»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continued...
| The Alley |
|
This whole gay-marriage fiasco - Continued... |
|
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration 
|
pick up on the last viewable thread from: /pip/Forum6/HTML/000950.html A very interesting discussion! If a genetic "anomaly" isn't debilitating to a person's quality of life (sans current social stigmata that may still be attached), then perhaps it shouldn't be viewed as a disability, at least no more than one's genetics determining a unique tone in their skin color, different color eyes, etc. Homosexuality isn't a new thing just come to the fore. It's also far older than the history of this country. In many older cultures, it was an acceptable way to be. So that means that what's new is the prejudice. We're working on that (it is FAR more acceptable to be gay now than it was ten, twenty, forty years ago... almost to the point of being GQ now). Both Ron and grassy ninja brought up good points leading in the same direction - why get married in the first place? Is it for the ceremony? religion? or is it for the civil rights? And why, oh why, does someone who's married (which means nothing these days outside a piece of paper - divorces can be as easy as a normal breakup anymore) have different civil rights than another? It's all confusing. My opinion, on the front, however, is that if someone wants to get married and is of legal age of consent - let 'em. That's an individual choice and will no more tear at the fabric of our society than any of the quacks making me pay 28% in federal taxes this year... there's a new predjudice for you - the single person who makes a half-decent living; show me one tax break. Sorry, i ramble. good discussion all. oh yeah - polygamy (thanks hush, just saw your response after posting this) - i think it's fine. go ahead. this too has historical support (though generally limited to the nobility). that won't rip the metaphorical fabric either. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 C.G. Ward - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I'm confused. Why does it say there are 33 replies to my original thread, and I can only view 29 (up to this last one Chris put here), including one of my own replies that for whatever reason, I can't load? And... umm... why'd it get closed? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
hush - /pip/Forum6/HTML/000951.html |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
read the thread titled 'error will robinson' hush |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well... I thought Jim did make a good point... First about GLBT not being the "last" discriminated against group. I addressed that in the old thread, and my post got eaten by the internet monster... (heh, the corruption) So, anyway, yeah, prejudice still exists everywhere, and in some areas, still very severely. But his other point... so, if gay people really feel that they ahve an illness and want to change (d/t deep religious belief, or for whatever reason) shouldn't they have that opportunity and option? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If your lover woke up someday as the same sex as you and couldn't change back would you still be his or her lover? If that was your wife or husband would you get divorced? |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
I don't really care who lives/sleeps with whom as long as I am not involved. You can call a unicycle a bicycle if it makes people happy; it just doesn't make it one. I think the issue (as a political/media tempest) is silly, but then I have always thought the romantic nonsense of marriage to be silly also. Any formalized relationship which uses the death of any one or of all partners as one of the primary indicators of success is a little twisted. Personally, I would love to have gay couples share in the burden of the marriage penalties in taxes. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Some people also nowadays say that "oral" "doggy" and other backward things are normal because they are more common. It igets a bit frightening. As sexual things these are deviations, and "fetishes" and often perversely done to twist nature on purpose. And having sex with someone of the same sex is not exempt. I think homosexuality that is inevitable because one truly loves another in the same sex and put the right love above the wrong sex deserves society's opinion and every social freedom and right, but homosexuality that is turned to for a sextoy and fetish, putting sex first, should be prohibted from all social exhibtion as any other kind of sexual outrage. Giving due tolerance to homosexuality that is based on love should not loosen us against what we know of homosexuality as an unhealthy fetish that people toy around with. Therefore when we approach marriage I believe it should be a due respect because we know there are sincere homosexuals. We should not let there road of rights and freedoms be ruined because there are so many insincere ones as well, that look look more for the "right" fetish rather than the right love. |
||
|
grassy ninja Junior Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 41Kentucky |
essorant- how then are we to deal with heterosexual unions not based on true love? do gay couples have to hold up their unions to a higher standard than straight couples? also, how are the things you mentioned "deviations"? how are they backwards? is anything besides sex for procreation in the missionary position "deviant"? about homosexuality being a physical anomaly, i have a thought: what if homosexuality is necessary in the scheme of things? what if we need people who either can't or don't want to procreate in order to keep the population from exploding? i |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't know, I think I'm pretty traditionalist on this one. One criticism of the homosexual community has been its blatant and flippant promiscuity. Promiscuity, these days, is a dangerous course of action for anybody. If we recognize gay marriage, isn't it a small step to deterring unhealthy (physically, not morally) behaviour? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"how then are we to deal with heterosexual unions not based on true love? do gay couples have to hold up their unions to a higher standard than straight couples? " Unions are not the problem; I just mean if people make a social exhibition of their sexuality they should be very restricted. Just because exploiting sexuality and sex is common today and an "entertainment" does not make it right or even normal. Sexuality and sex are not a toy. "also, how are the things you mentioned "deviations"? how are they backwards? is anything besides sex for procreation in the missionary position "deviant"?" Similar to the way putting makeup on is a deviation. Nature doesn't put makeup on people, people put makeup on nature. People put makeup on though so much today, they seem to forget the difference between their makeup and their nature. But all they have to do is take the make up off to see that again... what if we need people who either can't or don't want to procreate in order to keep the population from exploding? i But the population has already exploded, don't you think?! How does sex for the sake of sex, sexuality for the sake of sexuality, especially in the kind of widemedia we have today help us better control birth and population? If our appetites are more sexual don't you think there is more danger of inadvertant procreation and an overpopulation? [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-05-2004 04:12 PM).] |
||
Nightshade 
since 2001-08-31
Posts 13962just out of reach |
Gee....I always thought a wedding was supposed to be festive and gay.  |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Brad - I hardly think that the increase of promiscuity is limited in any fashion to homosexuals. My father and i have talked about the differences between our generations on the sexual front - when he was a teen, only "bad girls" had sex prior to marriage. In my "day" it took a little effort, but sex was hardly uncommon. As i understand it from my younger sister and her friends, it's still fairly common, but now tempered - not by any set of beliefs (religious or fairy-tale), but rather by an increase in education surrounding the potential physical harm that could come from promiscuous sex. I'm kinda baffled by the whole focus on sex anyway... our society has become such that sex is no longer the dirty-word of a culture. It's acceptable for people to have sex outside marriage and even encouraged on many levels (take a look at advertising, tv, books, etc.). Sex shouldn't be the worry anyway - a look over the past years will show that today's fetish is just tomorrow's norm. If you want to discuss social stigmata regarding homosexual sex, I'll ask this - why is it more socially acceptable for women to have homosexual relationships than males? (And I draw this conclusion both from men AND women). |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
But Nature did not put clothes on us either. What happens if we follow that line and all get naked. Besides the obvious, of course, that we will be damn cold in the winter  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Chris, Huh? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ah, Pete, nakedness seems Ess's ultimate goal... except for that chastity belt we all oughta be wearing. Ess... C'mon now... I can't refute your arguments too in-depth in a general forum... (but one argument goes along the lines of don't knock it 'till you've tried it)... however... echoing grassy ninja's point... did you know some animals masturbate? What about my neutered dog that tries to procreate with my other dog... even though he doesn't have the equipment? (Maybe it just feels good.) And why aren't sexual alternatives a viable option for preventing pregnancy (and by options, I include same-sex sex.) |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Brad- your reply read like you are criticising gays for being too promiscuous. Chris, I think, was just saying gays aren't the only ones that sleep around. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
But Nature did not put clothes on us either. What happens if we follow that line and all get naked. Besides the obvious, of course, that we will be damn cold in the winter Pete, maybe that's why clothes were invented... or were they discovered? (with a little help from our friends, the Martians  )there is perhaps, also the small matter of a fig-leaf, most probably for the obvious reasons regards, sudhir |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Brad - sorry if i didn't make that connection more clear (clearer?) As hush is saying, i was stating the supposition that gays would increase the likelihood of promiscuity is unlikely, as rampant promiscuity is already socially acceptable. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush and Pete I think that getting dressed is based on a bit more nature and reason than having sex in some backwards or fanciful way because it feels good (or bad ?). Getting dressed is full of fancy too. But when it comes to serving the behests of the weather, we all must dress accordingly, with only as much difference as our body's need for a temperance may bend a bit. I don't think having sexual encounters with someone of the same sex is wrong, but I don't think calling it normal is right. It is not nature's wont, but something that humans accustom themselves to the "taste" of. If that is one's choice, so be it. But trying to force it into the mainstream of things and people to accept it as normal I think is probably just as wrong as trying to force chastity belts on nature and on people. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
quote: Chris, you know - I think you're in the wrong thread? The passion of christ thread is just below this one....snicker. And Essorant: quote: That is just frankly disturbing. Who determines what is deviant? It sounds as if you are expounding a social theory as fact. A social theory with strong patriarchal roots. (Think of women lying on their backs and thinking of England, Ess.) Do some research on deviancy theories. You might find some interesting information...  K |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Severn I'm sorry. I know it is disturbing. That is part of my point though. Don't you think that disturbance is based on something not competly invalid? |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
What's disturbing is your attitude toward 'deviancy.' Full stop. K |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If applauding commitment and monogamy is criticising promiscuity, then that's what I'm doing. On a personal level, there is an element of hypocrisy here, but we live, we learn, we change our minds. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad, I'd heard that criticism too of the homosexual community, that, typically, they were more promiscuous than the heterosexual community. I'd be interested in finding out if there is actually any data behind that criticism, or if it is just a misperception. I really don't know one way or the other. The couple of gay couples that I know seem to be monogomous, but I don't know that many. But I'd agree, committment and monogomy are healthier choices. To me, the bottom line in the current fiasco is the rule of law. I think that if you don't agree with a law, you should work within the system to change it, not engage in civil disobedience, either as a form of protest, or as a 'thumbing your nose' at the system, especially by civil servants who have taken an oath to uphold the law, and I think that they should be removed from office for not upholding their oath of office. To me at least, the only acceptable or permissable time to disregard a law would be to save a life, mine or someone else's, if it ever came down to that, but not merely because I don't agree with a particular law. Otherwise you just have people being a law unto themselves and you have anarchy. I can't see that as being good for the overall social fabric. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Denise, there are theories to support that definition of promiscuity. It is supposed to be a fact supported by experts that a man thinks of sex (consciously or subconsciously) every 6 minutes and a woman twice per day. They point to that as a main reason for affairs and divorce. They also claim that that is a reason why gay or lesbian relationships last longer than heterosexual ones - because both partners are on the same wavelength with regards to sexual desires. I do know that I have seven gay-relationship customers...nicest guys in the world and very successful, too...and yet their houses are filled will sexual artifacts, from pictures to movies to devices to literature to statues, all openly displayed. Imagine a husband-wife marriage where the husband has Playboy pin-ups displayed and the wife pictures of hunks scattered around! No, I agree from what little I know that gays are very promiscuous and much more sexually active than heterosexuals. By the way, if a father and son wanted to marry, would that be ok now in this "all you need is love" society? |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Hi 'deer.... Well. How's that for a loaded, rhetorical question. As you already know the answer to that one I have one small point to think on. No, it's not 'ok' in our society. But...for a tribe in papua new guinea (or so I believe, shaking out memory) it's a coming of age cultural ritual for uncles (and perhaps older brothers, and other older men within the tribe) to introduce young men to sex. They are not homosexuals, but they practice homosexual acts before the young men find a marriage partner. Has to do with the tribal perception of blood and other bodily fluids etc. Does this make these people 'savages'? 'Uncivilised?' Or is this practice merely a practice that we, here in the West, might find distasteful and socially degrading, yet is a core part of another's cultural system?That last was my own rhetorical question heh. K |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! and a good question it is, Severn. Perhaps those tribes would consider US the savages!  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
People claim they are stable today and in "normal" sexualities and are able to "control" themselves in the increasing freedoms granted their sexual twists and fantasies, but then you turn on the TV or radio and a tale of sexual woes, abuses, vices and violences are continually told about. Those are only the things that "get caught" Consider what people are doing privately. The claim of people involved of a healthy "inner" government and moral control of these things, is a growing hypocricy. Lechery is thicker than it is ever been. It is too obvious. Don't trust anyone that twists or obscures, or suggests pain is better than pleasure, or that it is wrong to have shame or be sensitive, or be a tender lady or gentle man. An endless curse upon the decadence and hedonism that people decide to ignore, and on that vice that is the worst of all--not declining those vices. I think if if you keep one moral mind about it, you shall know what is right or wrong. But if you have more than one mind and believe that everything ought to be increasingly tolerated you are the more in danger to be sucked into the mudpit that sexuality has jumped into today. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Your argument seems to ignore the fact that homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, come in two different genders. If gender determines promiscuity, and one assumes similar distributions, there can't be any statistical difference between the two groups. Of course, assuming that gender determines promiscuity would also suggest that women never cheat. I don't think that's a position I'd personally feel real comfortable trying to defend, Mike. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I certainly agree with much you said, Essorant, up to the point where you mentioned the "mudpit that sexuality has jumped into today." If you check the cultures before us, expecially going back to the glory of Rome, resplendant with orgies and debauchery, back to the wars, where rape and defloration were rewards of the spoils of victory, I doubt that anyone can call our society today a mudpit of sexuality. We are pretty tame. We would be considered neutered pansies by those civilizations. We are not victims of our sexual depravity. We have unfortunately become a society where the rights of anyone supercede the rights of everyone else. A small percentage doesn't want God mentioned in schools? God is out. A small group doesn't like the way the Pledge of Allegiance is worded? It's changed. A small group doesn't like the definition of marriage? The rules are changed. Everyone is afraid to offend anyone at the risk of being called narrow-minded or prejudiced so all rules are thrown out the window. Sexuality is not the creator of our mudpit. Our acquiescence is... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Of course, assuming that gender determines promiscuity would also suggest that women never cheat" Doesn't mean that at all, Ron. I certainly can't speak for women or even from the viewpoint of women but but my opinion is this.... People cheat for different reasons. I believe that many men cheat for the sexual benefits of it. How many times have we seen men with wonderful wives, women who devote themselves to their husbands, support them in every way, and still the men have affairs. Why? To find a better mate? Nope..for the sexual thrill of it or the conquest or the feeding of their egos that they are machos that women want. I believe that many women cheat to find what does not exist in their marriage, perhaps some comfort, some attention, spending time with someone who treats them as if they are special and have worth - like their husbands had done at one time. I would go so far as to say that a small percentage of women cheat for the pure sexual pleasure of it whereas for men it is the major driving force. If men treated women as well as women treat men, there would be a lot less cheating, I can assure you. Your conclusions to my comments mystify me...but what's new? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Wow. There's so much going on this thread now...lemme see... First off, Brad? Excellent point. I mean this: "If we recognize gay marriage, isn't it a small step to deterring unhealthy (physically, not morally) behaviour?" Exactly. If the argument is promiscuity, then why not encourage monogamy? Chris? " you want to discuss social stigmata regarding homosexual sex, I'll ask this - why is it more socially acceptable for women to have homosexual relationships than males? (And I draw this conclusion both from men AND women)." I just wanted to offer that I have heard this argued through homosexual couples (you know how I love to eavesdrop) But one night, a lesbian couple sat at the next table, arguing with a male gay (?) couple about this very thing. The lesbians asserted that female homosexuality was more natural because of the nature of reproduction. Women give birth to women, so intimacy with women was more psychologically understandable than men seeking a "soul source connection" with other men. She argued that it is more natural for a woman to seek out a woman, whereas a man seeking out a man had to be a psychological rebellion. (For the record, I don't agree with this--I believe in the genetics theory--but she looked like she could kick me arse, so...smile, I just eavesdropped.) Denise... my gosh, lady, how I respect your intellect and caring, I truly do. But I am at a loss here. No civil disobedience? I thought my right to non-violent civil disobedience was written into the constitution. Am I wrong? If I'm mistaken, I thought that the very founding of the United States of America was an act of civil disobedience. Think about the Boston Tea Party. Think about Rosa Parks. I state my opinion here humbly--the United States was intended to be a "melting pot", yes? I think the dross of lack of foresight (understandably) is simply floating to the top. Yes, homosexuals are condescendingly allowed "civil union"--they simply no longer wish that thier love--their vows--no longer be termed into some secondary status. There are many good arguments as to what constitutes a marriage. I simply don't want that defined by my Federal Government. The fine line is, though, I also do not wish for my government to define what marriage is not. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
 Balladeeryou have expressed it better than I could (just the part about men/women and treatment of each other) M |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That's a different thread, and one I would most enjoy exploring with you, but you've entirely missed the point. Your contention that men are more promiscuous than women, therefore homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, is grossly illogical. quote: But that's exactly its job, Karen. The fact it may have done its job poorly doesn't change the job. If we are to promote the separation of church and state that Mike laments, then someone in authority must be willing to define a church. If we are to give special benefits or considerations to people who marry, someone in authority has to define marriage. The question I posed in my first post in the other thread, and one no one has been willing to explore, is why do we want to give special benefits and considerations to people who marry? I think if we looked at those 2,000 some odd benefits, we'd discover they fall into two very different buckets. I think any attempt to find a single answer to cover both buckets is likely to fail. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer I don't think any ancestral cultures ever showed the kind of vicious frequencies that people do today. Something may be indulgent and lecherous, indecent or wrong, but a vicious frequence or continuosness, neglect of acknowledging, or ignorance or pretence that the vice is not wrong and should be declined, I believe makes it an even greater wrong and less worthy of being able to attribute to something that is rare enough not to greatly blamed. Orgies were NOT what people for the most part think they were today: From Dictionary.com "Word History: The word orgy has become connected in the minds of many of us with unrestrained sexual activity, but its origins are much less licentious. We can trace the word as far back as the Indo-European root *werg-, meaning “to do,” also the source of our word work. Greek orgia, “secret rites, worship,” comes from *worg-, one form of this root. The Greek word was used with reference to the rites practiced in the worship of various deities, such as Orpheus and Dionysus. The word in Greek did not denote sexual activity, although this was a part of some rites. The rites of Dionysus, for example, included only music, dancing, drinking, and the eating of animal sacrifices. Having passed through Latin and Old French into English, the word orgy is first recorded in English with reference to the secret rites of the Greek and Roman religions in 1589. It is interesting to note that the word is first recorded with its modern sense in 18th-century English and perhaps in 17th-century French. Whether this speaks to a greater licentiousness in society or not must be left to the historian, but certainly the religious nature of the word has gone into eclipse." Sexual activies were involved, but that orgies were excessively sexual or excessively frequent and perverse seems more like people trying to attribute modern debauchery and outrageousness and addictionmaking onto people of the past, where no such things were necessarily for the most part there, or frequent and almost casual as they are today. It seems today's modernism again trying to attempt to avoid dealing directly with the present and acknowledging its vice and misdoing for many things we tolerate, by hanging on a belief about the past: that we are so much better than people were, and thereby trying to justify what people are doing now. Even though what people are doing now is not even very private, broadly and extensively on the interenet, in arts, in languages, on TV, music, the way people dress; where anything sexual has a streak of coarsness and perversity, and often a pornographic influence because our cultures is fixed on daring to tolerate more and more. One may scarcely spend one minute with any form of media without finding at once something lecherous or bordering on being lecherous. Once upon a time the opposite sex was turned on by trying to show off virtues, now a days in order to attract one has to dare to show off perversity, and dare to have a vice. Sayings and meanings like "upon honour" "everything in moderation" "in faith" are replaced by sarcasm and anything rough and bordering on being shameless. I think the growing notion that all former cultures were basically and for the most part inferior to what modern cultures are in behavior and wisdom, is a weakness of regard, and I think may be one of the reasons why people are more and more ignorant about history. They believe despite the excess in almost everything today, at least we are higher than they were, and in many degrees I believe we are, but in many degrees we are lacking. How stately is life now? How sacred? When substance is abused that is foul, but when people are abused I believe that is the foulest. [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-06-2004 02:41 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bal, every six minutes?! How do you guys have any time for anything else? Karen, civil disobedience is not what is our 'right' laid out in the Constitution. That would be our right to peaceably assemble/demonstrate, for the redress of grievances, to my understanding anyway, and in no way allows in the slightest for disobeying any laws. Even the assembling and demonstrating are to be done within the confines of statutes on the books. But I'm not a legal authority, perhaps that can best be addressed by Jim. And that some 'good' may have come from civil disobedience in the past, still in my view, that does not make it the correct thing to have been done. Perhaps an even greater good could have been realized if things had been done within the parameters of the law. At this point, it's all conjecture of course. I tend to believe that although it takes longer to work within the system, it's the right way to go in a society that is based on the rule of law. Ron, I guess if you consider the mindset that the traditional family unit is the backbone of society, that which gives children the best possible chance of becoming stable well-adjusted productive members of society, (not that all married couples have children, but the majority do, and not that all married couples do the best they can by their children, but I think the majority at least try to) then perhaps that is at least part of the reason for the benefits, because it is seen as what is in the best interests, ultimately, of society? But on the flip side, there is a decided and well known financial advantage for some not to marry, including 'single' mom's and senior citizens who lose financial benefits if they marry, as opposed to remaining "single", in the eyes of the law. But that's probably a topic for a different thread. And what about the so-called federal "marriage penalty" tax? Has that been done away with yet? I heard something about Bush wanting to do away with it, but haven't heard anything more in the past few months. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"The question I posed in my first post in the other thread, and one no one has been willing to explore, is why do we want to give special benefits and considerations to people who marry? I think if we looked at those 2,000 some odd benefits, we'd discover they fall into two very different buckets. I think any attempt to find a single answer to cover both buckets is likely to fail" Actually, Ron, I thought I did address that (somewhat) in the previous thread.  As a woman who lived as a "partner" in a state that does not recognize common law marriage, (Louisiana still recognizes and heeds Napoleonic Law) I understand, all too well, the incidental injuries of inconsistencies. (Just as an example--this house that I live in now was obtained by Federal Bond money--in my husband's name, he, could, and did, claim us as a family which entitled him to all the benefits of a family--that's a lot too--but yet he was faced with none of the responsibilities. He had all the tax benefits too. Until I married him, I was at his mercy. He had every legal right to evict me, after claiming me and the children for tax purposes and on federal forms for just over a decade. I felt forced to marry him, and you know what? THAT really sucked. Worse? I still have no claim to this house, (even though I was so active a partner that I had power of attorney during its acquisition) and should my husband decide to relinquish all responsibility, it would cost me more in attorney fees than the house is worth for me to keep. So yes, perhaps my statement was tempered with bitters. But even with all of my personal slants on the issue, I understand that for the Federal Government to issue the standard that would protect me, that is when the government would begin to impinge on the individual rights of the states to govern themselves. That's where we get to the fine line that I was talking about. Because honestly? I'm with you on that marriage issue. (YOU know I didn't wanna do it...  ) Living in Louisiana, this Napoleonic code to which we've adhered has rendered me in the same place as a bachelor.It once acted admirably, in favor of women's rights, as La. was among, if not the first state in the union to recognize women with the rights of property, and to claim "head of household." The reality of those ramifications pisses me off too. I devoted fourteen years of my life to a partnership, and the Federal Government conceded that I was a contributing partner, as indicated by our tax returns and yet? Should this man decide to sell everything and smoke the proceeds in crack, I have no say in the matter. There's a lot wrong with the system already. I only hope that we can survive the treatment for the disease. where's my wall? OH-- there it is!  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
And Denise? I thought this link might more properly explain my meaning of non-violent civil disobedience: http://www.activism.net/peace/nvcdh/history.shtml and this: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Who said it? Thomas Jefferson |
||
|
sea_of_okc Senior Member
since 1999-06-15
Posts 568Oklahoma City, OK, USA |
Wow there are a lot of issues discussed here... I think I will start with Ron's 2000 benefits. I think those benefits relate directly to the fact that our nation was founded by men of the Christian persuasion. Since biblical traditionalists (especially back at that time) viewed any sexual activity outside the 'sacred' bond of marriage to be immoral they naturally did all they could to promote the idea of marriage thus all the benefits attached to being married. Not to mantion the perception that "healthy" families are more likely to produce the kind of citizens our government desires. Promiscuity... hmmm... I imagine no one will argue that men are far more likely to be promiscuous than women therefore gay males are far more likely to be promiscuous than gay females. I don't know that this crosses the lines of sexual orientation though. I would imagine approxiamately the same percentage of hetero males are promiscuous to the degree that partners are available. Perhaps it is easier as a gay male to find partners since the male sexual appetite is greater. The rise of promiscuity in general (both male and female) I believe is due to the greater availability and frequency of stimulants to our human sexuality. As to creating laws governing sexuality my problem would be where do you draw the line and who decides where the lines are drawn? Ess - you would love Oklahoma... believe it or not there is still a law which has never been repealed which prohibits oral sex... even between married partners... I will be in jail forever if they penalize for each count Now for a question of my own. Why are certain people homosexual? I have heard the genetic argument but I don't buy it. If there is a "gay" gene where is it? Is it present in the majority (or all) homosexuals? And it would also have to exist in bisexuals... If it exists does it exist in some people who are heterosexual as well? I don't really expect answers to the genetic ?s because no such gene exists. I have had a number of gay friends (not aquaintances...friends) and of thos who were willing to discuss their childhood every one of them had some kind of emotional\pschological\physical abuse occur. It seems far more likely to me that homo\bisexuality stems from emotional\psychological issues rather than anything genetic. I'll give one example... I had a very good friend growing up who is now homosexual. His father left his mother on his 12th birthday... no card, no present, nothing... just gone. He also had 2 older brothers who treated him very poorly. He never had the male bonding or acceptance during his childhood so now he finds it in his partners. Now was he "born gay" or is it his deep seated need for male acceptance and bonding that was not given him in his youth that is at the root of his "preference"? Just my thoughts. This is an extremely interesting thread... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I understand completely where you are coming from Karen. I just don't agree that breaking the law is the way to go when we see the need for or have the desire for change. Voicing our opinions, yes, demonstrating, yes, working within the system to change policy, yes, voting, yes, but breaking the law, especially by those sworn to uphold the law? Absolutely not. And I don't see that Jefferson is advocating civil disobedience. Advocating change or seeing the need for change is in no way synonymous with breaking the law to advance change. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, it would be more appreciated if you would add "to me" to your comment that my remarks are grossly illogical. Being that way to you does not necessarily mean they are to me or others. I have a logic that I believe I'm entitled to, as is anyone, and I would not presume to tell anyone that my logic is the only logic and condemning another's, which I seem to be reading here. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Statistically, I believe that gay male couples are the most prone to adultery, with heterosexual couples next, and female lesbain couples being the most monogamus. Makes sense within the ocntext of balladeer's earlier comments. BTW, Essorant- did you know Alexander the Great was bisexual? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Mike, Huh? I suppose logic is like the anthropic principle then? We have the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP), and the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle . . . . But -- and I want to blame this on Chris -- but I guess it's my fault. My original point had nothing to do with a comparison between gay and straight relationships, it had to do with a comparison between monogamy and promiscuity. Which is better for both individuals involved? Which is better for society as a whole? Today, at least, the answer to both questions, I think, is monogamy. If it's not better for both individuals, don't get married or get out of it. If it's not better for society, why are we having this discussion? Note: Rewrote that last part. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"BTW, Essorant- did you know Alexander the Great was bisexual?" Yes. A man showing affection and having a love affair with another man back in Alexander's time and place was normal and the sexual part agreeably fell with that: it didn't seem turned to for a sexual endeavour or a lifestyle; nor to simultaneously have males and females as sex partners swinging back and forth like many bisexuals do today. Sex naturally seemed to come within the stages of love, and in that way there is more naturalness. But today there is so much sexual-centeredness and deviance on purpose about sexuality, that there is little agreeable with love or nature, or society's wellbeing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad.... That was smooth...I majored in the third one  |
||
|
sea_of_okc Senior Member
since 1999-06-15
Posts 568Oklahoma City, OK, USA |
Okay Brad now I am confused... your original post "I don't know, I think I'm pretty traditionalist on this one. One criticism of the homosexual community has been its blatant and flippant promiscuity. Promiscuity, these days, is a dangerous course of action for anybody. If we recognize gay marriage, isn't it a small step to deterring unhealthy (physically, not morally) behaviour?" I don't understand your connection between recognizing gay marriage and promiscuity. Are you suggesting that recognizing these marriages would create monogamy??? If a person is promiscuous anyway getting married will only make them more discreet not less promiscuous. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
sea_of_okc The 'gay' gene in males is located somewhere in the Xq28 region. This was discovered in the work of Dr. Dean Hamer in 1993. Although the specific marker isn't known (to my knowledge -- it may be now that the human genome map is complete) the existence of such a gene became evident as Dr. Hamer was conducting research on Kaposi's Sarcoma. He repeated the tests in 1995 with similar results. Female homosexuality would be caused by different factors. Dennis McFadden discovered a correlation in cochlea properties in that gay and bisexual women's strength of otoacoustic emissions was somewhere between that of straight men and women. Another study by Bailey and Pillard showed that about half of female lesbians and bisexuals showed strong inclinations toward hereditary factors while the other half were based on unshared environmental conditions. In 1991 Simon Levay found that the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus was two times bigger in straight men than in gay men and straight women. My information is dated. Someone should search for more current studies -- but -- I sincerely hope that there is in fact no better data than this for one simple reason -- eugenics. hush It's important to remember that the last time the Republican machine wanted to amend the Constitution was during Gingrich's revolution back in 1995. They wanted to put in a balanced budget amendment (which would have put George 43's butt in a pretty sizeable sling had it passed.) What they found out was that it was unconstitutional. Republicans now want an amendment to try to circumvent the courts from deciding that gay marriage is permissible -- but -- do you see the fallacy of that thinking based on what happened in 1995? This is an election year pander to base. We have bigger issues facing the country right now.... Ultimately I favor gay marriage over civil unions -- the separate but equal / don't ask don't tell measures -- they may be necessary steps along the way. The people of the United States are very Traditional -- but -- one of our traditions is tolerance. Patience... study Lyndon B. Johnson |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
hush and ess... It's important to note that in ancient Greek culture men were expected to be married and have families. Their homosexual endeavors were extra-marital -- so it's hard to say that someone in that culture was actually bi, straight, or gay. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
What, at bottom, do people think marriage is? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Two things Brad: 1. Sacremental Covenant 2. Legal Contract The government doesn't, and can't, prohibit a religious organization from conducting the first without the second -- and could niether force same. The only difference between Civil Unions then and the Marrige Contract is words -- which is why the doublespeak is so silly. But letting the traditionalists have their double-speak while allowing gays thier due civil rights seems like a decent compromise for now. There then would be no barrier to say -- two single people forming a civil union for the fringe benefits if they were just room mates -- such as a couple of elderly spinsters or some young bachelors going to college... eh? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Good point Local. I don't think the Greeks segregated sexualities anything like we do today. Love was love, and sex was too. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
" The 'gay' gene in males is located somewhere in the Xq28 region" You can't miss it. It is right near the " nibbling on the ear" gene, area XOXOX  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
LR, Don't you think you're missing something. Like what went through your head when you actually got married? Sorry for asking the question. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I didn't think I had to be that specific Brad ok... 1. Sacremental Covenant, to have and to hold,forsaking all others until death, yadda yadda yadda -- bring on the honeymoon these two are hitched... 2. All of your money now belongs to her pal... Better? (or do I have to say Sex? because -- I don't know -- do people actually wait for that anymore?) |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
LR- The way it was explained to me by my Latin teacher was that in Roman times, it was so common for people to form same-sex trysts that there really was no classification for it. You just did it... it was normal. SO by their standards, it would be silly to call someone bisexual, because as far as they were concerned, hell, they were just sexual and reaping the benefits of a wide selection. But by today's standards, that doesn't fly... people always want to know, so they can classify and compartmentalize how they think about others. Essorant... A. How can you presume to know whether sex was based on love back in Roman times? I personally think you just have a serious case of nostalgia, because in my opinion, you're mistaken... a good example: When I was in Italy, we toured Pompeii. Are you familiar with the city? It was covered in volcanic ash when Mt. Vesuvius exploded in...? 62 AD? I'm wrong, but it was therabouts. Anyway, one of the most interesting things on the tour was the brothel. There were small, individual rooms, and they were marked above the door with a picture- of what position was practiced inside. Guys could get it any which way they wanted.. and here's the kicker. Outside, in the streets, little phalluses were carved into the stones, 'pointing' the way. Our tour guide told us this was common in many roman towns. So... more based on love? No... I just don't think they were as repressed and double-sided about their sexuality as we are... there wasn't a taboo about it, and -hey, here's a novel idea- prostitution wasn't banned! So... what makes sexual excess okay back then but not now? |
||
|
sea_of_okc Senior Member
since 1999-06-15
Posts 568Oklahoma City, OK, USA |
Actually Ess I think the gene is located right next to the pedaphilia gene... so what next, will we be standing up shouting that Chester next door should be allowed to marry a ten year old? I will have to study the research that LR mentions. I highly doubt it is conclusive but will have a look to be fair. One more thing, I have seen a number of people mention "love" in this discussion. I do not believe love has any place in a discussion about the legality of gay marriage. Love being unquantifyable cannot be used in any way as a measure of whether or not something is legal/illegal, moral/immoral, appropriate or inappropriate. For me the whole issue comes down to whether or not being gay is a preference or an inescable genetic predisposition. If it is a preference then I don't think it should receive any more legal attention then say the Yippies preference to smoke weed over drinking alcohol. If we start allowing legal protection for everyone's preferences then nothing would be illegal anymore... |
||
|
sea_of_okc Senior Member
since 1999-06-15
Posts 568Oklahoma City, OK, USA |
As I thought, Hamer's and Levay's work are scientifically unsound. People hailed him as genius because he told them what they wanted to believe... they are not responsible for their own actions or choices since it is genetic. I tend to agree more with George Ebers: http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/limitations.html#hamerincons Besides if we go down the path of human sexuality being based in genetics then what about rapists, pedaphiles, sado masichists, etc. etc. If they are gentically predisposed to these tendencies then how can we call any of their actions illegal? |
||
|
Janet Marie Member Laureate
since 2000-01-22
Posts 18554 |
quote: The comparison of pedophiles to consenting adults is tacky, uncalled for and disappointing in a discussion that (for the most part) has tried to explore with open minds. Seems we always see these kind of degrading homophobic analogies tagged on to discussions whenever the subject comes up. I didn't need a study by doctors to tell me there is a gene. It may not apply to all, but I have had more than a few close friends tell me that they felt "different" from the go and knew very early on. In most cases their parents knew too. I don't think any of us so called "straight" people can have a clue what it feels like or to know what its like to live in a world that is so into labeling & segregating people. I had hoped for better for my children, still it seems like we go backwards in cycles. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Reading between the lines of Sea's post, I see an important point to consider - genetic predisposition does not necessarily mean normal or desirable. Brad alluded to the promiscuity problem in some of the male homosexual communities ... this behavior - genetically motivated or not ... is self-destructive, not much unlike alcoholism (in which researches believe genetics play a role). Labeling is always going to take place - we all use them, mostly because it is easier to categorize the complex if you use labels. "Homophobe" is a label also, however, and I don't believe it is fair to label someone homophobic if they happen to believe homosexuality is a form of sexual deviancy. Jim |
||
|
sea_of_okc Senior Member
since 1999-06-15
Posts 568Oklahoma City, OK, USA |
Thank you jbouder JM you misunderstand my point. I am not comparing pedaphilia with homosexuality in the sense of adult or nonadult. Only in the sense that IF genetics determine our sexuality then how can you say the pedaphile is to blame for his actions? Perhaps they also feel "different" growing up. I know serial killers say they always felt different and outcast amongst their peers and I believe there was actually genetic research done trying to find some genetic basis for serial killers. And before you go off I am NOT comparing serial killers to homosexuals, merely illustrating the point that it is ludicrous to try to blame all of human behavior to genetics. I suppose it is human nature to try to absolve ourselves of responsibility of what may be considered undesirable or anti-social types of behavior. I think it is far far more likely that all "deviant" (for lack of a better word) behaviors stem from environmental/emotional/pschological issues than genetics. And I am not homophobic in the least. I do not judge the worth of a person based solely upon their actions. I do not agree with nor understand their behavior but I accept them as they are and if they have a good heart I have no problem being friends with them. I would think you know me well enough to know I am not a narrow-minded, intolerant or overly judgemental person. |
||
|
Janet Marie Member Laureate
since 2000-01-22
Posts 18554 |
To try to be clear... I was not calling Steve homophobic. My issue was with his opening statement which I quoted above. He may not have intended it to be...but (to me) it came across as sarcastic and insulting. This thread is about the current gay marriage issue... that encompasses legal age adults making a personal decision while this opportunity has been given to them. Throwing in the issues, images and stigma of Pedophilia, is not a fair comparison. They are two different entities of their own. But then life isn't fair is it? Just ask the 8 year old boy down the street who now has to be home schooled because he was daily physically and verbally abused at the school he was attending because his appearance and speaking voice was deemed "too feminine." Or the 16 year old girl in a local high school who was raped by two 17 year old boys... she was an outwardly proud lesbian whom they decided needed to know what "real men" were. I could go on but shouldn't need to...my point is...we need to look hard at how and why we justify our labels and prejudices and the fall out from them and the kind of messages we send to our kids and society overall. "Deviant behavior" is something we are ALL quite capable of. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"How can you presume to know whether sex was based on love back in Roman times?" I'm not trying to cover the whole Roman Empire, Hush I just don't think the more predominant Roman mentality or practices were ever generally sexually excessive. There were excesses for sure; but overall it seems like the Romans believed that one ought to be governed by Reason and never overgoverend by the Appetite. The fact that their laws were loose about sexuality may indicate there was enough self-government that sexual things didn't grow into such destructive things as they do now. Often people believe that people of those ages simply were too harsh or vicious to realize there should be laws against such things; and in that may be true in many degrees. But sometimes peoples of the past I think had much more reasoned and "inner" laws and government than we may acknowledge, that we lose a lot of today with all the "outer" laws and government. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Thanks for the link Sea. I just got done browsing the whole site http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/hc92.html and would say that Kristin Mayeda has assembled an interesting study. Everyone should read the whole thing -- but, keep in mind she has her own agenda and the material is dated 1999 -- when she was 21. The subsequent study by Hamer in 95 was in response to Ebers.... but it is not surprising that there is dissention in the ranks. I'd still like to see more current data. But not really -- I think it is a mistake to decide what groups we're going to discriminate against based on genetics or otherwise. There is, it seems to me, clear evidence that all human behaviour has basis in both nature and nurture arguments. More later -- have to help my son with his derby car. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Are you kidding? Love may or may not be quantifiable, but it's a pretty good reason to get married. quote: Legal protection? How about legal recognition? To me, it all comes down to the question of love. Can two gay men or women be in love with each other, commit to each other, and should that love be publicly acknowledged or hidden from view? Marriage, anyway you look at it, is the legal protection and recognition of a preference as you put it. I see all these genetic arguments and Roman references as exercises in avoiding the issue. The question has nothing to do with either, the arguments against gay marriage, presented here, are arguments against marriage. But reading through this thread, I get the feeling that it's already dead. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Okay, Brad. What do I think marriage is? In my personal opinion, it is a formalized sort of promise by two individuals to remain with each other, as partners, exclusively, for the rest of their lives. Essentially, what is it but a piece of paper, a name change (maybe) and some legalities? Not much... but I think there is an emotional involvement that is important. It's a contract, but more importantly than a legal contract, it's a contract between people in love. Which is why I'd like to echo Serenity's point about Civil Unions- they are demeaning. Look at two statements. We're getting married! We're getting Civil Uninoned! (Or Unionized... I guess you'd just have to say 'we're getting a civil union' which essentially makes it sound more like a purchase than a process to be celebrated.) And I do think the moral arguments about genetics (they can't help what they do!) and Roman times (the good ole days) are essentially important. It factors into whether poeple think same sex couples should be prevented from having the same type of marriage heterosexuals do. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It's funny because when I first read that, I thought you were asking me what marriage is. Glad I reread it! But I don't see how love and the piece of paper are separate. I see them as mutually reinforcing tools that help you get through the rough spots (and there are always rough spots). Can you love someone forever without getting married? Sure. Do marriages always work? Of course not. But how can you tell two consenting adults (a word that seems to have been forgotten in some of the comments) who proclaim love for each other and who want that piece of paper, a formalized proclamation of that love, that they can't because you don't agree with their lifestyle? Isn't there a difference between others telling you what to do and recognizing what others want to do? The genetics issue gets off the subject because we are talking about marriage, not the nature of homosexuality -- I think. Genetics can give us information, but it can't make our decisions for us, nor should we let it. I think it tends to obscure the idea that we're talking about people, not chromosomes. And can't prisoners marry? The history lectures are just a way of saying that our views on marriage, on love, on sex are historically contingent. They are. So what? The Romans were no more natural than we are. In this day and age, perhaps not yesterday, perhaps not tomorrow, shouldn't we celebrate monogamy or at least the attempt to be monogamous? I think we should. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. I sure hope, Steve, you're not suggesting that I only like women because of some deep seated childhood episode? I have a very strong suspicion that many, many years of Jim's behavior modification is unlikely to change my preferences. Human sexuality is always inextricably linked to genetics. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's ONLY linked to genetics. My experience, which happens to be fairly broad for a number of reasons, is that the vast majority of homosexual people have absolutely no choice in the matter. They could no more change their preference than could you or I. However, as always seems to happen when you try to shove too many people into the same bucket, a few refuse to fit as comfortably as we'd like. I know one woman, quite well actually, who was not so much attracted to other women as she was attracted to A woman. Robin fell in love with another person's kindness, compassion, and incredible zest for life. She radically changed her own life to be with this person, something men and women have been doing since the dawn of history. She made a choice. The woman she fell in love with, however, never had any such choice. Homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, heterosexuality is a genetic predisposition, hell, even murder is lodged deeply into our chromosomes. Each of us is a born killer, as is true of any carnivore. Our genes, however, except in very rare instances, do not absolve us of our responsibility for the choices we make. Predisposition is not predestiny. The person who gains ten pounds just by looking at a piece of chocolate isn't bound to a life of obesity, no matter how hard their DNA may push them in that direction. Discovering a "reason" for something, whether that reason is a recessive gene or childhood trauma, isn't going to give the morbidly obese, the pedophile, or anyone else a get-out-of-jail-free card. Understanding, and even forgiveness, isn't the same thing as consent. Not that a homosexual should ever need our consent. Homosexuality is about as "deviant" as is being born left-handed. Coincidentally, the percentages are even pretty similar. Neither, in and of itself, brings harm to another human being. Both face social roadblocks imposed for no other reason than being different from the majority. Seems to me it's about time the majority got their act together. And absolutely none of that has anything at all to do with the question of marriage. |
||
|
Janet Marie Member Laureate
since 2000-01-22
Posts 18554 |
quote: Alleluia and AMEN!!! This left handed moth thanks you for the clarity, the humility and the humanity!! |
||
|
sea_of_okc Senior Member
since 1999-06-15
Posts 568Oklahoma City, OK, USA |
RON quote: You may be right as far as you or I go but there are people who change their preference in midlife. And what about documented cases of homosexuality being "cured"? Your story illustrates that it was a choice for the woman you knew, as far as the woman she partnered with how can you say she had no choice without an in depth psychological and environmental profile of her life? Her saying so is entirely too subjective to be admissable as evidence. To convince me human sexual orientation is based in genetics you will have to find some acceptable objective data to back it. quote: A carnivore being a 'born killer' is a matter of the instinct for survival. If I have to kill to eat in order to survive then kill I will. Heterosexuality is instinctive in all higher lifeforms as nature's way of continuing the species. As I see it sex has two main functions... procreation and pleasure. The institute of marriage was created to sanctify the former, the latter has occured all through history between same gender partners but I know of no instance where it has been legally recognized in a historical society. And for those who would question marriages of people beyond the age to procreate I say that it is still a coupling of the procreative order, namely male/female. The reason I am so concerned about the genetic issue is because if homosexaulity is indeed physiological in nature then I would be far less likely to object to the changing of marrige laws, if on the other hand it is as I believe a chosen lifestyle or even an emotional or psychological phenomenon then I do not think marriage laws should be changed. The problem is who decides what alternative lifestyles should be recognized and which not? How about polygamy? How about Americans from cultures that marry off daughters in their early teens? Should they be permitted to continue that practice in America? If we are going to recognize one alternative lifestyle we should be prepared to accomodate them all. quote: Isn't that what democracy is, the will of the majority? Put it to a popular vote... I would stand by that. BTW the last nationwide poll I saw was 52% against 40% for and 8% undecided. BRAD quote: And again I ask what does marriage have to do with monogamy??? Monogamy is a CHOICE made individually according to the persons ethics, morals or beliefs of what is right and wrong. I am not monogamous because I am married, I am married because I am monogamous. I have to agree with Ess in that monogamy has suffered due to the increased bombardment of our senses with sexual images and overtones. Recognizing gay marriages will have absolutely zero impact on the percentage of monogamous people. A gay person whose choice is monogamy will be monogamous whether or not society recognizes their relationship. quote: Very true when you take it on an individual basis but we are talking about legal recognition here and no argument as subjective as love should be taken into account in my opinion. I know my definition of what love is has changed substantially over the last 20 years. And I think we all know many couplings (of any disposition) are based on things other than love... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"And I think we all know many couplings (of any disposition) are based on things other than love..." Sea, I agree with this point. But don't you think hetrosexuals still get treated quite unquestionably like true lovers when they wish to get married, notwithstanding their sexual issues and deviancies? How is it right to treat them for sure like true lovers and then decide to go to a sexual standpoint and bring up sexual issues to question homosexuals' right to marriage? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You might be surprised just how in-depth I know both women, Steve. But, that's not the point. The point is that one made a choice, one had the choice made for her, and neither is any less than the other. Both are happy and no one is getting hurt. quote: That was the point I made way back on page one of the first thread, Steve. If we are going to recognize a union between two homosexuals, what arguments are we going to muster to avoid marriage between brother and sister? The trouble is, we're already on that road and have been for a very long time. A thousand years ago marriage between social classes was forbidden. Two hundred years ago marriage between faiths was forbidden. As little as just fifty years ago, marriage between races was forbidden. We've already traveled a few good miles on that road because, little by little, the majority have come to realize they cannot make choices for the minority. Put another way, why shouldn't we accommodate all lifestyles that bring happiness without harm? quote: That is absolutely NOT what democracy is (or, more correctly, that is not what a republic is). Had you put it to a popular vote in the Sixties, your black neighbors would still be sitting at the back of the bus. There's a very good reason why it takes twelve people to convict and only one to set a man free. Minority Rights supersede Majority Rule. Always. quote: I agree completely, Steve. But I would go further yet, and ask what does marriage have to do with sex? Marriage without sex is all too common. Sex without marriage is even more common. One is neither a prerequisite of the other, nor the cause of the effect. Marriage isn't even always about love, certainly not in the romantic, sweep-me-off-my-feet notions of the young and naïve. Marriage is about commitment. It's a public declaration of private intent. And the flip side to that is it "should be" a public acceptance of private intent. The 2,000 benefits available through marriage fall under two different umbrellas. The vast majority of those benefits are simply a recognition of personal commitment and the responsibilities it entails. When a man is unable to make his own medical decisions, his wife is able to legally make them for him. That's not just a right he gave her when he married her, that's a responsibility she accepted when she married him. The right and the responsibility are joined, indeed are inseparable, and a society that recognizes one without the other is only fooling itself. When two people agree to care for each other, in sickness and in health, our laws MUST give them the tools necessary to do so. Some few of the benefits accrued to marriage are not necessarily a reflection of responsibility. Husband and wife get a special tax status for the same reason charitable contributions are deductible and companies get consideration for employing minorities. These aren't rights, but are rewards designed to encourage specific behaviors. This is where the majority, in the person of our representatives, gets to throw its weight around a bit. They can essentially reward anyone they like, for whatever they like. (Though in my opinion, government incentives become exceedingly dangerous when applied at any level that affects procreation. Rewarding or not rewarding people for having babies can, in a few short generations, change the face of a society. But I guess that's a different thread? )A couple of centuries ago, a small group of men declared their belief that all people are endowed with certain inalienable rights. I don't know, but I just have to trust that the ability to take care of each other has to be one of the most basic ones. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Sea- 'The reason I am so concerned about the genetic issue is because if homosexaulity is indeed physiological in nature then I would be far less likely to object to the changing of marrige laws, if on the other hand it is as I believe a chosen lifestyle or even an emotional or psychological phenomenon then I do not think marriage laws should be changed.' !!?? Huh? Why? That makes absolutely no sense. The origination of the behavior doesn't change what the behavior is. If there is genetic evidence that there is a rapist gene, should we change rape laws? I think I see what you're getting at and quite frankly, I think it's a terrible point of view. If they can help it... if they can choose not to be gay, well, then, let's put some pressure on and see if a little old-fashioned discrimination can't get them to work on changing it. But if they're born with it (much like one is born with a congenital disease) then they can't help it. They can't 'fix' what's 'wrong' with them, so we may as well allow them to be happy. I think Ron said it best: 'why shouldn't we accommodate all lifestyles that bring happiness without harm?' Tell me... who are gay people hurting? Give me one good reason that their rights should be continually witheld. Also: 'The problem is who decides what alternative lifestyles should be recognized and which not?' I had a reply in the first thread: 'I don't have time to read all the replies right now, but I have to address the points Ron makes. Polygamy is, in my opinion, the simpler one. As long as the person's first spouse is aware of and okay with it- why not? Who am I, or anyone else, to deny the power of group love, or the ability of one man/woman to have multiple wives/husbands/both? (Although, I guess an interesting question to that would be- how many spouses should insurance pay for as 'family?' It'd get mighty expensive eventually...) The incest one is really interesting. My boyfriend and I were discussing it the other day. He brought up the issue of possible heightening the risk of congenital birth defects. I do not know, statistically and realistically, how much more common, if at all, it is for close blood relatives having children together to have children with defects or diseases... but if it is a significant number, why not a) screen them for potential complications and --possibly-- b) have them agree to some form of sterilization so as not to have children with defects before the marriage takes place? I'm not entirely in agreeance with b up there, but it is a possibility... granted, they might just have kids without being married if they really want them together... but it almost seems like education via testing, etc., might lead to more ocmpliance as far as close blood relatives not having kids goes. I think that there are possibilities for everything... and I also don't believe I am one to judge the sexual beliefs and actions of others, so long as no one is harmed. I don't think what I just said will go over so well, but then again, I don't think America is ready for the things I suggested. Are they too pluralistic, to morally slack? Maybe. But I do think ending discrimination against gay couples is a huge step in the right direction for America.' |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Amy, I think your earlier response, repeated here, only highlights how truly complex the issues can quickly become. Polygamy, for example, is not as simple as you might wish. You posited, "As long as the person's first spouse is aware of and okay with it - why not?" Couldn't that same question be asked about battering? At what point should we protect people on the wrong end of a power struggle from their own bad decisions? Now throw in some questions about the expense to society, some of which you already briefly mentioned. Society will try (if not always very well) to feed a family comprised of one man, one wife, and five kids. What if that man has three wives and fifteen kids? We've avoided legislating procreation so far, avoided tying the right to have children with the ability to support them, only because one guy can do limited damage and our politicians are willing to let everyone else absorb the costs of that damage. How much damage, though, will become too much damage to absorb? Every single problem we must address in a one-on-one marriage become geometrically larger when we introduce the possibility of polygamy. Worse, if our answer to incestuous marriage is to control the right to breed, we set an incredibly dangerous precedent. Inbreeding doesn't work because recessive genes are too often shared by close family members, and two sets of recessive genes are no longer recessive. All the bad things bubble to the surface. Whether we screen them, sterilize them, or abort the results, we suddenly find ourselves with legal standards as to just how imperfect we will allow a child to be. Should adults with IQ's under 70 be allowed to have children together? How about people with IQ's under 100? Sickle cell anemia? Where is the line drawn, and even more importantly, who do we trust so much we would give them the power to draw that line? Procreation is complicated stuff. Marriage, on the other hand, and the legal rights necessary to enable one person to adequately care for the welfare of another, should have nothing at all to do with procreating. They are, and should remain, separate issues. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Well, science cannot tell us whether the behavior (unlike my puns) is good or baaaaad ... just that the brains are different. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=585&e=2&u=/nm/20040308/sc_nm/science_sheep_dc Just thought I'd lighten things up. Jim |
||
|
sea_of_okc Senior Member
since 1999-06-15
Posts 568Oklahoma City, OK, USA |
quote: Okay but what if we are talking about two different minorities rights which are at odds? Is the origins of the marriage ceremony religious or legal in nature? I put forth that marriage is religious in nature first and traditionalists will consider even Justice of the Peace marriages as a bastardazation of the sacred ceremony. Some groups will not even recognize such marriages. So do the religious traditionalists have a right to have what they consider to be a sacred convenant ordained by God to be kept intact? Does the government have the right to tell them they MUST recognize what they would consider to be blaphemous and perverse? I would think the religious traditionalists have just as much right to maintain what they consider to be the integrity of a sacred covenant as gay couples have of being joined. quote: Perhaps LR had the best idea. Compromise, recognize the unions legally but find something other than marriage to call such unions. Everyone should be happy, no one's rights are squashed. quote: Who defines what is harmful? And somehow I am thinking my insurance company would balk when I tried covering my 2 husbands, 3 wives and 16 kids... (assuming of course both same sex and poligamous marriage is aloowed) I will say sir Ron you make rather eloquent arguments, not that I necessarily agree with them all... |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Sea- 'Does the government have the right to tell them they MUST recognize what they would consider to be blaphemous and perverse?' this has nothing to do with forcing religious sects to recognize (or not recognize) gay marriage. The government can't tell relions what to do- so fundamentalists can continue not recognizing, and considering it perverse, that's fine. Nobody said they ahd to recognize it. 'Compromise, recognize the unions legally but find something other than marriage to call such unions. Everyone should be happy, no one's rights are squashed.' Would you rather have a high school diploma, or a GED? They both essentially say the same thing- you have enough knowledge to have completed high school- but the GED is socially considered less, a "good enough diploma." Would you want a "Good enough marriage?" You still haven't answered my question- who does gay marriage hurt? And you also haven't answered the point I made to you in my previous thread- what's the difference in where the behavior originates?I'm not letting you get away with that one. Ron- Your points are really good ones... my ideas I threw out weren't really thoroughly thout out, they were just ideas. I guess my point was that, put the pragmatic aspects aside, and I don't have a moral problem with either of the two. Would I want to marry my brother or have 3 husbands? No... (God, wouldn't one be enough to take care of? ) But if other people choose to live that way... I have no qualms. |
||
|
grassy ninja Junior Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 41Kentucky |
i have to agree with hush. who does gay marriage hurt? it is disturbing to compare homosexuality compared to pedophilia (and saying that the two genes are "next" to each other is definitely a comparison.) can i then compare rape to heterosexual sex? and isn't it true that most child molesters are heterosexuals? i don't have any statistic on that, but i believe i read that once. (i'll look around). any "deviant" thing that one wants to say that homosexual marriage will lead to can be refuted. bigamy? not if marriage was limited to two consenting adults. pedophilia? not possible because that is not a union, but an act of violence perpetrated against an unconsenting minor. bestiality? again, not possible, because it is abuse against an animal, and i think we can all recognize that an animal has no legal right to enter into any sort of legalized union, regardless of whether or not it "consents." incest? this, like bigamy, will go on regardless of whether there is a law to prevent it. but there are reasons to create incestuous marriages illegal that don't apply to homosexual unions. the offspring of an incestuous couple will be more likely to have birth defects. whether it's immoral or not can't be decided by the government. it will happen regardless of what they say, but they do have a responsibility to protect the offspring of these potential unions. and by the way, we all realize that incest was rampant in the 16th, 17th, and even 18th century in order to keep bloodlines "pure." genetics or no, i will not be able to change my mind on the unconstitutionality of banning gay marriage unless someone shows me how gay marriage actually hurts anyone. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I still don't see why both parties shouldn't be-- heterosexuals and homosexuals-- justly treated as lovers when they seek the social confirmation of loveship--marriage. When heterosexuals wish to get married we don't call them "sexuals" We call and treat them right as, lovers, coronating their love and religious beliefs. Don't homosexuals love each other, don't they have religious beliefs? How may banning them observe the freedom to love and the freedom of their religion? Don't love and marriage transcend sex anymore? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I see a confusion here. On the one hand, society does influence monogamy, on the other hand, monogamy suffers from, well, uh, society. I have no idea how much impact it would have on homosexual promiscuity, but if one does accept the idea that monogamy is, overall, a good thing, why not celebrate it? Social pressure can work both ways. I don't know, the only example I can think of for your side is Prohibition. But if marriage has no impact, or at least very little impact, what's the big deal? quote: But what are we talking about except something that happens on an individual basis? Again, if marriage has no societal impact (and I admit this may not be what you're saying), what's the big deal? quote: I agree that definitions of love change over time. One of the reasons I support marriage is precisely that it gives individuals the time to recognize and experience those changes (I see those changes as enriching, not limiting) -- as opposed to running around looking for reruns of that initial Romantic love. You're certainly right to say that couples may not be interested in such things, but I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt to those couples. If they claim they are in love, if they are adults, do we have the right to interfere? Would you like someone interfering with your relationship? What if you were barred from getting married because you're genetic makeup was wrong, you couldn't have children, or you were Catholic and the woman you loved Jewish? ---------------------------- Sea, In regards to your last comment, is political correctness, a changing of names, really the answer? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Brad, How are you going to define love anyway? Physiologically we understand what it is -- a coctail of Phenylethylamine, Dopamine, Oxytocin, Adrenaline, and Norepinephrine. I don't deny that it is integral to marriage as most would prefer -- but -- since we're talking governmental regulation I don't think it belongs in the jurisdiction. After all -- goverment can only regulate behaviour. If you look at the role these chemicals play in monogomy -- the bonding chemical -- oxytocin serves the purpose of making sure a couple stays together long enough to get a child to an age of relative competency -- the PEA tends to wear off after only a very short time -- presumably so the couple can get back to the business of survival, work, hunting, gathering, whatever -- instead of spending all their time, um... doing what couples on PEA do.. as the chemicals fade so do the monogomous tendencies -- the polyamorous proponents would say that monogomy beyond a certain point is not beneficial or natural and that we're the only culture in history to have tried it extensively -- add that to the increased life expectancy we have now over humans of 2000 years ago when mass monogomy got its push-- you get a lot of roving eyes according to them... I'm just throwing out stuff here -- I'm not married to any of these ideas |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I accept the biological description, I also accept the Romantic description (Well, except for that happily ever after part.). It's just two different descriptions of the same thing as far as I can tell. But both seem to leave out individual, active participation in the relationship. I see love as both something that is done to you and something that you do. I don't think you can choose to love someone, but you can, in part, choose loving someone. Now, there's a tremendous risk involved in such a choice, the risk of failure, betrayal, bordom, manipulation etc. There is no guarantee. Is there ever a guarantee when it comes to another individual? On the other hand, I wonder if I'm advocating something along the lines of an angry parent line, "When you have children, I hope they're just like you." As Oscar said, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
While it may be true that we don't usually choose whom we love/have feelings for, isn't it a definite choice as to whether we act on those feelings or not? I think the concept of 'harm' is something that should be more fully explored before it is just accepted as a truth that no harm is done by our decisions/choices. In the broader societal framework, can the decisions/actions of an individual/individuals within that society have a beneficial and/or harmful effect upon society as a whole? Take the soaring divorce rate, for example. Even if we don't see it as detrimental (it could even be argued that it is beneficial in most cases for the couples involved, and even sometimes for the children of those couples) to society, what are the long term implications of these decisions that we make? Can it be considered good for a society when an increasing number of its members have an increasingly devalued view of marital commitment, for instance, and how does that decreased valuation effect the children of that society? Is there a connection that can be made between individual actions and the overall well-being of a society, or are we all insignificant independent functioning entities whose decisions/choices have no ultimate effect on the whole, for the better or worse? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
To touch on Ron's mention of the majority/minority issue: In democracies there is always the danger of mob rule by the majority at one end of the spectrum and tyranny by the minority at the other. That's why the framers didn't choose a democratic form of government and did choose a republican form which was meant to be a safeguard against the pitfalls at both ends of the spectrum inherent in a strict democratic form of government. Both ends of the spectrum can present a potential danger and neither should be considered to take preeminence in and of themselves. A minority view does not take precedence over a majority view just by virtue of its being a minority view, whereby the 'majority needs to get its act together.' And a majority view does not take precedence over a minority view just because they outnumber the minority. The view itself is just that, a view. Our republican form of government gives us a system to work within for the consideration of any view. And that's why it's important to work within the system, otherwise there is a very real danger in ending up with either mob (majority) rule or tyranny by the minority, or even anarchy (a disregard for the law followed through to its logical conclusion.) And that is precisely why I feel it is so dangerous, as is happening in the current situation, where the laws are being flagrantly violated in order to precipitate a crises. I see it as a deliberate attempt by a group to circumvent the system, instead of working within it, in an attempt to force their will on others. That's not the proper way to do things in a republic, in my estimation, and makes a mockery of it, no matter the cause being espoused. Demonstrate, yes, petition, yes, lobby, yes, run for office, yes, vote, yes, break the law, no. And a mindset that has no regard for the rule of law is really nothing more than an anarchist mindset, it's not a "democratic" or "republican" mindset, and those who have such a mindset should not be serving in an official capacity in positions that require the taking of an oath to uphold and defend the State Constitution and the laws of that State. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Denise- Your question about whether actions can 'hurt' society in the broader sense is one of the best (and most well-stated) on this thread. My answer is that, yes, of course individual actions that become trends (such as the soaring divorce rate) will affect society. But I don't think it always happens in a negative way. The Montgomery Bus Boycott affected society. And so did the proliferation of fast-food restaurants- but whether they were responding to a demand, or simply created the demand, is another question. It is my personal opnion that witholding rights from a group based sheerly on who they love is detrimental to society as a whole. It breeds hatred and prejudice against everyone, children especially, because as kids, the laws we see are most often considered right and people who break them are seen as bad. I don't think we should force any religious group to recognize the gay marriage, but social institutions based on a separation of church and state should not be able to discriminate based on a primarily religious doctrine. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hush, I'd say that the Boycott was responding to a demand and the fast-food restaurants definitely created the demand! I'm old enough to remember a time before McDonalds! I personally don't see the issue as a 'witholding of rights', as if it is something that is intrinsically their due by virtue of their wanting them or believing that they should have them. These rights that they seek, which vary widely from State to State, are contingent upon meeting certain legal conditions, i.e., entering into a marital contract, and as currently stated by law that is defined as the joining of a male and a female (who are currently free to marry because they aren't already legally married to someone else and my State also required blood tests until recently to prove that you were free from venereal disease.) I don't see that people are being deprived of their 'rights' by virtue of who they love. They simply aren't able to take advantage of certain legal rights because they haven't met the conditions, that's all. Now if they want to seek to change the law, to change the qualifying conditions, (without breaking the law) I don't see anything wrong with that. Hey, I'd love to be able to take advantage of certain things, especially in the tax laws, but I can't because I don't meet the specified conditions. We all have the right to attempt to change the laws through legal means, to work within the system, if we think something is unfair, but none of us has the right to break the law when it suits our desires or purposes. Anyway, I see this current demand for "marriage" as having more to do with self-image and acceptance by society of their lifestyle, moreso than a desire for "rights", because if it were merely about rights, they can be obtained already in the States that offer Civil Unions that provide those legal rights. It doesn't seem too long ago that it was the "in-thing" not to get married. It was considered cool to shack-up, and so uncool, and even mercenary, to be concerned with the benefits that could be obtained through a marital contract. Boy, times have sure changed! And I'm really giving away my age! |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Rights and laws aren't the same thing. 'These rights that they seek, which vary widely from State to State, are contingent upon meeting certain legal conditions' When we were talking about first wave feminism and the suffragettes in my women's studies class last year, we (of course) talked about Susan B. Anthony. She made a speech once on the topic of suffrage stating that she didn't want to be given the right to vote- it was already her right as an American citizen. She was, however, being denied that right based on discrimination toward her gender. From the way you state your argument, it would seem that you don't think women had the "right," per se, until it was granted to them. Susan simply didn't meet the legal conditions that would have enabled her to vote (although I believe she was arrested once for storming in and voting anyway as a way of protest... what's your take on that?) So I ask you, woman to woman Denise- did we always have the "right" to vote, or are rights something that can be granted and taken away? And what are laws in relation to rights? 'Anyway, I see this current demand for "marriage" as having more to do with self-image and acceptance by society of their lifestyle, moreso than a desire for "rights", because if it were merely about rights, they can be obtained already in the States that offer Civil Unions that provide those legal rights.' What about our rights to 'life, liberty, and happiness?' I would include self-image in happiness. I would direct you to a point serenity made, and I echoed, earlier. Civil unions are demeaning. They are to marriage what the GED is to a diploma- they're basically the same thing, but one has a definite inferior connotation. Denise, I know that you are a deeply religious person and as such, probably believe that homosexuality is a wrong behavior. I can respect that. But what harm, if any, do you think the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage would cause? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Agree 100%. When I heard Jesse Jackson come out against gay marriage because it wasn't about civil rights in his mind -- I just about fell out of my chair. His argument was that being gay isn't about who you are but what you do -- which is so patently wrong it's difficult to even enumerate the reasons why.. He's going down the path though, that blackness is what the civil rights movement was about -- which again -- is patently false -- the civil rights movement was about the fact that people are people... Now -- we've talked about the genetic stuff -- and I maintain there is a genetic basis for homosexuality (most of the time) -- but we need to discount it because this issue is about a simple matter of freedom. It should be considered completely as a choice because freedom of choice (for adults) is what freedom is. Gay marriage is not about special rights for gays -- it's about equal rights for everyone... Now if you want to talk about amending the constitution -- may I suggest bringing back up the ERA.. quote: I'm not going to say that it is demeaning or isn't demeaning hush and blaze -- what I'm going to say is that it took a long time for this country to mature from Lincoln to Martin Luther King. People like Barney Frank and Diane Feinstein are saying take the deal (civil unions) and -- I agree -- it's taken so long to get here -- I'm not saying it ends there -- but -- civil unions do offer advantages for other people besides gays -- as I've mentioned before. Now -- my favorite argument from those who are against gay marriage is the 'slippery slope' argument -- well then what's next? pedophiles? people marrying their dogs? Ridiculous -- pure ridiculous. Dogs and children can't get married anyway -- period -- they can't enter into a contract. There is no precedent that says if we allow adults to marry that we have to let them marry anyone besides adults. The polygamist, polyamourous argument -- well -- to me it sounds like they're saying 'if we can't discriminate against gay's anymore then we won't be able to discriminate against anybody'... um, yeah... that's the point ... everyone has rights. I'm glad you transcribed it that way hush. But, and here's the big thing... we do have a majority of people in this country who have a problem with gay marriage -- that doesn't make (all of) them bad people. Some of them are just trying to grow into this -- and if it gets pushed too hard it just hurts everyone. My opinion. |
||
|
A Romantic Heart Member Ascendant
since 1999-09-03
Posts 5496Forever In Your Heart |
Do you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 10 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomonation ~Leviticius 18:22 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woamn, both of them have done what is destestable. They must be put to death: their blood will be on their own heads~ Leviticus 20:13 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more than the creator, who is blessed for ever.Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and...who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.~Romans 1:24-27,32 Quotes and scriptures taken from the King James Holy Bible~ Written by God our creator. These are Gods words, and being gay or homosexual is against God, therefore if you love God, you will obey his commandments. God says it is an abomination to him.... I am not preaching..just quoteing scriptures from the bible...seeing what says about homosexuality. Open your eyes, open your mind, open your heart, let me come in and show you love.....~ARH |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
"Quotes and scriptures taken from the King James Holy Bible~ Written by God our creator" Not to be disagreable.. but this statement is opinion I'm afraid and not fact, though you state it as fact. The King James Version of the boble was not the original version of the boble and it is hard to quote it as written by god our creator when in fact it is a version of the scriptures as taken from the original scrolls and translated from latin to english. Men I am afraid wrote the King james version of the Bible. having said that, then your argument that it is against "God's" commandments..is also suspect. I respect your right to believe as you please, I however, find that the arguments you present as to why gay marriage is wrong to be less than convincing. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Rev. John Shelby Spong (ret) from http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/catech.html |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
ARH, for several thousand years people have been using the Bible to justify condemning and persecuting other human beings. They even used it to condemn Jesus. In retrospect, it's hard to find even a single instance where they were right to hurt others in the name of God. If God has a problem with someone, I'm inclined to let God handle it on His terms. He doesn't seem to make mistakes. We invariably do. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hush, the way that I see it, there are certain rights protected in the Constitution, not "given" in the Constitution, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The framers saw these as God given rights to all people. And some rights (or benefits) I see as contingent upon the meeting of certain conditions. Much of our understanding as a society on different issues did indeed have to be dealt with down through the centuries in the fleshing out of our understandings of what the Constitutional rights entailed, or should entail, and people working through the established system eventually made changes that specifically addressed certain issues such as the vote for women and for blacks. I think it speaks to the genius of our founding fathers to have made provisions that such change could be effected within the system that they established, and I think we imperil that system when we decide to work outside of it to achieve our aims. I don't think it can be brought down to something as simplistic as rights being defined as something that can be given and taken away or something that are ours implicitly (some are and some aren't, as I see it) without being specific about an issue or the perceived right, not in a society based on the rule of law, anyway. After all, anyone can claim that they have a right to anything and anyone can claim that they have a right to do anything that will bring them happiness. The law is the last word on any topic, and even if not agreed with, it should be respected as one of the most important pillars of our civilization, and unless and until it is changed through the legitimate process that is in place, that was put in place by those elected by the goverened, it should be obeyed, otherwise there would be complete and utter chaos, lawlessness and anarchy. The law, including the established system for redress of grievances, is the only safeguard against this. And the way I see it, everyone's right to their pursuit of happiness has limitations. The law would be one such limitation. The well-being of others or the overall good of society would be others. Now it's not always easy to define the last two, but these things can and should be discussed in the public forum, and if change is to be enacted, it should only be done through the established system. As someone who views the traditional family unit as the strength and backbone upon which societies are built and flourish, I think anything that devalues that traditional family unit is a potential source of confusion and emotional upset to children. Now of course there can always be exceptions, as in everything else, but I think that, by-and-large, children fair better emotionally within that traditional framework, all else being equal. Given the small percentage of homosexuals in society, I don't see that giving them benefits through Civil Unions as those given to married couples would necessarily harm society at large. The harm I see is in the redefining of what marriage is. I do see such a redefinition as a slippery slope, the opening of a Pandora's box, that once it's traditional meaning is done away with, marriage could eventually come to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. That's all just a little too relativistic for my traditional mindset. There are extremely radical elements within the larger gay rights movement that are advocating things that are quite frankly, disturbing to say the least, such as lowering the age of consent, thereby making it legal to have sex with, and one day perhaps even 'marry' (if it is redefined) what we now consider a child. I think people need to look more closely at these darker elements within the gay rights movement, at these activists and organizations such as the Man/Boy Love Association, who have their sights set to prey on these innocent children, who would definitely use and benefit from such a drastic lowering of the age of consent and redefinition of marriage. I can never concede that these predators are entitled to 'equal rights' in a marital sense. What 'rights' are these innocent children entitled to? Shouldn't we do everything within our power as a society to protect our children from such possibilities? Shouldn't we make sure that we retain our legal recourse against such people who would manipulate, brainwash and molest innocent children? Let's not be so naive as to think this could never happen, either. Less than a year ago when the Sodomy law was struck down in Texas, some 'traditionalists' were warning that a demand for gay 'marriage' would be next, that this case was only the setting of the groundwork for just such a demand. They were scoffed at, of course, by those who had been advocating for the law to be struck down, that it had nothing at all to do with a demand for marriage, that it was simply a privacy rights issue and that the 'traditionalists' of course, were over-reacting, as 'traditionalists' are wont to do (according to them.) But look at the situation that we have less than a year later. Just a coincidence? I don't think so. Cpat, I think you will find that no matter what translation of the Bible is read, the homosexual act is defined as a sin. I don't think it is described as a greater or a lesser sin than any other that is mentioned, but it is described as such, unless there is a new translation out there that I haven't heard of yet that edits out those verses. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Perhaps time to re-read. quote: |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The harm I see is in the redefining of what marriage is. I do see such a redefinition as a slippery slope, the opening of a Pandora's box, that once it's traditional meaning is done away with, marriage could eventually come to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. That's all just a little too relativistic for my traditional mindset." Denise If we are equal as human beings, no matter what our sex, why may an amendment to the definition of marriage be hindering in anyway? Two women, or two men should be treated equally as able to tend the estate of marriage as one man and one woman. To me it seems like a great sexism. The road of the homosexuals that sincerely seek the happiness and security of marriage is being hindered because of societies' misgivings about homosexuality itself; the homosexuals themselves are now treated like homosexuality rather than like equal human beings; the road is further cluttered and hurt by those that are homosexuals from continually playing with a sexual lifestyle and deviancy; the swingers, and pornographers, exploiters etc; and by those that are are a spiteful towards the opposite sex; those that are hurt from bad experiences on the "normal" road and that decided to "deviate" on purpose. To me one's suspicions should be removed. One's judgements should be unbiased by the different lines of homosexuality out there when it comes to marriage. For when people pursue marriage, including homosexuals, I still believe they seek the tradition "bond" and security in a sacred sense for greater intimacy and happiness. And how in the world should we deny someone that because of our misgivings regarding their sexuality? Either way, I think the pursuit is one of intimacy, something all men and women should equally be able to enjoy. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
A Romantic Heart- That's great for religious law and docrtine. However, if the only justification is "Well, God Sez It's Wrong!" I don't see how we, as a nation that respects a separation of church and state, could approve a ban. BTW...cpat... the 'boble?' I agree with Denise... it's pretty hard (IMO) to read the Bible and think that God would consider homosexuality permissable. But, if people want to engage in homosexuality and remain Christian, I've got nothin' to say about it. Whatever helps ya sleep at night.Denise- You're a fan of Mr. Smith goes to Washington, aren't you? In any case, I respect your opinion, especially on laws and such -tho I'm not so sure I agree with you... was Harriet Tubman really ripping the moral framework of the nation apart? Or, more accurately... did she damage it, or help repair it?- however, I must say... As a child from a one parent household, I find myself terribly offended when people use the 'preserving the family unit' argument as one against gay couples having children, or just against single moms or divorce or whatever else... I was much happier with my mom and seeing my dad on weekends than I would have been with both of them- for various reasons. So I actually find it terribly pretentious for people to presume to know what is best for every child, in every situation. Just as you think rights vary by situation, I think the issue of parents and childrearing do, too. Being a good parent has absolutely nothing to do with being married to the child's other parent, or a suitable step-mother/father-figure. Denise, I also must say... there are radical elements in any social movement or sect. Just because there are black activists that believe in becoming superior over the white man doesn't mean they should have had their rights witheld. Similarly, there are feminists that believe a matriarchy (at least temporarily) is the only way to offset the damage that years of patriarchal rule have done. But we women still have rights... although, in my opinion, maybe those fringe groups have a point, because I haven't seen a lady president, or a president of any skin shade besides bona-fide caucasian yet. Now fringe groups such as NAMBLA certainly should NOT be given any rights to hurt children... but I agree with LR- how does legislation about what adults can do have anything to do with what kids can do? Hell, I'm legally an adult, and I can legally die for this country in war, but I can't legally buy myself a beer. I don't see the odds tipping in my favor anytime soon... unless I take a trip up to Canada. So I think that your argument is flawed in that sense... It's like saying that allowing marriage between two consenting adults of the opposite sex will encourage men to molest little girls. I also don't see what's wrong with a sodomy law being struck down to make way for gay-marriage. After all, if they were law-abiding gay men, there wouldn't be much point in getting married with that law still around, now would there? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well, L.R., I guess I just view things differently than some do in regard to respect for the law, and my conviction that there is no excuse to violate it (unless for saving a life, if that situation were ever to arise in my experience), even by means of what our current culture deems acceptable for the most part...civil disobedience, when we have a system that we can work within for our grievances. Sure, it usually takes longer to work within the system, especially without all the media hype that usually surrounds such 'events', but I see it as the correct way to do things. That some people see it differently, well, so be it. Ultimately we all have to live with our own consciences. Ess, I don't see the homosexual community's desire to redefine the meaning of marriage as a civil rights issue or an equal rights issue. I see it as their demanding the benefits of something that they just don't meet the conditions for. And I basically see their demand for such a redefinition as totally unwarranted in light of the fact that the ones who really do want these benefits can obtain them, if they really want them, in the States that offer Civil Unions. I don't think they should be discriminated against in jobs or housing. I don't think that they should be treated as outcasts of society, and I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, whether we agree with them or not. I just don't think that they have a valid argument in wanting to redefine marriage, and as I said before, I see the redefining of it a dangerous step in the wrong direction for our society. Actually Hush, I've never seen that movie, but if you think I would like it, I probably would. And my children were much happier (and so was I) when I left their father (my first husband). As I said, there are exceptions in everything, and children sometimes are a bit more resilient than we sometimes think they will be, and the unique circumstances of each situation plays into it as well. I still believe, though, that the optimal environment for children is in the traditional family framework. And if we can't give them that due to circumstances beyond our control, we just do the best we can for them. And my point about the sodomy law being struck down as a laying of the groundwork for gay marriage was simply to show how one thing leads to another(the slippery slope), and also to show the deception surrounding the whole issue at the time, in that it was denounced, at least by the gay activists in the news at the time, that that's what it would NOT lead to, or that it was NOT intended to be a laying of the groundwork for the next 'cause' to advance their agenda. But as in most other things today, it's all political, and so I guess we should be more surprised when the mouthpieces for political organizations don't lie. I think they would do more for their cause though if they didn't act as if we'd all just had a lobotomy and won't catch them in their lies. At least give it a few years between the time they say they aren't going to do something and when they actually do it. As for NAMBLA, I see the danger in all of this in their aggressive endeavor to drastically lower the age of consent, to make what they currently do now illegally, legal. And they may just succeed with the ACLU championing their every cause. If they do succeed in that, and marriage is redefined to include same sex unions, what is to stop them from further exploiting these children, who could then be considered consenting adults,(but really, how much consent would there really be in such young impressionable children?) for their own gain. And with all the current legal foundations gone (the current definition of marriage and the current definition of the age of consent, mostly 18 yrs. of age with a couple of States at 16, I believe), what recourse would be available to protect them, especially if their parents are out of the picture legally? I think the slippery slope can definitely take us to places where we don't want to be as a society. And what about what we have heard of taking place already with "Queer Day" and "Cross Dressing Day" and "Transgender Awareness" Day, with participatory skits of cross dressing and pantomimed "sexual acting out" and sex toys being handled and passed about and discussed in elementary schools, no less? Is this okay? That some people think it is, and that some people defend it, really nauseates me. Is this protecting and nurturing our children? And I don't ever recall hearing of or reading about heterosexual pantomimed "acting out" skits and programs presented in elementary schools to impressionsable young children. So why the "in-your-face" programs promoting the homosexual lifestyle? I don't get it, I really don't. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is no one else's business. And in my opinion that's where it should be kept. |
||
|
A Romantic Heart Member Ascendant
since 1999-09-03
Posts 5496Forever In Your Heart |
Former Homosexual healed of AIDS.... http://www.700club.com/700club/features/matthew%5Fmanning%2Easp http://www.700club.com/spirituallife/inspirationalteaching/gordonteaches%5Fcorinth0307%2Easp |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Below are some interesting points about the gay lifestyle and some of its associated problems excerpted from writings from those in that lifestyle, and I think it clearly points to the emotional and psychological damage done to children in that lifestyle. And it can also be seen in their writings that the view on commitment to long term relationships and fidelity to one's partner while in a relationship are not held in the same regard as they are held generally in the heterosexual mindset, and the statistics concur that it is a highly promiscuous lifestyle, and not merely a lifestyle where one gender is preferred or desired over another in a relationship. The entirety can be found at the link below these excerpts. quote: http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage5.html#possible The societal impact that the legalizing of 'gay' marriage has had in Scandinavia can give us a pretty good idea as to how it will affect our own society if implemented here. http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/03-06-04/cover_2.asp |
||
|
sea_of_okc Senior Member
since 1999-06-15
Posts 568Oklahoma City, OK, USA |
Very interesting stuff Denise. Thank you hush - quote: Wouldn't separation of church and state also mean the government has no right to force a change in religious ceremonies or rites? After all marriage is religious and not legal in origin. quote: Seems that others have answered these for me. Denise's post shows that gay marriage could potentially harm children... then again it seems the hetero family turns out plenty of damaged/dysfunctional children as well... As to the difference in where the behavior originates I think LR's post about certain Christian factions accepting the lifestyle answers that. If it is genetic then God made them that way and they would be more acceptable to the religious right... if it is a choice or an environmental occurence then you can expect the religious to continue condemning it as immoral... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"That's great for religious law and docrtine. However, if the only justification is "Well, God Sez It's Wrong!" I don't see how we, as a nation that respects a separation of church and state, could approve a ban." Good point Hush. The very constituent beings of the holy trinity, a union held eternally in God, are all the same sex. Where is the unsamesexness in that relationship? If homosexuality is a sin therefore, that is threefold; not to mention suggestive of incest and polygamy. "If it is genetic then God made them that way and they would be more acceptable to the religious right... if it is a choice or an environmental occurence then you can expect the religious to continue condemning it as immoral..." How do you prove homosexuality is ever completly a choice, nor completly not a choice? To tell you the truth, I don't think nature cultivates homosexuality as much as humans and their activities do. I don't know if it is rude or wrong to think that, but I've always viewed homosexuality as something that humans have contrived of more than they have (in natural instinct) arrived at. The fact that people mind homosexuality more I think is why there are more homosexuals, not because nature is growing more homosexual; the modern world has brings up homosexuality more from outright encounters and choices, more than from an natural and evolutionary sexuality. That homosexuality is part of lifestyle at all though, and historical, must though show something very natural and evolutionary; but today the evolutionary and natural aspect seems to be faint amidst the "revolutionary" aspect. In this way homosexuals today seem making a difference more from different experiences and a different choice, so it is difficult to see those homosexuals that are more naturally disposed, out of natural stages and instincts. And since the"sexual-centered aspect is in continual increase amidst all people, that makes it even more difficult to see where homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter) are more naturally inclined to do this or that, opposed to making a choice to deviate on purpose. But when it comes to marriage I don't care about what I think about "homosexuality" itself. I believe the individual, no matter what his or her background or sexuality, deserves to be treated equally as any lover who wishes to get married. The success of a marriage doesn't depend upon sexuality, or sexual activity. It depends on the honour it bears to love in the relationship, as in any relationship, as the relationship even did before that marriage was called "marriage" |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
In my opinion Denise you are mixing far too many issues together to be able to arrive at even an effective argument let alone conclusion. Let's separate a few of these out... First one -- Rule of Law: Who's life was threatened by a tax on tea? The very foundations of this government are rooted in the consent of the governed -- that requires persons from time to time to disobey 'bad' law. In that instance the bad law was being taxed without any representation -- purely a civil matter -- purely civil disobedience to protest against it. We are a nation of laws though -- and we have some very good ones. Implicit in them is the foundational argument that all are created equal. Explicit is that all are to have equal protection under the law. Those who are protesting the marriage laws of California and New York by performing gay marriage are not -- in their mind -- disobeying the law -- they are rather enforcing the superior law of the Constitution. Working in the system is paramount to a peaceful, successful republic -- but peaceful protest is not only paramount -- it is preeminent. As citizens it is our responsibility to deny our consent to a government that is not responsive to our rights. It took both Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon B Johnson to bring about the final right for everyone to vote in this country -- it was no more wrong for our forbears to throw tea in Boston Harbor, for African-Americans to march in Selma -- than for Rosie to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license. Second one -- Slippery Slope Again: The suggestion that there is depravity in the homosexual community should be cause for homosexuals to be denied the right to marry is no more convincing than the presence of depravity in heterosexuals to be denied the right to marry. People are to be judged by the content of their character -- not the color of their skin -- not their brand of theology -- not their sexual orientation -- not their gender. All are created equal -- there are life affirming ways to apply our sexuality -- there are destructive ways. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have the opportunity to rob banks or cure cancer. Third one -- Children in Gay Homes: The examples you cite are not indicative of the 'danger' of children being raised by homosexuals. Children are equally in danger in heterosexual environments. In Cherie's story she comes from such an environment. Her personal failures in parenting are more an outgrowth of her own abuse than sexual orientation. Sea -- Just want to clarify -- the licensure of marriage by the government has nothing to do with the solemnization of a marriage by a religious institution. The Unitarian Church has solemnized gay marriages (without licensure) for years -- if gay marriage is permitted by the government no one from the FBI is going to stand over Jerry Falwell and force him to solemnize a gay marriage. I draw distinction to two arguments that I'm making; 1. In the legal arena biology has nothing to do with gay marriage. Adults who want to get married should be free to make that choice. 2. In the theological arena the biological foundations of homosexuality negate the underpinnings of religious bigotry as much as the discovery of actual cosmology negates the theory of a flat earth. Thats all.. I appreciate the conversation and the opinions of the participants. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think I'm mixing lots of issues, L.R., I just think that there are many issues inherent in this topic that need to be addressed. I think you may be misunderstanding me when I speak of civil disobedience. I'm not saying that peaceful protest is wrong, not at all. Marches, boycotts, demonstrations, petitions, lobbying, etc., all fall within the realm of citizens voicing their grievances. Actions fall outside that realm though when laws are broken in the process of voicing those grievances. In other words, I see a correct way to protest and an incorrect way. And I think people cross the line of our Constitutional right of dissent when they do so, and in so doing they weaken the system instead of making it better and stronger. We can deny our consent, voice our dissent about something without breaking the law to do it. Nobody's life was at stake in the situation that led to the Boston Tea Party. And since it happened before the Constitution was written I really can't address it in that context, but I see that action as an act of civil disobedience against Great Britain, and I think that those who participated in it were wrong for doing so. Sure they sent a message to Great Britain that they were fed up with the taxes, but they also hurt the private businesses who sent the tea over and didn't get paid. And it was quite a large sum that was lost. And I think I remember reading that some of them were destroyed by the loss. So, in other words, I think they, like the tea, went overboard. Our forbears did some wonderful things, but they sometimes did do some thoughtless, selfish, and stupid things too, and I think the Boston Tea Party was one of those unfortunate incidences, that I, at least, can't find any justification for, and if I remember my history correctly, restitution was one of the thorny issues raised in the negotiations to end the Revolutionary War that Franklin had to deal with. As for the slippery slope, I think we only have to look at what happened to the Scandinavian society to see how bad things can get. Gays demanded marriage, the laws were changed, and once that happened the institution of marriage lost its meaning and value in the eyes of society in general, even with the gay community. Now most people, straight and gay, just shack-up and don't even bother to get married. And I don't see the slippery slope issue centered around denying rights to anyone. The danger I see is with changing the definition of marriage and with opening the doors for it to come to mean whatever anybody wants it to mean, especially to groups like NAMBLA. If it can mean anything, then really it will mean nothing, just as happened in Scandinavia. And I can't agree that those who are breaking the law are serving the superior law of the Constitution. I know that is what they are using as a justification, but I personally don't agree with them. We don't serve the Constitution or society when we violate the law, we make a mockery of it by doing so, in my opinion. Everyone does have equal protection under the law. That does not mean however that everyone is entitled to claim the benefits of something for which they do not meet the conditions. Equal protection does not mean that we have carte blanche to assign to ourselves the benefits of something that has contingencies attached to it. Now whether someone feels those contingencies are fair or not is another matter, and they can certainly use their Constitutional right of protest, but no, I don't see that they have the right to break the law because they don't agree with it, and then use the Constitution as the justification. No we shouldn't judge people, I agree, but we can judge behaviors as damaging to society in general and to children in particular. We can be accepting of people and loving of people without necessarily condoning everything that they do. Yes, Cherie was a product of an abusive heterosexual environment, and according to her, her story was similar to lots of other lesbians that she had spoken with, which, in my mind gives greater weight to the theory that the gay lifestyle probably has more to do with environmental conditioning than with biology. Studies with identical twins leans to that probability as well. That Cherie suffered abuse in her childhood heterosexual environment does not negate the fact that her children did suffer emotional and psychological harm in the homosexual environment that they were raised in, and from the studies that I have read, the gay/lesbian environment is significantly more unstable, emotionally, psychologically and socially, statistically, than a traditional one, and these estimations come from women personally involved in that lifestyle as well. It is regretable that children have to suffer at all, in any type of home environment. And I think as a society we should make it a priority that they have as stable an environment as possible. That should be everyone's main concern, what is best for them, when evaluating lifestyle issues and other issues that can impact on their well-being. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It is not out of dis-respect for you or your opinion Denise that I have not commented on your references concerning the Scandinavian same-sex marriage case. It is rather because the material presented is far from objective. You would no-doubt, similarly discount any material I presented from a biased gay-activist group. Furthermore it is not germane to the issue what does or does not occur in Scandinavia. This is an issue of rights. And law. It is not a gay issue. It is not a marriage issue. It is not a children's issue. It is an American issue about American's rights. The issue for you seems to be one of what becomes of your opinion of the institution of marriage if homosexuals are allowed to marry. I submit to you that your opinion or that of other Christians of its sanctity is not likely to change. quote: If the religious meaning of marriage is dependent upon state action or in-action -- it has no meaning to begin with. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
i like your last statement there reb... then again, the so-called division between church and state has always made me shake my head. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Actually, I think Denise makes a lot of sense. I just think these are all good reasons to support gay marriage. As far as Scandinavia goes, if you're referring to the same article I read (I didn't check), it does state that the welfare state there also contributed to the demise of marriage. So, what makes more sense? People stop getting married because gay people can or they stop getting married because there's no economic benefit in doing so? In either case, it's probably a good idea not to tie the knot. But what about recognizing those that do want the form and ritual? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
L.R., to my mind, it can only be made an issue of rights if one has the mindset that whatever one claims is theirs or claims should be theirs, is, just by virtue of their claiming it. Nobody is being denied the right to marry. Meet the conditions required by the law to enter into the marriage contract, or forego marriage, or if you don't agree with the conditions set forth in the law, then exercise your Constitutional right to work through the system in an attempt to change the law. No, this isn't Scandinavia. But that doesn't mean that we can't look at a country that has dealt with this very same issue and perhaps learn something from the results of that country's decisions in this matter. That my news source was a Christian news source does not negate the statistics. I'm sure if anyone is interested they can go through secular sources to either confirm or deny the statistics. Now maybe a Christian, religious, or traditionalist mindset will see those statistics as a step backward for society and other mindsets may see those same statistics as a progressive step forward, but they are still both looking at the same thing, a general devaluation of marriage by a society. The issue for me is not what becomes of my opinion of the instituition of marriage. That will never change, you're right. The religious meaning of marriage cannot be impacted one way or the other by state action or inaction even if external changes are forced upon it by the state. The issue for me is the possible impact on our society and on our children in the event that marriage is redefined. Our actions, individually and collectively, have results and as responsible members of society we have an obligation to examine the potential ramifications of our actions. And I don't merely see this as a religious issue. It transcends that. I see it as a traditional values issue, values that are shared by more than just the 'religious', and I certainly don't see it as a separation of church and state issue by any stretch of the imagination. People get married all the time in civil ceremonies with no religious connotations whatsoever. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
LR addressed a lot of the things I was going to say, but to add a couple more... I honestly don't see how changing marriage laws would affect NAMBLA in any way, shape, or form. It's not illegal for men to have sex with each other... now, lowering the age of consent for sex would definitely affect NAMBLA and allow their members to more easily prey on youth... but what on earth does the legal age of consent have to do with marriage? Also... I don't see how one case study from a lesbian mother can apparently support the idea that lesbian households are bad to raise kids in. Lesbians don't have many male friends? Says who? My boyfriend and I just had dinner at our neighbor's place with her and her girlfriend, and there are plenty of pictures of male friends and family on her wall... Maybe it's just that some lesbians have male friends, and some don't... just as some women, in general ahve more female friends than male or vice-versa. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad, I thought this was a telling statement from the article: quote: And I'm sure socialism also played a role, no doubt. I guess to find out which had the greater impact, a comparison study would have to be done with a non-socialist country that also redefined marriage, if there is one, I don't know. Hush, the legal age of consent comes into the picture in that one has to first be of the legal age of consent to marry. An adult can't legally marry someone when they are considered a minor in the eyes of the law, and I could certainly see members of NAMBLA using a redefinition of marriage to further abuse and take advantage of children. Also, the link contained much more than one case study of one lesbian's experience. It also contained excerpts from the writings of lesbians who had conducted research and had described the lifestyle as frought with challenges, especially when that lifestyle incorporates children into the equation, that it is a significantly more unstable environment due in part to the high rate of promiscuity and the significantly lower regard for long term commitment to a partner that is evidenced in the homosexual community as opposed to what is generally found in the heterosexual community. Sure, exceptions can be found, but the statistics indicate that long term commited and monogomous relationships in the gay/lesbian community are rare, which tends to make it a highly unstable evironment, and particularly so when children come into the picture. I don't know the percentages of lesbians who have or don't have male friends available as a masculine influence for their children, but whether they do or not, that doesn't speak to the other 'stressors' found in the lifestyle that adversely affect the children. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Sure, exceptions can be found, but the statistics indicate that long term commited and monogomous relationships in the gay/lesbian community are rare, which tends to make it a highly unstable evironment, and particularly so when children come into the picture." But how may treating them as marriage-unworthy help them become more stable? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ess, I don't think in and of itself "marriage" or "non-marriage" would have a stabilizing influence on a lifestyle that is characterized as highly unstable even in research done by its own community members. The very lifestyle tends toward relational instability. It isn't just about same gender preference. That's just one aspect, even if it is the primary aspect. It is also a highly promiscuous lifestyle, according to the statistics. Marriage does not make a person monogomous. There are people who are not married who are monogomous. There are people who are married who are not. A person either sees monogomy as an important component in a relationship or they don't. And I think until a person does see it as important they won't be monogomous and a vital ingredient for a healthy and successful relationship that is the basis for a stable family environment will be lacking. Children are not psychologically and emotionally benefited in an environment where there are "new" mommies and daddies coming in and out of their lives. Children need a sense of anchoring, a sense of permanence, especially as that relates to their parents or their parental figures. Their sense of self is vitally linked to their parents, which is why divorce is so devasting to them emotionally, even if the divorce really is for the best in some circumstances. The children still suffer a sense of loss when it happens. I'm not saying that there are no monogomous long term homosexual relationships anymore than I am saying that there are no promiscuous heterosexual relationships. I'm just saying that, statistically, homosexual relationships have a much higher promiscuity and infidelity rate than do heterosexual relationships, and that behavioral characteristic of the lifestyle is probably the main contributing factor to its instability. And if and until that aspect of it is dealt with, it will continue to be a highly unstable lifestyle, in my view. And back to Scandinavia again, when marriage was finally redefined and made available to the gay community, very few took advantage of it. And the reason? Because it was never about "rights" or "marriage" or a pathway to "fidelity" at all. Just as I had suspected about our own current situation in the U.S., it was about societal acceptance of their lifestyle, period. And they won. And the overall effect on that society has been to cause the surrounding heterosexual community to adopt the same low regard for marriage, fidelity and long term commited relationships as they have, (reminiscent, I think, of the "free-love", "if it feels good do it" sexual revolution of the sixties that had done so much damage to people emotionally and relationally, the effects of which can still be seen today). And in my opinion, the children will be the ones to suffer the most because of it. And that's the real tragedy of it all. quote: I think the stability of the family, which lends itself to well-adjusted children, who will then have a better chance at being well-adjusted adult members of society, is the very reason that we have the marital laws (including any of its benefits or "rights") that we do. But I think what some people tend to forget is that with rights there are also responsibilities that go along with those rights. I'd personally like to see more of a focus on our responsibilities to our children, to each other, and to the future of our society than on rights. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Denise, what you're describing isn't homosexuality. Heck, I can't even remember the last time a man cheated on me? What you're describing is simply a society where half of all marriages end in divorce and far more than half face infidelity issues at some point. Often many some points. What you seem to be suggesting, it seems to me, is that marriage is outmoded. Because if it won't work for homosexuals for the reasons you've cited, it sure ain't working for heterosexuals any better. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Denise... I think your points are valid and definitely worth looking at... but I have to wonder why the focus on kids. After all, gay couples are having/raising children now, with or without public approval. I have to wonder- what is your stance on gays with children? It seems to be your focus, rather than marriage. And if the focus is on children's welfare, it almost seems like it deserves another thread since there are a lot of things that affect it besides whether you have 2 moms or 2 dads. I also think your instability argument has the same slippery slope problem you mentioned about redefining marriage... you say gay/lesbian households are unstable... should people have to have a certain income to get married and have children? A poverty-stricken household would surely be an unstable one, as well as physically damaging without clean facilities and good food to eat. Take that a step further. Since, statistically, black people are far likelier to be poor than white people... maybe we shouldn't let black people get married because their families are statistically less stable? Maybe celebrities shouldn't be allowed to have kids... hell, maybe the President shouldn't have kids... growing up in the scrutiny of the public eye probably causes a very unstable (or at least nerve-racking) environment for kids to grow up in. The list could go on and on until it would be easier to list who could get married and raise a family... I just don't think it holds water as a good argument against gay marriage. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, granted, the regard for commitment and fidelity isn't what it used to be in the heterosexual community (perhaps due in part to the influences of the sexual revolution?) but the statistics seem to indicate that it is still a far greater problem in the homosexual community. Hush, children are my focus I guess because, besides their being so darned cute, they seem to bear the brunt of the bad decisions that their parents make, and we've all made them, and we could all do better. I'm not advocating for the forbidding of anyone to have children. I just think that we need to focus more in today's society on fostering values that provide as much stability for our children as we can. And I personally don't see that redefining marriage is ultimately in their best interest, especially if it has the same eroding effect on marriage, monogomy and commitment across the entire society as it has had in Scandinavia. But I guess with like many issues it all comes down to one's worldview whether or not people consider marriage, monogomy and commitment important values for children or for society. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So, I presume if statistics should indicate that single parents have more problems than do two parents, you would be in favor of withholding the same exact rights from them? Mothers would be unable to dictate medical treatment for their daughters, unable to obtain insurance for the sons, and -- heaven forbid it should ever be necessary -- unable to even bury their children in the event of tragedy. Being allowed to care for the ones you love, at their behest, isn't a privilege that can or should be revoked by man. quote: LOL. Which suggests, of course, that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't care about marriage, monogamy, commitment, children or society. Ironically, this argument is no weaker than any of your others. You are offering the same distorted justifications and rationalizations that we grew up with in the Fifties and Sixties, Denise. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: I guess I don't understand what parents are being denied any of these rights, Ron. Do homosexual parents not have these rights in the course of the caretaking of their own children? If there are naturally born children in a homosexual family, at least the natural mother would have those rights, under the law wouldn't she? And if she wished to extend those rights to her partner, that could be taken care of legally as well, just as I could be given custodial rights over my grandchildren if my children wanted or needed me to have them for some reason. And if the children are adopted by a homosexual couple, that issue is already taken care of by virtue of the adoption. And I've never even intimated that these things should be witheld or revoked from anybody. I just don't see that redefining marriage is necessary to either accomplish or protect these things. And if you are referring to the partners themselves in regard to having those legal rights, there are legal means already available whereby they can procure them. quote: Well, no, Ron, that's not what I said or even suggested. It simply suggests that those who don't view things the way that I do don't view marriage, monogomy and commitment as importantly, in the same light, as I view them in relation to the well-being of children and society, that's all. And if you believe that my believing that children are best nurtured in environments that honor traditional values, that those environments generally have a better track record of providing for the emotional and psychological health and well-being of chldren, is distorted thinking, well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: They're not, Denise. But all of your logic and arguments dictate that they should. Everything you've said about homosexual relationships applies to single parents. Or would you argue now that divorce is part of your traditional value system? If your values are to define our society, and only the best environments for children are acceptable, we'll need to redefine a whole lot more than just marriage. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm sure that my ability to communicate could use improvement, Ron, and I'm not a debater, no doubt about that, but I'm not arguing that parents, single, divorced, or gay, should not have legal rights over their children or that they should be denied their parenting rights because their home situations may not be the best that they could be, according to my standards or anybody else's standards. I don't see the redefinition of marriage as necessary for the protection of these parental rights, but I do see a redefinition of the traditional concept of marriage, though, as potentially detrimental to children and to society, of its further aggravating and increasing the difficulties that we are already experiencing. I don't see that it follows that we as a society should not voice our concern over something that very well may contribute to an even further decline in the regard for marriage and traditional values with the very possible resultant increase in emotional and psychological distress to even more children and the further consequences that it would have on society simply because situations may already exist in society that are not what might be considered best for children and society. And If we redefine marriage to include one non-traditional lifestyle, how could we possibly justify not legally allowing other non-traditional lifestyles? Should participants in polygomous relationships, for instance, be given the stamp of approval by the law? I don't think so, but what basis would exist for not legally sanctioning their chosen lifestyle if we start redefining the traditional concept of marriage? What if someone wants a husband and a wife, or two or three husbands and 10 wives? Should society legally allow that if they profess a love for these people, really do love these people that they wish to marry, and couldn't they also claim that they were being denied equal protection under the law? Is it such a stretch of the imagination that if we can change the gender designations in the definiton of marriage that we could also change the quantity of participants allowed in the definiton? I personally believe that we need to keep the traditional marital laws as we have them to keep societal chaos to a minimum. And if this is all convoluted logic, then I guess I'm just convoluted, because it makes perfect sense to me, and I don't know how to better express myself than I already have. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here are some telling statements from those involved in the gay rights movement as to its bottom-line agenda which can be found at the Traditional Values Coalition website at the link below. quote: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1150 Surely their real agenda can be seen in their own words. What do you think the ramifications of such a societal reordering might be? Do you think it would be beneficial, harmful or neutral to society in general, and why? And I have to ask again, what about the school program with the participatory skits of pantomimed homosexual acts and the handling and passing about of sex toys in an elementary school, as well as a participatory cross-dressing program in an elementary school? Why such graphic "in-your-face" sexually oriented programs for impressionable young children? What type of a mindset could possibly conceive that this is "OK"? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Denise, Denise, Denise. You really need to quit listening to comic book bigotry. I know absolutely nothing about your Traditional Values Coalition except what you've presented here, but I certainly can recognize their lies. As someone who lived through it already, I should think you would, too. Roll back the clock a few decades and they would be wearing white sheets, burning crosses, and using everyone's fear of Black Panther radicals to fuel their unreasoning hate. We can't give "them" a taste of "that," else they'll surely destroy everything we hold dear! Those who would judge whole groups of people based solely on the basis of individuals will inevitably find themselves judged just as harshly. Should we pronounce sentence on religion by considering the likes of Jim Jones and James Bakker? Is motherhood to be represented by Andrea Yates? Are all priests just like John Geoghan? The bell curve, unlike too many others, doesn't discriminate. Want to bet the people who make up your Coalition don't have a few skeletons we could rattle? Forget the fringes, Denise. Set aside unjustified fears. People are people. Treat them with some measure of respect and tolerance and most of them will actually act like people, too, because at the end of the day, every single one of us wants pretty much the same things. (I'm sorely tempted to start a new thread on why so-called traditional values are a very sick and twisted joke, but would prefer to not ruin my weekend. Maybe next week we can talk about the role women and children play when tradition holds reign in society?) |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
 Have a nice weekend then Ron... I won't even touch it. You too Denise... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes, Ron, I lived through the era of the scourge of the Black Panthers and the havoc and lawlessness that was wrought on my city that they instigated, particularly 1968 and 1969, a very good example of what a lack of respect for the rule of law can lead to, what can happen when people become a law unto themselves: riots, terror, burning buildings, looting, vandalism, and yes, even murder that came dangerously close to home. In 1969, my father, a Captain in the Philadelphia Police Department at the time, was five minutes away from arriving at his station, Cobbs Creek, when his Sergeant, Frank Von Colin was shot dead in cold blood by a Black Panther who wanted to make a "political" statement by "killing a white racist pig", and then smeared "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" on the station wall in Frank's blood. My father was the one who discovered the grizzly bloody scene. If he had left for work five minutes earlier, he would have been killed too, but Sergeant Von Colin was the only one "in-station" at the time (and he was not a racist, but little details like that don't matter.) I don't think it is correct to lump all groups or organizations that would speak out against such violent and lawless groups as the Black Panthers together with the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, I think it is a very unfair and false characterization. TVC is a grassroots organization that speaks to a wide spectrum of political and societal issues from a Christian and Traditionalist viewpoint, but mostly Christian, with a view of morality based on Biblical principles. They encourage participation, legally, through the political process, of informing your government representatives of your stand on certain issues that are of concern to you, locally and on Capitol Hill. I have found nothing about them that can be construed as hateful of persons, unless someone considers not being accepting of any and all behaviors of people as synonomous with hatred of people. If you wish to characterize that as comic book bigotry, that's your perogative, I guess. I don't see it that way at all. But yeah, we all do have skeletons in our closets, everyone of us. Does that mean that we can't speak out and work through the system to make our voices heard on things that we think are important issues relating to the well-being of our children and society? I'm not talking about the fringes, nor individuals. I'm talking about the stated goals of the Gay Rights Movement itself, the political activists who are attempting to redefine society's concept of what marriage should be, through any means necessary, whether through breaking the law, or using their money and influence with their advocates in the judiciary, whatever it takes, to force their will on the majority, to remake society in their own image. If you really knew me, Ron, you wouldn't tell me to lay aside my unjustified fears and to treat people with some measure of respect and tolerance. Do I have convictions that I think are worth voicing? Yes, but I'm not fearful, unjustified or otherwise. Do I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle? Yes, but I'm not a homophobe. And other than exercising my civic voice through legal means to my government representatives, I don't voice my opinions unless I am asked for them, as Hush did in starting this thread. And I do treat people with the utmost of respect and tolerance. But tolerance does not necessarily mean my acceptance of any and all behaviors that I don't agree with. But I won't give someone my opinion of their lifestyle unless they specifically ask me for it, which none of my homosexual friends ever have. And despite the fact that they know that I am a Christian and I know that they are homosexual, we get along famously. Traditional values cannot be discounted as a sick and twisted joke merely because some bad has been done by those who have labeled themselves traditionalists. Every issue has to be taken on its own merits, in my opinion. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Is that Tim Lehey's organization Denise? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And yet your arguments, Denise, are only valid if you're willing to do essentially the same thing to others. Forget the rhetoric, the finger-pointing, and the what-ifs. Why should I need your permission to marry? What harm does it do to you or anyone else to legally recognize the promises two people make to each other? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, L.R., not that I am aware. Ron, I don't think that evaluating behaviors and making a determination that they may or may not be in the best interest of society is synonomous with finger pointing or calling someone's values a sick and twisted joke. Our body of law came into existence through such evaluations, by somebody, at some point in time. Should we throw out all law that relates to human behaviors because even having such laws could be considered finger pointing by somebody? Of course not. But we can all lend our voices to our lawmakers and participate in the political process made available to us to discuss whether any laws should be revised or updated or not. No, of course you don't need my permission to marry, nobody does. You only need the State's permission. And to your last question, I've already given my opinion on the dangers that I see that are possible in redefining the marriage contract and the societal chaos that it could bring and why I don't think it would be in society's best interest for the law to be changed. You and others don't see it the same as I do, and that's fine. We're all entitled to our own opinions on any and every issue under the sun and to voice those opinions and still show respect and tolerance for others in the process. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No, Denise, we should throw out all laws that don't demonstrably hurt another just because it's the right thing to do. We should stop trying to legislate morality, because it never works, and try living it instead, because that just might. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ah, my mistake Denise And what is up with my spelling of proper names lately? That should be Tim Lahaye, writer of the popular Christian doomsday fiction series 'Left Behind'. And head of the American Coalition for Traditional Values. Former cohort of Falwell in founding the Moral Majority. Wave a flag. Splash a kid on the homepage -- they all start to run together in my head after a while. Anyway -- it was his friend Falwell who said quote: And there are only about 50 million Evangelical Christians in this country who say the Bible is the absolute literal word of God. Many of them are in the White House. That same Bible that says homosexuals should be executed. I do wonder why homosexuals would like some recognition and reassurance from their government that they have a right to exist. Pesky aren't they? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Denise- correct me if I'm wrong- but it seems as if your opposition to a redefinition of marriage is that it leads to a redefinition of family? quote: Although I adisagree with some of the language here (that's pure radical rhetoric) I agree with the message. I don't think it's subversive to transform the notion of family... I considered my mother and I a family unit. We didn't have to ahve a dad living with us. If I were to become pregnant, and choose not to get married, but remain with my boyfriend- I would consider us a family. And if I broke up with my boyfriend, had custody of the child, and later had a female lover who treated that kid as her own, I would consider US a family as well. I did an annotated bib on the history of marriage last year... and marriage ahs already undergone quite a bit of redefinition, from the arranged marriages and stolen brides of the middle ages to the (yeah, I'm gonna say it) still patriarchal traditions we practice today. My father paying for the wedding, then 'giving' me away to my husband? No thanks! What about the name issue? More and more women are choosing to keep their own name, but how many men take their wives' last names? And thank god I don't have to agree to 'honor and obey' anymore, or my husband still can't beat me according to 'rule of thumb'- those are traditions that have been done away with, and for good reason. Maybe there's a good reason to do away with the tradition that only those of the opposite sex can marry. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Which only goes to prove, Amy, why any return to Traditional Values will have to start at the very beginning. Educating a woman past the sixth grade was probably our first mistake. |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
 ...Biting my tongue here... FALDERAL |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Or allowing them shoes? (duck) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It's the tradition in Korea for the woman to keep their family name after marriage. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, I agree that morality can't be legislated in the sense that you can't really force people to comply with any law simply because it is a law, especially what folks choose to do in their own bedroom. And I don't think that the government belongs there anyway, not in the least. But I also think that since the definition of harm is a subjective judgment, I'm sure it would follow that the definition of a demonstrable harm would also be something quite subjective, and I think these issues should be discussed in the public square to try to arrive at some sort of consensus on an issue by issue basis in our legislatures. quote: L.R., the Law that the Jews were under called for the death penalty for virtually everything. But it was only the law for the nation of Israel. It didn't apply to any other nation and its penalties under that law certainly didn't apply to any other nation and it certainly didn't carry over into the New Testament. Find me one place in the New Testament where anyone is commanded to stone anyone to death for breaking the Law of Israel or for breaking any moral code for that matter. There was a transition there: Jesus Christ. The one who was slain for the iniquities of everyone, the one who took the death penalty that we all deserved, so that we didn't have to bear the penalty of our sin: for Jews, the breaking of the Law of Moses, for Gentiles, the violating of their consciences, and for both groups, the falling short of the perfection of God. Homosexuals don't need reassurance from our government that they have a right to exist, and they've got recognition as a protected class and hate crimes legislation as well, and some judges are already using it to describe any statement that expresses a disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle as a hate crime. So those priests and preachers better make sure they leave out that one thing in the long lists of things described as sins that besets the human race in their sermons, or they may one day find themselves being dragged off in hand cuffs. Silence those who disagree with you, that sounds tolerant doesn't it? That sounds, oh what's the word, a bit totalitarian? The issue of this thread was not someone's right to exist (we've all got that right under the Constitution here in the U.S., I thought (?), oh, yes, with the exception of pre-born humans of course). The issue was whether gays should have the right to marry. I gave my reasons why I thought that would not be the course to take (Hush, see my several previous posts). And instead of honest intelligent discussion of the issues, and answers to questions that I raised, and perhaps tolerantly showing me where I may have been wrong, it seemed better to answer my questions with questions, to completely change the topic several times, to ridicule me and my reasoning processes and my values. I am very disheartened by this exchange and if I thought people really didn't want a discussion including both sides of the issue I would have just kept my mouth shut. I have enough crap going on in my real life without this too. If you all don't care for or agree with traditional values, that's fine, you have that right. I just have a different view, that's all. And I've never ridiculed any of you for any position that you've expressed. It would have been nice if I had been shown the same courtesy. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
But it goes to the very core of their right to exist Denise. Did you know that this government isn't paying any benefits to homosexual partners of 9/11 victims? But, they are paying benefits to illegal alien victims/survivors of 9/11. We just came off a Texas law that tried to outlaw sodomy -- ok -- they can exist -- but they can't do anything about it. And, yep the court struck it down. Just like it should have. (but people were arrested) I don't deserve to be executed for anything. You're missing the point. It isn't about doctrinal differences. Do you ever hear Americans in general talking about the fact that the Koran calls for the killing of infidels? The fear factor is the same thing Denise. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Denise- First of all, I'd like to apologize if I've said anything that seems disrespectful. We disagree in a very divergent manner, but I want to make it clear that I respect your opinion, and even though (from what I can gather) we don't agree on a whole lot (at least politically) I really respect the fact that you are convicted in your beliefs, you believe them because factually, thewy make sense to you, and out of the people who disagreed that gay people should be able to be married (in the traditional sense) you stuck it out and held your ground, even though most of us still "in" the thread are in favor of that. Just to clear the air on that... Maybe I can explain this in another way... something that I've been tiptoeing around but really just came to me today. When our forefathers penned the words "all men created equal"- that's not really what they meant, was it? It was all white landowning men created equal. Nonwhite men, as well as all of us women (heck, we weren't even mentioned!) were left out of that immense provision for human dignity and rights. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have had them. And we eventually did get them... and they did change the fabric of society. Do you think that ex-slaveowning southern men wanted blacks to be able to vote? No, because if those guys had a voice, well then they just might be able to do soemthing about those Jim Crow laws and constant segregation. Did men want women voting? No... hell, some traditionalist women didn't even want women voting (and some revolutionary ones, too... did you know that Mother Jones didn't think women should vote?) and there were a variety of reasons... but I think what both of those things boiled down to was, far more than any hatred or bigotry (though that was surely a part in the case of many of those who opposed) a fear of how things would change if their dignity and rights as Americans (and humans) were recognized. Granted, GLBT people can vote. They can legally do just about everything we straight folks can do (altho straight's a relative term). But, in my opinion, they are one of the last greatly discriminated against groups in America, (the military 'don't ask don't tell' policy, Matthew Shepard, a cruel litany of 'lesbian' rumors I endured during school, experiences of gays and lesbians I know...) and I think it's mostly due to two things: Fear, and religious conviction. It's fine to disagree with what someone does. It's fine to voice that disagreement. I haven't heard of the cases you mention where calling homosexulity 'wrong' is ruled as a hate crime... in my opinion, even if the words were said hatefully... we ahve a freedom of speech in this nation, and as heinous as I may or may not find the statements, they have the right to make them. Just as no matter how heinous some poeple find homosexuality, I think they should have the right to their mistake. I don't know if I see this conversation going anywhere further... I kind of think we've all exhausted our arguments, and none of us are going to change what we think. If something else interesting comes up, I'll be back, but other than that, thanks for the good conversation to all. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Amy, unfortunately I don't think we even scratched the surface of this issue -- even though most of the points were addressed -- and I want to say again how impressive your participation is here -- it's just phenomenal for someone of your age (can I say that without being agist? ) or someone of any age. 2/3rds of the population of this country could tell you what Paris Hilton did last tuesday but not be able to enjoin the issues.Everyone has participated well -- and I don't think things got out of line here -- I feel bad that Denise thinks it did and how she feels is the only real thing that matters in that regard. So -- to Denise -- I say as well -- the amount of effort that you put into participating -- the level of discourse that you infuse -- the courage of your convictions -- not to mention the fact that I just plain like you -- you deserve a badge of honor. I don't think these threads are about changing anyone's minds to begin with -- the encouragement of thought is about the only goal that we can attain... I can't even get my four-year-old to go to bed. We need pluralism in our society, in our circle of friends, in our threads on the web. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I'm a pluralist by nature. But there has to be, at some point, a limit- a stopping point. One thing I've noticed about the devoted Christians on this site (this is in no way meant to be a slight) is that they feel much more strongly about universal right and wrong (naturally, as defined by the Bible) and that pluralism is a slippery slope... possibly a dangerous one, too. Oh, and thanks LR... BTW, what's my age again? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No apologies are necessary, Hush. And I've already given my opinion on the issue of what our founders may have intended or may not have intended in this thread and elsewhere. Despite the fact of their being a product of their times culturally and socially, as we all are, I think they were wise enough to provide provisions for changing cultural and social understandings, and that therefore any issue can be addressed legally. I personally believe that our traditional understanding of family is the ideal that generally our society should aim towards because I think it lends stability to society. But that doesn't mean that I think other family situations are second class or should be looked down upon in any way. We all work with what we have to work with no matter the circumstances that we find ourselves in. But that doesn't mean that we can't have an ideal of what we think works best for children and society and attempt to foster that ideal, and in those areas where there may be a lack, recognize the lack and try to make up for it in other ways as best as possible. I've personally seen the damage that I have done to my children through the poor choices that I have made in life. If I had it to do over again, I would have made wiser decisions so that they would have had less emotional distress and a more stable home environment. Ron, I don't think it's valid to disparage wholesale all traditional values because we may disagree with some past or present understandings of traditional values by one group or another, just as I don't think we should automatically accept anything wholesale espoused by one group or another, traditional or otherwise. In other words, I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bath water. Everything should be evaluated point by point on its own merits. L.R. I wasn't missing your point and I wasn't talking about doctrinal differences. I was just trying to point out that in Christians believing the Bible to be the innerant word of God, it does not follow that Christians believe that homosexuals or anybody else should be executed. Nothing could be further from the truth, as even a cursory reading of the New Testament would show. So I don't think that anyone can make a valid argument about a fear factor regarding Christianity. Now, if they should fear anything, I think perhaps it should be a book that does call for the killing of anyone who doesn't believe as they do and not the book that calls for loving all humanity no matter who they are or what they do or what they believe. But I don't know, maybe this is just my faulty logic at work again. And instead of a badge of honor, can I get combat pay instead? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I admit to being a bit harsh earlier, but apparently failed to direct that harshness very accurately. I was not, in any way at all, disparaging the values in question. It's the Orwellian doublespeak I find repugnant. Groups increasingly invent descriptive labels that were never meant to accurately describe, but rather were only intended to provide spin. "Lets call it something good so everyone agrees with us." After all, who in their right mind doesn't want a Big Brother to help guide and protect them? Prior to Orwell's book, that term was a positive one that provoked only warm and fuzzy images. The image, however, wasn't necessarily the reality. Doublespeak, today, is rampant. Is there anyone here who is either anti-life or anti-choice? Sorry, but our language dictates you have to choose one or the other and can't really be both. Anyone here not want to keep the peace? Or help in building nations? Taken literally, terms like pro-life, pro-choice, peace keeping missions, and nation building mean something very, very different that the reality to which they are applied. It's all spin, all doublespeak, and all pretty much evasive language that pretends to communicate but actually does not. Denise, the term "traditional values" is doublespeak. It was that which I disparaged earlier, not any values someone thinks the term might describe. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, I tend to be dense and not quick on the pick-up sometimes. You have to tell me plainly and directly exactly what you are talking about. I had no idea that you were trying to get me to see the term as doublespeak. But I'm relieved to know that you were disparaging the term and not my values. You had me quite perplexed the past couple of days. And that's never a good thing! And of course I agree that much that was and/or is undesirable has been labled as a traditional value, which is why we have to look at things issue by issue on a case by case basis. quote: L.R., yes I did know that. And neither are heterosexual "Significant Others", or "Fiancees", being paid benefits. The only ones who are getting benefits to my knowledge are legal spouses and children, whether they are citizens or aliens, legal or illegal, of the victims. quote: I thought that sodomy was already outlawed (at least in my state it was always a law on the books, maybe it still is, I don't know) and that the court struck down an existing law. Maybe I read it incorrectly. But like I said earlier, I don't think the government belongs in people's bedrooms. What were the circumstances under which some people were arrested? Wouldn't they have had to have been caught in the act, or was heresay or suspicion enough to get them arrested? Was their bedroom rigged with cameras or were they practicing sodomy in a public park or restroom? If it were in public, they should have been arrested, just as should anyone be who is performing sexually in a public area. quote: Hush, I think it just comes down to the difference between one who has an absolute morality mindset and one who has a relativistic morality mindset. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
