Did Miss California lose because of her opinion on gay marriage?

[mmnin]

Slimebeast said:

mmnin said:

seece said:

 

 

People do have a tendency to go where they are accepted.  When we look at high school kids, they are in general subconsciously looking for acceptence and identity.  When peers treat them like they are gay, many start to think that that is all that they are....gay.  Some lose sense of anything else that makes them who they are.  This even happens in some degree when it is a joking, friendly, or positive treatment.  This is natural of their peers, because they are approached with something new that they might not fully understand.  What is worse is that in this encourageable state, they are then taken into a very competitive environment where sleeping with people is one path to popularity, drugs another, and performing or showing off your body is another.  Over time this strengthens a focus toward sex that can remain throughout the person's life.  And of course there are also facets of it that revolve around getting paid to have sex of course, usually with older members of the "scene."  This stems from this same process but is a different discussion.  But none of this is as bad as a new person coming in with wide eyes and learning a new environment just to be taken advantage of by someone who already "knows" the scene.  Most likely the very "friend" who introduced them, or a friend of that friend who they think they can trust.  Thus is the beginning of the cycle.  Or we could say that the beginning of the cycle is why they felt they had to do something different to find acceptance and identity to begin with.  Something that should not have to take place.

Certainly not everyone gets pulled fully into the situation, people have different paths, but that is how many situations happen.  That is why veterans have the phrase "fresh meat."  That "fresh meat" is likely a child (in life and finding himself) of a situation that he didn't feel like he/she belonged in.

Take a child though who doesn't ever go to a club or bar.  They might look for acceptance on the internet or might just be bait on a social networking site simply by having a young picture and putting up the word "gay" for sexuality.  Again, similar path but through a different entrance.

If they don't take either path, they are still subject to small comments at school or at home that help single out the person's feelings about their sexuality as an important topic.  So much so that they make it a focus in their life.  This takes away from other ambitions, and may cause them to take on maneurisms that they wouldn't normally take on.  All of these during the crucial and fragile developmental years can also deeply impact a person's psychology. That is why many psychiatrists approach homosexuals from a standpoint of personal acceptance as a primary goal and solution to problems that may not seem initially related.

 

These are interesting psychologics, although Im a little sceptical of how common and representative it is.

R u saying that these people wouldnt become homosexual if they lived in a different environment where they didnt get lured in by gay mentors into the "scene" like your describing above? And r u talking from your own experience?

No, they would probably still have the feelings.  The source of the feelings would be another discussion.  I'm referring to the tendency for gay people to be lured into a sex filled life and being introduced to orgies, drugs, partners that only last from 1 week to 1 month, pedophilia type attractions, etc.  There are other factors of course, but I think that this process is greatly nurtured by society.  Think of the alternative to this:  People respecting each other, basing a person on who they are in every way versus a "sexual" orientation, people having experiences on their life's journey (which doesn't revolve around sex) and truly falling in a mutual love/respect relationship in which they can spend the rest of their lives or at least a large portion of their lives while creating memories and a bond that would never have happened otherwise.  This leading to a more fulfilling, less sex driven, and psychologically healthy life.  In a way, by not having gay marriage of some form then we are encouraging short term relationships, unacceptance of who people are causing psychological problems and life misteps, which all in the tendency that the "scene" has created in this cycle, encourages lude acts and sexual deviances.  When we say that marriage should only be toward heterosexuals, we think we are protecting the morality of society, but we are actually aiding to its decline.

Personally:  I think that by even calling it a domestic partnership, it is degrading the meaning behind it, however over time it can grow to have its own gay "culture" meaning which might be similar in feel to the heterosexually established "marriage."  Though, it has an underlying quality reminding gay people that they are not equal, and anything that does this will psychologically have the tendency to feed the "scene" or "culture" that I talked about.  If we want gay people to live life in accordance to what heterosexuals have found to be a sexual maturity which has shown to have more potential to generate a more meaningful existence, then we need to try to allow gay people to fit into that form as much as possible, or at least feel that they are.  We should not feed the separation into two divisions, one that we deem socially acceptable and one that simply satisfies those who we would rather not have amongst us.  By doing this, you are already putting the expectation that the other group will not be as socially acceptable justifying the "scene" living life in its own way and creating what on the surface looks like a different "culture."

What exactly is marriage and where is it based?  The term is based primarily on a religious union.  It is a symbolic measure which has psychological implications that affect a person's overall choices in life.  It creates a new basis for living life.  The governments have also put a financial spin on the union and made it more of a financially meaningful contract in the eyes of the law.  The government should not be allowed to determine who gets married and by what method, regardless if a person is homosexual or heterosexual, as it is at its core a religious topic.  However, since there are now financial obligations, the government should not completely drop that connection.  My proposition is that despite how extreme it may be, we should completely separate marriage from the government and reestablish all governmental based unions as domestic partnerships.  Then allow these people to have their "symbolic" coating of choice put on in whatever religion will let them walk the isle.  This would take out the religion from the governments equation and put it in the hand of the religion itself, and should be acceptable to all parties involved.  Religious sects cannot argue with separation of church and state and forcing religion on any particular group nor can they argue with a measure that is going to prevent changing the definition of marriage.  Most people psychologically oppose gay marriage because it directly affects their religions definition of marriage.  And while this might be the best course of action, the alternative is to at least allow gay couples domestic partnerships to allow a similar environment to what these "gay children" knew growing up with their parents to where they can at least imitate that more secure lifestyle in a psychologically.  It would still create a divide, but at least it would help.