Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

What do you call a person who's just plain tired of the whole gay/lesbian issue? With the critical acclaim of Brokeback Mountain and being bombarded in the media with it, I just really don't care.

 

This thread has exceeded 2,000 posts which is a loose benchmark for restarting a topic. This thread is not the official Senate homosexuality discussion, but I'm going to step in and say that the rules from the aforementioned Homosexuality thread still apply. No, "I said this before" etc.

E_S

 

Reposting this from LostonHoth for its importance and relevance:

Well I can only go by anectodal evidence and the prevailing view seems to be that homosexual men and women grew up having a sexual attraction to the same sex, they all initially dated the oposite sex because that was the 'normal' thing to do but realised that they were not sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

A few of my gay friends say that it took a while for them to realise that the way they felt about some of the male friends was more than just friendship but was real love and desire.

A lot of people mistakenly assume that because a person dated someone of the opposite sex for a while that they were actually straight when doing so.

Zombie, I am pro gay everything, but I understand and agree with JRod's point about the "homophobic" label. While in its true literal sense it may actually match, I think the term has become more of an insult and that seems counter productive when trying to build understanding.

 

I love zombie's initial post involving the "swiss cheese" metaphor.

I would go further to suggest that if we looked at sexual preference like food preference our world views would be very different.

People have different tastes. Tastes change over time. Some tastes never develop.

If we take it personally whenever someone makes different choices then we do in food or in sex (or even in forming relationships of a non-sexual nature) than we are going to be disappointed more than we need to be.


*tongue and cheek follow" Oh no! That person likes bacon? Ewwww! That's disgusting! And... unethical, yeah, that's the ticket... I mean, it causes heart disease right? and um.... immoral also - i mean, the bible says no pork!

 

Not saying the groups don't exist, but you can't weaken marriage, we've been through this a thousand times. be careful of personalizing the debate here

 

For those who live in Australia, what was the rationale used when the government rejected same sex marriage there?

As I remember, the final decision was along the lines of "we don't care if you're gay, we're just not going to offically endorse it."

Was that an agreeble arrangement for Australians? All the major parties endorsed it, so it had to have majority support.

This also seems similiar with Clinton's reasons when he signed the DOMA into law 10 years ago. While he didn't want to prohibit personal behavior, he didn't want the government to offically endorse something he had issues with as well.

I wonder how many people fit into that middle range with this issue?

 

The rationale was that there were a few couples who had been married or were intending to be married overseas and then gain legal recognition back in Australia for their relationships. The government introduced the bill primarily to stop this happening. There has never really been a huge push for gay marriage in Australia. Most just want equal rights within other aspects of the law: legal recognition, property and medical rights and the right to adoption.

All the major parties endorsed it, so it had to have majority support.

I don't know of any in-depth study to reveal how Australians think on the issue, so I'm hesitant to say whether it would have majority support or not. When you say "all" of the major parties supported it, keep in mind we only have 2 major political parties. Frankly, I wouldn't trust the federal Labor government with a kitten. The smaller parties are left-leaning and opposed the legislation. I have found some evidence for an SBS poll, but it's a small sample and can't find any other poll to support or discredit it. (The results were: 44% opposed gay marriage, 38% supported it, and 18% were undecided.) News story

Three states have (or are introducing) civil partnership-type legislation that allow same-sex couples to register their relationship and receive the benefits in kind. I forsee more states will adopt this type of compromise. Adoption laws are created by the states, so the federal government has no jurisdiction in that area.

 

That's an interesting observation, one which would probably mirror the US as well.

That's why the issue is more complicated that people seem to be addressing. I'm sure most people in Australia don't care what people do in their own lives, but there is an issue when it comes to changing social definitions.

For example, here in the US, Chicago is an area that traditionally supports the democratic party. However, based on social issues, a good number of Chicago democrats are against recognizing same sex marriage. That's why there wasn't a tremendous backlash against the DOMA, which prohibited recognition of same sex marriage at the federal level.

As a result, it's difficult to quantify this as a straight "party issue." As an alternative, Cook Co (the county where Chicago is located in) adopted a domestic partner registry, which had support of both major parties.

Perhaps that's how dialogs are opened, instead of being concerned with labelling how one views the "opposition."

 

This unfortunately is too true and is thematically why the Democratic party will never regain anything politically, because they lack the sack to simply SAY that they are the " pro-gay marriage party " ( or the anti-war party, or the civil rights party, or the ecologically friendly party, etc., etc.). Honestly I think the way the Dems tolerate and yet still marginilize homosexuals is far more of a detriment socially to them ( and I would think is personally far more insulting ) then the anti stance that Republicans take, which at the very least is honest.

 

I don't know if that is the answer either. I'm not so sure it is a good thing to have single party issues, if it means that each side refuses to listen to each other.

Would there be another alternative?

 

Well, then your talking about a viable, centrist, third party which Im totally with but just dont ever see happening.

 

I'm going to state before commenting that this is an issue that has a bit more significance with me than it would most people so I'm willing to admit to a bit more bias over the issue.

Basically the decision was made in the lead up to the last federal election after there was some rumblings of it becoming an issue when the ACT Government started to explore the option of allowing gay marriages. Given the general policy line that the Liberals (or more specifically the ones at the top of the party currently) have in regards to families in Australia, their opinion wasn't much of a surprise, and they moved to have what they thought brought in and tamping down an issue that could become headed and controversial where they already had a favourable upper-hand in the way in which the campaigning would take.
For Labor, they were already fighting on so many varied fronts that it was unlikely to give them anything but problems in areas where they were already fighting uphill battles against a strong Liberal campaign spread and the easiest way to bury the issue was agree with it so it got lost in the conflict over everything else.

There has really never been any major public discussion on the issue anywhere, even here in the ACT where it is still a recurring issue with the Stanhope government trying to introduce legislation in favour of same sex unions/couples.

 

I have a question that relates to this thread but not the immediate discussion.

If a person can think him/herself straight but is really gay, is not also possible for a person to think him/herself gay but is actually straight?


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Mr44
One of the problems I have with an above post is that I don't particularly give a **** what society defines as marriage, only what the law defines as marriage. You are attempting to make the change seem larger than it really is, using hyperbole to scare people into opposing gay marriage. After all, having someone's society change is a scary thing. Let society think whatever it wants, so long as the law reflects equality.

sevarian
As a conservative (not a Republican), I am pro-gay marriage.

Enough sack for you?

The reason I am pro-gay marriage is because I am a conservative. The Supreme Court has stated in Loving v. Virginia that:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

And in the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that "seperate but equal" is unconstitutional.

This means that:
1) Denying homosexuals the right to marry is a violation of "basic civil rights."
2) Forcing them to setle for the "seperate but equal" Civil Union is unconstitutional.

Therefore:
3) The only viable solutions are to either,
a) Grant marriage rights to homosexuals
or b) Abolish the governmental institution of marriage.

Upholding established law is conservatism at it's best folks.

Personally, I'm of the "Get government out of marriage altogether, and offer everyone, hetero- or homosexual, Civil Unions" camp. This also ends governmental interference in a religious institution.


And don't get me started on DOMA. Most liberal overreach of Congress ever.




Whoopi Goldberg, For The Win!


EDIT:
Moriarte
Most definately. I've seen the type is a relatively "tame" John Waters film.

 

Marriage licensure - just as other forms of licensure exist - by the government is a priviledge, not a right. When the priviledge is granted, the government cannot bar individual men and individual women from participating in the priviledge when they meet the sanctioned crtieria (the issue of race concerning marriage is applicable here, but the issue of homosexuals marrying is not).

It isn't a conservative position to abolish marriage either, as the conservative ideal corresponds with the preservation of the institution of marriage not the deconstruction of it to fit any particular relationship variance. So, the argument that it is a conservative position is nonsense.

I have with an above post is that I don't particularly give a **** what society defines as marriage, only what the law defines as marriage.

You're missing the glaringly obvious point that society determines priviledges and protections - such as marriage - in the law. It isn't the law that defines it by its own merit; society defines it in the law by the will of the people as it is a priviledge conveyed by society. It is discriminatory to not allow blind people driver's licensure, but society makes it so in the law to convey the priviledge to only those that it is applicable to.

Such a position is the justification so many progressives use to legislate law by judicial fiat where they simply can't get their beliefs conveyed by society..

 

DM, he's saying that there was a Supreme Court ruling that stated marriage is a right.

 

Well, JFF, I hope you are being serious because I was.

I think that that is true, that a gay person can think themselves homosexual but is actually straight. However, I do not think that most people within the homosexual community (for lack of a better designation) would entertain this logically consistent idea since they would likely think that admiting to this would harm their argument(s).

Is homosexuality a choice or not? I believe that that fundamental question needs to be established before any true conversations can be taken in regards to what to do about it.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

If a person can think him/herself straight but is really gay, is not also possible for a person to think him/herself gay but is actually straight

I believe you're missing the point of why that gay person, who thinks they are straight, believes so. Being straight doesn't carry the negative stigma that being gay does. There is good reason for a person to "deny" being gay. What reason is there to deny being straight?

 

What reason is there to deny being straight?

'Cause being gay is sooooo hip! Noone wants to be a square.

 

You're missing the glaringly obvious point that society determines priviledges and protections - such as marriage - in the law. It isn't the law that defines it by its own merit; society defines it in the law by the will of the people as it is a priviledge conveyed by society. It is discriminatory to not allow blind people driver's licensure, but society makes it so in the law to convey the priviledge to only those that it is applicable to.

You're missing the glaringly obvious point that there's a good reason why blind people can't drive. (I think it's pretty obvious) Of course we can't let them drive, I don't think the Constitution needs to specifically say that. However, there is no good reason to deny gays the right to marry except for one'e personal bigotry or prejeduce.

Sure, society has the power determine what is recognized in the law such as who should be allowed to marry, but that doesn't mean that should or it's right for them to. It's really none of society's business who gets married and who doesn't, and they really shouldn't be forcing their own beliefs about marriage on others.

 

Of course we can't let them drive, I don't think the Constitution needs to specifically say that. However, there is no good reason to deny gays the right to marry except for one'e personal bigotry or prejeduce.

The same applies concerning licensure of marriage for persons qualified to marry.

It has nothing to do with bigotry or predjudice but societal stability, and your insinuation to berate the opposition as a bunch of predjudiced bigots is part of the modus operandi of your ideology that labels others in order to villify them.

Again and again it has been stated that marriage warrants special recognition and protection due to its overall importance to the stability and survivablity of the society. No other relationship warrants equivocation with marriage, because the underlying reasons for the union are not present in alternative lifestyles. There are many 'good reasons' not to redefine marriage to suit alternative lifestyles.

Again, society doesn't recognize 'love relationships' because of interpersonal feelings. There are greater societal implications.

So, your side will try to circumvent the law and find favorable judges to make it up out of their own personal opinion and legislate it from the bench because it will never pass en masse via the proper legislative means as are other granted priviledges.

 

It has nothing to do with bigotry or predjudice but societal stability, and your insinuation to berate the opposition as a bunch of predjudiced bigots is part of the modus operandi of your ideology that labels others in order to villify them.

Again and again it has been stated that marriage warrants special recognition and protection due to its overall importance to the stability and survivablity of the society. No other relationship warrants equivocation with marriage, because the underlying reasons for the union are not present in alternative lifestyles. There are many 'good reasons' not to redefine marriage to suit alternative lifestyles.

Um, no, marriage does not create "the stability and survivablity of the society." The people in those marriages do that. People do not have kids because marriage is available, they have kids because they want to. Marriage does not encourage anybody to have kids or help out society, it merely helps them.

Additionally, if you think marriage helps out society so much, SSM won't change that. All the straight people getting married will still have their marriage and will still be "helping out society." Gay marriage simply gives rights to those who don't have them, but it in no way, effects the current marriages or harms any aspect of society.

I realize that SSM doesn't fit your personal definition of marriage, but let's say we were to change it, in what way specifically, would SSM harm society or the current heterosexual marraiges we have? Your current answer is "because it doesn't benefit society" yet that doesn't say how it negatively affects society or the current marriages that are allowed.

 

Um, no, marriage does not create "the stability and survivablity of the society."

You're simply mistaken here.

Marriage is a societal stabilizer.

I'll ask you to provide the statistics of individuals who grow up in broken, fatherless homes versus those that grow up in proper, good marriages with their own loving parents.

Why do couples who cohabitate before marriage have a larger rate of divorce, therefore increasing instability?

if you think marriage helps out society so much, SSM won't change that.

Wrong.

It relativizes marriage to interpersonal feelings versus the inherent importance of what marriage truly represents to society.

Cohabitation, no fault divorce, and other variances have already undermined socital stability, and the pro-SSM advocates are captializing on this reality to further their agenda of redefining it due to the state of the institution in the society (by the utilization of references to bad behaviorisms by irresponsible people).

Gay marriage simply gives rights to those who don't have them,

There you go again with that 'rights' nonsense.

There is no inherent right for any homosexual to demand the government (therefore the people) recognize their union and grant them licensure.

You're asking for society to extend an entitlement to a priviledge and to redefine marriage from what it is to suit individuals with sexual variances based upon emotional feelings without having any inherent overall importance to society.

It's like saying that a blind person has the right to drive because they are human or they were born that way.

I realize that SSM doesn't fit your personal definition of marriage

Earth to SHREDDER.



NEWS FLASH

It's the law, not my personal definition.

You simply think it's an inherent denied right that already exists, but that is not so.

Your current answer is "because it doesn't benefit society" yet that doesn't say how it negatively affects society or the current marriages that are allowed.

Myself and others have stated time and time and time again what the relativization of marriage has done and will continue to do to adversely affect society.

 

"just as devil's advocate" How does it benefit society? The benefit of hetero is natural continuation of the species (per Darwin's Theory).