Prop 8

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Yeah. well firstly your experience with some of your friends gives you no valid basis to make the assumptions you did. I asked for evidence, you friends aren't evidence. Sorry but a bit of a FAIL there. Opinion is not fact..

As for your lesbian mates forcing their child to be a lesbian....oh please. Clearly they were wholly inappropriate parents and did not deserve to have the child. However you CANNOT FORCE people to be gay, straight, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered or whatever else. Its just happens, some people are born gay, other straight, other bisexual. It not something you can teach or force onto someone.

quote>

So then I'll toss it back to you... where is your evidence that it is born? The last study I saw said there is no 'gay gene'. There have been several genome research studies coming to the same conclusion, so you're just left with your opinion. Fail, indeed. Fail yourself.quote>

I agree with manticore here, there's no evidence in a genetic cause for homosexuality. Everyone has a different personality, but it doesn't mean that they were born with it, the brain develops after being born, not only before, and not all causes are genetic.

There is no doubt that love attraction is carved in our genome. As some members pointed out, homosexual behaviour is not exclusive to humans, and the recent studies show that there are no special changes between straight and gay people.

 This, combined with the fact that there's nearly no genetic variation in the human population and that homosexuality appears in all ethnicities means that homosexuality is inside all genomes, it's not that there's a "gay" gene that appears only in some people, it's that gayness is inside all of us.

Now, that genetic character can be expressed or not, and we don't know how it works, becoming gay or may depend on environmental causes instead of pure genetics.

So yes, it is genetic, but we are all born with it.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Yeah. well firstly your experience with some of your friends gives you no valid basis to make the assumptions you did. I asked for evidence, you friends aren't evidence. Sorry but a bit of a FAIL there. Opinion is not fact..

As for your lesbian mates forcing their child to be a lesbian....oh please. Clearly they were wholly inappropriate parents and did not deserve to have the child. However you CANNOT FORCE people to be gay, straight, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered or whatever else. Its just happens, some people are born gay, other straight, other bisexual. It not something you can teach or force onto someone.

quote>

So then I'll toss it back to you... where is your evidence that it is born? The last study I saw said there is no 'gay gene'. There have been several genome research studies coming to the same conclusion, so you're just left with your opinion. Fail, indeed. Fail yourself.quote>

I didn't actually mention a "gay-gene".

I see it more to do with the hard-wiring in the brain and the various connections. Some people are just 'wired' in different ways. It all happens before birth while you're developing and only really starts to kick in once you go through puberty. Hence a lot of gay men come out in that time period. Growing sexual awareness stimulates that region of brain. Studies by UCLA, The British Institute of Psychiatry, American Psychological Association,

Not only research into the psychological but also into physiological differences.

Though...my opinion certainly wasn't based on what 'my friend' told me. But reading scientific material and coming to a conclusion. In addition to my own experiences and those of people I know. After taking all that into account I come a balanced and fair view and of course I have science to support me.

[fukuda 351]

Ah oops, sorry belfast, it's just that some people like using similar arguments to dismiss homosexuality as a "genetic disease"

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: fukuda Ah oops, sorry belfast, it's just that some people like using similar arguments to dismiss homosexuality as a "genetic disease"quote>

Yeah seen that, Cochran and Ewald being two

Load of bull...you seen the study, hilarious.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Oh would you look at that, gay stereotyping. Was wondering when we'd get to that. Whether sarcasm or not, really no need for it, unless you enjoy engaging in this topic with pre-pubescent maturity level. quote>

I was half engaging in my typical razor sharp sarcasm, half pre-emptively responding to the possible counterargument of what if one plays the mother role and the other plays the father role there, really.

And hey, stereotypes are the keystone of humor! There is very much a need for it. Unless you want to have a dull conversation with no laughs.

Lighten up and smile!

[Daryn07 0]

I like one of the conversations above. And I will simplify it for those of you talking about birth and genes. While I disagree with both, there is merit in both of them. Let me explain how I feel and just so we're clear people. I KNOW this is true for me and my partner and who knows for every one else gay or straight. No one is born gay. No one is born straight. It's not hereditary and you can't catch it. HOWEVER... just like my monogenic type 1 diabetes, the arrangement of of my genes doesn't constitute my disease (type 1 diab...) but they are the reason my chances for being diabetic were higher. SO in theory- there may be no gay/straight gene and therefore you're not born with it- but that doesn't mean your chances of being gay/straight a low or high. Your suseptibility to gay people/straight people, your mindset, your goals, your priorities- these can all dictate your sex-pref. And all of these are dictated by your genes.

As for prop 8 and the whole yes and no-

Personally some of us here love to play games of all genres. Some only simulation, others only RPGs. If we can stand in a room and talk about how much we love the look and feel of each others games... though different genres befit us... why is it so hard for people to see true equality and acceptance in life as well. If Christians want to call marriage their own, or any religion- they'd best deal with the freedom of letting their pastors marry ex-cons and murderers as apposed to some one of the same sex?!?!?!?!?!? The very fact that there are fourteen sins for homosexuals and three hundred and fifty (about) for heterosexuals is enough to say that when each scripture was written, no one wanted THEN to write about homosexuality. The fact that we- no longer kill our children when they disobey, refrain from eating pork or force our young men to be circumcised at the very least- IS PROOF ENOUGH to justify the falseness of such fourteen scriptures. No not a general lapse in world-wide faith, but a clearer mind and a larger heart. If hell is where I must lay, may I be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows I'm dead. Obviously I've struggled with my faith over the years. I love God very much and I don't believe for a second that with the insight and power to create the world in seven days- the lord would retain a distaste for his children on the basis of who they sleep with or love. God sees much greater differences... but we only have our eyes.

Oh and don't give me the "He doesn't have a distaste for any one. He just made it a sin to be gay and you've sinned. But he still loves you." So it comes down to my sins being the only basis for the opposal to same-sex marriage and the standing force in which it was turned into a vote- Separation of church and state. You can't use religion in this one. The reliogious have rights- rights that made this country... which is why homosexuality and gay marriage is SOOOO blown out of proportion. I am so done ranting now lmfao. SORRY Forum gods!!!

-Daryn

[fukuda 351]

I like one of the conversations above. And I will simplify it for those of you talking about birth and genes. While I disagree with both, there is merit in both of them. Let me explain how I feel and just so we're clear people. I KNOW this is true for me and my partner and who knows for every one else gay or straight. No one is born gay. No one is born straight. It's not hereditary and you can't catch it. HOWEVER... just like my monogenic type 1 diabetes, the arrangement of of my genes doesn't constitute my disease (type 1 diab...) but they are the reason my chances for being diabetic were higher. SO in theory- there may be no gay/straight gene and therefore you're not born with it- but that doesn't mean your chances of being gay/straight a low or high.quote>

I get you're talking about genetic propensity to develop homosexuality, why not? There's nothing convincing found about it yet but it might be the case. I'm sure that you know that having genetic propensity doesn't mean that you'll become homosexual, just that your chances are increased. I didn't include this in my original post because it after all doesn't imply that there is a given gene (or an arrangement) that will turn you directly into a homosexual.

Your suseptibility to gay people/straight people, your mindset, your goals, your priorities- these can all dictate your sex-pref. And all of these are dictated by your genes.quote>

Hmm so here we enter in the dangerous domain of the Nature versus Nurture debate! Your mindset and personality can be influenced in a limited way by your genes, indeed, but environment plays a huge role too. You can't predict someone's personality just by looking at his genotype, it might give you a faint idea about it, but environment could have turned that person in a completely different personality.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Daryn07:

It appears that you have done the same thing so many other 'religious' people do with the Bible; cherry-pick which Scriptures they want to believe, and disregard the rest. It's self-deception in my opinion, and deliberately ignores Christ's own words.

(edit: The Mosaic Law, [like circumcision, prohibition of pork, etc.] was fulfilled by Christ's propitiation, and does not apply to Christians. The sacrifice has been made, ending the various rituals that were previously called for. That is why the curtain in the Holy of Holies was torn at the Crucifixion; the separation between man and God was ended.)

It's hard to discuss w/o pissing people off, so please understand my viewpoint; I have gone through this struggle myself. I turned my back on homosexuality years ago, and found that it can be done successfully. Over time, it became much easier. The only reason I did so was my belief in Christ (not just a generic God). It was a long hard road, but I can promise you there is life on the other side. I am now happily married to someone who, for her own reasons, intimately understands what I went through with this issue.

So, again, I don't want to upset those who disagree... I'm just following Paul's direction to speak the truth in love. But I am duty bound to speak the truth.

[miguelkuk 109]

I can't believe what I'm reading!!!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[threeswept 12]

Though this topic keeps working around to the religious aspect, I should reiterate that we Californians were bombarded with the idea that not passing Prop 8 would allow teaching of homosexuality in schools. Children were used in commercials and in flyers to mislead the masses into something different than what the actual law was meant to do - ban gay marriage. In the end, the pro-8 side won...but, it was based on teaching homosexuality to 2nd graders, not based on religion. Out of the 13-15 flyers I received on my door in support of Prop 8, ZERO said anything about religion. ALL of them either had verbage about children or showed a picture of a child (exploitation of a minor) to sway the voter.

[ricb 19]

What bothers me here is two things. First, the religious argument against gay marriage is one of "if you allow gay marriage you are interfering with our religion." How? That is a bunch of theocratic bunk! The second and more important thing that bothers me is the obsession with the physical sex act. All of those who object to gay rights do so based on the physical side of love. In other words they define all homosexuals by their sex life. Would any of you like having your lives defined by how often and how you have sex? Yes I realize that there are some (both gay and straight) who do so. But most of us see life as being much more than that. Both of my sisters are in committed same-sex relationships. One is raising her eleven year old daughter, who is a very happy well adjusted, and very smart child. I doubt very much that either would define themselves by how they have sex. As to the genetic argument, I think it's irrelevant.

[miguelkuk 109]

People keep saying that it's the act of homosexuality they condemn and not the sexual preference itself. If this is the case it is irrelevant to target their bigotry towards homosexuals. Bisexuals and heterosexuals can and have homosexual sex too, so how can one separate ones from the others? This just goes to show how ridiculous this argument is...

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: threeswept Though this topic keeps working around to the religious aspect, I should reiterate that we Californians were bombarded with the idea that not passing Prop 8 would allow teaching of homosexuality in schools. Children were used in commercials and in flyers to mislead the masses into something different than what the actual law was meant to do - ban gay marriage. In the end, the pro-8 side won...but, it was based on teaching homosexuality to 2nd graders, not based on religion. Out of the 13-15 flyers I received on my door in support of Prop 8, ZERO said anything about religion. ALL of them either had verbage about children or showed a picture of a child (exploitation of a minor) to sway the voter.quote>

Hmm I have a question there, what does "teaching of homosexuality in schools" mean there?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I am a firm believer in civil rights, no matter what I think of the right being requested.  I could care less if some guy wants to marry his boyfriend, or some girl wants to have a wife.  It is not my business, just like it is not anyone's business what they do in the bedroom.quote>

That's the part that gets me.   It is no one's business what consenting adults do in private.   If we are talking about non-consenting, non-adult, or not in private, I can see where the rest of us could, and should, interfere.

I never did understand the need to tell other people how to run their lives.   I do subscribe to the "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" theory.  but, basically, I think most people should just be left alone.

[Danlikebooks 6]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: threeswept Though this topic keeps working around to the religious aspect, I should reiterate that we Californians were bombarded with the idea that not passing Prop 8 would allow teaching of homosexuality in schools. Children were used in commercials and in flyers to mislead the masses into something different than what the actual law was meant to do - ban gay marriage. In the end, the pro-8 side won...but, it was based on teaching homosexuality to 2nd graders, not based on religion. Out of the 13-15 flyers I received on my door in support of Prop 8, ZERO said anything about religion. ALL of them either had verbage about children or showed a picture of a child (exploitation of a minor) to sway the voter.quote>

Hmm I have a question there, what does "teaching of homosexuality in schools" mean there?quote>

My uncle in LA saw one of these ads about kids being taught homosexuality.  Basically, they were trying to sway my uncle to vote for prop 8 by scaring him by saying that homosexuality would be taught in schools.

Not only is this stupid, its incorrect.

Just because homosexuality would legal, it doesn't mean that it will be taught in schools.  Its just legal now.

And plus, so what if it were taught in schools.  People using the argument that "children are innocent and need to be protected from everything" need to rethink that (my parents brought out the books when I was four, just saying) argument.  Kids at my school were cracking dirty jokes in the 3rd grade (not that most of them understood them).  So if at school, the teachers teaches for five or ten minutes that Bill and Bob can be together, is there something wrong with that?

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: DanlikebooksSo if at school, the teachers teaches for five or ten minutes that Bill and Bob can be together, is there something wrong with that?quote>

Of course not.

Thanks for your reply. It seems that our children are being taught homosexuality in our schools *shock/horror*  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

With the chorus of "homophobia!" coming from many here, I will point out, it doesn't work on me. The epithet of choice simply doesn't apply, you'll have to rethink your easy propaganda dismissals.

So...

What people do in their bedrooms is their own business, but people don't get married in their bedroom. They get married by the authority of the state, which takes this supposedly private matter and throws it into the public arena. If you parade your personal business in a courtroom, you cannot claim it to be private.

Should incestuous marriages also be allowed, then? If you open the gates, you must let everything through. No discrimination means NO discrimination.

I did some digging around. Just to be fair and genuine to others in this thread, I skipped over the extremes and tried to cut down the middle.

Frank Turek's column on townhall.com:

            Why not legalize same-sex marriage?  Who could it possibly hurt?  Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage. 

            He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.” 

            How so?

            The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.              

            So what?

            People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents.  Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy. 

            Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist?  No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.

            Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”

            But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries.  International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.

            You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!”  Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse?  You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!). 

---

and this snippet from, of all places, the San Francisco Sentinel, from an article entitled 'The Jewish case against gay marriage"  (http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=17892)

Gay marriage would still harm the meaning of marriage in society if gay infidelity was private. However, many gay couples are quite open about their mutually approved “adultery.” Last summer, after I wrote an opinion piece about this problem in the San Francisco Chronicle, I received more than a dozen letters from gays and lesbians defending their right to define marriage as a non-exclusive relationship. One of these letters was so brazen, it’s worth quoting at length. Like the others, it was signed by name (Richard Dupler of Oakland, California):

“I’ve been with my partner 10.5 years… We have not been sexually exclusive, ever. The relationship has been open, and honest, from the start.

“We are getting married August 17, and I doubt seriously that the sexual part of our relationship will change. Just because we’re calling it marriage, doesn’t mean we have to conform to widespread ideals and beliefs about marriage, we only have to follow the law. What works for some likely doesn’t work for others.

“This freedom to marry, which we take very seriously, should also mean we are free to define that marriage the way we see fit.”

---

I could go on, but there's always temporal and spatial limitations. There are bona fide reasons for nonbigots to oppose same-sex marriage. It doesn't make them religious zealots who want to ruin your fun. Quite the opposite; they are attempting to preserve our culture for the benefit of everyone... not just those who want everything their own way while blindly ignoring the facts.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

            He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”  quote>

I always found this interesting that people, like this writer, say that.  Marriage has always been different throughout history and cultures.  It's been everything from man/woman, like most are now.  It's been polygamous, mostly with a man with many wives but in some cases with a woman with many husbands.  It's been a political arrangement.  It's been an economical arrangement. 

Throughout history, the definition of marriage has always been fluid.

 

           The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.               quote>

In everything I've ever read about history, I've never heard anything that said that marriage was about children.  It's not even always been about coupling.  Historically speaking, all that is recent.

         

           Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist?  No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage. quote>

I fail to see how this proves a connection.  It's probably many factors that cause this to happen.

 

 

          You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!”  Yes, but often it does.quote>

True.  But you have to prove causation for anyone to take it seriously.  Otherwise, it's just a bunch of suppositions.

---

and this snippet from, of all places, the San Francisco Sentinel, from an article entitled 'The Jewish case against gay marriage"  (http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=17892)

Gay marriage would still harm the meaning of marriage in society if gay infidelity was private. However, many gay couples are quite open about their mutually approved “adultery.”

“I’ve been with my partner 10.5 years… We have not been sexually exclusive, ever. The relationship has been open, and honest, from the start.quote>

Not my kind of relationship personally, but if that's what they want, go for it.  Who am I to meddle?  There are lots of different types of relationships.  Incest is illegal because of what health problems it causes in offspring.  Hence it should be illegal.  Nothing has ever been remotely proven regarding same sex marriage and the downfall of society.  And it's likely that nothing ever will be.

ISF

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Zelgadis 

  Incest is illegal because of what health problems it causes in offspring.  Hence it should be illegal. 

quote>

But you also say:

In everything I've ever read about history, I've never heard anything that said that marriage was about children. quote>

Hmmm. Good job taking both sides of an issue.

So if both parties are sterilized, there should be no legal grounds for opposing it? Again, the slippery slope is invoked.

[PhantomOwl 3]

You know, when you say that your desire to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples stems not from your homophobia, but rather from a desire to protect the sanctity of marriage and to provide a “proper” environment for child development, what you are really saying is that the romantic relationship that I conduct with my boyfriend is somehow worth less that the ones that you conduct with members of the opposite sex, and that somehow my future husband and I will be unable to provide a loving environment for our children. That sweeping assumption that you make about my relationship is based solely on the fact that it is between two members of the same gender.

If you take a step back and look at our history with a wide view, it’s easy to see that the American story is all about erasing artificial barriers based on external factors, including race, religion, and gender. The founding fathers established our great nation on the notion that all human beings are fundamentally equal, and because of that fundamental equality, should be afforded the same legal rights and responsibilities as everyone else. Of course, they were flawed in their execution of that ideal by applying it only to white males, and it has been the work of generations to remedy that mistake.

And now, I think we’re at a point at which that dream of fundamental equality is almost realized. If you go over the laws of our country, you will find no instance where one group: blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, men, or women, are afforded any extra rights over any other group. It is the promise of America, that no matter what external differences you may have, you will be legally treated as everyone’s equal.

That is, unless you’re gay. In almost every state, there is a statute or constitutional amendment that states that marriage is only defined between a man and a woman, and that people cannot marry someone of the same sex. The law, in this case, is not gender neutral. Rather, it discriminates on the basis of gender. This is unacceptable.

When I go with my significant other to the courthouse for a marriage license, the state should not see two men asking for that license. Nor should is see a man and a woman walking up to the window when a heterosexual couple applies for one. The state, which should not discriminate on the basis of gender, should only see two individuals, two citizens, two human beings applying to marry. If the genders are to be truly equal before the law, if all people are to be treated justly, then we must work to ensure marriage equality.

Now, the opposition may say that gay relationships “hurt children” and “result in incest.” After all, the fundamental difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples is that heterosexual couples can naturally produce children and homosexual couples cannot.

I happen to think that I’d make a good parent; I do well with my younger relatives, and I look forward to the day when I will be able to settle down and have children. While my future husband and I will not be able to have a child that is genetically related to both of us, it is possible to proceed with either surrogacy, or in most of the country, adoption. Despite a different mechanics of reproduction, there is no difference in the loving environment that a stable relationship that heterosexual and homosexual couples provide for child rearing. To insist that there exists such a difference is to imply that men and women are fundamentally unequal, a notion that I believe we are far beyond as a society. As for the incest question, society doesn’t permit incest for a number of reasons, not only genetic errors that result in offspring. Incestuous relationships are unhealthy because they are abuses by a person with power (an older sibling or parent). Incest is seldom consensual, and usually results in the subordination of the victim into a role that he or she is unwilling and should not comply to. Because it is a violation of the rights of the victim, we criminalize incestuous relationships, and will never, ever, grant them the recognition of marriage. Additionally, putting the same sex relationship that I have with my boyfriend on the same moral plane as that of incest is not only insulting, but it reveals that your understanding of same sex relationships is poor at best. This is also evidenced by the stereotype you bring up that gay men are unfaithful. I have never been unfaithful, nor do I ever intend to be; I value the trust and companionship of whomever I’m in a relationship with too much. And it’s true, many homosexual and heterosexual couples are in open relationships. They do not, however, represent the majority, and their behavior is their own prerogative, and not reason to deny a whole group the right to marry.

     

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

It's hard to discuss w/o pissing people off, so please understand my viewpoint; I have gone through this struggle myself. I turned my back on homosexuality years ago, and found that it can be done successfully. Over time, it became much easier.quote>

Just because you were able to 'turn your back' on homosexuality, does not mean you should except others to be willing and able to do the same.  You chose your religion over your sexuality, clearly, for you, the conflict between the two meant you could otherwise not live a fulfilled life. But by saying that people should be forced to conform to your expectations, you would be denying them a fulling and happy life, something which you were able to do because other people accepted the choice you made. Just as it was your right to choose your religion over your sexuality to achieve a fulling life, it is others' right to choose to marry the partner they love to achieve a fulling life.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama [text]quote>

I never said I expected anyone to do anything, I was simply putting my point of view into context, as others do all the time.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama [text]quote>

I never said I expected anyone to do anything, I was simply putting my point of view into context, as others do all the time.quote>

My apologies if this is incorrect, but I got the impression that you supported prop 8.

[sedimenjerry 1]

(Taken from page 490 of "Psychology 8th ed." by David G. Myers)

Quote by Simon leVay, "The Sexual Brain"

"Gay men simply don't have the brain cells to be attracted to women"

and on page 491 from a table

"One hypothalamic cell cluster is larger in straight males than in women and gay males."

"Anterior commissure is larger in gay men than in women or straight men."

"Gay men's hypothalamus reacts as does a woman's to the smell of sex-related hormones."

Just some food for thought.

Hope this clears some things up.

[fukuda 351]

Maybe the sensible action to take for this whole discussion would be for marriage to be removed from government control altogether. Establish State-sanctioned civil unions and eliminate the term "marriage" from law. Then, if someone wants to get married, leave it up to their church to recognize it or not. Then anyone can be civilly united, but marriage would have no legal basis. We already have situations where the church does not recognize a divorce, but it does not prevent either party from re-marrying under the State. Big whoop. quote>

Totally agreed

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: PhantomOwl

And now, I think we’re at a point at which that dream of fundamental equality is almost realized. If you go over the laws of our country, you will find no instance where one group: blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, men, or women, are afforded any extra rights over any other group. Well, history shows plenty of examples where whites were favored over blacks. quote>

Not quite.  There is the issue of voting rights, for instance.  At first, only white men could vote.  That was expanded to include black men and then expanded to include women.  And then there were the Jim Crow laws.

 

It is the promise of America, that no matter what external differences you may have, you will be legally treated as everyone’s equal. quote>

Yes, that is the promise of America to treat everyone as legal equals.  But, as you point out, we are still working to live up to that ideal.

    

As for the incest question, society doesn’t permit incest for a number of reasons, not only genetic errors that result in offspring. Incestuous relationships are unhealthy because they are abuses by a person with power (an older sibling or parent). Incest is seldom consensual, and usually results in the subordination of the victim into a role that he or she is unwilling and should not comply to. Because it is a violation of the rights of the victim, we criminalize incestuous relationships, and will never, ever, grant them the recognition  of marriage.   quote>

You are assuming adult / child incest.  That is not the only kind.

I used to work with a guy whose parents are first cousins.  This guy has more physical, mental, and emotional problems than anyone else I know.   I’m not trying to be mean when I say that he is the best argument I know of as to why first cousins shouldn’t have kids.

 

Originally posted by: manticorefan

So if both parties are sterilized, there should be no legal grounds for opposing it[incest]? Again, the slippery slope is invoked. quote>

If both parties are sterilized, what is the problem with related, consenting adults marrying?  I’ll admit I think it’s rather icky for adult relatives to marry each other but, as long as they are not endangering children, how is it my business?   And that guy I was talking about would be quite insulted to be told that, legally, he shouldn’t exist.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

           Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist?  No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.quote>

quote>

So the question becomes why is the illegitimacy rate in Norway rising?   We don’t know about all of Norway, just about the “most liberal county”.   The initial rate – 39 percent – sounds high to begin with so we are talking about a group that already wasn’t too concerned about it.

An important factor, imho, is the medical / social safety nets in Norway.  I don’t know the details but Norway does have some form of nationalized health care.  Before you scoff at that, consider the fact that many Americans get married, stay married, or keep their jobs in partly (notice that I said, partly) to get or keep health care coverage.  

One of the reasons for the high divorce rate in America today is that many women have found that life is easier without their husbands.  She finds herself overwhelmed with the demands on her time.  She doesn’t want to give up her kids or her job (she needs that to feed the kids).  In many cases (in my generation at least) the husband isn’t doing much to take the load of work off her shoulders; instead he is adding to it.  So he becomes the expendable factor.

If you take that equation and put it into a society where the medical / social network is such that people are going to be taken care of anyway, the incentive to get / stay married is further reduced.  Whether the guys down the street are married or not.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Maybe the sensible action to take for this whole discussion would be for marriage to be removed from government control altogether. Establish State-sanctioned civil unions and eliminate the term "marriage" from law. Then, if someone wants to get married, leave it up to their church to recognize it or not. Then anyone can be civilly united, but marriage would have no legal basis. We already have situations where the church does not recognize a divorce, but it does not prevent either party from re-marrying under the State. Big whoop.quote>

 Works for me.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Zelgadis 

  Incest is illegal because of what health problems it causes in offspring.  Hence it should be illegal. 

quote>

But you also say:

In everything I've ever read about history, I've never heard anything that said that marriage was about children. quote>

Hmmm. Good job taking both sides of an issue.

So if both parties are sterilized, there should be no legal grounds for opposing it? Again, the slippery slope is invoked.

quote>

Both parties sterilized?  Well, I would still find it weird, but I wouldn't be against it. 

This isn't taking both sides of the issue.  Marriage (generally) has never been about children, but there are a few very specific instances where the child's well-being is taken into account.  There really is no debate that incestuous relationships have a much, much higher chance of producing children with severe genetic problems.  As for gay parents raising children, most reputable studies suggest that there is little difference between raising a child with straight parents or gay parents.  Assuming that the story you told before about the lesbian parents is true, they would simply be bad parents, not reflective of gay parents in general.

In modern times, marriage is primarily a kind of promise between couples.  Children are secondary to that.  Even where a marriage doesn't exist between two people who have a child, both parents still have rights.  Marriage really doesn't change that.  If two gay people were to adopt, it would be the same thing.  Both have rights.  (Well, in some states and some countries anyway) 

My conclusion:  Marriage isn't about children.  The rights of parents and children mostly exist outside of marriage.

What it is about is fairness.

I am in an international relationship and have been so for almost 8 years.  I am American.  My boyfriend is Japanese.  Since immigration law in the US is national, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) specifically prevents my boyfriend from living in the US with me. 

So what do we do?  Essentially, the US government says, "Sorry about your luck, but you can't be together."

Gee, thanks.

So I did what I had to do.  I got my Master's Degree and used that in order to apply for permanent residency in Canada, a country that does allow gay couples to immigrate together.  I was fortunate that my BF could come to the US on a student visa so that we could establish the requisite residency.  It took the better part of 6 months to get all the paperwork in order and an additional two and a half years of waiting!  During that time, we didn't live together because he couldn't stay in the US for that long.  For two and a half years, except for one visit, we were separated, with e-mail and telephone as the only link between us.  Two and a half years of our lives flushed down the toilet.  Two and a half years of crying myself to sleep.  And one incident where my BF was interrogated for 7 hours by US immigration authorities because he accidentally let it slip that he was coming to the US to visit his boyfriend!  (I don't know the details.  He still won't talk about it...)

Now we're in Canada.  Great place, Canada.    But make no mistake about it.  I didn't "leave" the US.  I was kicked out.  When your own government essentially tells you to choose between your country and the love of your life, that's what it amounts to. 

As for "marriage," frankly, I don't care what it's called.  Call it potatoes.  I really don't care.  Just let my BF and I live together in peace, and visit each other when we're sick in the hospital, etc.  Is there something so wrong with that?

ISF