Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[shinerbock]

Mu AGD, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I said was that marriage should be left to religious institutions. Thus, it would not be regulated other than by the church. Therefore, if you were an atheist, you could participate in a ceremony, it just wouldnt be "accredited" by any religious body.

Valk,
My views are religious based yes, but there are other motives as well. Evidence has shown that a man and woman provide the best family environment. Before you point out exceptions, there are exceptions, but that doesn't overcome the fact that in the majority of situations, children with a mother and father present do best. The majority of people who marry are fertile and within ages which could bear children. Thus, they are likely to eventually produce children, and if the family remains intact, those children have a much better chance at educational success, mental health, etc. If gay marriage is permitted in every state, then the question will become why would they not be allowed to raise and adopt children? I think that issue has the potential of becoming more hostile and even more devisive than the one at hand.

[mu_agd]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Mu AGD, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I said was that marriage should be left to religious institutions. Thus, it would not be regulated other than by the church. Therefore, if you were an atheist, you could participate in a ceremony, it just wouldnt be "accredited" by any religious body.

You said marriage should be "Church sponsored." I am Jewish and therefore don't go to Church, so how could I get married under your view?

[shinerbock]

No its not, that assumption wasn't a part of my argument. I did question what would happen regarding children. I'm perfectly aware that some will marry without any desire for kids. That being said, what does it tell my children, who see the State of Georgia saying that two men being in a married relationship is ok? I would prefer my children not be overly exposed to homosexual relationships to begin with (I want them to know what it is, but not to the point where they assume it is a viable life option), but with gay marriage being provided for, it is their state government saying that two males or females being in a relationship is just as legitimate as a male and a female. I'm sure many disagree with my take, but that is how I believe.

[shinerbock]

Mu AGD, marriage is a church creation. If you want to get married under my "system" you could either go to a Jewish faith's ceremony, if you desired, or you could simply have a private ceremony. Under such a system the government would recognize no marriage or lack there of, and thus if you believe that your ceremony is valid, then it would be to you. Those who choose to have the Church's validation, would have that option as well.

[Drolefille]

The argument that there is no genetic benefit to being gay isn't quite true. There seems to be evidence supporting the idea that the gay uncle (so to speak) helped raise the children, so that more people could hunt and gather. Same thing for grandparents. We live much longer, relatively speaking, than other mammals. Long past our reproductive age.

This is all anthropological theory of course, but it isn't entirely baseless.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

That being said, what does it tell my children, who see the State of Georgia saying that two men being in a married relationship is ok?

I want to understand this, because I've heard it before. Do you think that the morals/lessons/values you'll teach your children will be so fragile that if the state allowed gay marriage your kids would think it's okay despite what you've taught them? I'm not trying to be argumentative here -- I just want somebody to explain this.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

My views are religious based yes, but there are other motives as well. Evidence has shown that a man and woman provide the best family environment. Before you point out exceptions, there are exceptions, but that doesn't overcome the fact that in the majority of situations, children with a mother and father present do best.

Unless you're also arguing for an amendment to eliminate divorce, I must disagree with this point.

Also, I'd like a citation if possible - I'm unaware of comprehensive studies comparing 2-parent households 'apples to apples' with regard to gay/straight parenting viability.

Besides this, gay people can adopt on their own, and that's not illegal. Marriage and children are not intertwined . . .

Originally Posted by shinerbock

The majority of people who marry are fertile and within ages which could bear children. Thus, they are likely to eventually produce children, and if the family remains intact, those children have a much better chance at educational success, mental health, etc. If gay marriage is permitted in every state, then the question will become why would they not be allowed to raise and adopt children? I think that issue has the potential of becoming more hostile and even more devisive than the one at hand.

. . . which leads to this. Denying someone adoption based on their sexuality is a separate issue, one that I doubt you'll find much support for outside extreme religious groups, and this is NOT a contingent or conflated issue to gay marriage.


-----------------

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The argument that there is no genetic benefit to being gay isn't quite true. There seems to be evidence supporting the idea that the gay uncle (so to speak) helped raise the children, so that more people could hunt and gather. Same thing for grandparents. We live much longer, relatively speaking, than other mammals. Long past our reproductive age.

This is all anthropological theory of course, but it isn't entirely baseless.

To add to this post, there are numerous examples of homosexuality within other mammal species. This is not a human-only phenomenon; thus, within nature, it must not be THAT detrimental (you know, survival of the fittest and all that). It's a baseless argument.

[Drolefille]

The question shinerbock, is do you believe homosexuality is a choice or is innate?

I go with the innate for many reasons, but mostly that I myself never chose to be attracted to anyone, just found myself attracted to my boyfriend.

If innate, you may disagree with it, but how can it be wrong (outside of a religious belief). Gay rights has often been compared to civil rights, and while I disagree that such a broad comparison is accurate, the gay marriage/interracial marriage comparison seems right to me.

No one complains about a straight couple holding hands while walking down the street, but if it's a gay couple, all of a sudden they're "forcing their views on me" and "making my children think it's ok"

Your children are going to witness many things that are "wrong" in life. You will have to teach them whether things are wrong or right. That's a parent's job. Trying to put them in a bubble from the "wrongs" isn't going to work, and will probably make them rebel. Be prepared to have a talk with your children about WHY you disapprove of gay marriage when they see two men together. I still won't agree with you, but you'll be doing everything right.

[shinerbock]

Free thinking? Naturally at some point my children will have the decision of what religion to practice, who they want to be in a long term relationship with, etc. What I don't appreciate is a school, or a government telling them that being gay is alright, or that abortion is ok, or that evolution is the only way the earth could have been created. However, until they reach the point of young adulthood, do you think I should let them consort with whoever they want, watch whatever they want, not go to school, not go to church? Also, if your liberal ideology is one of "freethinking" and you obviously exclude my way of thinking, then your ideology isn't quite sound is it?

[Drolefille]

That is your job, to fill in where the government leaves off. The government teaches the science of evolution, they do not teach religion. When the kid comes home from school you teach them about Genesis. (I learned evolution in my Catholic school and I, like most Catholics, have no problem reconciling the two)

The government shouldn't be saying that those things are bad either, they're not around to make moral judgements. You are the one to teach your children morals. If you don't think can be done with gay marriage than I'm sorry for your kids, they will need a lot of help.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

What I don't appreciate is a school, or a government telling them that being gay is alright, or that abortion is ok, or that evolution is the only way the earth could have been created.

Let's take the example of a woman who wants to have an abortion. Would you argue that she should not be able to have a legal abortion because you don't want your (potential) children to interpret that as the state's approval of abortion?

That's pretty jacked.

[shinerbock]

I think it is probably a little bit of both. I believe homosexuality is a sin, as a Christian. Because of this, I don't believe God created anyone to "be gay." That being said, I do believe there are people who have natural attraction to the same sex. Obviously, as a person who is straight, I'll never know how this attraction manifests itself, or the strength of it (which I imagine varies). I do believe there are societal influences. I think kids today grow up in a culture where they may not fully act out their gender role, and thus assume they are homosexuals. I personally knew 2 young men from my hometown who at one point claimed to be gay, but have since married women. I don't believe it was out of societal pressure, as they both openly discuss the period in their life, and it was never a secret for them. I think they used it as both a rebellion against the church and their parents, and assumed that this was natural because of their more feminine nature. I'm sure some gay people would claim that they simply conformed and went against their natural feelings, but to ask them they did not. There was no reform here, like the far left often accuses the far right of doing, but the 2 guys simply claim they changed a lot as they approached adulthood. Now this is obviously a particular case involving only 2 individuals, but I think it may be indicative of a certain subsection of homosexuals. People usually use the defense "why would anyone choose to be gay?" and to a degree that makes sense. However, in the world of growing up as a teenager, teens often choose to act in a way in which to join a small subsection of our culture. I think perhaps the difference in those who truly have strong feelings and those who simply have placed themselves in the homosexual catagory are whether they act out their role or not. Many homosexuals I know (generally younger) do not act, nor express any desire to really act out upon their desires. But as I said earlier, seeing as I'll never have true insight into the mind of someone claiming to be gay, I'll probably never have a fully made up mind on the subject.

[WCUgirl]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Free thinking? Naturally at some point my children will have the decision of what religion to practice, who they want to be in a long term relationship with, etc. What I don't appreciate is a school, or a government telling them that being gay is alright, or that abortion is ok, or that evolution is the only way the earth could have been created. However, until they reach the point of young adulthood, do you think I should let them consort with whoever they want, watch whatever they want, not go to school, not go to church? Also, if your liberal ideology is one of "freethinking" and you obviously exclude my way of thinking, then your ideology isn't quite sound is it?

Where's Rudey with his, "reading comprehension isn't your strong suit" comments when we need him? He's a lot funnier than I am.

[shinerbock]

I'm clearly against abortion, and especially any government funding going towards abortion. Obviously, seeing as abortion involves another living thing, I have problems beyond what my future children will interpret from it. That being said, I don't want my future children to feel the government condones abortion.

Regarding Drole...
You're right, I do not at all depend on the government to teach my children morals (or most of their education, for that matter). However, I do have a problem with schools not presenting the alternative. Frankly, I could care less if they teach creationism in schools, but I think they should give the counter side to evolution. There is much about macro-evolution which defies logic and is currently in question, and I think schools should question that. It should be presented as merely one option for our existance. Likewise, with homosexuality, I don't wish for schools to teach that being gay is a sin. It is not their role, nor do I trust schools to religiously train my future kids. However, I think presenting it as a viable option is also wrong. I believe they should explain both sides of the issue, that some people feel it is innate and others that it is acquired, the safety issues, the child rearing issues, etc.

[shinerbock]

Well I'm not sure that reading comprehension is my strong suit, but the LSAT disagrees with you. Logic games, however, are a different story...