Conservatives and Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

He's in denial.

I noticed you used the plural, you sly dog.

Two at a time is best. Three at a time is fatal.

ruveyn

That depends on whether we're talking about re-instituting de jour segregation or trying dealing with the rights of both groups to exist as they wish. The marriage issue is one where if both parties have to fit in under the same terminology and one necessarily has to encroach on the other. If its the notion that the religious are simply delusional, worshiping something that doesn't exist, and have no right to their own ground in this regard as they're delusions don't even vaguely deserve this level of entertained equality then lets say it that way.

The religious do not own marriage in the first place. Marriage is a civil contract that must be issued by the government.

No, religion did have it first - government involvement followed.

you find it "detestable"? as in : Inspiring or deserving abhorrence or scorn.?

is it just the "Yuccch" factor or is there more? - as ive already described how the yucch factor shouldnt apply.

You promoted having a separate but equal institution for gay marriage. That is blatantly against the opinion of the court in Brown v Board, and no subsequent court would dare to overturn that ruling. I don't see how you can seriously claim that one group is encroaching on the other if both are given the same terminology and the same rights. And again, you are making ungrounded assumptions. I don't claim that the religious are delusional. I myself am religious.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.

In any case, the entire debate is about marriage to the extent that it exists as a civic institution administered by the government. As we purport to uphold equality under the law for all citizens, I find it puzzling that so many people believe legal rights should be denied to people based on their sexual preferences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History

I take back the last thing I said, more likely when thinking about religion, society, and government, there was really no separating the three. Religion and government only separated as government became too complex and dedication had to be made (or in a distinct case with Christianity a separation of church and state was declared at a historical benchmark.

Whether society's did originally start with religion and government glued together and separated it out later or whether certain societies or religion still believe in no such line - its still a paramount institution, still much more strongly held and endorsed by the clergy of society, government has its hand it it as well but, especially where societies have unraveled the two, government and secular society simply have a status-quo or tax infatuation with it.

I don't get that either, then again I'd hope your not thinking that my suggestion was aimed in that direction.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you meant in some of your posts.

As far as gay-marriage goes, here are some brief points:
1) There is no legal or rational basis for denying the same legal rights that come with the civic institution of marriage to gays as are given to straight couples.
2) A separate institution (such as "civil unions") would be unconstitutional, as it would be an attempt at "separate but equal." The Supreme Court has ruled that "separate is inherently unequal" and would not tolerate such a distinction between gay "civil unions" and straight "marriages."
3) Because of 1 and 2, the state must either grant marriage licenses to gay couples in the same manner they do to straight couples, or cease issuing marriage licenses entirely. One compromise that has been brought up is to give everyone "civil unions" and leave "marriage" as a strictly religious institution to be left in the hands of churches. As it is, most people go separately to get married in the eyes of the state, and to be married in the eyes of their church. The identical names for two institutions that only partially overlap is likely a major source of the strife.
4) No one is telling churches that they must accept gay members, or regard gay marriage as legitimate within their church.
5) 20-30 years from now, gay marriage will be legal and people will generally be shocked/outraged at any suggestion that it should not be, or that gays should in any way be discriminated against. That's just a historical inevitability. The anti-gay crowd are fighting a lost battle, just as the segregationists were in the 1950s.

It is the same reason that most conservatives back in the day were segregationists, were against woman's rights and so on. They are intolerable about anything that's not the status quo. Not to mention a lot of them are closeted.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... servatives

to the first point, those who have not tried it don't know what they are missing. straight folk can and do traverse the back door from time to time, even if it is with the fairer gender. to the 2nd point, love has to WANT to find you, otherwise one is just up the creek without a paddle.

It would be tough to spell it out clearer but I'll try.


Again, emphatically, I don't want them denied their rights.


There are two kinds of situations at play here, ie. you also have also black fraternities, set up by blacks, because they want a black fraternity. It seems like they typically don't get shut down or reminded that their violating Brown vs. Board of Education in the process of doing what they specifically want.

I guess this is what I haven't understood in the article - that for the gay community to, on their own, have something custom fit for them - NOT Civil Union, not 'this is a 'less than' state-created bond, its like a GED as opposed to a diploma in the eyes of our society. This is something created by the community, for the community, and carries its on special weight. It has ALL legal coverages and as well the process is build best by those who know it best.

For that to be a terrible idea or Jim Crow, I guess one would have to assume that I'm a closet bigot deliberately selling snake oil. I won't go there - though I'll note that it seems like a lot of people have an extremely negative broadbrush of society as ignorant, backward, adversarial, and where if our society decided to 'specialize' rather than simply fall back on southern apartheid that this would still be cause for the heads of KKK, Westboro Baptists, etc. to really rally up a following, bring the hate, and set gay rights back indefinitely. That's the part where, I don't know, maybe I am just too stupid or naive to get it? I don't see that happening.


If this hasn't been answered with 1 and 2 and if I'm still not making sense - I need to give up.


The original institution though is being stretched. That's the trouble.


And I hope that's the case - regardless of whether anyone believes that. I simply see a situation where there is a group on one side, a group on the other, and a set of rights where when either side pushes father it takes away from the other.

If I am arguing against equal gay union then again, I think the problem is that I'm arguing against a functional fixedness that people have in their minds about this and one that I have no hopes of even getting through enough to where people will even understand my point. If I am talking to a wall, again, I'll stop right here.

I have no answer to your question. However, I have found it interesting that gays are a group who can hide their orientation from society if they choose. One cannot so easily hide other things about oneself, ones ethnicity, etc. I believe some people dislike gays because of what they are taught about it in the Bible. Others, perhaps because they are afraid of something they do not understand.

It is curious to me that this is even an issue to anyone. I mean, it isn't as if one can magically change from gay to straight any more easily than one can change from straight to gay. I guess I do not understand why anyone really cares. Do we expect orientals from looking or being oriental, or a brown eyed person to change their eye color, etc? Is it because it is so often hidden and people do not truly know how many folks are gay or bi our whatever? I believe the world would be truly amazed to know how many folks have gay or bi thoughts, but do not act on them because they have the capability of enjoying a sexual life within the straight world. Other do not have that capability and thus, if they choose to have a satisfying sex life, their choice is a same-sex partner.

I do not understand why people are so bothered by others and choose to judge, other than the fact that they feel inferior and are attempting to put others down in order to make themselves feel superior to someone else.

But what do I know...

Sorry, I got a bit off topic.