Serious question for Fo2 and Gomer (re: gay marriage)

[The Bomb]

There must be something in the water here today, as I'm almost an exclusive lurker, but reading your responses in some of these threads has truly piqued my curiosity.

I suspect you've answered this question in some form or another, so I do apologize if this is old hat, but I have a few questions for you.

1) Is your stance on gay marriage supported solely by your affiliation with the Christian faith?

2) As both of you have stated (I'm paraphrasing) that marriage is one man/one woman, and that any deviation from that structure is an attack on the institution of marriage, what would you tell your child if (s)he were to tell you that (s)he is gay?

3) Are either of you close friends with a self-professed gay individual? (I'm not talking about, "Yeah, there's this one guy on my floor at work"--I'm asking if any of your friends whom you consider in your "closer" circle are gay.)

I ask these questions in all sincerity, and I do have motivation for asking these questions.

[boring monologue]Shortly after Clinton took office, at the age of 16, I was "outed" to my parents by my big-mouthed older sister. My parents, being of sound Christian faith, immediately sent me to a Christian therapist, with the hopes that he would somehow be able to "cleanse" me of this scourge.

They were peeved (to say the least) when he informed them that the best they could hope for was that I was bisexual. Much drama ensued, including several suicide attempts by The Bomb and a rather upsetting turning of a cold shoulder by my so-called friends in Christ at the local non-denominational charismatic church.

In the end, I went back "into the closet" until I left for uni, where I tried all sorts of retarded things like joining a fraternity and kissing girls while drunk. All to no avail--I was clearly attracted to men, and only men.

But, I am going somewhere w/this (honestly). 12 years later, both of my parents have not only fully accepted me for who I am (as well as accepting my partner as they have accepted my other siblings' spouses), but they have experienced "break-throughs" of their own, most importantly in the way that religion plays a role in their lives. Both are still active churchgoers, and continue to call themselves Christians, but both are adamantly *for* gay marriage.

I truly believe that had their son not been gay, neither of them would feel this way today.[/boring monologue]

I read your posts to these threads in Political with much curiosity because I truly wonder what your reaction would be were you to be placed in a situation similar to that of my parents'.

I appreciate (with all honesty) your thoughts on the above questions.

TB

[The Mad Hatter]

Come on Gomer, face up to the fact that real people are gay. Look them in the eye and tell them how they are a "threat" to society.

[Abducens]

Man, if you guys are going to come away thinking you lost '04 based on gay marriage, you are doomed in '08. You just aren't getting it.

Hatter, you aren't even aware of how insulting you're being by taking The Bomb's story which includes freaking suicide attempts and using it to try to win debate points with Gomer. That isn't why he posted this.

[Loner]

Hatter, while there are people on this board I would deem deserving of that taunt, I don't think gomer has been, at least not on this subject.
And after the electoral spanking our side has taken on the subject, taunts are not particularly constructive. Just a thought.

[Abducens]

See? See? Gomer?? What do you think of that, Gomer?? Huh?? Huhh??

[11pecans]

Handled with class gomer. Bravo.


Unlike The Mad Hatter, who has no class.

[JO]

Handled with class gomer. Bravo.
Absolutely,well done.

[Paul Brand]

There must be something in the water here today, as I'm almost an exclusive lurker, but reading your responses in some of these threads has truly piqued my curiosity.

I suspect you've answered this question in some form or another, so I do apologize if this is old hat, but I have a few questions for you.

1) Is your stance on gay marriage supported solely by your affiliation with the Christian faith?There is no source of objective morality outside the Christian faith, in my opinion. Arguments can be made based on other worldviews as well. We could make those arguments, and we often do, but they are not necessarily of what we actually believe.

2) As both of you have stated (I'm paraphrasing) that marriage is one man/one woman, and that any deviation from that structure is an attack on the institution of marriage, what would you tell your child if (s)he were to tell you that (s)he is gay?I think most of us understand that some people are more attracted to people of the same-sex, but that does not necessitate having sex or marrying a person of the same-sex. Anyway, if my child were gay, it wouldn't change my love for him/her, or my respect. The thought of someone being gay doesn't make me feel queazy or anything. Anyway, I don't know what I would say exactly. I would at first spend more time listening than preaching. The kid has to personally deal with the issue, and not just accept what I say because I said so. As time goes along, I would offer my advice as to what can be done about it (some therapy has been known to work in reversing tendencies). I would generally encourage celibacy, but my love wouldn't change if he/she decided to go against my wishes.


3) Are either of you close friends with a self-professed gay individual? (I'm not talking about, "Yeah, there's this one guy on my floor at work"--I'm asking if any of your friends whom you consider in your "closer" circle are gay.)Where I am right now, I don't know of anyone who has professed being gay. At university I did know a few people, some of these were friendly acquaintances. There was one guy I spent a lot of time with who was gay. I didn't know this right off the bat, but our friendship didn't change afterwards. Once in a while, someone would try to convince me of why gay relationships are okay, and normally I would just listen. I can usually tell if they are interested in discussion or not.

I ask these questions in all sincerity, and I do have motivation for asking these questions.

[boring monologue]Shortly after Clinton took office, at the age of 16, I was "outed" to my parents by my big-mouthed older sister. My parents, being of sound Christian faith, immediately sent me to a Christian therapist, with the hopes that he would somehow be able to "cleanse" me of this scourge.

They were peeved (to say the least) when he informed them that the best they could hope for was that I was bisexual. Much drama ensued, including several suicide attempts by The Bomb and a rather upsetting turning of a cold shoulder by my so-called friends in Christ at the local non-denominational charismatic church.

In the end, I went back "into the closet" until I left for uni, where I tried all sorts of retarded things like joining a fraternity and kissing girls while drunk. All to no avail--I was clearly attracted to men, and only men.

But, I am going somewhere w/this (honestly). 12 years later, both of my parents have not only fully accepted me for who I am (as well as accepting my partner as they have accepted my other siblings' spouses), but they have experienced "break-throughs" of their own, most importantly in the way that religion plays a role in their lives. Both are still active churchgoers, and continue to call themselves Christians, but both are adamantly *for* gay marriage.

I truly believe that had their son not been gay, neither of them would feel this way today.[/boring monologue]

I read your posts to these threads in Political with much curiosity because I truly wonder what your reaction would be were you to be placed in a situation similar to that of my parents'.

I appreciate (with all honesty) your thoughts on the above questions.

TB

I answered your above questions before reading your story, so I hope it's apparent that I'm being genuine and not framing my answers based on your life story.

I do thank you for sharing your story. It does give me some practical insight. I generally don't agree with how your parents went about it. It's almost as if they hold you responsible for being attracted to guys, which they shouldn't. If anything, they are probablly more responsible than you are. I don't disagree in offering therapy for you, but clearly they didn't have the right heart in approaching the issue (based on your testimony at least).

[The Bomb]

Gomer,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. In retrospect, I realize that the wording of some of them (particularly the "do you have any close friends?" one) might have seemed as though I were looking to start a debate (is it even possible to avoid one on these boards?).

Anyway, I wasn't looking to start one--if I were, I probably would have participated in more of these threads. Instead, I was only trying to gain a better understanding of your reasons behind your stance on gay marriage, which you provided.

Incidentally, my view of those who voted for Bush is not one of "those hateful homophobes", although I can understand why those of us who ended up on the losing side of the election would claim such a stance. Compartmentalization has never been a character trait that I preferred to extol. I have respect for those individuals who are strong in their convictions (whether they be religiously motivated or otherwise); clearly, I don't agree with some of them, but the last time I checked, agreeing to disagree isn't against the law.

FWIW, my experiences have repeatedly shown to me (and I saw a post from Loner in another thread illuminating this point) that those who have more exposure to gay people (especially gay people in committed relationships) tend to come down on the side of the fence in favor of gay marriages. It's not the least bit surprising to me that the majority of the people that I know are, for the most part, in support of gay equality (be it "marriage" or "civil union" or whatever the term that conveys equal treatment of gay relationships under the law). I'm sure people could attribute that to a selective perception on my part--sure, I'll agree w/that to a certain extent.

However, I do think familiarity breeds understanding, and I can only hope that as more of us oh-so-normal-we're-really-kinda-boring homos continue living our lives, the "fear factor" (of which I am not accusing you, BTW) will diminish and that this sort of "wedge issue" will not again divide this country the way it seems to have done in the past 6-12 months.

Thanks again for your honesty.

TB

[Paul Brand]

I also support Gomer's response. I read it after composing mine, and it seems we agree on how we would approach the issue.

[Michael Davlin]

I'm glad you weren't successful in your suicide attempts, TB. Those who are have no idea how much devastation they leave behind.

One of my closest friends (for nearly 30 years) is gay, and I don't believe there is any choice in that matter, but I also feel insisting on the term marriage is unnecessarily confrontational. I prefer civil unions for everyone; negotiable, customizable, one size fits none. There's no reason government needs to be involved in marriage, which has historically been a religious rather than civil ceremony. Whether religions wish to marry gays or not is up to them, and I have no reason to want to influence them one way or another. If marriage were punted back to religions, and not kept a government function, I think gay couples can get everything they want and deserve --- tax parity, inheritance rights, power of attorney, the same legal recognition and status as heteros, etc. --- but those people who feel marriage should be reserved to man and woman won't have to have something that offends them rubbed in their faces.

[BC]

I'm glad you weren't successful in your suicide attempts, TB. Those who are have no idea how much devastation they leave behind.

One of my closest friends (for nearly 30 years) is gay, and I don't believe there is any choice in that matter, but I also feel insisting on the term marriage is unnecessarily confrontational. I prefer civil unions for everyone; negotiable, customizable, one size fits none. There's no reason government needs to be involved in marriage, which has historically been a religious rather than civil ceremony. Whether religions wish to marry gays or not is up to them, and I have no reason to want to influence them one way or another. If marriage were punted back to religions, and not kept a government function, I think gay couples can get everything they want and deserve --- tax parity, inheritance rights, power of attorney, the same legal recognition and status as heteros, etc. --- but those people who feel marriage should be reserved to man and woman won't have to have something that offends them rubbed in their faces.

As I've mentioned in other posts, I consider myself a card-carrying member of the religious right. I also have a cousin who is gay and has a "life partner" and been through a commitment ceremony. He ushered at our wedding; his life partner couldn't be there because he'd just started a new job, or he might also have been an usher.

First, kudos to the Bomb for being allowing himself to be vulnerable and not going on the attack. Second, to Gomer and Paul Brand for handling the question sensitively.

My own position is very similar to MD, which is why I quoted it; the only thing I would add is that I would prefer my OWN church NOT marry gays, because of my religious beliefs.

Elsewhere, I have spelled out my opinion against legal abortion independent of Christianity (or any other religion). There is a third party killed who has no choice in the matter, and thus killing should only be justified in situations society GENERALLY deems killing acceptable (self-defense, war, capital punishment, perhaps others...)

In the case of a gay civil union or relationship, there is typically no harm to a third party. So I don't believe they should be illegal.

This becomes knotty when say, adoption rights are debated, insurance departments require insurance companies to rate heterosexual and homosexual couples similarly, etc. And, if a bill came up which did not explicitly deal with these concerns, I might well vote against it. But I'm on board with the basic principle that civil unions should be in the hands of civil authorities and "what God has joined together let no man put asunder" should be in the hand of God and His church.

[The Mad Hatter]

BC.

Interesting post. What do you think of laws (like in Ohio) that ban civil unions?

[Lucy]

The Bomb,

I am straight and married, but I have many close friends who are gay, and a bisexual sister-in-law. I'm not terribly close to the sister-in-law, but probably half of my closest friends are gay, and one of my husband's closest friends is a gay man who has been all-but-married for over thirty years. I've also had a number of gay acquaintances, including an all-but-married couple who lived next door to us for several years.

Nonetheless, I am a moderate on the subject of gay marriage, if that's possible. Having children really convinced me that child-rearing is the primary purpose of the institution of marriage, and the reason that human beings form pair-bonds. I have also observed that many of the laws regarding marriage (such as sharing health insurance) are designed to support that goal, extending coverage, for example, to the financially dependent spouse who takes care of the kids.

However, I have also observed that a large number of straight couples are neither rearing children nor retired, and that the institution of marriage seems to have survived that (although perhaps been weakened by it) and I don't think the tiny number of gays who would chose to get married would make much difference. That is, I don't actively support gay marriage, but sort of feel "if they want it, okay". Live and let live. My guess is that if gays hadn't been deprived of hospital vistitation rights during the peak of the AIDS crisis, and kept away from funerals, and if wills explicitly leaving belongings to gay partners hadn't been routinely overturned by blood relatives, the question of "gay marriage" would never have arisen. But we have gone too far to go back. Once the debate was framed as about "marriage" a large fraction of gays felt they would be disenfranchised from society until they can get it.

(My "married" friend is perfectly happy with his condition, by the way. They are both employed, both have benefits, and their families are okay with them. Not being married has meant not paying the marriage tax. In fact, he is really quite bemused at the push for gay marriage and gay military service. He says that once he accepted his condition, the two chief benefits were that he couldn't be drafted and didn't have to get married. So it goes. He is of an earlier generation, and most of his peers had settled down before AIDS.)

[Bicycle Repair Man]

I'm glad you weren't successful in your suicide attempts, TB. Those who are have no idea how much devastation they leave behind.

One of my closest friends (for nearly 30 years) is gay, and I don't believe there is any choice in that matter, but I also feel insisting on the term marriage is unnecessarily confrontational. I prefer civil unions for everyone; negotiable, customizable, one size fits none. There's no reason government needs to be involved in marriage, which has historically been a religious rather than civil ceremony. Whether religions wish to marry gays or not is up to them, and I have no reason to want to influence them one way or another. If marriage were punted back to religions, and not kept a government function, I think gay couples can get everything they want and deserve --- tax parity, inheritance rights, power of attorney, the same legal recognition and status as heteros, etc. --- but those people who feel marriage should be reserved to man and woman won't have to have something that offends them rubbed in their faces.

This is the one part that I continue to have a really, really, hard time understanding. The apparent compromise position on this issue is to allow same-sex couples to form Civil Unions which will be exactly (or nearly exactly) the same as Marriages. I realize that a large segment on the population will not even grant this.

But for those who do: What the hell is the big deal about the word "marriage"? If it's exactly the same thing as a marriage, who cares what it's called? How does that change anything? If you're going to allow same-sex couples to enter into legally sanctioned life partnerships, why not let them call it a marriage. You know they will anyway.

[Cynic]

Nonetheless, I am a moderate on the subject of gay marriage, if that's possible. Having children really convinced me that child-rearing is the primary purpose of the institution of marriage, and the reason that human beings form pair-bonds. I have also observed that many of the laws regarding marriage (such as sharing health insurance) are designed to support that goal, extending coverage, for example, to the financially dependent spouse who takes care of the kids.

However, I have also observed that a large number of straight couples are neither rearing children nor retired, and that the institution of marriage seems to have survived that (although perhaps been weakened by it) and I don't think the tiny number of gays who would chose to get married would make much difference. That is, I don't actively support gay marriage, but sort of feel "if they want it, okay". Live and let live. My guess is that if gays hadn't been deprived of hospital vistitation rights during the peak of the AIDS crisis, and kept away from funerals, and if wills explicitly leaving belongings to gay partners hadn't been routinely overturned by blood relatives, the question of "gay marriage" would never have arisen. But we have gone too far to go back. Once the debate was framed as about "marriage" a large fraction of gays felt they would be disenfranchised from society until they can get it.


My position is almost exactly like yours. I did vote yes for gay marriage a few years ago in my state, but it got defeated anyway. I think if people have a problem with the word "marriage," then don't use it. But gay people should be allowed to have all the benefits like other couples. I can understand the issue with adoption, though. Let's face it, our society is not ready to accept "gay family" yet. I imagine the kids of those couples would have a hard time fitting in any social groups. You can create laws to prevent discriminating acts, but you can't create laws to control discriminating thoughts. So, I think until the majority of society are comfortable with this concept, the children of gay couples would continue to have a serious disadvantage.

[Michael Davlin]

This is the one part that I continue to have a really, really, hard time understanding. The apparent compromise position on this issue is to allow same-sex couples to form Civil Unions which will be exactly (or nearly exactly) the same as Marriages. I realize that a large segment on the population will not even grant this.

But for those who do: What the hell is the big deal about the word "marriage"? If it's exactly the same thing as a marriage, who cares what it's called? How does that change anything? If you're going to allow same-sex couples to enter into legally sanctioned life partnerships, why not let them call it a marriage. You know they will anyway.
The basic problem, as I view it, is that we've conflated the civil with the religious. I am not religious, but I suspect that many people like me fail to remember that, to those who are religious, marriage is a sacrament. To them, the I do's are not merely perfunctory acknowledgements in the presence of a government official of duties willingly assumed in a domestic relationship, they are sacred and unbreakable vows before God. To the religious, marriage is inseparable from religion, and government has no business saying what marriage is, or who can or cannot be married, or how they or their religions have to label same-sex relationships. To many of these people, the idea of same-sex couples being married is a sacrilege, pure and simple.

I can accept that point of view, I respect that very old tradition, and I see no compelling reason why the marriage label has to be part of placing same-sex partnerships on the same legal footing as opposite-sex partnerships. In saying that, I am assuming that the usually stated reasons for legal recognition and parity are the complete and full agenda of those lobbying for it, and not yet another political trojan horse. For example, forcing employers or others to refer to them as married, mandating health benefits from employers, forcing churches to perform marriage ceremonies for them, or disputing any preferences given to opposite-sex couples in adoptions.

My position is that all couples should register their civil unions, not just same-sex couples. Religions would continue offering the sacrament of marriage to whomever they please. Some would do so for same-sex couples, and others wouldn't. Some employers would extend health benefits, others wouldn't, and some already do. That's live and let live in my book. One upside to this approach is that civil unions, since they are only contracts, could be far more flexible in their terms and could be tailored to the needs and desires of each couple. I would suspect that most religions would only marry couples whose civil union meets some minimum standards regarding duration and other matters. Marriage would not be the same thing as civil unions.

These really are two different concepts, and they ought to have different names, in my opinion. If gays would adopt that position, which would seem to get them all of their stated objectives, I believe they would face far less resistance in seeking legal parity from the reasonable and religious.

[Melanie Haber]

One upside to this approach is that civil unions, since they are only contracts, could be far more flexible in their terms and could be tailored to the needs and desires of each couple.
This already exists. It's called varying by state and prenuptual contracts.

Civil unions that are not identical to existing marriage in both the rights and obligations of the spouses, in terms of what the government either recognizes or imposes on them, are not likely to jibe with the stated objectives.

I think the arrangements should differ in name, but in name only. Holding out for the government to officially call these civil unions "marriage" seems almost frivolous. That change is likely to come anyway in the decades after gay civil unions become legal and are more and more mainstreamed.

[Michael Davlin]

One upside to this approach is that civil unions, since they are only contracts, could be far more flexible in their terms and could be tailored to the needs and desires of each couple.
This already exists. It's called varying by state and prenuptual contracts.
I had in mind more flexibility than these provide: limited duration; renewability options; limited fidelity requirements; liability waivers for things like having kids or financially supporting existing children. While these don't appeal to old fashioned romantics like me, Melanie, I'm sure they would to quite a few people. Especially as the full implications for relationships of what are still relatively recent advances in fertility control and female economic independence work themselves out. I'm glad this isn't my problem, but I believe some extra flexibility during what's certainly going to be an extended period of social experimentation is a very good idea.

Civil unions that are not identical to existing marriage in both the rights and obligations of the spouses, in terms of what the government either recognizes or imposes on them, are not likely to jibe with the stated objectives.
I think they should be identical. The state can only treat people equally under the eyes of its own laws. It cannot and should not dictate what marriage is to religions or individuals. State should be as separate from religion as religion from state. These reciprocal constraints on church and state are two sides of the same coin. It's funny, though, how people today are much more alarmed by others' religious precepts being reflected in laws than they are with the founders' original concern that the federal government would be tempted to write laws affecting religions.

I think the arrangements should differ in name, but in name only. Holding out for the government to officially call these civil unions "marriage" seems almost frivolous. That change is likely to come anyway in the decades after gay civil unions become legal and are more and more mainstreamed.
We agree. Although I don't think the state should use the term marriage. That should be reserved for religions as a sacrament. The state would merely record everyone's civil union contracts, and would presumably publish its own minimum contractual standards for couples wishing to become marriage penalty victims or gain whatever benefits some people believe emerge from the state rather than contract.

[Loner]

MD, I would submit that your proposed changes are all far more "destructive" to the institution of marriage than allowing same sex couples into the civil institution, and the main reason gay activists seeking marriage haven't sought "marriage lite." The people leading the charge on the FMA have made it quite clear that civil unions are out of the question to them.
My only hope is that their take no prisoner approach on the subject keeps them from getting the 2/3 majorities they need at the federal level to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[Utanapishtim]

Wasn't the amendment a ballot issue? I thought I'd heard, election night, that some eleven states had supported it, which would be less than a majority, it seems...
Or, I could be way off base. It's not as visible an issue as the whole presidency thing, up here. Straighten me out?

[Lucy]

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman was a ballot issue in 11 states. I think it passed in all of them. They were mostly very "red" states, but the 11 included Michigan, Ohio, and Oregon.

The Republican party in Massachusetts also made a concerted effort to increase its share of the legistature to change the MA constitution to get rid of same-sex marriage. It's harder to keep track of the scorecard there than it is to see how a simple ballot issue fared, but in MA the Republicans actually lost ground, after a record-breaking attempt. At this point, I am predicting that same-sex marriage will remain the law of Massachusetts, since it seems to have gained a number of votes in this election.

[Utanapishtim]

That doesn't seem to help. If only eleven states asked the question, when do the rest get their say, to find out if the 2/3 majority is achieved or not?

[Lucy]

It wasn't an attempt to change the US constitution. (At least, not yet.) It was an attempt to outlaw same-sex marriage in those 11 states. Marriage is currently defined by each state. As are murder, adultery, rape, the age of consent, and most everything else that the feds haven't defined as having something to do with "interstate commerce".

But if and when we do get a constitutional amendment to vote on, it is unlikely to reach each state's ballot at the same time. There's generally some window in the congressional measure during which it must be passed by enough states.

[Utanapishtim]

Ah.

Then, would it be fair to say that since your constitution doesn't specify which level of government has authority over marriages, these states have taken it upon themselves to get the jump on the issue before the federal or municipal ones get the first-mover advantage, or something to that effect? And that the federal government was hoping to do the same thing, but hasn't got its act together fast enough?

[Lucy]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the constitution leaves it to the states. But the constitution can be changed. . .

Cynically, the real purpose of that ballot issue was to bring religious conservatives to the polls to boost votes for Bush and other Republicans. It seems to have worked.

If the people of a state want same-sex marriage, they wouldn't have voted for these measures. If the people of a state oppose same-sex marriage, it is highly unlikely that their legislators would have imposed it on them. If a court in one of these states rules that the state constitution requires same-sex marriage, these measures will be deemed unconstitutional (according to the state constitution) and will have no force of law. Other than bringing people to the polls, there are only two practical effects of these measures:

1) They might make it easier for the state to ignore the Massachusetts (or Canadian, or French) marriage of a same-sex couple who move to the state.
2) They alert the legislature and the courts to the will of the people.

(Unless these measures were constitional amendments in the 11 states? I don't think so, but my state is not among the 11, and it might even vary from state to state.)

[Griffin 3]

1) They might make it easier for the state to ignore the Massachusetts (or Canadian, or French) marriage of a same-sex couple who move to the state.That's the main non-cynical reason.

[John F. Kennedy]

Cynically, the real purpose of that ballot issue was to bring religious conservatives to the polls to boost votes for Bush and other Republicans. It seems to have worked.


Andrew Sullivan (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_31_dish_archive.html#109968333683256538) doesn't agree, and it's of great interest to him. Be not so cynical

[Loner]

Andrew sullivan can write well, but watching him waffle the past year on everything I don't particularly trust much of his analysis. It's like an elctroshock therapy patient saying his therapist is a nice guy, but he wishes he wouldn't hurt him so much.

The fact that the states gained less than the marriage vote margin does not mean that the amendments didn't help. Especially when you consider that given Bush's approval ratings and the way everything else is going, you would have expected him to lose votes.

It's not that a majority of people who voted for Bush did so because of gay marriage. It's that the significant number of people who got off their assses and voted largely if nto solely due to the gay marriage issue provided his margin of victory. Given that more people voted for the ballot measures than said they would in nearly every state, I don't really beleive it when they say gay marriage wasn't a motivating factor.

[cubedbee]

(Unless these measures were constitional amendments in the 11 states? I don't think so, but my state is not among the 11, and it might even vary from state to state.)All 11 were constitutional amendments. They will become state law, and the only way they can be overturned is by the Feds. I believe 5 had language to specifically exclude civil unions. Details (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/)

[John F. Kennedy]

Andrew sullivan can write well, but watching him waffle the past year on everything I don't particularly trust much of his analysis. It's like an elctroshock therapy patient saying his therapist is a nice guy, but he wishes he wouldn't hurt him so much.

Instead of a personal attack on him, why don't you attack his analysis? And do find a better analogy, electroshock doesn't hurt.

[Loner]

Andrew sullivan can write well, but watching him waffle the past year on everything I don't particularly trust much of his analysis. It's like an elctroshock therapy patient saying his therapist is a nice guy, but he wishes he wouldn't hurt him so much.

Instead of a personal attack on him, why don't you attack his analysis? And do find a better analogy, electroshock doesn't hurt.

Why don't you try reading past my first paragraph to see my attack of his analysis? If you're going to be so ****ing condescending, at least read all the way through.
Sorry, how about a battered wife who stays because her husband is "good to the kids?" Is that better?

[Truth Soldier]

Come on Loner, look at all the energy JFK put into his post. "Andrew Sullivan doesn't agree, and he's gay." Why don't you try to match his example instead of lowering the level of discourse? :roll:

[John F. Kennedy]

He's... He's gay?! whodathunkit...

Loner, TS is being condescending to you. I'm just beating sense into you. Apparently it's going to take a while. It's not personal.

[Father of two]

I'm the subject of a topic in political. I must be a big time player now. :D

I'll try to answer these in a clear manner.



1) Is your stance on gay marriage supported solely by your affiliation with the Christian faith?

This is a hard question to answer. I see no distintion between my faith and how I live my life. Does my religion dictate what I believe or does who I really am lead me to which religion I believe?

If tomorrow, the leadership of my church said "We have no problem with gay marriage", I still believe it is not best for society.

So to answer your question, I feel my stance is mostly based on my belief of God's eternal plan but "worldly logic" also plays a part.



2) As both of you have stated (I'm paraphrasing) that marriage is one man/one woman, and that any deviation from that structure is an attack on the institution of marriage, what would you tell your child if (s)he were to tell you that (s)he is gay?

It would be no different if my child were to have a child out of wedlock. What they did or are doing will not change my love for them. Having gay feelings is not a sin as I understand it. The act is. I can not see myself being a supporter of gay marriage just because a child of mine would want to have a gay marriage. I would still love my child.


3) Are either of you close friends with a self-professed gay individual? (I'm not talking about, "Yeah, there's this one guy on my floor at work"--I'm asking if any of your friends whom you consider in your "closer" circle are gay.)

I would have to say no, I have never had a "close" friend who was gay. I have known some and worked close with some, but never had one who I was very close with.


I hope my responses have answered your questions.

[Truth Soldier]

He's... He's gay?! whodathunkit...

Loner, TS is being condescending to you. I'm just beating sense into you. Apparently it's going to take a while. It's not personal.

Keep the thoughtful analysis coming.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

This is the one part that I continue to have a really, really, hard time understanding. The apparent compromise position on this issue is to allow same-sex couples to form Civil Unions which will be exactly (or nearly exactly) the same as Marriages. I realize that a large segment on the population will not even grant this.

But for those who do: What the hell is the big deal about the word "marriage"? If it's exactly the same thing as a marriage, who cares what it's called? How does that change anything? If you're going to allow same-sex couples to enter into legally sanctioned life partnerships, why not let them call it a marriage. You know they will anyway.
The basic problem, as I view it, is that we've conflated the civil with the religious. I am not religious, but I suspect that many people like me fail to remember that, to those who are religious, marriage is a sacrament. To them, the I do's are not merely perfunctory acknowledgements in the presence of a government official of duties willingly assumed in a domestic relationship, they are sacred and unbreakable vows before God. To the religious, marriage is inseparable from religion, and government has no business saying what marriage is, or who can or cannot be married, or how they or their religions have to label same-sex relationships. To many of these people, the idea of same-sex couples being married is a sacrilege, pure and simple.

Then it seems to me that the religious have already lost their hold over the definition of marriage. No-fault divorce is clearly a greater harm to the "sanctity of marriage" than same-sex marriage would. Heck, Reality TV, J-Lo and Britney have each done more damage to the "sanctity of marriage" than same-sex marriage would, and I don't see a ground swell of support for a constitutional ban on any of those things.

[Xavier]

A loss for true conservatism (David Shuster)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

On Tuesday, eleven different states outlawed gay marriage.

The basic argument I heard was not about marriage (more on that below) but about being gay. And a majority of voters seem to believe that homosexuality is an "immoral lifestyle choice."

Hmmmm. The problem is that anybody who has a relative or friend who is gay also knows it is not a "choice." It is something wired into the genes of approximately 3 or 4 percent of the human population in every single culture on the planet. Secondly, when it comes to morality, consider this: While the Bible does suggest homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), The Bible also says in Leviticus 25:44 that we may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations; Exodus 35:2 says that my neighbor who works on the Sabbath should be put to death; Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed; Lev. 11:6-9 states that touching a dead pig makes us unclean (Are you ready for some football?) and Lev. 19:19 forbids us from planting two different crops in the same field or wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. The penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 suggests we stone people to death.

Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people... I would prefer that our society move forward.

...

[John F. Kennedy]

Ok, explain Anne Heche. Is homosexuality wired into her genes or was she just wired?

[Loner]

Explain to me again how the existence of bisexuals prove that everybody is heterosexual.

[Griffin 2]

Explain to me again how the existence of bisexuals prove that everybody is heterosexual.It is similar to the argument that there must be a doggie hell. Otherwise, there couldn't be a doggie heaven.

[Paul Brand]

A loss for true conservatism (David Shuster)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

On Tuesday, eleven different states outlawed gay marriage.

The basic argument I heard was not about marriage (more on that below) but about being gay. And a majority of voters seem to believe that homosexuality is an "immoral lifestyle choice."

Hmmmm. The problem is that anybody who has a relative or friend who is gay also knows it is not a "choice." It is something wired into the genes of approximately 3 or 4 percent of the human population in every single culture on the planet. Secondly, when it comes to morality, consider this: While the Bible does suggest homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), The Bible also says in Leviticus 25:44 that we may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations; Exodus 35:2 says that my neighbor who works on the Sabbath should be put to death; Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed; Lev. 11:6-9 states that touching a dead pig makes us unclean (Are you ready for some football?) and Lev. 19:19 forbids us from planting two different crops in the same field or wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. The penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 suggests we stone people to death.

Maybe some Americans want to return to the days of slavery, devout observance to the Sabbath, long hair, all cotton clothes, and stoning people... I would prefer that our society move forward.

...

Maybe you should check out how Christians respond to this line of reasoning. Or did you think they always shied away from such misinformed arguments? Anyway, I would consider personally responding (and I have in earlier threads), but the exegesis does require a lot of detailed examination.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Ok, explain Anne Heche. Is homosexuality wired into her genes or was she just wired?

Bisexuals actually work in favor of those who believe that homosexuality is a choice. If you accept the notion that everyone is potentially bisexual, than those who practice exclusive homosexuality are choosing their lifestyle.

[Mulan]

Ok, explain Anne Heche. Is homosexuality wired into her genes or was she just wired?

Bisexuals actually work in favor of those who believe that homosexuality is a choice. If you accept the notion that everyone is potentially bisexual, than those who practice exclusive homosexuality are choosing their lifestyle.I don't accept your "notion". While there are more bisexuals that people probably realize, purely (or as pure as it gets) hetero and homo-sexual people exist.

[Renaissance Man]

Ok, explain Anne Heche. Is homosexuality wired into her genes or was she just wired?

Bisexuals actually work in favor of those who believe that homosexuality is a choice. If you accept the notion that everyone is potentially bisexual, than those who practice exclusive homosexuality are choosing their lifestyle.

I'll pretend you are playing devil's advocate:

Anne Heche? That may not be the greatest example you can come up with. :)

In my very short life, I have met 0 bisexual men and numerous bisexual women. I simply cannot except the notion that sexuality is choice for any of the various permutations, no matter where along the continuum one declares things to be a choice. To those who are gay, the arguments about it being choice sound absurd. I've long believed that those straight people who argue for its being a choice often lack the life experience to form that conclusion.

[Renaissance Man]

(Unless these measures were constitional amendments in the 11 states? I don't think so, but my state is not among the 11, and it might even vary from state to state.)All 11 were constitutional amendments. They will become state law, and the only way they can be overturned is by the Feds. I believe 5 had language to specifically exclude civil unions. Details (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/)

Don't forget Louisiana, which is about to strike their recently passed amendment down in their own supreme court on a technicality.

[Griffin 6]

In my very short life, I have met 0 bisexual men and numerous bisexual women. I simply cannot except the notion that sexuality is choice for any of the various permutations, no matter where along the continuum one declares things to be a choice. To those who are gay, the arguments about it being choice sound absurd. I've long believed that those straight people who argue for its being a choice often lack the life experience to form that conclusion.Everything's a choice.

[John F. Kennedy]

Explain to me again how the existence of bisexuals prove that everybody is heterosexual.

WRONG! Anne doesn't flit on a daily basis betwixt men and women. She spruned men, now she embraces one. She embraced a woman, now she spurns them.

Looks like a conversion from here, bud.

[cubedbee]

Explain to me again how the existence of bisexuals prove that everybody is heterosexual.

WRONG! Anne doesn't flit on a daily basis betwixt men and women. She spruned men, now she embraces one. She embraced a woman, now she spurns them.

Looks like a conversion from here, bud.And as we all should know, one example proves a theory. Homosexuality is definitely a choice.

[Loner]

Given Heche's rather cryptic remarks about her sexuality, I don't see how you are making assertions about her "spurning" men or women. She was with a man. She was with a woman. She was with a man again.

Furthermore, Steve Martin and Ellen DeGeneres have both made remarks to the effect that they thought Heche was only with them to further her own career. So is she a convert,gay, straight, bi, or simply a whore? Neither you nor I can read her mind, so we'll never know.

[John F. Kennedy]

agreed. And you've given me an excellent idea for a reef thread. Or at least an idea for an excellent reef thread.

Not that it'll be a hit.