Gay marriage issue

[TomOfSweden]

This has been a long running mystery to me.

Can somebody explain the issue with gay marriages in USA? I know it's an issue over there, I just can't figure out what it's based on. I was trying to think of a good hypothetical argument against it, but failed. The people who are against gay marriages, what are their arguments? I'd like to know how opponents to gay marriage reason? I'd have thought that the freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which arguably is the ultimate religion of USA, would have that covered.

I did a quick search, and all I found was pretty confusing and incoherent. I need to have this explained in detail. There must be more to it than this. Because all those arguments are basically being against it out of spite. So there must be a deeper political reason that's hard to see just looking at the issue as such.

Please enlighten a poor dumb Swede.

[TG]

TomOfSweden,
I love to hear people from other countries comment on the USA because we tend to be smug, and a breathe of fresh air is always welcome.

I'm not an expert on the topic, but you seems to have summed up the situation better than most Americans do: it is pretty much illogical and carried out for spite.

The fundamentalist religious group feel homosexuality is prohibited in the Bible, and rail about it for that reason. And the world is starting to get a clearer picture of personality type that follow any fundamentalist philosophy of any kind. They're rigid, fanatical, vocal, controlling - all the nauseating qualities you come to expect from such people.

The issue of gay marriage isn't so much a matter of the issue itself, as it is the groups supporting or opposing it. They tend to be extremist groups ready to do battle with anyone who opposes them. I tend to think of our home grown right wingers as American's version of the Taliban.

Well, I'm not a expert, but I hope that helped a little.
TG

PS. TomOfSweden, there's another reason I'm glad you commented on this. American's tend to think we're the Big Boy on the Block, and we don't have to listen to anybody else. I think we should be more concerned with what other people think, and we should pay attention to what other people's interests are and concerns are. So anyone from another country that has their own concerns that they believe we should listen to, I welcome it. Let in general spend more time listening to one another.

[TomOfSweden]

The fundamentalist religious group feel homosexuality is prohibited in the Bible, and rail about it for that reason.

But are they openly against freedom of religion? I thought that was taboo in USA?

[jeanne]

Jumping in - they aren't against freedom of religion, they just define it differently than rational people. To them, it's freedom to practice THEIR religion and then shove it down our throats. (Do I sound a little pissed?!)

[TomOfSweden]

Jumping in - they aren't against freedom of religion, they just define it differently than rational people. To them, it's freedom to practice THEIR religion and then shove it down our throats. (Do I sound a little pissed?!)

No, but seriously. What do they say? How do they rationalise it?

[jeanne]

Tom, I wish I could give you a coherent answer to that question. A lot of their justification comes from the Bible. Plus, I think there is a natural human instinct to feel "better than" others, which their religion enforces, rather than mitigates (as it should do). Let me think about this some more...

[TG]

his_j got it pretty much correct.

It's rationalized to sound as if it supports freedom of religion, but the groups use code words to transmit their real purpose, which as his_j noted, is the freedom to practice their religion their way.

I wish I had a better credentialed historian, but Tom Burns has said America is the only country founded solely on an ideal. Other countries are founded upon geographical locations, ethnic groups, historical accidents, religious groups, etc. That doesn't mean other's don't have their ideals, but it was the cause of our foundation. We have ideal at our core, but bringing the reality up to that ideal is a constant struggle for us, as with everybody.

Like everybody else, we have clay feet while we spout ideals from our mouths. We are very much a "Do as I say, not as I do" country. Bush spouts "Democracy" and "Human Rights" while he is busy stripping these things away from others.

A lot of the treads in the Vanilla section are people trying to find out the truth behind issues, and which of our politicians are honest or a bunch of crap.

And so goes the world.
TG

[jeanne]

Okay - honest politicians?! Maybe we have some, but their voices are drowned out... sigh.

TG - I agree, we have wonderful ideals, a Constitution to support them and a form of government that should enforce them. But, the problem with it all is people! Our self-centeredness, our overwhelming self love (at the expense of others) and our pig-headed belief that we are better than everyone else tears down those ideals on a daily basis. Is there a better way? Yes - we could walk the talk. We could accept the fact that our ideals make us vulnerable and realize that's the price to pay and understand and accept that underneath it all, it is worth it.

I'm gonna stop now - I feel like I'm hijacking Tom's thread!

[John56{vg}]

Tom,

Yes, the argument is not at all rational as Jeanne and TG have explained. I want to support TG's assesment too, I appreciate the citizens of other countries looking at us as well. We HAVE gotten (and probably in some ways alway have been) really unwilling to look at what other people think of us. And we have become rather more arrogant and bullyish about our nation.

My brother and his wife are Christian Conservatives. Now I will preface this with saying thay try to be loving people and as non-judgmental as they can so I feel they are trying. They have told me when I express to them that the one verse of the Bible I adhere to is "God is Love," with a dash of "Jedge Not Lest Ye Also Be Judged" they have told me that you have to take the work as a whole.

However they do not practice what they preach. There are just a couple of verses that even mention homosexuality in the Bible and they are used to justify a whole truckload of "sins" in my book. They also comfort themselves with the justification that they don't hate Homosexuals, No, they are taught to Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin (Stupidity!). To me Hate is Hate is HAte.

They refuse to listen to science (in O so many ways) and conclude that being Homosexual is a "choice."

I believe the late Jerry Falwell started a lot of this. He wanted to politicize religion and get Christians involved in making their sick judgmental dangerous brand of Christianity the only possible religion in the U.S. (They DO not believe in Freedomof Religion, no matter what they say. Jeanne expressed their views very well).

They say that this nation was formed as a Christian Nation (untrue, the founding fathers were very secular).

They feel our problems stem from pulling away from God (I think they are from many different things and most of them Republican, COnservative and their brand of Christian ideals)

Also Falwell was a Televangelist. These folks used their sermons not so much to preach an idealogy but to get money given to them by their parrishioners, they have always cared for money over religion. These same techniques have been used to politicize their brand of religious politics and attempt to turn the U.S. into a Theocracy as restrictive and damaging as what the Taliban.

(Sorry got carried away again. And these are my humble opinions from my own research and anecdotal evidence.)

Thanks Tom for bringing up the discussion. And TG and Jeanne, great posts.

[TomOfSweden]

Has Jerry Fallwell really got any position to influence people in USA? Isn't he a tad extreme for his ideas to be taken seriously but any relevant numbers? He's such an obvious loon. He even calls himself a fundamentalist.

Always when people bring up universal love, I always like to remind myself of the words of Slavoy Zizek.

[TG]

And you too, John56!
TomOfSweden, I think John56 has hit the nail on the head. There are demagogues in this country that have hijacked a number of issues for their own self enrichment, Gay Marriage being one.

They put together specious arguments to justify their cause, but their real message is an emotional one appealing to their base. It pats them on the back for being an "elect" special group who knows all the answers to everything, and which entitles them to tell other people what to do. Certainly an appealing message.

This isn't our problem alone. The world is getting very crowded with this type of personality. Paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw, "Religion is the one area where a person does not need talent, intelligence, experience or education in order to claim to be an expert." I have an aunt who's a Christian Science Practitioner, which is a senior position in that faith responsible for instructing sich people on how to treat their illnesses holisticaly. She hasn't read the Bible once, nor studied any holistic medicines ourside her faith.
But she's an expert on the subject, who sadly sakes her head at my misplaced faith in doctors.

In an increasing complex world requiring more and more knowledge, they offer simple solutions which assures their followers they are superior to others, comparative educations not with standing, and they are entitled to tell other people what to do.

I'm glad this thread got started, Tom. These religious groups are a problem that needs to be addressed. And they are behind a lot more issues than just gay marriage.
TG

[jeanne]

Love is evil? Okay, I'll buy that to a certain extent. When it's centered in "I love you for what you do for me and if you quit, I'll stop", yes, that's evil. To me it ties into believing that others are responsible for my individual happiness. If my happiness, satisfaction, contentment - whatever you want to call it - is dependent on the words and actions of other people, frankly, I'm screwed! They're just people, not gods, not responsible for me and my feelings... I choose, I decide and I live with me. I choose to love some people, not because they "do" for me, but because they bring some sense of joy or peace into my life. If they changed, if they moved on, if they became hateful horrible people, I'd still love them or at least the memory of them. But, I probably wouldn't like them anymore. My motto (one of many!) is "why spend time around people you don't like? Life is far too short to waste one minute that way." Okay, I've completely rambled my way off topic and need to pull back!

Oh, one more thing, while I'm rambling... Tom, I'd like to take one juicy bite out of your ass - just once. It is fine! Whew, got that off my chest!

okay - back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[John56{vg}]

Jeanne, *slaps your lovely behind*, I think youa re being very additive to this discussion. Don't you dare step out, lol.

Tom,

Jerry Falwell endowed a "University." This University has a law school. IT is rated as one of the worst Law schoolsin the nation. But Bush has appointed and the Gonzales Justicve Department has hired an inordinate amount of their "lawyers" (The quotes are mine, lol) to Justice. And it is not just Falwell, It is Pat Robertson (a wacko Nutjob) that has a TV show called "The 700 Club" with a "NEWS" program that gives Conservative and Christian slanted news as if it came from a reputable source.

(Actually I see Jeannes point, somewhat. I have gotten off the Homsexuality thread.) But to bring it back around to your point Tom. Falwell and Robertson and their ilk have created something called the Homosexual Agenda. They feel that there is a conspiracy to spread teh Homosexual lifestyle throughout the nation (of course, complete Bullshit). But they scare their base of people and these people support them.

I hope I am making sense.

John

[tessa]

Gay marriage. What a lovely topic to bring up at the conservative right-wing dinner party. Evil ol' me.

Basically, it hasn't been supported by the United States government for the reason everyone has given. Organized r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n. They have power and they use it to influence where and whenever they can because they believe what they believe...strongly at that. Politicians are afraid of losing votes, so they keep it from being legalized.

Now there are some big business types that wouldn't be so happy to see gay marriages recognized as legit. They would then have to include all those new spouses and children onto the benefits roster and that would cost them a fortune in additional premiums. Literally, multi's of millions of dollars. There's that to consider too. They wouldn't dare come out and say anything directly as it would hurt their bottom line. But as the religious ones do, the big business types let it be known which way they want their politicians to vote. But it's money they care about, not morals.

Good question, Tom.

~sits with jeanne and checks out Tom's ass~ Yep, it is mighty fine.

tessa

[jeanne]

Yes, the business angle. Good call, tessa! One of the disadvantages of our medical system is the fact that insurance is so costly. Companies that used to pay for full family coverage now pay half or a third of the cost - the rest comes out of our paychecks. And companies that didn't pay for employee/family insurance fully, now pay even less. It costs employers tens of thousands of dollars a year per employee with a family for full medical coverage. So, keeping the definition of "family" as narrow as possible is to their advantage. "Cost effective" you know. The result is an unholy alliance between big business and fundamentalist religion, explaining why the Republicans find themselves in bed with people like Falwell and Robertson.

[DungeonMaster6]

Alright, the new forum god does have an opinion on this.

As many of you might know, if you've read Alex's interview with me, that I've married twice; both times were to women. The idea of marrying a man is loathe to me.

But, having said that, if two men or two women want to get married, I don't care! My position is basically what Kerry said in the debates with Bush. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman, but who am I to say that two people of the same gender ought not enter into the institution of marriage.

The government, religion, or any other group should keep their noses out of people's private lives.

Okay, that's my take,
DM

[nk_lion]

Imagine two Iraqi politicians taken to US to see the essential differences of US and Iraq.

They were there to witness the free and secular democracy that provided rights to all members of society. What they saw shocked them. What they saw were American politicians blocking the bid for a Chief Justice because she was an Atheist, this was while they were being told not to distuingish between Sunni or Shia in the legal system. What they saw was some bill called the Patriot Act being pushed through to deny American citizens rights and freedoms that the Americans were telling the Iraqis should enact in their own country, this was while they were being told that the purpose of the 'collatoral damage' was essentially to grant them these rights and freedoms. They saw that the legalality of gay marraiges was marked as illegal because it did not fit the description of the morality of certain religious values, this was while they were told that they should seperate their own religion from the law.

Sorry, not exactly the point of this thread, but you get the idea. I love US and the people, I'm just glad that 08 is coming soon.

In

[John56{vg}]

It gives me great pleasure that our neighbors to the North and citizens of other countries can see past our very damaged political system and don't relate it to individual citizens.

Nk, I thank you for your post. I love my country very much. But for most of the last 6 years I have been told if I crticize the people trying to destroy that country (Bush and Cheney, et. al.) I hate America. And it just isnot true. I believe most peoplein our country want to uphold the constitution but some very ruthless, criminal people are trying to undermine those ideals.

I can only pray and hope that '08 brings a much needed change.

Thanks again, NK. And thank you again Tom for bringing up the questions you did.

John

[gloombunny]

He even calls himself a fundamentalist.

Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country consider that a good thing.

The "Christian right" in America believes in freedom for their religion and freedom from everyone else's.

[TomOfSweden]

Now there are some big business types that wouldn't be so happy to see gay marriages recognized as legit. They would then have to include all those new spouses and children onto the benefits roster and that would cost them a fortune in additional premiums. Literally, multi's of millions of dollars.

I doubt there's enough fags to motivate big business being against it. And don't forget the gays in the big business, they want their rights to. I think this is one more of the arguments that don't hold up under closer scrutiny.

But the consensus by the Americans on the forum seems to be that neocons who have far too much power in USA, and the gay rights issue isn't about gays at all, but about a larger idea of basing US law on the Bible, (ie making it a theocracy). Did I get it right?

Here's a fun clip of fundamental Christians interupting a Hindu prayer in the senate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30Hz7A

And here a hilarious article about neocon loons on a boat trip.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2766040.ece

~sits with jeanne and checks out Tom's ass~ Yep, it is mighty fine.

OOOO, look that that. *points* sexual harrasment. You all saw it, didn't you? help help. I'm being repressed.

[Warbaby1943]

Alright, the new forum god does have an opinion on this.

As many of you might know, if you've read Alex's interview with me, that I've married twice; both times were to women. The idea of marrying a man is loathe to me.

But, having said that, if two men or two women want to get married, I don't care! My position is basically what Kerry said in the debates with Bush. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman, but who am I to say that two people of the same gender ought not enter into the institution of marriage.

The government, religion, or any other group should keep their noses out of people's private lives.

Okay, that's my take,
DM

Well said DM. I couldn't agree more.

[jeanne]

But for most of the last 6 years I have been told if I crticize the people trying to destroy that country (Bush and Cheney, et. al.) I hate America. And it just isnot true. I believe most peoplein our country want to uphold the constitution but some very ruthless, criminal people are trying to undermine those ideals.

I can only pray and hope that '08 brings a much needed change.

I'm with you here - there's just no logic to their argument. How does being against the war (or whatever squirrelly term they're using today for it) mean I don't support the troops? There's no direct cause/effect relationship there, but I'm accused of it. I have friends and relatives in the military - my father did 20 years in - and have nothing but respect and admiration for those who choose that path, whatever their reasons. But, I'm disgusted by the waste of ideals, money, lives that our government is indulging itself in (yes, I mean indulging).

I doubt there's enough fags to motivate big business being against it. And don't forget the gays in the big business, they want their rights to. I think this is one more of the arguments that don't hold up under closer scrutiny. .

Tom - actually this comment goes to your original question of wanting to understand how/why gay marriage is a problem. No matter what you see in the media, being a gay man in America is still a problem. (Not so much for gay women.) I couldn't venture to guess the percentage of gay men who are still in the closet, but I'm sure it is large. Remember too, large companies, even if headed by an openly gay man, still have to answer to stockholders, a board of directors and the media. Given the estimate that 10% of men are gay (is that still the number - I'm not sure) that leaves 90% that aren't. And frankly - the almighty dollar rules. So when a company talks about adding millions of dollars to the cost of doing business, there is a large group of people who are financially invested in not allowing that to happen. On top of all that - the conservative media would tear them apart. There's nothing more scary to a CEO than hearing phrases like "godless heathen" or "counter to the ideals this country was founded on" - another completely illogical argument - attached to his company, pushing the value of their stock (and his stock options - don't forget his own greed) down.

OOOO, look that that. *points* sexual harrasment. You all saw it, didn't you? help help. I'm being repressed.

*shakes head* Poor Tom... tessa and I are simply appreciating our foreign brother and fostering a better relationship with the rest of the world. Why, we're practically goodwill ambassadors!

[gagged_Louise]

Homo couple adoption?

Like DM, Tessa or WB, to me there's no intrinsic trouble with a same-sex marriage. the issue of gay adoption is a considerably knottier one to me, and it's been pushed aggressively as an equal rights-issue by gay groups in some countries (including my native Sweden, shere it was granted in law a few years ago). Adoption of kids, these days, is almost invariably from a poor country, often in Asia or Africa, to a rich one. That means, you put down a child in a new family and in a new country where she will forever stand out a bit by the colour of his/her skin, maybe also by difficult memories of war, poverty, homelesssness or the like. I think it matters not to add on to those factors of "set-apartness" by also being known as "the kid who has two daddies".

Kids are not always generous in these respects, and bullying can take off from small things that adults wouldn't pick up on (or so one would hope?), so being both "looking different" (from the other kids, and from your parents) and the kid in a gay couple might easily prove too much (and these are factors that the child herself can't ever change: you don't alter your skin colour or the character of your face, unless you're Michael Jackson). Besides, many adoption agencies in the Third World refuse to have anything to do with openly gay couples.

i don't see that we can use the adopted kids as a battering ram to break down prejudice fast here. The fight against anti-gay/lesbian prejudice will have to come first in time, before gay adoption becomes a good and natural option.

[John56{vg}]

Boy, I love this thread just for the discussion factor and I love the people in this forum, gives me hope for a better world.

DM and WarBaby: I think most people, even some members of the Christian Right, believe the way that Dm expressed himself. I know I do. I would never long to marry or fall in love with a man, so to me marriage is between a man and a woman. But I will fight and argue to the death for someone that does fall in love with a member of the same sex to have the same rights that I do.

I mean, the argument used is that it somehow undermines heterosexual marriage (They can never explain exactly how, though). But two men or two women loving and living together does not make me look upon their way of loving and say, 'Hmmmmm. that seems like a good idea, from now on marriage is always between a man and a man and a woman and a woman.'" (ridiculous argument there). Plus we heterosexuals haven't done so great in exactly shoring up the institution. Abuse within marriage, infidelity, dicvorce. We ain't doin so much to keep marriage lily white and pure. (seee when I get angry my Texas comes out, lol)

But my Christian COnservative Brother and sister-in-law are two thinking feeling people. It was easy to hate and be intolerant of gays when they had never met any homosexuals. But their kids, my lovely nieces and nephew are bringing home out gay friends. They are meeting and (gasp) getting to know and like these real people. They are torn a bit, now, about hating (and I am loving watching them have their beliefs being questioned.

I was going to respond to a few people in this post, but I just won't shut up. And please, Jeanne and Tessa darlings, can I be harrassed please?

John

[gloombunny]

Homo couple adoption?

Like DM, Tessa or WB, to me there's no intrinsic trouble with a same-sex marriage. the issue of gay adoption is a considerably knottier one to me, and it's been pushed aggressively as an equal rights-issue by gay groups in some countries (including my native Sweden, shere it was granted in law a few years ago). Adoption of kids, these days, is almost invariably from a poor country, often in Asia or Africa, to a rich one. That means, you put down a child in a new family and in a new country where she will forever stand out a bit by the colour of his/her skin, maybe also by difficult memories of war, poverty, homelesssness or the like. I think it matters not to add on to those factors of "set-apartness" by also being known as "the kid who has two daddies".

Kids are not always generous in these respects, and bullying can take off from small things that adults wouldn't pick up on (or so one would hope?), so being both "looking different" (from the other kids, and from your parents) and the kid in a gay couple might easily prove too much (and these are factors that the child herself can't ever change: you don't alter your skin colour or the character of your face, unless you're Michael Jackson). Besides, many adoption agencies in the Third World refuse to have anything to do with openly gay couples.

i don't see that we can use the adopted kids as a battering ram to break down prejudice fast here. The fight against anti-gay/lesbian prejudice will have to come first in time, before gay adoption becomes a good and natural option.

"Well, I don't have a problem with it, but so many other people do that I'm going to oppose it anyway. It's FOR THE CHILDREN!"

I am so sick of hearing that kind of argument.

[tessa]

I doubt there's enough fags to motivate big business being against it. And don't forget the gays in the big business, they want their rights to. I think this is one more of the arguments that don't hold up under closer scrutiny.

Oh, Tom. You are underestimating the power the all mighty dollar has on business in America. From the Kaiser Family Foundation, here's a stat for you. "Annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance for 2006 average $4,242 for single coverage and $11,480 for family coverage. Employees contribute an average of $627 annually for single coverage and $2,973 annually for family coverage, with significant variation around these averages. Legalize gay marriage, have all the gay employees sign up for their now rightful benefits, and a company of 5000 employees is looking at an estimated additional 2.5 million dollars in insurance costs. (and I used a very conservative 5% homosexual population to figure that cost...go with 10% as some studies suggest, and that's almost 5 million dollars!)

If a company can keep even one of those dollars for themselves as opposed to using it on the workforce, they will. Period. And you think that's an argument that won't hold up?? Money matters. And if keeping gay marriage from being legal will save big business big money, you'd better believe that they will do whatever it takes to keep it status quo where gays are concerned.

OOOO, look that that. *points* sexual harrasment. You all saw it, didn't you? help help. I'm being repressed.

We aren't repressing you in any way. We are encouraging your ass in every way possible! And what jeanne said, "goodwill" and all.

[tessa]

"Well, I don't have a problem with it, but so many other people do that I'm going to oppose it anyway. It's FOR THE CHILDREN!"

I am so sick of hearing that kind of argument.

You may be sick of it, but freedom of speech and everything...

~hands NatalieD some special BDSM Library Forums anti-nausea medication~ Just hoping it helps.

tessa

[John56{vg}]

Some of the most caring, loving, understanding parents I have known have been same sex parents.

So it IS about what is best for the kids. And this seems to be BEST for the kids, lol.

Thanks Natalie.

[gagged_Louise]

John: you needn't think I haven't heard some of those arguments before. The point I'm making isn't that gay men (or a lesbian couple) would be the wrong kind of parents, only that international adoption is, now and in the near future, the wrong way to arrange that. And well, full adoption of non-relative kids within one rich country hardly exists anymore. (I'm totally okay with insemination, while surrogate mothering has special problems)

Besides, I don't think you can compete in being a good parent. The point of my argument is about not putting the adopted child, who's already had a difficult first few years, in a too vulnerable position.

[gloombunny]

Are you saying that the kids would be better off not being adopted at all? Are the orphanages that cushy these days?