OK, I thought maybe I was missing a few pages in this thread or something. It seemed to me that you had consistently addressed the topic of the thread, and avoided (likely with a good deal of self control) the tendencies of some here to succumb to name-calling and rhetoric.
for that matter, I really haven't seen the "sound-bites" he mentions.
~HAPe4me
A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle.
I found this in one of my newsgroups and thought it pertinent to share. I am not asking people to agree or disagree - I didn't write it, but I think is gives an interesting take upon the proposed amendment to the US Constitution:
quote: The Gay Marriage Paradox: Why Americans won't tolerate a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
By Alan Wolfe
Most Americans oppose gay marriage -- polls generally suggest somewhere around 60 percent say they don't agree with extending marriage to homosexual couples. But most Americans -- to roughly the same extent -- oppose amending the Constitution to make gay marriage impossible. A January ABCNew/Washington Post poll put it at 58 percent.
What gives? The numbers suggest that the issue touches Americans in significant ways. Marriage involves love, sex, children, intimacy, and care -- all things Americans experience personally (unlike, say, tariffs), and about which they develop strong opinions. True, gay couples share these experiences; they can adopt (or, given the wonders of modern science, have) children, just as it is true that heterosexual couples can be childless. But try explaining that to someone who believes (and the majority of Americans seem to) that the mystery of sexuality was created by a God who believed that children should be brought into the world through an act of passion by a man and a woman deeply in love.
If they do not like the idea of gay marriage, why are so many Americans so resistant to amending the Constitution to prevent it? The Bible, that same believer will insist, was written by God, but no one claims He wrote the Constitution. While it has assumed an Scripture-like reverence, the Constitution is a political document written by real people in human time. It outlines a perfectly usable, if difficult to realize, process for its own amendment, and it has been amended from time to time on matters as morally serious as slavery. Surely, if we can change it to prohibit drinking alcohol, we should be able to change it to prohibit something people consider even more sinful. So why don't we?
One interpretation of the paradox is that opposition to gay marriage, while broadly shared, is not very deep. The president of the United States appears to buys this interpretation. If a politician wants to signal opposition to something while letting his or her inside-the-beltway audience know the opposition shouldn't be taken literally, the politician calls for a constitutional amendment. Out there in the sticks, the theory goes, his followers say he must really care. In more sophisticated circles everyone knows that the process of actually passing a constitutional amendment is so cumbersome that no one will be called upon to do much about it until the controversy fades away.
In his recent State of the Union address, Mr. Bush took an even weaker route, suggesting a constitutional “process” -- as if he did not want to be pinned down to something as a specific as an amendment. The decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that rejected civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage increases the pressure from the president's conservative Christian base to support an amendment, and he will almost certainly sharpen his language in response. But the fact that the majority of Americans are unenthusiastic about elevating this issue to constitutional status will likely sway him more.
But that's politics. What about what we believe? Americans are not avid readers of their Constitution. Many would have a hard time identifying the 14th Amendment as the one that ended slavery by guaranteeing no person should be deprived of due process of law. Yet this may be exactly why Americans do not want to see their opposition enshrined as a matter of constitutional permanence. In a way that doesn't require knowledge of constitutional theory, they see that a marriage amendment would add intolerant clauses to a document famous for its tolerance.
The Constitution is not only a text, it is a symbol; and all Americans, religious believers especially, appreciate the power of symbols. No one wants graffiti written on the Lincoln Monument; even the most zealous anti-gay marriage proponent might have second thoughts about changing a written monument so closely identified with Lincoln’s leadership. Like any sacred text, the Constitution is not really of this world. Marriage, children, and sex very much are. To blend the two is to mix the sacred and the profane in uneasy ways.
By coincidence, Americans are finding their feet on this issue at the start of a national election year. Increasingly the Republicans are perceived as the party willing to take risks, whether those involve the financial burdens of future generations, or the possibly higher costs of an Iraqi war. In such an environment, the Democrats have appeared as the more conservative party, calling for balanced budgets and overseas caution.
That same topsy-turvy dynamic can now be applied to cultural issues. The great irony of America’s puzzling attitudes toward gay marriage is that while they give the Republicans the opportunity to paint Democrats as out of sync with mainstream values, they also give Democrats the chance to paint Republicans as radicals willing to tamper with sacred things. If gay marriage becomes an issue in 2004--it is hard to imagine how it could not--it will be interesting to watch the traditionally liberal party speak as if the Constitution were untouchable while the traditionally more conservative one urges it be changed to keep up with the times.
Alan Wolfe is a professor at Boston College and author of, most recently, "The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith"
First, I'd like to state that I'm not a homosexual and I don't play one on TV.
There were a lot of posts I wanted to address... but they're all a few pages back now... and it seems the name calling has stopped...
I thought the big reason folks wanted this was so they could have the same "survivorship" rights as heterosexual folks do... plain and simple...
So why should anyone else care? Only because your religion says to? ... You can have your anti-homosexual beliefs, just don't hide behind all the rhetoric and name calling, just admit it and say "I don't like it"... you don't have to justify it, it's the way you choose to believe... you are the only one who it has to be justified to...
It's kinda like Abigail's "To every man his own truth and his own God within."
but if that's your argument against this case... a couple's survivorship rights (whether homo or hetero)... what does it matter to you?
It does not effect you really. It just effects your social and religious feelings... but that doesn't make it wrong.
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Trefor: I can understand why Zixar felt he was being labeled a "gay basher," if only because of the way you've constructed your argument. You seem to have confused opposition to gay marriage with opposition to homosexuals, as if acceptance of homosexuality would naturally include acceptance of gay marriage. At one point, you even said that arguments against gay marriage are rooted in emotion and prejudice, rather than rational consideration of the issues. You told Zixar that "homosexuals do NOT have to prove their right to exist to you or anybody else," as if a "right to exist" was ever in question. If Zixar is questioning your "right to exist" as you say he is, then what is he, if not a "gay-basher"?
Your strongest case in favor of gay marriage seems to revolve around the concepts of fairness and love. A few posters here have already spoken to the issue of "fairness." You, as a homosexual, CAN enter into a marriage, if you choose to, making the issue of "fairness" moot. No one is preventing you from marriage, which, by definition, means a partnership of two people, one of each gender. When it comes to the preservation of romantic or erotic love, I'm not sure anyone would really recommend marriage as a means to preserve it, which is one reason why it's a really good idea for any woman planning to have children to be married. Marriage exists beyond passion or desire, as a place for family stability, regardless of whether children are involved. You say that "marriage is not granted on the grounds that the couple will have children." While that's true enough, it's also unlikely that either partner in a marriage will be having children outside of that marriage.
I think it's interesting that you answered my post claiming that marriage primarily benefits women with statistics about the failures of marriage. If that is the case, then why willingly enter into a union so historically filled with oppression, heartache, and violence? While this may not apply to you specifically, Trefor, I wonder if the whole movement for gay-marriage isn't fueled by some sort of jealousy, or maybe even hostility, toward women. You've already made a case that your two main reasons for marriage -- fairness and love -- don't even exist in the marriage relationship anyway, so why bother changing the definition to include more people into this misery?
I don't question your sincerity, but I do question the motivation of those who are organizing this movement against traditional marriage.
quote:You told Zixar that "homosexuals do NOT have to prove their right to exist to you or anybody else," as if a "right to exist" was ever in question. If Zixar is questioning your "right to exist" as you say he is, then what is he, if not a "gay-basher"?
Not at all. Zix has consistently demanded a reason that justifies homosexuality to him and no argument that I made appeared to satisfy him. I don't think for one moment that Zix means that gays do not have the right to exist as human beings!
It was in that sense that I said what I said, to question the need to justify to an individual our lives, feelings, aspirations to equality etc.
I lose count of the people who come up with the same old chestnut that it is fair because I can marry a woman like any other man can. When the object of one's love (as opposed to one's lust) is a man it hardly solves the problem and indeed creates others.
The claim was made that marriage was there for the protection and the dignity of the woman. I merely pointed out that this was not always the case. Many women had no choice - they could not work, their families arranged it etc.
You cannot have "family stability" without children. A man and a woman without children are a couple, not a family. Yet there are gay couples, on the other hand, who do produce families one way or another, by adoption or other means. They raise the children as decent citizens, there is no indication that this influences the development of their sexuality, just as being part of a family does not prevent gay people from being gay.
As to this hostility and jealousy towards women - not at all. This case is on behalf of Lesbians as well as gay men. Mysogyny was for centuries practiced by (presumeably) heterosexual men - goods, chattels, temptresses like Eve, cannot vote etc. It was once even questioned whether or not a woman had a soul! Gay men on the other hand often have close female friends and lesbians close male ones. The only difference is the sexual attraction is not there.
Trefor -- Right. Most Americans haven't read, or are not familiar with the Constitution
A co-worker of mine, was dumbfounded when I told them that the phrase "separation of church and state" was nowhere to be found in the Constitution. -->
They simply took it "by faith" that it was there, and never checked it out for themselves. :(-->
Anybody applying for US citizenship has to take a test on such matters. My cousin in Philly had to learn this stuff and be able to answer questions about it - also on US History.
And yet native born citizens do not and I wonder how deeply it is covered in schools?
It's like somebody visiting a city often knows more about the facilities and attractions than somebody living there!
Even here we learn stuff about the USA even though it's not directly applicable to us.
It can be easy to mix up what is in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights. People may well remember a phrase but cannot remember where it is.
I can remember the phrase (off the top of my head):
"Congress shall not enact any law regarding the free exercise of religon or the establishment thereof"...
Now it might not be word perfect and I cannot cite whether it is in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but I think that is the phrase people are thinking of when they say "separation of church and state."
quote: A co-worker of mine, was dumbfounded when I told them that the phrase "separation of church and state" was nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
(I love one-liners like this. 'Cause with even a cursory examination illustrate the flaws of that statement, and dumbfound those that use it.)
Neither does the phrase 'speedy trial'. But the lack of those specific wordings is irrelevant, because the concepts, both of a speedy trial, *and* of separation of church and state, are in the Constitution.
Surely you can do better than that.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
I think that if God says to put to death any man who lies with another man in Leviticus 20:13, that a law that allows a man to legally marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman is to say the very least, "wrong".
We do live in another time than the time of Leviticus, and therefore I do not believe that they should be put to death. I do believe that they should be treated with the love of God, as Jesus Christ told us to love others. Times have changed. Christ has come and done the redemption thing and Grace is here.
But I do not believe that we should change our laws which will essentially say that "they are really the same as us" and therefore should have the same privileges. If God says it is wrong and is deviant behavior, then laws permitting their legal marriage would a be a law that would be contrary to God's will and would be the same as putting a "Government Stamp Of Approval" upon the lifestyle..
Hey, I have worked with a number of gay chicks on board ships, and one of them I consider a good friend. She is funny, intelligent, and a very hard worker. And when she gets drunk she likes guys and I have had to fend off her amorous attempts a time or two. Haha! But when she asked me what I thought of the fact that she was gay, I told her that I didn't think it was right with the way I believe God designed life to be (my reasoning being purely Biblical), but that I loved her as a friend and that I believed that God wants the best for her. And, we are still friends. Saw her just last week when I was aboard one of the ships I used to work on. We hugged and said hi and caught up with our goins ons..
Love the person? Well of course! Put a government stamp of approval on the lifestyle? No...
I am sorry, I am not sure, but I was not trying to imply that my husband and I got married for financial reasons. It is that the state and government put all these prices on all these licenses etc. so that they can make money.
God says we are NOT to divorce other than having sex with another, the solution in this problem is to KILL the cheating spouse!
If you want to Mix God in the marriage license business and approve of a lifestyle..hello! hetrosexual marriages fail and fall short amass. Gods says divorce is wrong wrong wrong , yet now allow the pages fly about how we live in
GRACE ! and blah blah blah
a double standard is in deep with that reasoning.
people twist the scriptures to mean what works for them for example Husband of ONE WIFE, means ONE Wife not one wife and three ex wives hmmmm..now now yes but we live in grace will be the rebuttal yeah we do and I judge no one about what that may mean including the unpopular breaking of the law of homosexuality, to me it is the same , but many feel it must be different but it isnt written as such in the bible .
God does not allow for divorce ,and has serious penalties for having sex with another within and without being legaly married,yet people sugar coat this with cultural acceptance, and attack homosexuality like it is a bigger sin than fornication, or cheating on your spouse .
quote:Theirs is a campaign based on fear and hate, in order to maintain
their positions of power, used abusively and inappropriately.
This sort of crap doesn't win much sympathy.
quote:Why is gay marriage such a crucial issue?
If someone could tell me that, I might support it. You'll need to demonstrate a positive reason for people to change the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Falsely accusing people of bigotry won't do it.
Edited by Guest
Calling it crap does not lessen the possiblity that power has something to do with it. I did not write the piece but there is certainly an element of power when it comes to religious leadership, it was not limited to the leadership of TWI.
Well if you cannot accept fairness and equality as a crucuial issue and fall back upon tradition as the last word upon any subject I cannot see how to progress with you. You either accept that it is a reasonable proposition or you do not - enough arguments have been made that should show that tradition needs to be questioned.
If VPW ever said a true word it was "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
I will argue that unless you can show a good reason to the contrary then you should consider the possibility of allowing it. Traditional marriage and families will not collapse, the sky has not fallen in those countries that now allow same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage in those countries carries on as it did before.
Did you miss "fear and hate" in the sentence I quoted, Trefor? That's the "crap."
The notion that I "fall back upon tradition as the last word upon any subject" is ridiculous. I used "traditional" to distinguish between marriage of one person of each gender and your advocated marriage that ignores gender. If you would prefer a different term to distinguish between the two, then suggest one (or two).
"I will argue that unless you can show a good reason to the contrary then you should consider the possibility of allowing it."
You've got it backwards. I'm more than willing to consider almost any proposal. The onus is on you (or those advocating change) to show good reason to legally formalize and recognize same-sex partnerships as marriages. You haven't.
I think you're missing the point. I don't think anyone is asking any individual to justifiy his (or her) preference for homosexuality, any more than any individual is being asked to justify her (or his) preference for group sex, in any variation thereof, or any other sexual interest. The question that's been repeatedly asked (yet not answered) is that if the decision to limit marriage to people of opposite genders is unfair, isn't it just as arbitrary to limit the number of spouses to one? And why is it that spouses have to be human in origin anyway? That sounds like discrimination to me. All creatures have a soul and should be treated with respect, dignity, and equality. Right?
You keep coming back to the argument that marriage is about love and attraction, therefore any union, however it's defined, of whomever it consists, should be recognized as a marriage, as long as it originates in "love." In which case, the state is asked to take an interest in how we feel about each other, as if the state's interest in marriage is an interest in the promulgation of "love." It is not. The state's interest in marriage (what little interest remains) is an interest in social stability.
I think the controversy over gay-marriage will ultimately result in a redefinition of marriage, which, in the interest of fairness, should include any sexual arrangement that is absent a "victim." In which case, what does "marriage" mean? What purpose does it serve? I don't know if the outcome of this debate will be good or bad for American society in general, but I can sympathize far more with the arguments against gay-marriage (not arguments against homosexuality) than arguments in favor.
you can agrue against gay marriage for what agruement?
social stability? why would that fail or succeed any less in a gay marriage?
Why can you sympathize against gay marriage? Is it because of bible laws? Well that would not hold up as fair considering the divorce rate amoung hetros either .
I am serious wondering. what are you thinking?
I think they should allow the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals , mostly for the children to have rights when they get divorced or die. for medical benefits and for social security for people with long standing relationships..
it just seems fair to me.
Gods law can be seperate for so many laws we have in place today , I do not understand other than somehow you may think we can police how someone choses to obey the bible or not and we can all be a witness to how ugly that gets. I would not any part of that agenda anymore.
You seem to have missed the point, Linda. An interest in social stability is an interest in the stability of society, not necessarily that of any particular societal structure.
I have been studying anthropology and i have learned a few things.
Our closest genetic cousins are the bonobos. aka the pygmy chimpanzees. We share 98% of our genetic structure with them. The bonobos engage in sex acts with males and females no matter if they are male or female. They do it for pleasure and for building alliances with others, for support.
Marriage according to my anthrpology book is:
the non-ethnocentric definition is a relationship between one or more men(male or female) and one or more women (male or female)who are recognized by society as having a continuing claim to the right of sexual access to one another.
Among North American Native Americans, there were men that donned women's clothing and did women's work and even married another man. most indian societies allowed individuals to engage in homosexual behavior. they did not look at it as deviant behavior.
Homosexuality is not uncommon among humans. In some societies, it is apart of rituals for boys to become men.
American football is filled with homosexual symbolism. A group of males who assert their masculinity by "penetrating" the "endzones" of rivals. I know LCM favorite sport was football.
I say to each his own on the feelings about homosexual behavior. I am very happy with my boyfriend. His brother is flaming, some of my best friends are flamingly homosexual and they are great people. I personally refuse to allow society to dictate to me what is right and wrong especcially when there is proof to the contrary. Chrisitanity has taught us that it is wrong and deviant behavior but i feel that people will be attracted to whomever they are attracted to. If it does not hurt me then I dont care. Maybe I feel this way cause I live in Portland OR and we are very liberal here. The gay men have all the best style and music.
American culture has steadily grown more and more okay with homosexuality. Shows like Will and Grace and Queer Eye for teh Straight Guy have made homosexuality chic and fun.
Ok. I started this thread, and my original concern about same sex marriages was addressed by only one person and that was Rocky. There may have been a few other comments by some, but it was mostly addressed by Rocky. He disagreed with me, but that's his right and is entitled to his opinion, which I respect.
I will re-address it. I believe that same sex marriage could end up being harmful to society for this reason, and I am not going to simply say; "Cuz it's aginst the Bible!" I believe it could be harmful to our society because of a possible scenario that could play out:
If it is legal-as it is in many states in America-for an underaged person to marry an older person with parental consent, like a 15 year old girl marrying a 38 year old man, which would obviously be a heterosexual union, then it is possible that once same sex marriages are allowed, that a 15 year old boy could marry a 38 year old man as long as the boy had his parents consent. Today we would call that kind of a relationship pedophilia, tomorrow some would simply call it just another strange marriage of the "young to the older" (I'd still call it pedophilia), but it would be legal.
Rocky contends that this is not a threat, and that the hetero version has only or mostly happened in the in southern Utah where the Mormons have done it "ala polygamy". But I am sure that we wouldn't have to look too far in other places in this country to find similar arrangements. Hetero arrangements that is.
I contend that once we open the door to same sex marriages, why should we not afford the same legal right of parental consent to same sex young and older couples?
If little Mary is in love with 38 year old Bob, and has the right to marry him if her parents let her, then why couldn't little Johnny, who is in love with 38 year old Dick, marry him with parental consent?
Like I said before, this may seem absurd now, this may seem "ridiculous" now. But what was thought about same sex marriages 25 years ago? Who would have ever thought that NAMBLA could even exist? But it is here, and they even have a website for hells sakes.
Right now the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) pedophile group is trying to gain legal rights for older men to have "love"/sexual relationships with boys as young as 12! I am sure that they are salivating over the possibilities of same sex marriage which would be a serious step in the direction that they want to go.
Does anyone else see this as something that same sex marriages could lead to? Same sex marriages is the topic of this thread, but this is the first thing I threw out. It does have to do with impact on our society. Anybody?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
HAPe4me
tref-
OK, I thought maybe I was missing a few pages in this thread or something. It seemed to me that you had consistently addressed the topic of the thread, and avoided (likely with a good deal of self control) the tendencies of some here to succumb to name-calling and rhetoric.
for that matter, I really haven't seen the "sound-bites" he mentions.
~HAPe4me
A candle loses nothing of its light by lighting another candle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
HAPe4me:
Thanks. I wondered if I had missed a few pages too!
:D-->
When you put your head above the trenches you need a thick skin. Bit of a mixed metaphor there!
;)-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I found this in one of my newsgroups and thought it pertinent to share. I am not asking people to agree or disagree - I didn't write it, but I think is gives an interesting take upon the proposed amendment to the US Constitution:
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
First, I'd like to state that I'm not a homosexual and I don't play one on TV.
There were a lot of posts I wanted to address... but they're all a few pages back now... and it seems the name calling has stopped...
I thought the big reason folks wanted this was so they could have the same "survivorship" rights as heterosexual folks do... plain and simple...
So why should anyone else care? Only because your religion says to? ... You can have your anti-homosexual beliefs, just don't hide behind all the rhetoric and name calling, just admit it and say "I don't like it"... you don't have to justify it, it's the way you choose to believe... you are the only one who it has to be justified to...
It's kinda like Abigail's "To every man his own truth and his own God within."
but if that's your argument against this case... a couple's survivorship rights (whether homo or hetero)... what does it matter to you?
It does not effect you really. It just effects your social and religious feelings... but that doesn't make it wrong.
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Trefor: I can understand why Zixar felt he was being labeled a "gay basher," if only because of the way you've constructed your argument. You seem to have confused opposition to gay marriage with opposition to homosexuals, as if acceptance of homosexuality would naturally include acceptance of gay marriage. At one point, you even said that arguments against gay marriage are rooted in emotion and prejudice, rather than rational consideration of the issues. You told Zixar that "homosexuals do NOT have to prove their right to exist to you or anybody else," as if a "right to exist" was ever in question. If Zixar is questioning your "right to exist" as you say he is, then what is he, if not a "gay-basher"?
Your strongest case in favor of gay marriage seems to revolve around the concepts of fairness and love. A few posters here have already spoken to the issue of "fairness." You, as a homosexual, CAN enter into a marriage, if you choose to, making the issue of "fairness" moot. No one is preventing you from marriage, which, by definition, means a partnership of two people, one of each gender. When it comes to the preservation of romantic or erotic love, I'm not sure anyone would really recommend marriage as a means to preserve it, which is one reason why it's a really good idea for any woman planning to have children to be married. Marriage exists beyond passion or desire, as a place for family stability, regardless of whether children are involved. You say that "marriage is not granted on the grounds that the couple will have children." While that's true enough, it's also unlikely that either partner in a marriage will be having children outside of that marriage.
I think it's interesting that you answered my post claiming that marriage primarily benefits women with statistics about the failures of marriage. If that is the case, then why willingly enter into a union so historically filled with oppression, heartache, and violence? While this may not apply to you specifically, Trefor, I wonder if the whole movement for gay-marriage isn't fueled by some sort of jealousy, or maybe even hostility, toward women. You've already made a case that your two main reasons for marriage -- fairness and love -- don't even exist in the marriage relationship anyway, so why bother changing the definition to include more people into this misery?
I don't question your sincerity, but I do question the motivation of those who are organizing this movement against traditional marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
laleo:
Not at all. Zix has consistently demanded a reason that justifies homosexuality to him and no argument that I made appeared to satisfy him. I don't think for one moment that Zix means that gays do not have the right to exist as human beings!
It was in that sense that I said what I said, to question the need to justify to an individual our lives, feelings, aspirations to equality etc.
I lose count of the people who come up with the same old chestnut that it is fair because I can marry a woman like any other man can. When the object of one's love (as opposed to one's lust) is a man it hardly solves the problem and indeed creates others.
The claim was made that marriage was there for the protection and the dignity of the woman. I merely pointed out that this was not always the case. Many women had no choice - they could not work, their families arranged it etc.
You cannot have "family stability" without children. A man and a woman without children are a couple, not a family. Yet there are gay couples, on the other hand, who do produce families one way or another, by adoption or other means. They raise the children as decent citizens, there is no indication that this influences the development of their sexuality, just as being part of a family does not prevent gay people from being gay.
As to this hostility and jealousy towards women - not at all. This case is on behalf of Lesbians as well as gay men. Mysogyny was for centuries practiced by (presumeably) heterosexual men - goods, chattels, temptresses like Eve, cannot vote etc. It was once even questioned whether or not a woman had a soul! Gay men on the other hand often have close female friends and lesbians close male ones. The only difference is the sexual attraction is not there.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Trefor -- Right. Most Americans haven't read, or are not familiar with the Constitution
A co-worker of mine, was dumbfounded when I told them that the phrase "separation of church and state" was nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
-->
They simply took it "by faith" that it was there, and never checked it out for themselves.
:(-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
dmiller:
It's interesting that this should be the case.
Anybody applying for US citizenship has to take a test on such matters. My cousin in Philly had to learn this stuff and be able to answer questions about it - also on US History.
And yet native born citizens do not and I wonder how deeply it is covered in schools?
It's like somebody visiting a city often knows more about the facilities and attractions than somebody living there!
Even here we learn stuff about the USA even though it's not directly applicable to us.
It can be easy to mix up what is in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights. People may well remember a phrase but cannot remember where it is.
I can remember the phrase (off the top of my head):
"Congress shall not enact any law regarding the free exercise of religon or the establishment thereof"...
Now it might not be word perfect and I cannot cite whether it is in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but I think that is the phrase people are thinking of when they say "separation of church and state."
But I'm a Brit and therefore have an excuse
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Dmiller,
(I love one-liners like this.
'Cause with even a cursory examination illustrate the flaws of that statement, and dumbfound those that use it.)
Neither does the phrase 'speedy trial'. But the lack of those specific wordings is irrelevant, because the concepts, both of a speedy trial, *and* of separation of church and state, are in the Constitution.
Surely you can do better than that.
My own secret sign-off ====v,
Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I think that if God says to put to death any man who lies with another man in Leviticus 20:13, that a law that allows a man to legally marry another man, or a woman to marry another woman is to say the very least, "wrong".
We do live in another time than the time of Leviticus, and therefore I do not believe that they should be put to death. I do believe that they should be treated with the love of God, as Jesus Christ told us to love others. Times have changed. Christ has come and done the redemption thing and Grace is here.
But I do not believe that we should change our laws which will essentially say that "they are really the same as us" and therefore should have the same privileges. If God says it is wrong and is deviant behavior, then laws permitting their legal marriage would a be a law that would be contrary to God's will and would be the same as putting a "Government Stamp Of Approval" upon the lifestyle..
Hey, I have worked with a number of gay chicks on board ships, and one of them I consider a good friend. She is funny, intelligent, and a very hard worker. And when she gets drunk she likes guys and I have had to fend off her amorous attempts a time or two. Haha! But when she asked me what I thought of the fact that she was gay, I told her that I didn't think it was right with the way I believe God designed life to be (my reasoning being purely Biblical), but that I loved her as a friend and that I believed that God wants the best for her. And, we are still friends. Saw her just last week when I was aboard one of the ships I used to work on. We hugged and said hi and caught up with our goins ons..
Love the person? Well of course! Put a government stamp of approval on the lifestyle? No...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Trefor,
I am sorry, I am not sure, but I was not trying to imply that my husband and I got married for financial reasons. It is that the state and government put all these prices on all these licenses etc. so that they can make money.
Sorry if I wasn't clear with that.
outofdafog
Thats my story and I am sticking to it
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Another interesting take upon gay marriage that I found:
Gay geneology should be of interest to the Mormons at least!
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
you know?
Reality check!
God says we are NOT to divorce other than having sex with another, the solution in this problem is to KILL the cheating spouse!
If you want to Mix God in the marriage license business and approve of a lifestyle..hello! hetrosexual marriages fail and fall short amass. Gods says divorce is wrong wrong wrong , yet now allow the pages fly about how we live in
GRACE ! and blah blah blah
a double standard is in deep with that reasoning.
people twist the scriptures to mean what works for them for example Husband of ONE WIFE, means ONE Wife not one wife and three ex wives hmmmm..now now yes but we live in grace will be the rebuttal yeah we do and I judge no one about what that may mean including the unpopular breaking of the law of homosexuality, to me it is the same , but many feel it must be different but it isnt written as such in the bible .
God does not allow for divorce ,and has serious penalties for having sex with another within and without being legaly married,yet people sugar coat this with cultural acceptance, and attack homosexuality like it is a bigger sin than fornication, or cheating on your spouse .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Calling it crap does not lessen the possiblity that power has something to do with it. I did not write the piece but there is certainly an element of power when it comes to religious leadership, it was not limited to the leadership of TWI.
Well if you cannot accept fairness and equality as a crucuial issue and fall back upon tradition as the last word upon any subject I cannot see how to progress with you. You either accept that it is a reasonable proposition or you do not - enough arguments have been made that should show that tradition needs to be questioned.
If VPW ever said a true word it was "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
I will argue that unless you can show a good reason to the contrary then you should consider the possibility of allowing it. Traditional marriage and families will not collapse, the sky has not fallen in those countries that now allow same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage in those countries carries on as it did before.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Did you miss "fear and hate" in the sentence I quoted, Trefor? That's the "crap."
The notion that I "fall back upon tradition as the last word upon any subject" is ridiculous. I used "traditional" to distinguish between marriage of one person of each gender and your advocated marriage that ignores gender. If you would prefer a different term to distinguish between the two, then suggest one (or two).
"I will argue that unless you can show a good reason to the contrary then you should consider the possibility of allowing it."
You've got it backwards. I'm more than willing to consider almost any proposal. The onus is on you (or those advocating change) to show good reason to legally formalize and recognize same-sex partnerships as marriages. You haven't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Trefor,
I think you're missing the point. I don't think anyone is asking any individual to justifiy his (or her) preference for homosexuality, any more than any individual is being asked to justify her (or his) preference for group sex, in any variation thereof, or any other sexual interest. The question that's been repeatedly asked (yet not answered) is that if the decision to limit marriage to people of opposite genders is unfair, isn't it just as arbitrary to limit the number of spouses to one? And why is it that spouses have to be human in origin anyway? That sounds like discrimination to me. All creatures have a soul and should be treated with respect, dignity, and equality. Right?
You keep coming back to the argument that marriage is about love and attraction, therefore any union, however it's defined, of whomever it consists, should be recognized as a marriage, as long as it originates in "love." In which case, the state is asked to take an interest in how we feel about each other, as if the state's interest in marriage is an interest in the promulgation of "love." It is not. The state's interest in marriage (what little interest remains) is an interest in social stability.
I think the controversy over gay-marriage will ultimately result in a redefinition of marriage, which, in the interest of fairness, should include any sexual arrangement that is absent a "victim." In which case, what does "marriage" mean? What purpose does it serve? I don't know if the outcome of this debate will be good or bad for American society in general, but I can sympathize far more with the arguments against gay-marriage (not arguments against homosexuality) than arguments in favor.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
laleo
you can agrue against gay marriage for what agruement?
social stability? why would that fail or succeed any less in a gay marriage?
Why can you sympathize against gay marriage? Is it because of bible laws? Well that would not hold up as fair considering the divorce rate amoung hetros either .
I am serious wondering. what are you thinking?
I think they should allow the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals , mostly for the children to have rights when they get divorced or die. for medical benefits and for social security for people with long standing relationships..
it just seems fair to me.
Gods law can be seperate for so many laws we have in place today , I do not understand other than somehow you may think we can police how someone choses to obey the bible or not and we can all be a witness to how ugly that gets. I would not any part of that agenda anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
How would allowing people of the same gender to marry jeopardize the stability of heterosexual marriages or the families of heterosexual couples?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
You seem to have missed the point, Linda. An interest in social stability is an interest in the stability of society, not necessarily that of any particular societal structure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
meganpenworthy
oh i know what this is going to get me.
I have been studying anthropology and i have learned a few things.
Our closest genetic cousins are the bonobos. aka the pygmy chimpanzees. We share 98% of our genetic structure with them. The bonobos engage in sex acts with males and females no matter if they are male or female. They do it for pleasure and for building alliances with others, for support.
Marriage according to my anthrpology book is:
the non-ethnocentric definition is a relationship between one or more men(male or female) and one or more women (male or female)who are recognized by society as having a continuing claim to the right of sexual access to one another.
Among North American Native Americans, there were men that donned women's clothing and did women's work and even married another man. most indian societies allowed individuals to engage in homosexual behavior. they did not look at it as deviant behavior.
Homosexuality is not uncommon among humans. In some societies, it is apart of rituals for boys to become men.
American football is filled with homosexual symbolism. A group of males who assert their masculinity by "penetrating" the "endzones" of rivals. I know LCM favorite sport was football.
I say to each his own on the feelings about homosexual behavior. I am very happy with my boyfriend. His brother is flaming, some of my best friends are flamingly homosexual and they are great people. I personally refuse to allow society to dictate to me what is right and wrong especcially when there is proof to the contrary. Chrisitanity has taught us that it is wrong and deviant behavior but i feel that people will be attracted to whomever they are attracted to. If it does not hurt me then I dont care. Maybe I feel this way cause I live in Portland OR and we are very liberal here. The gay men have all the best style and music.
American culture has steadily grown more and more okay with homosexuality. Shows like Will and Grace and Queer Eye for teh Straight Guy have made homosexuality chic and fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Ok. I started this thread, and my original concern about same sex marriages was addressed by only one person and that was Rocky. There may have been a few other comments by some, but it was mostly addressed by Rocky. He disagreed with me, but that's his right and is entitled to his opinion, which I respect.
I will re-address it. I believe that same sex marriage could end up being harmful to society for this reason, and I am not going to simply say; "Cuz it's aginst the Bible!" I believe it could be harmful to our society because of a possible scenario that could play out:
If it is legal-as it is in many states in America-for an underaged person to marry an older person with parental consent, like a 15 year old girl marrying a 38 year old man, which would obviously be a heterosexual union, then it is possible that once same sex marriages are allowed, that a 15 year old boy could marry a 38 year old man as long as the boy had his parents consent. Today we would call that kind of a relationship pedophilia, tomorrow some would simply call it just another strange marriage of the "young to the older" (I'd still call it pedophilia), but it would be legal.
Rocky contends that this is not a threat, and that the hetero version has only or mostly happened in the in southern Utah where the Mormons have done it "ala polygamy". But I am sure that we wouldn't have to look too far in other places in this country to find similar arrangements. Hetero arrangements that is.
I contend that once we open the door to same sex marriages, why should we not afford the same legal right of parental consent to same sex young and older couples?
If little Mary is in love with 38 year old Bob, and has the right to marry him if her parents let her, then why couldn't little Johnny, who is in love with 38 year old Dick, marry him with parental consent?
Like I said before, this may seem absurd now, this may seem "ridiculous" now. But what was thought about same sex marriages 25 years ago? Who would have ever thought that NAMBLA could even exist? But it is here, and they even have a website for hells sakes.
Right now the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) pedophile group is trying to gain legal rights for older men to have "love"/sexual relationships with boys as young as 12! I am sure that they are salivating over the possibilities of same sex marriage which would be a serious step in the direction that they want to go.
Does anyone else see this as something that same sex marriages could lead to? Same sex marriages is the topic of this thread, but this is the first thing I threw out. It does have to do with impact on our society. Anybody?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
Johnny,
It seems more that states should make all underage marital unions illegal,regardless of consent...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.