posted
The thing that upsets me so much is this reasoning:
My bible says homosexuality is bad, therefor I'm against laws which validate it.
Can you guys even comprehend how offensive that is to those of us who don't believe in your bible?
What if I was using the Quran to justify my bogotry toward your particular group? Such as making it illegal for Christains to marry. Would you say "I understand his convictions." No, you would be upset.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Caleb, if you'd read all of the posts herein and then took your head out of your rectum, you'd see that not all Christians are opposed to homosexual marriages. Like I said, read back among the posts.
You might also see that there are non-Christians who are against homosexual marriage.
But in your world of black and white, it's easy, so easy to stereotype people because of their religious choices, isn't it? Or am I putting words in your mouth as you've done for so many people?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
twink, you better hope Ralphie doesn't stumble in here otherwise there'll be some serious shin-kicking going on.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Jon Boy. I'd forgotten how Catholics and the LDS differ on this point, and your brief (but comprehensive) response was plenty of a mental nudge to straighten that part out again.
And thanks for not assuming I was being a jerk. I've kind of come to expect that when something at Hatrack doesn't make sense to me, then I usually am missing some information. It's a very sensible place, for the most part.
On the other hand, now I'm really curious about how this works for Catholicism, the denomination I was raised in. Hmmm. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Um, no. I didn't want anyone to be confused about exactly who I feel are the bigots in this situation. I had to make that perfectly clear.
And "it's obvious that you do" support banning gay marriage. That makes it obvious that in my above address, you would be turning them away. How can that be so unclear?
quote:Because I haven't offered an alternative? But Jon Boy did, and I agree with him.
Well to be honest I haven't gotten around to answering his post because I was so busy answering yours, since they were the more offensive to me personally. But esentially Jon Boy's response was no different than yours. He said "you just don't/can't understand", and then claimed that his specific Church was against divorce (while of course I was referring to Church in a much larger sense and the statistical truth that divorce is every bit as prevalent there as anywhere else in the country). Somehow I doubt, though, that his Church never performs wedding ceremonies for those entering a second marriage. I doubt even more heavily that no one from his church has had a divorce. And I doubt most of all that they would be for a law to ban divorce. I am open to being proven wrong on that point. Of course, not at the cost of having to read through the LDS family proclomation to the world. I'm sure it's a valuable document and all, but it is just a document, and as long as the views contained therein are the equivalent of those expressed on this thread, I haven't been shown the need.
And honestly, I have time to read posts and opinions. I don't have time to read the Book of Mormon while I'm at work.
Although I think I understand where Jon Boy wanted to go, though he lacked the energy to get there. I think--please correct me if I'm wrong--that somewhere in that document it would be explained that God ordains the man-woman relationship as husband and wife, and so there's no need to be against marriages of other faiths, since they are not necessarily breaking God's family setup.
But even if that's not precisely what he was going to get at, it's got to boil down to "All marriages are okay by us except gay ones", and I think that any reasoning behind that is obviously faulty, for reasons given above.
I can see while posting this that there have been several posts--as usual--that need my response as well. I'm not sure when I can get back with you, but I will.
Unlike some, I do try and give your posts the time of day.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:He said "you just don't/can't understand", and then claimed that his specific Church was against divorce (while of course I was referring to Church in a much larger sense and the statistical truth that divorce is every bit as prevalent there as anywhere else in the country). Somehow I doubt, though, that his Church never performs wedding ceremonies for those entering a second marriage. I doubt even more heavily that no one from his church has had a divorce. And I doubt most of all that they would be for a law to ban divorce.
We also believe that sometimes divorce is necessary. Overall, it's a good thing that my mom's parents divorced. My grandpa stopped going to church and started drinking, smoking, and visiting prostitutes. In a perfect world, he wouldn't have done that in the first place. In an ideal world, he would've changed his behavior, rededicated himself to his wife and kids, and made the marriage good again. He didn't. My grandma never remarried, though if she had, there wouldn't have been anything wrong with that. Banning divorce or disallowing second marriages is not the solution to stopping divorce, so it's illogical to use the fact that we allow divorce and second marriages as evidence that we support divorce, or at least as evidence that we don't value the sanctity of marriage as much as we say we do.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To attack this from a different angle, even if most of you are bailing. What is the difference between something is Morally Wrong, and something that is a Crime.
JonBoy said that homosexuality is morally wrong as is prostitution. Why is one criminalized and the other not (in most places) or why is it that the laws that are on the books are enforced when it comes to prostitution and not when it comes to sodomy. Maybe it is because prostitution is "dirtier" because money changes hands?
For those of you who believe homosexuality is "morally wrong" do you truly have a problem with the "decriminalization" aspect that just happened at the Supreme Court. I know we had a thread on it at the time, and I can't remember all the responses.
I contend that it is probably consistent with the "hate the sin, love the sinner" dichotomy to decriminalize the behavior, but it is not consistent with that dichotomy to institutionalize that behavior, and therein lies the difference.
(of course I admit I'm trying to play devils advocate here and understand all sides, I personally don't have a problem with non-church sanctioned civil unions)
posted
Find me a dictionary that has the word "suppourt" in it and I'll agree with you. But that just looks terribly wrong to me. For that matter, if you've been spelling it "suppourt" on your resumes it could explain why you had problems getting coop jobs in the past Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that it matters WHO Caleb has been addressing, both in his mind and on the thread. If you fit into the "stereotype" (I use that term very loosely), then what's the problem? Why bash him for segregating you into his "stereotype" when you embody it.
Also, I wonder if this conversation would have the same kind of response if Caleb, himself, was religious and "a good christian boy".
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Skim back, Mazakaar. I'm a Christian and have no problem with homosexuals being able to marry. As a matter of fact I gave a number of arguments as to why they deserve the right to marry and have the protections that it gives.
And I can safely say that I'm not the only Christian that feels that way.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith, I never said anything about you specifically nor did I say anything about christians having a problem with homosexual marriages...maybe you should be the one 'skimming back'. I simply was talking to 'those that fit the stereotype', which you apparently don't. I am ammused that you feel you need to defend yourself, even when I was ambiguous in my first post by saying 'you'.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Sopwith, I read CV's post and I thought he made it fairly clear (though obviously he could have done a better job) that not all Christians were included in his rant.
quote:And I don't mean this just toward you, Jon Boy. If ten thousand law-abiding homosexual couples walked up to you with only one plea in their collective heart--legal and social equality--and you had the power to give it to them, and you would choose instead to turn them away; if you are someone who would do that, then I'm talking to you:
quote:I recognize of course that not all people of the Christian faith fit into this category. Our own Anne Kate, bless her heart, is one of those who can see how much damage Christianity does to our community and to itself with this bigotry. She, however, would not fit into the above address.
Pretty clear, though obviously could have been better.
*sigh*
I did not want to come back into this thread before later tonight. But please, no more talk of heads-in-rectums and 'go back and READ, moron'. It's a natural thing when you hear someone call someone else's views bigotted to react as if that person is also biggotted. Well it doesn't take a bigotted view to know a bigotted view.
Sopwith, I suggest that if you want to continue to disagree with me--though we plainly share the same goals--you should take actual pieces of text from my posts and then respond to them in kind. My views on this subject (specifically, my views on others' views) are so passionate that the conservative mob has painted me quite different than I intend to sound, and if you take your assumptions from their queues you're bound to make mistakes like the one you made above.
I made it VERY CLEAR to whom I was and was not speaking, and it's REALLY OBVIOUS that I did so on purpose because I knew--having been here for years--that I would get responses exactly like yours.
posted
[rant] Okay, I'm sorry, but I think Caleb has every right to be upset and angry. People have insisted in this thread that homosexuality is wrong. Why shouldn't that anger him?
I don't care what people think about being politically correct these days. I really don't think it's acceptable any longer to believe homosexuality is wrong. I don't. I'm sorry if that flies in the face of your religion, this isn't supposed to be a religious attack. But if you can sit there and tell me you think that the basic premise of [a homosexual's] lifestyle is wrong, then I can tell you that I think your view is wrong. Honestly, at this point, I think saying homosexuality is wrong is equivalent to saying someone is sinning because they like waffles more than they like pancakes.
[/rant]
Edit: fixing my not-so-small error
[ August 06, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, since I've been posting in a "pro-gay marriage" way on this thread too, does that make me gay? Oh, wait, I already outed myself. And Tom Davidson, too.
posted
Before someone rips me a new one, let me point out that I really am just looking for clarification and understanding here. I'm not asserting anything horrible, so don't jump down my throat
In the past couple of decades, homosexuals have made tremendous strides forward in our society. Legally, their activities are no longer criminal, as they once were. Those who treat them badly are prosecuted vigorously, to the full extent of the law. The AIDS crisis went from a homophobic scare at its outset to a completely sympathetic, inclusive awareness drive today. Gays are depicted very positively in the media, as a normal, integral part of our society. Many insurance companies, hospitals, etc, are regonizing non-traditional mates the way they once recognized only spouses, and that number is growing fast. To my knowledge, no society in history has ever handled the homosexual phenomenon so fairly, so compassionately, and certainly never so quickly.
So, here's my question. If the current trend were to continue, and if unmarried homosexual partners were allowed all the legal and economic benefits of marriage without an actual legal marriage, would gay marriage still be necessary? For years, the lack of a formal, legally-recognized marriage ceremony has been a simple fact of life for gays. This lack has not made monogamous gays any less monogamous, and it hasn't really affected promiscuous gays at all.
Whenever I ask why gay marriage is necessary, the usual answer I hear is a litany of benefits that married couples get, but that gay couples are denied. My question is, if those differences vanished, would the gay marriage issue be as important to the movement as it currently is? I know that it's also an issue of perceived equality and respect, but I'm wondering if legal and economic equality would be enough without the label of marriage.
I'm concerned because I think the gay marriage issue may soon fall into a niche similar to the one that the slavery reparations issue has carved out for the black community. Society has bent to an astonishing degree in America over the past century to make minorities of all types feel like welcome, equal participants. But minority-advocacy groups, once given everything they ask, will often reach even further, and ask for something that even an open society feels is too much to give. But the advocates have fought so long and hard against true injustices that ANY kind of denial is seen by them as a disastrous victory for fascism, and severely damages their relationship with the majority.
I'm not saying that the gay marriage issue is definitely that issue for the gay community. But if it is, it might be wise to look to other options and possible compromises, so that the goodwill that gay advocates have built up over the past several years is not destroyed because of an unecessary, bitter dispute.
So is a compromise possible here? I know there are a few actual gay Hatrack members who might give me a better perspective on this.
(I think one of the limitations we straight folks have in this debate is the fact that none of us belong to the community we're debating about, so none of us can represent them in a compromise. All we can do in their favor is parrot the gay position we heard last. We can compromise on the side of heteros opposed to gay marriage, but on the gay-advocacy side, we're stuck in a repetitive rut, because none of us has the authority to back away, even if it becomes right or necessary.)
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Geoff, I would think that in order to get all those legal benefits, one would need to fill out some type of legal paperwork. Which is basically all a civil wedding at the courthouse is. So, what you call it is irrelevant. After all, wedding marriages aren't "legal" till you file the paper work. (At least here.) So, once you get the legal paper work out of the way, what's to stop anyone from throwing a "wedding?"
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew, okay, good, sorry Caleb. I think my problem is you used to go by a pseudonym, and then you changed your posting name to your real one. Somewhere in there I got the two of you confused.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My company offers a pretty good employee benefits package and last year extended coverage to include same-sex domestic partners. I think if we saw same-sex partners getting the same type of legal privileges as married couples, such as tax benefits and power of attorney, this would probably placate a lot of people. Morally, though, I still think it would be wrong to have different rules for different people.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This lack has not made monogamous gays any less monogamous, and it hasn't really affected promiscuous gays at all."
This is an assumption I'm not willing to grant. It is, in fact, exactly the OPPOSITE of my assumption.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I can see how that could happen Kasie. A single male twenty something and an openly gay man (late thrity something?) in a long-term relationship (till recently. ) Quite easy to confuse them. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the current trend were to continue, and if unmarried homosexual partners were allowed all the legal and economic benefits of marriage without an actual legal marriage, would gay marriage still be necessary?
Would they still be necessary for heterosexual marriages? Marriage isn't just about the financial or political benefits two people might share, it's about love and compassion for someone else. Marriage for two people, any two people, is going to inherit the same feelings whether those two people are gay, straight, or whatever. It isn't about the advantages you 'get' from society, it's about the love you get from someone else.
Granted, homosexual marriages would allow some societal pressure to be lifted and provide a little more equality, but that isn't the main reason.
Why can't two people, regardless of sex, come together in a state of matrimony? Why does there always have to be some big 'political or social agenda'?
posted
Maz, you make a good point, but gays can already have "weddings," even if they aren't sanctioned by the government or most churches. They can already exchange vows, rings, have a ceremony and reception, all that stuff. Sure no one, or at least most people, don't get married for financial reasons, but why shouldn't gays get the same benefits as everyone else?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets try a different reason for Gay Marriage--Religious.
If there is a religion that allows Marriage between two men or two women, are we not denying them what they percieve to be a sacred rite?
If the Anglican church deems it appropriate to allow a Gay couple to be Married, can we create a law that denies that church and that couple from being married? Should we?
If they do would you be arrested for performing a religious rite that is in accordance with you church?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:My question is, if those differences vanished, would the gay marriage issue be as important to the movement as it currently is? I know that it's also an issue of perceived equality and respect, but I'm wondering if legal and economic equality would be enough without the label of marriage.
I can only offer an anecdotal response. The gay couple I know that would like to get married doesn't want it for the financial benefits or legal advantages, most of which can be handled through power-of-attorney acts, wills, and such.
They want it because they've been together for more years than most of their straight married friends, especially those who have divorced and remarried in the same time period. They want it because the concept of marriage is important to them, and their relationship seems to fit in every measurable particular. They want it because married couples have a place in society, and they want to be accepted as a productive part of that society instead of an aberration or regrettable statistic. They want it because that's how they already perceive themselves, and they'd like to be able to publically acknowledge it.
quote:For years, the lack of a formal, legally-recognized marriage ceremony has been a simple fact of life for gays. This lack has not made monogamous gays any less monogamous, and it hasn't really affected promiscuous gays at all.
I disagree, and kinda wonder how in the world it could be substantiated.
[ August 06, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I think about this, the more I realize the truth of it. People are not using their religion to protest civil change. They are trying to find civil/secular ways of stopping religious change.
Gay Marriage is about the recognition of gay couples in church, not in the world. If my church says its OK, then your church might. Its best, think some conservatives, if you illegalize it before that happens.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not saying that marriage benefits should be orientation specific.
And yes, homosexuals can get married, with the rings, etc., but it is also 'against the law'. So, are gay marriages necessary if you get marriage benefits? Maybe not, but in order to get those benefits, you have to be recognized as a married couple in the state of which you live.
I've been recently married, and I would despise any governmental/religious/political system or belief that told me that marrying my wife was a crime...of any proportion.
posted
Chris and Tom have both pointed out a flaw in my proposition, and they're right, it's a flaw It wasn't the main focus of my post, so it kind of got by my validity-checking screen ...
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
(At least, I think that was a compliment ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I do appreciate your support, though, Kasie H.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Silly Kasie.
