The Problem with Gays and Voters: Whom can we trust?
If gay marriage were about adults in consensual relationships receiving equal rights, I'd support it. But it's entangled in redefinitions of sexual morality, friendship, parenting, free will, human development, erotic self-control, predation, harassment, and privacy. I don't see how to legalize gay marriage without feeding into an insidious agenda I have much reason to distrust, based on the last four years.
Gay rights groups need to focus on adults and leave teenagers, never mind children, out of their fight. They should pick their battles; civil unions are more popular than are gay marriage laws. If this is about being left alone, then leave other people alone. Most of all, the movement needs to tell the truth. Only then will America trust them enough to believe what they say and give them what they ask for.
Correct both sides are not willing to look at the big picture.
Marriage as defined by the history of the world is a religious institution between the man and women which was performed by the religious person of the culture at the time. At some point the government got involved in a religions event. (Which was not a big deal back in the day, today it is a big deal by some groups) The government offers and awards all kinds of benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with Religion. Those benefits need to be given to any couple that want them. (civil union) The government see this couple at one when it comes to dealing with the government.
This goes both ways, if you need a paper that says you love each other and are committed to each other until one of you dies then you are missing the point of a committed loving relationship.
So let the Government award civil unions for all the benefits and let the religions marry. That way if a church feels the couple does not meet there requirement for the religions rules on marriage they don't have to marry them and have no fear of persecution.
Although, this has the EXACT same effect as the current proposal to call them all marriage. This is literally no different, in that it doesn't preserve the social institution of marriage that has been the basis for our social and family structure for thousand of years. It creates a single loosely defined structure...further left open for change. And, then an even more loosely defined and less regulated parallel "religious" definition"
Originally Posted by Huskermedic
The only true middle ground that provides for equality for gay couples, preservation of a basic and necessary social institution, and respect for religious tradition is to provide a Federal civil union designation for GLBT couplings.
FWIW...Gays aren't trying to destroy marriage or families....divorce does that...and them heteros got the monopoly on that
Yeah, um...couples will continue to break up just as they have for millions of years. That's not the issue here. Or, are you questioning the fidelity and monogamy of heterosexual couples? Cuz, if you do it's only fair to bring it up for gay couples.
Originally Posted by utsker
But, shhhhh...it's a secret.
New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.
"Marriage" is a religious institution. If there was no government addons and you are non-religious there is no point in getting married. I would like to protect that institution and give it back to religion were it belongs. With a civil union you won't have to worry about forcing a preacher or the like from preforming a ceremony to a gay couple when the disagree with it.
Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker
I would like the Government to drop Marriage all together personally. You want to visit in a Hospital get a medical power of attorney. You want to have a kid each party (if two) is 50% responsible until said kid is 18.
That article is just plain idiotic and misleading.
Originally Posted by OmaHusker
First and foremost, this paragraph stands out for its stupidity:
Even though we don't speak portuguese like this apparent genius, luckily Google does. And when you run his link through the translator, one realizes that there is not a single mention of gay sexual assault or harassment. Yet, the author links those assaults to gay men not being able to control themselves.
Hidden in 2010 was that the Pentagon knew of 19,000 annual cases of sexual abuse within the military
(the latter evidence was published in the Brazilian newspaper Folha in 2011, and I was able to read it because I speak Portuguese; otherwise, I would not even know about the study). We had been led to believe that gay men could naturally "control themselves" in a high-stress environment with few safety barriers around the sex they were inalterably drawn to. Nobody had considered that the spirit of openness might lead gay troops to pressure other suspected gay troops to come out of the closet, ostensibly to exercise their newfound "rights," but really to make them sexually available for exploitation.
And of course he was lying, because the article and information is available in English: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...each-year?lite
I can't believe anyone links to these nutbag bloggers and thinks it actually strengthens their positions.
Somebody want to take a guess at how he ties this paragraph expressing his feelings into the "gay conspiracy pushing an insidious agenda" argument he's making?
And show of hands, (a) how many people think freshman in college can't peg their own sexuality at that point? and (b) who among the men here ever felt aroused during a male gym class?
In 2011, Elmhurst College
was the first to ask incoming freshmen to indicate voluntarily their sexual orientation on official paperwork. This makes a person's sexual behavior a matter of public record (it could even be, presumably, subject to subpoena years later in a divorce or [COLOR=#009900 !important]child custody case). Other colleges jumped on this bandwagon, culminating in the decision by the 10 campuses of the massive [/COLOR]University of California
system to consider tracking students' sexual orientations. To place such a question on a student application assumes that eighteen-year-olds have had enough sex with multiple partners to compare the experiences and figure out what orientation they are. It also assumes that human sexual behavior is reducible to a few patterns which are innate, unchangeable, and knowable to people in their early adolescence -- all ideological mainstays of the gay rights movement, despite thousands of years of cultural history that show that human sexuality is fluid, changeable, and often affected by situational factors (otherwise, how do we explain Achilles' love of Patroclus and Briseis, or male prisoners or sailors falling in love and then going back to their wives when they have their freedom again?). If every boy who was ever aroused during gym class were gay, the human race would have stopped procreating about 5,000 years ago.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz1utNSeD3y
It's almost funny. I'm beginning to think every person who is very concerned about gay marriage on either side has sexual preference identity issues.
Originally Posted by cm husker
But maybe I'm making an assumption here. I never got aroused in male gym class, and I wasn't at all uncertain about my sexuality really from the moment I had any. Is that unusual? I thought it was pretty common, but maybe lots of people are more uncertain than me. If that's the case, maybe I and whatever number of others there are like me have stumbled into the middle of a conversation that isn't really about us. Maybe a whole lot of this is really a debate among people for whom this is a big issue, and they either accept who they are or are mad about it, or are truly somewhat bisexual and either embrace it or are ambivalent about it.
I walked away from this and realized I may have just shared TMI. I hope no one feels the need to declare themselves on this one way or the other. I'm not saying anyone is only a "real man" if they feel like I do. I don't care what anybody does, or what they like in this respect.
Originally Posted by huskernut
I think there a ton of complex things going on in the debate, but I generally agree with your thoughts, Nut. There must be some reason some straight people think there's an insidious movement to "recruited more gays" and I can't understand that reasoning because I can't imagine being "recruited" out of a straight lifestyle. It just seems innate to me. I guess for some who oppose gay rights, the feeling is that people's sexuality is malleable. I have to assume that they themselves have felt that doubt. Nothing wrong with the doubt, I think, but I don't understand why some would feel that gay lifestyles are inherently detrimental to society, not to mention that they don't think those perceived problems would be mitigated by encouraging gays to engage in stabilizing relationships like marriage.
I think the anti-gay movement is flawed on just about every level of examination.
p.s. I was shocked to discover this blogger was (is?) a professor at a relatively large school. I can't believe anyone could read his "scholarship" and think he's worthy of a professorship.
Fine to argue that, but it's more than a religious or government institution it's a social institution that many believe provides a social benefit as traditionally defined.
Originally Posted by Huskermedic
And for centuries now governments have participated in the structuring and preservation of the institution of marriage. What you are proposing is, in many ways, even more drastic.
Which is fine if that's what the country determines it wants...but if the country determines it wants to retain the traditional institution I would hope that desire is respected instead of forced upon as in California.
Even if I accepted any of that "historical perspective" stuff, it doesn't provide a cogent argument for why the gay marriage would ruin anything. "It's always been that way" isn't convincing.
Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker
Beyond that, the majority of Americans now believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry... so, it appears the country is determining what it wants. California's prop 8 vote was close, and that was with much of the voting population not voting; meaning that it's likely that the generally conservative values of likely voters don't represent the general CA population's feelings on the issue.
So they are better at communicating than the 50% of straight couples who cheat without partner approval!!! Way to go Gays!
Originally Posted by SealBeachHusker