Gay Marriage

[Dean]

One of the big issues of the day here in the U.S. is gay marriage. I am not gay, but I find it strange and amusing that people who oppose gay marriage want to meddle in the affairs of two consenting adults whose legal commitment to one another harms nobody.

People use religion to justify prohibition of gay marriage. I like to stir things up at work, to shake up the dull politically correct atmosphere. The other day we at work were in a heated argument about gay marriage. Most people, even known liberals, echoed the conservative view that gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage as defined by religion. My reply was that we must follow the paragon of marriage, the Roman Catholic clergy, who are involved in an ongoing child sexual abuse scandal and paid millions if not billions of dollars in child sexual abuse settlements--not to mention that the priesthood isn't allowed to marry.

Another argument at work was that tolerance of homosexuality promotes homosexuality, that acceptance of homosexuality as normal makes people gay. This is the most ignorant argument I've heard in a long time. Gays as a rule are born gay; it's in the physiology. People don't choose to whom they are sexually attracted. Gays existed in all eras. Who would choose to be gay in an intolerant society?

Another coworker said what's next, a man marrying a donkey? A great comeback to this was, is the donkey capable of signing a consent form?

I personally take great pleasure in the indignation of religious conservatives in the U.S., who I oppose almost categorically.

[Melnorme]

If I was American, I think my opinion on this subject would be summed up quite nicely here :

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12348

[dandan]

Gay marriage? I thought all marriage was gay.

[Artemisia]

This problem is causing as much controversy in the US right now as Gibson's "Passion" (has anyone seen it, by the way?)

I am not gay myself but I have no problem with other people's sexual orientation. I believe that there were and will always be homosexual/bisexual people as well as heterosexual. I'd suggest that all people read Plato's Symposium and Aristophanes' speech in it about this issue.

As for marriage......what IS marriage anyway? Why not call it a civil union? I personally dislike the fact that the church has to get involved in people's sexual preferences. However, with that having been said, marriage is a cultural term more than anything else. I would support gay people having all the rights straight couples have (e.g., adopting children, making health decisions, inheriting) but I'm still not sure whether marrying two people of the same sex is a good idea in cultural terms. I think it's too early for this to happen. After all, most people have only now begun to accept the fact that two men (or women) CAN be in love without calling it a sin.

[galvez]

Homosexuality will always be around because nature produces individuals with homosexual tendencies beyond their control, as well as individuals who are able to adapt to the homosexual lifestyle.

The government should not prevent two consenting adults from doing what they want to do. However, marriage is a social institution and is designed for a man and a woman. Marriage has been a bedrock of American life, bringing order to society. This is not an institution that social activists should sully due to their own personal issues and need for assurances from the larger society as to their being "normal."

As David Horowitz has hinted in the article cited by Melnorme, there seems to be a trend toward liberalization, but the gay rights activists might be pushing things a little too fast and aggressively for their own good, possibly stifling the progress they have made. There is a tendency for society to lash out when liberal changes come too fast. The gay rights movement could thus pay a price for its aggressiveness in the form of a social backlash.

The homosexuals should figure out that they do not need the institution of marriage -- which was designed for a man and a woman -- to gratify themselves and live their lives in peace. What they want, however, is more than mere gratification and the liberty to do what they wish behind closed doors. They want to mold opinions -- to make homosexuality seem "normal." They want to live their lives without stigma. They want the legitimacy that heterosexuals have.

I am not so sure this liberal train can keep on running in the direction it is headed indefinitely. While liberalization is often framed in terms of "progress," it is often a sign of decadence from a society lacking proper social constraints. [1]


[1] The gay rights crusaders seem to be far more problematic in Northern European as opposed to Southern European countries. The U.S. is largely of Northern European and non-European stock, so the virulence and strength of the gay rights movement should not come as a surprise.

[Dienekes]

Homosexuality is abnormal. The normal male instinct is to get sexually aroused by women. Homosexuals are not aroused by women, so they have an abnormal behavior. I parallelize it to the inability to feel heat or cold in your hand: the normal human response is to feel heat or cold, and we would definitely think of someone who cannot do so as having a problem.

I do not however believe in compulsion. Medical science should be involved in helping homosexuals who want to overcome their problem, but should not compel those who do not. Medical science turns functioning men to women with sex-change operations, so I don't know why it shouldn't try to cure homosexuality for those who want to be cured. However, the PC establishment abhors the idea that homosexuality is a problem.

[AWAR]

Dienekes said:

I do not however believe in compulsion. Medical science should be involved in helping homosexuals who want to overcome their problem, but should not compel those who do not. Medical science turns functioning men to women with sex-change operations, so I don't know why it shouldn't try to cure homosexuality for those who want to be cured. However, the PC establishment abhors the idea that homosexuality is a problem.

Actually, I've read an article a few years back about a clynic that specialized in curing people from homosexuality. Apparently, they used the most modern scientific and psychologuc methods to revert the patients to heterosexuality, and with ( if I rmember correctly ) above 80% success!

Soon, the clinic was shut down by 'gay rights' activists who used their lobby powers.

[Dean]

Artemisia said:

As for marriage......what IS marriage anyway? Why not call it a civil union? I personally dislike the fact that the church has to get involved in people's sexual preferences. However, with that having been said, marriage is a cultural term more than anything else. I would support gay people having all the rights straight couples have (e.g., adopting children, making health decisions, inheriting) but I'm still not sure whether marrying two people of the same sex is a good idea in cultural terms. I think it's too early for this to happen. After all, most people have only now begun to accept the fact that two men (or women) CAN be in love without calling it a sin.

I think it was political philosopher David Hume who wrote that two ships can pass each other without colliding (something like that). What he means is that ships are like people. The sea is wide, and if two people do not collide, or more appropriately, if two people respect each other and do not do things that are prone to collision, let them be. This is called tolerance, and this is the foundation of civilization and the very reason for civil rights and constitutions--to protect the minority from the majority.

The Dienekes analogy doesn't work for me. The abnormal health condition is a problem because it is bad for the sufferer. If people are gay and content with their sexuality, it may be abnormal (numerically) but it's only a problem to those who oppose it. Many things are abnormal. Left-handed guitar players are abnormal; most guitar players are right-handed. So what. Why don't we try to cure all abnormality. I've always thought that shrimp-eaters (swimming insects) are abnormal and in need of medical cure.

I work two jobs. The boss of my part-time job is gay. He is a sweet, caring human being who has always been fair to me. I consider him a dear friend. He is in a romantic relationship with another male adult. I assure you that I am secure in my heterosexuality and in no way can or has this relationship hurt me. By the way, he is not a PC ultraliberal, and neither am I.

The medical profession is far beyond labelling homosexuality as abnormal or an illness. I don't believe in these bogus homosexuality "cures". This smacks of ultraconservative religious nonsense.

As much as I support the right of two consenting adults to enter a legal partnership, I support the right of private institutions to reject gay marriages. If any religious body refuses to honor gay unions or marriages, they may do so. If you are a religious figure or a parishioner, close your door to this.

I once had a homophobic and misogynistic friend. This guy mentally and sometimes physically abused his girlfriends, and he told another friend and me that he'd rather take a bullet than a dick. Ironically, he was shot once in the abdomen and survived. Anyway, this guy led us to believe that he had a "normal" job. He used to come around with hundreds of dollars and say he walked dogs and did pet-sitting for a living. We had no reason to doubt him. A gay friend of mine, another guy, told me he thought he saw this guy dancing at a gay bar. I said, no way, he must have been mistaken. One day my non-gay friend and I decided to bust this guy in the act. We went into the gay bar and lo and behold, our friend was dancing on the stage with nothing on but a G-string and cowboy boots! How gay! The queen's indignation was embarrassing and funny. I couldn't even lift my head to face him. I had my head down almost the whole time, practically choking with laughter. If this guy was a nice person and honest, I don't think I would have mocked him. This bi-sexual's long-time girlfriend bears the brunt of his cruelty and is at serious risk of getting an HIV infection.

I'll tell you this, I work in a welfare office. I can't tell you how much fraud the taxpayers are exposed to and how ill-equipped we are to handle this fraud because there are few workers and so many people on welfare. I can't tell you how many bogus documents I've seen--fake rent receipts, falsely completed applications (omitting the fathers of the children) and the like. This is a joke. Some communities are swamped with multiple-absent-father households on welfare, and this behavior is unfair to those who are responsible and who pay against their will or knowledge. When things don't look right on paper or at the interview, I'm one of the very few caseworkers who make home visits. I've nailed some of these liars, but these people almost always get back on assistance because of the strong presence of welfare advocacy groups and the lack of further fraud investigation. Many people on welfare couldn't give a rat's ass that taxpayers are supporting their irresponsible breeding habits, and many think that welfare is an entitlement. This bothers me a hell of a lot more than gay marriages. I don't mind helping poor people, and I love helping sick people, but I was raised by poor Greek immigrants who didn't ask for anything and worked like animals. Did it kill my father that he only fathered children with one woman and worked whatever job he could and saved money and opened businesses, sleeping on restaurant floors and laying on the floor all day, covered in grime, fixing laundry machines? Here is another irony: most if not all of the anti-gay-marriage workers with whom I argued support almost indiscriminate expenditure of tax dollars on social programs, while I am the anti-PC conservative element, saying that much stronger barriers to abuse and fraud should be erected and enforced.

But in all seriousness the only cure for homosexuality is an old-fashioned exorcism--with special effects and pea-soup vomit.

Artemisia, what does "cultural terms" mean? A healthy society is comprised of sub-cultures, even if its of one nationality. If you don't like one sub-culture, and this sub-culture gets a right that has no more effect on you than it did before it got the right, simply ignore it. One need not ever support homosexuality--for himself or herself. This is the cornerstone of civilization.

[Dean]

Artemisia said:

This problem is causing as much controversy in the US right now as Gibson's "Passion" (has anyone seen it, by the way?)

I saw "The Passion" tonight with some of my coworkers. Jesus' murder was horrible, but no more horrible than the tortures and deaths of other people who sacrificed their lives for the betterment of humanity. I personally have not one, but many saviors.

I thought I would see a theater full of religious fervor and tears, but few wept or cried out that I could see or hear. The loudest weeper was my coworker who sat next to me.

I want to believe that Jesus taught about love and God in a way that was over the heads of many people. Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man and said the only way to God is through him. I want to believe that Jesus meant God is unconditional love, and love is accomplished on earth in this life. I want to believe that heaven is unconditional love fulfilled. I do not accept that God is a omnipotent being, "the Man Upstairs", or spirit in the sky that made everything and knows everything, like many people believe and believed. Nor do I believe in an afterlife. Did Jesus share in our superstitions, or was he above them? It seemed he too was desperate for a supreme being to deliver us from our evils. I love when Jesus said forgive them for they know not what they do, lamenting the absolute ignorance of evil.

Jesus set the bar impossibly high.

[Artemisia]

In most cases, "abnormal" is defined as something that is statistically rare. Homosexual people make up at least 5-10% of society, if not more, therefore they are not an abnormality. Every society has them.

A question to Dienekes: Do you consider "passive" homosexuality abnormal or all kinds of homosexual behavior, including bisexuality?

[Satyros]

When a society reaches the point to discuss if homosexual marriage is a good thing or a bad thing, then this society is in decay. The same with phenomena like the serial killers madness, the celebrities world mania, etc.

Do the PATHETIC STUPID humanoids who suggest it would be "OK" for a gay "couple" to adopt and raise children, think about the CONSEQUENCES to the childs life there will be if raised by a couple of fags!!!??

An adult should be free to act accordingly but there should be a limit.

Anyway, everyone is free to do whatever, be a pervert or anything else, but society is based on health and in a truly healthy society, homosexuality is just a sign of misguided oversexualisation, perversion, fetish. But of course the society we re currently living in is far from being healthy....

[dandan]

People once tried to "cure" people of being left handed. I'm glad to see that people are more enlightened these days.

[Marina]

This has been causing a big stir lately due to Bush's plan for an amendment to the constitution so that no state could allow gay marriage. I think the liklihood of such an amendment being passed is slim, if not impossible. I think it's more of a state's rights issue, so I wouldn't support the amendment, anyway.

[murphee]

The gay marriage issue strikes me as one that deflects attention from the real issues: economic downturn, lack of a living wage for many workers, war, etc. Not being gay myself, I don't pay much attention to or care about what gay people do. I care more about seeing President Bush not being re-elected

[Dean]

murphee said:

The gay marriage issue strikes me as one that deflects attention from the real issues: economic downturn, lack of a living wage for many workers, war, etc. Not being gay myself, I don't pay much attention to or care about what gay people do. I care more about seeing President Bush not being re-elected

I tend to agree with you. Everyone at work who I debated about gay marriage and who is uncomforable with gay marriage agrees that this is not a hot-button issue.

I am a centrist, in terms of U.S. politics. I think that many people are centrists, having conservative and liberal views. Though I have conservative views, I am reluctant to vote for Republican party candidates because I feel that my support of a Republican is support for Christian conservatives, who are a major component of the party and who I oppose. I was glad to see that The State of Alabama Supreme Court banned the placement of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Legislature building. I was also happy to see that the State of Kansas Supreme Court overturned the ban on teaching evolution in high schools--my facts are kind of fuzzy here--I think they wanted to teach the oxymoronic "Creation Science". I am pleased with the court rulings, which temper the theocratic views of some Americans.

I'll never forget the first thing my ex-girlfriend said upon the election/selection of George Bush:
"We're going to war."