Warning!!! Homophobes please look no further. Turn back know while you still have virgin eyes/ears!!!!!




As this board is such a great mix of cultures and lifestyles from around the world, I'd like to know how your regions view same-sex marriages, or same-sex relationships in general. As always, when obtaining "off-color" information in the U.S. there's always a persistent skew from the media or in my case, the majority opinion from "The Bible Belt" which doesn't necessarily reflect that of the rest of the planet. While doing a research paper for school, I realized how little I know about this subject from other parts of the world.

Please don't take this as me asking anyone to publicly come out of the closet or anything like that. Though we all read that Yassir Arafat was "outed" by Weekly World News last week. I'm simply looking for more views than I can get from my Bible thumping neighbors.

Judging from this email you all can guess where I stand on the subject, but I'd still like to hear from you. Just because you can't change my mind doesn't mean I won't listen!

Greg

Please clarify the question.

Are you asking for our own personal opinions on the subject, or are you asking what our local laws are regarding same-sex marriages?

Are you asking about same-sex marriage specifically, or about same-sex relationships in general?

If it's guys we usually just give them the standard insults and then go on about our business. If it's girls and they're hot then we'll try to hook up with them or set up a video camera in a tree overlooking their window. That's my perspective of the regional perspective.

I'll clarify. I'm looking for regional opinions on the subject of same-sex marriages specifically, but if none can be given then a regional opinion of same-sex relationships ...

Here's a made up example, "In my part of the Netherlands, it's a pretty gay friendly community. There has even been some recent political discussion about allowing same-sex unions. Gay marriages aren't really in the picture yet, though."

If someone is willing to put up a personal opinion or view, it's more than welcome too.

Greg

Okay, that's clear.

I actually don't know what the local laws are regarding same-sex marriage. But I can give the flavor of what it's like around here.

My town is an interesting contrast. In some respects, it's very bible-belt and redneck. Quite the hick town. Very much a "main st USA" kind of a place. Plenty of homophobia, plenty of redneck attitudes. But at the same time, there's a bohemian/hippie side to it. There's kind of a bohemian "cluster" you might say, in the town where I work. In that area, same-sex relationships are quite common and well known, and considered rather normal.

Judging from this email you all can guess where I stand on the subject, but I'd still like to hear from you. Just because you can't change my mind doesn't mean I won't listen!

I think I share a bit of Tony's question -- what exactly is it you are asking? -- but the general nature of the issue you are raising is interesting, so (caution be damned!) I'll just dive in....

I think I am about as far away from what you could characterize as a Bible-thumper as could be imagined. I'm not sure that means that I am somehow automatically tolerant, though, of those things that "bible thumpers" are perceived as intolerant of. We'll see.

Back in the 80s I worked an internship with a pediatric nurse practitioner (call her Nancy) in rural, rural Maine -- driving around in a Winnebago giving kids shots and doing hearing tests and such. One day driving back into Bangor she saw two women walking holding hands (Hell, they might have been from France for all we knew) and Nancy almost literally freaked -- went on and on about it for 30 minutes. I tried to gently say "good thing you don't live in my town (Boston) because you'd see that all the time" and basically I thought "Whoa, Nancy, what is your personal hang-up that you get so wound up about this??"

This is not to say that Jim was without his own discomforts. Aspects of homosexuality sat uncomfortably with me for a longer time than I might have guessed. Sorry if this is not PC, but *men* kissing?? Whoa.

Oh, well, I got over it. I went on to work with men and women who not only were in long-term partner relationships but who had both biological and adoptive children. One of these kids I remember was a "turkey baster baby" -- a biological child of a lesbian woman compliments of a donation from a gay man who did his thing in the kitchen while she waited in the living room.

Since then I have worked with more same-sex couples with kids (mostly adoptive) and what I was able to observe is that they were nice folks with nice kids. I think sexual orientation confers no immunity from the tribulations that anyone associates with traditional hetero marriage. Yes, same-sex couples get divorced, too.

After *all* of this, I still have a lingering doubt or two. Gay activists *demand* rights associated with traditional marriage or the rights to have kids, etc. There is still a teeny bit of the raised-by-Catholics Jim that says "Jeez, if you really think you have the right to have kids, then why don't you just have sex as defined in the playbook??" Yes, I saw a 40-ish woman at the store a few weeks ago with an infant in a baby carrier with a pink "Gayby" tag and asked myself "Is this how it is supposed to be?"

That being said, my conclusion is that the biological aspects are important, but not always primary. My friend's next-door neighbors are a late-to-the-fold (divorced from men) lesbian couple with a 17-year-old, most definitely heterosexual son who they adore (and who is a great kid!). If you met these folks, any idea that they had a hidden agenda to somehow convert their son to a particular sexual orientation would instantly evaporate. In the end, it seems like the imporant thing is that kids/people are nurtured and cared for. What I know is that the homosexual parents I've known would do a better job on that front than this heterosexual!

Does this in *any* way answer your question?

It's on topic (for this thread) and amusing and gives some insight I had not considered, so, SURE it answers my question ;-)

What I hear most of in my area (Dallas), and where I grew up (West Texas/Panhandle) revolves around a few key presumptions that I just can't follow:

1. Gays are promiscuous, so if they get married, they'll soon get a divorce. Why bother in the first place and tarnish the marriage institution?

The reply here for me is obvious. Divorce is already common, isn't the institution of marriage already getting tarnished? But why would a gay person be more promiscuous than a straight person? From what I can tell a gay couple is just as likely to have a long-term relationship as anyone else.

2. Homosexuality is against nature and God, so gay marriages shouldn't be supported by the government.

Animals have been known to engage in "homosexual behavior". Animals are a part of nature. Humans are animals, too. And this is by no means a new thing. In ancient Greece and Rome it was actually expected for a young man to take on an older more experienced "tutor". As for God, supposedly the good old U.S. of A. has seperation of church and state ... but that's never stopped us from bringing religion in to politics before.

3. Ewwww, two guys kissing over there!!!

Well, I agree seeing two dudes going at it in the corner of a bar is a little disturbing, I'd feel pretty similar if I saw a man and a woman groping in public too. Two girls on the other hand, I wouldn't really have a problem seeing kiss. My wife on the other hand, differs.

[Edited]
OH!!! Gay Marriages ... Interesting tidbit. With the new congressional elections here in the USA, many of the old guys who were historic opposers of gay marriages are either retiring, or got out voted. Georgia's Bob Barr was a really big one. Texan Phil Gramm also had a lot to say on the subject. I won't be surprised though, to find out that they may have been replaced by some far less tolerant senators.

Greg

To answer your question:

In New Zealand, it's a mostly gay friendly community.
There has been some recent political discussion about allowing same-sex unions.
Gay marriages aren't really in the picture yet, though

That about sums it up.

To add some background, same-sex relationships for consenting adults over 16 have been recognised in law/legal since about 1987.

Its illegal under the (nationwide) laws to dsicriminate on the grounds of sex, age, race or religion, sexual orientation (whether Hetero or Homo -sexual).

Contrary to local politicians of the time when the same-sex relationships legalisation was being debated by the politicians the sky has not fallen down in the 15 years since it became law, nor has HIV rocketed through the community.

Politicians have discussed/been asked to pass laws to allow same-sex marriages, but it raises some legal issues with other laws/legal definitions and won't probably be made law any time this decade.

Unions outside marriage, whether hetero or not can be "registered" for the purposes of providing a more equitable split (e.g. 50/50) in jointly owned assets when the long term relationship ends.
Such registered relationships are treated by the courts similarly to normal marriages for the purposes of dividing up assets in the relationship.

Other than that there is no protection in law for non-married couples of either sexual orientation.

However there have been a few cases where lesbian couples have applied for, and got publically funded fertility treatments to allow (one of) the women to be artificially inseminated.

Which has caused some outcries in the past - in that it seems a little unfair that someone who can otherwise conceive children (or could in a normal hetero rationship) choses not to, and then expect the tax payer to fund their lifestyle choice, while other couples with a genuine need miss out - that I disagree with.

The other point that has caused a row is that a lesbian couple have been granted legal guradianship and/or allowed to adopt children, the same does not apply for gay men. The government agencies make some lame excuse about "not being suitable parents" but if thats not sexual discrimination I don't what is.


You can do what one of my cousins did and get some guy (whose gene pool) they liked to look of, half drunk and then get him to knock them up in a alleyway behind the pub.

The odd thing was that my uncle & aunt (my cousins parents) did not know she was a lesbian and they simply were told and accepted that the father had "done a runner/bunk", whereas everyone else knew the real story.
They treat the kid like any other grandchild.

I think the thing is is that gays are sexual perverts, kind of like the guy nailing the goat up the ass or the priest with little johnny in the confessional. However, when a couple of fags decide it would be fun to ram eachother in the backside, it is a mutual decision, unlike the goat and unlike little johnny. This is a free country do what you like as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

As for them being able to adopt, like I said I think it is unnatural, harmful, and perverted behavior, and I feel sorry for a child raised by someone like that. But I also feel sorry for children raised by drunks, adulters, whatever. If no decent family is willing to take care of a child then I suppose anyone who is willing to take them in and care for them should be allowed to, and hopefully that person(s) is a decent human being and can raise the child into a decent adult. Amen.

1. Gays are promiscuous, .......

The reply here for me is obvious. Divorce is already common, isn't the institution of marriage already getting tarnished? But why would a gay person be more promiscuous than a straight person? From what I can tell a gay couple is just as likely to have a long-term relationship as anyone else.

The "traditional" side of me feels like it is too bad that we are reduced to mounting a defense of a particular lifestyle based on the fact that the institution of marriage is tarnished and that divorce is common. Wish these weren't so, but they are. Secondarily, I'd say that there *are* aspects of gay culture that are promiscuous and that it is perhaps considered impolite to mention (Hey, some guys fly R/C airplanes, other guys are obsessed with mobile MP3 players...) but that your ultimate conclusion is correct -- gay folks are as likely to have a stable relationship as anybody else...

2. Homosexuality is against nature and God, so gay marriages shouldn't be supported by the government.

Animals have been known to engage in "homosexual behavior". Animals are a part of nature. Humans are animals, too. And this is by no means a new thing. In ancient Greece and Rome it was actually expected for a young man to take on an older more experienced "tutor". As for God, supposedly the good old U.S. of A. has seperation of church and state ... but that's never stopped us from bringing religion in to politics before.

This is hard to argue against if you are not on board with the whole deity concept. Plus, even if you are, there's no guarantee that your deity will be as pure and strict as *their* deity, so someone's argument that "X" is "against nature and God" can always be held as valid in their eyes if your vision of God is perceived to be deficient..

With respect to "younger men taking on older more experienced tutor/s" memories of Mary Renault's excellent historical fiction "The Last of The Wine" comes to mind, but it doesn't seem to provide much of a useful justification/defense. Nowadays, invoking ancient Greek social history seems to conjure more of the unsavory NAMBLA, predatory-priest imagery that we wish would go away... .

This is hard to argue against if you are not on board with the whole deity concept.

One philosophical viewpoint would be that this is circular reasoning. Both the concept of hetero marriage itself and the idea that "gay is a sin" are religious ones.

You could argue that from a non-religious evolutionary/procreation standpoint that homosexuality is abnormal. But I don't think any gay couple expects to be able to conceive offspring; their lifestyle is what it is for non-reproductive reasons. So that argument would be circular as well.

Food for philosophical thought. Doesn't necessarily have any bearing on a given community's laws regarding same-sex marriages, though.

As for God, supposedly the good old U.S. of A. has seperation of church and state ... but that's never stopped us from bringing religion in to politics before.

Of course, we've had a discussion already over whether we actually have seperation of church and state, so hopefully we won't get back into that.


I really don't know what my area thinks. It's a tough area to guage. Most of the folk around here fall into one of three categories:

1) tourists - too transient to have opinions
2) college students - they double the size of the town, but you know opinions on college campuses, they're all over the place
3) retirees - I suppose you could say that these folk would be more conservative, but it's hard to say

That's what makes up my school area. As for Washington DC, well, I don't even want to think about the range of ideas there

One philosophical viewpoint would be that this is circular reasoning. Both the concept of hetero marriage itself and the idea that "gay is a sin" are religious ones.

It would be a sin to disagree with you on this point. I agree.

You could argue that from a non-religious evolutionary/procreation standpoint that homosexuality is abnormal. But I don't think any gay couple expects to be able to conceive offspring; their lifestyle is what it is for non-reproductive reasons. So that argument would be circular as well.

This is where it gets a bit dicey for me -- not uncomfortably dicey, mind you, but just a little dicey. From the whole procreative standpoint (at least in the human species) heterosexuality would seem to be where it's at. 'Course this assumes that all 100% of the citizens have to be procreatively humping away for the species to succeed....

Then, while you'd think that [no] gay couple expects to conceive offspring, I'm not sure that's the case. Where did that neat little "Gayby on Board" tag come from on that baby carrier? And that whole turkey baster thing tells me that some women are quite determined to engage their maternal instincts without the messy complication of....Men!!

I think a lot of people are against gay marriages not because they dislike gay people, but because marriage has traditionally been a ceremony between a man and woman. I won't give my opinion on this though, because this is a very touchy subject . By the way, I've always been curious as to how they change the wording for the ceremony. Are they both husbands and both wives? You may now kiss the groom? Anyone know anything about that?

"I think a lot of people are against gay marriages not because they dislike gay people, but because marriage has traditionally been a ceremony between a man and woman."

I think this would be the issue for same-sex marriages. The big problem is how you define "marriage." If it is simply "documented cohabitation by two consenting adults" then there should be no problem legally with same sex marriages. My personal opinion is that marriage means a woman and a man, and actually a bit more than that as well. But of course if you have a different premise you will obviously come to a different conclusion.

I would probably fit under the "bible thumper" category mentioned previously (and I read this anyway, sorry), but I want to say that whatever people do in the privacy of their homes (or in public such as holding hands) is completely their own decision if it doesn't affect someone else. Even so, my personal opinion is that homosexuality is a sin (that's, as mentioned above, the God issue). That is my belief, and not something I force anyone else to live by. I certainly will make it known if asked. I do not, however, find myself "intolerant" but quite the opposite: I believe that homosexuality is a sin but I believe that others have the freedom to believe and behave differently. If I believe that everyone’s ideas are correct, then of what am I being tolerant? I would be intolerant if I said that I cannot abide by anyone thinking differently from myself.

I'm not gay but I have known quite a few people who are over the years, including a brother. If two people can find happiness together than they are very lucky and I could care less if they are the same sex or not. People have just become so intolerant of so many things, political correctness for one.

As for my region, there are areas in the city that have many gay couples and there is a gay pride march here every year. But I think most people in this area just close their eyes to it and hope that it goes away.

I operate a live and let live philosophy with regard to homosexuality, which I personally regard as abhorrant and unnatural.

However, many significant leaders in our culture have been homosexual, or at least bisexual, I think particularly of Oscar Wilde, where I would side against "society", in his treatment. I also think of Alan Turing who, and I do accept that this his sexuality is largely speculative, would have contributed as much to computing as he did to codebreaking had he not committed suicide.

But, to me, the idea of same sex marriages is both unacceptable and represents a decline in our moral values.

But be clear that I am expressing a personal opinion.

Where I live (Belgium) being gay is pretty much accepted. The situation over here is practically the same as in Holland. Gay people getting married is stil not possible over here, but there's a lot of talk about it and there's no doubt in my mind that in the not-so-distant future this will be a possibility. And why not? If two gay people want to get married, nobody else should have to have a say in that. It's their business, and they're not hurting anybody by doing so. So I say : let them!

I've known several gay people, and I even work with some. I have no problems with them whatsoever. But there's one area where I draw the line, and that's when kinds are involved. Now, I don't mean the situation where someone has got kids out of a heterosexual marriage, and then suddenly decide they're actually gay. I believe the people involved should have known better, but people can make mistakes. That's what makes us human.

No, what I AM talking about is when a gay couple suddenly decides they want to have kids. With respect to the natural urge of procreation, for me this is a breaking point.
I don't have anything against gay people, two concenting adults can do whatever they want for all I care. But I draw the line when a third party -a party that isn't able to give it's concent (yet)- gets involved.
INHO this reflects incredible egoïsm on the part of the "parents" to let a child go through this. They have no idea whatsoever what they are going to put that kid through. They are not the ones that will get picked upon in school for this reason, day after day, year after year. (we all know kids can be cruel) Sure, the parents might not have a problem with their way of life, but that doesn't mean a kid should go through it. Certainly not if it doesn't have to.

I've got a collegue at work, a lesbian collegue, that is pregnant now. She went to the sperm bank. Some collegues congratulated her on this. I didn't. I didn't think congratulations were in order here. I truely feel sorry for this kid already, and it's not even been born yet.
Another reason why I think this is not right, is that I, as a man, feel demeaned to a little sperm cel. Like it's all she needed from us men, and all that we are to her. Now I must add that in this particular case, the woman I'm refering to is a die-hard lesbo. The kind that thinks all men are scum and you're better off without them. This probably has a lot to do with why I feel this way in this particular example.

I believe a handicap of being gay should be that you're are never to have any kids. Even though you're fully "equiped" to have them. This is sad, I agree, and it isn't fair, I know. But hey, life isn't fair! I know some people might think this is harsh, but this is how I feel. If I was gay, there would be no way I would want any kids. Not in this world. Again, I think this way because I believe it's better than the alternative, because I think it isn't fair to put that kind of sociological burden on a person that didn't have a say in it in the first place.
Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I want to thank you for entering this discussion. Admittedly, I put some barriers in the original invitation. Sadly, many of the people I've talked to in this area, who consider themselves avid church-goers, are not nearly as reserved as you when it comes to this issue.

For most of them, it *is* there business what others do in the privacy of their own home. It's almost as if the Right to Privacy doesn't apply to people who may be acting immorally.

Usually in my case, after this subject is broached with my neighbors, all hopes of an intelligent conversation, such as yours, fly out the window.

Greg

I usually stay completely out of moral debates on the board e.g. the pledge of allegiance, the gay bag thread, for the reason of my own sanity. Trying to speak on a subject like this and not be pigeon holed is in fact difficult. However the tenor of this thread has been quite civil so I'll give it a shot.

Is marriage a religious ceremony recognized by the state, or a state ceremony recognized by the church?
The historical answer is A, a church ceremony recognized by the state. This is why religious persons find the concept of homosexual MARRIAGE so preposterous. In many cases simply creating a different name with the same legal protections would minimalize the outcry against the homosexual community. Don't believe me? Ask a coworker if homosexuals should be able to live together, share bills, take care of each other when they're sick, and any number of other things that married heterosexuals do for their spouses and most will answer "sure its a free country". Then ask if homosexuals should be allowed to be married. The answer is usually no. Homosexual marriage is an attack on the accepted definiton of a marriage, whether you want it to be or not. Redefinition of marriage is what most homosexuals seek, not realizing that politically redefining marriage is a religious war by its nature, since the church doesn't think its any of the states business. Definintion of a new relationship would allow for more understanding. Read this understanding that I think homosexuality is a sin, along with heterosexual promiscuity by the way, and you'll see that I desire to be civil and understanding but I refuse to simply write off my convictions.
Secondly, please in your minds separate bible thumping from redneck. I have a liberal arts education in history and speech, I'm half way through my masters, I can read in three languages. My friends include homosexuals, people of all sorts of religious beliefs, and some with no morals at all. I believe the Bible, but no one will ever meet me and think, "Well there's a red neck for ya". My conviction to disagree with you is not based on tradition or hatred for what I do not understand, it stems from personal study and mediation. I'm not saying that anyone in the thread has been blasting me or even people like me. I'm just saying Christian conservative does not equate to unthinking swine.

You could argue that from a non-religious evolutionary/procreation standpoint that homosexuality is abnormal. But I don't think any gay couple expects to be able to conceive offspring; their lifestyle is what it is for non-reproductive reasons. So that argument would be circular as well.

Their lifestyle in their context is for non-reproductive reasons. In evolutional context, it can also serve a cause. There are known species of crabs, where evolution has dropped the female part. Reproduction is based on cloning in the male body. Of course you've also got the hermafroditic types, like earthworms...

Homosexual marriage is an attack on the accepted definiton of a marriage, whether you want it to be or not. Redefinition of marriage is what most homosexuals seek, not realizing that politically redefining marriage is a religious war by its nature, since the church doesn't think its any of the states business.

Very well put. Couldn't agree more.

Secondly, please in your minds separate bible thumping from redneck.

Good point. Christianity does cross all cultural boundaries.

This is very well put. Regarding redneck vs. bible thumping, I'll admit for me these two are more or less the same, but only for the fact that where I grew up and where I live now, these two characteristics occupy the same individuals. You can't get one without the other in this area, it seems. And everyone knows Texas is mostly filled with rednecks. I think my family actually had the term coined after us.

For the most part, around here, if a person has an education above the High School level, and still regularly goes to church, it's more for connections and apearances rather than faith. If they are one of the few who went through college or grad school and have maintained their full faith, then chances are you went to a private religious school and were more or less sheltered from other cultures and lifestyles.

It's nice to see that this isn't always the case.

Greg

You guys don't realize what a validation your feelings are. My official title is Associate Pastor, Minister of Maturity and Ministry. Which basically means I am supposed to take Rednecked "that's wrong cause Momma said it was" Christians and turn them into Christians capable of speaking truth with compassion, and sharing their faith without cramming it down people's throats. It would seem I won't be out of a job soon... If things go well here I can always go to Europe...

P.S. One of my favorite situations is when a homosexual finds out I'm a Southern Baptist minister and stares in disbelief as I sit down next to them to have an honest conversation over coffee.... Talk about deer in the headlights...

> They have no idea whatsoever what they are going to put that kid through.
> They are not the ones that will get picked upon in school for this reason,
> day after day, year after year. (we all know kids can be cruel)

I know that this isn't your sole reason behind your opinion, but bear in mind that this isn't far off what people said in the 50/60/70's about mixed race couples having kids. Before that kids would be teased if their parents divorced.

Also remember that the parents themselves may have been bullied while at school and know first hand just what their child may face. That's probably why most gay parents say that they hope their kids are straight so they don't have to go through it too.

Often kids will tease because of the opinions that they had gathered from their parents and teachers. Kids can be cruel, but when they've heard the most trusted people in their life say something negative about someone else, they are going to believe it and use it as a reason to bully.

I can see what you mean.
But I still think that, IF the parents went through it themselves, that's even more reason not wanting it to happen to somebody else, especially your kids. (this sounds to me like a "I went through it, so now it's somebody else's turn", pretty egoistical I think)

The mixed race anology is not really correct here I believe. Though I don't doubt that this created a lot of trouble in the past, and I certainly don't want to belittle it, this is something entirely different and thus an entirely different discussion. Because look at it how you like, you can't really say that being gay is being normal, how liberal minded you may be. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say it's a bad thing, just not normal.
The normal way of going about this is man + woman = child, not man + man or woman + woman. Something just doesn't add up there.

I'm sure mixed race couples had a LOT of difficulties in the past (and maybe even now still), but basically they still were about a man and a woman loving each other and having kids. I see nothing wrong with that. All the right ingredients are there to create a healthy stable family for the kid to grow up in. With gay people it would always be like there's too much of the one thing and nothing of the other.

Also, I don't think it really matters where kids get their ideas to be cruel to other kids. (be it teacher, parents, the wrong kind of friends,...) because I'm pretty sure you also don't care when you're the kid getting picked upon, that's all.

I was going to broach this, but had decided against it. Since you went first, I guess now I will comment.

Most pastors that I have met are very intelligent, tolerant (in the way I spoke of it above), and well spoken. The problem is that most regular church goers believe that they have no burden to educated themselves on matters of faith so instead resort to very unchristian behavior (i.e.: they have heard at church that homosexuality is a sin, so they feel that justifies not interacting with homosexuals, calling them horrible things, and making inappropriate jokes).

On top of this, the squeaky wheel gets the grease so many of the loud voices you hear consistently on television, etc. are saying things like the homosexual community in America will be destroyed by fire. I heard a clip of someone say this followed by the crowed cheering. It chilled by bones to hear such a tragic thing and it makes me sad that that this is the version of my faith that people hear.

The most hostile conversation I ever had was with another "Christian" (in quotes because though he professed to be one, he rarely attended church or did anything else to back this up). He started almost yelling at me when I told him the only thing that could keep a homosexual out of heaven was a refusal to trust Jesus Christ, the same as any other individual. He accused me of belonging to a "liberal" (the horror ) church that had lost its way. Never mind that what I'd said was the Gospel, the premise on which the entire Christian church is founded.

Ok, sorry I did get WAY of topic, sometimes I just have to ramble a bit!

I would probably fit under the "bible thumper" category mentioned previously

Hmmm. Not by my definition. I don't hear any thumping from you or revlmwest, and there are plenty of folks who are devout in their varied ways who I wouldn't put in that category. I guess I use it when I encounter aggressive prosyletizers or watch somebody like a TV evengelist shouting about righteousness and how some other people are doomed. Oh, I guess it gets more complicated than that but probably not worth bogging down this thread with that...

My personal opinion is that marriage means a woman and a man, and actually a bit more than that as well. But of course if you have a different premise you will obviously come to a different conclusion.

In my gut, I still think of marriage as a man-woman phenomenon, and I *do* sometimes wonder why some gays/lesbians consider themselves absolutely entitled to something like reproduction if their "social biology" (rotten term maybe) isn't built that way.

OTOH, I wonder what the fuss is about. Are we concerned that gays will actually have health insurance or other benefits as a result of marriage? I'd almost vote for *anything* that helps somebody get health insurance in this country! Are we afraid that married gay parents will churn out an army of gay children? Don't think it works that way. What I hear a lot (I think) is that folks are against creating additional institutions (same-sex marriage) that will help create or reinforce the perception that homosexuality is normal. Well, I think history shows pretty clearly that it is normal, so somehow trying to defeat this perception doesn't seem like a worthy goal.

The actual details of who is entitled to what? How is it that folks who aren't willing to have reproductive sex still feel the need/right to reproduce? I don't know.

Oh, what bothers me about the whole Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender thing?? No acronym.

Well being from Mississippi, you can guess its not exactly accepted. I personally dont beleive that its right, but its not my cup of tea. I know openly gay guys and girls and it doesnt bother me, but it does bother some. Beyond what people probably beleive of the south, its actually more accepted than most would think.
you ofcourse still have macho guys, threatening any gay guys life, but if they meet a guy thats gay, they usually arent bothered by it. As for a political standpoint, homosexual marriages are not and probably will not be allowed for a long time. This state still outlaws sodomy, which by law definition is any unnatuaral act of sex, which includes anything besides a married couple in the missionary position. so by law consumating a gay marriage would be illegal.

My view personally is that it shouldnt be allowed. I feel that marriage is and has always been a religious institution, and considering almost every major religion that I know of frowns on homosexuality it kind of slaps them in the face. As for allowing a gay couple to adopt, I dont know what to think about that.

But as for what you asked, Homosexuality is just not discussed in this state, its more of a denial thing i guess, there are very few openly gay people, but there are some neverless, you will not see a gay bar, but instead on certain nights a bar may be gay, if you get my point.

The normality of homosexuality is certainly questionable. If you mean it that it shows up throughout history then of course you'd be right. However prevalence is not what were discussing. If everything that is prevalent is normal, then so murder must be called normal, but no ones passing laws protecting it. Instead rightness, or even correctness, is the point. A thoughtful person who condemns homosexuality will condemn it not only for what it does to society (basically that it propegates itself) but for what it does to the individual practicing it. For every happy gay couple (I know, I know), you find I can point to as many gay people who say the lifestyle led them to depression. Since we can't see the truth for the personalities, it makes it impossible to prove beyond a doubt. It is purely anecdotal. Therefore whether or not its wrong or right must be decided away from or before individuals are concerned or bias is inevitable.

I also would like to point out that the extra hurdles that must be jumped by homosexuals in order to parent. Therefore insuring that only those serious about parenting would actually be given the opportunity to do so. This hurdle dramatically changes the appearance of homosexual parenting. If the hurdles were less the seriousness of some parents would be equally less.

The historical answer is A, a church ceremony recognized by the state.

I think I agree that there is a historical basis of a "church ceremony recognized by the state" so long as the history in question is Judeo-Christian/European.

I ask in completely sincere ignorance: Is this universal? How does it work in other societies? Is it primarily
religious, civil, or neither? Does an overarching religious or civil framework exist in (non-colonized) Asia? The Brazilian rain forest? Which takes precedence? Do defacto gay marriages exist in societies that have less extensive or radically different religious or civil infrastructures?

In many cases simply creating a different name with the same legal protections would minimalize the outcry against the homosexual community. Don't believe me? Ask a coworker if homosexuals should be able to live together, share bills, take care of each other when they're sick, and any number of other things that married heterosexuals do for their spouses and most will answer "sure its a free country". Then ask if homosexuals should be allowed to be married. The answer is usually no.

I understand what you are saying and agree that many people would react as you describe. I don't think it would resolve the debate in any way, but I personally see "creating a different name with the same legal protections" as already having been accomplished. It's a civil union in front of the Justice of the Peace down at the town hall (no attempt to invade a church to get married!!). Seriously, though, I guess i do see it this way -- separate the civil from the religious aspects -- but I'm going to guess that is the kind of thing that is being struggled over and that resolution is far, far away.

Homosexual marriage is an attack on the accepted definiton of a marriage, whether you want it to be or not. Redefinition of marriage is what most homosexuals seek, not realizing that politically redefining marriage is a religious war by its nature, since the church doesn't think its any of the states business.

Now *there's* a fly in the ointment. I'm guessing that civil authorities will continue to assert that it is their business, that the existence or non-existence of a marriage will increasingly be determined on a civil, not religious, basis (like if you get an annullment from the Catholic Church, you'll still have to obtain a civil divorce to be considered legally unmarried, right?) This leaves religious authorities in sort of a secondary position, I'd say, with authority deriving pretty much from the loyalty of their own adherents and with enforcement capabilities limited to membership penalties (like excommunication, say).

Anyhow, I was going to say that "attack" seemed like a pretty strong term, but then my attempts to come up with a better one didn't seem to work...."challenge", no...OK, "attack".

Definintion of a new relationship would allow for more understanding. Read this understanding that I think homosexuality is a sin, along with heterosexual promiscuity by the way, and you'll see that I desire to be civil and understanding but I refuse to simply write off my convictions.

Well, done. In my own, overcompensating way, I might do more to earn a "thumper" moniker.

I also would like to point out that the extra hurdles that must be jumped by homosexuals in order to parent.

Interesting point. It's quite easy for straight people to accidentally become parents even when they are ill-suited to it, whereas a gay couple needs to be pretty serious about wanting to be parents before attempting it. I hadn't thought of that.

Are we concerned that gays will actually have health insurance or other benefits as a result of marriage? I'd almost vote for *anything* that helps somebody get health insurance in this country!

This sort of touches on what bothers me about the issues of sexual preferences/religious preferences/race/etc. and the issues they "demand." Why should homosexuals/religous groups/ethnic groups be given special rights/protections through laws that are called "hate crimes." If you commit murder or assault be it black on black or white on white, it should be treated the same as if it were white on black person or redneck on homosexual. It's all hate when you kill or hurt someone intentionally and there shouldn't be any guidelines as to the punishment for it. I can't recall ever hearing a murder of a white by a black or a heterosexual by a homosexual being called a hate crime. Seems like a one way street there because the one attacked is in the minority so it is automatically a hate crime. It's a crime, punishable by the laws that govern it, plain and simple.
And that brings me to my opinion that gays should not have any more rights than a straight person, but I think that they should not be denied any rights that a straight human being has becasue they are gay. Same for their religious preference, color of their skin or whatever makes them different than another person.
Diversity is what makes the world an interesting place, if everyone were the same, it would be pretty damn boring here on Earth...

That's my $0.02

The normality of homosexuality is certainly questionable. If you mean it that it shows up throughout history then of course you'd be right. However prevalence is not what were discussing. If everything that is prevalent is normal, then so murder must be called normal, but no ones passing laws protecting it.


I guess it would be a hard-core, fringe sociologist or anthroplogist that would call murder normal, but that might not be as much a stretch as I imagine. There are still societies that routinely practice infanticide, aren't there? If so, I guess that would be an opportunity for an anthropologist or someone to describe that murderous societal behavior as normal.

I see your point on incidence, though. I guess destructive hurricanes and tornadoes would be considered normal as negatively as we might feel about their visits.

I don't reduce this to the incidence argument, though. I think of homosexuality as normal not only because it has been present for so long as we can tell, but for a few other reasons. First is that, somewhat like hurricanes and tornadoes, homosexuals aren't really subject to being deprogrammed. They are the people that they are. Second, I'm perhaps more willing to extend my personal definition of normal based on the practical aspects of the society in which I live and the people whom I work and play with. If I got it into my head to decide that homosexuals were not normal, my days at work would be miserable!! Imagine moping around all day thinking how abnormal some of my coworkers are when instead I could be appreciating how well John tells a joke, and how considerate Jane (the Does) has been to me. i think they wouldn't take it very well if I decided in my heart of hearts that they were abnormal.

Instead rightness, or even correctness, is the point. A thoughtful person who condemns homosexuality will condemn it not only for what it does to society (basically that it propegates itself)

Other than society continuing to give birth to homosexuals at some, perhaps poorly understood, rate, I wonder do you mean that by "propogating itself" do you mean that they are taking over? That somehow their numbers should be contained or reduced? Maybe we just wouldn't agree on the whole propogation hypothesis.

but for what it does to the individual practicing it. For every happy gay couple (I know, I know), you find I can point to as many gay people who say the lifestyle led them to depression.

I don't guess I'll ask you to list every negative thing that you think follows from homosexuality, but I *do* want to take a moment to stand up for depressed heterosexuals!! (Like myself!) I'm not going to say that there aren't depressed homosexuals out there who are depressed because their life seems to lack meaning or that they aren't in satisfying social relationships, or because they are just depressed. How this connected to sexuial orientation I fail to see, save that both homosexuals and heterosexuals might be marginally less depressed if people were nicer to them!

I don't see sexual orientation as a complete absolute. I'm guessing you can find homosexuals who *were* deprogrammed in some fashion. A woman who worked for me many years ago was what i would call a "path of less resistance" lesbian. She was married to a guy, but really felt overwhelmed by her experience of the man-woman dynamic. During the course of her employment, she divorced that guy and took up with a very nice woman from the office next to ours. Did this make her a bisexual? A latent lesbian? I don't know, and I didn't really care. All I know is that she was great to work with and she made a much happier homosexual than a heterosexual.

Since we can't see the truth for the personalities, it makes it impossible to prove beyond a doubt. It is purely anecdotal. Therefore whether or not its wrong or right must be decided away from or before individuals are concerned or bias is inevitable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but it sounds like "it all depends on your point of view"?

II also would like to point out that the extra hurdles that must be jumped by homosexuals in order to parent. Therefore insuring that only those serious about parenting would actually be given the opportunity to do so. This hurdle dramatically changes the appearance of homosexual parenting. If the hurdles were less the seriousness of some parents would be equally less.

I guess I'm also unsure on what you mean here. Is it "If we make it hard enough, then those who get over the hurdles, it's OK"?

I now consider myself a pretty big gay-rights supporter but what you mention here is where I draw the line quite firmly. I'm very much against discrimination of all kinds but I am also very much against "proscrimination". I don't think boosting someone's benefits simply because they were previously squashed does a damned bit of good. It only creates more ill-will.

Somewhere along the line, Equal Rights became More Rights, and I don't like that at all. I'll leave out the word "marriage", but if two people (gender omitted) want to live together, support each other, get health insurance, buy a house, get a bank loan, and get benefits one their partner dies, I'm all for that.

Anyone should be able to have access to the rights my wife and I have access to. But if you want to give these other people extra rights, this is where I'll always disagree.

The hate crimes issue really doesn't jell with me. You kill because you hate, are angry, or whatever. At this point you're punishing someone more for their thoughts than for their actions.

Greg

In reply to:

---

also would like to point out that the extra hurdles that must be jumped by homosexuals in order to parent. Therefore insuring that only those serious about parenting would actually be given the opportunity to do so. This hurdle dramatically changes the appearance of homosexual parenting. If the hurdles were less the seriousness of some parents would be equally less.

---

thats a "yes and maybe " comment down this way.

Lesbian couples can get pregnant simply by visiting the local Fertility clinic and either getting it free on the tax payer, paying the cost of the AI themselves, or by using the old Turkey Baster method or as my cousin did the old fashioned way.

Their hurdles to parenting this way are not much higher than any average man and woman who have kids - either deliberately or accidentally.

If the lesbian couple decides to not go this route and to adopt a kid, then yes, maybe the barrier is a little higher than it would be for a "straight" couple in this situation [e.g. no kids, wanting to adopt].

However, if you are a a couple of gay men - forget it, you cannot visit the local Fertility clinic to get your kid underway [except maybe - to make a deposit].

As far as adopting - the authorities here would run a mile before they'd let you [as gay men] adopt any kids - they wouldn't want the heat from all those lesbian or "straight" childless couples wanting to adopt the same kid when it became public that some gay men got in ahead of them.

I guess the underlying perception by the public is that gay men are more promiscuous than lesbians.

I don't have evidence one way or the other on this to make a comment, but I think thats the basis on which the authorities are making their value judgements about who is allowed to adopt kids.

BTW: Update on my cousin - she seperated from her [lesbian] partner 2 years after she gave birth to the boy [conceived the "normal" way] - she now lives with another [lesbian] partner and the original partner pays child support [and will do so until the child is at least 16]. Thats no different than if they were a straight couple and had seperated - whether they had married or not.

Apparently the new partner just adores the kid. Looks like it all worked out for my cousin.

A thoughtful person who condemns homosexuality will condemn it not only for what it does to society (basically that it propegates itself) but for what it does to the individual practicing it.

Whoa there, Reverend...

How, exactly, does it "propagate itself"? Gay couples rarely propagate at all, and the few that do produce heterosexual/gay offspring in about the same ratio as the public at large. Are you suggesting that homosexuality somehow causes more homosexuality?

And as for "...what it does to the individual practicing it", I take the point of view (splitting hairs, I know) that it isn't the homosexuality that causes the problem, but other people's reactions to it (or should I say against it?) that creates difficulty.

The above arguments are predicated on my very firmly held conviction that homosexuality is NOT a lifstyle choice, but is a physical condition "hard-wired" at birth... no, make that at conception. For any heterosexual who doubts this, consider the following: What inducement could I offer you to have (and enjoy) sex with someone of the same gender? Oh, I know -- gay people are just weak-willed individuals with no moral sense who are easily persuaded by perverts to engage in sinful, abnormal acts, is that it?*

Yeah. Right.

tanstaafl.

*This sentence is in no way directed towards revlmwest whose insight and elocution in this thread has been outstanding.

It's easy to see how some people perceive that homosexuality propogates through society. With each year that passes the gay population becomes more visible - we see more openly gay people in the street; more friends and family members come out to us; more positive gay images are broadcast to us via television and other media.

Fact is, the gay population is no more substantial now than it has ever been, but more gay people are coming out than has ever been the case. The more people come out, the more confidence repressed homosexuals will have to do likewise. Eventually most gay people will feel no need to hide or repress their sexuality and the "propogation" will be over. I'd like to think that time isn't so distant.

I'd come out myself, but I'm far too busy developing MP3 players.

Rob

And as for "...what it does to the individual practicing it", I take the point of view (splitting hairs, I know) that it isn't the homosexuality that causes the problem, but other people's reactions to it (or should I say against it?) that creates difficulty.

Reading through the thread, I KNEW someone would get to my point before I did. So I'm just here to support this basic thought. Imagine a world where many openly discriminate against you, and most 'accept' you, but only through the filter of finding you an 'abberation'. The whole time (especially as a child) thinking "What did *I* do to deserve this?" I'm fairly certain that unless you were made from sterner stuff than most, you would veer off into depression at some point.

And for the record, I know a LOT of heterosexuals who are depressed precisely because of their relationships (or non-relationships) with people of the opposite sex. I think relationships by their very nature bring the best and worst out of people, regardless of orientation.

I live in Raleigh, NC, which, while firmly in the bible belt, is a fairly urban place and is plagued with the redneck community much less than the surrounding area. At the same time, it is unabashedly southern, which tends to mean, at least in this case, that there is a lot of reasonably conservative Christianity.

I don't really have a very strong handle on the community at large, as it is very eclectic, ranging from native southerners to transplanted Yankees (that's northerners, to all you damn furriners ), so I'm forced to simply give you a few examples.

First off, I'd like to introduce you to my mother. She's 66 years old and grew up in and around Raleigh, which didn't acquire many outsiders until the late 60s, when IBM started up a plant near here and sent a lot of New Yorkers down. She grew up in a fairly affluent family, though, (her father owned the local Studebaker dealership) so she was never redneck-y. She's a proper southern lady. (Thinking about the older women in ``Steel Magnolias'', if you've ever seen that movie, will get you pretty close.) Around 1990, her husband, my father, a man she'd been married to for twenty years or so, realized or admitted that he was gay. (I believe -- no one's ever come right out and told me.) I don't believe that she can talk about it. I remember one time that she tried to tell me, and just sobbed and couldn't get it out. I'm not sure whether that had to do with the homosexuality, though, or the embarrassment of having wasted 20 years of her life in a lie. The interesting part of this story is that she now has a reasonably close male friend who is gay, or who she assumes is gay, at any rate. He owns a fairly ritzy local restaurant or two. She mentions it occasionally. And it elicits from her, more than anything else, tittering. She seems somewhat amused by it. I think she's too genteel to ever bring it up in conversation with him, but it doesn't seem to offend her in any way. Which I think is pretty impressive, given what my father, who was always, in my experience, a jackass, regardless of his sexuality, put her through.

My other story is much less personal. I happen to have grown up in a Southern Baptist church. The Southern Baptist organization was originally founded around the concept that each member and each church was autonomous, and that the organization existed to create a large front. That is, moneys collected by hundreds of churches were better distributed than piecemeal, one church at a time, and other similar concepts, rather like why it's better to be in a group healthcare plan than to be insured on your own. This organization was to deal with external society, not really something to homogenize the churches. (In the last 15 years or so, this is much less true, though, as the Southern Baptist Convention becomes more and more fascist. No offense intended, revlmwest.) Back in 1992, Pullen Memorial Baptist Church's pastor decided to marry a gay male couple, and put it to the church's board of deacons, who, in turn, put it to the congregation. There was a lot of debate on the matter, but the church voted, by something like 65% to perform the marriage, based largely, as I remember, on the fact that one of their self-stated issues was to provide service to the community. The marriage was performed, and the church was ousted from the Raleigh Baptist Association, the North Carolina Baptist Convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Also, many of the church's members were ostracized in their workplaces and communities, as were the couple's parents. Interestingly, most of the significant minority in the congregation who voted against the marriage remained members. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Raleigh is a quite fractured community on this issue.

A third minor point is that Raleigh's mayor during the early 90s was, according to people in the know, quite gay. Yet he openly spoke against the gay community.

Also, there are three or four openly gay nightclubs in Raleigh that I'm aware of. One of them was going to lose their liquor license if they didn't stop their drag queen competition. They stopped it and kept their license, apparently not bothered again. Which I find odd.

well, i'm jumping into this thread a bit late (been busy at work), but i thought i'd throw in my two cents. i'm a gay man who's been in two long-term relationships that were/are, for all practical purposes, marriages. the first lasted nearly ten years, and my current marriage is coming up on five years. we live just outisde of chicago.

i'm guessing chicago is like most major cities, in that the level of social conservatism varies pretty widely across different sections of the metropolitan area. dupage county, 15 miles west of chicago, is one of the most conservative counties in the country. wheaton, a town in dupage, is home to a number of conservative christian organizations and colleges. other areas, such as evanston and oak park, not to mention most of the city proper, tend to the liberal side. the prevailing attitude toward gay or lesbian couples seems to vary in pretty close correlation to the level of diversity (in either ethnicity or income-ranges) in the overall population.

what would i want from an official marriage? all of the points that have already been made by others (insurance, legal rights, financial benefits, etc). we, as a gay couple, are routinely denied much that others take for granted. today, we can gain a certain amount of that back by taking careful steps. i choose to work for an employer who offers same-sex couples full insurance benefits. we've met with a lawyer to draw up papers giving each other certain rights, including powers of attorney, etc, that are a pale comparison to the comparable rights given to a married couple. it's not possible for many gay couples to take these steps -- it's expensive, it's a pain in the neck, and not everyone is able to find a job in their field and their home town that will provide insurance benefits.

i believe it's not fair that we should pay the same taxes to the same government as a non-gay married couple do, but be bestowed with fewer rights and benefits in return. simple as that. do i care if it's called "marriage" under the law? hell, no. i couldn't care less. i just want my fair share of legal rights. if the most expedient way to achieve that is to change the legal definition of marriage, great. if that's not possible, and we create a new form of civil union, fine. but imagine all of the bearocracy, forms, and red tape that are set up around "married/unmarried" status that would have to change to reflect the parity of marriages and civil unions. imagine how many laws at the local, state, and federal level that would need to be rewritten. it's something that could never be fully accomplished in a lifetime, i believe. it would be so much easier to redefine "marriage" and be done. this isn't about religion, at all, and i'm sorry some people feel the need to drag that into the equation.

regarding adoption, we've considered it. i could name 15 people right now, mostly straight, who have tried to convince us to. apparently they think we'd make great parents. who knows, maybe someday.

--dan.

regarding adoption, we've considered it. i could name 15 people right now, mostly straight, who have tried to convince us to. apparently they think we'd make great parents. who knows, maybe someday.

I know few people that I would actually say that to but a lot of people I would love to tell to never have children. Good luck to you if you should try.

Just out of curiousity, have they done any studies to correlate the percentages of gays in the human population to that of other animals?

it would be so much easier to redefine "marriage" and be done. this isn't about religion, at all, and i'm sorry some people feel the need to drag that into the equation.

So you're saying that you don't care about marriage itself per se. All you want is to have the same civil/community benefits that a married couple would have.

Interesting. As the reverend said, it's hard to separate marriage from religion because the state recognizes it as a religious institution (despite us patting ourselves on the back about separation of church and state). I see the dilemma.

Last I heard this, which was ten years ago and even this was most likely horribly inacurate, 10% of the population is gay. Not an insignificant amount, even if it is somewhat faulty in accuracy.

Greg

Since 90 percent of statistics are made-up anyway, that doesn't really mean anything.

But I don't think getting married in a court house by a judge is exactly a religious ceremony. So how can the states see marriage as only a religious institution. And if tax laws are different for single people than for married people, again how can it only be a religious institution. People don't need to believe in any religion to get married.

I don't see how church and state can ever be totally separate no matter how hard they try to make it that way.

I think it is a little more than just redefining what marriage is. What about the whole ceremony and such? Plus, if it's done by a priest or what not (I'm 19 though, so I haven't researched this much and only been to a few weddings ), it seems like quite a religious ceremony. I can totally understand the difference though if it's done in a courthouse.

So you're saying that you don't care about marriage itself per se. All you want is to have the same civil/community benefits that a married couple would have.

hmm, let me clarify that. the most important part of marriage is the commitment, and the relationship between the two people. i'm perfectly happy forming the commitment portion of my marriage completely in private. i don't need a public service to recognize that.

the other benefits of marriage, the civil/community benefits you mention, i can't replicate fully on my own. that's where i want parity.

Interesting. As the reverend said, it's hard to separate marriage from religion because the state recognizes it as a religious institution (despite us patting ourselves on the back about separation of church and state). I see the dilemma.

i don't buy into this. marriage may have started as a religious institution (in our western society, as someone pointed out), but it really has been overshadowed as a civil institution. you can go to a justice and be legally married. the clergy is now acting as an agent of the government ("by the power vested in me...") in performing marriage, not the other way around. if the federal government wanted to amend the definition of marriage, from a civil standpoint, to include same-sex couples, i don't see how that would require any religious organization from changing their policies or beliefs. if a church chose to not perform marriages for same-sex couples, i think that's their right. i would never ask or expect the government to force a religious group to endorse same-sex marriage.

now, please don't assume that i represent or speak for the entire gay-couple community. there are those for whom the religious aspects to marriage are important, or who have other ideas about what's important to them. i'm only speaking for myself, and the impact this has on my particular situation.

--dan.

A church can refuse to marry people of the opposite sex for whatever reasons they want. I don't know that a state can refuse if you have the required license and blood tests.

I am currently in a long term relationship with a golden retriever. I love her and she loves me. We had our wedding day all planned out months in advance, but when the day came the priest backed out and said he couldn't marry us because my fiance won't be able to say "I do". I then asked him how deaf mutes get married. I showed him that she shakes positively when asked "if she does". He wasn't impressed. He said it's a free country and we can love eachother all we want, but he couldn't marry us because it's, quote, "abnormal". All we want to do is get married so we can live happily ever after, along with all the benefits from the state. We deserve the rights of any other loving couple and we should be recognized and accepted like all other married folks are.

Sure, as an interspecies couple we may be in the minority and some people may consider us weird, but we're no different in our dreams and ambitions. We just want to start a family. Besides, it's been shown throughout history that interspecies relationships are normal - just look at the donkey or the killer bee! We were just born this way and we fell in love and the state should recognize that and give us our health insurance. My fiance takes a liking to antifreeze eventhough it's not too healthy for her, and I try to keep it out of her reach, but I want that insurance just in case.

When our constant attempts at producing offspring continuously failed, we seriously considered adoption as a viable alternative. Needless to say, our application for a human child was denied, eventhough they claimed but failed to prove that my partner is indeed an unfit mother. They offered other alternatives such as finding a male golden retriever to donate sperm, but I didn't like the idea of another creature knocking up the love of my life, even if it was artificially inseminated. We eventually ended up taking in a neighbor's kitten that was being given away, and although me and my partner are unmarried and our child is a bastard, we are one big happy family.

This was my second attempted marriage and that's why I wanted it done right. My previous attempt with my ex Crystal also wasn't recognized by the state, or anyone else for that matter - they actually called her discriminatory objectist slurs such as "pet rock"!

Oh what fun it would be to crawl inside d33zY's mind for at least a few minutes.

Oh what fun it would be to crawl inside d33zY's mind for at least a few minutes.

Just remember to bring an air-sickness bag.

ok, d33zy, you got me. that was pretty funny. i think it really misses the point, but it's funny, i'll give you that.

--dan.

"I don't see how church and state can ever be totally separate no matter how hard they try to make it that way. "

In my personal opinion, this statement is about the truest thing said in this whole thread. Unfortunately, for religious/irreligious people alike their beliefs are the premises by which they view right and wrong, and this influences what the state views as legal/illegal. I'm sure there probably isn't a person on this board who doesn't have at least on major qualm with some state sanctioned law based on his or her beliefs. The best the state can do is not throw people in jail for observing their own beliefs and practices and beyond that I suppose majority rules.

Okay, that was pretty funny. I especially liked the reference to the Donkey and the Killer Bee.

there are those for whom the religious aspects to marriage are important

And this I never understood, at least not from a philosophical viewpoint. I would have figured that gay people would want to stay as far away from Christianity and its rituals as possible.

Keep in mind that I don't fully understand either homosexuality or Christianity, but how can a person be both Christian and gay? I thought Christianity had some very specific and unambiguous tenets against same-sex couples. Wouldn't that just be choosing to ignore certain parts of the bible?

And I do watch "Six Feet Under" so I see the David character going to church etc., I just wonder how that's reconciled at a philosophical level.

the clergy is now acting as an agent of the government ("by the power vested in me...") in performing marriage, not the other way around. if the federal government wanted to amend the definition of marriage, from a civil standpoint, to include same-sex couples, i don't see how that would require any religious organization from changing their policies or beliefs. if a church chose to not perform marriages for same-sex couples, i think that's their right. i would never ask or expect the government to force a religious group to endorse same-sex marriage.

You did a much better job of stating this. With respect to your earlier point...

imagine all of the bearocracy, forms, and red tape that are set up around "married/unmarried" status that would have to change to reflect the parity of marriages and civil unions.


Playing devil's advocate with myself, I can ask the "Where does it all end?" question that I think some folks opposed to same-sex marriage ask: Three-or four-way marriages? The return of polygamy? In the end though, I don't get too hung up by "what-ifs" -- better to deal with the problem at hand.
...your "red tape" argument is pretty compelling. Forget what I said about civil unions if it implied any new category. You have my vote.

Thanks, BTW for joining this discussion. It probably actually addressed Greg's original question and perhaps kept this from becoming a Total Hetero Chin Wag.

(Oh, and if it comes to that will NWA take my UAL miles?!?)

but how can a person be both Christian and gay? I thought Christianity had some very specific and unambiguous tenets against same-sex couples. Wouldn't that just be choosing to ignore certain parts of the bible?

Some people claim to be both Christian and gay. Their arguments are sketchy at best even when looked at from a purely academic viewpoint.

And this I never understood, at least not from a philosophical viewpoint. I would have figured that gay people would want to stay as far away from Christianity and its rituals as possible.

Tony, I'll second your bewilderment. With respect to some news I have read WRT the Catholic church, what it looks like to me is a group of folks fighting hard to be accepted by a huge institution that is doing its utmost to reject them. I just keep wondering "*Why* do you want to belong???"

I don't know that anbody can really answer that save the folks wo want to belong, so I'm not really looking for an answer, but the questions persists.

I just keep wondering "*Why* do you want to belong???"

A little reflection could probably answer our question in this matter. I'm guessing it's because they believe in Christ, not because they want to belong to a Christian organization. Not being Christian, I sometimes forget that there's a difference between those two things.

I'll go read the link Meatballman provided and see if it sheds any light.

Well, I'm guessing that a lot of them choose not to believe that part of the Bible. I consider myself a Christian, but there are quite a number of things in the Bible that I struggle to believe or just don't believe at all.

In my personal opinion, this statement is about the truest thing said in this whole thread. Unfortunately, for religious/irreligious people alike their beliefs are the premises by which they view right and wrong, and this influences what the state views as legal/illegal...

I'll confess that there are days when I wish I were built in such a way that I could adopt some religion. I think it could make it a lot easier to construct a personal moral philosophy out of some fundamental building blocks. Of course, that cuts both ways and there are folks who draw on some building blocks that I find pretty scary.

To Laura's point, I don't know if church and state can ever be totally separate, but that seems like almost a semantic distinction. What I do know is that if I place the country in which I reside on the "Netherlands-Saudi Arabia Church-State Separation Scale" I am so happy that we are much closer to Holland! (OK, somebody shoot me if I haven't picked the right countries for the poles ofthis scale...)

I'm sure there probably isn't a person on this board who doesn't have at least on major qualm with some state sanctioned law based on his or her beliefs.

I'd agree, though I'll also confess, as I think my last comment suggested, to feeling some disadvantage of not having religious/supernatural/institutional underpinning to those beliefs. They are I guess secular and along the lines of "I believe people should have health care" and "I believe the war on drugs is a waste of time." Not very awe-inspiring, eh? Often not as black-and-white as I'd like. Oh, well. I guess I do have some hard-core beliefs that are residuals of Christian tradition like "Though shalt not kill".

The best the state can do is not throw people in jail for observing their own beliefs and practices and beyond that I suppose majority rules.

That sounds pretty good ...so long as correct observation of those beliefs doesn't involve shooting folks or pouring poison gas in the subway!!

Well, I'm guessing that a lot of them choose not to believe that part of the Bible.

Reading the arguments that Meatballman linked above, it appears as though the root of the issue becomes translation from ancient hebrew. Their claim is that in most cases, the original words referred to a generic cult prostitute, and that only in later translations did the words take on meaning which referred specifically to homosexuality.

I think that digging down to the original root meaning like that is an important thing. If you've got an entire culture based around words in an ancient text, it would make sense to be sure you know what they really meant when they wrote it.

Whether or not their arguments about those particular translations are valid isn't critical to me, since I don't adhere to that text anyway (regardless of its translation). I was just curious where the philosophical justification came from, and that link has answered this curiosity to my satisfaction.

A little reflection could probably answer our question in this matter. I'm guessing it's because they believe in Christ, not because they want to belong to a Christian organization. Not being Christian, I sometimes forget that there's a difference between those two things.

My personal bewilderment aside, no, I don't really expect that it is that complicated and I'm probably being a little, what, pedantic?. It does seem, though, like a lot of these folks really *do* want to belong to the organization, have the organization change so that they can be accepted and belong. I guess it is just my own inclination that I think I would start my own church or fire up a schism. 'Course, some of the subgroups that have sprung up in the RC church might be considered micro-schisms. I haven't paid that much attention.

FWIW, I do have memories of packed, snowy-night Christmas Eve midnight masses and the resonance of Gregorian chants. Pretty heady stuff. There's a lot of rich ceremony there that you wouldn't necessarily get if you opened your own schism church.

how can a person be both Christian and gay

It's long been my personal belief that Paul was gay. Also that he was schizophrenic. And remember that today's Christianity is much more Paul-based than Jesus-based.

You know the common caricature of the man-hating dyke? I believe that Paul was a woman-hating fag. It's certainly well documented that he was woman-hating (this is probably largely where the decreed celibacy of the Cathoic priesthood comes from), and there are many passages in the Bible that can easily be read as implying homosexuality and that he was ashamed of it (which may further explain priesthood celibacy decree).

But that's just my 2 cents.

Damn that was the biggest load of BS I've seen in a while. They conclude that Paul saying "thorn in his flesh" refers to a penis, and that since Paul was never married and never said he was a virgin then he must have been gay. Of course, i have no idea whether or not he ever putted from the rough, but it is a very weak argument they present.

Gotta sneak that Good Will Hunting quote in there

Lost amid societies rampant pursuit of political correctness the word "tolerance" is almost without value. Gone is the more classical view of tolerance equating closely (but not precisely) to "civility" and instead we find it taking on the meaning of "intolerance." That is to say the so-called "tolerant" of today are actually intolerant of those who don't agree with their definition of tolerance. How ironic.

The essence of tolerance revolves around how we treat people we disagree with and not how we regard ideas which we do not ourselves hold. Much more could be said, and this seemed to be an opportune time for clarification of this point. (I hope I did...)

Overall Jeff, I would agree 100% with your response in this thread.

Tim

Lost amid societies rampant pursuit of political correctness the word "tolerance" is almost without value.

I'm starting to feel like "political correctness" is becoming some sort of "argumentum ad dymo" -- apply the label and whatever you stick it to is supposed to look cheesy. I'm not 100% sure of the point you are trying to make, but I did click over and look at the two items you referenced. What I saw, well, I think I detected some weaknesses in each that I think are maybe worth spending some time trying to deconstruct....except that I have to get up at 5AM to go away for 2 days (I'll try to pay some attention to those when I return).

In the meantime, I guess I could put this to you: I'm an atheist and I probably meet most folks' broad definition of a "liberal", while I'm guessing that, on both counts, you are probably not. Looking at those Kessler/Beckwith pieces, I could perhaps be led to believe that I am the guilty party from a tolerance perspective. So, I ask: In what ways could I be more tolerant in a fashion that would help remedy your seeming complaint that tolerance ain't what it used to be?

Unfortunately, his argument is not terribly well presented, and, in fact, I don't agree with a few of his points. However, his thesis more-or-less equates to mine, and, in fact, I didn't find that page until I needed a reference. I have held that belief for many years. However, the refutation also contains some good arguments.

Regardless, it makes a lot of sense to me. If you don't agree, that's fine. However, it could be said that Paul invented modern Christianity (he certainly came up with most of those dogma -- I don't believe that Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality, for example) and he was obviously feeling a lot of guilt about something he was doing. And since he came up with those rules, he could have just changed them. Which leads one to the conclusion that he wanted to feel guilty, which could be at least a part of a possible explanation for why a gay person might want to be part of a Christian organization. (And I don't mean to offend any gay folks out there. But there are a large number of people who do things that they think are wrong, but have no desire to change, and I, personally have no explanation for that, but it seems to fit some sort of psychological taxonomy.

Interesting. As the reverend said, it's hard to separate marriage from religion because the state recognizes it as a religious institution (despite us patting ourselves on the back about separation of church and state). I see the dilemma.

i don't buy into this. marriage may have started as a religious institution (in our western society, as someone pointed out), but it really has been overshadowed as a civil institution. you can go to a justice and be legally married. the clergy is now acting as an agent of the government ("by the power vested in me...") in performing marriage, not the other way around.

That's true. My dad, as a member of the priesthood in my church, has to be licensed by the province (in Canada), and state (in the US) to perform marriages that are to be recognized by the government. In addition to that, there is a very specific phrasing that he has to use during the ceremony.

As for my experiences with how homosexuality and gay marriages has been perceived by the various communities I've lived in, well, it's essentially been as varied as the communities I've been in. Out on the prarie provinces, it didn't get much mention, and was largely kept under the carpet. Then AIDS became big news, and all of a sudden the homosexual aspect of society got exposure, and, needless to say, a lot of bad press. Then I went to a university that had a very large, and very vocal gay/lesbian support structure -- so much so that every incoming student had to sit through the 1-in-10 speech (which was more entertaining for the guy pulling a condom over his head to demonstrate that "I don't use condoms 'cuz my dick is too big" is not a viable excuse for not using condoms). After university, I moved to Toronto, and ended up living a couple blocks from the rainbow flag district. Quite the education, that was. Everyone knew where it was, and it didn't attract much attention from anyone, except perhaps for the curiosity seekers. The pride weekend is a huge event, and has some major streets blocked off for a parade. Last year, the (non-gay) mayor joined in the parade. The event gets a little bit of negative protest, but less so about the homosexuality than the nudity. IIRC, gay marriage has come up a couple times in various provincial/national legislature, but I don't remember whether or not they were ever legalized. I think there might have been a discrimination case about it in the Canadian Supreme Court. Either way, it's definately being discussed.

On to my current experience -- my current neighbour is a gay black male that grew up in Oakland. From conversations with him, it seems to still be a non-topic much of the time, since the people asking for it are a small minority of a small minority. As for the promiscuity bit, he admitted to having done the whole bathhouse/anonymous bar sex thing, and said that the prevailing attitude seemed to be "since we're already outside the sexual mores of society, why should we confine ourselves to the sexual morality that society establishes as being proper," mixed with a healthy dose of "it's not like we're getting anyone pregnant." It makes sense to me.

canuckInLA, this really isn't a reply to you just replied because I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in and didn't know where to start.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage... I don't have a problem with anyone being gay. I do have a problem with the stupidity of the whole PC thing. For instance here in northern VA 10 miles outta DC gays cannot be married, but in an effort to make everything all PC and what not if you have a "same sex partner" you can claim them on some insurance policies. But myself, I don't really claim a religion (don't really believe in organized religion) and never really thought marriage was necessary (I think it's kind of a religious legally binding type thing which never really appealed to me or my "opposite sex partner) but because my partner is of the opposite sex, we can't put her on my insurance policy, because we're not married. Why not? She's my partner?? This bugs me... people in this country put waaay to much into a persons sex, sexual preference, color, religion and ethnicity. I think in a perfect world we'd stop using all this PC BS to dance around things that make us uncomfortable, accept things, deal with it and move on. But I could rant on stuff like this for hours so I'll stop.
Back to the whole gay thing.... do what makes you happy... thats how I feel. But my views are shared by few in this area of the US.

I am currently in a long term relationship with a golden retriever.

Now I understand why my wife has run off with my best Boxer.

if you have a "same sex partner" you can claim them on some insurance policies

That reminds me -- my company's benefits plan provides insurance for partners -- same or opposite sex -- who have been living together for a certain number of years.

MCC's views #1 and #2 are contradicting each other. The first argue how they accept being gay and in the second tell how Paul was *struggling* with the sin of homosexuality.
Just a little thought to ponder over...

And just why do you find it unusual to notice self-contradicion in religious doctrine?

First, the top of the article about how Paul might have been gay says:

In presenting this article, I am NOT saying that I, or any member of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, agrees or diagrees with it. I am presenting because it is interesting.

Second, just because the MCC doesn't think it's a sin doesn't mean that Paul didn't, either. It's one's own views on something that make it a sin to oneself, not the rest of society's, and certainly not those of a society that exists two thousand years later on a different continent.

General arguments about the sexuality or lifestyles of biblical characters are terribly confusing to most people due to the drastic differences between individual views of scripture. Most Christians believe scripture is anywhere from mostly trustworthy to completely reliable. For those it is incomprehensible to think of Paul as gay since he makes statements against is with such seriousness. But in these cases it is not really homosexuality or Paul that is at issue, but rather inspiration and good historical research.

I don't mean to come across as an idiot, and I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I don't understand your last two sentences. And I mean I don't understand the words' meanings, not that I disagree with what they're saying.

Did you mean ``... he makes statements against it...''? If so, people need to realize that these people, even though they lived many, many years ago, have the same foibles we do today. I'm sure many of us do things that we think are wrong, but we can't help ourselves, whether it be overeating or doing heroin or having gay sex (not that I think there's anything wrong with that, but Paul did).

And I don't know which ``cases'' you're referring to, and generally don't understand the rest because of that, I think. I'm so at a loss that I can't quite figure out how to ask what you're saying, other than to just ask you to rephrase it. Sorry. I'm sure I'm just being a moron here.

As far as believing the scripture, I view most of the old testament as history by way of metaphor and allegory. But most of the non-Gospel New Testament I believe, as it's mostly personal correspondence and almost diary-entry-type stuff, but it's obviously frought with personal bias, as it's mostly Paul telling other people what they should be doing.

I think all he was trying to say is that anyone who attempts to prove that Paul was a homosexual probably:

1. Does not believe that the Bible is the wholly-inspired, inerrant word of God. (in which case you may as well throw the whole thing out if you are going to "pick-n-choose" what is truth.)

2. Is not being historically responsible with the known facts of Paul's life as well as early church history.

Sorry... my post should read....
For those (people who believe the bible is mostly to completely reliable), it is impossible to belive Paul to be gay.
As to his ability to be tempted, you are quite right that biblical characters should never be seen a super heroes. However, sinful as He was the chances of homosexual acts is quite low. First because Paul's language in the passages about homosexuality is always from a third person perspective, even though he quite frequently deals with his own sinfulness in an open way. Second, Paul's alleged indiscretions would have ruined him with the Jewish converts and led to his demise much earlier than he died (regardless of the two dates possible).

My original point, flawed as it was in presentation, was that individuals who argue about the sexuality of biblical characters, whether it be Jesus, Paul, David, or whoever, are usually so dramatically different in their definition of inspiration that dialogue is tense, aggravating, and better spent on theories of inspiration or biblical trustworthiness.