note: I do not in any way think that -I’m just trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of perpetuating a stereotype - especially in a thread like this where stereotypes are, unfortunately, already rampant).

</slight hijack>

[Silver_Serpentine]

Loopysude sez:
I don’t want to rub in painful truths, but as far as I can tell, the homosexual is universally discriminated against. I can think of no major theistic religion that traditionally condones same-sex marriage. That means all races and creeds discriminate against gays, at least in their conservative segments. I can think of no culture that doesn’t look upon marriage with some degree of spiritual significance, and I can’t think of a single culture in which homosexuality is traditionally elevated to the status of normative, especially in the realm of conjugal union. Gay marriage is a major, damn-near universal paradigm shift.

Allow me to quote myself, ug.

"Research by the Yale historian John Boswell in the book, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, explores the historical context of homosexual marriages. His studies revealed that homosexual marriage rites have been legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. The social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and declared them immoral (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1994,1996).

"Paul Halsall, also a historian, supports the findings of Boswell and unearthed other cultures’ acceptance of male-male or female-female relationships. In his essay, Lesbian and Gay Marriage through History and Culture, he documents the recognition of same-gender couples in many cultures. He specifically lists, “Ancient Greece, Egypt, Crete, Sparta, Thebes, Ancient Rome, China, Japan, Malay, Bali, Australia, India, Native Americas (Chukchi, Koriaks, Kamchadale), New Mexico tribes, Peru, Brazil, Medieval Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism” (Halsall, 1996). While certainly the couplings and the recognitions were not everyday common occurrences, they were recorded as happening.

"The role of the church in condoning homosexual marriages is also evident, according to Boswell. The Catholic Church, in particular, legitimized same-gender unions for over 1,500 years. This tradition was halted only in the 1800s. There were over 100 liturgies specifically for same-gender marriages. Since childbearing parts of marriage did not fit the same-gender unions, they were removed. As a replacement, the liturgies praised the companionable parts of marriage. For instance, a gay couple was cited as celebrating "brotherhood.” (Dorrell, 1994)

“Other religious denominations accept and support same-gender commitments. Religious ceremonies for gay male couples and lesbian couples have been performed in assorted religious persuasions, including, Buddhist, Episcopalian, Reconstructionist, Jewish, Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, Quaker, Unitarian and others (Where to Get a Religious Blessing, 1995). It is noteworthy that while many of the arguments against same-gender marriage pertain to religion, currently the only instances where Americans can have same-gender marriage rites performed are religious. The law does not recognize same-gender marriages, but many churches do.”

Fontborn sez:
Which brings up another reason I’m opposed to homosexual marriage: the children aspect. The family is the central unit of society. A family consists of a mother, a father, and children. Homosexuals are obviously unable to bear children, and so a marriage between them is inherently incomplete from the get-go.

Here’s one arguement that I knock my head against a wall with.

What about divorce? What about when a man abandons his wife and children? It happens ALL THE DAMN TIME. I have a friend who’s never met her father. Never. He never paid child support, either. I grew up knowing my father on weekends. Saying that “a family consists of a mother, a father, and children” is wrong. The family unit has changed. I know a lot of single mothers. I know some single fathers. I know adopted children. I know people who were unwanted births and treated poorly by their parents. I know girls whose father told them, “I always wanted a son.”

I think that, no matter what sex the parents are, it’s best for a child to grow up in a loving, stable relationships. Relationships that gays CAN and DO have.

Gay women can, and do, get fertilized and have children. Gay mencan, and do, adopt children. At least that kid has two parents (who obviously wanted that child a lot) who loves them. That’s beter than can be said for a lot of straight parents.

[Ramanujan]

welcome to the boards, Fontbone. your politely voiced disagreement will be a welcome change from others you can see in this thread. on to your post:

@Fontbone

So why am I opposed to homosexual marriage? Well, it goes like this: if homosexual marriage were allowed to have full equivalency with heterosexual marriage, it would add an unspoken approval of homosexuality to the general culture. I don’t have children now, but when I do, I’ll want to teach them my beliefs on homosexuality. It makes it much more difficult to teach them that something is wrong if they see it as a publicly accepted norm. Yes, I am responsible for teaching my children, and I accept full responsibility for that–I don’t expect society to raise my children. But I believe that part of the POINT of civilization and society is to provide the optimum environment for proper raising of children, and so whenever something becomes a threat to that, I oppose it.

this brings up a very important distinction. you clearly do not approve of same-sex marriage, but are you against the rights of people to engage in same-sex marriage? this distinction is critical, and i hope it is one the american people can comprehend. to address your point about social approval by granting these rights, do you believe society approves of NAMBLA, or the klan, for granting and defending their right to free speech? do you simply disagree with what gays do, or do you actually believe they shouldn’t have the right to do it?

Which brings up another reason I’m opposed to homosexual marriage: the children aspect. The family is the central unit of society. A family consists of a mother, a father, and children. Homosexuals are obviously unable to bear children, and so a marriage between them is inherently incomplete from the get-go.

one major reason that gays would like to be married is to make the problem of adoption easier. that would allow them to raise children, and it has been demonstrated that children raised in gay homes are no more likely to be gay than others, and do not develop abnormally.

also, to that point, you are going to have to face a host of people here who are or are married to people who cannot create or bear children. does that, in your eyes, make their marriage any less valid?

one more thing. a family in YOUR eyes consists of a mother, a father, and children. this is the norm of american society for less than a century, and in no way reflects the rest of the world, nor the history of the family.

[Fontbone]

@Phlosphr

First of all Fontbone welcome to the boards.

Thanks. Been lurkin’ long enough, I figured.

@Phlosphr

So why teach your children that the lifestyle they live is bad not approved of. If you have a close friend who is gay and you teach your children that their lifestyle is wrong, yet act like you love them as a friend; this will be extremely confusing. Do you not agree?

To a certain extent…yes, I do agree. For one thing, though, I believe it’s the parents’ responsibility to teach their children right from wrong. I don’t think you disagree with that. I think the key in this particular situation is to make sure that you’re absolutely clear about what it is that you’re teaching. The first thing to teach a child, when teaching them about right and wrong, in my opinion? “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” As long as they can keep that idea in mind, I think it will be okay, and won’t cause a new generation of discrimination.

Admittedly, it could. Certainly. It’s a dangerous balance–teaching your children what you believe is wrong, while at the same time teaching your child that those who believe otherwise are not necessarily bad people (and, heck, that people who profess to believe the same as we do COULD be bad people! :)). But the alternative is to watch your child become whatever the winds of doctrine blown about by society teach them, and I don’t think that’s what a good parent would do.

Love of your fellow human beings is what is going to make the world and society at large a better place. No matter what lifestyle they choose. And choice is what we are talking about here. Choice, is something - in your eyes - that should be made early on in a homosexuals life, the choice being to denie an innate feeling of desire for the same sex. Maybe you could explain that a little more.

Well…lessee. First of all, I believe that God is a perfect being, and that the point of life is to become as much like Him as possible. So. Anything that makes us more like God is a Good thing, and anything that makes us less like God is a Bad (Evil, if you will) thing. That’s where I’m coming from.

Now…analogy time! I think that hurting other people violently is wrong. It’s bad for the person that is hurt, obviously, but it’s also bad for the person who does the hurting–I don’t believe God to be a person who enjoys hurting people, and so when someone does hurt someone, they are being less like God, which is bad. However, there are people who, due to genetics or upbringing or both, have an inclination toward violence. They have a choice to make: to be violent when their temper rises, or to learn to control it, and choose not to be violent. Since it’s something that was inborn, something that his genes determined, it’s going to be more difficult for him than for other people without that particular cross to bear, but it’s still a choice. Does that make sense?

And I agree completely with the idea that love of your fellow beings will make society a much better place. But I wholeheartedly believe that it’s possible to think someone’s choices are wrong, while still loving them.

Fontbone

“Calvin: Verbing weirds language.”
“Hobbes: Perhaps in time we can make language a complete impediment to understanding.”

[MrVisible]

@Fontbone

I haven’t read this entire thread (most of first page and all of third), but as an intelligent, rational, person who is opposed to gay marriage, I figured I should give my reasons why. Most of the arguments presented, both by those who are opposed and those who are offering straw men to knock down, hold no real importance to me.

You don’t bother to read the thread, and dismiss all arguments that oppose your position without even bothering to read them?

Why in the world do you think your position has any merit whatsoever, when you refuse to even look at contrary opinions? What kind of moral stance demands that you never examine other points of view?

If you’d bother to read the thread, you’d see all your arguments have been refuted already. You’d see examples of the hardships caused to people by being legally marginalized. You’d see that second-class citizenship is an unacceptable burden to impose on families, just because your religion blinds you to the love that binds them together. But do you bother to read? No. You just wander in, spout your beliefs as if you were Charlton Heston in Technicolor, and expect us to accept your word as gospel, because, you know, you’re all righteous.

What you’re preaching is called straight supremacism. In the face of all evidence to the contrary, you’re convinced that you’re a better person than the gay people around you, and that you deserve more rights than they do.

When your self-worth is predicated on proving that you’re better than an oppressed minority, that’s pretty much the definition of pathetic.

[photopat]

@Radon

Biblically minded citizens note that the Bible refers to homosexual acts as an abomination to God, a unique and harsh category. So even if one is inclined by nature to “Live and let live”, the Bible commands that one become more judgemental.
[p]
Changing Marriage will change our society in unknown ways. Call it fear of the Law of Unintended Effects.

And there are people in this country who really don’t care what the bible says. Myself for example.

[Fontbone]

@Ramanujan

welcome to the boards, Fontbone. your politely voiced disagreement will be a welcome change from others you can see in this thread.

Again, thanks.

@Ramanujan

this brings up a very important distinction. you clearly do not approve of same-sex marriage, but are you against the rights of people to engage in same-sex marriage? this distinction is critical, and i hope it is one the american people can comprehend. to address your point about social approval by granting these rights, do you believe society approves of NAMBLA, or the klan, for granting and defending their right to free speech? do you simply disagree with what gays do, or do you actually believe they shouldn’t have the right to do it?

On this point, I agree that homosexuals, should they desire to, should be able to engage in a practice similar to marriage in all but name. I have no problem with the idea of a civil union between homosexuals. But I do believe that it’s important that the concept of marriage, by name, be reserved for a male-female union.

Why do I feel that way? To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. I don’t know why the word “marriage” is so important to me. The logical portion of my brain has projected the impact on society that gay marriage would have, which I detailed in my earlier post, but I think that it wouldn’t be a problem for future generations if there was a separation between heterosexual marriage and homosexual union.

And yes, I do feel uncomfortable with the idea of “separate but equal” that this invokes. But I dislike even more the idea of the definition of marriage being changed to refer to any and all combinations. So yes, I do believe that homosexual couples have a right to the, uh, rights afforded to married couples, but I don’t think that the name “marriage” should be used for it.

one major reason that gays would like to be married is to make the problem of adoption easier. that would allow them to raise children, and it has been demonstrated that children raised in gay homes are no more likely to be gay than others, and do not develop abnormally.

Y’know, that’s one area that I haven’t thought about, whether or not I have a problem with homosexual couples adopting. I’ll have to think about it.

also, to that point, you are going to have to face a host of people here who are or are married to people who cannot create or bear children. does that, in your eyes, make their marriage any less valid?

Nope, not at all. There’s a difference, to my mind, to being unable to bear children (infertility, sterility, etc.) and choosing to be in a relationship that, were everything functioning normally, could never have children.

one more thing. a family in YOUR eyes consists of a mother, a father, and children. this is the norm of american society for less than a century, and in no way reflects the rest of the world, nor the history of the family.

Well…I think it’s a bit more common than that. History is chock full of societies where the nuclear family was the norm. Perhaps extended nuclear family (father, mother, children, grandfather, grandmother, aunts, uncles all living in one place, etc.), but the nuclear family has been the basis for quite a bit longer than just the last century, and more than just the US. It’s not the ONLY definition of family, no. But it’s pretty darned common, I think.

Fontbone

“Calvin: Verbing weirds language.”
“Hobbes: Perhaps in time we can make language a complete impediment to understanding.”

[Phlosphr]

mcms_cricket said:

Wellesley is, of course, a women’s college and does have a vocal group of lesbians, or at least it did in the late 80’s when I was there (class of '90 ) and I have no reason to think it’s any different today. It also has a vocal group of conservatives, catholics, Asian-Americans, Blacks, whites, liberals, moderates, blondes, brunettes, creationists, evolutionists, agnostics, atheists, etc. What Wellesley was (and is) known for is it’s celebration of diversity. There are women of all kinds that attend or attended Wellesley.

I picked up on the Lesbo U tic as well. Absurd is all I can say. Anyway, I went to Connecticut College around the time you were at WC and dated a woman from there…let’s just say I got very used to mass pike for a couple years… carry on…

Also, FontBone I would truly consider reading this thread in it’s entirety, if for no other reason than to see the unnecessary hardships and discrimination taking place. And maybe see what is perpetuating the myths these discriminators are actually believing.

[Homebrew]

If you believe we’re going to burn in Hell for eternity for being gay, then why not let us have a little peace during our short time here on Earth? Why must you torment us now, isn’t eternity enough?

[Fontbone]

@MrVisible

You don’t bother to read the thread, and dismiss all arguments that oppose your position without even bothering to read them?

I didn’t dismiss anyone’s position. I stated my own. There’s a bit of a difference. Reading other people’s ideas may change my own, sure, but I’d like to think there’s value in stating what I think. Isn’t that the point of a message board?

The reason I haven’t read the entire second page of the thread is simply because I’m at work, didn’t really have time to read through the whole thing before posting, but in the first page, third page, and skimming of the second page that I did I didn’t see anyone who said the same thing I did. Sorry 'bout that. I’ll read the second page and see what the responses were.

@MrVisible

Why in the world do you think your position has any merit whatsoever, when you refuse to even look at contrary opinions? What kind of moral stance demands that you never examine other points of view?

Uhh…I think my position has any merit because it’s my position, and I’m a human being, and frankly, my opinion is just as meritorious as anyone else’s is. Just as I think your position has merit because you’re a human being. The point of a message board, I’d always thought, was discussion of all points of view, not a contest on whose position has the most “merit”.

@MrVisible

If you’d bother to read the thread, you’d see all your arguments have been refuted already. You’d see examples of the hardships caused to people by being legally marginalized. You’d see that second-class citizenship is an unacceptable burden to impose on families, just because your religion blinds you to the love that binds them together.

I acknowledge that homosexuals love each other. I have no doubt of this fact. I think it’s beautiful in the way that any love is beautiful.

@MrVisible

But do you bother to read? No. You just wander in, spout your beliefs as if you were Charlton Heston in Technicolor, and expect us to accept your word as gospel, because, you know, you’re all righteous.

Nope. I expect you to accept my word as my word, nothing more, and accord it the same respect I accord yours.

@MrVisible

What you’re preaching is called straight supremacism. In the face of all evidence to the contrary, you’re convinced that you’re a better person than the gay people around you, and that you deserve more rights than they do. When your self-worth is predicated on proving that you’re better than an oppressed minority, that’s pretty much the definition of pathetic.

I’m not convinced I’m a better person than the gay people around me. Some, sure, some, probably not. I don’t deserve more rights than they do. I have no problem with homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual married couples. I dislike the idea of applying the concept of marriage to homosexual civil unions. That’s all.

I have no idea where you got the bit about my self-worth being predicated on proving that I’m better than anyone.

Fontbone

“Calvin: Verbing weirds language.”
“Hobbes: Perhaps in time we can make language a complete impediment to understanding.”

[MrVisible]

@Fontbone

I didn’t dismiss anyone’s position. I stated my own. There’s a bit of a difference. Reading other people’s ideas may change my own, sure, but I’d like to think there’s value in stating what I think. Isn’t that the point of a message board?

Actually, you dismissed any contrary positions that may have been stated in this thread. Specifically, you said: “Most of the arguments presented, both by those who are opposed and those who are offering straw men to knock down, hold no real importance to me.”

The point of Great Debates is to debate. Which doesn’t mean just shouting your position on issues loudly, and saying ‘la la la’ with your fingers in your ears when other people state theirs. A message board where people just state their opinions and don’t read others’ is as valuable as a conversation with a mirror.

Uhh…I think my position has any merit because it’s my position, and I’m a human being, and frankly, my opinion is just as meritorious as anyone else’s is. Just as I think your position has merit because you’re a human being. The point of a message board, I’d always thought, was discussion of all points of view, not a contest on whose position has the most “merit”.

Then once again, you’re wrong. If someone comes in here claiming that there is a civilization of green one-eyed tentacled aliens living in his navel, no matter how much he believes his position, it will be subjected to scrutiny. Proof will be demanded. The standards of logic and reason will be applied.

A debate is a discussion on the merit of ideas.

Nope. I expect you to accept my word as my word, nothing more, and accord it the same respect I accord yours.

I accord respect to opinions based on how well-researched, well-examined, and well-defended they are. I accord respect to moral positions based on the morality of their effects. I accord no respect to a position that makes no sense, cannot be explained, and results in the marginalization of an entire group of people who aren’t harming anyone. No matter who espouses it.

I’m not convinced I’m a better person than the gay people around me. Some, sure, some, probably not. I don’t deserve more rights than they do. I have no problem with homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual married couples. I dislike the idea of applying the concept of marriage to homosexual civil unions. That’s all.

Why do you deserve to call your marriage a marriage, and I don’t? If you’re not a better person than I am, and you can’t come up with a justification for my being ostracized from the legal protections that are afforded to you, then I deserve to be able to marry the man I’ve loved for years. Keeping marriage for yourself, without some rational basis for doing so, is predicated on the belief that homosexuals don’t deserve to be a part of that institution. Which is, quite frankly, prejudice.

I have no idea where you got the bit about my self-worth being predicated on proving that I’m better than anyone.

Why are you in this argument, then? Why do you feel the need to protect marriage from gay people, if you think we’re just as good as straight people? Why come out of Lurker Mode, and wander into a thread that’s been in progress for pages, and dismiss the opinions that oppose your own, to try and reserve marriage for yourself?

[theR]

@Fontbone

@Phlosphr

How could loving, committed, same-sex marriages possibly bother you?

I don’t have children now, but when I do, I’ll want to teach them my beliefs on homosexuality. It makes it much more difficult to teach them that something is wrong if they see it as a publicly accepted norm. Yes, I am responsible for teaching my children, and I accept full responsibility for that–I don’t expect society to raise my children. But I believe that part of the POINT of civilization and society is to provide the optimum environment for proper raising of children, and so whenever something becomes a threat to that, I oppose it.

“I believe that part of the POINT of civilization and society is to provide the optimum environment for proper raising of children, and so whenever something becomes a threat to that, I oppose it,” and therefore I oppose the discrimination against gays that prevents them from marrying and therefore makes it harder for me to teach my kids that being gay and getting married to your partner is ok. It would be no more or less valid which side it was coming from. In my eyes it is not a compelling argument.

@Fontbone

I didn’t dismiss anyone’s position. I stated my own. There’s a bit of a difference.

@Fontbone

I haven’t read this entire thread (most of first page and all of third), but as an intelligent, rational, person who is opposed to gay marriage, I figured I should give my reasons why. Most of the arguments presented, both by those who are opposed and those who are offering straw men to knock down, hold no real importance to me.

[KellyM]

@Fontbone

For one thing, though, I believe it’s the parents’ responsibility to teach their children right from wrong. I don’t think you disagree with that. I think the key in this particular situation is to make sure that you’re absolutely clear about what it is that you’re teaching. The first thing to teach a child, when teaching them about right and wrong, in my opinion? “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” As long as they can keep that idea in mind, I think it will be okay, and won’t cause a new generation of discrimination.

I applaud your idealism, although it is sadly misplaced: “love the sinner, hate the sin” does engender discrimination, whether you want to believe it does or not.

On a different tack: You seem to be asserting that being homosexual is wrong. What is your reason for that assertion? Do you have some objective reason for that belief, or is your belief based on faith? If it is based on faith and faith alone, why are you debating? Are you merely standing up for your right to believe in whatever random nonsense you want, and in your right to force others to accomodate their lives to your random beliefs? Why should we accomodate your irrational belief that homosexuality is wrong, when all the rational evidence is that it’s not?

Now…analogy time! I think that hurting other people violently is wrong. It’s bad for the person that is hurt, obviously, but it’s also bad for the person who does the hurting–I don’t believe God to be a person who enjoys hurting people, and so when someone does hurt someone, they are being less like God, which is bad. However, there are people who, due to genetics or upbringing or both, have an inclination toward violence. They have a choice to make: to be violent when their temper rises, or to learn to control it, and choose not to be violent. Since it’s something that was inborn, something that his genes determined, it’s going to be more difficult for him than for other people without that particular cross to bear, but it’s still a choice. Does that make sense?

So now being homosexual is analogous to a genetic predisposition to random violence? Can we go back to being alcoholics? That was less damning. :rolleyes:

[Phlosphr]

Fontbone - you entered the boards and held to your opinions. You have articulated your point to some degree but my sense is, that you are holding onto a belief that you may not fully understand. You have wavered too and fro and I wonder: Who taught you same-sex marriage is inherently wrong? Were your opinions formed from an ecclesiastical stand point or taught by your parents?

[Loopydude]

@spectrum

Then your friend is an ignorant fool, no matter how many shiny degrees she has. You cannot be an intelligent person and a creationist. Just like you cannot be a humane and decent person and against gay equality.

That’d be like being a decent, intelligent person and against interracial marriage. It just can’t happen.

Wow. Who is being ignorant and foolish?

I’m telling you, dude, I’m on your side, so far as I believe nobody should be denied equal rights under the law solely on the basis of race, creed, sex, orientation, etc. I want you to win. But if people such as yourself don’t have the political saavy to,at the very least, keep such extreme points of view under wraps when this hits the point of referendum, you may be very sorry indeed.

Check this out:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/mass.marriage/index.html

You think you’re gonna win with that attitude? You think Middle America
won’t smack your ass back down if you confront them with “you ignorant, bigoted, immoral fool”? Guess again. I live in probably the most liberal state in the Union, and we’ve still got Mitt Romney for governor, and a Democratically-dominated legislature seriously debating an outright constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. This isn’t a fucking game. And your adversaries may very well make up enough of a majority of American citizens to put through a national constitutional ban. Look, we may have G. W. Bush in the White House for another four years. And the most liberal members of the Supreme Court are in danger of dying of old age, fercrissakes, before his second term would be over. Not even Roe vs. Wade is safe, at this point. You think gay marriage would have a snowball’s chance in Hell with somebody like Scalia as Chief Justice of a conservative US SJC? I sure don’t.

So what would you rather have? A galvanized opposition with the political will, and a healthy dose of righteous indignation over being lambasted for bigotry, standing in your way? You want to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy? You think your own righteous indignation will change minds, win hearts, and help justice prevail? You’re dreaming. I don’t have faith in God, much less in Justice.

Well, I’m out of this discussion. I hope like friggin’ hell my fears are unfounded, but I don’t think they are. Nothing about this thread has reassured me, and frankly, if I were some of you, I’d be scared shitless. Interpret my words as you will, but let me at least say they come out of sincere concern for your civil rights. Peace.