festi, the only problem with this is that people have forgotten their history. The fact is slavery was not abolished by courts in the U.S. In fact, before the 13th amendment to the constitution (which only cam after the war, btw), it wasn't even unconstitutional. That's why you cannot compare slavery to the homosexual issue, it's not the same thing. Slaves were being compelled to work without pay for their entire lives, and it wasn't that they weren't given equal rights, they weren't even seen as human beings (by their owners). In fact, before the war, slave owners were a minority, and they were using the exact same argument that homosexuals are defending judicial activism with. They claimed...

festi, the only problem with this is that people have forgotten their history. The fact is slavery was not abolished by courts in the U.S. In fact, before the 13th amendment to the constitution (which only cam after the war, btw), it wasn't even unconstitutional. That's why you cannot compare slavery to the homosexual issue, it's not the same thing. Slaves were being compelled to work without pay for their entire lives, and it wasn't that they weren't given equal rights, they weren't even seen as human beings (by their owners). In fact, before the war, slave owners were a minority, and they were using the exact same argument that homosexuals are defending judicial activism with. They claimed that they had a constituional right to own slaves, so therefore they had the right to keep them regardless of the opinion of others (usually notherners, or free states).

That's a very good point - that public opinion is the thing that is just there to be manipulated - because we have such a fixation on the 'majority is right'. Sometimes the marjority is just plain wrong. And most times the majority is really just 'the people who pitch up'.

I read a fascinating article (and I don't know exactly which, naturally) in New Scientist on polyamory, and there it was suggested that part of the reason why there is a resistance (oh I hate these agentless sentences, please pardon them) to gay marriage is that if you say that it is OK in a homosexual context to have two mommies, then soon the polyamorists will be saying they also want to adopt the children in their fami...

That's a very good point - that public opinion is the thing that is just there to be manipulated - because we have such a fixation on the 'majority is right'. Sometimes the marjority is just plain wrong. And most times the majority is really just 'the people who pitch up'.

I read a fascinating article (and I don't know exactly which, naturally) in New Scientist on polyamory, and there it was suggested that part of the reason why there is a resistance (oh I hate these agentless sentences, please pardon them) to gay marriage is that if you say that it is OK in a homosexual context to have two mommies, then soon the polyamorists will be saying they also want to adopt the children in their families. And soon there will be a very complicated algorithm at play when two lovers meet - how will they carefully work out if they aren't too close by blood? And who does the inheritance belong to? A couple of generations down the line things are going to look messy.

I guess what the slavery or apartheids situation looks like down on the ground is not much how it looks to the political players and the courts. Forgive my ignorance, I know nothing of politics. The way it feels like my (white community) changed here in South Africa was by pressure among people on the ground, people at parties, people on the streets, people in business. Perhaps it was just that the two synchronised in a way I didn't perceive because I don't read the newspapers, I don' know who the players are, and I don't argue with people who know more than me. I tend to ask them for advice.

Well excuse me, I didn't realize you were from South Africa. I have an awful tendency to assume people are from the US... Most Americans are so ignorant as to what is really happening, they just eat all the propaganda that is fed to them by mainstream media and they never even question it. The interesting thing in your country's case is that africans are actually the majority, a very different set of circumstances when compared with America. The problem in this country is that we're constantly divided across two different lines, like conservative and liberal, and republican and democrat, and majority and minority, and on and on. It gets pretty rediculous. Instead of fixing what are really cu...

Well excuse me, I didn't realize you were from South Africa. I have an awful tendency to assume people are from the US... Most Americans are so ignorant as to what is really happening, they just eat all the propaganda that is fed to them by mainstream media and they never even question it. The interesting thing in your country's case is that africans are actually the majority, a very different set of circumstances when compared with America. The problem in this country is that we're constantly divided across two different lines, like conservative and liberal, and republican and democrat, and majority and minority, and on and on. It gets pretty rediculous. Instead of fixing what are really cultural issues, the powers that be are turning them into political issues and manipulating them to their advantage. The common person is just too stupid, scared, ignorant, or just plain doesn't care to do anything about it.

I know what you mean, I find ignorance unforgiveable too, especially the kind that doesn't know it is ignorant. At least if it knows it is ignorant it is open to being informed.

Here in South Africa we (whites who opposed apartheid) were lucky in a sense because the critical mass we had to reach to get the legislation changed were few, by comparison to the numbers you guys have to reach to change public opinion. Here we had a sense that if there are 5 million whites, and one million told 5 whites that they didn't like apartheid... or 500 000 told 10 whites.... or 250 000 told 15 whites.... it was doable. (I always love doing the Enid Blyton math, I hope it makes sense, my grasp of math is a...

I know what you mean, I find ignorance unforgiveable too, especially the kind that doesn't know it is ignorant. At least if it knows it is ignorant it is open to being informed.

Here in South Africa we (whites who opposed apartheid) were lucky in a sense because the critical mass we had to reach to get the legislation changed were few, by comparison to the numbers you guys have to reach to change public opinion. Here we had a sense that if there are 5 million whites, and one million told 5 whites that they didn't like apartheid... or 500 000 told 10 whites.... or 250 000 told 15 whites.... it was doable. (I always love doing the Enid Blyton math, I hope it makes sense, my grasp of math is as apalling as my grasp of politics.)

I have a stuck record in my mind about changing public opinion because I see it in my own life.

Would our discussion about legislative precedents make more sense if we talked about Roe vs Wade. Surely if, after setting that precedent, a new opposing precedent were set, it would be an upset for the Roe vs Wade precedent? How would that situation be likened to what this article is trying to put across?

Well, something that I have found interesting about Roe vs Wade is that it falls on the sort of half-way mark in many senses. Half-way an amount of people that don't like it and half-way that do. And it is a half-way rights of the woman vs rights of the fetus. (The courts used the issue of viability to decide it, but I always asked myself Why viability, there are many issues.)

Anyway, Roe vs Wade falls on the border. Mountains of money has been thrown at trying to overturn their precedent, because the sides teeter on a hair-breadth.

In the case of slavery and apartheid, they were kinda easy, patently wrong. Roe vs Wade it can go either way.

Now, when it comes to gay marriage, I see it as...

Well, something that I have found interesting about Roe vs Wade is that it falls on the sort of half-way mark in many senses. Half-way an amount of people that don't like it and half-way that do. And it is a half-way rights of the woman vs rights of the fetus. (The courts used the issue of viability to decide it, but I always asked myself Why viability, there are many issues.)

Anyway, Roe vs Wade falls on the border. Mountains of money has been thrown at trying to overturn their precedent, because the sides teeter on a hair-breadth.

In the case of slavery and apartheid, they were kinda easy, patently wrong. Roe vs Wade it can go either way.

Now, when it comes to gay marriage, I see it as patently wrong that it is prevented. In terms of human rights and the law being there to protect (children and widows, etc.) then there is no reason why gays should not marry.

In terms of the opposing view, that family relationships can become messy, I don't see that this can be the only element in the opposing side. Do you want to bring up some of the other elements that belong on this side as well as these others I am thinking of... religious law; bullying of gays' children; rape (they just need a good fuck); gayness will become an epidemic; an endorsement of paedophilia, sjoe, I am sure there are more.

Like Roe vs Wade, this issue would teeter. I think this article calls for more pro-gay-marriage public opinion to weight the outcome before all the money gets spent on lawsuits.

Before the Federal government is inclined to recognise gay marriage, is what the states decide terribly relevant? Perhaps the reason why I am wary of the lawsuits is because I am a woman. Double income lesbian families here tend to (generalising wildly) be lower income, whereas gay men double income families are very wealthy. Perhaps there is something to explore here in our discussion?

I believe the homosexual issue is a social and cultural issue that is being exploited. Add that to the propaganda being swallowed by the public, and people's ignorance, even of their own history, and you have quite the recipe for disaster. Another problem is that people want to compartmentalize a myriad of issues and topics and lump them into one category. Homosexuality is not just one issue, it is a myriad of issues. First there is the desire, or attraction, of a person to another person of the same sex. Whether this is innate or not, it is obviously there and cannot be ignored. Then there is the actual act, or behaviour. One wonders, does a person have to act on one's desire? Should one be...

I believe the homosexual issue is a social and cultural issue that is being exploited. Add that to the propaganda being swallowed by the public, and people's ignorance, even of their own history, and you have quite the recipe for disaster. Another problem is that people want to compartmentalize a myriad of issues and topics and lump them into one category. Homosexuality is not just one issue, it is a myriad of issues. First there is the desire, or attraction, of a person to another person of the same sex. Whether this is innate or not, it is obviously there and cannot be ignored. Then there is the actual act, or behaviour. One wonders, does a person have to act on one's desire? Should one be made to feel that he should supress, or even change, his desire? Then there is the cultural aspect, which is basically when a person acts outside what is considered to be culturally normal. For example, when a guy is effeminate, or a girl is masculine. This is a seperate issue, because not every homosexual is, how should I put it, gender confused? Some homosexual guys are masculine, some homosexual girls are effeminate. Some heterosexual guys are effeminate, and the same with heterosexual girls. Then there is the biological aspect. Let's face it, two males are not meant for sexual intercourse, and two women are not either. If they were, one would be a male, and one would be a female, that simple. Then there is the moral aspect. Is it moral, or immoral, or even amoral, to have a homosexual lifestyle? Then there is the whole issue with morality itself. What is morality? Is it a set of religious rules imposed by totalitarian fanatics? Or is it something that can be embraced even by the secular world? Then there is the homosexual union itself. Regardless of morality or what is natural, does a homosexual union hold up to a high standard in quality? Is it healthy, mentally physically and spiritually? Is it lasting? Does it have a positive influence on society?

Does it have a contribution to make to society? Heterosexual unions, especially ones bound by the oaths of marriage, have certainly had a positive effect on society. The next generation comes from these unions. Healthy families are formed, children are raised in a safe enviroment. This is obviously ideal, but then so is everything in life. This also encompasses the marriage aspect. Should two consenting adults be allowed to marry whoever they wish, regardless of the gender of their partner? Does a homosexual union even qualify as a marriage? Then there is another aspect as well, and that is love. What is love, exactly? I personally have male friends that I could say I "love", but I am not a ...

Does it have a contribution to make to society? Heterosexual unions, especially ones bound by the oaths of marriage, have certainly had a positive effect on society. The next generation comes from these unions. Healthy families are formed, children are raised in a safe enviroment. This is obviously ideal, but then so is everything in life. This also encompasses the marriage aspect. Should two consenting adults be allowed to marry whoever they wish, regardless of the gender of their partner? Does a homosexual union even qualify as a marriage? Then there is another aspect as well, and that is love. What is love, exactly? I personally have male friends that I could say I "love", but I am not a homosexual. In my mind love does not equate with sexual behaviour or intimacy. That's not what love is. So many people today though are of the mindset that sex is the expression of love, and everyone should be allowed to "love" whoever they wish. I think it's kind of cheap myself.

I must stop here for the time being, but I will continue later.

These are valid questions indeed, and they apply equally to everything. One could argue that the moral fabric of society is so degenerated, for all kinds of reasons. But can one change the trend, can one change the direction.

I think that it is the story of the Forbidden Fruit all over again. One side says, We are partaking of the knowledge that will anhialate us, and the other side says, that just because you know of something else doesn't mean you will partake of it.

And isn't the whole idea that, if our neighbour wants to do it that's fine, but I don't want to. Should we be worried about what is happening in our neighbour's bedroom. Isn't what he is doing giving us the perfect opportun...

These are valid questions indeed, and they apply equally to everything. One could argue that the moral fabric of society is so degenerated, for all kinds of reasons. But can one change the trend, can one change the direction.

I think that it is the story of the Forbidden Fruit all over again. One side says, We are partaking of the knowledge that will anhialate us, and the other side says, that just because you know of something else doesn't mean you will partake of it.

And isn't the whole idea that, if our neighbour wants to do it that's fine, but I don't want to. Should we be worried about what is happening in our neighbour's bedroom. Isn't what he is doing giving us the perfect opportunity to educate our kids?

I agree that these issues are religio-cultural, which brings us back to Should the Church and State be separated, or, Should the State reflect what the majority believes, even if it is religio-cultural.

All these are very lofty notions. I find that when I want to think about thing that I do best when I am in the situation practically - so I say to myself, Would I actively enslave someone, Would I actively spit racist comments at someone, Would I deny someone the right to marry someone they love.

And the other thing is... a knife is a knife, it becomes a weapon when used that way. If homosexuality is practiced with love and dignity, then is it a weapon?