For anyone interested in getting the discussion back on topic, here was my last pertinent post:
Vana had a very interesting point about rape and why does it matter what kind of rape it is. I think that is a valid point.
I also wish to say that I don't think someone having homosexual attraction or even acting on those attractions is cause for them to be struck by lightning or have their city burned.
I do, however, think that inflated instances of homosexuality in society *can* be symptoms of something wrong with the general trends of that society, unhealthy trends. For instance: I think that when a society that has much ease and idleness, it can lead to experimentation (arising out of boredom and seeking something new and interesting) that people wouldn't otherwise be inclined to. These experimentations effect the formation of families, which as I have explained before, I believe to be crucial.
I think God only destroys civilizations that have become so wicked that there is no hope of rising generations being taught in righteous ways. You have got to be pretty wicked before that happens.
This is a reoccurring theme in The Book of Mormon. The phrase "ripening for destruction" is used.
Also note the conversation between Abraham and God about preserving the city for the sake of righteous. Unfortunately, only one family qualified, and it made more sense to God have that family leave the city than to spare the society for just them.
I think that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality. But as I said, I think that an unusually high prevailance of homosexual behavior there was a symptom of the sickness.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So the question becomes, if we grant your assumption (and I don't, but I'm willing to pretend I do for this conversation): is it a symptom that should be treated? Should we work to prevent homosexuality because, like a high fever, it can cause harm in and of itself? Or should we ignore homosexuality and treat the underlying disease (like chicken pox), only addressing homosexuality when negative aspects (like increased risk of disease), like someone scratching at and eventually infecting a pox boil, become threatening themselves?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The second one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I liked Hobbes' analogy the other day. Fires could be an indication of an underlying problem of arson. In such a case, you would want to address both the fires and the underlying arson.
Here's my personal opinion about sin -- God gives us commandments because those are the way to have the best possible life. He doesn't make up rules for us to follow -- He tells us what the rules of life are.
edit: so yeah, the 1st one
[ August 04, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I understand where you're coming from, Porter, I just think it's pretty near impossible to prevent or stop homosexuality without addressing the initial problem first. Water puts out a fire, but what puts out homosexuality? I would argue that in our society, nothing does. Homosexuality is seen as an expression of someone's self, and to try to stop someone from being themselves is, like, the new cardinal sin in America. I don't think there's anyway to do anything about the symptom itself.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You may be right. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
So, my question to the forum at large is what, specifically, should be done about me and why?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, Karl, since you don't believe in my source for truth anymore, the first step would be to get you to believe it again.
Why? Because I believe it's True, and not just useful for me.
edit: I'm remembering that you are ex-LDS. Am I remembering correctly?
[ August 04, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
As many have pointed out, there will always be those with homosexual tendancies. It is a form of variation. So is congenital blindness or deafness. *If* my postulates are true, it is not entirely incorrect to categorize these things together, because homosexuality can have a negative impact on that individual's eternal existance and that of others.
So what do you do with someone who is naturally this way? You encourage them to foster any heterosexual tendancies they may have, if any. If they have none, you just deal with it as best you can. Treat them with dignity. Try to understand how the world looks through their eyes. They may find the doctrines I have described distasteful and be unwilling to abide by them. It would be an incredible sacrifice for them.
No one should *force* them not to express their homosexual desires though. It is not a crime, IMO. It is a morality not based on laws of the land but religious ones. So they may not be able to participate fully in certain religiously-based organizations. Boy Scouts comes to mind. I think there is sufficient reason for this and that it should not be vilified. (I have a tingling that tells me this is going to explode into a whole new discussion.)
There is no place for disrespect and unkindness. No one should be turning homosexuals away from jobs, housing, or public places. They should not be ostracized. They should be welcome to attend church meetings or Scout meetings. But religious organizations have their own reasons for not putting them into positions of authority as authority figures also need to set an example of certain values in those organizations. If I understand correctly, at least in the LDS church, there is no harm in having homosexual tendancies. There is only a problem with acting on those tendancies. I don't know how that works in Scouting, but I would hope that it were the same.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Hi. I usually avoid "serious topics" because:
1) My english skills are sub-par (did I write it right?) 2) Many of them (topics) are related to U.S. As a foreigner, I guess it isn't my place (since I have nothing to say about it).
Now, I decided to post here because everytime I read (here and elsewhere) something about "how to address the problem of homossexuality" it gives me the creeps. I know many in Hatrack are deeply religious, and that a lot of organized religions out there abhors (or pity, or loathes, etc.) homossexuals. So, when we discuss the aberrant behavior of homossexuals, are we calling it aberrant because
a) it goes against our religion, being a sin.
or
b) we're afraid of everyone on earth turning gay, thus ending the human race? (aha, but remember friends...we have cloning, now)
Sorry again if I seemed blunt or anything. As I said, my english skills are not good enough to convey some messages yet.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
You are remembering correctly. However, I think your response, though perhaps noble in intent, isn't really a practical one.
What I'm asking is what is it about me as a homosexual that is a detriment to society at large? Why does something need to be done about about me at all? How is society diminished in the least if I continue my life as I am living it until the day I die?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am coming from the assumption that just as society can pressure my daughter to show as much of her mid-drift as she can get away with, it can also pressure her to "experiment" with bi-sexual tendancies.
And considering my religious beliefs, I consider that harmful.
An individual of the same gender approaching her does not threaten me nearly so much as the subtle messages society puts out, subtle vibes of what is acceptable or not.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hey, Bev. Are you replying to Karl? If you are you should probably replase "they" and "homosexuals" with "Karl" or "he."
Edit: You should also ignore my spelling of "replace."
[ August 04, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: What I'm asking is what is it about me as a homosexual that is a detriment to society at large? Why does something need to be done about about me at all? How is society diminished in the least if I continue my life as I am living it until the day I die?
As I implied in the previous post, I don't think the individual is "problem" to society. But I believe trends are.
Just look at all the people who now think industrial-looking appliances are cool. I can promise you that few people felt that way a decade ago. It is the trend, it's "in". People adapt to that without even realizing it, and it scares me.
[ August 04, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
No, that was a reply to Eduardo. I hadn't even seen KarlEd's post yet.
Oh, actually the one you are talking about was in response to Tom. Again, I hadn't seen KarlEd's post yet. (Sorry)
[ August 04, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
For me, this is why I picked choice two on Tom's list. Assuming that Karl isn't recruiting my kid or doing something that many people would consider to be detrimental to society, I can't say that anything should be done at all. Just because I believe that homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't mean I should stop the individual, particularly because I can't. In a situation where a homosexual person isn't harming anyone else, I feel like it's between him and God, just like with any other practice.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ok, I understand your question a little better, Karl. And yeah, if you don't want to believe, you never will, so it's not practical.
Is society at large harmed by what you do in private? Not really. But will society be harmed if we support or encourage this behavior in general? I think so, because it will weaken the family as the prime unit of society.
Please bear in mind that "not supporting" does not equal "persecuting".
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KarlEd, I can understand the frustration you went through with church authorities. After all, priesthood holders are male, and the vast majority are pretty heterosexual. It is probably very hard for them to understand and relate. They can't conceive of a male who is not red-hot over thoughts of a nude, nubile female. Their words probably sounded empty and unsympathetic to you.
The fact is, there may be nothing any one can do (in this life) to get you to be attracted to a female. Sometimes that is just the way it is.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What are the ways in which you feel that homosexuality undermines the family?
[Edit--that was directed at Porter. I was starting to formulate a reply to his comment about homosexuality undermining the family, and it occurred to me that while I had some assumptions as to the ways in which he felt that homosexuality did this, it would probably be a good idea to have him expand on this, so as to avoid misunderstandings]
[ August 04, 2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I will attempt a response since he hasn't yet. For an LDS there is only one way a family can be built, and that is on the union of a man and woman in marriage. This is a unit that can last for eternity and continue procreation. If experimenting with same-gender becomes "vogue" (even more than it already is). More of our sons and daughters that otherwise might have been happy in the above family unit might never choose it. If our beliefs are true, this would be a very sad thing and go against God's plan for us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A better question: I've met Karl's significant other, and he's a pretty cool, stand-up guy. Should people be trying to persuade Karl NOT to like him, or find him attractive?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, persuasion doesn't work, but I don't see anything wrong with making it known to Karl a person's feelings about homosexuality in a respectful way, and then backing off. People do it to me all the time if they disagree with my opinions, and I don't see that homosexuality is any different.
Assuming Karl doesn't want to change, there's nothing anyone can do, right?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Good question. I think we should encourage people to do what they believe is right. If they honestly believe there is nothing wrong with their actions and they are not breaking the laws of the land, it doesn't really concern us. I may never rejoice in a homosexual union like I rejoice in a heterosexual one, though, because of what I believe is significant about a heterosexual union.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I want to point out that I agree about the trend thing that Bev and Porter have mentioned, I just don't see what, if anything, can be done about it, short of educating your children. Ultimately I kinda think that we are only responsible for ourselves and our kids, and very slightly responsible for people who respect and look up to us. If we make our feelings known to those people, I don't know that there's much else that can be done.
Although it is an interesting point about our children experimenting because it's more "vogue". Any studies done on the amount of homosexual people today versus in the past, or can we assume that they would be skewed by the fact that no one would admit it back then?
(I think what I was trying to say with my first paragraph is that unbelievers aren't our responsibility. Assuming that we adequately train the people who WANT to follow God, they are responsible for passing that on. Unless you're dealing with a believer, you aren't going to be able to teach them anything that appeals to God as it's source.)
[ August 04, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How does it weaken families? Let's utilize the "sexuality is a spectrum" idea. Let's suppose that there are some people that could only feel attraction to the opposite sex, some peopl that could only feel attraction to the same sex, and some people that could go either way, to varying degrees.
I believe that getting married and raising children is the most important thing anybody can do during this life, and the best way for the most happiness. (Of course, in my view, what you should do is ALWAYS the way to be happiest.)
If homosexuality were perfectly acceptable and OK with everybody, then I think there would be some people that would find it easier to just be gay and not have to deal with the difficulties that arise from that alien opposite sex.
Of course, the obvious reply to this is "What about if homosexuals could get married and adopt kids? Wouldn't that strengthen, not weaken families as a whole?" I freely admit that I don't have a satisfactory answer to that -- not even one that satisifies me.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I don't know...I never thought about homossexuality as a "trend" or as "hip"...I think some people always had such tendencies and the society, as a whole, put the pressure (and the fear of God) into them, so they didn't act on their homossexuality. Many of these people married. How much of them had a happy life? I don't know. I know many agonizing stories of men (and women) who spent their whole life trying to be hetero, while longing for something they were not allowed to have. So...I don't believe in the "trend" of being homossexual. I think people, now, are more free to act on their instincts than in the "good ol' days". Since I'm a proud heterossexual (who enjoys the sight of a nubile female), I can't even begin to comprehend the angst of a repressed homossexual.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Bev, Porter, from your point of view, is a person being in a committed, lifelong homosexual relationship better or worse than that same person being permenantly single?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, Porter, you could say that adopting a child would make the homosexual the primary source of information in that child's life, possibly leading him away from the path that you personally agree with. *shrug*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Can I believe that obesity is contributing to a national health crisis and still have empathy for the obese (myself included?). Can I believe that homosexuality is contributing to a social crisis and still have empathy for individual homosexuals?
I don't know why folks have these problems and what, if anything can be done about them. I support their individual right to accept they way they are. But I think that as a society, too much is going to require a radical shift in how resources are allocated.
I had a World Civ teacher who felt the same logic applied to folks who have children (not more than two, any children at all.) He empathized with and appreciated their right to determine their own course in life, but believed they were contributing to the rape of the planet.
So what is the social crisis I feel homosexuality reflects? It is the placement of one's own desires ahead of the group. You can call it herd think or socialism or whatever. But it is nevertheless an force that exists in a dynamic tension with individual brilliance in our species' development.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Noemon -- I believe that sexual realations should only happpen between a married man and woman. If you aren't married, you should be celibate, no matter who you are attacted to.
edit: and changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages wouldn't change that.
[ August 04, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It is the placement of one's own desires ahead of the group."
That would only be a logical conclusion if you could demonstrate that homosexual couples harmed the group. In what way do they do this?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*pokes head in thread*
Hmmm....
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Pooka, you're not obese!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: That would only be a logical conclusion if you could demonstrate that homosexual couples harmed the group. In what way do they do this?
Actually, it's a logical conclusion if you believe that it is detrimental to the group, even if you cannot demonstrate it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Bev, Porter, from your point of view, is a person being in a committed, lifelong homosexual relationship better or worse than that same person being permenantly single?
I think they are better off in any situation that lowers promiscuity or irresponsibility. Committed relationsip with same-sex included. But then there is the problematic issue of raising children that PSI pointed out.
Again, I do not particularly think there is anything I can do about it except teach my children, be courteously open about my beliefs, and encourage respect for those beliefs. I just do what I can and try not to aggrivate anyone.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
While I appreciate the sexual relationship I have with my wife, it isn't the center of our relationship. If, for some reason, one of us were to become incapable of sex, this would not, for us, be a reason to divorce. Do you feel that it's possible to seperate the combination of romantic love and friendship that (in my opinion anyway) are the basis for a successful marriage) from sex? To have the former and not the latter in a relationship, and have the relationship remain healthy?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Are you asking if it's ok for homosexuals to live together in love if they aren't having sex?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I do not particularly think there is anything I can do about it except teach my children, be courteously open about my beliefs, and encourage respect for those beliefs.
I don't quite agree with beverly on this. I believe that societal trends come from people, and that we should all be responsible for trying to shape society into what we want it.
For this reason, I oppose things that would promote homosexuality as one of many equal choices. This is the reason that I oppose same-sex marriage.
[ August 04, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*giggles*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, I would have eventually gotten to that question, if the conversation hadn't ended up going in a different direction that I found so interesting that I got distracted, but the actual question that I asked is genuine in and of itself. Based on Bev and Porter's responses so far, the question of the centrality of sexual activity in the context of marriage seems interesting to me, and one that I'm very interested in hearing the answer to.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Interesting question. If such a thing happened to your wife and you were still capable and desirous of sex, would you be willing to "go without" for the rest of your life? That is a tough thing for anyone to face. For my husband and I think we would both do our best on that road with a resounding "yes". Nothing else would be an acceptable option for us.
As for separating the two, I guess some people don't want sex but still want romance. This is probably true for more women than men, but I don't know. I am actually not quite sure what you are asking though.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I believe that societal trends come from people, and that we should all be responsible for trying to shape society into what we want it.
But Porter, I think what I said is the *best* way to go about doing that.
If I can convince, say, Lalo, to respect my beliefs, that would be a small victory, would it not?
[ August 04, 2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Any marriage is an agreement to put the interest of the group ahead of one's natural impulses. That is part of why polygamy is viewed as immoral. (While the LDS position is often misunderstood, we only support polygamy as permitted by revelation and not because men are built to naturally desire multiple partners. I think it's equally true that women naturally seek multiple parnters).
P.S. Yes, I am just barely obese based on my last known weight. My BMI is 30.9, and the cut off for obese is 30. I do think the BMI sucks, though, since muscle weighs more than fat. But for me, I know that ain't muscle.
[ August 04, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Noemon, did we answer your questions? Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I would personally have a very difficult time seperating romantic love from sex, in my own relationship, but I'm not sure how far out you are ruling sex. Is there no sex at all? No sexual conduct, or just no intercourse?
Well, pooka, to be perfectly honest I never, ever would have guessed it, and I'm not just being nice. You must be very compact.
[ August 04, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Beverly, if you could get Lalo to respect your beliefs you will be translated like John the Beloved.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Noemon -- I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but I'll reply to what I understood.
Let's suppose Mary and I lived in Brazil or Italy about 60 years ago when divorce was not a legal option, and Mary was legally married to someone else who had left her years ago. There is no way we could get legally married.
In that situation, I do not think it would be appropriate for us to live together without sex. Why? Because in all probability it would not happen. Living alone with the woman I love and am attracted to, I probably would not remain chaste. And the importance I place on chastity is, after all, where most of my feelings and opinions about this topic.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Pooka, I'm afraid you are very gently crossing the "No Snarkiness" border that Bev put up. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Pooka, I can always try. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*Cough* Remember, you started this thread with the specific title of "no snarkiness".. *cough*
Hobbes Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I just want to say that I am floored at how respectful and civil this thread has been. It does my heart good! It restores my faith in humanity to be respectful despite strong differences.
[ August 04, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Why not...I'll stick my foot in...
I think the biggest part of marriage is the comfort level. Sex or no, without being comfortable around your partner the marriage won't last long... or if it does won't be very happy, imo.
I've said it before... the sex drive and whatever direction it is orientated is a basic biological instinct...like hunger or breathing. It cannot be changed. People can overcome the drive through will power, but that doesn't make them straight.
I find it oddly amusing and interesting (not in a bad way) how all these people and the government are debating what to do with me and other gay folk. It won't change what I do or how I live. I'll continue to do whatever I want... all that lacks is the recognition. Which would be nice, don't get me wrong... but my marriage to my eventual partner is between him and me, as we will be living with each other. We are still multiplying ourselves into oblivion... I don't think some gay folk living together will destroy the race.
Now if the debate was whether or not to kill me or put me in a concentration camp I might be a little more involved. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, I was asking how central you feel sex is to marriage--a vital component, without which a marriage will crumble, or something that, while important, is not essential. What made me think of the question was Porter's response to my question about whether a person was better off eternally single or eternally in a homosexual marriage (which I was asking because both are situations in which children would not result, and so a nuclear family would not be possible).
In answer to your question, yes, absolutely. If my wife couldn't have sex for some reason, I wouldn't even think twice about whether or not to stay. The sex, with us, is more the garnish than the meat of our relationship, if you know what I mean. Well, not the garnish--it isn't irrelevant. Maybe "side dish" would be a better analogy.
Now, that said, I don't know whether a romantic relationship can develop without sexual attraction or tension being an element. It never has for me. I'll have to think about that.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*hugs for bev*
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, Noemon, I asked because, in general, romance for my husband and I always has sexual undertones. It is VERY possible that I am missing out on a good part of marriage, that maybe romance can be non-sexual and mean something very special to a couple because of it, but that's not within my realm of experience.
[ August 04, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Relationships are based on sex...otherwise they are just friendships. You can't have a romantic relationship without sexual over or undertones. It's not bad...it's just how it is. It's good!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think for Porter and I, sex is an extra cement that binds us together even closer than the closest of friends. It is a symbol of the intimacy we share in our lives, our minds, our hearts. It is also dang wonderful.
As for an LDS belief in sex after mortal life (after ressurrection) the only sex being had will be between those married for eternity who have done all that was required of them to be worthy of that blessing. ("That blessing" refers to "exaltation", not sex.) The most important component being a strong faith in Christ that motivates to action in following His example. We believe all will receive a ressurrection of varying degrees, but no other ressurrected body will be capable or desirous of sex. There will not be homosexual sex in the eternities, according to LDS doctrine.
Telp, I don't think we or the government are particularly interested in stopping you from doing these things. Firstly, that just wouldn't be right. Secondly, you as an individual are probably not harming anyone. Though it is true that the nation is in the midst of a pretty major debate about the official recognition thing. I personally am more concerned about societal trends and fashions.
Edit: Thanks Telp! You are awesome, you know that?
[ August 04, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I also cannot imagine a romantic relationship without a sexual component. I think it's probably possible, but I can't envision it in my mind.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I forgot about the snarkiness thing, sorry. It wasn't salient. I just found it very odd that bev wants Lalo to respect her beliefs. I actually think it is an unreasonable thing for her to want, and I was trying to express that in a lighthearted way.
I think all of humanity suffers from selfishness, and I'd be hard pressed to think of a sin that doesn't reflect selfishness at its core.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I was teasing. See? -->
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OT: pooka -- do you ever check the email address you have in your profile? I've emailed you several times but never gotten a response.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Pooka, I want everyone on earth to respect my beliefs. I will try to respect theirs even if they don't respect mine. I want all of us to see eye to eye. 'Tis my dream, my deepest longing....
[ August 04, 2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Bev, you rock too!
I know you all aren't debating about stopping me or gay folk... I just find it amusing and facinating that so many people are talking about this issue. I think part of it is the selfish aspect just talked about... I'm an instant celebrity! Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Telp you were a celebrity on Hatrack the moment you walked in the door. I wish everyone could learn from your natural love of others, your easy-going nature, the way you don't let things bother you too much. You are an example to us all. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In the same way that Hatrack is blessed with some of the best examples of the Mormon faith, we've got some really stellar homosexuals, too. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Whoo hooo! Posted by from Cythera (Member # 6749) on :
Beverly, you mentioned something in the beginning of this thread that I think is very important and fearfully true. When you said that your daughter is under pressure to show as much of her mid-drift as she can get away with, you are more right than you will ever know. Magazines, television and movie stars, singers, etc. put this junk in our heads. Even scarier than promiscuity are things like sexual relations at an almost sickeningly young age (let alone premarital sex, which I know is against many a religion) and drug use. These are the really "harmful" trends.
The world tries to influence youth in many different ways, but is it better for them to learn to accept homosexuals rather than grow to fear or hate them?
It is the models that harm society, not the homosexuals.
On the briefly mentioned issue of gay and lesbian adoption, I did a college paper that researched both its pros and cons. I came to the conclusion that at the end of the day, when all is said and done, it is in the best interests of the child to have a family (while unconventional, still people who love you) rather than reside in an orphanage without a parental figurehead. Like abortion, however, this is one of those issues that deserve respect and reflection from every side.
While I sound pretty far left on the political/moral spectrum, I am mostly playing devil's advocate. I tend to be very conflicted about controversial issues and often wonder how some people can have such a strong specific, single view of an issue. I chose to respond here because gay/lesbian adoption is one issue where my opinion does not waver, sorry that's a bit off topic though.
Take care all, Cyth
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll go ahead and ask a question -- why is it referred to as either homosexual or gay/lesbian? Doesn't gay mean homosexual? Why not just use the term gay?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The world tries to influence youth in many different ways, but is it better for them to learn to accept homosexuals rather than grow to fear or hate them?
I will do everything in my power to teach my children and others not to fear or hate those with different sexual orientation. I will not, however, teach anyone that I condone same-gender sexual relations in any form just as I will not condone extra-marital sexual relations in any form.
On the issue of adoption, I am torn. I want kids to have families, stable, good ones. Homosexual couples can provide that in part, but I also want children to be raised to seek to be heterosexual they are capable of it. Parents have *such* a powerful effect on their children. It is amazing, astounding. And I think far more of us are capable of bisexuality than we realize.
[ August 04, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I use homosexual because I never felt like gay included lesbians.
Posted by from Cythera (Member # 6749) on :
Porter, I'm just adding my speculations... the term homosexual includes women and men, wheras gay could only be taken to refer to men in some instances. Does that make sense?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm pretty sure I've heard lesbians refered to as gay. Or am I imagining things again?
Posted by from Cythera (Member # 6749) on :
Oh definitely, it's just one of those things. "Homosexual" eliminates any possible confusion of whether or not lesbians are included.
Bev, hearing an opposing viewpoint so sweetly and respectfully debated has made my day as well.
kisses to you all
[ August 04, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: from Cythera ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Sex or no, without being comfortable around your partner the marriage won't last long... or if it does won't be very happy, imo.
Aw, this is great, Telpy. I completely concur.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Porter, I got the one from today. I don't know if you've tried to email me a lot before. The profile links don't seem to work very well.
I tend to think of gay as referring to men more, though my aunt refers to herself as gay sometimes.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow! from Cythera is brave! First day on Hatrack and she's willing to jump right in with both feet in a hot thread! I'm impressed!
Farmgirl
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
You know what I love about this place? Half the time, when we discuss contentious topics, we degenerate into love fests intead of flame wars. Right on! Make love, not war!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Not brave, just so far uneducated. We'll ejamacate him/her.
Welcome, by the way!
edit: Since you don't know me, I want to say that I was totally kidding about everything except the "Welcome" part.
[ August 04, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
It's a her, by the way -- according to the newbie thread on the other side.
FG
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
She's actually an old-timer under a new name. I saw her in chat last night. She is waaaay before my time.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Gay can be used in reference to all things homosexual but is most often used to reference homosexual men.
Lesbian is applied strictly to women and will never be applied to homosexual men.
Homosexual is the more commonly accepted catch-all to include both homosexual men and lesbians - homosexual women.
Why did it evolve that way? I don't have a clue - but that's how my buddy and his gay peers use the terms. Actually, they use a lot more terms, but I'll refrain from posting them here.
As to homosexuality being fashionable, there is a trend among young women to be "fashionably bi" - although I rather doubt the same trend will ever apply to men in the same fashion.
-Trevor
Posted by from Cythera (Member # 6749) on :
That's true Trevor, two women together is considered a "turn on" to guys. However, for girls (especially the younger generations) gay guy friends are in high demand.
Even though I'm not technically new, I still was hesitant to respond to this thread. I just can't help myself from joining debates...which gets me in a whole lot of trouble sometimes!
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker. True on both accounts, although every generalization doesn't necessarily apply in every circumstance.
As to being a newbie - welcome aboard. Until I get a job, you'll see my name crop up a lot.
-Trevor
Posted by from Cythera (Member # 6749) on :
Haha, thank you. Ditto for me until fall term begins.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And you shouldn't make jokes in here - well, not often. Puns are sodom amusing.
What's wrong with discussing Gamorrah every once in a while???
(When has "no ****** allowed" ever worked on Hatrack)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It actually worked pretty well in this thread, while the conversation continued.
[ August 04, 2004, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But Homosexuality isn't a symptom of society declining. There are even worse threats to society no one is really paying attention to that should be addressed... Furthermore, I find the term alien opposite sex to be a little strange... I haven't even been in a relationship with a woman before and I'd know that just because it's 2 girls it doesn't mean it would be easy... Plus, there's a lot of problems that come from a person trying to be be heterosexual when they are not... It's bad for the woman who feels she isn't good enough to satisfy her man. It's bad for the man who doesn't feel like he is getting what he needs from the woman and bad for the children because they do not have stable and happy parents. The children, most of the time would know... That's why I can't condone men with homosexual tendancies marrying women. It's wrong. It's the worse possible way to handle things... You have to learn to understand just how miserable a person can be when they are fighting their homosexual tendancies. It would hurt society even more, like the AIDS crisis back in the 80s... Think of what it's like for some young man growing up in a small town hiding his gayness. He goes off to NY and discovers a CARNIVAL of CARNAL pleasures. He will go wild in the city and this leads to disease. Gayness doesn't need to be fought or prevented it needs to be understood. As long as people view it from a only heterosexuality is right perspective they might not understand it...
There are other ways to go about taking care of the family. That is with inclusion and not exclusion But, I do applaud the efforts here...
[ August 04, 2004, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I would suggest that a fundamental reason for the discussion on this topic being so civil is that an amazing level of maturity, restraint and equanimity is being demonstrated by those who are gay. I'm not sure I would be able to hold back in the face of some comments made so far (not that I think anyone is trying to be offensive at all, it's just that I think people can easily be inadvertantly highly insensitive / derogatory when discussing topics like this one).
Anyone, kudos to both sides for not mud-slinging. I haven't seen too many discussions like this on Hatrack over the years that have been focused on this particular topic. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There have been other discussions about this?
*goes to check*
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I just want to say that I am floored at how respectful and civil this thread has been. It does my heart good! It restores my faith in humanity to be respectful despite strong differences.
You know, while I do think that Beverly, mph, pooka et al are being very cool, calm and collected I have to agree with Ethics Gradient that I think Karl Ed and Telperion are being stellar, and I think more calm then I would be in their situation.
Mph, one of your posts on the previous page actually slightly offended me (though I am sure that wasn't the intent), in terms of what you would 'do' about homosexuality.
I was wondering how you would feel if such a sentiment was couched in terms of your religion and directed at you - that is, if I was to say that I believe that the LDS faith is fundamentally immoral. I believe that by you having that faith you are going against God's will, and that I believe that you should not be allowed to practice that faith. And if you insist on practising it, it shouldn't be at a level equal to how other faiths are allowed to be practised.
I realise that you may well have had such emotions expressed to you in your life - but I would imagine that you would also dismiss those emotions as hurtful, and perhaps bigoted.
Why then is it considerd 'ok' to express those same emotions about homosexuality as long as it is done in a civil fashion?
(Two things - I'm not trying to assert that sexuality is the same thing as religion. For some people, I know they consider religion more fundamental, for others the converse may apply. I thought the comparison worked as I think the LDS faith is as much a part of you as being homosexual is a part of homosexual people. So any answers based on that premise (or on the 'but religion is constitutionally protected and homosexuality isn't') line aren't really what I'm asking for. Secondly - I am impressed at how this thread is going. Still, I think hurtful words couched in nice terms are still hurtful.)
[ August 04, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
But Mr potato head was specifically asked what he would "do" about homosexuality. It's not like he brought it up himself.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
imogen -- I normally wouldn't have been so candid about my opninions (they are opinions, not just emotions, btw), but Karl specifically asked my opninion. So I shared it.
I would say that if somebody asks your opinion, especially if they know it is likely to be offensive, then it is socially acceptable to share it.
That said, I have to agree that Karl, Telp, etc. have been very patient and understanding.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: There are even worse threats to society no one is really paying attention to that should be addressed...
I am not sure this is true. I think we are far more concerned about other threats to society than we are about homosexuality. But this is such a sensitive issue that it needs the utmost care in discussion so that the two sides can understand each other and not be hurtful. It's kind of a special case. There is a lot of difference between saying "this is the worst problem facing society" and saying "this is not a problem at all for society." I think most who are concerned about homosexuality hover somewhere between.
quote: Furthermore, I find the term alien opposite sex to be a little strange... I
I think this sentiment strikes true for my husband but not necessarily for others. You see, he was raised in a family of all boys with a mother who is not a typical female. He has always found girls "scary". So when he wonders what the reasons for same-gender relationships are, it makes sense to him that they are going into "safe ground" and avoiding that oh-so-scary opposite sex.
quote: That's why I can't condone men with homosexual tendancies marrying women. It's wrong. It's the worse possible way to handle things...
Hopefully no one feels forced. Hopefully if someone is trying to downplay their same-sex attraction and amplify their opposite-sex attraction they are doing it because they want to, they believe it is important rather than because people don't accept them or are pressuring them to. I hope that if I have a child who struggles with that they won't do so just to try and please me. That would make me sad.
quote: Gayness doesn't need to be fought or prevented it needs to be understood. As long as people view it from a only heterosexuality is right perspective they might not understand it...
I would like to understand it better. I hope that others who feel it is wrong also try. That is the only way to avoid blind prejudice. Too many of my faith just avoid it all together, don't try to understand, many of their statements are without compassion or sensitivity.
But we also can't abandon our beliefs. They are sacred to us, and forcing us to abandon them is at least as bad as trying to force someone not to be gay.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: You know, while I do think that Beverly, mph, pooka et al are being very cool, calm and collected I have to agree with Ethics Gradient that I think Karl Ed and Telperion are being stellar, and I think more calm then I would be in their situation.
Mph, one of your posts on the previous page actually slightly offended me (though I am sure that wasn't the intent), in terms of what you would 'do' about homosexuality.
That is one of the reasons I think it is so important to have these civil discussions. It gives us an opportunity to learn when we are being offensive and understand a POV different from ours.
So a big thanks to KarlEd, Telperion, Synesthesia and others for being so gracious.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I was wondering how you would feel if such a sentiment was couched in terms of your religion and directed at you - that is, if I was to say that I believe that the LDS faith is fundamentally immoral.
That's easy. It's done all the time. Just check out threads about baptism for the dead.
Some handled the criticism gracefully. Others didn't. But even those who didn't were not "offended", just couldn't understand why the practice bothered anyone.
[ August 04, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
mph - I do appreciate that you were asked, and were responding, not volunteering. I just - well, it just squicks me, and I was trying to explain how it squicks me. Would you not be offended if you asked someone what they thought about your religion and they told you my answer?
I'm not sure if I wouldn't be.
(Woah. Way too many double negatives).
Beverley - I have to say I like the distinction you are making between having beliefs and enforcing those beliefs in a legal manner. And I do agree, forcing you not to have the beliefs you do would be just as bad as forcing homosexual people not to be homosexual.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Why then is it considerd 'ok' to express those same emotions about homosexuality
If you say that it's not OK for each side to share its feelings, you are saying that there's no point in trying to undertand each other anymore.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Would you not be offended if you asked someone what they thought about your religion and they told you my answer?
If I asked someone their honest opinion about my religion and they answered that they thought it was evil, a twisting of God's will and that they wished there were no Mormon's at all, I would say, "Whoa. Sorry you feel that way." But it would be kinda silly for me to be upset since I asked.
There are people who feel that way, though. Religious sects that dedicate time to preach lies about us, spreading hate, fear and mistrust.
My best friend growing up got a lot of that in her chruch. Her mother pointed a finger at me and said, "YOU BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF THE DEVIL!!!"
I said nothing. I thought she was a bit nuts though.
[ August 04, 2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
imogen -- Yes, I understand how what I said could be offensive. I can't imagine how I could put my opinions in a manner that would not offend somebody.
I know they are offensive, but that doesn't change my view as to what is right and what is wrong.
But even while you might find my views offensive, hopefully you don't find me offensive.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Most people probably wouldn't even bother reading about it or anything. Especially my relatives. It's very sad because it's not just a bunch of people running around being rebellious and lascivious... (Cool. I got to use the word Lascivious) It's a pull as valid and real as heterosexuality, not an inferior form of heterosexuality...
Somehow I'd disagree that the same sex is safe territory, but people in general SCARE me... You should see what I'm going through with this who-Trying-to-make-new-friends-getting-stuck-with-another-stupid-crushing-and-trying-to-fight-it-because-it's-embarassing.
quote:I hope that if I have a child who struggles with that they won't do so just to try and please me. That would make me sad.
That is a rather sweet statement...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thank you, Synesthesia, that means a lot to me.
Imogen, I just looked back and I am unaware of what Porter said that was offensive. Nothing jumped out at me. For my sake could you specify which post or which statement bothered you?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Mph - I get what you mean and that wasn't really what I intended to get across.
I think I put the 'ok' in quotation marks (or is that the " "? I need a grammer nazi!) to try and convey (in my head at least... doesn't always come across that way ) not that feelings shouldn't be shared for open discussion.
Rather I was trying to get across that I felt what you were saying was hurtful, and that saying it in a civil matter didn't change that. I was trying to say that while all behavious has been very good on this thread, the behaviour of those people whose life and lifestyle has been attacked (however civily and rationally) has been exemplary. I was imagining a thread about faith with those comments on, and the ensuing mess.
But reading both your and beverley's reponses about how you would feel in an analagous situation, I think that might just be me.
****
As a complete aside - I am presuming that you two are on separate computers right now. I just got quite a funny mental image of the two of you at home jostling over the one monitor - "No, let me respond now" "That's too long - it's my turn!" Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, I don't know myself, but I've pretty much resigned myself to the idea that any time I share what I really think, somebody will be offended. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, we are networked, but Porter is downstairs in his office. We actually have to shout to hear each other. But since we are on the same network, if we post within 30 seconds of each other, we get locked out with that flood protection thingy. Frustrating!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Oh yeah, we have separate computers. It would be *really* hard for us to go back to one computer again. It would be pretty hard for that to happen, too. Right now, we have at least 7 computers here.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*shrug* I usually hold back for that same reason.
Cool. 7 computers!
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Good question, Bev.
I think what it stemmed from was the response to TomDavidson's question - the belief that homosexuality in itself is inherently harmful and should be prevented (the arson-fire analogy). By 'doing' something about KarlEd, by bringing him back to the LDS faith, I guess that is equivalent to saying 'I want him to believe, as I do, that homosexuality is immoral'.
And from then on I just felt... well, squicked. I still do, but I can't point to a quote to back that up.
I'm not saying (and if I conveyed that I sincerely apologise) that anything mph said was intentionally, or even obviously offensive. On the contrary, everything was polite, and phrased to be civil and respectful.
[Edit - in fact, I think I said I was offended. I didn't mean thet post was inherently offensive. Maybe I should just stick to 'squicked' as my word of choice...]
I just felt that this fact didn't mask the sentiment behind all this. I don't know if that can be fixed, I was more curious whether you would feel the same way - if a hurtful sentiment was expressed in polite terms, would it make it better?
But, as I said previously, I think how I would react and how you would react is different. Your reaction being more mature.
[ August 04, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think the sentiment is that KarlEd one had faith in the doctrines of the LDS church. Now he doesn't. That makes Porter sad. Not because of the homosexuality, but because of Porter's own faith in these things. I think Porter is sad that perhaps the issue of homosexuality caused KarlEd to lose his faith, though none of us knows but KarlEd what the reasons are.
Porter was acknowledging that KarlEd and he are not on common ground, and because Porter believes firmly in these things, he wishes that they were on common ground. But since they aren't, there isn't any point in discussing it. In essence, Porter can't and won't "do" anything about it.
I don't know if that makes it sound less squicky or not.
Edit: To answer your question, I did state how I feel about it. If someone believes as I do, I expect them to live up to those beliefs. If they do not believe as I do, I have no such expectations. Therefore there is nothing I would "do" about KarlEd except try to be a friend to him.
I think hurtful sentiments stated nicely are still hurtful. They should not be said unless there is a darn good reason. Or the person requested it. Porter and I have both grown up with people telling us, in the nicest possible way, that we are going to Hell.
[ August 04, 2004, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So I think that certain things are imooral. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to think that it is wrong or immoral for me to hold that view.
So we disagree about what is right and what is wrong. Both of us would like it if the other agreed with is. Neither is surprising. We all have to deal with people that disagree with us.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I don't think I'm going to get any further with this. If I can't make myself more clear by this stage, I don't think it is going to happen.
We seem to be going around in circles, probably a lot of that is my fault. Maybe I'll just stick to my original sentiment - I'm glad everyone is being civil, and polite and rational. Especially when sharing opposing veiws.
[ August 04, 2004, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Me too. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Imogen, did my post help make what he said less offensive? Or is it still the same? I am honestly trying to understand.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
No, Bev it did help. And that makes a lot more sense. Thank you Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*whew*
I am glad. Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
I guess it was Emmanuel Kant who came up with something called "Moral Imperatives" (sorry if it's wrong, people, it's the best translation I could make for "Imperativos Morais"). These "Imperatives" were: "Categoric Imperative" (Imperativo Categórico)- "Do your duty uncondicionally", or "Act so as every action of yours may be taken as an universal law".
"Pratical Imperative" (Imperativo Prático) - "Act so as every action of yours have the humanity in you or in others as an end in itself, and not as a mean to an end" ("Age sempre de maneira a tratares a humanidade em ti e nos outros sempre ao mesmo tempo como um fim e jamais como um simples meio")
Even Kant thought the "Categoric Imperative" would be too, ahn...categoric to be followed the whole time. So, there is the second ruling, or "Practical Imperative". I guess some people tends to live barely below the practical imperative but require homosexuals to follow the "categoric" one to the letter.
There is also Kant's third rule: "Act as if you were, in the republic of will and desire, legislator and subject": "Age como se fosses ao mesmo tempo legislador e súdito na república das vontades"
It's hard, sometimes, to concile philosophy (and it's not my bread and butter. Most of you may know Kant much better than me) with religious thoughts, I know. After all, when you put religion and faith in the equation, you relinquish your position as legislator, in the "republic of will and desire", placing <<insert deity's name here>> where you would, otherwise, be. You remain there, of course, but acting only as a subject. But I did not mind this post as an anti-religious diatribe. I'd like you to answer if you think someone, being homosexual, would be breaking any of the imperatives above-mentioned.
If I misquote, or translated anything wrong, my deepest apologies.
But I'm really curious for the answers.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think there is a very real conflict for an individual who is truly, naturally homosexual and also firmly believes that homosexual contact is wrong. That individual has limited choices: let go of the belief that it is wrong, sacrifice sexual contact, or suffer guilt and confusion. Not a happy set of choices.
I am not sure if this answers your question though.
Posted by from Cythera (Member # 6749) on :
I think I understand where imogen is coming from...but feel free to shout at me if I'm wrong! We are all sitting here making these general assuptions such as, this is wrong because it's against the Bible or because it could lead impressionable kids to a path their parents don't want them to explore. But I don't think any of us know what is right and what is wrong unless we ourselves are gay. For instance, I don't feel I have the right to judge Catholics because I am not one; therefore I cannot understand them as they understand themselves and why they do what they do. I know I'm not nearly as knowledgable as most of you, but if there's one thing I've learned so far it's that there is no "right" way of doing anything. We all just have to do what works for us and makes us the happiest and let others do the same. What else would make life so beautiful and diverse?
Cyth
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: but if there's one thing I've learned so far it's that there is no "right" way of doing anything
Not all of us feel that way. I know this isn't what you said, but it sounds to me like the sentiment, "There is no absolute reality. Reality is only subjective." The implication being that that statement is absolute, therefore there is an absolute reality. It doesn't make sense.
But I do agree that people need to be free to make their own choices. Pressure and forcing doesn't bless anyone's lives.
Posted by from Cythera (Member # 6749) on :
Haha, what a quandary Bev, I see what you are saying. My saying that there is no right way of doing things is in itself claiming that as the correct way of thinking. I still don't feel comfortable judging other people without being in their exact situation. That's why I, for instance, could never make a stand on an issue like abortion (no I do NOT intend to start that conversation here, lol!)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Good point, Cynthia. I am trying my best not to judge them.
I do think that it is possible to believe that a certain act or behavior is immoral without judging the individual. Like believing that pre-marital or extra-marital sex is wrong without judging those who participate in it. We must love these people the same as we love anyone. No favoritism, no unkind thoughts. What would be the reason for unkind thoughts? Maybe if we envied them somehow.... I can't think of any good reason.
I might think unkind thoughts if the person's actions were *hurting* someone, like spouse or child abuse, rape, murder, pedophelia, etc....
[ August 04, 2004, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't know what Karl and Telp's experiences were when they came to realize their identity.
I asked my buddy about it and he said he was always confused - he knew something was different, but he never really knew what. Until he was able to put a label to it and understand what he was feeling.
Most of his gay peer group have been with a woman at least once - trying to convince themselves they were straight. Or at least trying to live the lifestyle.
This is my best friend in the world and frankly I get enraged when self-righteous, bible-thumping...ahem...people tell him he's going to Hell. For what? Being born the way he was?
Maybe God has a plan - maybe we as flawed, imperfect creatures are incapable of understanding that plan. It is reasonable to assume I cannot fathom His purpose in this.
But if my friend is damned to Hell for being gay, Heaven isn't worth being in. I'll spare you, gentle reader, from the rest of my invective.
-Trevor
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think Bev's 3rd post above is spot on, and is mostly how I took MPH's original response to my question. I knew when I phrased the question that I was opening the floor to potentially hurtful expressions. Part of the point of my question, though, was to put some humanity behind all this faceless "them" we all seem to be talking about.
As for MPH's response, specifically, I found no offense at all. As a Mormon, he must feel at some level that I am a lost sheep, and as all good Mormons are taught, one must at least hope a lost sheep returns to the fold, even if one doesn't take it upon oneself to actively go reclaim a particular lost sheep. His response is the response I'd expect (and respect) from any Mormon (or indeed anyone who believes they know the road to happiness and have charity enough to want that road universally known.) This is my own personal quandary when it comes to religious attitudes. I know the "other side" and have to respect it even if I don't agree.
However, I don't buy the "well, not you specifically, but all those other gays who fit my stereotype" response (which I am not attributing to any specific individuals, but have seen expressed in this forum). When people spout off about gays and then say, "Well, not you of course", I get this mental image of a refined white woman talking about "those lazy, no good negroes" in front of her black housekeeper, then turning to her and saying "Oh, you know I don't mean you dear. You're not one of those negroes." The sentiments seem to be nearly exactly the same.
So, I have absolutely no problem with people holding whatever religious beliefs they want to hold. However, I think that the issues of gay rights should be decided on purely secular moral grounds. I think it is wrong and against our American ideals to force discriminatory legislation and even constitutional ammendments through our state's and/or national governments regardless of a person's religious beliefs. I understand that many will act and vote according to their religious beliefs, but we do not live in a theocracy and it behooves us all to remember that and act accordingly. So if your God tells you I'm going to hell or that my choices are immoral, by all means believe as your heart tells you. But when it comes to doing something about me, "God says so" just doesn't wash in a free society.
That said, the only secular point even seriously proffered by the anti-gay rights side of the various discussions on this board is that increasing tolerance of homosexuals might be damanging to society because removing the stigma from homosexuality will cause more people to become gay. This is the arguement that I would like to see debated because: 1. The proposition itself is very debatable. 2. It begs the question as to whether this is even a bad thing and why.
But maybe that should go in another thread.
[ August 05, 2004, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I also think that 'gay rights' issues (for lack of a better term) should be decided on purely secular grounds, as far as government is concerned. This does not mean I think voters or policy-makers should cast aside their religion or ideological beliefs when voting or making policy, just that if they have a belief, they should then find a purely secular justification for strengthening that belief into law.
Aside from the intolerance and second-class citizenship a constitutional ban would mean (edit: I should say, "Would codify," since the second-class citizenship and intolerance is already, obviously, there), this is one of my biggest beefs with those who oppose legalizing gay marriage. Don't you (those who oppose it) understand that God doesn't want you to decide for someone else? And that if you're going to, there had better be a more down-to-earth reason than, "God says so."?
Anyway. It seems clear to me that there is only one argument, really, that can be made on purely secular grounds as to why homosexuality should be restricted or frowned-upon or marriage for gays should not be permitted. That argument is that the couples involved (and children, if they adopt or otherwise parent somehow) are going to have a very rough time in society.
I get the same vibe about justifications for opposing gay marriage and 'the gay community' (hah) in general as I did from a film I haven't seen in awhile, Losing Isaiah. In that film, for those who haven't seen it, a drug-addicted black woman leaves her newborn in a trash can or a dumpster to go score some more drugs. The child is found, and finds its way into the adoption system where ultimately Isaiah is adopted by a white husband and wife, with another child of their own.
The biological mother cleans up, tracks down Isaiah, and takes the couple to court over the issue. She wants her baby back, the white couple says you abandonded her, etc. It's been awhile, but if memory serves, the real argument made in court was, "A white couple cannot raise a black baby. The black child's life will be too hard, therefore it's best if the child is with a racially-similar parent."
I have never seen statistics, studies, or even politically neutral personal accounts that lead me to believe homosexuals are more likely to be violent, rude, ignorant, sick, poor parents, or any other undesireable adjective or noun...except that they are homosexuals, which is for many enough of an undesireable that the search for others doesn't really have much intensity.
Until remotely definitive evidence can be found that homosexuals are not just as capable of making a good marriage or being good parents or being good citizen-soldier or all three, I see no reason to bar them from doing so. It goes against the secular philosophy of America to do so. It takes away a right without any sort of proof.
Of course, I'm quite the hypocrite. I have a personal squick factor when it comes to the second two categories, even though I should not and hope that, if faced personally with such situations, I would behave with and treat the people involved with dignity and respect. But I won't know till it happens.
[ August 05, 2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: But if my friend is damned to Hell for being gay, Heaven isn't worth being in.
I hate to speak for anyone else, but I honestly don't know anyone who thinks that a person would be damned to Hell just because they're gay. There must be people like that out there, because your friend obviously had some bad experiences, but I don't know/hang out with people like that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
They're out there, PSI. But like racism, people have a feel for who they can comfortably say things like that around.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Many (and I say A LOT) people think a person is damned to hell for being homosexual. It's true in Brazil, in the U.S. and every country I can think right now.
Posted by from Cythera (Member # 6749) on :
More specifically, there was this new girl in my office that I started to become very close with. She was so sweet and considerate and we had a ton of fun together. One day we were driving to Tampa to go see an art exhibit, and she tells me in the same tone she would use to ask me to pass the salt that I am going to Hell because I'm not Catholic...(and my mother is Pagan so I'm doubly damned! haha) I asked her if she was really serious, and she said absolutely, and so are homosexuals, Jews, and other religions. It was rather odd to sit in that car with someone who just told me she honestly believes I'm going to Hell, but she couldn't see why it bothered me.
So people like that really do exist.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
You know Karl, everything you said in that last post of yours is exactly why I could not in good conscience support legislation banning gay marriages or constitutional ammendments. As much as I believe my beliefs to be those that will lead to greatest happiness, I know that I cannot expect for everyone to share those beliefs.
As for your earlier question about what should be "done" about you, I don't think anything should be "done" about you, except maybe get you a job in Arizona so I could get to know you better because I think you're dang cool.
[ August 05, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
The nice thing about the prospect of everyone who isn't Christian being automatically damned to hell is that there'd be some pretty good company. In fact, it'd be pretty much exactly the same as Earth except without the preachy holier-than-thou types. In a sense, everyone wins!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It was rather odd to sit in that car with someone who just told me she honestly believes I'm going to Hell, but she couldn't see why it bothered me."
For a few years, back in college, I owned a T-shirt that said: "Does it bother you that I'm going to Hell?" The reactions were many and varied.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, you'll just hafta deal with the wrong holier-than-thou types, BtL .
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Such as... (hey! I'm curious! I like funny T-Shirts!)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I've posted before my reasons for leaving the LDS church as well as my experiences in realizing my identity. That was years ago, so maybe it bears repeating now, since a couple of people mentioned it above.
The earliest sexual stirrings I can remember that involved anyone other than myself involved other guys. Most of this was unspecific sexual attraction and of course in the beginning I wouldn't have know what to do with a guy in bed even if I'd had the chance, and it wouldn't have mattered anyway because even self masturbation was considered sinful, even to myself.
My family life was very stressful growing up. My parents argued and fought a lot. We were an active Mormon family, and I was pretty devoutly Mormon, myself, but my family's inability to put into practice at home what was professed at church often left me stressed and depressed. I believed in the LDS doctrines and I understood them better than many of the adults I knew. In the beginning, I had a child's faith that they were true (but then again a child will believe nearly anything you teach him, especially if you, yourself, believe it is true). As a teenager, attending seminary and preparing to be a missionary, I desperately wanted that "burning in the bosom" that everyone said gave them knowledge of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and other Mormon doctrines. I could never get that, and often wondered why. My testimony was of the "if Christianity is true, then the Mormon church is the true church because it is the only one that makes sense to me." (And I had studied the doctrines of other churches as well).
I always wanted to go on a mission for the church. The two biggest problems I saw in myself that might prevent that were recurring lapses in my determination to not masturbate, and my lack of anything I could recognize as a firm testimony of the truth of the LDS church. I believed it all, truely, and it made sense to me, and I hoped it were all true, but I always asked myself if I thought I would have become LDS had I not been born to LDS parents.
As for sexuality, I didn't consider myself gay. I had heard, and thought resonable at the time, that there really were no gay people, just people who were tempted by Satan into perversion. Personally, I was so intent on trying not to masturbate, that I didn't even dwell on the objects of my desire. I was so repressed that when it happened, the release itself was enough. I dated girls some, but mostly went on group dates (as LDS youth are encourage to do), and I was the model chaste young man on the single dates I went on. I recognize now, that this was easy for me precisely because I never felt any sexual attraction for any of the girls I dated.
At any rate, by the time I went on my mission, I hadn't masturbated in nearly a year. I had had wet-dreams and some had involved homosexual fantasies, but I told myself that this was just temptation from the devil, and tried all the harder to suppress any such tendencies. I had spoken to my bishop about my percieved lack of a real testimony, and he told me that I knew the doctrines and believed them, and understood them and maybe the reason I hadn't received a "burning in the bosom" type experience is because one was not necessary for me. I was already converted. That got me through my mission. In retrospect, it was probably a stroke of luck (for my mormon-ness) that I was sent to Brazil. From my American perspective the people I came to know there really needed the things I was giving them, and true or not, following the LDS teachings did make their lives better as far as I could see. But I was seeing a world dominated by the Catholic Church, and while it was a deeply ingrained part of their culture, it seemed to have little bearing on their daily lives. Had I been sent to an area state-side, where I believe I would have encountered more people dynamically living non-LDS forms of Christianity and more inclined to dogmatically defend them, my own crisis of faith might have come to a head sooner.
Throughout this time I was pretty much in love with several of my missionary companions, though I wouldn't have recognized it as such then. I did know that I felt things for them that were beyond what most of the other guys felt for each other. I spent years trying to reconcile what I felt (and felt was good) with what I came increasingly to recognize was strongly homosexual as well. I joined the Air Force after my mission, still struggling with homosexual thoughts, still occasionally dating girls and never even being tempted to coax them beyond hand-holding, but mostly being hopelessly in celebate love with a series of really great guys I met. I looking back I was sooooo gay, I wonder now why it wasn't as obvious to me as it was to some other people I knew.
Anyway, at 25, still a virgin, now undeniably unattracted to women, and undeniably deeply attracted to men, it was increasingly difficult to fit in at church. It became harder and harder to relate to people emotionally, and some very uncharitable members of the church openly began questioning my sexuality. It became a theological imperative that I know that the LDS church was true because I was so miserable I was contemplating suicide. I did experience the struggle of faith. I did pray fervently and deeply and even desperately for the strength to do what I though was God's will. I didn't feel anything. I was beginning to pass the point where "Keep knocking, God is testing your desire to know" made any sense to me. At the lowest point of my life I reached out with all my heart, might, mind and strength . . . and found no one there. From that point forward I began increasingly to see the world through agnostic eyes and was surprised to find that it wasn't a dark and dreary place. I was even more surprised to find that I no longer felt lost and alone. The world seemed much brighter and made much more sense to me. Freed from the restraints of my former religion, I was able to explore my self more fully as well as the sexual side of myself.
There are those who believe that I left the LDS church to "be gay". I believe that it was the undeniable nature of my sexuality that helped me to open my eyes and see the world more clearly. It gave me the strength to accept that there is no God at least in terms of current popular notions of what God is. And maybe it's just conceit on my part, but I'm more me now that I ever was before and I think my small corner of the universe is better because of that.
I appreciate the sentiments behind those who feel sad for my "loss" of faith, but from my perspective it isn't a loss. And for me there is no going back that I can see. I am spiritually at peace with myself. I have taken the challenges of James and of Moroni and have found them lacking. I may still seek Truth, but I no longer seek God. And I am OK with that.
YMMV, KarlEd
[ August 05, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I have never seen statistics, studies, or even politically neutral personal accounts that lead me to believe homosexuals are more likely to be violent, rude, ignorant, sick, poor parents, or any other undesireable adjective or noun...except that they are homosexuals, which is for many enough of an undesireable that the search for others doesn't really have much intensity.
I certainly don't believe that homosexuals would be worse parents. In fact, I think they are far more likely to be compassionate and understanding. It is those who have suffered persecution that know how to succor the wounds in others.
My hesitancy only lies with young children and their own developing sexuality. Now, it is difficult for me to admit this because of the pain or questioning it may cause to Porter (I remember the pain something similar caused me), but I honestly believe that if I were raised under slightly different circumstances, I would consider myself bisexual or even fully homosexual.
You see, all growing up, I was not attracted to guys. Certainly not masculine guys. The only ones I was attracted to at all were *very* effeminite. My friends thought I was weird. Well, I thought they were weird for liking those rough, mean boys. I remember asking my mom what made boys like girls and girls like boys because I just didn't seem to feel it. Many if not most of my erotic fantasies revolved around the female physique. I just always thought I was weird or twisted.
The word "lesbian" never crossed my mind because I didn't know what that meant. And even so, I would not have admitted it to myself because of how I personally felt and believed about marriage being crucial to eternal happiness and only being between man and woman.
Many homosexuals report similar experiences growing up. And yet today I am happily married to a fairly masculine man to whom I am attracted. Why is that? Because sexuality *is* such a complicated thing. Because we are attracted to whom we are attracted to, and a lot of that is who the person is and what we choose. More so than we may realize.
I still have erotic dreams every so often that feature a female. It used to bother me. I don't let it anymore. I have come to peace with the fact that I am "naturally" that way. I haven't talked about it with others much, though, certainly not family and friends IRL. I don't see a reason to. I don't think they would understand.
But this greatly effects my outlook and my feelings about homosexuality and the struggle that it is for some people. I do want to understand better what they suffer and how I can be sensitive to their needs.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'll point out that dream symbolism is rarely as straight-forward, if you'll forgive the pun, as that.
As to the concern regarding children being confused about their sexual identity - that's entirely possible. But homosexual parents would face the additional burden of explaining alternate families -> by comparison, heterosexual families assume themselves to be the default with no explanation required.
And let's face it - parents can upset your basic psychological well being without ever bringing your sexuality into play. Just ask any therapist.
-Trevor
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Oh, yeah... (*is taking teraphy)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
From my own personal experience, it seems that these dreams are almost certainly the results of sexual desires I otherwise ignore. Especially when I take an honest look at the conscious thoughts I found erotic as a teenager (and beyond).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I think that the issues of gay rights should be decided on purely secular moral grounds.
I have discovered that I cannot effectively discuss this issue on in a purely secular moral manner, because that's not where my views stem from. I have views, opinions, and beliefs that I cannot (yet) fully support in a secular manner. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I understand that, Bev. I grew up deeply unattracted to "masculine" men because of the serious problems I've had with male authority figures, at least that's what I think. (That's a topic for a landmark, seriously.) I used to wonder if I'd ever like a real "man" the way that women in movies did. I found the gruffness and macho-ness to be weird and kinda gross. I didn't realize it, but I was rebelling against what I saw as a controlling male figure. As it turned out, I fell in love with Jesse and I'm very happy. He's a gentle leader who gives helpful suggestions rather than orders. He never tries to tell me what I "should have done". He doesn't fit the "normal" profile of a "masculine" dude. He hates sports, beer, fighting or roughhousing, or even a good-natured punch on the arm. He's disgusted by the female figure that's whored out by the media. I realize that these things don't apply to all men, but at the time I thought that they did.
I could have easily become discouraged by my lack of interest in men. I understood what it was to be a lesbian, but I wasn't particularly interested in women, either. I hung in a balance. Imagine how my life could have gone another way if I had had homosexuality demonstrated around me rather than heterosexuality. (Although I must admit, I didn't want a relationship like my parents had. >_<)
Anyway, after falling in love with Jesse, I realized that there are different ways to be masculine. He's actually very masculine in all the ways that really count, in my opinion. And I feel like he's a better husband for it...at least, a better husband to me.
At any rate, on the spectrum of gender, I probably fall just on the feminine side of the center. I probably could have gone either way depending upon social influences.
On a side note, I wonder if extremely feminine women tend to seek extremely masculine men as a balance, and vice versa. *shrug*
Oh, and BTW, Bev, I think that MOST adolescents have erotic thoughts that stray from the path that they end up following as adults. I always felt that it was just sexuality gone haywire, like you have to learn to deal with because it's so powerful. Just my take on it, I could be wrong.
[ August 05, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My thanks for again sharing your experiences, KarlEd Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't know why it is, but on this thread most of the times KarlEd posts I am busy composing a post of my own, and so while my post comes right after his, I haven't seen what he said. It makes it look like I am directly responding to what he said in the previous post, but I am not.
Sorry 'bout that, dude.
And thanks for sharing that. I appreciate the opportunity to understand you better.
PSI, thank you. It is nice to feel understood. I thought I was such a freak all growing up and it felt so very lonely. I think it is cute how you talk about being in love with Jesus and how close your husband's name is to His.
I think adolescence, and childhood, since my sexual feelings started long before my puberty, are confusing times. We are so easily shaped by little things. We don't even realize how much. It should not be discounted or taken too lightly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Karl -- would you mind sharing when and where you served your mission in Brasil?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Bev: LOL! In youth group people used to call Jesse "the Jesus dude" because he was such a strong character and wore long, curly hair.
[ August 05, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
1986-1988 Brasil Campinas Mission.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's very close to where I served. I was in Parana, '93-'95. In fact, some of the places I served (Umuarama, Cascavell, Toledo) are, I believe, part of the current Campinas mission.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Those places were probably opened after I left. I don't remember them. I served in Aracatuby, Tupa, Birigui, Marilia, Jundiai, and a suburb of Campinas itself whose name escapes me at the moment. Small world.
I think female sexuality is very different from male sexuality. I don't know if women are more likely to have bi-sexual feelings, or if they are just more willing to express them and/or act on them than men are. There also seems to be more of a political component among lesbians (probably because it ties well with the women's rights movement) than there is with gay men. I think it is partly because of these differences that there remains a gay/lesbian designation as opposed to calling us all "gay".
Posted by from Cythera (Member # 6749) on :
Beverly, I understand what you were saying about the feminine physique. Earlier in other threads you mention drawing and being an artist. I love to draw as well, and figure drawing is my specialty. I always, as well as others in my classes, agree that the female figure is absolutely beautiful in all forms and is the preferred one when we draw. Women are enchanting, we can't help it!
Karl, you are one of the most beautiful people I've seen write about this topic.
[ August 05, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: from Cythera ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks, y'all.
Cynth, I totally know what you mean about drawing the human figure. It is *so* beautiful!!
Is it OK for me to snicker at the fact that I am more attracted to females than KarlEd is? I think that's kinda funny. When I am shopping for sexy lingerie, I have to consciously ignore the fact that the images are turning me on....
I think the development happened something like this: the stage was all set for me to be attracted to females and not males. But to my conscious brain, that was not an option. So for awhile I went forward with attraction to females and zero for males while the girls around me were developing normal crushes on boys. I pretended to have crushes on boys just to fit in. But I was lying to them and myself.
Then I discovered that there were a few boys/men effeminite enough for me to be attracted to. Boy, did I latch on to that! I thought, this was what I was waiting for! I could finally join normal society of girls swooning over guys.
I didn't really question why I only liked effeminite boys, I just figured I was weird. My landmark follows my gradual moving from more effeminite to slightly less effeminite. Porter, my husband, is the most masculine of all the males I have been involved with.
It was he that really converted me to tallness and hairyness. Yummy! (Well, "Icthius" was tall too, but we won't discuss him converting me to anything....)
[ August 05, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KarlEd, I think that there are definite and significant differences in the sex drives of the men and women on average that cause them to respond differently to same-gender attraction. Males tend to need sex in a very physical way in addition to other ways. Females, not so much. The triggers for sexual desire in men tend to be more physical. For females, not so much. So men may be much more specific on what turns them on and off sexually. It may be easier for females to be bi-sexual whereas males are more likely to be either heterosexual or homosexual, more "black and white".
I don't know, though. I am just thinking aloud and throwing out theories as they come to me.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
My pet theory runs along these lines:
Society has specified gender roles. Men are aggressive, confrontational, direct - strong. Logical, rational - although we confuse this for not being emotional. Just because you don't show emotion in no way reflects your ability to think.
Women are soft, subtle, indirect - weak. Emotional.
Based on these stereotpyes or perceived gender roles, Men view their masculinity like so. In being soft or subtle or showing emotion beyond anger, we feel ourselves becoming less masculine. And if you're not one, you're the other - in this case, a woman.
The same thing happens to women - for a long time, women couldn't play sports or be aggressive without being accused of "wanting to be a man" or just being a bitch. Whereas, as many of you have noted, these qualities are applauded and encouraged in men.
Now, throw homosexuality in the mix. A gay man knows he's not attracted to women, which is a fundamental element of masculinity. He is attracted to other men, so he subconsciously adopts his perceived traits of women because he feels himself not to be a man and he only has one other option open to him.
Reverse this chain of thinking for lesbians and it still functions, more or less.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
And yet it seems to me that a lot of the men that find themselves to be homosexual later started out being more "soft and sensitive" than the average little boy to begin with. From birth on. I know this isn't always the case, but it happens a lot. It has been my observation. Thus leading me to my personal theory that a lot of males feel that they are not very good at "being" male and therefore identify more with females. Whether this leads to them being attracted to males rather than females, I cannot say. It may be that whatever caused them to be "softer" in the first place also caused the tendancy to same-sex attraction. Certainly there are plenty of "manly men" who experience same-sex attraction as well. It is so difficult to prove causality. I know of no studies done on this, I can only call up my own experiences.
I think of my first love, who later confessed to being bi-sexual. He was very slight and short, sensitive, all of those things. I think he felt very unmasculine and because of it developed a deep admiration for masculinity, a desire to "mate" with it so to speak, make it a part of him.
I noticed when I would "dress up" in a way that flattered my feminine figure, he would start acting more "masculine" around me--in a good way. You know, all romantic, gentlemanly, and chivilrous. And I responded to it positively. I loved that I had that effect on him, a sort of "power" over him. He was not unresponsive to the female figure as many homosexual men seem to be.
But, alas, we separated and after me he has chosen male companionship since. It makes me sad because I know that deep down he wanted to be masculine, he wanted to be the center of a woman's desire. I could not be his woman because I had decided firmly that I would only marry someone of my own faith. I believed we had no future, and I think he sensed that. We grew apart. And to my knowledge, he hasn't been romantically involved with a female since.
I certainly did not become the tom-boy I was in response to my sexual orientation. I was way too young when such personality traits set in.
I do think that society is a lot more accepting of women doing manly things than it is of men being effeminite. But that seems to be slowly changing. (Thinks of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy")
[ August 05, 2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Now, throw homosexuality in the mix. A gay man knows he's not attracted to women, which is a fundamental element of masculinity. He is attracted to other men, so he subconsciously adopts his perceived traits of women because he feels himself not to be a man and he only has one other option open to him.
This runs contrary to my own experience. I know many homosexuals that don't have a single feminine trait about them. I know gay men who LOVE sports, cars, hunting, fishing, and who think "decorating" is something you only do a Christmas. My ex's current boyfriend has seasons tickets to the local football team. There is a whole subset of gay culture that caters to men who like masculine gay men.
My current boyfriend is shorter than I am and pretty svelte, but he doesn't have a single feminine mannerism. I don't think that I do either. This is good because neither of us are particularly attracted to nelly or swishy or effeminate men. I myself am 6'1", well over 230 lbs, somewhat hairy, and into "low maintenance" grooming. Most of my straight friends at work tell me that they would never have guessed I was gay if I didn't talk about my boyfriend like they talk about their wives/husbands.
As for interests, mine could be said to be in the less-than-masculine side. I love arts and crafts. I do beadwork. I did cross-stitch when I was 13-17. I love to garden. I hate team sports, and most pro-sports. But I like to hike and swim and play one on one type games.
In short, I've never felt myself to be a woman, or even particularly womanly. I love and respect women and can appreciate the female figure in an aesthetic sense, but I have never been attracted to it sexually.
quote: I think he felt very unmasculine and because of it developed a deep admiration for masculinity, a desire to "mate" with it so to speak, make it a part of him.
This sounds like it could have some merit. I understand the idealization of certain masculine traits. It doesn't seem un-plausible that your friend's sexuality was shaped in such a way, at least to some degree. I think it is dangerous to extrapolate individual experiences into general trends, though. I think homosexuality is a very broad spectrum that really only shares one thing in common and that is desire for the male form sexually. My boyfriend Chris, as I said above is physically pretty masculine despite his size. He is hairy and grows facial hair and has a nicely muscled body. But he is one of the most sensitive men I know. He likes to be cuddled. He's a sucker for sentimentality and romance. He's a bit of a kid, like I am. He loves video games, comic books, and sci-fi movies. In fact the only things particularly "feminine" about him are things that the world would be better off promoting more in men, i.e. his sensitivity, meekness, and kindness.
I'm rambling now, so I'll close and go hug my sweetie.
Oh, and thanks to everyone who said such nice things about me. I'm sure I come across better in print than I do IRL.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I think it is dangerous to extrapolate individual experiences into general trends, though. I think homosexuality is a very broad spectrum that really only shares one thing in common and that is desire for the male form sexually.
I agree. I am trying to understand more about homosexuality and individual cases so that I avoid making sweeping generalizations about homosexuals in general. That was one of the reasons why I started that thread "Ask the 22 Year Old Male Homosexual" (Or something like that. The thread appears to have gone the way of all the earth, unfortunately.) I had very little understanding based on my limited experience and wanted to understand more. I have appreciated the things I have learned here on Hatrack.
I think it is nearly impossible to really understand and perceive the trends of society. Society is too complex for studies to really reveal what is happening, and our anecdotal evidence can never be spread so systematically. All any of us can do is make an educated guess.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I'm sure I come across better in print than I do IRL."
Nope. You're still a doll in MeatSpace, too. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
One recent study showed that women have a generally lower and more "diffuse" response to sexually explicit video of opposite and same sex types, FWIW.
Also, in some contradiction with TM, it's been shown that there is somewhat of a decoupling between gender identity and sexual orientation. As an anecdote, there is a user on a board some Jatraqueros visit (arstechnica) which has as a prolific poster a literal "lesbian trapped in a man's body". This poster is a post-op transexual (male->female) in a committed (married Wiccan, I believe) lesbian relationship. How common this is I'm don't know, I'll admit.
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have heard of fairly common instances of male cross-dressers who are very much straight. They really enjoy dressing up like women. And they enjoy women too.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think my brush with bisexuality was more about being emotionally needy and angry with men. But I wouldn't have been so angry with men if it hadn't been for me being heterosexual. That's why I don't really gel with the idea that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is a hardwired thing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I've heard of that before, the anger with men and women turning to other women for those needs. But I don't think I have ever heard of it happening with men. Weird.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think that would be another gender difference between men and women.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Bok, I know of a similar case. A female friend dated a woman who later decided she was a gay man trapped in a woman's body. That woman has now transitioned into a masculine personna and has a boyfriend.
Every variation we could think of involving gender and sexuality exists in this world, and not uniquely.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The part I don't understand: why not just emphasize and promote commitment, enduring love, and responsibility to a relationship and to the people in it?
The only valid reason I can see for a society to condemn homosexuality is if the society is dangerously underpopulated, and that's hardly a problem here. I do see where society has an interest in promoting lifelong bonds since that strengthens the society. So why not speak out against promiscuity and irresponsible behavior, and reward those who would commit?
[ August 06, 2004, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Like I said Karl - just a pet theory. My buddy also defies the common stereotype and my pet theory. Not that it would apply to every possible person, but I'm pretty sure I was bored when I started conjecting.
As to the nurture/nature idea, I suspect both are valid. Some people are homosexual by birth (hardwired), some are by choice (social).
Granted, it's not a "mmm, I think I'd like pancakes this morning" kind of choice.
-Trevor
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
KarlEd wrote:
quote: What I'm asking is what is it about me as a homosexual that is a detriment to society at large? Why does something need to be done about about me at all? How is society diminished in the least if I continue my life as I am living it until the day I die?
KarlEd, (hi, long time no see)
You are basically (it seems) asking 'why is it an issue for me to just go about living my life, affecting noone except myself & my partner?'. I think if you want an honest or useful answer to the question you need to be honest enough to acknowledge that the gay agenda goes way beyond mere toleration of an alternative lifestyle.
So you 'just living as you choose to live' has come to mean the rest of society: - legalising same sex marriage - allowing gays to adopt children - giving gays access to infertility resources already under strain - change sex education in schools so that teachers must teach about homosexuality on an equal par with heterosexuality.
Now there are certainly some out there who do not feel that any of these changes would be detrimental to society. Others think they would. But there is no question that they would fundamentally alter the way society approaches marriage, adoption, and education. So sitting there shrugging your shoulders and saying, 'but I'm not affecting their lives...why do they care?' is just lame. Whether or not you agree with them, it should be easy for you to at least understand why those who feel strongly that the traditional definitions of marriage and family are the core of our social structure feel that there are important issues here to be addressed...to 'do something about' as you say.
On the personal side of things though, in regards to those who want to 'do something about you' in the sense of trying to find a way to make you straight, or encourage you to abandon your gay lifestyle, then my answer is that they have no right or reason to do any more than they would (or should) in regards to anyone who they think is committing a serious sin. They should: - educate them in the truth (this does not mean harrassing people every time you happen to be in their presence) - encourage their efforts towards righteousness - treat them like anyone else in other matters (eg a church authority might excommunicate someone for a serious sin, but that shouldn't change their right to vote, or their right to social security, etc) - allow them their free will - look to themselves and focus on perfecting themselves rather than pointing at other people
[ August 06, 2004, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: enjeeo ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I agree with your post - good points - but I'm not sure all of these follow:
- legalising same sex marriage
That's certainly the question on the table, but it's not the only outcome. There's still the civil union option.
- allowing gays to adopt children
Still don't understand why this is wrong, frankly, even if gays can't marry.
- giving gays access to infertility resources already under strain
Where did this come from? Haven't seen it mentioned as a problem before.
- change sex education in schools so that teachers must teach about homosexuality on an equal par with heterosexuality.
I see this as an exaggerated fear brought on by panicky religionists (bolstered by too-liberal activists who have suggested just that). If it mentions it at all, sex education should say that yes, a small percentage of humans tends to be homosexual, and leave it at that. No urging kids to try it out or anything. Sex ed should teach kids the biological aspect of sex honestly and truthfully, without pressing moral interpretations from either direction. That's how I think it should be taught now, legalizing gay marriage shouldn't change that.
I'm not picking your post apart here, these are the fears expressed by many others and they need to be addressed.
[ August 06, 2004, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Karl-- your local footbal team is the Ravens.
Rhymes with Mavens.
Ergo. . .
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Maven = expert (Yiddish) =
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, never mind.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Enjeeo,
I'll ditto what Chris said above and add a couple of things.
First, gays already have access to "already strained" fertility resources. I don't know of any fertility clinics that will refuse treatment to a woman if she is healthy and she can pay for it regardless of whether she's lesbian or straight. If you're talking about healthcare dollars being strained, you'd first have to convince the majority that any fertility treatments should be covered under normal health care at the expense of using those resources for life-threatening conditions. And as for gay men, all the fertility treatments in the world aren't going to help me get Chris pregnant, so you don't have to worry about me.
Secondly, all of your issues mentioned above boil down to the same arguement. Easing discriminatory practices against gays will diminish the stigma of homosexuality which will hurt society by making that lifestyle more attractive and turning our children into homosexuals.
Personally, I find this argument highly questionable. However, let's just assume for a moment that it is a valid concern. In what way is this different from arguing for legislation to ban all McDonald's advertising and relegate them to skid-row neighborhoods because they are making our children fat?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I have already stated what my concerns are. I am more concerned about the media's subtle and not-so-subtle messages, and peer pressure than I am about legislation or individual activities. Edit: Though I still am uncomfortable about homosexual parent rolemodels. Already talked about that.
But I think most of all, I am disturbed a the growing feeling of many that to believe homosexual relations are sinful is bigoted, hateful, and homophobic. That is the evil, hurtful stereotype that I personally am trying most to fight against, albeit with understanding and honesty rather than more hurting words. I think it is every bit as wrong as being prejudice against homosexuals because of hate or fear.
[ August 06, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, I've already stated my understanding of the religious point of view. However, if you look at it in terms of philosophy, if I am to understand and even accept your philosophy that states that my philosophy (which includes homsexuality) is sinful, should you not also be willing to endure the designation of your own demonstrably chosen philosophy as bigoted? (NOTE: I am not calling you a bigot. I do recognize, as you do, that there are those who would.)
In other words, what we have is a clash of philosophies. You can't expect one side to live with the negative opinions of the other side but not expect that side to reciprocate. If I can endure the label of sinner knowing in my heart that what I do is not sinful, can you not also endure the label of bigot secure in the self knowledge that you are not?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KarlEd, I try not to throw around those labels, and I expect the other side to do the same. If they think I am bigoted, then so be it. But if they think calling me a bigot is going to shame me into changing my mind, that is like me calling you a sinner and expecting it to shame you into changing your mind. Both approaches are silly, evil, and hurtful IMO.
Also, I should be expected to understand how in your and many others minds, you are doing nothing sinful at all. And those who honestly think I am bigoted should understand that this is based on something I hold sacred rather than hate or fear.
I am still not sure what I think of the word "bigot". Here is one definition:
Main Entry: big·ot Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices - big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective - big·ot·ed·ly adverb
Does this describe me? I am not sure that it does. Am I and my church bigoted against those who practice extra-marital sex?
Also, bigot seems to attack the person where as I am *only* concerned about behavior. Homosexual tendancies don't bother me. They happen. That's life.
[ August 06, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Your point is my point exactly. While you and I have this understanding, we both have those on our respective sides who do not and will not.
Dictionary definitions aside, the word bigot has come to mean "anyone who holds a negative opinion of a group" and seems to be used that way quite a bit. I disagree with this bastardization of the language but I don't know what one can do other than constantly state one's opinion. I do not think you are a bigot. I wouldn't expend a lot of energy worrying about name callers or trolls on this board, though, and I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over theoretical ones.
For the record, though we still disagree on some points, this has been, for me at least, one of the more productive and civil conversations on this topic and your concern about being understood correctly is one of the reasons why. Thanks.
[ August 06, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: For the record, though we still disagree on some points, this has been, for me at least, one of the more productive and civil conversations on this topic and your concern about being understood correctly is one of the reasons why. Thanks. [Smile]
Yay! Thanks KarlEd. I really want this discussion to benefit both sides. I believe so strongly that it is possible for people of very different views to nevertheless understand each other and find a way to live in harmony.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
- giving gays access to infertility resources already under strain Where did this come from? Haven't seen it mentioned as a problem before.
Chris, I do think people have mentioned this as a reason gay people need the right to marry. But I don't think it is . Though I did at one time propose that if adoption/childrearing were the main motive behind gay marriage, that some allowances should be made. I was specifically thinking of adoptions where the father of a child is unknown, that the bio father can't come back later and sue for parental rights.
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
Chris Bridges
Actually rather than picking my post apart you've just emphasised my point. Some people think these things would be detrimental, others do not see them as harmful to society at all. But they ARE issues that are on the table. All I was saying is that it is no longer enough to claim that you just want to left alone to live your life as you choose, because a significant percentage of the gay community want, and are actively seeking, much more than that. Please notice that I haven't said they don't have the right to do that...I merely said that KarlEd should acknowledge, in a discussion like this, that the matter isn't as simple as he was making it sound.
KarlEd wrote:
quote: Secondly, all of your issues mentioned above boil down to the same arguement. Easing discriminatory practices against gays will diminish the stigma of homosexuality which will hurt society by making that lifestyle more attractive and turning our children into homosexuals.
Actually that wasn't my argument at all. Given that statistically most gays have straight parents, I wouldn't make such a stupid argument. I don't think that legalising same sex marriage would make homosexual lifestyles more attractive. I think that media and movie/tv images certainly do, especially in the last five years, but that's an issue for a different thread.
Regarding your response re the various issues I listed, I can't answer for the US, but as a close friend to a lesbian lawyer who is deeply involved in the fight for such rights, I can assure you that lesbian women can only access reproductive services (in all but one state of Australia) if they are physically infertile. They are seeking to have things redefined so that sexual orientation is included as a reason for infertility, for the purpose of gaining access to these services. A Senate committee is looking right now at the legal definition of marriage.
Just as with the women's movement, there IS an agenda, and it WILL fundamentally change things if it succeeds. Think that's bad? Fine. Think that's great? Fine. Just don't shrug it off and act like 'why does it hurt society to just give us a little space to live our lives in' because the issues run much deeper than that. And I don't believe you don't know that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I don't think that legalising same sex marriage would make homosexual lifestyles more attractive. I think that media and movie/tv images certainly do, especially in the last five years, but that's an issue for a different thread.
Do you believe that media has a bigger influence on kids than their family does?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The media doesn't just influence children.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Actually that wasn't my argument at all. Given that statistically most gays have straight parents, I wouldn't make such a stupid argument.
No, but it was my argument, and I don't think it is stupid. Most parents are straight, so it makes sense that most homosexual individuals come from straight parents. Just like most congenitally deaf children come from hearing parents. But deaf parents have a higher percentage of deaf children than hearing parents do because they are more likely to pass on deafness genetically. At least that is my understanding. I could be wrong....
But I do believe that children are very impressionable and that homosexual parental role models do have an effect, however slight, on a child's own sexual orientation. I can't prove it, though, and I don't know of any studies done on the subject. There may not be enough homosexual parental couples in order to do a proper study. I say it because of my own personal life experiences. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:But I do believe that children are very impressionable and that homosexual parental role models do have an effect, however slight, on a child's own sexual orientation. I can't prove it, though, and I don't know of any studies done on the subject. There may not be enough homosexual parental couples in order to do a proper study. I say it because of my own personal life experiences.
I'm sure that's true, just as heterosexual parents have an effect on their children's sexual orientation even if they eventually turn out to be gay. This begs the question, though, of whether this is something to fear and if it justifies curtailing the rights of homosexuals and/or promulgating homosexuality as a negative. I doubt many gay parents would try to force homosexuality on their children. I imagine that gay parents would be just a joyful at the prospect of progeny as straight parents are.
Enjeeo wrote:
quote:All I was saying is that it is no longer enough to claim that you just want to left alone to live your life as you choose, because a significant percentage of the gay community want, and are actively seeking, much more than that.
What "much more" than that are we actively seeking? What do we want that isn't a right/priviledge that other Americans enjoy?
quote:Just as with the women's movement, there IS an agenda, and it WILL fundamentally change things if it succeeds. Think that's bad? Fine. Think that's great? Fine. Just don't shrug it off and act like 'why does it hurt society to just give us a little space to live our lives in' because the issues run much deeper than that. And I don't believe you don't know that.
What is this agenda, and what parts of it have I shrugged off? Why all this hinting?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:But I do believe that children are very impressionable and that homosexual parental role models do have an effect, however slight, on a child's own sexual orientation.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
It might change behavior, but now how someone is hardwired. For instance watching straight couples/parents/etc it might make a gay person act straight too, but they still will be attracted to the same sex. And a more tolerant society will make homosexuality more "attractive" only to those peeps who are still in the closet who want to come out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Enjeeo is correct, legalizing homosexual marriage / civil-union and homosexual parenting / adoption would have a major impact on society. So too would one because it would obviously soon lead to the other.
But I really don't think that's relevant at all. The issue is still, to my mind, "Can you convincingly demonstrate, without religious arguments, why homosexuality should be stigmatized in any way by the government?" If the answer to that question is 'no', then all such stigmas and barriers homosexual couples face that heterosexual couples do not should be removed.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm sure this has been answered several times but I still have to ask because I don't know the answer. Is there a "right to marriage" provided in the Constitution?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Explicitly? Certainly not. Implicitly? Who knows. The Constitution specifies that just because a right is not enumerated within does not mean it does not exist, which opens the situation up to just about anything.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: This begs the question, though, of whether this is something to fear and if it justifies curtailing the rights of homosexuals and/or promulgating homosexuality as a negative. I doubt many gay parents would try to force homosexuality on their children. I imagine that gay parents would be just a joyful at the prospect of progeny as straight parents are.
My thoughts on this. First, yes it does beg the question, I agree. And I do ask myself that. I also doubt that many gay parents would try to force homosexuality on their kids. I honestly don't think they would.
But I imagine it would please them (assuming the child is the same gender as them), they would be proud of it, just as a heterosexual is proud of their child finding love with the opposite sex. I think there is a certain "bond" we feel with our children when we have something so fundamental in common. It is far from being a conscious thing, but subconscious things are hard to "fight", especially when a person sees little reason to fight.
Like, for example, the way parents gently imprint gender roles on their children without even realizing it even if they believe gender roles are to be avoided.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It might change behavior, but now how someone is hardwired. For instance watching straight couples/parents/etc it might make a gay person act straight too, but they still will be attracted to the same sex. And a more tolerant society will make homosexuality more "attractive" only to those peeps who are still in the closet who want to come out.
It is my own life that causes me to feel as I do on this matter. I personally believe a lot more people have homosexual tendancies than we realize (though such people may still also be attracted to the opposite sex). I think that sexual orientation is very complicated and is somewhat "fluid" in our young years. By the time we have become adults, it is pretty fixed in place though. That is just how it seems to me. It would be difficult to get me to believe otherwise given my own story.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: "Can you convincingly demonstrate, without religious arguments, why homosexuality should be stigmatized in any way by the government?"
You know, I don't think I can. I don't think I have ever even tried to. But that doesn't mean I am not slightly concerned over the matter. It doesn't keep me up at nights, though. I know the world is changing, and I try to look at the positive sides of those changes, do my best, raise my family the way I think it ought to be done, and share my ideas with all kinds of people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: If the answer to that question is 'no', then all such stigmas and barriers homosexual couples face that heterosexual couples do not should be removed.
It sounds to me like you are saying that if something cannot be proven legally, it shouldn't affect people's attitudes? There are many things that are completely legal that are not considered socially acceptable. Are you saying that because it's legal, everybody should be OK with it?
For example, misleading advertisements or buisness practices that don't cross the line into outright deception. It it perfectly legal, but if I am caught by that, it will cheese me off, and I will definitely lay a stigma on it. I will tell my friends how I feel I was ripped off. If the subject ever comes up, I'll tell people that I am a dissatisfied customer and that they should take their buisness elsewhere.
The legality of something does not have much bearing on whether people thing it is correct/proper/correct/right. Just because something is legal means it is permissable, but not necessarily acceptable. Stigmas come from our own personal feelings about how people should act. You could you even begin to remove all stigma from something as divisive as homosexual marriage?
Or did I totally misunderstand your use of the word stigma?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think it is clear from his phrasing that he is talking about governmentally imposed or promulgated stigmas and not social ones. Personally, I think that removal of the governmental obstacles is all gays can demand. I agree that you can't "remove" a stigma that is societally imposed even if something is technically legal. But again I don't think that is the stigma he is talking about.
Ironically, though, the social stigmas seem to be falling away on their own. I can see a much more accepting attitude for homosexuals in general today than even 10 years ago when I came out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK, that makes sense. I've just never seen the word stigma used in that way.
And yeah, I agree that the social stigma is largely falling away. But I don't think it will be completely gone in my lifetime or yours.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Porter,
Yeah, I meant it like Karl said-governmental 'stigma'. I just looked it up, and it appears to me at least that the word could be used like that-certainly barring homosexuals from marriage and adoption is a means of reproach and disapproval-but it's not the commonly used word. My bad *blush*
J4
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
No, I'm sure it won't. And it may never be completely gone, but I can live with that. [edit to remove comment that might be misconstrued as snarky]
[ August 09, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I've always considered that once a primarily religious ceremony was recognized in a court of law and given legal standing as a recognized institution, it could not be legally denied to interested parties.
Now, if every marriage became a religious ceremony and the underlying "union" was listed as a "civil union", that would be another matter entirely.
Nothing dictates who a Church can or cannot marry - arguably, a religious institution could possibly be the last bastion of legally defendable racism and sexism. Until the cog of justice turns and everything changes.
-Trevor
Posted by School4ever (Member # 5575) on :
I just wanted to say from the viewpoint of an infertile person, that resources for infertile people don't seem to be strained. My own resources are strained, but I don't think infertility resources in general are strained.
I know this has little to do with the topic at hand, but the comment baffled me.
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
quote: What "much more" than that are we actively seeking? What do we want that isn't a right/priviledge that other Americans enjoy?
You are referring to two different things here. The 'much more' I was referring to was 'much more than just being left alone'. The 'much more' you are using here is designed to imply that I have claimed that gays want to have 'much more' in the way of rights than they should expect, and you've emphasised that with your second sentence.
You know missing my point is one thing, but putting words in my mouth is quite another.
quote: What is this agenda, and what parts of it have I shrugged off? Why all this hinting?
I already stated the agenda, you shrugged it off by pretending now that I haven't, and I haven't 'hinted' at anything. I stated it all clearly.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Enjeeo, I hope this thread isn't taking a snarky turn. This is the second time at least in this thread where you've implied I am being disingenuous. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are missing my point even though I could claim your first post put words in my mouth. Rather than imply disingenuousness on your part, however, I chose to address your points. Perhaps I did so imperfectly or perhaps I did miss your point, but I have been nothing but honest in my replies so far.
I've never claimed that "all I want is to be left alone". I've always stated that I was in favor of major changes in the way laws are unfairly applied in this country to exclude gays from what I believe are basic rights straights enjoy. Therefore, my "What 'much more'. . .?" question wasn't referring to being left alone, but to wanting the same legal standing as straight people.
I guess the misunderstanding is from you minimalizing (and therefore misrepresenting - perhaps innocently) my point. To be clear, my contention isn't that I want to be "left alone". I want homosexuals to be able to enjoy the same freedoms/priviledges/rights legally that the goverment extends to straight people. I want gay couples to be legally recognized and to have the same rights/priviledges/freedoms as straight married couples do. Is this the "agenda" you are referring to? If so, then we are guilty as charged.
Of the four points you mentioned above, the only real quibbles I have are: 1.) Your designation of "already strained" for the infertility resources in this country. I stated that and you chose to ignore my point. 2.) Your claim about changing sex education. If you mean teaching that some people are gay and this is as valid for them as being straight is for the majority, I agree that this is part of the "agenda". If you are implying some conspiracy to teach kids there are no differences between the two and that they should check out homosexuality to see if they like it (as some have stated), then I disagree.
I apologize in advance if this sounds terse, but your last post seems confrontational and implies dishonesty on my part. I think that is unwarranted. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood or misrepresented your views. Perhaps, in light of what I've wrote, you could re-state your points.
[ August 10, 2004, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
This is a very interesting discussion. I have a question for enjeeo and anyone else who agree with her that "there is no question that [the changes advocated by the gay agenda] would fundamentally alter the way society approaches marriage, adoption, and education." When you say this, do you speak only about the obvious fact that these instution now will accomodate homosexuals or do you imagine that the changes somehow also would fundamentally affect the heterosexual society's enjoyment of these institutions? Because if you mean the former a convincing argument could be made that granting homosexuals equal access here is, in fact, only letting them go on with their lives affecting no one but themselves; if you mean the latter, it begs the question exactly what these effects are and how they would be detrimental to society.
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
quote: What I'm asking is what is it about me as a homosexual that is a detriment to society at large? Why does something need to be done about about me at all? How is society diminished in the least if I continue my life as I am living it until the day I die?
KarlEd
This is the post I was referring to in the first place. The only point I was making was that the question of how homosexuality is detrimental to society (in some people's eyes) is a much more wide-ranging discussion than you continuing to live your life as you choose. It's like asking your reluctunt dad for the car keys and saying, 'how's it going to hurt the car to have me sitting in it?' when really you know that your dad is more concerned about the fact that you've expressed a desire to take it over to your friend's house and paint it a different colour and modify the engine.
The issues I listed were not my issues. They were examples of some of the wider-ranging issues that come up.
In regards to the 'resources under strain' comment, I didn't ignore it. I commented on the situation in Australia and in my mind I guess I felt like it was clear that the reason women can't get access to these resources unless they are physically infertile is because of the waiting lists, etc (ie strained resources). It wasn't stated specifically, sorry about that. Sometimes you need someone else to read something before you realise that it didn't read as you thought it did.
Sorry if I got annoyed. I made this one and only point, only to find myself writing the next three posts about points I hadn't made and didn't want to make, because I happened to use them as examples of something else. But it's not worth getting annoyed over. It's the nature of discussion boards. Sorry.
For the record my stance on homosexuality is that gays should have exactly the same civil rights as everyone else, but that churches (as voluntary organisations that people choose to be members of) should retain the right to follow their doctrine (eg not being legally bound to recognise same sex marriages just as they are not legally bound to recognise de facto marriages). I want my friends to have the security of knowing that they can visit their partner in hospital (even if it's family only), or not have to go to court if their partner dies to retain custody of kids they have raised who happen to be biologically their partner's. These are things that they should not have to worry about.
Again, sorry if it got snarky. I didn't intentionally ignore anything you said. I'm sorry if I thought you intentionally ignored what I said. There are some things I haven't addressed but to be honest that's because I never wanted to in the first place. I don't want to waste time hashing out the whole sex ed debate when all I was saying was 'for example for some people the changes to sex education in schools is one of the wider issues'. Deciding what exactly those changes may or may not be is up to that group that see it as issue AND want to discuss it. Of course NOT clarifying what you mean with examples will also warrant criticism. Catch 22. Which is why I'm going to bow out now and go look for a topic I really feel like hashing over. Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
quote: When you say this, do you speak only about the obvious fact that these institutions now will accomodate homosexuals or do you imagine that the changes somehow also would fundamentally affect the heterosexual society's enjoyment of these institutions? Because if you mean the former a convincing argument could be made that granting homosexuals equal access here is, in fact, only letting them go on with their lives affecting no one but themselves; if you mean the latter, it begs the question exactly what these effects are and how they would be detrimental to society.
Tristan
Saw your question only after writing the post above, so here's an answer for you. Firstly, I don't agree with you that a convincing argument can be made that fundamentally changing the way society approaches (particularly in the legal sense) marriage, adoption and education amounts to nothing more that letting people get on with their lives affecting no-one. All such fundamental changes affect the whole of society. Giving women the vote affected more than women, ending slavery affected more than slaves and slave owners, introducing the concept (and fact) of a minimum wage affected more than low-end workers and their employers.
Secondly, it doesn't necessarily beg that question. You've given two possible outcomes. - the changes extend only to accomodating gays and nothing really changes for heterosexuals (as I've said above I don't agree this is possible) - the changes change things such that heterosexuals' enjoyment of these institutions is affected - and the question you say follows naturally implies that their enjoyment will be detrimentally affected. Forgive me if I misunderstood. But there's a third possibility you haven't listed. What if the changes enhance heterosexuals' enjoyment of these institutions?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thanks for that reply.
quote: For the record my stance on homosexuality is that gays should have exactly the same civil rights as everyone else, but that churches (as voluntary organisations that people choose to be members of) should retain the right to follow their doctrine (eg not being legally bound to recognise same sex marriages just as they are not legally bound to recognise de facto marriages). I want my friends to have the security of knowing that they can visit their partner in hospital (even if it's family only), or not have to go to court if their partner dies to retain custody of kids they have raised who happen to be biologically their partner's. These are things that they should not have to worry about.
It sounds like we have pretty much the same views on this. Maybe we could have avoided misunderstanding if I had clarified my own position better. The part you quoted above I explained in a follow up post as my attempt to put some humanity into the discussion. It bugs me a little that gay-related topics get discussed in such theoretical and clinical terms on this board as if it were an academic game when to some of us on the forum these questions shape our daily lives. I think that is forgotten quite a bit around here. It's easy to say that "gays are furthering the collapse of the family" (or society or whatever) but harder for some people to say "Karl is furthering the collapse of the family". But to me they are the same contention. If such people can't tell me how I as a gay man fit into their theory of gay men, perhaps it is their theory that needs revision.
I was not trying to imply that the questions were all simple and that they wouldn't affect society. I thought that was clear. Then reading your post which seemed to say that there was this agenda above and beyond what I am professing and that my question was dishonest I couldn't help but think you were implying something sinister. And "agenda" so often is used in social discussions to mean some sinister ulterior motive a group has other than what they are publicly seeking.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It bugs me a little that gay-related topics get discussed in such theoretical and clinical terms on this board as if it were an academic game when to some of us on the forum these questions shape our daily lives. I think that is forgotten quite a bit around here.
And thank you, KarlEd, for being one of the ones to remind us of this very important fact. If we forget it, we are making a grave error.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It's easy to say that "gays are furthering the collapse of the family" (or society or whatever) but harder for some people to say "Karl is furthering the collapse of the family". But to me they are the same contention.
I think that part of the disconnect you are seeing, for some people, doesn't all from the attitude "oh, you're not like those other homosexuals, Karl". I think some of it stems from people's reluctance to be too direct/rude about you and your life.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
That is probably true, MPH. I know, though, that people on this board can be direct without being rude, and I hope they know that I can address a direct arguement without being rude or overly sensitive in return.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Firstly, I don't agree with you that a convincing argument can be made that fundamentally changing the way society approaches (particularly in the legal sense) marriage, adoption and education amounts to nothing more that letting people get on with their lives affecting no-one."
Why not? How does letting Karl get married affect heterosexuals getting married?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Come now, Tom. I've seen you in enough of these conversations that you have to know what he means.
edit: The whole point of this thread is to understand each other, not to debate or have to defend your views.
edit2: That goes to more people than just Tom.
[ August 10, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:"oh, you're not like those other homosexuals, Karl"
I get that alot from my friends too... makes me sad.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Here's the thing from my point of view. I keep hearing, both here and other places, this fear that the government will somehow force churches to wed people they do not desire. You would have to look at some real militant radicals to find anyone saying that, I think. As a person a year out from an interfaith marriage, I know the difficulty in getting religious officiants (only 6 rabbis in MA will co-officiate without requiring you to promise that the children be raised as Jews). The state certainly isn't making people co-officiate such marriages against their will, even though me and my fiancee certainly pass all legal requirements for marriage. Similarly, I'm sure there are religious officiants that still refuse to officiate inter-racial weddings, and I haven't heard any lawsuits of that sort.
So I don't see how someone can justify this specific fear. I can understand, however, the fears of changes in sex ed and other such programs (even if I'm fine with it myself).
-Bok
[ August 10, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I keep hearing, both here and other places, this fear that the government will somehow force churches to wed people they do not desire.
Really? I have never heard this fear before, at least not on Hatrack. This would be an amazingly radical change, one that I don't see happening because of accepting homosexual marriage but because of the government *really* stepping on toes they have no right to be stepping on. I don't feel threatened by this possibility because I don't see it happening.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree. I've seen a lot of people say that there is nothing to worry about with that (the government forcing churches to peform gay weddings), but I've never seen anybody actually concerend about it. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I've read it at least 3-4 times (including enjeeo's concern) here in the last 3 months. I've read similar sentiment elsewhere. It isn't the most common type of objection, but it shows up, and from my side of the fence on this issue, it seems rather paranoid, and I wonder how many others feel the same way, but don't articulate this point because they intellectually realize it is flimsy (I won't say wrong, because humanity has a way of surprising certain individual members of the family ), but still think it.
-Bok
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I agree. I've seen a lot of people say that there is nothing to worry about with that (the government forcing churches to peform gay weddings), but I've never seen anybody actually concerend about it.
I am actually concerned about it. Here is how the scenario could possibly play out: Homosexuals receive protected minority status Anti-discriminatory laws are put into effect (hate crimes, hiring practices etc). Law suits are brought to bear resulting in requiring churches to treat homosexuals equally or lose their tax exempt status.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh. I'm an opponent of gay marriage, for mostly relious reasons. But I have no fears that my church will be forced to do anything it doesn't want to.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I didn't see it mentioned by enjeeo, and perhaps other mentions were much more vague than the specific statement you made and I didn't notice them. I also wonder, then, if people fear this.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Interesting, Jacare.
Does anybody know if a religion can be blatantly racist (i.e., only people of _______ race can be in our church) and still qualify for tax-excempt status in the U.S.?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote: For the record my stance on homosexuality is that gays should have exactly the same civil rights as everyone else, but that churches (as voluntary organisations that people choose to be members of) should retain the right to follow their doctrine (eg not being legally bound to recognise same sex marriages just as they are not legally bound to recognise de facto marriages). I want my friends to have the security of knowing that they can visit their partner in hospital (even if it's family only), or not have to go to court if their partner dies to retain custody of kids they have raised who happen to be biologically their partner's. These are things that they should not have to worry about.
The bolded section (my emphasis) seems to imply that she is worried about it, or else why bring it up explicitly as her stance, when Karl said the same thing, except didn't explicitly state this, though he used the term "legal" in reference to marriage.
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Law suits are brought to bear resulting in requiring churches to treat homosexuals equally or lose their tax exempt status.
I think the LDS church would relinquish tax exempt status before changing their policy. And some churches would put up such an uproar... it would get pretty ugly.
Might as well have people bring law suits against the LDS church for not allowing them to marry in the temple just because they want it even if they don't meet the requirements.
Seems a bit far fetched to me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks, Bok. I didn't see it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't read it that way at all, Bok. I read it as "I think A should happen, but not B." I do not read anywhere "I am worried that others might try to make B happen."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
There are quite a few sects/cults out there, but I don't know if they have been recognized as official religions, and they usually get entangled with law enforcement due to actually trying to carry out their racist beliefs (burning houses and the like).
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
mph, but why introduce it, if no one has broached it prior? It seems that she would actually have to be worried/care about it, if she was willing to state it explicitly.
-Bok
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Does anybody know if a religion can be blatantly racist (i.e., only people of _______ race can be in our church) and still qualify for tax-excempt status in the U.S.?
Because the LDS church did not ordain males of African descent to the priesthood, the IRS threatened to revoke the church's tax-exempt status.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: There are quite a few sects/cults out there, but I don't know if they have been recognized as official religions, and they usually get entangled with law enforcement due to actually trying to carry out their racist beliefs (burning houses and the like).
But burning down houses is a crime. Having requirements to be fulfilled for marriage in a specific religion isn't. And if it became a crime... Jiminy Cricket, this country will have become pretty messed up.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think the LDS church would relinquish tax exempt status before changing their policy. And some churches would put up such an uproar... it would get pretty ugly.
Of course it would, but that doesn't mean that losing tax-exempt status wouldn't hurt.
quote: Seems a bit far fetched to me.
Given recent decisions in our countries courts I don't think it is the least bit far-fetched.
Most likely the courts will hand down a decision and it will require a lengthy and turbulent legislative process to overturn the court mandated change. In Utah it is pretty likely that the State would pass constitutional amendments and suits would be filed bringing the matter before the supreme court. Who knows what might happen then?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Because the LDS church did not ordain males of African descent to the priesthood, the IRS threatened to revoke the church's tax-exempt status.
Do you have a source for this? Not that I'm doubting you, per se, but I've never heard this. Interesting information, though.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Do you have a source for this? Not that I'm doubting you, per se, but I've never heard this. Interesting information, though.
That it was stated on that other page without references really is no more convincing than having it posted here with not references.
I'm highly skeptical.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:That it was stated on that other page without references really is no more convincing than having it posted here with not references.
I'm highly skeptical.
Yeah, it is probably good to be skeptical of info from unofficial web sources. I am in the process of trying to find official sources now.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
To back up Bok, I also remember seeing people insist that one major objection was this loss-of-church-rights concern. I even think there was a thread where the topic post was asking why people thought this wouldn't happen. I think they were convinced through the responses that the concern was unwarranted, but they were initially quite worried.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Well, after a search through pertinent congressional and IRS documentation, all I have been able to discover is that the IRS has pretty broad powers to declare an organization a church or revoke its declaration. This is from IRS publication 557 on determining whether an organization qualifies for tax-exempt status:
In determining whether an admittedly religious organization is also a church, the IRS does not accept any and every assertion that the organization is a church. Because beliefs and practices vary so widely, there is no single definition of the word church for tax purposes. The IRS considers the facts and circumstances of each organization applying for church status.
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
quote: "Firstly, I don't agree with you that a convincing argument can be made that fundamentally changing the way society approaches (particularly in the legal sense) marriage, adoption and education amounts to nothing more that letting people get on with their lives affecting no-one."
Why not? How does letting Karl get married affect heterosexuals getting married?
I wasn’t being that simplistic. It affects society as a whole. It means changes to many kinds of law – tax, employment, immigration law, etc. It changes procedures. It will eventually change the media, advertising, etc.
quote: I get that alot from my friends too... makes me sad.
Yeah Telperion. I’d be pretty sad if my friends kept calling me Karl, too. I mean, they’re your friends – surely they should know your name, huh?
quote: The bolded section (my emphasis) seems to imply that she is worried about it, or else why bring it up explicitly as her stance
Bok
No, not really. All I was really saying is that I support the separation of church and state, but I was stating it in a way that was specific to the topic at hand. It’s not something I worry about, it’s just something I have already considered in relation to these issues, in discussions long past, so it kind of emerged automatically as I was typing.
[ August 10, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: enjeeo ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Ironically for your little joke enjeeo, Telperion's real name happens to be Karl as well. IIRC.
quote:I wasn’t being that simplistic. It affects society as a whole. It means changes to many kinds of law – tax, employment, immigration law, etc. It changes procedures. It will eventually change the media, advertising, etc.
All the changes you foresee amounts to an increased accommodation of homosexuals in every aspect of society. Yet you dismissed Karl's observation on the last page that the whole argument could be boiled down to that the changes would diminish the stigma gays currently endure. It is still not clear to me how this would in any significant way affect how I, as an heterosexual, go on enjoying the rights and priviledges afforded me by society.
Maybe it's not fair to harp on you for an explanation here since we are in agreement that homosexuals should enjoy the exact same legal rights as anyone else (from which I infere that you personally don't feel that this would have any disastrous effects on heterosexuals or society at large). However, you seem to have made yourself spokesperson for an argument most often used to caution against change: "giving group X access to rights YZ will have large but mostly unspecified effects on society as a whole, thus I'm justified to express my hesitation". Whenever this argument is used against a change that I believe is to be implemented to correct an injustice, I feel it is the responsibility of its proponents to explain in concrete terms exactly what these effects are likely to entail and to demonstrate how they could conceivably be harmful. Failure to do so makes it impossible to expose fears built solely on unfounded prejudices as well as finding ways of addressing the legitimate concerns that may very well exist.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Why not? How does letting Karl get married affect heterosexuals getting married?
How does it hurt me if my spouse decides to have sex with other people? (this isn't a trap, as far as I know my spouse has made no such decision, therefore feel free to speculate hypothetically).
I confess to being guilty of the church-persecution paranoia in the past, though it was like October last time I recall discussing it.
We view it as a tragedy in our society when a couple cannot have children that are naturally related to both of them. In a homosexual union, every family will be a "blended family". Supposing that gays will have the same rate of divorce as heterosexuals, I think this will result in more insecurity for at least one member of a family. For the non-biological parent, or if both parents contribute children, for the children to know they won't stay together in a divorce scenario.
That is why like Card I feel divorce rates need to go down before there is talk of expanding the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians. I reserve judgement as to whether gays and lesbians are able to provide the intrinsic devotion it takes to make a family. But in terms of the extrinsic structural elements, they have a strike against them as do heterosexual blended families. But I've thought for a long time, independently, that it would be a great ideal to prevent remarriage of divorced people. It's a principle I would abide by, even if my marriage ended through no fault of my own.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Pooka,
I think that the unions that you're describing are occurring, regardless if they're receiving protection under the law or not.
The example that you're describing, the issue of custody when a same-sex union fails, is indeed a thorny one. My understanding is that as it stands now, because the law only recognizes "marriage" as a legitimate union, custody laws are essentially useless for resolving issues during these situations. In my mind, this is a resounding argument to get away from using "marriage" as the term for a union of people protected under the law.
[ August 11, 2004, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Tom:Why not? How does letting Karl get married affect heterosexuals getting married?
pook: How does it hurt me if my spouse decides to have sex with other people?
What??? Your spouse is waiting for me to marry chris so she can sleep with other people?? Tell her I said I appreciate the sacrifice, but she doesn't have to wait.
Posted by enjeeo (Member # 2336) on :
Tristan
quote: It is still not clear to me how this would in any significant way affect how I, as an heterosexual, go on enjoying the rights and priviledges afforded me by society.
As I just said, I wasn't being that simplistic. I wasn't trying to say that the expanding of Joe Homosexual's right impinges on Jack Hetero's rights. I was saying that it will fundamentally change the society we live in. Let's go the other way with this. Let's say that you as a guy (your nick is a boy's name, so sorry if the assumption is wrong) go to live in a country where the rights of women are severely curtailed relative to what you are used to. That won't affects your rights as a man at all. But does that mean that you will therefore be unaffected by living in such a society? The indirect effects of the rights we extend or do not extend to parts of our society can be just as profound as the direct effects, albeit in different ways.
quote: However, you seem to have made yourself spokesperson for an argument most often used to caution against change: "giving group X access to rights YZ will have large but mostly unspecified effects on society as a whole, thus I'm justified to express my hesitation".
Okay, what is this the fourth post in a row where I'm defending myself against things I didn't say? It's getting tired now. I have NOT made myself a spokesperson for any viewpoint, least of all that one. I have not tried to justify hesitation, or actually any particular course of action. I just said that in an honest realistic discussion of these issues you should acknowledge that there are some fundamental changes on the table, instead of trying to make it sound like this is all a storm in a teacup. Even good change is stressful, confusing, sometimes requires a paradigm shift. I'm not cautioning against change. I'm cautioning against the attitude that we shouldn't question change because the change in question happens to be considered PC right now. These ARE big changes. Let people feel like their society is being fundamentally changed - because it IS. Even if you are adding, 'but it's a good thing. Let me explain how.'
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: That is why like Card I feel divorce rates need to go down before there is talk of expanding the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians.
So gays shouldn't enjoy the legal protections of marriage until straights get it right? This is the biggest hypocrisy of the whole gay-marriage arguement. Why is it even remotely just to hold gays to a higher standard than straights hold themselves? So what if the same percentage of unions fail among gays as straights? So what if some children might be hurt in the breakup? Is it necessary that someone demonstrate that no children will ever be inconvenienced before two gay people will be allowed to form a legal union? Why not make straight people demonstrate that they have such foresight and incredible parenting prowess before issuing them a marriage license? And how do you justify perpetuating the insecurity of a child with two lesbian parents now who can't get a legal union because if you gave them a legal union it might not last and thus scar the child?? Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
enjeeo,
I apologize if you feel I have misrepresented your position. I assure you that it was never my intention. Note however that I never said that YOU were using that particular argument to justify hesition, or anything at all, really. Just that -- in my experience of course -- this would be the most common motivation (at least in discussion such as these) for using an argument of this kind.
You restate your position as:
quote: I just said that in an honest realistic discussion of these issues you should acknowledge that there are some fundamental changes on the table, instead of trying to make it sound like this is all a storm in a teacup
and you also said:
quote:[t]he indirect effects of the rights we extend or do not extend to parts of our society can be just as profound as the direct effects, albeit in different ways.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything of this. All that I'M saying is that, in order to productively discuss these thing and to gain a better understanding of what the opposing camp REALLY means, we need spell out exactly what these "fundamental changes" are as well as listing any "indirect effects" and examine their causation. It may be intuitively obvious that a society which allows women to vote is different from one that does not, but in order to convincingly argue that it is preferable (or rather that it isn't, since I place the burden of proof on the side wanting to restrict rights) we need to show exactly how and why it differs.
[ August 11, 2004, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: It may be intuitively obvious that a society which allows women to vote is different from one that does not, but in order to convincingly argue that it is preferable (or rather that it isn't, since I place the burden of proof on the side wanting to restrict rights) we need to show exactly how and why it differs.
I wonder what rights you think are being restricted.
Can homosexuals live together? Yes. Can homosexuals inherit from each other? Yes. Can homosexuals become a legal guardian of their significant other's children? Yes. Hospital visitation rights? Yes. etc.
So what rights are being restricted
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I don't want to get into a discussion about rights and priviledges since I in this case consider the distinction largely irrelevant. Do you dispute that the legal situation for a heterosexual couple differs from that of a homosexual couple?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: don't want to get into a discussion about rights and priviledges since I in this case consider the distinction largely irrelevant. Do you dispute that the legal situation for a heterosexual couple differs from that of a homosexual couple?
What I am saying is that a homosexual couple can obtain the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. Isn't that what the whole debate is about?
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Even if this were true in all cases, which I don't think it is (adoption, visiting rights?), true legal equality would not exist until it were obtainable with as little fuss and effort as it is for heterosexual couples.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Even if this were true in all cases, which I don't think it is (adoption, visiting rights?), true legal equality would not exist until it were obtainable with as little fuss and effort as it is for heterosexual couples.
So if this is the pressing need why not focus energy on streamlining the processes for things like that?
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
But why create separate institutions for gays when there already exist perfectly fine legal constructs that only need to be slightly ammended to accomodate gay couples to ensure them equal rights (and privileges) with heterosexuals in one big swoop?
[ August 11, 2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: But why create separate institutions for gays when there already exists perfectly fine legal constructs that only needs to be slightly ammended to accomodate gay couples to ensure them equal rights (and privileges) as heterosexuals in one big swoop?
Why redefine the basic foundational unit of society for all of recorded history when there is no need to do so?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
What do you think the same-sex marriage supporters are doing Jacare? Why "reinvent the wheel" when you know where a Ferrari dealership is?
Legal marriage is the streamlined process, why add separate laws to the books when an existing system is in place?
(I suppose I know some of the answers to this, largely dealing with the issue of redefining marriage, even though it is legal marriage, not religious.)
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
For the record, legal marriage is a rather late-comer to the "marriage" industry (at least our legal definition is). So I don't think we're redefining anything that hasn't already been redefined before.
Legal marriage is not an a priori concept, IMO.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oh, and I'd say the basic foundational unit of society is an individual. Families may be the basic units of larger societies, but without individuals, there isn't a family in and of itself.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, I'd say the extended family all living together/in walking distance has been the basic foundational unit of society for far longer than marriage considered as the union of two. Yet society broke that up as a near-universal practice a decent bit ago.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Why redefine the basic foundational unit of society for all of recorded history when there is no need to do so?
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage is between one man and as many women as he can support. Marriage is between one man and his dead brother's wife, as required by God. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and her female slave. Marriage is between one man, a few wives, and an assortment of concubines. Marriage is between one man and a woman captured in war. Marriage is between one man and the woman he raped, if he doesn't want to be executed. Marriage is between one male slave and the female slave his master gives him. Marriage is a communal organism made up of a group of people who voluntarily agree to raise children and support each other. Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race.
Marriage has changed even in the last century. While it was still one man, one woman, it was expected to be an extended family with older relatives available to help raise younger ones, and to be supported in turn when necessary. The exodus of families from the country to urban areas helped change this over time to the nuclear family of one man, one woman, and kids. Changing times and economies have also produced a society where two incomes are necessary to support a family.
Marriage must support the needs of the individual, the family, and the community. If the current definition of marriage does not do that, the definition needs to be changed.
[ August 11, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Jacare, in Sweden the Marriage Statute alone is 129 paragraphs long. The words "man" and "woman" is mentioned perhaps three time; everywhere else the word "spouse" is used. Surely it makes more sense to change those few sentences than duplicating the entire thing and call it the Partnership Statute. Inserting or changing a couple of words in the Inheritance Statute, Tax Law, Adoption Statute, etc. is much more efficient than creating entire new ways to ensure that gay couple get access to everything that has hitherto been granted heterosexual couples. Maintaining a cosmetic difference in procedure when all material rights are the same won't stop what you call "redefin[ing] the basic foundational unit of society".
[ August 11, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Oh, and I'd say the basic foundational unit of society is an individual. Families may be the basic units of larger societies, but without individuals, there isn't a family in and of itself.
So you would say that, for example, cultural and legal guidelines are geared toward the promotion of the individual as the foundation of the community?
If this is the case then strictures against adultery, fornication, out of wedlock births etc would never have come to exist. Clearly society has been centered around the family for along time.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, but not the family as two people and some children, as it is so often treated today. We have changed how family is viewed repeatedly throughout history.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Maintaining a cosmetic difference in procedure when all material rights are the same won't stop what you call "redefin[ing] the basic foundational unit of society"
No, it certainly won't. The only thing which willo prevent a redefinition is if the laws and "cosmetic differences" are accompanied by societal attitudes, cultural mores etc.
Let me be blunt: I do not think that homosexual unions should receive the same societal consideration as marriage. That the individuals may have the same legal rights is fine with me, but let it end there.
A man and woman with children is the societal pattern for the very good reason that communities function well this way. Sexual dimorphism is not merely cosmetic. There are very real differences beyond outward appearance between men and women which make a big difference in how they raise children.
If you say that these differences do not exist, and codify that statement into law then over time the cultural and societal views of family cannot help but follow suit.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Do you have any scientific studies that show children raised by homosexual parents function less well in society than children raised by heterosexual parents (that is your thesis, assuming I parse "There are very real differences beyond outward appearance between men and women which make a big difference in how they raise children" correctly)? Because I can come up with oodles of studies that say otherwise (they've been linked to through an overview repeatedly here at hatrack), and I am not aware of one that finds in the affirmative.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Yes, but not the family as two people and some children, as it is so often treated today. We have changed how family is viewed repeatedly throughout history.
Give me an example of what you are talking about. If you are referring to the inclusion or exclusion of extended family then I would say you are wrong. Familial obligation towards aging parents has generally been fairly strong in the past, but nowhere near the same level of strength of bond as between husband and wife and children, and between cousins, uncles etc. is much weaker still.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Do you have any scientific studies that show children raised by homosexual parents function less well in society than children raised by heterosexual parents (that is your thesis, assuming I parse "There are very real differences beyond outward appearance between men and women which make a big difference in how they raise children" correctly)? Because I can come up with oodles of studies that say otherwise (they've been linked to through an overview repeatedly here at hatrack), and I am not aware of one that finds in the affirmative.
There is no possibility on agreement on the basis you suggest. Anything I link would be dismissed out of hand just as I could easily dismiss anything you link because these so-called scientific studies of human behavior are not science at all, but only political positions wrapped up in statistics.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
JS, those extended family bonds should be stronger. Society would probably be a lot better in a way, especially since a lot of nuclear families have trouble supporting themselves and their kids...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think having close-knit extended family is a good and healthy thing also. I am sad that it is not a more important part of our current society.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage is between one man and as many women as he can support. Marriage is between one man and his dead brother's wife, as required by God. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and her female slave. Marriage is between one man, a few wives, and an assortment of concubines. Marriage is between one man and a woman captured in war. Marriage is between one man and the woman he raped, if he doesn't want to be executed. Marriage is between one male slave and the female slave his master gives him. Marriage is a communal organism made up of a group of people who voluntarily agree to raise children and support each other. Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race.
All of the scenarios you list fall into one of two categories: nuclear families or polygamy. Polygamy does indeed change the social dynamic quite a bit, but polygamy has never been supported on a large scale for the simple reason of the ratio of men and women. Certainly in many societies it was common enough for a wealthy man to be a polygamist, but certainly the number of polygamists could never be a very large percentage of a community for long.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: JS, those extended family bonds should be stronger. Society would probably be a lot better in a way, especially since a lot of nuclear families have trouble supporting themselves and their kids...
It would be nice if they were stronger than they are now. It would also be nice if more support could be derived from the wider community for any given social arrangement. Unfortunately it seems to me that both of the above are growing weaker, not stronger.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Why is it even remotely just to hold gays to a higher standard than straights hold themselves?
Karl, it was pretty clear from her post that pooka is not holding gays to a higher standard than she is holding herself of other heterosexuals. It is higher, though, than the standards others hold heterosexuals.
It's comparing apples and years.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Jacare
quote:Let me be blunt: I do not think that homosexual unions should receive the same societal consideration as marriage. That the individuals may have the same legal rights is fine with me, but let it end there.
Can you explain, briefly, what you see as the fundamental difference between "legal rights" and "societal consideration"?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think that a case can be made for adultery/fornication laws in a way, yes, Jacare. By providing some sort of stability by virtue of fornication/adultery/etc. laws, it provides benefit to the individual in terms of providing clear expectations, based on the vagaries of that society. This simplifies general social interactions, and also allows upbringing to rely on a rather immediate authority (the Law) to reinforce the mores.
Now I realize that because of your religious convictions, you can't necessarily accept the "natural law" assumptions underpinning the above argument. I don't know that it is even an acceptable theory, sociologically speaking, or that I believe it. Yet the argument could still be made, and isn't easily discounted without Outside Revelation, I think.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
mph, the problem with pooka's argument is that she is using this needed higher standard (which may never be realistically met) as a complete barrier for legal mage of homosexuals, while still allowing heterosexuals to marry, even if they don't meet the standard. She is saying, in a way, it seems to me, "Since we should discriminate against certain heterosexuals because of how we feel about their fitness for marriage, we will discriminate against all homosexual's because of what we feel about their fitness for marriage."
Don't you see the problem with that?
-Bok
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think that a case can be made for adultery/fornication laws in a way, yes, Jacare. By providing some sort of stability by virtue of fornication/adultery/etc. laws, it provides benefit to the individual in terms of providing clear expectations, based on the vagaries of that society. This simplifies general social interactions, and also allows upbringing to rely on a rather immediate authority (the Law) to reinforce the mores.
But the stability you are inferring is based on social interaction is not based on social interaction at all. The expectations and simplified social interaction could be present based on any set of societal guidelines at all. Say for example, that the guidelines are these: whenever men and women meet they have sex. If this was the societal expectation the the laws would reflect that, the individual would know what to expect etc. However there would be no stability for raising children which is my whole point.
quote: Can you explain, briefly, what you see as the fundamental difference between "legal rights" and "societal consideration"?
Sure: legal rights are things like tax benefits, insurance etc. Societal considerations would be, for example, if a mother considers it equally desirable for her daughter to marry a man or a woman.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bok, I can see what you are saying, but that's not what Karl appeard to be saying.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Actually, that is exactly what I was trying to say, though I'll admit I was far less eloquent.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Fair 'nuff.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Jacare, I'll grant you the whole "families are the bedrock of society" thing, but here is the reality: Gays already have families. For a variety of reasons there are numerous households comprised of kids with same-sex parents. What is it about these families that make them less worthy of the protections afforded by marriage?
quote: Can homosexuals live together? Yes. Can homosexuals inherit from each other? Yes. Can homosexuals become a legal guardian of their significant other's children? Yes. Hospital visitation rights? Yes. etc.
Only one of these is true without caveats. Gays can live together.
Gays can inherit from each other, but not with the same protections given to surviving spouses and only if they have the forethought to spell everything out in a will.
Gays often cannot become legal guardians of their partner's children. There are cases where extended family have successfully sued to take children from their de facto gay parent when their biological parent dies precisely because there was no blood or legally recognized relationship to the children.
Gays do have "visitation rights", but so do your co-workers and the lady next door. What gays often do not have is the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner or for their partner's children. They can be barred from visitation in some circumstances if the biological family demands it. In fact, gays have NO rights that are legally protected in medical situations involving their partners. They only have rights at all according to the whims of the hospital administrators and their policies can vary from institution to institution.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It does seem as the law currently stands that the relationship between two same-sex partners is not treated as "as valid" as the relationship between a married man and woman.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, I'll grant you the whole "families are the bedrock of society" thing, but here is the reality: Gays already have families. For a variety of reasons there are numerous households comprised of kids with same-sex parents. What is it about these families that make them less worthy of the protections afforded by marriage?
They are not less worthy of legal protections. As I said, what could be done is to reform each of these problems either individually or in a single legislative package.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Isn't the latter precisely what homosexual civil-union would be?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They are not less worthy of legal protections. As I said, what could be done is to reform each of these problems either individually or in a single legislative package.
And the simplest, cheapest way to do that would be to extend the legal benefit of civil marriage to any two consenting adults.
Can you identify some legal benefit that heterosexual married couples enjoy that should not be extended to a same sex couple willing to make whatever commitment we require of married couples nowadays?
Dagonee
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
More importantly (to me at least) is what social problem will arise (or even might arise) from legalizing gay marriage that won't also arise from legalizing civil unions? I really wonder about this when people are anti-gay-marriage, but are ok with civil unions. It all sounds very "Star-bellied Sneech" to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree. My own evolution on this issue came when I realized that no matter what we call it, the legal implications of marriage are simply civil unions. My idea of Marriage as an institution is shaped deeply by my Catholic faith, and is a minority belief that doesn't need or deserve government assistance.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, in my case at least, I think the term 'marriage' should be removed from the lawbooks entirely and be replaced with something akin to 'civil union'.
Churches could marry couples, hetero- or homosexual according to their doctrine, and bind them in the church and to each other based on their religious convictions.
Then you go down to the courthouse, sign some stuff and do some other legal footwork and get the term 'civil union' applied to the two as a couple with all the rights and responsibilities legally bestowed upon heterosexual spouses currently.
I feel that way because I think it's a good way to sidestep a large chunk of the only real opposition to homosexual marriage-religion. Of course, it's not, really, because opponents of homosexual marriage don't dislike it because it will be called marriage, but because they disapprove of the lifestyle. Still, I think it would be more effective and faster than calling it marriage...
Which is, in my opinion, a term that means different things to pretty much everyone. Some people, marriage is a lifetime of fidelity to one person. Others, it's a marriage with understanding. Others, marriage is something you do until you get tired of it and then you divorce. I don't think legal terms should be so shifting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, in my case at least, I think the term 'marriage' should be removed from the lawbooks entirely and be replaced with something akin to 'civil union'.
That's my preference as well, but this is what is at the heart of the underlying fear that gay marriage will hurt the institution of marriage. Many people don't like to think that marriage as recognized by the law is simply a collection of rights similar to a contract. People who got married in a courthouse would suddenly not have a marriage but a civil union.
Ignoring this fear will doom the gay marriage movement to failure, at least in this generation, no matter how unreasonable the fear may be.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Rakeesh -- I don't see how that could happen. The term marriage is in all our law books and the constitution. It would require a constitutional amendment to make that happen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree that fear is a big chunk of what's underlying opposition, Dag. When confronted with such, I simply say, "It was always in terms of the law a contract between two people, with special rights above and beyond ordinary contracts."
I see no real way to overcome that fear beyond pointing out the above. Perhaps on the civil-union certificate, a notation of which church, if any, the couple was married in could be included.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"It was always in terms of the law a contract between two people, with special rights above and beyond ordinary contracts."
Actually, that's not really true. Except that it was supposed to be voluntarily entered into, it has surprisingly little in common with contract law.
Today, marriage law has most in common with the law of partnerships, at least in community property states. But it's really an entity unto itself.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Porter,
It is not, in fact, in our Constitution, including any of the Amendmants. Nor are the words spouse, marry, husband, or wife.
As for any other places it exists (state gov't, constitutions, etc.), the US constitution trumps every single one of those things.
J4
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
:decides to reveal ignorance: Where is the bit that binds all states to honor the marriage contracts formed in all the other states? Is that in the constitution?
P.S. I didn't really know if I supported the amendment on marriage until this moment. Thanks Rakeesh! I think it's very important that these definitions be put in the constitution, even if it is to include gays/lesbians.
[ August 12, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're right, Dag. I should have admitted I have no legal training or education at all. I have a definition of 'contract' in this case meaning two people agreeing to do certain things, and certain other things in the case of things like children. Hehe, it's not a very accurate definition, I know.
So I would say to such a person, "You know, marriage has always been, in terms of government, a shifting collection of rights and responsibilities in terms of the law."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
"But what is a contract? Webster's defines it as an agreement under the law which is unbreakable. Which is UNBREAKABLE. :wind whistles: Excuse me, I must use the bathroom."
Admit it, Dag, Lionel Hutz is the reason you decided to become a lawyer. Welcome back, by the way Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pooka,
Article IV deals with that, but marriage is not specifically mentioned.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
pooka, on the procedural level there is:
quote:Article. IV. Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
There is an argument that the equal protection clause is more applicable on the issue in general, however.
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My bad. I thought that Article IV specifically mentioned marriage. I was wrong.
Continue discussing among yourselves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You're right, Dag. I should have admitted I have no legal training or education at all. I have a definition of 'contract' in this case meaning two people agreeing to do certain things, and certain other things in the case of things like children. Hehe, it's not a very accurate definition, I know.
So I would say to such a person, "You know, marriage has always been, in terms of government, a shifting collection of rights and responsibilities in terms of the law."
My only concern besides love of legal nitpicking is that overcoming a deeply held, inarticulable fear is going to meet lots of resistance, and any little quibble will give that resistance firmer footing.
And yes, Lionel Hutz is my hero.
Dagonee
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:And the simplest, cheapest way to do that would be to extend the legal benefit of civil marriage to any two consenting adults.
Can you identify some legal benefit that heterosexual married couples enjoy that should not be extended to a same sex couple willing to make whatever commitment we require of married couples nowadays?
quote: More importantly (to me at least) is what social problem will arise (or even might arise) from legalizing gay marriage that won't also arise from legalizing civil unions? I really wonder about this when people are anti-gay-marriage, but are ok with civil unions. It all sounds very "Star-bellied Sneech" to me.
quote: I agree. My own evolution on this issue came when I realized that no matter what we call it, the legal implications of marriage are simply civil unions. My idea of Marriage as an institution is shaped deeply by my Catholic faith, and is a minority belief that doesn't need or deserve government assistance.
I think that all three of these replies depend on the idea that it doesn't matter what you call a thing. "If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it's a duck".
I disagree. When it comes to culture the only real currency which exists is that of ideas. If our culture is founded on the basis of marriage with the aim of a family then changing the definitions of marriage and family changes the foundation of the culture.
I believe that live can be made easier and better for homosexuals without compromising the basis for our society. What I fear and what I believe most people who are against same sex marriage fear is that the goal for SSM supporters is not simply making life easier for SS couples, but rather shifting the definitions and fundamental basis for society. The difference is somewhat subtle, but there is a difference. It as if we said that our society thinks that hoagies are best, though people can also eat hamburgers. Then there are others who say that hamburgers are really just a different kind of hoagie, so let's call them hoagies too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: What I fear and what I believe most people who are against same sex marriage fear is that the goal for SSM supporters is not simply making life easier for SS couples, but rather shifting the definitions and fundamental basis for society.
It's not just a matter of whether or not their goal is to shift those things -- even if it's not their goal, will that still happen?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:It as if we said that our society thinks that hoagies are best, though people can also eat hamburgers. Then there are others who say that hamburgers are really just a different kind of hoagie, so let's call them hoagies too.
Actually it's as if we said that society thinks that sandwiches are best, and the majority said that only hoagies were sandwiches, hamburgers are never sandwiches, it ruins the whole concept of sandwiches if you try to insinuate that hamburgers are sandwiches, and hoagies would never be as satisifying if people went around thinking that hamburgers were sandwiches, too.
Can gays love each other? Can they raise children with love and respect and responsibility? Can they work to improve the society in which they live? Can they cleave to one another, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others 'til death do they part?
Looks like a duck to me.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Actually it's as if we said that society thinks that sandwiches are best, and the majority said that only hoagies were sandwiches, hamburgers are never sandwiches, it ruins the whole concept of sandwiches if you try to insinuate that hamburgers are sandwiches, and hoagies would never be as satisifying if people went around thinking that hamburgers were sandwiches, too.
Can gays love each other? Can they raise children with love and respect and responsibility? Can they work to improve the society in which they live? Can they cleave to one another, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others 'til death do they part?
Looks like a duck to me.
I don't think that there is much room for compromise in this idea. You think that marriage is the sandwich- a general, all-embracing concept which can mean a whole lot of things. To me there is a very specific meaning. There are several things which are kinda similar to marriage, but to me that doesn't make them marriage. As one who believes in the wider general definition, can you say where the definition of marriage ends and it becomes something else? For example, what about two single guys who are really good friends- they live together, do most activities together- let's say that they are just like a homosexual couple but they don't have sexual contact of any kind. Is that relationship a marriage?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Could be, if the relationship was strong enough and neither one ever began any other intimate relationship with someone else. Just as a straight married couple who live in a nonsexual relationship are still considered married.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Is their relationship a formal commitment to one another? Have they chosen to spend the rest of their lives together in this arrangement? Perhaps most importantly, do they consider themselves married? The crux of the arguement is that whether their relationship is a marriage or not is not for you or I to judge. If they care enough to entwine their lives together in such a way I believe they should be legally able to.
What if the couple in your theoretical relationship were male/female? Would that be a marriage? If not, why not? What is it in your definition of marriage aside from the gender of the participants that would exclude either theoretical relationship from being a marriage? Do gay couples also lack that?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
This is just my opinion and I may be wrong:
I really do think that most people's objections to this are rooted in deep-set beliefs about the appropriateness or even sacredness of the sexual relationship between a married man and woman and the feeling that sexual relations between two of the same gender is not. It is not just about procreation or a threat to heterosexual unions (which I don't really understand myself). It is about a one's view of homosexuality. It is not something that can be logically argued without bringing religion into it. I think OSC feels thus also and has tried to argue it logically without bringing religion in--and has failed.
Nevertheless, a great many people seem to feel this way. Myself included. That may be the biggest barrier to this change. And a lot of people are not going to change how they feel about it no matter what is said to them, because the points addressed are not addressing the true concern.
HRE was actually barking up the right "tree" when he was talking about Sodom's destruction having nothing to do with homosexuality. It targeted the "core" of many people's religious POV on the subject. Which was why I felt the need to say something in that thread.
[ August 12, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I see this as case where the tight grip on the word may very well leave you all with just the word.
Gays are forming relationships. To us they are marriages. We seek legal recognition of our unions. We will get it one way or another. Either we will win in the battle for "marriage" or we will win a long drawn out series of individual battles that will, in the end give us exactly the same thing but by a different name. Social progress is already far ahead of the legal battle in this area. Already we can have our domestic partnerships recognized voluntarily by many corporations. We can also have our unions recognized by a growing number of churches.
I believe that far from harming marriage by keeping us out you will ultimately harm marriage if you do. Society is moving forward and recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual unions more and more. As we become accepted as neighbors, friends, and fellow church goers (for some), it will become even more apparent that the relationship we have is what is key, regardless of the label or the hoops we have to go through to legalize it. People in this future will then see that "marriage" has become "just a word" because it will no longer uniquely define anything meaningful. It will just be a synonym for whatever legal term is ultimately chosen to defines what gays (and probably increasing numbers of straight people) call their "equal-to-marriage-but-not-legally-called-marriage" relationships.
Or, more likely, we will all call gay partnerships "marriages" because that is the common word that best describes what we have, regardless of whether that term appears on any legally binding documents. At that point, maybe our generation's children (or maybe grandchildren) will marvel at the backward thinking of our current society much as we marvel that there ever really was a rediculous time in American culture when water fountains were labeled "whites only".
Wouldn't it be nice, though, if good men and women could be open and accepting and congratulate us for our desires to join together in a relationship that is greater than our individual selves. Wouldn't it be stregthening to your own relationships to recognize that what makes your marriage a marriage goes way beyond your genitalia? Wouldn't it be nice to have allies in the fight to stregthen the institution?
Or if you win your word and successfully lock it down, maybe a future generation, recognizing the hypocrisy, will look to gays and say, "Who needs 'marriage', anyway? They aren't 'married', yet they have everything we want in a relationship anyway. Why don't we just get that?" Where will "marriage" be then?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are several things which are kinda similar to marriage, but to me that doesn't make them marriage.
JS, can you honestly say that the current legal institution of marriage reflects your belief of what marriage should be? That people can agree in advance what to do if the marriage ends, can receive settlements similar to divorce settlements without getting married, can be married 3 days after meeting and divorced the next all suggest to me that the legal institution is not where the heart of anyone's idea of marriage relies.
Dagonee
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Very good KarlEd.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Wouldn't it be stregthening to your own relationships to recognize that what makes your marriage a marriage goes way beyond your genitalia?
This actually inadvertently touches on the LDS belief that gender goes far deeper than genitalia and that eternal marriage is only between opposite genders. Ok, back to the discussion at hand.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If that's the case, does LDS doctrine allow for the possibility of mismatched gender and physical sexual characteristics?
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Or if you win your word and successfully lock it down, maybe a future generation, recognizing the hypocrisy, will look to gays and say, "Who needs 'marriage', anyway? They aren't 'married', yet they have everything we want in a relationship anyway. Why don't we just get that?" Where will "marriage" be then?
I see that attitude already. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
MPH, so do I. I also see that exclusion of gays from "marriage" will only exacerbate this problem. One might optimistically believe, though, that including gays in "marriage" might even give the institution a new and stronger relevance. I'll admit that is only speculation, but I don't think it is without merit.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think it is without merit. At the very beginning of this thread, I said that this is an argument that I have absolutely no answer to.
quote: Of course, the obvious reply to this is "What about if homosexuals could get married and adopt kids? Wouldn't that strengthen, not weaken families as a whole?" I freely admit that I don't have a satisfactory answer to that -- not even one that satisifies me.
[ August 12, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dag: Not overtly. I have never heard the issue addressed. I imagine these situations are addressed on a case by case basis. If there is a question of ambiguous gender, no one (to my knowledge) "tells" them they are one or the other.
Though, the way I have always looked at it is if someone has a "Y" chromosome, they are male regardless of their physical form, whatever the combination might be. The only thing that might give me serious pause on that distinction is if there were humans with "Y" chormosomes who made eggs and thus were capable of functioning reproductively as a female. (Does anyone know about that?) But I do not presume that to be doctrinal for the LDS church.
And this LDS belief only addresses the situation of humans (as literal children of God rather than "just" creations of God). Animals and plants have a variety of patterns when it comes to gender, and the LDS belief allows for that.
[ August 12, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:I see this as case where the tight grip on the word may very well leave you all with just the word.
You may be right. In fact, as Dagonee mentioned in his post, there are certain trends already present which seem to give the lie to my definition of marriage.
Be that as it may, in my community (the one which holds my highest allegiance) there is a very clear definition of marriage and homosexual unions, common law marriages and similar arrangements do not fit that definition. Obviously I think that society as a whole would be better off if marriage were viewed in the same way as it is in my community. Hence I am against altering the definition of marriage in the wider society even further to accomplish ends which may be accomplished otherwise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Gender differences transcending physical differences and extending into the spiritual realm is an interesting topic, although probably way off the path of this discussion except for your quick notation above. I was just curious.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:in my community (the one which holds my highest allegiance) there is a very clear definition of marriage
In mine as well, but I've adopted the view that all my community needs to protect this definition is that it not be interfered with.
Of course, my community doesn't agree with me totally on this, but that's OK.
Dagonee
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: In mine as well, but I've adopted the view that all my community needs to protect this definition is that it not be interfered with.
I can understand that. That is one of the possible compromises. I think that what I am proposing is another compromise which could potentially meet everyone's stated objectives.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Most of that article is not new to me. I am curious what in specific you mean about it not being absolute? Do you mean that sometimes the genes from the X and Y chromosome might mix together as happens sometimes?
Anyway, the doctrine is that our spiritual identity has a gender, always has, and always will. Our bodies are flawed and imperfect, and ambiguous gender is part of that. I assume that a person born with ambiguous gender will not be ressurrected ambiguous anymore than a blind person will be ressurrected blind or a quadrapalegic will be ressurrected limbless.
Since the belief is that gender is eternal and that marriage can be eternal under the right circumstances, then (I assume) gender is more than sex since some will exist eternally in an unmarried state and yet retain their gender as an essencial part of their identity. Much of what I have said here is conjecture from doctrine rather than actual doctrine though.
(Sorry for the continuation of the tangent)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Hmmmm. I think many feared this might happen.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: I also see that exclusion of gays from "marriage" will only exacerbate this problem. One might optimistically believe, though, that including gays in "marriage" might even give the institution a new and stronger relevance.
KarlEd, I agree. I think the quality of a marriage, not the genders of the partners, is wahat strengthens or weakens the institution of marriage. One of the families whose marriage was just voided, is wonderful lesbian freinds of mine who have been together over a decade and have adopted two little mixed race babies (I believe one if not both were drug babies), with plans to adopt more. It angers me that the State of CA calls their marriage invalid, yet recognises the marriage of hetero couples that get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas because they were drunk.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I just mean someone can have a Y chromosome and be functionally female, and can not have a Y chromosome and be functionally male, so existence of the Y chromosome isn't a valid physical test.
The doctrine is interesting; in the Catholic Church most of this is non-official theological theorizing, which I haven't read much of.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Functioningly enough to reproduce? (In a human, of course. )
[ August 12, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It angers me that the State of CA calls their marriage invalid, yet recognises the marriage of hetero couples that get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas because they were drunk.
Then take heart, because the Cal. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of heterosexual-only marriages in California, only that the mayor of SF can't jump the gun before that ruling.
Although there's little chance the federal constitution will be interpreted to require gay marriage, state constitutions may continue to be interpreted that way. If that happens, then the Article IV Full Faith and Credit clause will be the real federal battleground.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Functioningly enough to reproduce?
As far as I understand it, yes, because the genes related to sex selection basically have moved to another chromosome. It may just be that your Y-chromosome definition isn't specific enough. But the genetic test alone seems problematic to me as well.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dag: Very interesting. I would love to learn more about that. I only skimmed the page you linked, did it specifically address that?
I wonder if this issue might divide this country deeply enough to tear it apart. I realize that is a pretty far-out conjecture, I just wonder.
It reminds me ever-so-slightly of the irreconcilable differences between those who owned slaves and built an economy on that wealth and those who adamantly believed it was an evil practice.
We may have some states that vehemently believe in homosexual marriage and some that vehemently disagree. The states may not be willing to recognize the marriage of other states. They may even want their own constitution that defines marriage according to their views. Some states may want to separate themselves. I dunno.
[ August 12, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it didn't. I extrapolated, possibly wrongly.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
IIRC, that has not been observed (procreating female with Y chromosome or procreating male with X). But just because I or others haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: that has not been observed (procreating female with Y chromosome or procreating male with X)
Well, I'm a male with an X, and I've reproduced. But I know that's not what you meant.
quote: We may have some states that vehemently believe in homosexual marriage and some that vehemently disagree. The states may not be willing to recognize the marriage of other states. They may even want their own constitution that defines marriage according to their views. Some states may want to separate themselves. I dunno.
I can't see that happening (civil war over this). No state's economy is significantly dependant on homosexuals either marrying or not marrying, like the states were dependant on the slave-based agriculture.
In fact, I cannot think of a single war ever fought that didn't have a strong economic factor. I am counting conquest as a form of economic growth. Can anybody think of a war that proves me wrong?
[ August 12, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Exclusively? Not really.
You can argue economics played a role in any violent action at some point - particularly organized violent action.
If I kill a man and take his land, did I do it because I was desired his property or because I hated him, but saw no point in wasting his property?
-Trevor
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Would it be worth the effort to specifically call commitments by two people the same gender "marriage" even before SSM is legalized? Would it help propagate the meme that homosexuals can get married? Same for using "husband" and "wife" rather than partner.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I hadn't even seen KarlEd's post yet.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
kisses to you all![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I'm sure I come across better in print than I do IRL.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)