"Same sex marriage" What is your opinion?

[Harvey Balboner]

cool it with the flames ladies and gentlemen or we will have to close this thread.

most of you are debating in a civilized manner, but the flamming better stop

[alevok]

Thanks for looking up the dictionnary and enlighten us for the meaning of "holy" without you we straight people could not figure that out, oh boy you are so intelligent. What I am saying is two same sex couple can not make a family this is not "THE FAMILY" How hard for you to understand the meaning of Family? I suspect you are planning a gay marriage thats why me talking about gay marriage bothers you a lot. If this is your way, way to go sister, get married with a man.
If this is what you think "What's funny is, THE AAS USERS HERE SHOULD SYMPATHIZE WITH THE GAY COMMUNITY" You better stop taking it, I suspect AAS use damaged your brain cells you can not think STRAIGHT.;
I said enough, obviously you are more sensitive than Gays on this subject "eventhough you declare yourself straight" since it is a very controversial issue we are not gonna meet in grey zone, so take care and stay gay.

[powerlifter]

Agreed 1000%

Amen Bro

[Tock]

The day when they got their rights was when the majority agreed they deserved their rights.

If the truth be told about %90 of America thinks same sex marriage is wrong.

If it wasn't for "activist judges," blacks would still be stuck with "Seperate but Equal" schools, couldn't vote, couldn't intermarry with whites, and would still suffer all sorts of abuse and discrimination.

Same thing applies to lots of other minorities . . . So there's something to be said for "activist judges." They can do what the politicians are afraid to do--make constructive social progress, broaden the blanket of Constitutional Rights so that it covers more people. Not a bad thing, IMHO.
-
tock

[Cycleon]

But if activist judges are free to make whatever laws they want - then what is the point of having elections and making laws that are theoretically supported by the majority? Why couldnt I just get a judge to declare that my ability to take bribes was ok, or whatever I wanted?

f I were black I would be having a coniptive fit over gays trying to equate this with the civil rights movement - this isnt selma brother - this is an effort to get moral sanction for a preferred behavioral pattern

[Tock]

1) But if activist judges are free to make whatever laws they want - then what is the point of having elections and making laws that are theoretically supported by the majority? Why couldnt I just get a judge to declare that my ability to take bribes was ok, or whatever I wanted?

2) f I were black I would be having a coniptive fit over gays trying to equate this with the civil rights movement - this isnt selma brother -

3) this is an effort to get moral sanction for a preferred behavioral pattern

1) Then again, if the US Judiciary is entrusted with the power to interpret and review US laws, what would be the point of having them if they failed to exercise their power?
The authors of the US Constititution knew about the tyranny of majority rule and the oppression that minorities get heaped on 'em. They empowered the Judiciary with the right to disallow laws that majority legislators might create that abridged the rights of minorities.
I think you'd agree with me that that is a good thing . . .

2) Yes, it's different in some ways, but similar in others. Nevertheless, there is no rational reason why gays can't have sex in the privacy of their own homes, which is why the Sodomy laws were struck down. There is no rational reason why gays should be fired from their job or kicked out of their apartment or denied service in a resaurant just because they're gay. So, laws were passed prohibiting this crap, just like the ones passed for blacks and women and religious nuts and etc.

3) I don't know it's as much an effort to get "moral sanction" as it is an effort to remove legal prohibitions. Most gay people are used to disapproval, and learn to live with it. What's at issue nowadays is whether or not the laws of the US of A are going to continue to keep gays in a disadvantaged condition.

--Tock

[Carlos_E]

f I were black I would be having a coniptive fit over gays trying to equate this with the civil rights movement - this isnt selma brother - this is an effort to get moral sanction for a preferred behavioral pattern

I'm a minority and I am not offended. I see the parallel. The reason you don't see the parallel is because you do not believe people are born gay. You refer to it as a behavioral pattern.

[Cycleon]

1) Then again, if the US Judiciary is entrusted with the power to interpret and review US laws, what would be the point of having them if they failed to exercise their power?
The authors of the US Constititution knew about the tyranny of majority rule and the oppression that minorities get heaped on 'em. They empowered the Judiciary with the right to disallow laws that majority legislators might create that abridged the rights of minorities.
I think you'd agree with me that that is a good thing . . .

2) Yes, it's different in some ways, but similar in others. Nevertheless, there is no rational reason why gays can't have sex in the privacy of their own homes, which is why the Sodomy laws were struck down. There is no rational reason why gays should be fired from their job or kicked out of their apartment or denied service in a resaurant just because they're gay. So, laws were passed prohibiting this crap, just like the ones passed for blacks and women and religious nuts and etc.

3) I don't know it's as much an effort to get "moral sanction" as it is an effort to remove legal prohibitions. Most gay people are used to disapproval, and learn to live with it. What's at issue nowadays is whether or not the laws of the US of A are going to continue to keep gays in a disadvantaged condition.

--Tock

1) we will leave this for later as I have other matters to attend to for now

2) No one is keeping people from having homosexual sex now - no one, as long as it is in the privacy of ones home, not breaking some tresapssing law, etc, same as heterosexual sex - and I certainly agree with you that no one should be denied restaraunt service because they engage in homosexual sex - but that is not what is being argued with marriage

3) there is no "prohibition" against anything now - what they want is to codefy in law the societal, moral exceptance of homosexual sexual relationships - they are not being denied anything now - it is they who are trying to change the definition of a societal norm to fit their own behavioral patterns - whether they think it is genetically inherent or not, it is in practice simply a behavioral pattern, nothing more.

I guarantee you that there is no physical thing that they can take a blood sample and say - this is a homosexual - whereas you genetically are black, white, brown, male or female. So how do we know? because they want ot have sex with similar gender.

[Cycleon]

again - there is no issue of discrimination - what is at issue is a redefinition of what "marriage" is - 2 people engaged in homosexuality are quite free in America to live together and have whatever relationship they see fit to have. But to try to define it as "marriage" is to redefine what that word means - because what it means is the lifelong commitment of a man and a woman in sexual union - from that also comes children and this is the core nucleus of "family" - unless the marriage is stabile the "family" is not secure either.

For 2 people of the same sex to enter into a lifelong sexual union is certainly their perogative - but it cannot be called marriage without changing what marriage is no more than I could call myself "jewish" without changing the definition of what that is.

[Cycleon]

I really dont have any issue with them getting under contractual agreement, civil union, etc - but you see I do have an issue with various gov policy toward such private agreements - the power to tax is the power to destroy - now one of the ways that gov encourages or discourages behaviors is via taxation and benefits - it is in fact the governments job to promote or deter certain behavioral shifts, whether it be in social policy or business research - now this is based upon whatever the taxpayers are willing to fund - as a taxpayer I feel that it is reasonable to continue to support marriage for example via a preferential treatment by the IRS, for which as a single I pay more. I, and I warrant a vast majority of americans would not be willing to support gay unions in such a way - again, else I start to "marry" my dog on paper so I can have a tax benefit. Again, just because we permit certain behavior, does NOT mean that it is in societies interest to ENCOURAGE such behavior via the mechanisms of gov - and that is what extending such benefits do - and do not tell me that "same sex relationships would happen with or without such things" - thats good, so they can do without them - why? because as a taxpayer, I still have the novel idea that I and the majority of americans have the right to say how their tax dollars are spent! imagine that but again, I see no reason why they should not be able to enter into a "civil contract" that would settle property rights, right of survivorship and other private matters - but of course, they can do that at any time without the benefit of any new legislation whatsoever - tho proper legislation might streamline such an agreement to be sure.

[Harvey Balboner]

I heard an interesting debate on the radio friday on this, a political science professor brought up a case, during the time that Utah wanted to become a state, the supreme court was defining marraige due to the large mormon (sp?) influence in utah, where bigamy (sp?) was common practice, at that time the supreme court ruled that a marriage was defined as a union between 1 man and 1 woman at any given time. although this was regarding bigamy, it did define marriage.

btw, yes i do realize that i can not spell

[alevok]

SGFuryz,
You asked me before how would I know what majority think since I am not living there. Well, I read bro and I read not only domestic papers but also international papers.
Here is what I found today.
"Florida voters are divided over President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, with more voters opposed to an amendment than supporting it, the St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald poll found.
http://www.stpetetimes.com/2004/03/0...pose_gay.shtml

The poll, conducted March 3-4, found that 65 percent of voters oppose same-sex marriage. Opposition was most intense in the Tampa Bay area, where 72 percent are opposed"

I am not ignorant neither you are gay, we kind of got mad each other while arguing, sorry if I was harsh on you. did not mean any harm.
I believe in white you believe in black, thats the nature of the discussion but I believe a child deserve a mother and a father.
I was brought up without a father and I know how important to have both parents (mother & father) while growing up. Gay people can offer a warm house, education, luxury but none of them will fill the lack of the love and caring of a mother and father. No one asks the child's opinion if he/she wants to be adopted by a gay couple, just put yourself in baby's shoes would you prefer a family or a gay couple to take care of you? What about the difficulties he/she will go thru her / his life for being a son/daughter of a gay couple? What about his teenage years? How he will introduce his parents to his friends? He will always ask this question what if he was dopted by a normal couple? Allowing gays to adopt a child will satisfy their egos, but not gonna be enough for the baby because it is not natural at all.
These are my final words on this subject, and again I am not against gay people I am against gay marrriage.

[alevok]

Sgfuryz
You are right in many things but dont forget, people are people mo matter what sex preferences they have. There are always good and bad in every community (gay or straight) People can change, people can lose temper ( like you and I earlier) but we can not say gays or straights would make good parents, we are all human after all. I am sure there are drug addict gays out there, I am sure there are even insane gays, why not? they are human too, so what you said about straight parents can be applied to gay parents. I am saying this because you kind of portrayed gays as true angels, I am sure there are many good hearted gays out there but there are also bad ones, I just want you to accept the fact that not only straight people could be bad parents but also gay parents. When it comes to adoption it is a matter of child's luck, no one can give any guarantee right?
If you ask my opinion, I say not everyone should have kids unless they could offer a bright future for their children. A teenager should not have a child or a poor family should not have more kids than they can afford. But it is not up to me. People do it anyway.
It was good to argue with you on this manner, take care bro.

[Cycleon]

Shifting the argument to a guns Vs butter discussion will not work with me - stick to the point If the majority of the people dont like the way money is spent then they elect someone else - and that is exactly what would happen to the pol who was foolish enough to extend such benefits to homosexual relationships

But that is not what homosexuals are counting on - they have no desire for "democracy" - their agenda is simply to get their view of things imposed upon the vast majority of Americans by fiat via a simpathetic court - all those radical 60's law school chickens now coming home to roost in society - but you may well believe that they do not expect the people to accept them (although they are doing all that they can in this arena as well) - they simply are fighting to get the courts to impose gay marriage on us all - much like is happening in Massachusetts

Although society may view homosexual behavior as "wrong", or at the very least "unorthodox", denying them tax benefits hurts their income, and if they happen to be raising a child (or children!), these kids must suffer the lower income because their parents are gay.

I understand that we SHOULD have say with taxpayer money, but tell me why our President thinks that we should increase the military budget by $45.5 billion, totalling to a whopping $396.1 billion dollars. Not only that, but OUR government plans on spending $2.1 TRILLION DOLLARS IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS!!! Why doesn't our government shift SOME of that money towards organizations and programs which would benefit the PEOPLE, rather than the MILITARY. I understand that the military is for our protection, but some of what they have planned is a little overkill, IMO. Look here:
http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03Highlights-pr.cfm
The only thing I see truly reasonable is the increase in military pay. Maybe others disagree with me, but I think $2.1 trillion over the next 5 years for further military development is frivilous and unnecessary...

[Superhuman]

feminists, environmentalists, anti-war activists, hippies... and now gays! What the hell, they all piss me off. No matter what, there's always gonna be someone trying to change our way of life. Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years, and now these fags want to change it! Well fu(k them.

[Carlos_E]

Hell yeah, let the faggots die...

feminists, environmentalists, anti-war activists, hippies... and now gays! What the hell, they all piss me off. No matter what, there's always gonna be someone trying to change our way of life. Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years, and now these fags want to change it! Well fu(k them.

Again, read the rules. Comments like these will get your ignorant ass banned.

[Cycleon]

Superhuman - Carlos and I disagree on the issue but we totally agree on this - I do NOT want to see that kind of speech on here again - this forum is for people who can intelligently state their ideas, opinions and the reasons behind them - not people making hatefilled comments

while I can understand your feelings toward this - keep comments like that to yourself or you will be going elsewhere fast

[Tock]

1) we will leave this for later as I have other matters to attend to for now

2) No one is keeping people from having homosexual sex now - no one, as long as it is in the privacy of ones home, not breaking some tresapssing law, etc, same as heterosexual sex - and I certainly agree with you that no one should be denied restaraunt service because they engage in homosexual sex - but that is not what is being argued with marriage

3) there is no "prohibition" against anything now - what they want is to codefy in law the societal, moral exceptance of homosexual sexual relationships - they are not being denied anything now - it is they who are trying to change the definition of a societal norm to fit their own behavioral patterns -
3a) whether they think it is genetically inherent or not, it is in practice simply a behavioral pattern, nothing more.

4) I guarantee you that there is no physical thing that they can take a blood sample and say - this is a homosexual - whereas you genetically are black, white, brown, male or female. So how do we know? because they want ot have sex with similar gender.

1) Don't forget it . . . it's a vaild point.

2) But people used to have laws against gay sex, and for the same reasons they object to gay marriage. Supposed to bring about the end of civilization, maybe make the moon crash into the earth, all sorts of crazy things.
Nowadays states have laws restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples, just like up until recently, laws existed restricting marriage to same-race couples. It took liberal judges to correct the gross error of legislators on that issue, and it'll take liberal judges to correct the gross error of this issue.

3) Of course there is a prohibition . . . gays can't, straights can, by law, get married. You may see the effort to correct this gross miscarriage of justice as an attempt by gays to obtain "acceptance" of the straight world, but rest assurred, gays and lesbians don't give a rat's ass if straights approve or not. What we are concerned about it getting the same legal rights as straight people do.
Seems to me that the main reason that fundamentalists are so dead-set against gay marriage is that we represent another loss of control/influence they have had over government regulations.
3a) Oh, mon petite . . . it's definitely something more . . . I guarantee that if you put any gay guy close to another "hot guy," you're going to get some sort of internal emotional reaction that you won't get if you put two straight guys or a gay guy and a hot wench together. I think, based on the emotional reaction unique to gay people, it is definitely much more than just a simple "behaviourial pattern."

Too bad I can't make you gay for a day . . . "Queen for a day," as they used to say . . . so you can see and experience for yourself firsthand what it's like.

4) That may be true now, but who's to say some sharp scientist won't turn up some enzyme or something unique to gay people? You never know what they'll turn up next . . .

--Tock

[Tock]

You know, I think I know what the problem here is. Those of you are not against gays marrying because they threaten family values. It's RELIGIOUS VALUES that you poeple fear will be destroyed by gay marriages. Just FYI, in America, Church (religion) & State (law) are SEPARATE...

I think that's it 100%.
--Tock

[Tock]

- what is at issue is a redefinition of what "marriage" is - 2 people engaged in homosexuality are quite free in America to live together and have whatever relationship they see fit to have. But to try to define it as "marriage" is to redefine what that word means - because what it means is the lifelong commitment of a man and a woman in sexual union -.

Actually, most states had their marriage laws defining marriage as a "committment between two people." Then when gay people started showing up asking for marriage licenses, that's when they re-defined marriage to "a man and a woman." There's no reason why they can't re-re-define marriage to what it was back in the 1940's.
--Tock

[Tock]

but again, I see no reason why they should not be able to enter into a "civil contract" that would settle property rights, right of survivorship and other private matters - but of course, they can do that at any time without the benefit of any new legislation whatsoever - tho proper legislation might streamline such an agreement to be sure.

Problem there is that (1) it costs about $10,000 in lawyers fees to get all this set up, and (2) all these papers can be contested in court and overturned where marriage rights cannot, and (3) all the documents and etc filed by lawyers will not get gays the same tax rights, insurance discounts, etc as straights.
--Tock

[Tock]

----Regarding civil rights for blacks (1954):
But that is not what blacks are counting on - they have no desire for "democracy" - their agenda is simply to get their view of things imposed upon the vast majority of Americans by fiat via a simpathetic court -

----Regarding the right not to pledge alleigience to the flag for Jehovah's Witnesses (1943):
But that is not what JW's are counting on - they have no desire for "democracy" - their agenda is simply to get their view of things imposed upon the vast majority of Americans by fiat via a simpathetic court -

----Regarding the right to not be required to pray in public school (Murray vs Curlett, 1963)
But that is not what atheists are counting on - they have no desire for "democracy" - their agenda is simply to get their view of things imposed upon the vast majority of Americans by fiat via a simpathetic court -

----Regarding abortion rights for women (1973):
But that is not what pro-aborts are counting on - they have no desire for "democracy" - their agenda is simply to get their view of things imposed upon the vast majority of Americans by fiat via a simpathetic court -

But that is not what homosexuals are counting on - they have no desire for "democracy" - their agenda is simply to get their view of things imposed upon the vast majority of Americans by fiat via a simpathetic court -

[Terinox]

Why do people keep on insisting that a male and female can raise a child better than two males or two females?! Now I know, in terms of tradition, and MAINLY religion, THAT is the way to go, but it is not SCIENCE or FACT. I mean, are there any STUDIES that have been done to PROVE that two gays or two lesbians can't bring up a child in full emotion and with all the love and BLA BLA BLA?!

Here is another thing to take into consideration...

Back in the olden days, or even during recent wars, many many times the husband/father is away, out of the city/state/country, for wut? WUTEVER. War, business, etc... And mainly IN THE PAST for HUNDREDS, MAYBE THOUSANDS of years, it's been the way of just women raising their children. And usually, they are helped with their sister/mother, etc... So many many many times before, children have been raised MAINLY FROM just two females. If that has worked for SO many generations (just as lesbians would work today) then why not apply the same logic to gays??

Also, it is not like the child will have ZERO female influence. The gay parents mothers/sisters will most likely be around, as well as school, the MAJORITY (if not almost all) grade 1-3 teachers are female, which is a big part of growing up and all that ****.

So...yeah, that's that, IMO, I don't see what the difference is. If you argue the point SOLELY on a religious basis, then that is different, but going by fact and example, like I just said, it has happened in the past, and can continue to in the future.

[Cycleon]

Tock - it is precisely that - the only reason we believe those things are OK today is because some judge made it law yesterday and then people grew up with it indoctrinated in them - I can guarantee you that if homosexual relationships become coded in marriage, school children will be learning that 2 daddies is just as good as 2 mommies or one of each and soon no one will have a problem with any of it.

THE REAL PROBLEM IS THERE WILL NO LONGER EXIST A REAL MARRIAGE - AND EVERY SOCIETY (READ EMPIRE) THAT HAS ACCEPTED HOMOSEXUALITY SOON THEREAFTER FELL.

Why? because of homosexuals? no - because it was a clear sign that the culture had so disentigrated that the end of their ability to seek self restraint was near - no longer a consideration of what was best for children, families, etc but a seeking of pleasure for ones own self was the only and highest calling. Rome, Greece, even Babalyon - do you think that this is the first time we have had homosexuals in society? do you think that we are so much wiser, different today than the ancients? NO! we have technology, but peoples natures have NOT changed - read anything from the Illiad to Arabian Nights to the Old testament stories or anything you want - what you find is that people in them were motivated by the same things we are today - and one of the last markers of society throwing off all restraint is the embrace of homosexuality

I DEFY YOU TO FIND ME EVEN ONE COUNTER EXAMPLE IN HISTORY OF A GREAT NATION OR SOCIETY THAT ACCEPTED HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES IN THE BEGINNING OF ITS GREATNESS OR LASTED LONG AFTER ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THEM.

terinox - there are NUMEROUS studies that show exactly that - the BEST POSSIBLE evironment for a child to grow up in is with a mother and a father who are in a life commited relationship. If you cannot see the difference between 2 dadies, 2 mommies and a normal family unit, then it is evident you are ignorant of even basic studies that exist on childrearing

[Carlos_E]

I DEFY YOU TO FIND ME EVEN ONE COUNTER EXAMPLE IN HISTORY OF A GREAT NATION OR SOCIETY THAT ACCEPTED HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES IN THE BEGINNING OF ITS GREATNESS OR LASTED LONG AFTER ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THEM.

1) In traditional Navajo culture (untarnished by Christian attitudes) there is the 'Nadle', a word meaning 'one who is transformed'. These were androgynous males of that society that is they had male and female qualities. Navajo families who had a child who behaved androgynously (have some female attributes) were considered to be very fortunate and felt that their success and fortune was assured. Most if not all of these androgynous children were homosexual. As adults, they became 'Nadle', were regarded as being sacred and holy and were given great respect. In other primitive societies, androgynous men were referred to as Berdache by early explorers. They were often regarded as shamans or sacred people. The Winktes (meaning half woman half man in the Dakota language), of an Indian tribe in South Dakota were healers, spending their time helping others, visiting and comforting the ill and the elderly. The Cheyenne berdache were regarded as noted and valued matchmakers.

2) In Hawaii and Tahiti, androgynous males were and still are called Mahu, and in Samoa, they are called fa' afafine. In these cultures, such individuals take care of the elderly and the sick. The Nadle of the Navajo tribe were also regarded as being great with children, being very adept at parenting and nurturing. The berdache of most primitive societies often became parents through adoption of orphans, or aided other parents in the care of their children. Berdache were highly productive at both women's and men's work and became renowned at being cooks, producing handicrafts as well as having a good business or management sense. The berdache (read homosexual males) were also well known for being hard workers, productive, intelligent and sensitive.

3) The mythical Amazons (read female homosexuals) of Greek legend were admired for their skills in hunting and fighting as well as being leaders. Most of these societies recognized that the berdache and the Amazons (a term applied to very masculine females that were seen in these societies) were homosexual. However, this was not an issue. Sexuality was seen as a gift from the spirit world, whereas the social behaviours of the berdache were regarded as an asset. This is in sharp contrast to the Western 'civilized' world where homosexuality is condemned by the Church and by society in general! The Navajo's joy of having an androgynous child (homosexual) is in sharp contrast to the pain, anguish and rejection of most Western families when they learn that one of their offspring is homosexual.

[Tock]

Why do people keep on insisting that a male and female can raise a child better than two males or two females?! Now I know, in terms of tradition, and MAINLY religion, THAT is the way to go, but it is not SCIENCE or FACT. I mean, are there any STUDIES that have been done to PROVE that two gays or two lesbians can't bring up a child in full emotion and with all the love and BLA BLA BLA?!

True, true, true. In states where they allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt, I'm sure the state's adoption services agency puts these folks under much greater scrutiny than straight folks. I haven't heard of any problems with homosexual adoptions; I'm sure the kids were a lot better off than they'd be stuck in an orphanage until they hit 18.

I'd think a little girl would be lucky to have a couple of gay guys as adoptive parents . . . who better to teach her the finer points of looking good, and how to detect and handle predatory men? And who better to show a kid the finer points of hitting a baseball or overhauling a truck engine than a genuine, bona-fide hardcore beer drinking, shotgun-toting, Bush-hating, diesel dyke?

Well . . . maybe it is a bit heavy on the overgeneralizations, but you get my gist. Gay and Lesbian couples are different than straight couples, but for every disadvantage of gay adoption there's a definite advantage. It's not really better, it just different . . . like the difference between a Chevy truck and a Ford truck, or a Freightliner and a Peterbuilt, or a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it . . .

--Tock

[Tock]

1) Tock - it is precisely that - the only reason we believe those things are OK today is because some judge made it law yesterday and then people grew up with it indoctrinated in them - I can guarantee you that if homosexual relationships become coded in marriage, school children will be learning that 2 daddies is just as good as 2 mommies or one of each and soon no one will have a problem with any of it.

2) THE REAL PROBLEM IS THERE WILL NO LONGER EXIST A REAL MARRIAGE - AND EVERY SOCIETY (READ EMPIRE) THAT HAS ACCEPTED HOMOSEXUALITY SOON THEREAFTER FELL.

Why? because of homosexuals? no - because it was a clear sign that the culture had so disentigrated that the end of their ability to seek self restraint was near - no longer a consideration of what was best for children, families, etc but a seeking of pleasure for ones own self was the only and highest calling. Rome, Greece, even Babalyon - do you think that this is the first time we have had homosexuals in society? do you think that we are so much wiser, different today than the ancients? NO! we have technology, but peoples natures have NOT changed - read anything from the Illiad to Arabian Nights to the Old testament stories or anything you want - what you find is that people in them were motivated by the same things we are today - and one of the last markers of society throwing off all restraint is the embrace of homosexuality

I DEFY YOU TO FIND ME EVEN ONE COUNTER EXAMPLE IN HISTORY OF A GREAT NATION OR SOCIETY THAT ACCEPTED HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES IN THE BEGINNING OF ITS GREATNESS OR LASTED LONG AFTER ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THEM.

terinox - there are NUMEROUS studies that show exactly that - the BEST POSSIBLE evironment for a child to grow up in is with a mother and a father who are in a life commited relationship. If you cannot see the difference between 2 dadies, 2 mommies and a normal family unit, then it is evident you are ignorant of even basic studies that exist on childrearing

1) So . . . you're agreeing that once the initial uproar is over, everythng will be ok?

2) So . . .are you saying here that as long as America does not extend gays and lesbians the same rights as straight folks, then America will not decline as other civilizations have?
I kinda think the reasons for Rome's fall had something to do with the constant attacks from Asian barbarians, and unwise economic policies. Plus they were somewhat overextended, what with the Empire ranging from England to Egypt to Germany. That's an awful lot of real estate to defend, and I think the main reason they lost it is because they weren't smart enough to keep it.
Well, that, and as I mentioned in a previous post, if you will notice, there is a corresponding rise in the Christian religion with the decline in the Roman Empire. After Constantine had the Bible standardized in 323 AD to consolidate his political power, things really went downhill into a millenium of Dark Ages. 1000 years of lots of religion, but nary a word about homosexuality.
So . . . I kinda think Rome would have fallen with or without homosexuality.

The Greeks . . . there was Sparta, and there was Athens. Sparta had an interesting policy of mandatory homosexuality . . . seems once a mother had raised a boy to age 15, he was matched with a 25 year old guy, who was required to mentor the boy in the fighting arts. Plus, they slept together. No exceptions. Once the boy reached the age of 25, they went their seperate ways, and mentored more 15 year old boys. Occasionally they were required to screw a woman, but the guys mostly preferred their own company to that of women. There was the occasional oddball, but they were allowed to indulge their peccadillos somewhat, but were usually sent back to mentor their charges.
Anyway, this system worked pretty well for the Spartans. Tough MF'ers, to be sure. The training they went though would make Navy Seal training look like a picnic. But . . . what finally did them in was not their sexuality, it was their inablilty to develop and use new technology to meet the new weapons their rivals were inventing.
Athenians were given to thinking their way into and out of problems . . . they figured out how to gain military supremacy over the sea through better technology, but ended up being conquered by Sparta in the Peloponesus Wars.
Sparta eventually had internal problems of greed and too much luxury, which undid a lot of what their society was built on, and they were not much good at governing peoples that they conquered, and one thing led to another, and they went kaput. Homosexuality was a part of their success, not their failure, though.



Every civilization rises and falls, my guess is that the US will lose its place as a world leader to China in the coming years, largely because they have over a billion people who are willing to work harder than Americans do, and take a lot less $$$ to do it. They'll be more productive in commerce, folks in other nations will buy from them, US corporations will continue to outsource work overseas, and eventually, living standards in the US will creep lower and lower, folks will get restless again as they did in the Great Depression and embrace Socialism or Communism, and then we'll have some real problems. Gay marriage may or may not become an accepted fact of life, but its effect on the national economy will be negligible. Productivity and official ineptitude and corruption will be the things that do us in.

--Tock