Democrats & Liberals: Archives

How many times can we do this topic?

Check the archives for everyones thoughts and opinions!

It has been done more times than I can remember but, if it has been done more than once that’s too many.

Any same sex candidate can feel free to move to Massachusetts. Agter establishing residency I beleive Ted can make arrangements for you to get married.

Obviously it hasn’t been done enough..since gays and lesbians are still denied equal rights in this country.

But then that would require some navel gazing by conservatives..and that’s not exactly their general strength.

Wow, skip the topic if it doesn’t interest you or you feel it’s been done too often.

Obviously it hasn’t been done enough..since gays and lesbians are still denied equal rights in this country.

Good point.

“Obviously it hasn’t been done enough..since gays and lesbians are still denied equal rights in this country.”

Obviously watchblog wont change this, so maybe you need to start your own crusade if you’re that worried about it.
It is fun to discuss topics here on these sites but repeating yourself will not change peoples core beliefs on either side of the issue!

Obviously watchblog wont change this, so maybe you need to start your own crusade if you’re that worried about it. It is fun to discuss topics here on these sites but repeating yourself will not change peoples core beliefs on either side of the issue!

Peoples’ minds CAN be changed…and not everyone was here for past discussions.

C’mon, there are countless discussions here on the same topics. Responses such as “go start a crusade” are a little silly.

—-
It has been done more times than I can remember but, if it has been done more than once that’s too many.

Any same sex candidate can feel free to move to Massachusetts. Agter establishing residency I beleive Ted can make arrangements for you to get married.
—-
Wow - that’s was pretty pathetic. I’m assuming it was your attempt at humor. Not much there.

Crying out loud. Is every Conservative Response going to be “Move to Another Country”? I swear they sound like Fascists everyday.

I wrote a post back in December “Gay Marriage for Conservative Reasons” and have supported the concept in my posts.

Unfortunately, it is not a popular position. My guess is that conservatives are more against it than liberals, but opposition straddles the liberal/conservative divide. Americans evidently oppose gay marriage about two to one. Republicans don’t win by those kinds of margins.

My opinion is that opposition to gay marriage is related to how much experience people have with gay couples. My first reaction was to be against it, but after thinking of the gay couples that I know to be loving and good, I could not longer morally oppose them having the same rights I enjoy. But we can write about our own feelings forever and not change the hearts of our compatriots. I think that will just take time and experience, but less time than people fear.

Sounds like a lot of conservatives don’t want to be reminded how badly they’re treating some people.

Jack, I remember that post, you made some good points, and you’re right that not many minds are going to change - at least not among the regular posters here. But there are thousands of people who read this blog every day.

For the record, I’m for civil unions. Marriage is a religious thing, and if the churches don’t want to recognize gay marriages… Well… Give ‘em a couple centuries to get used to it.

Unfortunately. There are Legal advantages to being Married. Married as defined by Law allows your Partner to inherit, make Life Decisions, adopt, etc.

Please do not equate Civil Unions with Marriage. Religion aside, being Married is better.

Hmm… Then change the definition of civil union. What I’m for, is equal rights under the law.

For the record, I’m for civil unions. Marriage is a religious thing, and if the churches don’t want to recognize gay marriages… Well… Give ‘em a couple centuries to get used to it.

You certainly couldn’t force a chuch to perform a marriage ceremony, but there are undoubtedly christian churches in this country that would do so tomorrow if they could.

“Obviously it hasn’t been done enough..since gays and lesbians are still denied equal rights in this country.”

Maybe the fact is that it’s been done enough and nothing is going to change. You guys never look at alternatives.

“Crying out loud. Is every Conservative Response going to be “Move to Another Country”? I swear they sound like Fascists everyday.”

At last check, Massachusetts was still in this country.

Aldous~

“Unfortunately. There are Legal advantages to being Married. Married as defined by Law allows your Partner to inherit, make Life Decisions, adopt, etc.”

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Are you not aware that single people now adopt and so do gays? And you can make anyone a beneficiary in a will…..one lady left everything to a cat! You need a stronger argument because your above post rings of the 1950’s and if you do some checking none of the above statements ring true anymore!

Traci wrote:

You need a stronger argument because your above post rings of the 1950’s and if you do some checking none of the above statements ring true anymore!

You are correct in pointing out that there are some ways to establish something like the rights of marriage in our society (without actually getting married). But to claim that doing so provides the legal or societal equivalence of marriage is mistaken. Homosexual couples have been denied access to their partners on their deathbed by hospitals because they’re not “married” — or have been denied the right to make medical decisions for them. Even if the legal right to make such decisions is in place (e.g., through establishing some type of legal arrangement giving people the right to make such choices in case of incapacitation), the practical reality is that this right is denied (or delayed substantially — which, in cases of significant medical trauma, is the same thing as being denied) for homosexual couples because hospital personnel don’t automatically recognize their right to do so if they’re not “married.” This is just one example. I’m sure there are others.

I would pose this thought for those opposed to gay marriage — what if the situation were reversed? What if society dictated that ONLY homosexuals could marry? That only homosexual unions were “natural” or “moral” or “for the good of society?” (Any study of ancient Greece would show that attitudes about sexuality have varied widely over the course of history.)

There have been those who have argued that allowing gay marriage would be the death-knell to traditional notions of “family” and society would crumble. I would say on the contrary that many Canadian provinces have allowed gay marriage for years. Show me the evidence of moral decay.

Society has historically tried to keep certain classes of people subjugated by denying them the right to marry freely. This is simply yet another form of fear-based oppression of a minority group. I pray the day comes soon when our society will finally overcome its fear and accept gays and lesbians as full members of our society.

No Tony. I was not joking when I said they could move to Massachusetts and get married. With the possible exception of San Francisco I cannot think of a location that is more friendly to the gay community than Kennedy’s backyard. Personally, I think they made gay marriage legal for the tourist business.

I believe that homosexuality is an anti-societal choice that negatively impacts mostly everything that it’s conduct is exposed to. My disdain for this lifestyle transcends political, religious and occupational boundaries.

Carla,

I understand that you feel that gay marriage is fair and just, but is the country ready for it?

Its been baned by wide margins in every state that put it to a vote of the people.
Hell Calif. baned it, if it wont pass there people aint ready to accept it yet.

Wouldn’t be better to go with civil unions for awhile untill people accepted it more?

Some states that offered benifits to “partners” before, have now banned everything, civil unions and marriage.( Michigan is one of those).

All or nothing makes a great rallying cry, unless you wind up with nothing.

I believe that homosexuality is an anti-societal choice that negatively impacts mostly everything that it’s conduct is exposed to. My disdain for this lifestyle transcends political, religious and occupational boundaries.

Why do you believe homosexuals exist, then? You’re not honestly suggesting that one makes a ‘choice’ (your word) to having homosexual feelings, are you?

How does it “negatively impact” anything? Can you give examples?

See, you’re attacking me personally here…and this something for which I had absolutely no choice, so statements such as yours always puzzle me. Were YOU given a choice of sexual orientation?

The choice I refer to here is clear. If you discover that you have homosexual feelings, thoughts, etc. you have the choice as to whether to follow them or resist them.

The choice I refer to here is clear. If you discover that you have homosexual feelings, thoughts, etc. you have the choice as to whether to follow them or resist them.

…and is this a decision you personally had to make?

Yes, I could decide to not love, not enter into a monogamous relationship, to be celibate…which as far as I can tell would only be for the benefit of people such as yourself.

Why should I do such a thing? I’m not religious, so my relationship does not go against any religious beliefs that I might possess.

How am I negatively affecting the world, in your estimation?

Steve Westby,

We live in the United States of America, not Ancient Greece or Canada. Therefore references to their experiences regarding homosexuality are meaningless.

The choice I refer to here is clear. If you discover that you have homosexual feelings, thoughts, etc. you have the choice as to whether to follow them or resist them.

Just like heterosexuals have the choice not to act on their feelings, I suppose.

But then society doesn’t impose artificial limits on consenting heterosexual adults. It’s those neato arbitrary limits that set others up to be “lessors” that make it easy for the conservative elite to stay in power.

Viva Bush and all that.

mattLaw,

I did not have to make a choice regarding homosexuality. When I grew up (I am 62) people who were homosexuals were walking on a very dangerous path. I am aware of homeosexuals suffering dire consequences for their choice. In fact, those were the days when all homosexuals stayed in the closet.

Believe it or not, the same freedoms were available to them at that time however, few chose to speak up and demand to be treated equally. BTW nobody would speak on their behalf either.

I just did some casual research and found that since 1981 statistically, between 45% and as high as 75% of all AIDS cases in the United States were attributed to adult and teenage male homosexuals. Only a small % of those were due to reusing drug paraphenalia. The average now is about 50%.

Health costs for AIDS patients are higher (if available from the insurer). An interesting part of an article that I read suggested that homosexuals tend to participate in large scale get togethers where sexual activity is common far more so than their hetrosexual counterparts.

Hospitals are generally unwilling to accept a homosexual partner as a source of permission for medical attention or treatment of a terminally ill patient or, admit them to the room as a close family member.

Now, you will produce reasons where homosexuality is fine, they are loving, caring, contributing members of the community, etc. But whether or not that is true, that is not what you asked me.

You asked me if I thought you had a choice - yes I do. You asked me if “in my estimation” you had a negative impact on the world - yes I do. All for the reasons/opinions listed above.

I am vehemently opposed to the homosexual lifestyle. I think it is disgusting that we have to see it in public, on regular television programming and on childrens cartoons. IMO it is unthinkable that a child be raised in a houshold with 2 dads or 2 moms.

I have heard a heartbreaking story from a friend regarding two male homosexuals who had adopted a child. One of the partners passed away. The child said to the remaining partner, “this time can I have a real Mom.”

Steve Smith wrote:

We live in the United States of America, not Ancient Greece or Canada. Therefore references to their experiences regarding homosexuality are meaningless.

I respectfully disagree. If, as you wrote above, there is something intrinsically wrong or evil about homosexuality (“I believe that homosexuality is an anti-societal choice that negatively impacts mostly everything that it’s conduct is exposed to.”), then the presumed negative effects of homosexuality should occur regardless of whether its in the USA, Canada, etc. So where’s the evidence of some huge moral decay? Where’s the evidence of some disintigration of the moral fabric of these societies? I would argue, in fact, that these societies have been strengthened by their choice to accept homosexual unions — just as the USA was ultimately strengthened when interracial marriages were made legal, for example.

Steve Smith,

Buddy, as much as I respect you, I just think you’re wrong on this one. Look, it is VERY poor evidence to argue that because a disease affects one group disproportionately — that this is somehow evidence of a moral problem with that group or its behaviors. Would you say that about diseases disproprotionately affecting Jews or African Americans? Of course not. Secondly, consider that AIDS is much less prevalent in lesbian couples than in the general population (as I recall) — surely, that couldn’t fit with the idea of AIDS being a sign that homosexuality is wrong.

I believe (and this is my opinion here) that the real issue here is the revulsion people feel when they think about gay sexual acts. Of course, this is only strengthened by biblical teachings (generally taken far out of context) that some in the right wing use to condemn gay or lesbian lifestyles. These people generally forget that the Bible has been used to justify slavery and all manner of evil acts in the past.

I did not have to make a choice regarding homosexuality. When I grew up (I am 62) people who were homosexuals were walking on a very dangerous path. I am aware of homeosexuals suffering dire consequences for their choice. In fact, those were the days when all homosexuals stayed in the closet.

Well, I can certainly see how your age probably plays into your homophobia.

Believe it or not, the same freedoms were available to them at that time however, few chose to speak up and demand to be treated equally. BTW nobody would speak on their behalf either.

That’s simply incorrect. States could legally criminalize homosexual sex until the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision. I also doubt that homosexual couples could adopt children, or receive benefits for their spouses through employment.

I just did some casual research and found that since 1981 statistically, between 45% and as high as 75% of all AIDS cases in the United States were attributed to adult and teenage male homosexuals. Only a small % of those were due to reusing drug paraphenalia. The average now is about 50%.

Absolutely. This is partly to do with the fact that so many people lived this life in secret, and because the sad reality is that many young people do not use protection when they have sex…and when they do, it is often ONLY with preventing pregnancy in mind. Remove that element, and you’re going to see more STDs.

Health costs for AIDS patients are higher (if available from the insurer). An interesting part of an article that I read suggested that homosexuals tend to participate in large scale get togethers where sexual activity is common far more so than their hetrosexual counterparts.

That’s an idiotic generalization. Link your article, unless you’re afraid it’s veracity might be called into question?

Hospitals are generally unwilling to accept a homosexual partner as a source of permission for medical attention or treatment of a terminally ill patient or, admit them to the room as a close family member.

True. Why should this be so?

Now, you will produce reasons where homosexuality is fine, they are loving, caring, contributing members of the community, etc. But whether or not that is true, that is not what you asked me.

You asked me if I thought you had a choice - yes I do. You asked me if “in my estimation” you had a negative impact on the world - yes I do. All for the reasons/opinions listed above.

I am vehemently opposed to the homosexual lifestyle. I think it is disgusting that we have to see it in public, on regular television programming and on childrens cartoons. IMO it is unthinkable that a child be raised in a houshold with 2 dads or 2 moms.

I have heard a heartbreaking story from a friend regarding two male homosexuals who had adopted a child. One of the partners passed away. The child said to the remaining partner, “this time can I have a real Mom.”

You didn’t really say anything, except for a little bit about AIDS (without linking any backing sources), some unfounded assertions about “sex parties” (why haven’t I ever gotten an invite?).

But yes, it truly is heartbreaking when children are taken out of an orphanage or foster home and given to a single person (or two people of the same sex) to care for them and love them. Truly a tragedy.

I do take some solace in the fact that opinions such as yours are, by and large, dying out.

We live in the United States of America, not Ancient Greece or Canada. Therefore references to their experiences regarding homosexuality are meaningless.

Yeah, because it’s not like our government is based off of Grecian ideas of democracy or anything… oh wait…

I honestly can’t think of a more isolationist response than the one steve has offered here… apparently because we’re the good old US of A, we can’t learn anything from history or from the outside world.

“One of the partners passed away. The child said to the remaining partner, “this time can I have a real Mom.”

got that off the “Focus on the Family” web site did yeh?

you know, as a married heterosexual man who has lots of gay friends who are couples, nothing pleases me more than knowing deep down that when they get busy, people like steve go batty!

—-
I believe that homosexuality is an anti-societal choice that negatively impacts mostly everything that it’s conduct is exposed to. My disdain for this lifestyle transcends political, religious and occupational boundaries.
—-

My life has been touched by many gay and lesbian people - each a truly enriching experience. My father is gay - so I came to grips with the issue in a very rough fashion… continue my immature hatred/misunderstanding of gays and hate my father… or just deal with him as the individual his is and always will be.

From there - I’ve enjoyed each friend and individual that I have encountered, with the freedom to accept them as who they are. I will say - that while I am straight and I enjoy my lifestyle - others who share that in common with me can be completely stupid with their perceptions and bone-headed assumptions about others.

Steve - if you truly believe gays have a negative impact on the world, then you are completely missing the boat and you have my pity. We get one trip on this boat (life) and when it’s done - it’s done. I can’t imagine going through life immediately dismissing large groups of people based on something so ridiculous as who/what they have sex with. If it’s not with me, then it’s not really something I worry about. (And please don’t bring a religion into this - the more I hear that, the more I think the Romans had the right idea of tossing ‘those’ people to the lions.)

mattLaw - more power to you.

Also - many states have laws forbidding Gays to adopt children. Some people think they gay parents will somehow raise gay children. (If you can’t see the horse’s ass in that statement – how do you explain that pretty much gay person came from a straight family.) If anyone has any issue with that - they need to go play in the traffic - you are causing horrible damage to people who have nothing to do with your life. Get over yourself, NOW!

As far as marriage - I don’t see America being mature enough sexually (or otherwise) to accept other lifestyles for a long while. I hate to suggest anything so far from my own life - but it might be best to make the best of the best situation you can come up with… and hope these prehistoric megalomaniacs die of sooner rather than later.

Steve Westby,

Very nice back to back posts. I respect your opinions and related statements of fact when ever presented. I don’t need links and the like to accept what you say at face value.

Your statement that societies were strengthened by permitting homosexual unions just as the US was by legalizing inter-racial marriage is not one that I would agree with.

mattLaw,

Lawrence vs Texas was in June of 2003.
The average cost to treat an aids patient is $34,000.00 per year.
Please apply for health insurance. In one application state that you have no pre-existing conditions, in the other state that you have HIV or AIDS. Then tell me how ridiculous I am for saying health costs are higher for the aids person.

Jarin,
I mentioned Canada as not being a good comparison because of the health system used there and the more resonable cost of drugs.

Jarin, once again you have chosen to spin what I said. Reread my post. I did not say we had nothing to learn from history of the outside world in total, I said with respect to homosexuality.

views,
I have never heard of Focus on the Family.

steve -

Please - tell me the reasons homosexuals are bad for society. I’ve never heard a single reason I could respect - maybe you can take a swing at that for me.

The average cost to treat an aids patient is $34,000.00 per year. Please apply for health insurance. In one application state that you have no pre-existing conditions, in the other state that you have HIV or AIDS. Then tell me how ridiculous I am for saying health costs are higher for the aids person.

If I called you “ridiculous” for stating health care costs are higher for someone with AIDS, feel free to quote me. I said nothing of the sort.

The vast majority of homosexuals in the United States are not HIV+, and I believe the numbers are growing at a faster rate in other groups at this point.

Still, that was your one explanation for you hatred of something that you claim “negatively impacts mostly everything that it’s conduct is exposed to.”

I’m guessing your feelings are based more on ingrained prejudices you were raised with and have held onto your entire life, more than they’re based on any factual evidence.

Tony,

I have every right to exercise my rights as an American to disagree with something and to make those feelings known.

Maybe what the homosexual community needs is a positive role model in each walk of life. This would go a long way to draw attention to their abilities.

Maybe I simply need proof. How about making a list of homosexuals/lesbians who have made this world a better place in some key areas. Excluded from this list must be obscure people from foreign lands. The list should not include the Maharishi Yoga who led 50 million people to the Ganges or Abdul Faruk who found the pistachio nut suitible for eating, etc. No Liberaces, Lion tamers, Rock Hudsons or FBI Directors.

mattLaw,

“The vast majority of homosexuals in the United States are not HIV+, and I believe the numbers are growing at a faster rate in other groups at this point.”

You’re right. That dubious little honor would go to heterosexual black women. Anyone remember the vice-presidential debate? Neither Cheney or Edwards knew (or seemed to care) of this fact.

—-
I have every right to exercise my rights as an American to disagree with something and to make those feelings known.
—-

Absolutely… that’s what I am asking for. Sorry to say I’m not really up on my famous Gay Americans. All the people I know are on a personal level, which is the only level I take seriously.

Impressive Gay people I have known:

1 - Dad. My father is the most talented artist I know. He’s a retired college theater professor (hardly usual, I know.) He makes teddy bears, pottery and stained glass as a hobby/job. He also plays organ for a local church. From him I learned that live is much easier if you don’t try to swing for the bleachers on every pitch. Go slow and enjoy the process of learning. I’m now a film maker - you can see the obvious connection. He’s also the most amazing grandfather.

Knowing what he went through growing up in a small rural NC tobacco town - I know for a fact that gay/lesbian is no more of a choice than breathing air.

2 - Stephan, my roommate in college. I learned to appreciate good music and how to roll a perfect joint. he was larger-than-life in the most amazingly quite ways.

3 - Elizabeth and Susan - I can proudly say that lesbians have borrowed my junker pickup truck. (No idea why I think that’s cool - but there it is.) I’ve learned the amazing sacrifice as they took a small, extremely medically fragile niece away from an abusive family member and have raised her on very meager salaries. Their dedication to this small child surpasses anything I have ever had the privilege to witness. I can pretty much bet she will not grow up lesbian, but she will have a lease on life at a level she could never have expected.

Not sure I should go any further… but I can if needed. The point here is not sexual preferences, it’s living life the best way you know how. These people have added to society in so many countless way - and it’s people like you (steve) who demean them because of short-sighted stupidity. I know that’s harsh - but it’s reality.

I have every right to exercise my rights as an American to disagree with something and to make those feelings known.

Absolutely. No one is forbidden from displaying their ignorance.

Maybe what the homosexual community needs is a positive role model in each walk of life. This would go a long way to draw attention to their abilities.

Abilities? Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own sex. The end.

Maybe I simply need proof. How about making a list of homosexuals/lesbians who have made this world a better place in some key areas. Excluded from this list must be obscure people from foreign lands. The list should not include the Maharishi Yoga who led 50 million people to the Ganges or Abdul Faruk who found the pistachio nut suitible for eating, etc. No Liberaces, Lion tamers, Rock Hudsons or FBI Directors.

I highly doubt you’ll abandon your bigotry any time soon. Your question is dubious, anyway: Many homosexuals (especially until fairly recently) choose to remain “in the closet” as to their sexual orientation. Many still do.

I don’t understand you point, anyway. We could make a list of the worst people in history, and most of them would be heterosexual. Such distinction means nothing.

steve -

Now it’s your turn. You tell me three absolutely horrible Gay people who have personally done wrong to you. Nothing out of the newspaper, no urban legends… people who you’ve known and have been bad examples.

barney frank.

there ya go steve.

There are several in our military…

btw - an odd fact to comes to grip with;

98% of all convicted pedophiles are devote heterosexuals.

Explain that one to me.

mattLaw -

You’ve seen the movies where a person is forced to tell the truth all the time. What would happen if every gay/lesbian were known to those around them in the same fashion. I think there’d be a whole bunch of sole searching and mind-changing - gay is a hard thing to hate when people you know and love are. Great eye-opener…

I am usually pretty good at guessing whether people are gay or not - usually right. I’m am amazed at the people so close to them who have no clue, and would probably launch their dentures if they found out. I did get sidewhacked a few days ago. Had a downtown street scene to shoot - and we hire off-duty police officers to help keep things calm. Our office (woman) had a friend who came by to watch for a bit… a drop-dead gorgeous blond on a Harley. When they kissed good bye… bam - out of the blue.

“Long may she ride” - Neil Young

You’ve seen the movies where a person is forced to tell the truth all the time. What would happen if every gay/lesbian were known to those around them in the same fashion. I think there’d be a whole bunch of sole searching and mind-changing - gay is a hard thing to hate when people you know and love are. Great eye-opener…

Well, all my friends and usually coworkers know what I am…but I don’t make an issue over it, nor do I hold the fact that some are homophobic against them. I know I have personally changed the minds of several people. That feels good.

You work in the film industry? Though I’m now studying law, I have a degree in RTF from the University of Texas.

Don’t feel bad about the degree… I’m the only one I know from college who is the field now.

Once you get going - it’s a blast, but it’s a bitch to get started.

mattlaw~

Your 6:06 post to steve smith is just uncalled for in my opinion! Discuss the issue, but don’t attack him because he wont simply agree that you are right! Everyone can have their own opinion and the best way to get your point out there is to listen not scream that everyone else is not as enlightened as you!
steve is a very nice gentleman that has been posting here for some time now and I personally think it’s quite admirable that he sticks to his beliefs even when under attack by most of the posters here!
The truth in life is this……NOBODY knows what the answeres to the universe are including you….so everyone does what they feel is THEIR correct path!

By Steve Westby

I would pose this thought for those opposed to gay marriage — what if the situation were reversed? What if society dictated that ONLY homosexuals could marry? That only homosexual unions were “natural” or “moral” or “for the good of society?” (Any study of ancient Greece would show that attitudes about sexuality have varied widely over the course of history.)

Steve Westby,

Rather than just saying how I feel and putting everyone on the defensive. I want to see if we can actually gain ground by gaining understanding.

You may have meant that question as a hypothetical, but I want to pose it to you as a literal question. “What if it was reversed?” What if homosexuals were the only people who lived in pairs? What if heterosexual marriage had never existed and neither did any other law, rule, or custom that is based on heterosexual marriage? How do YOU view such a society?

Your 6:06 post to steve smith is just uncalled for in my opinion! Discuss the issue, but don’t attack him because he wont simply agree that you are right! Everyone can have their own opinion and the best way to get your point out there is to listen not scream that everyone else is not as enlightened as you!

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. Please forgive me for losing my cool, but I do take attacks against homosexuals personally, especially when they’re given without evidence.

steve is a very nice gentleman that has been posting here for some time now and I personally think it’s quite admirable that he sticks to his beliefs even when under attack by most of the posters here!

That’s fair enough. It is a little difficult for me to understand a “belief” that leaves someone such as myself being hated for a characteristic that I had no control over and for which acting upon does not infringe upon the rights of Steve or anyone else.

The truth in life is this……NOBODY knows what the answeres to the universe are including you….so everyone does what they feel is THEIR correct path!

I don’t claim to have the answers to anything. I only know myself, and I’m pretty sure that I’m not a ‘bad’ person.

mattlaw~

No harm, no foul!

Just remember that steve’s beliefs may “offend” you, but do they “affect” you personally? I think not!

Many people are “hated” for several reasons…it’s all a part of life!

No harm, no foul!

Just remember that steve’s beliefs may “offend” you, but do they “affect” you personally? I think not!

Many people are “hated” for several reasons…it’s all a part of life!

I would argue that furthering the dislike of homosexuals does have very real consequences for homosexuals…but of course, I certainly can’t make someone ‘like’ me when they’re determined not to, and this isn’t the first time in my life I’ve encountered it.

*shrug*

mattlaw~

That came out wrong….I doubt very much that steve hates you on any level…..he merely disagrees w/ your lifestyle. You can like a person and disagree w/ them.:)

Traci -

Would you judge someone so harshly as you did mattLaw - if he were Black and this discussion was about inter-rational marriages. Gay people are labeled and attacked for personal beliefs, and those who foster and support those attacks by sharing similar views.

steve strongly suggest that mattLaw only does damage to society by being who he is - and THAT is completely uncalled for and callous. As far as I see it - steve should be the one you reprimand, mattLaw just responded in kind.

—-
Many people are “hated” for several reasons…it’s all a part of life!
—-

So - if people feel they are being hated, they should just shrug it off and be complacent. Both you and steve do cause personal harm because you support arguments of hate and give courage those who actually act out your hate.

Isn’t there a danger of confusing virtuous with heterosexual?

mattLaw,

I applaud you for you standing up for yourself. Sure you lost your cool but you did it with style and wonderfully pithy comebacks. My favorite?

Well, I can certainly see how your age probably plays into your homophobia.

Ah, sheer genius.

Tony,

Your list of gay people that you have known and their accomplishments are both impressive and humanitarian. With no disrespect intended many people who are not gay would have taken the same action.

To : All who are arguing in favor of homosexual marriage/unions, etc.

I have not now nor have I ever intended that my opinions be personal attacks and, I have not attacked anyone personally in this thread.

I do not hate gay people. I do however dislike the lifestyle.

Traci,
Good to hear from you. How are you doing.

steve -

thanks for the post… put a bit into it and glad you took the time to read it.

——

I guess my main issue with opposing or supporting gay/lesbian lifestyle is that it really has no effect on us as a society. We’re just meddling in someone else’s business… and we need to stay out.

You can argue moral decline in modern society - which I would debunk as fallacy (we now do not accept racial violence, or wife abuse or child abuse or child labor - and we got rid of that whole nasty which hunt thing.)

Marriage is the lifelong partnership of 2 people. To get anymore specific than that is only to get into people’s bedrooms where you absolutely do not belong. Even if you feel that homosexual marriage is not as beneficial as heterosexual marriage because the inability to have children. I’m not aware that we are running short on children. But at it’s base - can you not see that married gay couples are stronger for society than single gay people.

You can argue that marriage is a religious arrangement - but then how do you get around the fact that government is supporting a solely religious view.

Can anyone name one single harm done to society by gay marriage? I know it makes many people uncomfortable - but so do people who eat raw squid… it’s just something I have to get over.

—-
Your list of gay people that you have known and their accomplishments are both impressive and humanitarian. With no disrespect intended many people who are not gay would have taken the same action.
—-

My point exactly. These people are remarkable examples of plain, decent people. Any attempt to divide us by personal lifestyles (sexual preferences) really kind of defeats the purpose, don’t ya think.

I do not hate gay people. I do however dislike the lifestyle.

I apologize for repeatedly using the term “hate” if that was an incorrect conclusion to come to.

It’s just difficult for me to understand how someone might “dislike” my “lifestyle” when this “lifestyle” is the only one (short of living a lie) that makes sense.

My actions do not break the law nor do they infringe upon anyone else’s rights in this country. That’s the most I would ever ask of anyone else’s actions.

I know that this issue has very little to do with my own life - but it seems to get to the heart of a crucial issue: personal freedom and the right to privacy.

Right to privacy is a very simple concept: if you want have your life and your choices held private and be given the freedom to make the best choices as you see fit, then you must allow others that same freedom.

It’s not about whether you can see or understand things from a different point of view - it’s whether you believe in freedom enough to allow it to be given unconditionally. We’re either Americans in a democratic society - where allow people to control their own lives - or we live in a socialist’s society where the masses control personal decisions.

This issue exemplifies our Constitution: personal freedom and the right to privacy precedes our need for the right to arms, or freedom of the press or voting. Without personal freedoms, none of these others are relevant.

This thread has run it’s course in terms of my participation. What happened is the exact reason that very early in the post several of us commented, not again we have done this so many times.

The comments almost always get to or border on personal. That is not the purpose of Watchblog. I am as guilty as anyone else in this regard and I apologize for any role that I played or implied.

A person’s lifestyle is his or her own business. As such they probably don’t need to be discussing it and, even more importantly others do not need to be making counterpoints/opinions.

If it’s all the same to those who have been heavilly involved, how about we just move on.

steve -

I agree that’s it’s all very personal… and it will get a bit heated from time to time, but these are the discussions I learn from. Even though I rarely leave the discussion seeing things starkly different that when I started (my own issue, I know) I walk away with a fuller understanding of the variety of people and opinions involved.

I’ve always been aware that I live an insular life - surrounded by people I agree with. Once in a while it’s a very good thing to have that shaken up by people who see things differently than I do… and I don’t get that from the people I see day-to-day.

So, I can leave this subject for now - and I hope that no one takes offense at remarks I’ve made. (I have a very good friend who is a Catholic Preist… he comes to visit every 3 months or so. After some heated discussions, we generally have to sit on the porch with a couple of cold beers and discuss things that we all agree on and have in common.)

mattLaw - thanks for sharing some pretty personal insights. I had no idea you were gay … you don’t write like you’re gay…??? (OK, bad joke, I know…)

Mike wrote:

You may have meant that question as a hypothetical, but I want to pose it to you as a literal question. “What if it was reversed?” What if homosexuals were the only people who lived in pairs? What if heterosexual marriage had never existed and neither did any other law, rule, or custom that is based on heterosexual marriage? How do YOU view such a society?

I think there’s two parts to your question, so let me try to address them separately. First, there’s the issue of how it would feel if society had decided that ONLY homosexuals could marry. As a heterosexual, I would obviously feel excluded and wronged for no good reason. Much as homosexuals must feel in our current society, I would imagine.

Second, there’s the question of how it would feel if society had never developed heterosexual unions or the various traditions associated with it. I must admit, this strikes me as an odd question on two levels. First, asking someone raised within a tradition to speculate on what it would be like to be raised within an entirely distinct tradition…there’s no real frame of reference from which to answer, is there? Isn’t it kind of like asking how I’d feel if I’d been raised in a universe where I could observe a greater spectrum of light or perceive a greater spectrum of sounds? But, to return to your question, I’m sure the quality of life would depend greatly on the level of compassion, tolerance, fairness and justice within the society. I do feel it’s a mistake to assume that such an arrangement would necessarily be better or worse than what we have now. Remember, in this hypothetical situation, that arrangement would feel entirely normal, would have just as many historical and cultural precedents as homosexual marriages have in our society. Presumably the society would also have to have managed issues like how procreation would occur, etc. — and these solutions would be accepted as normal and usual. At the same time, as I mentioned earlier, I’m sure I’d feel excluded and devalued if (as a heterosexual) I was prevented from marrying whomever I wanted — just as I discussed above.

The other thing that bothers me about this second question is the assumption (and forgive me if you don’t mean to make this assumption) that homosexual unions somehow “threaten” heterosexual unions. I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest that this is the case.

The final point that I would make is that people are going to have to come to grips with the fact that the demographics are changing on this issue. The younger the people are when polled on this topic, the more accepting they are of homosexual lifestyles. Homosexual marriage will be a reality in our country (in my opinion) — it’s only a matter of time.

Steve Westby, (and any others who care to read or comment)

What you interpreted as ‘the second question’ is the only question that I intended to pose. All the other sentences were for clarification. I didn’t intend to make or lead you to, any assumptions. I merely wanted to make a broad question and see what assumptions other people would make.

This topic has already offended people, and it will continue to. That is the nature of the subject matter. It is not my intention to offend anyone, merely to state my viewpoint.

What impressed me about your response is that you really couldn’t answer the question. You had to make the vague assumption that other customs/rules/laws would have been developed to manage the problems caused by the absence of heterosexual marriage. But what other rules/customs would there be. There are basic realities, laws of nature, in play here that limit what is possible. There are simple truths such as… Men and women are different. If a woman has too much physical activity or doesn’t eat enough she can’t have children. Men are violently jealous of women. Every person has exactly 1 mother and 1 father etc.

The realities create set of specific, common problems that recur in all people throughout history. People need a way to address them and they created it, heterosexual marriage.

Heterosexual marriage doesn’t exist because people wanted it. It exists because both the people in the couple and the people outside of the couple needed it. It is so natural that any speculation of life without immediately reveals gaping holes in the human condition.

Homosexual marriage doesn’t have the same utility. It only solves the problem of loneliness for the individuals in the couple. It is not fair to say that Homosexual marriage is the same as Heterosexual marriage. To be honest IMO it’s not fair to call a union of two people of the same gender ‘marriage’. The two gay people may be as committed as any two heterosexuals, but their union doesn’t solve the same problems and it doesn’t create the same issues.

The case for Homosexual marriages is always filled with words like acceptance, fairness, hate, tolerance, bigotry - how people feel. It’s almost never about need. No one ever explains who is hurt, in a practical sense, by the inability of two same-gender people to marry, beyond the way they feel. In light of the arguments I contend that the movement toward Homosexual Marriage is about getting people to accept Homosexual behavior as legitimate and healthy.

People who oppose Homosexual Marriage are always saying things like, “I don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle,” “This isn’t right,” “this isn’t healthy,” and “I don’t want children learning this behavior.” It is about not accepting the homosexual lifestyle.

I agree with the latter group. I don’t think homosexuality is healthy. I think calling a union “marriage” gives it a stamp of approval. However, more basic than that, marriage between two people of the same gender is impossible. Even if you call it ‘marriage’ it would still be something fundamentally different.

Heterosexual marriage doesn’t exist because people wanted it. It exists because both the people in the couple and the people outside of the couple needed it. It is so natural that any speculation of life without immediately reveals gaping holes in the human condition.

That’s sort of an oversimplification. “Marriage,” for some cultures and at certain time periods, meant multiple wives. “Marriage” was often NOT about love or family, but about money, or name, or power (this of course persists today in some cultures). Hell, laws against miscegenation were not outlawed in the United States until 1967.

I believe marriage has consistently been about one thing: Property rights, and social (and legal) acceptance of sexual activity between two people (whether or not one of those people is married to multiple people).

Homosexual marriage doesn’t have the same utility. It only solves the problem of loneliness for the individuals in the couple. It is not fair to say that Homosexual marriage is the same as Heterosexual marriage. To be honest IMO it’s not fair to call a union of two people of the same gender ‘marriage’. The two gay people may be as committed as any two heterosexuals, but their union doesn’t solve the same problems and it doesn’t create the same issues.

I believe that it DOES have the same utility, in property rights, as heterosexual marriage does. Homosexuals will still have monogamous relationships whether or not they can form a legal union (though one might believe that a legal recognition of such a union would be positive towards creating more stable families, in a society where families are so often falling apart).

At one point, people didn’t believe that ‘marriage’ could apply to people of different races, too.

I don’t think homosexuality is healthy. I think calling a union “marriage” gives it a stamp of approval. However, more basic than that, marriage between two people of the same gender is impossible. Even if you call it ‘marriage’ it would still be something fundamentally different.

I’m curious as to what you believe a more “healthy” approach to homosexuality would be. For society to demand that homosexuals attempt to repress their feelings, that homosexuals either remain celibate or ‘pretend’ to be heterosexual? Do you believe this would be more ‘healthy’ for the individual, or for society as a whole?

We don’t even really know what causes it, yet. There are theories, but those that I find most compelling are complex, involving both genetics as well as environment.

Personally, laws prohibiting homosexual ‘marriage’ or adoption by homosexual couples won’t stop me from either having either a monogamous relationship nor from having children. I will never be able to make anyone understand, though as others have noted ‘acceptance’ seems to rise dramatically once people are exposed to such relationships and realize that they aren’t causing the sky to fall.

Several ‘western’ nations have now legalized gay marriage, and others will undoubtedly follow. As life continues to go on as normal in these places, this country will inevitably follow suit.

Mike,

First of all, I want to thank you for the tone of the discussion between us thus far. We clearly have strongly divergent points of view on this topic, but I’m glad that we’ve been able to discuss these differences respectfully. I should say, of course, that I hope my comments have come across as respectful — I certainly intend them that way.

My sense is that part of where we might disagree is on whether “nature” insists what kinds of marriage there should be. It seems to me that “nature” places certain limits on how children can be conceived — but that is very different from defining how a family should be defined. As others have mentioned, there has been broad variety over the course of history as to how family and “marriage” should be defined. In short, I would view marriage as a social construct, not one imposed in some rigid way by “nature” or “natural laws.”

That having been said, of course the construct of marriage was created to meet some basic needs (e.g., to help determine who would care for children, etc.). But I think we would disagree if you’re trying to say that marriage is only “marriage” if it leads to the procreation of children. Heterosexual couples sometimes choose not to have any children — would we say they are any less married? What if they chose to only engage in anal sex? Neither the kind of sexual activity nor the decision whether to have children would diminish their marriage in my eyes.

My point is that marriage has many purposes — to raise children in a loving environment, to create emotional unity between a couple, etc. I don’t think that we must insist that a marriage involve both in order to be called a “marriage,” in order to be blessed by society.

You mention some other issues in your post (like the idea that men are “violently jealous” of women), and that heterosexual marriage was intended to resolve these issues. First, I’m not entirely sure I agree with your assumptions, and in particular whether this is a biological reality or a pattern of behavior ingrained into men by society. Second, I think it might be more fair to say that people are made jealous of romantic competition for sexual partners (I’m assuming here that most gay men don’t have “violent jealousy” towards their female friends). If so, the issue isn’t gender, the issue is how to create a social system that resolves the question of who is “on the market” so to speak.

In general, I think the point that I’m making is that different societies and social groups throughout history have come up with different solutions to the issues I think you’re talking about. This would suggest that ideas of “marriage” and “family” are social constructions to a large degree. This doesn’t make them “bad” or invalid, but does suggest they aren’t rigidly defined by “nature.”

steve smith,

Maybe I simply need proof. How about making a list of homosexuals/lesbians who have made this world a better place in some key areas.

If you are truly interested in an answer to this, read How the Homosexuals Saved Civilization: The True and Heroic Story of How Gay Men Shaped the Modern World by Cathy Crimmins ISBN: 1585423149.

It’s an enlightening book written by a heterosexual woman that points out how American culture has been shaped by the influence of homosexuals, with many specific celebrity names you should recognize.

Mattlaw, you’ll probably enjoy it too.

mattLaw:

I don’t think I’ve said this so far, but welcome to Watchblog. It’s good to have additional perspectives on this issue, and I’ve greatly enjoyed your comments in this thread and others.

steve:

I mentioned Canada as not being a good comparison because of the health system used there and the more resonable cost of drugs.

Respectfully, steve, you didn’t explain why you dismissed those countries in your post; you simply said references to ancient greece and canada were meaningless as a result of the fact we lived in the USA, not there.

Jarin, once again you have chosen to spin what I said. Reread my post. I did not say we had nothing to learn from history of the outside world in total, I said with respect to homosexuality.

Yes, with respect to homosexuality you believe we have nothing to learn from the outside world or history. You don’t find that view isolationist? I do, and that requires no spin. It directly implies that in this subject we do not need the benefit of information and experience, we know everything we need to know, and the experiences of other times and other nations can be completely dismissed. Yet even this country is not in agreement about the issue, so how can we help but benefit from the knowledge and information other nations past and present can provide on the subject?

Mike:

You may have meant that question as a hypothetical, but I want to pose it to you as a literal question. “What if it was reversed?” What if homosexuals were the only people who lived in pairs? What if heterosexual marriage had never existed and neither did any other law, rule, or custom that is based on heterosexual marriage? How do YOU view such a society?

I fail to understand the relevance of this question. You seem to be suggesting that the scenario is an either-or… support heterosexual marriage, OR support homosexual marriage. Why should that be so?

There is also the fact that biologically, the scenario you suggest could not happen unless 90 percent of the society was nearly 100% homosexual, and that it would be unlikely for such a society to reproduce sufficiently to survive. Perhaps it could be achieved with some form of “stud duty”, or artificial insemination… but the former seems unlikely to develop quickly enough, and I am not convinced that most homosexual males would be capable of being aroused enough to sire children in such a situation. Perhaps it could still work with the lesbian females and the few straight males, though inbreeding would seem to become a problem in that scenario. There are really just too many variables to work with in trying to predict an alternate history that so completely deviates from our own.

How about something a little less alien, then? Let’s posit a world much like ours… same percentage of heterosexuals, same percentage of homosexuals, same percentage of bisexuals, whatever those numbers may be. Let’s say that in this hypothetical world, marriage is between two people, rather than “one man and one woman”. What might be different?

Well, let’s start with the obvious: there might be kids out there who have more than one mom, or more than one dad. Some of these families might be rich, some might be poor, some might be good and loving, some not so much… just like their heterosexual counterparts. In one household, maybe one father cooks while the other teaches his daughter to balance a checkbook. Maybe the cook will give her pointers on passing her driver’s test tomorrow after dinner, and maybe the other father will teach her how to dance for that prom that’s coming up. In another household, perhaps one mother sews a patch in her young son’s jeans while her wife is out on the lawn playing soccer with him. In each of these households, perhaps the alternate gender was represented for the children by an uncle or aunt, or a grandmother or grandfather. The nuclear family is not the only model of a working family, and the extended family model is far more traditional for raising children.

What else might be different? Well, you’d probably see gay couples, male and female, out in public without hiding what they are. You’d probably see them kissing, holding hands, and doing all the little things that people in love do. You’d probably see them buying homes together, growing old together, sometimes splitting up… just like straight couples.

My guess is you’d see an increase in adoption, since there would be an increase in stable homes. Not sure how many of those would be from adoption agencies and how many would be raising the children of brothers or sisters who don’t want kids, but either way I would think there would be a somewhat smaller pool of children waiting to be adopted. Perhaps there would also be less abortion, since some women who get pregnant and do not want a child may have a gay relative and in-law who would happily care for the child.

There would probably be other repercussions, but I’ve hit my limit in extrapolating out this scenario. Hope it provides some food for thought, especially since there’s not all that much keeping this world from becoming the one I just described. Some places already are.

correction:

Perhaps it could be achieved with some form of “stud duty”, or artificial insemination… but the former seems unlikely to develop quickly enough, and I am not convinced that most homosexual males would be capable of being aroused enough to sire children in such a situation.

That should have been “… but the latter seems unlikely to develop quickly enough, and I am not convinced”

I’m surprised to find myself agreeing with those on the left on this issue. I don’t see a problem with gay marriages. I don’t want the lifestyle for me and can’t imagine being turned on by another man, however if that floats your boat, then by all means go for it. As long as it don’t interfere with the rights of others I don’t care one way or another what two people do.

I only wish the left would see other issues in the same light, such as the right to bear arms, the right to private property, and other issues that don’t effect them.

I only wish the left would see other issues in the same light, such as the right to bear arms, the right to private property, and other issues that don’t effect them.

I consider myself more of a libertarian than a liberal…and I bet we’d probably agree on both the 2nd amendment and the right to private property.

tomd:

More liberals than you might think support the second amendment. I’m not really sure what you’re referring to as “the right to private property” that liberals are supposedly against, or what other issues you feel they are involved in that do not affect them, so I can’t respond to those.

I want to marry my horse. Will someone help support my Constitutional rights?

I want to marry my horse. Will someone help support my Constitutional rights?

Your horse can’t consent to a relationship…though in several states you could probably still engage in sexual activity with it without breaking the law. Sorry, charlie.

It takes a real man to admit his penchant for bestiality on an internet message board! Good for you.

Hey, I said nothing about having sex with my horse, you pervert! Marriage is an institution, right? ;)

Hey, I said nothing about having sex with my horse, you pervert! Marriage is an institution, right? ;)

One not open to horses, I’m afraid.

For the record, I don’t own a horse, but I do own a fishtank. They’re a little small for me to be able to produce a mermaid, though.

Marriage has two components, the religious tradition and the social contract. We live in a secular society. The only concern gov’t should have is with the contractual rights and obligations the contract infers. Who has the right to care who the partners are? I mean, Ghanji wants to live with a horse! Fine with me, except a horse isn’t competent to enter into a contract.

Dave, you can take that one up with PETA. But shouldn’t animals have rights too? And what if they’re particularly smart animals? For that matter, why is there an “age of consent” for humans rather than a competency test to be able to legally marry?

Dave, you can take that one up with PETA. But shouldn’t animals have rights too? And what if they’re particularly smart animals? For that matter, why is there an “age of consent” for humans rather than a competency test to be able to legally marry?

The ‘age’ differs from state-to-state….and no, it’s silly to suggest that an animal could consent to a contract.

Not even a really smart chimpanzee?

Should a person who can’t read be allowed to consent to a contract?

Yes.

Yes to which one? ;)

Dumb human. ;)

Gandhi,

As long as you treat the horse properly and don’t eat it, PETA will leave you alone. Although you should probably ask Catherine the Great before consumating the relationship.

The major point I wish to make is the a union between two individuals of the same gender is not the same as a union between two people of the different genders. I heard two points in attempts to refute this argument 1) mattlaw said that he believe a homosexual marriage would have the same utility in terms of property rights as does heterosexual marriage. 2) Steve Westby said that he doesn’t believe that a homosexual marriage must provide the same utility as a traditional marriage in order to be called marriage.

Mattlaw said that in his view marriage is about property rights and social acceptance. That is an oversimplification. Marriage is about more that. There are more basic realities that cause property rights to sometimes be included in marriage. Some of these more basic realities are: the fact that women earn less than men, the fact that many (perhaps most) women give many of their working years in order to raise children, the fact that children are expensive, and the fact that people want their labor to go the benefit of their own children. These realities require an institution that creates: 1. duty to provide for the children 2. Duty to provide for their mothers. 3. Presumption of paternity 4. Certain property rights…And certain other rights and duties.

The parties to a gay marriage would not need either of the four. Therefore, an institution that creates them would not have the same utility. Medicine has more utility when given to the sick than when given to the healthy.

This debate is all about social acceptance of homosexuality. All the other aspects talked about are smoke and mirrors. The incidents of marriage were awarded to gay couples by civil unions, but that’s not enough to appease the homosexual lobby. The term ‘marriage’ immediately give social acceptance to any union. That is the prize the gay marriage advocates want. The other incidents are not necessary, and some would even be ridiculous if they were present.

Steve Westby doesn’t believe that a homosexual marriage requires the same utility in order to be called marriage. I just plain disagree with that. If it doesn’t have the same incidents then it is not the same thing. Calling it by the same name would only introduce confusion. I contend that this introduction of confusion is the primary reason homosexual want to marry. They want society in general to look at their homosexual relationships and say that their marriages are just the same as any heterosexual marriage. But they are not.

The parties to a gay marriage would not need either of the four. Therefore, an institution that creates them would not have the same utility. Medicine has more utility when given to the sick than when given to the healthy.

Many gay couples raise children. Many heterosexual couples do not.

As it currently stands, there are rights that exist between married couples that cannot be achieved through other contract means.

Steve Westby doesn’t believe that a homosexual marriage requires the same utility in order to be called marriage. I just plain disagree with that. If it doesn’t have the same incidents then it is not the same thing. Calling it by the same name would only introduce confusion. I contend that this introduction of confusion is the primary reason homosexual want to marry. They want society in general to look at their homosexual relationships and say that their marriages are just the same as any heterosexual marriage. But they are not.

“Confusion?” How? What confusion?

Two people decide to devote their lives to each other, to create a home together, to legally bind themselves to each other, and to perhaps raise children.

Where’s this giant difference?

This homosexual is not interested in marriage in order to ‘confuse’ others.