On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: What I've learned from this thread:
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality.
I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it.
What???? What are you talking about? Bigoted against what? Christians? I have nothing against Christians unless they try to impose their religion on others. And that's not bigoted, because that isn't just Christians that i believe that about.
What other sexual orientations? Transgender? Is this part of the topic?
Modern day traditionalist? What the hell does that even mean?
On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: What I've learned from this thread:
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality.
I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage.
It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals.
A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern.
Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
Frankly, i feel like you're allowed to feel whatever you want to for or against homosexuality. If you feel like it's against your religion, then fantastic. No gays will make it into your heaven. If you don't feel that way, then also great, they will make it into yours.
Let God decide who's making it in, and who isn't.
There's no need to further persecute people on earth based upon things that you believe, if you can find anyone who believes something different.
I hope that it's all legalized, and it's seen as an important step for the future when it's legal everywhere.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, because we are talking about a law about whether or not other people can get gay married. Which means you are imposing your beliefs on others. If their religion says gay marriage is okay, then why do you get to say otherwise?
Many Christians believe that gay marriage is okay. Why do you get to say that they're wrong?
I get to say they're wrong because it's my opinion. I never said I disagree with implementing gay marriage did I? I think gay couples SHOULD have the same government defined opportunities as heterosexual couples because the government has no right to give unequal advantages to one group of people over another. There are lots of things that are completely permissible for the public but are considered wrong in the church. I don't understand why this isn't one of these things to be honest. I guess I should have clarified my actual opinion on implementing a gay marriage law.
I apologize previously for my harshness, I've been under a lot of stress. (couple of posts up)
I still stand by the general gist of my statement however. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but that doesn't make their opinion immune to judgment by others. Everyone can, and SHOULD, evaluate the ideas and opinions of others. This is how we decide what ideas are good and which are bad. If we take the stance that all opinions are equally valid, we wind up with terrible and nonsensical results from bad decisions.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
People are pationate about this issue because it is about identity and freedom. So no you should not be bashed for having an identity and expressing your freedom of having an opinion.
What people will do is try and understand why you have that opinion. Most non-religious people believe that if you can't logically explain something, you are being unreasonable (it is actually the definition but never the less). To a person with faith, the argument makes no sense because logic doesn't enter into the matter.
In short people shouldn't bash you but if they do it is because they do not understand you. There is also a responsibility on you to understand others. The main point being that by your choice of religion you are denying strangers the right to marry.
While reasonable, a lot of this is completely untrue. It's a fallacy that faith and reason cannot coexist. Logic absolutely does enter into the matter, even within religion itself. What faith does is give you a tremendously important point of data on which to base your reasoning, which other people do not share.
And he's not denying people the right to marry by his choice of religion, that's silly. Christianity is denying people the right to consider themselves married under God if they do not conform to Christianity's idea of what that should look like. That's the whole, real argument.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage.
It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals.
A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern.
Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State.
But that's also part of the debate. Why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? Shouldn't they, as equal human beings, be allowed to use the same word in an extremely similar (almost identical) situation?
It basically boils down to a notion of separate but equal for a lot of activists in the gay community. If you don't call it marriage, you're basically saying that it's slightly lower on the totem pole of society.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people.
You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people.
You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say.
So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'.
It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!'
You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong.
Allowing for gays to marry would not be the first time that the definition of marriage has changed. It has already happened many, many, many times in history. Every time, religious radicals fight it. Every time, it ends up happening any way.
I honestly can't believe that the people against gay marriage fight against it. Its a lost battle. Its so obviously just looking at things that the trend is for homosexual marriage to become a reality. All you guys are doing is throwing a big fit.
A question for those of you who would vote against allowing gay marriage: Do you think that gay marriage will always be illegal? Do you think that you and others who think like you will continue to be numerous enough to prevent it down the line? History certainly says otherwise.
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people.
You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say.
So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'.
It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!'
You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong.
Amen. It's one of my biggest debate pet peeves when people seem to think that by acknowledging their opinion as an opinion, their arguments become immune to criticism. Yes, I understand it's your OPINION. I'm saying that your OPINION is backwards, harmful, and idiotic.
I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote: I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post.
I think this guy really was treading on eggshells trying not to piss anyone off because he knew his opinion could be offensive but you still banned him, kind of mean, especially since he said he was fine with gay marriage. He probably should have said I hope I dont offend anyone rather than I hope I dont get banned, it's a lot better if you show that you care about others rather than yourself.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote: I think this guy really was treading on eggshells trying not to piss anyone off because he knew his opinion could be offensive but you still banned him, kind of mean, especially since he said he was fine with gay marriage. He probably should have said I hope I dont offend anyone rather than I hope I dont get banned, it's a lot better if you show that you care about others rather than yourself.
If you look at the automated ban list, you'll see that his ban wasn't because of his opinion. It was because he martyred himself which is against forum rules ("I'm going to get banned for this..."), and he had a bad posting history.
On October 21 2011 09:31 vetinari wrote: As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes.
What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks.
Analyses indicated that adolescents were functioning well and that their adjustment was not associated with family type. Adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported less delinquent behavior and substance use, suggesting that the quality of parent–adolescent relationships better predicts adolescent outcomes than does family type.
Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). Differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers (Golombok et al., 2003; Parks, 1998; Perrin, 2002). Studies examining gay fathers are fewer in number (e.g., Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989, 1992; Miller, 1979) but do not show that gay men are any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men (for reviews, see Patterson, 2004; Perrin & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002).
It's up to you to look into it and consider whether those studies measure up in your opinion, but the findings are very consistent and clear: "Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents." (from the APA review linked above)
I've read through the one on lesbian mothers. There are some serious flaws: namely, they are measuring 15 year old kids' proclivity to smoke, drink, etc, and using those to measure whether the kids are well adjusted. Small sample size, and there is no random sampling, so the whole thing is prone to selection bias. The authors are also not exactly neutral in this either.
Finally and unlike the comparisons between single mothers and two parent (hetero) families, this still does not answer whether homosexual parents produce well-adjusted adults, in terms of income, criminality,mental health, physical health not just in adolescence, but well into adulthood and middle age.
On October 21 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: A question for those of you who would vote against allowing gay marriage: Do you think that gay marriage will always be illegal? Do you think that you and others who think like you will continue to be numerous enough to prevent it down the line? History certainly says otherwise.
Absolutely, it's a total losing battle, and it's one I'm more or less happy to lose... provided something else comes of it.
As an example, I receive regular emails from the ACL, which is the major Australian Christian politial lobbyist group, and I disagree with pretty much everything they do. I don't even know why I haven't unsubscribed yet.
The reason I disagree is that they're trying to maintain Australian society as a Christian society, when it's very clearly not, when what they should be doing is fighting to retain the rights of Christians to make distinctions based on their own beliefs, while not forcing those distinctions on others who do not believe.
What I'm harping on about regarding institutionalising a civil versus a christian definition of marriage comes into that. Once Christians give up the word, we'll never get it back. There's a window here in which we can transition into a society in which the two ideas can coexist side-by-side, and I will vote to delay blanket changes until I see that come about. We only get the one shot.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110829.gif)
