A question for conservatives

[K.Bullock]

The fundamental basis for arguing that homosexuality "has no long term benefit to society" is that it does not result in procreation. Needless to say, most sexual activity does not result, and is not expected to result in procreation. Do we therefore condemn it as having "no benefit?" There is an extreme presumptuousness and arrogance involved in assuming that any form of behavior has "no long term benefit to society", particularly when that behavior is important to a large portion of our society and does not injure others. There is no question that the number of homosexuals exceeds the number of hunters. Are we willing to see our own activities outlawed simply because the majority of the population finds them objectionable and unnecessary? If the objections are biblical, I say fine. Follow the rules of your religion as you wish but do not expect the law to mirror your interpretation of those rules.

Speaking for myself that couldn't be further from the real concerns I would have for someone choosing that lifestyle. You said homosexuals outnumber hunters. It would be interesting to see the numbers in differences in suicide rates, mental illness, depression, aids and other sexually transmitted diseases not to mention drug use.

Procreation would be the least of my concerns if someone in my family chose this lifestyle.

[Steve Amrein]

Jeff the hunting and other sporting outdoor activities are under constant attack by a even smaller majority that says they have the backing of the majority. Just like in Cali when a majority votes against recognizing gay marriage it is said by the minority that they are still in the right. I would like to see stats to back up the hunter v gay population.

[Keith Farmer]

Follow the rules of your religion as you wish but do not expect the law to mirror your interpretation of those rules.

Jeff,

On what grounds do our laws rest. Are they by consensus?

I assert that our organic laws are biblical in foundation and should mirror that truth.

There is an extreme presumptuousness and arrogance involved in assuming that any form of behavior has "no long term benefit to society", particularly when that behavior is important to a large portion of our society and does not injure others.

This ties in with my genetics post. What we deem as an undesirable trait in our retrievers is being bred around...is that arrogance? What if the EIC gene has usefulness in an environment other than a competitive environment...what if it has positive benefits...has that been ruled out as a possibility?

KF

[Evan]

I'm not saying that we should all support gay marriage. What I want to know is why should I want it to be illegal?

I haven't taken time to read the entire thread...yet. But I don't think your question is framed correctly.

In my view, marriage is a union between one man and one woman. That's legal. Always has been. Always should be. That's what it is.

A union between two men or two women is whatever you care to call it, exept marriage. It isn't that, and I don't want to see our language distorted that way, nor do I want to see our culture decline any further through such a distortion.

It's not a "gay intollerance" issue. It's just a factual one.

Evan

[YardleyLabs]

Jeff the hunting and other sporting outdoor activities are under constant attack by a even smaller majority that says they have the backing of the majority. Just like in Cali when a majority votes against recognizing gay marriage it is said by the minority that they are still in the right. I would like to see stats to back up the hunter v gay population.

The estimates I have seen for the percentage of the population that is gay is around 6-10%; Wikipedia reports a range of 2-13% among different studies. In all cases, this is the estimate of people that are practicing homosexuals and identify themselves as homosexuals. Undoubtedly, there are many others that are gay by inclination but that live either heterosexual or asexual lifestyles because of the stigma associated with being gay. The incidence of homosexuality is higher among males than females. If you include all that have reported homosexual experiences, the incidence (according to Kinsey and others) increases to about 20-30%. The estimates I have seen for hunters in the US is around 5%, with lower number elsewhere in the world.

With respect to social acceptability, there has clearly been a dramatic change in attitudes towards homosexuality. In the 1970's, the majority if the US public did not favor legalization of homosexual relations. Today, about 60% believe homosexuality should be legal. Among the under 35 crowd, this increases to 75%. Overall, a small majority of Americans now support gay marriage or civil unions with a much higher majority among younger respondents.

[Raymond Little]

Jeff your socialism is showing;"Overall, a small majority" how do you get a small majority????
I never will believe that this fad will ever be a majority, no different than certain races beating the drums of racism, only 5-10% of the population.

Slick Marketing Regards

[YardleyLabs]

Jeff your socialism is showing;"Overall, a small majority" how do you get a small majority????
I never will believe that this fad will ever be a majority, no different than certain races beating the drums of racism, only 5-10% of the population.

Slick Marketing Regards

Small majority meaning that, according to polls by ABC, CBS, NBC, Gallup,etc., over 40% of respondents now favor legalizing same sex marriage. When the choice includes civil unions, supports goes over 50%. By "small majority" I am distinguishing that level of acceptance from something supported by 70% or more.

What has any of this to do with "socialism?" What are you calling a "fad?" What does it have to do with racism? And what do you mean by "5-10% of the population"?

[Steve Amrein]

With respect to social acceptability, there has clearly been a dramatic change in attitudes towards homosexuality. In the 1970's, the majority if the US public did not favor legalization of homosexual relations. Today, about 60% believe homosexuality should be legal. Among the under 35 crowd, this increases to 75%. Overall, a small majority of Americans now support gay marriage or civil unions with a much higher majority among younger respondents.

So I see,..... a small majority of the vote who do not favor gay marriage in the minority should overturn the vote of the large majority. I am afraid phone or internet polling is not how laws are made.

BTW I am pretty sure I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. Does that make me gay?

[YardleyLabs]

So I see,..... a small majority of the vote who do not favor gay marriage in the minority should overturn the vote of the large majority. I am afraid phone or internet polling is not how laws are made.

BTW I am pretty sure I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. Does that make me gay?

Actually, more people now favor legalizing gay unions than oppose legalizing such unions. The distinction comes down to the issue of whether or not those unions are called "marriages." The age discussion was only a way of showing the trends in the evolution of opinions on this issue. Among those my kids' ages, the level of support for equal protection under the law for both homosexual and heterosexual relations is very high -- that is, over 70%. For me, the fact that my conservative, 89 year old mother in law now supports gay marriage is even more telling. In her view, good relationships should be cherished, regardless of the sexes of those involved, and the government should not be doing anything to make those relationships harder to preserve.

[Keith Farmer]

...the level of support for equal protection under the law for both homosexual and heterosexual relations is very high...

From where/whom do we get the idea that we should have equal protection for relations? People are now equally protected under the law.

The gay community has sold liberals such as Jeff on the idea that their "relations" should be protected as a civil right. However, new revelations from within the gay community are surfacing that tell the real story behind the movement...see below (emphasis mine) (spin this one Jeff):

"...activist...Andrew Sullivan, one of the movers and shakers in the international homosexual movement. "The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that," Sullivan writes on his blog, "and Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time."

Sullivan continues: "The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It's very, very powerful as a money-making tool -- which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn't passed."

KF