How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do With It?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


0 posted 03-20-2004 11:40 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

After my father died a couple from one of his old congregations wrote wanting to share this story about the impact he had on their lives.  Let's just call them Jack and Diane.. two American kids from the heartland..

They had been living together for about two years when they decided it was time to get married.  The date was set.  The reception was planned.  The Tuxedos were rented.  The gown was done.  The flowers were ordered.  The license was ready.  But, at nearly the last minute the groom got a severe case of hypothermic feet.

At the request of the bride my father, who was to have performed the ceremony, went to their home to discuss the situation.  Things were naturally strained so they loosened up over coffee and pie in the kitchen.  My father didn't talk a lot.  He sat mostly chewing the pie and sipping the coffee while the tension in the room continued to build.  Finally the groom started coming forth with nervous excuses.

"I'm real sorry about the wedding and all man... it's just, not really my thing man, yanno the whole 'establishment' trip.  I don't know I just can't get into it."  

My father looked back at him and nodded.  "Establishment."

The groom continued, "Yeah man, yanno, you get married and the next thing you know you buy a house and you have a mortgage and you're going to the PTA and... I think yanno, Diane really feels that way too cause we're like on the same frequency... this was just all about her parents yanno?  Like... she wanted to like please them, cause like, yanno -- they're like into the whole establishment and religion 'thing'."

My father looked at Diane and asked her, "So, the dress, the flowers, the wedding -- that was just to please your parents?"

Of course, by this time, Diane was on the verge of tears anyway and she began to weep loudly.  My father looked back at Jack and asked him, "Does she always cry like this when she's happy?"

Jack said, "Well yeah, she's upset.  But, yanno, she like, wanted me to be the one to be the A-hole cause it's like HER parents man.  Yanno she wanted to please them and all.  She'll be ok."

My father got up from the table and walked into the living room of the small apartment -- he picked up an old LP off the shelf and brought it back to the table.  The album cover was a picture of John Lennon.

My father looked at Jack and said, "Establishment?"

Jack didn't get it.  He said. "Uh,  yeah man, like we can spin that if you want -- I had no IDEA you were into this kind of music."

The parson shook his head no and then tapped on Lennon's face.  "Is this guy establishment?"

Jack hemmed and hawed for a second.  "Well, no man.. he's like totally not establishment, I mean -- you ever listened to that song 'Imagine'?  I mean.. no offense and all, I know you're a man of God but -- he's like, bigger than Jesus."

My father then shot back at him.  "It's funny you should mention Jesus.  You know -- he wasn't married?"

Jack said, "Well yeah man... that's what I mean, right there, like if Jesus didn't get married,"

Interrupting my father pushed the album over directly in front of Jack, "John got married to Yoko in March of 1969."  He paused and waited;   "Do you love Diane?"

Jack said that at this point he felt like his head was going to explode.  Tears were starting to form in his eyes and they burned in his throat as he tried to choke them back.  In a shaken, softer voice, he said.. "Yeah man... I love her more than I love myself.  She's everything man.  She's everything."

It was a small kitchen, in a small apartment, and it was a yet smaller table.  But, Diane said that it seemed like a thousand miles across at the time.  The old man leaned forward in his chair and in his low, priestly voice said,

"If you want to share with me the real reason you don't want to get married I'll listen son.  Or if you prefer I can leave the room and you and Diane can work it out.  But, young man, you're about to lose 'everything' if you don't do 'something' pretty damn fast."

Jack put his face in his hands and wept hard.  It was the first time he had since he was a young boy.  He cried.  Diane cried.  Time passed.  My dad sat and sniffled a bit but remained silent.  Finally Diane gathered her voice and in an almost inaudible whisper eeked out,

"I don't want to lose you Jack.  I don't want to push you into anything.."

But Jack interrupted.  "It's not that baby, I'm just scared.  I can't explain it."

Diane asked him, "of what?  Scared of ME?"

"No baby, it's not that, it's hard.. It's just hard." he said in-between sobs.  "I don't want to be the one to let you down.  Yanno my parents never got it together man."  He said weeping.  "And, mom... she would date men after dad was gone and they'd hang around a while and they'd be gone, and then she got married again, and then he was gone, and then she got married again and he was gone.. and it just hurt her so much, and me, every time I got attached to somebody they were gone -- and I don't want to be like that to you -- or our kids if we have any.  I just don't want to be like that -- I'm just afraid that I'm not good enough.  I don't know how to be good."

They sat a while longer until Diane went over to Jack and embraced him.  They both cried for a while longer.  When it seemed like the time was appropriate for words my father asked Jack,

"Do you want to spend your life with Diane?"

He said, "Yeah, I do."

"You want to take care of her?"

"Yeah" he said still holding her in his arms weeping. " I do man.  I want to."

"Haven't you been taking care of her for two years Jack?"

"He has.." she interrupted

"You two been faithful to each other?"

"Yes." they both said.

My father then pulled the license from his jacket pocket and an ink pen and signed it.  "As far as I'm concerned Jack you and Diane are already married.  You've already been living the definition of it.  Probably doing a better job than half the old married couples in my church.  You know the scarecrow didn't really need a diploma -- he was plenty smart without it."  He laid the license in front of them..."It's up to you now Jack, but, I don't think there's anything to be afraid of anymore.  You two don't have to get married -- but if you really want to take care of Diane -- you need to be.  That's how to be good.  That's HOW to take care of her.  All you have to do is take this back to the courthouse. "

"That's it man?  You mean we're like married just like that?"  Jack asked perplexed.

"Well we can still have the big wedding if you two want... ", Said dad, "but, You're married Jack.  You already were all along.  How does it feel?"  

"It feels a lot better than being scared man."  he said.  "It feels good.  And I am gonna love this woman forever."

"Well then," dad gathered himself together, "we'll see you at the church."

__________________________________________________


We keep hearing that same-sex unions are going to 'erode the meaning of marriage' and examples are cited from Scandinavia, which doesn't have same-sex marriage by the way -- but a type of civil union, as an example of the dread that awaits any nation that might bless same sex unions.  What keeps getting ignored about that example (aside from a really poorly defined experiment -- one can discover that 100 percent of people who acquire the habit of eating also die but that doesn't show correlation much less causality)  is that the trend was away from marriage before civil unions for same-sex couples was authorized there.

In order for same-sex unions to have an effect on marriage in this country, or any other, it would mean that if we asked a couple why they weren't getting married they would have to respond -- "Well, it's because gays can get married -- so, we're just not going to."

It would mean that when a couple got divorced the predominant answer why would have to be -- "Well, we just decided we couldn't keep it together because homosexuals are getting married."

The definition of marriage only exists between the couple that gets married.  At best it exists individually in the minds of each one who aspires toward marriage.  Surely there are millions of couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, out there who are not married but are already living the definition of marriage.  Is it necessarily a bad thing if the definition of 'family' is expanded to include 'any definition anyone wants'?

What is the continued relevancy of marriage, religious or civil?

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-21-2004 12:32 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


1 posted 03-22-2004 09:50 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR,

I knew it was only a matter of time before this one came up.


If the traditional view of marriage is going to be challenged and changed into "anything anyone wants" ... Why not any combination conceivable?  Why not Three men?  Why not two women and three men?  Why not two friends ... you can "call" that marriage too if you want to, just to get the social benefits.  Why not biological brother and sister?  Why not a brother and a brother?  Why not a father and daughter?  These may sound absurd.  But so did homosexual "marriage" about 50 years ago.  The arbitrary alteration of something that has such a strong anthropological, biological, and cultural/ religious base brings something into play.  No barriers.  No safeguard.  No limits to the redefining process that will occur because of popular desire.  It's a slippery slope that will undermine society as a whole.


Your story above is touching and has beauty.  But it doesn't in any way suggest that marriage should be "whatever we want".  It merely showed that this young man was already living the principles that a good marriage requires, and therefore need not fear to go through with the clinching of it all.   This isn't a question of what live-in situation someone may consider to be "family".  It is the push to arbitrarily redefine the institution of marriage.  


So there's been a trend away from marriage ... why let the institution of marriage be dragged away with the trend?  That's no argument that same sex "marriages" should be allowed.


more later ...

Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


2 posted 03-22-2004 11:02 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


Not being sexist is not opening the door to "anything anyone wants"  
It is simply not being sexist  


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


3 posted 03-22-2004 05:13 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Stephen you may want to take a look at these threads
http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/000950.html
http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/000952.html

Which have been going on for some time in the alley.

You're right -- it doesn't prove anything -- which is not what I wanted to do in this thread...

I'd like to -- if possible -- go beyond rhetoric here and get into the specifics.

Gay people are already gay.  They're already living together.  They're already raising children.  And, obviously conservative Christians are already conservative Christians and doing the same.

I'm certainly interested in your thoughts -- but thought you might want to look at where the conversation has already gone in the PIP world.

Hopefully we can do something substantive here.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


4 posted 03-22-2004 08:10 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Ok.. fair enough... somebody told me I'm not being very clear here...

IF gay marriage is going to have an 'effect' on marriage -- it has to have an impact on Jack and Diane... How?

When phrases like 'undermine society as a whole' get tossed around.. what, exactly does that mean?
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


5 posted 03-22-2004 10:20 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

In Dan Savage's book 'Skipping Towards Gomorrah' he basically stated that he thinks the religious right is scared of gays being married because good, monogamous straight couples will see those frisky, married gay couples sleeping around and follow suit.

It's interesting to note that he pointed this out in a chapter about the straight 'swing' culture, which is already in full swing (pun intended) and doesn't really seem to adversely affect (aka promote promiscuity in) straight couples who are determined to remain monogamous.

Long story short: If straight swing culture doesn't encourage monogamous straights to cheat and/or swing (it's not the same thing), how on earth can it be logically argued that gay swing culture would influence them any more?

Wouldn't monogamous straights, logically, first imitate swinging straights rather than jump right in an imitate swinging gays?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


6 posted 03-23-2004 02:04 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush:
quote:
Long story short: If straight swing culture doesn't encourage monogamous straights to cheat and/or swing (it's not the same thing), how on earth can it be logically argued that gay swing culture would influence them any more?


The proliferation of any lifestyle will have an impact.  I'm sure the philosophy of the swing culture has indeed contributed to the fall of many would-be faithful men, into adultery.  It looks good to our lower nature.  It's tempting.  It's negative ramifications are downplayed by Hollywood and media.  Our pop-culture's heroes are often steeped in this same mentality and practice.  It does rub off.  But the whole issue is much deeper than that.  


I think the main concern is about redefining marriage, not about the negative impact of homosexuals as they now relate to presently married couples, and individuals.  Though that would doubtless increase, it's already here and is being dealt with.  It's the push toward the wholesale acceptance of our society of homosexuality as merely an alternative lifestyle ... not an abberant one, that is even more of a concern.  Also there's the dangers of arbitrarily redefining something with such strong antrhopological, biological, cultural, and spiritual roots, as marriage.  There will be no safeguard against a perennial redefining that will ultimately destroy "marriage" ... not individual marriages now, but marriage as an institution later.  


LR:
quote:
IF gay marriage is going to have an 'effect' on marriage -- it has to have an impact on Jack and Diane... How?
When phrases like 'undermine society as a whole' get tossed around.. what, exactly does that mean?



I'm basically reiterating what I hinted about in my above response to Hush ... But here's the scenario.  The time tested boundaries that exist with an important social custom get moved.  The anthropological, biological, religious, cultural foundations of why it is as it is, get ignored or pushed out of the conversations in favor of a pseudo-moral outcry of "denying someone's rights".  A precedent is set.  All arguments that hint of having a well defined and exclusive view, are slurred as "bigotted".  But then there's absolutely nothing left to keep this process from repeating itself again and again, pushing marriage beyond recognition and meaning.  Something that was once honorable and beneficial will eventually become a mockery and a travesty.  Marriage itself is what is in danger.  That in turn will "undermine society".  That will affect countless Jacks and Dianes ... it's just not as evident right now.  


Stephen.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


7 posted 03-23-2004 04:52 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Stephen...

I have a lot of respect for you as a person, but I've got to say... if you don't want me to call you bigoted, you probably shouldn't call me pseudo-moral. It's insulting to my intelligence and to my morality... which, by the way, I do have.

Anyway-

'It's the push toward the wholesale acceptance of our society of homosexuality as merely an alternative lifestyle ... not an abberant one, that is even more of a concern.'

Here's where we differ. I would wager to guess that you base your conviction that homosexuality is abberant on your religious faith. But to say that gay marriages cannot be recognized based on a religious conviction that homosexuality is wrong, in my opinion, violates the separation of church and state.

Laws have to make sense in a secular sense, too.
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


8 posted 03-23-2004 05:15 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

quote:
Something that was once honorable and beneficial will eventually become a mockery and a travesty.
or a way to consolidate power. garner wealth. political benefit. at the end of a shotgun. to add another woman in the harem...

on and on. by the above statement, you're taking a rather small chunk out of the history of marriage and localizing it to a pre-dominately western culture. sanctity is in the eye of the beholder. truth be told, if you believe marriage is sacred, it shouldn't matter who does it; yours should be the one that matters. otherwise, not only should we stop the gays from marrying, but also anyone who's ever been convicted of a crime, anyone who has had intercourse out of wedlock... anyone not of a particular denomination religiously... anyone NOT in and following our western culture as dictated by (pick someone)... too exclusive and too narrowly focused, i think.

hush - you have morals? can i buy a couple off you?
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


9 posted 03-23-2004 05:17 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

ps - LR: very well written story. smooth pace and compelling.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


10 posted 03-23-2004 05:42 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

nodding agreement with Chris...loved the story, Reb. er, yanno?  

Of course yaddo.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


11 posted 03-24-2004 06:39 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush:
quote:
I have a lot of respect for you as a person, but I've got to say... if you don't want me to call you bigoted, you probably shouldn't call me pseudo-moral. It's insulting to my intelligence and to my morality... which, by the way, I do have.



Hush,

First of all I was responding to LR when I wrote that.  But to clarify, I wasn't referring to anyone as a "pseudo-moral person" ... whatever that would mean.  I know you have morals, and never doubted it.  That much is evident from your posts.

By "pseudo-moral" I was referring to that which some always rely on in this debate ... the tacit assumption that it is wrong to deny anyone any "right" at all.  And so the issues often aren't looked at or listened to ... why?  Because it is automatically a civil rights concern, as plainly evil as segregation.  It's a falsly moral stance when you are tagged as "immoral" (by some) if you happen to be against gay marriage.  


If that shoe doesn't fit you then don't wear it.

And even if it does fit you ... it doesn't mean that your entire view of ethics is off base.


Apologies If I offended you, but I don't think it was aimed at you personally ... yet it still expresses my thoughts on much of what I see and hear in this debate (not referring to the debate in this forum particularly, but at large).  



Stephen.      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-24-2004 07:34 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


12 posted 03-24-2004 07:25 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Christopher:
quote:
you're taking a rather small chunk out of the history of marriage and localizing it to a pre-dominately western culture.


Not really.  Regardless of variations on Marriage, the male/ female relation has been common among all.  Very little (if any) institutionalizing of "same sex unions" has been evident in pre-modern history.  As far as I know most cultures have viewed homosexuality as deviant ... how much more the elevating of the union to a place of public honor?
  
quote:
truth be told, if you believe marriage is sacred, it shouldn't matter who does it; yours should be the one that matters.



My concern is primarily a societal one, not a personal one.  Though I care about my own family, I care about much more ... so why would I want to consider this as applying to my own marriage only?  


quote:
...otherwise, not only should we stop the gays from marrying, but also anyone who's ever been convicted of a crime, anyone who has had intercourse out of wedlock... anyone not of a particular denomination religiously... anyone NOT in and following our western culture as dictated by (pick someone)... too exclusive and too narrowly focused, i think.



Seeing that none of these things are directly contrary to what marriage is, and has been for thousands of years (and not just in Western culture), there's good reasons why we should not forbid such people from marrying.  These are all secondary issues.  The issue of same-sex marriage involves a radical redefinition of what marriage IS.  Going outside of marriage to tyrannically determine who is fit for it is one thing (to which I am opposed) ... Preserving the essence and definition of marriage is quite another.


Stephen
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


14 posted 03-24-2004 08:54 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

From your first link
quote:
"Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents."
This is saying almost the same thing as I hear in your comments - to me, it sounds as if it could be rearranged to say that the "sanctity" of marriage is based on an assumed mass biological imperative to beget children and raise them to do likewise. There's no sanctity there... and I'm not comfortable with the results of this survey either; children do well when the people raising them are [good] people. Determination, responsibility, etc. are the key factors in that equation, not the fact that mom and dad are still residing in the same house; proximity does not equal success - perhaps many of the fathers or mothers that have left the "home" should have. To stay may have caused more damage. I was raised by a single father, my brother and sister by a single mother. Doin' fine here and I don't consider myself an exception.

What I do buy is that structure matters for children. That doesn't have to be by a male father and a female mother, however - families are what one makes of them. (Which leads to another pondering - perhaps one of the biggest things dragging our culture down is the lack of an extended family...) Structure can be invoked without the above male and female, brought right back around to good people, not good heterosexually focused wedded couples.
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


15 posted 03-24-2004 09:03 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

2nd link
quote:
Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that "marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce."

Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, "Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life."
Three in one shot - these guys are invalidating any marriages that don't involve children. If that's the case, then marriage between homosexuals should be encouraged! They can't [directly, without interference] have children within their union, so won't be contributing to the already overpopulated society that, as some seem to be saying, will be collapsing if said marriages are allowed.

Yet I doubt that any of these three people would invalidate a marriage between a man and woman when the couple either could not or did not have children. Children are not necessarily a by-product of marriage (there are certain religious sects that bypass this), but rather a by-product of... sex. In a culture where sex is rarely, rarely limited to the confines of a marriage certificate, it's almost laughable to imagine the looks on the faces of all the people who, by the above definitions of the above, are already married!
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


16 posted 03-24-2004 09:11 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

The last word in the third link was about right; "oxymoron." This person nearly contradicted himself the whole way through. How one can liken children and adults voting to homosexuals and heterosexuals marrying is beyond my understanding. There is no analogy there other than the author's desire to link to one=good, the other=bad.

He also says that marriage should be limited to people who are theoretically able to have children (on their own, though I wonder how he'd feel about involving scientific aid if his heart stopped working...), yet goes on to say that society should also allow those who can't have children to marry too.
quote:
However, to exclude non-reproducing heterosexual couples from marriage would require an invasion of privacy or the drawing of arbitrary and inexact lines.
Oh the horrors! Isn't that what he's doing by drawing said metaphorically arbitrary and inexact line before the idea of same-sex marriage?

This whole article could have been summed up into the following phrase and saved the man a lot of time: "Homosexuals shouldn't marry because I don't want them to."
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


17 posted 03-24-2004 09:24 PM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

Fourth link
quote:
If same-sex relationships become the law of the land, then homosexual marriage will be presented to America's schoolchildren as the equivalent of heterosexual marriage.
It would be.
quote:
It only remains for enough time to elapse and for same-sex marriage to be legalized for "gay" education activists to force schools to implement sweeping changes in curricular content.
As we did once blacks were legally recognized as equal to whites. Once discrimination fails, so must the curriculums enforcing them.
quote:
Your 13-year-old Kyle will be required to read and give a book report on a novel where Bruce and Jason meet, date and get married. What won't be covered is how Bruce and Jason split up a year later after cheating on each other dozens of times.
Because ALL homosexual relationships are broken up, while good, straight, god-fearing heterosexual relationships last happily ever after, la-de-dah.
quote:
In such a legal and educational environment, what happens to religions that don't believe homosexuality is moral? Will those religions and their ancient teachings eventually come before some future Supreme Court and be told that they are guilty of discrimination? That their beliefs are no longer constitutional because of privacy rights?
The Ku Klux Klan held the religion that blacks were [are] inferior, a race of animals. That a religion holds a belief doesn't make it right, or more valuable than the rest of the society's beliefs. Does that mean I think we should invalidate their beliefs? No, but I also don't believe that a society under constant flux will allow continued predjudice.

I believe that it's a matter of time. People throw around the query "should same-sex marriage be allowed" as if it's still under debate as to if it ever will be. I contend that "if" should be substituted with "when." In the maxi-liberal society where it is fashionable to step outside the box (seen much more in the younger [did someone say future lawmaker?] generations, while the older, MUCH more conservative generation is dying off), it's only a matter of time.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


18 posted 03-24-2004 10:43 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Not a big deal, Stephen- I interpreted your comment to encompass everyone who supported gay marrige as a right... I knew it wasn't directed directly at me.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


19 posted 03-24-2004 11:47 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Christopher:
quote:
This is saying almost the same thing as I hear in your comments - to me, it sounds as if it could be rearranged to say that the "sanctity" of marriage is based on an assumed mass biological imperative to beget children and raise them to do likewise. There's no sanctity there...



It is (and was) based upon a mass biological imperative to beget children and raise them to do likewise.  If the foundations of marriage are not rooted in recognition of this biological / anthropological reality, then how do you explain the nearly wholesale absence of institutionalized homosexual "unions" in this historical record?  Bigotry no doubt?  Even today the majority census is against homosexual marriages ... extremist activists and legislating liberal judges are responsible for the push through of laws that do not recognize traditional wisdom ... nor the will of the people as a whole.


quote:
Determination, responsibility, etc. are the key factors in that equation, not the fact that mom and dad are still residing in the same house; proximity does not equal success - perhaps many of the fathers or mothers that have left the "home" should have.



I'm glad your doing fine, as you say.  And I do recognize that many situations can be overcome.  I applaud all who having come out of divorced families "did okay".  That's not the point ... The exception should never be made into the normative rule.  Statistics DO show less problems when the traditional family unit coheres.  Today's society overall is a case study of this effect.  The Breakdown of families does have a negative impact upon the whole.  To deny it is to ... well, live in denial.  You just can't make examples that stand out against the trend, as proof that the trend isn't there.


quote:
That doesn't have to be by a male father and a female mother, however - families are what one makes of them


My hats off to children of single parents who ended up doing pretty well.  Still, science and common sense support the fact that children typically do better with Mothers and Fathers.  There are real differences between the genders that are needed by kids.  Much psychology has shown this to be true.  How much also does the very nature of things show us this?  For thousands of years you couldn't have kids any other way ... the ones who made them are best fitted to raise them.  Of course even hetero couples can fail in this arena ... but still that doesn't discount the truth that Moms and Dads raising kids should be the ideal of a society.


quote:
Three in one shot - these guys are invalidating any marriages that don't involve children. If that's the case, then marriage between homosexuals should be encouraged!



That one shot isn't as devastating as you suppose.  Their argument is not to invalidate individual marriages on the basis of a lack of child rearing.  It is rather to show the anthropological and cultural foundations for the elevation and honoring of the institution of marriage.  The whole aim is not to give some bullet-proof proof of heterosexual marriage as the only way (it's not, we are free to do what's wrong) ... it's to show its base, and to illustrate the dangers we will face by allowing it to be arbitrarily redefined, dangers we will face as this process will be repeated again and again.


quote:
They can't [directly, without interference] have children within their union, so won't be contributing to the already overpopulated society that, as some seem to be saying, will be collapsing if said marriages are allowed.


Are you saying that mere population is the concern of those against homosexual marriage? That's a strawman.  When they say society will destabilize they are not talking about population ... but civilization.


quote:
Yet I doubt that any of these three people would invalidate a marriage between a man and woman when the couple either could not or did not have children.



you're right.  Nor do their arguments suggest that they should.


quote:
Children are not necessarily a by-product of marriage (there are certain religious sects that bypass this), but rather a by-product of... sex.



But sex doesn't raise kids.  I guess I still don't see what your above statement has to do with homosexual marriage being legalized.


quote:
He also says that marriage should be limited to people who are theoretically able to have children (on their own, though I wonder how he'd feel about involving scientific aid if his heart stopped working...), yet goes on to say that society should also allow those who can't have children to marry too.



I think you missed something...  When he says that marriage should be limited to people "theoretically able" to have children, he is referring to gender alone.  Therefore what he "goes on to say" does not contradict what he stated.  You may disagree with his statement, but it's not contradictory.


quote:
How one can liken children and adults voting to homosexuals and heterosexuals marrying is beyond my understanding. There is no analogy there other than the author's desire to link to one=good, the other=bad.


It seems that this analogy was merely to show a legal limitation based upon general differences ... The example is that a smart kid who might in actuality be able to vote with more knowledge and discretion than a 51 year old guy who just mindlessly pulls a lever, does not in any way suggest that the law should not remain as is.  EXCEPTIONS should not alter what is based upon the normative rule.  Come on Christopher, that's not that hard to understand.


quote:
"However, to exclude non-reproducing heterosexual couples from marriage would require an invasion of privacy or the drawing of arbitrary and inexact lines."

Oh the horrors! Isn't that what he's doing by drawing said metaphorically arbitrary and inexact line before the idea of same-sex marriage?



No, that's not at all what he's doing.  His above examples involved extending law beyond principles and general definitions, to whether individuals choose to have children or not.  The law has function, but it's arm should not be that long.  Keeping the traditional form of marriage seems to me to actually resist a roughshod arbitrary tendency, rather than foster it.  It is preservation, not radical change.  You've got it backwards.  


quote:
"If same-sex relationships become the law of the land, then homosexual marriage will be presented to America's schoolchildren as the equivalent of heterosexual marriage.

It would be.



The question is "should it be?".


quote:
"It only remains for enough time to elapse and for same-sex marriage to be legalized for "gay" education activists to force schools to implement sweeping changes in curricular content."

As we did once blacks were legally recognized as equal to whites. Once discrimination fails, so must the curriculums enforcing them.



Don't take the laurels of one argument and so rashly apply them to another.  Interestingly enough, more blacks support traditional marriage than whites.  I guess they, who should understand discriminatory issues more than anyone else, are more "homophobic".  Fancy that.  Actually, many of them are actually wearying of that poorly drawn comparison.  Bandwagoning is great ... only you don't typically steal someone elses wagon.  

This just begs the question.  Let's first ask is it really a civil rights issue?  Why should we first assume that two men or two women have the right to get married?  It depends upon what marriage really is fundamentally.  I don't currently have the right to join the girl scouts, should I?  It's a good question, and should be explored.  But if you answered "yes", the scout master would want some rationale.


quote:
Because ALL homosexual relationships are broken up, while good, straight, god-fearing heterosexual relationships last happily ever after, la-de-dah.



The arguments never deal with "ALL".  Promiscuity is bad wherever it's found.  And of course it exists abundantly in the heterosexual married community.  But do you seriously doubt that there's a noteable difference between the two?


quote:
The Ku Klux Klan held the religion that blacks were [are] inferior, a race of animals.


The Ku Klux Klan was also an organization of hatred that actually contradicted what their professed religion taught.  Are you suggesting that those who support the traditional view of marriage as binding, or who believe that homosexuality involves immorality are like the Klan?  It has not been conclusively shown that sexual orientation is comparable to the color of one's skin.  Nor does a moral stance, or a stance on public policy, preclude hatred.


quote:
I believe that it's a matter of time. People throw around the query "should same-sex marriage be allowed" as if it's still under debate as to if it ever will be. I contend that "if" should be substituted with "when." In the maxi-liberal society where it is fashionable to step outside the box (seen much more in the younger [did someone say future lawmaker?] generations, while the older, MUCH more conservative generation is dying off), it's only a matter of time.



This still has nothing to do with the issue.  And I don't necessarily agree with you.  Right now the majority in our country believe same sex marriages to be wrong.  If anything pushes it over the edge it will be political tyranny through the judicial branch.  But let's say you're right.  Maybe it's all changing as individualism and ultra-pluralism takes hold.    Perhaps the liberal trend to "step outside the box" is moving at such a rate that relativistic morals will seem to prevail.  Even if it is, it's worth the resistance if the cause is a right one.  Entire cultures have rejected their "prophets" before.  Nothing new in that.  When I consider the present mindset that you describe in relation to "boxes", the name Pandora often comes to mind.


Stephen      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-25-2004 12:15 AM).]

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


20 posted 03-25-2004 12:00 AM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

I don't have any time right now, Stephan, but wanted to comment to part of your last statement, "Even if it is, it's worth the resistance if the cause is a right one.", that I support that wholly. If it were an easy issue, it wouldn't be one. All issues need sides and the best people are those who believe in what they're promoting.

Also, I don't think (bandwagon-jumping not withstanding) the issue is too far from that of the minority battles; predjudice is predjudice, whether it's skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation...
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


21 posted 03-25-2004 12:22 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I don't think (bandwagon-jumping not withstanding) the issue is too far from that of the minority battles; predjudice is predjudice, whether it's skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation...



I know you don't think that.  But you haven't shown me why I shouldn't think that.  To me it is a vastly different issue ... the parallel is only drawn if "prejudice" is assumed.  Are we "prejudiced" for not allowing polygamy, or biological siblings to marry?



Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


22 posted 03-25-2004 12:31 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

And by the way ... about the articles above.  I'm not saying that they perfectly reflect my views on every point.  I just wanted to include some material that doesn't a priori assume that we are limiting someone's intrinsic rights, by holding an exclusive and more traditional view of marriage.  I just included them to stir up some thinking, and get some discussion going.


And Christopher ... As well known as I am for my short posts that require very little time to respond to, I understand that you have a life.   Post when you can.    


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


23 posted 03-25-2004 06:32 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Objections to redefining marriage are meaningless.

Stephan asks if someone is prejudiced for not allowing polygamy, apparently not realizing that our laws DO allow polygamy. I've been married twice. If we're not allowed to redefine marriage, then I'm apparently still married to both women. I'm legally committing polygamy.

Objections to redefining marriage are meaningless because it's been redefined many, many times and will continue to be redefined no matter how hard someone beats their head against the wall trying to stop it.

Undermining society as a whole is an equally meaningless argument.

No one yet has explained how proposed same-sex marriage will hurt another person. Can anyone cite a single example of something that hurts society without ever hurting a person? I sure can't. If it doesn't hurt a person, it can't hurt society.

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex, kids, or even love. All of those exist outside of marriage and there are plenty of marriages that don't involve any of those. Arguing tangents isn't arguing the issue.

Who does it hurt?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


24 posted 03-25-2004 04:23 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Objections to redefining marriage are meaningless.

But you certainly don't show them to be, by merely stating it.


quote:
Stephan asks if someone is prejudiced for not allowing polygamy, apparently not realizing that our laws DO allow polygamy.



Nice sleight of hand.  Polygamy is being married to two women at once.  Divorce has been around since some of the earliest of cultures.  By the way, even Jesus said that divorce was permitted only because of "hardness of heart".  If you ask me ... I'm not exactly "for" divorce either.  But you can't compare such a radical deconstruction of something, such as same sex marriages, to something like divorce... That escape hatch has pretty much been coexistent with marriage all along.


quote:
Objections to redefining marriage are meaningless because it's been redefined many, many times and will continue to be redefined no matter how hard someone beats their head against the wall trying to stop it.



Ron ... Answer this question for me then.  Should biological siblings be allowed to marry each other?  Should mothers and sons be allowed to marry each other?  If no, then why not?  And what sublime difference would make your answers exempt from meaninglessness?


quote:
Undermining society as a whole is an equally meaningless argument.


I guess that settles it then.  Ron has spoken.    


quote:
No one yet has explained how proposed same-sex marriage will hurt another person. Can anyone cite a single example of something that hurts society without ever hurting a person? I sure can't. If it doesn't hurt a person, it can't hurt society.


That's not true.  I know a homosexual who confided in me that he knew that his problem with attraction to the opposite sex was not deterministically caused or genetic ... He traced the situations in his life (including a poor relationship with his father) that led to an abnormal identification with homosexual thoughts and later actions.  He told me of the grief and pain that this struggle has caused him his whole life.  The widespread acceptance of it in any society will only help many more take the same path into pain and sexual deviance.  Individuals will be hurt.


And though LR pointed out that there was already a trend away from marriage in Scandinavia before Same Sex Unions were legalized, it is undeniable that this move only helped contribute to the dissolution in a remarkable way.  And the results of the breakdown of family do hurt people.  Mostly the children.


http://24.104.4.225/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=


quote:
Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex, kids, or even love.


Funny that traditionally speaking it has nearly always had to do with these things.  And in societies where the trend has been away from these, and toward a sterile social contract ... there has been social breakdown and increased turmoil.  So your insipid definition (or non-definition) of marriage is perhaps the whole problem.  Sure it can be argued that for certain cultures marriage became less than a covenant of love and fidelity between men and women ... but these cultures were the weaker for it.  


quote:
All of those exist outside of marriage and there are plenty of marriages that don't involve any of those.



That's like saying since medical practices exist outside of the Medical community, and since there are plenty of quacks, that physicians actually have nothing to do with treating disease.  That reasoning really isn't compelling.  


quote:
Arguing tangents isn't arguing the issue.


Here, we agree.


Stephen
        

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-25-2004 05:19 PM).]

Local Rebel will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors