Hey cyberblue, you're not foolin' any of us. It's time for you to come out of the closet, dude!

Understood.

I'm just wondering how a truly rational and objective person couldn't ALSO see that the opposing argument is:

The reason people support gay marriage is that they approve of it, for whatever reason. All the justifications are then invented to support that. And they're all wrong...

i.e. The EXACT SAME argument about "personal values" being put forth applies to BOTH sides of the argument.

Either you think gay marriage is OK or you don't.

In EACH CASE, however, the position taken by EITHER SIDE amounts to putting forth an individual value. This is true for BOTH SIDES of the debate.

To enter into the debate and accuse only your opposition of putting forth their "own views" is folly. It won't resolve a thing. And it ultimately leads to a lot of the types of unresoveable "You're wrong." - "No. YOU'RE wrong!" exchanges we've seen here.

If we want to see some progress (if it's at all possible), we need to dispense with the biased "they are making it personal" type characterizations and 1) admit that WHATEVER your position, what you want is to have your personal views on the subject control, and 2) THEN talk about WHY you think your postion should control - based on objective facts, standards and real, recognizeable consequences of behavior.


I'm not gay and I'm also not a gay-hater or homophobe.

On a very objective level, I DO see both sides of the argument.

It is a sensitive, highly charged subject. And each side of it has at least SOME margin of rationally based logic to it.

That's the point: it doesn't *matter* whether I approve of it. There's no reason for it to be any of my business - or anyone else's.

I admire your measured calmness, but just because an argument turned on its head is also an argument doesn't mean the upside down one isn't total bull****!

John writes:
"would i be right in thinking that last year in the US, close to 1,500 scout masters were removed from their duties relating to incidents of 'homosexual procurement' towards young boys in their care?"
-------------------------------------------
John... would I be right in thinking,
Bridget Bishop
George Burroughs
Martha Carrier
Martha Corey
Mary Easty
Sarah Good
Elizabeth Howe
George Jacobs, Sr.
Susannah Martin
Rebecca Nurse
Alice Parker
Mary Parker
John Proctor
Ann Pudeator
Wilmott Redd
Margaret Scott
Samuel Wardwell
Sarah Wildes
John Willard

were all either hanged or "pressed" to death by Christians thanks to the Salem Witch trials. {ahhh... there's that "Christianity" word again}
That's what-cha got here with "them there" Boy Scout leaders... a modern day witch hunt conducted by a bunch of Bible punching bigots with Gay-a-phobia.

It doesn't take much sense to figure out a gay scout leader poses about the same threat to a young boy, as a heterosexual male does as an elementary teacher teaching young girls. There's opposite polarity in either scenario and it's ones morality {gay or straight} that dictates appropriate behavior.
But see, your VERY wrongful Christian belief is, anyone that's not heterosexual is immoral.
As long as this is the silly belief, when a gay man as much as lays a hand on a boy, the gay-o-phobic Christian believes "oh... see that, I know just by touching that boy, his "putter" is straightening." But... when a heterosexual man comforts a small girl because she's crying, it makes the Christian's heart melt.... Oh how warm and fuzzy. 'Course, ya never know, he may be getting a "stiffy" too.... but you'd hate to believe that wouldn't ya?
Speaking of morality.. you know I'm sitting here thinking every Catholic priest on the face of the planet is a gay child molester. I mean gee whiz... I always knew they all smoked and drank excessively ... that and most had some females on the side. But now come to find out, they all have a thirst for "little people" too.
With this being known, don't you think it appropriate we all go on a public campaign and stamp out every scumbag Catholic priest before they fudge pac again?

Ya see john, I know about gay folks because I know them, I've worked with them, they're my friends. They're every bit as concerned about world events, child abuse, Osama, "boy scouts" as you and me are. The only difference is, you don't care to know any. Because of your belief system, they turn your stomach. And hey, if you were a real Christian, you'd know that the way you feel goes against your very belief system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John continues:
"and that, gee, you know, gee, kids are just like really grown up nowadays, and that gee, you know, they have their own sexual identity, and gee, you know, we wouldn't want to deny our kids their basic human rights, etc gee...
wise up. when it comes to kids and sexuality, they have no rights. they are not meant to be sexual objects, they are children.""
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah... I've noticed that about their rights. But... run down the street and ask your local Catholic priest about the "sexual object" thing. There you're obviously wrong.
Brent

You let me know when you want to stop, OK?

Seriously.

I realize this type of stuff can get real annoying. I recognize that and I can turn this off any time it gets to that point (if it hasn't already...!..).

Of course, your position is that it should be NOBODY'S business if gays want to marry. That is a progressive stance.

But it fails to acknolwedge what has gone on up to this point. The debate about gay marriage did not present itself in a vacuum.

"Marriage" is a defined term. It has been for centuries. The word - and the condition it represents - carry not only religious implications, but legal ones as well (some of which are issues regarding the provision of health care and other benefits to "spouses," the event of - and grounds for - divorce, the results of divorce, the handling of community property, tax issues, etc., etc.). These ancillary elements of what is recognized as "marriage," have grown up and been applied as a result of hundreds of years of real, applicable experience, wrestling with the idea of what "marriage" represents.

So, while the ideal that it's nobody's business who marries who is admirable, it is just not realistic. Who "marries" who has been everybody's business - for quite some time - even amongst heterosexual couples.

It is not as simple as announcing "It's a private, personal choice."

Heterosexual marraige is ALSO a private and personal choice, yes? But with that choice the participants enter into a condition with all sorts of additional concerns. Concerns that often result in (require?) public scrutiny, judicial intervention and governmental control.

So, again, if we want to try to resolve the issue, we need to get beyond the "sound byte" exclamations of quickly announced social and moral ideals that we would like to apply to the question - and REALLY look at the question and ALL of the ramifications that might come from whatever decision we support on the issue.

If the original proposition announcing the relationship between two objective elements was soundly stated, inverting only the elements in the statement often results in an equal but opposite proposition.

That whole post is dripping with fear and reluctance to see the other side.
Why do you think it makes you so uncomfortable?
Other than because it's not normal as you say.
I got news for you, normal sucks.
Normal is what's going to destroy the world.

No, you're not out of your mind. Worse, you've got an agenda of you're own. So Isreal flew planes into the WTC? This is the kind of irresponsible internet hash that's been contributing to the largest rise in anti-semitism in recent history, and sympathy for strap on bombers. I just hope nobody here takes you seriously.

I'm no fan of this administration and much of what they stand for, but you've clearly been reading too many conspiracy theory web-sites. So tell us, what's the agenda that us juvenile yankee cows are unaware of?

Wow.

Lots of stuff there. Just one point of fact:

Um, the 9/11 attacks were NOT the result of a "failure" of either:

1)the Air force (which was NOT charged with monitoring commercial air traffic),
2) NORAD (which also, is NOT charged with monitoring commercial air traffic), OR
3) the FAA (which had little or no reason to suspect the aircraft in question were to be subject to the hijackings).


When your theory is based on such patently erroneous "facts" and assumptions such as these, you shouldn't be surprised when folks don't eh, "wake up" to your eeehhm, "reality."

That is true, and in fact it’s the first thing anyone has said in this entire thread that’s caused me to pause. And after pausing, my answer is that we’re having the debate in 2004, not 1970 - i.e. the past isn’t a vacuum either. We’ve learned a thing or two over time.

...which are not allowed to be imposed on people who don’t practice those religions...

As I said before, these are the two issues: “religious” and “civil.” Freedom of religion and civil rights are both guaranteed by the constitution in this country. This was decided quite a while ago throughout most of the western world during the Age of Revolutions!

At least some people are sincere about not believing in this when they say it’s for religious reasons - however misguided and shallow they are. But saying that gay people shouldn’t be entitled to same benefits as heterosexuals is, as I said, 100% indefensible by any standard.

Funny, half of that didn't post.

Here's the rest:

My wife and I got married because we wanted to. I don’t remember asking anyone’s permission. It wasn’t an arranged marriage.