Very funny. You haven't been running around on us with other forums, have you Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*whispers* Someone's sarcasm detector needs tuning.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
That is sooo funny, Tom. Thanks for sharing it. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I loved it. The comments afterword were also hillarious:
quote:Maybe it's just me, but all this talk of gay people and penguins keeps reminding me of Catholic school.
Posted by: tim
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I need to tune my sarcasm detector? You mean he wasn't serious about the penguins????
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: . And even the penguins would have to work hard to do worse than Bush et al have accomplished
quote: Whoa, I'm feeling more secure already.
quote: Well, then, it's certainly past time to get the Department of Fatherland (oops, Homeland) Security forces out there to take care of all those fornicators who live together and act as though they were just like married people. Yep, we've got to get the police and national guard and NRA and other right-thinking groups out there, inspecting for marriage licenses. No tickee, no nookie!
Split them up, and send them back to their parents' places, where they belong if they're not married.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sorry, Caleb. My "sarcasm detector" comment was in response to EvieNumbersAfterHerName, who criticized the author for being homophobic. Her post has since vanished. Posted by EllenM (Member # 5447) on :
quote:I have to ask, all jokes aside. Was the combination of penguins, homosexuality and marriage intentional or accidental? Because penguin species do form long term, exclusive partnerships, and do engage in homosexuality.
Posted by: Temble
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Tom, I figured it was something like that. No worries.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
quote:My "sarcasm detector" comment was in response to EvieNumbersAfterHerName, who criticized the author for being homophobic. Her post has since vanished.
That's why you should always quote the specific paragraph you are referring to. That way if the quote is deleted or changed, you're covered.
Notice how I quoted you, thus covering myself. Wow, it really works! You know, I could write a book about this stuff. It'd be a best seller. Yeah, and then I could hit the lecture circuit, and make a DVD series, and maybe even have appearances on Larry King and Rush Limbaugh. I could then get a nice house in Seattle and . . . [wanders off to a street corner mumbling to himself]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:[wanders off to a street corner mumbling to himself]
Andrew has just a beautiful mind. Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: That's why you should always quote the specific paragraph you are referring to. That way if the quote is deleted or changed, you're covered. Goodness, Tom, I can't believe you're such an idiot.
Yup, gotta keep you honest.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:for
I completely agree.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
My question would be why having gay people saying your vows would make yours any less special?
Anwway, that is hilarious!
And heres a group hug for good measure.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
quote: I was just talking to God and after He got done lecturing me on my God-given penchant for women, He told me to tell you that Episcopalians suck.
Legalizing penguin marriage would destroy the unique penguin culture in a marginalizing human institution of marriage, destroying the penguin identity
[ August 04, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Maethoriell ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Yanno, my only problem with gay marriage is the gay wedding ceremony...
I've heard catty remarks at straight ceremonies ("I can't believe she wore white" "Oh boy, yet another couple trying to write their own vows") but sheesh, just imagine the crew from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy in the audience.
And wedding gifts? Sheesh, I have a hard enough time as it is picking something out to suit the bride and groom. In a gay wedding, I'd have to match both and actually find something with style and taste. For a lesbian wedding, it's much simpler, just find something that matches the labrador retriever and the Subaru.
And bachelor parties and wedding showers, aren't those going to be turned on their ears?
Honestly, in all seriousness, if ANY two adults want to make a lifelong commitment between each other, God and the government, more power to them. I wish them the best of all luck and happy times ahead. Also, gay couples need the protections that marriage offers in this world. Inheritance (if there is no written will) is a tough deal for a life-long committed gay couple, since there is no legal tie that binds. Also, spousal support (and nowadays child support) guarantees offered through divorce proceedings are also fair.
If life-sentence prisoners in the US can get married in jail, why can't law abiding homosexuals? Many gay folks have been married through ceremony, if not law, so why not offer them the same legislated protections (and tax write offs) that straight marrieds recieve?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
Celia, you've proved your point exquisitely. I guess he's not covered that much...
(Damn! Now I'm going to have to cancel the book signing tour. )
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That was hilarious.
Two of the things I dislike about most religion-based arguments are:
1) The unquestioned belief that there's some mysterious unexplained force by which bad things permeate through society, infecting even the most faithful with their ill effects.
And
2) That there is one right answer to every possible question or situation.
This thing about gay marriage infecting heterosexual marriage is a great example.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
You mean it's CATCHING?!??
I could be... INFECTED?!??!!
*starts scratching, furiously*
Hmmm... Ralphie is startin' to look pretty good... Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I didn't find it funny at all. I must have no sense of humor. So, at the risk of being utterly ridiculed by this nonHatrack-PC rebuttal:
*******
I’ve only been married for three years, but without your help... wait, I don’t need your help. I can manage my marriage just fine without you.
But I am a little concerned how my kids might view marriage as they get older. You see, I made a few mistakes when I was younger. Some of it was stupidity on my part, but some of it was societal stupidity.
Back around the time I was born, women started talking about how marriage was really just indentured servitude to men. Liberated and able to make their own money, they saw no use for marriage, and so either never got married, or determined that getting divorced should be no big deal. As far as they were concerned, they felt that marriage should be defined *not* as a legal, lifelong binding contract for the disposition of property and children accumulated between the husband and wife, but simply, poetically an expression of the ultimate love between a man and a woman. The lifelong commitment was too demanding, unrealistically harsh in a society that prided itself on freedom of expression. Redefined as merely about love, when the love faded, so might the marriage. The laws at the time didn’t reflect their new definition of marriage, and after a time of social re-engineering, America accepted the idea of no-fault divorce.
What a hoot that was! Women could now escape their oppressive husbands and inconvenient children to go out and find themselves. Men could escape the obligations of their first family and leave their children to be raised at the poverty level while they went out and made more children with women who were not so demanding. Most of the time, they didn’t even need to get married. You see, free love meant sex with or without the safety and commitment of marriage. Sex for the ‘seventies and ‘eighties didn’t need a marriage license. We were free at last!
So when I got old enough to think about marriage, it seemed like the logical next step to a mature life. You date, you have sex, you live together, you get married. I got married with the idea in mind that marriage is simply, poetically the ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman. In seven years, when the love wasn’t so lovely, divorce was the ultimate expression of a man and a woman who couldn’t stand each other any more.
I discovered the hard way that marriage isn’t just the ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman. It’s also a legally binding contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of supporting a family in the best environment for children. When the love isn’t so lovely, there is still the commitment of purpose to support not only our own children in a safe, secure environment, but to uphold other families as they struggle to keep their unit together.
Now, I’m not saying that it’s impossible for a man and a man to create a unit like this. And I’m not saying that it’s impossible for a woman and a woman to create a unit like this. But I am saying that mucking around with the definition of marriage has shown to have profound effects on society. Ask a huge percentage of America that was forced to grow up with divorced parents, shuttling from one stepparent to another. Some of them benefited from the divorce, but the odds are far greater, they didn’t. Was redefining marriage as simply, poetically the ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman really worth the pain of untold millions of children? I guess so, if we’re back again, re-defining marriage, changing it to the ultimate expression of love between two people. I suppose the next step is to change it yet again to the ultimate expression of love between adult people, it doesn’t matter how many.
Does it really mean anything at all, if we keep redefining it further away from what it really is?
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
THANK YOU!!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I am saying that mucking around with the definition of marriage has shown to have profound effects on society."
Sorry, jeni, but this fish ain't biting. Marriage wasn't any healthier of an institution back in the 14th century, and the definition was even stricter THEN.
What was it then? An exchange of PROPERTY.
The idea that marriage is a bond of eternal love between a man and a woman is a pretty recent, idealized definition of marriage; arguing that it's got some ancient meaning -- except for Mormons, perhaps, who have heard from God that this is the case -- is pretty nonsensical. Marriage for love has always been the ideal, of course, but it really hasn't ever been more ideally ACHIEVED than it has in this century.
Let's break this down logically: merely because you married a man with whom you did not intend to spend the rest of your life, it does NOT logically follow that the modern definition of heterosexual marriage cannot encompass homosexual marriage, as well. Had you married a WOMAN and encountered some insurmountable problem, you may have had a case; instead, your own miserable experience merely demonstrates that all people who get married -- gay or straight -- should intend to spend their lives with their partners.
When your uncle is dying of cancer, don't ask the doctor for polio vaccine; when you're afraid the love is going out of your marriage, don't blame it on gays.
[ August 04, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tom, if marriage had meant more to me than simply the expression of love between two people, I doubt I would have gotten married the first time. That attitude and belief came very much from society. It wasn't something I came up with on my own.
So yes, I think redefining marriage yet again will have long reaching effects, even if it isn't on ME or MY marriage.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
One might argue for a definition of marriage that requires lifelong commitment between two people, the exchange of property, the raising of children, and love, without making requirements of gender.
Jeni, I agree with you that redefining marriage to mean only for love, to be cast aside when the bloom wears off, is a mistake. But I also see long-time committed couples who want to further combine their lives, and in a world of transitory relationships I can see no reason not to allow it, to welcome it. Anything that stresses family over strife, loyalty over convenience, and love over lust is, in my eyes, a good thing indeed, and something I can be proud for my children to see.
[ August 04, 2003, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, if marriage had meant more to me than simply the expression of love between two people, I doubt I would have gotten married the first time."
Why? I don't mean to sound rude about this, but I think the problem here is more with your definition of "love" than my definition of "marriage."
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Just thought I'd stick my nose in here to point out another column about the same subject.
Kayla, thank you. That pretty much summed up my position, and saved me a ton of typing. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tom, it's not rude. I went into my first marriage knowing that if it didn't work out, I could just get divorced, no big deal. That was a product of a group of friends who had been married and divorced. They didn't have kids, so it really didn't seem like that big a deal. Books I read seemed to indicate that marriage wasn't a big deal. TV shows I watched seemed to reinforce it.
Had I known that marriage, to really work, requires that both partners be committed to each other at not just a love level, but at a partnership level, to be continually worked at for life, to be severed only by abuse or infidelity, I know without a doubt that I would not have gotten married. I would have waited.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
I mean, you didn't value marriage, so letting gay couples, who want to make a lifetime commitment shouldn't be able to get married? I don't get it.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
No, she's just saying that changing what marriage means can have far-reaching effects, some of which might not be very favorable.
Personally, I don't feel that anyone has the right to deny that union to anyone, be they gay or straight.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
My point, put not very well, obviously, is that attitude on marriage comes from society, which in turn changes laws to reflect those attitudes. Our last major change was no-fault divorce, which occurred when I was just a little kid. It had a lot to do with my attitudes about marriage. I obviously wasn't the only one, if sky-rocketting divorce rates are any indication. If we change marriage definition again, how will that change the way my children and their children view marriage? I don't know, and neither does anyone else, so I think it bears some caution, looking at what our last major change bought us.
That's what I'm trying to say.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Maybe the answer is to change the no-fault divorces and let gays marry.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Kayla, I just got a chance to read that article you posted the link for. I liked it a *lot* better than Tom's. Thanks very much for finding it. It was at least respectful and kind toward the other viewpoint. And I didn't disagree with a single thing the author said, except for the final conclusion that same-sex marriage might actually strengthen what marriage means.
I did some digging. Up til now I kind of got the impression that we think we're behind as far as the world goes. That America just isn't with it when it comes to gay rights. Not quite so, to my surprise. If we legalized same sex marriage today, we'd be, like, the fourth country in the world to do it, after the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada. The Netherlands only legalized it a little over 2 years ago.
Call me crazy, but if we can't even draw on the experiences of other nations to see if there are any down sides to this, aren't we just asking for trouble? This doesn't have anything to do with "ick" factor here, as that author put it so well. It has to do with being conservative when it comes to change. I'm like this in just about everything I do. I want to know what the pro's and con's are. Until I can see that we really would see an increase in the strength of marriages, presumably by seeing how other countries do (which would mean at least 10 years of data -- divorce rates, that sort of thing), you won't find me supporting it.
But I'll stand right there with you as we lead the way on getting rid of no fault divorce, cohabitation, and premarital sex. We already know those don't do marriage much good.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:But I'll stand right there with you as we lead the way on getting rid of no fault divorce, cohabitation, and premarital sex. We already know those don't do marriage much good.
Please tell me that you are not in favor of making premarital sex illegal? Or of living with a member of the oppossite sex? I'm not sure if even Jettboy was that conservative.
I would join a violent uprising against any government that tried to take those rights away from me.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I'm in favour of gay marriages - although I tend to think that if it upsets some religious people that much then it should be called "civil union" - and I don't think pre-marital sex, in and of itself, is a bad thing. I guess I'm just all for society crumbling into some kind of barbaric mess... Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:Hmmm... Ralphie is startin' to look pretty good...
I feel this deserves repeating.
I have a few honest questions, though. For those who feel it's important to use their Bible-based morality in determining the political platforms they'll support - Do you believe that God is backing the United States government? Do you believe He's backing any particular earthly government? Do you believe it's part of your worship to use scriptural morals to vote in favor of or against particular laws? If God does not back any specific government, then will voting even matter?
Is God using earthly worshippers to determine the outcome of government policy?
Though this would encompass far more than the outcome of something like laws for gay marriage, this particular subject sparked a question I've had for a long time.
[ August 05, 2003, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jeniwren, I'm surprised to see you blaming society for your past mistakes. I don't mean this to be harsh, but you strike me as the kind of person who has a strong sense of personal responsibility and have worked pretty darn hard to teach that to your offspring.
Now, maybe you had a wakeup call after your first marriage failed, but is that society's fault?
How many people do you know that go into a marriage thinking it's a temporary state? I know none. Everyone thinks their marriage will be forever. What they usually lack is experience in life and the maturity to handle what happens after reality sets in. But also, would you be comfortable blaming society for young people's inexperience? I'm not.
And I don't think a societal attitude about marriage is what causes most breakups. It's money, and inflexibility, and a realization that love isn't everything, and may not last. A societal attitude against divorce (as in, it's a family scandal) may have kept some marriages together for a brief period in this country, but was that a good thing? Do you think kids growing up around smoldering hatred and dead love get a lot out of it? Isn't it more likely that our society's changing attitudes about marriage came from the kids' personal experiences of the unhappiness of their own parents and their own upbringing?
And I think it's important to recognize that the less scandalized attitude about divorce has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. You are making a huge assumption -- that gay marriage would somehow permeate and adversely affect society's attitude about marriage in general and all for the bad.
It wasn't that long ago that many states had laws against inter-racial marriage. Many so-called faiths still try to ban inter-faith marriage. On one level, advice about the added difficulties faced by people in such unions might be a good thing. But laws? No way!
People are allowed to make their own mistakes. They should own up to them as their own, and not blame anyone for what is essentially a lack of knowledge or experience. It happens. What's changed is that people aren't ridiculed for that failure.
A certain level of permissiveness in society is a good thing. It means that every person is free to exercise their individual character and make the most of it that he or she can. Restrictions are for those who fear the freedom of others, IMHO.
And if we are now enlightened enough to realize that a mixed race couple should be allowed to join in matrimony, despite past religious arguments against it, why should anyone listen to the latest religious arguments about anything?
It's all cut from the same cloth. Worries about how society will affect all the weak-minded out there and how their "immorality" will make the world less pleasing to God and harder for the faithful to raise a good kid in. But have those things ever changed? You can read the accounts in the Bible where the same sort of complaints were made in every age (going back to before recorded history).
Eventually, I think it's time that the people who want to raise their kids to respect marriage realize that the best way to do that is to have a great marriage themselves.
Basically, it's never been easy being among the truly faithful. It's never been easy being among the devout minority. You can't make it any easier by restricting the rights of others. Nor should you try.
This helps bring up my third thing that I hate about most religion-based arguments. It's really the add-on to #2 above. That is that in addition to their being "one right way to do things," that the religious argument almost always implies that the everyone else is doing things wrong and that they are (linking back to #1) "infecting" the righteous with their mistaken notions.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Bob, I think I'm about as surprised about what you said about marriage as you are about what Jeniwren said.
quote:How many people do you know that go into a marriage thinking it's a temporary state? I know none. Everyone thinks their marriage will be forever.
I know several. Just off the top of my head I can think of three. I talked to a girl several years ago who fully expected to be married/divorce numerous time. Her mother was currently on her 5th husband. She thought marriage was a temporary thing until it got old. Kristine's matron of honor is on her second husband we think. She was separated from her 1st at the time of our wedding over what seemed to be minor differences from what she described. Another of her best friends just got married for the 3rd time. Kristine asked her if she was sure she should do this considering past history with the other 2 and past history with this guy. "Sure, we can always get divorced if it doesn't work out."
quote:A societal attitude against divorce (as in, it's a family scandal) may have kept some marriages together for a brief period in this country, but was that a good thing?
In many cases, yes. There certainly were and are cases where divorce is the best answer. But too often today, people don't even try to work things out. As Jeniwren said, love is not the only thing. Marriage is a partnership that takes work - sometimes hard work. I think that too often people enter into marriage not realizing that and don't want to do it because it seems too hard.
quote:Isn't it more likely that our society's changing attitudes about marriage came from the kids' personal experiences of the unhappiness of their own parents and their own upbringing?
I don't think so. I think it is more likely that society encourages personal happiness more than responsibility. If you think that's true, do you think all the unhappy children of divorce will begin pushing marriage back towards the serious commitment it is supposed to be?
I'm not going to weigh in on the gay marriage issue yet, because that is something I've been thinking about lately. I do think calling it a civil union is silly if it will be the same as marriage in everything but the name. I don't see how calling it something else will change anything.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Sorry, jeni, but this fish ain't biting. Marriage wasn't any healthier of an institution back in the 14th century, and the definition was even stricter THEN.
I wonder how you know that marriage wasn't healthier then, or that people weren't generally happier? Judging a different culture by our societal standards is pointless. Sure, someone from our society would absolutely hate living back then, perhaps even more so if that someone was a woman. However, that doesn't mean that people back then hated it. Sure, some did, but I'd be willing to bet that most simply considered it "the way things are" and didn't give a second thought to the idea that things could be different.
quote: Please tell me that you are not in favor of making premarital sex illegal? Or of living with a member of the oppossite sex? I'm not sure if even Jettboy was that conservative.
quote: Do you believe it's part of your worship to use scriptural morals to vote in favor of or against particular laws?
You bet. My morals have developed through a number of sources, including scriptures. My morals, like everyone else's morals are my compass I use to guide me in determining what is right. When I vote I always try to vote for what I think is right.
quote: If God does not back any specific government, then will voting even matter?
Of course voting matters. You have to live in the society which is created by the voters. Whether the government leaders are supported by God or not does not change the fact that those leaders can have a very profound impact on our lives. Therefore it is in my best interest to vote for the best leaders.
quote: And I don't think a societal attitude about marriage is what causes most breakups. It's money, and inflexibility, and a realization that love isn't everything, and may not last.
I disagree. While money, inflexibility etc may eventually lead to the break-ups, these forces are by no means new to society, so why are there more divorces now than there were fifty years ago? I think that two societal factors have greatly contributed: the idea of entitlement vs responsibility and the idea that marriage is a temporary contract to be broken when either party doesn't feel completely satisfied.
quote: A societal attitude against divorce (as in, it's a family scandal) may have kept some marriages together for a brief period in this country, but was that a good thing? Do you think kids growing up around smoldering hatred and dead love get a lot out of it?
While there were certainly marriages in the past which stayed together for sake of appearances, I think that one major difference was this: since people knew that divorce was stigmatized they were more likely to work out their problems rather than jumping ship. When big problems arose they talked, worked things out and got past them whereas today they generally jump ship.
quote: And I think it's important to recognize that the less scandalized attitude about divorce has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.
I would say that they are indirectly related. The more relaxed attitudes towards sex and marriage led directly to the higher divorce rate as they also led to the acceptance (on the part of many) of homosexuality as an alternative life style; so while the two are not directly related I think they have the same root cause.
quote: This helps bring up my third thing that I hate about most religion-based arguments. It's really the add-on to #2 above. That is that in addition to their being "one right way to do things," that the religious argument almost always implies that the everyone else is doing things wrong and that they are (linking back to #1) "infecting" the righteous with their mistaken notions.
Isn't this attitude somewhat mandated by the very concept of religion? If God speaks to man and if God has told man how to do certain things then isn't it clear that there is a right way and a wrong way? And isn't it logical that if one wants to keep God's commands one associates mainly with others who also do? The problem, I think, comes one step after what you said, for the idea that "my way is right and yours in wrong" certainly isn't limited to the religious. The problem is simply this: 1) how much power should I have to make you do what I think is right? and vice versa.
It seems to me that the definition of a community is essentially a group of people who can agree in broad terms about what is right, what is wrong and how to live. The current polarization of American society is somewhat disturbing in that more and more we can't agree on the really important issues about what is right, what is wrong and how people should live. I think that if the trend continues there will be a cultural crisis at some future point as opposite poles of the society will no longer be the same community.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Wow, Z. I need to learn to type faster. You made most of my main points before I did. It must be some sort of reptilian mind thing.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The problem with your argument, as I see it Jeni, is that you aren't looking really at the pros and cons... You are just arguing that their might be a con to gay marriage/civil union/whatever out there, and because that might be the case, we shouldn't do it.
That sort of argument can always be used against change, any change. I could say that about the Death Penalty, environmental conservation (or usage), abortion restriction, a new hairstyle
-Bok
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:If you think that's true, do you think all the unhappy children of divorce will begin pushing marriage back towards the serious commitment it is supposed to be?
I think this is exactly what he's saying. And I agree.
I know that I personally feel this way, after having been raised by my FatherOfFourMarriages.
Haven't you ever been so mad at your parents that you said to yourself "I will NEVER do that to MY kids"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"However, that doesn't mean that people back then hated it. Sure, some did, but I'd be willing to bet that most simply considered it 'the way things are' and didn't give a second thought to the idea that things could be different."
You're almost certainly right; I'd imagine that a minority of the women living in chattel-like servitude to their husbands had the chance to pause and genuinely dream of a world where people married for love. Of course, we know that -- as you note -- SOME people did, because even then we had all kinds of stories about romantic couples who threw off the shackles of their society to marry for love. The point of those stories being, of course, that such a thing was rare and precious when it happened.
But the great thing about all this is that, over time, society evolved into one where it is now actually POSSIBLE -- even COMMON -- for people to marry for love. This brings with it some of its own problems, of course, like the fact that some people can't diagnose love properly and therefore marry for really awful reasons. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that TRADITIONAL marriage -- a woman bound to a man by order of her father, following the exchange of property -- is actually an improvement on the system we have now, even AFTER the advent of no-fault divorce.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:Haven't you ever been so mad at your parents that you said to yourself "I will NEVER do that to MY kids"?
Yes, but I also know that I will very likely do those same things. I hope that things are heading that way, but I do know people who consider marriage temporary because of what they learned from their parents.
Bok, Jeniwren did say that she didn't know all the pros and cons, but that it wouldn't be a bad idea to wait and see how things progress in other countries that have legalized it.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Surprise! Premarital sex IS illegal, at least in some states. The law just isn't widely enforced.
Well, damn. I had no idea I was such a hardened criminal. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Yes, but I also know that I will very likely do those same things.
And you'll already recognize that those are things you don't want to do, thereby making it easier to curb your behaviors away from them. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept. The whole of human history can be summarized by children growing up, taking what their parents built and making it their own. Standing on it, changing it, building it.
Or scrapping it.
Of course, I continue to be baffled at the belief that society's happiness can be made greater as a result of restricting people from determining their own destinies.
[ August 05, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Okay listen, people are now defending the religion-based arguments by saying that things have gone to hell because of SOCIETY.
Don't you realize that you are blaming society for something that is the human being's responsibility?
I really don't think you can talk about "personal responsibility" as the most important thing, and then say that the way to accomplish that is to change society. That's just putting the blame back on society and you've just told us we shouldn't do that.
Sorry.
As for the thing about money and inflexibility, that is exactly why marriages fail, and it always has been. Some marriages fail and the people stay together. Other marriages fail and the people divorce. I'm of the opinion that if the marriage is a failure, it really doesn't matter much whether you stay together or divorce, unless their are kids. And then you have to decide what's better for the kids: growing up around adults who can't abide each other's presence or growing up in a split household.
But the bottom line is that you shouldn't be willing or ready to make that decision for other people. You haven't been in their situation. You don't know what their daily life is like. And juding them based on the failure is about the only "tool" society has as a way to discourage divorce, right?
So we go back to that?
I think people who make these arguments from a religious standpoint are all too willing to force others to accept miserable situations without knowing what the heck they are talking about.
As for the woman who goes into a marriage thinking it will be temporary, if her new spouse agrees, there wouldn't seem to be much of a problem. If she's lying to him, then she's a selfish poisonous churl and eventually people will figure out that she's not worth having a serious relationship with. Seems like a self-correcting situation to me.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
zgator, firstly, people will simply say, "country X is not like the USA, so we can't draw any comparisons," not unlike the tact used by some against universal healthcare, for instance.
Secondly, why should we wait? If it is just, it should be done.
-Bok
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Why do we have to wait? If a steadily rising number of heterosexual couples can't commit to their marriages *now,* seeing that homosexual couples are getting married is not going to miraculously change that...either way! I would hope this wasn't an issue of monkey-see-monkey-do!
a picture is painted of all these wayward, impressionable youths who've learned through the media that marriage is not binding, not important, not something to be cherished, treasured or worked at, and the argument is that that viewpoint would be bolstered by the legalization of gay marriage?
can i just add a heartfelt Wha!?!
You've got to stop expecting kids-of-marrying-age to screw up at every turn. Seeing gays getting married is not going to change a blamed thing in the way they, themselves, PERSONALLY view marriage. IT'S ALL PERSONAL. you've got kids from broken homes that marry for life, kids who divorced whose parents loved each other and stayed together....there are so many different scenarios and variables you can't play to the negative! You've got to just believe that this won't affect "the sanction of marriage" negatively because its the right thing to do.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
And I think that was the entire point of the above linked article. How immature is it to blame "society" for hurting marriage when your own personal marriage--or lack thereof--is ENTIRELY in your own power?
"Yes, but we want to protect marriage for our children."
Okay. What Bob said. Teach by example, not by oppressing homosexuals just because you *think* they *might* make marriage more blase than your own heterosexual predecessors have made it.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
there are so many different scenarios and variables you can't play to the negative!
While it is always best to think positively, we can't assume that just because something sounds good to our inexperienced ears it will necessarily have good consequences.
You've got to just believe that this won't affect "the sanction of marriage" negatively because its the right thing to do.
It is best to be cautious in making changes to our most important institutions. Marriage is probably our most important societal institution.
Some of us have a very hard time believing that allowing gay marriage won't affect society negatively. We have witnessed, recently, how tinkering with our attitudes toward marriage has affected our society negatively.
I would suggest that we go very slowly in making any changes to the institution of marriage.
I would also suggest that we do whatever we can to help homosexual couples, short of allowing marriage. They need to feel safe and secure in this society, just like every other citizen.
We can make changes to allow for inheritance, health care, hospital visitation, job security, etc. that can greatly enhance the lives of homosexual couples.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I would suggest that we go very slowly in making any changes to the institution of marriage."
There are those of us who do not believe that a legal recognition of homosexual marriage constitutes a change to the institution of marriage, of course.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:I would suggest that we go very slowly in making any changes to the institution of marriage.
Oh, evolve already!
"Society" can handle change. That's what it does. Do you honestly think that this would have any impact whatsoever on 99% of American families? Do you think for even a moment that this could be as detrimental to our "society" as, say, President Bush's tax cuts? Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
There are those of us who do not believe that a legal recognition of homosexual marriage constitutes a change to the institution of marriage, of course.
And there are those of us who disagree with you, of course.
Bob (and others):
Of course, you are correct that we can't blame "society" for our individual choices. But societal attitudes do affect those choices.
Many marriages and families are broken up because men and women "aren't feeling fulfilled right now." They don't realize that from time to time we just have to push on and do what is best for our families. Sometimes that requires us to put our own needs on the back burner for a few years.
Sometimes our society teaches us that "I need to get what I need right now." While, we can choose to make the right choices in spite of this attitude, we are frequently despised by everyone around us for doing so. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I usually avoid discussions like this, but...
quote:While there were certainly marriages in the past which stayed together for sake of appearances, I think that one major difference was this: since people knew that divorce was stigmatized they were more likely to work out their problems rather than jumping ship. When big problems arose they talked, worked things out and got past them whereas today they generally jump ship.
My mother's parents "stayed together for the kids," and because they lived in a small town and it would've been scandalous for them to divorce. I can tell you from her description of her family life that there was very little in the way of "working things out" and "getting past them." As a result, my brilliant, talented mother has very low self-esteem and an unrealistically pessimistic view of life. Divorce is NOT an unmitigated evil, and "staying together for the kids" in an unhealthy, tension-filled marriage hurts children rather than helping them.
As far as realizing that marriage requires more than love, I really think the responsibility for teaching this rests with parents rather than with society. So many parents let their children run wild without teaching them anything (which should be a primary parental function!). In spite of my mother's childhood experience, she had (has) a very happy marriage, and raised my siblings and me to believe that marriage is an agreement between two people who love each other to work together and be together. My question, then, is why should this sort of agreement--which is a legal agreement, in the eyes of the government--not be accessible to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals?
I'm speaking of a secular union, not of the religious union recognized by the church. That one, I'll leave you church-goin' folk to work out amongst yourselves. Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Oh, evolve already!
Caleb, thank you for so quickly proving the point from the last paragraph of my last post.
"Society" can handle change.
Are you sure of that? I am not, having lived through the sexual revolution.
Do you honestly think that this would have any impact whatsoever on 99% of American families?
I don't think that it will have any impact on current American families. I think it will have negative, unforseen impacts on societal attitudes thereby affecting future American families negatively.
Do you think for even a moment that this could be as detrimental to our "society" as, say, President Bush's tax cuts?
Actually, I know personally, three families that have benefited greatly from the recent tax cuts which were proposed by President Bush and approved by the United States congress.
So I guess the answer to your question is, yes, IMHO, gay marriage would cause problems to our society which would be long-lasting and cause much more damage than tax cuts which (IMHO) have not caused any problems at all. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Okay, Sweet William, kill the smilies! It does NOT help to call someone selfish and immoral and then smile about it! We know you have strong feelings about this, everybody does. A smilie face does not make your position better or easier to stomach!
Of course, I know you mean well.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote:Actually, I know personally, three families that have benefited greatly from the recent tax cuts which were proposed by President Bush and approved by the United States congress.
The Bush family, The Cheney family, and the Ashcroft family.
Destroy the Gays!
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: "Society" can handle change.
Are you sure of that? I am not, having lived through the sexual revolution.
I'll bet the civil rights movement still pisses on your toast. Leaving it all soggy, cold and yucky tasting.
Well, here is a suggestion for you. Move to Utah, where it's as close to America 1950's as you're going to get.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
Of course gay marriages will cause problems.
It will also solve some problems.
Not having gay marriages will cause problems.
Everything that we do "causes problems."
So causing problems is not a factor in making a decision. Because not making a decision will cause problems, too.
The best we can do is try to foresee all the problems that can occur and decide which will cause the least serious problems.
Since gay marriages only directly affect a very small percentage of the population, I foresee only very small direct effects.
Yes, there will be unforeseen problems if we allow gay marriages. But there always will be. If you want to worry about unforeseen problems, you have to weigh them against the unforeseen problems of not allowing gay marraiges.
And that can be tricky. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Thor, knock it off, 'k? You don't need to take Sweet William's socially conservative tendencies personally, you know.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: My mother's parents "stayed together for the kids," and because they lived in a small town and it would've been scandalous for them to divorce. I can tell you from her description of her family life that there was very little in the way of "working things out" and "getting past them."
There are a couple of things to say to that: Where one doesn't want to two can't dance. It requires a commitment on the part of both partners. If one just doesn't want to change then by all means get a divorce. The situations I am talking about are things that come up like this: the husband has a job in Duluth but the wife's family lives in Orlando so of course she would like to move there. They search for jobs in Orlando but can't find anything that isn't a dead end so... obviously things just can't be worked out and they should get a divorce
quote:As far as realizing that marriage requires more than love, I really think the responsibility for teaching this rests with parents rather than with society.
Of course this is the case, nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right.
quote: I really don't think you can talk about "personal responsibility" as the most important thing, and then say that the way to accomplish that is to change society. That's just putting the blame back on society and you've just told us we shouldn't do that.
SHouldn't we do both? Shouldn't we teach our children AND try to change society so that it reflects what we most deeply value? When we see things in our society which conflict with our beliefs shouldn't we point them out so that others are aware?
quote: I'm of the opinion that if the marriage is a failure, it really doesn't matter much whether you stay together or divorce, unless their are kids. And then you have to decide what's better for the kids: growing up around adults who can't abide each other's presence or growing up in a split household.
Of course. However, what some of us are saying is that the point where people call their marriage a failure and give up on it should probably be a bit more stringent than what many think.
quote: But the bottom line is that you shouldn't be willing or ready to make that decision for other people. You haven't been in their situation. You don't know what their daily life is like. And juding them based on the failure is about the only "tool" society has as a way to discourage divorce, right?
Of course no one can make that decision for other people. Nonetheless, we should do our best to help educate those around us about the reality of what marriage is (or should be). The things portrayed in hollywood and elsewhere just don't reflect reality (duh). But it seems that nonetheless many people get married with those expectations of romantic euphoria that will last forever.
I think that what happens is that people get biological love and emotional love confused. Biologically we get a fine flow of tasty endorphins when we are near someone we are attracted to. After a while we become acclimated and those endorphins just don't flow anymore. Many people take this lack of euphoria to mean that something is wrong with their marriage and so they go looking elsewhere for that euphoria- hence the high rate of infidelity etc. And Holloywood teaches us that this is exactly how it should be. How many movies have you seen where the protagonist leaves their old, stale marriage or engagement because they find someone new who is much more exciting?
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
It does NOT help to call someone selfish and immoral
Um Kasie:
Please stop yelling. I will use smilies if I want to.
And I didn't call anyone selfish. I didn't specifically call anyone immoral, although I did imply that homosexual acts are sinful.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I'll bet the civil rights movement still pisses on your toast. Leaving it all soggy, cold and yucky tasting.
Well, here is a suggestion for you. Move to Utah, where it's as close to America 1950's as you're going to get.
Thor- I am betting that you know a lot less about Utah than you think you do. In fact, everything you ever say about Utah and Mormons tells me that you have taken a set of assumptions, prejudices and hearsay, bundled them all together in a package, given it a label and carried it around with you where you may hand it to someone anytime the chance comes up.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
I'll bet the civil rights movement still pisses on your toast.
Thor: Why can't we have a civil discussion on here without you or someone else implying hatred or bigotry?
BTW, I do live in Utah. I'll have my three African-American tennis pals, or my Venezuelan neighbor with whom I discuss Victor Hugo, or my Argentian friends explain to you my benighted views on the civil rights movement. And let's not forget my Tongan and Mexican weightlifing buds.
(That one's for you, Kasie).
[ August 05, 2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Hi Bob Thanks for responding so thoughtfully (answering your reply on page 1). I'm glad you know me well enough to be surprised that I would blame society for my mistakes. That's not exactly what I said, so I'll quote the pertinent point:
quote:You see, I made a few mistakes when I was younger. Some of it was stupidity on my part, but some of it was societal stupidity.
I don't blame society for my own stupidity and poor choices. But I do hold it accountable for attitudes and permissiveness when it came to marriage mores. And yeah, I do actually know some people who got married with the idea that if it didn't work out, they'd just get divorced, as if it were a foregone conclusion. Big surprise, most of them are divorced now.
I know you know that I'm a faith-filled person. I believe in God. But at no point did any of my arguments bring up religion. I try to question the demands of my religion where culture meets doctrine, exactly because of the "ick" factor described in that article Kayla found. I don't want to be one of the bigots who cries heresy where there is none.
Still, I see a lot of what has weakened marriage has little to do with law. It has to do with society. Permissiveness toward promescuity, pregnancy out of wedlock, easy divorce, and "shacking up" have harmed marriage. At first, most of these things looked like good ideas. Free love -- sex with anyone you want, why wait, why deny your primal urges? Why shouldn't you be able to get away from someone you detest, now that you've discovered that the marriage is nothing but a hollow shell? And why bother getting married at all? After all, it's just a piece of paper.
The problem is that none of these things come without baggage. We found out what that baggage was *after* society was willing to accept them. So...we should do it again with gay marriage? It's yet another social experiment that we're willing to play with at unknown costs.
As for interracial/interfaith marriages, people going into these marriages *do* face unique challenges. There is good reason to be cautious. I'm not saying that they shouldn't happen, or that they should be legislated against. But it is well worth extra counselling before the wedding to make sure the bride and groom know what they're getting into. And I say the exact same thing for blended families preparing for marriage.
Hey, Bok, to tell the absolute truth, I do this same thing, weighing pros and cons with just about *everything*, including changing my hairstyle. I'm currently weighing the pros and cons of dyeing one layer various shades of pink. I'm about four weeks into deliberation, and have given myself another two to decide for sure. I'm pretty sure I'm going to do it, though.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Why is it OK to blast homosexuals as some type of dirty sinners, but something like Utahians get some "Don't speak ill of them!", or some one will throw a religious blanket "Don't speak ill of this church" when someone is using the churches views to speak out against other people?
Example, it's ok for people from a conservative church to talk about how "evil" homosexuality is, but if my church thinks the conservative church is evil, isn't it just as OK for me to talk about how the conservative church is evil?
Isn't that what y'all are saying, that if it comes from a church, then the word is perfect, except in the case of the church committing a sin, then it is not allowed to be brought up or acknowledged?
I don't see how someone like Sweetwilliam can continually speak out about his God and his religious beliefs, but yet his religion isn't "allowed" to be pulled into the discussion.
Weird. But hey, the majority rules.
I'm sure if we were on a websight where 80% of the people were gay and talking about how a conservative religion was evil, the people who spoke out against the religion would be welcomed, and those who spoke out against homosexuals would be called bigots.
Just like here at Hatrack.
You can talk about how homosexuals are EVIL til you're blue in the face, but bring up one negative and TRUE facts about the majorities conservative church, and you get called a bigot and a hate monger.
Weird.
<<<T>>>
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Jacare, your situation involving the Duluth/Orlando couple is vastly different from the one you described more generally in your original post. In the Duluth/Orlando situation, I agree: they should work out a compromise, rather than just give up on the whole thing. However, what I was responding to was the situation in which, because divorce was not an option, couples stayed together in misery, and made their children miserable along with them. It seems, however, that, in spite of what you seemed to be implying earlier (i.e., that divorce is never justified), we are in agreement in that, at least.
Now, if you want to talk about trying to prevent people from marrying hastily by emphasizing the commitment involved in marriage, I'm all for it.
quote: nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right.
My question to you, then, is what is "what we value"? What if my values are different than yours? And as for expecting everyone's children to see through the contradiction: I hope that parents will teach their children well enough not to believe everything society teaches. Society has a loooooong history of being dead wrong (going back way before the advent of mondern media). I EXPECT that, should I have any children, those children will know that not everything that is popular is right and not everything that is right is popular. I make no claims for anyone else's children.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm sure if we were on a websight where 80% of the people were gay and talking about how a conservative religion was evil, the people who spoke out against the religion would be welcomed, and those who spoke out against homosexuals would be called bigots.
There are many sites like that.
One of my favorite sites reported their sorrow over Mel Gibson's loathsome, hate-filled loserdom for making The Passion, made even worse because he made it sincerely, instead mockingly.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
I don't see how someone like Sweetwilliam can continually speak out about his God and his religious beliefs, but yet his religion isn't "allowed" to be pulled into the discussion.
Feel free to pull it in, but don't do so out of ignorance, or with incorrect stereotypes.
In my mind, your post implied that me, Mormons in general, and Utah were all so opposed to the civil rights movement that our toast was somehow soggy.
Soggy toast or not, that was kind of an off the subject attack, my personal attitudes notwithstanding.
BTW, did you know that over half of the LDS members are not in the U.S.? That more than a third are from countries in South America and Africa? That our greatest growth and strength comes from countries with a large percentage of people of color?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Andrew: Yes, there will be unforeseen problems if we allow gay marriages. But there always will be. If you want to worry about unforeseen problems, you have to weigh them against the unforeseen problems of not allowing gay marraiges.
Now that's a good argument. Thank you, Andrew.
The main issue with it is that we already know the consequences of *not* allowing gay marriage -- we have never allowed it, so it's not any big mystery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there *ever* been a society in history that allowed gay marriage? I'm genuinely curious.
As for it only effecting a small portion of the population, I don't think that's true. It's a radical departure from what we have known marriage to be. If it weren't, this wouldn't be such a hotly debated issue. By redefining it like this, I believe we would be affecting *most* of the population. But of course, I don't know that for sure. And neither does anyone else. So I think we should wait and see how it works out for Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada first. I'd like to know how it affects divorce rates, whether or not multiple marriage partners becomes the next step, its long term effects on children.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
One of my grandmothers stayed in an abusive relationship because, socially, she had no choice.
A woman couldn't earn a living wage on her own, especially one with a limited education. The stigma of divorce would have left her homeless and subject to worse crimes than the beatings and rapes she endured at home.
Don't blame divorce for people's choices. Thank God they HAVE a choice.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Many marriages and families are broken up because men and women "aren't feeling fulfilled right now." They don't realize that from time to time we just have to push on and do what is best for our families. Sometimes that requires us to put our own needs on the back burner for a few years.
Sometimes our society teaches us that "I need to get what I need right now." While, we can choose to make the right choices in spite of this attitude, we are frequently despised by everyone around us for doing so
You have no idea what you are talking about. You've bought a line describing what "society is" and figure it's the truth.
-------------------------------------------------
Jeniwren -- the only people I've ever heard make the arguments you made did so from a religious perspective. Knowing you are very religious, I drew the obvious conclusion that you also arrived at your position as a matter of faith.
If I'm wrong, then I apologize.
But really, your argument about it sounds like every other one I've heard on this from a religious standpoint. It's the old "society needs fixing so that other people don't affect me and my children adversely."
-----------------------------------------------
EVERYONE:
My assertion is that we live in a world filled with people making choices. The "influence of society" is just a bug-bear, IMHO. The real influence on attitudes about marriage is what you grew up with. If you see your parents miserable and hoping for a divorce they can't have because of the kids or because it might cause a scandal, they are more likely to vow never to be or stay in that position. To some it might look selfish, but people are just as selfish now as they always have been. They are just more free to act on it.
Sure, if divorce were illegal and punishable by death, I bet people would stay together more and think a lot harder about getting married in the first place. But would that make them happier in their marriages? I doubt it. Why? Because anytime you commit to something for the future it's a giant crap shoot. You hope your spouse never gets a serious disease or doesn't turn into an alcoholic, or is a great parent, and is committed to always working things out no matter how hard they get.
But the truth is that people aren't perfect and passing laws (or failing to repeal laws) based on the assumption that in so doing you are raising the level of human behavior or thought is just a pipe dream. What you are doing, instead, is setting up a reward/punshiment system that forces people to behave outwardly in a way that avoids the penalties.
Does anyone here really believe the Muslim assertion that there are no gay men in the Arab world? They will tell you this point blank. Go ask. The fact is, there is certainly homosexuality among the devout Muslim world. It just never surfaces because if it did, the men involved would be ostracized and possibly killed (depending on the country/local tribe).
To me, that is exactly the kind of world that religious people in the US are advocating -- usually without thinking through their positions to their logical end. It's why I get so angry when I see this type of unsupported and unsupportable argument being used. But especially so when it is being used to continue a repressive policy.
The real slippery slope, to me, is toward repression of anything that doesn't meet with one particular group's sense of morality. Eventually, if we follow that line of logic, we end up where the Moslem contries are today -- ruled by poorly educated priests who think the answer to everything is to interpret scripture and wait. With no thought to the pain and suffering that continues for those already alive and having to live with the consequences of unfair restrictive policies.
If anyone here can tell me how lifting the ban on gay marriage is qualitatively different from lifting the ban on interracial marriage without using a religion-derived argument, I'd sure like to know how. State your major premises clearly and then follow a logical course to its conclusion.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Bob, THANK YOU. Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
without using a religion-derived argument
Why? We make our decisions and our choices based upon all influences in our lives, including those based upon our religion.
If I am a part of this society, then my views get to be expressed and taken into consideration when making decisions for this society. I use all the knowledge and belief that I have to make those decisions that I feel will be best for myself and for society.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Because religion should be able to stand up to the test of our God-given reason. An unexamined faith is a flimsy, sickly, anemic thing.
Or so I've been told. Lord, how I love C.S. Lewis!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Sweet William, your religious views do not coincide with everyone in society, and therefore should not be the controlling factor in a decision that is legal, rather than religious. I do not subscribe to your religious beliefs; therefore, I would not want to live in a society dictated by those beliefs. That's why there's a separation of church and state (at least in theory).
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there *ever* been a society in history that allowed gay marriage? I'm genuinely curious.
But we're not concerned about history, now are we? We're talking about the future. On the one hand, you're right, we should learn from the past. On the other hand....we should learn from the past, because otherwise we are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If your argument is based solely on your religion, how can it have any meaning, relevance or impact to anyone who does not believe in that religion?
"My God abhors homosexual acts." Okay. So?
"My scriptures state that homosexual acts are a sin." Okay, so?
"I believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will weaken the institution of marriage and it's role of underpinning society." Now that's something that can be discussed without needing common religious ground.
Certainly our beliefs stem from our moral and/or ethical upbringing and adult decisions, but it'll take a good bit more than that to make legislation. I hope.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course, I'll freely admit that we're all talking around the issue.
No one against gay marriage is REALLY afraid that it will cheapen or damage heterosexual marriages; they're afraid that it will lead to an acceptance of homosexuality.
And very few people who are FOR gay marriage simply think that homosexuals should be able to marry; they believe that gay marriage is one step towards more fully accepting homosexuals into society.
Me, I can't imagine what consequence of accepting homosexuality into society could possibly be worse than the beating, shunning, and furtive closeting we've forced on that culture for centuries, so I'm baffled by people who think it'll mean the destruction of the cities of the plains. But your mileage may vary.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
I do not subscribe to your religious beliefs; therefore, I would not want to live in a society dictated by those beliefs.
Megan:
That is fine. Maybe, after significan discussion, everyone will agree with you, and we'll have legalized homosexual marriages.
Maybe not.
In my opinion, legalized, homosexual MARRIAGES, will be bad for our society long-term.
I guess we'll see what our society decides is best. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Hey Tom -- thanks. You're right about everyone skirting the issue. That's why I was finding this thread so frustrating. Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
"I believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will weaken the institution of marriage and it's role of underpinning society." Now that's something that can be discussed without needing common religious ground.
Chris, I think I stated something very similar to that earlier.
Such a statement always begs the question: Why?
And my response always includes religious aspects, which some people feel are completely worthless in such a discussion.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It all boils down to definitions.
To some, Homosexuality is an action, a sin ones commit of free will. Those who know differently are those who commit such acts, sinners who are just trying to deny their sin.
To others, Homosexuality is a in-born fact of their existance. They can find sexual pleasure only in people of their own sex. Thier choices are not whether to commit an act of sin or not, but wether to live a lie or live eternally celebate or admit thier desires, accept them, and deal with them in a healthy way. Those who argue differently are not homosexual, so do not know what its like.
What Homosexual Marriage boils down to is this question. Do you believe that two men or two women can fall in love with each other?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
<grumbles about posting time at work, makes this post an hour later anyway>
quote:Of course this is the case, nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right.
Hmm. So, legally recognizing that two homosexuals have decided to pledge their lives to one another is somehow "the opposite of what we value". 'We' would of course prefer that they have no legal incentive for monogamous relationships whatsoever, right?
Sweet William, I am DREADFULLY sorry that I brought up President Bush's tax cuts. I shouldn't take it for granted that everyone else already understands the absurdly negative impact that they've had on our economy, especially since it's a) off the topic, and b) too uninteresting to me to warrant a decent substantiation of my claims.
Bob, as always: EXCELLENT POST. I'm thinking of making you guest of honor at the Thanksgiving thing. Maybe hanging up some flyers around the area to see if there'd be any interest in hearing you speak.
quote:My assertion is that we live in a world filled with people making choices.
Preach it, brother Christian.
Tom, as always you are deftly aware of the bigger picture. The problem is that we can't discuss it in light of the actual aims and wishes of both sides, because at that point we really would be fighting bigotry, not just doctrine.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Bob:
quote: To me, that is exactly the kind of world that religious people in the US are advocating -- usually without thinking through their positions to their logical end. It's why I get so angry when I see this type of unsupported and unsupportable argument being used. But especially so when it is being used to continue a repressive policy.
Hm. Bob, surely you don't mean that most American Christians think that homosexuals should be ostracized and/or killed.
What I see is that the side advocating legalizing gay marriage has an unsupported and unsupportable argument when they say that it will only affect one small segment of society. The arguments on BOTH sides are unsupported and unsupportable because there is absolutely no conclusive data to tell us what the long range effects of such a decision would be. We would no sooner test experimental drugs in this manner than we should test the integrity of marriage with this social experiment.
quote:If anyone here can tell me how lifting the ban on gay marriage is qualitatively different from lifting the ban on interracial marriage without using a religion-derived argument, I'd sure like to know how. State your major premises clearly and then follow a logical course to its conclusion.
Uh...I thought I did that. My argument is based on the fact that we have no scientific data to tell us what will happen if we allow gay marriage. There is nothing in history to give us any clues, and there isn't enough time passed (just 2 years!) since the first nation in the world first allowed it. My premise is that marriage as an institution is too important to keep messing around with without knowing what the heck we're doing.
If my argument introduced religion derived evidence, please point it out to me, because I really don't want it there.
Kasie:
quote:But we're not concerned about history, now are we? We're talking about the future. On the one hand, you're right, we should learn from the past. On the other hand....we should learn from the past, because otherwise we are doomed to repeat it.
Doomed to repeat what? Arranged marriages? I don't understand your point. We try to learn from the past where current information cannot answer certain questions. In this case, the question is "What effect will homosexual marriage have on society at large?" Since we don't have enough current data to tell us, we could look to the past and to other societies to give us a good idea. Except it's never been done before, to my knowledge. So we really are running blind.
Tom:
quote:No one against gay marriage is REALLY afraid that it will cheapen or damage heterosexual marriages; they're afraid that it will lead to an acceptance of homosexuality.
And very few people who are FOR gay marriage simply think that homosexuals should be able to marry; they believe that gay marriage is one step towards more fully accepting homosexuals into society.
Yeah, you're probably getting to the heart of some of it.
I watched the movie Fame again a week or so ago. I think I only saw it once before, at least 13 years ago. I was struck by how dated it was, especially regarding homosexuality. Montgomery, in an environment where gays are often drawn (the arts), found it extremely difficult to come out about his sexuality. I couldn't imagine the same scenario today being credible. Maybe in the middle of a church mission, yeah, I could see it, but not in a school for the arts in the middle of New York City.
America really has changed. Shows like Will and Grace would NEVER have made prime time 15 years ago. And a gay reality dating show would NEVER have been made 10 years ago. Homosexuality is accepted as it has never been.
So I guess I'm missing the point of why marriage needs to be brought into the picture if it's a question of acceptance.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
b) too uninteresting to me to warrant a decent substantiation of my claims.
How convenient for you, seeing as how your uninteresting claim is completely unsustainable.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Okay folks, I thought I brought this up before, but here goes again. In this decision, it is not a matter of religion, but of a government recognizing homosexual marriage. It's two different beasts.
Should our government be able to bar it? No, on the grounds of numerous types of discrimination, they should not. From a governmental point of view, marriage is simply a specific binding contract between two individuals allowing them equal ownership of all properties held. It is also established for the sake of parentage and the rearing of children. There are also tax matters, inheritance, credit reporting, legal protection in courts of law, etc... The government can't ban gay marriages by the definitions of power set forth by the Constitution.
Now, religions can, individually, choose to not recognize such marriages. To religious institutions, marriage symbolizes a commitment made between two individuals to love, honor, cherish, stick together and raise a family, among others. Working purely in the realm of the spirit and under their own sets of rules, churches should be welcome to bar gay marriages or membership to individuals involved in such as they see fit. And the government (and this IS spelled out in the Constitution) can't make them accept such a marriage.
So, Civil marriages, in my opinion, can't be barred. Religious marriages of homosexuals are up to the adherents and leadership of each religious group.
The problem is that both the government and religious groups choose to have their ideas of marriage tied up strongly with the other one's realm.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Hm. Bob, surely you don't mean that most American Christians think that homosexuals should be ostracized and/or killed.
No, but you would all be much more comfortable if there were no homosexuals, right? Barring that, it'd be best if no mention of that was allowed in the media or anywhere where a child might be influenced by it, right? Barring that, it should be well known that such behavior is a sin and something really terrible in God's eyes, right?
Just how exactly do we get to that state unless:
a) Everyone joins one particular faith, or,
b) We set up systematic repression.
quote:What I see is that the side advocating legalizing gay marriage has an unsupported and unsupportable argument when they say that it will only affect one small segment of society. The arguments on BOTH sides are unsupported and unsupportable because there is absolutely no conclusive data to tell us what the long range effects of such a decision would be. We would no sooner test experimental drugs in this manner than we should test the integrity of marriage with this social experiment.
I think your analogy is a poor one. On the one hand, you have people living out their lives restricted from enjoying the legal benefits of their long-term committed relationships. On the other hand (testing drugs) you have something entirely new, and a legitimate scientific protocol for testing them, but the alternative is just unleashing them on the open market.
I think you are too willing to trade other people's happiness and financial security for maintenance of the status quo, without good enough reasons.
quote:Uh...I thought I did that. My argument is based on the fact that we have no scientific data to tell us what will happen if we allow gay marriage. There is nothing in history to give us any clues, and there isn't enough time passed (just 2 years!) since the first nation in the world first allowed it. My premise is that marriage as an institution is too important to keep messing around with without knowing what the heck we're doing.
See, the problem I have is that you want to "wait and see" but your life isn't the one being adversely affected now. You may fear the effect that gay marriage might have on "the institution of marriage" but you know in your heart that it won't affect your marriage either way. So, essentially, you are arguing that your fears are more important than the real-life rights and chances for equality of living, breathing people.
I just don't buy into that kind of logic. I think that we ought not to wait if you are stacking the legal rights of contributing citizens against the vague prognostications of any group, no matter how large.
quote:Still, I see a lot of what has weakened marriage has little to do with law. It has to do with society. Permissiveness toward promescuity, pregnancy out of wedlock, easy divorce, and "shacking up" have harmed marriage. At first, most of these things looked like good ideas. Free love -- sex with anyone you want, why wait, why deny your primal urges? Why shouldn't you be able to get away from someone you detest, now that you've discovered that the marriage is nothing but a hollow shell? And why bother getting married at all? After all, it's just a piece of paper.
Was this the bit that wasn't based on religion? I thought it was. Just because you don't quote the Bible here doesn't mean that you aren't taking your cue from your faith. That's okay. I just want people to recognize that often when they try to come up with logical reasons to support a faith-based argument, they are still making a faith-based argument, essentially.
Your "promiscuity" is someone else's freedom. Your "out of wedlock" childbirth is someone else's freedom too. Your "shacking up" is someone else's freedom too.
Not all children born out of wedlock are bad. Not all sexual relationships outside of the bonds of marriage are bad. They are bad first and foremost from a religious perspective that tells us everyone should be a virgin until their wedding day.
The point is that those other people are free, and should be free, to make their own choices. Just as you were and remain. The point is that it does not affect your marriage in any way.
If it doesn't affect your marriage, what basis have you for the assertion that it affects "the institution of marriage." That it "might" affect your child's marriage? Or your children's children's marriages? Are you then not advocating that today's homosexual committed couples should be willing to wait a generation to see what the ramifications of granting them a right they should already have is on your potential offspring's offspring?
You are essentially here to tell us that you are strong enough to have a good marriage despite society's influence, but it's your business to decide that other people aren't smart enough or strong enough to get to that same place you have. And so, you want to protect this "institution" for the weak minded people around you.
Anyway, that's how I read that type of argument.
(I don't think you actually would hold that view if questioned on it, but I do think that it is the logical extension of the view you are promoting here)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So I guess I'm missing the point of why marriage needs to be brought into the picture if it's a question of acceptance."
Because it's not actually acceptance, otherwise.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Thor, that can't be good foryour pretty face...
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Thank you olivet! Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
You're welcome. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Bob, while I agree with you on the subject, you might want to stop putting opinions in the mouths of all Christians.
quote: No, but you would all be much more comfortable if there were no homosexuals, right? Barring that, it'd be best if no mention of that was allowed in the media or anywhere where a child might be influenced by it, right? Barring that, it should be well known that such behavior is a sin and something really terrible in God's eyes, right?
As a Christian, non-Mormon, I believe that Jesus Christ tried his best to teach us to accept and love everyone... everyone. I don't wish for gay people not to exist or to just stay quietly away. I hope and pray that they, and everyone else, will find happiness, fulfillment and personal salvation in their lives.
Now the important words in the last sentence there are "personal salvation." Jesus taught that sin is personal... what one person does as a sin may be what another has to do to survive, making it not a sin at all. We can't judge others for we don't inhabit their skin and share their pure circumstances.
I once got into an argument with someone because they said that AIDS was a plague set upon us by God to punish the homosexuals and the promiscuous. I couldn't and don't accept it. I believe that HIV is more of a test. A horrid and infectious disease, it strikes many of those who have been seen as outside of the "religious norm." It does show up in the populations of homosexuals and the promiscuous, it's also prevalent among the most serious IV drug users, it is rampant among the teeming poor of Africa. It's not a punishment, it is a test of our compassion. Can the self-righteous of the world's most blessed nation put aside their prejudices and help the "undesirables" who suffer and die. Can we save them? Can we learn to value and love their lives as if they were our own?
Each generation, I believe, faces it's own moral tests. Some are easy to choose sides (WWII Nazis and Japanese Imperialism) but have deadly consequences for those who act and those who choose not to. Some are much tighter and more difficult (our generation's AIDS epidemics) but there are often times no immediate personal affects for action/inaction. If I choose to turn my back and not fight against AIDS, chances are that it will never come and hurt me. Two generations ago, if people had continued to turn their backs on Nazism...
So please, don't put prejudices against Christians. Like all prejudices, it shows ignorance, something Mr. Scopatz has never been known for.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: It seems, however, that, in spite of what you seemed to be implying earlier (i.e., that divorce is never justified), we are in agreement in that, at least.
I didn't think that I was implying this at all, but I am glad that after further clarification we agree.
quote: Why is it OK to blast homosexuals as some type of dirty sinners, but something like Utahians get some "Don't speak ill of them!", or some one will throw a religious blanket "Don't speak ill of this church" when someone is using the churches views to speak out against other people?
Thor, are you seriously implying that this board is somehow skewed to the right? Have you been reading the same thread as the rest of us?
quote:"nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right."
My question to you, then, is what is "what we value"? What if my values are different than yours?
The "we" in this case is those of us who have posted on this thread. I think it safe to say that everyone who has spoken up so far thinks that marriage is an important commitment not to be entered nor left lightly. I think it also self-evident that such a value is not to be found easily in the mainstream media nor in the general societal indicators like divorce rate etc.
As far as what if we disagree- in that case one of three things must happen: we compromise, your view prevails or my view prevails. In general I would say that if we disagree we work at a compromise while simultaneously I try to convince you and anyone who will listen that I'm right while you do the same.
quote: And as for expecting everyone's children to see through the contradiction: I hope that parents will teach their children well enough not to believe everything society teaches.
You hope that parents will teach their children the importance of marriage, but do you really believe they will? For that matter, the current attitudes toward marriage are bound to propagate since so many people apparently believe them. This means that no matter what I teach my children they will definitely still be propagandized via the media, friends etc that marriage is a temporary contract to be ended whenever one or both parties feels that their "needs aren't being met". I hope that my children will be wise enough to see through this lie, but I can hardly take it for granted that such will be the case. For that reason I hope that the popular view of marriage changes so that the message will be consistent with what my children are taught at home.
quote: The real slippery slope, to me, is toward repression of anything that doesn't meet with one particular group's sense of morality. Eventually, if we follow that line of logic, we end up where the Moslem contries are today -- ruled by poorly educated priests who think the answer to everything is to interpret scripture and wait. With no thought to the pain and suffering that continues for those already alive and having to live with the consequences of unfair restrictive policies.
I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. The whole reason that human communities can form is because those who make up the community agree in broad terms about what is right and what is wrong. This means that those who do what the community deems to be wrong either may not have place in the community or the community must change their view of what is right and wrong. Clearly many times it is healthy and necessary for the community to change. However it is not always the case. If the community accepted every minority group who disagreed with their views then the community would necessarily cease to exist. As a simple example: The repulsive organization NAMBLA contests that the rights of men who want to have sex with boys are currently being repressed. This is certainly an example of "repression of anything that doesn't meet with one particular group's sense of morality" and I fervently hope that this will continue to be the case forever. It is possible that in the case of homosexuality the society should change what it defines as wrong and right, but that certainly doesn't mean that every time a minority group pipes up about their rights being squelched because it conflicts with our sense of morality that we should accomodate them.
quote: Sweet William, your religious views do not coincide with everyone in society, and therefore should not be the controlling factor in a decision that is legal, rather than religious. I do not subscribe to your religious beliefs; therefore, I would not want to live in a society dictated by those beliefs. That's why there's a separation of church and state (at least in theory).
Wrong. Separation of church and state means that the state may not favor one religion over another. It has nothing to do with silencing someone because their opinions are based on religious morals.
quote: "Of course this is the case, nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right."
Hmm. So, legally recognizing that two homosexuals have decided to pledge their lives to one another is somehow "the opposite of what we value". 'We' would of course prefer that they have no legal incentive for monogamous relationships whatsoever, right?
I knew that you couldn't resist the temptation to put words in my mouth for long! Maybe if you looked back over my posts you would see that I was commenting about disposable marriages and the social changes which have led us there and not about homosexuals at all. But I doubt it. You simply can't pass up a chance to draw devil horns and a pointy beard on someone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's not a punishment, it is a test of our compassion."
When animals get rabies, is God testing them?
-------
"I think it safe to say that everyone who has spoken up so far thinks that marriage is an important commitment not to be entered nor left lightly. I think it also self-evident that such a value is not to be found easily in the mainstream media nor in the general societal indicators like divorce rate etc."
It's worth noting that some of the very people who have spoken up so far about the importance of marriage are ALSO people who have contributed to general societal indicators like divorce. Hatrackers aren't all THAT special; we don't revere marriage more than your typical segment of society.
[ August 05, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
jeni,
I should have put emphasis on the word "doomed".
[ August 05, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Tom, you kinda missed who was being tested there, didn't you?
The poor fellow who was beaten, robbed and left by the roadside wasn't being tested. He was a victim. It was the people who went by him that were tested, all failing until the Good Samaritan stopped and helped. Understand?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Jacare, I wasn't suggesting that anyone be silenced because their beliefs are based on religious morals. I simply do not want to see laws made for which the sole basis is a set of religious morals. In a country as religiously diverse as this one is, I think the function of the separation of church and state in a modern sense is to prevent the establishment of laws based solely on religion which would not coincide with the beliefs of people not of that religion. There are many, many people in this country who do not share the set of religious beliefs that would require a banning of homosexual marriage. What makes it better to ignore their beliefs in favor of religious beliefs?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: "I think it safe to say that everyone who has spoken up so far thinks that marriage is an important commitment not to be entered nor left lightly. I think it also self-evident that such a value is not to be found easily in the mainstream media nor in the general societal indicators like divorce rate etc."
It's worth noting that some of the very people who have spoken up so far about the importance of marriage are ALSO people who have contributed to general societal indicators like divorce. Hatrackers aren't all THAT special; we don't revere marriage more than your typical segment of society.
Very true. Nonetheless, it doesn't invalidate my point, does it?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, I wasn't suggesting that anyone be silenced because their beliefs are based on religious morals. I simply do not want to see laws made for which the sole basis is a set of religious morals.
Why not? What difference if a law is made for reasons of religious morals or for reasons of atheistic morals?
quote: In a country as religiously diverse as this one is, I think the function of the separation of church and state in a modern sense is to prevent the establishment of laws based solely on religion which would not coincide with the beliefs of people not of that religion.
I disagree. The separation of church and state clause is solely to keep the government from regulating religion. We have the rest of the amendments in place to make sure minorities don't get trampled.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom, exactly how much do you value your marriage. Even though you are an athiest (I think, if you are agnostic forgive me) from what I have seen of you personally, you and Christy value your marriage very much and take it very seriously, even down to carefully considering the beliefs of exactly who was going to perform the ceremony. I even hazard to say you value your own marriage, far more than the "societal indicators" indicate that "society" values marriage.
So I think you are playing the devil's advocate ineffectively because your demonstratable personal life biases you the opposite direction. I also recall that one of the two of you is the child of divorced parents. Which way does this tip the scale in your own life, towards a permanent commitment or away from the permanency of marriage?
With my boyfriend(whose father is going on wife #3) interestingly enough it biases him towards the permanency of marriage but away from actually making the commitment for fear he can't keep it. I understand his quandry from the other direcion as my parents marriage is a sham of pretended happiness that desn't seem to really exist when you get down to it.
AJ
[ August 05, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The poor fellow who was beaten, robbed and left by the roadside wasn't being tested. He was a victim. It was the people who went by him that were tested, all failing until the Good Samaritan stopped and helped. Understand?"
I refuse to believe that God would victimize millions of people to test the ones that DON'T suffer; I would prefer to think that God kills babies to teach the babies a lesson than think that He kills babies to teach the LIVING a lesson.
-------
"So I think you are playing the devil's advocate ineffectively because your demonstratable personal life biases you the opposite direction."
Banna, I'm not actually playing the devil's advocate at ALL. I think marriage is one of the most important elements of society, as it's ideally a strong and lifelong bond -- in the face of what often seems like an alien or hostile world. When asked, though, I think MOST people will say something similar, even if they don't really feel that way; it's a rare person who's honest enough to tell you that he or she just got married to do it, or that they can always just get divorced if things don't work out (as previously quoted).
And based on Jacare's "social indicators," like the divorce rate, a MAJORITY of people in this country actually hold marriage to less of a standard than we judgemental people would consider "ideal." But I'm sure a very, very small minority of THOSE would ever ADMIT to it.
[ August 05, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Questions on definitions:
For those of you who believe that Homosexual Acts are a sin,
Should a homosexual marriage be condoned between two men who refrain from proscribed physical acts, yet love and adore each other, desiring to be together, live together, as a couple but without sinning?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I would prefer to think that God kills babies to teach the babies a lesson than think that He kills babies to teach the LIVING a lesson.
Of course, if God exists then dying isn't such a bad thing after all anyway... so maybe he kills babies just for fun.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: For those of you who believe that Homosexual Acts are a sin,
Should a homosexual marriage be condoned between two men who refrain from proscribed physical acts, yet love and adore each other, desiring to be together, live together, as a couple but without sinning?
Yes. Also for little old ladies who really, really love their puppy dogs and for best friends who have pricked their fingers and become blood brothers.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
The discussion seems to have moved back on topic, but darned if I don't like to get off track. Anyway, as long as we are offering anecdotal evidence (really, what other kind is there in this argument?), I couldn't resist throwing in my two cents, as a son of divorced parents and a man in an interracial and, if not interfaith, at least inter-belief marriage.
I know people who do take divorce lightly, but I've never known anyone who got divorced who, in my opinion, should have remained married. I'm quite convinced that I would have turned out much worse had they remained married.
I've been with my wife for almost 7 years. It's been a sexual relationship for over 5 years. We've lived together for the past 15 months, and we've been married for just over 5 weeks. I do think that seeing relationships fail has made me both more cautious entering a serious relationship and more determined to making it work. I also think that it makes very little sense to expect two people to be able to spend the rest of their lives together if they don't know what it's like to live with each other or if they are sexually compatible. I think it's wonderful to be in love, and I know many couples who have had successful relationships and marriages who never lived together or had premarital sex, but, realistically, doesn't it make more sense to find these things out beforehand? To give it a trial run before going all the way?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
The topic of this thread is the legalization of gay marriages. Most of the arguments against it go back to a relgion-based argument. I disagree with this tenet, as do many other people not of that faith. What gives you the right to impose your religious beliefs on people who do not agree with them?
Now, Jacare, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument implied by "atheistic morals" is that by legalizing gay marriages, a law is being made based on a set of morals that you disagree with--ergo, it is your religious rights that are being trampled upon.
quote: Wrong. Separation of church and state means that the state may not favor one religion over another.
If that is your definition, then why should we prefer fundamentalist Christian morals over any other? And if you assume that by legalizing gay marriages, we'd be prefering "atheistic morals" over any other, then we are at an impasse and require compromise.
[ August 05, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Why not? What difference if a law is made for reasons of religious morals or for reasons of atheistic morals?
Because the law made solely on religious morals may not make sense to anyone outside of the religion. Because even inside a religion, members often cannot agree on accurate interpretation of their texts. Because as you mentioned, we are constitutionally forbidden to benefit one religion over another, so creating a law based on a single religious belief is automatically out of the question.
It might be argued that at their core, all laws are based on a religious moral of some kind, but if that's the case it's such a generic one that no single religion can lay claim to it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
thanks for the clarification Tom.
AJ
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
quote:...so maybe he kills babies just for fun.
Oddly enough, Jacare, that is a concept that sometimes really worries me. What if God had a lousy moral system? What if God is evil? Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Tom, if you're an Atheist and I'm a Christian, why do you believe God goes around inflicting disease on individuals and I believe that diseases developing in nature are actually passed from person to person through scientifically proven methods of transmission?
Why does AIDS exist? Natural biological reasons, mutation, I've even heard speculation of human tampering with pre-existing virii. Did God make it? In the greater scheme of things, I guess so. Did God give it to all of those affected? I'm looking at the spread and seeing more human choices and interactions, mishaps and bad judgement. What do you see?
God didn't put the robbers in the path of that man that morning. Chances are that a group of folks got together and said, "Let's go out to the road and bushwhack someone for their money." And the victim, that morning, probably said, "I've got to head over to this town today to conduct some business." Two groups with free will on a collision course. Just like it was free will that allowed those folks later on to choose whether to keep walking or stop and help.
Events happen, testing grows from the circumstances.
I believe, to the depths of my soul, God gives us a life with a set number of days in it. We, individually lead those lives and have the opportunity to do what we wish with it. At the end, we are judged on our actions and our willingness to admit our failures.
But, I guess from an atheistic point of view, we could all be here by cosmic accident to do whatever we like and once we expire, we're lost to the cosmos as we turn back into fertilizer.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: "Why not? What difference if a law is made for reasons of religious morals or for reasons of atheistic morals?"
Because the law made solely on religious morals may not make sense to anyone outside of the religion. Because even inside a religion, members often cannot agree on accurate interpretation of their texts. Because as you mentioned, we are constitutionally forbidden to benefit one religion over another, so creating a law based on a single religious belief is automatically out of the question.
It might be argued that at their core, all laws are based on a religious moral of some kind, but if that's the case it's such a generic one that no single religion can lay claim to it.
Actually, what I was getting at is that a moral is a moral is a moral. Morals are all based on some type of underlying assumptions. Why should we prefer one type of moral to another? The differentiation between two moral systems is also based on morals. So when I read that someone believes that we shouldn't base our laws on religious morals I wonder why we should prefer some other set of morals.
You made the case for universal acceptance and applicability, which I think is a good basis since that is essentially what defines a community- an agreed upon set of morals. The problem is that in a community as large and diverse as the US it is impossible to reach an agreed upon set of morals. What we do then is compromise. The various religions, heathens, atheists etc find common ground. If common ground can't be found then what do we do? Automatically discount the religious?
quote:Now, Jacare, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument implied by "atheistic morals" is that by legalizing gay marriages, a law is being made based on a set of morals that you disagree with--ergo, it is your religious rights that are being trampled upon.
I am actually thinking more generally than this specific argument. By "Atheistic morals" I meant non-religious morals in general.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I do worry here, that some people so easily shrug off someone's personal morals as something handed down to them by their religion.
That's a terribly smug position you have there. Are people of faith completely incapable of holding a valid opinion? Does having a religious affiliation mean that we should throw out their feelings on a subject when dealing with our government?
It's pretty closed minded of you to immediately bark that someone is just parroting the dogma of their faith, isn't it? Or do you see the religious as just a bunch of mindless lemmings in search of the next cliff?
Snobbery, it's bigotry for the "intellectual elite"! Buy it now in "All Shades of Gray" or super-hip stylish "Emperor Has No Clothes Clear"! Hurry now while supplies last! Be cool! Be the first on your block to look down your nose!
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Oddly enough, Jacare, that is a concept that sometimes really worries me. What if God had a lousy moral system? What if God is evil?
I wonder what you mean by this. Evil can only have meaning relative to a given set of morals, right? So do you mean "what if God's morals and mine are very different"? Something along the lines of "what if God likes to cause pain and be mean etc? It wouldn't make much sense if that were the case, since pretty much every religion I know of ascribes generally benevolent attributes to God. But what if all of the religions are wrong and God really is mean? Then I would surmise that God doesn't waste much time with people since he has never even seen fit to let us know anything about him.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
What I basically mean is that we strongly disagree about what is right and wrong. If a religion tells me something is wrong, and my logic, understanding and experience make me disagree, I usually ascribe the difference to the religion not being a true representation of God.
Of course, those in that religion ascribe it to me being a stubborn sinner who won't admit the truth.
Which brings up the question: what if they are right?
Should I change my morals to suit the Will of God? Probably not, because the religion might be wrong, and then I would be doing wrong.
And what if God's morals were opposite those of all Men? He is the Ruler of the Universe; He gets to make the rules. But what if, by all our reasoning and experience, we decide He is wrong? Do we do what we consider a sin in order to obey God? Or do we oppose God because we believe Him to be immoral, and thus sin in that way?
Sure, most religions believe God to be benevolent. But notice that most people ascribe to God their own moral system. And remember, most religions are wrong. (Just ask anyone who is a believer in the "true" religion--anyone of them! )
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Sure, most religions believe God to be benevolent. But notice that most people ascribe to God their own moral system. And remember, most religions are wrong. (Just ask anyone who is a believer in the "true" religion--anyone of them! )
I'd go so far as to say that all people who think they have right and wrong figured out are wrong. Because, just as they said, they ascribe their own morals to God. But what is the alternative? To ascribe someone else's morals to god? That doesn't make any sense. The importance is the consistency- everyone thinks that God does the right thing always and humans never live up to their own morals.
quote: What I basically mean is that we strongly disagree about what is right and wrong. If a religion tells me something is wrong, and my logic, understanding and experience make me disagree, I usually ascribe the difference to the religion not being a true representation of God.
Of course you do. So does everyone else, even the religious ("my church is so great, if only the Bishop would figure out that we should do X it would be perfect...")
quote: Which brings up the question: what if they are right?
Should I change my morals to suit the Will of God? Probably not, because the religion might be wrong, and then I would be doing wrong.
Well, here is the crux of the matter. Is there some way to get independent insight on what is objectively right and wrong? (objectively meaning right and wrong according to God).
Only if God gives one some kind of guidance.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote: If common ground can't be found then what do we do? Automatically discount the religious?
quote:Are people of faith completely incapable of holding a valid opinion? Does having a religious affiliation mean that we should throw out their feelings on a subject when dealing with our government?
Not at all. Religious people are quite as capable of holding worthwhile opinions and positions as any others.
But if the only defense you can offer for your position is that it's defined by a book, I'm unlikely to give it much weight.
"Don't kill" is a scriptural commandment, but it's also one that has easily observable, easily measurable consequences. So does "don't steal," "don't bear false witness," and even "don't commit adultery." I don't see them as religious tenets as much as common sense ethics. Keeping committed homosexuals from bonding together doesn't have as clear a danger, hence the arguing. An ancient levitical law, especialy one that's surrounded by others that have slipped away over the centuries, isn't going to convince me on its own.
And here's the thing: I can be convinced. I'm pretty sure that allowing gay marriage will not cripple marriage as an institution. I am not, however, convinced that forcing it down everyone's throats won't cause more harm than good, and I'm extremely interested in how people feel about the matter, and why they feel that way.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Interesting thought. Even though it isn't going to happen, would it be a better long-term strategy for the right to let gay couples have their legal marriage? Then they won't have anything to create a hubbub over, and not be able to push as many gay issues to the forefront (other than the really bad hate crimes)
AJ
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sopwith:
quote:My quote that you quoted: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, but you would all be much more comfortable if there were no homosexuals, right? Barring that, it'd be best if no mention of that was allowed in the media or anywhere where a child might be influenced by it, right? Barring that, it should be well known that such behavior is a sin and something really terrible in God's eyes, right? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your quote: As a Christian, non-Mormon, I believe that Jesus Christ tried his best to teach us to accept and love everyone... everyone. I don't wish for gay people not to exist or to just stay quietly away. I hope and pray that they, and everyone else, will find happiness, fulfillment and personal salvation in their lives.
Here's the deal...you say that you agree with my position on Gay marriage. If true, that puts you firmly outside the conservative Christian group which I was adressing.
And I have yet to find a conservative Christian group that does not count homosexual behavior as a sin. There are some that are actively trying to address this issue and maybe refine the case to say something like "it's only a sin if it's casual sex" or something along those lines. But I have not encountered ANY Christian who is both against the idea of Gay marriage (on religious grounds) for whom at least one of the three alternatives I listed was not also true.
If you are that exception, then I apologize. I really didn't think I was mischaracterizing the "Christian conservative" opinion on this subject. I thought back and realized, however, that I was not clear in saying that it was mostly conservative Christians who hold the views that I find so hard to find any common ground with.
Anyway, I agree with you whole heartedly that Christ taught a message of love. The problem I have is that many people I run across who claim to be Christian only adopt that attitude when their mean-spirited attacks on people's rights are pointed out to them. Then it's all "hate the sin, love the sinner" nonsense, and "we love everyone" but still the undercurrent is there of "your behavior is a sin."
Which is what my 3rd option was.
In general, it is very hard to be a member of a Christian denomination and openly state that you believe homosexuality is just fine. There are a few sects that are that open and non-judgemental. The issue is that none of them are taking a stand AGAINST gay marriage -- at least not that I've seen. It's the Conservative sects who have the dual "vision" of "homosexuality is bad because the Bible tells me so" and "homosexual marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage."
[ August 05, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Chris- good post. I agree with you completely.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:I knew that you couldn't resist the temptation to put words in my mouth for long! Maybe if you looked back over my posts you would see that I was commenting about disposable marriages and the social changes which have led us there and not about homosexuals at all. But I doubt it. You simply can't pass up a chance to draw devil horns and a pointy beard on someone.
You must excuse me for assuming that when speaking in future tense about changes to society's view of marriage--in a thread discussing the possibility of legalizing gay marriage--that you were, of course, discussing gay marriage.
Well, you don't have to excuse me at all, really. It's patently obvious what you were really talking about. Note the placement of present and future tense: "Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right."
I'll just take my little eraser and rub off the horns and the beard that you drew on yourself if you can show me what possible future you were describing in that sentence that isn't related to gay marriage. Unless you just happened to be posting in the wrong thread or something.
But come on, Jacare. I know you feel so victimized for having such a hard time hashing out your impersonal views on this subject. I understand that. I've even been there before.
The problem is that you have absolutely no understanding. You have no concept of what it might be like to be outside of your religion. There's no way you could possibly know just how much you demean homosexuals--people, mind you--with every word of your petty justifications.
Statistically black people are more likely to commit crimes, right? So for the sake of your children's society is it okay to deport African Americans? No, of course not.
But would it be okay if there were a couple Bible versus referring to them as an abomination?
NO, IT STILL WOULD NOT BE OKAY. And you think so too, damnit! Just like Tom asked earlier: how many Wiccans have you killed lately, Jacare?
No one is asking you to date other men. No one is asking you to have a drag queen in this year's Christmas paegent. The argument, here, is that social equality is the HIGHEST priority in our society. Concerns about what might happen to "the institution of marriage"--whatever THAT is in today's world--can take a back seat.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jacare - that's because you've never relied on doctrine to make your case for you, and why, when looking at pages upon pages of Hatrack posts, especially on topics based in religious subjects, I tend to skim and look for your name (and a few others...).
Don't tell anybody, though.
[ August 05, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
Yes! Bring on the ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies! Mwahahahaha!
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Dude, were you talking to Potemkyn? Because for all that I find his statement repugnant, I didn't see any ad hominems.
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
No, I was referring to Caleb. Sorry about the confusion.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Unproductive in what way? Because they can't create their own kids?
There's a gay couple fighting for adoption rights in south Florida that have worked as foster parents for years. They've taken quite a few kids that no one else would take, including an HIV-positive child. I'd say they're pretty damn productive.
And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that two gay people can do to each other that two heterosexual people can't also do (although they may need appliances). Ready for a shocker? Many do.
I'll accept your post as compelling only if you also plan to call for bans on unproductive hetero couples and straights who pass on all those other venereal diseases that everyone seems to have forgotten about.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Bob, I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head there. It's the words Christian and conservative together. Somehow, somewhere, the conservatives latched onto Christians as a voter base. A little political wrangling, a few of the right people in office and in the pulpit and wow, you've got an electorate.
Personally, I've always felt that Christians would tend to be something of moderates on most issues. Sadly, people tend to use the title of Christian as a way to pull people across the warp and weft of the American political scheme.
Let's face it, the founding fathers were predominately Christian, but in hammering out the Constitution they wisely set forth a separation of Church and State. And I do believe that is supposed to work both ways, but in the case of organizations, not individuals.
A president who is Christian will act on his/her beliefs and why shouldn't he/she? A Buddhist would do the same. A true Atheistic president could be expected to operate on the moral beliefs they had developed.
Sadly, we're talking about individuals who happen to be part of larger organizations and belief systems. As individuals, they will have their own unique interpretations as well as the times when they fail and actually work against their beliefs. Nixon, a Quaker, okayed breaking and entering as well as bearing false witness. While he was an adherent to the Quaker faith, he didn't follow through on its morals. Kennedy, a Catholic, apparently had affairs and did prosecute a war. The list could go on and on, I'm sure.
But it's easy to speak in absolutes and almost impossible to live up to them. I know personally that I'll never meet the high marks of my faith, but I honestly believe in grace, no matter how clumsy my actions might be.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:That lifestyle is not only unproductive, but dangerous to both involved and any others they might become involved with.
Wow, three pages of intelligent discussion for this statement to rear its ugly head.
Do you know how much of a puppet this makes you sound? Why exactly is homosexuality dangerous? Where do you base this belief on? Something your parents told you? Your preacher? An after-school special?
Why don't you think for yourself for a change.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Do you choose to be a heterosexual?
I certainly don't. The idea of having sex with a man repulses me. If society demanded that I gie up women for men, I would not be able to do it.
So why would it be any different to give up being homosexual?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah sure, your statement was a non-religious justification .
It was the most blatenly bigoted, misinformed, and religiously inspired statement on this entire thread.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm still waiting to hear about how most hmosexuals transmit diseases. This is a new one on me. Got any figures? or is this one of those "everyone knows" things?
The only thing that a gay couple cannot do that a straight one can is have their own biological children, and even that's getting easier. They can adopt, and many do. They can be productive members of the society, and many are.
But if you've based your opinions on the certainty that every gay person is really a straight one that decided to be gay, we may as well quit right now because you clearly have inside information that the rest of the world isn't privy to. I haven't seen any evidence that sexuality is always a choice, so I'm at a disadvantge when arguing with such certitude.
[ August 05, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:I'll just take my little eraser and rub off the horns and the beard that you drew on yourself if you can show me what possible future you were describing in that sentence that isn't related to gay marriage.
quote: quote:
As far as realizing that marriage requires more than love, I really think the responsibility for teaching this rests with parents rather than with society.
Of course this is the case, nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right.
quote:
I really don't think you can talk about "personal responsibility" as the most important thing, and then say that the way to accomplish that is to change society. That's just putting the blame back on society and you've just told us we shouldn't do that.
Shouldn't we do both? Shouldn't we teach our children AND try to change society so that it reflects what we most deeply value? When we see things in our society which conflict with our beliefs shouldn't we point them out so that others are aware?
quote:
I'm of the opinion that if the marriage is a failure, it really doesn't matter much whether you stay together or divorce, unless
their are kids. And then you have to decide what's better for the kids: growing up around adults who can't abide each other's presence or growing up in a split household.
Of course. However, what some of us are saying is that the point where people call their marriage a failure and give up on it should probably be a bit more stringent than what many think.
my comments are italicized. Call me crazy, but even though this thread is about homosexual marriage I thought that for a while there we were just discussing marriage in general and the harm (or lack thereof) done to it by loosening societal restraint on sex.
quote: The problem is that you have absolutely no understanding. You have no concept of what it might be like to be outside of your religion. There's no way you could possibly know just how much you demean homosexuals--people, mind you--with every word of your petty justifications.
Really? I must lead a very sheltered life.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Umm, Xavier, couldn't a person not be religious and still dislike homosexuals?
Or is there a grand enlightenment that no one's aware of?
C'mon... I don't agree in the least with Potemkyn's statements (and they hold as much substance as his namesake villages), but you're seeing religion where it wasn't mentioned?
Who is hunting the witches now?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare - that's because you've never relied on doctrine to make your case for you, and why, when looking at pages upon pages of Hatrack posts, especially on topics based in religious subjects, I tend to skim and look for your name (and a few others...).
Don't tell anybody, though.
I have a secret too. The two Hatrackers who have likely had the most effect on changing my opinion of important political issues are you and David Bowles. I am not sure why that is, but there you have it.
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
Guys...ummm...it was a joke...
Sorry, perhaps part of the problem is that no one can laugh at any of this...it's serious. Anyway...I've offended people. I'll take it all off. Sorry.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I admit that there's a small chance he got his views from somewhere else, but its rare for that sort of blindly accepted bigotry about homosexuality to come from elsewhere.
Lets ask him. How religious are you Pot?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Well I'll accept it as a joke, but I wonder if you could explain how it was one?
Were you being sarcastic?
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
*LOL*
Great article and terrific comments. Loved it, thanks for pointing it out to us.
And now for my favorite response to that article:
quote: Enough! If penguins were meant to be flyboys, God would have given them wings... oh wait...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sorry for the lashing, Potemkyn, but it wasn't obviously a joke and I've seen similar opinions far too many times, with complete conviction.
I think it was the starkness of such a thing where I didn't expect it - Hatrack - that needled me.
Jacare - that's a scary thing, but thank you.
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
Sorry, I put a big grin after a pretty ridiculous statement of "I'm just telling it like it is"...I thought people would notice, but it was my fault for getting so deep into it in the first place.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If you take it all off, everyone will think I'm crazy .
Oh well, at least Chris has comments toward you also.
Edit: Well I took that grin to be more self-righteous certainty. As if it should be obvious to all.
[ August 05, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
Honestly, though, is sexual preference a choice? And if it isn't, how do you deal with it? How do you deal with it if some choose and others don't?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Interesting, Ptok, and possibly the true reasoning behind many of the arguments against homosexual marriage that other's can't put into words outside of religion.
Can we look at these arguments more closely?
1) Homosexuality is a choice?
Define choice. Is it a person's choice who they find attractive? Is it a person's choice who they fall in love with. Suicide and depression amongst gay teens is higher than about any other sub-group because these people find themselves attracted to a type of person that society says it is a sin for them to be attracted to.
You make it sound as if they decide one day, "I think I will lust after men today." They don't. There may be some debate on whether it is chemical, genetic, or environmental factors that directs a person's sexual preference, but all agree that concious decision is not one of those factors.
Denial of those desires is what creates many of the monsters people fear.
2) Homosexual unions are unproductive.
In producing what?
The only thing a gay couple produce less of than a straight couple is Children?
If the reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry is based on their inability to procreate, then that "reason" is a threat to my happy but childless marriage of 15 years.
3) Homosexual activity is dangerous.
Can you give us some detailed statistics?
Premarital and for that matter-post marital sleeping around spreads diseases in both Gay and Straight couples.
How do you limit the spread of STD's? You promote and establish lasting monogonous relationships. How does denying homosexual marriages do this?
At least homosexuals don't leave behind a path of unwanted children.
Or perhaps you are refering to the various types of alternative intercourse that homosexual's participate in. I can understand where you find it unpleasant, as they find the thought of heterosexual intercourse ugly and unpleasant, however I am unaware of any reports stating one is more damaging or dangerous than the other.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'll ask again: Is your sexual preference a choice?
Mine's not, and neither has been anyone I've ever talked to, gay or straight.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Great. I spent time coming up with a deep heartfelt reply to a joke.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Mine was a choice.
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
I'm Sorry! I thought I could yank a few chains harmlessly! I didn't expect the onslaught that I got, though.
You did make good points about those issues.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So you are in fact a bisexual who chooses to live as a heterosexual.
You still then are attracted to both sexs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm... isn't it a sliding scale?
The whole concept of Option One, Option Two, or Both is a modern construct. I don't think it's true.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Xavier, I disagree.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Well then I'm 99.9% on the heterosexual side, and my friend Steve is 99.9% toward the homosexual side.
For us anyway, not one bit of choice was used to select which sex we are attracted to.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: There may be some debate on whether it is chemical, genetic, or environmental factors that directs a person's sexual preference, but all agree that concious decision is not one of those factors.
I've always thought using the term "choice" was a bad misnomer. Whether it is genetic, environmental or a combination of factors, I agree that no ones consciouly chooses their sexual preference.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Zgator, I have to disagree with you, too.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Is it a person's choice who they find attractive? Is it a person's choice who they fall in love with.
You treat attraction and love as if they were one and the same. That might be true in hollywood, but I hope it isn't so in real life. I think that in general you don't choose who you are physically attracted to- tall, short, dark, light etc. "there's no accounting for taste". But we most certainly choose whom we fall in love with. The emotional attractiveness of someone, for me at least, is determined almost entirely on a long list of commonalities and differences which are practically all a matter of choice.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Sorry if I misrepresented you, but help me understand pop.
You chose at one point to be a heterosexual. Which means that you were at one time attracted to both men and women.
Now you say that this is no longer the case. Are you saying that you made a decision to no longer be attracted to men, and now you aren't? To me that just doesn't seem possible. Can you really fool your very biological attraction with a conscious decision? Isn't it more likely that you have a psychological block which convinces you that you aren't attracted to them, but that you really are?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Jacare, are you claiming that you could fall in love with a man if you so choose?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Is there some way to get independent insight on what is objectively right and wrong? (objectively meaning right and wrong according to God)."
See, I think you're defining "objectively" wrong.
Why?
Because if what YOU mean by "objective" is actually "objective," that means that, in a universe ruled by an evil God -- evil in any way we would recognize, vicious, cruel, and capricious -- we would have no basis on which to judge him. And yet this is clearly not the case.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, are you claiming that you could fall in love with a man if you so choose?
No. I am claiming that falling in love with someone generally involves at least two steps with the first being physical attraction (which is a culturally biased biological phenomenon) and the second being a completely voluntary interplay of likes and dislikes.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
popatr, what Xavier said.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Because if what YOU mean by "objective" is actually "objective," that means that, in a universe ruled by an evil God -- evil in any way we would recognize, vicious, cruel, and capricious -- we would have no basis on which to judge him. And yet this is clearly not the case.
Well, you are right, but only because I was defining "objective" as based on the more common Christian understanding of God as the creator of everything including all governing laws. Based on my own theology then you are right- objective truth is more than just what God decides is right. However, also based on my theology is the fact that if God ever chose evil he would cease to be God.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Jacare, you act as if you were discussing the downfalls of changing anything about marriage INDEPENDENTLY of the homosexual marriage issue, when you were in fact discussing other marital flaws to justify your status quo position towards this issue. But I'll treat it as an acceptable dodging since it doesn't really matter.
<erases horns & beard>
Snarky:
quote:Yes! Bring on the ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies! Mwahahahaha!
*Ahem*. Mwahaha? There was no ad hominem attack in my post. I truthfully believe that Jacare has no understanding of how much hurt his views and the perpetuation thereof cause the homosexual community, otherwise he would not express them as often and publicly as he does. I know that Jacare is a good person that doesn't intentionally harm others, so I am left with this opinion and no other alternative.
I can only assume that you took my black=criminal thing as a straw man, which is why you accuse me of logical fallacy. My fault for using a touchy subject to touch another touchy subject. In reality I was trying to show that even Jacare would not be comfortable allowing the Bible--much less any other religious text--be the equivalent of our Constitution. The deporting criminals example was a really poor choice on my part.
Another off-the-wall point:
If you truly view homosexuality as an evil blot of humanity, wouldn't it benefit you to let them lead their lives according to their own choices? To quote Eddy Izzard: "Gay people come from straight people". Frankly, the longer homosexuality remains a dark secret in our communities, the more rampant it is likely to become, as gays afraid of conservative persecution will feign heterosexual lives and give birth to even more homosexual children. That's possibly even why this issue has gained us much strength as it has over the last couple decades. As a result of not recognizing homosexuality, our society has created TONS of them, and only now are there enough to cause a significant enough shift in social thought.
Only now it's probably too late for them to be bred out, since we have so many other fertility options available to us these days. Did Jesus shoot himself in the foot, or what? Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Oh, and by the way, I may have stumbled onto an argument against allowing homosexual marriage in my previous post, though the logic is rather circular. Try this out and let me know what you think:
Since physical sexual attraction is clearly conditioned by culture (if you dispute this we can debate it), allowing homosexual marriage and the widespread acceptance of homosexuality is harmful to those who believe that homosexuality is wrong since it will lead to greater societal conditioning for homosexual physical attraction and hence an increase in the ratio of homosexuals.
We can see an example of cultural conditioning of physical attraction in the simple example of models and moviestars that are held up as the standards for attractiveness in society- large breasts, tiny waist, tan skin etc.
What do you think? Might this be a viable argument or no?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem, Jacare, is that it IS circular reasoning.
If homosexuality is only wrong because it can lead to a slight increase in the incidence of homosexuality, there's not really anything wrong with it.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah. I don't agree with that. Even bushmen from Africa pick out the same type of faces when chosing beauty. There are studies on what people find beautiful and it's amazingly consistant throughout the world. Gay marriage won't change that. I mean, if people who live in a freaking dessert seeing no one but the rest of the tribe, then how in the world did they come to have the same standard of beauty as the rest of us?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I'll tell you, Kayla, the damn liberal media is more insidious that we could possibly imagine.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, you act as if you were discussing the downfalls of changing anything about marriage INDEPENDENTLY of the homosexual marriage issue, when you were in fact discussing other marital flaws to justify your status quo position towards this issue. But I'll treat it as an acceptable dodging since it doesn't really matter.
The reason I acted as if I were discussing it independently is because I was. Jeniwren is the one who used it in conjunction with her position on damaging the institution of marriage.
quote: I truthfully believe that Jacare has no understanding of how much hurt his views and the perpetuation thereof cause the homosexual community, otherwise he would not express them as often and publicly as he does.
I am truly rather perplexed with this one. You must be referring to my view that homosexuality is a sin, for I can think of no other which I have expressed in a long time which may be considered hurtful. And to be honest I don't know how my position- that homosexuality is a sin- hurts any homosexual, as I don't believe that homosexuality as sin justifies attacking homosexuality or truncation of their rights guaranteed by the constitution. In fact, I know exactly how it is to be in that same position as I know of many people who consider Mormonism a sin and a great blot on the face of religion. That doesn't bother me at all until such people take up arms or other such things to enforce their opinions.
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
quote:The problem is that you have absolutely no understanding. You have no concept of what it might be like to be outside of your religion. There's no way you could possibly know just how much you demean homosexuals--people, mind you--with every word of your petty justifications.
You don't think this is an ad hominem attack? It has nothing to do with Jacare's position and everything to do with him as a person. That's ad hominem
quote:But would it be okay if there were a couple Bible versus referring to them as an abomination?
NO, IT STILL WOULD NOT BE OKAY. And you think so too, damnit!
This is what I was referring to with my "logical fallacies" comment. Did Jacare say that he would think this? Or are you making faulty conclusions about him?
[ August 05, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Snarky ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:What do you think? Might this be a viable argument or no?
Only if you think homosexuality is a choice and you also think that you have the right to limit other people's choices; the same reasoning would allow you to legislate against movies like The Matrix: Reloaded, because there's a rave scene and you don't want your kids to go to or even be exposed to raves, since there are typically drugs involved in a rave. You could also ban Rocky, Rocky II, Rocky III, Rocky IV... heh. You would be left with Big Idea productions at the top of the hollywood food chain.
Of course, you'd have to ban Vegen marriages...
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: If homosexuality is only wrong because it can lead to a slight increase in the incidence of homosexuality, there's not really anything wrong with it.
You phrased it badly, I'm afraid. Try this: if allowing homosexual marriages will lead to a higher ratio of homosexuals then those who believe homosexuality is a sin are right in opposing homosexual marriage (note that I am not stating that this is the case necessarily, I just want to see if the idea makes any sense).
quote: Yeah. I don't agree with that. Even bushmen from Africa pick out the same type of faces when chosing beauty.
Faces I might believe, barely. But definitely not body. Brazilian men for instance prefer ample hips and small breasts as opposed to... well, we all know what AMerican men prefer. Incas believed that crossed eyes were a sign of beauty. They would hang ornaments from locks of their babies hair to coax them into being crosseyed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Sorry. Phrased that way, I agree with you COMPLETELY. (I even said so, earlier in this thread.)
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:That doesn't bother me at all until such people take up arms or other such things to enforce their opinions.
Oh. You mean, like, if someone ever tried to ban Mormon marriages, you would find that hurtful?
It's not your view of homosexuality as sin that hurts their community directly. It's your view on how they are to be treated in comparison to everyone else.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
no one has commented on my idea where, they just legalize gay marriage and then let it drop off the media's radar screen, because there isn't controversy anymore. This would reduce the visiblity of the gay movement as well as their power to sway public opinion.
eh?
AJ
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Did Jacare say that he would think this? Or are you making faulty conclusions about him?
:
quote:And you think so too, damnit!
Of course he doesn't think that. OBVIOUSLY he doesn't think that. That's WHY I pointed it out.
quote:You don't think this is an ad hominem attack? It has nothing to do with Jacare's position and everything to do with him as a person. That's ad hominem
I was trying to make the point that Jacare-as-a-person has everything to do with Jacare-as-an-argument. In that sense I suppose it is necessarily "ad hominem", but I reject the notion that it was an attack. I'm explaining my frustration at his hurtful position because it's obvious that he doesn't understand how hurtful it is.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Xavier,
At one distressing time, mister would stand up for anything. Even the thought, "Whew, I don't have a boner" was enough to start the chain reaction.
At that same age, I didn't have a whole lot of information about the birds&bees, and so the closest imagery my (wet)dreams could come up with for a long time was me taking an unusually satisfying pee. Thoughts of that, and Mr. would threaten to stand up.
Does that mean I was attracted to myself, or to toilets? Nah. It means I was developing my mind on the sex issue.
Pretty soon it got related to girls, but VERY vaguely.
But then I had a friend who wanted to explore the other way. This produced disgust and fascination. I never did anything--but not surprisingly to me, the imagery in my dreams started to change. And this is the point where my choice came in--if I had let myself do even one thing, which was tempting, I'm almost 100% sure I'd be "gay" today.
As it was, I resisted a long time and eventually had to "not be his friend" anymore. I had few friends, so this was especially hard.
And even after that, my problem didn't go away fast. But through a concerted effort, I forced myself to associate sex with girls. (girls, don't be offended at the crassness of this) And eventually that association became powerful enough that my dreams experimented with girls again, instead.
Now I can honestly say that I all of my dreams/fantasies are about girls. (I'm still a virgin) I don't think that I could go the other way at this point, and the thought or guy-guy things is yucky.
I think, had I never had the strange events that led me to question--or had I given in at that point--that I would, like others, doubt that I had any choice involved. But because I teetered on the edge, and stepped back, I saw the choice.
I believe--though I have no evidence beyond my own experience--that everyone, given the right experience, can go either way. I believe choices at crucial moments can change them.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:Various studies have showed that if a man's body is very symmetrical, he will begin his sex life earlier, he'll have more sexual partners, and he'll be a better lover. In one study involving symmetrical and lop-sided men, women who made love with the most symmetrical men had, during sexual intercourse, orgasms 75% of the time. But women who made love to the most asymmetrical men had orgasms only 30% of the time. And the more symmetrical man was more likely to have his ejaculation at the same time his female partner was having her orgasm! So according to this study, symmetry also meant more babies.
Now, Jacare, the underlying assumption is that symmetry is beauty. Whether or not you change the proportions is irrelevant. Just like changing the sex. Just because you've been bombarded with pictures of Mel Gibson and George Clooney, it hasn't "turned" you gay, has it? Has watching Will and Grace turned you on to men? Didn't think so. And women are even more bombarded by same sex photos than men. I don't think there is a higher lesbian population than gay male population.
I just disagree with you. That's all.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Well, Xavier, you don't get to claim that you haven't heard anyone say they thought their sexuality was a choice anymore.
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
Sorry, Caleb. I totally misread that bit about "you think so, too." However, I still feel that some of your points—that Jacare is incapable of understanding or sympathizing with homosexuals—are invalid, and that you're just trying to paint him as a bigot. I can't say that I speak for him or know exactly how he feels about homosexuals, but Jacare doesn't strike me as the type of person who would have so little compassion. I think you misunderstand his position. You see an unwillingness to allow homosexual marriage and take that to mean that there's a lack of sympathy and understanding on his part, as if sympathy and understanding would make him change his mind. The fact is that since we see it as a sin, no amount of sympathy and understanding will make it right.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Snarky ]
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
You dig up some of the most random stuff I've ever seen, Kayla. I just thought someone should point that out.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Well, Xavier, you don't get to claim that you haven't heard anyone say they thought their sexuality was a choice anymore.
Of course, being a virgin and all he can't really say he's straight, either, can he?
Especially if in his mind homosex is a sin while homothoughts are not a sin. That would mean sexual orientation can be defined only by sexual acts, in which case he's asexual.
But please, please don't run out and have sex just to prove me wrong.
[ August 05, 2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've seen a study of Denzel Washington's face, and it is almost perfectly symmetrical.
Mmmmmm.....
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Jon Boy,
quote: To test whether people are attracted to others who look like themselves, Perrett asked 30 male and female students to participate in a survey. As each person arrived at the test location, someone took his or her picture. Later, each person was asked to rate a group faces of the opposite sex in terms of attractiveness. Results showed that each person consistently found one face among the group particularly more attractive than the others.
Little did they know it was their own.
In each group of pictures, Perrett had included a version of the subject's face that had been changed to the opposite sex. He and his colleagues used a special computer program to feminize or masculinize the face in the photograph of each person. They then hid key characteristics like hairstyle, earrings and clothing. None of the subjects recognized any of the faces as their own.
Instead, what they saw was a very good-looking person
quote: "Seeing a beautiful woman triggers a pleasure response in a man's brain similar to what a hungry person gets from eating or an addict gets from a fix, scientists say.
Researchers said the study, published last week in the journal Neuron, shows feminine beauty affects a man's brain at a very primal level, not on some higher, more intellectual plane.
'Beauty is working similar to a drug,' said Dan Ariely of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, a co-author of the study.
Researchers showed a group of heterosexual men in their mid-20s pictures of men and women of varying attractiveness, while measuring the brain's responses through computer imaging.
The beautiful women were found to activate the same 'reward circuits' as food and cocaine do. The men had a negative reaction to pictures of good-looking males, suggesting they were threatened by them, study author Hans Breiter said.
Breiter said evidence beauty stimulates these primal brain circuits has never been shown. He said the findings counter arguments that beauty is nothing more than the product of society's values.
'This is hard-core circuitry,' Breiter said. 'This is not a conditioned response.'
Scientists said the findings could have major implications for research into what motivates people.
'We think of these things as a product of a very high level of thought,' said John Mazziotta, director of the Brain Mapping Center at the University of California at Los Angeles, 'and it may be very basic and fundamental.'" (Associated Pess, Richmond Times-Dispatch, November 11, 2001).
[ August 05, 2003, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:The fact is that since we see it as a sin, no amount of sympathy and understanding will make it right.
Yes, this is exactly the thing I'm getting at. Your views--and their sources--have put you in a position such that it would be impossible for you to be sympathetic toward the homosexual cause. You can't simply believe amongst your hetero selves that it is a sin and that you don't endorse it and then teach your children the same. You have to do your best to make sure society shuns them at large, by perpetuating their social inequality.
I can only assume that you go with option number two rather than option number one because you simply do not--perhaps cannot--understand how unjust your position really is.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Right now, the homosexual population of the United States is less than ten percent. Gays are very much a minority, and it is hard to see that gay marriage could have much of an impact on society as a whole.
So, I'm curious ... what do you think the results might be if, sometime in the future, the percentage was more like 40% or 50%? What if gays and gay couples were the majority? Would that be good? Bad? Neutral for society?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*rubs foreheard* Wow. There's the male gay marriage thread, with occasional appearances by Kayla, and the female gay marriage thread, with occasional appearances by TomD.
Interesting.
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
quote:You have to do your best to make sure society shuns them at large, by perpetuating their social inequality.
Again with the ad hominem attacks. I do not shun homosexual people.
quote:Your views--and their sources--have put you in a position such that it would be impossible for you to be sympathetic toward the homosexual cause.
That depends on what you define as sympathy, Caleb. Being sympathetic does not require me to agree with someone. You're assuming that because I don't agree with homosexual marriage, I must have no sympathy for homosexuals who want to get married. Do you not see the logical fallacy here?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Jon Boy, I don't know how you would vote should this issue come to the ballot, but from a certain point of view, if you were to vote against gay marriage, you would be "doing your best to make sure society shuns them at large." Probably not how I would characterize it, but I could see someone feeling that way.
I'm curious about your definition of sympathy. If you believe homosexual acts to be sinful, why would you have sympathy for gays wanting to get married? I suppose I understand the "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude, but I have rarely seen it applied in cases of adultery, theft or murder, to name a few other sins.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Kat, didn't you know? I'm a gay man and Tom is a lesbian. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
One day, the Pharisees bring a woman to Jesus and say that she was taken in the act of adultery (of course, it seems they neglected to nab the guy—I wouldn't be surprised if one of them was the guy). Jesus convinces them not to stone her by reminding them that they're all guilty, too (guilty of adultery, probably). Jesus tells the woman to go her way and sin no more.
Is that sympathy? I certainly think so. But not for an instant did Jesus approve of what the woman had done. I try to follow that example. I might not do a very good job all the time, but I try.
[ August 05, 2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
quote:But we most certainly choose whom we fall in love with.
I disagree, Jacare. We don't choose who we fall in love with, either. Otherwise, I would choose to fall out of love with someone, and I have yet to manage that.
All we can do is choose how to act upon our feelings.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Jon Boy, you make a good point. I'm inclined to think of mercy and sympathy as separate phenomena, although they are similar and often go together. This is, of course, a semantic objection, but we were talking about definitions, right?
Thanks for your answer.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
My pleasure, Saxon.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Otherwise, I would choose to fall out of love with someone, and I have yet to manage that.
What an intriguing untold story.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Caleb, Regarding one of your earlier posts.
I think I'll one day enjoy proving you wrong.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
In my experience, full-on falling-in-love has always been a choice. Someone could pique my interest without giving me any choice in the matter, but the girls I fell in love with were the ones I admired the most and chose to pursue beyond casual attraction. When such a girl became clearly unavailable to me, I would usually find it very easy to let her go and move on.
Now, once a relationship starts, letting go becomes much more difficult. But here again, starting a relationship is a choice.
But that's just my experience. Maybe I'm not romantic enough Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I agree completely Geoff. Despite what Hollywood wants us to believe, you don't fall in love in a vacuum. Falling in love requires, if nothing else, making a choice to spend enough time with someone to decide that you want to spend more time with him/her.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Popatr, weren't you the guy who wrote that story that featured the creepy stalker dude?
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Yes--Why?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
#200=gays are bad
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
I like gay people and gay couples.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Now, Jacare, the underlying assumption is that symmetry is beauty. Whether or not you change the proportions is irrelevant. Just like changing the sex.
This is obviously, demonstrably false. Imagine a perfectly symmetrical but fat man or woman. Will the first thing people notice be that they are beautiful or that they are fat? If symmetry is the key to beauty then why do models, actresses etc have almost universally similar body types but a wide range of face types? Why do women have breast augmentation surgery?
quote: Breiter said evidence beauty stimulates these primal brain circuits has never been shown. He said the findings counter arguments that beauty is nothing more than the product of society's values.
'This is hard-core circuitry,' Breiter said. 'This is not a conditioned response.'
Just another case of a scientist drawing faulty conclusions from the data. What this study shows is that a response to beauty is innate, not that the definition of beauty is innate. What yardstick did they use for measuring the beauty of the pictures they showed this guys? Symmetry *snicker*? I'd bet dollars to dimes that they weren't using Incan or Brazilian or Eskimo standards of beauty. In fact, it's pretty likely that the criteria for beauty was a subjective "let's put in a picture of this good-looking girl" from the scientist.
Let's think through this DOE- how can we prove that beauty is not a culturally conditioned response? I know! Let's show guys pictures of women our cultural conditioning has taught us are hot and see if these guys also think they are hot! Yeah, that'd do it Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you really want to know, popatr? Promise you won't hit me, first. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I’m wondering if the people who think that same-sex marriage would involve a major re-definition of marriage are (mostly) the same people who believe that there are specific gender roles in marriage. Because I could see a valid argument there. If there are different “assigned” roles for husband and wife, then fitting two people of the same gender into that arrangement would take some redefinition.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't do it, Tom. Not here, anyway. Maybe by e-mail.
[ August 06, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Well, Tom, I really do want to know. So say it here or by mail, or I will get eaten from the inside by curiosity.
I won't hit.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*terribly curious*
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In this society I am extremely anti- defined roles in a marriage. In my parents marriage this has led to some of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen. My mother can fix things but won't because it is my Dad's masculine job. Dad can't fix things to save his life and then gets frustrated and then they'd argue. Same thing went for taking out the trash. So, I ended up learning to fix household things the best I could (though I was a girl) and ended taking out the trash so they'd stop arguing.
I can't cook worth a plugged nickle. Steve is an awesome cook. Why should I cook just because I'm female, especially if he is going to complain about the cooking. My mother isn't a great cook either but my Dad rarely cooks, though to Dad's credit, he's never complained about the cooking, even though college cafeteria food tastes better.
Now 100 years ago before we had all of the labor saving devices like dishwashers and washing machines (particularly washing machines), pre-packaged food, and refrigerators I can understand a division of labor. Ordinary tasks that we think nothing of today took hundreds of times longer but still needed to get done.
Now, I think it the distribution of labor should be both parties contributing to the houshold labor (however their inclinations lie) at a rate, proportional to their time out of the house earning a living. For example, I spend an hour and more a day than Steve commuting. So he tends to mow the lawn in the evenings before I get home. To me that's fair.
The problems arise if each party in the relationship has a different standard of cleanliness. In fact, I have a theory that relationships that last have a lot more to do with compatible "slob" coefficients than much else.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
E-mail's on its way.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I believe in gender roles, but not the strict, traditional roles that AJ mentioned. This sums up my beliefs pretty well:
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes.
Nothing in that mentions cooking, cleaning, or fixing things. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That was actually more what I meant by defined gender roles. I think most people (AJ’s parents being in the minority on this one) have admitted that women can do yard work and men can do housework without the structure of marriage collapsing. But I can see that the more subtle, but still distinct, gender roles would have an impact on whether you (generic you) see marriage as possible for twp people of the same gender.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Jon Boy/Snarky -
quote:Again with the ad hominem attacks. I do not shun homosexual people.
Well, yes, as a matter of fact you do.
Look, you might feel bad about the position that you would force upon them. But you would force that position on them nevertheless. That "feeling bad" might make you feel as if your logistical bias against the free homosexuals of this country is somehow forgivable or even *gasp* noble. I think it's so great how Christians have to sacrifice other peoples' happiness for the sake of their own ideal society. How brave, sympathetic and merciful they are.
And I don't mean this just toward you, Jon Boy. If ten thousand law-abiding homosexual couples walked up to you with only one plea in their collective heart--legal and social equality--and you had the power to give it to them, and you would choose instead to turn them away; if you are someone who would do that, then I'm talking to you:
I sincerely hope that you are one day held to account for your vigilant injustice.
I am sick and tired of Christians who cannot move a single inch on this subject, not even from a secular angle, and then ask to be forgiven for their views because, after all, they can't help it.
How ironic is that.
Well it's a bunch of bull. The argument that "marriage itself" would take a fatal blow at the hands of state-recognized unions is in itself an admission of bigotry. Not only does this view provide absolutely no viable evidence whatsoever to substantiate itself, it is also wholly inconsistent with the Church’s own practices concerning marriage. The divorce rate in this country is over fifty percent, and-—big surprise-—those numbers are just as high within the Church as they are in the rest of our community. I refuse to believe that this view is solely for the purpose of edifying the “institution of marriage” while the Church continues to be totally idle towards divorce and second—or third or fourth—marriages. For that matter, the Church isn’t exactly beating down Congress’s door to invalidate non-Christian marriages. Why is it okay for my atheist friend to get married to his atheist fiancée in a courthouse, but not okay for him to marry another atheist man? If the Christian ideal of marriage is really so vital to the survival of our society, why aren’t you also against marriages performed from other religions?
Why?
Because, my friends, bigotry is a selective force. It makes its selections based on fear. The Church is afraid.
Even more aggravating, your philosophy of legally segregating homosexuals from the rest of society is based upon your commitment to “loving the sinner and hating the sin”. Well here’s a clue: homosexuality is not a verb. It’s a noun. The sin and the sinner are THE SAME FRICKIN’ THING. It’s an ORIENTATION, not an afternoon sport. Indeed, Christianity’s failure to recognize this simple fact is one of its biggest downfalls. I know the crux that the Church is in over this: you cannot accept that homosexuals were meant to be homosexual unless you’re willing to toss out some portions of the Bible. That’s against your religion. On the other hand, when it has become obvious—-if it hasn’t already—-that homosexuals were created as homosexuals, you will necessarily be believing in an unjust God, and that’s against your religion, too. So, rather than making any changes in the Church, you’re left with the philosophy that you can ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin’, which is simply, as Bob so often points out, a plea that your intolerance ought to be tolerated, because you think a little game of semantics can effectively move you out of the realm of religious bigotry. Not so.
There are real people in this world that are suffering injustice at the hands of this thinking. You are daring to say to them that a) you can predict the future and b) the future will collapse if they are given their equality; the fate of our society rests on their unhappiness.
America is the first place in the world I would expect to award all people equal protections regardless of religious affiliation, racial status, or sexual orientation. Freedom and individual sovereignty are two of the highest precepts upon which this society is based. I might add that they are chiefly responsible for making the United States what it is today, and what so many of you are so willing to throw away: the leader of the Free World. And yet even the basic principles of our society are not enough to break through Christian fears that homosexuality may one day be accepted. They are completely willing to throw out the values of our society and our society’s history in favor of an ideal that they themselves cannot live up to.
I am through pretending that anything these Christians could ever read on an internet forum could possibly touch their hearts. When you put fear and religion together there is usually nothing you can do but run away. But I’ll be damned if I can stand by while they delude themselves into thinking that they aren’t directly causing pain to other people because their illogical fears have any kind of merit whatsoever. To throw away someone ELSE’S individual sovereignty in favor of what you personally feel is “the greatest good” for society is the height of arrogance.
quote:"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
My insults are aimed at a general point of view, not any individual person. I have also been told several times by Christians that they feel sorry about their beliefs hurting others in this regard, but they have to believe them anyway. I think that counts as "can't help it".
If I needed a dictionary, I'd ask someone how to spell it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So insults in general are okay? You were talking to Jon Boy. It was pretty clear.
Saying "I won't change my beliefs." is a far cry from "I can't help it."
CV, you aren't helping your argument by mischaracterizing and insulting your audience.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
All I can think is that you really, honestly don't understand the deeply-held conviction. Your characterization is so off, it isn't even in the same universe.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Right. I obviously don't know what deeply-held conviction is. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then why are you characterizing it (and Jon Boy) so badly?
[ August 06, 2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I don't suppose, kat, that your 'deeply-held conviction' of which I am so incapable of understanding could perhaps respond to my arguments rather than suggesting reference materials and making character judgements.
Oh wait, I'm the arrogant one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jon Boy and Jacare have said it eloquently before. You didn't listen to them.
I'm not arrogant enough to think you'd listen to me instead. Not without batting my eyes, anyway.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Well, yes, as a matter of fact you do.
Well, obviously, you think you're so intelligent and possess such a keen, incisive mind that you can cut right through everything I say and see right into my soul.
Believe me, you can't. Like Katharina said, it's obvious that you do not understand my convictions. If you can't understand that my views are not based on bigotry or fear, then I don't see how I can continue to have a rational discussion with you.
quote:I sincerely hope that you are one day held to account for your vigilant injustice.
And I sincerely hope that one day you come to learn what justice and mercy truly are.
quote:I refuse to believe that this view is solely for the purpose of edifying the “institution of marriage” while the Church continues to be totally idle towards divorce and second—or third or fourth—marriages.
Excuse me? Which "Church" are we talking about here? My church is strongly opposed to divorce.
quote:Why is it okay for my atheist friend to get married to his atheist fiancée in a courthouse, but not okay for him to marry another atheist man? If the Christian ideal of marriage is really so vital to the survival of our society, why aren’t you also against marriages performed from other religions?
Read this before you continue to claim to know how I feel about marriage and families.
[ August 06, 2003, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Well, kat, I'm not really interested in what you think of what I thought of other people's posts. If you have nothing to say IN RESPONSE, I don't understand why you're posting at all.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Take a deep breath and go lie down, Caleb.
Interestingly enough, that's the second "I don't care what you say. Why bother posting?" I've gotten in the past two weeks. I wonder why?
*thinks* You know, both times I was taking part in a discussion that was already underway, trying to add a voice/amen/clarification to a side I thought was being misunderstood. Maybe that's annoying? Last time, a Mormon yelled at me for defending pre-marital sex (I wasn't), so there is some diversity.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm having some difficulty in piecing together the various views, and I'm sure this question will come across as a)thoughtless, b)rude, or c)both. Forgive me in advance -- I promise, it's asked in the best of spirit.
If secular marriages can be performed by non-religious persons (e.g., justices of the peace), and such marriages require an additional ceremony or process (other than just the secular paperwork) to be recognized in most religions, then why would allowing same-sex secular marriages be a problem for any such religious communities?
That is, it wouldn't be a "recognized" marriage unless it underwent the additional blessing, and thus would be a purely secular process, and so wouldn't need a separate designation as "civil union" instead of marriage.
I mean, in the Catholic tradition, if you weren't married in the Church, you weren't really married -- and thus a divorce from a purely secular marriage doesn't require annulment for remarriage. Actually, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, that first marriage never happened. (The relationship did, any moral or immoral actions between and involving those (unmarried) persons did, but not a "marriage" per se. At least, I think that's the way it works. mac? )
Or does it boil down to what Tom suggested -- namely, that it isn't so much about "marriage" and the need to keep that sacred as it is about keeping same-sex relationships from becoming more socially acceptable?
(Can anyone ask this better than me? Help! )
[Edit: hey, this might actually be more relevant to the current discussion than I thought. Is CV referring to the Catholic "Church"?]
[ August 06, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Caleb, aren't you espousing a form of bigotry, too? Particularly against Christians?
You speak at length about our failings and inability to grow and adjust, our outdated thoughts and rickety belief system. Would you say the same about African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Asians?
But then again, it's so easy to use a stereotype. It's almost as easy as saying "You people..."
[ August 06, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Caleb,
I'm not exactly sure what to say to you, but I'd like to at least commend you on what I think was an excellent, eloquent, and heart-felt post. I'm completely behind you. I think there are a number of Christians who has posted on this thread who have been at best arrogant and at worst completely condescending.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
dkw, that's an interesting question. I do believe in defined roles for marriage partners, but I'm not obsessive about it. My husband does a lot of the cleaning, largely because he's a bigger neat freak than I am. I do the majority of the child care, because I have more experience at it and my schedule allows it (I do all the taxi-ing, setting of dr's appointments, that sort of thing). We share the financial burden, he does most of the long range planning because he's *really* good at it, and I balance the checkbook and keep an eye on the budget. I admit to some blind spots....he always does the lawnmowing, and he always takes the garbage out. For some reason, in my head, that is the man's job, and that's what he is supposed to do. He also initiates home repair, though we hire most of it out. I make the decorating decisions, he gets to implement them. By the same token, in his mind, it's my job to do the cooking, which I don't hate all the time, but certainly don't like. I figure it's a fair trade-off. And he usually cleans the kitchen afterward, though I am more persnickety about what a clean kitchen looks like than he is.
Anyway...I don't know that that has much to do with my views on same-sex marriage, but I do think it's an interesting point on your part.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
That's an interesting question, ClaudiaTherese, and I'll do my best to answer it.
The LDS Church regards all legal marriages as real marriages. We don't say, "If it's not an LDS temple marriage, then it's not really a marriage." Calling something a "civil union" is just a semantic game. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. . . .
My marriage will be sacred no matter who else in the world gets married. There are already plenty of people in the world who don't honor marriage vows and thus cheapen their marriage. That doesn't necessarily make all marriage cheaper.
I think Tom was probably right. It's not about preserving the quality of my own (upcoming) marriage, but about maintaining society's standards.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The LDS Church regards all legal marriages as real marriages....There are already plenty of people in the world who don't honor marriage vows and thus cheapen their marriage. That doesn't necessarily make all marriage cheaper."
Given these three statements, how can a LDS object to homosexual marriage?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
So why do you feel it's your right to determine what those stardards should be?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I never claimed that it was my right to determine society's standards.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So if all marriages no matter where are real marriages to LDS, then what is the significance of getting married in the temple? (Does this need to be in a separate thread?)
If getting married in the temple is somehow different and the church can exclude same sex unions there then I don't see as much of a confict. Plus if it is called a "civil union" then a marriage, then would it, or wouldn't it a marriage in the eyes of the church?
AJ
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
This is to no one person in particular.
If you really believe that what you say here is not going to change your "opponent's" mind, why continue trying?
On the other side, if you can't change anyone's mind and you can assume that no one's opinion of you will change drastically (especially not based on what your "opponent" says about you), then why bother defending yourself?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Marriages outside the temple are temporal (till death do you part). Marriages inside the temple are eternal (for time and all eternity).
I'm really not sure I want to continue this discussion. Apparently, having religious beliefs makes me bigoted, arrogant, and condescending. Apparently, I can't express my beliefs without someone claiming that I think I have the right to determine the standards for the entire world. I'm getting really tired of it.
If anyone has any further questions, they can email me.
Edit: Good point, Saxon. I think that's one of the great mysteries of the universe.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:So why do you feel it's your right to determine what those stardards should be?
By the way, since we are all equal parts of society, we all have an equal right to decide what society should be. And since we have a participatory form of government, it is not only your right to determine our societies standards--at least the legal ones--it is your duty.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm curious to hear your response to Tom's last post, Jon Boy.
<---- smiley to indicate genuine curiosity and interest, not some sort of passive-aggressive attack
Edit: If you're not planning to post again, no pressure.
I will be posting a reply to saxon75 shortly...
[ August 06, 2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
saxon, that's actually why I stopped. Well, that and I didn't have any more time for long posts and the topic is too important for pithy one-liners, even if I could think of any, which I couldn't.
The original post I put up was because I was a bit offended at the ridicule against those of us who don't think that same-sex marriage is something we should just accept without reservation. I don't often feel ridiculed on Hatrack, so I felt I had to say something. Having said it, defended it a bit, I guess I'm done. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If getting married in the temple is somehow different and the church can exclude same sex unions there then I don't see as much of a confict.
They aren't different. Both are both real marriages - the one in the temple just lasts longer.
<edited because unnecessary>
[ August 06, 2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Sometimes understanding one another’s views is more important than changing anyone’s mind.
Edit: That was meant as a reason why it’s valuable to keep posting, even when you don’t expect to “convince” anyone of anything.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I agree, dkw. That's why I hate that conversations on topics like this always become so adversarial. I don't agree with Jon Boy, but that doesn't preclude my having an intelligent discussion with him about our beliefs, especially since I consider him a friend.
I asked before, I'll ask again: "Can't we all just get along?"
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Edit continued:
>> If you really believe that what you say here is not going to change your "opponent's" mind, why continue trying?
On the other side, if you can't change anyone's mind and you can assume that no one's opinion of you will change drastically (especially not based on what your "opponent" says about you), then why bother defending yourself? << (saxon)
Because by putting your argument forward clearly and coherently, and by suppourting it with facts where possible (though this is less of a requirement here at Hatrack), you can show people other than your "adversary" that your view is reasonable. You might even persuade someone who is on the fence.
For example, on the first page of the Israeli Security Fence thread, newfoundlogic and I got into a debate about Ehud Barak's peace offer and why Yasser Arafat rejected it when, percentage-wise, it was the most territory the Palestinians had been offered in recent memory. I didn't expect to convince him of my position, but I outlined it as clearly as I could and suppourted my statements with a map of the proposal from an Israeli source, so that anyone lurking in the thread could see how I drew my conclusions. After saying my piece I more or less bowed out of the thread, aside from posting a couple of thoughts here and there.
It's ironic that the only example of an extended civil thread on that issue I've ever seen is at Ornery. IMO, that's because facts are required there if you're going to make an argument that draws on history.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I thought I had already answered Tom's question in previous posts, which is why I was a little confused to see him asking it again. Maybe he posted before he had seen the last paragraph that I added to my post immediately before his.
I believe homosexuality is wrong. Thus, I don't believe that it deserves legal recognition similar or equal to heterosexual marriage. It's really as simple as that. To me, it would be like legalizing other things that I consider to be wrong, like prostitution. Note: I am NOT saying that homosexuality is equivalent to prostitution.
You know, I'll probably keep responding to questions on this thread, so long as they're simple, honest questions without insults or condescending attitudes attached.
Kat: Oh, I'm very familiar with the raucous side of Hatrack. For my very first post on Hatrack, I jumped straight into a Pledge of Allegiance argument.
Saxon: Thanks. I'm touched. I consider you a friend, too. Now I almost feel bad for picking on you so much over at GreNME.
[ August 06, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I think that there is nothing wrong with determining society's standards for marriage (and other things). I touched on this in the legislating morality thread (which died rather quickly).
And though the church respects marriage so far, I think that WILL change if it goes too far contrary to church standards. Civil marriages line up with "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God"--until it gets gay marriages.
And like I said in another thread, the church might have to change some wording here and there if gay marriage is widely accepted. E.g., the wording on the definition of Chastity.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Dude, if you could only see a normal conversation with my friends from high school, to say nothing of my aunts and some of my in-laws, you'd know that you have a lot of catching up to do before you could offend me.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Kasie H:
A heartfelt thanks to you for understanding the frustration that leads to my more assertive posts.
Sopwith:
quote:Caleb, aren't you espousing a form of bigotry, too? Particularly against Christians?
You speak at length about our failings and inability to grow and adjust, our outdated thoughts and rickety belief system. Would you say the same about African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Asians?
But then again, it's so easy to use a stereotype. It's almost as easy as saying "You people..."
No, it's not a form of bigotry. I am responding to specific points of view espoused by many Christians, and I wouldn't be responding to them if I didn't feel that they were dreadfully wrong.
In that sense, I judge them. Judge them a lot, to be honest.
But I specifically addressed my above rebukes to the following audience:
quote:If ten thousand law-abiding homosexual couples walked up to you with only one plea in their collective heart--legal and social equality--and you had the power to give it to them, and you would choose instead to turn them away; if you are someone who would do that, then I'm talking to you:
I recognize of course that not all people of the Christian faith fit into this category. Our own Anne Kate, bless her heart, is one of those who can see how much damage Christianity does to our community and to itself with this bigotry. She, however, would not fit into the above address.
And in the sense that I wasn't addressing any specific individual, you are right in saying it's almost as bad as saying "you people". Because that's what I AM saying. "You people" are wrong because of the following.
But neither 'us people' nor 'those people' are very good at admitting fault or error--especially when it comes to matters of faith--so 'those people' refrain from discussing the many many flaws that I and others have pointed out in their philosophies, and revert rather to circular logic and character assessment.
For instance, I can accuse a large section of the population of arrogance, as I did above. And instead of explaining why their views don't constitute arrogance--I'll give you three guesses as to why they are unable to do this--the first response I get is to go look something up in the dictionary.
No arrogance there, right? I should go take a nap, right? I'm just a crybaby that hasn't had enough sleep, right?
Yeah, and then they can accuse me of not listening to them. The fact is, I have been listening to them, and I have been answering all of their points to the best of my ability, and not once have I been treated with respect for doing so. I at least can recognize their motives and discuss them. They, apparently, can see no other motives but their own.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
kat, I think your bolding really changes the way those two sentences read. If you read them as bolded and Caleb wrote them with opposite emphasis, then you're arguing about two starkly different paragraphs.
>> I believe homosexuality is wrong. Thus, I don't believe that it deserves legal recognition similar or equal to heterosexual marriage. It's really as simple as that. To me, it would be like legalizing other things that I consider to be wrong, like prostitution. Note: I am NOT saying that homosexuality is equivalent to prostitution. << (Jon Boy)
*nods* Okay. Thanks for the straightforward explanation Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
twinky, not to get off topic and I don't mean to sound rude, but is "suppourting" actually spelled with a U in Canada? I know you folks (along with the rest of the Commonwealth) like to throw in lots of extra Us, so I wasn't sure.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Indeed it is. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
kat, I came up with my address very much intentionally, so as not to confuse the issue. If you have a problem with the 'words that I put into your mouth'--when in fact the address was to people making a choice, not saying words--all you need to say is that you don't fit into that address. It's obvious that you do, though, so I don't understand the hubbub about putting words into your mouth. I had very good reasons for addressing that post to a nebulous audience.
As to the rudeness of not caring how you interpret my reading of other peoples' posts... I can only say that you apparently are unable to withstand the treatment that you give to others. I really DON'T care to hear you tell me that I should have listened to other posts rather than making your own. Again I feel that it is you who is rude and insulting to suggest that I had completely ignored them in the first place, when the post I had JUST MADE was my best effort at a response to those very posts.
In essence, you said: "You just don't understand; Get a dictionary (or an education); Go read earlier posts for once."
Well, kat, forgive me but I think that's a really stupid way to respond to someone who put a lot of effort into answering questions from the opposition and trying to show what he felt were glaring inconsistencies in their position.
If none of that MATTERS to you, or if you don't have any rebuttal to offer my points, I really don't see the point of posting except to take pot shots at me just because I'm on the opposite side.
Although admittedly I do not envy you for needing to show that you aren't as arrogant as I've 'painted' you, when the posts above fall so neatly in line with my rendition. However, I've seen you be a really great person and I know that at the base of things you ARE. For some reason the sh*t just really hits the fan whenever your beliefs are brought into question, but as long as you're participating in this discussion those beliefs, I'm afraid, are fair game.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*stamps foot*
All right, that's it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The thing that upsets me so much is this reasoning:
My bible says homosexuality is bad, therefor I'm against laws which validate it.
Can you guys even comprehend how offensive that is to those of us who don't believe in your bible?
What if I was using the Quran to justify my bogotry toward your particular group? Such as making it illegal for Christains to marry. Would you say "I understand his convictions." No, you would be upset.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That aspect of this argument belongs in the thread I just started.
In other news:
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
twinky, you're adorable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
(At least, I think that was a compliment )
And let me just add:
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually, Caleb, if you'd read all of the posts herein and then took your head out of your rectum, you'd see that not all Christians are opposed to homosexual marriages. Like I said, read back among the posts.
You might also see that there are non-Christians who are against homosexual marriage.
But in your world of black and white, it's easy, so easy to stereotype people because of their religious choices, isn't it? Or am I putting words in your mouth as you've done for so many people?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*waggles finger*
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
twink, you better hope Ralphie doesn't stumble in here otherwise there'll be some serious shin-kicking going on.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks, Jon Boy. I'd forgotten how Catholics and the LDS differ on this point, and your brief (but comprehensive) response was plenty of a mental nudge to straighten that part out again.
And thanks for not assuming I was being a jerk. I've kind of come to expect that when something at Hatrack doesn't make sense to me, then I usually am missing some information. It's a very sensible place, for the most part.
On the other hand, now I'm really curious about how this works for Catholicism, the denomination I was raised in. Hmmm. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ralphie can bring it all she wants.
My work here is done (for now). Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm bailing on this topic, too. Too much strife and too strong the pull to roll in the mud. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:What, with facts?
Um, no. I didn't want anyone to be confused about exactly who I feel are the bigots in this situation. I had to make that perfectly clear.
And "it's obvious that you do" support banning gay marriage. That makes it obvious that in my above address, you would be turning them away. How can that be so unclear?
quote:Because I haven't offered an alternative? But Jon Boy did, and I agree with him.
Well to be honest I haven't gotten around to answering his post because I was so busy answering yours, since they were the more offensive to me personally. But esentially Jon Boy's response was no different than yours. He said "you just don't/can't understand", and then claimed that his specific Church was against divorce (while of course I was referring to Church in a much larger sense and the statistical truth that divorce is every bit as prevalent there as anywhere else in the country). Somehow I doubt, though, that his Church never performs wedding ceremonies for those entering a second marriage. I doubt even more heavily that no one from his church has had a divorce. And I doubt most of all that they would be for a law to ban divorce. I am open to being proven wrong on that point. Of course, not at the cost of having to read through the LDS family proclomation to the world. I'm sure it's a valuable document and all, but it is just a document, and as long as the views contained therein are the equivalent of those expressed on this thread, I haven't been shown the need.
And honestly, I have time to read posts and opinions. I don't have time to read the Book of Mormon while I'm at work.
Although I think I understand where Jon Boy wanted to go, though he lacked the energy to get there. I think--please correct me if I'm wrong--that somewhere in that document it would be explained that God ordains the man-woman relationship as husband and wife, and so there's no need to be against marriages of other faiths, since they are not necessarily breaking God's family setup.
But even if that's not precisely what he was going to get at, it's got to boil down to "All marriages are okay by us except gay ones", and I think that any reasoning behind that is obviously faulty, for reasons given above.
I can see while posting this that there have been several posts--as usual--that need my response as well. I'm not sure when I can get back with you, but I will.
Unlike some, I do try and give your posts the time of day.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:He said "you just don't/can't understand", and then claimed that his specific Church was against divorce (while of course I was referring to Church in a much larger sense and the statistical truth that divorce is every bit as prevalent there as anywhere else in the country). Somehow I doubt, though, that his Church never performs wedding ceremonies for those entering a second marriage. I doubt even more heavily that no one from his church has had a divorce. And I doubt most of all that they would be for a law to ban divorce.
We also believe that sometimes divorce is necessary. Overall, it's a good thing that my mom's parents divorced. My grandpa stopped going to church and started drinking, smoking, and visiting prostitutes. In a perfect world, he wouldn't have done that in the first place. In an ideal world, he would've changed his behavior, rededicated himself to his wife and kids, and made the marriage good again. He didn't. My grandma never remarried, though if she had, there wouldn't have been anything wrong with that. Banning divorce or disallowing second marriages is not the solution to stopping divorce, so it's illogical to use the fact that we allow divorce and second marriages as evidence that we support divorce, or at least as evidence that we don't value the sanctity of marriage as much as we say we do.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
To attack this from a different angle, even if most of you are bailing. What is the difference between something is Morally Wrong, and something that is a Crime.
JonBoy said that homosexuality is morally wrong as is prostitution. Why is one criminalized and the other not (in most places) or why is it that the laws that are on the books are enforced when it comes to prostitution and not when it comes to sodomy. Maybe it is because prostitution is "dirtier" because money changes hands?
For those of you who believe homosexuality is "morally wrong" do you truly have a problem with the "decriminalization" aspect that just happened at the Supreme Court. I know we had a thread on it at the time, and I can't remember all the responses.
I contend that it is probably consistent with the "hate the sin, love the sinner" dichotomy to decriminalize the behavior, but it is not consistent with that dichotomy to institutionalize that behavior, and therein lies the difference.
(of course I admit I'm trying to play devils advocate here and understand all sides, I personally don't have a problem with non-church sanctioned civil unions)
AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Banna, go post in my 'question for theists' thread. I'm curious to hear what you think. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Don't listen to twinky, saxon. That second u really shouldn't be there.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Are you sure? Isn't the root word spelled 'suppourt' here?
[ August 06, 2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Find me a dictionary that has the word "suppourt" in it and I'll agree with you. But that just looks terribly wrong to me. For that matter, if you've been spelling it "suppourt" on your resumes it could explain why you had problems getting coop jobs in the past Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*thinks*
I'm not sure how I normally spell it anymore. You've gone and confused me.
*looks into it*
Yes, indeed, I misspelled it and subsequently lied to saxon75.
Ouch. Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
I don't think that it matters WHO Caleb has been addressing, both in his mind and on the thread. If you fit into the "stereotype" (I use that term very loosely), then what's the problem? Why bash him for segregating you into his "stereotype" when you embody it.
Also, I wonder if this conversation would have the same kind of response if Caleb, himself, was religious and "a good christian boy".
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I posted there twinky... now comment on what I said here...
AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I will. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
<dragged back in>
Skim back, Mazakaar. I'm a Christian and have no problem with homosexuals being able to marry. As a matter of fact I gave a number of arguments as to why they deserve the right to marry and have the protections that it gives.
And I can safely say that I'm not the only Christian that feels that way.
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
Sopwith, I never said anything about you specifically nor did I say anything about christians having a problem with homosexual marriages...maybe you should be the one 'skimming back'. I simply was talking to 'those that fit the stereotype', which you apparently don't. I am ammused that you feel you need to defend yourself, even when I was ambiguous in my first post by saying 'you'.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, Sopwith, I read CV's post and I thought he made it fairly clear (though obviously he could have done a better job) that not all Christians were included in his rant.
-Bok
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:And I don't mean this just toward you, Jon Boy. If ten thousand law-abiding homosexual couples walked up to you with only one plea in their collective heart--legal and social equality--and you had the power to give it to them, and you would choose instead to turn them away; if you are someone who would do that, then I'm talking to you:
quote:I recognize of course that not all people of the Christian faith fit into this category. Our own Anne Kate, bless her heart, is one of those who can see how much damage Christianity does to our community and to itself with this bigotry. She, however, would not fit into the above address.
Pretty clear, though obviously could have been better.
*sigh*
I did not want to come back into this thread before later tonight. But please, no more talk of heads-in-rectums and 'go back and READ, moron'. It's a natural thing when you hear someone call someone else's views bigotted to react as if that person is also biggotted. Well it doesn't take a bigotted view to know a bigotted view.
Sopwith, I suggest that if you want to continue to disagree with me--though we plainly share the same goals--you should take actual pieces of text from my posts and then respond to them in kind. My views on this subject (specifically, my views on others' views) are so passionate that the conservative mob has painted me quite different than I intend to sound, and if you take your assumptions from their queues you're bound to make mistakes like the one you made above.
I made it VERY CLEAR to whom I was and was not speaking, and it's REALLY OBVIOUS that I did so on purpose because I knew--having been here for years--that I would get responses exactly like yours.
[ August 06, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
[rant] Okay, I'm sorry, but I think Caleb has every right to be upset and angry. People have insisted in this thread that homosexuality is wrong. Why shouldn't that anger him?
I don't care what people think about being politically correct these days. I really don't think it's acceptable any longer to believe homosexuality is wrong. I don't. I'm sorry if that flies in the face of your religion, this isn't supposed to be a religious attack. But if you can sit there and tell me you think that the basic premise of [a homosexual's] lifestyle is wrong, then I can tell you that I think your view is wrong. Honestly, at this point, I think saying homosexuality is wrong is equivalent to saying someone is sinning because they like waffles more than they like pancakes.
[/rant]
Edit: fixing my not-so-small error
[ August 06, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Is Caleb gay? I didn't realize.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: You mean, like, if someone ever tried to ban Mormon marriages
Silly Caleb, that would be discrimination. Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Well THAT was certainly unintended. I do appreciate your support, though, Kasie H.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Wait, since I've been posting in a "pro-gay marriage" way on this thread too, does that make me gay? Oh, wait, I already outed myself. And Tom Davidson, too.
Silly Kasie.
[ August 06, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Sorry, I'm getting Hatrackers mixed up. I know *somebody* here is gay....KarlEd maybe? *cringes*
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
Wow Kasie, maybe you should quit while you're ahead. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Hehe, yes, you're probably right.
Long day.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Kasie, yes, KarlEd is openly gay. Hm. . . we should have e-mailed him when this topic started. He ususally get annoyed when he misses them.
KarlEd, if you do come and see this thread, I miss you. Hope things are getting better.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Before someone rips me a new one, let me point out that I really am just looking for clarification and understanding here. I'm not asserting anything horrible, so don't jump down my throat
In the past couple of decades, homosexuals have made tremendous strides forward in our society. Legally, their activities are no longer criminal, as they once were. Those who treat them badly are prosecuted vigorously, to the full extent of the law. The AIDS crisis went from a homophobic scare at its outset to a completely sympathetic, inclusive awareness drive today. Gays are depicted very positively in the media, as a normal, integral part of our society. Many insurance companies, hospitals, etc, are regonizing non-traditional mates the way they once recognized only spouses, and that number is growing fast. To my knowledge, no society in history has ever handled the homosexual phenomenon so fairly, so compassionately, and certainly never so quickly.
So, here's my question. If the current trend were to continue, and if unmarried homosexual partners were allowed all the legal and economic benefits of marriage without an actual legal marriage, would gay marriage still be necessary? For years, the lack of a formal, legally-recognized marriage ceremony has been a simple fact of life for gays. This lack has not made monogamous gays any less monogamous, and it hasn't really affected promiscuous gays at all.
Whenever I ask why gay marriage is necessary, the usual answer I hear is a litany of benefits that married couples get, but that gay couples are denied. My question is, if those differences vanished, would the gay marriage issue be as important to the movement as it currently is? I know that it's also an issue of perceived equality and respect, but I'm wondering if legal and economic equality would be enough without the label of marriage.
I'm concerned because I think the gay marriage issue may soon fall into a niche similar to the one that the slavery reparations issue has carved out for the black community. Society has bent to an astonishing degree in America over the past century to make minorities of all types feel like welcome, equal participants. But minority-advocacy groups, once given everything they ask, will often reach even further, and ask for something that even an open society feels is too much to give. But the advocates have fought so long and hard against true injustices that ANY kind of denial is seen by them as a disastrous victory for fascism, and severely damages their relationship with the majority.
I'm not saying that the gay marriage issue is definitely that issue for the gay community. But if it is, it might be wise to look to other options and possible compromises, so that the goodwill that gay advocates have built up over the past several years is not destroyed because of an unecessary, bitter dispute.
So is a compromise possible here? I know there are a few actual gay Hatrack members who might give me a better perspective on this.
(I think one of the limitations we straight folks have in this debate is the fact that none of us belong to the community we're debating about, so none of us can represent them in a compromise. All we can do in their favor is parrot the gay position we heard last. We can compromise on the side of heteros opposed to gay marriage, but on the gay-advocacy side, we're stuck in a repetitive rut, because none of us has the authority to back away, even if it becomes right or necessary.)
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, Geoff, I would think that in order to get all those legal benefits, one would need to fill out some type of legal paperwork. Which is basically all a civil wedding at the courthouse is. So, what you call it is irrelevant. After all, wedding marriages aren't "legal" till you file the paper work. (At least here.) So, once you get the legal paper work out of the way, what's to stop anyone from throwing a "wedding?"
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Whew, okay, good, sorry Caleb. I think my problem is you used to go by a pseudonym, and then you changed your posting name to your real one. Somewhere in there I got the two of you confused.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
My company offers a pretty good employee benefits package and last year extended coverage to include same-sex domestic partners. I think if we saw same-sex partners getting the same type of legal privileges as married couples, such as tax benefits and power of attorney, this would probably placate a lot of people. Morally, though, I still think it would be wrong to have different rules for different people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"This lack has not made monogamous gays any less monogamous, and it hasn't really affected promiscuous gays at all."
This is an assumption I'm not willing to grant. It is, in fact, exactly the OPPOSITE of my assumption.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, I can see how that could happen Kasie. A single male twenty something and an openly gay man (late thrity something?) in a long-term relationship (till recently. ) Quite easy to confuse them. Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
quote: If the current trend were to continue, and if unmarried homosexual partners were allowed all the legal and economic benefits of marriage without an actual legal marriage, would gay marriage still be necessary?
Would they still be necessary for heterosexual marriages? Marriage isn't just about the financial or political benefits two people might share, it's about love and compassion for someone else. Marriage for two people, any two people, is going to inherit the same feelings whether those two people are gay, straight, or whatever. It isn't about the advantages you 'get' from society, it's about the love you get from someone else.
Granted, homosexual marriages would allow some societal pressure to be lifted and provide a little more equality, but that isn't the main reason.
Why can't two people, regardless of sex, come together in a state of matrimony? Why does there always have to be some big 'political or social agenda'?
-Maz
[ August 06, 2003, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Mazakaar ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Maz, you make a good point, but gays can already have "weddings," even if they aren't sanctioned by the government or most churches. They can already exchange vows, rings, have a ceremony and reception, all that stuff. Sure no one, or at least most people, don't get married for financial reasons, but why shouldn't gays get the same benefits as everyone else?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Hey this was a long time ago, okay? I...I...
I suck.
self
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lets try a different reason for Gay Marriage--Religious.
If there is a religion that allows Marriage between two men or two women, are we not denying them what they percieve to be a sacred rite?
If the Anglican church deems it appropriate to allow a Gay couple to be Married, can we create a law that denies that church and that couple from being married? Should we?
If they do would you be arrested for performing a religious rite that is in accordance with you church?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:My question is, if those differences vanished, would the gay marriage issue be as important to the movement as it currently is? I know that it's also an issue of perceived equality and respect, but I'm wondering if legal and economic equality would be enough without the label of marriage.
I can only offer an anecdotal response. The gay couple I know that would like to get married doesn't want it for the financial benefits or legal advantages, most of which can be handled through power-of-attorney acts, wills, and such.
They want it because they've been together for more years than most of their straight married friends, especially those who have divorced and remarried in the same time period. They want it because the concept of marriage is important to them, and their relationship seems to fit in every measurable particular. They want it because married couples have a place in society, and they want to be accepted as a productive part of that society instead of an aberration or regrettable statistic. They want it because that's how they already perceive themselves, and they'd like to be able to publically acknowledge it.
quote:For years, the lack of a formal, legally-recognized marriage ceremony has been a simple fact of life for gays. This lack has not made monogamous gays any less monogamous, and it hasn't really affected promiscuous gays at all.
I disagree, and kinda wonder how in the world it could be substantiated.
[ August 06, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The more I think about this, the more I realize the truth of it. People are not using their religion to protest civil change. They are trying to find civil/secular ways of stopping religious change.
Gay Marriage is about the recognition of gay couples in church, not in the world. If my church says its OK, then your church might. Its best, think some conservatives, if you illegalize it before that happens.
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
Saxon-
I'm not saying that marriage benefits should be orientation specific.
And yes, homosexuals can get married, with the rings, etc., but it is also 'against the law'. So, are gay marriages necessary if you get marriage benefits? Maybe not, but in order to get those benefits, you have to be recognized as a married couple in the state of which you live.
I've been recently married, and I would despise any governmental/religious/political system or belief that told me that marrying my wife was a crime...of any proportion.
[ August 06, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Mazakaar ]
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Chris and Tom have both pointed out a flaw in my proposition, and they're right, it's a flaw It wasn't the main focus of my post, so it kind of got by my validity-checking screen ...
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
quote: They are trying to find civil/secular ways of stopping religious change.
Who's to say that religious change is the best change for our world? And even if you could say that religious change was the best, which religion's changes would you accept?
quote: Gay Marriage is about the recognition of gay couples in church, not in the world.
In some areas of the world, church or your belief in God is the world. I think when you talk about the recognition in church, you can't avoid but talk about recognition throughout the entire world. Besides, why would gay couples be looking for recognition in a church if the religion itself excludes them?
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
If there is a religion that allows Marriage between two men or two women, are we not denying them what they percieve to be a sacred rite?
Perhaps, but only insomuch as we can deny this sacred rite with secular laws. We really can't do that in the U.S. Unitarian and other churches perform same-sex weddings all the time with no governmental interference.
A same-sex marriage then would be viewed by the couple as blessed by God, but not sanctioned by "Caeser;" I think.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I always cringe when I see these threads in part because I do wonder what KarlEd thinks of them.
If I were him I would hate everyone of you who tell him that his wonderful relationship is "wrong" or "dangerous". Imagine if people you cared about said this of your relationship, perhaps because your partner was of another race, or a different religion.
I personally would tell all of you to go to hell. I have no idea how he, and any other homosexuals reading these threads, stay so calm and polite.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
dkw, I'm sorry I didn't get to your question in a more timely fashion. On the other hand, I saw Jon Boy's post:
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102)
And it really puts my reply into perspective. I find that view of marriage completely repellent. I guess I don't believe in gender roles. But especially when they are defined as "by devine design" and "fathers presiding..."
Yes, I know it says "in love, etc. etc." but really, I think the problem with that kind of structure is that sooner or later you get to a Cartman-like moment "respect my authoritay!!!"
I also get a bit squicked out by the idea of men providing "protection" because I think it's both parents job to protect the kids. I also dislike the male role in this set up because I think men get the short stick. Men go work, "providing" stuff, protecting, etc. and it's not their role to nurture -- that's the mom. Well, I just think that's missing out on the best part of having a child, from what I've observed couples who do a good job raising kids.
I think it breeds distant fathers and indecisive moms.
At least that's the model that gets called to mind.
I know, I know, you probably see a whole range of healthy possibilities within that framework. I see a very narrow path to healthy families and a very very wide path to sick relationships where the dad comes home, acts like the lord & master, and everyone has to be quiet around him because he's so beat from trying to keep a roof over their head on one salary and he's in danger of being laid off, and the mortgage is more than he can afford, and the kids need braces, and so on and so on.
Meanwhile, mom "nurtures." Which, if I understand that correctly, means subjugating her life to the needs of the kids, at least until they are school age. Well, that's great if that's what the woman really wants out of life. I'm betting it was a lot easier sell when people didn't educate their daughters, though.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Geoff I said something similar to what you said on page six on page three, though not quite as eloquently. Since this thread is getting long, I'll quote myself again here.
quote: posted August 05, 2003 03:43 PM
Interesting thought. Even though it isn't going to happen, would it be a better long-term strategy for the right to let gay couples have their legal marriage? Then they won't have anything to create a hubbub over, and not be able to push as many gay issues to the forefront (other than the really bad hate crimes)
AJ
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I guess I don't believe in gender roles. But especially when they are defined as "by devine design" and "fathers presiding..."
Doesn't this deny biology? Never mind divine design, isn't there sexual dimorphism for the very reason that division of labor and specialization allows for greater capacity and deftness at performing a given function? The fact is your average male has a lot greater muscle mass than the average female, is larger and has a different bone structure. Not only that, but there is also built-in psychological software which tells the male "you are the protector". On the female side you get the same thing. Women get equipped with some really cool hardware as well as built-in baby-bonding and nurturing software that males lack.
So whether one believes in gender roles or not gender roles believe in you and will continue to do so until and unless there is some reason for them to be evolved out of us.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
kat, be patient and I'll give these posts an adequate response. In the mean time, get over this 'words in people's mouths' thing.
It's stupid.
I'm not fighting words. I'm fighting a viewpoint held by many people and I did my best to define that group of people by saying "those of you who would turn them away". If you are one of those, then I'm talking to you. If you aren't, perhaps silence is the best response.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Pssssst...
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
My post on page five was a bit of soap-box, yes. What of it? Hatrack is suddenly above passionate speeches? You are always free to leave the discussion if you aren't going to add anything constructive.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Incidently, Kat, I went soap-box because (and oh no, I'm going to quote myself again *gasp*):
quote:I am through pretending that anything these Christians could ever read on an internet forum could possibly touch their hearts.
...which I think you've more than proven with your inability to discuss my points while trying to degrade me as a person.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks for proving Sopwith's point.
*wriggles into a corner to hide from twinky*
[ August 07, 2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:imaginary people for whom you had a prepackaged argument
Nope. Talking about real people that all fit into one group. The group that espouses that homosexuals ought to be seen, in the eyes of the law, as second-class citizens. And there's nothing prepackaged about it. I speak from my heart on an issue I care about a great deal.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
If you're going to side with ANYTHING Sopwith said concerning my posts, I'm not sure I even have the strength to respond. I've already labeled your view as the height of arrogance. Please don't lead that into the height of ignorance.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:But you were talking to someone that doesn't fit what you were fighting, and you were talking to him like he did. Either you didn't understand that he didn't fit that, or you didn't care.
I was talking to every person who supports banning gay marriage. Let those who fit that definition answer for themselves.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You honestly don't think you're bigoted against Christians?
quote:I am through pretending that anything these Christians could ever read on an internet forum could possibly touch their hearts.
Do you honestly not see that as bigoted and derogatory? Let's replace a few key words.
I am through pretending that anything these blacks could ever read on an internet forum could possibly enter their heads.
That was gross even to write. But you don't have a problem with that?
Edit: Note I actually quoted YOUR words.
[ August 07, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
And if you would stop nit-picking the way I post---which you so consistently misconstrue---I might actually get a chance to respond to OTHER posters that really are participating in the discussion. Jon Boy, for instance, wrote a really good post on page six that I have yet to answer only because I have to keep coming in here and reiterating the definition of my audience. I understand that my view of your view offends you.
Good.
So answer it, then.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Caleb:
I don't argue with bigots. There's no point.
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
Kat, there's a difference between being a bigot and posting a bigotted comment...I think it's very unfair of you to be throwing that word around the way you are...
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I've admitted that I'm judgemental of Christians with your views. What else to you want me to admit? That I just hate you? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, let's give him a moment to defend his bigoted comment.
*waits*
But you didn't say "Christians with your views". You said Christians.
That's your defense of your bigotry? This smacks of the guy who thinks that homosexuality is only a sin if you hide it. Hidden, a sin. Not hidden, no sin! Grand!
[ August 07, 2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
You know what kat? If you can have the audacity to say to other non-Christian people that their very identity is a sin, and that their wishes and desires are not at as viable as your wishes and desires, you should at least be able to take the ridicule that such treatment deserves.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We are not even on the premises, Caleb. The only thing I agree with in your above statement is the "should be able to take it." part. I can. If I couldn't take it, I'd stop posting. Um, doesn't that make sense to you? If I couldn't take it, I'd get out of the kitchen.
Or do you actually concieve of taking it as equal to agreeing with it?
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
[ August 07, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Mazakaar ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:But you didn't say "Christians with your views". You said Christians.
Now look who's putting words into people's mouths. No matter how many times I repost this:
quote:If ten thousand law-abiding homosexual couples walked up to you with only one plea in their collective heart--legal and social equality--and you had the power to give it to them, and you would choose instead to turn them away; if you are someone who would do that, then I'm talking to you:
...you are still going to treat me like a Muslim crusader.
My audience, AGAIN, is clear. Those who would ban gay marriage, and specifically Christians that would ban gay marriage.
I don't think I need to say it again. If that makes me a bigot, then yes I am a bigot towards people that would fit in that category. Can we move on and let me respond to people who are actually having the discussion now?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm referring to this:
quote:I am through pretending that anything these Christians could ever read on an internet forum could possibly touch their hearts.
*waits for defense*
This is like establishing parlimentary procedure. If you are going to be bigoted and mischaracterizing, that should be established as a given before anyone attempts to discuss with you.
Besides, you already said that you weren't talking to anyone in the thread. Why do you need someone to respond to you now? You aren't talking to them - they're just building your soapbox. You can blog by yourself.
[ August 07, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, I have two (at least) responses to this thread, though I haven't really read any arguements that I haven't already responded to in the past.
First, to Geoff:
quote: So, here's my question. If the current trend were to continue, and if unmarried homosexual partners were allowed all the legal and economic benefits of marriage without an actual legal marriage, would gay marriage still be necessary?
1. It has been mentioned in this thread that the legal issues surrounding couple-hood can be set up by gay couples through partnership contracts, etc., and that many enlightened insurance companies, employers and hospitals have instituted liberal policies that include recognition of gay couples. This, I think, is a step forward, but it is not a sufficient end. Why should we gays have to make numerous and expensive trips to lawyers to enjoy the same protections that heterosexuals get by a quick and cheap trip to town hall to get a marriage liscense? Why should we be content to have been granted a priviledge of hospital visitation and benefits protection (if we're lucky enough to be at the whims of the enlightened) when heterosexuals get these universally by rights?
2. Why should we have to foresee every eventuality and individually arrange legal protection against them when heterosexual couples can get all the benefits and protections by simply joining a class called "married"?
3. Conservatives can grant us a "civil union" and childishly hold to the conviction that they've saved something by not granting us use of the word "marriage" if they want to, as long as the "civilly unionized" as a class are equal in all respects to the "married". As the de-facto liaison of the gay community here at Hatrack , I accept that compromize. However, I think the ludicrously bigoted attitude behind "separate but equal" policies should be as obvious when applied to gay couples as it is when applied to 1950's water fountains.
4. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that this "separate but equal" policy eventually leads to one of two things: A.) It becomes irrelevant, really, because you can't keep people from using language as they see fit. A gay couple might have a liscense that says "civil union" but you won't be able to keep them from saying "we're married". B.) It eventually does more to harm the institution of marriage because someone finds some forgotten loophole that makes a civil union less restricting or in some way preferable to "marriage". You can bet if that happens, heterosexuals will be jumping on the "civil union" bandwagon in droves. If you don't think such an eventuality is likely, take a glimpse at our legal system today and judge how likely it is that no such loophole will be created when our best and brightest try to cover all possible interpretations and legal permutations of a policy or code.
[ August 07, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Kat,
quote:I am through pretending that anything these Christians could ever read on an internet forum could possibly touch their hearts.
(emphasis mine)
I was under the impression that Caleb was only referring to the Christians that hold the viewpoint he despises. I think he's correct in saying you fall into this category. Had you the choice, you would prohibit homosexual marriage, would you not?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Or do you actually concieve of taking it as equal to agreeing with it?
Of course not. Again, I already said I'm through pretending that an interenet forum is capable of touching your heart on this issue. I'm simply here to blame you for the injustice that you endorse.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Page five, half-way down. Big post by me. Others have been responding. Feel free to join in any time.
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
quote: no one has commented on my idea where, they just legalize gay marriage and then let it drop off the media's radar screen, because there isn't controversy anymore. This would reduce the visiblity of the gay movement as well as their power to sway public opinion.
eh?
AJ
Thought you might want a reply. This wouldn't work because the people who have a problem with it still would have a problem with it (even more because those marriages would be legal). The media is only stiring up the issue. The church is fighting it and wouldn't stop if it became legal.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Kasie: *considers* I didn't see that. Thank you for pointing it out. Now, you I would discuss this with.
Riiiight. As if it wasn't ME who said that. You've yet to really discuss anything about this topic, kat, since I took up the job of trying to show you how much pain your view causes other human beings.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
That's sort of like what they tried to do in Canada. The government decided not to challenge recent court rulings that allowed gay marriages. By not doing so the precedent was set that gay marriages were now legal in Canada (well, certain provinces at any rate). The media forgot about it (more or less) for a few weeks but that hasn't stopped people from being up in arms about it. We're now told that gay marriages will be the major focus of this month’s 3-day liberal caucus.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I should know better than to play armchair mod.
*chastises self*
*backs away from thread*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
((((twink)))) Sorry twinky.
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
quote: Caleb, look up what "shun" means.
Kat, this is when it stopped being a discussion.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm also beginning to think Thor has a point about most of the churches that do not want anti-gay marriage. Because it is one thing they all agree on, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This creates a much more powerful lobby in dollars and influence. If they dropped this one in the political arena, they would lose a lot of clout, the only rally cry would be anti-abortion and while there are still people protesting it, it hasn't quite been politically as much of hot potato that the two combined are.
I know we've had long debates on abortion here on Hatrack but I sense a general apathy on the subject in my middle of road coworkers. I would hazard that a lot more of them have the "ick" factor when it comes to gay men than they actualy do having the "ick" factor when it comes to abortion. Interesting also to me is that many of the people who have an "ick" factor when it comes to gay men, do not have the same thing when it comes to lesbianism. In fact especially among heterosexual white males (which is my normal sample here at work since I'm the only girl) they would probably cheer on lesbianism because of strange fantasies at the same time that they cringe with gay males or transexuals.
It is very bizzare.
AJ
edit for a dropped parenthesis
[ August 07, 2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Jacare, I like you and have had quite a few pleasant discussions with you over the years. I don't think you're a bigot, and your responses are mostly well thought out expressions reflecting your faith. I can respect that.
However:
quote: Doesn't this deny biology? Never mind divine design, isn't there sexual dimorphism for the very reason that division of labor and specialization allows for greater capacity and deftness at performing a given function? The fact is your average male has a lot greater muscle mass than the average female, is larger and has a different bone structure. Not only that, but there is also built-in psychological software which tells the male "you are the protector". On the female side you get the same thing. Women get equipped with some really cool hardware as well as built-in baby-bonding and nurturing software that males lack.
So whether one believes in gender roles or not gender roles believe in you and will continue to do so until and unless there is some reason for them to be evolved out of us.
As a Mormon, surely you believe that "the natural man is an enemy to God." I find it somewhat duplicitous on the one hand to believe that we are supposed to overcome our natures, but on the other hand to use a "bound by our natures" arguement to support a position that is arguably oppressive and outdated.
[ August 07, 2003, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:It actually disturbs me that you stopped talking to people and fell back on the prepared speech, because it indicates you haven't thought through all ramifications of it enough to handle a slight shift in your audience. In other words, you don't know the ramifications well enough to have a dialogue. If that isn't the case, why did you move from a conversation to a polemic?
Kat. Prepared speech?
I'm blaming a whole section of society for treating another section of society as second-class citizens. From my heart, I blame them.
Call me a bigot. Call me whatever. Misconstrue the meaning of my sentences.
The fact is that I don't particularly feel like placing that blame on any one person, so it was necessary, for me at least, to address it the way I did. Why everyone else can understand that and you can't is beyond me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
BtL, as far as a timeline on the fading of the hububb also, I wasn't speaking really of weeks, but more of months and years. The Canada decision is still extremely recent.
AJ
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's not bizarre at all. Heterosexual men are attracted to women.
If
woman == good
then
woman + woman == good + good == very good
thus
men have a fixation on lesbians, or at least bisexual women.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I was just saying that I don't think it could happen, citing Canada as an example of why. It just wouldn't be allowed to drop off the map for months or years.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Glad to see that dictionary thing is still working out for you. I already admitted (once again, this is so tiring) to the soap box:
quote:My post on page five was a bit of soap-box, yes. What of it? Hatrack is suddenly above passionate speeches?
I admit I'm a bigot. I admit I was 'soap-boxing'. AND I gave you the reasons why. And you still don't see fit to answer my points.
That's fine. Just stay out of the discussion, then.
[ August 07, 2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Kat, Caleb, can you take this somewhere else? Maybe make a thread called, "Kat and Caleb whine and bitch about what the other person said on the gay marriage thread"?
I can make it for you.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
No Bob, I don't actually enjoy having to defend every single word I say. I only do so because kat is so purposeful in making sure my opinions aren't discussed. One day--far in the future, perhaps--I can get back to that discussion on this thread.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Oh God. That was the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on Hatrack. Good day to you, katharina.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yes twinky but it is logically inconsistent, in their entire reference framework. The acts of lesbians and the acts of gay men are morally equivalent regardless of what morals you are using, they are both same-sex sex. Yet one is accepted or cheered on, by a run of the mill straight white male, while the other is viscerally rejected. It is probably a form of subconsious sexism, and objectifing of women and it frustrates me that these guys don't even realize they are doing it. I am becoming convinced as I said in my previous post that it is exactly the "ick factor" against gay men in many non-devout straight men that is the swing factor in this whole equation. It is quite hypocritical since they do not exibit the same bias against lesbians.
AJ
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Bob, I understand what you're saying and agree that there are those who abuse that bit of scripture about marriage. Do you think that it should be removed from the Bible or ignored because some might misuse it to validate their twisted version of marriage?
Just because my wife is going to stay home with the baby, do you think I don't plan on doing some nurturing myself? Any man who uses that scripture to excuse himself from that probably wasn't going to be doing it anyway. He's just found an excuse not to do it. Any man who "lords" it over his family so that they live in fear of him probably would do it whether he could use the Bible to back him up or not.
And to echo Jacare's post about biology, study after study have determined that breast feeding is the best way to go with an infant. That's kind of hard to do when the mother works. Not impossible, but not easy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Bob:
quote:Men go work, "providing" stuff, protecting, etc. and it's not their role to nurture.
It's not their primary role, and for good reason; how many fathers can nurture as well as a mother can? There's still plenty of room for fathers to nurture and mothers to protect.
quote:I think it breeds distant fathers and indecisive moms.
This is a possibility, of course, but in my experience, it seems pretty rare (or, at least, just as common inside the LDS Church as outside it). My father has always been a little more distant, but it's not because he's the provider; it's because of baggage from his own parents' relationship, which was far from ideal.
quote:I see a very narrow path to healthy families and a very very wide path to sick relationships where the dad comes home, acts like the lord & master, and everyone has to be quiet around him because he's so beat from trying to keep a roof over their head on one salary and he's in danger of being laid off, and the mortgage is more than he can afford, and the kids need braces, and so on and so on.
Like I said before, this seems (to me) no more common inside the LDS Church than outside it. And I've seen two-income families that suffered from the same problems.
Zan: The bit that Bob quoted is not in the Bible. It's from an LDS document a few years ago.
[ August 07, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
C'mon guys, don't stop now! It's kinda like watching a tennis match with all of this back and forth action. The posts inserted in between are kinda like the guys that run across the court from time to time to pick up the dropped ball.
edit- Hey you ball boys! Get off the coyrt fer cryin' out loud, there's a match goin' on!
[ August 07, 2003, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Yes twinky but it is logically inconsistent, in their entire reference framework. The acts of lesbians and the acts of gay men are morally equivalent regardless of what morals you are using, they are both same-sex sex. Yet one is accepted or cheered on, by a run of the mill straight white male, while the other is viscerally rejected. It is probably a form of subconsious sexism, and objectifing of women and it frustrates me that these guys don't even realize they are doing it. I am becoming convinced as I said in my previous post that it is exactly the "ick factor" against gay men in many non-devout straight men that is the swing factor in this whole equation. It is quite hypocritical since they do not exibit the same bias against lesbians. << (AJ)
Of course. I'm just telling you why men are like this.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Jon Boy, I know, but there is a passage in the Bible dealing with the same thing. I assumed that was what the LDS document was referring to.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
My argument is based upon the following facts and assumptions:
1) America is founded on the principal of individual sovereignty, espoused perhaps most elegantly in our Declaration of Independence:
quote:… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
2)
quote:bigot. n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
3) In some cases, bigotry is acceptable. We acknowledge that people who are steadfast in their religious or political beliefs are tolerated, even though they may refuse to consider the other side. We do believe in an unalienable right to liberty, and that includes religious and political beliefs. We also believe that bigotry of thought is essential to this liberty.
4) The term bigot becomes negative only when the subject it refers to is somehow harming someone else through his intolerant views. Therefore, it is bigotry of action that is unacceptable. Discrimination against blacks is one example of this.
5) Citing number 4 above, we can understand that bigotry of action infringes upon the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
It is therefore my contention that Christian bigotry is unacceptable, while the bigotry of homosexuals is acceptable. Any Christian who is bigoted on this particular issue is acting (by vote, or by voicing an opinion to the appropriate official that might cause him or her to act in a particular fashion) in opposition to a homosexual’s basic right to the pursuit of happiness. A homosexual, on the other hand, is doing nothing to harm the Christian way of life. While you might argue that the homosexual lifestyle does, in fact, infringe upon the Christian lifestyle, I’d point you back to your own right of individual sovereignty. You have every right to make choices in your own life, affecting your own marriage, regardless of what society stipulates.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:It is probably a form of subconsious sexism, and objectifing of women and it frustrates me that these guys don't even realize they are doing it.
The difference is that many people have severe reactions to seeing a man in a submissive attitude. Feminine habits are enough to elicit scorn from others, much less sexual habits. Gale male sex means that at least one of the men must be "receiving," and therefore less than a man, and icky besides. Women are supposed to be on the recieving end, so there's no problem with two of them together since obviously they're just killing time until a man wanders in, ideally the viewer. That's just for two feminine women, you understand. Lesbians who look or act like men are, of course, unnatural.
I've given up being surprised by this attitude, but it can still sadden me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Chris, that also beautifully answers the question of why so many women pine that all the best men are gay. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
<---would also like to express my disappointment that my previous comments appear to have been completely lost in the bickering.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kasie, you rock! That was beautifuly clear and logical.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Actually KarlEd I did read your post very carefully because I wanted to know what you thought. (I also wanted to know what you thought about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy but that is a different thread. I'll bump it and would be grateful if you would read it.)
I think I disagree with you on point three.
quote:3. Conservatives can grant us a "civil union" and childishly hold to the conviction that they've saved something by not granting us use of the word "marriage" if they want to, as long as the "civilly unionized" as a class are equal in all respects to the "married"...
I don't think the die-hard conservatives want to even allow civil unions, because that would be legitimizing a part of society that they consider SHOULD be illegitimate. I think the "civil union" lable, only makes a difference to those moderates, who while generally open-minded still have an visceral "ick factor" on the subject.
I totally agree that the "separate but equal" argument is a slippery slope though.
AJ edit for dumb spelling
[ August 07, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, I like you and have had quite a few pleasant discussions with you over the years. I don't think you're a bigot, and your responses are mostly well thought out expressions reflecting your faith. I can respect that.
The respect is mutual.
quote: As a Mormon, surely you believe that "the natural man is an enemy to God." I find it somewhat duplicitous on the one hand to believe that we are supposed to overcome our natures, but on the other hand to use a "bound by our natures" arguement to support a position that is arguably oppressive and outdated.
Hmmmm... I disagree with the application of "the natural man" to this case. First some quotes:
quote: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
And now behold, my brethren, what natural man is there that knoweth these things? I say unto you, there is none that knoweth these things, save it be the penitent.
To me the term "natural man" doesn't only mean the biological nature of man. The natural man is a guy who lives only by his carnal senses. He is a guy who doesn't believe in the spiritual at all and he shrugs off such things as nonsense.
The behavior of the natural man of course relates to biological nature inasmuch as since the natural man does not believe in the spiritual he believes there is no reason to circumscribe his appetites with laws. This is the basic premise of those who believe that pre-marital sex is harmful to no one, that eating too much unhealthy food is OK etc.
This is not the same as saying that biological appetites are bad. Simply that appetites should be kept within the bounds the Lord has set.
This discussion is still a step away from the behavior I was discussing, because the psychological drive for men to protect and women to nurture (as a gross simplification) is not an appetite which has been set with divine limitations. And yet as human behavior it of course touches on the gospel. This is why the Lord has set boundaries on this type of behavior in men as well.
quote: ...but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved... No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
Essentially then, denying the natural man does not require denying the influence of our biological drives but directing them and placing boundaries about them which we should not cross.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why most straight men like Girl on Girl action, but don't like Guy on Guy action.
Two girls having sex--lots of juicy bits we can imagine will be offered to us. Nothing there is threatening.
Two guys--they offer lots of apparently uncomfortable, if not downright painful prospects.
"You want to stick that where? Oh Shi...." "Exactly."
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Kasie, once again thanks.
I have no problem admitting to bigotry, and the way I meant it was precisely the way you described it. It was unfortunate that I expected certain people to take my words for what they meant.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Banna, thanks. Caleb, you're welcome.
katharina,
Where'd you go?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Taking a Hatracker to the airport. Sorry.
I meant it. I'm done. I don't argue with bigots, and Caleb doesn't want a conversation - he wants a blog. Now that he's exposed himself as that kind of debater, I'm done.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Kasie: *considers* I didn't see that. Thank you for pointing it out. Now, you I would discuss this with.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sorry, Kasie. Maybe in a different thread?This thread is toast to me (to continue with the Fat Tony theme).
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
Wow, here is one world view (world view 1) and then 30 billion light years away, here's (world view 2).
quote: I'm also beginning to think Thor has a point about most of the churches that do not want anti-gay marriage. Because it is one thing they all agree on, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This creates a much more powerful lobby in dollars and influence. If they dropped this one in the political arena, they would lose a lot of clout, the only rally cry would be anti-abortion and while there are still people protesting it, it hasn't quite been politically as much of hot potato that the two combined are.
That would make sense but this wasn't an issue until there was talk of making homosexuality equal (and thus morally right) with heterosexuality. Most people seem to forget that it wasn't the church starting these fights. The church didn't start pro-life until pro-choice elements entered the arena.
Perhaps if the church wasn't on the defensive so much, upholding moral values, it could work on other parts of its creed (helping the poor, establishing justice). But as long as there is a threat to holiness, the church must work against that.
There needs to holiness, justice and mercy for the church to function as Christ's messenger.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: That would make sense but this wasn't an issue until there was talk of making homosexuality equal (and thus morally right) with heterosexuality. Most people seem to forget that it wasn't the church starting these fights. The church didn't start pro-life until pro-choice elements entered the arena.
For the sake of argument, the pro-choicer would say that they didn't *just recently* enter the arena, abortion has been in existence for thousands of years. They just attempted to make what was formerly an unsafe backdoor procedure medically safe and more easily accessible to those who would attempt it anyway.
The same argument could be made about gay marriage. Homosexuality has been around since the invention of writing at least. The gay community is just arguing, much along the lines of Kasie's earlier post, that legally their ties to each other should be made as legally safe with the same ease of access as those of straight couples.
I realize that with abortion the ease of access probably causes more people to participate in the activity than if they were risking their life and limb due to hazardous infections etc. I don't know if the same would be true of gay marriage or not, but if it produced more stability and monogamy in the gay community I can't see that it would be a bad thing. Especially not in same way that more abortion is seen as a bad thing. With abortion either way you need to take into account a possible life that has no say for itself at the moment. With a Gay marriage both are already consenting adults and are able to speak freely on their own behalves and are giving adult consent to their own marriage.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: of making homosexuality equal (and thus morally right) with heterosexuality
You can't legislate morality. Legally equal can sometimes coincide with morally right, but no where does it say the two HAVE to be equal.
As Kasie points out, our country is based upon life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which doesn't have a direct correlation with morality as defined by any one religion.
AJ
Edit to correct saxon's nitpick. I said "constitution" instead of "country" and I was wrong. AJ
[ August 07, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: You can't legislate morality. Legally equal can sometimes coincide with morally right, but no where does it say the two HAVE to be equal.
On the contrary, morality is just about the only thing you can legislate. What should the government spend its money on? Which human behaviors should be encouraged and which punished? Legislative decisions are moral decisions from first to last.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wow I'm getting a lot of milage out of Potemkyn's post, but it made me think about a couple or three things.
quote: Perhaps if the church wasn't on the defensive so much, upholding moral values, it could work on other parts of its creed (helping the poor, establishing justice). But as long as there is a threat to holiness, the church must work against that.
There needs to holiness, justice and mercy for the church to function as Christ's messenger.
Threat to holiness: I don't know which particular "church" you are referring too. The historical Christian church was founded during some of the arguably "most unholy" times in history.
You can't legislate "holiness" anymore than you can legislate "morality". I would argue that the holiness of a particular church is an internal matter for members of that church, not an external matter for all of society. Mercy and justice are external issues regarding how the church reacts with the "unholy" world around it. So if the three are legs on a stool, the "holiness leg" has become bent and twisted til it isn't a functioning leg, and the other two are so short that the entire stool is lopsided.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Jacare, that brand of morality is generally based on the premise of "do no harm to others, or as little as feasible". It is not based on the "higher" morality that exists in christian churches.
And while I concede that you might be able to legislate some morality, you Certainly can't legislate holiness, which is a spiritual issue.
AJ
[ August 07, 2003, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Karl, thanks for your response Since I really was just looking for input, and wasn't trying to argue anything, it's not like I can come up with a rebuttal ... but I'm glad to have that clarified. I think too many of these arguments end up sliding into a track that's beside the point, and I needed to make sure that I knew what the "point" was from your perspective
So, let me see if I've caught on. You hope that America's law and culture will change to permit homosexual marriage because despite the difference in sexual attraction, many gays have the same desire for stable, publically-recognized relationships that heterosexuals have, and feel disenfranchised because their preference for the same sex precludes them from participating in a major part of our culture. Is that an accurate assessment?
Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with gay marriage in and of itself. You've done a very good job of helping me understand your side in this, and I don't think you're trying to tear down the fabric of society or any such nonsense.
My main concerns are twofold.
1. Traditional marriage has historically been one of humanity's primary survival strategies. It has provided sexual security for most of the population, stable environments for child-rearing, and increased likelihood that a healthy new generation will rise to replace the old one. Primitive societies with full sexual freedom naturally result in a few alpha males getting to mate with all the women, many of whom are forced to rear their children alone, leading to a criminally irresponsible younger generation, and an army of angry, disenfranchised older men. (There are primate societies that function exactly this way.)
Our modern society is wealthy enough, and our infant mortality rate is low enough, that we no longer are forced to devote our whole strength to child-rearing in order to assure our survival. Our society is also populous enough that it is possible for someone to have several successive sexual relationships without suffering the negative consequences of having to continue to live near the jilted lover. As a result, the initial purpose of marriage — to provide a stable home for children, and to generate a stable sexual environment free of jealousy and sexual exploitation — has become obsolete in many people's minds.
Marriage is now only about formalizing romantic feelings. If the romantic feelings go away, then the marriage ends. We're faced now with rampant divorce and illegitimacy, and our younger generation is growing up with huge disadvantages weighing against them.
This all has very little to do, directly, with gay marriage. Gay marriage, from this perspective, is not a problem in itself, but is a symptom of something larger — the fact that marriage has lost its initial purpose in many people's minds. Too many modern married couples feel little to no responsibility to their children or to their fidelity, because from the beginning, their marriage was only about their feelings toward each other, and not about their responsibilities to society.
So, in this sense, I'm against the general trend of our culture, not directly against your own personal desire at all.
2. We don't understand homosexuality. We don't know what role genetics might play. We don't know what environmental factors encourage the development of homosexual tendencies. We don't know to what degree full acceptance of homosexual life might benefit or harm people with varying degrees of the tendency. We don't know the unforeseeable long-term results of the society-altering changes that we are on the cusp of making, and I am concerned that many non-gays are eager to make them for the sake of pleasing a vocal minority, and not necessarily because they have thought out their decisions on the alrge scale.
Homosexual marriage is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage. This is not the same issue as allowing blacks to attend the same schools as whites, or giving women the vote. This reminds me more of the controversy in southern California over bilingual schools. A vocal minority of Spanish-speakers believe their children are disenfranchised by the English-only system because English is their second language. It is only "fair" that these students be able to learn in their first language the way the white kids do. But that position does not take into account the fact that later in life, the ability to communicate effectively in English will be these children's only ticket to true success in the economic world, and by teaching them in Spanish, we are actually cheating them out of something very important.
I am concerned that gay marriage is a similar situation. We do not know some of the long-term ramifications of this decision. Some of our past social changes (free love, easy divorce, legal abortions), while attractive when we made them, have, from many perspectives, had negative effects on our society. We are too gung-ho about social change, and are often unwilling to take responsibility when something goes in a way we did not expect. We simply make blanket, irreversible decisions, and then turn a blind eye to the consequences. I think we should, if possible, repeat this kind of mistake as rarely as we can.
So, my position is, let's watch Canada and see what happens Posted by tabithecat (Member # 5228) on :
While I was working at a Methodist church we got a new pastor and she made the bold step of announcing the she would be allowing same sex unions in the church. We had 3 bomb threats over the next 2 weeks and a HUGE protest with Fred Phelps and everything. Pastor Susan stood her ground and the next weekend, protest and all, our first same sex commitment ceremony was held. I felt very proud and for so many reasons, that I'm not sure if I could voice them here and do them credit. By knowing other people who do not have any reason to take a “chance” or break with tradition it has made me stronger and more able to accept myself. By following their examples and not kowtowing to the masses and their disapproving eye I have been freer, and certainly happier than I have ever been. When I was younger I used to go to church with my friend on Sundays if we had a sleep over night Saturday and I never understood the people who would try to out “Christian” each other. “Well, hello *insert name here* how are you? We missed you last week” Than as she would walk away she would add something like “she’s a drunk” “I can’t even believe she would show her face in the church” “Oh and did you see what so and so was wearing, really I never!” This I heard from every direction not just her Mom and Grandmother. I just didn’t get it, no wait, I still don’t get it. This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that is being addressed here and now. Could it be that by holding up a mirror and showing you what it is that we are hearing you can at least recognize that we don’t want any special rights just the same ones as everyone else.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Geoff, Thank you. Nice post.
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
AJ,
Your first post really doesn't deal with what I said (or at least tried to say). I was merely pointing out that you appeared to be blaming the church for making an issue out of homosexuality, and I just tried to point out that the church is on the defensive in this area and is responding to people like you, not the other way around.
Potemkyn
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jacare:
quote:sexual dimorphism for the very reason that division of labor and specialization allows for greater capacity and deftness at performing a given function?
Sure, there is sexual dimorphism. If one believes that human beings have been on the planet for millions of years, however, some of that dimorphism is due to our evolutionary history and may or may not be relevant today.
Here's the deal. If it is the man's role to "protect" the woman, you have to ask "from what?" Typically, the biggest threat faced by young to middle aged women in our society is from household accidents, disease, automobile crashes, etc.
But I suppose we could limit "protect" to be against violent crimes versus accidents or acts of God.
In which case, men are protecting their women from other men. Right? The rapists and murderers among us are mostly men. So, we have to ask ourselves if males larger size and more muscular physique means anything in today's environemnt. And the answer is, chiefly that men are bigger than women so that they can protect women from other big men.
Right?
Do you see where this is leading?
Eventually, the real problems of the current world would be solvable by having smaller men. Eventually, men will just evolve into a patch of reproductive tissue carried somewhere on the generally female host body.
I know there are women scientists working on this right now!!!
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
AJ, I think Jacare took care of your second post for me.
Third post.
There are two important types of holiness. Group holiness and personal holiness. For the longest time, the church was focused on personal holiness and making sure their souls were "pure." This lead to Christians who lead celebite and also bloody lives. Respect for the humanness of other groups escaped the church. Now, though, we appear to be swinging the opposite way. Respect for your fellow man has never been higher, but personal holiness has suffered.
The reasoning behind this is simple. This occured because people began to understand that all were 'equal' and thus all should be treated equally. This is not the case, though. Some are holy, some are just, some are smart, others are none of these. But some people began to say "who am I to judge?" An excellent question. One with an answer which should be "nobody." So some decided, do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. Others looked to the one being who could judge, God. And his commands were clearly stated in several different faiths. Thus some thought, who cares because I can't judge, and others thought I can't judge but God can. Conflict ensues.
Hmmm...doesn't have a lot to do with your third post, though...I write later.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Potemkyn,
Thank you for your responses. Please understand that I am trying ideas on for "size" and seeing whether I like them or not. I came from a very very conservative church background. I was trying to put myself completely on the outside of the "churched" community and look in, and found myself very cynical and agreeing with Thor. Having been on the "inside" of several churches, I do not believe it is an actual conspiracy.
It depends on what particular church you belong to whether the true emphasis is on personal holiness or social holiness. I am not currently affiliated with any church as explained in several of my recent hatrack posts, though maybe not on this thread.
AJ
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Marriage is now only about formalizing romantic feelings. If the romantic feelings go away, then the marriage ends. We're faced now with rampant divorce and illegitimacy, and our younger generation is growing up with huge disadvantages weighing against them.
According to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University's annual "State of our Union" examination of marriage trends, divorce rates are currently around 40-45% of all marriages. This can certainly be seen as an alarming number.
It also means that over half of all marriages stay together, despite easy divorce and social pressures regarding the bloom of passion. Frankly, I'm impressed.
quote:Gay marriage, from this perspective, is not a problem in itself, but is a symptom of something larger — the fact that marriage has lost its initial purpose in many people's minds.
How does this reconcile with your earlier preposed summation: ...many gays have the same desire for stable, publically-recognized relationships that heterosexuals have, and feel disenfranchised because their preference for the same sex precludes them from participating in a major part of our culture.... If anything, it would seem that gay people who desire marriage for this reason have a greater appreciation for the needs, responsibilities and social importance of marriage than the many divorcing couples do.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Just a couple of notes.
quote:It's not their primary role, and for good reason; how many fathers can nurture as well as a mother can?
Personally, I believe this is much more a product of environment than heredity. Many men are not good at nurturing because they've never been taught how.
quote:As Kasie points out, our constitution is based upon life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
This is more of a nitpick, but I think it's important. You can say, as Kasie did that our country was founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but the Constitution does not contain that phrase. Very specifically, in fact. Not all of the Founding Fathers agreed with Jefferson, who put that line into the Declaration of Independence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Too many modern married couples feel little to no responsibility to their children or to their fidelity, because from the beginning, their marriage was only about their feelings toward each other, and not about their responsibilities to society.
Geoff, the problem I have with this assessment of the situation is that it seems to suggest a primary "responsibility" of marriage is the production of children. While this may have been the case when women were treated and exchanged as breeding stock, and a failure to produce offspring was one of the few valid grounds for divorce, I'm sure I'm not alone in being grateful that we no longer live in such a repressive and ignorant society.
Married couples have many, many more responsibilities to society, ones that don't directly involve the production of offspring, and I see no reason why gay couples can't fulfill these other responsibilities just as ably.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Duly noted and corrected Saxon
AJ
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, that brand of morality is generally based on the premise of "do no harm to others, or as little as feasible". It is not based on the "higher" morality that exists in christian churches.
And while I concede that you might be able to legislate some morality, you Certainly can't legislate holiness, which is a spiritual issue.
Two ideas related to this. First, there are many laws which your average human, be he (we really need an all-inclusive term that doesn't suck. I refuse to write (s)he) liberal or conservative, agrees with which are not based on harm to others. For example, public decency laws mean that you can't walk around naked even if you want to (except at Berkeley). So I still say that morality is morality regardless of the source.
My next point is just a pet peeve with this "do no harm to others, or as little as feasible" version of morality. So many people seem to base their moral codes on this premise these days, but it is flawed. The flaw is that it assumes a level of responsibility which simply does not exist. For example, this morality is used as the justification for things like legalizing certain drugs, with the tacit assumption being that the expanded pool of drug users will all be very responsible in their drug use. Pshaw right.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Aren't public decency laws based on harm, though? Not physical harm, sure, but some kind of harm.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Tom, the danger I see is not in married couples refusing to or finding themselves unable to have children. I'm not concerned that the PRODUCTION of children is no longer the primary focus of marriage.
My concern is the fact that married couples who DO have children are encouraged by society's assumptions to put their children's needs somewhere secondary to their own. The family is no longer about the kids. It's about the parents, and the kids are just a side effect that must be dealt with somehow, preferably with day care and medication. I think this is a dangerous attitude, and the way we look at marriage is a big part of it.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
saxon-The psychological harm of seeing ugly people naked, maybe?
If one wants to be indirect then all of the religious laws are based on harm as well.
[ August 07, 2003, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Geoff, thanks for your reply. I like discussing controversial topics with you because you truly seem to listen to the other side and seek to understand where they are coming from, even if you don't come to agree with them, exactly.
Regarding your first point, I don't disagree with your historical account of marriage and its importance to society. However, I disagree with your assesment of the situation. I think society is more and more coming to realize that gays are legitimate members of society and that we can even make great contributions if given the chance. I think that increasing numbers of people, Christian and not, are beginning to feel that denying marriage to commited gay couples is both unfair and mean-spirited. There is increasing support for and increasing recognition of the need for ways in which to provide gay couples with the protections and benefits of marriage. The "civil unions" idea that is gaining support is an example of this trend. (see my reservations about this compromise above). I think that because support is starting to swing in our direction, fundamentalist Christian leaders, (or those perceived to be such), who continue to fight against something the general populace is coming to see as only fair, will be seen increasingly as extremists. And it's a fight that can only be won by our side. It can be fought by the fundamentalists but never won because gays won't stop fighting until they achieve equal rights and protection. At that point, fundamentalist will probably still fight, but the contest will have been won.
Arguing whether gay marriage is a "problem" or a "symptom" of the decline of marriage is largely pointless. The only real threat to marriage is from within. A strong marriage is made by its participants. A weak one is broken by its participants. I wouldn't be surprised if when gays are granted the right to formalize their unions, there is a flush of shallow couples who will rush out to to get hitched. Maybe even a similar percentage to compare with the shallow heterosexual couples who keep the "Elvis Chapel" in Las Vegas in business. But there will be many more who will form life-long committed relationships, and the gay and straight communities will be all the better for it. I don't think some vague (and quite frankly unsupported - at least on this forum) fear of "messing with the definition of marriage" is sufficient reason to deny gays the opportunity to form legally recognized marriages.
quote: We don't understand homosexuality. We don't know what role genetics might play. We don't know what environmental factors encourage the development of homosexual tendencies. We don't know to what degree full acceptance of homosexual life might benefit or harm people with varying degrees of the tendency. We don't know the unforeseeable long-term results of the society-altering changes that we are on the cusp of making
Yes, we don't know. Unfortunately, we can't know until it happens. However, given all the problems in society, all the things that break up families and put kids in foster homes and on the streets, that encourage people to live for the moment and live mostly for self-gratification, I think there might be niche in our society crying to be filled with a new kind of stable loving relationship. I wonder if filling that niche with gay marriage might not just solve more problems than it causes.
quote: Homosexual marriage is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage. This is not the same issue as allowing blacks to attend the same schools as whites, or giving women the vote. This reminds me more of the controversy in southern California over bilingual schools.
Well, you just went to lengths to show that "marriage" today is "only about formalizing romantic feelings". I hope my marriage, if I ever have one, is about much more than that. I'm curious to know, though, what exactly are the differences you see between gay and straight marriages. (Beyond the raising of one's own biological children, that is.)
You lost me on the biligual arguement when you pointed out that the Spanish children will actually be hampered by concession to their parents' demand to be taught in Spanish. What is the gay corrolary? If we allow gays to marry they won't see how crippling their lifestyle is? By allowing them to marry we are actually cheating them out of the opportunity to see that you have to be straight to be accepted? I'm sure this isn't what you mean to say, but I can't see what else is implied by this analogy. Your last paragraph doesn't answer this question because it is again another expression of a vague (and again unsupported) fear that we might be making a mistake.
I look forward to your reply. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Thanks to Geoff and KarlEd for saving this thread from firey death.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"My concern is the fact that married couples who DO have children are encouraged by society's assumptions to put their children's needs somewhere secondary to their own."
But this has ALWAYS been the case. In fact, one of the remarkable things about Dr. Spock, in the late '60s, was that he argued parents should put the needs of their children before their own needs; prior to this century, children were considered property to be shuffled off to proper training centers in order to be socialized and carry on the family tradition. The idea that parents "owed" more to their children than room and board was a pretty revolutionary one when it caught on, and it seems strange to argue that parents TODAY are neglecting their children more than parents two hundred years ago did.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: My concern is the fact that married couples who DO have children are encouraged by society's assumptions to put their children's needs somewhere secondary to their own.
In addition to Tom's reply, I have to point out that although this is a valid concern in a discussion of the state of marriage in general, making it in a discussion about the ramifications of gay marriage is patently, if inadvertently, offensive. Surely you are not implying that gay couples will inherently put their own needs ahead of any children they may win the right to care for?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
No, Karl, the part of my original post that Tom is answering addresses my concerns for married people in general, and not just for gays. If you reread the exchange, it should be pretty clear.
quote:I think there might be niche in our society crying to be filled with a new kind of stable loving relationship. I wonder if filling that niche with gay marriage might not just solve more problems than it causes.
That may well be the case. All I'm saying is, it's not a guarantee, and many gay-marriage proponents seem unwilling to imagine that there could be unforeseen negative repercussions. Large-scale recognition of gay marriage is hawked as an unmitigated success before it has even been attempted. That kind of attitude is worrisome.
Either way, however, I don't think that allowing gay marriage would create a "new kind of loving relationship". The relationships we are discussing already exist, and are already wreaking their benefits on society. What we're talking about here isn't the creation of new relationships, but rather the formal recognition of relationships that already exist, and the defining of those relationships as precisely equivalent to heterosexual marriages.
quote:You lost me on the biligual arguement when you pointed out that the Spanish children will actually be hampered by concession to their parents' demand to be taught in Spanish. What is the gay corrolary? If we allow gays to marry they won't see how crippling their lifestyle is? By allowing them to marry we are actually cheating them out of the opportunity to see that you have to be straight to be accepted? I'm sure this isn't what you mean to say, but I can't see what else is implied by this analogy.
I had none of those in mind, though I can see how you could get to them from what I said. My concern here is not truly for the welfare of the participants in gay marriages. I'm pretty sure that the change would be largely beneficial, or at worst, neutral in its effect on members of the gay community.
My concern is for all of us, collectively, not just for a single group. I see our society on a fast downhill slide, and redefining marriage this way could be yet another impetus to push us down that slope. My feeling is not that "marriage is bad for gay people" but rather that "gay marriage may be a bad idea for America right now".
Particularly since I began discussing the subject with you, I've come to feel that SOMEthing should be done to give gays the opportunity to become active participants in every part of our society. I don't see you as a blight or an infection (as some truly bigoted religious folk do), and I resent Caleb's repeated assertion that people on my side of the line are all basically a bunch of Nazis ... on the contrary, I believe that homosexuals (and individuals with a wide variety of other psychological differences) enrich our society and encourage broad-mindedness and openness of thought and discussion.
I'm not trying to "keep the gays down" here. I'm just really concerned that we are rushing into a massive reordering of our society, and are doing very little to measure or mitigate our actions with reason and caution. We've made mistakes in areas like this before, and I'd prefer that we slow down the rate of our social experimentation until we understand ourselves a little better.
[ August 07, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Geoffrey Card ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:and individuals with a wide variety of other psychological differences
Such as?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Geoff - if it makes a difference, this suggested change, as opposed to free love, premarital sex, no-fault divorce, etc - stresses commitment and relationships, bonding and social structure. If we have to have changes, that's not a bad direction to be pushed.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Does anyone else love the fact that on Amazing Race, under Chip and Reichen's name (when they list the relationship between the team) put Married?
Chip and Reichen Married
Of course, there was Millie and Chuck.
Millie and Chuck Dating 12 Years/Virgins
Man, like that's anybody's business!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: I don't think that allowing gay marriage would create a "new kind of loving relationship".
This might be true, but only insomuch as a straight unmarried couple living together has the exact same kind of relationship as a married straight couple do. Do you believe there is no difference between those two?
quote: The relationships we are discussing already exist, and are already wreaking their benefits on society.
quote:wreak ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rk) tr.v. wreaked, wreak·ing, wreaks To inflict (vengeance or punishment) upon a person. To express or gratify (anger, malevolence, or resentment); vent. To bring about; cause: wreak havoc. Archaic. To take vengeance for; avenge.
Do I give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know the meaning of the word you used, or were you being glib? From anyone else I'd be insulted, but perhaps you thought you were being cute.
quote: My concern here is not truly for the welfare of the participants in gay marriages.
And my concern, largely is. This doesn't mean I don't care about society in general, but I think the VERY REAL hurt being done to my people outweighs the theoretical hurt that might possibly be done to the rest of you, especially considering no one has been able to come up with even a theoretical idea of just what that hurt might be.
quote: I'm just really concerned that we are rushing into a massive reordering of our society, and are doing very little to measure or mitigate our actions with reason and caution.
I believe you. However, some changes probably can't be made gradually. There are those who will always use caution as a mask to hide oppression and bigotry. There are those who if they had their way would still be expecting blacks and other minorities to bide their time while the self appointed watchdogs of society decide the best way to ease them into equality. I personally don't think that the gay rights issue, including gay marriage, merits the cries for caution. Especially since nobydy really seems to be able to say what, exactly, they are afraid of.
So, just what is it that everyone fears gay marriage will do to straight marriage or to society? What are the fears that justify such extreme cries of caution?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
I don't have much time for a long post this moment, but let me clear up the "wreak" thing. Note that one of the definitions is "to bring about; to cause". That's the meaning I was using, and though it's usually associated with the word "havoc", I thought it might be cute to stretch the word a bit. I meant nothing pejorative by it. I don't know, I just like the image of people running around wreaking joy, or wreaking love, or something Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And I applaud you for that Geoff. Taking an abused word and associating it with happier words, to give it a better connotation.
I think I'm going to make it my goal to tell at least one person a day that I'm committed to wreaking joy.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
One thing to understand about the viewpoint opposite your own, Geoff, is that we don't care what the social ramifications of gay marriage might be. We just want to permit a form of behavior that we see as private and therefore not a proper subject for prohibition.
There are a lot of books out there that I think have had a negative effect on their readers; a lot of churches that I think have had a negative effect on most of their constituents. But so what? I don't want to see these things banned. People should be free to make what lifestyle choices they please, and neither I nor the majority of Americans nor anyone else ought to be able to control others in that way.
Is this value either implicit or explicit in the Constitution? Arguably it's implicit, only special cases of it are made explicit, but the whole thing should be. The benefit of having a free society is freedom itself.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
What an interesting thread. And very civil, besides a small minority. Both sides have argued strongly and made me think about the issue in new ways.Discussion threads like this are what makes Hatrack great.
quote:My concern here is not truly for the welfare of the participants in gay marriages.--Geoff (This short quote cuts off Geoff somewhat, but hey--Morbo)
And my concern, largely is. This doesn't mean I don't care about society in general, but I think the VERY REAL hurt being done to my people outweighs the theoretical hurt that might possibly be done to the rest of you, especially considering no one has been able to come up with even a theoretical idea of just what that hurt might be.--KarlEd
Well said, KarlEd. This is the crux of the matter to me: restricting the potential rights of a minority so that the status quo of the majority can continue unchanged. This is unacceptable in a free society. I think gay marriage or civil union is inevitable in this country and will happen before 2010, possibly much sooner. And KarlEd, another good point you made earlier: why should gays have to forsee every legal contingency and hire expensive lawyers to deal with them when straights get them all in a package with marriage?
[ August 08, 2003, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Strangely enough, something about Kayla's post on the Amazing Race above keyed me in on something. Two of the contestants there have been dating for 12 years and are still virgins. And someone asked what is the difference between a committed but not married relationship and one wherein there is a marriage.
At one time, I would have thought there was no difference. Now, three and a half years into a marriage, I know there is a BIG difference. And it deals with maturity of a relationship.
Taking the step of real, committed before God and State, legal marriage does change a relationship. It, without a doubt, sets it in stone. The stone can later be broken with a lot of effort, but for the most part it is permanent. You think differently about your relationship, you act differently. This is no longer your girlfriend/boyfriend or even fiance`. This is your spouse and they are now closer to you than any other family member has ever, ever been.
So yes, by saying No the Gay marriages, full and true, you are denying something to the gay community. And it is something that every adult should have the right to do. And yes, calling it something besides marriage will lessen the value of it. There's something about that word, marriage and the act of being married. Being married is more than just the ceremony, it walks with you throughout your life.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:So, just what is it that everyone fears gay marriage will do to straight marriage or to society? What are the fears that justify such extreme cries of caution?
-KarlEd
Not that the conversation is that active at the moment, but if it does pick up again, can someone who believes that these unnamed fears exist please elucidate? I've been racking (not wreaking ) my brain trying to come up with a valid one, but as of yet, no dice. Anyone?
Oh, and Geoff had a question earlier, quite possibly more than a few pages back, and i can't find the exact quote at the moment so hopefully i'll paraphrase correctly enough for everyone's approval He wondered what the gay community, or i suppose society at large, would feel about giving gay couples all the rights and legal benefits of marriage *without* calling it a marriage, or without it legally being a marriage. Did I interpret that correctly? If so, it seems to me that if you're going to give a kid presents, a cake, a party hat and invite all their friends over to watch a clown, it might as well be their birthday. You know what i mean?
[ August 08, 2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, the closest thing the gay community has to a representative organization is The Human Rights Campaign.
Their positions, recent successes and challenges, and briefs about the issue are summed up on their marriage page .
As for "civil unions", they largely seem to see them as a step forward, but not quite equal to marriage in their current form. Specifically, "marriage" is recognized federally and between each state, whereas "civil union" is currently not accepted state to state. Also currently only Vermont offers a civil union option for gays. If other states offer their own versions of civil unions, there is no guarantee that they will be equal to or recognized by other states as marriage is. Clearly this situation, while perhaps better for some than the status quo, is still not equality with straight marriage in terms of recognition and portability. To find out more of the HRC's official position regarding civil unions, you can check out their website's civil union page.
Hope this helps.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
[ August 08, 2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh gosh.
Dang, twinky. It was definitely a yes.
[ August 08, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
[ August 08, 2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<oops> I think this officially makes the forum a chat room.
*grin* And... your post should add a new and interesting wrinkle to a thread about wedding vows.
Or, it did.
[ August 08, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ah well. I'll fix my posts so they don't look so silly
Edit: Wait, which one? And pre-edit or post-edit versions?
This whole editing thing is getting confusing...
Edit 2: Ah, now I see.
[ August 08, 2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The original post when the posts in between were deleted.
It followed right after KE's post. It looked like your own kind of statement on the subject.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yeah, I figured that out
<----- is not quite as dumb as he looks
*thinks* hm, maybe I'll change it back Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* Not at all. It was pretty funny.
Okay, I just mentally thought, "People. Get a chat room." to myself. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, we could try parachat. Assuming it still works here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Parachat doesn't work for me. Firewall issues.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm sure this thread is on the way to a silent death soon, but I'd still be interested in hearing:
1. a response to this:
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think that allowing gay marriage would create a "new kind of loving relationship". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might be true, but only insomuch as a straight unmarried couple living together has the exact same kind of relationship as a married straight couple do. Do you believe there is no difference between those two?
2. A response from anyone in the "fear of gay marriage" crowd that can give a more concrete expression to the vague 'fear' that has been expressed so far. What, exactly, are you afraid that gay marriage will actually do to the existing institution of marriage? Weaken it? How? Trigger the wholesale collapse of society as we know it? How?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Hey, Katharina, did you get my email? Or are you just ignoring me? *sniff* I'm worried that my email account is still having problems.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jon Boy, I didn't get anything from you. *puzzled*
Did you send it by USPS or by Federal Express?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Who sends email by USPS or FedEx?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It just seemed like something he might do. And, it would explain the absense. It just hasn't arrived yet.
There's a scout executive who has his secratary print all his email and place it in his intray.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Bwahahahhaaa!
You two crack me up. Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
KarlEd, I don't have time to think hard about this, so it might be rambling or occasionally erratic.
On the bad effects of gay marriage: 1) Gay marriage and regular marriage are not part of the same structure and therefore do not deserve the same name / same benefits.
The traditional structure of family is that a mother and father will stay together and provide a stable environment for any kids they produce. This is of value to society because in my mind it promotes responsibility and work ethic in the involved persons in an activity (sex) with inherent irresponsibility and potentially heavy consequences. And the dependants produced are less likely to become problems for society. (Ideally) In gay unions, there is no environment that must be maintained for any dependents produced. (No dependants will be produced.)
In my opinion, the equating of two things that aren't the same is hurtful to one or the other or both.
2) It will promote acceptance of the lifestyle.
3) It will promote the spread of the lifestyle. I don't know how anyone can seriously deny this. It happened in Greece and/or Rome, didn't it?
4) Gay couples WILL, if they gain marriage, eventually gain equal rights to adoption. Kids should at least have a chance to have the healthiest position in society for them to take modeled for them.
5) It undercuts serious religion. Sorry to be offensive to some, but there it is. It requires, and therefore promotes, a shoddy interpretation of scripture. (The scriptures are a whole other debate) And for mormons, it undercuts the entire idea of inspired prophets, who have maintained a clear and official stance on the subject. But I think that for all religions, the acceptance slides them into pragmatism, humanism, and eventually into "Oh, heck were just here because you need to believe something." I know some people would say 'good' to that--but it really is the eventual obsolescence of true faith, and some of us won't like that.
6) Since you are/were a mormon, you will understand the consequences when "the voice of the people choose evil". This indeed leads to the eventual destruction of America, in particular. Besides, I hear (though I have not seen or studied) that there are works that show examples of societies whose decline and fall seemed to correspond to the rise of homosexuality. Gay marriage would be quite a step down that path, IMO.
[ August 08, 2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
quote: The traditional structure of family is that a mother and father will stay together and provide a stable environment for any kids they produce. This is of value to society because in my mind it promotes responsibility and work ethic in the involved persons in an activity (sex) with inherent irresponsibility and potentially heavy consequences. And the dependants produced are less likely to become problems for society. (Ideally) In gay unions, there is no environment that must be maintained for any dependents produced. (No dependants will be produced.)
Kids have nothing to do with marriage initially. Problems for society? I think the only problem in society dealing with this issue is that people can't open themselves to new ideas.
Besides, love between two people, no matter who those people are, is still love. And love is the most important part of a marriage.
quote: Gay couples WILL, if they gain marriage, eventually gain equal rights to adoption. Kids should at least have a chance to have the healthiest position in society for them to take modeled for them.
Last I checked, gaining equal rights in anything is never a bad thing. And I don't know about anyone else, but I had a mother and a father who were married for 26 years and then got divorced...I think it's pretty safe to say that not all heterosexual couples can provide the 'healthiest position in society for their kids' either. Look at me, I hated my dad my entire life. Ok, maybe it's a little different, but my parents relationship has still affected me negatively and they were heterosexual. Disfunction is inherint in everyone.
[ August 08, 2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Mazakaar ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
You're talking about a family, popatr. Not a marriage. There are thousands of heterosexual marriages in the USA that have not and WILL not produce children. Of course its important that children be given a stable home environment to grow in. You've yet to explain how this is not possible with two gay parents.
[ August 08, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Stupid Netscape Webmail.
I'll try sending it again.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Of course some hetero marriages stink. And some marriages don't get kids. I don't deny it.
I would argue that marriage is not about love--though it's important to have. But at it's core, marriage is a social/heavenly contract.
But I did already state one way I feel that gay couples can't (and shouldn't try to) compete with straight couples. They cant model the healthiest and most complete lifestyle/union for the kids. That sucks, and will lead to the spread of sin.
[ August 08, 2003, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
And Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald.
I can't believe the turn this thread took yesterday. I didn't post on this thread about it yesterday, but I find it distressing.
I would think, if anything, gay marriage would benefit the gay community. Marriage, and monogamy, would be a good thing. As it is now, staying together, to me, at least, would seem like it would be harder. No recognition that you are a "couple," no societal pressure to stay together, and no deterrents to breaking up.
Benefits of gay marriage would include social pressure from the community to lead monogamous lives (at least as much as within the straight community.) Societal pressure to stay together. Legal hassles if they decide to divorce. No need to hide their sexuality, spouses, or lifestyle in general. All these things would lead to a better life for both gays and non-gays.
popatr, I don't think it was really all that much about "gay or straight" but "free or slave" or "citizen or non-citizen." It seems that the men participating in homosexual trysts were, at the very least, bi-sexual, and at worst, not homosexual, but pedophiles. However, much of it had to do with slavery and masters "proving" how powerful they were. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Man, I got distracted with a movie. That post was intended to respond to popatr's post before the last one. Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Some good might come of gay marriage, as you say. However, I have stated why I don't think it should happen.
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
quote: I would argue that marriage is not about love--though it's important to have. But at it's core, marriage is a social/heavenly contract.
Well, I can only speak from my experiences on this one. I've been married for about two months now and the only reason was because I love my wife. Do you know how I know that it was only love that wed us? Because I also have a 4 year old daughter with my wife. So, you see, I've been living in sin for the past 5 years. You can't imagine what it's like to be pressured and slandered for having a child out of wedlock. I didn't marry my wife then because I didn't feel we were ready. There were a lot hardships we needed to overcome. I married her now because I love her, not because of some social and by no means, heavenly contract.
quote: But I did already state one way I feel that gay couples can't (and shouldn't try to) compete with straight couples.
When did this turn into a contest? Why is it always about one side winning and one side losing? Why can't we all just win?
quote: That sucks, and will lead to the spread of sin.
Ok, even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, how can you cast that sin upon a child? Just because a gay couple has a kid doesn't mean that that kid is going to be gay. And so what if they are. Can you actually say that that kid is affecting even your religious beliefs directly when you don't even know them?
[ August 08, 2003, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Mazakaar ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I think that the kids lose. It's not fair to them.
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
quote: I think that the kids lose. It's not fair to them.
Not fair to them? I can appreciate your opinion, but how can YOU tell them what's fair to them or not? Isn't it enough to just have two parents that love you unconditionally? Maybe it's more unfair that you would deny a child a family two loving parents.
family. n. a.'A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.' b. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
The definition, which is produced by society says nothing about a man and a woman...it's only scripture that does!
[ August 08, 2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Mazakaar ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Popatr
quote:2) It will promote acceptance of the lifestyle.
And this is bad because...
quote: 3) It will promote the spread of the lifestyle. I don't know how anyone can seriously deny this. It happened in Greece and/or Rome, didn't it?
Um, "Greece" was a collection of city/states during the time to which you refer. In Athens & Sparta, there was a tradition of boys entering the soldiers' life and being taken under an older man's wings in a sort of apprentice/sponsor relationship. Sexual relationships between the man and boy were tolerated in some places, and expected and encouraged in others (namely Sparta). It wasn't in lieu of marriage by any means. The men were expected to get married and have sons so that there would be more people to enter the military.
I get very tired of people pointing to societies that died out thousands of years ago and saying "that's what will happen here." What's next, pointing to Soddom? If you do, just remember that God didn't wipe out the Greeks, their civilization lasted and thrived.
And they also practiced infanticide. Sparta threw the deformed male babies off a cliff. Are we supposed to worry about us eventually emulating that too?
When people make these sorts of comparisons, they are picking on a (real or imagined) superficial similarity in one aspect of two very complicated societies (present day America and whatever ancient civilization we're being compared to) and saying "that's us!!!"
No, it's not us. The warnings of history are well worth keeping in mind. But to use them properly, one must go beyond the superficial.
IMHO.
quote: 4) Gay couples WILL, if they gain marriage, eventually gain equal rights to adoption. Kids should at least have a chance to have the healthiest position in society for them to take modeled for them.
If they raise successful kids, what's the problem? All the state has the right to concern itself with is whether the resulting adults are productive members of society. Period.
But, let's look at this a little more closely. You said "the healthiest position" and have that "modeled" for them. So, you are basically either taking a blanket stance and saying that a household headed by a man plus a woman is ipso-facto the best (regardless of any other criteria) or you assuming that if we had a means to test various couples (or even individuals) for their preparedness to adopt and raise children, it would come out strongly in favor of the traditional family.
Well, I think there's something to be said for people who really want to adopt being allowed to do so. If they can demonstrate a sincere desire to raise children to be productive members of society, I think it's a win-win situation.
It's supposed to be about the kids, though. And from that perspective, I just have to say that I'd like to see data on how messed up kids are having been raised in various alternative environments before I cut out a segment of the otherwise eligible population of adoptive parents.
Surely we're smart enough to go based on results...
quote:5) It undercuts serious religion. Sorry to be offensive to some, but there it is. It requires, and therefore promotes, a shoddy interpretation of scripture. (The scriptures are a whole other debate) And for mormons, it undercuts the entire idea of inspired prophets, who have maintained a clear and official stance on the subject. But I think that for all religions, the acceptance slides them into pragmatism, humanism, and eventually into "Oh, heck were just here because you need to believe something." I know some people would say 'good' to that--but it really is the eventual obsolescence of true faith, and some of us won't like that.
Your inspired prophets were also against racial miscegenation not that long ago. As were the leaders of most Christian sects. Institutionalized racism is not all that different from institutionalized discrimination against ANY group, including gays. If they were all wrong about racism (and I'm pretty sure most people would agree that it WAS wrong) then why should society worry about the current biases? Isn't some future leadership just as likely to figure out the injustice of the current leaders stance as they are to uphold it?
Frankly, scripture can be bent to support just about anything...or deny support to just about anything. And it has been, historically. So, if you want to talk turkey, history tells us mostly to ignore scriptural arguments, or wait for them to change.
If you prefer to stick to what you've grown up with (I assume you're too young to believe in the prior stances on racism, but you like the current stances against gays), no-one is telling you you have to live your life any differently. You can even get vocal about how much you don't like it. That's your right.
But it cannot and should not guide decision-making by the rest of the country.
quote:6) Since you are/were a mormon, you will understand the consequences when "the voice of the people choose evil". This indeed leads to the eventual destruction of America, in particular. Besides, I hear (though I have not seen or studied) that there are works that show examples of societies whose decline and fall seemed to correspond to the rise of homosexuality. Gay marriage would be quite a step down that path, IMO.
This is just a slippery-slope argument. You have no data to support your fears. You have scripture and a bit of shared "concern" that you blow up in to something ominous and threatening to our very way of life!!! OMG!
Well, you'll pardon me if I think that you don't really know what God thinks or will do. And your idea of destruction of America could very well be others' idea of an evolutionary step away from the superstitions and prejudices of a hide-bound past we may finally, and irrevocably shake off like the anchor-weight it has become.
In short, we'll never see eye-to-eye on this. But your post denies the validity of the opinions of others, based solely on something you take as a matter of faith.
From that position, I think it's equally valid for others to state that they have faith that everything you believe and stand for is wrong.
Neither of us will ever be able to prove out cases, right? At least not in this life.
So, this is just another dead end discussion.
Hmm...imagine that!
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I would hope that they get straight parents, so that they have a chance to have the healthier lifestyle modeled to them.
And in fact, there are lots of straight parents just dying and waiting to adopt them. My aunt and uncle, for one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with poptr - adoption by gay couples isn't a matter of what's fair for the parents, but what it fair and best for the children.
What does concern me is if lots of children are NOT adopted because there aren't enough parents. I would think that almost ANY family would be better than being bounced around. Would that help? But... would that mean there are the A-list babies for the A-list parents, and then children-who-otherwise-would-not-be-adopted for the other kinds of parents-to-be?
While growing in that family would be better than being bounced around, it would NOT be better than being in an environment with a mother and a father.
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
quote: While growing in that family would be better than being bounced around, it would NOT be better than being in an environment with a mother and a father.
Kat, were you raised in a gay couple family? If not, how can you ever know what is 'better' for anyone? Until you've experienced both sides, which, I'm betting you haven't, how can you make any sort of claim?
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Bob, I believe that the racial discrimination you refer to in my church was not wrong at the time. Similarly, I don't believe that it was wrong when the sons of levi only got the priesthood. But the change was inspired of God--it was hinted at by the early mormon prophets, hinted at in scripture, and I'm glad it came.
That's what I mean by taking religion seriously.
- BTW, I don't mean that hetero familys are better to the exclusion of all other factors--but that they at least have the potential of giving the kid something important.
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
quote: BTW, I don't mean that hetero familys are better to the exclusion of all other factors--but that they at least have the potential of giving the kid something important.
You keep talking about the 'better, more important' "things" that heterosexual couples can give their children, but you have not once given an example of what these 'better, important' "things" might be. Maybe if you clarify, specifically, what those "things" are, we can better understand what you mean.
[ August 08, 2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Mazakaar ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I've said it repeatedly: the modeling of the lifestyle for which we evolved/were created--the heterosexual relationship, the mother-father-children family as designed by our early roots or by God.
Just for starters.
Posted by Mazakaar (Member # 5502) on :
You still haven't told me what 'better, important things' a heterosexual couple can give. A modeling of a lifestyle tells me nothing of what's better and more important. Give me something tangible, something real.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Here's where I have been arguing from, and what changed my stance.
My sister-in-law is gay and I value her as I do my own sister. I care about her life, her happiness, her fulfillment and safety in this world.
Long before this subject appeared on this electronic medium here, I had to ask myself how I felt about gay marriage, because it looked like she was going to get married, at least in a ceremony/commitment sense if not a legal one.
At first, I was uncomfortable with the idea, not against it, just uncomfortable. And honestly, I can't tell you what gave me angst over it. But I looked at my sister-in-law and knew that I couldn't be one to stand in her way and bar her from such things that straight people have as their rights. Talking with my wife led me to all of the problems folks in gay relationships have with protections under the law that their married counterparts have.
If two lesbians spend their entire lives together, commited and married in every sense except the legal one, and one dies without a will, why should her partner not be protected under the current inheritance laws? If one becomes terribly ill, why can't they rely on their partner's health insurance coverage or even have the access in a hospital that a spouse would?
And if one gave up their job to work in the home and then was abandoned, why should they not be entitled to alimony if that is necessary. Gay couples are already having children, why should their not be parental rights and responsibilities should the two break up, leaving the children in the lurch? Child support, visitation, etc...
It's not my place to judge homosexual lifestyles or practices, my morals and religion both tell me that it is free will and none of my business. My morals and religion also tell me that it is WRONG to discriminate against those who have commited no crime and are different from me by birth/happenstance/accident.
I also know that it is wrong to stand in front of two competent, caring individuals who wish me no harm and bar their way to the future.
Decades ago, racists stood on the steps of a school and attempted to prevent integration of education. I'll be darned if I will stand on the steps of the Justice of the Peace's office and bar this form of integration as well.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No one anti has yet to show that they should limit CIVIL, that is LEGAL, that is state-recognized unions/marriages.
It is very clear that Mormons (and any other people who believe their religions bar it) can and ought to, according to their beliefs, refuse to recognize gay marriage in their church. I don't see anyone on either side arguing THAT!
I have yet to see them prove why they ought to make it illegal in a governemnt that rules over a supremely pluralistic people.
The metaphysical danger may be real, but the state only governs the material.
-Bok
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Popatr, you say this like you assume that a heterosexual couple is in every way superior to a homosexual couple when it comes to raising kids. That's quite a statement. There are more heterosexual couples with children than homosexual couples with children in this world, and there are plenty of screwed up children.
By arbitrarily dismissing these prospective fathers and mothers, you're saying that their parents way of life can change their children.
Personally, I think I was raised in one of the best possible environments, though I've had rarely a hint as to the sexuality of my parents. I must assume that my parents are heterosexual, but really it doesn't matter to me.
That said, this thread is making me extremely sad.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Well as you no doubt know, since you're driving so hard at it, it is tough to give specifics.
But rummage around here and you will find some information, some of which points to the influence of both a man and a woman is healthy for a child.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
That prev was to mazakaar.
To Ryuko- reread my statements and you will find that I did not say that hetero couples were superior in every way, to the exclusion of all factors.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Where's Dead Horse when you need him?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:I would hope that they get straight parents, so that they have a chance to have the healthier lifestyle modeled to them.
Healthier? Why do you keep mentioning this? You don't mean healthy, you mean acceptable within the standards of your religion. Are you trying to tell me that if i fell in love with a woman right now, and we decided to raise a child together, that somehow the very *act* of me being a homosexual would taint the child somehow? I would argue that the only thing i could do as a parent to and for my child is exactly what *any* parent, anywhere...gay or straight...would do to and for their children. My partner and i could mess up in the same ways any man/woman couple could, and we could *succeed*...*triumph*...in the same ways any man/woman couple could.
Like Bob said, this is a dead-end argument. You're arguing religion. I'm arguing logic.
[edit: gah, i gotta learn to type faster]
[ August 08, 2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I would argue that by evolution, it would logically be better to have straight parents. It would be bad for a baby lion, for example, to have parent(s) that did not hunt--or otherwise did not meet the evolutionary standard.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
But you're right, this is a dead-end argument.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Um, idle curiosity. . . if homosexuals didn't meet the evolutionary standard, why are they still around?
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
quote:But rummage around here and you will find some information, some of which points to the influence of both a man and a woman is healthy for a child.
Sorry, popatr, I just don't see the research. Do you have a link to where you saw the facts? I see lots of stats on the state of marriage, but nothing about the influence of a man and a woman raising a child.
However, I do find the state of marriage a bit sad. Not only is marriage declining, but divorce rate is high. We are cynical about marriage and it appears to be with good cause.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, I've wondered that too, Kayla.
Is it because they haven't been allowed to be open about it for so much of history, and wound up procreating anyway? Do environmental factors have more to do with it than genetics? (If, indeed, genetics have anything to do with it. They probably do, but as yet we haven't found a "gay gene".)
I really don't know.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
It isn't the sexuality of the parents that is the problem. It is the lack of balance.
A homosexual couple may be better off than a single parent, because there are two adults. But a heterosexual couple can model both a female and a male.
And there are differences between genders that are not social. With slightly different chemical balances and obviously different physiques, there is no way that men and women can statistically have the same characteristics.
Let us get very specific. What of the heterosexual male child in a lesbian couple? What of the girl child in a lesbian couple in which the women have decided that men are bad? What if that girl manages to keep her heterosexual tendancies and brings home a boy? When we start thinking about adoption, those kinds of attitudes are going to bear some serious scrutiny. For all that I have good people that are gay and are my friends, and are even in a relationship that is older than my marriage, I cannot say that growing up with them as parents would have been healthy.
No one is going to argue that every heterosexual couple is going to be better parents than every homosexual couple. Clearly there are heterosexuals who shouldn't be allowed within 50 yards of a child. But taken as a whole, and statistically, heterosexual couples have more to offer children than homosexual couples do. And that is simply the healthy modelling of both sexes which is important to a developing child.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yet the problem is, there's a shortage of good heterosexual marriages to provide for the children. Any decent human being is going to be a better parent than the loving arms of the state.
Come ON. You would deny children parents because both of them happen to be the same sex?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Um, idle curiosity. . . if homosexuals didn't meet the evolutionary standard, why are they still around?
Lots of people aren't up to the evolutionary standard, but they're still around.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Amka, are you telling me that if your husband died, you have no male friends or relatives that could "model" all things male?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You're living proof of that one Jon Boy.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
By the way, thanks for the wonderful set up there. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Amen to that, Kayla. With my utter scrawniness, nearsightedness, and poor immune system, it's a surprise the gene police haven't arrested me.
You're welcome for the setup. I considered making the joke myself, but then I decided it would probably be funnier hearing it from someone else.
[ August 08, 2003, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Amka, what of the heterosexual couple's girl who thinks blacks are morons, Hispanics lazy, and Asians goofy? Or the daughter whose dad believes the women is for the house only, girls can't play sports??
If you are going to argue that tact, you better be able to prove homosexuals have a greater risk of being bigots.
-Bok
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
What Bok said.
In my own words, "That argument is bunk."
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Um, idle curiosity. . . if homosexuals didn't meet the evolutionary standard, why are they still around?
Heh, that is a simple question. IF (big if) homosexuality is completely genetic even so there is no possible way to remove it from the gene pool. What about cerebral palsy? Down syndrome? Things that pretty likely keep a person from reproducing but are still around.
edit out last comment. Too many folks will think it was "aimed" at them.
[ August 08, 2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Actually, I'd argue that homosexuals are in a better position to be open-minded, because they've experienced the hurt that discrimination brings.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
There is some speculation that homosexuality is a reaction to overpopulation. Not that there is yet overpopulation, but there are very heavily crowded cities.
There are environmental factors, but to study those requires admitting that it may be an outcome of a mentally and emotionally unhealthy environment. This suggests there could even be a cure for some cases. And that isn't something the gay community wants to face up to right now.
There are other factors that could be involved and may be congenital, but not genetic. For instance, there is the hormonal environment of the womb.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Those would be the people I spoke of that shouldn't have children, Bok.
Okay, lets hold off on the possible gender discrimination.
I have had much experience with a man, and therefore consider that I understand (to a point) how a man thinks. *You are thinking of sex now???!* Even a good young man has sex very much on the brain.
There is no father to talk to about dating boys. My dad talked to me about it. I heard it from two different point of views: my father and my mother. It gave me a lot to think about in my dating adventures. It shaped my young adulthood, and I think it helped me have a very healthy marriage.
How well can the lesbian mothers council their daughter on how to behave around men? On how to choose a good man? Even if her father was a good man, he was simply part of her life, not something she had to weigh and judge for fitness as a husband and father.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
But, if that were true, shouldn't there only be homosexuals in heavily crowded cities? I think we can agree that that is quite clearly not the case.
I don't like your usage of the word, "unhealthy". You're implying that being gay is an illness of sorts. Like alcoholism or aggression. It's that attitude that the gay community would be up in arms against. It could very well be the result of environmental factors, but these need not be regarded as unhealthy. Unless, of course, we all decide that all gays are vile, which I'm not willing to do.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And single parents, should they be discriminated against too? Love provided from one person, or two people is better than nothing at all.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Kayla,
There is a difference between a father that has deceased and one that was never there at all.
And yes, the child really would have been better off if he had not died at all. While there would be friends around to help, that would only be a substitute: a stop gap measure because death had taken away what should have been there.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
From that site I linked to:
quote: "... Of key importance is the value to children of regular interaction with two parents of the opposite sex - their father and mother. Husbands and wives complement each other and together provide a benefit to their children that is greater than the sum of their individual contributions.
Studies show that mothers and fathers interact with children differently [4] and that both types of interaction are valuable and even necessary for healthy child development. And while a mother's role is vital to all sorts of outcomes, so is the father's. Research shows that a father who is involved in the life of his child contributes to higher educational achievement, more pro-social behaviour, and higher self-esteem for the child. [5]
As author and researcher David Blankenhorn stated on the ABC television program Common Sense: with John Stossel, "The best mom in the world cannot be a father." Of course the reverse is just as true. The best environment for a child is a family setting with an involved mother and father.
The strength of heterosexual marriage can be accounted for by the following factors, among others, outlined by Dan Cere of McGill University:
> Marriage recognizes and addresses the fact of sexual difference and opposite sex attraction
> Marriage affirms the significance of sexual complementarity, as well as the important place of male-female bonding in human life
..."
Not great information, I admit.
And there are lines of hetero couples waiting to adopt. People don't seem to know this.
[ August 08, 2003, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Mack, Singles should be descriminated against in the adoption process.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I hope not. We have too many adoptable kids and not enough adoptive parents.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Oh sheesh, I give up. Look at the end of my post, 2 before this one.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes, but they want specific children, popatr. They don't want the older kids. They don't want the kids with any mental illnesses. They don't want special needs kids.
There aren't lines.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Bob, the overcrowding factor is something that could be studied. Just because the trigger may be overcrowding doesn't mean it would not occur elsewhere. Just that the occurance would be greater in large cities than in rural areas.
Bob, see... that is exactly what I'm talking about. When I said unhealthy, I meant it. Overbearing parenting, sexual molestation, etc. Those could be contributing factors and to not allow anyone study that is to deny an honest search for truth. Why should that make you afraid?
On the single parent issue:
A heterosexual couple does have more to offer than a single parent. This isn't a judgement evaltuation of the specific individual. It is simply how it is. Rosie has lots of money. Most single parents must struggle just to make ends meet, and then do not have as much time or energy to spend with their children.
Because of my own religious views, that homosexual acts are sinful, I believe a single parent who got there by 'legitimate' means (ie a divorce because of infidelity, abuse, or addiction or death) is better than a homosexual couple.
But a mom who just messes around and has kids is probably a worse environment than a commited homosexual couple who wants to give the child a stable environment.
As to a mother who has never been married and wants to adopt, her income level and her ability to be with the child needs to be evaluated, and since there are so many married couples who desire an infant, she should probably not get 'first dibs', but be willing to help give a child, who otherwise might not find it, a stable home.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Amka, sorry I misread the "may be" in you post as "is".
Distinct, yet subtle difference.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Mack, Are you saying that the gay couples wouldn't want to compete for the same ones?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Of course they would. But there would also be, just as with the hetero couples, those gay folks who would WANT to take on the older kids, the mentally ill kids, or the special needs kids. Denying them the ability to adopts denies these children the chance at having parents.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I hope that my Aunt and Unce don't find it even harder to adopt in the future. That's the nicest way I can say it. (by the way, they were willing to take a set of older kids but couldn't get them.)
[ August 08, 2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Wow, you need to work on that, then.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So...
adoption by gay parents > state system
adoption by mother and father > adoption by gay parents
But both kinds of parents would be competing for the same kids. Which means the ones who are getting shafted are those that are given to gay parents instead of a mother and father.
But then... the ones who benefit are those who adopted into by gay parents instead of being left with the state.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
::chucles::
sorry.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Which means the ones who are getting shafted are those that are given to gay parents instead of a mother and father.
::sigh::
Do I really need to point out all the things that are wrong with that statement?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Yeah...I think we're crossing into the child abuse thread with that comment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, I know you don't believe the same thing.
BTW, check your mail.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I did. There's nothing new since I sent you one a while ago. Am I missing something, or did you not get mine?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Did you go home?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Grrrr.
"Sorry kid, we can't let a gay couple adopt you because a straight couple would be better for you, so you'll have to wait until a straight couple is available." "Sorry kid, we can't feed you burgers because fruit is better for you, so you'll have to starve until we get the right kind of food." "Sorry kid, we can't make you completely healthy, so there's no point in giving you any medicine at all until we can."
With the number of adoptable kids in the country, how dare you eliminate potential parents because you don't like their sex lives?
Yes, all other things considered equal, I would give a kid to a straight couple over a gay one. Not necessarily because they straight couple will magically turn out a better kid, but because the social pressures (thanks to bigots and short-sighted people) will be greater on the gay couple.
But I would give a kid to a gay couple over a straight one if the straight one wasn't as financially sound, or had odd things in their criminal records, or weren't especially stable. I would give a kid to a gay couple over a straight single person. And I wouldn't hesitate to give a kid to a gay couple rather than leave him to the gentle mercies of the state.
I can argue gay marriage civilly. It's not something that affects me directly, except for where it affects friends and society in general. But I can't imagine anyone harsh enough to deny a child a family and I can't see how it's at all defensible.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Well said, Chris.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I agree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Yes, all other things considered equal, I would give a kid to a straight couple over a gay one."
The difficulty here is that this is ALSO a largely arbitrary argument, and it's highly likely -- inevitable, even -- that gay couples who are permitted to marry and adopt will someday argue that this kind of discrimination is unfair.
That's because, as far as we can tell, it is.
So until we have some scientific evidence demonstrating that children reared by gay couples are in some way damaged by the experience, I would NOT give heterosexual couples preferential treatment when it comes to adoption.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Still, I probably would, all other things being perfectly equal. While all I have is anecdotal evidence, the kids of the gay couples I have known - one adopted, two by blood of parents who later discovered their homosexuality - have suffered from peer pressure because of their home lives. Note that I'm not sayng that the gay couple isn't as suitable as the straight couple, but that the kid of a gay couple is going into society with one strike against him already. I think society needs to grow up, but I'm not blind to how large parts of it act. I would sincerely like to see a time when it doesn't matter to anyone what genders your loving parents are, but we ain't there yet.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Be interesting to see how it shakes out, though, and I hope that someday sexual orientation is the smallest part of what makes a couple suitable for adoption.
Tell me, folks against gay adoption - would a straight couple who happen to be heavily into private S&M be preferable to a "vanilla sex" gay couple? Careful how you answer...
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I don't know what those things mean. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My apologies.
"S&M" refers to sadomasochism. While there are any number of variations, a simple version might be a couple containing a dominant and domineering person and a passive, submissive person. A wealth of detail is available if you need to know more, but suffice it to say that there are an awful lot of people out there who enjoy (or suffer) some form of consensual exchange of power in their sex lives. It would not surprise me a bit to find that there are more people (straight and gay) in this lifestyle than there are total gay people. "Vanilla sex" refers to sexual relations the "old-fashioned way": missionary position and a very few others, few if any props, "only" two people, etc. Not meant to be perjorative; vanilla is yummy.
[ August 08, 2003, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Oh.
I still don't know. Others will have to answer.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
<--Doesn't know what the missionary position is.
Don't inform me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, wow.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
o_O
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
You know, I've always wondered why it was even called "the missionary position" myself....
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Cause it's the way the missionaries do it. Right? We have a lot of missionaries here. Bueller?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I was a missionary....but it ain't nothing like missionary position.
Being a missionary is more exciting.... Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It was decreed to be only "holy" or "lawful" way to have sex by some pope or bishop a way back.
What do they teach you guys in church, anyway? Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I must have missed the "Thou shalt have sex by this method:" lesson in Sunday School... Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Does your pastor know you're using that smiley?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I believe that the racial discrimination you refer to in my church was not wrong at the time.
Um...this has got to be the most intellectually challenging statement I've ever heard a person of faith make. Essentially, you are saying that God turned off the racial discrimination command at just the right moment. Before that, it was good and after that bad. And all of this happened exactly as God wanted it. Right?
If that's really the case, then you'll pardon me if I just go on living my life waiting for God to catch up to my sense of justice. He seems to be lagging again.
Or, should I say, I'll just go along knowing what's right and figure that some future religious leaders will figure it out, eventually...when it no longer matters what the heck they think or say.
Hmm...
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
You've more or less got the gist of it.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
(mouths wordlessly)
I... I don't even understand how you can say such a thing...
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
popatr, How can you sit there and attempt to justify one of the most horrendous historical atrocities of all time by saying it was God's will? I hate when people hide behind their religon.
It's just baffling that you would even say something like that. I'm at a loss for words. Your opinions aren't even worth the effort of rebuttal, they're so obviously wrong.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
popatr, do you consider yourself a leader, or a potential leader in your church or in your community?
Do you think that you have free will? If so, do you think that it is something you are expected to exercise?
By the way, is popatr's a common attitude among LDS members? This is the first time I've ever encountered it, and I just have to wonder if maybe someone just hasn't straightened out this person's theological understanding yet, or if this is the LDS method of understanding changing beliefs over the ages.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
I would certainly hope that it's not a common opinion in any church. If it is, then that means that there are people out there who believe that a justification for brutal discrimination is even possible. If you do believe this, then make no mistake, you are a racist.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Are we talking about the same thing here? Hmm, maybe we are... but "one of the most horrendous historical atrocities of all time" seems to be taking it a bit far, IMO.
But no... hiding is when you take a historical fact and don't let it affect your faith--either to become part of your faith or to shatter it. I think it's the same with the polygamy issue, too.
But let me assure you that I really have no racism on the topic. Theoretically, it could have been me that was denied the priesthood at the time, while the blacks were gifted with it. Just whatever God says on the issue.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Oi.
*squeek*
Regarding the S&M, I think the domineering - submissive behavior inherent in it is pretty unhealthy, especially when it starts becoming sadist and masochist. I think that in the intimate setting of family, it would be pretty hard for those kinds of attitudes not to run over into other ways that people express relationships, and so I probably wouldn't recommend them as parents.
The domineering - submissive behavior is a pretty vague definition. I think that in a healthy sexual relationship sometimes one partner may be more active than the other, and other times it reverses. And sometimes people get a little, um, hyper and creative but there is no pleasure got from the giving or receiving of pain.
If the S&M couple are in the habit of trading off roles... but there is that whole pain thing involved that makes me think they wouldn't make good parents. I mean, if you are turned on by getting whipped, what kind of punishment will you think is acceptable for a child?
How does a person even come to like something like that?
Back to the other discussion: I think long term studies following children raised by homosexual and heterosexual couples would be a very good course of action. I think there could be preliminary studies just by evaluating those few adults who've been raised by homosexual couples. I'm not sure we could count people who were raised by homosexuals who later came out, because that coming out usually involves the homosexual leaving and destroys the family unit. (obviously harmful, but not a lot more so than a heterosexual affair).
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Yet again I have to ask you who you are to say you know what God's thinking?
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
quote: Are we talking about the same thing here? Hmm, maybe we are... but "one of the most horrendous historical atrocities of all time" seems to be taking it a bit far, IMO.
I think racism of any kind is a horrible blotch on the paper that is our history.
But even worse is your attempt to justify racism as God's will.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Popatr,
Well, I can sort of see how you might arrive at that opinion. After all, you church has people who are called prophets and thus speak God's word to his church.
So, if they say something different now than they did 50 years ago, it must be because God has decided it's time for a change.
See, to me, something like that would serve as proof of a different sort. It would show the impermanence of God's decisions. Maybe it'd be hubris on my part to question God's timing, and all. But I just couldn't help it. I mean, I'd think of all the wonderful black people who suffered waiting for him to alert the prophet to the new decree. Couldn't He have done it 5 years sooner and made a difference in some lives? And if 5 years sooner, why not 50 years sooner? Why back racism at all if you know eventually you're going to come out and say it is wrong?
And that just seems odd to me. I mean isn't the point of God's word that it can be relied on for all time? If he's going to go changing His mind, maybe we should just ignore Him until He figures out what he really wants and then He can just clue us in to the final decision, whatever it is.
Mind you, I like a God who changes, personally. But I have a hard time when I can't talk to Him directly about it. See, there's this prophet guy. And he dies and another prophet guy takes his place, and so on and so on. Well, I think those are just guys. Very holy guys to be sure. But still, just guys. And they talk to God about as often as I do. Or rather, God talks to them about as often as He talks to me. And He's telling me different things than He seems to be telling them.
And since I know that what God is telling me is the REAL TRUTH, then they must be liars or deluded.
Right?
Or, suppose I grant that your source of divine instruction is better than mine. Naturally, I figure I should follow yours, right? But then I realize that yours is coming up with things that aren't permanent. And so really I should just wait until your source agrees with mine.
Or, we could just say it's all man's opinion on things and what we really ought to do is figure it out for ourselves.
And in that context, if you want to bring scripture to bear, be my guest. I might decide that you (or your leaders) have misread the scripture, but what the heck, it's not like we can prove or disprove any of it.
So, once again, it's a bloody dead end.
And the people who suffer aren't the ones who are interpreting God's rules for the rest of us.
Which I think is suspicious in and of itself.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Fitz, If you are trying to keep me from putting this blot on God's account because you believe in Him--then give it up.
Racial discrimination is a religious fact. At the time of Israel, they were God's chosen people--and even amongst them, only the levites could hold the priesthood. And indeed, violence approved by God is not only a theoretical possibility but historical fact. (For those who take scripture seriously.) Israel wiped out some nations at God's instruction.
And Jesus, when He came, came to israel. The gospel was not really offered to any gentiles until after Christ died and instructions were given to the apostles.
But of course, if you don't believe in God, none of that matters.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Bob, I want to say that was a very nice post you made.
And I want to say that yes, sometimes even prophets are just plain wrong.
[ August 08, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote: (For those who take scripture literally.)
There, I fixed that for you. I have seen to many liberal/progressive Christians with healthy respect and study of the Bible to denigrate them by saying they haven't taken the Bible seriously.
-Bok
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Bok, OK.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You know, protestations to the contrary, I find the Old and New Testaments to be completely different scriptures and irreconciable except by the most tortured paths of human intellect.
Given that, I worry that so many Christian sects insist on keeping the Old Testament as part of their teachings, rather than just honoring it as part of a long-dead heritage.
It would seem that much nastiness was done in God's name by the Israelites. It could mean that God was on their side. Or it could mean that they survived to write the history.
No offense to our Jewish members here, by the way. I'm not much on the divine origins of ANY scripture, so please don't feel singled out.
I know that it often mystifies Jewish scholars when they hear the kinds of things that Christians do to their scriptures in order to make sense of a combined OT & NT tradition.
Basically, most Christians have to assert that they know more about Jewish scripture than the Jews do. And I find that claim to be entirely preposterous.
[ August 08, 2003, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote:And I want to say that yes, sometimes even prophets are just plain wrong.
But you're sure they are right now. Is that it?
Or are you saying you have to follow them even if they are wrong?
By the way, thanks! I'm trying not to be nasty because I really want to understand this position. I've never had this spelled out so clearly before. I don't like your position. In fact I hate it with ever fiber of my being. But I thank you for explaining it to me.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
quote: If you are trying to keep me from putting this blot on God's account because you believe in Him--then give it up.
We don't believe in the same God. I'm not trying to keep you from doing anything. I acknowledge the fact that you use your interpretation of God to justify insanity. So go ahead and put a "blot on God's account" if that's what it takes to make you feel comfortable with past atrocities.
quote: Racial discrimination is a religious fact.
I agree, in the sense that many instances of racial discrimination have marred religious history. I sincerely hope that you aren't saying that you use your scriptures as a guideline for the substantiation of current, and even recent cases of racial discrimination.
I don't want it to seem that I don't take seriously the scriptures you believe in. I respect your right to believe whatever you wish, but I most definitely do not agree with what you've been saying in regards to racism.
I think it's a flimsy acquital of past injustices when one simply places the burden on God's shoulders.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Anka, thanks for that link. It also served to remind me that the LDS was specifically anti-slavery from the get-go. And that's a good thing.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
This was from a few pages back, but i just had to address it.
quote: How well can the lesbian mothers council their daughter on how to behave around men? On how to choose a good man?
I think two lesbians in a loving marriage should be very able to council their daughter on how to choose a good *person.* You're suggesting that a woman needs to be able to understand "heterosexual" love in order to advise their children? How bout just showing them what qualities are to be found in a "good" person?
Incidentally, no one told me how to choose a "good man." or "counciled" me on how to behave around the opposite sex. No one. And i came from a very happy, supportive home.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Then you had that modelled and were able to deduce it for yourself. My own parents talked to me about it and gave me a great example.
But it isn't always so simple. Men react different to sex than women do. I suspect homosexual men are more similar to other men than they are to women, in that regard. The same with lesbian women. So how is a girl child to see, on a day to day basis, what a good man is supposed to be for his wife and children? You want to say 'person', but men and women are different. We react differently to relationships and sex.
One interesting thing would be to study the actual incidence of long term homosexual relationships. Even though not recognized legally, many can still make vows to each other in a religious setting, such as the Unitarian church. How long do these relationships last? What are the dynamics of a long term homosexual union? Is this just a touching stone for rights, or is it something that every homosexual wants to eventually do?
It is very early morning and I've woken up with insomnia. Maybe I shouldn't do this, but I'm going to relate my experience with friends. I will gladly admit that all I have is anectodal evidence, hence my great desire for real studies to be done. But of the two long term homosexual unions I'm aware of, both lesbian, one was extremely unhealthy with one party staying only because the other threatened suicide if she left. The other is definately a co-dependent relationship, with A being extremely dependent on B, and B needing to be needed and indispensible. B left her husband and children (and her church) either just before or in order to be in that relationship, though she continued to maintain close contact with her children. They have their balance now. They are kind people, and being writers they are part of that community that I yearned for and have now found. They are friends. I'm glad they've found whatever they could, but I wouldn't want to have the kind of relationship they do.
The other homosexual unions I'm aware of are celebrities: Ellen and Anne Heche. Anne seemed to have a nervous breakdown when they broke up. Ian Mckellen had a boy toy with him at the Grammies once. I would have called his partner a boy toy if Ian had been an old woman too. If I'd seen Ian with an older man, I would have not lost the respect for him I did on that night.
There is that couple that fostered kids who were otherwise unadoptable. That was a good thing, but is this the actual norm in homosexual unions? And I honestly have no idea as to the dimensions of their actual relationship.
I wonder if we wouldn't find the incidence of lifetime homosexual unions more prevelant in women than in men?
That is all I know, folks. That is why I want studies. Are most homosexual encounters lifetime, equal partnering relationships? Would they really become so if marriage were suddenly legal? Why would that make a difference (except for things like insurance and inheritance) when there are several churches that will perform ceremonies? Are there homosexuals who believe in no sex before marriage? Can I have more information, please?
And here is a second question: if we can have homosexual marriage, why not polygamy between consenting adults who all love each other?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
One, it substantiates my point that children raised in homosexual households do have differences in the sexual development than those raised with heterosexual parents. Second, it speaks of what I'm having a problem with: the lack of unbiased information about homosexual psychology, relationships, and parenting.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Bob,
quote: You know, protestations to the contrary, I find the Old and New Testaments to be completely different scriptures and irreconciable except by the most tortured paths of human intellect.
Given that, I worry that so many Christian sects insist on keeping the Old Testament as part of their teachings, rather than just honoring it as part of a long-dead heritage.
This is something I struggle with just about every day with my faith. I believe that the New Testament is the more important and try to look at the Old Testament as the historical background and reasoning for the NT.
Personally, if I find a conflict or an issue I can't get myself right on, I look to the New Testament.
And if I've read it correctly, folks taking their law from the Old Testament were the ones who forced Christ up onto that cross (with the help of the Romans).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:And if I've read it correctly, folks taking their law from the Old Testament were the ones who forced Christ up onto that cross (with the help of the Romans).
Yeah, but I don't think you can blame the Scripture for that, necessarily. I think the people who did it wanted to do it, and they found an excuse in Scripture.
Much as people do today with ANY Scripture.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:But of the two long term homosexual unions I'm aware of, both lesbian, one was extremely unhealthy with one party staying only because the other threatened suicide if she left. The other is definately a co-dependent relationship, with A being extremely dependent on B, and B needing to be needed and indispensible.
Sadly, that also describes a great many heterosexual marriages I personally know of.
quote:The other homosexual unions I'm aware of are celebrities: Ellen and Anne Heche. Anne seemed to have a nervous breakdown when they broke up. Ian Mckellen had a boy toy with him at the Grammies once.
And again, sadly, celebrity marriages are not known for their serenity and longevity.
I'm not disputing the suggestion that homosexual unions may be more difficult to maintain, for I simply don't know. There is also no way of knowing whether the availablility of a socially-approved structure would encourage more commitment and less promiscuity between homosexuals. But I can't see where it would hurt, either.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Right on the button, Bob.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, I think gay people are just as screwed up as straight people, on average. No-one has a monopoly on emotional baggage. The main thing in a long-lasting relationship is finding someone whose personal quirks and "baggage" you can tolerate. Anything above that is icing on the cake if all we're talking about is longevity as the sole criterion of success.
Now, if you want to talk about other criteria, and I think we should since longevity is one of those things you can only measure at the end, I would submit that homosexual relationships often have an important leg up on heterosexual ones. That is there's none of the usual tension of people raised differently as the two sexes are having to come to terms with each other.
Think of it. Women, you can communicate better with your girl friends than you can with your husband on a variety of important subjects. Right? Men can communicate more effectively with their guy friends on a wide variety of subjects. It just seems like there'd be less tension in a homosexual relationship on that score.
I think the biggest worry for people who are against homosexual marriage is that it might turn out that their marriages last longer than anyone elses!!!
That really might destroy the fabric of traditional marriage in America. We'd all have to go out and get gay marriage counselors!
And I'm not buffing up for anyone! So forget it!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think the biggest worry for people who are against homosexual marriage is that it might turn out that their marriages last longer than anyone elses!"
It does always amuse me that my uncle Bob has been with his partner for over 22 years, which beats the marriage record of any of his siblings by 7 years (and doubles most of them.)
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: The other is definately a co-dependent relationship, with A being extremely dependent on B, and B needing to be needed and indispensible.
Also the case with my parents, now divorced. I had a happy, supportive childhood, but *not* because my parents were *anywhere* near the model for a perfect couple. If i learned what a "good" man should be from *anywhere* it was from books and, yes, movies. And when I began actually searching for a "good" man, to date, I searched for someone with similar interests to mine, who I admired and respected, who I was always excited and pleased to be around. Not someone who would one day be a good father and husband.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed their resolution on ceremonies for same-sex unions.
FYI:
quote:Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 74th General Convention affirms the following:
That our life together as a community of faith is grounded in the saving work of Jesus Christ and expressed in the principles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: Holy Scripture, the historic Creeds of the Church, the two dominical sacraments, and the historic episcopate.
That we reaffirm Resolution A069 of the 65th General Convention (1976) that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church”.
That, in our understanding of homosexual persons, differences exist among us about how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted, or prohibited by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.
That we reaffirm Resolution D039 of the 73rd General Convention (2000), that “We expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God”, and that such relationships exist throughout the church.
That, we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.
That we commit ourselves, and call our church, in the spirit of Resolution A104 of the 70th General Convention (1991), to continued prayer, study, and discernment on the pastoral care for gay and lesbian persons, to include the compilation and development by a special commission organized and appointed by the Presiding Bishop of resources to facilitate as wide a conversation of discernment as possible throughout the church.
That our baptism into Jesus Christ is inseparable from our communion with one another, and we commit ourselves to that communion despite our diversity of opinion and, among dioceses, a diversity of pastoral practice with the gay men and lesbians among us.
That it is a matter of faith that our Lord longs for our unity as his disciples, and for us this entails living within the boundaries of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. We believe this discipline expresses faithfulness to our polity and that it will facilitate the conversation we seek not only in The Episcopal Church, but also in the wider Anglican Communion and beyond.
******
Bob, I’m going to try to write up something on the OT/NT point you brought up. I strongly disagree with you, but I want to take the time to write something coherent. (It might take a while )
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Fitz, I understand your position.
Regarding old/new Testament reconciliation:
I think the reconciliation is beautiful, and not all that twisted. First, our book of moses links the animal sacrifices to the sacrifice of Jesus in a way that I like.
And second, the jews had been looking for a messiah, but one that would release them from armys etc instead of sin. This leads right into the new testament.
Third--Jesus, being a jew himself and therefore with a jew's understanding of their scriptures--he himself quoted scriptures and tried to show how they pointed to him. (This just made the bigwigs mad.) So I think that the reconciliation of Old and New Testament is a necessity, not just a good idea; because Jesus himself was doing it.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I can completely understand how some would feel more comfortable with hetero parents over gay parents. But I pose this question? You have a wonderful, happy childhood, grow to adulthood and start a family of your own. Your mother for example passes away and your dad comes out of the closet and tells you he is gay. Would you love him any less? Would all of your childhood memories be tainted by this news? Or could you find it in your heart to understand and remember that your dad was terrific no matter what his sexual preference?
I can imagine there are many gay men who are married, just as there are priests and ministers that are gay as well. Unfortunately, the conservative masses will not stand for gay adoptive parents any time soon. For me, that is a moot argument. People have not changed much in the last two or three hundred years, and these masses that are afraid of gay parents are the same ones that were burning witches at the stake or stoning sinners in the town square.
I admire the forward thinkers of Hatrack, but in reality, the popular opinion is overshadowing whatever good may come of this thread.
[ August 09, 2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Sigh. Alrightie. Lets see what I can possibly add.
- Referring to the Stacey/Biblarz research: They reviewed 21 studies from the last twenty years that have been done on children from lesbian families (there are more lesbian couples with children than gay men, for various reasons).
quote:Until Stacey and Biblarz embarked on their review, every previous scientific, sociological, or psychological examination of children raised in lesbian families focused on one question: were the children put at a disadvantage? The answer was always an overwhelming “no.”
Stacey/Biblarz agree, they firmly believe that children in lesbian families do NOT have a disadvantage.
quote:Stacey said nothing in their work justifies discrimination against gay families, or alters her conviction that gays and lesbians can be excellent parents raising well-adjusted children. She worried, however, that some family court judges might use the findings to reinforce decisions against gay parenting.
What they found was simply that there were differences. And unsurprisingly so.
These differences are like the sort of differences you'd see if you looked at children who grew up in a church-attending household versus a household that does not attend church. Those kids whose parents went to church are more likely to go to church. Maybe those children whose parents didn't go to church are more likely to "try out other religions." Probably fewer children whose parents didn't go to church associate themselves with their parents religion as those whose parents went to church.
Differences based on association. But do the children from one set of parents suffer in comparison to the other set of parents? No, no, no.
Maybe you're scared of the sexual freedom or experimentation that, statistically, some of these children participate in. Well, you'd better stop me from adopting children in my straight marriage, because I'm just as open-minded.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Increased chance of sexual experimentation is plenty of reason for me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Then you'd stop heterosexual couples with open/experimental attitudes toward sex from adopting as well?
Wow.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Well--ideally, yes. But this isn't an ideal world. It is almost universally accepted, though, that sex is a social problem on several levels.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it's almost universally accepted that sex, in the right situation, is one of the most wonderful things in the world.
There is quite a bit of difference of opinion over what the right situation is.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
This thread is making me hungry. Let's all go to Eat & Park for pie.
As far as limiting adoption:
I'm still hungry. C'mon! Let's have some pie!
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Wow.
Popatr, if I may ask without giving offense -- how many women have you dated thus far? How many have you slept with? What experience do you have with sex, the opposite sex, and homosexuality?
I have difficulty imagining anyone whose anus isn't puckered up tighter than a drum would seek to control other people's love lives -- unless, of course, that's your own version of S&M. Like being in control, do we?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Well--ideally, yes. But this isn't an ideal world. <<
Wow. Talk about legislating morality... o_O
>> It is almost universally accepted, though, that sex is a social problem on several levels. <<
This simply is not true.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Anyone else for pie? You can even have it a la mode!
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
dated: few slept with: none
pie:
-- Society IS people following rules. I would like good rules.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Twinky:
Simply not true? Teen pregnancy. STD's. Rape.
Healthy attitudes about sex ARE important.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah, I think it sort of pointless to debate sexual issues with someone who was blissfully ignorant as to what the missionary position is...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Of course they are.
Responsibility. Safe sex. Consent. Communication.
None of that rules out experimentation and playful exploration, far as I can see.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Simply not true? Teen pregnancy. STD's. Rape.
Healthy attitudes about sex ARE important. <<
I would argue that the attitudes, not the sex, are the problems.
And "healthy attitude" does not in any way imply "no sex before marriage, and even then only with people of the other gender."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
dkw...I look forward to your reply. You always have so much to offer on these issues that I come away learning something new every time!!!
popatr...I have read the OT looking specifically for things that point to Jesus as the messiah. I think a believer can and will find them. I think a skeptic will question every single one of them even without reference to the problem of the gospels being written well after Jesus' death and probably containing any number of pious insertions specifically there to point to fulfillment of prior scriptures.
I wasn't even getting into that, though. What mostly bothers me is that the picture of God drawn from the OT and the NT seem so radically different to me. For one thing, God in the OT is actively involved in geopolitics. He smites foes, brings low various rulers, heck, he micromanages his creation.
The NT God isn't like that at all. He stops exhorting us to kill our enemies to wipe out entire races of people from the earth. He apparently stops caring about geneology, but I suppose you could say that this change is due to His Son's pedigree being all that mattered. Rather than the fact that the royal family had become a puppet to Rome and really no longer mattered.
I know that Jesus talked about the new covenant superceding the old Mosaic law. But if that's the case, then doesn't that ipso-facto render irrelevant major sections of the OT? I mean why should anyone study the laws laid out in Exodus and Leviticus if they are superceded by God's new commands to us?
And if that's the case, shouldn't we drop the 10 commandments as readily as we dropped the prohibition against shellfish or the requirement to avoid menstruating women?
It's all too confusing, really.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Funny thing is, teen preganancy has been going down... And started to PRECISELY when sex ed started to be a common thing in schools (late-80s, early-90s).
STDs, up until the last 3-5 years, also fell drastically.
Rape, by most accounts, is down (at least violent crime, which includes rape, is down).
So it may have been a problem, but despite your idea of restricting liberty and knowledge, it seems education has done a great deal to lower the nasty side effects that can occur with sex. I say education, because while the rates were going up in the 60s and 70s, I believe, the rates have all come down, despite an ever increasing population.
-Bok
[ August 09, 2003, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
As someone who does know what the missionary position is, I'm going to back up poptr. I think it is very disingenous of you folks to disregard his arguments simply because he has not experienced sex. In our culture and religion, that is a very desirable trait, one that he has kept despite media and social pressure to the contrary. This isn't a sign of naivety, it is a sign of strength. I applaud him for it.
As someone who believes that one should not have sex until they get married, being more sexually adventurous as a teen is NOT neutral. It is a disadvantage. Our teachings are that sex is a wonderful thing, in the proper time and place. My experience has born that out.
Our problems with homosexuality do not stem from the fact that people have same sex attraction, so if my father did happen to come out and say he was gay, I would probably respect him even more, because he acted righteously under a heavier burden than I'd known about. Unless he decided that now he was free to act it out. Then I would be very disappointed and hurt, because he would have left the path of righteousness that he taught me. Either way, I would still love him the same.
It is not people who are homosexual who can't adopt children, but homosexual couples.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Do you have any evidence that kids could be harmed solely by virtue of being adopted by a homosexual couple?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
1. You believe that being sexually experimental (not necessarily including sex, but physical and emotional activities) is bad.
2. It seems that a higher percentage of girls with lesbian parents have reported sexual experimentation compared to girls of straight parents. Lets say, 40% versus 10%.
3. You want to deny all gay couples adoption rights because of that 30% difference.
-----
It really really sounds like you find it statistically advantageous to your moral righteousness to deny an entire group the rights that you, as a parallel group, have.
I disagree with your moral laws, and I absolutely hate it when these same moral laws manage to enter governmental laws.
But more importantly, I think it's repugnant to stereotype an entire group of people by the supposed negative effects that a small number would have.
After all, to follow your reasoning, you wish to remove all democrats from adoption, because statistically, their children are more sexually experimental than republican children*, for example.
* or Ivy League couples versus State school couples, or any other dividing group. You'll find statistical differences if you look.
Too many confounding variables.
(Edit: I apologize for all the singlet paragraphs. It just looks so much longer in this tiny message field!)
[ August 10, 2003, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think it is very disingenous of you folks to disregard his arguments simply because he has not experienced sex."
Personally, I'm not disregarding his arguments. I'm just aware that he is, according to his own admission, a repressed homosexual who's been trying to "train" himself to find women physically attractive. I respect him for caring so much about his faith that he'd put this kind of effort into denying his sexuality, but I also recognize that this puts him FIRMLY into the minority when it comes to romantic experience.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
[quote]Personally, I'm not disregarding his arguments. I'm just aware that he is, according to his own admission, a repressed homosexual who's been trying to "train" himself to find women physically attractive. I respect him for caring so much about his faith that he'd put this kind of effort into denying his sexuality, but I also recognize that this puts him FIRMLY into the minority when it comes to romantic experience. [quote]
SHeesh! I missed that entirely. Where'd he say that? Who are we talking about anyway?
I'm so confused.
Is confusion a contraindication for becoming an adoptive parent???
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Popatr. Page 4 of this thread. Basically, he'd always been stimulated by just about anything -- male, female, or inanimate -- and was scared by a gay friend's tentative advance into "practicing" being attracted only to women, lest he wind up gay himself. I've never heard of anyone else on earth who's felt this way, so I find it really intriguing.
[ August 10, 2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Except Tom words it in a way I don't like. Instead of "repressed homosexual", I would say "Temporarily detoured Heterosexual". Because, as I said, my interests were developing in girls at first. My friend's advances came when I was 12 or 13, and they put my mind on a different track--which I rejected and I placed my mind back on its original track. I wouldn't say that it took more than 5-6 years to become solely interested in girls (which is where I was headed at first anyway). In fact when I was 19, I had a missionary companion who I was getting to like--and I discovered he was gay when he asked me to take him to bed. Guess what? There was absolutely zero temptation or interest. Not even a little arousal. So it has been about another 8 years since I've really had to think about it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Post removed. I sincerely thought popatr was about 16 years old. Didn't realize this stuff was already resolved in your mind.
Never mind.
I'll just say that I think you put way too much stock in your prior "attraction" and made way too much of it. Let it go. You weren't gay for having those thoughts. It's pretty normal, actually and most men are still heterosexual in spite of such thoughts. Even if they do act on them as teens or pre-teens.
[ August 10, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Bob, I'm glad I read your unrevised post though, before you removed it.
I don't freak out about it now, but I do think that I could have been gay. Maybe you are right though, that even if I had tried it I would eventually discover that it didn't work for me. I can't be sure, 'cause I didn't go there. But I prefer to think of it as a choice.
I wish I could check up on another friend I had then, who I think did do some stuff with our temptor--find out what his life is like now.
Bob, I have talked about this stuff with my parents--but no one else but a few on beleifnet a few years ago, and you guys now.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
16
Regarding my sexuality/place in society- As I admitted to Tom: my relationship with girls is messed up. (And with people in general.)
[ August 10, 2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: popatr ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Since you haven't talked to anyone about this stuff, I'm very glad you saw my prior post before I changed it.
I'm glad I changed it though.
My heartfelt advice is to speak with someone whose opinion you trust and who has real experience counseling young men. Ask them point blank if this stuff seems normal to them or is something you should worry about and resolve before getting married.
I think the answer may well set your mind at ease and save you a lifetime's worth of doubt and misgivings.
Frankly, if your parents are like most, talking to them about this would only make someone feel like more of a freak! I hope that wasn't your experience, but basically I think you've wrapped yourself around the axle on something that is completely normal and no big deal. And nobody ever talks about it because it ain't nothing. Unless you let it be something.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Yeah, popatr, that's pretty normal. I still don't agree with you, but I guess I understand just a little bit better where you're coming from.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I have to hand it to you Amka, you hit the nail on the head. The problem that most people have with homosexuality only begin with the issue itself. Homosexuality is no worse than say an adulterer or fornicator, the action that offends me, and most people is the blatant way that homosexuals act. Not only do they want to be gay, the want to make it so that they force feed it to the rest of the country, whether they want it or not. There are not fornicator plays or books, and there isn't a fornicator political movement. That is why it doesn't offend people. That is why these Supreme Court decisions are so wrong. Not only do they trample over state's rights, but they force communities, such as my own, that do not support the issue to embrace it.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
^ ! !
*vomits*
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I see you disagree. Why?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Well, lets try this....
The problem that most people have with religion only begin with the issue itself. Christianity is no worse than say a Cultist or white bigot, the actions that offend me, and most people is the blatant way that Christians act. Not only do they want to be religious, the want to make it so that they force feed it to the rest of the country, whether they want it or not. There are not white bigot plays or books, and there isn't a white bigot political movement. That is why it doesn't offend people. That is why these Supreme Court decisions are so wrong. Not only do they trample over state's rights, but they force communities, such as my own, that do not support the issue to embrace it.
Now, I don't believe that all Christians are evil. But many Christians do try and "force communities to embrace" their moral codes. You don't agree with gays moral codes, and I don't agree with yours.
We both think that in order for one side to win, the other side must lose.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
An excellent point! Everything can be taken to extremes. I agree that forcefeeding Christianity is morally repugnant. And if homosexuals want to be married, then that is their issue. However, I do wish they wouldn't do it in North Carolina.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"are not fornicator plays or books, and there isn't a fornicator political movement."
Wow. You're the first person I've heard voice this kind of opinion who didn't already think that most of American pop culture consisted of fornicator books and plays, and that Democrats made up the fornicator political movement. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Bwahahhahaa! Comedy gold.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Homosexuality is no worse than say an adulterer or fornicator, the action that offends me, and most people is the blatant way that homosexuals act.
Leaving aside the dismissal of homosexuality as a sin, may I point out that in this country, it really doesn't matter whether something offends you if it has no other damaging effects. This thread, or at least the parts of it that haven't been digressions or bickering, has been an exploration of what, if any, damage is done to our society and its members by allowing gay marriage. Have you anything to offer along those lines?
[ August 10, 2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Good point Tom. Touche.
Chris- Homosexuality is not so much a danger, as an undesirable element. It is morally repugnant to many people. Therefore a community (City, State, County etc.) chould have the right to allow it or not.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Oh, man. I'd maybe think about putting on a flame-retardant suit and jellying your skin after that post.
Though you may find the concept of homosexuality "offensive," there are a few people around here that are admittedly gay, and truly wonderful people. Out of respect for them do you think you could find another way to phrase it than "undesirable element?"
[ August 10, 2003, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ryan: as you have undoubtedly broken at least a few rules in the bible as well, and probably continue to break some of them, would you care to explain what makes homosexual people more morally repugnant than you?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I've always thought of Uranium as the "undesirable element."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
On the contrary, uranium is a highly desireable element! It's useful for all sorts of wonderful things, most notably nuclear fusion. Lots of people make big money on uranium mines, though that's not so true nowadays because no one's building nuclear reactors anymore
Edit: Except North Korea
[ August 10, 2003, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:It is morally repugnant to many people.
The thing is, I'm not arguing about a community's rights. I'm trying to find out why, exactly, people find homosexuality morally repugnant. I'm afraid it's simply not as self-evident to me, and so actions to keep it out of the community - something about as likely as banning all left-handed people - completely confuse me.
I'm not trying to mock you or your beliefs, but to understand them. Homosexual acts between two consenting adults are frowned upon in scripture and they don't produce children. So far, those are the only provable statements I've heard, and neither is enough to condemn somebody.
[ August 10, 2003, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Sunenun,
Which brings us back around to the 'sanctity of marriage' and 'marriage is a contract with society for the purpose of creating a safe and stable environment for children'.
First of all, let me say that I think there are things much worse for families and marriage than homosexual marriage and adoption. And that is no-fault divorce. I think that has wreaked much more damage on children than homosexual marriage would.
Let me define a safe and stable environment: It's foundation is a good marriage. There is actually a study which lists the best conditions for children, but I forgot the details and where to find it. If anyone has info for me to go to the source, please do. I don't think this one addresses homosexual couples.
By my memory, the best situation -> worst, moving down:
Children who have two parents in their first marriage.
One parent lost by death, never remarried.
Divorce without remarriage.
One parent lost by death and other parent remarries into another stable marriage.
Divorce with a single stable remarriage.
serial marriage, relationships
I forget where 'single and never married' fits. The study, if I remembered correctly, was based on how the kids emotional needs were being met. Are there exceptions? Of course. These are statistics, not individual cases. But statistical evidence is a tool we need to use when making policy for society. I am given to understand that even when the parents don't have an optimal relationship, staying together is better for the children, unless the situation is high conflict. *stops rambling*
Back to the point: a stable marriage is the best situation for children. This isn't a moral statement, it is a statement proven by studies. A stable marriage most likely to occur when a person prepares for it from the time they are a child. When they commit themselves to a future spouse as young teens, and refuse to engage in sexual activity except with their spouse, who they may not even have met yet, they are already praciticing being committed and faithful in marriage. They've already sacrificed pleasure for the sake of a greater benefit. All of this is one of the reasons I believe you should not have sex before marriage. Being more likely to be 'sexually adventurous' as a teen is less likely to produce those ideal results. They also have a greater risk of STDs and pregnancy. Sexual education can reduce those risks, but those girls are still engaging in higher risk activities than those who remain virgins. How is this neutral to society?
And last, I would like someone to address my previous argument that if we do make homosexual marriage legal, then why shouldn't we also allow polygamy?
edit: I am aware that my post doesn't even begin to address the emotional ramifications of these things to homosexuals, and I do not mean to negate this aspect. Their feelings, needs, desires are very real and human. I think that they could very well find a niche in society in which they can contribute, and I'd like to address that later on, but I have to go now and don't have time.
[ August 10, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Pugwash (Member # 5479) on :
This guy is hilarious; He doesn't prove or show anything except that he's a homophobe. He must not understand that the same unity can be shared by gays as can be shared by straight people. Putting all retardedness aside, he still doesn't back up at least one of his comments with support, but then again it would be difficult to back up "Gays are like penguins." With every word he contradicts the one before it, and it seems as though he's in need of some serious therapy. Gays should definitely not prevent YOU from enjoying YOUR marriage with YOUR wife. Gays have nothing to do with it, and this truly proves how stupid discriminating against them is. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Rule Number One of Thread Postage:
Read entire thread before posting.
*snort*
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 5517) on :
Pugwash: just for the heck of it, read the 3rd post, and apply it to self.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
First, Amka, thank you for once again responding thoughtfully to the questions at hand, rather than spouting knee-jerk statements based on nothing more than prejudice and tradition, as others have.
Is it possible to explain that I agree almost all that you've said, except for the first part? "Marriage is a contract with society for the purpose of creating a safe and stable environment for children." For what it's worth, I agree with this. But marriage is also a contract with society to establish a stable relationship between two people. Marriage at its best encourages responsibility, dedication to each other, and offers companionship to two people so they will always have someone to support them, to help them, to love them. It is in society's interest that people be paired off and faithful; for their own emotional stability, to reduce the amount of promiscuity, to help keep society itself going.
My support of civil unions and gay mariage stems from a few simple beliefs.
I don't think there is anything inherently evil or sinful about homosexuality. I believe that there will always be a certain percentage of homosexuals in any society. I believe that providing homosexuals with a social structure that encourages stability and discourages promiscuity will have a positive effect on the society in general.
Allowing gay marriage offers such a structure to people who have previously felt they were outside society, outside the community, and therefore may not have had the loyalty or sense of belonging that the rest of us have had. Allowing gay marriage does not affect the goals of marriage as you have stated them, as they won't be producing their own children, and surely children they adopt will be better off than in a state-run facility.
In short, I see a class of people who desperately want to legally wed and join society as productive members without lying or being untrue to themselves.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I have just read the last 4 pages of posts and feel a bit too overwhelmed to respond as I would like. However, I will say a couple of things:
1. It seems clear that the only objections people can come up with to gay marriage boil down to "because it's against God's rules". This includes the expression of fears that it will "promote the lifestyle", etc., which totally begs the question of why "the lifestyle" is inherently bad. (Not to mention what "lifestyle" exactly you are talking about. All kidding aside, other than who they sleep with, there are as many variations of 'lifestyles' among gays as there are cultural differences in the world.)
2. If you're LDS and have homosexual thoughts and/or tendencies, I cannot stress to you how important it is to resolve these feelings completely before you involve yourself deeply in a heterosexual relationship. Clearly, I cannot say how many homosexuals in the LDS church have been successful in hiding this tendency and maintaining successful(?) heterosexual marriages, but I do know of dozens of homosexual LDS men who have married LDS women and later in life either their marriage had ended in divorce or they were actively engaging in homosexual activity unbeknownst to their spouses. I myself was told that I should get married and that my tendency to be tempted with homosexuality was not a topic that I needed to "burden" my wife with. Now that has to be the most irresponsibly dangerous and dishonest advice I have ever heard escape the mouth of a religious leader. I hope anyone who gives this advice will one day have to answer to all the women who become victims of it.
3. There are a few specific posts I have some choice words of reply to, but I've been civil thus far and don't want to break my streak. Thankfully there have been others on this forum who have supplied appropriate rebuttals, so I'll judiciously hold my tongue.
EDIT: to add, regarding point 1 above, please feel free to correct me if I missed an arguement that doesn't fit this summation.
[ August 11, 2003, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Ralphie-Your right undesirable element is strong wording. However I mean that a homosexual unions do not create a positive environment for raising children, do not create children, and offend many people. These unions have no positive contribution to society. So in fact they are undesirable. I know lots of gay people too. So I have nothing against them personally.
Fugu- I am a sinful person. However when I sin I understand that I am in error. I do not try to force others to sin with me, I do not make my sin into a lifestyle, and I come to repentence.
Chris- The issue is natural laws. Certain truths that are self evident. Is there a reason that heterosexuality is the dominant form of sexuality? It is because it is natural. The human genitalia is suited best to heterosexual sexual contact. It is natural. That is why it has become repugnant even to people without religion.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
To paraphrase:
"I know lots of gay people. It's not personal - I just find there most personal practices to be repugnant, offensive, unnatural and damaging to society. But hey, don't call me a homophobe! I have, like, heaps of gay friends!"
Get a clue, Ryan. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ryan, the natural argument is so hideously flawed even the strongest opponents of homosexuality have largely abandoned it.
There are two primary flaws: one, homosexuality is very natural. Many animal species practice it regularly, oftentimes about as much as het sex. Secondly, there are many things that are natural which are generally agreed upon to be bad/wrong. Such as going around naked (you think that's immoral, right?).
Either of these two counter arguments completely invalidates the natural argument.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, even if every "fact" about homosexuality you have stated were true, your statement about homosexual unions adding nothing to society would be false. Society is based on stability. If homosexual people are prevented from entering into stabilizing relationships similar to marriage (and a homosexual person entering into a het marriage would be both wrong and very unstable), the stability of society is undermined.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Ladies and gentlemen, Ryan Hart.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Fitz, are you saying that IS Ryan Hart or just cracking a joke? Serious question.
That site is scary.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
No, I'm 99% sure it isn't him, but after reading some of his posts I was reminded of that site.
It is scary, but also just plain sad and pathetic. Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
That most definetly is not my web page. I disagree with that guy on all counts except the one about only sex within marriage.
Fugu- A homosexual union does NOTHING to increase the stability of society. If anything it decreases stability.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
How?
If a couple decide they'll be together for life, how does it destabilise society for them to have official recognition of that decision?
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Troubs, its cos they're gay.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
of course!
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
It probably would destabalize society by providing a poor environment to raise children. And what about AIDS? It is PROVEN that homosexual intercourse has a higher chance for AIDS infection. That disease ravages the planet.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Actually, its proven that anal sex has a higher rate of HIV transmission. That's not actually an exclusively homosexual act, you know.
However, incidence of AIDS in the West is, to my understanding, dropping. It is in African countries where AIDS is primarily transferred between heterosexuals that the diseased is the most "ravaging".
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Pure speculation on your children idea, excepting of course the previous concept that having an open mind regarding sexuality is a problem in and of itself.
I'm personally of the opinion that a homosexual couple would be every bit as good parents as a hetro - and let's face it, as the article points out, we don't exactly do too well even in hetro marriages these days. I can't remember the last time I dated a girl whose parents were still together.
You're right, unprotected anal sex does have a higher chance of infection with AIDS. But this point itself hardly leads to the downfall of society, if a gay couple are - a couple, then they're not out infecting other people. Even if you do use the rusty old "gay people spread AIDS" tripe.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Beat me to it Mike. Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Troub,
que? this "mike" was addressed to me, or to some other?"
flish/mike
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Troub,
que? this "mike" was addressed to me, or to some other?"
flish/mike
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Directed at Ethics.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
In debating this, I've often seen reasoning that since a homosexual marriage doesn't produce offspring, it is against the natural order?
I assume that a lot of folks using this argument are thinking mainly of homosexual relationships among two men and forgetting the lesbian side of the equation.
In lesbian relationships, it's quite easy for one or both to choose to become pregnant and pursue such. Hence, children.
And in this day of surrogate births, production of children is not barred from a two-male partnering.
Welcome to the modern world. A donor and a turkey-baster is about as high tech as it has to be.
But let's get down to it, when most people are arguing against homosexuality, they are arguing against two men having sex together because that's what seems to creep them out on such a deep level.
Homophobia is mostly directed against gay men and certainly in it's most rabid forms is oriented that way.
To paraphrase Bobcat Goldthwaite: "I'm gonna beat ya up little queer boy because you're queer... (whispered) and because I'm really attracted to ya deep down inside."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
To Ryan:
quote:These unions have no positive contribution to society.
Unsupported bullshit, dude. A committed gay couple can add anything and everything good to a society that a straight couple can, with the only exception being adding their own biological offspring to the population. Tell me what a gay couple cannot provide besides this? (Don't repeat the "role model" bullshit, either. That just begs the question by assuming heterosexuality inherently makes a couple better role models, a claim that is so obviously false it's laughable.) A gay couple can jointly own property and improve it. They can be a support to their joint extended families. They can provide comfort and support to one another, which, believe it or not does benefit society as well. I know several straight couples who are very grateful their gay loved one is in a committed and stable relationship. Not only are their loved ones happier with themselves, but in many cases the children of the straight couple now have two uncles who love them, instead of just one. And as often as not, these uncles, being free of offspring of their own, are able to provide additional attention and support to neices and nephews.
quote: I do not try to force others to sin with me, I do not make my sin into a lifestyle,
And neither do I, believe it or not. Sidestepping your assumption that my behavior is 'sin', I have never forced anyone to engage in homosexual conduct. I've never even promoted homosexuality except insomuch as I have tried to promote an understanding of homosexuals as people on this forum. And homosexuality is not my "lifestyle". My lifestyle is that of a 30-something computer professional in a 5 day/week, "9 to 5" type job. I own a home in a borderline-but-upwardly-changing neighborhood (upwardly changing, mind you, largely because of the homosexuals who live there). I have two cats that I have rescued from abandonment. I have the nicest, prettiest yard on my block. I am politically active and financially stable. The fact that I engage in homosexual conduct is only a very tiny facet of my "lifestyle". It does not define it. Are you defined by what you do in bed?
quote: The human genitalia is suited best to heterosexual sexual contact.
And you know this from experience? Or are you just assuming that because you only know one way to make love the rest of us are equally aesthetically challenged in bed? Trust me, I know of many, many types of contact to which my genitalia are perfectly well suited, and none of them involves a vagina. (Note: I'm not knocking heterosexual tastes here. To each his own.)
quote: And what about AIDS?
Well, here you shoot your own hypothesis in the foot. It is impossible (yes, impossible) for aids to be introduced sexually into a monogamous homosexual relationship. And far from your uneducated fears about AIDS being a point against recognizing and encouraging stable relationships between homosexuals, it is actually a point in their favor. I would think anyone with a gay friend or family member would welcome the decreased likelihood of contracting disease that a stable monogamous relationship would provide.
The fact is, the idea of officially recognized gay unions is becomming more acceptable in society. I believe gay unions are an inevitability as more and more people realize that the only reasons to prevent them are based on ideas of forcing society to conform to a narrow set of personal religious values. This discussion, thus far, has certainly provided nothing but "God says so" arguements against them.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
I can't believe some people still think of HIV as the "gay disease." That is insane. They listened to the likes of Reagan and Bush Sr. too much.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Duragon-- the biggest killer of gay black men is AIDS.
It is still a big problem in the gay community.
But it's a problem EVERYWHERE now, so I see your point.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Applauds KarlEd...again.
From the standpoint of Christianity, Ryan, ignorance is not a sin, but it often leads people into sin (or rather sets the stage for it). I would think that someone who has strong opinions on a subject from a religious standpoint would be especially careful to become educated on that subject in the hope of avoiding a situation in which they sin through ignorance.
From the standpoint of debate, there's a different reason for you to get more information. Much of what you said, but especially your statement about AIDS, shows that you aren't really knowledgable on this subject and therefore are easily dismissed as just someone who has prejudged the situation.
On the other hand, if you'd just care to state your unsupported biases, I think it would be more intellectually honest if you simply acknowledged them as your biases.
But that's just me.
I have a bias against people who don't own up to (and thus appear unaware of) their prejudgements.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:This discussion, thus far, has certainly provided nothing but "God says so" arguements against them.
As opposed to the 'I say so' arguments generally put forward by the opposing side?
Studies on the issue of how homosexual unions affect society are generally SO biased (from either POV) as to hurt one's teeth. Anectdotal evidence is used by both parties simply because REAL data can't be gathered in any efficient, objective, way. The phenomena of homosexuality isn't even OLD enough in American society to be able to have been studied.
_____________
After the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law, polls (and we know how reliable THOSE are) showed a big swing against homosexual unions. . . which was to me, very interesting.
Since I don't really trust polls, though, I was only very interested for a moment.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I stopped paying attention to polls after the 2000 election results in FL. I didn't care much for them prior to that, though.
At any rate, if there is a backlash arising from the Supreme Court decision, I doubt it will be very long lived. Sodomy laws are something that most people are aware of in the abstract as they never affect their daily lives (they hope!). The homosexual marriage issue is completely divorced from sodomy laws most of the time. Nobody considers that if you allow gay marriage, but make illegal the various sex acts that the newly married couples will engage in, that you are being inconsistent.
And the sodomy laws always feel like ancient history when people hear about them.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: As opposed to the 'I say so' arguments generally put forward by the opposing side?
Well, if you are trying to restrict my freedom, I think the onus is on you to come up with the arguements justifying the restriction. And to be fair, the only valid responses to "God says so" are "No he doesn't", "So what?", and "Stop trying to cram your religion down my throat".
It is the anti-gay marriage side that has the burden of proof.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Amen brother. I thought we'd covered that point pages ago.
The "leave it alone" or "wait until we have more information" crowd are simply failing to realize that real people are hurt by the current restrictions and they shouldn't have to have fewer rights than every other citizen just because of some definable difference.
It's exactly analogous to restrictions on marriages between the different races. And we got past that foolishness, so why not this foolishness?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Personally, I think it's a shame that Ryan showed up when he did, and clearly didn't bother to read the rest of the thread; everyone said everything better the first time around.
Ryan, for effective rebuttals of your entire argument, please read the first ten pages of this thread. Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
If this has been addressed in the first 10 pages, please feel free to throw rotten fruit and tell me to go back and read them.
I keep seeing this idea that a marrage which can produce no offspring is harmful to society. Um, I have to take that rather personally. My husband and I have no intention of having oducing children. Should we also be stripped of the right to our union?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No-- because homosexuals are the ones trying to change the law, the onus (just one little vowel, one itsy-bitsy vowel . . . and I could make a hilarious joke here) is on them.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
But, ScottR, they (and many others who are not homosexual) are trying to change the law only to get it to line up with our over-arching law -- the US Constitution.
Basically, if you deny equal rights to any segment of society, you (the group that wants to keep it that way) has the onerous task of constantly reaffirming that you do not abide by the laws we all were born under as Americans, or more broadly as citizens of the world endowed with certain inalienable rights (okay, that's from the US Declaration of Independence). But the point is as follows:
The challenge is to those who believe that the current laws should stay on the books because they must somehow come up with ways to align those frankly discriminatory and backward laws with the Constitution that overarches everything.
And here's the other problem I have with your statement. Very few, if any, states have a law defining marriage in a way that legally excludes homosexual unions. What there is barring it is long practice and the state saying that as a matter of policy they will not sanction such unions.
Now we have a legal quandry. Existing laws don't bar it, but by practice we don't allow it. Clearly some new laws are needed no matter which direction we go in. The status quo is already dead or dying, if you think about it. Either the issue will be settled with states defining marriage less broadly or more broadly, but it will get settled.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Actually, Scott, you have got that completely WRONG. The anti-gay marriage crowd is the only crowd seeking to change any laws. Gay marriage could have occurred and been integrated cleanly into society if it weren't for all the "sky is falling" christian groups working tirelessly to CHANGE THE LAWS to prohibit gay marriages and to create a legal definition of marriage to exclude homosexuals where no such definition existed previously.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Also, these groups have added laws in states and at the federal level which try to preempt the acceptance of gay marriages if other states decide to grant the right. Clearly all the law changing that has been going on has been on the anti-gay side. So again, the onus is on them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote: Clearly some new laws are needed no matter which direction we go in.
Perhaps now, but until very recently all it needed was a court decision stating that the gay couples who were petitioning to be recognized within existing laws had that right. This was the case in Hawaii. A couple there was actually able to obtain a marriage license. It was "suspended" pending a court decision. It won in the lower courts, but thanks largely to a massive campaign by the LDS church and other christian groups, it lost in the state supreme court.
Recognizing this narrow defeat, these groups began massive efforts in other states to get laws on the books defining marriage and declaring that even if another state comes to allow gay marriages, their state didn't have to recognize them. These laws are pretty clearly unconstitutional, but since, so far, no state has granted a gay marriage, these laws cannot be challenged in court.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What there is barring it is long practice and the state saying that as a matter of policy they will not sanction such unions.
In other words, LAW.
:shrug:
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not precisely, and lawyers get very rich in just such precision. If it was against the law, there would be no need for further laws banning it or refusing to recognize it. Clearly such is not the case.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You either can't read or just are being obtuse now. The fact that the law is SILENT on the issue means that new laws will now have to be crafted.
Long standing tradition is not law.
It may be that the tradition becomes law, by being written down, voted on by representatives or added to the state/federal Constitution through referendum. But until that happens (and his has NOT in most states, or no-one would be pressing for stupid laws defining marriage as "between one man and one woman" now would they?) we have a sort of legal limbo.
As it stands right now, there are no states that allow homosexual couples to marry, but that's not written down in their laws. If a state actually passed a law defining marriage so that homosexuals could get married, it would be a clarification, not a new law. Just as a law stating that marriage is between one man and one woman would be a clarification.
Either way, a new law would be crafted to deal with the situation.
So the issue you raised is moot.
The higher issue -- what is right according to our founding principles -- seems to me to be the one that places the onus on the anti-gay-marriage crowd. You all have to figure out why it is right to deny ANY segment of the population rights and privileges that we granto ANY OTHER segement of the population.
I don't think you can do it. But maybe you've got some good argument out there I haven't heard yet.
[ August 11, 2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: In other words, LAW.
:shrug:
I just love the way you can take one sentence from paragraphs of rebuttal and throw out a dismissive quip and a shrug.
I think this offends me more than some of the more blantant bigotted rhetoric that has been thrown around on the thread so far. At any rate, it underscores why so many people believe discussions of this nature are futile. You take the time to form a coherent arguement and it's just dismissed with a joke or a shrug. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can see that would be frustrating.
I think the different stances are arguing under different skies.
If someone is basing their belief on what God says, there is no earthly wisdom that will trump that. Hence the flippancy - your opinion isn't going to beat God's - no matter how well-crafted. If someone keeps trying, it's like watching someone trying to outrace a car. "Nice form, and you improved your time. Still didn't outrace the car, though."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Oh, believe me, I can deal with the "God says so" arguements. I can even accept them. I just don't think they should be made into law. However this has nothing to do with Scott's recent posts. We were talking specifically about the changing of laws in the US legal system (i.e. who is doing the law changing). So in this case, I don't buy the "different skies" defense of what is basically a patronizing dismissal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think I know why he's doing it for the exact same reason why I was doing it (except he knows he's talking to someone who's going to take it personally, and I didn't ). There is simply no way to set that completely aside. We stop discussing the "God says so" part because there's really no place to go with that, but discussing a separate aspect doesn't mean that the underlying "God says so" thing disappears.
We keep discussing because we're Hatrackers, and this is a place that we can discuss it.
I mean, you are asking/arguing for him to countenance something that he profoundly disagrees with, and the response is to either get upset, go silent, or go flippant.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You either can't read or just are being obtuse now.
Crochety old man. Have a prune.
I understand your reasoning, Bob. And I understand Karl's too.
Obviously, there is more than just sexuality we disagree about. . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kat, you've just managed to succinctly state why I am so deeply suspicious of religion. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* The important thing is to know what you're doing, and who to trust.
If it's true, if it is really true, if this really is the word of God, if there really is a plan of salvation, if there really is a loving, all-wise being who has given us guidelines for our complete, eternal happiness, and if this life is really a testing ground - a period of utter suckiness punctuated with glimpses of joy - then that is worth everything.
It is worth absolutely everything. There no temorary pleasure here that is worth giving up eternity for.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Right, but for some of us that 'if' is mighty big Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: I mean, you are asking/arguing for him to countenance something that he profoundly disagrees with, and the response is to either get upset, go silent, or go flippant.
Actually, no I'm not. My last few posts have been asking only to have my arguements treated with the same respect as I have given his arguements. I have tried very hard in this thread to not be dismissive of any arguement no matter how personally offensive I have found the rhetoric in which it was couched. Clearly it's too much to expect the same level of courtesy in return.
[ August 11, 2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twink: I know. That's a pretty big "if".
For me too, if you can believe that. I joined Hatrack after my mission, so y'all have just known AfterKatie. You didn't know BeforeKatie. I know its a big "if". It's big both ways, though.
[ August 11, 2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: It is worth absolutely everything. There no temorary pleasure here that is worth giving up eternity for.
Unfortunately, there are all too many religious types who are also willing to give up the freedoms and pleasures of other people, with a "trust me, you'll see it's worth it" attitude. Sacrifice is just fine when you're slaughtering your own cows. Just stay the heck out of my barn.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I believe it.
Hey, you edited away the stuff I was about to quote!
Well. At least I got to read it. Thanks
...this makes me want to get back to The Three Pillars of Zen, actually.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Scott, if you're going to be flippant, you ought to at least state your opinion clearly and logically as Karl has done.
Unless you did that somewhere in the first ten pages, in which case never mind Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, sorry. I still have it, but then I reread it and was afraid it sounded patronizing again.
What are the three pillars of Zen?
Karl: I'm, um, picking Option Two. I think I've done enough damage.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Kat: That's okay. I'm just glad I got read it. I didn't feel patronized.
Kat.understanding++;
(That's C++ for 'I understand you better now.')
The Three Pillars of Zen is a fantastic book by Philip Kapleau, one of the first Westerners to be ordained as a Zen teacher (a roshi). He trained under a famous Japanese roshi, and his book is mostly transcripts of sessions between his teacher and other Western students. He would sit in on the sessions (called dokusan) and remember all that was said as best he could, then write it down afterwards. There are even accounts of enlightenment experiences; I'm just about to start in on those. There are also all sorts of other goodies; letters written by Zen masters centuries ago, various pieces of verse and art, and other interesting things.
Basically, it's a fantastic source of information about Zen that has not been tainted by the Western popular Zen movement because it preceded that movement. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Obviously, there is more than just sexuality we disagree about. . .
Well, now I'm concerned because you appear to have misunderstood me to have said "Shut up" in some way. When I say "Stay out of my barn" I don't mean "Don't engage me in dialog" or even "Don't try to persuade me". What I mean is "don't curtail my freedoms with the promise of some future reward that I don't believe in."
[ August 11, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Kat: Just so you don't think I'm some sort of 'new age' trendy Zen nutjob, Zen is actually the fourth religion that I've spent time reading about and studying. Before it I learned a fair bit about each of the three major monotheistic religions. I think, though, that after Zen my curiosity about various religions will probably be satisfied. Zen is definitely the most compelling of the religions I've learned about, but like all other religions, you must start from a basis of faith. In the monotheistic religions, that faith obviously must be in God (which is where I invariably run into trouble, because I just can't find that faith in myself). In Zen it can be one of several things, most notably faith that you can attain enlightenment, or (and this is really syonymous) faith that there is only Mind.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Everyone will be pleased to hear that this is my FINAL POST about homosexuality.
The bottom line is, I do think that homosexuals can be good people. I do think that they may actually love each other. However my religion says that it is wrong, and I am going to believe it. I don't want to damn those people to hell, but I do wish they would change their ways. I also wish that they would not try to impose their lifestyle on unconsenting communities, like North Carolina.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Karl: I know you don't mean to shut me up. I just think that I need to sit this debate out, and leave it to others to say the things I'd agree with.
twink: Oh don't worry - I think you're crazy, but not because of your book recommendations. And thanks for the recommend - different religions are fascinating to me.
Also... I think "Kat.understanding++;" is one of the coolest things I've ever heard.
[ August 11, 2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Want me to explain how it works? (The C++, not the Zen.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure. What do the ++s mean?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'd love to sit this one out. I just want to through one comment out, that may or may not have been said in the first 500 posts.
homosexuals aren't trying to impose their lifestyle on you. Its the reverse. You are trying to force your lifestyle on them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:skernt:
Okay-- Karl and Bob are right. No written laws explicitely state that marriage is solely between a man and woman.
This does not mean that the burden of proof is on society to prove homosexuality is wrong. And because the large part of American people believe it IS bad for society, the state can rightly act in the interest of its general populace against homosexual unions.
In other words, the state is acting lawfully until the weight of opinion, fact, etc, move cultural opinions in the opposite direction.
In my opinion, anyway.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ahhh. So by that argument, the majority of the population can believe rape isn't immoral, and the laws against rape could be taken off the books...
Or the majority of people could believe that its ok to discriminate against black people in the hiring process, and those laws could be taken off the books...
Or the majority of people could believe that its ok to require that women have 2 or more children, and we could create laws like that...
This is your argument, correct? Because, frankly, I don't really see the difference between your comment, and requiring women to stay at home and raise children.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: This does not mean that the burden of proof is on society to prove homosexuality is wrong. And because the large part of American people believe it IS bad for society, the state can rightly act in the interest of its general populace against homosexual unions.
Scott, forgive if I swap a couple of your sentences, making your quote read as follows:
"Because the large part of American people believe it IS bad for society, the state can rightly act in the interest of its general populace against homosexual unions. This does not mean that the burden of proof is on society to prove homosexuality is wrong. "
Phrased like this, I think it might be clearer why I disagree with you. While it may be perfectly legal for the state to act this way, I think it is morally imperative that the state take the higher road sometimes and require that proof of danger or damage be shown before the rights of one segment of that society be curtailed.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, Paul, thank you so much for that beautiful act of hypebolic debate!
Now, I am free to compare homosexuality to pederasty! To alcholism! To genetic diseases!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay.
First, the ++ operator.
Back in the day, you would declare a variable like so:
int x = 1;
Which declares a variable, named 'x,' of type 'integer,' with value 1. If you wanted to increment x, you would write:
x = x + 1;
Which takes the value of x + 1 and then overwrites the old value of x with the new value. However, incrementing happens a lot in programming, so a shorthand was developed. Now all you have to do is write:
x++;
Which is short for the old 'x = x + 1;'
My understanding is that this is how C++ got its name (incremental improvement on the older C). I think it's one of the wittiest programming language names ever, and gave Microsoft some serious respect for naming their new C-based language C# (or C++++, which does in fact work syntactically).
Now, as to the Kat.understanding part... here's how that works. In this case, you, Kat, are what's called an 'object.' An object is an instance of what's called a 'class.' A class is, essentially, a custom variable type. C didn't have classes, but C++ does, which is why it's called an object-oriented language (because you can make classes and then declare variables using those classes, which are called objects; it's called object-oriented because you do this a whole lot ).
So you, Kat, are an instance of class 'people,' with certain associated parameters. The cool thing about classes is that they encapsulate as many data fields as you like. So while an integer variable can only store one piece of information (a number; more specifically, an integer, of course), objects of a given class can store all sorts of data. These data fields are decided when the class is created. So my 'people' class would have as data members things like 'age,' (a number), 'personality,' (a string, i.e. a sentence or paragraph), 'feelings,' (another string, this would be whether or not I like you ), and so forth. 'understanding' is one of those fields; the way I've used it makes the most sense for it to be a numerical value, so it would be like the degree to which I feel I understand you.
So. Returning to the start:
Kat.understanding++;
means that the degree to which I feel I understand you, an object of class 'person' has been incremented.
Does that make sense?
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
twinky just called you an object, kat. are you going to put up with that?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Using that analogy, though, I'm an object to her, too. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh my gosh, that's adorable.
Yes! That completely makes sense!
I see you called me an object though, and I feel troubled about that. How cant this be justified?
Edit: D'oh, missed the intervening posts.
twinky.hatrackiness++
Seriously, I think using computer programming language to explain someone, then eloquently using words to explain the programming language, has to worth about five thousand Hatrack points.
[ August 11, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ah, then you could write:
twinky.hatrackiness += 5000;
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I think it is morally imperative that the state take the higher road sometimes and require that proof of danger or damage be shown before the rights of one segment of that society be curtailed.
How does the state determine when to do so, Karl?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Whoah! Spend a weekend doing housework, and the thread doubles in length!
I haven't even begun to catch up, though from the last page, I get the sense that my side's gained some less helpful contributors
Just one response to Karl:
"While it may be perfectly legal for the state to act this way, I think it is morally imperative that the state take the higher road sometimes and require that proof of danger or damage be shown before the rights of one segment of that society be curtailed."
This is why I recommend putting on the brakes. Social change has been happening so fast in America lately that neither side in this debate has had any time to develop evidence to support their position. It's all based on pie-in-the-sky imaginings of a perfect world in which each person's opinion is absolutely correct.
I would not be mortified to live in a nation where gay marriage was legal. I wouldn't launch a campaign to outlaw it, and I certainly would have no problem coexisting with married gay couples in a community.
My concern here is the fact that America has been through a rapid-fire series of changes to our view of marriage recently, and we've only had one generation to witness their effects. So far, the results don't look too good, and I think we would be insane to charge blindly on without first stopping to take stock of ourselves.
I work for the third-largest game developer in the world, and it's only six years old. One of the big reasons, in my mind, that my company is so successful is the fact that the bosses take a long view of our future. While many game developers split the royalties from massively successful games into instant bonuses for the creative team, my company invests all that money in the future of the company. So the developers of the Harry Potter games have smaller bank accounts than they might ... but they still have jobs, because the company is still afloat, and can weather bad years, which is an astonishing accomplishment in this business.
My concern is that America is too eager to hand out bonuses. "Yay, we've learned to be tolerant! More tolerant than any society in history! Quick, let's give everyone whatever they want!"
I think we'd be a lot wiser to invest in the future of our nation by measuring our changes and showing caution. Finding out exactly what works and what doesn't, then framing our society accordingly. It means that individuals may not get what they want when they want it. But in the end, their children will still have a strong and vibrant nation to belong to, rather than a decaying husk that fell apart because it charged too recklessly along the edge of a cliff.
Anyway. There's more I'd love to say, but I'm late for work. Seeya!
[ August 11, 2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Geoffrey Card ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
hmm...i wonder if i get this...
Jon Boy.affection++
twinky.desiretobuydrinkfor++
how was that?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmmm...
celia.evilness-50
Like that?
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
you might need to put = in there somewhere.
oh, and
kat.spanked++
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
ugh, i really need to come up with my own form of punishment...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Kat, yours should be:
celia.evilness -= 50;
celia, your examples are correct except that you have to put a semicolon at the end of each line. The semicolon is like C's period.
Edit: To my mind, the best way to spank kat would be different, though. It would look like this:
kat.spank(10);
Which spanks kat ten times.
[ August 11, 2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Here's one of my criteria for saying that we shouldn't have gay marriage: reluctance to add extra structure to government. This is a basic principle for ultra-conservatives. In this light, we find fault with Bush on some levels, but that's another discussion that I don't want to do.
Therefore, we naturally ask, "why should we add gay marriage". That leads to the question, "why did we add regular marriage". And I think the best answer is stability, mostly for kids. The adults would be of secondary importance, since they are already developed and can, theoretically, take care of themselves. This appearantly is so important to the gov that it extends health care benefits to the spouse and tax breaks.
With gay marriage (or any legal extension of benefits), I think we take on a heavy financial burden without necessarily taking on the same benefits of regular marriage--therefore the extension is unwarranted. Especially, since as I understand it, healthcare costs for gays tend to be heavy.
But what if they provide stable environment for kids? Well, as I have said before, I don't think they should. It seems right to me, and there have been some studies that show, that children that have the influence of both a mother and a father in thier lives tend to have better outcomes. But even further than that, the vast majority of (if not all) kids are to find greatest fulfillment in heterosexual unions, and in the natural production of some children. To me, the gays will be detrimental to this outcome, since children tend to model their parents. (I wish I had some facts to give here. Maybe some day I'll put a big effort into data collection.)
I am convinced that the government has no need to recognize the love of the gay couples in any way.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Scott, the point is, that you've decided its ok for the majority to restrict the rights of a minority... because you think its immoral. The logical extension of that is its ok to restrict rights anytime the majority thinks an activity the minority engages in is immoral.
Where do we draw the line, under that methodology? When its obvious someone else's rights are being undermined in order to prevent harm to society? Ok, but how do we TELL? And who's opinion are we going to ask?
The majority has been wrong, numerous times. In the interests of justice, I think we can't ask the majority to make decisions about granting or restricting rights without firm evidence that there is a necessary reason for restricting those rights.
Your answer seems to be that the majority decides when its ok to restrict rights. My point was, in my previous post, and remains, that the majority can decide some pretty stupid things, and restrict rights accordingly. In almost all these circumstances, in hindsight, there are very very few circumstances in which we've taken granted rights in a place previously none had existed, and damage has been done.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Gay marriage is not an addition, though. What it is is a change in interpretation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That leads to the question, 'why did we add regular marriage.' And I think the best answer is stability, mostly for kids."
I think the REAL answer, which may not be the best answer, is that we godfathered "regular" marriage into our legal code when we created it. Looking back, this was clearly silly.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
GC:
quote:KarlEd said:"While it may be perfectly legal for the state to act this way, I think it is morally imperative that the state take the higher road sometimes and require that proof of danger or damage be shown before the rights of one segment of that society be curtailed."
GC said:This is why I recommend putting on the brakes. Social change has been happening so fast in America lately that neither side in this debate has had any time to develop evidence to support their position. It's all based on pie-in-the-sky imaginings of a perfect world in which each person's opinion is absolutely correct.
I don't see how your call to "put on the brakes" answers the call for society to ensure that it treats all its members fairly. If a group is being discriminated against in basic rights and privileges (and I think there's little argument about the fact that barring gay marriage does harm their rights), then society needs to act to eliminate that discrimination.
You then said "yes, exactly. That's why we should go slowly." It makes no sense to me.
You went on to add this:
quote:My concern is that America is too eager to hand out bonuses. "Yay, we've learned to be tolerant! More tolerant than any society in history! Quick, let's give everyone whatever they want!"
I think we'd be a lot wiser to invest in the future of our nation by measuring our changes and showing caution. Finding out exactly what works and what doesn't, then framing our society accordingly. It means that individuals may not get what they want when they want it. But in the end, their children will still have a strong and vibrant nation to belong to, rather than a decaying husk that fell apart because it charged too recklessly along the edge of a cliff.
This is just another delaying tactic, to me. It says that on this issue in particular, you are not ready to proceed without complete data. The only data most people need on this is the fact of there being an inequality that doesn't sit well in our overall framework. It's not like anyone is handing out prizes for tolerance. It's more like people are suffering due to intolerance. Intolerance that you argue should continue, for the time being.
And your only argument for doing so is some kind of vague slippery slope thing -- or in this case, a "reckless off the edge of a cliff" thing.
Conservative thinking is good when it doesn't trample on the rights of others. When it does, however, I think it's cruel and destructive to all of us.
Compared to the "right to live in a world where gays can't marry" I think the rights of actual gay citizens matter more. And clearly and obviously matter more. There's no question that the rights of the living outweigh the fears of the potentially living (since you raise the spectre of not giving our children a good enough world to live in). Especially when we are talking rights that others already enjoy.
I keep coming back to the conservative push to keep laws on the books banning miscegenation. They were wrong. They trampled the rights of individuals in order to preserve some vague sense of "rightness" in the world. And the practice ended far too late for no other reason than the delaying tactics of a few people who had no good reason for it other than their sense of discomfort at the idea.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
I don't see why legally recognized marriages is a right.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The logical extension of that is its ok to restrict rights anytime the majority thinks an activity the minority engages in is immoral.
So it really does depend on one's morality, doesn't it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't see why legally recognized marriages is a right."
Hey, I'm all for getting rid of legalized marriage. You with me? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I don't see why legally recognized marriages is a right. <<
All right then, let's say it's a privilege. A privilege granted only to heterosexual couples. That's still blatant discrimination.
Edit: Really, I see no reason for any heterosexual person to be up in arms about this at all. It simply does not affect heterosexuals. (I said that a few hundred posts back, too ). If it doesn't affect you, why do you care? The only answer is that you, the person opposing homosexual marriage, must have a bone to pick with homosexuality itself, and not the marriage of a loving homosexual couple. The only grounds on which homosexuality can be legitimately opposed are religious, and religous grounds don't warrant laws in a country that claims to keep church separate from state.
[ August 11, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Hey, I'm all for getting rid of legalized marriage. You with me?
So... the people saying this will tear apart the meaning marriage in our society were right. That's a nice encapsulation of what makes them nervous.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Maybe Tom means he wants to call the legal union of two people something other than marraige, which was suggested back on page two?
I'm not sure, though. It's hard to tell where he's going with that.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Twinky, Privileges can be based on critera, such as statistics--ie, priv to drive based on crash statistics. Or can be based on other criteria that is not necessarily discrimination but just good sense.
Tom, I don't know what I think about that.
I want to say that it also makes good sense to me that a gov not recognize plural marriages--it would be a great financial burden.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: With gay marriage (or any legal extension of benefits), I think we take on a heavy financial burden without necessarily taking on the same benefits of regular marriage--therefore the extension is unwarranted. Especially, since as I understand it, healthcare costs for gays tend to be heavy.
First, I'm not willing to accept your assumption that "healthcare costs for gays tend to be heavy." You will need to support that and I don't think it is supportable. First of all, there aren't likely any adequate studies of the matter. It's not likely that any of the healthcare that I have received has been counted, or more importantly, the relative lack of healthcare dollars expended on my account have probably not been included in any of these studies simply because nowhere on my medical records does it list me as being gay. I think that the vast majority of gays are uncounted in this way. I have never seen a general health care form that asked "Are you gay?"
So, it follows that you will have to prove your "heavy financial burden" premise before your arguement will hold weight.
Second, there have been many posts in this thread already calling into question your assumption that gay marriages don't provide the same benefits of "regular marriage". We can surmise that you believe the primary benefit of marriage is for the protection of children. Well, no one has adequately been able to demonstrate that gay parents can't raise kids with at least the average level of security and stability as the population at large.
And finally, if equality is morally desirable, some additional cost to society is certainly justified. We gay people work the same long hours and pay the same taxes that send your kids to school and pay your "straight marriage" costs and benefits. Should we get a tax break for being gay and thus saving society the potential costs of our marriage? Or do you just want to have your cake and eat it too?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Geoff,
You may not have read my arguments, but that is my part of myy point. I want real studies done about the long term effect of these things.
When we argue that marriage is for children, we are not saying that those couples who cannot or choose not to have children are then a menace to marriage and society. We are saying that homosexual unions will result in couples that want to raise children. It is natural. Everyone wants to procreate, either biologically or by taking responsibility through adoption. Homosexuals are not immune to this.
They will want, and some will be able to get children, and this will affect society. And we really don't know how. We can wish, and hope that it goes the way we think it will go, but that is not a rational way of making social policy.
I think one of the biggest things hurting homosexual culture today is the promiscuity. I think that needs to be addressed, and by the homosexual community itself. If they want to be accepted as normalized, they need to impose some morals on themselves. They also need to be supportive of those homosexuals who choose to pursue a cure for themselves. They need to allow serious study into the causes of homosexuality that admits more than congenital and irreversable causes.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
What do you think would happen if health insurance companies started asking the "are you gay?" question because there are certain higher health risks, so that if you answer yes, you have to pay a higher premium?
How do you feel about the Red Cross questions? I can't even donate if I've had sex with a man who has had sex with a man since 1977.
Is that discrimination? Yes. Is it bigotry, or homophobia? No.
We have to properly evalutate the effects. And if homosexual couples do prove to be a higher risk situation than heterosexual couples, in regards to raising children, then homosexuals need to accept this as part of homosexuality.
[ August 11, 2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Ryan:
quote: I also wish that they would not try to impose their lifestyle on unconsenting communities, like North Carolina.
Hmmm, I've never thought of my home state as a place that looked down on or shunned homosexuals. Seems there's a gay community that is vibrant, alive and embraced just about everywhere I've been.
You've mentioned NC twice as something of a bastion for your way of thinking. Have you been outside recently? Perhaps within the last 30 years or so?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
"Compared to the 'right to live in a world where gays can't marry' I think the rights of actual gay citizens matter more."
Come on, Bob. Where did I say that I was defending my right to live in a world "where gays can't marry"? Whether or not gays can marry has no direct effect on me whatsoever, and I said as much in my last post. My concern is for the indirect effect that rushing into this change might or might not have on everyone. So take out your frustrations about bigotry on somebody else.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: I want to say that it also makes good sense to me that a gov not recognize plural marriages--it would be a great financial burden.
Point us to some data to back this up. What are these great financial burdens you're touting? If you're talking about healthcare, well, guess what? People are going to get cared for one way or another. That cost is going to be paid whether it's coverage under a spouse or coverage under a different government program. Or are you suggesting that if we can only keep sick gays from being able to make claims under the title of "spouse" then we can just let them die silenced and un-cared-for? Currently, my company offers domestic partnership benefits for gays. It hasn't hurt them one bit. In fact, it has been an added incentive for some bright and productive individuals to choose my company over the competition.
Other than healthcare, which I think is a red herring, what other great financial burdens would gay (or polygamous) couples wreak on society?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Privileges can be based on critera, such as statistics--ie, priv to drive based on crash statistics. Or can be based on other criteria that is not necessarily discrimination but just good sense. <<
Of course. But none of those things applies to homosexual marraige.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Really Amka? I don't think so. But, I could be wrong. I know you have to wait 12 months after getting a tattoo. Of course, you have to wait 12 months after being treated for STD's too, so. . .
[ August 11, 2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I think one of the biggest things hurting homosexual culture today is the promiscuity. I think that needs to be addressed, and by the homosexual community itself. If they want to be accepted as normalized, they need to impose some morals on themselves. <<
Wouldn't allowing them to marry further this goal?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And since you can still donate the blood, but put a barcode sticker on it saying whether you want the blood to be used or not (done in strict privacy and can't be read until it is processed, anonymously) I don't see what the big problem is. The Red Cross has literally bent over backwards to not "out" someone or to allow them to have some dignity. They basically allow you to outright lie on the questionaire and then not have your blood used.
Personally, I've always wondered how much money is wasted on this anonymity/protection deal. All of the questions are in a booklet you are supposed to read before donating. At any time a person can simply stand up and walk out, with no questions asked.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't see how - I can't imagine that the people who are promiscuous are thinking "If only I could promise not to do this, I wouldn't do it."
You don't have to be married to not sleep around.
The idea smacks of those who believe that once they are married, all problems in their relationship will dissapear. Now, I don't have experience with this, but I'd bet my life this isn't true.
[ August 11, 2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From Kayla's link:
HIV, AIDS Those who are at increased risk for becoming infected with HIV are not eligible to donate blood. According to the Food and Drug Administration, you are at increased risk if:
you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once;
you have ever used a needle, even once, to take drugs or steroids that were not prescribed by a physician;
you have taken clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia;
you were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria since 1977 (This requirement is related to concerns about HIV Group O. Learn more about HIV Group O.)
you have taken drugs or money in exchange for sex since 1977;
you have ever had a positive test for HIV virus;
you have symptoms of HIV infection including unexplained weight loss, night sweats, blue or purple spots on or under the skin, long-lasting white spots or unusual sores in your mouth, lumps in your neck, armpits, or groin that last more than a month, fever higher than 99 degrees that lasts more than 10 days, diarrhea lasting over a month, or persistent cough and shortness of breath;
Wait for 12 months after close contact with someone who is at an increased risk for HIV infection. This occurs when paying to have sex, as a result of rape, or when having sex with an IV drug user.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
One question that has been roaming around for me is if homosexual marriage is eventually allowed by law, what other forms of marriage will they have to relook?
Polygamy, for example. Would the government then have to look at this as a matter of consenting adults?
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
quote: I think one of the biggest things hurting homosexual culture today is the promiscuity. I think that needs to be addressed, and by the homosexual community itself. If they want to be accepted as normalized, they need to impose some morals on themselves.
One of the most annoying assertions in this thread is that homosexuals are by nature more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I have no idea if this is really true, and neither do you. Was a census taken? What were the questions? Are you gay? If you answered yes, do you like to engage in freaky sex?
Basically people are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions. Your point is irrelevant in that sexual promiscuity is not restricted to any persuasion. I think you're simply brainwashed by anti-gay media hype.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm going to drag something in here that probably should be added to the pot, but hey it's hatrack why not. In Isreal they do not have civil marriages. Only religous ones http://www.irac.org/article_e.asp?artid=16 This increases their hypocricsy with the whole forbidding marriage with the Christian Arabs and the Palestinians.
Every religous marriage (except the same sex ones) in the US is also recognized as a civil one. Most pastors become "justices of the peace" temporarily while marrying somebody. In some cases it has to be a pastor registered in that state. My parents wanted my grandfather (an army chaplain) to marry them, but he couldn't legally marry them in the state of Kentucky because he wasn't registered there. So he did the entire ceremony and then a Kentucky licensed pastor stood up, just to say "I now pronounce you man and wife". That pastor was the one who signed the marriage license.
Removing marriage from the civil arena, though I am not necessarily opposed to it, causes havoc with existing property and inheritance rights for everyone. Maybe that would be the fair thing to do, make the rest of society go through the same legal headaches a gay couple has. Actually that would cause people to be much more explicit in their wishes, and maybe it would remove many of the legal headaches that the vagueness of our current system causes for heterosexuals as well.
AJ
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: You may not have read my arguments, but that is my part of myy point. I want real studies done about the long term effect of these things.
When we argue that marriage is for children, we are not saying that those couples who cannot or choose not to have children are then a menace to marriage and society. We are saying that homosexual unions will result in couples that want to raise children. It is natural. Everyone wants to procreate, either biologically or by taking responsibility through adoption. Homosexuals are not immune to this.
They will want, and some will be able to get children, and this will affect society. And we really don't know how. We can wish, and hope that it goes the way we think it will go, but that is not a rational way of making social policy.
One thing that strikes me as odd about your point of view (which is shared by others, I know) is that you seem to be crying for data and solutions to problems but at the same time espousing policies that would make such data and solutions impossible.
"Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then they'll want kids and there is no data showing they could care for them within a gay marriage. Let's wait for more data?" Well, that's nice and convenient circular arguing. I don't think the vote should be extended to women. There is no indication that they can handle voting. Let's wait until we see how they handle voting before we let them vote.
Edited because I quoted the wrong part of the post
[ August 11, 2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Any percentages of homosexual male couples who want to adopt but are stopped by law?
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
A link.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sorry Geoff.
quote:My concern is for the indirect effect that rushing into this change might or might not have on everyone.
So, do you admit you are just making a slippery slope argument?
Let me rephrase my objection to your previous statement. Your call to "wait for data" is a call to continue a situation that is unfair and harmful to actual living citizens. In defense of that stance, you only offer vague conjecture about "possible harm".
And frankly, I think your image of America careening off a cliff does demonstrate some bias on your part. You seem to be trying to come off as having a measured, steady approach, but then your reason for wanting that is some vague fear.
It doesn't sit well when there are real problems and inequalities that people are suffering under now, today.
To me, it does sound cruel. It sounds just like the people arguing against mixed race marriages.
Sure, we don't know what the effect on society will be. But if you have no logical reason to ban it, why are we banning it? Because of "comfort zones." Right? It all comes down to fear of an unknown and people, conservatives especially, letting that vague fear override their sense of fairness and justice.
I find that regrettable if it's a situation where no-one is harmed by the continuation of the status quo. But when you can see actual harm -- as in this case -- caused to people who contribute to society, then I think the call for delay is cruel.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Okay, now that we've established that it is true that Red Cross will not take the blood of a sexually active gay man, back to my point.
We need real studies, not biased by either side.
We need to evaluate sexual permissiveness as whole and its effect on society and the environment in which children are raised.
And if we find that there is increased risk, and lower family stability in the long term, with the advent of homosexual couples parenting, then we need to evaluate if that risk outweighs the privilage of being able to adopt and foster children, or using state monies to help fund homosexually derived infertility (using sperm donors or surregate moms).
So far, from my own anectodal evidence, and the link I referenced, I am lean toward that there is an increased risk.
These things aren't a matter of homophobia or bigotry. They are a matter of needing real data, and if homosexual couples do get passed over for adoptions because of the results of those studies, they will be a matter of risk assesment based on scientific studies, not hate or even morality.
And KarlEd, this has been my argument. I don't think it is purely "because God says so".
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I don't see how - I can't imagine that the people who are promiscuous are thinking "If only I could promise not to do this, I wouldn't do it."
You don't have to be married to not sleep around. << (kat)
True.
>> The idea smacks of those who believe that once they are married, all problems in their relationship will dissapear. Now, I don't have experience with this, but I'd bet my life this isn't true. << (kat)
And I agree. I think, though, that having the option to marry would have this sort of effect because 'marriage' has more serious connotations than 'long-term committed relationship.'
I could, of course, be wrong.
>> Polygamy, for example. Would the government then have to look at this as a matter of consenting adults? << (Sopwith)
Allowing homosexual marriage doesn't require a change in the legal definition of marriage, though -- only in its interpretation. Thus I don't think that's a valid comparison.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twink, why wouldn't that work? What's wrong with polygamy - consenting adults, promise to stay together. Where's the difference?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
It isn't a call to wait and do nothing. It is a call to study the situation. We have, at our hands, the data to do so. Many lesbian couples have raised children, and some of those are starting to come into adulthood.
Lets do some real, unbiased studies on their relationship patterns, on unmarried pregnancy rates, rates of STDs, etc.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Since I think the legal definition of marriage is between one man and one marriage, I disagree with this.
quote:Allowing homosexual marriage doesn't require a change in the legal definition of marriage, though -- only in its interpretation. Thus I don't think that's a valid comparison.
If a man, and two women all love each other and they all want to get married into the same union, what are the arguments against it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That the law would have to be changed. This is not the case with homosexual marriage.
Edit: In Canada the law says that marriage is between two people. Thus the recent ruling allowing homosexual marriage. Since the marriage law does not specify gender anywhere, homosexual marriage is allowed. Polygamy is not allowed because the law says that only two people are allowed to get married together.
In other words, allowing polygamy would require a change in the law. Allowing homosexual marriage does not.
Not a valid comparison.
[ August 11, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
By that argument, you are holding the current law as the highest value. That's a sleight of hand. Isn't this a grander moral discussion?
Come on, twink - what's wrong with polygamy?
[ August 11, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Not at all. As far as I know Canadian law always just said "two people;" it was convention that kept homosexuals from getting married.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm... I think in the US, it is more specific, and the law is different in each state.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'll have to check, 'cause I'm not 100% sure...
If you post again, you'll get to start page 15. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
...but not if I post first. Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Yeah, I want to get to the higher argument, not what law is actually on the books.
If homosexual marriage is okay, why isn't polygamy?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"It isn't a call to wait and do nothing. It is a call to study the situation. We have, at our hands, the data to do so. Many lesbian couples have raised children, and some of those are starting to come into adulthood. Lets do some real, unbiased studies on their relationship patterns, on unmarried pregnancy rates, rates of STDs, etc. "
Hrm. My parents divorced when I was 14, I was raised by my father and his girlfriend, and by my mother and HER girlfriend. I've never had sex, no STDs, have caused no pregnancies, and have only dated women I've loved.
I have problems with commitment... but here's the thing. That problem is a "I want to be sure I could marry you before I have sex with you."
Based on that evidence, I think all children, from a relationship standpoint, should be raised by parents til 14, then a lesbian couple and a hetero couple until 24...
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Why shouldn't polygamy be ok, if everyone invovled is a consenting adult? I see no reason to forbid it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
See, there's the difference, Amka. I have no interest in the "higher" argument, as you put it. To me, the only argument that matters in this discussion is the legal one.
The second most obvious legal argument against polygamy is that it would require a drastic overhaul of the system of spousal benefits.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Hrm. My parents divorced when I was 14, I was raised by my father and his girlfriend, and by my mother and HER girlfriend. I've never had sex, no STDs, have caused no pregnancies, and have only dated women I've loved.
I have problems with commitment... but here's the thing. That problem is a "I want to be sure I could marry you before I have sex with you."
Based on that evidence, I think all children, from a relationship standpoint, should be raised by parents til 14, then a lesbian couple and a hetero couple until 24...
Um, there are many, many people - many of them here at Hatrack - that did not/will not have sex until they are married.
What I find both fascinating and sloppy about your argument is that the no sex until married is the highest value, but it is achieved by being raised by people who DIDN'T follow that.
Who gets to be the royalty and who gets to be the raisers in that scenario?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
This is a question I'd like to see taken up by some of our Mormon friends. Since the Mormon Church originally allowed polygamy and then changed (by divine revelation or to meet US law requirements), what was the reasoning behind it?
I've heard two versions, one was that the Prophets said it was no longer correct and another said that it was US cannonry and the decree of law that instituted the change?
The question was not asked to offend, please understand, but in an effort to be enlightened.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:It isn't a call to wait and do nothing. It is a call to study the situation. We have, at our hands, the data to do so. Many lesbian couples have raised children, and some of those are starting to come into adulthood.
Lets do some real, unbiased studies on their relationship patterns, on unmarried pregnancy rates, rates of STDs, etc.
Amka, I'm talking about gay marriage, not adoption. I can't even imagine a study that could be done validly that would prove anything regarding gay marriage. Where would you do the study? How long would you allow for the study? Someone early in this thread argued that we should look at the experience of other countries that have now allowed gay unions. Wait a few geneerations and see what happens, right?
Yeah, that's fair. It's just a delaying tactic.
As for polygamy. If it is among consenting adults, why exactly does the state have to concern itself with it?
Okay, now let's talk about children and adoption/child rearing. Wouldn't it be funny if you found out that children raised in polygamist households are the most stable and least likely to contract diseases or have sex out of wedlock? Wouldn't that mean that "normal" neterosexual marriages are harmful to kids by comparison?
The only criterion that should matter to THE STATE is whether someone is a contributing member of society. So really what you ought to look at is what percentage of kids from each type of "home environment" end up homeless or on welfare. Beyond that, you are just injecting value judgements into the studies you propose. But sure, I'm willing to even go further and bet that kids raised in a loving home by two homosexuals are less likely to end up with STDs than kids raised by the average heterosexual couple chosen at random.
But you also have a bias built into any such study. If it turned out that kids raised in homosexual households have problems that other kids do not, one obvious confounding factor is that the parents in the homosexual household have barriers to their lives that no heterosexual couple has to deal with. They have legal barriers that a legally married couple do not have. They have custodial barriers that a legally married couple do not have.
What are the effects of those barriers? If they adversely affect the kids, are you willing to say that the barriers should be dropped to make it fair, or would you say "hey, those people shouldn't adopt because the barriers we allow to remain in place make it too hard for them to effectively raise children."
See, you can't do the studies you propose. The only thing that they could ever PROVE is the negation of your premise that homosexual parenting is harmful. If no differences were found or if kids in homosexual households "tested" better on whatever measures you propose, despite all the barriers placed on such households, then the logical conclusion would be that homosexuals are at least as good parents as heterosexuals. But if the case turned out the other way, the old third-variable problem rears its ugly head and you can't draw any conclusions at all.
Again I say, it isn't worth waiting for. You can't affirm your hypothesis of harm to children or society because you won't eliminate the inequalities before running the studies.
So, basically, you all are just asking for delays because the idea makes you uncomfortable.
The conclusion is basically inescapable.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I agree Paul--why *not* polygamy, as long as all the partners are consenting adults?
I could see health insurance companies not liking it, but other than that, why not?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> As for polygamy. If it is among consenting adults, why exactly does the state have to concern itself with it? <<
Because it causes massive legal problems. Do all of your spouses share your corporate health coverage? Only one spouse? Two spouses? Do modifications need to be made to the taxable income of a polygamist based on the number of spouses? What about homosexual polygamy? Can a group of five men get married? Do they all share one anothers' corporate health coverage?
Polygamy is simply too legally problematic to be workable.
Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, doesn't require any drastic changes to existing laws -- if it requires any changes at all.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Amka, your assertion was that you couldn't donate if you had sex with a man who'd engaged in homosexual sex since 1977. I don't think that is true. You need to wait 12 months after having sex with a man who had sex with a man. However, you also need to wait that long if you didn't ask your sexual partner that question, and probably, it would be a good idea to wait even if you did he might have lied.
Secondly, I wonder, since you seem to be saying that girls raised by lesbians are more sexually advernturous (and it seems like that is a bad thing in your mind) what would you think about boys only being allowed to be raised by lesbians? I mean, after all, they are more nurturing and affectionate (seems like a good thing to me) when raised by lesbians?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: We need to evaluate sexual permissiveness as whole and its effect on society and the environment in which children are raised.
And if we find that there is increased risk, and lower family stability in the long term, with the advent of homosexual couples parenting, then we need to evaluate if that risk outweighs the privilage of being able to adopt and foster children, or using state monies to help fund homosexually derived infertility (using sperm donors or surregate moms).
Let's say I agree with the first part of your arguement above. Why should gays be held to a higher standard than straights? If promiscuity is the problem why wouldn't that be the defining factor in adoption for both gay and straight potential parents?
Also, let's say I accept your assumption that the percentage of promiscuous homosexuals is higher than that of promiscuous straights. It does not necessarily follow that this percentage constitutes a majority of gays. Why hold the whole group accountable for the behaviors of a subset therein?
quote: I can't imagine that the people who are promiscuous are thinking "If only I could promise not to do this, I wouldn't do it."
You don't have to be married to not sleep around.
That is true. However, marriage would help in giving a greater sense of legitimacy to gay unions than currently exists. I, personally, don't think I need "marriage" in order to help me control my behavior. However, the added weight of the stigma of homosexuality that still exists (as can be witnessed in this thread) is a very real hinderance to the establishment of stable relationships among gays. I, myself, have dated someone who was so conflicted in his views of his own sexuality and was struggling with such self hatred that it was impossible for me to continue dating him no matter how much I cared for him. In this way, I think allowing gays to marry could very well help in at least bringing gay promiscuity in line with the general average. (Assuming again that it really is that much greater than the norm in the first place.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:This is a question I'd like to see taken up by some of our Mormon friends. Since the Mormon Church originally allowed polygamy and then changed (by divine revelation or to meet US law requirements), what was the reasoning behind it?
I've heard two versions, one was that the Prophets said it was no longer correct and another said that it was US cannonry and the decree of law that instituted the change?
Polygamy in the LDS church started with Joseph Smith. It took almost ten years for it to be openly practiced - Joseph Smith and especially Joseph Smith's wife had HUGE concerns with it.
It ended with Official Declaration 1 in 1890 under President Wilford Woodruff. It ended then. There was social pressure for it to happen, but the change was not made by the social pressure.
[ August 11, 2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
As to the "higher" argument that Amka and kat seem interested in my opinion on -- I have no moral objection to polygamy.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: If a man, and two women all love each other and they all want to get married into the same union, what are the arguments against it?
and
quote: If homosexual marriage is okay, why isn't polygamy?
You won't get any arguement from me. I think it would be fine as long as all parties were consenting adults.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
To reiterate and summarize my last couple of posts:
I have no moral objections to either homosexual marriage or polygamy. However, the latter is legally unworkable, while the former would be a legal cinch.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Because it causes massive legal problems. Do all of your spouses share your corporate health coverage? Only one spouse? Two spouses? Do modifications need to be made to the taxable income of a polygamist based on the number of spouses? What about homosexual polygamy? Can a group of five men get married? Do they all share one anothers' corporate health coverage?
Polygamy is simply too legally problematic to be workable.
So if we moved to a system of Universal Health Care, you're objection to polygamy would be moot, right?
Afterall, a clear line of inheritance (the only other possible issue) could be solved by making everyone have a will.
Seems like this is do-able folks! Let's put Socialized medicine in place so we can all get married to each other!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:[polygamy] is legally unworkable
Why? The health care arguments are the same - the same people are going to get sick, would we let them just die otherwise?
Wait - doesn't Canada have universal health care? What's stopping them from having polygamy?
[ August 11, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, you'd still run into the tax problem. It would be far too easy for a group of people to all get married (say, three women and five men) and then claim tax deductions and so forth.
Edit: kat, you missed this:
Because it causes massive legal problems. Do all of your spouses share your corporate health coverage? Only one spouse? Two spouses? Do modifications need to be made to the taxable income of a polygamist based on the number of spouses? What about homosexual polygamy? Can a group of five men get married? Do they all share one anothers' corporate health coverage?
[ August 11, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Bob, you've misapplied your terms. Wouldn't the "neterosexual" marriage be the polygamous one?
[ August 11, 2003, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
RE polygamy- It was never declared wrong. It was just declared that it should be stopped at that time.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You know, if neterosexuality catches on, I'm going to ask Hatrack to marry me.
[ August 11, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
New and exciting ways to horrify and tick off my father.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
neterosexual!!! LOL!
quote:No, you'd still run into the tax problem. It would be far too easy for a group of people to all get married (say, three women and five men) and then claim tax deductions and so forth
Well, since each person claims themselves as a deduction, I don't really see what this would do, other than have a bunch of adults claiming one deduction. It's not like the tax rate it uniformly better for married filing jointly. It's also not like the women in these relationships are earning a lot of money either.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Right, but say you have a marriage comprised of the hundred top money-earning CEOs in America. Suddenly the government can't tax them for nearly as much Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Sorry, I don't think a marriage of the top CEOs of the country would take place without a mind-bogglingly complex pre-nup. I can't imagine any tax benefits would be worth the trouble.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
KarlEd:
quote:Sorry, I don't think a marriage of the top CEOs of the country would take place without a mind-bogglingly complex pre-nup. I can't imagine any tax benefits would be worth the trouble.
That might be almost as epic of a production as this thread... Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Bwahahahahah!
This thread has been successfully fluffified. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm actually all for the 100 top CEOs marrying each other jointly. At least then they'd be screwing each other instead of us!!!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:This thread has been successfully fluffified
Ah...fluff!!! Lovely fluff!
You know, this thread actually started as fluff, and now, 15 pages later, it has come full circle. Sort of.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
What poptr said about polygamy. In fact, a man who's wife has died and gets married again can be sealed to that woman. When he dies, and if they were all righteous, he will have two wives.
Twinky,
But that is descrimination based on bueraucratic convenience. That is a very poor reason, IMO. There are actually advantages to polygamy. Imagine the mother who just has to get out and work, and the mother who loves to stay home with the kids. Stable family, the women have actually more freedom to do what they want without giving their children over to daycare.
KarlEd,
Actually, I believe heterosexuals should be held to the same higher standard.
Kayla, I think you are right about the 12 month waiting period. But that isn't so with the actual homosexual man. He is at risk, even if he had sex with a man just once, since 1977.
Bob,
We are stuck between a rock and hard place, Bob, on that. To me, that is like experimenting with a drug that may have some harmful side effects. But we'll just give it to everyone because they want it now, without doing the studies first. Need to know more? Those are just delaying tactics.
This actually happened, but not with a drug. The American Public demanded that the government mandate airbags in cars. The car companies said that they were still conducting studies on safety issues. The American Public said it was a delaying tactic. Do it now. So they did. And they found that airbags could kill children, even in an accident that would otherwise have been minor (such as in a parking lot). In fact, airbags could kill small adults too. People died, because of what the Amercian Public wanted NOW.
I don't think that stress from being a marginal group would necessarily affect the sexuality of the children growing up with homosexual parents.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
LOL! Bob_Scopatz, you've made my day.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I was going to write a long post in response to katarina. I think it would just cause problems if I did, so I'll shorten it up...
I don't think my attitude towards sex has caused anyone any problems. If my parents had NOT divorced, I likely would have had sex by now, possibly with disastrous consequences for SOMEONE.
People have differing views on standards of sexual conduct. The point of my post was that, for some, if not many people, being raised by parents who divorce, and then a lesbian couple, as well as a hetero-couple cohabitating, is not going to cause harm, and the physical results of such a childhood aren't going to be promiscuity, disease, and pregnancy.
And I thik disease and teen-pregnancy should be what our social policy towards sex should be trying to prevent.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Cotton Candy. Yum. Fluffy.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Amka, you didn't answer the second part of the question.
quote: Secondly, I wonder, since you seem to be saying that girls raised by lesbians are more sexually advernturous (and it seems like that is a bad thing in your mind) what would you think about boys only being allowed to be raised by lesbians? I mean, after all, they are more nurturing and affectionate (seems like a good thing to me) when raised by lesbians?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You just had to go and ruin all our hard work to turn this thread back into fluff, didn't you?
>> But that is descrimination based on bueraucratic convenience. That is a very poor reason, IMO. <<
The myriad problems caused by allowing polygamy are hardly a mere "beauraucratic conveniece." They are a legal nightmare. It simply cannot be implemented legally. Try to work out all of the possible ramifications and then try to tell me again that it's just "beauraucratic convenience."
>> Imagine the mother who just has to get out and work, and the mother who loves to stay home with the kids. Stable family, the women have actually more freedom to do what they want without giving their children over to daycare. <<
You're assuming that the the only kind of polygamy allowed is one man plus several women. This isn't true.
Again, allowing polygamy changes the definition of marriage to include more than two people. Allowing homosexual marriage does not.
For the umpteenth time, that comparison simply does not hold any water. Invalid argument.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
twinky, it's only invalid in Canada. And, well, you know what they say about Canada. *nods smilingly*
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Sorry Kayla,
Actually, in the study, it found the boys were less sexually expressive than the girls. I'm not really sure that is a healthy thing either. What it clearly shows is that something is different. Homosexual parenting is not the same as heterosexual parenting. We really need to determine more.
Would homosexuals be happy with legalized civil unions, but not being allowed to adopt or get state or federal monies to help get themselves or a surrogate pregnant?
And twinky, I still say that isn't a good reason. What of those for whom it is a part of their religion?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
So let's pretend for the moment that I'm American. Allowing homosexual marriage requires changing the legal definition of marriage from "man and woman" to "two people." Allowing polygamy requires changing the legal definition of marriage to "any number of people of any gender."
One opens a huge legal can of worms. The other does not. That's why I think comparisons to polygamy are useless.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I do care about the consequences, actually. Maybe having a pragmatic streak makes me a bad person (Radiohead would certainly say so)... I'm sort of an interesting hybrid in that I enjoy abstract theoretical discussions and I'm very interested in them, but when it comes to controversies that directly affect things in the real world here and now, I much prefer to keep my discussion grounded firmly in practical reality.
Edit:
kat! You pulled the post-deleting thing again!
*gives you a look*
Cut that out! Now my post looks meaningless!
And I look like even more of a post-whore!
[ August 11, 2003, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dang it - sorry - I keep doing that to you.
I decided I was venturing into flippant territory again.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
But I wasn't offended! I liked your post! I thought it was funny! (Edit: I was going to mention how much I'd love to marry Claire Danes and Jennifer Garner, among others )
I'm solidly opposed to deleting posts in most cases; even if I've said something terrible I think it's better to leave it there so I won't forget what I've done.
[ August 11, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Amka, that makes no sense. Children raised by divorced parents, widowed parents, test tube babies, army brats, stay at home moms. . . they all are "different" in some way. How exactly do you propose to conduct such a study?
Would be willing to give up no-fault divorce and women in the workplace in order to have a marriage be between a "man and a woman?"
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:We are stuck between a rock and hard place, Bob, on that. To me, that is like experimenting with a drug that may have some harmful side effects. But we'll just give it to everyone because they want it now, without doing the studies first. Need to know more? Those are just delaying tactics.
I already dealt with how this analogy doesn't hold water. Basically, in the case of a new drug, we have ample evidence of past drugs to suggest that there might be unanticipated side effects and thus it would be foolish to rush a new drug to the public without adequate testing. We also have established scientific methods for testing drugs so that there's little disagreement or room to argue about the results of the testing.
In the case of gay marriage, we don't have a history of demonstrating harm to "society in general" when we extend rights to a broader group within our society. Quite the opposite, actually. Again, I call your attention to the now defunct laws against racial intermarriage. Good laws? No. Took too long to get rid of them? Yes. Harm to society? I don't think you'll find any.
quote:This actually happened, but not with a drug. The American Public demanded that the government mandate airbags in cars. The car companies said that they were still conducting studies on safety issues. The American Public said it was a delaying tactic. Do it now. So they did. And they found that airbags could kill children, even in an accident that would otherwise have been minor (such as in a parking lot). In fact, airbags could kill small adults too. People died, because of what the Amercian Public wanted NOW.
Hey, guess what, air bags save more lives than they cost by a VERY wide margin. The people who have died from air bag deployment were: - small stature adults who adjusted the seat to be too close to the steering wheel. - small children riding in the front seat with regular seatbelts. - infants in rear-facing car seats improperly installed in the front seat.
Those deaths are tragic, to be sure, but they aren't the result of a mad rush to implement air bags. They are the result of improper use of airbags despite warnings on seat adjustment and placement of children in vehicles.
quote:I don't think that stress from being a marginal group would necessarily affect the sexuality of the children growing up with homosexual parents.
Says you. I'm just trying to point out that if the study came out showing that kids in homosexual households do less well on ANY metric you care to propose, the problem with drawing any conclusions from that result are legion. You can't eliminate the 3rd variable problem of social inequality having SOME effect. Since you can't measure that effect, and you can't control for it in your experimental design, it's a confounding variable. It's presence makes any study open to question.
In other words, all the studies in the world would not solve this debate unless the results came in showing that such children are actually better off then kids raised in heterosexual-led homes.
This is basic Research Methods stuff. It has nothing to do with social issues in general or gay marriage in particular. It is simply a fact of research in naturalistic environments. You can't control for things that may be very important in determining the outcome of your study. ANY built in bias against one group of a two-group study renders the results of that study open to alternative interpretation.
In other words, why should we wait for a study whose results can't definitively answer the question?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, I am obviously in the deleting posts I don't want to claim camp, not because of the damage to my reputation, but if I delete it fast enough, I'll offend fewer people.
I only occasionaly do this in real life - talk before my brain is finished filtering. I usually win one enemy and two friends, but it still isn't a good idea.
I said, basically, that denying polygamy is denying the basic rights of all those people who want to marry all those people.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Would homosexuals be happy with legalized civil unions, but not being allowed to adopt or get state or federal monies to help get themselves or a surrogate pregnant?
I am actually more motivated to see gays be able to adopt than gays be able to marry.
You keep comparing adopted kids of gay couples to adopted kids of straight couples. You should be comparing them to non-adopted kids in care of the state. Is nothing truly better than half a loaf?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Well, I had to wait for this to come around full circle, but here goes...
I've heard Mormons argue against same sex unions, and also that the Church didn't condemn polygamy but just no longer allowed it. You see though, there might be a small hole in the whole situation.
The concept of polygamy in the Mormon Church came from a very male-centric point of view. Each of the wives entered into a marriage with their husband, but also joined into a marriage with the whole household, correct? In effect, they weren't just marrying the man, but his family. Isn't this a form of same sex marriage? Even if there were no sexual relations between the women, they were still bound within the family unit by bonds of marriage. (And remember, we don't know and don't have the right to know, if there was any homosexual activity between the multiple wives.)
Looking into it, I tend to see that the Mormon Church may have already set a precedent within their own ranks. Brigham Young's marriages featured 27 women and one man, 21 of them being married and alive at the time of his last marriage in 1868. googled
If you take one man out of the situation, it becomes more than 2 dozen women married together. Does the one man in the equation make it alright? Or is it simply okay because they were just women? Had a founding matron of the LDS church decided to marry a total of 27 men, many in wedlock at the same time, would it have been wrong? And if so, why?
It still comes down to one of the people making a marriage with one person of the opposite sex and literally a marriage with a gaggle of people of the same sex.
But you see, what business is it of mine how Brigham Young and his family got along, or how he and his chose to live their lives? Why should a church leader's life have any bearing on how I see the members of a strong and wonderful faith? Hopefully I won't have to spell out the otherside of the coin.
[ August 11, 2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Chris makes a good point. I don't see people lining up to adopt kids, otherwise we'd have no kids in foster care for very long.
I wonder what the problem is?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Actually, I don't think that is the comparison at all. I think they are comparing biological children raised by heterosexuals to adopted children raised by homosexuals.
[ August 11, 2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I was confused by that google list. If some of the women were also married to Joseph Smith, which one would they be bound to for eternity?
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe they get to pick? Maybe both?
How cool would both be.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Seriously. Bound to Claire and Jennifer for all eternity? Duh, okay!
Or even better, I'll just marry the jatraqueras. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ALL the jatrequeras?
I refuse to share with Ralphie. She'll make me look bad. I can't compete with her... wit.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You know, marrying a hatracker seems like an awfully good idea
I actually used hatrack as a dating criteria once... she didn't like the site, so I didn't go on another date with her...*Grin*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's okay, I don't think Ralphie would marry me anyway, she's too busy lusting after Bob the Lawyer.
How about you and ClaudiaTherese, for starters?
Edit: Wow, Paul. I've never shown Hatrack to a girl I dated.
[ August 11, 2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, then, how do you know whether she's worth dating?! *Astounded*
I'd definetely marry Kasie after watching that commencement address Ooh, and pH, but she seems to be missing in action.
ClaudiaTerese is awesome, and Mackillian, and... ok, so the list goes on and on and on... but...
Yeah.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So Hatrack, will you marry us?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I've only met one girl with whom I'd say I'm sufficiently compatible that I would consider showing her Hatrack. I'm currently sort of seeing her, and she does know that I post on various internet fora (she and I actually happen to post on one of the same ones), but I've never linked her to Hatrack.
Kasie is certainly a cutie.
pH hasn't been around for quite a while now. Dunno where she ran off to (or who she ran off with )...
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Hehehe, I think I may have finally derailed this thread.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Not only a cutie, but well spoken too Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So Hatrack, will you marry us?
I'm pretty sure it's already a common-law marriage.
I'm already married to twinky in his dreams.
[ August 11, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*nods in agreement with both Paul and kat*
Edit: Indeed. kat is my dream-wife, so says my subconscious.
I guess this means I'll have to deliver my part of the communal proposal on bended knee in a hedge maze
[ August 11, 2003, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: I've never shown Hatrack to a girl I dated.
Then, of course, there's always dating someone that you met on Hatrack.
Once you go 'rack, you never go back!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Are you propositioning me, Leo? Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
that's it twinky! i'm calling you out.
We duel at dawn. What'll it be? Swords? Guns? Knives? Fists? Witty retorts? Childish insults? Your Momma jokes? Shadow Boxing?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Guitars.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*snort* I want to watch. Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Do we have to play them? or just hit eachother over the head with them? i might have a problem with the former.
Although i do play a mean air guitar.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
To clarify:
Guitar solos.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
not fists. Fisticuffs. get it right.
Personally, i'd pay to see a dance-off.
edit: oh, and no matter *what* you choose, you have to begin the duel by smacking each other across the face with a glove. i've always wanted to see that.
[ August 11, 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, if kat wants a dance-off too, I suppose I could possibly live with that.
(Anything for my dream-wife )
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dance-off, plus guitar-solos.
The glove slapping would be fun, too. Later, pie-ing. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Heck, i'll get involved in the pie-ing!
mmm....pie...
*remembers the sweet strawberry pie she had earlier...* Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
How about I play, and Sho'nuff attempts to dance to it? If I can trip him up, I win Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's awesome! That's perfect!
*sneaks some of Leo's strawberry pie*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:You know, marrying a hatracker seems like an awfully good idea
quote:Then, of course, there's always dating someone that you met on Hatrack.
I really don't need to add a superfluous "Hear hear!", do I?
Ah, what the heck . . .
Hear hear!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Sounds good to me.
Pie all 'round afterwards, of course. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I was thinking earlier this week about how incongruous it was that this serious, heated, debate-heavy thread had the word "Funniest" in the title. ....Now, i suppose, the title fits again.
edit: you know, Jon Boy, i always thought superfluous Hear Hears were vastly underrated.
So, it's decided then, is it? Now we just have to prod my champion, the esteemed Sho'nuff, to accept the challenge formally. Or with slang terms.
[ August 11, 2003, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
stupid women and their stupid love of dudes in bands...
Hey! I aint no dancing monkey. Maybe an evil one over at Grenme, but that mostly involves pointing at people and looking evil.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
awww. he's so cute, isn't he?
Sho, baby: Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
Sorry, i haven't been in character huh?
Sho' aint dancing for no jive turkey wanna be. The Master dances for nobody.
Posted by Sho'nuff's Posse (Member # 3649) on :
You tell em Sho!
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
Okay, so I'm going to derail back to the top of the page for a moment...
quote: You know, marrying a hatracker seems like an awfully good idea
I think I'd definitely have to agree on that one.
...And now that I've made a good portion of the people here either roll their eyes or laugh or some combination thereof...
I still want to see who wins this duel. ::sits back and waits for dawn:: Who's making the popcorn?
Edit to laugh at her delayed computer because Jon Boy already did the derail.
[ August 11, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Pixie ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
The Master doesn't dance for nobody, eh?
Maybe you'd change your mind...for a Scooby snack
*pretend the hat is actually a Scooby snack, and all will be well...*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, this smilie:
Is this smilie supposed to be animated? Because it is just a guy in a hat to me, and ever since he showed up, my other smilies won't move at all. While that's wonderful for the party and wave smilies, bad things are happening with the duece smilie.
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
it's a "hats off" smilie.
a little arm comes out, lifts up the hat to reveal a tuft of hair, the hat goes down to the side as the little head bows, and as he puts the hat back on he winks.
what a great smilie. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well jeez, no wonder it made no sense to me at all. I thought it was just a guy in a hat. No emotion attached!
How do I make him move again. I miss my moving smilies.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Someone somewhere, in some other thread, said that if you push the Esc key on some computers it stops the smilies in their tracks. I'm not sure if that's the case with your computer, or even how to make them start again. But that's sad. Because the Hat Tipper is a worthy new addition to our ever-growing smilie collection.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Some observations about homosexuality threads
1. No one will ever change their minds, admit that the other side might be right, agree on basic terms of debate or do anything that could conceivably result in any sort of agreement.
2. Things are said that I have deep, personal issues with. They are said by people I like a lot. That makes me sad.
3. KarlEd is amazing. Respeck, dude. I don't know how you keep so calm.
4. It's great that religious conservatives (Scott, Kat) can talk about this without foaming at the mouth (Ryan Hart). While there's no agreement, at least there is dialogue and perhaps some understanding on the part of both sides.
5. Fluff, fluff, fluff. Thanks for restoring my faith in Hatrack after 16 pages of debate and blegh.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's great that religious conservatives (Scott, Kat) can talk about this without foaming at the mouth
Alas, you should have seen the napkins I went through yesterday. . . thought about borrowing LiteBrite's bib a time or three. . .
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Paul and twinky --
I must admit, Hatrack marriage might not be such a bad idea...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
And heres a group hug for good measure.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
I hope that things are heading that way, but I do know people who consider marriage temporary because of what they learned from their parents.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
(At least, I think that was a compliment ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Silly Kasie.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)