Bush Calls for Gay Marriage Ban

Remove all ads!

@ Nog,

A belief you're entitled to, of course, and it doesn't make you a hatemonger (poorly informed, perhaps - but not a hatemonger). But I wonder if it's a belief that's so ingrained that you'd cling to even if presented with evidence to the contrary (as the majority of the scientific and medical community has concluded).

Here's where your point of view will ultimately meet failure:

The problem with that approach is that these programs you refer to simply do not work, and never will. You may as well try to de-black someone. I have no doubt from reading that response that you simply don't know or associate with any gay people at all, otherwise you'd know how assenine the idea of "de-gaying" someone is. I'm certain you'd react similarly if I tried to "de-straight" or "de-Christ" you. It ain't gonna happen, and holding out hope that it will change things on any scale is wishful thinking.

But this premise is a non-starter - convincing people of a wrong where the perpetrators of said wrong aren't to be painted negatively? Who could get behind that? It's a logical contradiction. Either it's wrong, and we should be against them, or it isn't and we shouldn't treat them poorly - you can't have it both ways. Which is why most opponants of gays and gay marriage are either firmly locked in the hatred category ("they're disgusting sinners!") or the pitty category ("oh the poor dears, they just need to be shown the light."). In my experience, the latter is often the more PC-friendly veil that covers the former, but not always.

Either approach is regressive and doesn't respectfully address the problem with the feelings and desires of all involved being taken into account. You, for example, don't oppose gay marriage for their benefit, only for your own. Mutual benefit is not your goal, and that's why, as you say, convincing people is "the hardest part." No one will be convinced of a point of view regarding social change that benefits one group but doesn't benefit their own. People who understand homosexuals and homosexuality never will be convinced of your point of view. They view the idea that homosexuality is a natural part of the human condition as fact, whereas your viewpoint is admittedly based on a belief. And as we've discussed before, beliefs are chosen, facts are accepted.

[ June 09, 2006, 20:49: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Then lets vote. Bush is making such a big deal about his free democracy and all that corrupt bull**** that we should vote on this issue. If he wants to hear us, then listen to us, don't listen to 100 people. Yes, we elected them, but its not like we had a choice (Mr. Suck A, or Mr. Slightly More Sucky B). He is making a huge deal about it, and if he wants to be that serious, every American needs to have a say.

 

@DR:
The majority of the scientific and medical community hasn't decided squat on this issue. You have fringe elements saying homosexuality is caused by everything from genetics to how many older sibling you have, other fringes saying there's 'scientific proof' that it's choice, and most of the scientific community looking at the one and calling it bad science and the other and calling them loons.

And I can tell where that program failed. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with gender-based steriotypes. Making someone 'act straight' or 'manly' isn't going to influence who they're attracted to. Some programs have had success. A member of my church is an ex-gay. He says he still has temptations, but they're easy to resist, like an alcoholic who's been sober for 5 years and walks by a bar. There's still the temptation, that will never go away, but its manageable. And the 'de-Christ' thing is a poor analogy. I'd be offended because I think it'd be wrong, not because I think turning christians away from Christ is impossible.

And as for the whole, 'they do evil so they must be evil', well, that's another problem with society, but one we've been trying to change for decades, and progress has been made. An alcoholic isn't the demon-posessed tool of evil he was 50 years ago, now he's someone with a problem that can turn him violent.

The reason I don't oppose gay marriage is for the benefit of all parties. For me because it wouldn't work and for them because it would be oppressive and for everyone else because it would lead to great social unrest, riots, maybe even another civil war (a bit extreme).

And lastly, I'm curious DR, what do you see as the difference between fact and belief? Maybe its just you're misconception of the significance of the scientific evidence, but there's not much factual basis to claim homosexuality as a natural part of the human condition.

@Saber:
We won't vote because there's no chance in hell of getting the vast majority he needs to actually make it a constitutional amendment and he doesn't want to waste the time and money to have a national vote for it. This was all just a political ploy to show the conservatives that its still an issue.

 

EDIT: Warning, detailed debunkery to follow. Sorry all for the length.

The scientific evidence, actually, is very significant - and there's plenty of it. There are far more doctors and psychologists who would agree that homosexuality is something one is born with than is chosen or acquired. Many of the professional entities who claim homosexuality to be a choice are at least in part religiously affiliated, placing an obvious bias on their findings.

But let's set scientific evidence aside. Why don't you break out of your shell a little and actually have a conversation with a few gay people and learn about what makes them tick? Respectfully ask them questions and let them tell you their story? Maybe befriend one or two of them without judging them, and liking them for who they are? I know that's a frightening concept, but that's a big chunk of why and how I've come to the conclusions I've come to. As a straight man, I'll never TRULY understand what it means to be gay, but rather than judge them I'll do the best I can to understand as much as I can. I say this because there's a striking correlation between a person being anti-gay and not ever actually coming in contact with gay people. Strange how that works, eh?

Don't get me wrong - some (a very small minority) do indeed choose homosexuality. I knew a guy in high school who "went gay" for about a year. But it was a phase, and he's not since relapsed. The reason he hasn't is because he was never gay in the first place. No therapy or anything, he just cut it out. You seem to think this will work for ALL who consider themselves gay, and it simply isn't the case. This friend of mine was very screwed up, and "went gay" for all the wrong reasons. Part of it shock value, part of it loneliness, part of it a destructive personality - but that never made him gay. No one is ever "made" gay, either they are or they aren't.

We can probably both agree that homosexuality is abnormal - that I've never argued with. But abnormalities do occur in nature, and aren't always a bad thing. Colorblindness, for example, is an example of a genetic abnormality that isn't harmful to anyone. Probably the best example are geniuses. Albert Einstein was born a genius, he didn't become one. Galileo, DaVinci...it'd be tough to argue these men weren't "unnatural." If the unnatural-ness of it is what bothers you, why stop with gays? Let me know when you organize the protest rally outside of MIT...I'll bring treats for everyone.

Couple of things here. First of all, comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is ridiculous on many levels. I don't think you understand how addiction works at all. No one becomes an alcoholic until they have their first drink, and even then it's only as a result of heavy drinking. Homosexuals don't become gay AFTER having gay sex, ever. Most gays I know knew they were gay around age 5 or 6, and a lot of them came from loving, abuse-free homes. Have you ever heard of a 6 year old alcoholic who's never had a drink? Because I know several gay virgins.

Second, the reason the man in your church still has temptations that will never go away is because HE'S STILL GAY. He'll be wrestling with it his whole life because THAT'S WHO HE IS. If he were part of a community that accepted him for who he is, instead of constantly judging him as your community obviously does, he could probably come to terms with it and lead a productive life instead of putting on a "straight face" so you and everyone else he knows doesn't outcast him.

Alcoholics still have temptations every time they walk by a bar because they've developed a chemical dependence on alcohol, and their brain is telling them YOU NEED A DRINK over and over (if the impulse YOU NEED TO HAVE GAY SEX is your answer to that, then the problem would be sex addiction - a totally different animal - not homosexuality).

This man in your church will always be attracted to men and not to women, and will spend the rest of his life feeling guilty and alone. His "ex-gayness" may make you and everyone around him feel better, but I guarantee you it's eating him up inside. I hope for his sake he comes to his senses at some point and realizes that how he views himself is more important than how his parish views him. There are, thankfully, better things in life than church.

Third, having gay sex is not what makes one gay, just as having straight sex does not make one straight. I could go out and force myself to engage in sodomy right now and still be a straight man. In fact, I could have gay sex every day for the next 20 years and still be straight (an obscene amount of viagra would be necessary, but it could happen). Sexuality is our innate physical and romantic attraction to other people, not something we pick up as teenagers. While a small minority do CHOOSE to engage in homosexual acts, the rest of the gay community are really, definitely, naturally gay. Deal with it.

Fourth, since the vast majority of the people who come through these de-gaying "programs" relapse within 1-3 years, that's pretty powerful proof that these programs aren't successful. I.E., they DON'T WORK.

I'll have to send Splunge an e-mail just to be sure, but if memory serves, gay marriage has been legal in many parts of Canada for about a decade now, and I don't recall him ever mentioning in our correspondance that bullets and mortars were flying over his head as he typed due to the great bloody civil war over gay marriage that was raging in the streets around him.

The only people who will cause social unrest and riots are for certain people who want our entire society to live by the literal interpretation of a book that was written 2000 years ago, despite all the inconsistencies and hypocracies that come along with such guidelines. Like interracial marriage, everyone else will come to the realization that it's harmless, actually BENEFITS our society and it will become a non-issue.

If memory serves, you were recently argueing FOR intellegent design, were you not? And also that God erected a holy perimeter around your parish to protect you in a rainstorm? That's quite a stone to be throwing from off the top of a mountain of fantastic explanations and questionable scientific evidence, bub.

As for belief vs. fact: a fact is knowledge or information based on real occurrences. A belief is mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. One of my best friends IS gay (he's known it since childhood), and that's a fact. You believe he's CHOOSING to be gay and is therefore an immoral person, which is your belief. Reality, vs. what is mentally accepted to be the truth. One is constant, one can change if we want it to. That's the difference.

[ June 11, 2006, 01:22: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

@NOG: Do you wear polyester? It isn't natural. Whether or not homosexuality is unnatural or immoral is completely irrelevant. I have never once seen a cogent argument about the existence of gay couples actually hurting someone or otherwise violating their constitutional rights (this is an invitation to make one). Lying is considered immoral and it isn't illegal in most cases. The same is true for birth control with regards to the catholic church, or meat consumption for hindus, buddhists, jainists, and people like me. What we consider immoral is not what we make illegal. Murder isn't illegal because it's immoral. It's illegal because killing a man tends to violate his rights.

 

Not that long. Only a couple years or so.

But seriously, anything suggesting that Homosexuals are less capable of choosing sexual partners than anybody else would be either hateful or evidence of a defect. Where science, politics and religeon converge, all hell could break loose. I've made my side perfectly clear on this matter...

 

Then if he won't get the votes, why try to pass it via congress? The people won't support it even if it passes, and will only provide further angry and hateful feelings towards him.

 

@DR:
First off, instead of just saying 'yes they do' on the scientific evidence, how about you cite relieble scientific studies (i.e. ones with more than 200 total participants, ones that actually look at the relevant variables, etc.)

Secondly, as for my relationships with gays, my cousin is homosexual. She's been one of my best friends since we were little and she still is. Now I'm betting she chose (and she admits that she chose) because of social pressure and not real attraction, but I'm not sure. Her homosexual friends are about evenly split between saying they chose and were born that way, but when asked, the ones that claim they were born that way will admit that their first experience of sexual attraction was with a member of the opposite gender (of the 5 I've asked) And yes, many of them are virgins, but that doesn't mean sexual attraction hasn't happened, it just hasn't been fulfilled yet.

Let me explain one of the several leading psychological theories on homosexuality. It is commonly accepted that sexual desire (what kind of girls a guy goes for) is a very maleable standard. In history the standard of beauty has changed drastically. How does this happen? Well, guy a person draws sexual gratification from looking at a girl, there are drugs released in his brain. The brain remembers what stimuli were occuring at that time and, just like Pavlov's dogs, the next time those same stimuli occur he gets the drugs released faster. That means that he develops a preferance for certain features, long hair, dark skin, certain waist size, tall or short, etc. This is how a guy develops his preferance in women. If these stimuli become closer to the male physical form, the guy can become arroused at men. The idea behind my proposed treatment is to move these stimuli back towards female bodily features.

As for my comparison between homosexuality and alcoholism, no analogy is perfect, but I think it is you who doesn't understand how sexual attraction works at all. The drugs released in your brain are released long before the act of sex occurs.

As for the guy in my church, you know nothing. He lived in a happy, homosexually positive environment for seven years, unsaved. He didn't get brainwashed at a rally, he didn't get pressured into conversion. He was brought up in a christian home and, when someone close to him died, he turned back to God. This was accepted in his community, but God was telling him homosexuality is wrong. By the way, he not only is attracted to women now, he's engaged to one. You claiming that he's really rotting inside has as much validity as me claiming homosexuals are really rotting inside (which I only claim in a spiritual sense).

Third, after 20 years of gay sex, because of the process I detailed above, you probably would be gay.

Fourth, the vast majority of 'de-gaying' programs don't work because they don't know what they're doing, as evidenced by the one you posted.

This is the biggest non-sequitur I've seen in some time. I said a war MAY be POSSIBLE, MAYBE, IN THE EXTREME, if gay marriages were BANNED. Now you're criticizing it with the 'proof' that gay marriages being ACCEPTED in Canada didn't spawn a war. Am I the only one that sees a problem with that?

You're definitions of fact and belief are admirable. There are very few people these days that can put forth such rational and realistic definitions, and I agree with the completely. The problem, however, especially in something as psychologically based as sexual preferance, is determining what the reality is. Its bad enough that all of reality is filtered through our own senses AND minds (we'll exclude halucinations for the moment), but now you're trying to get at something increadibly complex, seated deep in the mind of another person, filtered through all their desires, motivations, all the influences on them, etc. and still going through all you're 'filters'. This isn't something as easy as checking for a lump on their head which they either have or don't have. I'm not sure any of us understand the reality of the situation. This is part of why psychology is called a 'soft science'.

@Drew:
I never opposed gay marriage simply because it was unnatural. I love air conditioning and that's certainly not natural. I oppose gay marriage because it is immoral, you get that. But what you seem to have forgotten is that I also oppose laws (or this amendment) banning it. Laws aren't the way to go about it.

@Saber:
You have to understand a feign. Bush never expected it to go through. There's no way there's the 2/3 support he'd need to pass it in congress. He only did that as a show, to tell his supporters it is still an issue, to bring it back into the for-front for elections. This whole thing has been a political gambit.

 

You only answered one very tiny part of my point. We don't make things illegal because they are immoral. If we did, a lot more things would be illegal.

 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what people are saying but I see a trend in all these multiple posts regarding sex to over simply.

First of all sex is complicated. It can run the gamut from 100% attracted to someone of the same sex to 100% attracted to someone of the opposite sex. There are also people who are asexual; that is not attracted sexually to either sex.

Probably more people are bi-sexual then know it or are willing to admit it. This in itself causes some people to be anti-gay. Accepting gays would be accepting a part of themselves they do not wish to accept.

The other problem I see in these posts is the absence of love. Not recognizing that love is an important part of being human. Another complicated subject.

Human beings are not simple. All those cells just make for a very complicated creature and very complicated but interesting discussions.

Now back to the topic (yes there was a topic) of the amendment.

It is simply a political ploy and has nothing to do with morality.

It is a step in the wrong direction because it would infringe upon the right of Churches to define their own religious creed. It would also infringe upon State Rights to define the needs and wants of their citizens. If it banned any law that would grant an alternative to traditional marriage it would infringe on the rights of a lot of people and not just gays.

MY in

 

I agree totally, Nakia. I believe Bush is just seeing how far he can push the government before they say no.

I am dead-set against this amendment, and I think people should be allowed to make their own choices. Anything less, and we violate the already tarnished reputation of our country.

 

I agree, but I think the fault should partly fallen on the word "homosexual," (or heterosexual, for that matter), which does not imply love, but merely sex. How about homoamorous, or is that already a term?

I agree. For you to insult, degrade, and discriminate against someone and think you are right, you need to get their opinion. Such hate and distrust is unjustified without at least an attempt to understand them.
NOG, I realize you have talked with your cousin, but what I suggest is talking to people you have just met, who don't know your religious orientation (perhaps your cousin was saying what she said so there wouldn't be tension between you two), and ask them about it. Perhaps that will give you a better idea of their lives.

Also, NOG, how can you willingly support discrimination against your cousin?

So I can then assume you have never lied, are a vegan, and do not support any form of hunting or fishing? Lying is a sin, and killing animals certainly isn't moral.

Note: if you are an honest, animal loving vegan, then my point is pointless.

[ June 12, 2006, 00:42: Message edited by: Saber ]

 

Homoamorous is not a term to my knowledge, but it could certainly be legit.

 

@Drew:
The answer to the other part was that I'm saying we shouldn't make it illegal, so saying it shouldn't be made illegal on those grounds is agreeing with me. Our government is not a theocracy, so it should only make this illegal if a vast majority of the population wants it illegal.

@Nakia:
Some very good points. And lets not forget other extremes like pedoephiles, people who have sex with animals, things like that. If homosexual is natural, are they?

And if you thought sex was complicated, Nakia, just wait until you get into love. In the greek language there are (or were, not sure how much it's changed) 3 different words for love, depending on what type you're talking about. And that probably falls far short.

@Saber:
1.) You really don't know my cousin. She loves to get me in heated debates about things like this. Evolution, creation, stem cell research, all of it.

2.)Just because I believe it is immoral doesn't mean I never do it. No one's perfect. I do occasionally lie, I just try not to. As for hunting and eating meat, I don't believe they are immoral, as long as the hunted animals are used, but that's a bit off topic.

 

That isn't how we make our laws either. When we ended segregation, a majority of Americans were still for it. When Lincoln ended slavery, more than half of the US (who weren't actually enslaved) still wanted slavery. (Lincoln freed the slaves because Europe was starting to give support to the south. By ending slavery, he effectively turned supporting the Confederacy into supporting slavery. Sad though it may be, freeing the slaves was actually a political maneuver used to stop the Confederacy from gaining an insurmountable tactical advantage in the war.) The majority of Americans also disagreed with the decision made in Brown vs The Board of Education. So many Americans were against integrating the schools that they had to bring in the National Guard to maintain order.

In the early 1900's the vast majority of Americans were against regulation of child labour. Ironically enough, the children working under such horrible and unsafe conditions were one of the largest opponents of a set of laws which were actually crafted for their own protection. Our laws do not exist to further the will of the majority. They exist to protect individual liberties. It wouldn't matter if 90% of Americans were against gay marriage since denying them the right to marry is still discrimination.

Not really. As someone who equates hunting and meat consumption to murder I would be lying if I said I wouldn't support legislation making it illegal. I can at least argue that killing an animal actually does hurt something......namely, the animal. This is an argument that proponents of a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage will be hard pressed to make cogently regarding gay marriage.

I bring this up as a way of showing yet another reason that morality should not be used as a basis to create laws. I doubt you want to live under the strictures of my morality any more than I want to live under yours.

[ June 12, 2006, 08:16: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

NOG,

No, that's not how I read it at all.

To me it says that "negative attitudes towards Gay people" are still as socially acceptable today as they were in the past (alas, no time frame given). To me this means that people are under no greater "social pressure" to change or mitigate their feelings/attitudes. Which is er... the opposite of what you said.

This is followed by saying that peoples Conscious and Implicit (Natural) responses/attitudes are most often in agreement. i.e. If you hate Gays, you know you do.

Taking it a step further, if negative attitudes towards Gays are actually on the decline it would appear that this isn't being driven by social pressure, but by a change in peoples perceptions of whether being "Gay" is really a bad thing.

Going back on topic.
I've made my views clear in the past. I don't particularly believe in marriage, particularly of the religous type. However I believe that there should be a "Civil Union" available to allow couples of any desciption the same legal rights and protections currently available to married people.
Available in the UK for gay couples, it's now in consideration by the law commision as to whether it should be extended to co-habiting heterosexuals.

 

I thought of that as a possibility too.

I have to admit, I don't know many gay people. To be precise, there are only four gay people who I know well. (I'm sure I've met way more than four gay people - I just didn't know they were gay.) One of my wife's best friends is gay. Of the four people I know who are gay, I met all of them through my wife's friend. They have all been to my home for parties, and I have been at get togethers in thier homes as well. They are good people, not very different from anyone else except for who they are attracted to. I consider them all to be my friends.

They also have something else in common - none of them chose to be gay. All of them say that they knew from a very young age that something was different about them. They knew this even before they knew what the difference between being gay and being straight meant. They were unable to verbalize or cognitively identify why they were different, but they knew. And I suppose that makes sense. I don't know anyone who is 5 or 6 years old who would refer to themselves as gay or straight, especially before they have any idea what sex is. It is only when they become older that they can look back at the time and realize that they knew at a young age, even if they weren't able to identify at that time what it was that they knew.

Now, I will freely admit that my sample size is small. I only have four people to base my judgements on, and they don't even come from a wide demographic. They are all women who are in their late 20s or early 30s. I don't have any gay men as friends, and I don't know people who are gay, regardless of gender, who are in their teens, or in their 40s. However, from the people I do know, they all state that it is far more common for people to be born gay than it is for people to become gay. Futher, they all say that most people do not chose to become gay. I do not see this as a position that even has to be justified - it seems self-evident. I don't know anyone who is straight who chose to be straight, so why would it be different for people who are gay?

As for de-gaying people, that sounds horrific. If people are born gay, then turning them straight would seem to me to be as difficult to turning someone gay who was born straight. I'm not saying that it's impossible, or that it would never happen, but I'm sure for every success there would be dozens of failures.

 

Don't they have those Christian camps where they try to "de-gay" people? If so, it sounds like a pretty cruel idea.

 

Exactly. Who cares what it is called (well, to a degree), as long as they get the same exact rights as heterosexual couples. If Christians (or whoever) have a problem with calling it marriage, then don't, just give them the same rights. It isn't an attack on 'marriage,' and everyone can just shut up about it being a problem.

 

If marriage is so sacred, government shouldn't have a hand in it at all. Everyone should just get civil unions from the government. Marriage, if it's so sacred, belongs in the church.