How 'gay rights' is being sold to America

[MPower]

OK, you said "hurting people".

dude you are dumb, I said that PEDOPHILIA hurts people.

And do you think that justin or I agree with pedophilia?

 

[zenkidori]

Do you not see the difference between being gay and being pedophile? or is your worldview just that skewed?

 

[justin syder]

I did agree with civil unions but even that can be used to go the way of other things.

First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered.

That is a threesome marriage or polygamy, one man, more than one woman.

No one here cares about marriage. Some see it as worthless but want to fight for it for homosexuals. The reason why marriage is so messed up with single parent homes, high divorce rate etc etc is because of Liberal stance taken on it.

You don't fix it by being more liberal about it. Liberals think they are helping ppl but overall they are hurting and destroying marriage. It is the basis for a family.

You get married to start a family, some married ppl don't have children but most do. If you redefine marraige you also redifine the family structure. That is another reason why I am appose to gay marriage. Civil unions will just make a loop whole possible for polygamy etc.

Liberals might think they are fighting for the rights of homosexuals but what about the future of the family structure? What about the damage that has already been done?

Single moms, out-of-wedlock babies and multiple fathers for an unmarried mother which is prominent in the black community. This is how progressive minds make society better? How about solving some of those problems before we go "helping" others with civil rights.

Some don't even want to acknowledge the slippery slope which is clearly evident in The Netherlands.

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals.

Now they are also first to have legal polygamy. That is CLEAR and IRREFUTABLE evidence of slippery slope. And those people are will not be the last in The Netherlands to get married in groups of 3 or even more.

If you can't clearly see that then there is no point in me arguing about saving the traditional family structure which is slowly fading and creating a mess in the generations that follow.

 

[swek]

No one here cares about marriage. Some see it as worthless but want to fight for it for homosexuals. The reason why marriage is so messed up with single parent homes, high divorce rate etc etc is because of Liberal stance taken on it.

You don't fix it by being more liberal about it. Liberals think they are helping ppl but overall they are hurting and destroying marriage. It is the basis for a family.

This forum does repeat itself. I can even quote from my previous posts. I think that's what everybody should do from now on.

Its the "progressive" way of thinking that made divorce so acceptable that instead of working to save a marriage ppl file papers.

People weren't working on their relationships at the time. First of all there was no way to divorce. After the woman married a man she was forced to live in/with the family for the rest of her life. It was socially unacceptable to just leave your family. The shame and the libel wouldn't allow you to just take a new apartment. You would have been a social outcast.

And let's not forget that women mostly were financially dependent on their
husbands. Many of them had no education besides housework. Or they left their old jobs to give birth and to become a housewife. They couldn't just take a job.

If you call it the "progressive" way of thinking, to allow women to break free of this pattern I'm just fine with it.

 

[///M]

Why can't homosexuals be parents?

There are alot of experts that seem to think homosexuals as parents are capable, it all comes down to the person.

 

[Firecat]

About this slippery slope. Basically if one allows gay marriage it will lead to polygamy (as so put forth). Now in some "muslim" countries polygamy is legal, however, I don't think gay marriage will ever be. What happens to that slope now? Now forget about gay marriage, if one legalizes polygamy would that mean that the legalization of beastiality is not far off...or of pedophilia?

I really think the "slippery slope" argument (in this case) is a poor excuse.

 

[///M]

It's laughable, that's what it is. It seems to be the newest catch phrase thought up by the Christian Fundamentalists, who are parading as right wing think tanks. If you go to any university campus, you can feel this big push of Christianity being shoved into people's faces, simply because the clubs (namely the Campus Crusaders for Christ groups) have massive funding from these people. Last year, it was the "Do You Agree With..." campaign, this year it's a campaign to denounce pornography.

Homosexual marriage is a battle most conservatives around the world gave up on. Most of them agree on granting them equal rights, some are still iffy about the term marriage, but the rights are still there. Hell, even Stephen Harper thinks agrees that gay couples deserve the same rights, or atleast that's what he claims.

 

[MPower]

Homosexual marriage is a battle most conservatives around the world gave up on. Most of them agree on granting them equal rights, some are still iffy about the term marriage, but the rights are still there.

First of all, justin and I have both said that a civil union with plenty of rights for gays is acceptable (not ideal, but acceptable). So why you have a problem with us in this discussion is far beyond me because apparently it is acceptable for anyone else other than ourselves to voice this opinion.

Second of all, of all the arguments in the world, this is the one I hate the most: "the rest of the world does, so why doesnt the US?" Because we are a different f'ing country! The rest of the world, at one point, believed in slavery but you dont see everyone pushing for that now. At one point, the whole of allied Europe desperately needed the US's help... but apparently now, US involved in anything is unacceptable.

 

[justin syder]

I'm talking about Western nations. There is clearly a slippery slope that you do no wish to address.

How did it happen in The Netherlands?

Other slippery slopes happen because people often tend to ignore relatively small changes and concentrate on the big ones. Voters have limited time and effort to devote to thinking about issues. Many voters may therefore adopt a rule of thumb: We'll pay close attention only to the seemingly big changes and defer to the government or to elite opinion on the seemingly small ones. Life is too short to worry about every tiny proposal that someone makes. But this means that a big change that would arouse a lot of opposition if made all at once might become politically more feasible if it's made through many small steps; accepting the first step might therefore lead to more such steps.

That is how civil unions have led to the first polygamist marriage and that is how Boston was able to lower sentencing for beasteality. These small steps are getting us on the slippery slope.

Once you accept gay marriage then the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of rights. Thus it would make way for NAMBLA to get their way, a man and young boy to marry legally.

Apart from eradicating slavery, have we really "evolved" morally? How can we possibly be improving ourselves morally when we have moved into the nihilistic postmodern age, characterized by its outright rejection of absolute moral standards?

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/davidlimbaugh/2004/05/28/11843.html

Upon what basis will we draw such lines anymore? With postmodern relativists having prevailed in the struggle to remove absolute moral standards as a foundation for our laws, how will we logically limit further transgressions? What's to transgress?

 

[Firecat]

Let me put it this way. If we don't allow gay marriage, does that mean the alleged push to legalize beastiality, pedophilia and polygamy would wither way?

 

[carsinamerica]

Enough is Enough, says the gay guy

Enough is Enough, says the gay guy

We?ve been going back and forth on the gay marriage issue for some pages now, and I decided it?s time for a gay gearhead to weigh into the fray.

justin wrote: ?Can you prove with biology or science that they are "born that way"??

Okay, Justin wants to use science. Justin: can you *prove* with biology or physics that Jesus was the son of God? Can you *prove* with science that the Commandments were handed from God to Moses? Can you prove scientifically that the Bible is the word of God? Of course not. Why is it that Christians and conservatives only want to use science when they think it can justify their pre-conceived notions?

I?m gay. It isn?t a choice, Justin, MPower, and the rest of you who would suggest otherwise. I am perfectly willing to concede that bisexual people and people in the formative stages of their sexual development may transition back and forth in their sexual behaviors. I know ?straight? men who have engaged in, and enjoyed, sex with other men ? but I don?t label them as gay. They may just have some bisexual leanings, or something. However, I think that a person?s primarily orientation is fixed relatively early. Can I prove that gay people are ?born that way?? No. Some studies have shown differences in brain chemistry and the hippocampus, but that has not been established as universal or causative. I don?t know what causes homosexuality. Maybe it?s genetics, maybe it?s some aspect of pre-partum development, maybe it?s the result of early childhood environmental factors (perhaps even including parenting, who can say?). Or perhaps it?s a combination of all these factors. I don?t know. All I do know is that I was interested in other boys, physically, in a way that my pre-pubescent mind didn?t fully understand, by the time I was eight or nine. I didn?t know anything about homosexuality at the time, nor about the prejudice associated with it. These were simply the feelings I had. Since then, I have to come to realize that I am, in fact, homosexual. It?s the way I am, and despite going through depression and periods of wishing I were straight, I have to come to realize that MY orientation is toward other men, wholly and exclusively. No, this is not scientific. It?s one person?s experience and struggle, and one anecdote (although I have spoken to many homosexuals who have had similar stories). Are SOME people sexually flexible enough that they can choose their orientation? Almost certainly. Others can?t. I can?t. Justin probably can?t ? I?m assuming that he is exclusively heterosexual. My apologies to you if I am incorrect in this assertion. But let me ask this, to Justin, to MPower, to any man who thinks that being gay is a choice: could I do or say anything that would convince you to fall in love with a man and have passionate sex with him, to make love together? Of course not. So quit assuming that I could simply ?choose? to feel that way about women.

And, anticipating that some will say that with ?help? people can be ?cured? of homosexuality thanks to the services of groups like Exodus International, I will say again that SOME people are sexually flexible, and may be uncomfortable with the homosexual aspects of their sexuality (even if they are the predominant portion of their orientation), and choose to repress those feelings and focus on heterosexual feelings and actions. But that is only some people. Just as Justin or MPower have probably never deliriously fantasized about sex with men, I have never fantasized about sex with women. And, if we want to talk about scientists, the AMA and the APA (and leading medical and psychiatric authorities world-wide) say attempting to rewrite a person?s sexual orientation is almost always unhealthy and counterproductive. And they would also tell you that while orientation is not necessarily a matter of ?born that way?, it is USUALLY set relatively early in development, and becomes concrete by puberty for most people. That is science, at least the latest understanding of it. Science is of course a process, and who knows what discoveries might come tomorrow.

MPower wrote: ?So why is this an issue? Because the media advertises it as a problem and they get some pathetic celebrities to advocate "gay" rights. The issue isnt about love or anything of that sort because gay people can still get legally "bound" (forgot the correct term) just without the "benefits" of gay marriage. It boils down to people who want the financial benefits of gay marriage (health insurance, etc.)? Marriage is marriage, period. People who do not respect the realm of marriage will say that it wont devalue marriage TO THEM. But there are millions of people who will strongly argue that it WILL devalue marriage. You can attack their (our) views as much as possible, but criticizing someone's personal beliefs is hypocritical.?

Yes, gay people want the ?benefits? of gay marriage, MPower. Did you know that it is legal, in some places, to refuse housing to a couple because of their sexual orientation? Did you know that it is legal for homophobic parents who haven?t spoken to their child in decades to decide where he/she should be buried, and the format of their funeral service, and what should happen to their belongings ? all this while totaling the deceased?s partner, with whom he?s lived and loved for all those decades, and who, presumably, might better know the deceased?s wishes? It is even legal (again, in some places) for hospitals to refuse to admit partners of ill gay patients to their loved one?s sickbed? Yes, we want the legal benefits of gay marriage. And, in a nation with health prices soaring through the roof, access to the financial benefits of health insurance would be nice, too. When I find the right person (I?m still young, after all), I will want to marry them because I love them, because I want to share my life with them, and turn ?mine? and ?his? into ?ours.? And you?re darned right that I?ll want the legal and financial rights that marriages bring with them. And, gasp, I may even get married in my church. The gay marriage issue is, at its heart, an issue of equal access. And while you?re right, MPower, that gay people can have a ?commitment ceremony? (that is the proper term you were looking for), I submit that PART of the value of marriage in society is that societal recognition, and the rights to co-own property, to easier adoptions, and rights to enforce a will, and health benefits, and all the rest of it, are part of why people get married anyway. That?s why you take a civil marriage license in the first place?why else would a marriage blessed by God need a seal from the state? So don?t imply that there is something wrong with wanting the benefits that are granted to couples through marriage. That won?t be the only, or even primary, reason that I?ll marry, but it will be part of it.

As to the question of devaluing marriage, I submit this: I know people, even have relatives, who believe that inter-racial marriage is miscegenation, and an affront to decent society. and that it will ?devalue? marriage. Just because they think this, does that mean government should enforce their beliefs? If your objection, MPower, is rooted in theological considerations, that?s fine. If your church denomination will not perform gay marriages, that?s fine. I can respect those beliefs, although I consider them to be little more than a convenient cover for prejudice and bigotry ? but I?ll set the theological arguments aside, since they aren?t especially germane to this thread?s question of gay marriage in society. If you don?t want me to have a Catholic wedding, that?s fine. The Christian church I do attend would perform and rejoice in my wedding, and that?s all that matters to me. But, don?t conflate the theological with the secular ? if you think that I shouldn?t have a religious wedding by a priest/minister of your denomination, I will respect that. But don?t universalize that to say that I shouldn?t have the right to get married at all. Millions of white people in the South didn?t like the idea of sending their lily-white children to school with black children, but just because that was their personal beliefs doesn?t validate their views. And yes, since as I note below, being gay is NOT a matter of choice, the comparison between racism and sexism/homophobia is valid. It was discrimination then, just as what you are advocating is discrimination today. Don?t attempt to veil it in a shroud of righteousness.

MPower wrote: ?You know what? People want to allow illegal immigrants the right to get driver's lisenses [sic]. The idea of equal rights for everyone is not applied to every aspect of life. Why is it that Im not allowed to drink under the age of 21? Shouldnt I get the same rights as everyone? Why cant I drive when Im under 16 (or whatever the age restriction is in some particular state)? Fact is that there some circumstances where you cant just apply equal rights to everyone. The original reason that financial benefits were given to married couples was that the women would stay home to take care of the house and children. With gay couples not gaurdians [sic] of many children (such a small amount of gay couples actually are allowed to or adopt children, there is so little reason to give financial benefits to gay couples. I cant think of one logical reason. About "devaluing" marriage... is gay marriage going to stop me from getting married? No. But does that prove that it isnt devalued? No. And keep in mind that the santity (spelling?) [sic] of a Catholic marriage will ever change because the church will never marry a gay couple. But it certainly does devalue a marriage outside of a religious marriage.?

Okay, so let?s not give marriage rights to straight couples without children. As I noted above, marriage conveys legal as well as financial benefits. But suppose my husband works for a major company with a good benefits package, and I work for a company that provides little in the way of wages & benefits. Isn?t that a good enough reason for me to have the financial benefits you keep ranting on about? It?s good enough for straight people. If your wife (assuming you have one) worked at a better job than you, wouldn?t you want her health coverage to cover you and your children, MPower? Moreover, are you suggesting then that any gay couple that does have children should automatically have the financial benefits? If so, good for you, you?re more progressive than you let on.

As to your point about devaluing a marriage outside of a religious marriage?you?re now talking about civil marriage, which is ENTIRELY about social recognition of your togetherness and the legal/financial/social benefits entailed therein. How are those being devalued? What is the value of marriage in the civic realm, if not to provide those benefits? It?s purpose is not to glorify your relationship to God, as that is the role of a religious ceremony, so what are you afraid is being tarnished? Or, as more than one wag has noted, with 50% of marriages already ending in divorces, how much more damage can gay people do?

MPower wrote: ?You know what? Murder has been along long before the dictionary made a definition for it. So does that mean that it is OK? No! And the Greeks had no problem with gay emotions (not necessarily marriage) but does that mean that I have to value it? No!... Only that saying that the concept has been around for a long time doesnt make it acceptable. Im not saying that I have the right to reach into someone's personal life, but the government does. Believe it or not, that is a large part of what government is for.?

And just because your religion (if you?re a Christian) has been around for 2,000 years doesn?t mean that I have to value it, either. It cuts both ways. And just because bigotry against homosexuals has been around longer than the dictionary definition of homosexual (or the dictionary itself, for that matter), doesn?t justify it, either. Nevertheless, MPower does make the point later that gay rights should be allowed in the context of civil unions, which I suppose is a step in the right direction. So is your only objection to gay marriage the word marriage?

Recalling the previous point, should black people be only allowed to have civil marriages with white power? Of course not. The state should use the word ?marriage? in such cases, according them full equality and recognition as a married couple. But that said, churches should be able to refuse to perform such ceremonies if they wish. Of course, such discrimination should prevent them from receiving state benefits in turn, such as tax exemptions, but they should be free to discriminate in their own cliques, against blacks or gays or whatever. Just like the Boy Scouts should be able to keep gays and non-Christians out of their organization, but should not be allowed to use publicly-owned facilities for their functions. It should be so because, in legal terms, use of public facilities lends the Boy Scouts the imprimatur of government approval of their organization and its goals. And while the Boy Scouts provide many valuable contributions, their discriminatory practices should not be seen to be those of the government. A Hindu may have no place in the Boy Scouts, but he certainly should have a place in America, and he should not feel that the American government advances one religion as preferable to another. This, of course, is another discussion altogether. Suffice it to say that the mere act of assigning a different label to different marriages becomes a discriminatory practice itself ? they?re together, but not married like us.

As to saying that the government?s role is largely to reach into people?s lives, I?d better call Orwell. Do you really want to live in 1984, MPower? Is that your idea of ideal government, where thought and reality are compelled by a central authority? That certainly doesn?t sound like my vision of the perfect society. Nor, for that matter, does your characterization of the role of government fit with the framers of the U.S. Constitution, and their intent. Read the Constitution and you find many repetitions of the phrase, ?Congress shall make no law?? The true role of government, I would suggest, is to guarantee the freedoms of all Americans. The Constitution, moreover, is specifically written to prevent ?Tyranny of the Majority,? that just because a majority happens to believe a certain way does not grand them the right to impose their worldview on everyone. I don?t want to see government tell Justin or MPower who they may or may not marry, PROVIDED that that person is a consenting adult. Which leads us to another of Justin?s points:

Justin added: ?Because you could apply anything under that umbrella as long as society accepts it. NAMBLA, necrophilia, even pedophilia can be accepted slowly by society. It would be easy to change two consenting adults to two consenting people.?

Quit trotting out NAMBLA, Justin. The vast majority of gay people abhor the notion of legalizing sex with children, just as straight people do. The fact that NAMBLA exists is unfortunate, as it gives moral conservatives an excellent target to say, ?See, look at those evil fags and their disgusting ideas.? I agree, as I believe would everyone who has posted in this thread, that NAMBLA?s goals are horrifying and to be opposed. Children should be protected from sexual exploitation by their elders, and age-of-consent laws exist for the very purpose of preventing the young from being pressured into sexual acts. I, for one, would never want to see that change. And NAMBLA is no more representative of all gays than the Ku Klux Klan is representative of all Christians. You will note, Justin, that I am distinguishing the beliefs of even the most fundamentalist Catholics and Baptists from those of the KKK. I do not suggest that all Christians who oppose gay marriage are in favor of the Klan. I wish conservatives would return the favor and quit conflating homosexuals and the campaign for homosexual rights with the campaign of the NAMBLA.

As a society, we recognize the vulnerability of children. We recognize the importance of full, informed consent in sexual and loving relationships. For this reason, society can protect the rights of consenting adults to marry without a slippery slope to pedophilia and necrophilia. I, for one, would strive mightily against the goals of NAMBLA, if ever I thought they were gaining traction. So too would all the gay people I know. Kids, dead people, and animals can?t consent. Period. I won?t change on that, and I doubt society will either. Quit using that particular weapon of fear.

back to MPower: ?You think are teaching me something? You think I dont know of the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage? You can disrespect my views all you want but who are you to say that my view of marriage being between a man and a woman is wrong??

Marriage may have meant what you say, primarily, in the history of the United States, but not necessarily everywhere. Who are you, though, to say that your definition should be eternal and fixed? It has long been an unwritten assumption in America that marriage was also intra-, not inter-racial, but that does not make that assumption eternally correct. We?ve grown beyond that. Hopefully, we can grow beyond your definition now. And just because the DOMA was passed in 1996, doesn?t mean we have to live under THAT definition, either. Remember when blacks counted as three-fifths of a person, in no less a law than the Constitution.

MPower again (sorry, but you set yourself up): ?Are you just going to continue to ask the same question even though I have answered my views again and again? You can have a problem with the views but dont force your views of supporting gay marriage onto me. Regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong, I think that gay marriage wrong [sic].?

I?ll make you a deal: you quit forcing your views of marriage on me, and I won?t force you to have a gay marriage. I won?t say that only gay people can get married, if you stop saying that only straight people can get married. You are welcome to believe in your heart that gay marriage is wrong, but why should you have the right to prevent everyone else from marrying who they dearly love? And you aren?t answering zenkidori?s fundamental question: WHY do you think it is wrong?

Aha, here comes the answer: ?No matter what I say, you will still sit there and say that I am wrong for reasons X,Y, and Z. The bottom line is that I have my views that gay marriage is morally wrong (I have my morals routed in the Catholic faith) and you have yours. We can sit here and try and BS ourselves about reasons X, Y, and Z. But ultimately, you dont respect my Catholic views. So what is the point in trying to get you to understand something you will never understand??

I respect your Catholic views. I?m not Catholic, though, so why should I have to live by your values? The Catholic Church opposes birth control, too. Does that mean I should not be allowed by buy condoms? Should women be sent to jail for using the pill? Again, nobody is forcing you to have a gay marriage, and nobody (well, at least not me) is telling you that you can?t think gay marriage is wrong. But who are you and your Church to set the rules for all Americans, most of whom are not Catholics?

MPower speaks: ?Your whole goal here is to shut everyone down around you. Isnt that being awfully Hitler-esque? There have been plenty of Presidents in our nation's history that have religious views and helps to develop their morals. Are you saying that government should have no religious based morals? Then you would have a hard time finding any morals.?

It is Hitler-esque to force others to conform to your beliefs just because you say so, or happen to be in charge. Can religious values inform the development of morality? Sure. Are they the be-all and end-all of morality? Absolutely not.

The first legal codes known to exist: The Code of Hammurabi. Informed by Sumerian religion? Possibly. But they function as more than religious values ? they set practical constraints on behavior for the moral good of the society, describing who can and cannot be killed, and by whom, etc. Religion is one source of societal wisdom, but good societal morals are built as much on social justice as on religious precepts.

Tomo Motorsport?s assertions about the slippery slope are amusing, but Justin takes the cake:
?So now you basically redefined marriage to include homosexuals, three-somes and polygamists. Slipper [sic] slope? You don't see that being so liberal means not retaining traditions and allows for just about anything as long as it can be accepted. Then the next argument would be about NAMBLA. Clearly if a gay 15yr old and a gay 28yr old want to have sex why should it be illegal? Civil rights are being violated.?

I think I?ve dealt with NAMBLA. Again, Justin, understand what CONSENT is. Let?s try a list. Kids: can?t consent. Donkeys: can?t consent. Stereos: can?t consent. Dead people: can?t consent. Adults: CAN CONSENT. But only adults. When a party who can offer consent advances on a party who cannot, that is wrong. Nobody?s civil rights are being violated by PROTECTING the 15-year-old from an adult with impure intentions. Who needs to be protected against, though, when my future boyfriend and I want to marry when we?re both 30?

As for polygamy, I have to admit it concerns me. Even today, in the good ol? United States, polygamy is used as a weapon against young women by older men. An excellent, if shocking, book on the subject is Krakauer?s ?Under the Banner of Heaven.? Plural marriage is okay, perhaps, but unfortunately is often used as a means of abuse. If that were preventable, then there should be no impediment to plural marriage if all parties FULLY CONSENT. However, clearly it would be a complicated matter of law to sort out the details. Instead of wallowing in that particular hypothetical, though, let?s FOCUS, as Justin might say.

Now, Justin?s biggest mistake: ?Because you have to break tradition and last time I checked marriage was not created for gay or lesbians. It was to combat prostitution and polygamy and homosexuality. We can go on about personal rights, like the rights of a 15yr old gay teenager and his personal rights being violated because his 28yr old lover would be prosecuted for being with him.?

Once again, you?re using a canard to try to draw the debate into NAMBLA. DROP IT, JUSTIN! Now, though, you talk about tradition. It used to be traditional for kings to have vast harems, but somehow I suspect that Justin objected when Bill Clinton was caught getting blown. Why? It?s traditional. Ridiculous. Just because a belief is promulgated for a long time does not increase its validity. It was traditional to burn gays at the stake in the Middle Ages. Do you favor that, Justin? It was traditional to kill Jews in pogroms at Eastertide even more recently than that. Does that make it right? Now, you?re claiming that the very purpose of marriage was to combat homosexuality? Find a source for that inference, please. Marriage also wasn?t created for slaves, or for subjects, or for women. It was, in many cases, created so that men could exercise control over women. A woman passed from control of her father to the control of her husband in many ancient, traditional cultures. Thank God we don?t live in that world anymore here.

Liberal, Justin, means that we examine our traditions and retain those that are valuable and protect ALL of our society, while improving the rest for the good of everybody. As a liberal, one of my guiding quotes is from Jesus (who was quite a radical leftist in his day): ?That which you do unto these, the least of mine, you do unto me.? I can respect tradition that provides value and insight into our life and history as people, but I have no use for traditions which are used to elevate the rights of some above the rights of all. The LEAST of mine, Justin, not the most.

?If you can redefine marriage then age-of-consent laws can be changed as well. It would be viewed as progressive. You are just a bit conservative to this view now but time will change your view. Im not talking about rape, Im talking about a gay teenager that wants to have sex with a male regardless of age. You talk about gay rights then what about rights for gay teenagers? Marriage is defined in law as the union of one man and one woman or as two people but if you allow polygamy and 3some marriage then you change that law. Why can't it be done for NAMBLA? They are a minority and have the same basic rights as anyone else.?

Yes, that is true. Age-of-consent laws have changed with the times. For example, there was considered nothing wrong with giving a girl away at 14 to a man a twice her age in the ?traditional? era of Europe that Justin so adores. Do gay teenagers have rights, Justin? Somehow I doubt you really think so. But for the sake of argument, I?ll take the bait. A straight teenage girl is not going to be punished for having sex with an older man, but the older man is. The gay teenager pursued by the NAMBLA fiend is not going to be punished, the seducer is. Gay teenagers shouldn?t be treated any differently from straight teenagers, which is ironically the point of a case called Limon v Kansas, currently wriggling its way through the courts. At its heart, regardless of the checkered history of the youth in question, that case is about equal rights under the law, as is the discussion we have now. NAMBLA is in no danger of writing the national agenda, Justin. So instead of red herrings, focus on the real question, here today: is it right for some ADULTS to be allowed to marry while others are not?

Responding to a point by zenkidori about oppression against blacks, Justin: ?That was racism. That was not tradition. That was a view at the time. Being gay is NOT equal to being black, gay is what you do sexually. A gay person is not some special race of ppl. If you wanted to, you can choose to be gay. A straight male who might be "curious" can become bi-sexual or gay at his choosing. Sexual orientation is something that can change or that a person decides on an individual basis. Someone decides whether they will have sex with alot [sic] of partners or few, with both sexes or one. Race is something that you are born into and cannot change. You dont become black, you are black. Gays can be married, to the opposite sex. If you CHOOSE on your own volition to be with someone of the same sex then you WAIVE that right. Liberalism is chaging [sic] tradition and eventually eroding them. Progressive? To some yes but if you can't see the slippery slope with gay marriage then 3some then polygamy then you can't say that it wont be applied elsewhere in favor of a progressive way of thinking or changing things. Some have clearly drawn the line with pedophilia but if you can redefine marriage and the laws with it then you will be able to change anything because it is a liberal way of thinking. You say no now but who is to say that the next generation of Liberal minded people would say that NAMBLA is gross or that they are having their civil rights violated.?

IT WAS TRADITION, JUSTIN. Tradition IS the views of a people at the time, backed up by historical experience. Claiming otherwise is, I?m afraid, quite asinine.

Justin wrote: ?It's not about rights. It's about redefining truth and censoring all criticism so that militant homosexuals can be comfortable in their "lifestyle" without having to be disturbed by reality. Clearly I am seen as a bigot and my view is attacked. My criticism is not welcome and the way to get rid of it is to attack me or my view with name calling. The fact of the matter is, gay marriage has ALOT [sic] to do with almost everything because you change a fundamental view. Why change marraige [sic] but not age of consent? Well if it can be changed then you open a movement for decriminalizing NAMBLA and another can of worms. Try to present your side without name calling please or tarnishing my view because it is different from yours?

Oooh, this one is funny. #1) We aren?t censoring criticism, you can complain as much as you want. All people here are saying is that your beliefs about who should have equal rights and who should not are the way to design public policy. My ?lifestyle,? Justin, is a middle-class college student. My sexual orientation is homosexual. You ARE bigoted, but I will never argue with your right to be so. As Voltaire once said, ?I may disagree with you, sir, but I shall defend to the death your right to be an ass.? #2) Yes, accepting gay marriage would change a fundamental point of view, but it changed many fundamental views when blacks were given the right to vote. Just as race is immutable, so too (largely) is sexual orientation for most people. #3) Why change marriage and not age of consent? Because we are protecting children with age of consent, whereas the traditional definition of marriage only protects the delicate sensibilities of moral conservatives and homophobes (not that you have to be both). There. That?s the explanation you wanted. Anything can be changed, it?s just a question of WHY it should be changed or left alone. In this case, reducing the age of consent would serve no valuable purpose so far as we can know. And what ?reality? are you thinking these militant homosexuals are living in or desire? Anti-abortion activists who blow up clinics and kill doctors are militant, Justin, not people who march in occasionally rowdy street protests, which are, need I remind you, protected under the First Amendment.

This one finally got me mad, again from Justin: ?Look, my beef is that being gay translates into changine [sic] society for everyone based on what is done in the bedroom. I have no hate or disgust for gays but I STONGLY [sic] disagree with their activism in labeling gay or equating it with being black. I dont care if two gays want to have sex but don't try to change a concept and mislead ppl into thinking they are oppressed [sic]. They can do just about anything I can except marriage. Why? Well because marraige [sic] is the basis for a family. It is being eroded over the years and is no wonder why divorce is so high, ppl dont care about it and that is why it is failing. It is about preserving what works and the tradiotions [sic] of ones [sic] culture. It is not about being the same. Me and Jeffy are both Christians with many different opinions and myself and MPower are conservatives with many varying opinions. Conservative does not equate to communism in anyway.?

Okay, Justin. Is race the same as sexual orientation? No, obviously not. But there are similarities. And oppression is one of those similarities. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never heard bigotry thrown their way. A coworker of mine, for example, who described his college experience by saying ?there are a lot of fags there I?d like to kill.? And such quotes are, unfortunately, not as rare as one might think or hope. As far as doing anything that you can do, not entirely true. In many states, it is more difficult for gay people to adopt, for them to attain or keep jobs if their orientation is known, get housing, etc. It is the sort of prejudice that conservatives are eager to preserve and codify as law, such as the Colorado law invalidated in Romer v. Evans. If marriage is the base of a family, are you saying that gay people shouldn?t be allowed to have families. If divorce has eroded it as you say, that is a different matter, and certainly can?t be blamed on gay people. And what better to revitalize marriage than fresh people who ARE committed to it and want to attain it?

You are right in saying that conservatism isn?t communism in any way, but ultra-conservatism is fascism. Intriguing how you cite people with different opinions, but only those of people with a generally similar framework of ideals. Where does leave the rest of us? You talk about preserving what works and the traditions of one?s culture. Oppression has been the legacy of our culture for many groups over the years, from blacks to Native Americans to feminists and now to homosexuals. Are those the traditions you adore? And you say that these traditions work. For whom? For you, that?s who. What about the rest of us? As for myself, I would say that traditions of freedom, equality, and openness to all are central to the American identity, and while their application has been imperfect and sporadic over the years, they are nonetheless the highest moral imperatives of our nation. Don?t lecture me about who is and is not oppressed, though; you have no clue about what you say.

By far the most ridiculous post of all on this matter has to come from Z Draci, who wrote: ?Why do gay couples want to get married in the first place? Marrying each other, living together, and having a household is a very traditional thing to do. If gays want respect from traditionalists, why don't the gays respect the traditionalist views on marriage? There are many straight couples who never get married. Yet, they still live together and have a household. There are also single people who are perfectly happy living by themselves! Marriage does not guarantee happiness. Marriage is not a religious sacrament anymore. The ceremony is held in churches, but state laws often define the contract that bind a couple in marriage. I think this is why people get the idea that gay marriage should be allowed. The religious part doesn't have to be changed. It's only a matter of changing the law. It's just a complicated battle between church and state again . . .
I think gay couples are demanding too much when they ask for the same legal rights as a married couple. It was their choice to be gay. So it was their choice to not be eligible for the rights of a married couple. If they want these right so badly, they can choose to be straight! Simple as that! If they want to be "happy" they can do so without getting married. I think they're just in it for the money. They should learn to live with the existing laws instead of wasting their energy making an annoyance of themselves. I agree with Justin. Being black and being gay are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. You can choose to be gay, but you can't choose to be black. Therefore, it is wrong to discriminate a person because he is black. However, the law can (and always has) discriminated people based on the decisions they made on their own free will. If gay couples want to earn respect from society, then they would have to respect the society in which they live first!?

Tell me, Z Draci, why should we not have the same legal rights as straight people. And set aside your nonsensical notions of people choosing to be gay, which almost any gay person or medical professional will tell you is utter rubbish. And if you?re happy to be living singly, more power to you. Why should I be forced to choose that or living with someone with none of the benefits of marriage? Why don?t you ?choose? to be gay for a while and see how you like it if you think I?m wrong? Gay people have respected society by living it and not trying to overthrow it. By using the mechanisms of society, from protest to letter-writing campaigns, we respectfully bring our grievances to authority. You are the one who seems to have no respect for our society, as you clearly view dissent as an anathema. Moreover, if marriage is not a religious sacrament anyone, where do you objections to gay marriage originate? Blind prejudice, perhaps? I want to find the happiness that comes with oneness with another person, a person you dearly love. Why does that frighten you so much? As to your hopeless bit about living with existing laws instead of trying to gain fairer ones, I?m sure you would have said the same thing to any number of oppressed groups through the history of America. If you hate American values of freedom, participation, and association so much, more somewhere more to your liking. North Korea would welcome someone of your zeal.

Justin again, ?There exists no objective way of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. A person can't take a blood test or DNA test to prove that he or she is "gay." It is basically a person's claim that he or she is homosexual. Instead, pro-gay groups, activists etc, argue that homosexuality must be something that they are born with because no one would choose to be "gay" and voluntarily allow the resulting social stigma. This argument is invalid, since many people choose lifestyles that others condemn. Moreover, there are many homosexuals who freely admit that their lifestyle is a voluntary preference. Also, I myself choose to take this postition [sic] in this argument even amidst the ridicule and overwheelming [sic] criticism.?

I know very few homosexuals who make that claim, Justin. How many gay people do you actually know? If the social stigma argument doesn?t sway you, I guess nothing will. But I?ll say it again, anyway. I would never choose to be gay, if only for the reason that I get tired of hearing the same old tirades from people like you. People are gay because that?s how they are ? whether genetic or environmental factors are at play, the fact that most people have their sexual orientation fixed even before puberty should tell you something. And even if some people *did* choose to be gay, why is that grounds to discriminate against them, just for the sake of argument. But seriously, Justin, what could I do to make you go gay? Nothing, of course. Just as nothing you do or say could make me become straight and start fantasizing about Vicki instead of Richard.

And to address Z Draci?s ridiculousness again: ?Consider this idea. If an individual is simply born gay, is it wrong for a straight man to declare his homosexuality later in life? Are you saying that some people have God given rights to be gay while others have none? I don't think there's such elitist homosexuality groups in existence. It's plainly a choice made by the individual. Gays need to respect the laws in society that only allows one man and one women [sic] to marry. Like I already said, marriage doesn't automatically give you happiness. If happiness is all that gay couples want, they can achieve that without marriage. I think the only reason they want marriage rights is because they want the economical advantages (tax benefits, etc). That in itself is selfish and greedy. This is why I said they should respect society and don't ask for more than they need.?

Well, let?s see. Do some people have trouble defining their sexuality? Yes. Do others repress it because their family, friends, and pastors (people like you) tell them it?s wrong or bad? Definitely. Does that sometimes lead to reappraisals of orientation later in life? Sure. Is that the norm? No. So quit using it as the springboard for your arguments. Why do I need to respect these laws you speak of? If the law is wrong, change it! That is how social progress has worked since the time of the Romans. Are you really so backward as to think that any law should always be obeyed without question? The social recognition aspects of marriage are important. The equality that it suggests under the law is important. The right to make choices on behalf of your spouse in a crisis situation is an important right. It is one that married straight people can easily take for granted. They should not forget that without such legal guarantees, gay spouses can easily be shouldered aside by homophobic relatives, EVEN if a will exists. Are you in favor of that?

Then we some more hypocrisy from Justin, when he says: ?If you just advocated for gay marriage that is one thing but NUMEROUS posts here also were fine with Polygamy and three-some marriage. Whos is [sic] to say that the next generation of Liberals will find it in their heart to abolition of age-of-consent laws. Its just a matter of time before you feel that sort of change is needed. A liberal mind doesnt set any boundaries.?

Dear Justin, those posts don?t necessarily ADVOCATE polygamy, they simply ask, why not? A subtle distinction, to be sure., but important nonetheless. However, why don?t we stop with the name-calling that you scream about so often ? ?a liberal mind doesn?t se any boundaries.? Please. Can you not justify your arguments any other way than that? At least a liberal mind can think critically and expand beyond ?The Bible and my parents told me so. And gay is icky? Which is the essence of what many homophobes argue. The reason that liberals won?t fight to abandon age-of-consent laws is that it could demonstrably harm children. No liberal is in favor of that. We?re the party that fought child labor, after all.

And in case we needed to hear more: ?When have you heard an extreme right wing even doing that? Violence towards other is seen on the extreme on BOTH ends. No new breed of conservatism would advocate that, I don't.?

Ever heard of Nazis? Ever heard of Matthew Shepherd?s killers? Ever heard of the KKK? Abortion clinic bombers? Right-wingers all. For the record, I?ve never heard of organized gay people campaigning to kill or intimidate straight people. Seems to me like the people I just listed did, though. That tells me that we aren?t as far from that sort of organized violence breaking out. Hatred and the classification of whole groups of people as unworthy of equal rights can easily slide into violence, Justin. History is replete with examples. This one goes out to MPower to, who apparently has never heard of any of these cases, either.

I would say it?s just as likely to happen as the country ceding age-of-consent laws to NAMBLA?s insane demands. The slippery slope argument is so tired and useless. Pedophilia hurts children. There is near-universal agreement on that point, psychologists, doctors, society at large. Everybody. NAMBLA?s views are a ridiculous extreme. Just like Tim McVeigh?s view of America was a ridiculous extreme. Could gay marriage be a gateway to polygamy? Who knows, that is a question to be explored in its own time. I doubt it. Polygamy?s been around in Utah for 100+ years, and they don?t seem likely to adopt gay marriage any time soon. But it will not be the path to legalized pedophilia and bestiality (note the spelling, all you conservatives out there). Consenting adults should have their rights amongst each other, not with everyone else. Quit using canards like NAMBLA to disguise your true objections: homosexuality goes against the neat box of morals that you got from your church. That?s fine. I don?t care if you like gay people or not. I don?t like homophobes much, myself. But I?ll never argue that you have a right to your objection, nor will I try to force you into a gay ?lifestyle?. Quit trying to force me to live in yours.

 

[///M]

Great post.

 

[BlaRo]

Finally. Somebody with a firsthand account on the topic.

 

[Firecat]

Great post.

^x2

 

[franke]

carsinamerica , thank you very much for your post.

I was getting so mad at Justin and the others =).

well said

 

[tloekke]

Great post.

Yeah!
Took some time to read though. Just curious, how long did it take you to write it?

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

That was an absolutely stunningly well-written post! Thanks you very much for taking the time to explain things from your point of view, it was of benefit for us all.

I wonder if Mpower or justin will take the time to respond to that, er, essay of sorts. (or even Z Draci, though I doubt it. Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice obviously has no point of reference here.)

 

[MPower]

Re: Enough is Enough, says the gay guy

Re: Enough is Enough, says the gay guy

Okay, Justin wants to use science. Justin: can you *prove* with biology or physics that Jesus was the son of God? Can you *prove* with science that the Commandments were handed from God to Moses? Can you prove scientifically that the Bible is the word of God? Of course not. Why is it that Christians and conservatives only want to use science when they think it can justify their pre-conceived notions?

I have to say, this is a very good argument. I will give you tons of credit for taking the time to write this essay up. Do keep in mind that Justin and I will probably disagree (I have not gone through this whole thing yet), but also remember that we respectfully disagree and do not say anything to be insulting or disrespectful.

I?m gay. It isn?t a choice, Justin, MPower, and the rest of you who would suggest otherwise. I am perfectly willing to concede that bisexual people and people in the formative stages of their sexual development may transition back and forth in their sexual behaviors. I know ?straight? men who have engaged in, and enjoyed, sex with other men ? but I don?t label them as gay. They may just have some bisexual leanings, or something. However, I think that a person?s primarily orientation is fixed relatively early. Can I prove that gay people are ?born that way?? No. Some studies have shown differences in brain chemistry and the hippocampus, but that has not been established as universal or causative. I don?t know what causes homosexuality. Maybe it?s genetics, maybe it?s some aspect of pre-partum development, maybe it?s the result of early childhood environmental factors (perhaps even including parenting, who can say?). Or perhaps it?s a combination of all these factors. I don?t know. All I do know is that I was interested in other boys, physically, in a way that my pre-pubescent mind didn?t fully understand, by the time I was eight or nine. I didn?t know anything about homosexuality at the time, nor about the prejudice associated with it. These were simply the feelings I had. Since then, I have to come to realize that I am, in fact, homosexual. It?s the way I am, and despite going through depression and periods of wishing I were straight, I have to come to realize that MY orientation is toward other men, wholly and exclusively. No, this is not scientific. It?s one person?s experience and struggle, and one anecdote (although I have spoken to many homosexuals who have had similar stories). Are SOME people sexually flexible enough that they can choose their orientation? Almost certainly. Others can?t. I can?t. Justin probably can?t ? I?m assuming that he is exclusively heterosexual. My apologies to you if I am incorrect in this assertion. But let me ask this, to Justin, to MPower, to any man who thinks that being gay is a choice: could I do or say anything that would convince you to fall in love with a man and have passionate sex with him, to make love together? Of course not. So quit assuming that I could simply ?choose? to feel that way about women.

The reason that being gay is a choice or not comes up in this discussion often is the issue of gay people being classified as a "minority". For some, including yourself, it appears to be a thing that you were born into. I can understand that, but I dont think that this mold can apply to every gay person. This isnt the "well, I could find one person who chose it" argument but that there are good amount of gay people that probably "developed" there gay tendances. Kinda of a weird concept, but the idea being that a person is exposed to gay ideas and continually grows upon the ideals throughout life. Whether these ideas were embeaded inside a person's head and the person simply discovered them is debatable. But I do know of a couple of gay people who will say that they became gay because they discovered this and that which lead them deeper things. Again, a somewhat weird concept, but I myself have a hard time understanding gay ideas (not an insult, just I dont understand it like I dont understand everyone and their obsessiveness with soccer lately). Your thoughts on this would be great.

Yes, gay people want the ?benefits? of gay marriage, MPower. Did you know that it is legal, in some places, to refuse housing to a couple because of their sexual orientation? Did you know that it is legal for homophobic parents who haven?t spoken to their child in decades to decide where he/she should be buried, and the format of their funeral service, and what should happen to their belongings ? all this while totaling the deceased?s partner, with whom he?s lived and loved for all those decades, and who, presumably, might better know the deceased?s wishes? It is even legal (again, in some places) for hospitals to refuse to admit partners of ill gay patients to their loved one?s sickbed? Yes, we want the legal benefits of gay marriage. And, in a nation with health prices soaring through the roof, access to the financial benefits of health insurance would be nice, too. When I find the right person (I?m still young, after all), I will want to marry them because I love them, because I want to share my life with them, and turn ?mine? and ?his? into ?ours.? And you?re darned right that I?ll want the legal and financial rights that marriages bring with them. And, gasp, I may even get married in my church. The gay marriage issue is, at its heart, an issue of equal access. And while you?re right, MPower, that gay people can have a ?commitment ceremony? (that is the proper term you were looking for), I submit that PART of the value of marriage in society is that societal recognition, and the rights to co-own property, to easier adoptions, and rights to enforce a will, and health benefits, and all the rest of it, are part of why people get married anyway. That?s why you take a civil marriage license in the first place?why else would a marriage blessed by God need a seal from the state? So don?t imply that there is something wrong with wanting the benefits that are granted to couples through marriage. That won?t be the only, or even primary, reason that I?ll marry, but it will be part of it.

Again, which is why both Justin and I are in favor of gay rights. You have to understand that in the way that I have been brought up, a marriage is a marriage. You can talk about "societal recognition" but societal recognition involves society recognizing marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. That is the dictionary defintion. And that is not to say that there is no societal recognition in a civil union (or commitment) either. I understand how the rights issue can be extremely frustrating which is exactly why we both want to give you rights.

Okay, so let?s not give marriage rights to straight couples without children. As I noted above, marriage conveys legal as well as financial benefits. But suppose my husband works for a major company with a good benefits package, and I work for a company that provides little in the way of wages & benefits. Isn?t that a good enough reason for me to have the financial benefits you keep ranting on about? It?s good enough for straight people. If your wife (assuming you have one) worked at a better job than you, wouldn?t you want her health coverage to cover you and your children, MPower? Moreover, are you suggesting then that any gay couple that does have children should automatically have the financial benefits? If so, good for you, you?re more progressive than you let on.

Keep in mind, again, that gay rights has not been the issue of this debate for much time. The views might have gotten convoluted throughout the whole thing, but we have both agreed on gay rights. Let me give you an example as to why gay rights are important to me: you brought up adoption for gay people. Adoption is one of the main reasons, why I think, that abortion is such a problem today. If people were given an adoption option that was realistic (and did not require two-year processing times), abortions would not be the fall back option. So believe me when I say that anything that gets kids more opprotunites for adoption should be implemented.

As to your point about devaluing a marriage outside of a religious marriage?you?re now talking about civil marriage, which is ENTIRELY about social recognition of your togetherness and the legal/financial/social benefits entailed therein. How are those being devalued? What is the value of marriage in the civic realm, if not to provide those benefits? It?s purpose is not to glorify your relationship to God, as that is the role of a religious ceremony, so what are you afraid is being tarnished? Or, as more than one wag has noted, with 50% of marriages already ending in divorces, how much more damage can gay people do?

Show me one definition in the United States that says that marriage is anything but a bond between a man and a woman. Yes, a civil marriage does not directly affect the value of a religious marriage. But there are values to marriages in general, not just religious marriages. Those are the values that are up for play. And just because 50 percent of marriages end in divorce (California statistic) does not have any relavence on this debate. Divorce is definately not something that I agree in and I definately dont want to add salt to the wound.

And just because your religion (if you?re a Christian) has been around for 2,000 years doesn?t mean that I have to value it, either. It cuts both ways. And just because bigotry against homosexuals has been around longer than the dictionary definition of homosexual (or the dictionary itself, for that matter), doesn?t justify it, either. Nevertheless, MPower does make the point later that gay rights should be allowed in the context of civil unions, which I suppose is a step in the right direction. So is your only objection to gay marriage the word marriage?

Bingo. And on your first point in that paragraph, do you remember that it is a two way street. And that the street I am on represents a larger percentage of the population (do not take this as discrimination because thats not the point...). It just happens that my values are able to win elections. Doesnt make either values right or wrong just that in a democracy, the "minority" party ends up having to bite the bullet. This isnt a personal attack. I, myself, have many laws that drive me up the wall, but I have to bite the bullet sometimes about those laws as well. Im not saying that my point is right, just that you need to understand the concept that government cant protect everyone's rights no matter how unfair it is. That said, gay marriage is the issue, not gay rights.

Recalling the previous point, should black people be only allowed to have civil marriages with white power? Of course not. The state should use the word ?marriage? in such cases, according them full equality and recognition as a married couple. But that said, churches should be able to refuse to perform such ceremonies if they wish. Of course, such discrimination should prevent them from receiving state benefits in turn, such as tax exemptions, but they should be free to discriminate in their own cliques, against blacks or gays or whatever. Just like the Boy Scouts should be able to keep gays and non-Christians out of their organization, but should not be allowed to use publicly-owned facilities for their functions. It should be so because, in legal terms, use of public facilities lends the Boy Scouts the imprimatur of government approval of their organization and its goals. And while the Boy Scouts provide many valuable contributions, their discriminatory practices should not be seen to be those of the government. A Hindu may have no place in the Boy Scouts, but he certainly should have a place in America, and he should not feel that the American government advances one religion as preferable to another. This, of course, is another discussion altogether. Suffice it to say that the mere act of assigning a different label to different marriages becomes a discriminatory practice itself ? they?re together, but not married like us.

Keep in mind that America advances which ever values the majority of the people represent. Remember when JFK was elected? His values were strongly Christian and during his time, Christian values were the mainstay of American politics. That is what a democratic republic is all about. In a way, the majority rules (this is a true democracy whereas the US has something slightly different). The goal of the US is have majority rule while having the protection of the minority. The problem some people have with gay rights is whether or not gay people are a true minority or not. I dont believe that they arent a minority which is why they should have rights (well, more rights).

As to saying that the government?s role is largely to reach into people?s lives, I?d better call Orwell. Do you really want to live in 1984, MPower? Is that your idea of ideal government, where thought and reality are compelled by a central authority? That certainly doesn?t sound like my vision of the perfect society. Nor, for that matter, does your characterization of the role of government fit with the framers of the U.S. Constitution, and their intent. Read the Constitution and you find many repetitions of the phrase, ?Congress shall make no law?? The true role of government, I would suggest, is to guarantee the freedoms of all Americans. The Constitution, moreover, is specifically written to prevent ?Tyranny of the Majority,? that just because a majority happens to believe a certain way does not grand them the right to impose their worldview on everyone. I don?t want to see government tell Justin or MPower who they may or may not marry, PROVIDED that that person is a consenting adult.

My views of government are not those represented by the constitution. It might sound wrong, but I have always wanted a strong leader. In America politics, the system works, dont get me wrong. But a central authority (Im not talking dictator here, just a strong presense of leadership) is what, I think, a country like the US needs to get it to advance to the next level. Remember the times of the Monroe Doctrine? That was a time where US government expressed a true leader and we advanced both politicall and financially like no other time before it.

Back to this point you make, my goal isnt for government to reach into people's lives. The government should be there to set framework for which the people follow. I am not a democrat and want the government to make my mind up for me.

Which leads us to another of Justin?s points:

Justin added: ?Because you could apply anything under that umbrella as long as society accepts it. NAMBLA, necrophilia, even pedophilia can be accepted slowly by society. It would be easy to change two consenting adults to two consenting people.?

Quit trotting out NAMBLA, Justin. The vast majority of gay people abhor the notion of legalizing sex with children, just as straight people do. The fact that NAMBLA exists is unfortunate, as it gives moral conservatives an excellent target to say, ?See, look at those evil fags and their disgusting ideas.? I agree, as I believe would everyone who has posted in this thread, that NAMBLA?s goals are horrifying and to be opposed. Children should be protected from sexual exploitation by their elders, and age-of-consent laws exist for the very purpose of preventing the young from being pressured into sexual acts. I, for one, would never want to see that change. And NAMBLA is no more representative of all gays than the Ku Klux Klan is representative of all Christians. You will note, Justin, that I am distinguishing the beliefs of even the most fundamentalist Catholics and Baptists from those of the KKK. I do not suggest that all Christians who oppose gay marriage are in favor of the Klan. I wish conservatives would return the favor and quit conflating homosexuals and the campaign for homosexual rights with the campaign of the NAMBLA.

The problem isnt so much gay rights (I know I have said this ten times, but oh well) but that no one seems to know when to stop. If someone on both sides of the table came up and said, "This is where it is going to stop," I think that most of us would embrace it and give gay people the rights they deserve. But the issue is that once this becomes engraved into law, where does it stop? Dont stop reading this now because you assume that it is all BS because throughout this debate, many have used the argument: "give me the rights that I deserve." Well at one point someone is going to have to say, "No more rights for you." Im sure that at some point the ACLU is going to come out and say that we arent the ones to judge one consenting person getting married to two consenting people. Do you see what we are getting at here? You can completely ignore the argument and say that I am living in a dream world (and I assume that is what most of you will do) but you have to understand my concern. At some point some will have to say "no" and given the arguments that are being used for gay marriage, there will be too much moral confliction for someone to actually deny someone their "rights". We can rule out a child and an adult performing a consenting marriage for numerous reasons but if/when this argument for gay rights works, then what about those who would want to do other things (if anyone brings up animals.... ).

As a society, we recognize the vulnerability of children. We recognize the importance of full, informed consent in sexual and loving relationships. For this reason, society can protect the rights of consenting adults to marry without a slippery slope to pedophilia and necrophilia. I, for one, would strive mightily against the goals of NAMBLA, if ever I thought they were gaining traction. So too would all the gay people I know. Kids, dead people, and animals can?t consent. Period. I won?t change on that, and I doubt society will either. Quit using that particular weapon of fear.

You know what? Day after day I get the weapon of fear thrown onto me at school but just because I know that it pisses me off doesnt stop if from happening. Remember, this isnt a fear weapon we are using, only a question of concern. Rule out dead people, kids, and animals because those views were never expressed by myself and, as far as I know, justin.

Marriage may have meant what you say, primarily, in the history of the United States, but not necessarily everywhere. Who are you, though, to say that your definition should be eternal and fixed? It has long been an unwritten assumption in America that marriage was also intra-, not inter-racial, but that does not make that assumption eternally correct. We?ve grown beyond that. Hopefully, we can grow beyond your definition now. And just because the DOMA was passed in 1996, doesn?t mean we have to live under THAT definition, either. Remember when blacks counted as three-fifths of a person, in no less a law than the Constitution.

Are you seriously saying that we shouldnt live under law? Im sorry but that is what government is there to do. If you can find me one definition that states that marriage is anything but a bond between a man and woman than do so. But understand, corny analogy coming, what a marriage is is an apple. There is no way to change what an apple is. An apple is an apple. Just as an orange, is an orange which is an orange. An orange represents a civil union. They are DIFFERENT things but are still fruits. You cant tell me that my definition of an apple is wrong and have it include oranges.

I respect your Catholic views. I?m not Catholic, though, so why should I have to live by your values? The Catholic Church opposes birth control, too. Does that mean I should not be allowed by buy condoms? Should women be sent to jail for using the pill? Again, nobody is forcing you to have a gay marriage, and nobody (well, at least not me) is telling you that you can?t think gay marriage is wrong. But who are you and your Church to set the rules for all Americans, most of whom are not Catholics?

Again, all part of a democratic republic. Just understand that religion will always have an influence on government because the people who make the laws (for the most part) believe in some sort of God and/or religion. So the fact that Catholics believe that abortion is wrong may have an influence on whether or not abortions will be made legal or illegal by the government.

Religion is one source of societal wisdom, but good societal morals are built as much on social justice as on religious precepts.

I completely agree but as long as you understand that religion has an impact on morality (not the end-all, be-all that you translated myself to be) we can understand how get into this quagmire in the first place.

As for polygamy, I have to admit it concerns me. Even today, in the good ol? United States, polygamy is used as a weapon against young women by older men. An excellent, if shocking, book on the subject is Krakauer?s ?Under the Banner of Heaven.? Plural marriage is okay, perhaps, but unfortunately is often used as a means of abuse. If that were preventable, then there should be no impediment to plural marriage if all parties FULLY CONSENT. However, clearly it would be a complicated matter of law to sort out the details. Instead of wallowing in that particular hypothetical, though, let?s FOCUS, as Justin might say.

Just understand how your views can be taken advantage of to be turned into something it was never meant to be. You understand the concern I have on the slippery slope argument. It isnt about donkeys and kids and pet zibbras (although there is a major concern about animals and sex, not marriage... but thats a different argument for a different time).

Liberal, Justin, means that we examine our traditions and retain those that are valuable and protect ALL of our society, while improving the rest for the good of everybody. As a liberal, one of my guiding quotes is from Jesus (who was quite a radical leftist in his day): ?That which you do unto these, the least of mine, you do unto me.? I can respect tradition that provides value and insight into our life and history as people, but I have no use for traditions which are used to elevate the rights of some above the rights of all. The LEAST of mine, Justin, not the most.

Do understand that protecting the rights of ALL of our society is nearly impossible. Under that argument, then the slippery slope argument about animals comes back into play because then you are saying that we shouldnt deny someone the right to do what they want to do. Who are we to judge whether or not they know this or that? The point of it all is that at some point you have to say "no". If Jesus ran the country, as much as I love the man, we would have some problems because protecting the rights of all would mean critical impacts on the criminal justice department which include rapists and murders (dont take this to mean that gay people are on the same plane as rapists and murderers as some others have taken it to mean... just an example outside of gay rights).

Okay, Justin. Is race the same as sexual orientation? No, obviously not. But there are similarities. And oppression is one of those similarities. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never heard bigotry thrown their way. A coworker of mine, for example, who described his college experience by saying ?there are a lot of fags there I?d like to kill.? And such quotes are, unfortunately, not as rare as one might think or hope. As far as doing anything that you can do, not entirely true. In many states, it is more difficult for gay people to adopt, for them to attain or keep jobs if their orientation is known, get housing, etc. It is the sort of prejudice that conservatives are eager to preserve and codify as law, such as the Colorado law invalidated in Romer v. Evans. If marriage is the base of a family, are you saying that gay people shouldn?t be allowed to have families. If divorce has eroded it as you say, that is a different matter, and certainly can?t be blamed on gay people. And what better to revitalize marriage than fresh people who ARE committed to it and want to attain it?

See, here comes the question of whether or not being gay is a chioce again. What happens here is that being black or white is not something we have a choice over, garaunteed. Which means that a black person is definately a minority because he/she has no control over what they are. We can continue around in circles through this argument but the bottom line is this: some gay people chose to be gay and the government has to responsibility to fight for the rights of what people chose to be (please refer to my original concept about what "choosing" to be gay is about). Im not saying it is right to deny certain rights but that the government has no legal responsiblity to fight for something of this nature. I may feel oppressed because I chose a foreign, more expensive car over a cheaper, "home-made" product but it was something that I chose and not something I beg to the government to have rights for. Different circumstances, yes; but just understand the concept of government in this situation.

You are right in saying that conservatism isn?t communism in any way, but ultra-conservatism is fascism. Intriguing how you cite people with different opinions, but only those of people with a generally similar framework of ideals. Where does leave the rest of us? You talk about preserving what works and the traditions of one?s culture. Oppression has been the legacy of our culture for many groups over the years, from blacks to Native Americans to feminists and now to homosexuals. Are those the traditions you adore? And you say that these traditions work. For whom? For you, that?s who. What about the rest of us? As for myself, I would say that traditions of freedom, equality, and openness to all are central to the American identity, and while their application has been imperfect and sporadic over the years, they are nonetheless the highest moral imperatives of our nation. Don?t lecture me about who is and is not oppressed, though; you have no clue about what you say.

Dont start the argument that being ultra-conservative is being fascist. All that is going to do is piss me off. I am oppressed in more ways than one day in and day out. I have to crap about people calling me fascist (not talking about this conversation) and hate having to hear this BS. I hate hearing arguments based on oppression because any person here in this forum/room/country can make a great argument about how they are oppressed in everyday life. Oppression is just something that no matter how moral a country's values become, it will never go away. And I dont have any legal way to stop it. Same with you, I am sure. I dont understand what you go through everyday and I cant stop nor can government. We can give you rights which is what we want to do.

I know very few homosexuals who make that claim, Justin. How many gay people do you actually know? If the social stigma argument doesn?t sway you, I guess nothing will. But I?ll say it again, anyway. I would never choose to be gay, if only for the reason that I get tired of hearing the same old tirades from people like you. People are gay because that?s how they are ? whether genetic or environmental factors are at play, the fact that most people have their sexual orientation fixed even before puberty should tell you something. And even if some people *did* choose to be gay, why is that grounds to discriminate against them, just for the sake of argument. But seriously, Justin, what could I do to make you go gay? Nothing, of course. Just as nothing you do or say could make me become straight and start fantasizing about Vicki instead of Richard.

Do understand that different people have different perspectives. In my experiences, gay have "choosen" to be gay (again, reference my original concept). These are just the gay people that I know and these people have told me they dont want to get married. I understand that you are opposite of this view. So, dont go saying that every gay person is the same and that no one could make some one being gay because I actually think that in theory that is an incorrect notion. But again, my theory would require extaneous circumstances just as your theory that every gay person being the same would require extraneous circumstances.

Dear Justin, those posts don?t necessarily ADVOCATE polygamy, they simply ask, why not? A subtle distinction, to be sure., but important nonetheless. However, why don?t we stop with the name-calling that you scream about so often ? ?a liberal mind doesn?t se any boundaries.? Please. Can you not justify your arguments any other way than that? At least a liberal mind can think critically and expand beyond ?The Bible and my parents told me so. And gay is icky? Which is the essence of what many homophobes argue. The reason that liberals won?t fight to abandon age-of-consent laws is that it could demonstrably harm children. No liberal is in favor of that. We?re the party that fought child labor, after all.

Understand that previously you stated that liberal advocates equal rights for ALL... well, I dont know about you, but that would certainly be not setting any boundaries.

Also keep in mind that liberals under the ACLU are finding to allow public sexual acts in Oregon because they should have the right to do what they want. I could find numerous liberals that would probably be in favor of modifying the age-of-consent laws. In fact in California, when a teacher was charged with statitory rape of a 14-year old student, the ACLU was fighting for the teacher to be aquitted of the charges because the two consented (and latter on, got married and had children...). Dont live in a world you would assume that no person would dare do anything like that because they do similar acts day in and day out.

Do also remember that the democratic party was the one that publically voiced the opinion that if you are gay in the army, "Don't ask, don't tell." This is also the party that implemented Japanese internment camps during WWII. Do also remember that it was the republicans that abolished slavery. The point is that no party is perfect and saying that the democratic party is perfect is actually quite annoying because it shows a complete disregard for what failures ALL parties have gone through.

Ever heard of Nazis? Ever heard of Matthew Shepherd?s killers? Ever heard of the KKK? Abortion clinic bombers? Right-wingers all. For the record, I?ve never heard of organized gay people campaigning to kill or intimidate straight people. Seems to me like the people I just listed did, though. That tells me that we aren?t as far from that sort of organized violence breaking out. Hatred and the classification of whole groups of people as unworthy of equal rights can easily slide into violence, Justin. History is replete with examples. This one goes out to MPower to, who apparently has never heard of any of these cases, either.

Refer to the previous point: no party is perfect and if you think that the KKK, the Nazis, and abortion clinic bombers are supported by the right-wing then you are grossly misinterpreting the truth. It is the same argument that people that fight in the Jihad accurately represent the views of Islam. Well, hate to break it to you but they are not even close. So dont start saying that the KKK applies to every republican in the lot.

Overall, though, I do think that your views were very interesting and I commend you for taking the time to write up the essay. I think that we, for most important points, agree (except on the marriage point). I hope neither justin nor I discourage you from engaging further in peaceful discussion. I can accept peaceful discussion, but insulting discussion leads no where. Again, thank you for your input.

*Note: I didnt respond to each paragraph as some didnt apply to me, or I already covered the point you brought up.

 

[zenkidori]

Great post.

^x2

^x3

with that post this can probably be locked up now, haha.

 

[///M]

Just wanted to say that the great Republican party of the past that got rid of slavery is nothing like the monster that exists today.

You may have a couple of true conservatives in the wing, but the party is controlled by neo-Cons.