FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Funniest essay on gay marriage that I've seen.... (Page 8)

  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Funniest essay on gay marriage that I've seen....
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
Jon Boy, I know, but there is a passage in the Bible dealing with the same thing. I assumed that was what the LDS document was referring to.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kasie H
Member
Member # 2120

 - posted      Profile for Kasie H   Email Kasie H         Edit/Delete Post 
My argument is based upon the following facts and assumptions:

1) America is founded on the principal of individual sovereignty, espoused perhaps most elegantly in our Declaration of Independence:
quote:
… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
2)
quote:
bigot. n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

3) In some cases, bigotry is acceptable. We acknowledge that people who are steadfast in their religious or political beliefs are tolerated, even though they may refuse to consider the other side. We do believe in an unalienable right to liberty, and that includes religious and political beliefs. We also believe that bigotry of thought is essential to this liberty.

4) The term bigot becomes negative only when the subject it refers to is somehow harming someone else through his intolerant views. Therefore, it is bigotry of action that is unacceptable. Discrimination against blacks is one example of this.

5) Citing number 4 above, we can understand that bigotry of action infringes upon the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

It is therefore my contention that Christian bigotry is unacceptable, while the bigotry of homosexuals is acceptable. Any Christian who is bigoted on this particular issue is acting (by vote, or by voicing an opinion to the appropriate official that might cause him or her to act in a particular fashion) in opposition to a homosexual’s basic right to the pursuit of happiness. A homosexual, on the other hand, is doing nothing to harm the Christian way of life. While you might argue that the homosexual lifestyle does, in fact, infringe upon the Christian lifestyle, I’d point you back to your own right of individual sovereignty. You have every right to make choices in your own life, affecting your own marriage, regardless of what society stipulates.

Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It is probably a form of subconsious sexism, and objectifing of women and it frustrates me that these guys don't even realize they are doing it.
The difference is that many people have severe reactions to seeing a man in a submissive attitude. Feminine habits are enough to elicit scorn from others, much less sexual habits.
Gale male sex means that at least one of the men must be "receiving," and therefore less than a man, and icky besides. Women are supposed to be on the recieving end, so there's no problem with two of them together since obviously they're just killing time until a man wanders in, ideally the viewer. That's just for two feminine women, you understand. Lesbians who look or act like men are, of course, unnatural.

I've given up being surprised by this attitude, but it can still sadden me.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Chris, that also beautifully answers the question of why so many women pine that all the best men are gay. [Big Grin]
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
<---would also like to express my disappointment that my previous comments appear to have been completely lost in the bickering.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Kasie, you rock! That was beautifuly clear and logical.

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually KarlEd I did read your post very carefully because I wanted to know what you thought. (I also wanted to know what you thought about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy but that is a different thread. I'll bump it and would be grateful if you would read it.)

I think I disagree with you on point three.

quote:
3. Conservatives can grant us a "civil union" and childishly hold to the conviction that they've saved something by not granting us use of the word "marriage" if they want to, as long as the "civilly unionized" as a class are equal in all respects to the "married"...
I don't think the die-hard conservatives want to even allow civil unions, because that would be legitimizing a part of society that they consider SHOULD be illegitimate. I think the "civil union" lable, only makes a difference to those moderates, who while generally open-minded still have an visceral "ick factor" on the subject.

I totally agree that the "separate but equal" argument is a slippery slope though.

AJ
edit for dumb spelling

[ August 07, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Jacare, I like you and have had quite a few pleasant discussions with you over the years. I don't think you're a bigot, and your responses are mostly well thought out expressions reflecting your faith. I can respect that.
The respect is mutual.

quote:
As a Mormon, surely you believe that "the natural man is an enemy to God." I find it somewhat duplicitous on the one hand to believe that we are supposed to overcome our natures, but on the other hand to use a "bound by our natures" arguement to support a position that is arguably oppressive and outdated.
Hmmmm... I disagree with the application of "the natural man" to this case. First some quotes:
quote:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

And now behold, my brethren, what natural man is there that knoweth these things? I say unto you, there is none that knoweth these things, save it be the penitent.

To me the term "natural man" doesn't only mean the biological nature of man. The natural man is a guy who lives only by his carnal senses. He is a guy who doesn't believe in the spiritual at all and he shrugs off such things as nonsense.

The behavior of the natural man of course relates to biological nature inasmuch as since the natural man does not believe in the spiritual he believes there is no reason to circumscribe his appetites with laws. This is the basic premise of those who believe that pre-marital sex is harmful to no one, that eating too much unhealthy food is OK etc.

This is not the same as saying that biological appetites are bad. Simply that appetites should be kept within the bounds the Lord has set.

This discussion is still a step away from the behavior I was discussing, because the psychological drive for men to protect and women to nurture (as a gross simplification) is not an appetite which has been set with divine limitations. And yet as human behavior it of course touches on the gospel. This is why the Lord has set boundaries on this type of behavior in men as well.

quote:
...but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved...
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

Essentially then, denying the natural man does not require denying the influence of our biological drives but directing them and placing boundaries about them which we should not cross.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Why most straight men like Girl on Girl action, but don't like Guy on Guy action.

Two girls having sex--lots of juicy bits we can imagine will be offered to us. Nothing there is threatening.

Two guys--they offer lots of apparently uncomfortable, if not downright painful prospects.

"You want to stick that where? Oh Shi...."
"Exactly."

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Caleb Varns
Member
Member # 946

 - posted      Profile for Caleb Varns   Email Caleb Varns         Edit/Delete Post 
Kasie, once again thanks.

I have no problem admitting to bigotry, and the way I meant it was precisely the way you described it. It was unfortunate that I expected certain people to take my words for what they meant.

Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kasie H
Member
Member # 2120

 - posted      Profile for Kasie H   Email Kasie H         Edit/Delete Post 
Banna, thanks. [Smile]
Caleb, you're welcome. [Wink]

katharina,

Where'd you go?

Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Taking a Hatracker to the airport. Sorry.

I meant it. I'm done. I don't argue with bigots, and Caleb doesn't want a conversation - he wants a blog. Now that he's exposed himself as that kind of debater, I'm done.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kasie H
Member
Member # 2120

 - posted      Profile for Kasie H   Email Kasie H         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Kasie: *considers* I didn't see that. Thank you for pointing it out. Now, you I would discuss this with.
[Frown]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm sorry, Kasie. Maybe in a different thread?This thread is toast to me (to continue with the Fat Tony theme).
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Potemkyn
Member
Member # 5465

 - posted      Profile for Potemkyn   Email Potemkyn         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, here is one world view (world view 1) and then 30 billion light years away, here's (world view 2).

quote:
I'm also beginning to think Thor has a point about most of the churches that do not want anti-gay marriage. Because it is one thing they all agree on, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This creates a much more powerful lobby in dollars and influence. If they dropped this one in the political arena, they would lose a lot of clout, the only rally cry would be anti-abortion and while there are still people protesting it, it hasn't quite been politically as much of hot potato that the two combined are.

That would make sense but this wasn't an issue until there was talk of making homosexuality equal (and thus morally right) with heterosexuality. Most people seem to forget that it wasn't the church starting these fights. The church didn't start pro-life until pro-choice elements entered the arena.

Perhaps if the church wasn't on the defensive so much, upholding moral values, it could work on other parts of its creed (helping the poor, establishing justice). But as long as there is a threat to holiness, the church must work against that.

There needs to holiness, justice and mercy for the church to function as Christ's messenger.

Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That would make sense but this wasn't an issue until there was talk of making homosexuality equal (and thus morally right) with heterosexuality. Most people seem to forget that it wasn't the church starting these fights. The church didn't start pro-life until pro-choice elements entered the arena.

For the sake of argument, the pro-choicer would say that they didn't *just recently* enter the arena, abortion has been in existence for thousands of years. They just attempted to make what was formerly an unsafe backdoor procedure medically safe and more easily accessible to those who would attempt it anyway.

The same argument could be made about gay marriage. Homosexuality has been around since the invention of writing at least. The gay community is just arguing, much along the lines of Kasie's earlier post, that legally their ties to each other should be made as legally safe with the same ease of access as those of straight couples.

I realize that with abortion the ease of access probably causes more people to participate in the activity than if they were risking their life and limb due to hazardous infections etc. I don't know if the same would be true of gay marriage or not, but if it produced more stability and monogamy in the gay community I can't see that it would be a bad thing. Especially not in same way that more abortion is seen as a bad thing. With abortion either way you need to take into account a possible life that has no say for itself at the moment. With a Gay marriage both are already consenting adults and are able to speak freely on their own behalves and are giving adult consent to their own marriage.

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
of making homosexuality equal (and thus morally right) with heterosexuality
You can't legislate morality. Legally equal can sometimes coincide with morally right, but no where does it say the two HAVE to be equal.

As Kasie points out, our country is based upon life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which doesn't have a direct correlation with morality as defined by any one religion.

AJ

Edit to correct saxon's nitpick. I said "constitution" instead of "country" and I was wrong. AJ

[ August 07, 2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You can't legislate morality. Legally equal can sometimes coincide with morally right, but no where does it say the two HAVE to be equal.
On the contrary, morality is just about the only thing you can legislate. What should the government spend its money on? Which human behaviors should be encouraged and which punished? Legislative decisions are moral decisions from first to last.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow I'm getting a lot of milage out of Potemkyn's post, but it made me think about a couple or three things.
quote:
Perhaps if the church wasn't on the defensive so much, upholding moral values, it could work on other parts of its creed (helping the poor, establishing justice). But as long as there is a threat to holiness, the church must work against that.

There needs to holiness, justice and mercy for the church to function as Christ's messenger.

Threat to holiness: I don't know which particular "church" you are referring too. The historical Christian church was founded during some of the arguably "most unholy" times in history.

You can't legislate "holiness" anymore than you can legislate "morality". I would argue that the holiness of a particular church is an internal matter for members of that church, not an external matter for all of society. Mercy and justice are external issues regarding how the church reacts with the "unholy" world around it. So if the three are legs on a stool, the "holiness leg" has become bent and twisted til it isn't a functioning leg, and the other two are so short that the entire stool is lopsided.

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Jacare, that brand of morality is generally based on the premise of "do no harm to others, or as little as feasible". It is not based on the "higher" morality that exists in christian churches.

And while I concede that you might be able to legislate some morality, you Certainly can't legislate holiness, which is a spiritual issue.

AJ

[ August 07, 2003, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoffrey Card
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for Geoffrey Card   Email Geoffrey Card         Edit/Delete Post 
Karl, thanks for your response [Smile] Since I really was just looking for input, and wasn't trying to argue anything, it's not like I can come up with a rebuttal ... but I'm glad to have that clarified. I think too many of these arguments end up sliding into a track that's beside the point, and I needed to make sure that I knew what the "point" was from your perspective [Smile]

So, let me see if I've caught on. You hope that America's law and culture will change to permit homosexual marriage because despite the difference in sexual attraction, many gays have the same desire for stable, publically-recognized relationships that heterosexuals have, and feel disenfranchised because their preference for the same sex precludes them from participating in a major part of our culture. Is that an accurate assessment?

Honestly, I don't have a huge problem with gay marriage in and of itself. You've done a very good job of helping me understand your side in this, and I don't think you're trying to tear down the fabric of society or any such nonsense.

My main concerns are twofold.

1. Traditional marriage has historically been one of humanity's primary survival strategies. It has provided sexual security for most of the population, stable environments for child-rearing, and increased likelihood that a healthy new generation will rise to replace the old one. Primitive societies with full sexual freedom naturally result in a few alpha males getting to mate with all the women, many of whom are forced to rear their children alone, leading to a criminally irresponsible younger generation, and an army of angry, disenfranchised older men. (There are primate societies that function exactly this way.)

Our modern society is wealthy enough, and our infant mortality rate is low enough, that we no longer are forced to devote our whole strength to child-rearing in order to assure our survival. Our society is also populous enough that it is possible for someone to have several successive sexual relationships without suffering the negative consequences of having to continue to live near the jilted lover. As a result, the initial purpose of marriage — to provide a stable home for children, and to generate a stable sexual environment free of jealousy and sexual exploitation — has become obsolete in many people's minds.

Marriage is now only about formalizing romantic feelings. If the romantic feelings go away, then the marriage ends. We're faced now with rampant divorce and illegitimacy, and our younger generation is growing up with huge disadvantages weighing against them.

This all has very little to do, directly, with gay marriage. Gay marriage, from this perspective, is not a problem in itself, but is a symptom of something larger — the fact that marriage has lost its initial purpose in many people's minds. Too many modern married couples feel little to no responsibility to their children or to their fidelity, because from the beginning, their marriage was only about their feelings toward each other, and not about their responsibilities to society.

So, in this sense, I'm against the general trend of our culture, not directly against your own personal desire at all.

2. We don't understand homosexuality. We don't know what role genetics might play. We don't know what environmental factors encourage the development of homosexual tendencies. We don't know to what degree full acceptance of homosexual life might benefit or harm people with varying degrees of the tendency. We don't know the unforeseeable long-term results of the society-altering changes that we are on the cusp of making, and I am concerned that many non-gays are eager to make them for the sake of pleasing a vocal minority, and not necessarily because they have thought out their decisions on the alrge scale.

Homosexual marriage is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage. This is not the same issue as allowing blacks to attend the same schools as whites, or giving women the vote. This reminds me more of the controversy in southern California over bilingual schools. A vocal minority of Spanish-speakers believe their children are disenfranchised by the English-only system because English is their second language. It is only "fair" that these students be able to learn in their first language the way the white kids do. But that position does not take into account the fact that later in life, the ability to communicate effectively in English will be these children's only ticket to true success in the economic world, and by teaching them in Spanish, we are actually cheating them out of something very important.

I am concerned that gay marriage is a similar situation. We do not know some of the long-term ramifications of this decision. Some of our past social changes (free love, easy divorce, legal abortions), while attractive when we made them, have, from many perspectives, had negative effects on our society. We are too gung-ho about social change, and are often unwilling to take responsibility when something goes in a way we did not expect. We simply make blanket, irreversible decisions, and then turn a blind eye to the consequences. I think we should, if possible, repeat this kind of mistake as rarely as we can.

So, my position is, let's watch Canada and see what happens [Smile]

Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tabithecat
Member
Member # 5228

 - posted      Profile for tabithecat   Email tabithecat         Edit/Delete Post 
While I was working at a Methodist church we got a new pastor and she made the bold step of announcing the she would be allowing same sex unions in the church. We had 3 bomb threats over the next 2 weeks and a HUGE protest with Fred Phelps and everything. Pastor Susan stood her ground and the next weekend, protest and all, our first same sex commitment ceremony was held. I felt very proud and for so many reasons, that I'm not sure if I could voice them here and do them credit.
By knowing other people who do not have any reason to take a “chance” or break with tradition it has made me stronger and more able to accept myself. By following their examples and not kowtowing to the masses and their disapproving eye I have been freer, and certainly happier than I have ever been. When I was younger I used to go to church with my friend on Sundays if we had a sleep over night Saturday and I never understood the people who would try to out “Christian” each other. “Well, hello *insert name here* how are you? We missed you last week” Than as she would walk away she would add something like “she’s a drunk” “I can’t even believe she would show her face in the church” “Oh and did you see what so and so was wearing, really I never!” This I heard from every direction not just her Mom and Grandmother. I just didn’t get it, no wait, I still don’t get it. This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that is being addressed here and now. Could it be that by holding up a mirror and showing you what it is that we are hearing you can at least recognize that we don’t want any special rights just the same ones as everyone else.

Posts: 122 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sweet William
Member
Member # 5212

 - posted      Profile for Sweet William           Edit/Delete Post 
Geoff, Thank you. Nice post.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Potemkyn
Member
Member # 5465

 - posted      Profile for Potemkyn   Email Potemkyn         Edit/Delete Post 
AJ,

Your first post really doesn't deal with what I said (or at least tried to say). I was merely pointing out that you appeared to be blaming the church for making an issue out of homosexuality, and I just tried to point out that the church is on the defensive in this area and is responding to people like you, not the other way around.

Potemkyn

Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post 
Jacare:
quote:
sexual dimorphism for the very reason that division of labor and specialization allows for greater capacity and deftness at performing a given function?
Sure, there is sexual dimorphism. If one believes that human beings have been on the planet for millions of years, however, some of that dimorphism is due to our evolutionary history and may or may not be relevant today.

Here's the deal. If it is the man's role to "protect" the woman, you have to ask "from what?" Typically, the biggest threat faced by young to middle aged women in our society is from household accidents, disease, automobile crashes, etc.

But I suppose we could limit "protect" to be against violent crimes versus accidents or acts of God.

In which case, men are protecting their women from other men. Right? The rapists and murderers among us are mostly men. So, we have to ask ourselves if males larger size and more muscular physique means anything in today's environemnt. And the answer is, chiefly that men are bigger than women so that they can protect women from other big men.

Right?

Do you see where this is leading?

Eventually, the real problems of the current world would be solvable by having smaller men. Eventually, men will just evolve into a patch of reproductive tissue carried somewhere on the generally female host body.

I know there are women scientists working on this right now!!!

[Eek!]

[Angst]

Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Potemkyn
Member
Member # 5465

 - posted      Profile for Potemkyn   Email Potemkyn         Edit/Delete Post 
AJ, I think Jacare took care of your second post for me.

Third post.

There are two important types of holiness. Group holiness and personal holiness. For the longest time, the church was focused on personal holiness and making sure their souls were "pure." This lead to Christians who lead celebite and also bloody lives. Respect for the humanness of other groups escaped the church. Now, though, we appear to be swinging the opposite way. Respect for your fellow man has never been higher, but personal holiness has suffered.

The reasoning behind this is simple. This occured because people began to understand that all were 'equal' and thus all should be treated equally. This is not the case, though. Some are holy, some are just, some are smart, others are none of these. But some people began to say "who am I to judge?" An excellent question. One with an answer which should be "nobody." So some decided, do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. Others looked to the one being who could judge, God. And his commands were clearly stated in several different faiths. Thus some thought, who cares because I can't judge, and others thought I can't judge but God can. Conflict ensues.

Hmmm...doesn't have a lot to do with your third post, though...I write later.

Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Potemkyn,

Thank you for your responses. Please understand that I am trying ideas on for "size" and seeing whether I like them or not. I came from a very very conservative church background. I was trying to put myself completely on the outside of the "churched" community and look in, and found myself very cynical and agreeing with Thor.
Having been on the "inside" of several churches, I do not believe it is an actual conspiracy.

It depends on what particular church you belong to whether the true emphasis is on personal holiness or social holiness. I am not currently affiliated with any church as explained in several of my recent hatrack posts, though maybe not on this thread.

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Marriage is now only about formalizing romantic feelings. If the romantic feelings go away, then the marriage ends. We're faced now with rampant divorce and illegitimacy, and our younger generation is growing up with huge disadvantages weighing against them.
According to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University's annual "State of our Union" examination of marriage trends, divorce rates are currently around 40-45% of all marriages. This can certainly be seen as an alarming number.

It also means that over half of all marriages stay together, despite easy divorce and social pressures regarding the bloom of passion. Frankly, I'm impressed.

quote:
Gay marriage, from this perspective, is not a problem in itself, but is a symptom of something larger — the fact that marriage has lost its initial purpose in many people's minds.
How does this reconcile with your earlier preposed summation: ...many gays have the same desire for stable, publically-recognized relationships that heterosexuals have, and feel disenfranchised because their preference for the same sex precludes them from participating in a major part of our culture....
If anything, it would seem that gay people who desire marriage for this reason have a greater appreciation for the needs, responsibilities and social importance of marriage than the many divorcing couples do.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Just a couple of notes.
quote:
It's not their primary role, and for good reason; how many fathers can nurture as well as a mother can?
Personally, I believe this is much more a product of environment than heredity. Many men are not good at nurturing because they've never been taught how.
quote:
As Kasie points out, our constitution is based upon life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
This is more of a nitpick, but I think it's important. You can say, as Kasie did that our country was founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but the Constitution does not contain that phrase. Very specifically, in fact. Not all of the Founding Fathers agreed with Jefferson, who put that line into the Declaration of Independence.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Too many modern married couples feel little to no responsibility to their children or to their fidelity, because from the beginning, their marriage was only about their feelings toward each other, and not about their responsibilities to society.
Geoff, the problem I have with this assessment of the situation is that it seems to suggest a primary "responsibility" of marriage is the production of children. While this may have been the case when women were treated and exchanged as breeding stock, and a failure to produce offspring was one of the few valid grounds for divorce, I'm sure I'm not alone in being grateful that we no longer live in such a repressive and ignorant society.

Married couples have many, many more responsibilities to society, ones that don't directly involve the production of offspring, and I see no reason why gay couples can't fulfill these other responsibilities just as ably.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Duly noted and corrected Saxon

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Jacare, that brand of morality is generally based on the premise of "do no harm to others, or as little as feasible". It is not based on the "higher" morality that exists in christian churches.

And while I concede that you might be able to legislate some morality, you Certainly can't legislate holiness, which is a spiritual issue.

Two ideas related to this. First, there are many laws which your average human, be he (we really need an all-inclusive term that doesn't suck. I refuse to write (s)he) liberal or conservative, agrees with which are not based on harm to others. For example, public decency laws mean that you can't walk around naked even if you want to (except at Berkeley). So I still say that morality is morality regardless of the source.

My next point is just a pet peeve with this "do no harm to others, or as little as feasible" version of morality. So many people seem to base their moral codes on this premise these days, but it is flawed. The flaw is that it assumes a level of responsibility which simply does not exist. For example, this morality is used as the justification for things like legalizing certain drugs, with the tacit assumption being that the expanded pool of drug users will all be very responsible in their drug use. Pshaw right.

Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Aren't public decency laws based on harm, though? Not physical harm, sure, but some kind of harm.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoffrey Card
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for Geoffrey Card   Email Geoffrey Card         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom, the danger I see is not in married couples refusing to or finding themselves unable to have children. I'm not concerned that the PRODUCTION of children is no longer the primary focus of marriage.

My concern is the fact that married couples who DO have children are encouraged by society's assumptions to put their children's needs somewhere secondary to their own. The family is no longer about the kids. It's about the parents, and the kids are just a side effect that must be dealt with somehow, preferably with day care and medication. I think this is a dangerous attitude, and the way we look at marriage is a big part of it.

Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
saxon-The psychological harm of seeing ugly people naked, maybe?

If one wants to be indirect then all of the religious laws are based on harm as well.

[ August 07, 2003, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]

Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Geoff, thanks for your reply. I like discussing controversial topics with you because you truly seem to listen to the other side and seek to understand where they are coming from, even if you don't come to agree with them, exactly.

Regarding your first point, I don't disagree with your historical account of marriage and its importance to society. However, I disagree with your assesment of the situation. I think society is more and more coming to realize that gays are legitimate members of society and that we can even make great contributions if given the chance. I think that increasing numbers of people, Christian and not, are beginning to feel that denying marriage to commited gay couples is both unfair and mean-spirited. There is increasing support for and increasing recognition of the need for ways in which to provide gay couples with the protections and benefits of marriage. The "civil unions" idea that is gaining support is an example of this trend. (see my reservations about this compromise above). I think that because support is starting to swing in our direction, fundamentalist Christian leaders, (or those perceived to be such), who continue to fight against something the general populace is coming to see as only fair, will be seen increasingly as extremists. And it's a fight that can only be won by our side. It can be fought by the fundamentalists but never won because gays won't stop fighting until they achieve equal rights and protection. At that point, fundamentalist will probably still fight, but the contest will have been won.

Arguing whether gay marriage is a "problem" or a "symptom" of the decline of marriage is largely pointless. The only real threat to marriage is from within. A strong marriage is made by its participants. A weak one is broken by its participants. I wouldn't be surprised if when gays are granted the right to formalize their unions, there is a flush of shallow couples who will rush out to to get hitched. Maybe even a similar percentage to compare with the shallow heterosexual couples who keep the "Elvis Chapel" in Las Vegas in business. But there will be many more who will form life-long committed relationships, and the gay and straight communities will be all the better for it. I don't think some vague (and quite frankly unsupported - at least on this forum) fear of "messing with the definition of marriage" is sufficient reason to deny gays the opportunity to form legally recognized marriages.

quote:
We don't understand homosexuality. We don't know what role genetics might play. We don't know what environmental factors encourage the development of homosexual tendencies. We don't know to what degree full acceptance of homosexual life might benefit or harm people with varying degrees of the tendency. We don't know the unforeseeable long-term results of the society-altering changes that we are on the cusp of making
Yes, we don't know. Unfortunately, we can't know until it happens. However, given all the problems in society, all the things that break up families and put kids in foster homes and on the streets, that encourage people to live for the moment and live mostly for self-gratification, I think there might be niche in our society crying to be filled with a new kind of stable loving relationship. I wonder if filling that niche with gay marriage might not just solve more problems than it causes.

quote:
Homosexual marriage is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage. This is not the same issue as allowing blacks to attend the same schools as whites, or giving women the vote. This reminds me more of the controversy in southern California over bilingual schools.
Well, you just went to lengths to show that "marriage" today is "only about formalizing romantic feelings". I hope my marriage, if I ever have one, is about much more than that. I'm curious to know, though, what exactly are the differences you see between gay and straight marriages. (Beyond the raising of one's own biological children, that is.)

You lost me on the biligual arguement when you pointed out that the Spanish children will actually be hampered by concession to their parents' demand to be taught in Spanish. What is the gay corrolary? If we allow gays to marry they won't see how crippling their lifestyle is? By allowing them to marry we are actually cheating them out of the opportunity to see that you have to be straight to be accepted? I'm sure this isn't what you mean to say, but I can't see what else is implied by this analogy. Your last paragraph doesn't answer this question because it is again another expression of a vague (and again unsupported) fear that we might be making a mistake.

I look forward to your reply. [Smile]

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks to Geoff and KarlEd for saving this thread from firey death. [Smile]

[Group Hug]

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"My concern is the fact that married couples who DO have children are encouraged by society's assumptions to put their children's needs somewhere secondary to their own."

But this has ALWAYS been the case. In fact, one of the remarkable things about Dr. Spock, in the late '60s, was that he argued parents should put the needs of their children before their own needs; prior to this century, children were considered property to be shuffled off to proper training centers in order to be socialized and carry on the family tradition. The idea that parents "owed" more to their children than room and board was a pretty revolutionary one when it caught on, and it seems strange to argue that parents TODAY are neglecting their children more than parents two hundred years ago did.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My concern is the fact that married couples who DO have children are encouraged by society's assumptions to put their children's needs somewhere secondary to their own.
In addition to Tom's reply, I have to point out that although this is a valid concern in a discussion of the state of marriage in general, making it in a discussion about the ramifications of gay marriage is patently, if inadvertently, offensive. Surely you are not implying that gay couples will inherently put their own needs ahead of any children they may win the right to care for?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoffrey Card
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for Geoffrey Card   Email Geoffrey Card         Edit/Delete Post 
No, Karl, the part of my original post that Tom is answering addresses my concerns for married people in general, and not just for gays. If you reread the exchange, it should be pretty clear.

quote:
I think there might be niche in our society crying to be filled with a new kind of stable loving relationship. I wonder if filling that niche with gay marriage might not just solve more problems than it causes.
That may well be the case. All I'm saying is, it's not a guarantee, and many gay-marriage proponents seem unwilling to imagine that there could be unforeseen negative repercussions. Large-scale recognition of gay marriage is hawked as an unmitigated success before it has even been attempted. That kind of attitude is worrisome.

Either way, however, I don't think that allowing gay marriage would create a "new kind of loving relationship". The relationships we are discussing already exist, and are already wreaking their benefits on society. What we're talking about here isn't the creation of new relationships, but rather the formal recognition of relationships that already exist, and the defining of those relationships as precisely equivalent to heterosexual marriages.

quote:
You lost me on the biligual arguement when you pointed out that the Spanish children will actually be hampered by concession to their parents' demand to be taught in Spanish. What is the gay corrolary? If we allow gays to marry they won't see how crippling their lifestyle is? By allowing them to marry we are actually cheating them out of the opportunity to see that you have to be straight to be accepted? I'm sure this isn't what you mean to say, but I can't see what else is implied by this analogy.
I had none of those in mind, though I can see how you could get to them from what I said. My concern here is not truly for the welfare of the participants in gay marriages. I'm pretty sure that the change would be largely beneficial, or at worst, neutral in its effect on members of the gay community.

My concern is for all of us, collectively, not just for a single group. I see our society on a fast downhill slide, and redefining marriage this way could be yet another impetus to push us down that slope. My feeling is not that "marriage is bad for gay people" but rather that "gay marriage may be a bad idea for America right now".

Particularly since I began discussing the subject with you, I've come to feel that SOMEthing should be done to give gays the opportunity to become active participants in every part of our society. I don't see you as a blight or an infection (as some truly bigoted religious folk do), and I resent Caleb's repeated assertion that people on my side of the line are all basically a bunch of Nazis ... on the contrary, I believe that homosexuals (and individuals with a wide variety of other psychological differences) enrich our society and encourage broad-mindedness and openness of thought and discussion.

I'm not trying to "keep the gays down" here. I'm just really concerned that we are rushing into a massive reordering of our society, and are doing very little to measure or mitigate our actions with reason and caution. We've made mistakes in areas like this before, and I'd prefer that we slow down the rate of our social experimentation until we understand ourselves a little better.

[ August 07, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Geoffrey Card ]

Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
and individuals with a wide variety of other psychological differences
Such as?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
Geoff - if it makes a difference, this suggested change, as opposed to free love, premarital sex, no-fault divorce, etc - stresses commitment and relationships, bonding and social structure. If we have to have changes, that's not a bad direction to be pushed.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
Does anyone else love the fact that on Amazing Race, under Chip and Reichen's name (when they list the relationship between the team) put Married?

Chip and Reichen
Married

Of course, there was Millie and Chuck.

Millie and Chuck
Dating 12 Years/Virgins [Embarrassed]

Man, like that's anybody's business!

Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't think that allowing gay marriage would create a "new kind of loving relationship".
This might be true, but only insomuch as a straight unmarried couple living together has the exact same kind of relationship as a married straight couple do. Do you believe there is no difference between those two?

quote:
The relationships we are discussing already exist, and are already wreaking their benefits on society.
quote:
wreak ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rk)
tr.v. wreaked, wreak·ing, wreaks
To inflict (vengeance or punishment) upon a person.
To express or gratify (anger, malevolence, or resentment); vent.
To bring about; cause: wreak havoc.
Archaic. To take vengeance for; avenge.

Do I give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know the meaning of the word you used, or were you being glib? From anyone else I'd be insulted, but perhaps you thought you were being cute. [Dont Know]

quote:
My concern here is not truly for the welfare of the participants in gay marriages.
And my concern, largely is. This doesn't mean I don't care about society in general, but I think the VERY REAL hurt being done to my people outweighs the theoretical hurt that might possibly be done to the rest of you, especially considering no one has been able to come up with even a theoretical idea of just what that hurt might be.

quote:
I'm just really concerned that we are rushing into a massive reordering of our society, and are doing very little to measure or mitigate our actions with reason and caution.
I believe you. However, some changes probably can't be made gradually. There are those who will always use caution as a mask to hide oppression and bigotry. There are those who if they had their way would still be expecting blacks and other minorities to bide their time while the self appointed watchdogs of society decide the best way to ease them into equality. I personally don't think that the gay rights issue, including gay marriage, merits the cries for caution. Especially since nobydy really seems to be able to say what, exactly, they are afraid of.

So, just what is it that everyone fears gay marriage will do to straight marriage or to society? What are the fears that justify such extreme cries of caution?

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoffrey Card
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for Geoffrey Card   Email Geoffrey Card         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't have much time for a long post this moment, but let me clear up the "wreak" thing. Note that one of the definitions is "to bring about; to cause". That's the meaning I was using, and though it's usually associated with the word "havoc", I thought it might be cute to stretch the word a bit. I meant nothing pejorative by it. I don't know, I just like the image of people running around wreaking joy, or wreaking love, or something [Smile]
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
And I applaud you for that Geoff. Taking an abused word and associating it with happier words, to give it a better connotation. [Smile]

I think I'm going to make it my goal to tell at least one person a day that I'm committed to wreaking joy.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
One thing to understand about the viewpoint opposite your own, Geoff, is that we don't care what the social ramifications of gay marriage might be. We just want to permit a form of behavior that we see as private and therefore not a proper subject for prohibition.

There are a lot of books out there that I think have had a negative effect on their readers; a lot of churches that I think have had a negative effect on most of their constituents. But so what? I don't want to see these things banned. People should be free to make what lifestyle choices they please, and neither I nor the majority of Americans nor anyone else ought to be able to control others in that way.

Is this value either implicit or explicit in the Constitution? Arguably it's implicit, only special cases of it are made explicit, but the whole thing should be. The benefit of having a free society is freedom itself.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
What an interesting thread. [Big Grin]
And very civil, besides a small minority.
Both sides have argued strongly and made me think about the issue in new ways.Discussion threads like this are what makes Hatrack great.
quote:
My concern here is not truly for the welfare of the participants in gay marriages.--Geoff (This short quote cuts off Geoff somewhat, but hey--Morbo)

And my concern, largely is. This doesn't mean I don't care about society in general, but I think the VERY REAL hurt being done to my people outweighs the theoretical hurt that might possibly be done to the rest of you, especially considering no one has been able to come up with even a theoretical idea of just what that hurt might be.--KarlEd

Well said, KarlEd.
This is the crux of the matter to me: restricting the potential rights of a minority so that the status quo of the majority can continue unchanged.
This is unacceptable in a free society.
I think gay marriage or civil union is inevitable in this country and will happen before 2010, possibly much sooner.
And KarlEd, another good point you made earlier: why should gays have to forsee every legal contingency and hire expensive lawyers to deal with them when straights get them all in a package with marriage? [Dont Know]

[ August 08, 2003, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sopwith
Member
Member # 4640

 - posted      Profile for Sopwith   Email Sopwith         Edit/Delete Post 
Strangely enough, something about Kayla's post on the Amazing Race above keyed me in on something. Two of the contestants there have been dating for 12 years and are still virgins. And someone asked what is the difference between a committed but not married relationship and one wherein there is a marriage.

At one time, I would have thought there was no difference. Now, three and a half years into a marriage, I know there is a BIG difference. And it deals with maturity of a relationship.

Taking the step of real, committed before God and State, legal marriage does change a relationship. It, without a doubt, sets it in stone. The stone can later be broken with a lot of effort, but for the most part it is permanent. You think differently about your relationship, you act differently. This is no longer your girlfriend/boyfriend or even fiance`. This is your spouse and they are now closer to you than any other family member has ever, ever been.

So yes, by saying No the Gay marriages, full and true, you are denying something to the gay community. And it is something that every adult should have the right to do. And yes, calling it something besides marriage will lessen the value of it. There's something about that word, marriage and the act of being married. Being married is more than just the ceremony, it walks with you throughout your life.

Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So, just what is it that everyone fears gay marriage will do to straight marriage or to society? What are the fears that justify such extreme cries of caution?
-KarlEd

Not that the conversation is that active at the moment, but if it does pick up again, can someone who believes that these unnamed fears exist please elucidate? I've been racking (not wreaking [Wink] ) my brain trying to come up with a valid one, but as of yet, no dice. Anyone?

Oh, and Geoff had a question earlier, quite possibly more than a few pages back, and i can't find the exact quote at the moment so hopefully i'll paraphrase correctly enough for everyone's approval [Smile] He wondered what the gay community, or i suppose society at large, would feel about giving gay couples all the rights and legal benefits of marriage *without* calling it a marriage, or without it legally being a marriage. Did I interpret that correctly? If so, it seems to me that if you're going to give a kid presents, a cake, a party hat and invite all their friends over to watch a clown, it might as well be their birthday. You know what i mean?

[ August 08, 2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Leonide ]

Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  14  15  16   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2