6678 replies to this topic

[Zephyr]

Amazing how little influence it has.

This. Still fun though, usually.

[Happy Rectangle]

There are also those who like to point out that the downfall of historical civilizations often "start" with the dissolution of "traditional family structures." You know, sex outside of [heterosexual, procreative] marriage. They cite the ancient Romans. People become selfish, then people don't care about morals anymore, and they get taken over by the barbarians.

...after about a millennium of unprecedented prosperity.

It's kind of a pet peeve of mine to say Rome was a failure just because it fell. Greece fell. Babylon fell. India and China fell. Israel fell several times. No empire lasts forever. It's a bit like saying George Washington's life was a failure because he eventually died.

Whatever "immoral" practices Rome had at its end, you can be sure they were there at its apex as well. Gladiator games and temple orgies didn't seem stop the empire from conquering England, Palestine and northern Africa, nor from staying there for hundreds of years.

You can make the case that Western civilization as you know it would be displaced with gay marriage, but it's certainly not unprecedented; it was common enough for the Christian Roman emperors to call for it to be banned in 342 AD.

If you want a real reason the empire fell just look at the sad state of its throne by the end; political figureheads born into the title of Emperor but too weak to deal with migrating Germans.

But if you want to say it was because of its citizens' behavior then take note: gay marriage was legal when the empire was alive and well. Gay marriage was banned when it fell.

[Corax]

I've been having a nice enough debate with a guy in YouTube PMs, been really respectful on both sides. We both read into what we're talking about; if he provides a citation I look up the source, and so does he. It's been going pretty well I suppose.


But now I see that he's a creationist.



Shit.


EDIT: oh and he's a German immigrant? Very interesting.... oh!! THAT'S why all my YouTube emails have been in German. Ahh. Got it.

[Sam]

Opposite sex couples have the right to legally marry. Same sex couples don't. How is that not denying same sex couples equal rights in the eyes of the law? At one point women couldn't vote and blacks couldn't own property... so was it not denying them equal rights since they never could in the first place? The problem is you are looking at it as divided groups. Homosexual marriage is not a new proposed right. Marriage is a right that exists for people that fit a specific definition, and homosexuals want the definition changed to include them. There is not and should not be a different set of rights and laws for different groups of people. There is not Gay Law, Straight Law, Hispanic Law, White Law, Male Law, Female Law, etc...

You're going about this all wrong. The fact is that every man, regardless of sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, pedophile, furry, etc.) has the legal right to get married to a woman of his choice (assuming that things like age, marital status, consent, degree of consanguinity all check out). Likewise, a woman, regardless of sexual orientation, has a right to get married to a man of her choice. And there is no sexual orientation questionnaire that comes with getting a marriage license, which would probably be illegal. However, there as never been anything in the law that allows for a man to marry a man, nor a woman to marry a woman. It's a completely new thing that will have far-reaching effects beyond mere "equal rights."

Exactly. And the favoritism our Western culture exhibits for itself is simply blinding. Have we not forgotten how the Dark Ages -- the one time where the Church had absolute authority over nearly the entire Western civilization -- was a blatant regression? All of the thought and art -- arguably the state of a society's art is one of the best demonstrations of the society's advancement -- that was centered around the Greek foundation of Western civilization, was lost. It was ignored. It took a millennium for individuals to start to really look back and start anew. And during this time, other civilizations and societies made enormous strides. China had established some of the most advanced sailing techniques, ever. The Middle East was a central hub for culture and technology. The Aztecs, as war-hungry as they were, accomplished spectacular feats, not only in architecture but in science, as did similar South American civilizations. The Renaissance truly did bring Western civilization back to a deserved glory, but we would be blind to think that our predecessors alone crafted the world we live in today.

"Dark Ages," indeed. As though the Church's importance to European society was the cause of it's downfall. Truth is, the Catholic Church was the only thing that held Western society together during the tumultuous times, what with the fall of Rome, the prevalence of barbarian attacks, and the like.

The Medieval period saw the invention of the cannon, the artesian well, eyeglasses, and the modern compass. There were great advancements made to the ship and the clock (both the hourglass and the mechanical clock came into being during the Middle Ages). Soap (originally a Gaulish invention) came into widespread use in the 9th century, and production techniques improves over the next two centuries. The horse collar, horse shoe, and heavy plow let European farmers produce a surplus of food. Many Greek works were translated into the language of the time. Over 80 universities were founded, over 30 of which were established by papal charter, and another 20 by a combined papal/royal(or imperial) charter. The Church also gave us the concept of the hospital, and these spread throughout Europe. In fact, leprosy was eliminated from England without pharmaceuticals thanks to its 750 hospitals. The Church founded libraries, as well; a local Church council in Paris declared the lending of books to be a work of mercy. And this was some 2.5 centuries before the invention of the printing press (which is also a Western invention, but I digress).

I could go on, but I'll stop there.

misandrist family laws

No such things exist.

Sadly, that is untrue.

I've been having a nice enough debate with a guy in YouTube PMs, been really respectful on both sides. We both read into what we're talking about; if he provides a citation I look up the source, and so does he. It's been going pretty well I suppose.

But now I see that he's a creationist.

Shit.

Neither affirming nor rebuking the creationist position, his belief on an entirely unrelated matter is now influencing your opinion on a person with whom you're been having a "nice" and "respectful" debate?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[Corax]

Exactly. And the favoritism our Western culture exhibits for itself is simply blinding. Have we not forgotten how the Dark Ages -- the one time where the Church had absolute authority over nearly the entire Western civilization -- was a blatant regression? All of the thought and art -- arguably the state of a society's art is one of the best demonstrations of the society's advancement -- that was centered around the Greek foundation of Western civilization, was lost. It was ignored. It took a millennium for individuals to start to really look back and start anew. And during this time, other civilizations and societies made enormous strides. China had established some of the most advanced sailing techniques, ever. The Middle East was a central hub for culture and technology. The Aztecs, as war-hungry as they were, accomplished spectacular feats, not only in architecture but in science, as did similar South American civilizations. The Renaissance truly did bring Western civilization back to a deserved glory, but we would be blind to think that our predecessors alone crafted the world we live in today.

"Dark Ages," indeed. As though the Church's importance to European society was the cause of it's downfall. Truth is, the Catholic Church was the only thing that held Western society together during the tumultuous times, what with the fall of Rome, the prevalence of barbarian attacks, and the like.

The Medieval period saw the invention of the cannon, the artesian well, eyeglasses, and the modern compass. There were great advancements made to the ship and the clock (both the hourglass and the mechanical clock came into being during the Middle Ages). Soap (originally a Gaulish invention) came into widespread use in the 9th century, and production techniques improves over the next two centuries. The horse collar, horse shoe, and heavy plow let European farmers produce a surplus of food. Many Greek works were translated into the language of the time. Over 80 universities were founded, over 30 of which were established by papal charter, and another 20 by a combined papal/royal(or imperial) charter. The Church also gave us the concept of the hospital, and these spread throughout Europe. In fact, leprosy was eliminated from England without pharmaceuticals thanks to its 750 hospitals. The Church founded libraries, as well; a local Church council in Paris declared the lending of books to be a work of mercy. And this was some 2.5 centuries before the invention of the printing press (which is also a Western invention, but I digress).

I could go on, but I'll stop there.

cannon - impossible without much earlier Chinese discoveries of gun powder. Actually, now that I bring up the article...

artesian well - Cool, didn't know that. +1

eyeglasses - Again, there many similar precursors to this. But it does look like they were invented in Italy. That was right at the end of the Dark Ages and near the start of the Renaissance though... like really close. I wouldn't be surprised to find some sort of link between corrective eye wear - invented in Italy - and the Renaissance - started in Italy.

ships - Looks to me like most Western seafarring advances didn't occur until the Renaissance... I could be wrong though.

clocks - Mechanical clocks are pretty great. 1+

soap - Alright, that one's pretty m uch Western. It didn't seem to help with sanitation though (really, maybe the Plague was the real factor in Europe's decesnsion during that time period). In any case, whaling was a horrible consequence of this "advancement in production" (much like many, many other situations of Western society raping resources. Not saying other cultures didn't do so as well (though some certainly didn't), but the Western world is the most historically guilty).

horse collar - (from Wikipedia) - "The fully developed collar harness was developed in Southern and Northern Dynasties China during the 5th century AD." and "The horse collar eventually spread to Europe circa 920 AD, and became universal by the 12th century"

horse shoe - European, but...

heavy plow - China got there first on that one too.

modern compass - I suppose, though it was first discovered by the Chinese. Doing some reading, the anthropological studies are inconclusive though: they don't know whether it was brought to the West or developed at the same time in the Orient and the West.

universities - I think this came up a little while ago in this thread, but it's kind of an odd subject. The model of a university is of Western origin, but there were many different schools of higher learning elsewhere. Again, look at Islam and their advanced "Madrasah"s. In the Middle East they actually taught girls too...

hospitals - Sam there's been plenty of historical accounts of hospitals in plenty of civilizations, during the same time period and well prior. The Church didn't invent it. Though, to its credit, it would seem that when Rome transformed into an entirely Christian state that there was a popularization of medical care, but that was before the Dark Ages anyway.

libraries - Again just looking it up on Wikipedia (even though the "Public library" article doesn't even mention anything outside of the Western world... bizarre), there were Islamic public libraries by the '800s. A bit sooner than the French ones.


And Gutenberg was during the Renaissance too.

(it's also interesting to note the parallel to the Islamic Golden Age and the Western Dark Ages)



IN ANY CASE... (because I made this huge friggen research essay for some reason)...


My clincher point was "The Renaissance truly did bring Western civilization back to a deserved glory, but we would be blind to think that our predecessors alone crafted the world we live in today." Really, even take out my whimsical reference to the Renaissance and replace it with "Western society wasn't all bad, but we would be blind to think..." and it works even better.

And I'm well aware that the Church did not bring about the fall of the Roman empire... that doesn't really make any sense and wasn't my topic anyway. If I can re-develop my hinted stance, what I was trying to say was that Medieval Europe was an awful, awful time. Much of this was do to accidental factors (ie. the Plague). But the Church did not make the situation much better, and seemed to have instead perpetuated or worsened many situations. The corruption of the Church was awful in many cases. Indulgences were a heinous manipulation of the people and misuse of dogma. The Church had complete dominion over the physical land and the people themselves.

Anyway, whatever. I'm getting lost in my own writing.

I've been having a nice enough debate with a guy in YouTube PMs, been really respectful on both sides. We both read into what we're talking about; if he provides a citation I look up the source, and so does he. It's been going pretty well I suppose.

But now I see that he's a creationist.

Shit.

Neither confirming nor rebuking the creationist position, his belief on an entirely unrelated matter is now influencing your opinion on a person with whom you're been having a "nice" and "respectful" debate?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Ah, sorry, didn't mean it that way. I apologize for that implication.

What I meant is that I was glad to be in a debate where we were both considering each others view points, that were also conveniently more or less specific issues that specific research and discussion can address - as well of course the kind nature. I did not mean "shit, what the hell is wrong with this guy?", though I can clearly see why that would be read. Again, I apologize for that misunderstanding. I naturally write complicated and muddy sentences, and strive for concise thoughts instead much of the time, but it doesn't always work out. That would be one such example, again, sorry about that.

What I meant by "shit" is that now it is clear that our two thinking processes are radically different, not to mention our personal developmental grounding (ie. what we grew up learning) is also radically different. This makes things a lot harder to functionally debate.

Basically, my opinion on him personally hasn't changed (of course my perspective has though), but my opinion on the debate has. Or, rather, my perspective on the debate, and my expletive is a reaction to that revealing change.


Again, sorry. Was probably a bit reactionary on my part.

[Sam]

If I can re-develop my hinted stance, what I was trying to say was that Medieval Europe was an awful, awful time. Much of this was do to accidental factors (ie. the Plague). But the Church did not make the situation much better, and seemed to have instead perpetuated or worsened many situations. The corruption of the Church was awful in many cases. Indulgences were a heinous manipulation of the people and misuse of dogma. The Church had complete dominion over the physical land and the people themselves.

Well, the point is that it really wasn't a terrible place. Well, okay, first let's understand that you're talking about about a 1,000-year period (roughly the 400-1400, shall we say?). There are bound to be ups and downs across an entire continent over the course of a millennium. In the U.S. alone, over the past 200-some years, we've had plenty of bad times and plenty of good. The Plague only came in at the tail end of the era. As for shooting down brief list of Medieval innovations, two things. One, while many of them did come from China, Europeans took them and ran, and made many improvements. The idea of a magnetic compass, for example, may have originated in China, but as a needle on a leaf. The modern compass as needle in a small, self-contained box was Europe's contribution. Two, I'm not terribly concerned with whether or not Europeans invented [X] or [Y]; the Chinese definitely made a lot of advancements, and, truly, good for them. My point is that Europe had these things, and in many cases saw the widespread us of them, during what was supposedly "an awful, awful time." These dark, regressive times () saw the introduction and flourishing of universities, libraries, hospitals; many ancient works were translated; the people actually enjoyed a surplus of food. The Middle Ages included a peace longer than the celebrated Pax Romana. There were marvels of art, architecture, writing; both Dante and Chaucer lived and wrote during the Middle Ages, and we still read their works today.

And, yes, the Church did make things a lot better. It was a major (perhaps even the only) unifying influence on European society after the fall of Rome. It preserved reading and writing, and its hierarchy served as a sort of central authority that the Roman Empire could no longer provide (although obviously not on such a large or powerful scale). The Church was huge patron of the arts and sciences (sponsoring over 50 universities, as I've already pointed out). In many places, Catholic monasteries were the centers of learning for many people, as well as places of healing for the sick. And who was it typically staffing hospitals? Yes, Catholic monks and nuns, doing their Christian duty of caring for the sick. In fact, the first hospital in Spain was founded by a local bishop in A.D. 580. And as for art, have you ever seen an illuminated manuscript? I've seen the Book of Kells twice, and it's utterly amazing.

Now, yes, there was some corruption in the Church. But again, we're talking 1,000 years across an entire continent. That there were some bad people in that time and space, while terrible, doesn't invalidate all of the good accomplished. And, I must ask, what exactly do you know about indulgences? I ask because there is usually a great deal of misunderstanding/misinformation out there. Now, I totally agree that there was some abuse going on, and the sale of any spiritual good has always been sharply condemned by the Church. In fact, the Church was suppressing abuses connecting with indulgences for many years before the Reformation. But it is completely wrong to say that, because some men (often against the pope's instructions) did a bad thing, the Church is a wicked institution. That doesn't follow at all.

And, for the record, I never said that you said that the Church caused the fall of the Roman Empire. Where are you getting that?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[weener]

Opposite sex couples have the right to legally marry. Same sex couples don't. How is that not denying same sex couples equal rights in the eyes of the law? At one point women couldn't vote and blacks couldn't own property... so was it not denying them equal rights since they never could in the first place? The problem is you are looking at it as divided groups. Homosexual marriage is not a new proposed right. Marriage is a right that exists for people that fit a specific definition, and homosexuals want the definition changed to include them. There is not and should not be a different set of rights and laws for different groups of people. There is not Gay Law, Straight Law, Hispanic Law, White Law, Male Law, Female Law, etc...

You're going about this all wrong. The fact is that every man, regardless of sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, pedophile, furry, etc.) has the legal right to get married to a woman of his choice (assuming that things like age, marital status, consent, degree of consanguinity all check out). Likewise, a woman, regardless of sexual orientation, has a right to get married to a man of her choice. And there is no sexual orientation questionnaire that comes with getting a marriage license, which would probably be illegal. However, there as never been anything in the law that allows for a man to marry a man, nor a woman to marry a woman. It's a completely new thing that will have far-reaching effects beyond mere "equal rights."

Wow Sam, that is really a ridiculous viewpoint. That's like banning insulin and telling diabetics that they have equal rights because they are still allowed to purchase as much candy as they can afford.

Raub's not missing the point, YOU are. You have the right to marry for love, a gay person does not. Don't you think that's important at all? Wasn't marrying a person you are in love with important to you in the slightest? Having the right to marry some person you might have a platonic friendship with isn't the same thing.

I hope you don't really believe that Sam:Claire :: a gay man:any woman. Yes, even "gays" have the capacity to fall in love.

[bucky]

On the subject of marriage being a "right", let's clear something up. Sam is almost on-point about how technically gay couples aren't being denied a right when it comes to marriage (not that this makes the denial ok...), although he is incorrect about straight couples.

One of the few things I agree with libertarians on is their plea for people to understand the clear distinction of a right and a privilege. In short, anything you have to 'ask permission for', is not a right. This may sound pretty extreme, but it's a fairly solid point. The rights as defined by the constitution, in theory, should require zero permission from the government or any figure of authority as you exercise them. You don't need a permit or license to speak freely, you don't need a permit to protest, and you don't need to ask anyone if it's okay to stand on your head. These are rights (we can ignore the gun issue for now for a number of reasons).

What are some things that aren't rights? Getting a driver's license, setting up a commercial business in any building you want, and... getting married! Getting married requires permission from the government (a marriage license / certificate), and is therefore not a given right.

While defining rights and privileges may seem like an issue of semantics, it's relevant in this discussion about marriage. Here's why- anytime a privilege is extremely broad in scope, and basically everyone can do it, it becomes a 'general right' in the public's mind.

And this is where people take marriage for granted. When is the government ever going to stop you from getting married? Therefore it's kind of a right, right? Unfortunately, if you take a look at our past, inter-racial marriages had tons of freakin' laws against them in depressingly-recent history. This was the law exercising its ability to exploit its control of a technical non-right. It is what allowed lawmakers to deny a black and a white person from getting married, for example.

Fast forward to today, and we have the exact same issue with gay marriage. Okay, that's my first point. My second point, is about why I want to slam my head into the keyboard in front of me every time I hear someone dwelling on this issue in support of denying same-sex marriages--

Regardless if it is a right or privilege, denying same-sex couples is discriminatory, wrong, and disgusting. That's the bottom line. People go back in forth all the time on this - "marriage is a right", "no it's actually not!". Who. gives. a. flying. mother. fuck. It's only relevant for understanding why the government has the ability to discriminate, but it stops there. It seems pretty pedantic to me when people argue within these confines. When this subject comes up, there's usually the wannabe-iconoclast who shows up with 'hate to break it to you, but gays don't have the right to get married' jargon. It's always a disappointing swing-and-a-miss.

While marriage may not be a technical right under scrutiny, you can't blame the public for taking anger with the government when they go too far. Denying same sex marriages, similar to denying interracial marriages, are perfect examples of this. Any past interpretation of what makes an 'ok' marriage is outdated and morally bankrupt when it comes to same sex marriages. Dwelling on how the law currently is and the non-rights gays have when it comes to marriage fails to address and how that is WRONG and why things NEED to change.

Ok, with that tangent said, I have just a couple things left to bring up while the religion thread is focussed on this...

[raubhimself]

I tried to always say "legal right" because it is not a given right but one granted by law. A right can pertain to natural or legal rights. Natural = constitution, legal/civil = pretty much everything else. Any right, legal or natural, can be taken away be it through legislation or force or by the government or just by some dude who doesn't wanna hear you talk anymore.

[Paragon]

Another road to go down when discussing this is: why should the government recognize/grant marriages? What purpose does it serve, legally/politically? I'm going to be thinking this out as I type like Corax does, so bear with me here if I say something obvious.

It can't really be about the sacrament of any particular religion, since both legally and culturally we live in a society with freedom of religion, where people of any given religion (or none at all) can be married. So what else is there? I can only think of the cultural/social aspect of it, as that's the only thing all the different marriages have in common with each other.

Marriage as practiced in society is a solidification of a long-term romantic relationship, and serves the legal function of documenting an association with a particular person, so that for various purposes the government knows that you're not just strangers, roommates, or simple acquaintances. And while there might not be a way to "measure" relationships to ensure that they meet some sort of criteria for marriage, that would only set the bar lower for justifying gay marriage if it was relevant. I think as is, the government is trusting people to understand the kind of commitment they're making and decide for themselves if marriage is appropriate; a lasseiz-faire position, sort of.

In this way, it's similar to adoption; anybody can take care of a kid, but for legal purposes it's important to have that parenthood recognized. And while there are other ways to get the government to recognize some sort of association, the mere existence of those other methods is no more grounds to bar same-sex couples from marrying than it is for opposite-sex couples. (In other words: you have those alternatives too, so if that's your argument, you should be campaigning to get the government out of marriage altogether.)

In this sense, I can see why it would not have made sense to recognize gay marriages 70 years ago, when gay relationships were much more hidden and taboo. And I can see why someone might oppose gay marriage on the grounds that they believe gay relationships are purely sexual and that people are not capable of even having meaningful romance/love with the same sex. But it's a belief which is clearly contradicted by reality.

I'm sure someone could find some evidence, shady or not, that the amount of infidelity, promiscuity, polygamy, or whatever else is higher among gay couples, but that's irrelevant; these statistics are derived from the ground up, not the top down, and the average behavior of a group can't really be used to judge members who clearly do not fit the statistics. This would also require some sort of litmus test for straight couples anyway, which doesn't exist.

So to summarize:
1. Marriage as it occurs and is legally recognized in society is not the same thing as the sacrament of any particular religion.
2. Marriage is an extension and legal recognition of long-term romantic relationships.
3. Many people are in long-term same-sex romantic relationships and have equal incentive to commit to those relationships in a manner identical to opposite-sex couples.
4. Therefore, it makes sense to allow for legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

Another possible reason to recognize marriage is as a form of social engineering, e.g. encouraging one type of behavior and discouraging others, but this is a pretty weak argument anyway, considering:
- Social engineering via government is a dubious practice in the first place, and an argument would have to be made for why it is the government's job to control people's behavior in these ways;
- The conservatives who oppose gay marriage are often equally opposed to every other form of social engineering (like taxing unhealthy food);
- Barring gay marriage is counterproductive if you're trying to encourage monogamy or stable families/households;
- There is no legal association between marriage and child-making (or at least no legal requirement for married couples to have children) -- and unlike romance/love, you can measure the existence of children and mandate either birth or adoption if that's truly your goal;

The only other form of social control that I can think of applying is encouraging heterosexuality and discouraging homosexuality, and as the striking down of sodomy laws and anti-gay discrimination in many other ways has shown, the government does not have an interest in this form of social control. Plus, this idea is based on the assumption that sexual orientation is changeable, which at best there is incredibly spotty evidence for and even if it is possible, it may not be possible in all cases (probably not possible in the vast majority of cases).

[bucky]

Excellent, A++ post from Paragon!

However, there as never been anything in the law that allows for a man to marry a man, nor a woman to marry a woman. It's a completely new thing that will have far-reaching effects beyond mere "equal rights."

Hmm, please elaborate. What will these far-reaching effects be? Tolerance? Less homophobia? Or are you implying that there's a relevant-enough downside to allowing same sex marriages that they're worth denying or finding them "not a-ok"?

I also take some offense to what you refer to as "mere equal rights". This would mean you think this is a trivial issue compared to something else. What is it?

Here's a quick hypothetical scenario, I'm curious about your perspective on this.
-Let's say you happen to have a son in the future who is / winds up / "chooses" to be gay. How would you deal with this? Would you forbid him from dating another man? Or, would you not intervene and simply educate him to the best of your abilities on why you think it's wrong according to your morals or religion?
-Let's say your son wants to get married to another guy. It's a little bit down the road in the future where he can get married in probably most or all states, so let's assume this isn't an issue with the law. Do you advise against it? Not attend the wedding? Attend the wedding, somewhat begrudgingly or disappointed? Or support him fully and be stoked beyond belief?

I would think someone who is not homophobic would be equally happy for their son regardless if they're marrying a woman or a man, so long as their partner is right for them and they have a loving relationship that's destined for greatness.

Theo, feel free to weigh in on this one as well.

[Sam]

Here's a quick hypothetical scenario, I'm curious about your perspective on this.
-Let's say you happen to have a son in the future who is / winds up / "chooses" to be gay. How would you deal with this? Would you forbid him from dating another man? Or, would you not intervene and simply educate him to the best of your abilities on why you think it's wrong according to your morals or religion?

I'll answer, but first I have a question for you. Similar scenario, but replace "gay" with "Catholic," and assume that your hypothetical child takes his new-found faith seriously in all regards.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

[bucky]

I would likely grudge it at first, on some level, but then accept it. I mean, he even could be a priest if he wanted to, and I'd encourage him in his efforts to try and help the community around him. As long as he didn't go the course of something like the westboro baptist church and didn't take interest in promoting intolerance...

[Ulcer]

Here's a quick hypothetical scenario, I'm curious about your perspective on this.
-Let's say you happen to have a son in the future who is / winds up / "chooses" to be gay. How would you deal with this? Would you forbid him from dating another man? Or, would you not intervene and simply educate him to the best of your abilities on why you think it's wrong according to your morals or religion?

I'll answer, but first I have a question for you. Similar scenario, but replace "gay" with "Catholic," and assume that your hypothetical child takes his new-found faith seriously in all regards.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

I would support him whole-heartedly.

What is an inalienable right?

[weener]

Here's a quick hypothetical scenario, I'm curious about your perspective on this.
-Let's say you happen to have a son in the future who is / winds up / "chooses" to be gay. How would you deal with this? Would you forbid him from dating another man? Or, would you not intervene and simply educate him to the best of your abilities on why you think it's wrong according to your morals or religion?

I'll answer, but first I have a question for you. Similar scenario, but replace "gay" with "Catholic," and assume that your hypothetical child takes his new-found faith seriously in all regards.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Wow, usually when I try to get you to imagine actual discrimination against gays as hypothetical discrimination against Catholics, you don't go for it.

For the record, if I had a son who decided on Catholicism, I wouldn't try to dissuade him from dating another man.