Gay Marriage thread

[Vudak]

Originally posted by storch
I think gay marriage is a perfect fit for europe.  that would put one more nail in the coffin of western culture and ideology.  

I'm taking your post a bit tongue in cheek.  If you were serious though, you really might want to take a look into some history books, specifically those dealing with Ancient Greece and Rome (you know, arguably the two main prototypes/models) of western culture.

In the Greek world, homosexuality, bisexuality, whatever, was considered a pretty natural thing.  Almost expected, certainly tolerated.

In the Roman world, there were, for sure, times when it was outlawed.  However, there were also times when there'd be gay emperors (think Hadrian).  

So really, I disagree with your statement that gay marriage would be another nail in the coffin of western culture and ideology.  Rather, I would say that it would be one more nail OUT of the coffin that was the Dark Ages.

[lazs2]

my guess is that the only people who will benifiet will be property settlement lawyers...

If it is good for lawyers then it is bad for us.

lazs

[Shuckins]

On the issue of whether or not gay-marriage should be sanctioned by the government I'm neither hot nor cold.

This might be off-topic slightly, but a short perusal of Google yields the following facts about the gay life-style that ought to give pause to anyone seriously considering adopting that life-style:

Members of a gay couple, or spousal arrangement, are nearly twice as likely as members of a straight couple to suffer some form of physical abuse.

Contrary to the trend in other areas of the world, the rate of HIV infection in the U.S. among the gay population is at 25%, far higher than in the heterosexual community.  Efforts to reverse this trend in the city of San Francisco have not been nearly as successful as those concerned with gay health issues had hoped.

Rates of infection by sexually-transmitted diseases, particularly Hepatitis A and B, are much higher in the gay community, due primarily to a reluctance on the part of members of that community to forego the practice of unprotected anal intercourse, and to widespread drub abuse involving the sharing of needles.  (The reluctance to give up the sharing of needles puzzles me, for the dangers of such use have been widely known for decades.)

A much greater prevalence of mental disturbance, often leading to suicide, which the gay-community attributes to the "hostility" of homophobes in American society.

[BluKitty]

Funny to see who the 'racists' are.

....or maybe they are just staying in charchter, trying to act like Nazi's?

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Shuckins
On the issue of whether or not gay-marriage should be sanctioned by the government I'm neither hot nor cold.

This might be off-topic slightly, but a short perusal of Google yields the following facts about the gay life-style that ought to give pause to anyone seriously considering adopting that life-style:

Members of a gay couple, or spousal arrangement, are nearly twice as likely as members of a straight couple to suffer some form of physical abuse.

Contrary to the trend in other areas of the world, the rate of HIV infection in the U.S. among the gay population is at 25%, far higher than in the heterosexual community.  Efforts to reverse this trend in the city of San Francisco have not been nearly as successful as those concerned with gay health issues had hoped.

Rates of infection by sexually-transmitted diseases, particularly Hepatitis A and B, are much higher in the gay community, due primarily to a reluctance on the part of members of that community to forego the practice of unprotected anal intercourse, and to widespread drub abuse involving the sharing of needles.  (The reluctance to give up the sharing of needles puzzles me, for the dangers of such use have been widely known for decades.)

A much greater prevalence of mental disturbance, often leading to suicide, which the gay-community attributes to the "hostility" of homophobes in American society.

One of the reasons the rate of HIV infection is so high amongst gays these days is that HIV has really lost much of it's "bite."  Many people see it as a manageable disability with the new drugs instead of the killer it truly is.  You can blame advertisements that show cowboy-looking gays "with" HIV for this, to some extent.

Also, though I don't claim it's a hereditary thing, I also wouldn't say that people necessarily "choose" to "adopt" the lifestyle.  Studies (yes, I know they may be biased, they're in my sociology textbook for crying out loud) have shown that there are four main "stages" to the process:

1.  Sensitization - usually pre-puberty, one becomes sensitive to the fact that they don't "fit in" with society's gender roles for their particular sex.

2.  Awareness - usually early adolescents, one becomes aware that their fantasies and/or desires may be considered homosexual.  Often, the person tries to repress or "cure" this by going out and having as much heterosexual sex as possible or going on anti-homosexual tirades, etc.

3.  Acceptance - usually late adolescents, one finally accepts their sexuality and are fairly happy about it.  A few close friends are told about the big "secret" (had to chuckle at that one)

4.  Commitment - post acceptance, the person's now fully out of the closet and openly commits self to their "new" lifestyle.  Everyone's told (perhaps for grandma's sake you leave her out) and you're totally committed to the fact that you're gay.

Now I'm not holding this up to be fact or the law of the land.  I'm just running them off quickly so those of you who's girlfriend never made them take "Marriage and the Family" in college will know what ideas are floating around out there.

Personally, from the few gay friends I have, this seems to pretty accurately describe their situations.  However, I don't know nearly enough gays to say this is representative of the majority.

[Debonair]

Its impossible to do a study without some bias, Heisenbeerg uncertainty principle, etc.
Take me for example.
I'm so handsome & attractive that when i looked into this, all the men were gay & none of the women were.
Every dog I've ever me has humped my leg, even hotdogs.
I was killed when three supermodels flinged themselves off a 6th floor balcony & landed on me

[lazs2]

Looking at it dispassionately.... We have to decide what it is that we want to achieve by the sanctioning of marriage.

Do we wish to reward behavior that is benificial to society by pairing up domestic partnerships only?

Or do we wish to reward parents who make the commitment to raise a child in marriage?

Do we think that heterosexual marriage is important enough to not marginalize it?  maybe marginalize is too strong a word?  "dillute" is certainly accurate tho.

The vast majority of the people in the U.S. are heterosexual... they simply do not want to be lumped in with gays on the marriage thing.

maybe the gays just need a new term to describe their domestic contract?

lazs

[Chairboy]

Lazs, when you talk about 'rewarding' behavior, it sounds as if you're suggesting that the government has an almost parental role in our society.  I'd like to suggest that the role of the government should be limited, not expanded.  Are your convictions on this subject changing?  Have you decided that the government should meddle more and not less?

[Curval]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Don't take every study and just assume it's right.  You have to look at the other studies they've performed.

Hilarious.

This from the same guy who wrote this:

"Because I was just taught that way. I was taught that Homosexuality is a choice, not something that happens by birth."

[Vudak]

Originally posted by lazs2
Looking at it dispassionately.... We have to decide what it is that we want to achieve by the sanctioning of marriage.

Do we wish to reward behavior that is benificial to society by pairing up domestic partnerships only?

Or do we wish to reward parents who make the commitment to raise a child in marriage?

Do we think that heterosexual marriage is important enough to not marginalize it?  maybe marginalize is too strong a word?  "dillute" is certainly accurate tho.

The vast majority of the people in the U.S. are heterosexual... they simply do not want to be lumped in with gays on the marriage thing.

maybe the gays just need a new term to describe their domestic contract?

lazs

Well, I don't know if what I'm about to say could be viewed as looking at it dispassionately, but, in my opinion, what I'd like to achieve by legalizing gay marriage is simply to ensure that yet another group of Americans are allowed the pursuit of happiness.  It's just one of those things I believe every American is entitled to.  And being told, "sorry fella, you can't marry who you love" kinda kills that pursuit.

I'd agree with you that if gays were ok with coming up with an alternative term to their domestic contract, things would be great.  However, I can also see how many would not want to do this on the basis that "seperate but equal" can't be equal.  And, given the two options here, I'm going to have to side with them.

[Shuckins]

Vucak, nice posts.

While I agree with you about everyone having the right to the pursuit of happines, in real life that right too often grates against the right to freedom of association, or perhaps, more correctly, the freedom to not associate with groups one finds to be objectionable.

I don't know if there is a solution to that conundrum, but I feel that it is the crux of the matter.

Regards, Shuckins

[Chairboy]

Which of these objections apply differently to interracial marriage?   Historically, there has been large scale public disapproval over the idea of people of different races marrying, especially in the United States.

Would their right to not associate with the objectionable behavior of interracial marriage qualify as a legit reason to ban said act?

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Shuckins


While I agree with you about everyone having the right to the pursuit of happines, in real life that right too often grates against the right to freedom of association, or perhaps, more correctly, the freedom to not associate with groups one finds to be objectionable.

I don't know if there is a solution to that conundrum, but I feel that it is the crux of the matter.

Well, I can definately see what you're saying.  But one's freedom to not associate with groups one finds to be objectionable won't change that much with a marriage.  I figure that if a gay couple is walking down the street holding hands or kissing or whatever, it doesn't really matter if they're dating or married, if you don't like that sort of thing you're going to find it objectionable either way.

Then again, you might be driving at that people would not like to associate with gays in a sense that we would all be part of the larger "married pool."  I can see that, but it's not really (IMO) much different then being part of the same "single pool" or "divorced pool" or even "human pool." The only real difference is a term.

Of course, for varying reasons, that term means an awful lot to some people.  Still, the term means alot to both sides.

[MotleyCH]

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Curval
Hilarious.

This from the same guy who wrote this:

"Because I was just taught that way. I was taught that Homosexuality is a choice, not something that happens by birth."

I am biased,  I make no illusions about it.

However, when a group comes out with a study saying that Homosexuality is hereditary, you have to look at the studies by them published previously.  Like if they publish studies showing that liberals are truly happier, or that the populace is healthier with universal health care programs, it calls the results of ANY STUDY into question.

While you might think I am exhaggerating, you'd be surprised how true this often is, for both sides.