posted
Synesthesia, do you have any evidence that ex-gay people torture themselves and cause tons of pain for millions of people, or is that just something you imagine would happen?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It IS something that happens. Read "Anything but Straight". Read about some of the techniques they use. Isolation, aversion. Read Stranger at the Gate. Read about how most of the leaders of these organizations are still "suffering" from same-sex attractions. It doesn't work. It causes vunerable people to crack under the pressure, tons of them have commited suicide. Some of the so-called ex-gay leaders have tried to seduce their own patients. All it is is a mass of lies, spreading stereotypes and rumours and making people who hate themselves already hate themselves more. That's not the point of psychology. Most real therapists regard the ex-gay movement as nonsense. They are even trying to put childrne as young as three years old into these programs. They are a fraud and should be stopped.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by eyetell: Still its sickening. If you ignore the probs of the way peoplet think, let them be as preverse as they want, then whos gonna want to be gernerous and help some1 else.
Personally I find the way you treat the Englsih language sickening, but I'm still helping you by pointing it out.
To address your actual point, what problems? Being gay is 'sickening and perverse' only in your own mind. This is a problem you are imposing on gays, not a problem gays actually have.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm Saying that it is preverse to be gai. I don't need to explain the Birds and the Bees do I? A Plug goes with an outlet, not another Plug!!!! I don't know how do make it ANY clearer. And i'm sorry for my language.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm skeptical. Anyway, I'll take Ann Lander's advice -- MYOB -- for gays, ex-gays, straights, and whatever; and hope others will do the same. It prevents high blood pressure.
[ June 18, 2005, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by eyetell: I'm Saying that it is preverse to be gai. I don't need to explain the Birds and the Bees do I? A Plug goes with an outlet, not another Plug!!!! I don't know how do make it ANY clearer. And i'm sorry for my language.
I don't normally attack spelling, but yours is driving me insane. From an anatomical point of view, it's not that simple. Take the fact that the clitoris has no function other than pleasure. There are other factors to consider. It's not just outlets and plugs you know... That is a cliche which does nothing to explain why it is perverse to be gay.
posted
Regarding the youth abstinence movement: without getting into the successes and failures of said movement (that's another thread) that is a movement consisting largely of those who have never engaged in sexual intercourse pledging not to do so until marriage. As I think most people who _have_ had sex would agree, _ceasing_ to have sex once you've become accustomed to doing so is a whole other ball of wax. Further, those who cease having sex under the geis of these programs are not committing to waiting for a lifetime partner; most of them are committing to never having sex again. Apples and oranges.
As far as the ex-gay movement goes, you don't have to look much further than two of the founders of the Exodus International falling in love with each other to realize that at the very least the ex-gay movement has serious problems that it isn't acknowledging.
Synthesia: to claim the clitoris has "no function other than pleasure" fails to consider that the orgasm has a function other than pleasure. Some biologists think female orgasm increases the chance of fertilization. And please stop criticizing eyetell's English. It's not like there's a lack of things to criticize in the argument. Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Further, those who cease having sex under the geis of these programs are not committing to waiting for a lifetime partner; most of them are committing to never having sex again.
You're claiming that these programs make people pledge never to have sex again EVER? Am I reading that right?
quote:Synthesia: to claim the clitoris has "no function other than pleasure" fails to consider that the orgasm has a function other than pleasure.
There's also the issue of parallel development of different organs that are genetically tied together. EG, we have big toes because we have opposable thumbs, and developing one without the other would actually have been more difficult. Perhaps, in a similar way, both genders have packs of ultra-sensitive nerves that cause orgasms because it would have been more unlikely, from an evolutionary perspective, for one gender and not the other to develop the capacity for such.
Nature: the ultimate egalitarian.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a context thing. Applies to a situation in which someone joins an argument against a bunch of folks, and does such a bad job of it that even the people who are on his side want him off their side.
I'm not really on the side of the person in question here, but I can imagine that he's not really helping them too much Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're claiming that these programs make people pledge never to have sex again EVER? Am I reading that right?
I'm saying that if you make a homosexual person pledge not to engage in sex with people of the same sex and you don't somehow create in that person a desire to engage in sex with people of the opposite sex, it doesn't matter if you're explicitly making them pledge not to ever have sex again, you're still doing it.
And I don't see anyone claiming these programs are successfully making real heterosexual attractions materialize.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OH. The way you phrased it, I thought you were still talking about the high-school abstinence programs when you made that statement. Totally confused me.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: OH. The way you phrased it, I thought you were still talking about the high-school abstinence programs when you made that statement. Totally confused me.
Ah. Yeah, looking back, my phrasing could have been clearer. When I said "these programs" I meant the programs that attempt to "treat" homosexuality. Sorry for any confusion.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, You keep reading things into what I'm saying without them being there, or being important parts of my argument. (I'm still in wonderment as to where the heck the democrats thing came from. It's not even on the "I'm shocked that people who espouse tolerance are so intolerant." and the anyone who says that an anti-gay thing is wrong or that some anti-gay people are bigots is merely claiming that all anti-gay people are bigots scripts, both of which I've been hit with here. Is there another script floating around that I haven't really seen yet?)
I'll say it again. The motives of these people are irrelevant (although I think if you're going to play the Mormon persecution thing, you pretty much should have to acknowledge that the exact same people who are into persecuting Mormons make up a significant portion of the people you are claiming have pure intentions in regards to homosexuals.) We started off with a disucssion of values where you said:
quote: Both involve individuals who develop subjective desires and beliefs about their own lives ("I want to sleep with men!" "I feel inspired to believe in this set of morals!") which are unprovable and incomprehensible outside that individual's experience. IE, someone who is not experiencing the same thing can have trouble deciding what to think about it. Is it "real"? How does its "realness" stack up against what I am used to?
Both have recently been the subject of studies that point out possible correlations with genes and brain features, but neither has been completely nailed down, and because both deal with human perceptions, they may never be.
So, is it fair for someone to insist that one unprovable, subjective experience influence legislation, while keeping the other out? Hmm ... interesting to think about ...
and I attempted to show you how one group is using their values to direct their own lives and the other group is trying to use their values to direct others' lives. Its like saying, "Well, one group's values make them want to live as LDS and another group's values make them want to use force to stop them from doing so. How are we to determine between these two value driven arguments?"
You don't get to use force against other people in this society with no more substantial evidence than my untransferrable values say I should.
And I'm not the one who said that people are trying to do this because they are afraid that if they allow people this choice, their lifestyle will be diminished. You did. That was the motive that you were attributing to them as a defense.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, where is this "using force" thing coming from? Are soldiers separating gay couples and dividing them into different concentration camps? Or are people simply disagreeing over whether existing relationships should be supported and given new status by legislation?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
err...I thought that the whole "We should be able to throw them in prision for having sex." was a pretty good example of this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We could dredge up a single OSC comment from over a decade ago that I emphatically disagree with, OR we could address the issue at hand.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The great poet and thinker Marshall Mathers on the subject:
"...We ain't nothin but mammals well, some of us cannibals who cut other people open like cantaloupes but if we can hump dead animals and antelopes then theres no reason that a man and a 'nother man can't elope but if you feel like I feel I got the antidote women wear your pantyhose sing the chorus and it go... I'M SLIM SHADY, YES I'M THE REAL SHADY..."
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought I was addressing the issue at hand. Are you saying that OSC is the only person who advocated something like that and that anti-sodomy laws aren't part of the goals of the anti-gay movement?
What do you think is the issue at hand, Geoff? I've been trying to find that out for awhile, but you never seem to answer my questions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've actually sort of lost the thread of our discussion. Realize that you haven't actually posted on this thread since Page 4. It's a little unreasonable to expect me to jump back in as though no time has passed, especially since I've just been involved in an epic struggle with King of Men
But I'm getting the impression that you've lost the thread, too. We've already hashed most of this stuff out. I took issue with your assertion that this debate is about "controlling other people". My contention was that most people on the opposition side did not even get actively involved in this debate until marriage became the central issue.
Back when it was just "gay people should be treated like human beings", the conflict wasn't nearly as divisive. It's only when it spills over into valued institutions like marriage that most people begin to feel like their culture is being threatened.
So, from where I stand, this does not seem to be about controlling people's lives and forcing them to change. If it were, then our argument would still be about sodomy laws and whether to strike them from the books. That fight is already won, and we're on the same side, so bringing it up again and again is rather disingenuous. Page back if you want to be reminded of the argument you and I ALREADY had on the topic.
THIS argument, from the opposition's perspective, is mostly about protecting a way of life that people value and are afraid of losing. It is the same fear that causes many countries to resist American media influence, and it is shame over these kinds of losses that encourage some conquered peoples to return to their roots and reconstruct their lost identities.
As long as you are unwilling to attribute any but the most demonic-sounding motives to your opposition, the further you will drive them away. Americans — ALL Americans, on both sides of the aisle — need to realize that the only way to achieve a lasting victory in this kind of struggle is to understand what your opponents truly want — not just what you want them to want for the sake of your petty arguments — and find an answer that does not require half the country to feel like they just lost a civil war.
PS: AGAIN, as I explained before, the "Democrats" quote that offended you so was an attempt to demonstrate that it is ridiculous to apply modern political divisions to ages-old conflicts. Like people who say, "Well, you know, Hitler was a conservative" and expect that analogy to tarnish modern conservatives as "little Hitlers".
Apparently, you got the "ridiculous" part without understanding that it was meant to be satirical.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I don't agree with your rosy assesment of people's motives or goals, but I'll leave that aside. I still don't get how allowing gay marriage is going to lead to the destruction of these people's lifestyles. Could you explain what aspects would be destroyed and how this would happen?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a lot of answers to that question in earlier pages of this thread. Scroll up and take a look...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
estavares, See, I've read the thread, but I don't actually see these answers. The closest I've seen is the bald assertion that "It will weaken marriage.", but I don't see any reasoning as to how this is actually going to happen. Perhaps I'm missing the subtly of people's arguments. I would appreciate it if you could point out to me where these clear demonstrations of what will be destroyed and how this destruction will occur are, or perhaps recapitulate them. Right not I'm not seeing them, but surely you'd be able to make them clear to me. Thanks.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think bottom-line it's making something into something that it is not. It would be like me insisting I get the senior citizen price simply because I drink prune juice, like to play cribbage, live in Florida and watch Matlock.
Advocates of traditional marriage believe that marriage is more than simply living together and having sex. It's more than love. It is rewarding the best form of social stability (when practiced appropriately) and creating means to encourage men and women to stick it out and keep a stable home for the upcoming generation.
Gay marriage doesn't hurt MY marriage, obviously, and as I've said before no one advocates that. What they're saying is that when you continue to water down the spirit of what constitutes marriage, eventually that institution is no longer viable. If anyone can do it, regardless of any criteria, then when will polygamy be allowed? What if I want to marry my sister? Our society continues to chip away and eat away at the boundaries of marriage in all directions until it's little more than a wedding and a contract easier to leave than my cell phone contract.
Hence the idea of "destroying" marriage, so a line must be drawn.
Another reason is that giving such benefits to someone who does not technically meet the qualifications (some believe) legitimizes that behavior. People hate hanging the ten commandments in a courthouse because they feel it advocates a specific faith and therefore violates the separation of church and state. So when a change in our legal system would advocate a practice by giving it special privileges, those opposed to that practice feel the right to speak up about it.
Ultimately it comes down to both sides striving to prevent the other from spreading their doctrine to the masses and infiltrating popular opinion. Those opposed to religious thought fight against creationism in school, public prayers, singing Christmas carols, etc. Those against alternative lifestyles are waging the same fight but in different ways. This has always been a battle of ideologies, a common excuse for poor behavior since Cain snuffed Abel (or whatever else you believe).
I hope that helps...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear so much about preserving the sanctity of marriage that it grates on my nerves. A marriage is only as sacred as the couple makes it. You know who else doesn't hold up the ideals of the sanctity of marriage? Wife beaters. Yet they're ok, a man can beat his wife so severely that he goes to jail for a few years he can then get out of jail and remarry and that's perfectly legal yet two gay men can't get married? Where's the sanctity of that?
Posts: 29 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a philosophical notion called "convention". It is what society dictates it to be. It may well be the case that TRADITIONALLY, marriage has been defined by the union of a male and female, but there is no reason, other than tradition, for this convention to continue as it stands. There are pressures to redefine all sorts of terms we once held strictly to be true, based on tradition.
Once we get out of this "it will pollute the sanctity of marriage" we realize that marriage is nothing sanctimonious itself, just a convention agreed upon by members of society. If we allow our minds to accept unions based on love, rather than chromosomes, we find that tradition is not quite strong enough to keep the rigid definition with which we operate.
After all, there was a time when "US citizen" meant "white, adult male (21 or older) who owns property". I believe that if THAT sort of conventional designation can change, so too can our discriptors of loving relationships.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joshua Newberry: It's a philosophical notion called "convention". It is what society dictates it to be. It may well be the case that TRADITIONALLY, marriage has been defined by the union of a male and female, but there is no reason, other than tradition, for this convention to continue as it stands. There are pressures to redefine all sorts of terms we once held strictly to be true, based on tradition.
Once we get out of this "it will pollute the sanctity of marriage" we realize that marriage is nothing sanctimonious itself, just a convention agreed upon by members of society. If we allow our minds to accept unions based on love, rather than chromosomes, we find that tradition is not quite strong enough to keep the rigid definition with which we operate.
After all, there was a time when "US citizen" meant "white, adult male (21 or older) who owns property". I believe that if THAT sort of conventional designation can change, so too can our discriptors of loving relationships.
Yes, we should rid our minds of all standards, conventions and beliefs since all they do is create a rigid lifestyle for all. Rid your polluted mind of any principles or values that you hold, if only to give into to someone else's definitions. Once true anarchy has been reached are we then only free and every person will be his own self. Until we have regressed to this state, then true happiness cannot be achieved.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimately it comes down to both sides striving to prevent the other from spreading their doctrine to the masses and infiltrating popular opinion. Those opposed to religious thought fight against creationism in school, public prayers, singing Christmas carols, etc. Those against alternative lifestyles are waging the same fight but in different ways.
Here is, perhaps not the crux of the problem, but a good place to start examining it from. Quite simply, you are wrong about this. Just like in the case the Geoff started off with the "There is no difference in using value judgements." bit, there is a fundamental difference between these two groups (well the core of them anyway, and any thread where people get upset because I suggest that there are many bigots on the anti-gay side doesn't get to use the anti-religious bigots as typifying anything). This fight, and the other fights you mentioned, is not primary between people who hate religion and people who like it.
People don't oppose creationism because it's religious. They oppose it because it's not science and doesn't pretend to be, nor is the attempt to get it into schools have anything to do with education. There are few people who seriously oppose public prayer, but they do oppose public institutions compelling people to pray, not because they hate religion, but because they hold the principle of separation between chrcuh and state as important. And guess what, many of these people are themselves religious.
Just because the reason why one side is doing something is religious does not mean that the people on the other side are anti-religious. Oftentimes, they're not really anti-anything. I can say that torturing people, like they did in the Inquisition is a bad idea without being anti-religious. I can believe in the Enlightenment principles that went into the founding of our nation, in individual rights and self-determination, without being anti-whatever group a subset of which tries to violate and abrogate these rights.
Despite what the demogouges tell you, the people advocating gay marriage are not primary interested in benig anti-religious. Nor, contrary to OSC's extremely odd assertion, are they concerned with destroying the family. We're not trying to destroy anything.
I'm a big supporter of marriage. I think it is a wonderful institution that, done correctly, greatly benefits society and the individuals in a marriage. One of the reasons I was so appalled by OSC's essay on it was that I find his authoritarian, sex-roled view of what marriage should be, as a condition people have to be tricked into and then prevented from leaving, a perversion.
Removing it from a religious context, marriage is a social arrangement that carries legal rights that we favor because of the demonstrable effects that it has. There appear to me no reasons to believe that homosexual couples and society as a whole would not have an increase in these beenficial effects. The only reasons given from the anti-side, that I have seen, that even touch on this rely on silly prejudices, like OSC's assertion that gay people can't have adult relationships. As Geoff said
quote:[T]he real debate here is about the wisdom and morality of promoting homosexual relationships as the equivalent of heterosexual relationships in our culture.
I believe marriage is a good thing and I see that homosexual couples would benefit it in much the same way that heterosexual couples do, and that this would in turn benefit society. If you have an argument as to why these benefits are dependent on being of different sexes, I'd be glad to hear it.
From what you said (and I could be misunderstanding you here), it's not the fact of homosexual marriage, per se, but rather that allowing this means you have to allow everything else. I think that's obviously wrong. As I said, I don't see how the benefits of marriage are dependent on being of different sexes. Likewie, I don't see homosexual relationships as different in ways that are significnat to this dicussion from heterosexual ones. To me, looking at dyadic romantic pairings, allowing same sex marriage is as much a change to marriage as allowing mixed race or religion marriages, both of which involved significant changes to the defnintion of marraige and both of which produced plenty of people fighting against them under the cover of "defending marriage". Just because you make a change does not necessitate that all changes are now fair game. Do you feel that allowing the mixed marriages "weakened" marraige? If not, how does same-sex marriage differ?
And a word about defending marriage. As I said, I'm a big fan of marriage. From that perspective, I find the enormous amount of effort put into opposing same-sex marriages under the guise of defending marriage almost infuriating. Even if the idea that it's a genuine threat were correct, I don't think it makes the top 5 (and most likely not the top 10) list of biggest threats to marriage. #1 is the personal irresponsiblity of many of the average public, many of those who are so staunch in "defending marriage" when it means doing stuff to other people, but fall so short in their own lives. #2 would be economic concerns. #3 would likely be those who manipulate the public (such as politicans who use the defending marriage banner as a distracting tactic). And so on. I am concerned about these things. I think that the weakness of marriage in America is a terrible thing and I wish that those hordes of people who seem to be so juiced about defending marriage when it comes to denying what I see as benefits to homosexuals and society in general could muster a tenth of this energy when it comes to addressing actual serious threats to marriage.
posted
"Yes, we should rid our minds of all standards, conventions and beliefs since all they do is create a rigid lifestyle for all. Rid your polluted mind of any principles or values that you hold, if only to give into to someone else's definitions."
I'm pretty sure no one used this argument. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there is a rational case to be made based in some of the more obscure legal doctrine centered around paternity for keeping seperate legal institutions for m/f and same-sex couples.
I don't buy the arguments, though, so I don't feel comfortable really presenting them in detail. Suffice it to say it has to due with establishing the parentage of children born to a married woman. The reason I don't buy the arguments is that a rational reading of existing exceptions within those rules would make them not apply to same sex couples anyway. Personally, I consider those rules to be unnecessary in this age of DNA testing.
But, these arguments are rational and grounded in actual effects. And the arguments, if accepted, can only justify civil unions with every single right and legal rule of marriage except a few related to paternity. They can't justify lack of any legal recognition for same sex couples.
I also think there's some credence to be given to those who fear the gradual intrusion of the government into areas of private conscience. If you look at the history of birth control in this country, it took about 40 years for it to become a recognized constitutional right for married couples only to mandated coverage of birth control for all women in employee health plans with prescription coverage in some states. These fears are legitimate. As Bob stated in another thread, though, I prefer to fight such intrusions when they come up. And I will. So this reason doesn't change my support for equalization of the civil marriage laws.
I also think that it is legitimate to view same sex marriage as a threat to the institution of marriage as a further distraction from the central purpose of marriage. But we as a culture have lost sight of the uniqueness of that central purpose already. Plus, at this point, I consider government recognition no longer essential to that institution, so I don't consider changes in the government's take on marriage to be relevant to the institution. I also think the cultural side of that battle has been lost because most attempts to fight it have been via attempts to change the government's role. I think that's futile, and more efforts are being made to make the case in culture rather than law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, the "real threats" you list seem kind of vague. How do you fight the concept of personal irresponsibility on a national and legal level? And I'm not exactly sure which economic issues and which politicians' behaviors are the ones you feel are the particularly damaging ones. (And as before, this isn't an attempt at rebuttal. It's a request for detail and clarification.)
I think that for some people, gay marriage is a wake-up call. It's easy to overlook the subtle cultural factors that have contributed to rising divorce rates and illegitimacy over the past several decades, but suddenly, when the idea of "marriage" had become so vague and ephemeral that gay marriage was suddenly viable, these complacent people suddenly realized that the ideal of marriage that they hold in their minds is NOT the one that actually functions in modern American society. Gay marriage is not an isolated issue. Its emergence an indicator that something larger has been lost, and I think many people are fighting it because they want to get that thing back, whatever it was.
This is definitely fighting the symptoms and not the disease (and as many people have been attempting to demonstrate, it is quite possibly a very benign symptom).
But we agree that the problems with modern marriage are real. That's definitely a good start. Honestly, I would MUCH rather divert the energy that gets poured into this debate towards the actual core issues.
How can we encourage young adults to take a healthy family life seriously, as something to aspire to and sacrifice for?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons like to repeat a quote from David O. McKay, one of our more beloved prophets, who led the Church in the fifties:
"No other success can compensate for failure in the home."
This is a value that most active Mormons at least try to live by, but that many people, in general, don't even take into account. It is the idea that how well you succeed in your marriage and at child-rearing are THE things that determine whether or not you are a success in life.
But it makes sense. This society is going to prosper or fail depending ENTIRELY on the choices made by our children. How we raise them, in what kinds of environments, and with what kinds of values and education, WILL determine the future to a much stronger degree than anything most of us could do in our careers right now.
The job of raising these children in stable and happy homes should be given the highest honor, and the highest priority. Instead, for many people, it is only an inconvenience and a distraction, to be discarded if it gets in the way of anything else.
This is a short-sighted attitude, and it will cause us harm in the long run if it is not corrected.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How can we encourage young adults to take a healthy family life seriously, as something to aspire to and sacrifice for?"
In todays world it would be very hard. Society teaches us these days that being successful financially is more important then being successful in family life. I hate to say it but that's the message given to young people these days, at least from my perspective.
I'm not religious Mormon or otherwise but "No other success can compensate for failure in the home." is something i firmly believe in.
Posts: 29 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Though perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, people may not be anti-religion but they ARE fighting to prevent an ideology from having any kind of influence and they ARE making things so secular that now the secularists get the podium all to themselves. Everyone plays this game of "shut up and let me talk." Ultimately both sides are crying about the same thing, and one's bias shows up by their declaration of who's being the most unfair.
In most cases people are not compelled to pray, to sing carols, whatever. But people try to remove even the option to pray, the option to sing carols, the very notion of someone's faith by calling it "Winter Break" instead of "Christmas Break." Everyone is so offended that someone is driving the car that they all grab the wheel at once, and then the car goes nowhere.
Study after study after study has shown that male/female committed marriages are the best means to introduce and raise children. Who says otherwise? Such relationships are also best for the adults involved, IF they do all they can to make that relationship work and abide by the promises they made to one another. Marriage ultimately is there to encourage and reward those social units that best serve society.
My question is that if homosexuality is considered equal to heterosexuality, then where do we draw the line? Why is polygamy and polyandry illegal? Why can't I legally have sex when I'm fourteen? Why can't a father marry his consenting daughter? Oh, THOSE ideas are reprehensible, but times change, right? We already broadcast Mary Kay LeTourneau's wedding on "Entertainment Tonight," so clearly what seemed a crime last week is now all the rage.
Year by year, little by little, our standards worsen until we hold no values at all. Dr. Evil's sarcasm has a point, because that attitude of changing the rules based on our own selfish desires will lead to a society that has no rules at all.
What gay marriage advocates want is legal recognition and advocation of their lifestyle. This is not an issue of race or color, not an issue of freedom or slavery, but an issue of a minority group ram-rodding their personal beliefs and expecting government benefits for pretending to be something they are not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
"The past's fragility is due to selfish behavior by those in the present, who ascribe to their own desires rather than universal truths that preserve the health of a society. "
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about trying to counter the pop culture idea that married life is boring, stifling and dull and that it's better to be casual about relationships because you can always get a divorce? Countering gay marriage or civil unions will do nothing towards going against people's misconceptions of marriage and responsibility. Nor, will gay marriage do much to tear apart strong marriages that consist of people who work hard to keep the relationship together and raise their children right. That is all that really matters... People working hard in their relationships no matter what.
(did not even dignify the question up top with a response)
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In most cases people are not compelled to pray, to sing carols, whatever. But people try to remove even the option to pray, the option to sing carols, the very notion of someone's faith by calling it "Winter Break" instead of "Christmas Break." Everyone is so offended that someone is driving the car that they all grab the wheel at once, and then the car goes nowhere.
You're not serious with this surely. Do you really see a world where people are forcing people not to pray, not to sing Christmas carols? That's not actually happening. I'm pretty sure even Geoff or Dags will tell you that.
There's an enormous diffrence between the government not sponsoring your specific religion and the government actively preventing you from practicing your religion. Prayer, for example, is still perfectly welcome in school. Christmas carols can be sung in public places without sanction. And I fail to understand how changing "Christmas Break" to "Winter Break" is anything other than just. Do you really feel that it's right to tell anyone who's not Christian that their beliefs make them second-class citizens? That it's attacking Christians to actually include Jews and Muslims and atheists and Buddhists and Hindus and Daoists etc?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that for some people, gay marriage is a wake-up call. It's easy to overlook the subtle cultural factors that have contributed to rising divorce rates and illegitimacy over the past several decades, but suddenly, when the idea of "marriage" had become so vague and ephemeral that gay marriage was suddenly viable, these complacent people suddenly realized that the ideal of marriage that they hold in their minds is NOT the one that actually functions in modern American society. Gay marriage is not an isolated issue. Its emergence an indicator that something larger has been lost, and I think many people are fighting it because they want to get that thing back, whatever it was.
Now, this may just be because I'm a guy who just wrote an involved post about how he values marriage highly and sees no problem with gay marriage, but I'd suggest that support for gay marriage may have more to do with the dissipation of the extreme bigotry that homosexuals have faced. It might be that the idea marriage is obviously defiled because we let those nasty gay people touch it, strong though it may be in your mind Geoff, has become much less acceptible as people have come to see homosexuals as people more or less like themselves instead of a bundle of foolish prejudices. It might be that people have come to hold gay people as higher, not that marriage has been brought so very low.
It might also be that the time that you are talking about, where marraige was held in such value never actually existed, except in some people's fantasies and old television shows. I don't find appeals to the way we never were to be particularly compelling arguments.
---
How's the whole saying you should value the family above all else working out for the Mormons? I didn't know that you lot were immune to the problems that seem to beset the rest of American culture in terms of marriages and families.
---
For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think that going off on a digression about the problems with marriage is going to contribute to the main point. It would be an interesting discussion on it's own. If you wanted to start the thread, I definitely participate.
Right now, I trying to get someone to present an argument as to why letting gays marry is a bad thing that doesn't start off from the assumption that letting gays marry is a bad thing. I'd also like someone to show me how exactly this is threatening people's lifestyles.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
