give Ms. Cali credit.....whether you agree or not at least she didn't lie her ass off

And thanks to you, Sir Nose, for the same. This is what good debate is about. Challenging concepts and ideas without getting into a flame war... It's a nice and refreshing change. haha.

 

Whatever you think of her or Perez Hilton, her career in beauty pageantry is over. She'll be hard pressed to find a man or fag-hag in town to do her hair and make-up!

The definition of bigot, according to Merriam-Webster is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." Everyone keeps shrugging this incident off and saying "Oh well, it's her opinion."

If you want to justify it by saying you are supporting traditional values, I'm sure you wouldn't be hard pressed to find "traditional" whites, blacks, asians, Indians, etc. who feel it is wrong to marry outside of their race. These people claim it dilutes their race, and in some cases, they say it mixes their preferred race with an inferior one.

The majority of Americans are bigots.

 

Quoting myself from earlier in this thread.

 

Given that sexual orientation is biologically programmed, the comparison between homophobia and racism is apt.

Even if sexual orientation is socially constructed, as the uninformed argue, the comparison between homophobia and racism remains apt.

 

Saty. Your statements are true to an extent, in my opinion. I think the biological argument for homosexuality is well proven, and I agree. Also, in general terms I would concur that discrimination on any level could be compared other forms of discrimination.

I can't, however, draw a comparison between the historical illegality of interracial marriage (in some communities) and homosexual marriage. This is primarily, for the reasons you stated earlier, which are that marriage is a social construct which evolved over time to manage female sexuality and procreation. An interracial couple can obviously procreate and a homosexual one (traditionally) cannot. I am interested to hear your extrapolated position on this, as no doubt you have one. 8)

 

This is not proven, and in fact doubted by many behavioral scientists, including Dr Robert Spitzer of Columbia U. It is an idea that is advanced by the G/L lobby as a justification for the advancement of an agenda:

http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html
"Spitzer's findings challenge the widely-held assumption that a homosexual orientation is "who one is" -- an intrinsic part of a person's identity that can never be changed."

 

Well, for everyone of those reports, there's another that proves that it is biological. Depends on your point of view, and as with most things, there will be research to support what you do/don't believe. Whichever it is (I would say both are true in different circumstances), it doesn't change the fact that homosexual people should not be discriminated against.

 

I am of the opinion that marriage is not an institution that should be endorsed by the government but by the individuals particular religious affiliation. Much of the argument that you hear in regard to marriage is based on religion. With the separation of church and state, this REALLY should not be an issue for the state to decide. For legal purposes (insurance, taxation, etc.,.), the government should only recognize 'civil unions' and they should be available to any who choose to enter one regardless of sexual orientation.

Let the battle of 'gay marriage' take place in the churches and let the government focus on more important issues like steroids in baseball and a coming up with a playoff format for NCAA Football.

 

This is a pie-in-the-sky dream. Man will live on Jupiter before that happens.

 

I don't agree that they are being discrimated against. Are you saying they are discriminated against because a union of two homosexuals is not recognized as a traditional marriage?

 

Talk like this reminds me of those women sitting in the back of your classroom that you mentioned in your other thread. Just because a person doesn't see things the way you do doesn't make them prejudiced.

 

I was speaking in more general terms. And I already stated previously (and the point was made more articlately by Jaisee) that traditional marriage is a product of the church (see my previous post where I talk about the definition of marriage), more-or-less, and it is their choice as to whether gay marriage is allowed. I believe the legal implications and rights associated with marriage are what is important to many gay people (at least the ones I've spoken to).

When I was in the USA, I stayed with a lesbian couple in San Fran. The week after I left them, they were able to get married at the City Hall (while Gay Marriage was still allowed in California). They have been together for 40 years. They are in their early 80's and, apart from the fact that they wanted their relationship acknowledged, were more concerned that if one or the other got ill, the other couldn't sign on their behalf, wouldn't be considered "close family" at the hospital and all those other things that are as of right for heterosexual couples. That is discimination.

 

My wife's Grandmother lived with her best friend for many, many years. They took care of each other until my wife's Grandmother died. Her best friend and roomate received no benefits that would go to a heterosexual couple, other than what was stated in the will. Were they similarly discriminated against?

 

The difference between a couple and good friends is attraction and romantic love. I'm sure you are aware that there is a distinction to be made. In the same way that an older man and lady can be best friends, but not necessarily romantically involved, the same can be said for friends of the same gender. When a couple decides to commit to one another, there are implications and responsibilities. Friends don't make the same legal commitment.

In Australia, at least, homosexual defacto relationships are recognised for many legal aspects. Therefore, if your Wife's Grandmother's friend desired - she could have claimed defacto status if living here.

Were they discriminated against? In reference to the definition of discrimination, then no. Was it one of those things in life that doesn't seem fair? Perhaps. Is it something that may have to be looked at in special circumstances? Potentially.

 

Yes having an institution in place, supported by the rule of law, which allowed for men to determine the paternity of local children and control female sexuality is why marriage was invented.

Those reasons, however, do not reside at the core of marriage in the modern western world. The advent of romantic love and courtship has altered the characteristics of the institution particularly within the last 200 years. We are more likely to marry for love than the initial reasons why marriage came into existence.

Hypothetically, if the reasons for heterosexual marriage largely remained unchanged since the initial reasons why marriage was invented, would it not be seen as a step forward if gays and lesbians only married for love? I believe so.

----

Also, homosexuality is a natural phenomenon seen in other species like dogs, dolphins, lizards, primates, insects. Given that no other species possesses deliberative abilities, those who argue otherwise have to explain why a dog would "choose" to be gay given that dogs cannot choose?

 

Thanks, it's an interesting debate.

 

Depends on your personal opinion. Some would equally see it as a step back. You have, of course, qualified this by saying "I believe so". Personally, so do I. When I have had many friends frustrated by their inability to get basic legal rights for their gay relationships, I can't help but become irritated by the existing, unfair system.

That statement is made, of course, assuming that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals. Drawing a comparison between humans and less developed mammals (and even reptiles) is only useful if you believe in evolution (something tells me that you do, Mr Saty ). But, assuming this is the case, and only by acknowledging the recent changes in the character and purpose of marriage and relationships, then I agree.

There's also some point to be made here about monogomy, life partners and choice...but it's too early in the morning, and I have to get ready for work. I will return, however.

 

I mentioned before that the 70% number of African Americans who voted yes on prop 8 was in fact disproportionately female, and that in fact there was a large gender gap in African American votes on Prop 8.

Here's a column raising an opposition to homosexual marriage that applies specificly to African American women. Of course I disagree with her entirely, but it is interesting to me the possibility that she might not be the only one thinking this way, and if perhaps there are African American women thinking this way, and if perhaps that has something to do with the vote.

http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1990



And, a response from Dan Savage:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/05/07/end-white-marriage

 

Marriage is not what it used to be. Most of us here believe in the concept of romantic love. Most of us are interested in getting married someday. How many of us want that marriage to be arranged? How many here have never had sex outside of a marriage? How many have a dowry, or would expect one?

At this same board, we have one person who is very vocal about never wanting children, and probably a handful of others who probably would be happy if they never had any. We have people who have children from previous marriages, people who had children outside of marriage, and people who would be happy to marry if they met the person of their dreams and that person already had a child.

Marriage is no longer a property agreement. Nor is it an official pronouncement of an intention to have children together.

By our current societal standards, it is a partnership agreement. We place certain assumptions upon that agreement. We assume that it is entered into as the result of romantic love. We assume that both parties wish to maintain the agreement for as long as possible. We use this agreement within our society as evidence of a good faith effort to apply stability and permanence to a relationship. We treat people who have entered into this partnership agreement as more likely to remain within a relationship, more stable a couple to raise children, and more likely to be truly dedicated to one another.

Loving v Virginia was not passed because society felt it was in its best interests to bring about biracial children, or because interracial marriage was sanctioned by the Bible, but because romantic partnership was, and is, seen as a civil right. It was described as one of the Basic Human Rights of Man.

Gay and Lesbian couples do fall into romantic love. They do form life long partnerships. They deserve as much right to make those partnerships official within a contract and before the rest of society as anyone else in our society. Denying them this is denying their civil rights.

 

Why? Why not? Why does everything have to be the same? Why do birds fly and fish swim? Why are some animals asexual or protogynous? I can't answer that.