<p>Gay marriage is not really about whether or not marriage is a "sacred institution". If it was, then the same Prop 8 people would be trying to close down Vegas chapels and divorces. </p>
<p>What this is really about is trying to sustain the idea that gender roles are biological and innate, as opposed to socially imposed upon. Think about it. In a same-sex marriage, the husband-wife system will probably still exist, if only because of expectations and cultural custom. And in a successful same-sex marriage, a woman will successful become the "husband" or a man will successfully become the "wife", and by doing so, will further destroy the idea that God meant men to be dominant and women to be submissive. Or if you're secular, that natural forces designed for that to be so.</p>
<p>This is all about the preservation of traditional gender roles. Christians and conservatives don't really give a damn about marriage and how sacred it is.</p>
<p>To add onto what Chris said, there's also the fact that many gay relationships are very egalitarian and its difficult to even tell who's the "wife" and who's the "husband." So in a sense, people who are against gay marriage are also scared of the idea of a marriage that is indeed truly equal and that doesn't have to rely on gender inequalities.</p>
<p>"gender roles are biological and innate, as opposed to socially imposed upon"</p>
<p>This is true. Women and men have had different roles in every civilized country for thousands of years. "Gender is a construct" is one of the most misinformed statements ever, along with "homosexuality is a choice".</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is true. Women and men have had different roles in every civilized country for thousands of years
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The social roles of master and slave have also existed forever, in uncivilized and civilized society for thousands of years as well. The same with conqueror and war bride. Just because something's old and unchallenged doesn't mean that it's right or ideal.</p>
<p>^That's my point. My personal distaste for eating meat shouldn't influence national policies, and neither should anyone's distaste for same-sex marriages. I understand what you're saying about states' rights, but they shouldn't have the right to discriminate. How would you react if they outlawed interracial marriages?</p>
<p>California doesn't have Vegas wedding chapels. (Those are in Las Vegas, NEVADA.)
Some gays can still marry. A guy man can marry a gay women easy. Some people are bi too.</p>
<p>"The social roles of master and slave have also existed forever, in uncivilized and civilized society for thousands of years as well. The same with conqueror and war bride."</p>
<p>Those only existed in Western societies. Gender roles existed in every continent even before they had contact. Hell, even the Native American tribes liberals like to hold up as standards had gender roles; men were always the hunters. Gender is NOT a construct. Period.</p>
<p>No Stella I agree with you. I don't think that govt. should regulate marriage. Weirdly enough I support prop 8 because the same sort people against it are the ones who support terrible govt. regulation when it doesn't affect their particular group(s)....Sort of a taste of their own medicine kind of deal.</p>
<p>correct me if im wrong but wasn't prop 8 for the definition of marriage to be between man and woman, not to outlaw gay marriage?(obviously i know defining marriage between man/woman makes gay marriage illegal). I dont see why the voters should have a say in what the legal definition of a word should be, shouldn't that have been decided by the courts?</p>
Gender roles existed in every continent even before they had contact.
[/quote]
Correct.
[quote]
men were always the hunters.
[/quote]
As wrong as you could get. It is the failure of any consistency in gender roles that demolished the idea of natural gender. Please read an anthropology text. The various cultures of New Guinea, in some of which the males are "catty" (quoting from Podolefsky), should be instructive.</p>
<p>Note, too, that history is not a controlled experiment with ideas to be taken as valid. For biological gendering, please see biology. Testosterone shapes the brain, but do you know that in controlled studies, bisexuals exhibit the most socially masculine traits, and homosexuals the most biologically masculine?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, natural mutations undermine the wholesome usefulness of gender-sex ties. (Testosterone, in particular, ups the chances for a large number of conditions in either sex which defy social conditioning - such as OCD and the Autistic Spectrum - so that the behaviours one may be looking for in.) Those two conditions are particularly interesting because OCD and A-Spectrum (PDD) conditions usually produce masculinized brains and feminine social traits in both sexes. Interesting how our concepts of brain masculinity (ie testosterone affectations) and femininity (what little girls are stereotypically expected to do) intersect... as far as I know, we do not stereotypically expect little girls to have more prenatal and blood testosterone than an adult male; this whole "link" between androgens and social masculinity evaporates very fast.</p>
<p>"but do you know that in controlled studies, bisexuals exhibit the most socially masculine traits, and homosexuals the most biologically masculine?"</p>
<p>That's what I've noticed in real life too.</p>
<p>"such as OCD and the Autistic Spectrum"</p>
<p>You're not really using mental disorders as an example for normal human behavior, are you?</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's my point. My personal distaste for eating meat shouldn't influence national policies, and neither should anyone's distaste for same-sex marriages. I understand what you're saying about states' rights, but they shouldn't have the right to discriminate. How would you react if they outlawed interracial marriages?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yea okay, but in my opinion, and many others, being gay is WRONG. How is gay wrong? well, how is doing drugs wrong? how is underaged drinking wrong? </p>
<p>I just think it is. It's not natural. Futhermore, it's gross.</p>
<p>You say that they didn't have a choice being gay?well, even if they were born with gay genes, well I'm sorry for them, but that doesn't mean they can be gay. It's like say if one day we found this gene which controls your urge to murder people, and some people have it turned on so they have to kill people, does that make it right for them to kill?</p>
<p>^^ But StellaNova's point still stands - it doesn't matter you and "many others" think. We can't just outlaw everything we don't like. And the killing example is wildly off-base both considering John Locke's law of nature and what we know about the way our genes and brains work.</p>
<p>"how is doing drugs wrong? how is underaged drinking wrong?"</p>
<p>That is just a little over the top. How can you compare being gay to doing drugs or drinking? Being gay harms no one. Ok, you think its gross, but its not like you get liver disease from two gay people getting married. And no matter what people think, gay people don't go around "converting" others to being gay. It doesn't hurt anybody, whereas drugs and underage drinking harms both people who do it and those around them. You can't compare the two. And if you want it that way, smoking is wrong. Smoking is actually responsible for millions of deaths every year. I don't see anyone rushing to ban that.</p>