The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[wenglund]

If only "to each their own" were the mantra in how to approach civil marriage equality--if you don't like the same sex, get married to someone of the opposite gender; if you don't like someone of the opposite gender, marry someone of the same gender. Sorta like--if you believe in Mormonism, join the LDS Church; if you believe in Catholicism, join the Catholic Church. It's really that simple.

Daniel2

Your suggestion works on a personal level, but fails miserably at the collective level where we each get an equal vote as to where we want to go as a society and what we want our government to sanction. Sorry,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TAO]

If only "to each their own" were the mantra in how to approach civil marriage equality--if you don't like the same sex, get married to someone of the opposite gender; if you don't like someone of the opposite gender, marry someone of the same gender. Sorta like--if you believe in Mormonism, join the LDS Church; if you believe in Catholicism, join the Catholic Church. It's really that simple.

Daniel2

Except that it effects the fabrics of the society we live in. That is the problem, really =/.

Actually... it is the basis of sociology. How do actions of every single person effect every single other person. And the fact, is... none of us are immune to this. Even me with my Asperger's... I am still tied to society... not as much as others... but still tied, to a degree... by talking with people I know.

Considering that the law (currently) considers the fabric of sociology as a valid reason for objecting to something... Wade does have a point =P. If we don't stop this, it could effect how the law effects the church, and us, as individuals. Which gives us reason to care.

Edited September 27, 2011 by TAO

[wenglund]

Wade,

Thank you for your responses. There is nothing I can do to relate how personal one's own sexual orientation is and how the individual copes or what the reality is for that individual. Our lives are a case to case type situation. Generalizations can be made but they do not speak for personal thought, feeling, or experience.

I simply agree to disagree with you.

What you say is true about many human traits--they vary from one person to another.

Even still, many of us find value in generalizations. Indeed, many of the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, economics, politics, etc.) are comprised of just such generalizations.

Besides, given that various homosexual issues have moved from personal to public; and given that public policy and governmental legislation are not equipped to handle things on a case-by-case basis, nor does it appear that homosexual advocacy groups are pushing for anything of the sort; then whether you or I like it or not, it looks like in terms of societal initiatives, homosexuality is reasonably consider on a collective basis. The same, in a way,, holds true for Church doctrine and procedures. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[AddamS]

I don't see the LDS church, among many others, as ever accepting openly (and actively) gay people into the temples or recognizing SSM. It is, unlikely at the very least.

That being said LDS folks believe a lot of things that are unlikely without much hesitation. That isn't a dig, it's part of your faith. I respect your ability to have faith and am admittedly, in some ways, jealous of it.

I'm sure there have been many things that have changed over the course of the last hundred years or so that the pioneer era Saints would say would never happen.

Isn't that the benefit of having a a living church? If you believe God can communicate his decrees directly through the Prophet/President, who here is to say whatever is passed along is incorrect?

For what it's worth, I think the LDS church's stance on members with SSM is actually pretty liberal (I would say "compassionate") already when compared to biblical passages related to the subject.

None among us can know what tomorrow holds.

[california boy]

Except that it effects the fabrics of the society we live in. That is the problem, really =/.

Actually... it is the basis of sociology. How do actions of every single person effect every single other person. And the fact, is... none of us are immune to this. Even me with my Asperger's... I am still tied to society... not as much as others... but still tied, to a degree... by talking with people I know.

Considering that the law (currently) considers the fabric of sociology as a valid reason for objecting to something... Wade does have a point =P. If we don't stop this, it could effect how the law effects the church, and us, as individuals. Which gives us reason to care.

Since Wade is unwilling or unable to answer my question, perhaps you can take a stab at it given your views on us all connected together. If we stop gays from marrying then___________________________ will happen as a result.

[wenglund]

Since Wade is unwilling or unable to answer my question....

A point of clarification. My preferring not to undertake the arduous task of repeating what I have said umpteen times on this board, is a far cry (at least to the reasonably minded among us) from me being unwilling or unable to answer.

However, here is a brief answer: If we stop gays from marrying then on balance, no socially deleterious effects will happen as a result

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 28, 2011 by wenglund

[annewandering]

Lefthandedness? huh? Why does anyone think lefthanded is a good analogy to homosexual?

[KevinG]

Since Wade is unwilling or unable to answer my question, perhaps you can take a stab at it given your views on us all connected together. If we stop gays from marrying then___________________________ will happen as a result.

In fairness you should also consider "If we legislate that gay marriage must be recognized by the state and public institutions then _________________ will happen as a result".

The promise is equal access to benefits and reduced social stigma. The unintended consequence could infringe on freedom of association and religious belief (it has already been an issue for the Boy Scouts).

There are plenty of slippery slope arguments having to do with breaking traditional gender and moral roles but I try to avoid those. Heterosexuals have done more damage to marriage than any other group could.

[KevinG]

Lefthandedness? huh? Why does anyone think lefthanded is a good analogy to homosexual?

Yeah. Left handed people are obviously of the devil. Any good nun with a hardwood ruler can correct the error of their ways.

[TAO]

Since Wade is unwilling or unable to answer my question, perhaps you can take a stab at it given your views on us all connected together. If we stop gays from marrying then___________________________ will happen as a result.

...our children will be raised in an environment and culture that is more likely to not promote same-sex attraction, which is a difficult trail to overcome.

You'll have to drop the 'will happen as a result' part, of course... because it doesn't fit in with the sentence... but it is implied to be the result. =/

I hope you can understand what I mean... the temptation... is more likely to be less =P.

[california boy]

In fairness you should also consider "If we legislate that gay marriage must be recognized by the state and public institutions then _________________ will happen as a result".

The promise is equal access to benefits and reduced social stigma. The unintended consequence could infringe on freedom of association and religious belief (it has already been an issue for the Boy Scouts).

There are plenty of slippery slope arguments having to do with breaking traditional gender and moral roles but I try to avoid those. Heterosexuals have done more damage to marriage than any other group could.

Is equal access to benefits and reducd social stigma a good thing or an evil thing? Do you think that better benefits and reduced social stigma will cause more people to be gay?

So if you can hold the line on gay marriage, then you feel that churches will continue to be safe but if gays are allowed to marry then, the constitutional protection of churchs will dissolve or at the bare minimum erode?

You do realize that the government ruled that the Boy Scouts can discriminate if they choose many years ago and have not shifted in that position?

[Cobalt-70]

Lefthandedness? huh? Why does anyone think lefthanded is a good analogy to homosexual?

It is a great analogy because it is a minority population variant, but not a disability. We don't understand what causes it, but it correlates with differences in brain structure. While you can force a left-handed person to write with their right hand, that does not change their left-handed brain into a right-handed brain.

[california boy]

...our children will be raised in an environment and culture that is more likely to not promote same-sex attraction, which is a difficult trail to overcome.

You'll have to drop the 'will happen as a result' part, of course... because it doesn't fit in with the sentence... but it is implied to be the result. =/

I hope you can understand what I mean... the temptation... is more likely to be less =P.

I am going to have to ask you this question as well. Do you feel that by giving gays the right to marry, more people will choose to be gay? Do you think that morality is helped by not allowing gays to marry? Are you saying the temptation to be gay is less?? Sorry to be asking these questions, I am just trying to understand what your fears are.

[TAO]

Is equal access to benefits and reducd social stigma a good thing or an evil thing? Do you think that better benefits and reduced social stigma will cause more people to be gay?

Yes. It will. For the same reason I wouldn't have tried to learn what society was 'really' like... if there had not been social stigma. The social stigma drove me to progress.

Of course, there is a debate between what is too much, and too little social stigma, but no, nobody should be protected from all social stigma... it gives us movement, progress... it is our trials. We just don't want so much that it is overwhelming.

So if you can hold the line on gay marriage, then you feel that churches will continue to be safe but if gays are allowed to marry then, the constitutional protection of churchs will dissolve or at the bare minimum erode?

Did you read the thread Nathair put in the news section? The defense team is trying to suggest that paid ministers can be sued for discrimination.

But as much as I am worried about the rights of churchs, I am more worried about the protection of my right to morally object right now. Moral objection, for me, seems to be the battle field to which we seem to be heading.

You do realize that the government ruled that the Boy Scouts can discriminate if they choose many years ago and have not shifted in that position?

Laws can change =P.

[KevinG]

Is equal access to benefits and reducd social stigma a good thing or an evil thing? Do you think that better benefits and reduced social stigma will cause more people to be gay?

In ways it would be positive to take stigma away. This would also mean no special rights or set asides, so be careful what you wish for. I have long advocated we take the financial benefit/penalty out of marriage and relegate it back to religions.

So if you can hold the line on gay marriage, then you feel that churches will continue to be safe but if gays are allowed to marry then, the constitutional protection of churchs will dissolve or at the bare minimum erode?

I fear the law being used to force churches or other private groups to include those whose behavior does not match their stated beliefs. It is not too far fetched a notion as I illustrated with the Scouts.

You do realize that the government ruled that the Boy Scouts can discriminate if they choose many years ago and have not shifted in that position?

The government has not insisted the Boy Scouts admit openly gay leaders. However the Scouts have faced discrimination (denied funding, barred from public parks and not allowed in some schools) for their stance.

[Cobalt-70]

...our children will be raised in an environment and culture that is more likely to not promote same-sex attraction, which is a difficult trail to overcome.

Gayness is not contagious. You can't get it from your teachers, or your friends, from TV, from your politicians, or even your parents. Studies, in fact, have shown that children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay than children of straight parents.

[TAO]

I am going to have to ask you this question as well. Do you feel that by giving gays the right to marry, more people will choose to be gay?

Indirectly, yes. Directly, no. The problem is, indirect things... unintended problems... they matter too =P.

Culture is the reason I oppose, actually. Because culture will be effected by that law... because it will encourage permissiveness. Thus, culture changes... and the laws will change even more (laws are somewhat based on the cultures they live in). Thus, by preventing this, or in the least case, putting up a resistance effort, hopefully culture won't change enough to bring upon the consequences which have been spoken about in other threads, which well... yeah... I don't want those consequences =P.

Do you think that morality is helped by not allowing gays to marry?

Yes, indirectly, through culture.

Are you saying the temptation to be gay is less??

I am saying this... consider a man two hundred years ago. He is not inside a culture which excepts being gay as 'natural', nor is he in a culture which 'thinks' about the topic much. This is... an important factor. A man is much likely to feel those inclinations if he never considers them. In part... we convince ourselves who we are. We repeat it to ourselves over and over in our heads, and we, ourselves, determine who we become. However, if a man never considers those in his head, he is free from the inclination in one direction, or the other.

Now, consider a man in a culture which the word 'gay' is there, but minor, and not a major factor in the culture. The word bounces around in his head a tiny bit... but not to the degree that it bothers him completely. He does not react... because it is distant to him. He does not consider himself as possibly being part of that group, because it is distant to him. And so, he, too, is not inclined to those inclinations, despite being exposed to them in a distant form. This is the preferable situation for me, really, for the current time being.

Now, consider a man in a culture where the word 'gay' is everywhere, where it is a major part of culture, where there is no difference equated between heterosexuality and homosexuality. A man there, is constantly bombarded by the thoughts. Am I gay? Or am I straight? They constantly bang around in his head, leaving him no peace. He has doubts, and these doubts overwhelm him with the constant noise from the two thought colliding with each other, fighting for domination. And slowly, he emerges... having decided himself... that one is right... and one is wrong.

In that sense, we all define ourselves. We all choose to fight, or to not fight what we 'are'. If we fight, and overcome, we become something else. If we fight, and lose, we become that thing. If we don't fight, we lose the capability to question, or at least, it is hidden in a harder to reach place in us.

So yes, the temptation will be less. Or in the least case, most people will be innocent of the inclination, having it always remain dormant, because they never considered it in their heads.

I hope you understand what I mean by temptation... not the 'people who do it are bad' way it is used much of the time... but as 'something that needs to be fled'. That is what I mean by temptation in this case. A desire... an inclination... that needs to be fled.

Sorry to be asking these questions, I am just trying to understand what your fears are.

I don't fear the intentions my friend, I fear the results. That is what I am looking at =). Sociology is an interesting study, which you might look into... it is the description of how every persons' actions, even the small ones, effect everyone else in ways you would not even imagine. Everything is defined by society. We cease to question some things, simply because society accepts it. In other words... society manipulates our pardigm, causing us to think differently of ourselves then we would had there been a different society, with different values in place.

Best of Wishes,

And no offense intended,

Hope things are going better for you,

-TAO

[TAO]

Gayness is not contagious. You can't get it from your teachers, or your friends, from TV, from your politicians, or even your parents. Studies, in fact, have shown that children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay than children of straight parents.

Did you take sociology? If not, I assure you, EVERYTHING is contagious, to a degree. Some people are more free-thinking then most, but everyone is vulnerable to at least one aspect of society... at least a tiny bit. =).

Through society, ideas spread, and some, are far more virulent than even the worst plagues XD. Not that it's a bad thing all the time. Take the ideas of Locke... virulently spreading, and yet, they are the basis for our government, in a sense. =)

Edited September 28, 2011 by TAO

[california boy]

'TAO' timestamp='1317170601' post='1209049887']

Indirectly, yes. Directly, no. The problem is, indirect things... unintended problems... they matter too =P.

Culture is the reason I oppose, actually. Because culture will be effected by that law... because it will encourage permissiveness. Thus, culture changes... and the laws will change even more (laws are somewhat based on the cultures they live in). Thus, by preventing this, or in the least case, putting up a resistance effort, hopefully culture won't change enough to bring upon the consequences which have been spoken about in other threads, which well... yeah... I don't want those consequences =P.

So you feel that by allowing gays to marry, there will be less permissiveness, but if you prevent them from marrying gays will be more moral? Or do you think that if gays are allowed to marry, straight people will be less moral? Just wondering how preventing marriage makes society less permissive. Maybe you have already answered that. I am just having a hard time following the logic. If not allowing people to marry makes them less permissive, shouldn't we be outlawing marriage for everyone??

Yes, indirectly, through culture.

I am saying this... consider a man two hundred years ago. He is not inside a culture which excepts being gay as 'natural', nor is he in a culture which 'thinks' about the topic much. This is... an important factor. A man is much likely to feel those inclinations if he never considers them. In part... we convince ourselves who we are. We repeat it to ourselves over and over in our heads, and we, ourselves, determine who we become. However, if a man never considers those in his head, he is free from the inclination in one direction, or the other.

Now, consider a man in a culture which the word 'gay' is there, but minor, and not a major factor in the culture. The word bounces around in his head a tiny bit... but not to the degree that it bothers him completely. He does not react... because it is distant to him. He does not consider himself as possibly being part of that group, because it is distant to him. And so, he, too, is not inclined to those inclinations, despite being exposed to them in a distant form. This is the preferable situation for me, really, for the current time being.

Now, consider a man in a culture where the word 'gay' is everywhere, where it is a major part of culture, where there is no difference equated between heterosexuality and homosexuality. A man there, is constantly bombarded by the thoughts. Am I gay? Or am I straight? They constantly bang around in his head, leaving him no peace. He has doubts, and these doubts overwhelm him with the constant noise from the two thought colliding with each other, fighting for domination. And slowly, he emerges... having decided himself... that one is right... and one is wrong.

In that sense, we all define ourselves. We all choose to fight, or to not fight what we 'are'. If we fight, and overcome, we become something else. If we fight, and lose, we become that thing. If we don't fight, we lose the capability to question, or at least, it is hidden in a harder to reach place in us.

So yes, the temptation will be less. Or in the least case, most people will be innocent of the inclination, having it always remain dormant, because they never considered it in their heads.

I hope you understand what I mean by temptation... not the 'people who do it are bad' way it is used much of the time... but as 'something that needs to be fled'. That is what I mean by temptation in this case. A desire... an inclination... that needs to be fled.

I understand the scenario you are presenting. But this is not 1950. Gay people are not going to slink away somewhere. However I would like you to consider this.

I grew up during the civil rights era. Almost every night on television there were stories and discussions on Black Power. It was everywhere, even in the Olympic games. Violence against blacks escalated, and violence against whites escalated. After much resistance from large sections of this country, the civil right laws were passed. The media circus was much like it is today over gay rights. There were still a few rough years there, but eventually things died down. When was the last time you heard about Black Power?

A while ago I was playing legos with my grandchildren. (they have no idea I am gay and I feel it is not appropriate to tell them) Their ages are 5 and 8. We were building a city out of legos and my granddaughter, the 8 year old informs us that the house we just built is where the gay couple lives. SHE IS 8 YEARS OLD. She knows about gay rights. She knows there are gay people that have to live somewhere. I can tell you for certain that she did not get this concept from her parents or from me. She got it from the media and nightly broadcasts of gay rights struggles. (insert here: please do not bring up black civil rights is the same as gay civil rights. Let's just let that battle lie) My point is, when gays get the right to marry, don't you think that the same calming down of the nightly media blitz will happen? It will be yesterdays news just like black power is yesterday's news.

So the question I raise, is by preventing gays from marrying, aren't you indirectly making gay issues a much more public issue that permeates our daily lives? Maybe the most effective way to diminish the cultural impact of the gay movement in our lives is to allow them the right to marry. Maybe the religious right is constantly stirring the pot and creating more awareness of the gay population then if they were given their civil rights? Just a thought.

I don't fear the intentions my friend, I fear the results. That is what I am looking at =). Sociology is an interesting study, which you might look into... it is the description of how every persons' actions, even the small ones, effect everyone else in ways you would not even imagine. Everything is defined by society. We cease to question some things, simply because society accepts it. In other words... society manipulates our paradigm, causing us to think differently of ourselves then we would had there been a different society, with different values in place.

Best of Wishes,

And no offense intended,

Hope things are going better for you,

-TAO

Thanks for your well wishes. I wish you the same good fortune.

[TAO]

So you feel that by allowing gays to marry, there will be less permissiveness, but if you prevent them from marrying gays will be more moral? Or do you think that if gays are allowed to marry, straight people will be less moral? Just wondering how preventing marriage makes society less permissive. Maybe you have already answered that. I am just having a hard time following the logic. If not allowing people to marry makes them less permissive, shouldn't we be outlawing marriage for everyone??

No, I think that indirectly, allowing gays to marry will cause society to be more... sexually deviant, so to say. I don't know if it will or will not through law (it depends on how things go), but through culture, certainly. Culture is a big giant mess... but you already know that I am guessing XD.

And yes, you are on the right track... I don't think gay people will be less moral... I think all people will be inclined to act less morally... no matter who they are attracted too. Again, there are other factors that are contributing (thinking of ads on TV, people joking about procreative related things, etc), but this will just add to what is already happening.

As to why it is working this way... it is because of how much value society places on the word 'mairrage'. Think about how tattoos looked a long long time ago. Only people considered very bad had them. Think of how they are now. Today, they are commonplace, and hold a different meaning. But today's society is also more permissive of those things... thus... how they seeped in, despite in an altered state, into mainstream thought. So it will be with this... it will take a while to 'seep in' (or it might not depending on what court cases mandate about education), but this will grow to be as much a part of society as tatoos are these days.

The problem is, I don't want it to be part of society. And I certainly don't want it to be in education.

Now you are probably wondering, how does this differ from sticking it in civil unions? It does because society doesn't put as much weight on civil unions, that's why it would ve iffy either way to legalize civil unions, but not good (in my point of view) to legalize gay mairrage.

I understand the scenario you are presenting. But this is not 1950. Gay people are not going to slink away somewhere.

This is precisely why what I am saying makes sense... because they aren't going to slink anywhere. It has to do with what people think of themselves... we need a 'paradigm shift'.

However I would like you to consider this.

I grew up during the civil rights era. Almost every night on television there were stories and discussions on Black Power. It was everywhere, even in the Olympic games. Violence against blacks escalated, and violence against whites escalated. After much resistance from large sections of this country, the civil right laws were passed. The media circus was much like it is today over gay rights. There were still a few rough years there, but eventually things died down. When was the last time you heard about Black Power?

I hear it quite a bit, actually, it's the subject of many jokes, and not so jokes.

Down here in Cali, races mix more... which results in more jokes... because we are chill on the issue... but also some not so jokes... that could be deemed rather offensive. But maybe that's just because those are middle and high schoolers.

But let me ask you this... there are a few white supremacists out there... but how many people actually consider their position? Very few. Society has not 'gotten rid' of a social problem, it has just shifted where the social problem is. That is, as we would call it, 'no progress'. And why is it, that so few are actually willing to look at their 'paradigm'? Because of... education and culture. When you stick it in both of those... you get blindsided people, like I talked about in the first one. People who do not see both sides. I hope for people who dimly see both sides.

A while ago I was playing legos with my grandchildren. (they have no idea I am gay and I feel it is not appropriate to tell them) Their ages are 5 and 8. We were building a city out of legos and my granddaughter, the 8 year old informs us that the house we just built is where the gay couple lives. SHE IS 8 YEARS OLD. She knows about gay rights. She knows there are gay people that have to live somewhere. I can tell you for certain that she did not get this concept from her parents or from me. She got it from the media and nightly broadcasts of gay rights struggles. (insert here: please do not bring up black civil rights is the same as gay civil rights. Let's just let that battle lie) My point is, when gays get the right to marry, don't you think that the same calming down of the nightly media blitz will happen? It will be yesterdays news just like black power is yesterday's news.

It isn't as far away as you think it is californiaboy.

If I even suggested to someone that the discrimination laws would be changed, I guarantee you the issue would come up. It is something that is thought about, but not said. It is implicit. Society has many of these 'thought but not spoken' things. One of these is... the idea of individuality. We all think we are individual, but the unspoken reality is, we are people who are just as effected by the whims of the tide, as most people are. Some are more effected, some less, but everyone is dragged... except for that guy who is living in the mountains isolated for 30 years with no human contact.

In other words, the civil rights movement is still a touchy issue. It is an unspoken social law not to change it, only to add to it. You say, this will pass... but it won't. It'll become unspoken social law, just as the civil rights movement has.

So the question I raise, is by preventing gays from marrying, aren't you indirectly making gay issues a much more public issue that permeates our daily lives? Maybe the most effective way to diminish the cultural impact of the gay movement in our lives is to allow them the right to marry. Maybe the religious right is constantly stirring the pot and creating more awareness of the gay population then if they were given their civil rights? Just a thought.

I do not care if it is a public issue; I care if it is in predominant culture-thought. It is in predominant culture-thought to a degree, already, in fact. I realize that the issue won't go away, but in the least case, I am more likely to keep it out of the second paradigm point, education. And in addition, in the least case, at least it will remain questionable. Society does not encourage questions of it's norms. Questionable to me, is far better than no questions at all. Ideally, it would be somewhere in the middle, but that, is unlikely to happen.

And nah... the religious right is not pushing this all too much... actually, activists on your side are, both in government, and in culture. I would say though, that extremists on our side also do have an effect... for example... Westboro Baptist Church.

Thanks for your well wishes. I wish you the same good fortune.

Thank You.

Best Wishes,

-TAO

[california boy]

Thanks for your answer. Some interesting things to think about. If I am reading your thoughts correctly, what I understand you to say is you are primarily against gay marriage because you feel if we allow gay marriage, then society will become more sexually deviant. But you also acknowledget that gay marriage will not make homosexuals more sexually deviant. Do I have that right? Are there other effects on society if gay marriage is passed? Set me straight if I have not understood your position fully.

[TAO]

Thanks for your answer. Some interesting things to think about. If I am reading your thoughts correctly, what I understand you to say is you are primarily against gay marriage because you feel if we allow gay marriage, then society will become more sexually deviant. But you also acknowledget that gay marriage will not make homosexuals more sexually deviant. Do I have that right? Are there other effects on society if gay marriage is passed? Set me straight if I have not understood your position fully.

Yeah, you have it pretty much right. I don't think it will make people who struggle with the inclinations any more deviant than the rest of society. But I think the rest of society... may become, on average, more deviant than usual... and probably, people with those inclinations at more or less the same percentage rate as the rest of society, if you could do a percentage rate on it... which I am not sure you can. In other words, people as a whole, will be people.

The other parts of my position relate to legal matters because laws require states to have discrimination training relating to 'special classes', and losing my capability to use public moral objection... but that really isn't part of this thread.

As for my responses... I am not really arguing that your response is wrong, I am justifying my response =). In other words... you could apply the same logic to the other side of the equation, with your position and it would be valid according to the same logic. But the reason I am responding this way is so people realize that all the battle really is is a society war. It is people arguing over how society should be in the future; what values it should hold. That is the key issue, really. We can argue all day about rights, but when it gets down to it, people do not care much about what the government ratifies or does not, unless they have the capability to enforce it. They do care about society though, because it effects them everyday. And so, just as you are justified in arguing your position for the future, so am I justified in arguing my position from the future, and from each of our paradigms, the logic makes sense. From your POV, this will help reduce mean comments, and bullying. From my POV, this will cause deviant behavior, and restrict my right to morally object. They are both justified, and both correct. The difficulty is finding a resolution. Unfortunately, we all disagree about what that resolution should be.

Edited September 28, 2011 by TAO

[california boy]

Yeah, you have it pretty much right. I don't think it will make people who struggle with the inclinations any more deviant than the rest of society. But I think the rest of society... may become, on average, more deviant than usual... and probably, people with those inclinations at more or less the same percentage rate as the rest of society, if you could do a percentage rate on it... which I am not sure you can. In other words, people as a whole, will be people.

The other parts of my position relate to legal matters because laws require states to have discrimination training relating to 'special classes', and losing my capability to use public moral objection... but that really isn't part of this thread.

As for my responses... I am not really arguing that your response is wrong, I am justifying my response =). In other words... you could apply the same logic to the other side of the equation, with your position and it would be valid according to the same logic. But the reason I am responding this way is so people realize that all the battle really is is a society war. It is people arguing over how society should be in the future; what values it should hold. That is the key issue, really. We can argue all day about rights, but when it gets down to it, people do not care much about what the government ratifies or does not, unless they have the capability to enforce it. They do care about society though, because it effects them everyday. And so, just as you are justified in arguing your position for the future, so am I justified in arguing my position from the future, and from each of our paradigms, the logic makes sense. From your POV, this will help reduce mean comments, and bullying. From my POV, this will cause deviant behavior, and restrict my right to morally object. They are both justified, and both correct. The difficulty is finding a resolution. Unfortunately, we all disagree about what that resolution should be.

That was very kind of you to acknowledge my point of view. While I don't really agree that gay marriage will make straight people more deviant, I also am willing to acknowledge that I do not have a crystal ball as well. I appreciate the points you make. Quite frankly I try not to press my point of view on this site, I am more interested in what others have to say. However if there is total lack of critical though, I tend to get a bit worked up.

I just have one question related to your point of view. Do you think it is valid to punish a group (not allowing gays the right to marry) who as you have pointed out would not change their morality and in fact might improve their morality in order to keep another group (straight people) from becoming more deviant? Aren't you focusing on the wrong group??

[TAO]

That was very kind of you to acknowledge my point of view. While I don't really agree that gay marriage will make straight people more deviant, I also am willing to acknowledge that I do not have a crystal ball as well. I appreciate the points you make. Quite frankly I try not to press my point of view on this site, I am more interested in what others have to say. However if there is total lack of critical though, I tend to get a bit worked up.

I just have one question related to your point of view. Do you think it is valid to punish a group (not allowing gays the right to marry) who as you have pointed out would not change their morality and in fact might improve their morality in order to keep another group (straight people) from becoming more deviant? Aren't you focusing on the wrong group??

Not a problem, I don't enjoy one-sidedness much either. It gets on my nerves, except related to the gospel, which, I guess, you could say it's because the gospel only has one side XD.

But in any case, I don't really view restricting mairrage as punishment. For one, those with the inclination have civil unions; it is one of the reasons I have left it open, so that the social construct of 'rights' may be fulfilled. In addition... I think that too much value is placed in government recognition. The government is just a system that's supposed to do 'things' we designate it to, and so I think that government recognition isn't really all that important.

I suppose the question you would then have, would be, why am I drawing the arbitrary line there? Well... this is what I see... sort of... in a visual sense.

No Society Recognition ----- Legal Prosecution ----- Sub-Society Recognition ----- Civil Unions ----- Marriage ----- Required Education ----- Society Recognition

In other words... I see legal prosecution as one extreme, and forced education as another. I place my arbitrary line of support smack in the middle (and slightly right), at civil unions. To me, this provides a safety zone; that is, extreme-conservatives are not going to be successful in pushing for legal prosecution, and extreme-liberals are not going to be successful in pushing for Forced Education, and, implicitly, societal recognition. However, I recognize that if it starts to lose sub-society recognition, there could be problems. I also recognize, that if mairrage is passed, there could be problems. Either way, and you move up a notch, closer to the extremes. I see a lack of sub-society recognition as something that could lead to loss of other rights; that is a problem. Luckily, they have sub-society recognition, they have their groups. I see mairrage as something that could lead to forced education; that is a problem. Luckily, most have treated this with hesitation. But I see any venture into one or the other as risking some serious consequences.

Now, the line chart isn't perfect, but my point is, I pick a middle position on purpose. If things start leaning left, I lean right, if things start leaning right, I lean left. I like moderacy; balance, stability. Right now, though the left is pushing hard, and so, I must lean more right in order to make up for the balance. My arbitrary line sits in a place that I feel would be comfortable for both sides if they became satisfied. Unfortunately, they aren't satisfied. Neither one.

Now your arbitrary line is in a different place, but where is it? And why is it there? And furthermore, will it satisfy both sides? Both extremes require assimilation... and I don't like that much.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited September 28, 2011 by TAO

[Cobalt-70]

Through society, ideas spread, and some, are far more virulent than even the worst plagues XD. Not that it's a bad thing all the time. Take the ideas of Locke... virulently spreading, and yet, they are the basis for our government, in a sense. =)

Homosexuality is not an idea or political philosophy. It is an orientation. It has something to do with brain anatomy, and you can't spread it to other people they way you can spread ideas. Medical science does not support your view.