The republican party is very accepting of gays as long as you are a staff.

Anonymous wrote:First of all, Greece was not a tiny country. This is what we are talking about: http://www.gods-word-first.org/Images/greek-empire-map.gif

Second, homosexuality was openly permitted in ancient rome. That's pretty much all of western civilization at the time: http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/images_n2/roman_emp.gif

For a more global perspective:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

For a perspective in the animal kingdom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

So basically homosexuality is everywhere.

Rome does not equal Roman Empire; same with Greeks.

Those conquered territories maintained their own religions and customs. I don't know what their position was on homosexuality, but it's incorrect to assume that it was widely accepted throughout the empires just because it was accepted in Rome and Athens.

Anonymous wrote:19:33 here. Not blowing off this conversation, it's actually been very respectful and thought-provoking for me. Very busy last night and today, but I AM thinking about the arguments that the one or more of you have been putting forth and will get back to this thread.

p.s. I'm not 10:30 and 10:33, i.e. the poster using children as basis for marriage, so note that there are two separate discussions happening here.

Thanks and enjoy your weekend. I truly do want to continue this. (p.s. ANYONE come up with older civilizations!?)

Yes, twice. Please re-read the thread.

19:33 here. Not blowing off this conversation, it's actually been very respectful and thought-provoking for me. Very busy last night and today, but I AM thinking about the arguments that the one or more of you have been putting forth and will get back to this thread.

p.s. I'm not 10:30 and 10:33, i.e. the poster using children as basis for marriage, so note that there are two separate discussions happening here.

Thanks and enjoy your weekend. I truly do want to continue this. (p.s. ANYONE come up with older civilizations!?)

I'm 19:33 and also posted immediately before you and you couldn't be more wrong. At least in my case and line of reasoning. Sorry, but you are incorrect in presuming what's going on in my head on this one.

8:27 here and I don't think I'm wrong. It is actually very common for people to hold beliefs or perceptions that they do not feel comfortable fully admitting. You were most likely raised with a belief system that people should not be gay and that this is wrong. Its likely that your parents and community around you when you were young were much more open and outspoken about this belief. Now you are in hard situation. You know that its important to teach your own kids about diversity, tolerance, freedom of choice, and equality for all people BUT you still carry those initial beliefs that homosexuals are wrong and shouldn't be that way. You temper them because the societal norms that you are under now characterize this as intolerance. You do not want to be seen as intolerant but that is what is going on. You will not be as outspoken about your beliefs as the generation that raised you but you will have a natural reaction to oppose anything that furthers legitimacy for this group.

Your children and there children will probably not carry these beliefs as they are not hearing the same level of outspoken intolerance as you did. As they grow up playing with kids who are from same sex parents, have friends in school who are gay and not tormented for it, and attend same sex marriages of friends and family, they will not see differences between hetero or homo couples. They will not have the nagging feeling that something is wrong here and grasp for rationalizations for these feelings. They will simply see their friends and family.

NP here. I personally think that marriage should be between a man and a woman forming a bond before God.

All those wishing to marry outside of religious reasons (whether gay or straight) should be allowed civil unions. Both marriage and civil unions should be given the same rights under the law.

Anonymous wrote:
The worst that could happen is that marriage becomes viewed simply as a union of companionship. If viewed this way, why would it be necessary to make a lifelong commitment; why not just promise to work for the best, but if things go stale, oh well?
If marriage becomes viewed this way, it loses it's meaning therefore eventually becoming obsolete. Yes, this has been going on for a while now, but legalizing same sex marriage, seems as if it's putting a final nail in the coffin.

I truly don't get this. Uh, gays and lesbians want to get married, to make the same kind of commitment to one another that heteros make and that somehow is going to weaken hetero marriage? Nope, I can't see how two consenting, loving adults dedicated to building a life and a family together are going to send the message to hetero folks that somehow it's okay to get divorced. That's truly bizarre.

Do you think we're rats in a maze who can be trained to do anything with a few tasty pellets? As a straight, married person, I'm insulted by your attitude.

10:53 again -- put another way, if your concern is that marriage is becoming simply a union of companionship, then blocking gay marriages (a) does nothing to stop this and (b) misses an enormous opportunity to reverse this trend. Gay marriage is no more relevant to your concern than straight marriages that don't produce children or that produce children through adoption, surrogacy, IVF, etc. And in fact, there are a lot more of those kinds of straight marriages than there are potential gay marriages. So why isn't anyone taking steps to deal with that subset of straight marriages? Why isn't there this concerted effort to make it harder to get a divorce? Where are those constitutional amendments? The fact that they don't exist makes me think that this argument is kind of disingenuous. Again, I'm not saying you're lying, 19:33 (and other PPs). But I'm saying your argument isn't logical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 19:33 and also posted immediately before you and you couldn't be more wrong. At least in my case and line of reasoning. Sorry, but you are incorrect in presuming what's going on in my head on this one.

That's what we're trying to get you to tell us. What IS going on in your head? I understand you feel allowing gays to marry is a sea change in the definition of marriage. But as this thread has pretty convincingly demonstrated, the definition of marriage has changed dramatically over time and the current approach is relatively new.

You worry that there will be some unforseeable consequence of legalizing gay marriage. Why? What is the worst that could happen?

The worst that could happen is that marriage becomes viewed simply as a union of companionship. If viewed this way, why would it be necessary to make a lifelong commitment; why not just promise to work for the best, but if things go stale, oh well?
If marriage becomes viewed this way, it loses it's meaning therefore eventually becoming obsolete. Yes, this has been going on for a while now, but legalizing same sex marriage, seems as if it's putting a final nail in the coffin.

I just don't get what you mean by this. First of all, I think marriage (at least in the US) is already viewed as a union of companionship, and to be clear, I don't think this is a bad thing, but that's subjective. Look at the number of children born out of wedlock. Look at the number of unmarried couples living together with their children. Look how many non-reproductive marriages we have. Look at our divorce rate. Look at the standard you have to meet to get a divorce. Look at the rights and roles of the participants in the marriage. We're not "heading in that direction." We're there. Gay marriage isn't going to change that.

Your concern is not incompatible with gay marriage. You can encourage gay marriages to focus more on the children and the family unit than the relationship between the adults, just as you can with straight marriages. Actually, if you're interested in reversing that trend (and I'd argue that, if you are, your time is better spent making it harder to get a divorce, or implementing policies that make it easier for two-income married couples to have kids (like subsidized child care) for example), gay marriage is IN YOUR INTEREST. Gay couples already have a union of companionship. They want to get married so they can have kids. Their interests are your interests.

So, let's treat these things as the separate issues they are. Let's give gays the right to marry and then, if you want to, you can start putting in place real measures that shift the focus of the marriage onto the children, for gay and straight marriages.

Anonymous wrote:To put more bluntly - marriage as an institution is too important to f*** around with.

Every time two people marry, the "institution" changes. The institution is meaningless aside from what it means to each couple. Denying it to a couple who love each other and want to be together merely restricts, rather than strengthens, marriage.

To put more bluntly - marriage as an institution is too important to f*** around with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 19:33 and also posted immediately before you and you couldn't be more wrong. At least in my case and line of reasoning. Sorry, but you are incorrect in presuming what's going on in my head on this one.

That's what we're trying to get you to tell us. What IS going on in your head? I understand you feel allowing gays to marry is a sea change in the definition of marriage. But as this thread has pretty convincingly demonstrated, the definition of marriage has changed dramatically over time and the current approach is relatively new.

You worry that there will be some unforseeable consequence of legalizing gay marriage. Why? What is the worst that could happen?

The worst that could happen is that marriage becomes viewed simply as a union of companionship. If viewed this way, why would it be necessary to make a lifelong commitment; why not just promise to work for the best, but if things go stale, oh well?
If marriage becomes viewed this way, it loses it's meaning therefore eventually becoming obsolete. Yes, this has been going on for a while now, but legalizing same sex marriage, seems as if it's putting a final nail in the coffin.

Anonymous wrote:I'm 19:33 and also posted immediately before you and you couldn't be more wrong. At least in my case and line of reasoning. Sorry, but you are incorrect in presuming what's going on in my head on this one.

That's what we're trying to get you to tell us. What IS going on in your head? I understand you feel allowing gays to marry is a sea change in the definition of marriage. But as this thread has pretty convincingly demonstrated, the definition of marriage has changed dramatically over time and the current approach is relatively new.

You worry that there will be some unforseeable consequence of legalizing gay marriage. Why? What is the worst that could happen?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:33 You seem like a reasonable person, so can you explain what it is you fear will happen if the definition of marriage changes (for the umpteenth time, as you've noted) to include same sex couples like those in your life whom you claim to respect?

I think there have been two of us who are against gay marriage posting in the last 12 or so hours, but I wanted to respond to those like the above who were questioning my line of questioning.

In answer to your question, I'll admit that I'm not quite sure. It's not an "ooky" feeling, as someone termed it a page or two ago, it's more of a philisophical concern with regard to what are missing in making this fundamental shift in the construct of marriage. Is there a long-term impact on society that we can't fathom right now because you can't un-ring the bell on this. It's an easy answer to just say well, we're finally more open minded after millenia and millenia, but I don't know that it's that easy.

I know this probably isn't a satisfactory answer for many who are going to jump all over me, but it's my honest answer driven by the fact that I AM thinking about this and I do think it's appropriate to look at it the way I am since I do think it's probably one of the very few unifying threads across all civilizations that the family unit has man and woman at its base regardless of how that marriage came about, regardless of whether it had children, regardless of other constructs of numbers of women, race or religion.

I understand that you're struggling with this (I'm 19:48, by the way). And you seem to have two lines of reasoning: (1) marriage has always been about the set-up that provides for the creation of children and (2) throughout the evolution of marriage, there has been the constant of at least one man and at least one woman -- a mix of genders. For #1, if you are concerned about gay marriage moving the concept of marriage away from the creation of children, I think that ship has sailed. Regardless of whether or not we allow legal gay marriage, modern marriages simply no longer hinge on the creation of children. Old people get married, infertile people get married, fertile people get married and choose not to have kids. Marriage is currently primarily about the relationship between the two adults involved. Gay marriage wouldn't change that. Additionally, if you want marriage to focus more on child rearing, you should absolutely support gay marriage. Gays are having children, whether or not they can get married (and of course, they're doing so through methods that we feel are completely valid when straight couples use them -- adoption, surrogacy, IVF, etc.). So if marriage is for the benefit of the children, then let's give the children of gay couples the same benefit.

For #2, all I can say is that there have been many "constants" within the concept of marriage that we have discarded because they are fundamentally unfair: the concept of women as property, racial restrictions, marriage without consent, etc. All of these were, at one time, unifying threads. But when these threads contribute nothing unique to the concept of marriage and have the effect of being fundamentally unfair, we stop requiring them. Note that I said "stop requiring" them, not "eliminate." Opposite-sex marriage will still be a major force in our definition of "marriage" even if same-sex marriage is legalized. Remember, no one is arguing for MANDATORY gay marriage. But it seems like you're arguing that there will be a slippery slope - that if we eliminate the restriction that marriage must be between two people of the opposite gender, then marriage will have no definition and will become meaningless (the "I could marry my tree" argument). Gay marriage has been legal for a while now in multiple countries. Do you have any evidence that marriage will fall apart?

I'd really like to hear your views on my previous post: In a society that holds personal freedom as one of its bedrock principles, since you want to deny marriage to a group of people, I believe the burden is on you to justify the denial, not on me to justify the expansion. I've given you some of my reasons. I'd like to hear yours. Do you have anything beyond "but it's always been this way"?

I'm 19:33 and also posted immediately before you and you couldn't be more wrong. At least in my case and line of reasoning. Sorry, but you are incorrect in presuming what's going on in my head on this one.