quote: They are trying to find civil/secular ways of stopping religious change.
Who's to say that religious change is the best change for our world? And even if you could say that religious change was the best, which religion's changes would you accept?
quote: Gay Marriage is about the recognition of gay couples in church, not in the world.
In some areas of the world, church or your belief in God is the world. I think when you talk about the recognition in church, you can't avoid but talk about recognition throughout the entire world. Besides, why would gay couples be looking for recognition in a church if the religion itself excludes them?
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there is a religion that allows Marriage between two men or two women, are we not denying them what they percieve to be a sacred rite?
Perhaps, but only insomuch as we can deny this sacred rite with secular laws. We really can't do that in the U.S. Unitarian and other churches perform same-sex weddings all the time with no governmental interference.
A same-sex marriage then would be viewed by the couple as blessed by God, but not sanctioned by "Caeser;" I think.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always cringe when I see these threads in part because I do wonder what KarlEd thinks of them.
If I were him I would hate everyone of you who tell him that his wonderful relationship is "wrong" or "dangerous". Imagine if people you cared about said this of your relationship, perhaps because your partner was of another race, or a different religion.
I personally would tell all of you to go to hell. I have no idea how he, and any other homosexuals reading these threads, stay so calm and polite.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, I'm sorry I didn't get to your question in a more timely fashion. On the other hand, I saw Jon Boy's post:
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102)
And it really puts my reply into perspective. I find that view of marriage completely repellent. I guess I don't believe in gender roles. But especially when they are defined as "by devine design" and "fathers presiding..."
Yes, I know it says "in love, etc. etc." but really, I think the problem with that kind of structure is that sooner or later you get to a Cartman-like moment "respect my authoritay!!!"
I also get a bit squicked out by the idea of men providing "protection" because I think it's both parents job to protect the kids. I also dislike the male role in this set up because I think men get the short stick. Men go work, "providing" stuff, protecting, etc. and it's not their role to nurture -- that's the mom. Well, I just think that's missing out on the best part of having a child, from what I've observed couples who do a good job raising kids.
I think it breeds distant fathers and indecisive moms.
At least that's the model that gets called to mind.
I know, I know, you probably see a whole range of healthy possibilities within that framework. I see a very narrow path to healthy families and a very very wide path to sick relationships where the dad comes home, acts like the lord & master, and everyone has to be quiet around him because he's so beat from trying to keep a roof over their head on one salary and he's in danger of being laid off, and the mortgage is more than he can afford, and the kids need braces, and so on and so on.
Meanwhile, mom "nurtures." Which, if I understand that correctly, means subjugating her life to the needs of the kids, at least until they are school age. Well, that's great if that's what the woman really wants out of life. I'm betting it was a lot easier sell when people didn't educate their daughters, though.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff I said something similar to what you said on page six on page three, though not quite as eloquently. Since this thread is getting long, I'll quote myself again here.
quote: posted August 05, 2003 03:43 PM
Interesting thought. Even though it isn't going to happen, would it be a better long-term strategy for the right to let gay couples have their legal marriage? Then they won't have anything to create a hubbub over, and not be able to push as many gay issues to the forefront (other than the really bad hate crimes)
quote: I guess I don't believe in gender roles. But especially when they are defined as "by devine design" and "fathers presiding..."
Doesn't this deny biology? Never mind divine design, isn't there sexual dimorphism for the very reason that division of labor and specialization allows for greater capacity and deftness at performing a given function? The fact is your average male has a lot greater muscle mass than the average female, is larger and has a different bone structure. Not only that, but there is also built-in psychological software which tells the male "you are the protector". On the female side you get the same thing. Women get equipped with some really cool hardware as well as built-in baby-bonding and nurturing software that males lack.
So whether one believes in gender roles or not gender roles believe in you and will continue to do so until and unless there is some reason for them to be evolved out of us.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
kat, be patient and I'll give these posts an adequate response. In the mean time, get over this 'words in people's mouths' thing.
It's stupid.
I'm not fighting words. I'm fighting a viewpoint held by many people and I did my best to define that group of people by saying "those of you who would turn them away". If you are one of those, then I'm talking to you. If you aren't, perhaps silence is the best response.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My post on page five was a bit of soap-box, yes. What of it? Hatrack is suddenly above passionate speeches? You are always free to leave the discussion if you aren't going to add anything constructive.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidently, Kat, I went soap-box because (and oh no, I'm going to quote myself again *gasp*):
quote:I am through pretending that anything these Christians could ever read on an internet forum could possibly touch their hearts.
...which I think you've more than proven with your inability to discuss my points while trying to degrade me as a person.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:imaginary people for whom you had a prepackaged argument
Nope. Talking about real people that all fit into one group. The group that espouses that homosexuals ought to be seen, in the eyes of the law, as second-class citizens. And there's nothing prepackaged about it. I speak from my heart on an issue I care about a great deal.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're going to side with ANYTHING Sopwith said concerning my posts, I'm not sure I even have the strength to respond. I've already labeled your view as the height of arrogance. Please don't lead that into the height of ignorance.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you were talking to someone that doesn't fit what you were fighting, and you were talking to him like he did. Either you didn't understand that he didn't fit that, or you didn't care.
I was talking to every person who supports banning gay marriage. Let those who fit that definition answer for themselves.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you would stop nit-picking the way I post---which you so consistently misconstrue---I might actually get a chance to respond to OTHER posters that really are participating in the discussion. Jon Boy, for instance, wrote a really good post on page six that I have yet to answer only because I have to keep coming in here and reiterating the definition of my audience. I understand that my view of your view offends you.
Good.
So answer it, then.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, there's a difference between being a bigot and posting a bigotted comment...I think it's very unfair of you to be throwing that word around the way you are...
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've admitted that I'm judgemental of Christians with your views. What else to you want me to admit? That I just hate you? Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, let's give him a moment to defend his bigoted comment.
*waits*
But you didn't say "Christians with your views". You said Christians.
That's your defense of your bigotry? This smacks of the guy who thinks that homosexuality is only a sin if you hide it. Hidden, a sin. Not hidden, no sin! Grand!
posted
You know what kat? If you can have the audacity to say to other non-Christian people that their very identity is a sin, and that their wishes and desires are not at as viable as your wishes and desires, you should at least be able to take the ridicule that such treatment deserves.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are not even on the premises, Caleb. The only thing I agree with in your above statement is the "should be able to take it." part. I can. If I couldn't take it, I'd stop posting. Um, doesn't that make sense to you? If I couldn't take it, I'd get out of the kitchen.
Or do you actually concieve of taking it as equal to agreeing with it?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you didn't say "Christians with your views". You said Christians.
Now look who's putting words into people's mouths. No matter how many times I repost this:
quote:If ten thousand law-abiding homosexual couples walked up to you with only one plea in their collective heart--legal and social equality--and you had the power to give it to them, and you would choose instead to turn them away; if you are someone who would do that, then I'm talking to you:
...you are still going to treat me like a Muslim crusader.
My audience, AGAIN, is clear. Those who would ban gay marriage, and specifically Christians that would ban gay marriage.
I don't think I need to say it again. If that makes me a bigot, then yes I am a bigot towards people that would fit in that category. Can we move on and let me respond to people who are actually having the discussion now?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am through pretending that anything these Christians could ever read on an internet forum could possibly touch their hearts.
*waits for defense*
This is like establishing parlimentary procedure. If you are going to be bigoted and mischaracterizing, that should be established as a given before anyone attempts to discuss with you.
Besides, you already said that you weren't talking to anyone in the thread. Why do you need someone to respond to you now? You aren't talking to them - they're just building your soapbox. You can blog by yourself.
posted
Well, I have two (at least) responses to this thread, though I haven't really read any arguements that I haven't already responded to in the past.
First, to Geoff:
quote: So, here's my question. If the current trend were to continue, and if unmarried homosexual partners were allowed all the legal and economic benefits of marriage without an actual legal marriage, would gay marriage still be necessary?
1. It has been mentioned in this thread that the legal issues surrounding couple-hood can be set up by gay couples through partnership contracts, etc., and that many enlightened insurance companies, employers and hospitals have instituted liberal policies that include recognition of gay couples. This, I think, is a step forward, but it is not a sufficient end. Why should we gays have to make numerous and expensive trips to lawyers to enjoy the same protections that heterosexuals get by a quick and cheap trip to town hall to get a marriage liscense? Why should we be content to have been granted a priviledge of hospital visitation and benefits protection (if we're lucky enough to be at the whims of the enlightened) when heterosexuals get these universally by rights?
2. Why should we have to foresee every eventuality and individually arrange legal protection against them when heterosexual couples can get all the benefits and protections by simply joining a class called "married"?
3. Conservatives can grant us a "civil union" and childishly hold to the conviction that they've saved something by not granting us use of the word "marriage" if they want to, as long as the "civilly unionized" as a class are equal in all respects to the "married". As the de-facto liaison of the gay community here at Hatrack , I accept that compromize. However, I think the ludicrously bigoted attitude behind "separate but equal" policies should be as obvious when applied to gay couples as it is when applied to 1950's water fountains.
4. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that this "separate but equal" policy eventually leads to one of two things: A.) It becomes irrelevant, really, because you can't keep people from using language as they see fit. A gay couple might have a liscense that says "civil union" but you won't be able to keep them from saying "we're married". B.) It eventually does more to harm the institution of marriage because someone finds some forgotten loophole that makes a civil union less restricting or in some way preferable to "marriage". You can bet if that happens, heterosexuals will be jumping on the "civil union" bandwagon in droves. If you don't think such an eventuality is likely, take a glimpse at our legal system today and judge how likely it is that no such loophole will be created when our best and brightest try to cover all possible interpretations and legal permutations of a policy or code.
quote:I am through pretending that anything these Christians could ever read on an internet forum could possibly touch their hearts.
(emphasis mine)
I was under the impression that Caleb was only referring to the Christians that hold the viewpoint he despises. I think he's correct in saying you fall into this category. Had you the choice, you would prohibit homosexual marriage, would you not?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or do you actually concieve of taking it as equal to agreeing with it?
Of course not. Again, I already said I'm through pretending that an interenet forum is capable of touching your heart on this issue. I'm simply here to blame you for the injustice that you endorse.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Page five, half-way down. Big post by me. Others have been responding. Feel free to join in any time.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: no one has commented on my idea where, they just legalize gay marriage and then let it drop off the media's radar screen, because there isn't controversy anymore. This would reduce the visiblity of the gay movement as well as their power to sway public opinion.
eh?
AJ
Thought you might want a reply. This wouldn't work because the people who have a problem with it still would have a problem with it (even more because those marriages would be legal). The media is only stiring up the issue. The church is fighting it and wouldn't stop if it became legal.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kasie: *considers* I didn't see that. Thank you for pointing it out. Now, you I would discuss this with.
Riiiight. As if it wasn't ME who said that. You've yet to really discuss anything about this topic, kat, since I took up the job of trying to show you how much pain your view causes other human beings.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's sort of like what they tried to do in Canada. The government decided not to challenge recent court rulings that allowed gay marriages. By not doing so the precedent was set that gay marriages were now legal in Canada (well, certain provinces at any rate). The media forgot about it (more or less) for a few weeks but that hasn't stopped people from being up in arms about it. We're now told that gay marriages will be the major focus of this month’s 3-day liberal caucus.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also beginning to think Thor has a point about most of the churches that do not want anti-gay marriage. Because it is one thing they all agree on, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This creates a much more powerful lobby in dollars and influence. If they dropped this one in the political arena, they would lose a lot of clout, the only rally cry would be anti-abortion and while there are still people protesting it, it hasn't quite been politically as much of hot potato that the two combined are.
I know we've had long debates on abortion here on Hatrack but I sense a general apathy on the subject in my middle of road coworkers. I would hazard that a lot more of them have the "ick" factor when it comes to gay men than they actualy do having the "ick" factor when it comes to abortion. Interesting also to me is that many of the people who have an "ick" factor when it comes to gay men, do not have the same thing when it comes to lesbianism. In fact especially among heterosexual white males (which is my normal sample here at work since I'm the only girl) they would probably cheer on lesbianism because of strange fantasies at the same time that they cringe with gay males or transexuals.
posted
Jacare, I like you and have had quite a few pleasant discussions with you over the years. I don't think you're a bigot, and your responses are mostly well thought out expressions reflecting your faith. I can respect that.
However:
quote: Doesn't this deny biology? Never mind divine design, isn't there sexual dimorphism for the very reason that division of labor and specialization allows for greater capacity and deftness at performing a given function? The fact is your average male has a lot greater muscle mass than the average female, is larger and has a different bone structure. Not only that, but there is also built-in psychological software which tells the male "you are the protector". On the female side you get the same thing. Women get equipped with some really cool hardware as well as built-in baby-bonding and nurturing software that males lack.
So whether one believes in gender roles or not gender roles believe in you and will continue to do so until and unless there is some reason for them to be evolved out of us.
As a Mormon, surely you believe that "the natural man is an enemy to God." I find it somewhat duplicitous on the one hand to believe that we are supposed to overcome our natures, but on the other hand to use a "bound by our natures" arguement to support a position that is arguably oppressive and outdated.
quote:It actually disturbs me that you stopped talking to people and fell back on the prepared speech, because it indicates you haven't thought through all ramifications of it enough to handle a slight shift in your audience. In other words, you don't know the ramifications well enough to have a dialogue. If that isn't the case, why did you move from a conversation to a polemic?
Kat. Prepared speech?
I'm blaming a whole section of society for treating another section of society as second-class citizens. From my heart, I blame them.
Call me a bigot. Call me whatever. Misconstrue the meaning of my sentences.
The fact is that I don't particularly feel like placing that blame on any one person, so it was necessary, for me at least, to address it the way I did. Why everyone else can understand that and you can't is beyond me.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BtL, as far as a timeline on the fading of the hububb also, I wasn't speaking really of weeks, but more of months and years. The Canada decision is still extremely recent.
posted
I was just saying that I don't think it could happen, citing Canada as an example of why. It just wouldn't be allowed to drop off the map for months or years.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, Caleb, can you take this somewhere else? Maybe make a thread called, "Kat and Caleb whine and bitch about what the other person said on the gay marriage thread"?
I can make it for you.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Bob, I don't actually enjoy having to defend every single word I say. I only do so because kat is so purposeful in making sure my opinions aren't discussed. One day--far in the future, perhaps--I can get back to that discussion on this thread.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh God. That was the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on Hatrack. Good day to you, katharina.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes twinky but it is logically inconsistent, in their entire reference framework. The acts of lesbians and the acts of gay men are morally equivalent regardless of what morals you are using, they are both same-sex sex. Yet one is accepted or cheered on, by a run of the mill straight white male, while the other is viscerally rejected. It is probably a form of subconsious sexism, and objectifing of women and it frustrates me that these guys don't even realize they are doing it. I am becoming convinced as I said in my previous post that it is exactly the "ick factor" against gay men in many non-devout straight men that is the swing factor in this whole equation. It is quite hypocritical since they do not exibit the same bias against lesbians.
posted
Bob, I understand what you're saying and agree that there are those who abuse that bit of scripture about marriage. Do you think that it should be removed from the Bible or ignored because some might misuse it to validate their twisted version of marriage?
Just because my wife is going to stay home with the baby, do you think I don't plan on doing some nurturing myself? Any man who uses that scripture to excuse himself from that probably wasn't going to be doing it anyway. He's just found an excuse not to do it. Any man who "lords" it over his family so that they live in fear of him probably would do it whether he could use the Bible to back him up or not.
And to echo Jacare's post about biology, study after study have determined that breast feeding is the best way to go with an infant. That's kind of hard to do when the mother works. Not impossible, but not easy.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Men go work, "providing" stuff, protecting, etc. and it's not their role to nurture.
It's not their primary role, and for good reason; how many fathers can nurture as well as a mother can? There's still plenty of room for fathers to nurture and mothers to protect.
quote:I think it breeds distant fathers and indecisive moms.
This is a possibility, of course, but in my experience, it seems pretty rare (or, at least, just as common inside the LDS Church as outside it). My father has always been a little more distant, but it's not because he's the provider; it's because of baggage from his own parents' relationship, which was far from ideal.
quote:I see a very narrow path to healthy families and a very very wide path to sick relationships where the dad comes home, acts like the lord & master, and everyone has to be quiet around him because he's so beat from trying to keep a roof over their head on one salary and he's in danger of being laid off, and the mortgage is more than he can afford, and the kids need braces, and so on and so on.
Like I said before, this seems (to me) no more common inside the LDS Church than outside it. And I've seen two-income families that suffered from the same problems.
Zan: The bit that Bob quoted is not in the Bible. It's from an LDS document a few years ago.
[ August 07, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
C'mon guys, don't stop now! It's kinda like watching a tennis match with all of this back and forth action. The posts inserted in between are kinda like the guys that run across the court from time to time to pick up the dropped ball.
edit- Hey you ball boys! Get off the coyrt fer cryin' out loud, there's a match goin' on!
posted
>> Yes twinky but it is logically inconsistent, in their entire reference framework. The acts of lesbians and the acts of gay men are morally equivalent regardless of what morals you are using, they are both same-sex sex. Yet one is accepted or cheered on, by a run of the mill straight white male, while the other is viscerally rejected. It is probably a form of subconsious sexism, and objectifing of women and it frustrates me that these guys don't even realize they are doing it. I am becoming convinced as I said in my previous post that it is exactly the "ick factor" against gay men in many non-devout straight men that is the swing factor in this whole equation. It is quite hypocritical since they do not exibit the same bias against lesbians. << (AJ)
Of course. I'm just telling you why men are like this.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
, I accept that compromize. However, I think the ludicrously bigoted attitude behind "separate but equal" policies should be as obvious when applied to gay couples as it is when applied to 1950's water fountains.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
