When will (not should) America legalize gay marriage?

[HollyS]

"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.

He didn't say ALL straight couples do "that".
I know gay couples who don't do "that" either.

"Outside the norm" is a potent phrase.

I know, right? Gay women couldn't do "that" if they wanted to and they're still gay.

Um, hello? Seriously? Like they don't make certain "toys"?

Wow. And I thought I was green.

 

[Imdanny]

"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.

Black Jade told us she has an Ivy Leaugue education. I'm sure she can answer for herself.

I wasn't speaking for BJ. I was speaking directly to you, about what YOU said. I pointed out an obvious flaw in YOUR post. I wasn't clarifying her post, per se. But, whatever. When you're on roll, I usually just look the other way; my bad.

The flaw? Where is the logical flaw?

 

[Imdanny]

"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.

He didn't say ALL straight couples do "that".
I know gay couples who don't do "that" either.

"Outside the norm" is a potent phrase.

I know, right? Gay women couldn't do "that" if they wanted to and they're still gay.

Um, hello? Seriously? Like they don't make certain "toys"?

Wow. And I thought I was green.

We're talking about defining a group of people by what (you think) they do in the bedroom. That was exactly what BJ said. Exactly. Do you want me to quote it? Are you going to tell me now that heterosexuals "don't do that" when it comes to, um, that thing that two women do? Holly, you're so funny.

 

[HollyS]

Kenny, you are a master at putting words in other people's mouths, but I'm not biting. I DIDN'T SAY I WAS NORMAL AND YOU ARE NOT. And you know that isn't what I said. So your post was rather ridiculous.

You wrote, " A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you."

Going form "norm" to "normal" is not quite a stretch. Is it?

Kenny, it isn't the semantics that are at issue. You said I believed that I was normal and you were not, simply because I'm straight and you are gay. And you know I did not say that.

What is wrong with the truth? A good number of people believe that you are wrong and they want to ignore you, oppose you, or outlaw you. We are not yet at the stage where the majority of people believe your fight is their fight, that you are not a subculture, that you deserve any rights, etc. And there are still quite a lot of people who do not consider your lifestyle (sexual orientation) to be normal. Period. This is the truth of the situation, not a personal comment on what I think.

For pity's sake, can't we at least be honest with each other, or are we so afraid to offend that we just keep our mouths shut? Isn't that what you wanted - - discourse? Talking about how things really are isn't an indictment of all people everywhere. It's just recognizing what you're really up against.

 

[HollyS]

"There is no sex act that two men engage in that men and women do not engage in."




There are, in fact, more women who do not and will not engage in that specific act . . . than do.

Whether you feel like you should, feel like you want to, believe it is your right (and it is) to do whatever you want in the sexual context of your own life - - don't assume everyone else would do it too.

And don't assume that the vast majority believes you should be able to do whatever you want. After all, that IS why your fight for civil rights has been a long drawn out process, isn't it? A pretty big slice of the public believes that 'what you do' is outside the norm, and they either want to ignore you or oppose you. Black Jade was merely noting that, not giving you a lecture.

He didn't say ALL straight couples do "that".
I know gay couples who don't do "that" either.

"Outside the norm" is a potent phrase.

I know, right? Gay women couldn't do "that" if they wanted to and they're still gay.

Um, hello? Seriously? Like they don't make certain "toys"?

Wow. And I thought I was green.

We're talking about defining a group of people by what (you think) they do in the bedroom. That was exactly what BJ said. Exactly. Do you want me to quote it? Are you going to tell me now that heterosexuals "don't do that" when it comes to, um, that thing that two women do? Holly, you're so funny.

Danny, someday soon the gay community will have to address that the biggest reason that so many people don't get past homosexuality is precisely because of what goes on (whether IRL or in their imaginations) in your bedrooms.

It is what it is. I'm not trying to be ugly about this. Whether you are a model citizen, hard working American, upstanding member of your community means nothing to people who want to hate you for your sexual activities. I'm simply pointing that out.

 

[kenny]

Danny, someday soon the gay community will have to address that the biggest reason that so many people don't get past homosexuality is precisely because of what goes on (whether IRL or in their imaginations) in your bedrooms.

It is what it is. I'm not trying to be ugly about this. Whether you are a model citizen, hard working American, upstanding member of your community means nothing to people who want to hate you for your sexual activities. I'm simply pointing that out.

Holly, I don't think you are being ugly.
I respect you and very much appreciate your candor.
Most who share your views don't have the huevos to speak up on PS like you are doing.

When you say, "someday soon the gay community will have to address that the biggest reason that so many people don't get past homosexuality is precisely because of what goes on (whether IRL or in their imaginations) in your bedrooms."
Thank you for bring up the elephant in the living room but how exactly would we "address" that?
Would we our queen, RuPaul go on FOX news and promise we'll all stop doing that naughty thing?

Is that really something WE need to address or could it be that those "so many people" need to address their intolerance for something that in no way affects them?
Again precisely that does happen in some of their bedrooms too?

I know, let's outlaw marriage for all those straight or gay who engage in "precisely that".
The government can install cameras in every room, bar, car and alley in America.
We could spend billions on orbiting satellites that detect "precisely that" to identify and prosecute offenders and keep America pure.
That way we could stamp out all gay and straight "precisely that".
Then we'd be just as pure from "precisely that" as Iran claims to be.

And what exactly does "get past homosexuality" mean?

All kidding aside, I so wish we could meet in person.
I'm sure if you got to know me well as a whole person, and not just an icky sex act, you'd "get past" it.
I'll bet we'd be good friends; I love people who are authentic and speak their minds.

 

[StacylikesSparkles]

I dated women for 6 years. I don't have the 'look' of a lesbian or bi-sexual. In first chance meetings, I thought it interesting to not mention my partner and let the person form an opinion on me based solely on ME and not who I'm sleeping with. It came as a shock to many closed minded people that I was in fact sleeping with *gasp* another woman. I think it made a lot of people think about their views on things. I didn't care who they were sleeping with or what they were doing in their bedroom (unless it was something fun I wanted to try! ) and I was able to change the perception of a lot of people when I introduced them to the person I was dating. Besides:

 

[Black Jade]

I appreciate the willingness to listen and discuss shown here so far.
I don't have a lot of time to spend online right now, but I did want to clarify one thing I said that has led, I think, to a rabbit trail.
When I talked about 'what you do' I did not mean specific sexual acts. What I meant was that a 'gay' person is currently involved in a relationship where they are having sex with a person of the same sex. the context was, that you cannot look at people's outsides and demeanor and mannerisms and know that they are in such a relationship or interested in such relationships or anything of that sort. You would be stereotyping and you would, not 100% of the time, but a surprising amount of the time, be totally wrong.

To me, the only point of considering such things is NOT whether the acts are 'normal' or not; and not whether a majority of people do them or not; and certainly not whether what is normal for me is normal for you, etc. etc. etc. Or whether other people can get over the thought of them or not. The point is, and the reason why the state ever gets involved and regulates, is how your behavior affects other people.

I think we would all be agreed that the state doesn't have a right in the bedroom of anybody, so long as they are of age and are consenting--that is not the issue. But while the state may not be right to ban certain behaviors, even if they are against a particular religion*, there are certainly things that a society needs to promote, sometimes at the expense of others, in order to have a future. The state gets involved in marriage, not to make you personally happy but because it has a stake in making sure that the majority of people do certain things, so that there is a future for all of us. Unfortunately, though two men may be very happy together, or two women may be very happy together, it is a simple fact that nothing they do together promotes the future--i.e. is going to result in children. And you may go on and on about how marriage has nothing to do with procreation anymore, and that is all old-fashioned and maybe so, but the fact is, that when people cease to procreate, societies cease to exist. Not with a bang but a whimper. Which is sort of happening right now all over the world and certainly in all the developed countries. Just read the news from Europe and Japan and look at all the desperate things they are doing at this point to try to convince women to have the 2.1 babies that would replace the population so that they will not face a future of dependent aging people and no younger people to carry on and earn enough money to support all the old codgers. The state originally got into the business of promoting marriage, by granting not 'rights' but 'privileges' to two people that were willing to bond together and stay together to create children and raise them (a twenty year proposition, in which both partners give up a lot and the mother gives up more than the father). Even before people started talking about gay marriage, there were all kinds of other sexual relationships that the state was NOT rewarding--because while fun for the people involved, either temporarily or permanently, they do nothing to make society continue as everyone supposesly wants. This is the issue in a nutshell. It is not fair, but it is how it is. It is not fair that I can't play the cello like Yoyo Ma either. I do play music (piano). I enjoy it. But Yoyo Ma and myself are not equal--in the matter of talent. And all relationships are not equal, either, in terms of doing what the state needs and wants.
So as I said, while it seems to me reasonable to have civil unions which allow people to support their lifelong partners in important ways (sympathize was possibly not a good choice of word here, I accept that), it is not reasonable for the state to pretend that it does not have a particular stake in marriage between a man and woman, who not only can have children together in most cases but provide, in most cases an optimum environment in which children are raised (everything else that I have personally seen, and I have seen a lot, does not work as well, and it doesn't seem worth experimenting with). It is not reasonable or rational to have the state pretend this is not so. There is a lot wrong with marriage (which I am sure is going to be immediately and heatedly pointed out) but the state needs to strengthen it in the cases where It can do something for the state and for the future, not create rights to it where it cannot. There is no abstract 'right' to marriage on the part of everyone who happens to be lonely or in love (I think we would all agree that while some people might fall in love with their full siblings, it is not reasonable to expect the state to legalize and support their marriages, in view of what is likely genetically in the case of their having children) and this just simply is not an equality issue at all, in my mind and as I keep repeating, in the minds of many many others.

 

[HollyS]

Kenny, again you are attributing a personal repugnance of gays to me. I've never said anything remotely indicative of thinking that you are - - less than. I haven't always been fond of your take on something, or your way of expressing it, but what you "do" is entirely your business and I don't give it any thought at all - - let alone do I think "Ooo, icky!"

And, actually, I do like you. You never hide behind political correctness; you say what you think; and you live your beliefs. We aren't that different, really.

And I do know gay people up close and personal. My BIL (by marriage) was a gay man; he, sadly, has passed. I don't live in a bubble, think in a vacuum, or ascribe to even half of what you think conservative Christians believe should be law in America. I won't pigeonhole you if you won't stereotype me, okay?

 

[ksinger]

I appreciate the willingness to listen and discuss shown here so far.
I don't have a lot of time to spend online right now, but I did want to clarify one thing I said that has led, I think, to a rabbit trail.
When I talked about 'what you do' I did not mean specific sexual acts. What I meant was that a 'gay' person is currently involved in a relationship where they are having sex with a person of the same sex. the context was, that you cannot look at people's outsides and demeanor and mannerisms and know that they are in such a relationship or interested in such relationships or anything of that sort. You would be stereotyping and you would, not 100% of the time, but a surprising amount of the time, be totally wrong.

To me, the only point of considering such things is NOT whether the acts are 'normal' or not; and not whether a majority of people do them or not; and certainly not whether what is normal for me is normal for you, etc. etc. etc. Or whether other people can get over the thought of them or not. The point is, and the reason why the state ever gets involved and regulates, is how your behavior affects other people.

I think we would all be agreed that the state doesn't have a right in the bedroom of anybody, so long as they are of age and are consenting--that is not the issue. But while the state may not be right to ban certain behaviors, even if they are against a particular religion*, there are certainly things that a society needs to promote, sometimes at the expense of others, in order to have a future. The state gets involved in marriage, not to make you personally happy but because it has a stake in making sure that the majority of people do certain things, so that there is a future for all of us. Unfortunately, though two men may be very happy together, or two women may be very happy together, it is a simple fact that nothing they do together promotes the future--i.e. is going to result in children. And you may go on and on about how marriage has nothing to do with procreation anymore, and that is all old-fashioned and maybe so, but the fact is, that when people cease to procreate, societies cease to exist. Not with a bang but a whimper. Which is sort of happening right now all over the world and certainly in all the developed countries. Just read the news from Europe and Japan and look at all the desperate things they are doing at this point to try to convince women to have the 2.1 babies that would replace the population so that they will not face a future of dependent aging people and no younger people to carry on and earn enough money to support all the old codgers. The state originally got into the business of promoting marriage, by granting not 'rights' but 'privileges' to two people that were willing to bond together and stay together to create children and raise them (a twenty year proposition, in which both partners give up a lot and the mother gives up more than the father). Even before people started talking about gay marriage, there were all kinds of other sexual relationships that the state was NOT rewarding--because while fun for the people involved, either temporarily or permanently, they do nothing to make society continue as everyone supposesly wants. This is the issue in a nutshell. It is not fair, but it is how it is. It is not fair that I can't play the cello like Yoyo Ma either. I do play music (piano). I enjoy it. But Yoyo Ma and myself are not equal--in the matter of talent. And all relationships are not equal, either, in terms of doing what the state needs and wants.
So as I said, while it seems to me reasonable to have civil unions which allow people to support their lifelong partners in important ways (sympathize was possibly not a good choice of word here, I accept that), it is not reasonable for the state to pretend that it does not have a particular stake in marriage between a man and woman, who not only can have children together in most cases but provide, in most cases an optimum environment in which children are raised (everything else that I have personally seen, and I have seen a lot, does not work as well, and it doesn't seem worth experimenting with). It is not reasonable or rational to have the state pretend this is not so. There is a lot wrong with marriage (which I am sure is going to be immediately and heatedly pointed out) but the state needs to strengthen it in the cases where It can do something for the state and for the future, not create rights to it where it cannot. There is no abstract 'right' to marriage on the part of everyone who happens to be lonely or in love (I think we would all agree that while some people might fall in love with their full siblings, it is not reasonable to expect the state to legalize and support their marriages, in view of what is likely genetically in the case of their having children) and this just simply is not an equality issue at all, in my mind and as I keep repeating, in the minds of many many others.

Ah but now you're getting into something. "The state" is a human construct, with goals informed by whatever group is in power at the moment, and its goal is what? To attempt to perpetuate a certain version of itself at a certain point in time.

If the state (nothing more than one group of people with a certain view of how the world oughta be telling another how to behave - and I gotta tell ya, I'm considered a government-lovin' lib around here, but all this talk of "THE STATE" is giving me the heebie-jeebies) has a vested interest in regulating society so as to promote births to support old codgers, then the state could also be said to have an equal interest setting up conditions as as to reduce the number of codgers - say, by rationing access to healthcare perhaps? since they use so much for so little return - maybe the codgers just need to resign themselves to this situation, in order for "society to have a future". Aren't the old supposed to sacrifice for the young anyway? And perhaps we should be limiting "rewards" to the poor and/or ethnic who do not procreate in the relationships deemed most advantageous to society and therefore need more support. Your arguments also lend quite a bit of weight to the societal good of getting rid of or reducing access to abortion and even birth control. And strangely enough, we are seeing attempts to do all of these things, and the people doing them feel they're "best for society". And I guess it is, as long as you aren't a codger or ethnic or a woman who doesn't want to be lesbian or ignorant or pregnant every year. Scares the crap outta ME I can tell ya. And smacks WAY too much of patriarchal crap, honestly. Father knows best, don'tcha know.

Birth dearth arguments are not about the human race dying out - from a purely evolutionary standpoint, our species survival is not in much danger from not procreating enough - we're more likely to die out choked and poisoned to death by our own mountain of waste after all - but about the fear of certain flavor of society dying off with a whimper, or being changed beyond recognition, and that is a completely different thing than humans ceasing to exist. As a historian, I would think you of all people know that societies grow, flourish, and then die and are reborn in new forms. Trying to hold them static never works, not that those who suspect they are living in a society's twilight, don't work their little terrified fingers to the bone trying to maintain the status-quo.

In any case, no amount of the state NOT supporting gay marriage is going to result in more gay people saying "Oh heck, I think I'll just give in, go straight, marry, and have 2.1 kids for the good of society." Nor is it going to result in more straight people saying, "Wow, now that I can be gay married, I think I'll pass on kids! Woot!" Neither one gonna happen.

I confess to a certain amount of trepidation in the past about gay marriage. But then I remember how many gay couples I know personally and how stable and not-threatening they are, and I come right back to whyever not Karen? I can't really think of a good reason why not. So any issues I have are mine alone, primarly centered around my fears of....wait for it...societal change! But since I can't forsee the changes, or if they'll all be unequivocally bad, I won't attempt to stand in the way of this change. Contraception, divorce, abortion, and women becoming more educated than men have all had unintended consequences too, that have altered society in unexpected ways, but we've all seen the recent attempts to repeal most of the 20th century as it relates to these issues. Bad news. Change happens, but you can't put them back on the farm once they've seen Paree. Let it happen. It's gonna happen anyway.

 

[HollyS]

"In any case, no amount of the state NOT supporting gay marriage is going to result in more gay people saying "Oh heck, I think I'll just give in, go straight, marry, and have 2.1 kids for the good of society." Nor is it going to result in more straight people saying, "Wow, now that I can be gay married, I think I'll pass on kids! Woot!" Neither one gonna happen."



Pretty much. Opposition will not make it go away and never come back again. Making it law won't send the world into a tailspin.

 

[iheartscience]

I'm just surprised people actually care what 2 adults do in the privacy of their own homes. Or hotel rooms. Or cars, for that matter!

But seriously, WHY DOES ANYONE CARE? Should I not be allowed to marry a man if I only ever have non-vaginal intercourse? Or what if I were celibate? Both are outside the norm, after all, and both would mean I wouldn't have any kids, which is a classic excuse people pull out to condemn gay marriage.

 

[Verdy]

Personally, I find it appalling that gay marriage is such an issue in a country like the U.S. Whatever happened to "the pursuit of happiness?" Prohibiting gay marriage to me, is without a doubt, unconstitutional discrimination. I understand where the traditionalists are coming from in the preservation of marriage between a man and a woman, but it's not like they would be FORCED to become homosexuals just by allowing those who are to enjoy the benefits and acknowledgement of being married...in fact, what repercussions would there be in allowing that piece of legislation to pass other than letting the gay community have some well deserved happiness? I just can't wrap my head around the subject. As for the news that President Obama supports gay marriage, I really hope that's a heartfelt decision on his behalf, and not some cheap attempt to gain support for his political campaign because that would just be vile. In any case, I do hope gay marriage is legalized sooner rather than later, there is no excuse for depriving two people of a right that shouldn't be questioned by anyone. It's like my mother says, "Gay marriage is forbidden by the church? That's great! Now show me where it says so in the Constitution!"

 

[Kaleigh]

To me, this is very personal as my brother was gay and lost him in 1993. I think Obama came around because of his daughter's. They have friends who have parents of the same sex. To them not a big deal. It's like they don't see sex, as they don't see color...

My kids are 24 and 22 and are of the same venue. They have tons of gay friends who they love and adore and want for them the same that they will get once they say the I do's.

It's time.

I know many don't feel as I do and respect that,. But I don't feel we need to hold these people back any longer. Enough already.

Love is equal. Knows no boundaries.

 

[movie zombie]

.........Love is equal. Knows no boundaries.

amen.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

If I were to marry my partner of 7 years (It's legal in the state of NY) we wouldn't receive any of the same benefits my straight co-workers do, because I am in the Coast Guard.

When they're married, they receive $300+ more a month in their housing allowance than we would if we were married. Even though we'd be married, he doesn't qualify as a dependant. That means a married couple with no children (as we would be), receives $3,600 more a year, for being married. Having children doesn't mean you'll receive more money either, it's a flat out extra. If you want to see the difference in housing where you live go here https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/bahCalc.cfm type in your zip code and choose E-6 (as an example). Being DINK's (Dual Income No Kids) in certain areas (Boston) can mean close to $7k a year more than I would recieve.

Their spouses also receive very VERY affordable health insurance. Since he doesn't qualify as a dependant, you guessed it, he doesn't qualify for that insurance. His job offers insurance, but it's nowhere near the costs of Tricare.

There are other minor benefits denied to my partner, but they're too numerous to mention.

Those are just the rights denied to us by my job, not to mention the rest of the 1,138 federal rights denied to us. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...ts-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

I've attached a PDF of all the federal benefits denied to me and my partner. If you're married now and are opposed to same sex marriage, are you willing to give up any of these rights/benefits?

**edited attached the wrong document**

 

[gem_anemone]

I think that gay marriage should have been federally mandated in the U.S. already and I am disgusted and embarrassed for my country that it has not. Marriage is a right, not a privilege and I don't consider this statement to be up for debate. If it were a privilege it would be limited to only people who don't abuse it (i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Kim Kardashian etc IMO are people that abuse it). I hope it WILL be legalized in my lifetime.

 

[Black Jade]

Just for the record--I said nothing about the state controlling anyone's life or personal choices.
What I said was that the 'state'--that is, every society in the human race has an interest in SUPPORTING some choices that benefit everyone as a whole, especially if they are things that are difficult to do. In ENCOURAGING. This does not mean suppressing or oppressing those who make other choices.
We do in fact have a birth dearth (look this up if you like) and there is in fact no question of the the population choking the earth anytime soon.
Society has an interest in babies continuing to be born for a whole lot of reasons--not just old codger support. What I said was, look at the many societies where this is not happening and what a problem it is.
FACT: No soceity EVER has ever supported gay marriage for this purely practical reason. The Greeks of the classical age, the most gay friendly society that has ever existed where homosexual (actually pederastic but that's not the point) were elevated above EVERY other kind of relationship, still expected all the men to marry WOMEN by age 30. Because they wanted there to continue to be more Greeks, you know?
Ditto the later empire Romans (who also highly honored male homosexuality) felt the same;.

 

[kenny]

This is such a wonderful and important discussion, even though it ain't always pretty.

Thanks to admin for allowing it.

 

[Kaleigh]

Agree with Kenny, thanks admin for allowing this discussion.

Tonight. I feel very much like just joining my brother.

 

[Imdanny]

Hugs, Kaleigh.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

The world would be a much happier and peaceful place if people paid more attention to their own sex lives and stayed out of other people's sex lives.

 

[beebrisk]

The world would be a much happier and peaceful place if people paid more attention to their own sex lives and stayed out of other people's sex lives.

I couldn't agree more, Madam B.

I believe the vast majority of those who oppose gay marriage agree with that statement too. There's a HUGE misconception that if you have a problem with same sex marriage you therefore "hate" gays and oppose what they do, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

But marriage, as we know, is not just about sex. And that's the crux of the whole debate.

 

[ksinger]

Just for the record--I said nothing about the state controlling anyone's life or personal choices.
What I said was that the 'state'--that is, every society in the human race has an interest in SUPPORTING some choices that benefit everyone as a whole, especially if they are things that are difficult to do. In ENCOURAGING. This does not mean suppressing or oppressing those who make other choices.
We do in fact have a birth dearth (look this up if you like) and there is in fact no question of the the population choking the earth anytime soon.
Society has an interest in babies continuing to be born for a whole lot of reasons--not just old codger support. What I said was, look at the many societies where this is not happening and what a problem it is.
FACT: No soceity EVER has ever supported gay marriage for this purely practical reason. The Greeks of the classical age, the most gay friendly society that has ever existed where homosexual (actually pederastic but that's not the point) were elevated above EVERY other kind of relationship, still expected all the men to marry WOMEN by age 30. Because they wanted there to continue to be more Greeks, you know?
Ditto the later empire Romans (who also highly honored male homosexuality) felt the same;.

Well, yes, your "encouragement" amounts exactly to the state controlling people's lives and personal choices. Every single one of your good-or-better-for-the-state arguments has been used to suppress and control women for millenia - and many of them are being trotted out right now in the nearly 1000 pieces of state-level legislation seeking not to "limit" women's access to legal abortion but to "encourage" women to "understand" what they're doing when they seek abortions. But forget abortion for a sec, and how about something like this: http://feministing.com/2011/09/21/texas-gop-rep-says-it-straight-of-course-this-is-a-war-on-birth-control/.. And I'm absolutely certain, from the rhetoric, that he believes deep down in his heart, that women shouldn't be the ones making those decisions, that it would be better for society if we went back to an earlier view of what's best for "the state".

And Rome, since that is one of your examples, treated women as second-class citizens, and THEN gave them status and the ability to own property ONLY IF they procreated. Sounds pretty punitive to me.

If these arguments seem outmoded and aren't good enough when trying to slap women back into the 19th century, then they don't fly very well when used against gays.


As for your "birth dearth", which really only means that the "right" people aren't procreating at a certain desired level (desired by a spooked subset of the group getting smaller, NOT that humans are in any danger of dying out), we could boost our population tomorrow, no procreation required, by simply opening our borders and thus helping ourselves and other countries by evening out various populations. But that's a recipe for massive societal change, and that's scary. Babies who are bred up in the correct mindset for the dominant culture to to be perpetuated are required, right?

From where I sit, your core assumptions also look like you subscribe to the constant growth model of society and the economy. We have to have more and more young to support the old.....who retire too early for the situation as it stands now, and then stubbornly live far longer than society can support. A partial solution to that - other than "encouraging" them to use less health care, would be that the old need to keep working longer (for the good of the state dontcha know) because they live so much longer than when SS was set up. Oh, but wait, we need them to leave the workforce because we don't want it to be so obvious that we've let so many jobs disappear forever that we don't have even enough for the young, and if they can't get jobs they (they being the educated) won't breed, because for those who subscribe to being responsible, breeding with severely limited or no means to support your own offspring doesn't cut it.

I don't know about you, but "encouraging" people to breed breed breed in this situation, doesn't sound all that advantageous as a long-term strategy, and certainly isn't good for the individual. Better to revisit the old constant growth model and see if we can't come up with something better.

In any case, the real reason that CERTAIN populations have declined, is because women in those certain populations gained access to reliable contraception, and have become more and more educated, which leaves the real population growth to happen amongst the poorer and less educated, which again, is a case of the "wrong" people breeding.

But circling back to the topic at hand, the bottom line here, is that NONE of this is caused, nor will it be impacted in any way, by say, allowing civil unions but NOT allowing gays to marry. The logical end result of either one, means gays couple up with each other, and don't breed.

So tell me, how DOES your allowing one but not the other, encourage breeding, since population level seems to be your major argument against gay marriage?

 

[gem_anemone]

There's a HUGE misconception that if you have a problem with same sex marriage you therefore "hate" gays and oppose what they do, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. The reason it is NOT a misconception that people against gay marriage DO hate gays is because any "reasons" they give against gay marriage do not hold any merit. I'm surprised that no one has posted the following sarcastic list of reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to get married because it completely obliterates all typical and popular "arguments" against gay marriage.

12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

 

[Imdanny]

We have to have more and more young to support the old.....who retire too early for the situation as it stands now, and then stubbornly live far longer than society can support. A partial solution to that - other than "encouraging" them to use less health care, would be that the old need to keep working longer (for the good of the state dontcha know) because they live so much longer than when SS was set up.

This is off topic and an arcane policy discussion, but the people who set up Social Security actually predicted the future increase of life expectancy to within an almost scary degree of accuracy! I don't have a link off hand, but the person I read who wrote about this is named Nancy Altman. They were very good at what they did. Destroying Social Security would be like blowing up the Hoover Dam. Let's say you did that. The people who were able to build that masterpiece are no longer with us. Plus, did you know that the increases in life expectancy happen in the top 50th percentiles? Yes, that's right. The people who paid into Social Security and need it are actually not living longer. If all that weren't enough, the 1983 (I think it was '83) changes to Social Security raised the full retirement age. People my age can't get full Social Security at 65. The full retirement age is already being raised (to 67) as we speak. And if all that weren't enough, the truth is the '83 changes were done specifically with the knowledge of the baby boomers. That's why there is a Social Security surplus estimated until 2037! Did I mention Social Security does not contribute to the deficit and by law can not pay out more in benefits than it takes in? Which other part of the government has paid every check for over 75 years and has a surplus until 2037?! Attacking Social Security is about attacking social insurance. It has nothing to do with "fixing" the reduction in benefits that would occur 25 years from now.

 

[iheartscience]

There's a HUGE misconception that if you have a problem with same sex marriage you therefore "hate" gays and oppose what they do, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. The reason it is NOT a misconception that people against gay marriage DO hate gays is because any "reasons" they give against gay marriage do not hold any merit. I'm surprised that no one has posted the following sarcastic list of reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to get married because it completely obliterates all typical and popular "arguments" against gay marriage.

12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Ha love this list! The bottom line is that people who don't want gay people to get married are bigots, plain and simple. I don't care what their "reasons" are. Wanting to deny people civil rights=bigotry.

Yes I am an intolerant liberal. I'm intolerant of bigotry and ignorance. BOOM!

 

[Madam Bijoux]

These are 2 different issues, but the principles are the same: Interracial marriage did not become fully legal in all U.S. states until the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. A lot of states had the good sense to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates. Laws against gay marriage are just as unconstitutional and senseless as the laws against interracial mariages were. It might take a Supreme Court decision to declare laws against gay marriage unconstitutional.

 

[HollyS]

There's a HUGE misconception that if you have a problem with same sex marriage you therefore "hate" gays and oppose what they do, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. The reason it is NOT a misconception that people against gay marriage DO hate gays is because any "reasons" they give against gay marriage do not hold any merit. I'm surprised that no one has posted the following sarcastic list of reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to get married because it completely obliterates all typical and popular "arguments" against gay marriage.

12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Ha love this list! The bottom line is that people who don't want gay people to get married are bigots, plain and simple. I don't care what their "reasons" are. Wanting to deny people civil rights=bigotry.

Yes I am an intolerant liberal. I'm intolerant of bigotry and ignorance. BOOM!

Looks like a David Letterman Top Twelve to me. Funny, somewhat. Serious, not.

Can we at least talk without hyperbole, drama, gauntlet throwing, name calling, sterotyping, and attempts at skewering humor? Let's leave the flaming head emoties out of it as well.

 

[beebrisk]

There's a HUGE misconception that if you have a problem with same sex marriage you therefore "hate" gays and oppose what they do, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. The reason it is NOT a misconception that people against gay marriage DO hate gays is because any "reasons" they give against gay marriage do not hold any merit.

Says you. (And yes, others too)

But that doesn't make it so.

Of course you can disagree with my statement but there are plenty of people who have made articulate, cogent, SECULAR arguments against SSM.

If being against SSM means a person is a bigot then I guess the president "HATED" gays too?? (Until last week anyway).

I also know several gay men whose loved ones are against SMM who do NOT feel "hated" by them and understand the VAST difference between a person being against re-defining the institution of marriage and being "hateful".