www.ditl.org

sunnyside wrote:...Some more are probably Christians not opposed to it, but they feel the anti Christian assault that tends to come up, as in this thread, with the subject. And of course there is the perceived (and I think somewhat factual) rampant promiscuity etc associated...

I'm against organized religion of any flavor, for the record, though I *ahem* believe in a higher power.

And, promiscuity is rampant. And disgusting. Dirty fun with a trusted partner, or at least someone you've known for more than a few weeks - Great. Screwing strangers left and right - Disturbing.

sunnyside wrote:...Others fear being the new members of the second class. Honestly sometimes Ifeel this. Having a daughter is FREAKING HARD. Especially at my age. Granted I could have just told my wife to let her ovaries rot and we'll just adopt when we're finally well off. But that would involve a lot of crying. Also a lot of people wind up with kids they didn't plan on. Yeah Yeah abortions. Well support that being legal or not it isn't just something to go out and do before going to the movies.

Abortion is an terrible choice to have to make, especially when the parties involved are too young and were careless...

I think the current culture should lay off marketing sex to kids; it's already having some terrible side-effects. I don't support parents over-sheltering their kids and leaving them unprepared for reality, either.

sunnyside wrote:...Anyway the point is all other things being equal I'd expect gays to make more money and have more power than straight couples. So there is some fear of winding up outside the gay equivalent of the "old boys club".

Tough luck, is what I say. "Progress is like a train; you can either get onboard before it departs, or die trying to catch up to it." - Me, just now.

sunnyside wrote:...Now I don't know how valid or not those concerns are. Nor is it fair to deny others equality because you fear it'll put you at a disadvantage. But I think those are the emotions and the reasons.

Their concerns are quite valid; they only want what is guaranteed to them in the Constitution: freedom to make their own choices.

GK - Nice quote, though I disagree. I'm a fan of Chaos Theory, in that there is always order in any seemingly chaotic system, if viewed from a different perspective.

Others fear being the new members of the second class. Honestly sometimes Ifeel this. Having a daughter is FREAKING HARD. Especially at my age. Granted I could have just told my wife to let her ovaries rot and we'll just adopt when we're finally well off. But that would involve a lot of crying. Also a lot of people wind up with kids they didn't plan on. Yeah Yeah abortions. Well support that being legal or not it isn't just something to go out and do before going to the movies.

Anyway the point is all other things being equal I'd expect gays to make more money and have more power than straight couples. So there is some fear of winding up outside the gay equivalent of the "old boys club".

Now I don't know how valid or not those concerns are. Nor is it fair to deny others equality because you fear it'll put you at a disadvantage. But I think those are the emotions and the reasons.

Sunny as usual you laid it out in a very calm and honest manner. So I am not aiming to be either rude or mean in pointing out that these last few reservations you expressed have been basically the argument against every form of social progress in our country, from women's rights to minority rights to giving black people the right to vote. I could dig up political cartoons showing black people crowded into Congress, swinging from ropes and banners and acting like hooligans. The somewhat pervasive deep seated fear that the straight white male is going to be dethroned from his superior position in American society is very well entrenched and very old, and this is not the first issue to make that sense of privilege in society feel threatened. I do think, though, that this fear especially financially speaking assumes a best case scenario, that discrimination and biases disappear overnight, that gay teens and young adults cease having the highest suicide rate, that everyone rises up purely on their merits and so that what we will end up with is a culture of basically married single men who make a boatload of money and start throwing a lot of weight and influence around over their heterosexual counterparts.

First off, you could make the same argument about any single person who doesn't have the expenses of a child to worry about. Or any married couple that doesn't have the expenses of children to worry about. Somehow those groups have never banded together and pooled their money and weight to somehow oppress heterosexual families who procreate, and I doubt gay couples will either. (Heck you could make the opposite argument- I never get to take holidays off or leave early for anything because "the parents" whose kids are sick, have soccer practice, are on a field trip, or have two weeks off for Christmas consistently and territorially take all their time off first, and more frequently, than I can or do.) And secondly, to be blunt, childrearing is a choice. If one's major concern is the economic stability and comfort to ensure one is never at a disadvantage compared to someone else of similar standing who doesn't have a child, one DOES have the choice to not have a child. Having a child requires sacrifices, and some families feeling resentful that other families without children are better off economically in some regards seems a bit small and petty, to tell the truth.

Some have the religion thing. And genuinly believe it is an inherently imoral practice. Simple as that. Some more are probably Christians not opposed to it, but they feel the anti Christian assault that tends to come up, as in this thread, with the subject. And of course there is the perceived (and I think somewhat factual) rampant promiscuity etc associated. They begin to fear the LGBTA community really does hate them whether they support gay marriage or not.

I think what throws a bowling ball right through the center of the pins in this argument is that it's still "controversial" to have a gay Star Trek character or a same-sex kissing scene on non-cable television, but you can tune in and watch Paris Hilton (who has a controversial sex tape and is generally worthless), watch movies with Colin Farrell (who put out a sex tape) or look to any other number of heterosexual, highly sexually immoral role models in our society any day of the week. Why promiscuity or sexually immoral behavior seems relegated to gay people is beyond me, and reeks of scapegoating to be honest.

Duskofdead wrote:I think what throws a bowling ball right through the center of the pins in this argument is that it's still "controversial" to have a gay Star Trek character or a same-sex kissing scene on non-cable television, but you can tune in and watch Paris Hilton (who has a controversial sex tape and is generally worthless), watch movies with Colin Farrell (who put out a sex tape) or look to any other number of heterosexual, highly sexually immoral role models in our society any day of the week. Why promiscuity or sexually immoral behavior seems relegated to gay people is beyond me, and reeks of scapegoating to be honest.

Gah, this is a bugbear of mine. It really was NOT a big deal to have a gay character while Star Trek was on. At least, not later Trek.

"Soap" had a gay character in the late 70s, before TNG was even on the air.
Ellen came out on her show in 1997, in Voyager season 4.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer had Willow coming out as gay in 2000 - when Voyager was in season 7 - and had both her and Tara openly lesbian throughout the rest of the show.

And while Enterprise was running we have Will & Grace, and The L Word... and Trek is still worried that having a gay character will upset the fans? What the hell?

There was a time when Star Trek pushed such barriers, you know.

#! - I'm a believer, and have no issue with anything you mentioned, GK. I won't push my faith on you, and you don't push you lack thereof on me. Deal?

#2 - as the great Lewis Black said, "Gay marriage?! After 9/11/01, 'gay marriage' should be on page 6 of our list of priorities, right after 'Do we eat too much garlic as a nation?'"

Mikey I almost can't even believe you said that. You are about the last person on the forum I would expect to pull out 9/11 as a justification for completely mothballing, if not outright rolling back, issues of civil liberties or social justice. Who proposed making gay marriage a mission objective for the military to handle? Who proposed making gay marriage an issue for national intelligence agencies to make a priority? Hauling out 9/11 on a wagon as an excuse for our backwards treading as a society is a glib and weak dismissal mostly from the political spectrum in America that would prefer to NEVER deal with these issues at all, war or no war.

If I could speak to the guy you quoted, I'd tell him to shut up and sit down because out of an alphabetical list of world dictators we decided to start with the letter "S", and out of three "enemies" named in an "Axis of Evil", we attacked the weakest one of the three which was the farthest off from actually developing nuclear weapons.

Gay people here can get a civil union.

I see no problem with it at all. Why does it matter to otherif two people they dont knoe get married. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us.

Duskofdead wrote:Mikey I almost can't even believe you said that. You are about the last person on the forum I would expect to pull out 9/11 as a justification for completely mothballing, if not outright rolling back, issues of civil liberties or social justice. Who proposed making gay marriage a mission objective for the military to handle? Who proposed making gay marriage an issue for national intelligence agencies to make a priority? Hauling out 9/11 on a wagon as an excuse for our backwards treading as a society is a glib and weak dismissal mostly from the political spectrum in America that would prefer to NEVER deal with these issues at all, war or no war.

If I could speak to the guy you quoted, I'd tell him to shut up and sit down because out of an alphabetical list of world dictators we decided to start with the letter "S", and out of three "enemies" named in an "Axis of Evil", we attacked the weakest one of the three which was the farthest off from actually developing nuclear weapons.

WHOA! Easy, cowboy. I had quoted that line on this forum earlier, with more detailed context so I simply didn't want to eat up more bandwith. That line was a comment AGAINST Rick Santorum. It would more accurately read, if I had the surrounding paragraph: "...[complaining about or arguing against] gay marriage should be on..."

PS - You said you thought you knew me better? Then why didn't you just ask for clarification? A word to the wise - Don't let your high-mindedness keep getting in the way of rational thought. I know you believe that your sensibilities are more evolved than anyone else's, but in this case, that led you to level a barrage at me without knowing what I truly meant.

sunnyside wrote:For reference I think the national discourse has moved on from "gays can't see each other in the hospital" to debating whether to have "civil unions" or actually let them get "married" the only difference being a word. Not that some people wouldn't like to not see civil unions either, but I think everyone realizes that position isn't going to hold.

Perhaps within the political system itself. However if you look outside that you notice there are more than a few people screaming as loud as they can that the world is going to end if gay marriage becomes reality. Ignoring of course that Canada and The Netherlands both have legal gay marriage and the world hasn't changed.

I think people against gay marriage are mostly scared. Homosexuality doesn't seem to be a simple binary state. There are bisexuals, and beyond that there seems to be a spectrum. And there is whatever went down in Greece, unless you believe for a certain period of time there was a flourishing of a gay/bisexual gene that since went recesive.

Scared out of ignorance or scared because their sky-pixie is going to scour the earth?

So they are scared their kid might be bi, or a little gay, and would chose to go that way.

Any reasonable parent would want their children to be happy. Would I myself be a little disapointed if either my son or daughter were gay/bi? Of course, less chance of grand-children but I have two kids and my desire for them to be happy is more critical than them having children.

Some have the religion thing. And genuinly believe it is an inherently imoral practice. Simple as that. Some more are probably Christians not opposed to it, but they feel the anti Christian assault that tends to come up, as in this thread, with the subject. And of course there is the perceived (and I think somewhat factual) rampant promiscuity etc associated. They begin to fear the LGBTA community really does hate them whether they support gay marriage or not.

What anti-christian assualt? Would that be the over-whelming majority in the West that feels if gays are allowed to marry than athiesim will become rampent, ignoring that a great many gays are also people of "faith". As for the promiscuity, is there any studies indicating that gays are more promiscuious than your average 19 year old straight male?

I hate religion and I'm straight, it's not a trait limited to gays.

Others fear being the new members of the second class. Honestly sometimes Ifeel this. Having a daughter is FREAKING HARD. Especially at my age. Granted I could have just told my wife to let her ovaries rot and we'll just adopt when we're finally well off. But that would involve a lot of crying. Also a lot of people wind up with kids they didn't plan on. Yeah Yeah abortions. Well support that being legal or not it isn't just something to go out and do before going to the movies.

Honestly, in the US gays will always be second class (more like fourth, behind blacks and mexicans) untill there is a massive cultural change caused by either all the religious nutjobs dying off or a collosal education effort.

Anyway the point is all other things being equal I'd expect gays to make more money and have more power than straight couples. So there is some fear of winding up outside the gay equivalent of the "old boys club".

I don't know if anyones noticed all the Republicans getting caught having gay sex but it seems like the "old boys club" is in no danger.

Now I don't know how valid or not those concerns are. Nor is it fair to deny others equality because you fear it'll put you at a disadvantage. But I think those are the emotions and the reasons.

Those will probably always be the reasons for a segment of the population, however if there not valid where gay marriage is legal than why would they be valid in the US?

Mikey wrote:#! - I'm a believer, and have no issue with anything you mentioned, GK. I won't push my faith on you, and you don't push you lack thereof on me. Deal?

That's fine with me. Religious people not pushing their faith on me includes not pushing for their morality to be legislated, though.

#2 - as the great Lewis Black said, "Gay marriage?! After 9/11/01, 'gay marriage' should be on page 6 of our list of priorities, right after 'Do we eat too much garlic as a nation?'"

Really? I would have thought paying attention to civil rights was a big deal at any time for the US. Hell if "terrorists attack us because we're free" then increasing the amount of freedom people have would seem to be a way to thumb our nose at the terrorists!

Obviously, i support gay marriage quite heavily.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Really? I would have thought paying attention to civil rights was a big deal at any time for the US. Hell if "terrorists attack us because we're free" then increasing the amount of freedom people have would seem to be a way to thumb our nose at the terrorists!

Again, I guess I poorly judged the assumed context of that remark. See my reply to Dusk above.

GrahamKennedy wrote: That's fine with me. Religious people not pushing their faith on me includes not pushing for their morality to be legislated, though.

Fair enough. But just be careful about lashing out at every Christian/religion on the planet since a subset of them want to legislate certain things.

GrahamKennedy wrote: Really? I would have thought paying attention to civil rights was a big deal at any time for the US. Hell if "terrorists attack us because we're free" then increasing the amount of freedom people have would seem to be a way to thumb our nose at the terrorists!

I think your problem Mikey is that many of the people here aren't Americans. Apperantly they haven't heard of Black.

Most Americans would know he's a highly Liberal comedians and would know that if it came out of his mouth he must have meant it the way he actually did.

WHOA! Easy, cowboy. I had quoted that line on this forum earlier, with more detailed context so I simply didn't want to eat up more bandwith. That line was a comment AGAINST Rick Santorum. It would more accurately read, if I had the surrounding paragraph: "...[complaining about or arguing against] gay marriage should be on..."

PS - You said you thought you knew me better? Then why didn't you just ask for clarification? A word to the wise - Don't let your high-mindedness keep getting in the way of rational thought. I know you believe that your sensibilities are more evolved than anyone else's, but in this case, that led you to level a barrage at me without knowing what I truly meant.

Well re-read your post and it's extremely easy to not know there was any greater context. You listed point 1 and point 2. If you don't want to risk being badly misunderstood on a controversial topic then make your complete point.

sunnyside wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote: That's fine with me. Religious people not pushing their faith on me includes not pushing for their morality to be legislated, though.

Fair enough. But just be careful about lashing out at every Christian/religion on the planet since a subset of them want to legislate certain things.

I very rarely "lash out" at religion. I do criticise it from time to time.

sunnyside wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote: Really? I would have thought paying attention to civil rights was a big deal at any time for the US. Hell if "terrorists attack us because we're free" then increasing the amount of freedom people have would seem to be a way to thumb our nose at the terrorists!

I think your problem Mikey is that many of the people here aren't Americans. Apperantly they haven't heard of Black.

I'm not Mikey