noteworthy wrote:
] David Brooks takes a crack at debunking the Dems.

Thats what he does for a living, isn't it?

] There was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote
] this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the
] electorate this year as they did in 2000.

WRONG. The following story was linked from Pew's website:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/05religion.html

"What this suggests is that the Bush coalition wasn't just evangelicals," said John C. Green, a professor of political science and director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. "It included a much larger group of more traditional religious people, many of them outside of the evangelical tradition. What they have in common is that all of these groups tend to hold traditional views on sexual behavior."

Voters who identified themselves as white born-again or evangelical Christians made up 23 percent of voters this year. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for the president - clearly an increase over the 2000 election (but it is unclear by how much, since the question used to identify evangelicals in surveys of voters leaving the polls was asked differently four years ago, making a direct comparison impossible). Professor Green said his polling showed an increase in the evangelical vote for President Bush from 71 percent in 2000 to 76 percent this year.

] If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

I agree, but problems with the data so far are not a license to fill in the blanks with your own favorite explanation.

The fact is that Kerry sucked. I said at the time of the Dem's convention that the focus on the economy was stupid and that the number one issue would be terrorism. I was right and wrong. The number one issue was "moral values" (and I'm going to continue to put that in quotes because I think its an oxymoron), but the number two issue was Terrorism. Where Kerry failed was by not focusing on Terrorism.

Having said that, I would feel much much better about this election if it seemed like the American people were saying what a few of my more educated friends are saying: "We agree with you, Tom, that that there are significant problems with the way Bush is handling things (Enemy combatants, Iraq war justification/timing/diplomacy), but we feel that Kerry sucks, and so we couldn't vote for him." I can respect that. The American people know better then I do whats best for them.

Thats not what I'm hearing. Kerry did better in the debates! This wasn't about him. This was about Terrorism and Moral Values, and I cannot escape the conclusion that the election seemed to reach to some of the ugliest aspects of this nation's character. I'm not angry because Kerry lost. I expected that. I'm angry because of what seems to have won.

I'm angry because Gay Marriage has taken center stage in the Moral Values disc... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
] noteworthy wrote:
] ] There was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote
] ] this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the
] ] electorate this year as they did in 2000.
]
] WRONG. The following story was linked from Pew's website:
]
] ... the Bush coalition ... included a much
] larger group of more traditional religious people, many of
] them outside of the evangelical tradition."
]
] Voters who identified themselves as white born-again or
] evangelical Christians made up 23 percent of voters this year.
] Seventy-eight percent of them voted for the president -
] clearly an increase over the 2000 election (but it is unclear
] by how much, since the question used to identify evangelicals
] in surveys of voters leaving the polls was asked differently
] four years ago, making a direct comparison impossible).
] Professor Green said his polling showed an increase in the
] evangelical vote for President Bush from 71 percent in 2000 to
] 76 percent this year.

You may be misreading the two. Brooks and Pew (as quoted above) are talking about different metrics. Brooks was talking about the electorate overall. Pew is referring to "the Bush coalition."

The point is that the ballot questions on gay marriage did NOT cause a bunch of religious people who normally don't vote to show up at the polls this year. Brooks was saying that with regard to the overall electorate, the percentages on the goes-to-church / does-not-go-to-church question are the basically same as in 2000.

It is true that Bush gained strength among evangelicals in particular and those self-identifying as religious in general. But this is a different question.

] ] If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.
]
] I agree, but problems with the data so far are not a license
] to fill in the blanks with your own favorite explanation.

If you looked at the other articles accompanying this column, it's clear Brooks is not alone here. There were strong disagreements over the "moral values" item before the election among the members of the committee who design the exit poll.

] On the Terrorism side, again, by and large the people who
] indicated that Terrorism is a major issue for them are not
] people who live in places that are likely to be hit by
] Terrorist attacks, and they know it!

Okay, this explanation -- which was popping up on the Daily Show recently -- is kind of bogus. Concern about terrorism cannot be viewed strictly as a personal safety issue. An attack in Manhattan has worldwide economic repercussions. If Manhattan ceases to function normally, the effects are seen immediately in Toyko, Beijing, London, Frankfurt, Paris, and beyond. Citizens of the world, both urban and rural, should be broadly concerned about attacks on any of these cities.

] I see an election that was about jingoism and hate.
] And it pisses me off.

Hrm. Anger begets anger.

This summary view of things seems to have popped up only after election day, and only after Kerry lost. If 150,000 voters in Ohio had chosen differently, Kerry would be President despite having lost the popular vote, and we'd probably be concerned about the electoral college.

It's also a case of selective interpretation of the facts. It excludes other things from the field of view. For example, California passed an amendment to authorize $3 billion in funding for stem cell research. Mel Gibson was on TV lobbying against this proposition, but it still won.

I'm not saying these concerns are invalid, but with a few weeks' time, some perspective might do a lot to soften the tone.

noteworthy wrote:
] The point is that the ballot questions on gay marriage did NOT
] cause a bunch of religious people who normally don't vote to
] show up at the polls this year. Brooks was saying that with
] regard to the overall electorate, the percentages on the
] goes-to-church / does-not-go-to-church question are the
] basically same as in 2000.

Seeing as the number of people who voted this year was so much higher then last, if the percentage is the same, then they did mobilize a large number of people.

Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, called critiques of the poll "garbage."

"The people who picked moral values as an issue know what that means," he said. "It's a code word in surveys for a cluster of issues like gay marriage and abortion."

McInturff said if "moral values" was really a "catchall" with a confused meaning, then more Democrats would have picked it as well. Of the 22 percent who chose "moral values" in the Election Day poll, 80 percent were Bush supporters and 20 percent were Kerry supporters. "It's self-selected by people for whom these issues are very important for their votes," McInturff said, adding that the margin by which Bush carried these voters arguably made the difference in the election.

] Concern about terrorism cannot be viewed strictly as a personal
] safety issue.

Thats a valid point.

] If 150,000 voters in Ohio had chosen differently, Kerry would
] be President despite having lost the popular vote, and we'd
] probably be concerned about the electoral college.

Thats also true. The fact that these guys won sheds light on them that wouldn't otherwise be there. But a problem ignored in another scenario is no less a problem.

] It's also a case of selective interpretation of the facts. It
] excludes other things from the field of view. For example,
] California passed an amendment to authorize $3 billion in
] funding for stem cell research.

Califorina is a blue state.

Decius wrote:
] Seeing as the number of people who voted this year was so much
] higher than last, if the percentage is the same, then they did
] mobilize a large number of people.

That argument doesn't make any sense to me. It suggests the Democrats were out there trying to get out the vote among those who say they don't go to church regularly.

I think more is being made of this issue than is valid. These comparisons seem to neglect the most obvious factor: the passage of time. I offer a few simple data points:

In 2000, approximately 105 million total votes were cast.
In 2004, approximately 116 million total votes were cast.

That's an increase of 11 million votes, or 8.6 percent.

According to the US Census Bureau, the US population has grown by more than 12 million people between 2000 and November 2004. The voting-age population increased by 8 million between July 2000 and July 2003, and the overall population has grown by nearly 4 million since July 2003. In 2003, the voting-age population was 80 percent of the total population.

By those numbers, population growth may account for 87% of the increase in voter turnout for 2004.

While this population growth does not account for all of the increase in votes, it is a significant contributing factor.

] California is a blue state.

Los Angeles and San Francisco are blue cities. California has a Republican governor. It's more complicated than that.

In California, Bush won 36 counties. Kerry won only 20, and his margin of victory was less than 10 percent in 5 of those 20.

San Bernardino county voters chose Bush (56%) over Kerry (43%). Yet they also voted in favor of Proposition 71 (52%). In San Diego, 52% voted for Bush and 58% supported Prop 71.

You'll find the same trend for Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Butte, Inyo, Tuolumne, and Nevada counties.

Decius wrote:
] The number one issue was "moral values" (and I'm going
] to continue to put that in quotes because I think its an
] oxymoron), but the number two issue was Terrorism. Where Kerry
] failed was by not focusing on Terrorism.

No, from my read of things, the top issues were Terrorism and the War in Iraq. Every place I heard people debating things, that's what came up. Not moral values.

] I'm angry because Gay Marriage has taken center stage in the
] Moral Values discussion, and its not reasonable to interpret
] people's position on that matter to be anything other then
] straight up hate.
  . . .
] These people don't oppose Gay Marriage because the
] bible tells them so. They oppose Gay Marriage because they
] don't like gay people.

Decius, the main hate I'm seeing here, is from you. I have a lot of gay/TS friends, and I'm sensitive to anything that's stamping disapproval on them, but I have *not* seen the gay marriage issue as something saying, "We disapprove of gays." I haven't heard any one saying that the "Queer Eye" show is appalling and that its participants need to be arrested. I haven't heard anyone saying that gays need to be put to death, or even that gays should be prohibited from living with each other or caring for each other. Instead, I see the issue as saying, "I'm not gay, but if gays want to be that way, fine. If they want to live together, fine. If they want a legal way to be responsible for each other, via a civil union, fine. But I draw the line at marriage. That's a hetero institution, and I'm not giving them that too. If gays don't like that, well tough." Or in other words, I don't see the gay marriage issue as the conservative right being aggressive against gays -- I see the *gay* culture having been increasingly aggressive and, yes, activist about getting acceptance in mainstream culture, and at some point *of course* mainstream was going to push back and say, "Okay, this far and no further." It doesn't mean they hate gays.

] Tell me I'm nuts. Tell me that this is a radical, emotionally
] charged interpretation of this election that has no
] relationship to what really happened. Prove it! I WANT someone
] to talk me down from this perspective. I see an election that
] was about jingoism and hate. And it pisses me off. I don't
] want to think that this is my country. But that seems the most
] straight forward way to interpret events.

Okay, how's this: I think you're presenting an emotionally charged interpretation of the election. I think you've, for the moment at least, got an "us and them" mentality, where anyone who disagrees with your values is being perceived by you as wrong, stupid, mean, uneducated, dangerous, uninformed, or at the very best, misguided. Or in other words, I think that you're exhibiting the very behavior that you're accusing the other side of. Are conservatives and evangelical Christians automatically evil, in your world view? Isn't it remotely possible that someone can be devoutly religious, *and* also be smart, educated, informed, caring, and respectful of other ways of life?

Elonka wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] The number one issue was "moral values" (and I'm going
] ] to continue to put that in quotes because I think its an
] ] oxymoron), but the number two issue was Terrorism. Where
] Kerry
] ] failed was by not focusing on Terrorism.
]
] No, from my read of things, the top issues were Terrorism and
] the War in Iraq. Every place I heard people debating things,
] that's what came up. Not moral values.

You must know what I'm referring to:

The Edison/Mitofsky exit polls used by the major television networks showed "moral values" to be the top priority in how people cast their ballots.

Twenty-two percent said moral values trumped the two issues most experts thought would sway voters, the economy and terrorism. These came in second and third at 20 percent and 19 percent respectively.

Search Google News for "Moral Values"

] But I draw the line at marriage. That's a hetero institution,
] and I'm not giving them that too. If gays don't like that,
] well tough." Or in other words, I don't see the gay marriage
] issue as the conservative right being aggressive against gays
] -- I see the *gay* culture having been increasingly aggressive
] and, yes, activist about getting acceptance in mainstream
] culture, and at some point *of course* mainstream was going to
] push back and say, "Okay, this far and no further." It
] doesn't mean they hate gays.

Yes, it does, and I'm sure that I can convince you of that. I'm also sure that people who advocated the "separate but equal" policies in the 50's presented the same "we ain't talkn' bout lynchn' nobody" rationale that you just laid out.

Yeah, gays have gotten more aggressive about getting acceptance in mainstream culture, as would you or I were we in the same position. I can't fault them for offending people who maybe ought to be offended.

The key question for you is why do you care, and once you find the answer to that you'll understand.

Why? If a church in another city decides to recognize gay marriages, with support of it's congregation, what business is it of yours? What impact does it have on you? Why do you care?

Why? If two gay people decide to get married in that church what business is it of yours? What impact does it have on you? Why do you care?

Why do you feel the need to say "this far and no further" to something that has nothing to do with you?

] Are conservatives and evangelical
] Christians automatically evil, in your world view? Isn't it
] remotely possible that someone can be devoutly religious,
] *and* also be smart, educated, informed, caring, and
] respectful of other ways of life?

We're not talking about "Evangelicals" abstractly. We're talking a national election. We're talking about evangelicals in politics. We're talking about evangelical christians who are attempting to use the government to impose their religion on this country. Who believe in a government of God as opposed to a government of Men. Who are perilously close to driving a knife through the system of checks and balances that holds this system of Government together, so that they can pursue their unconstitutional agenda without Supreme Court review.

Yes I think those people are evil and I think their agenda is evil. I think the Taliban is what happens when you draw these evil ideas out to their natural conclusion. And I think these people will anger me so long as I live here.

They've a right to their beliefs, but they also have a responsibility not to impose it on others by political force. Thats what Religious Freedom is all about.

Decius wrote:
] Why? If two gay people decide to get married in that church
] what business is it of yours? What impact does it have on you?
] Why do you care?
]
] Why do you feel the need to say "this far and no further" to
] something that has nothing to do with you?

Alright, I'm speaking as a single person here, and not as a married person, but let me try to take this one on anyway. "Marriage" is not just a legal term, it's an emotional *foundation* for the vast majority of adults in the world, that has *everything* to do with them. Their marriage is their center. The choice of who to marry is an enormously personal and powerful decision, that has ramifications through all parts of a person's life -- their family, their finances, their emotional well-being, their health, their lifetime goals, *everything*. Just like people wear a wedding ring every single day of their adult lives, they are aware of their marriage with nearly every breath they take. To say that marriage isn't important is like saying that children aren't important.

There was a reality TV show on a year or so ago, called "Married by America". Different couples were brought together basically by audience vote, and if they had chemistry, were given the opportunity to marry on the show. One or two of the couples *did* have great chemistry, but every single one of them, when it got to the point of saying, "I do," declined. They said that marriage was too important a decision to be made lightly. That the institution of marriage was sacred to them, and they wouldn't cheapen it by going through with it in a frivolous manner.

The concept of marriage isn't just about Christianity or religion or conservative politics -- marriage is pretty much as intense a personal decision as a human being can make, and if many people want to defend the sanctity of that concept, I can't blame them.

Now having said that, I have to speak for my own views, which is that I'm not deadset against the idea of gay marriage. I do have serious reservations though, because letting gays marry is not just about letting society formally sanction the idea of homosexual relationships -- it opens up an enormous can of worms involving legal and financial questions that are just barely handled by our legal system for heteros, let alone adding the complexity of gay relationships. If we allow marriage, then we have to deal with the longer term ramifications: Gay divorce? Gay alimony? Gay child support? Property ownership? Jointly-filed taxes? Estate planning? Battles over wills and death benefits? It's not just about letting a gay man put his partner on his health insurance policy, there's a whole slew of legal battles that would be opened up by allowing gay marriages.

So again, I have to say that I don't think the gay marriage issue is just related to gay-bashing or conservative Christian politics -- there's a lot more at stake.

Elonka wrote:
] There was a reality TV show on a year or so ago, called
] "Married by America".

For the record, I hated that show, because I felt it cheapened a very serious matter. I'm glad to hear that no one actually went through with it.

] Different couples were brought together
] basically by audience vote, and if they had chemistry, were
] given the opportunity to marry on the show. One or two of the
] couples *did* have great chemistry, but every single one of
] them, when it got to the point of saying, "I do," declined.
] They said that marriage was too important a decision to be
] made lightly. That the institution of marriage was sacred to
] them, and they wouldn't cheapen it by going through with it in
] a frivolous manner.
]
] The concept of marriage isn't just about Christianity or
] religion or conservative politics -- marriage is pretty much
] as intense a personal decision as a human being can make, and
] if many people want to defend the sanctity of that concept, I
] can't blame them.

Actually, this is just exactly my point. If marriage is such a personal decision then why do people feel that they've the right to impose their views upon someone else's marriage. If America can't marry a couple, then how can America prevent a couple from getting married. My point is that it isn't any of America's business. Its a personal decision that is best made between the individuals involved and their church.

] Battles over wills and death benefits? It's not just about
] letting a gay man put his partner on his health insurance
] policy, there's a whole slew of legal battles that would be
] opened up by allowing gay marriages.

Why should these questions be resolved any differently then for any other kind of couple. The only difference that I can see relates to child support, in that homosexual couples cannot produce offspring.

Decius wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] Battles over wills and death benefits? It's not just about
] ] letting a gay man put his partner on his health insurance
] ] policy, there's a whole slew of legal battles that would be
] ] opened up by allowing gay marriages.
]
] Why should these questions be resolved any differently then
] for any other kind of couple. The only difference that I can
] see relates to child support, in that homosexual couples
] cannot produce offspring.

Okay, how's this for a scenario: Joe marries Jack. Joe and Jack adopt a baby. Then Joe decides he's not gay anymore, divorces Jack, and marries Jill. Does Jill refer to Jack as "my husband's ex-husband?" Then what if Joe says that he wants the baby to have a mother instead of a second father. Does Jill have more right to take on guardianship than Jack, because of her gender?

Marriage isn't just "a cool idea". It's something with thousands of generations of history and laws and economic policy that are based on the concept of marriage being between opposite genders, though there are of course differences in how marriage is regarded in different cultures. For example, considerable disagreement on *how many* spouses that a particular person can have. ;)

I'm curious now though: Is there any historical precedent anywhere about a culture or country or kingdom that sanctioned homosexual weddings? Like in ancient Greece? I'd be curious to see such a list, if you can find one?

Elonka wrote:
] Okay, how's this for a scenario: Joe marries Jack. Joe and
] Jack adopt a baby.

I agree that questions about homosexual adoption are complex. I'm not sure I know enough about it to have an opinion. I'm sure that sociologists and child psychologists have studied the question, but I'm not sure what their answers are. In any event, I think this question is tangental to the one at hand. Allowing for same sex marriage does not imply allowing for homosexual adoption.

(BTW, my real opinion on this issue is that "Marriage" is a religious concept that is the domain of churches and not governments. Governments should only recognize civil unions on whatever basis they democratically conclude and stop referring to Marriage all together. Religions ought to freely decide what marriage means to them without imposition from the government. I think this is a libertarian point of view.)

] Marriage isn't just "a cool idea". It's something with
] thousands of generations of history and laws and economic
] policy that are based on the concept of marriage being between
] opposite genders, though there are of course differences in
] how marriage is regarded in different cultures.

Marriage is an institution that has changed dramatically over that history to adapt to changes in economic and social needs. Traditionally it was a way of connecting families together for the purpose of reproduction and in most societies it was arranged. Its only in recent history that marriages have been considered consensual, equal relationships that primary occur for love. In that context homosexual marriages make sense, whereas they might not have made sense in the framework that marriage existed in 150 years ago.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2001888924_marriagehistory29m.html

] I'm curious now though: Is there any historical precedent
] anywhere about a culture or country or kingdom that sanctioned
] homosexual weddings? Like in ancient Greece? I'd be curious
] to see such a list, if you can find one?

(I often feel like these discussions I get into on this site are essentially me performing non-consenual google searches and summaries for people. :) )

This (controversial) book seems to discuss the question you're asking:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751645/103-7894841-1928614?v=glance

This wikipedia article seems to discuss similar things, but I can't find it on their site anymore and clearly it is also disputed.
http://www.fact-index.com/s/sa/same_sex_marriage.html

Elonka wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] Elonka wrote:
] ] ] Battles over wills and death benefits? It's not just about
]
] ] ] letting a gay man put his partner on his health insurance
] ] ] policy, there's a whole slew of legal battles that would
] be
] ] ] opened up by allowing gay marriages.
] ]
] ] Why should these questions be resolved any differently then
] ] for any other kind of couple. The only difference that I can
]
] ] see relates to child support, in that homosexual couples
] ] cannot produce offspring.
]
] Okay, how's this for a scenario: Joe marries Jack. Joe and
] Jack adopt a baby. Then Joe decides he's not gay anymore,
] divorces Jack, and marries Jill. Does Jill refer to Jack as
] "my husband's ex-husband?" Then what if Joe says that he
] wants the baby to have a mother instead of a second father.
] Does Jill have more right to take on guardianship than Jack,
] because of her gender?
]
] Marriage isn't just "a cool idea". It's something with
] thousands of generations of history and laws and economic
] policy that are based on the concept of marriage being between
] opposite genders, though there are of course differences in
] how marriage is regarded in different cultures. For example,
] considerable disagreement on *how many* spouses that a
] particular person can have. ;)
]
] I'm curious now though: Is there any historical precedent
] anywhere about a culture or country or kingdom that sanctioned
] homosexual weddings? Like in ancient Greece? I'd be curious
] to see such a list, if you can find one?

I'm going to take this argument in a different direction. It was not until recently that there were legal influences on what marriage means. Life insurance? Health insurance? Hospitals with visiting hours? None of these things existed until relatively recently, and because it was convenient, they were tied to marriage.

Now, it you want to maintain marriage as a personal, religious institution, that's fine and any of those organizations can say "Marriage is only between a man and a woman" if they want. When the state steps in and says that, it is saying, "only these groups, have this right."

If you want to go back a few months, you may remember I wrote up a nice little piece on this, and recent events are going to bring it to a head. Either the government will recognize marriage as one of a number of "civil unions," and we all know how well "separate but equal" works, or it will grant the word marriage to gays and lesbians. Well that sure as hell isn't going to happen.

Not only that, but show me a compelling state interest in blocking this? Isn't that what laws are about? That's exactly why this thing went to the Massachusetts Supreme Court and they told the legislature that they couldn't proscribe marriage in this manner. It served no state interest to block gay marriage. The only way to legislate it therefore, is to make it a Constitutional issue.

Bottom line, this decision is about hate.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

] Bottom line, this decision is about hate.

Sorry, but the main hatred that I see here, is the hatred of the liberals towards non-liberals.

It is not possible to convince me that my reservations about the wisdom of gay marriage have anything to do with me hating gays. It just ain't so. :)

] Alright, I'm speaking as a single person here, and not as a
] married person, but let me try to take this one on anyway.
] "Marriage" is not just a legal term, it's an emotional
] *foundation* for the vast majority of adults in the world,
] that has *everything* to do with them. Their marriage is
] their center. The choice of who to marry is an enormously
] personal and powerful decision, that has ramifications through
] all parts of a person's life -- their family, their finances,
] their emotional well-being, their health, their lifetime
] goals, *everything*. Just like people wear a wedding ring
] every single day of their adult lives, they are aware of their
] marriage with nearly every breath they take. To say that
] marriage isn't important is like saying that children aren't
] important.
]
] The concept of marriage isn't just about Christianity or
] religion or conservative politics -- marriage is pretty much
] as intense a personal decision as a human being can make, and
] if many people want to defend the sanctity of that concept, I
] can't blame them.
]
] So again, I have to say that I don't think the gay marriage
] issue is just related to gay-bashing or conservative Christian
] politics -- there's a lot more at stake.

Exactly! These people feel the exact same way. Just because they are involved with someone of the same sex does not change the emotions and feelings that are involved. In fact it most likely intensifies them.

Palindrome wrote:
] Exactly! These people feel the exact same way. Just because
] they are involved with someone of the same sex does not change
] the emotions and feelings that are involved. In fact it most
] likely intensifies them.

I agree, there are definitely many gay people I know of, for whom the concept of marriage *is* an important emotional foundation. However, I can also think of many gays I know who want to get married for no other reason than that it would annoy the mainstreamers. For example, think of the really flamboyant drag queens. They love to shock, they love to get attention, they love to change society around them because they feel that they have the moral right to make other people's "boring lives" more interesting. And frankly, I see them as just as dangerous as anyone out on the conservative right who's trying to impose their own religious views on others.

For those gays who do take marriage seriously, who are in lifelong committed relationships, I truly don't have a problem with supporting the concept of gay marriage. But then I can look at the rest of the community, and I take a step back and see that gays are a tiny fraction of the overall population, but are asking for a massive overhaul of a multitude of institutions that span the breadth of our entire society -- legal, economic, personal, everything.

It wasn't so long ago that gays were pariahs. However, I think the AIDS epidemic helped mainstream society achieve more sympathy for gays, especially when they saw the commitment that was exhibited by some individuals as they cared for dying partners. So, people that a generation or two ago would have had to hide their sexual preference, can now live a more open life. But it's still not "accepted" everywhere yet.

Again, speaking personally, I'm not arguing that gay marriage is an abhorrent idea. But I think it's clear that our society is not ready for this yet. And I can think of *lots* of examples of ways that allowing gay marriage would throw the lives of many non-gays into chaos.

] I agree, there are definitely many gay people I know of, for
] whom the concept of marriage *is* an important emotional
] foundation. However, I can also think of many gays I know who
] want to get married for no other reason than that it would
] annoy the mainstreamers.

And hippy couples in the 60's didn't get married to annoy their conservative parents? Rich daughters don't date the bad boys to piss off their dads? Divorcing parents don't use child custody to hurt each other? To say that there is an extreme subset (drag queens) of a subset (gays) of the total population will use a power/right/whatever to annoy someone, and thus the entire subset (gays) shouldn't have that power/right/whatever is not only a rather poor argument, it's not a how our legal system functions when deciding to deny a pwoer/right.whatever to a group.

] But then I can
] look at the rest of the community, and I take a step back and
] see that gays are a tiny fraction of the overall population,
] but are asking for a massive overhaul of a multitude of
] institutions that span the breadth of our entire society --
] legal, economic, personal, everything.

I don't think so. You propse a a gay couple who adopts a child, breaks up and 1 becomes straight and marries. Why should either of the original gay couple be denied access to that child? If it was a straight couple who adopts and splits, we already have legal presidence: as long as the person isn't placing the child in dangerous situtations, etc, they cannot be denied access (there are more tests than that, this is simplified). My point is their already exists a legal framework to judge whether a person participate in certain American institutions, from adopting a child, to receiving medical benefits, power of attorney, and so on. Simple removing sex as a requirement doesn't suddenly destroy all these institutions. I could be wrong about this, so please supply some more situations where an existing framework cannot deal with a change in sex.

Elonka wrote:
] Palindrome wrote:
] ] Exactly! These people feel the exact same way. Just because
] ] they are involved with someone of the same sex does not
] change
] ] the emotions and feelings that are involved. In fact it most
]
] ] likely intensifies them.
]
] I agree, there are definitely many gay people I know of, for
] whom the concept of marriage *is* an important emotional
] foundation. However, I can also think of many gays I know who
] want to get married for no other reason than that it would
] annoy the mainstreamers. For example, think of the really
] flamboyant drag queens. They love to shock, they love to get
] attention, they love to change society around them because
] they feel that they have the moral right to make other
] people's "boring lives" more interesting. And frankly, I see
] them as just as dangerous as anyone out on the conservative
] right who's trying to impose their own religious views on
] others.
]
] For those gays who do take marriage seriously, who are in
] lifelong committed relationships, I truly don't have a problem
] with supporting the concept of gay marriage. But then I can
] look at the rest of the community, and I take a step back and
] see that gays are a tiny fraction of the overall population,
] but are asking for a massive overhaul of a multitude of
] institutions that span the breadth of our entire society --
] legal, economic, personal, everything.
]
] It wasn't so long ago that gays were pariahs. However, I
] think the AIDS epidemic helped mainstream society achieve more
] sympathy for gays, especially when they saw the commitment
] that was exhibited by some individuals as they cared for dying
] partners. So, people that a generation or two ago would have
] had to hide their sexual preference, can now live a more open
] life. But it's still not "accepted" everywhere yet.
]
] Again, speaking personally, I'm not arguing that gay marriage
] is an abhorrent idea. But I think it's clear that our society
] is not ready for this yet. And I can think of *lots* of
] examples of ways that allowing gay marriage would throw the
] lives of many non-gays into chaos.

Since this doesn't seem to be getting through, substitue the word "black" anywhere you used the word gay. That may explain why you aren't seeing this the same way Tom and I do.

In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between black, white, yellow, gay, straight, male, or female. What this issue is about is taking one of those groups and deliberately singling them out.

That is why I say this is about hate. It is about taking one group and removing them from the "equality" that the rest of the country is part of. The fact that they are less "accepted" simply means there isn't a question about it being about hate, the fact that they are not proves it.

] In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between black,
] white, yellow, gay, straight, male, or female. What this
] issue is about is taking one of those groups and deliberately
] singling them out.

Exactly my point! We have an existing legal framework to allow people access to certain institutions (adoption rights, owning firearms, power of attorney, health benefits, etc). All of this framework operates without regard to color, sex or race. Why should sexual orientation factor in? For that matter, does making sexual orientation a non-issue radically change any of these existing frameworks?

The only sticky point I see could be "welfare of the child." Again we already have existing standards (drug use, housing conditions, etc) to assist judges with this, and we have an appeals process to keep it in check.

First off let me say I am pleased we are having such an open and frank debate on this topic, and I am pleased it is so civil.

] The concept of marriage isn't just about Christianity or
] religion or conservative politics -- marriage is pretty much
] as intense a personal decision as a human being can make, and
] if many people want to defend the sanctity of that concept, I
] can't blame them.

Does 2 people of the same sex getting married in some way reduce or detract from sanctity of your marriage?

If gay marriage somehow cheapens the sanctity of your marriage, you didn't have a very good marriage to begin with. If gay marriage doesn't cheapen your marriage, then why the hell are we having this discussion? Yes, it really is that simple.

My parents wrote their own wedding vows. They were Moody Blues' lyrics. Slim to nil in the religous department. Not very sanctified is it? So should we have a law that defines wedding vows, to make sure vows are always holy and pure? What about a ban on Vegas Wedding Chapels, so a hung-over Brittany Spears can't have another 56 hour marriage? Her being a skank doesn't reduce the feeling my parents have for each other, or their marriage, anymore than my parents using Moody Blues' lyrics as wedding vows reduces my grandparents love for each other.

This entire "sanctity of marriage" arguement fails, for all the reasons you listed as marriage being so emotional and personal.

Acidus wrote:
] First off let me say I am pleased we are having such an open
] and frank debate on this topic, and I am pleased it is so
] civil.
 . . .
] If gay marriage somehow cheapens the sanctity of your
] marriage, you didn't have a very good marriage to begin with.

This is your idea of a civil discussion?

Elonka wrote:
] Acidus wrote:
] ] First off let me say I am pleased we are having such an open
]
] ] and frank debate on this topic, and I am pleased it is so
] ] civil.
] . . .
] ] If gay marriage somehow cheapens the sanctity of your
] ] marriage, you didn't have a very good marriage to begin
] with.
]
] This is your idea of a civil discussion?

Then debate me instead of firing off a one line answer! I raised a series of points that I don't think you can answer.D oyu think the worth of something like a marriage is a relative thing. Do you feel you need to stop others from doing something simply to preserve how people feel?

I'm totally calling you out on this one. Address the issue Elonka!