What’s Up With People And Gays?

Because it's a religious issue. God hates fags and all. Duh.

It is a big deal because it redefines marriage *for everyone*, as well as being a serious threat to religious liberties. Only the ignorant do not care.

No, no it isn't a religious issue, it is a sociological one.

And I don't like the term "gays" either. People who have a homosexual or other deviant fixation are just people, not some other life form for crying out loud..?

People are allowed to probe, question and try to get to the bottom of what makes a homosexual fixation in a person. I don't think a behavior should label a human being. But the behavior itself should be looked at with great scrutiny. And if it is found, as comparative psychology has found, that sexual preference is acquired and fixated at or near puberty, like AI people have found can be trained in stud animals at puberty to fixate on inanimate or same-sexed "sex objects", then we must have compassion for people with deviant fixations just as we would any other acquired compulsive behavior.

But again, an acquired behavior does not a person, much less a minority group make. All people should be shown compassion, but not all of their behaviors should be condoned, much less touted as "normal".

Until we fully come to grips with just exactly how deviant sexual preference is fixated in the minds of those who practice the behavior(s), or merely sexual preference in general is understood to become reflexive instead of ongoing "choice" we should be very careful in normalizing something that isn't.

I see no reason why gays would oppose a total investigation into how sexual preference is acquired to make sure we as a society understand the phenomenon we're on the threshold of granting normalcy to.

Why on earth would anyone object to fact-finding? And really, screw religion when it comes to this issue. "Tradition" is a very weak argument when faced with questions of this depth and magnitude to potentially affect social systems across all faiths or no faiths at all..

Well, changing social mores always trigger unrest, and this does touch on fears about religious liberties to a degree. I think it would go a long way toward defusing the opposition that's based on that if a person could publicly state a personal opinion either way without being demonized as we saw in the Miss America pageant. You don't have to agree with her opinion but it was offered as her honest personal feelings on the topic and she's portrayed as the devil for having such thoughts.

It may be true that the Supreme Court would uphold the rights of churches to sanctify only heterosexual unions, but will the court of public opinion among gays and gay right activists tolerate that? I have to wonder when I see that kind of vitriole aimed at someone expressing an opinion that marriage is a heterosexual institution.

I think that episode just confirmed the worst fears of the religious people who oppose gay marriage- that their opinion is not only different on this issue, but it's considered intolerable on any level.

"It is a big deal because it redefines marriage *for everyone*,"

tech33 -- I guess I don't see how that is. How so?

Yep, Ryan sums it up there.

Basically in this country gays and lesbians are second class citizens. They are not treated equally under the law (though that has been changing the last few decades). In many areas of the country gays and lesbians are attacked the attitude of law enforcement is, "they deserved it" and don't pursue the attackers.

In the military gays and lesbians can not talk to their buddies about their personal lives, or else they will be kicked out of the military.

Gay teachers have to remain in the closet because a parent may complain that they don't want a "fag" teaching their children and the teacher will have to leave.

And of course we all know that the religious groups in California supported Prop. 8 which took away the rights of gays to marry legally and religiously. Gays and lesbians were happy to be legally married in the churches that believe in the basic rights of all humans, but the churches who disagree with that used their power to enshrine their own religious beliefs into law. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

The violence, oppression, anti-gay laws, religious "moral superiority" arguments, etc. have all been tools used throughout the centuries by those in power to suppress, intimidate and drive out minorities and those the "majority" don't like. These actions are very much alive and well in today's America against gays and lesbians.

And as Ryan said it's because "God hates fags and all." And the moral belief of the majority that their religious views are superior than all others and that everyone else is a sinner. If you're not part of the solution (a straight Christian) then you're part of the problem and therefore you are a blight on society and deserve to be treated as a second class citizen.

But the other fundamental issue is that in this country under the founding documents we are all equal citizens. While our laws, actions, etc. do not reflect this, it is the right of gays and lesbians to be treated like first class citizens.

So ultimately the struggle is between the belief that we are all equal citizens and the religious beliefs of others who do not feel that others are equal to themselves and who wish to impose their will and religious beliefs on those who they consider inferior (or sinners), including people they have never met.

Stockboy, without realizing it, you have just underscored the need for a complete dispassionate investigation into what causes people to fixate on any type of sexual preference, hetero included. If people understood that deviant preferences were fixated at an age where the person was very impressionable, then society could understand the phenomenon better and therefore have more compassion towards deviants.

And as deviants age and want to settle with a "life partner", civil unions could suffice as an excellent compromise. Marriage is a phasod of normalcy. We all know there are varying conditions within each marriage but the thing is we need an ideal to shoot for when we're talking about social constructs. People should question changes in social constructs because we are social learners and as such we have the right to determine our own destiny thusly.

We do have a right to debate and weigh in our future generations' idea of normalcy in behaviors we will uphold as the ideals.. We have a right to weigh in on this subject without being called "haters" " homophobes" 'religious zealots" and a host of other demonizing persecutions that aim to keep us quiet and obedient to the current deviant agenda.

I have several gay and bi friends who I talk to, hang out with and generally enjoy the company of. I take issue with being called an "anti-gay". One issue we dont' see eye-to-eye on is the issue of deviant marriage, but that doesn't have to destroy our friendship. For instance, I don't hold it against them for wanting to try to get the right to marry in spite of having civil unions. That doesn't mean I'm going to go to bat for them though..

"We do have a right to debate and weigh in our future generations' idea of normalcy in behaviors we will uphold as the ideals.."

Well listening to the homosexual lobby, you would not think so. I do find it refreshing that there are others who question defining ones identity by a behavior, but by doing so you become labeled as "intolerant" or a "bigot."

"tech33 -- I guess I don't see how that is. How so?"

I guess I don't understand your complete lack of ignorance to the fact that until very recently when two people walked to the alter, it was a man and women. You know, people have different "genders." Women have these "bumps" that are called "breasts"..... didn't your parents ever talk to you about this? According to the law, if you are younger than 13 you should not be posting on the internet without supervision.

These responses still don't really get to my point. Even if they are driving a lot of people, there are dozens and dozens of other things that they are ignoring to focus on that. Why?

So it's religious? So is helping the poor and caring for the sick and ministering your faith, etc. etc. Even if it was an acquired fixation (which I already spetn time in another thread pointing out all the flaws in that reading of that paper) who cares? Do you really think that humanity will be at risk as everyone becomes homosexual?

And if you think it's "redefining marriage" why's that a big deal? How's it affect you?

I mean very few people are going to come out and blame something massive on this topic (notwithstanding the ones that blamed 9/11 on it -- Falwell and Robertson -- or the Iraq War -- Westboro "Church") but that's what energy they are putting into it.

Polimom, I appreciate "your complete lack of ignorance" on this issue, too. :) Your points are well made but unfortunately they fall on deaf ears.

tech33 expressed views and position on this issue makes him/her the perfect poster child for religion's anti-gay marriage position.

mikkel, I always find those arguments pretty specious (why do you care about this when you should be focused on more important things.)

Why does anyone care about any political issue? For that matter, if the question of how to feed the hungry should take priority over gay marriage, then that is true for the proponents of it and the opponents, no? And how do you know what proportion of the people who show up to vote against gay marriage might be spending tons of time organizing soup kitchens and homeless shelters?

I mean, I imagine you understand why gay people care (and I do as well, and I'd even grant you that there's more objective validity to their concern.) But the opposition is based on fear of change of social mores, and what will be considered a socially acceptable expression of religious prohibition against homosexuality (among other fears- some of which are completely bigoted or homophobic concerns, and should carry less weight.)

If you think people shouldn't care so much, or that their cares are unfounded, then you have to work at proving that to them, not dismissing the concerns or diminishing their importance.

Yeah I just shook my head at the Miss California thing. I mean who cares: she's not a Supreme Court justice or Senate Committee chairman. That's why my question goes to both sides. If you run around your whole life in a tizzy about every single person that you think is wrong, then that's just a waste of a life. I personally think that the lack of marriage rights is an injustice, but all rights movements that succeed do so by realizing that you are appealing to the masses and generations, not witch hunts.

On any given day I'm debating several issues from the deviant marriage issue, Pakistan, torture, BigOil, alternative energy, GOP and democratic strategy and other things I feel passionate about.

Passion encourages debate. There are millions of people passionate about redefining the meaning of heterosexual marriage to include people who reflexively engage in deviant sexuality. It really is like men petitioning to be let in the ladies room, to redifine "men" as "women"...literally. It's patently absurd. Men aren't women and never will be. Deviants aren't hetero and never will be. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions exist for all other arrangements that the states will honor outside the traditional definition. Mens room is for the gents and the ladies room is for the ladies.


We could turn this discussion on its head and ask why the deviant lobby is so intensely interested in gaining the status of 'married'? In my state, registered domestic partnerships have existed for years outside of marriage and include all the rights to survivorship, visitation etc. that a marriage does. And it is this very state that deviants are threatening to riot if a certain proposition allowing them full rights of hetero marriage aren't ramrodded through..

Please forgive us if we don't want oil and water to mix in the realm of sexual behaviors..

mikkel, I sort of thought that was probably your position but it didn't come across in the post. Your last comment cross posted with mine, so I can see now that we're probably mostly in agreement anyway, although I probably 'get' the anti-gay lobby more than you do (without agreeing with most of them, since I support civil unions without any qualms.)

I can't answer mikkel's question, but of course most of our parents (ok, for me in my 30s) went through times where a person of the wrong skin color sitting to eat lunch was cause for attack dogs, water hoses, lynchings, the rise and fall of politicians, and the collapse of families. For many, it heralded the imminent collapse of a culture. In fact, you'll still hear comments every once in a while where someone laments how perfect things were until those people were allowed to be part of society. So it goes....

For starters, gays are other people. For Christians to complain bitterly about, say, divorce, or adultery, or gluttony, or greed, or the like, puts them in a precarious position, because tomorrow they might be in that position. If you're not gay, it's not an issue, so gay-bashing is very cheap. (This also contrasts with helping the poor, which is also costly in one form or another.)

I'm not assuming that people that care a lot about this (on the negative end) don't care about other things, or that they don't good things, I'm just saying that there isn't nearly the public dialogue about those.

And I disagree that this issue is like any other political issue. Most things have to do with something tangible, not just vague fears. I'm not even talking on a personal level...I can see people that think homosexuality is morally wrong and against God and whatever, but I don't see the direct line between that and public fixation. [This means I think it's stupid for gay rights supporters to really care what people think on a personal level.]

I also find the arguments amazing. Right now the rallying cry is "no to marriage, civil unions are good enough." The implication is that they are trying to be perfectly reasonable and are only defending their religious institution. But for gosh sakes, it was less than 6 years ago that the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws...and at the time the same people were complaining vigorously about how that meant anything goes and life was ruined! Or something.

Well, personally I think 'civil unions are good enough for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, insofar as that's what the state should be endorsing. The rest of it should be up to people's personal choice to call their own union a marriage, or to make it a sacramental union in a church or what have you.

And I think the difference in intensity of the dialogue is just a factor of the intense emotions on both sides. Gay people see every opponent as a person who wants to deny their civil rights, while antigay marriage lobbyists see gay people as having agendas beyond getting their guarantee of equal rights under the law. Again, I will grant that the people on the gay activist side have a more objective, legitimate complaint.

I guess unless you have some social conservatism in you, it's hard to explain fears of change. The best I can explain it is that social conservatives see the social environment the way greenies see the physical environment, so they get pretty passionate about protecting it. I don't agree with most of that, but I do get the general gist of it because I'm a traditionalist and to me there's something that's been lost in our culture over the last generation even though I also see some areas of progress.

Silhouette said: "Please forgive us if we don't want oil and water to mix in the realm of sexual behaviors.."

Silhouette, no one in the gay community is asking you or me or anyone to mix in the realm of sexual behaviors. It is you who seems to think you have the responsibility... no the right to molest them and interfere in their lives.

As a confirmed and committed heterosexual (10th grade... parking lot... high school football game... but that's another story) I can not even start to comprehend how you think it's any of your business whether or not homosexuals marry and getting as worked up and hateful as you do leads me to believe that it's you, not them, that has a problem.

"Deviant marriage" "deviant sexuality" who the hell do you think you are and why and of what are you so afraid.

LOL, TMI, Steve.

To put more thought into it, mikkel, there's probably at least three things going on. First, many millions of Americans grew up with the understanding that being gay was one of the worst things you could be. Being called a fag was the greatest of insults on the playground, and that is still within many of our brains. Two, it's perceived to be about sex and sex always gets people interested. It's not clear it really is about sex, since you can be a virgin and be gay and be a virgin and be straight, but it's often thought that we are discussing sex acts. Sex sells. Finally, as for why it's a fixation for many, I think you as a systems theorist might have a better idea. There's definitely a huge feedback loop in social conservative circles, where this has become THE issue of all issues. Wasn't there some poll recently (among conservatives?) that put gay rights or gay marriage as the greatest issue facing us even over terrorism? When people of any stripe yell at each other in support long enough, the opinion become so entrenched it's virtually impossible to get out.

(Local minimum of morality?)

No Mikkel and others, you're not paying attention. I've stated clearly that deviant sexual preference is supported hugely by comparative psychologists and AI industry people to be AN ACQUIRED FIXATED BEHAVIOR. More compelling still is that if it can be acquired from an environmental source outside the individual, how is it acquired. The study from Pfaus et al. with literally hundreds of references supporting their findings, finds a social component to partner preference.

Ergo: if society normalized gay marraige the implication as it always is will be that there will be implied pressure for new generations to consider selection of a same-sexed partner as normal. This may sound like fantasy and paranoid thinking to some but I have actually seen the fruition of this in my local, heavily deviant community where events are sponsored soliciting youth who they tout as "bi-curious" [guess what, 100% of adolescents are curious about any form of sexuality] to attend... This amounts to nothing less than coercion. Stay with me here... Events for youth, with youthful bands, and youthful activities are advertised for by the "GLBT" community on youth oriented radio stations and other events, expressly inviting curious adolescents to attend and "experiment" with their natural sexual curiosity as to deviant sex.. Yes, it's really happening. Weigh in if you've heard these ads...

Moreover, the school where my daughter attended calls itself, informally, "the rainbow school" of our high school district. She reported that enormous pressure was brought on students to "experiment" [ie: possibly become fixated in] deviant sexuality. She had two friends she knows of who were hetero going into this school and one became fully lesbian while there and the other is bi. People would argue that they were that way to begin with. Pfaus et al may argue differently...

http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pf...

I feel passionately about the social experiment at my daughter's school, cranking out deviants from heteros going in, getting extrapolated on a nationwide scale over time. We don't understand, or at least admit to ourselves, enough about human behavior and especially social-contagions for which primates groups like ourselves are famous for. I know about monkey-see, monkey-do, but apparently a lot of people like to play dumb about this. And I passionately think with regards to deviant sexuality praying to become mainstreamed when they already have equal rights under another type of union, has insidious overtones... why?

Like you said, why the big deal?...only in reverse...

Sil, "I don't hold it against them for wanting to try to get the right to marry in spite of having civil unions. That doesn't mean I'm going to go to bat for them though"

I'm not asking you or anyone else to go for bat for me or gays and lesbians to marry.

As a citizen of this country I do expect to have the same you and other straight people enjoy. And I do object to people taking away my rights, threatening and attacking me (and other gays and lesbians).

I don't care what you and straights do, and I would appreciate the same consideration.

CS, I have very traditional moral values, but I think that conservatives seem to confuse form with function. Like to me I think that humility, curiosity, sacrifice, charity, hard work, respect, honesty, being true to your partner, etc. are very important but I think that conservatives assign certain groups, objects and ideas with those values and act like they are the source of them. I think this is very detrimental and actually leads to worse culture because a lot of people that don't conform in one way or another then start doing the same thing and rejecting things to be different rather than out of any sense of internal moral differences.

I think the same thing about the environment actually. I think that sustainability is the clarion call, and there are ways to do that without thinking that all exploitation is evil.

I mean I guess I can sum it up by saying I understand why "Free Love" and such was an affront to cultural mores, but marriage?

Nobody is advocating threatening or attacking you. However, you are advocating deviants be allowed to attack the word "normal" when it comes to sexuality. Normal sex is hetero sex. It evolved from a biological need to diversify DNA to help the species survive. Sex between two same gendered people is not sex...it is masturbation. It has no end to its purpose other than to "get off". Should we teach an entire generation or ten that the purpose of sex is to "get off"?

That is a slippery slope because I know how adolescents think. One form of "getting off" leads to another. Marriage at least attempts to preserve an idea of sex as beyond getting off and out to something that results from that, a human life that needs to be raised and cared for. Heterosexual sex begets at least the potential beyond rubbing the genitals together to achieve a momentary release of endorphines similar to heroin. It results sometimes in life.

And this is the lesson I'd like to pass on to youngsters of a new generation...not, hey, go have "fun" "getting off" on someone...

One addiction after another since the 1960s...with nothing but "self" emphasized. If we look to our animal roots and how we acquire our addictions to this, that or the other thing we can have empathy for those addicted to certain behaviors and substances, but normalize them? No. No No NO...

Sil, I'm not sure how many times i have to point out that humans are completely different than other animals when it comes to sex. There are tons of ways...from chemical to social. You can't just point to some animal studies (which again didn't even talk about this) and say it shows anything...when all the other biological evidence in humans (scent, gait, etc) show otherwise.

This could be the most cynical view of life I've ever read.

Well, personally I think 'civil unions are good enough for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, insofar as that's what the state should be endorsing. The rest of it should be up to people's personal choice to call their own union a marriage, or to make it a sacramental union in a church or what have you.

CStanley -- Yes! Exactly! I've been saying exactly that to anybody who'd listen for years.

This entire mess is, imo, the direct result of merged church and state. The government doesn't sanctify / bless a union. A church does. The government's sole role is recognition of a civil contract, and isn't actually in the business of 'marrying' anybody.

"Sil, I'm not sure how many times i have to point out that humans are completely different than other animals when it comes to sex. There are tons of ways...from chemical to social. You can't just point to some animal studies (which again didn't even talk about this) and say it shows anything...when all the other biological evidence in humans (scent, gait, etc) show otherwise."~mikkel

******
So you're saying the entire field of comparative psychology is a hoax?

Interesting... animal malleability, particularly mammalian malleable sexuality is indicative of our own. I had two kids and milk flowed out of my breasts when they cried. I felt very protective towards them. The birthing was very...instinctive. I even had the urge to bite people when they came too near my newborn infant once or twice...it was fleeting..strange and seemed to come from nowhere, yet psychologists assured me this was normal ANIMAL mother behavior...welcome to the jungle darling..lol..

We are animals, we have hormonal drives like animals, eat and crap like animals, have cyclic sexual drives like animals, gestation like animals, fear and rage like animals [see: prisons...]...yet according to you, we have no thing in common with the preponderance, the plethora, the avalanche of evidence demonstrating from all the animals in pages and pages of references leading hundreds of scientists to conclude that sexulity is malleable..that sexual preference can emerge from the environment...

okee dokee..

It's about power. It's about the religious right who would prefer that this country be a theocracy and everyone be straight and churchgoing so they don't have to share their power with others who they disagree with (or deem to be less worthy).

It's about people passing judgement on others. Not just disagreeing with someone but passing judgement to the point where you feel better than others and more worthy. Judgement that tells you that if someone is different than you then that person will go to that very warm place with all the other sinners. In America it is considered acceptable (and encouraged in some religious quarters) to pass judgement on others, including gays and lesbians.

God and Jesus knew the dangers of people passing such judgements on others. Religion should be a personal matter and one should take care of one's own soul. REligion to me isn't a "if you do XYZ then you're guaranteed a place in heaven" deal. With matters regarding one's soul it is more like a garden which needs constant attention. I know I'm not perfect and I find myself with decidedly un-Christian thoughts at times, but I remember (hopefully) may values and apply them. And if I screw up then I try to do better the next time. That's why I don't care what others think as long as they leave me in peace.

One should not spend time worrying about (and judging) what others do, particularly when it doesn't effect anyone else. Yet that's exactly what these religious people who support stuff like Prop. 8 are doing. Unfortunately there are not many religious leaders who believe that religion is a personal quest. Many claim they see religion as a personal quest, but if that's the case, then why do they apply so much energy into restricting others' rights to have that personal quest?

There is a reason why people should never talk about politics and religion. They're both personal matters. And I don't care what your religion tells you to do, as long as you accord the same right to me.

As far as the question about the value gay rights v. other social concerns.... I don't see that anyone is telling poor people that they are sinners, or trying to take away their right to marry, etc. Gay rights is about wanting equality. The religious right scare people into believing their side by telling everyone that gays want more power. I'd like to see an example of how giving gays and lesbians the same rights as anyone else will actually give them more power).

So gay rights are about basic human rights and having respect for others. Poverty and many other social concerns are conditions which could strike at all.

A few articles for anyone wanting how the American Psychiatric Association (APA) views homosexuality (hint: the word deviate in nowhere to be found):

Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health

APA - Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality

These articles are conclusions and accepted understands from the Medical and Psychiatric community. A twenty minute read might enlighten us all.

Mikkel, I mostly agree with you on the values (I don't completely agree with where I think you're going with 'assigning groups' because I do think there's validity to the value of institutions for forming cultural attitudes- maybe I'm wrong to think that's partly what you're arguing against though.)

But one thing in particular about social change is that whenever one group that's been in the minority asserts its rights, it shouldn't then diminish the values of the overall group. And I do think we're seeing that now- look at the particular way that people went after the Christian culture that the pageant contestant is part of. People who disagree with those Christians on gay marriage shouldn't make it an issue of 'bad Christianity'. Somehow we always seem to throw out babies with bathwater with social change because instead of the group which (rightly) asserts its rights taking the high road and treating the other people with more respect than they were given, the attitudes generally tend to be "what goes around comes around."

Anyway, I certainly agree that focusing on marriage rather than promiscuity is odd- but I think it's just because that's where it comes to a political boiling point (and I guess, to some extent- while I don't agree- it's seen as giving homosexuality an official seal of approval.) It's certainly incongruous though, and I have to say that the gay friends that I have are very traditional in their value systems with regard to their relationships. I'd have a harder time being friends with hetero or homosexual people who are highly promiscuous than I have with either type who value faithfulness in relationships.

I didn't comment on the original Ms. California flap because I was engaged in other things at the time. I saw it and thought, "big deal."

(For those who might be reading this and not knowing what she said.) The quote is in response to a judge's question about whether she felt other states should follow Vermont in recognizing same-sex marriage.

“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what? In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be, between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Personally I think this is the right answer (though I am confused how she can say in this land we can choose.... but then she goes on to say that "In my country.... I think [marriage] should be, between a man and a woman").

The way I read this she is validating the right for others to choose and she is personally saying that she is for marriage between a man and a woman. This meets my criteria of having respect for others' beliefs.

However I would like to caution that anytime anyone is in the public spotlight that they be very careful about what is said on such issues. While she is not a leader in any real sense of the word she is in the spotlight and people will listen. Some anti same-sex marriage folks would latch on to her remarks as a reason to continue homophobic remarks and actions.

However I thought it was pretty clear that she is for the freedom to choose. And so I think she gave the right answer.

This is exactly why people in the public eye need to be careful what they say. It's interesting that people on opposite sides of the issue can take the exact same quote out of context and use it for their own purposes. I think the gay and lesbian activists who howl at this are missing an opportunity. They should focus instead on her belief that marriage should be a choice. While she doesn't personally believe in gay marriage (no one is going to force her to marry and woman and she knows that), she still believes that others should have the freedom to choose who to marry, just like she has that freedom to choose. I think statements like these from public figures would go a long way to calm jitters and fears the religious groups like to perpetuate.

I have a friend who's on the board of HRC and I haven't asked him what he thinks about this.... I'll have to chat with him.

Anyway, I wish people would leave her alone. It couldn't have been an easy answer and I'm sure she debated the question with friends and family over the last year or two, hearing both sides of the argument. I think she did excellent (except for that one phrase which I think was a stumble on her part, but all that means is that she could use some more polish- and I know I can use some more polish in my public speaking skills, too, sometimes! We all watched the various presidential candidates grow in their oratory over the debate season, so none of us is perfect).

@tech33:

"...a serious threat to religious liberties."

Can you explain *why* it's a big problem for religious people if homosexuals get hitched? Inquiring minds wish to know.

Seriously, whenever I hear things like this, I want to kick things from frustration. Why is it a problem if marriage is redefined? Marriage is a word. The meanings of words change. Period. It's an entirely natural linguistic and cultural process. Marriage used to mean, in some cases, polygamy. As recently as a century or two (or even less) marriage meant something different from what it means today.

And what is the basic problem with gay marriage? "Gay marriage" doesn't mean that the pastors of my PCA church will have to marry homosexuals. It simply means that if two men wish to receive the legal benefits that we have attached to marriage, they will be able to do so. How is that an infringement of religious liberties? How? As I said, Inquiring Minds wish to know.

Sil, "I even had the urge to bite people when they came too near my newborn infant once or twice...it was fleeting..strange and seemed to come from nowhere, yet psychologists assured me this was normal ANIMAL mother behavior...welcome to the jungle darling..lol.."

Well.... no one is denying that you or others don't have those experiences. Those are certainly valid experiences to have.

And while I may not be a woman who gave birth, I have been in situations where I've been suddenly very protective of my friends and family.... and I think it's the same animal instinct- that of wanting of wanting to protect one's community against threats. Though some of us seem to have a more "social" instinct than others and have broader communities.

Economic issues matter and marriage is an economic issue. Studies show that married people are slightly healthier (less costs) and wealthier (pay more taxes) than their single counterparts and this is true for gay people as well. Therefore, it is in the state's best economic interest to grant marriage equality. This is because there are thousands of rights and responsibilities that come with the legal contract of marriage (yes, it is a legal contract). It is time for the republican party to quit scapegoating gay people.

Sil, "Normal sex is hetero sex. It evolved from a biological need to diversify DNA to help the species survive. Sex between two same gendered people is not sex...it is masturbation. It has no end to its purpose other than to "get off"."

Of course "normal" sex for you is hetero sex because you are heterosexual.

Since you define hetero sex as sex just to produce babies and all other sex as masturbation (and the reason for masturbation is to just "get off") then you must believe that regular vaginal intercourse with a man that doesn't result in a pregnancy is just masturbation. After all it doesn't meet your definition of normal hetero sex which is meant to produce children.

Besides, what's wrong with getting off?

As far as your statement, "Should we teach an entire generation or ten that the purpose of sex is to "get off"? That is a slippery slope because I know how adolescents think. One form of "getting off" leads to another."

I interpret that to mean you are worried about your boys. All I can say is, "Relax. There's nothing you can do to stop whatever they want to do." If priests who take actual vows of celibacy and are supported in an environment which values celibacy can't remain celibate, then teenage boys with a lot less self-control, reflection or moral clarity certainly can't be prevented from the hormones that drive them. You'd have to handcuff both their hands to the bed at night, make them sleep on their backs and follow them around all day (including into the bathroom) if you really wanted to prevent them from getting off. Then they'd probably turn out to be gay because they had a domineering mother. :)

Getting to your point about animal behavior. I have two kittens, a male and a female. The are maturing sexually and the female has started going into heat. Even though the male is sterile (he's a hybrid and male hybrids are generally sterile) he still goes crazy around her. So is that deviant sexual behavior because he can't reproduce?

It's really fascinating to watch my cats go at it and they have no control over themselves. (Soon I'm going to have both fixed.) Sexual attraction is very powerful and deeply seated in us. None of us can control why we're more attracted to some people than others, gay or straight. I mean if attraction were neutral and it was a matter of environment then we should be able to get married to the first person who walked down the street and condition ourselves to love them and have sex with them. But life's not that simple and anyone who thinks sexual preference is a matter of choice isn't looking at the facts.

"Mikkel, I mostly agree with you on the values (I don't completely agree with where I think you're going with 'assigning groups' because I do think there's validity to the value of institutions for forming cultural attitudes- maybe I'm wrong to think that's partly what you're arguing against though.)"

Haha well that's why you're a conservative and I'm not. Nothing wrong with that. But you also respect the institutions while not subjugating the values to the institutions. It's perfectly fine to argue about which ways are best for transmitting those values to people writ large, but what I was saying is that a lot of conservatives have confused the institutions as being analogous to the values and visa versa. You obviously have what I consider to be a much more principled position.

As to the "diminishing values" I think that's a larger issue that isn't necessarily just about minority/majority...it's more tribal. It's something I don't understand. I was just arguing with a friend that I don't understand why he cares if people are atheist or not because it's not like being an atheist magically makes people act and think the way he respects. I said he should just seek out people that he can respect morally and intellectually regardless of its source, but he had a hard time with this.

It's what pacatrue alluded to when he said that tribal dynamics feed back onto themselves to the point where the groups have severe distrust for no reason other than that they think the other groups aren't trustworthy...but of course all of them think this. That was part of the point of this post, was that I don't get why people care to the point where they feel threatened, when pretty much the vast majority of people are for just leaving each other alone on this topic.

Stockboy, I have to disagree with your statement that public figures need to be careful with what they say. I think there should be far less emphasis on it, because it's to the point where a few public figureheads are just effigies for the whole situation and people project their thoughts and anger onto those in order to depersonalize it. It's a lot easier to go around complaining about Miss California or Rosie than it is your neighbor. That cognitive dissonance is a big reason why I think political will can lag so far behind changes in personal relationships....I no doubt believe that a lot of prop-8 voters have gay friends.

It's sort of the hidden history of America: Those people are threatening our way of life.

Even back in earliest days, those people threatened to overrun our way of life. Those people, they had strange folkways, really kind of dishonest. They spoke a language normal people couldn't understand that was supposedly called German, but among themselves they referred to themselves--listen for yourself--as Dutch.

When a little time passed, the Germans turned out to be Americans after all. But, you know, the threat remains. Consider the Irish: dumb as donkeys, breed like rabbits, owe their true allegiance to some religious faker in--get this--Italy, crowding into our country and taking away our jobs. Threatening our very way of life.

And so it goes: Italians, Jews, Hungarians, persons of the Polish persuasion. All of them, demanding their rights. Threatening our way of life. Our traditions are at risk. Ask any clergyman. (Well, ask any respectable clergyman, that is.) Ask the cops who they're always arresting. Look up the science if you want proof.

I mean, would you want one of them to marry your sister?

Well, it's not the 1950's anymore. Back then, when black people protested, they got sprayed with fire hoses. And yet today all reasonable people agree that black people deserve their rights. See how far we've come.

And in twenty-five years, when no reasonable person feels threatened by their married gay neighbor, there will be some other group to fear.

Because those people will be threatening our way of life.

People should say exactly what they're thinking, and do so without malice. My opinions are my opinions and I'm entitled to them. They aren't hurting anyone. If anything, insisting on getting to the bottom of how deviant sexuality is fixated is a good catharsis for everyone. We really need to set the record straight. The truth really will set us free.

Mikkel asks the meta-argument of "Why do we talk about gay marriage so much?" As I type this, there are 42 responses to that question (mine makes 43), mostly which dance around the issue rather than address "why the argument?" itself. Myself included. Color me slightly bemused.

One thing that I find interesting is how the whole debate has been framed by the phraseology. Special interest groups have been quite successful over the past few decades in steering the direction of debates by defining the words that are used to express the issues. The phrase "gay marriage" is a loaded phrase to begin with - it implicitly states that a marriage between two homosexuals is somehow different from a marriage between two heterosexuals - when of course it is not. Miss California used the phrase "opposite marriage", which I find even more disturbing and factually inaccurate. Our resident social misanthrope Sil likes to throw around the phrase "deviant sexuality", erroneously and pathetically trying to equate homosexual activity with abnormal behavior.

For me, a small "A-Ha" moment occurred on this issue about two weeks ago, when I was listening to a "Fresh Air" interview on NPR with Kristin Chenoweth (of West Wing, among other shows). She was talking about how she had been labeled as a "Christian" actor - and while she has not been shy about her beliefs, it is not exactly something she wears on her sleeve. And recently, she explained how she has been getting quite a bit of flak from inside the "Christian" community about some of her less-than-conservative views.

Kristin Chenoweth then went on to explain (I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't remember the exact words) how she supports **human rights** -- she doesn't call them "gay rights", because gay people should be treated no differently from non-gay people, and deserve the same human rights as everyone else. By singling out a specific group of people and deny them a basic human right is just shameful.

That's when I realized how powerful the phrase "gay marriage" is --- in dividing people. We shouldn't be talking about "gay" marriage, we should be talking about just plain "marriage", or if you must use a qualifier, "equal marriage".

As long as we keep referring to the phrase "gay marriage", we will continue to frame the debate in terms of people who are gay versus people who are not. Until we can really discuss the issue in a way that recognizes that gay people are not an "other" group, but inclusive part of the whole fabric of society, we will all keep talking in endless circles.

SteveK - "Deviant marriage" "deviant sexuality" who the hell do you think you are and why and of what are you so afraid."

I am in agreement with Silhouette on this. If you were to look at a bell curve say of sexuality;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Homosexuality would be a deviation from the statistical norm of heterosexual relationships. The fact is homosexual behavior is a minority behavior that a small percentage (whatever number it actually is) of the population engages in on a regular basis beyond experimentation. That's a fact that we can all agree on.

Science!

While we're all agreeing on facts, "deviant" is, of course, a pejorative term.

Right?

@ tech33 -- You'd get similar "deviation from norm" findings if you applied your logic to left-handedness.

Well, PM, we don't like those sinister people either! LOL

Seriously though, while the definition of 'deviant' in that sense is technically correct, tech33, I think we can also all agree that there's a negative connotation to the term which should be avoided if one's intent isn't to express disapproval for the behavior that's displayed by the minority group.

Haha tech33 doesn't realize the implications of this argument. It only is valid if everyone is independently distributed...meaning that one person doesn't affect another, thereby shooting down all the basis for worry that it matters. I'm also not sure what the "variable" would be that gives rise to an normal distribution. If you used the Kinsey scale or something, then it might be close to a one-sided normal distribution, but if that was the case, then all of this actually would be within one standard deviation....so...

"People should say exactly what they're thinking, and do so without malice. My opinions are my opinions and I'm entitled to them. They aren't hurting anyone. "

Agree, people are entitled to their opinions. But generally, people are also cognizant of how some "opinions" (deviant, abnormal, aberrant, unnatural, fags, etc., etc) can and do offend and hurt others--whether done with or without malice...

Your opinions are actually hurting a lot of people. What are you doing is calling someone, who in my experience probably fought with the truth for a long time and tried to deny who they were purposely so they wouldn't be "deviant," a "deviant"

Nobody chooses to be gay, why would anyone choose it? And instead you are telling someone, who if they had the choice, would likely choice NOT to be gay that they're "deviant"

So wait? You're saying that because a minority is homosexual, we have a right to oppress them?

Black people are a "deviation" from the statistical norm, Jews are a "deviation" from the statistical norm. You're saying that if someone isn't a member of a majority group, he or she has no right to be protected?

Wow.

::"So wait? You're saying that because a minority is homosexual, we have a right to oppress them?"

And where exactly in my comments did I say that? What new oppression am I calling forth? None.

::"Black people are a "deviation" from the statistical norm, Jews are a "deviation" from the statistical norm."

It would entirely depend where you are geographically. But calling him a "black" because of his skin color is not wrong. Nor is calling a "white" white or a Jew "Jewish"

::You're saying that if someone isn't a member of a majority group, he or she has no right to be protected?

Protected from what? I can't wait until this point is argued in court and Lawrence versus Texas is more clearly delineated.

::Wow

Even across Blacks, Jews, and whatever human, homosexuality is an activity of a minority as much as it might pain you to admit. As such, it is in fact a deviation from the majority. Not meant to be perjorative, but to call attention to the obvious - the unreasonable demands for rights because of a sensitivity to anyone that disagrees to their lifestyle.

It's a deviation from the majority, therefore it should not be accepted?

Wow tech, just...wow. Thank God most people don't think like you.

::"therefore it should not be accepted? "

I do not accept same sex marriage, and I will continue to encourage others to not do so also. I will continue to push for people to be able to democratically express their wishes in the voting booth.

::Wow tech, just...wow. Thank God most people don't think like you.

The majority of people in my state have already done so by protecting the definition of marriage between one man and one women with a constitutional amendment. to the state constitution.

Mikkel, it's a good question, and IMHO you're on to something in tribal dynamics. I think it's a threat to the pecking order, maybe our most primitive social structure but one that's as vibrant as ever. The group at the top is having their authority challenged by a caste of untouchables further down. Actually, gays were worse than untouchable, they were unmentionable--the love that dare not speak its name. To have risen within the span of a generation to demand complete social equality with WASPs is a startling upset, and it's no surprise that there's not just resistance but panic on the upper deck.

And to add gasoline to the fire, the conflict is not about low-cut jeans or welfare policy, it's about sex rules. Rules about who you can have sex with and when are the most important weapon in the social engineering arsenal. The major religions have spread to billions of people by grabbing adherents by the gonads, requiring them to marry within the faith, not to have sex on the side, and to pass the same rules on to their children while they're young and impressionable.

Not by coincidence, conservatives see sex rules as vital pillars of civilization and defend them with special zeal. StockBoy is right, it's about power, but it's not about individual cruelty or hatred. It's about people defending their caste's belief system and their collective position in the pecking order.

Why are some people homosexuals is a question I have heard and read about more then once.
Homosexuality can be genetic and homosexuals rarely have children. How then is the genetic predisposition
for homosexuality passed on? There are reasons why we behave as we do and these
reasons are rooted in our genetic past. We will not come to a better understanding of why
we do the things we do by ducking into the closet of delusion. “ It is that way because
God did it that way” is not an explanation. Nor can we begin to address the problems of
human behavior based on such an explanation. This is one of the many things I have learned and had my many questions answered from M.A. Curtis' book, Dominance & Delusion.