To all concerned about gay/lesbian effects/affects upon society...

Earlier in the thread some were talking about the affects/effects that the gay/lesbian community has or may have upon the rest of society. Some argued against, and some for. Di posted a study that showed some positives, and Pan posted his own in response. Let's look at what all of this entails...

Obviously there is going to be bias for and/or against at least in the mind of s/he performing the study if we assume that the subject matters to them. It could be the case that they are for, against, or it does not matter to them either way. So, we have three possible scenarios regarding the bias of any author writing/studying the matter at hand.

1. For
2. Against
3. Indifferent

Now, one could argue that a study performed could have questionable(biased) results. Few, if any, would argue against this.


I am arguing that it doesn't matter. What is the 'worst' that could happen?

Please excuse me for not fully comprehending your post here. It was certainly well-written and concise. But non the less I'm a bit confused at your last comment:

You say:
"I am arguing that it doesn't matter."

What doesn't matter?

That studies might be biased? Or are you suggesting that even if the studies hold true they basically don't matter?

You ask?
"What is the 'worst' that could happen?

Again, what are you asking?

What's the worst that could happen if any particular study is true?

Or what's the worst that could happen if gay/lesbian lifestyles are socially embraced as being perfectly natural and normal human behavior?

Of course, these are somewhat circular questions because some "studies" probably have a premeditated agenda to predict the negative (or positive) effects of these specific scenarios. And that's the whole purpose behind them. Trying to predict the 'worst' or 'best' that could happen.

~~~~

Just as a personal comment on the topic as a whole here's my view.

We shouldn't be looking at governmental laws as indicators of what society "condones" or doesn't "condone" in general.

Laws should be made to protect the freedom, rights, and health of the citizens. Not to enforce moral or ethical ideologies.

With that in mind, the gay and lesbian lifestyle must be legal and acknowledged by the government. It's not an acknowledge of "morality" because that's not the purpose of government. It's simply a recognition of rights, freedom and protection of all citizens to be who they are in spite of any personal moral objections other citizens may have.

I guess what some people are trying to claim is that by allowing gays and lesbians to be who they are, this will somehow have an adverse affect on the people who aren't gay or lesbian.

That may potential hold some truth. But that's no reason to make it unlawful. After all, it's legal to drink alcohol too, and that can certainly has an adverse affect on people who don't drink.

In fact, I would argue that as long as something like drinking alcohol remains legal, then to argue that people's right to individual intimacy should be illegal is truly laughable.

Just my thoughts.

Are you really arguing that same-sex marriage is not illegal? Marriage is defined by state law as a union between a woman and a man.

One is entitled to their own opinion, but one is not entitled to their own facts.

The issue in question concerning what constitutes a legal marriage is had in the description of one. As it stands, those are in the state constitutions and claim a man and a woman. The recent cases in Massachusetts and California where the state Supreme Courts ruled that the marriage laws were unconstitutional did so because they are examples of gender discrimination - which is against federal law. These cases are still being contested on different grounds. They have been deemed unconstitutional. That is fact. That is not the only consideration however. Another revolves around where the authority to change those laws comes from. Neither the State Supreme Courts, nor the governors have been delegated that kind of unilateral power.

So there is a real conundrum here. Those who interpret the meaning of the US Constitution and State Constitution have already concluded that those marriage laws are unconstitutional but they have not been granted the power to change the laws. The sovereign people of the state have the power to change the way the codes have been written in the State Constitutions. That presents it's own sets of problems. Until 1967, 13 different states still considered interracial marriages illegal. It is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage bans will suffer the same fate as the interracial marriage bans.

James,

I'm arguing "what does it matter" based upon what the worst possible scenario could be.

The only reasonable worst scenario would involve more gays in society, more gay marriages, more gays raising children. What are the grounds for condemning such a thing? We certainly cannot base not allowing such a thing upon the fact that some disagree with it. Personal preference is not ground to impose itself. Referencing my last post, we now have more interracial marriages, more interracial children, and more interracial people raising children despite many years worth of unjustified condemnation.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes I agree, we can't be using laws to condemn things that we are personally uncomfortable with.

But this is exactly what some people do...

It's a fact that children as young as 12 were permitted to marry a hundred years ago.
Now we have people who call it "sick" or say it "offends my sensibilities" and cite laws against it for support. All the while crying about discrimination against gays. They then have the nerve to blame my religion as the reason why I don't agree with them while simultaneously discriminating and judging against mentally challenged or underage marriages/sex.

I have no problem with nudity, yet there are laws against it.
I have no problems with "vulgar" language and there's laws against that too.
Now we have laws against "hate speech".

All of these things are laws because a majority of people are "uncomfortable" with those actions.

If you don't like the laws, build your own community or move to a place with the same values as yourself.

So get back to me after you get some new facts...

Let's start making some sense here...

It has been mentioned a few times throughout this thread that one arguing for gay/lesbian rights is arguing from the same basis that they're arguing against, and therefore(implied) the ground of arguing for gay marriage is no more firm than arguing against. That is misleading at best, dare I say - false - at worst. This will be shown as such.

"Who or what gives you the right to say what is right or wrong?" is a question that has been used to support the idea that the ground is the same. In addition, it has also somehow fostered the idea that there is an element of hypocrisy to contend with. That kind of thinking has already devolved into name calling, chest puffing, hand waving, and the like. We must ask much better questions in order to avoid a situation where untamed egos will be offended. Emotional maturity is critical. That particular question has proven useless.

"Who or what gives one the right to say what is right or wrong for another?" is a much more pertinent question. Subsequently, we must also ask "Does your right to believe and act as you see fit include denying another the same?"

That IS exactly what is going on with the gay marriage debate.

We should not argue about how we arrive at our moral convictions and/or beliefs, because it makes no difference in and of itself - other than to be able to identify the kind of conviction or belief that it is. What constitutes sufficient reason to deny another their rights is in question here. I strongly contend that it is not a matter of how we arrive at our own sets of moral convictions/beliefs, rather, it is a matter of whether or not those beliefs impede upon another's inalienable rights, and if they do... why should it be allowed.

Let's think about the actual case at hand...

One who opposes gay marriage has the right to that belief. One who promotes gay marriage has the right to that belief. There is no blatant contradiction concerning one's inalienable rights based purely upon this. There is no argument there. One who opposes gay marriage does so based purely upon their own moral convictions and vice-versa. Again, no argument there. So where is the problem?

Based soley upon moral convictions and personal belief, those who oppose gay marriage/relationships do - in fact - wish to impose their convictions upon another in such a way that it impedes the other's pursuit of happiness and self-direction. The gay person, however, clearly does not wish to impede upon the other in the same way. Gays are not condemning straight marriages, nor straight lifestyles. Those who oppose gay lifestyles are condemning gay marriage, and in doing so are impeding upon another's own self-direction and pursuit of happiness.

So, it becomes quite clear that only one party - the opposition to gay/lesbian lifestyle/marriage - is imposing their belief/conviction. That personal conviction/belief is being used as ground to justify impeding another's self-direction and the pursuit of happiness. So while both sets of moral belief/conviction may be equal in thier self-justification, they are not being EQUALLY PUT TO USE to deny another the same. Therefore, any claim of hypocrisy has not properly taken this into consideration.

The gays are fighting for their own rights, not to deny the opposition theirs. That, my friends, is a brute fact. It offers to shed a little light upon the earlier claims of "bias" as well. Notably, the significance regarding the differences between being biased for and being biased against what is clearly a matter of equal rights. Who is going to hold that it is somehow unacceptable or otherwise 'wrong' to be biased for inalienable rights? Who then, would further argue that we should strike such a positive bias from our consideration? It would be to strike Dr. Martin Luther King's testimony from the record, simply because he was biased for equal rights?

It is an unconscionable thought. We SHOULD be positively biased for equal rights. That is what American ideology is all about. American ideology has strong philosophical influence, and therefore in order to understand the principles of American ideology, in addition to the ramifications of keeping it intact, and/or properly amending the US Constitution, one must properly understand the philosophy that gave rise to it. Anyone who would argue that a positive bias towards the equal rights of another citizen is somehow inappropriate or considers such bias to be just cause to dismiss their testimony is arguing against the American ideology that gave the claimant the ability to say such a preposterous thing to begin with. Likewise, anyone who would argue that it is ok to give equal consideration to the words and/or testimony of a person who has a clear negative bias towards the equal rights of citizens is not worth listening to.

Come ON Pan. What are you trying to say?

To deny that gay marriage is illegal, is to deny the argument that you're in the middle of. If it were legal, we would not be having this discussion.

OR Live in a democratic free society where people sit around and argue with each other over what the laws should be in an attempt to win support for changing the laws to reflect the views of "the people".

Welcome to the good old USA and free democracy!

The attitude: "If you don't like the laws, MOVE!", isn't fitting for a democratic society. That's the mentality of a fascist dictatorship.

Sure, when it comes time to vote or support the legislation of your choice you're going to vote what you feel. None the less, the whole idea behind discussing these things is to try to get people to see things from a different perspective.

Should you vote "selfishly", trying to use your vote to create a world that you personally dream of? Or should you vote for individual FREEDOM for all, and hope that others will do the same for you in return?

These are important questions.

I've chosen to vote for FREEDOM. I have no interest in a gay lifestyle, and to be perfectly honest about it, if I truly had a choice I would be just as happy if none of my friends or community were gay. That would be perfectly fine with me.

Just the same, I see no reason to force my personal petty ideals onto other people just because it suits my fancy.

I most certainly wouldn't want them to do that to me.

And guess who would SUPPORT ME!

Yep, Jesus would!

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Well, I don't want anyone making laws against my preferences just because they personally don't like them. So why should I vote to instill laws that would do that to others?

That would be a direct violation of what Jesus himself taught people to do.

So for Christ's sake, let the gays be gay!

It's the only Christian thing to do if you truly want to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Yeah, our knowledge and our sensibilities change and grow Pan. We now know that at that age, one's PFC has not developed enough in order to be able to contemplate their own best interest, let alone the far-reaching ramifications of entering into a marriage agreement. We also know how impressionable young women are, and therefore need to be protected from the likes of predators.

In short, when the facts/knowledge change, reasonable peoples' opinion does as well.



The REASONABLE objections are based upon knowledge/fact and are partially listed above. There are NO SUCH reasonable objections for discriminating against gays.




It is a matter of what is being used as a basis for the judgment itself, Pan.

If religion grounds an objection to gay marriage, then it is the source of the objection. To 'blame it' on the religion may not be the best way to describe what is going on. However, to equate the discrimination of gays to appropriate the age of consent and/or the mental capacity required for marriage is to neglect the reasoning which is based upon knowledge/fact.



Not true. These things have become laws because they go against American ideology, specifically... because they unnecessarily infringe upon the inalienable rights of others.



This IS a false dilemma.

Redykulous set me straight on this in the "If.." thread.

After some research, she was correct, gay marriage is not illegal. While some states have certain requirements to obtain a marriage licence, others do not.
You can go to another state, get married, then come back to your own state and you've broken no laws. You won't get fined nor arrested for it.

A marriage licence is like a driver's licence... If you don't meet the requirements, you don't get the licence. They are both priveleges, not rights.

Unless you are willing to give 12 year olds and mentally challenged people the same rights, then you have no basis for claiming discrimination, PERIOD! The same applies to incestuos marriages, some states allow cousins to marry, some do not.

What's next? Same-sex mixed doubles tennis matches? LOL!

As it stands, both rights and priveleges fall under equal rights. The above, while it may be true, doesn't make a difference. There is a subtle difference between not being allowed/honored and being a crime. I am not claiming that same-sex marriage is a crime, which would be punishable by arrest/fine - so perhaps I should drop the 'illegal' description. I am saying that the codified laws do not allow, nor honor same-sex marriage even if performed in another state. If they did, there would be no debate.

The 'illegal' is irrelevent semantics really. Again, I'll take your word for it and stand corrected.



Apples and oranges.

The objections to such things are not arbitrary, nor based upon personal belief/conviction. They are based upon known fact, and therefore contain the element of veracity that the objections against gay marriage does not.

It's quite fitting. The laws were made by democracy, why should a minority dictate what others must accept as right and natural? Unless of course you claim the laws were mandated by a facist dictator...





What about FREEDOM for all to not be subjected to things they consider "sick" (as eloquently put forth earlier)? What about the FREEDOM for all to choose how they wish to define marriage? Nobody is condemming a gay lifestyle or homosexual activity anymore.





But that's what they're trying to do. They make false claims that it's "natural" with zero evidence to support it. They've already forced books into schools at the 5th grade level promoting homosexual lifestyles. This happened over 20 years ago... Where's my right to teach my children about sex and marriage when I feel they are old enough to understand? Like creative claims, 12 year olds are "impressionable"...






There you go, doing exactly what you say makes you sick...
You claim you don't like it when people use Jesus as a "sock puppet", yet here you are, doing just that...





What if you're preference is to let the majority vote decide?







Nice puppet show, so you now consider using Jesus as a sock puppet acceptable, or what?

Beside that, you claim they're fables, so I don't believe you're sincere.

You're right. Using Jesus as a sock puppet is pathetic. I'm glad you're beginning to see the light.

Especially when it is used by Christian's solely for the purpose of spreading religious bigotry, hatred, and judgments against others in the name of Jesus, and almost never used to support positive and loving ideals like I just did.

Christians seem to really take offense when someone uses the words that gospels attribute to Jesus for the purpose of supporting LOVING and CARING ideals.

That's considered to be the greatest blaspheme of all.

As just like you, they brand it "insincere".

No LOVE shall ever be associated with Jesus in the name of Christianity. That's would be blaspheme against what the religion stands for!

I agree PP. It's useless to try to even reference Jesus in the hopes of supporting anything that even remotely resembles love or compassion. It will be spat upon by the Christians instantly.

It's a religion that worships religious bigotry, and merely uses Jesus' name to support that agenda solely.

..i once found myself in a homeless way and as i made my way along a long dark road ..i came upon a preacher standing outside his church..i asked him if i might seek refuge there over night,to which he replied.."Are you a member"..i laughed and walked away without saying another word...

There's nothing stopping heterosexuals from also defining marriage they way they choose. So your argument that allowing gays to marry would somehow interfere with the freedom of heterosexuals to marry holds no merit.

It's a false fear on your part. Nothing more than unwarranted paranoia.



Nobody?

Guess again.



I disagree that they have "zero evidence" to support that claim.



Where in the law does it say that you must send your children to a public school?

You might argue that you are required to pay school tax. However, there are two issues there.

First, if that's your concern then you should be fighting to be relived from having to pay public school tax, or at least be able to have your school tax transferred over to the private school of your choice. That may even already be possible, I haven't really looked into it.

Secondly, you don't even need to send your kids to school at all, you could home-school them if you choose. That's an option too. In fact, if I had children that's precisely what I would choose to do.

I disagree with much of the public school's curriculum. Not even necessarily in content, but simply in importance. In other words, I feel that they waste far too much time teaching crap that simply isn't important. I could have my kids ready for college level studies far earlier than any public school system. Probably close to as much much as 10 years earlier!

If I could raise normally healthy children from scratch, I'd have them ready for college by the time they are 9 or 10, not 19.

But that's partly because I wouldn't waste their time with so much worthless crap. I would also integrate all their subjects. They would actually know how to USE mathematics, for example, rather than just have it as a separate subject.

Well, I'm getting far off track here now.

But the point is, if you want to complain about the public school systems I'm with you all the way, and I don't even care what they might teach about sexuality.

Well sir, I'm not sure if this is a joke
that you have decided to share with us...
but...if the scenario went exactly
as you have laid it before us,
then I say that you should have simply told him

"No, I am not a member of this particular congregation,"

then waited for further instructions.

Most Churches are not set up for over-nighters,
but many pastors can offer you alternative places to stay.

Pastors have to be accountable to their congregation
to some degree, so if you felt that encounter left much
to be desired of him...

then at your convenience,
you should have written a letter to the Church.

Poor communication skills will often "leave you out in the cold".

And decent ones can be in poor taste.