Homosexuals would do well to avoid any association with the traditions of ancient Greece, especially since many on the "traditional values" side already believe that homosexuals are sexual predators who prey on children and want to seduce them into a same-sex lifestyle, which seems very similar to the pederasty practices of teachers in ancient Greece, if you ask me.

"Opponents of gay marriage argue that it threatens the "traditional" (i.e., historical?) family…"

(i.e., historical?) – meaning ancient Greece? Um... actually no, I don't think anyone was thinking that far back. It is obvious that when certain people in the United States talk about tradition and history, they are referring to a Christian-American tradition and US history (What other history is there?). Generally, ultra-orthodox Christians in the US use this phrase to separate the "real" Americans from the "others": Gays, Atheists/Secularists, Muslims, Jews, etc., and often Blacks and Hispanics as well.

I do believe that the tide of history is working in favor of homosexual marriage. Homosexuals are gradually becoming an accepted part of society. As long as they continue in their struggle by focusing on the fact that they also place value on having long-term, loving, monogamous relationships, I don't see how they can fail.

Generally, ultra-orthodox Christians in the US use this phrase to separate the "real" Americans from the "others": Gays, Atheists/Secularists, Muslims, Jews, etc., and often Blacks and Hispanics as well.

First it is not ultra-orthodox Christians that use the phrase "real Americans." The phrase and it's use are primarily used to describe rural vs urban American values. As in "working hard" is an American value where as "living on welfare" is not. When people speak about American values they are not thinking Sex in the City as much as they are thinking Mayberry.

I don't like the term, but I see why it is used. In a sense liberals (usually urban folks) have espoused multiculturalism which isn't distinct in any way and clearly is not "American" but a hybrid of other distinct cultures/values. In addition rural areas mostly look alike thus building a sense of cohesiveness where as urban areas tend to be more unique. Boston is distinct from NYC. Where as rural NT and rural Mass are pretty much the same. Likewise there is no "little Italy" or "Chinatown" in Iowa as there are in the cities. "Main St USA" is "American" where as "Little Mexico" is not.

As long as they continue in their struggle by focusing on the fact that they also place value on having long-term, loving, monogamous relationships, I don't see how they can fail.

I have hinted at this in the past, but what value does gay marriage bring to society? None I can think of. Where as the value of heterosexual marriage is obvious, divorce and single parenthood is the leading indicator for crime, drugs, alcohol.

I guess you could argue that gay marriage would have 2 people rather than 1 to raise a child but i think that misses the point. Children need a male and female influences equally, society has unfairly placed the burden on women, when growing up. Even if gay couples do not have kids, we don't know how their presence in large numbers will affect children. I think the worse thing for gay marriage is that some progressives are so forceful to include it in elementary school as propaganda that parents open to the idea of gay marriage get turn off by not having a say in their child's education.

> Likewise there is no "little Italy" or "Chinatown" in Iowa as there are in the cities.

Maybe... Iowa's "little Italy" died out with the coal mines half a century ago, and there were very few Asian people anywhere east of the Rocky Mountains -- and essentially none outside of cities with major shipping ports.

But to this day, there's certainly a "little Netherlands" (Pella) and a "little Germany" (Amanas), a couple of "little Swedens", a "little Ireland" (Holbrook, where the graves in the churchyard name the immigration dates), and so forth in Iowa. These places are still sufficiently connected to their ethnic roots that most of the children learn great-grandma's native language in school, and the local "English" is sprinkled with borrowed words. If you count Italy as sufficiently non-American as to be evidence of a multicultural attitude, then you must surely count these other places.

Hi gunsmoke,

"First it is not ultra-orthodox Christians that use the phrase "real Americans." The phrase and it's use are primarily used to describe rural vs urban American values."

You were right to say that it's not just "ultra-orthodox Christians" who believe gay marriage is wrong; however, I don't think it's a rural/urban distinction either - urban Americans also don't consider "living on welfare" to be a core "traditional value" and many city dwellers are also against gay marriage. But I do take your point that it is more complicated than I stated above and that it's not easy to define the group that is against gay marriage - but we can probably agree that they are generally more conservative and probably more religious - I can't imagine that orthodox Jews or orthodox Muslims are for gay marriage either. So I guess that just shows my predjudice against "ultra-orthodox Christians" in general and in particular those who think gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.

I was merely trying to say that people use the phrase "traditional values" to exclude people - not as a way to open up the discussion to take a look at what our actual traditions are or were founded upon. I guess I should have just said that, instead attacking the Christian Right - they just get me so riled up is all... I'm sure they're not all bad though.

"I have hinted at this in the past, but what value does gay marriage bring to society? None I can think of."

Well, first of all it would bring homosexuals closer to true equality with other citizens of the United States. This is about Equal Rights for all American citizens. You know, as in "We hold these truths to be Self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? For me, marriage is obviously a part of "Liberty" and "the Pursuit of Happiness". People, all people, should be free to marry whomever they please. I don't see how that takes anything away from society.

"Whereas the value of heterosexual marriage is obvious, divorce and single parenthood is the leading indicator for crime, drugs, alcohol."

Some would argue that marriage is the leading cause of divorce... ; ) Besides, how does homosexual marriage take anything away from heterosexual marriage? I don't understand the thought process behind this idea.

"Even if gay couples do not have kids, we don't know how their presence in large numbers will affect children."

Homosexuality is not contagious, I don't see how "how their presence in large numbers will affect children [negatively]". You're either gay or you're not - it's not a decision - who in their right mind would decide to be gay? I don't believe that having Lesbian or Gay parents will increase the chances that a child will become homosexual anymore than having opposite sex parents will ensure that children become heterosexual - if that were the case, there would be no homosexuals.

"I think the worst thing for gay marriage is that some progressives are so forceful to include it in elementary school as propaganda that parents open to the idea of gay marriage get turned off by not having a say in their child's education."

I personally don't think it should be part of any elementray school curriculum per se, but if Johnny has two Moms or two Dads, then I think it would be fair for a teacher to say that it's OK and doesn't make Johnny a bad person or really any different from anyone else.