A question

I have heard the arguments of " We are trying to save you" & " Your homosexuality will make our children homosexuals". Nothing sound though.

you know i really don't see why homosexual marriage, etc. is restricted in the US; there is no Constitutional ammendment giving such a ban and there certainly is one gauranteeing perosnal freedoms

Ledifni said:

There has been much discussion about this issue, but I don't think I've ever really heard people explain why they feel that their beliefs about homosexuality apply to others. It would seem to me that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, you shouldn't do it, and if you don't feel it's wrong, you should do it if you like. Why, then, do so many religious people seem to want to make sure that everyone else follows their personal sexual morals?

Do you think that gay people will give you cooties, or that your children will get cooties if they go to school with the children of a gay couple? What is it, really? Please, help me to understand. Why, for example, would you prevent a gay couple from getting married in their own church, by a pastor who is willing to consecrate such a marriage? Will the wind bring you cooties from that church? Will you get cooties from the courthouse if they issue marriage licenses to gay couples? What is it that frightens you people so?

Click to expand...

It really boils down to one thing, in my opinion. If the government recognizes gay marriage, it says to the Christians that this isn't a Christian nation, and that their morals are not important when it comes to making laws. They don't like this, obviously.

Ledifni said:

It's restricted because the religious right is terrified of gay marriage for some inexplicable reason (which is what I'm hoping to get insight into here). They're currently trying to get a Constitutional amendment passed so they can breathe a collective sigh of relief at the averted cootie threat.

Click to expand...

BTW, the amendment will not have anything to do with civil unions, which is what homosexuals want, anyway. Christians make a hassle about gay marriage, because of this, and that. So, most homosexuals have given up, and say let them have it.

Civil unions on the other hand, cannot be pushed away by Christians, as easily.

The whole " marriage is between a man and woman" and "marriage is defined as a union between man and woman" argument will not be able to be used, because it isn't marriage, it's a civil union.

Ledifni said:

But that's always been the case, and they've always managed to ignore it. The US is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian nation. It is a nation of all peoples and all religions. Why now is it suddenly hugely important that they get to legislate Biblical law?

Click to expand...

*Shrug*

It's always been important. This is just the issue at the forefront.

Hmm.

Here's the thing. Evil taints. You can't stay evil just one way. Liars steal. Thieves kill. Evil unconfronted spreads. Thus, if a given action is genuinely immoral, ignoring it will lead to more evil.

Just one problem: Empirically, the sin which is leading to more sin is cruel treatment of homosexuals, which frequently leads to the sin of despair. It's popular to show statistics showing that gay men die young (Cameron, 1994) or have multiple partners (for more detailed information, I found a news story referring back to some of the studies).

The thing is, though... Correlation isn't destiny. Men are more likely to sleep around than women, and a majority of people who get married cheat on their partners (for a biased view, which does at least go out of its way to point out the problems in accumulating statistics, see this page at manhaters.com).

So... Although we can confirm that certain qualities are positively correlated with infidelity, that doesn't mean that the qualities cause infidelity. For instance, men are significantly more likely to cheat on their spouses than women, but this doesn't make "being male" sinful. Rather, it exposes underlying biological issues; in general, effective reproductive strategies for men involve lots of partners, while women are best off with a long-term relationship. (Curiously, they're even better off with a long-term relationship and occasional side flings... But they don't get nearly the biological advantage from lots of sleeping around that men do.)

With this in mind, a likely explanation of the data comes to mind: Men are more promiscuous than women. This suggests that lesbians should tend to have fewer, longer relationships than straight couples, and gay men should have more, shorter, relationships; likewise, it suggests that lesbians should have a lot less sex outside of relationships than straights do, and gay men a lot more.

And whaddya know, it seems to be true.

So, what we're seeing here is not necessarily the moral superiority of lesbians to straight people, but rather, the underlying difference in which biological urges people have, coupled with the question of how their prospective partners will feel about them. Many straight men make it clear that they would be quite happy to pursue an ongoing pattern of casual and anonymous sex; they just can't find many women willing to participate.

With all of this considered, I think the evidence is that it is not homosexuality per se which is immoral. I do think you can make a reasonable case for active promiscuity being harmful and tending to lead to other problems, but even then, it appears not to work that way in all people.

(hey, this is my first post under the new homosexuality rules; I'm trying to comply, but I may not understand them yet. Pls be gentle k thx.)

Homosexuality was a cultural taboo for the ancient Hebrew tribes, and was severely proscribed in their scripture. Punishable by death, according to the OT. Christianity inherited this from Judaism. And it is still a major taboo for conservative Christians, particulary evangelicals. Traditional religion, especially orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and evangelical Protestantism is authoritarian. There are rules, which must not be broken. Homosexuality is a big-time violation of the rules. If the government recognizes same sex unions, this is tantamount to society saying that their long held rules are invalid. It's largely symbolic. If their rules are rejected, it means that their values are rejected, and, by extension, that they themselves are rejected. I can understand how that would be intolerable. But still, I think they are fighting tooth and nail to defend an ancient taboo that is difficult, if not impossible to justify in the modern world by objective criteria.

Ledifni said:

You make good points, seebs, but here's the problem -- a faith-based idea of "immorality" is completely irrelevant to law. I submit that the same people who believe that homosexuality is immoral also believe that unbelief is immoral. Can I then expect to see a Constitutional amendment banning unbelief, and if so, must I accept it as right and proper?

Click to expand...

Unbelief is too close to thoughtcrime.

What about, say, scientology? If I can prove that scientologists are really dangerous, should I be able to do something about scientology?

You are right that condoning immorality leads to more of it. However, it is possible to not condone something you consider immoral, without abridging the freedom of everyone who disagrees with you.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I'm not sure of that; I think that allowing people to do something is essentially condoning it:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone

seebs said:

Hmm. I'm not sure of that; I think that allowing people to do something is essentially condoning it:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=condone

Click to expand...

But consider this. No reasonable person condones the views of the Ku Klux Klan, or the Aryan Nations. Most people would think espousing racial or ethnic hostility quite immoral. Yet reasonable persons still allow such groups to express their opinions. If a city gives a permit to a white supremacist group for a peaceful rally, does that mean the government condones their views? Of course not. It only means that government will tolerate something that many would find offensive and immoral in order to uphold a higher prinicple--that of freedom of expression. So if society should ever recognize same sex unions it doesn't necessarily mean that such unions are condoned. It means that society respects the privacy of consenting adults and treats all people equally under the law.

Really good questions, Ledifni.

I suspect that the theology that has emerged from the modern Evangelical movement has dictated that yes, the nations morals are indeed the concern of God-fearing Christians. When you hear conservative Christians speak to this, they speak as if they are being picked on by "Secularists" and are now engaged in full-fledged war for the survival of their brand of Christianity. I think they would argue that their rights are being infringed upon by the "secularization" of the U.S. government.

I would argue that, in fact, their perceptions of the power they have lost in US society is somewhat disproportionate to the actual power they have lost; at the same time, it seems their theology has shifted to the point where they feel the US is a new Zion and they have the right -- nay, the obligation -- to maintain this country as a Christian nation. This latter concept intruigues me, I'll do some research to see if I can find sourced to back up this theological outlook (unless others know of any?).

BTW, the amendment will not have anything to do with civil unions, which is what homosexuals want, anyway. Christians make a hassle about gay marriage, because of this, and that. So, most homosexuals have given up, and say let them have it.

Click to expand...

IIRC, last years FMA was worded in such a way where it could be interpreted as not only barring gays from marriage, but from the rights that come with it (i.e. civil unions).

So no, civil unions are not an acceptable alternative. Nothing short of full rights for all citizens is acceptable. Honestly, it blows my mind that America would even consider accepting a "reasonable compromise" in order that a religious sect can legislate their beliefs. If the Moonies showed up here and demanded to be allowed to pass laws that discriminate based on their beliefs, would we all say, "Hmm, let's see if we can find a reasonable compromise!"?

Click to expand...

While I whole-heartedly agree, you're being about as idealistic as the Christian Right is in believing this is a Christian nation.

This past election, 11 states put up referendums concerning gay marriage. In all 11 states, the referendums proposing a ban on gay marriage all passed with a 3/4ths majority, or more. Some of the referendums even went so far as to ban civil unions.

This may not be a full blown Democracy, but when 75% of the ppl are against something, do you really think it stands a chance in hell of passing?

The gay rights advocates have gone about this completely wrong. By pushing so hard for something that most ppl oppose, they've created a backlash. A backlash that threatens all of the progress made for them in the past 30 years. Societies change with time, but it takes time. If you subject a society to change before it's time, it set a society back generations.

Just imagine if you tried to allow blacks to vote and marry whites...in the 1860s.

As sad as it is, America just isn't ready to let gays get married yet.

Ledifni said:

It's restricted because the religious right is terrified of gay marriage for some inexplicable reason (which is what I'm hoping to get insight into here). They're currently trying to get a Constitutional amendment passed so they can breathe a collective sigh of relief at the averted cootie threat.

Click to expand...

It's not just religious people that are against the idea of so called gay marraige.I am an atheist and the whole idea is just not right.I don't believe a constitutional amendment will ever be passed prohibiting it though.If same sex marraige ever does pass,the only winners will be the divorce lawyers.