posted
If you can live in a place made out of ice where the sun goes down all winter, then you can survive anything Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So should I take that as an admission you don't want to consider actual evidence on this subject? Or do you have a reason for dismissing the Scandinavian data? In fairness, 15 years isn't really that long for a social trend to make itself noticed. Still, that's just formal recognition; obviously social acceptance (more accurately, "who-cares") is a lot older than that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, dead horse here, is that marriage is not a right. It is a privilege.
Um, what? Am I actually hearing the driver's license lecture with regard to marriage?!
What did anyone do to earn this "privelige" that any consenting person past the age of majority can receive for fifty dollars in a Las Vegas ceremony?
There is no test. Marriage officiates don't ask if you'd be a good parent, if you can provide for your family, if you know where you're going to live, if your parents approve, if you get along with the person you're proposing to marry, if you have any kind of skills dealing with negotiation or conflict resolution, or any of a thousand reasonable questions that maybe they should, and certainly anyone getting married should.
They'll ask to see your ID. They'll ask you if you want to get married. They'll ask for a signature. They'll ask for the fee. Oh, and in several states now, they'll want the participants to be anatomically different.
Marriage is not a privelige. Maybe it should be. This is not to say that there aren't plenty of married couples that display a tremendous commitment to getting it right and making it work. But sadly enough, that's not necessary.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
How right you are. I think all those issues are contributing to the destruction of the most important social construct in our society. Compared to all that, gay marriage is but a drop in the bucket. Personally I think they should make it more difficult to get married, toughen laws on deadbeat dads and abuse, penalize infidelity and make marriage harder to get out of than my cell phone contract.
Having come from a single parent household myself, the big social lie is that alternative families are just as adjusted as stable, mother/father relationships. It is never as effective in the long run. We live in a society that more and more treats marriage with far less urgency than one's mortgage.
That is the problem. You water down the wine so much there's no more wine. A line must be drawn somewhere.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
(erased list of potentially inflamatory society-based angles)
But, if we're sticking to the thread-title of this here discussion, the "threat to society" of homosexuality has been grossly overstated and underevidenced by the titular personality in this here thread's title.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
And yes, King of Men, I was aware that Scandinavian law permits gay marriage, though I wasn't aware of how long that law was in effect.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... I have to admit, I'm curious about the "threat to society" angle, myself. In a Homecoming-esque colony situation, where reproduction needs to be as high as possible, I can see "learning to control strong, almost irresistable desires for the sake of others"... But now? Excuse me if I'm buying into the liberal propoganda, but isn't over-population much more of an issue than survival of the species? How does the lady down the street who wants to marry her girlfriend pose any threat to the straight couple who lives next to her?
posted
There's clearly no threat to me if my gay friend marries his partner, and I've yet to hear anyone seriously use that argument (though those for the policy claim it's one of the primary reasons people oppose gay marriage). It makes no logical sense, and it shouldn't––that's not why people oppose the change.
People oppose it because it gives legal acceptance to a practice that, in their opinion, isn't a "marriage." Marriage is more than two people who love each other who want certain shared legal rights. If that was the only criteria, then I could "marry" my brother so we both had benefits on our taxes, right?
I do think this debate is calling into question how far we've allowed marriage to be corrupted by a wide variety of sources. We far too often accept changes without thinking about if we really should have; we live in a society that seems to think change is always better when, in many cases, the opposite is true.
The "threat" is destroying a time-honored social construct that, when done right, offers the best means by which a new generation is born and raised. But some people don't see it that way...
So there's the rub, as they say.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The "threat" is destroying a time-honored social construct
I dont see it as "destroying" - men and women are still free to marry if they choose. It's more like expanding a time-honored social construct.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
"We far too often accept changes without thinking about if we really should have; we live in a society that seems to think change is always better when, in many cases, the opposite is true."
I think I understand where you're coming from, but this statement is false... unless you assume we're living in a utopia. Otherwise, "some" change from the status quo IS better.
Now the direction of that change is certainly one to consider. You're perfectly correct in suggesting that acceptance of "any change" relative to the status quo maybe isn't so good.
I think, per this topic, that the direction of change under consideration is one into uncharted territory vs. a return to some sort of imagined nostalgia golden years. The problem with the latter (and there are certainly problems with the former) is that, particularly if one is going to use evolutionary arguments, why didn't that nostalgic golden period last? What are the underpinnings of it's fragility?
Answering that kind of question could lend a whole lotta wisdom concerning the utility of adopting a new way of viewing the marriage institution, I think.
I hope that made some kinda sense.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Alluvion: Of course some change is good. I prefer new and improved Fresca, and I happen to enjoy jet planes and digital cameras and I am glad slavery is long dead and women can vote.
Yet to include traditional marriage as a product of the "imagined nostalgia golden years" already reveals a social arrogance (nothing personal) that is often the basis for proponents of gay marriage––that because it feels right to me it must be normal and, therefore, the system must change itself to meet my needs.
I've yet to hear a decent argument as to why marriage benefits (not freedoms) ought to be given to everyone, regardless of any criteria. In time, anyone and everyone can now "marry," so why make any definition at all? Why couldn't I file my taxes jointly with my brother and get "married" benefits?
The past's fragility is due to selfish behavior by those in the present, who ascribe to their own desires rather than universal truths that preserve the health of a society.
That's my take.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why couldn't I file my taxes jointly with my brother and get "married" benefits?
If you were living together in the same house, possibly raising children in common - why not, indeed? But perhaps the more obvious solution would be to drop these tax benefits for married couples. Really, the tax structure (not just in the US, but everywhere) is long overdue for a really serious overhaul. All those exemptions, each one perhaps with good reasoning behind it, add to up to something so complex it's not even funny. I suspect, though it's no more than a gut feeling, that if all exemptions - everything, no excuses or exceptions - were removed, the resulting simplification would save so many billions that we could afford to lower tax rates anyway.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly I feel we should charge a flat rate, 10-15% of gross income. The flat tax will never pass, because people want their loopholes, but studies have shown it would ultimately mean people pay less yet the government would overall have more to work with.
But people want the frosting on the cake, so the best ideas too often never get baked...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A flat rate above, let's say, 40k a year, I could go along with. I'd prefer a progressive rate, though, because rich people can afford it better and get more from society anyway, so they might as well pay for it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Well, some new and improved changes are't as necessitating as some. Though, I profoundly agree. Fresca is Fresca. It sucks. So, why change?
- "why is it so freaking difficult to break another's words down into a thought-pattern that serves one's own argument?"
- "Yet to include traditional marriage as a product of the "imagined nostalgia golden years" already reveals a social arrogance (nothing personal)"
That's just a really really sad statement, so I'm gonna pause there.
"I've yet to hear a decent argument as to why marriage benefits (not freedoms) ought to be given to everyone, regardless of any criteria. In time, anyone and everyone can now "marry," so why make any definition at all? Why couldn't I file my taxes jointly with my brother and get "married" benefits?"
now yer just being silly.
"The past's fragility is due to selfish behavior by those in the present, who ascribe to their own desires rather than universal truths that preserve the health of a society. "
This is a very very tough question....
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Fresca is God's gift to mankind, aka Ambrosia. I thought about starting a new thread praising its crisp, refreshing taste, low calories and hint of grapefruit, but...
posted
I present to you all a short essay on the topic of same-sex marriage (a gay issue contested by OSC) writen by a friend of mine from toronto:
Regarding the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada and my argument of support:
Firstly, I would like to say, this is an issue that is about a minority population. As such, it is important that we not appeal to the majority regarding the rights of the minority. To do so would be not only be dangerous (take the rights of coloured people for example), but also unconstitutional. The constitution is in place to protect the rights of the minority, as you well know. Therefore, the issue of same sex marriage becomes a constitutional issue and not one that should be weighed according the beliefs of a majority population, many of which carry prejudices and misunderstanding regarding such a sensitive issue. I am not apt to decide how to interpret the constitution, but I trust the courts are, and, given that the courts weigh the issues rationally, I would hope the government and the representative thereof support that rational framework.
Secondly, while I understand that this issue is rooted in realm of the constitution, I also understand that it is deeply woven in cultural and religious issues as well. I understand because, but not only because, I come from a Pakistani/Iranian Islamic conservative background. The courts have said that the issue of same sex marriage is one that will not affect religious institutions, and I am inclined to believe so as well. No religious institutions are mandated to recognize the marriage between two individuals of the same sex if they do not wish to do so, much like no two individuals who want a same sex marriage can impose that social contract upon a religious institution. If this is not a reasonable compromise, I'm not sure what is. The argument put forward by many religious communities is that by allowing same sex marriages to be legalized, we will create a society more tolerant to that sort of lifestyle, and that is something not tolerated in many religions. My counterargument against this is that are we willing to compromise the right of two individuals to share their love in the form of marriage and their rights that come with it because another group does not find it tolerant to do so? I would say no, since Canada should strive toward tolerance. After all, many of the religious and various national groups arguing against this issue have themselves faced discrimination and have appealed to Canada's constitution for the protection and validation of their rights...why are we then not allowing another group to exercise those same rights? It just doesn't make sense.
Thirdly, regarding the definition of same sex marriage: The idea of marriage is a traditional one. I would argue that the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman is very much defined by religion. Of course, if we look through the eyes of a religious institution, the idea of marriage is a sacred one. However, this country, at least today anyways, claims to be a secular one. The government and the courts are not to make decisions based on one framework of thought of religions, but have the obligation (not right, but obligation) to evaluate social issues on the basis of (and I come back to it again), the constitution. So, unless we are willing to take out individuals who identify themselves of a particular orientation from the constitution, how can we deny them those rights? The appeal to tradition, on a purely secular level, is not warranted regarding the rights of a minority. How would Muslims feel if a marriage between two consenting Muslims was not recognized by a Christian majority? How would two individuals of coloured race feel if they're marriage wasn't viewed as legitimate by a majority racial group (mind you, this is written in our history)? How would any two individuals feel if their union, in the form of a marriage with all its legal rights, feel if a majority didn't view that marriage as being valid? They would feel as though they are being discriminated. And, as I've mentioned before, unless we're arguing that individuals of a sexual orientation are "different" or an "exception" to individuals of colour or religious background, then the issue no longer becomes one of marriage, but that of the sanctity and validity of the constitution, which transcends those differences. And that I hoped is something we've already moved past.
What does this come down to? Why does the marriage of two people affect any other individuals? Yes, it is uneasy concept to grasp for many. Yes, it is something that makes us a little uncomfortable, but then again, racial, cultural, religious, national and even sexual differences is what makes our country so diverse. Human rights are rights so as long as humans are humans.
Personally, I don't see why two people wanting to share their love in the same way that any other two individuals can share theirs should not be permitted to do so. Now that I have exhausted my arguments, I would like to here yours. Before I leave with sincerity, let me leave you with a quote to consider that I think hits home the point:
Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? -Ernest Gaines>
Thank you kindly,
Brought to you by Clarifier
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From estavares: "People oppose it because it gives legal acceptance to a practice that, in their opinion, isn't a "marriage." Marriage is more than two people who love each other who want certain shared legal rights. If that was the only criteria, then I could "marry" my brother so we both had benefits on our taxes, right?"
"The "threat" is destroying a time-honored social construct that, when done right, offers the best means by which a new generation is born and raised. "
posted
Five pages? Who's winning so far? Anyone changed anyones core beliefs yet?
Gay people want to get married, let them...suckers. Though I'm as progressive as they come, it is kind of silly. Marriage, the "time-honored social contruct", is only a construct because of greed. Males projecting dominance over females as personal property. Men trying to increase their wealth by marrying into wealthier families using the women as tools to that effect. Thats the origin, somehow its be molded into being whatever the current generation thinks it should. Now its a covenant between Man, Woman and God (and the Government?)...what a crock. "God" only got into the mix to keep the power of the church whole. Thou Christian Variety #1 shalt not marry someone who is Christian Variety #7 and thus god will smite thee for #7 taking away money and power from #1.
And I'm not a lesbian...I am a heterosexual male, who actually wants to be "married" someday. But I have no fear of Sue and Sandy, Frank and Fred commiting to eachother with some paper that says Marriage Certificate. DOESN'T EFFECT ME!
So do I win, everyone agree with me...good.
END OF THREAD
Posts: 70 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it really diluting marriage to allow the entry of people who want to get married so desperately that they've been willing to fight tooth and nail for the privelige?
If you'd say marriage is more than the union of two people who love each other and want shared legal rights, I'd agree, though I'd hope even in this day and age love would come first. It joins families and strengthens bonds between people. It creates new families and new, stable social unions. While the example of brother and brother doesn't fall into those criteria, a gay marriage might. If propogation is the fundamental point of marriage, post-menopausal women or other sexually sterile people would be unable to marry as well (not that that's explicitly the point anyone is making, but it's something to mull over.)
If anyone is curious- married, one child. Five years. And no, I don't feel a homosexual couple getting married poses a threat to my marriage.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage, the "time-honored social contruct", is only a construct because of greed. Males projecting dominance over females as personal property. Men trying to increase their wealth by marrying into wealthier families using the women as tools to that effect. Thats the origin ...
I don't think that anyone is disputing that marriage has been used this way before ... but the ORIGIN? That's an assertion you're going to have to document.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What follows is speculation, not assertion. I think it is reasonably well established that the oldest religions we know of are fertility cults with a mother goddess, as is humorously pointed out in this Chick parody. If this is so, does it not seem reasonable that the origins of marriage are matrilineal and matriarchal? As one character points out in my favourite book, "A mother is fact; a father is an opinion." Which is true even if you lock up your women and have them guarded by eunuchs; lust laughs at locksmiths.
Unfortunately, I don't think the question of the origin of marriage can be settled by archeological evidence, short of building a time machine. Still, it's interesting to speculate. Just where does it lie, on that spectrum from our rutting animal ancestors to ourselves? Did one of the early hominids mate for life, as some animals do; or is monogamous marriage purely cultural?
If the question could be settled, Mormons might find it particularly significant. Guided evolution, presumably, implies some particular point when God inserted souls into an animal. Perhaps that was when monogamous marriage was invented?
Looking at the habits of our primate cousins may or may not be helpful here. While it's true that chimpanzees are a promiscuous lot, that doesn't necessarily mean our ancestors were; it is worth remembering that chimp females have a definite estrus. That is, they are rutting beasts in the literal sense of the word, having a mating season. While we can see remnants of this in our own species, whose females' receptivity varies over their menstrual cycle, our mating is no longer very hardwired. So even quite closely-related species can have very different mating patterns; and for that matter, chimpanzees are known to have culture, in the sense of learned (not genetic) behaviours that vary with area. Who's to say some chimpanzee Adam and Eve might not invent monogamy, and teach it to their children? Presumably there are advantages, or it wouldn't be so widespread in humans, and indeed other animals.
I'd be interested in the Mormon perspective a chimpanzee tribe practising monogamy were discovered. Would it have an impact on the status of their souls?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't a post by me, was it? I remember deleting a post yesterday, but ... no, I think it was on the other side.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to your question, monogamy isn't the only marker of a species that has been influenced by God, and Mormons already don't preclude the possibility that chimps might have souls as valuable as ours in their own way, though they are definitely on a different path.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Neither of them ever seemed interested in sex. The first boy (wild Peter, who is mentioned on other webpages and in books) lived quite a long life and was very healthy.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I thought that was a Chick tract until I got to the end, even though you said parody. I wondered why it seemed well-researched and funny.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, dragging this topic back to page one. Sorry.
Interesting article, but boy does the author want to grind his axes.
The author uses statistics but fails to define them. "Success?" Meaning what? The subjects became functional heterosexuals? They stopped feeling homosexual attractions? Or did they merely stop engaging in homosexual activity? If the latter, is turning sexually functional humans into repressed ones something to be cheering about? And how are these statistics confirmed- is it only based on the report of the subjects themselves, who "do not welcome the homosexual attraction" and who quite frankly if asked point-blank if they're still practicing homosexuality are extremely likely to lie?
In a culture where being gay can mean being ostracized (and possibly discriminated against, beaten up, and perhaps even killed), of COURSE you can condition someone who has probably been experiencing guilt about their sexual feelings from the moment they started having them to repress them. You could do the same thing to a heterosexual. It proves absolutely nothing about the "inherent" qualities of sexuality.
A better, more obvious question is why someone would "choose" a "lifestyle" which means accepting the possibility of being ostracized, discriminated against, beaten up, and/or killed.
What the author has proves nothing, except the old truism about "lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: A better, more obvious question is why someone would "choose" a "lifestyle" which means accepting the possibility of being ostracized, discriminated against, beaten up, and/or killed.
I dunno. It yields "street creds"?
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A better, more obvious question is why someone would "choose" a "lifestyle" which means accepting the possibility of being ostracized, discriminated against, beaten up, and/or killed.
Not a proof of your point — humans do self-destructive things all the time
Realize that many of the people who oppose homosexual activity are the same ones who choose for most of their young lives not to engage in premarital sex, and don't consider themselves to be hideously repressed, as it is a choice they freely make because they believe in it.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Realize that many of the people who oppose homosexual activity are the same ones who choose for most of their young lives not to engage in premarital sex, and don't consider themselves to be hideously repressed, as it is a choice they freely make because they believe in it.
Rat, can you define "hideously repressed"?
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Bull. Total bunk. The ex-gay movement does not work. It's misleading, most of them don't even keep follow up statistics. Read "Anything but Straight." It's ridiculous the torture people have to go through to change something that isn't a mental disorder or a problem until they go to one of these places and learn they can only repress and bury their sexuality and not change it. Face it, the focus has got to shift off of homosexuality to real problems facing society. Like poverty for example.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still its sickening. If you ignore the probs of the way peoplet think, let them be as preverse as they want, then whos gonna want to be gernerous and help some1 else.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sickening? How? Too much focus is put on homosexuality by people who don't know a thing about homosexuality other than the stereotypes and lies people like Paul Cameron put out there. And, what does it result in? Tons of pain for millions of people. It is not a perversion or some form of rebelion. The issue is more complicated than Freudian psychology and bible verses taken out of context.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
