Number 18

[HoreTore]

I don't buy the comparison with racism or the idea that acceptance of homosexual marriage is an inevitability.

Racism (I mean serious, institutionalised racism) is something that is unique to particular places and particular times, often disappearing and reappearing throughout history in different forms. On the other hand, the idea of homosexual marriage has been almost universally rejected by almost all societies across almost all times.

If you really want to play that game:

The idea of monogamy is a very limited idea. The concept of the nuclear family as the basis for society(or even its very existence) is extremely rare in the grand scheme of things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you really want to play that game:

The idea of monogamy is a very limited idea. The concept of the nuclear family as the basis for society(or even its very existence) is extremely rare in the grand scheme of things.

Sure - lets Tango.

Last time we did this I asked for an example of sanctioned homosexual or polyamous marriage.

Nobody had one - historical (and current) instances of polygamy involve one man making multiple marriages - not a single marriage involving more than two people.

So - while Rhy may be coming at the issue from a very Protestant context he's essentially correct about homosexual unions being endorsed - it's about as inevitable as democracy - and we know that barely functions outside Europe and the anglo-sphere. Certainly - the majority of the world's population lives under something other than a democratic government.

Onto the specific case - the situation in the US is an example of constitutional and judicial abuse. US law does not specify that marriage is between a man and a woman because the framers of those laws considered it to be self-evident. This has been exploited as a loophole by the Courts and Liberal-minded activists. It is not a loophole and a proper and impartial Judicial review by the Supreme Court WILL inevitably strike down all these decisions.

What is needed is actual change in the Law explicitly including homosexuals within the institution of marriage.

[HoreTore]

Sure - lets Tango.

Last time we did this I asked for an example of sanctioned homosexual or polyamous marriage.

Nobody had one - historical (and current) instances of polygamy involve one man making multiple marriages - not a single marriage involving more than two people.

....and as I believe I stated that last time, I don't care about law one bit.

People have been screwing around from the beginning of time, and most of the time it's been as acceptable as drinks before 6.

[Kadagar_AV]

....and as I believe I stated that last time, I don't care about law one bit.

People have been screwing around from the beginning of time, and most of the time it's been as acceptable as drinks before 6.

That's an extremely weak argument...

Fact is, homosexuality has not been endorsed by society in more official ways... Historically speaking. There has also been good reasons for this - seen from a state perspective, not individual of course.

Meh, I just mean your argument is weak.

I have absolutely no problem with gay people, and if they want to get married, why not?

The problem, at least in Sweden and Austria... The only two countries I know on a deeper level... Is that the gay ISSUE has been tied with a LOAD of other things... Lots of them not really appealing.

At a gay rally:

Announcer: WE ARE GAY AND HERE TO STAY!!
Me: Awesome :)
Announcer: POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!
Me: Ok... Sure...
Announcer: FREE IMMIGRATION AND DOWN WITH THE SCHOOL SYSTEM!!
Me: Wait, what?

I understand why, before, the gay movement had to get help from other sources just to be heard... As is today though, I think the gay movement would be FAR better off just doing their own thing. Separate sexuality from politics, so to say.

[a completely inoffensive name]

@Kadagar_AV, I.....agree? Wait. No, yeah, I agree with what you just said. Huh.

[Fragony]

I agree with the Swedish ski-instructor for a change. It's ok to be gay but just don't get all too activist about it. You are atracted to the same sex that's fine, who am I to judge that, it has zero impact on me. Stop making a point out of it it's counterproductive. Just be happy with your partner.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@Kadagar_AV, I.....agree? Wait. No, yeah, I agree with what you just said. Huh.

It's ok - as you get older, Kadagar starts to make more sense. You'll get used to it.

Also, as he has aged, he has started to make more sense too.

[PanzerJaeger]

The problem, at least in Sweden and Austria... The only two countries I know on a deeper level... Is that the gay ISSUE has been tied with a LOAD of other things... Lots of them not really appealing.

This is largely a function of the rejection of homosexuality on the right - not simply the nuanced stances against gay marriage or adoption most commonly put forward today, but the years of vicious attacks against their fundamental right to exist in society as they are. This has created a particularly virulent strain of identity politics, where gays are expected to accept a larger left wing platform of positions that have little if anything to do with sexuality.

I have found that there are plenty of gay people who lean moderate-to-right on many issues, but they keep it to themselves as they would be rejected by other gay people who (rightly) feel an allegiance to the left and they would be rejected by the right who still want nothing to do with them. Thus you have a political atmosphere where thought leaders in the gay community are only allowed to manifest on one side of the political spectrum.

[Fragony]

This is largely a function of the rejection of homosexuality on the right.

It works kinda differently in Europe, there is no rejection comming from the right, only from the christian groups. Left and right have other meanings here, cannot be compared. Gays bring a lot onto themselves by wanting both the lifestyle and a normal life, gay-olympics, wtf? Why would you want gay-olympics. That kind of stuff is where everything goes wrong. What does it matter who you share your bed with to be running really fast or jump really high. It doesn't matter. Acceptance would go a lot smoother if some gays would settle for not being special. It's an orientation, shouldn't want to make a lifestyle out of it.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is largely a function of the rejection of homosexuality on the right - not simply the nuanced stances against gay marriage or adoption most commonly put forward today, but the years of vicious attacks against their fundamental right to exist in society as they are. This has created a particularly virulent strain of identity politics, where gays are expected to accept a larger left wing platform of positions that have little if anything to do with sexuality.

I have found that there are plenty of gay people who lean moderate-to-right on many issues, but they keep it to themselves as they would be rejected by other gay people who (rightly) feel an allegiance to the left and they would be rejected by the right who still want nothing to do with them. Thus you have a political atmosphere where thought leaders in the gay community are only allowed to manifest on one side of the political spectrum.

Yepp, agreed.

That's what I meant with I understand why, before, the gay movement had to get help from other sources just to be heard

My point is that the gays need to break lockstep with the extreme left before the right will ever embrace them. It's not a right/left question, so why make it one now when they HAVE a platform of their own.

I am afraid the gays are the ones who have to take the first steps though, to "make up" with the right. Not because they are more responsible for coming to terms, but because they seem more mature as a collective

[HoreTore]

My point is that the gays need to break lockstep with the extreme left before the right will ever embrace them.

Why on earth would "the gays" want to be embraced by the right anyway?

[HoreTore]

Fact is, homosexuality has not been endorsed by society in more official ways... Historically speaking.

What leftie will argue against the claim that sexual norms has been dominated by and catered to the sexuality of the heterosexual male?