Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find the current fashion for "accepting" homosexuality somewhat amusing, it's been 40 odd years now and the wheels are starting to come off the movement a bit. Mainstream Christianity has shown it isn't willing to budge beyond a certain point (In America Anglicanism isn't mainstream, it splits between right and left) and increasingly there is an awareness that homosexual relationships simply do not obey the same rules as heterosexual ones.

In view of that, I expect the movement for homosexual "marriage" to stall in ten years, and it will never be accepted by the majority of religious people now opposed to it.

Crucially, being in a homosexual relationship is something you do, not something you are, like "being" Black is. On the other hand, "being" homosexual as a nature is something you are.

Dean Jeffrey Johns has written a book on how homosexual and heterosexual relationships are often not of the same value, and how he feels they should be. He is somewhat of a lone voice at the moment though.

[PanzerJaeger]

I find the current fashion for "accepting" homosexuality somewhat amusing, it's been 40 odd years now and the wheels are starting to come off the movement a bit. Mainstream Christianity has shown it isn't willing to budge beyond a certain point (In America Anglicanism isn't mainstream, it splits between right and left) and increasingly there is an awareness that homosexual relationships simply do not obey the same rules as heterosexual ones.

In view of that, I expect the movement for homosexual "marriage" to stall in ten years, and it will never be accepted by the majority of religious people now opposed to it.

Interesting. I percieve things completely differently. Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage seems to be ascendent while religious influence - not just pertaining to this issue but all aspects of life - is declining rapidly.

Just out of curiousity, can you explain the differences you described between the rules in hetero and homo relationships?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting. I percieve things completely differently. Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage seems to be ascendent while religious influence - not just pertaining to this issue but all aspects of life - is declining rapidly.

Just out of curiousity, can you explain the differences you described between the rules in hetero and homo relationships?

Britian has had a severely depressed religious conciousness since WWII, but the current 20-somethings are much more likely to be Christian, devout, confident, and Evangelical. This is not so much a question of American importation or indiginous evangelism and the young themselves rejecting the current secular moral-relativistic view in increasing numbers.

The homosexual "rights" movement is based on the claim that there is no substantive difference between different sexual relationships, and it has flourished under a cultural-relativistic outlook promoted by university-educated teachers (who are often also very left wing). Society itself is not at all convinced and recent research has started to suggest that a male/male relationship in particular is different to a male/female one. There was a recent study in Australia that showed the most sucessful "Gay" relationshps were "open", that is to say sexually unfaithful in the traditional sense.

Personally, I don't find this at all surprising. I suspect that the monogomy in heterosexual relationships is driven by the female impulse to conserve resources more than the male desire to raise only his own offspring.

The point is, though, marriage was an institution created for a man and a woman and their subsequent children. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, just how you manage your sexual arrangements.

[Beskar]

Britian has had a severely depressed religious conciousness since WWII, but the current 20-somethings are much more likely to be Christian, devout, confident, and Evangelical. This is not so much a question of American importation or indiginous evangelism and the young themselves rejecting the current secular moral-relativistic view in increasing numbers.

Sorry to burst your bubble, it might be in your Christian circles, but I know many churches who lack any "youth" and over the last decade or though, simply disappeared.

There was a church near us which had a massive youth segment, and we are talking about at least a 100 under-18s. A decade or so later, it has been reduced to 20-30ish, and it isn't because they are aging and going up in the church either, they have all left.

When I was at my Nephews baptism the other day, the priest spoke about how no one even does baptisms anymore, and said about a decade ago, 8 in 10 children were baptised, now it is 1 in 10.

Most of this isn't the raise of atheism and agnosticism though. It is the raise of apathy and "cannot be bothered".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry to burst your bubble, it might be in your Christian circles, but I know many churches who lack any "youth" and over the last decade or though, simply disappeared.

There was a church near us which had a massive youth segment, and we are talking about at least a 100 under-18s. A decade or so later, it has been reduced to 20-30ish, and it isn't because they are aging and going up in the church either, they have all left.

When I was at my Nephews baptism the other day, the priest spoke about how no one even does baptisms anymore, and said about a decade ago, 8 in 10 children were baptised, now it is 1 in 10.

Most of this isn't the raise of atheism and agnosticism though. It is the raise of apathy and "cannot be bothered".

That's the established Church (like me), you'll find that the independant evangelical churches are growing quite fast now. However, this growth is from a low base, and it is unlikely that Christianity will become "dominant" again in the near future.

Of course, you also have the latently Christian who turn to the Church in times of stress or bereavement - there are still a very large number of them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry to burst your bubble, it might be in your Christian circles, but I know many churches who lack any "youth" and over the last decade or though, simply disappeared.

There was a church near us which had a massive youth segment, and we are talking about at least a 100 under-18s. A decade or so later, it has been reduced to 20-30ish, and it isn't because they are aging and going up in the church either, they have all left.

When I was at my Nephews baptism the other day, the priest spoke about how no one even does baptisms anymore, and said about a decade ago, 8 in 10 children were baptised, now it is 1 in 10.

Most of this isn't the raise of atheism and agnosticism though. It is the raise of apathy and "cannot be bothered".

I don't mean to re-hash what PVC said in reply to this, but he is right in saying that while established churches have declined, there has been significant growth in smaller, more fundamentalist, and I dare say extreme churches. A lot of local Baptist/Brethren churches near me are full of young people, in my moments of disdain with the Church of Scotland I often feel like joining them.

I think the failure of the established churches to offer anything is what has caused this polarisation, with people either turning agnostic, or turning to more fundemantalist churches. People don't grow up from a young age with the spiritual leadership of the church anymore. We don't have that 'innoculation' against religion anymore which Dawkins talked of, with the quaint old country vicar etc. Young people aren't exposed to their influence anymore by the old traditional upbringing of trailing along to church every Sunday followed by Sunday school after the service.

But people do seem to have some inherent affinity for religion, so when people look for it, they often end up with less appeasing/liberal/whatever sources than the old eccentric country vicar. When I converted, the first sources I turned to were the Protestant Reformers, eventually settling with Calvinism and reading many Puritan theologians. My other 'influences' come from my relatives in Northern Ireland, who send religious tracks entitled 'No Surrender' that would get me arrested if I tried to hand them out on the streets of Glasgow.

The same has happened in the Muslim community. I remember a documentary recently where second generation immigrants lack the strong religious network their parents had, so they turn to the more extreme forms of Islam like Wahhabism, because they never had a moderating influence when they converted. There's a phenomenon where people in their late teens do it but then their fanaticism wears off, they called it 'Salafist burnout' IIRC.

[Megas Methuselah]

There's a phenomenon where people in their late teens do it but then their fanaticism wears off, they called it 'Salafist burnout' IIRC.

Yeah, I noticed a lot of people who go gospel often burn out. This usually happens to be people who weren't raised with religion but, as you said, converted of their own accord as young adults.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Fair enough, but you still have to justify why homosexuals shouldn't be treated as equal under the law as heterosexuals, though.

As I said I think they should be equal, by scrapping marriage. If you just expand marriage, I think it leaves the problems with asexuals etc as below...

Stuff about asexuals

I know you are saying asexuals can technically marry, but my point is that they are far less likely to want to marry because of a condition they are probably born with. And their reluctance to marry will mean they miss out on all these state-granted privileges being given to heterosexual/homosexual couples. That's discrimination.

Yes legally speaking they can marry, just as homosexual men could marry women in the past... the point is they won't want to.

Yeah, I noticed a lot of people who go gospel often burn out. This usually happens to be people who weren't raised with religion but, as you said, converted of their own accord as young adults.

Haha yeah I noticed the parallel with myself, but I've never heard of a Calvinist burnout.

[PanzerJaeger]

Britian has had a severely depressed religious conciousness since WWII, but the current 20-somethings are much more likely to be Christian, devout, confident, and Evangelical.

I had no idea young people in Britain were so religious. I have gotten the exact opposite impression when I've been there, but of course anecdotal evidence is often misleading. Thanks for the information.

The homosexual "rights" movement is based on the claim that there is no substantive difference between different sexual relationships, and it has flourished under a cultural-relativistic outlook promoted by university-educated teachers (who are often also very left wing). Society itself is not at all convinced and recent research has started to suggest that a male/male relationship in particular is different to a male/female one. There was a recent study in Australia that showed the most sucessful "Gay" relationshps were "open", that is to say sexually unfaithful in the traditional sense.

I hardly think infidelity is unique to male/male relationships. Is that the big difference that you were referring to, that homosexuals are somehow incapable of monogamy? Studies have also shown this to be patently false.

The point is, though, marriage was an institution created for a man and a woman and their subsequent children. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, just how you manage your sexual arrangements.

I just don't see much evidence that homosexuals are incapable of managing their sexual relationships in the same way as heterosexuals.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.

BTW 52% for Prop 8 doesn't mean that 48% are in favor of gay marriage in that state. That merely means that 48% don't want a constitutional amendment. We all know people who use the arguement "I am against gay marriage, but I am also against a constitutional amendment agaisnt gay marriage". Throw people a straightforward poll - yes or no to gay marriage - and I suspect that you will see a much bigger divide.


The mere fact that they got 52% of the vote to constitutionally solidify traditional marriage says quite a bit more than the opponents wish it did.

[PanzerJaeger]

The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

[Beskar]

The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.

Wrong. My post on the first page is the correct version.

[The Celtic Viking]

@Rhyfelwyr: Your arguments seem to me to be against the benefits of marriage, not marriage itself. I think that was the disconnect between us; yeah, I can agree that some of the benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) shouldn't be there, as I disagree with the justification for them. I don't think I would agree with removing them all, but that's a different discussion though, isn't it?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well....

Scientific research has not proved this interpretation any more than it has proved that being "gay" is a state into which one is born genetically. I would be THRILLED if definitive research would establish this one way or the other.

Sexuality is not an on/off switch, but more of a continuum. Some blokes will look at the male star of an adult feature as he waves his six-standard deviations above the mean appendage about and think -- gee I wish I had a mutton dagger like that -- while others would think about having at that mutton dagger. Still others might be turned on by the same depending on mood but unaffected most other times.

A person's propensity for a same-sex primary focus in sexuality is, I believe, either genetically determined or genetically pre-dispositioned. It defies logic that as many persons who are gay would choose this status (were it optional) and all of the attendent abuse etc. I look forward to the researchers someday being able to provide demonstrable proof that this is so.

At that point, I think many of the "holdouts" would have to re-evaluate their views, and reclassifying "gay" as something that is comparatively rare, but naturally occurring -- and hence NOT a worthy basis for discrimination.

[Xiahou]

Scientific research has not proved this interpretation any more than it has proved that being "gay" is a state into which one is born genetically. I would be THRILLED if definitive research would establish this one way or the other.

You keep saying this... but what would it solve, really? Homosexuality's defining characteristic is a certain behavior. Whether it's something innate or acquired, what changes?

--------

Here are some pertinent questions we were kicking around the office today:

Is discrimination permissable if a majority of voters approve it?

Can fundamental rights be submitted to a vote?

Do domestic partnerships confer second-class status?

Is the discrimination inherent in that second-class status harmful to gay men & women?

Is there a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage?

1) Of course it is- that's what laws do. We discriminate against people who speed. We descriminate against people in certain income brackets, ect. Almost all law is about treating people who meet certain conditions differently. Certain basic rights are supposed to be beyond the reach of government, but even these are not without limit.

2) Here I would say no.

3) Does being single confer a second-class status? Does being married confer a first-class status? On all of these, I would say no.

4)N/A. See #3.

5) You're asking the wrong question. I think you should ask instead 'What is the state's purpose in granting special recognition to married couples?'. The state shouldn't be in the business of granting bennies to people because they're in love- that's pointless. Streamlining legal processes to make for a stable environment to rear children, simplify inheritance, ect could be valid reasons.

My conclusion: Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise. People are free to fall in love with whoever they want, have sex and children with whoever they want- government recognition neither allows or prevents that. This is where the debate so often goes wrong. We're talking about extending government recognition and certain benefits to couples that match set criteria. People can make the argument that it's to the benefit of society for same-sex couples for get such recognition and if they can convince enough people, they'll get it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, and am therefore not agitating for same-sex marriage. However, if it comes to pass it's not going to be the end of the world either. I do admit that I get a little annoyed in the aggressive manner that proponents choose to shove it down our throats.

[al Roumi]

I had no idea young people in Britain were so religious. I have gotten the exact opposite impression when I've been there, but of course anecdotal evidence is often misleading. Thanks for the information.

Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?

I said more likely, and that the increase was from a very low starting base.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@Rhyfelwyr: Your arguments seem to me to be against the benefits of marriage, not marriage itself. I think that was the disconnect between us; yeah, I can agree that some of the benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) shouldn't be there, as I disagree with the justification for them. I don't think I would agree with removing them all, but that's a different discussion though, isn't it?

But surely the point in state-recognised marriages is that they give these benefits, that's the only point in having them.

Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?

This is probably true to an extent, most people I know are what are termed 'Huns' (<---everything beyond no. 1 on that list, no. 4 made me lol), they are into the whole loyalist culture etc.

But even then I know people in the Evangelical circles (another sub-culture surrounding Christianity) and those churches are growing at an impressive rate.

But yeah, the rank and file of the established churches now don't bother to attend every Sunday. Although there is still a surprisingly high belief in God with these types of people, they would be very liberal in their theology.

[gaelic cowboy]

I have to agree with Rhyfelwyr state-recognised marriages should have as much recognition as putting Cthulhu down on the census form as your religion

But yeah, the rank and file of the established churches now don't bother to attend every Sunday. Although there is still a surprisingly high belief in God with these types of people, they would be very liberal in their theology.

This is off topic but I would say the "The Belief in the Belief in God" is high

This video with Dan Dennet explains it better

[The Celtic Viking]

But surely the point in state-recognised marriages is that they give these benefits, that's the only point in having them.

I did say I don't disagree with all of them, didn't I? Meh. It doesn't really matter to me if they removed them all. Things would have to change, but that's not a reason not to do it, and I positively want most of the changes anyway.