quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: C'mon, doesn't everyone itch to enlighten an ignorant bigot like me?
I daresay that is what has been attempted for the last few pages, but it seems to be hitting a rather dense rubber wall. Whenever somone posts something that is a direct and verifiable counterexample to one of your claims, or even just a cogent and clear assessment of a logical problem in the reasoning you present, it does not seem to be noticed.
[For example, consider the many ways in which a couple cannot currently achieve all of the tangible secular benefits of "marriage" without actually becoming married. Rejecting that such barriers exist seems to be a fundamental basis of your argument, and it was clearly demonstrated to be untenable -- by multiple people -- yet there was no response from you. Except to continue as if that never happened, even though it was a fundamental point.]
Like Lisa, I'm seeing rhetorical stance-taking and polemicizing, not a good faith effort to have a conversation, much less get informed.
Regardless, welcome to Hatrack. Hope you have a good time here.
quote:I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin.... I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator.... If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade...
In all seriousness, have you considered the possibility that you might be gay? Your post here, for a lot of reasons, really triggers my gaydar.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So now we're back to a situation in which infertile heterosexuals should also be prevented from marrying. Unless there is more to marriage than reproduction, or if marriage can be valuable without producing new life through procreative sex between spouses.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin (not inherently a religious term).
You do know that even most churches recognize purposes for sex besides reproduction, yes? One of them being strengthening the bonds of affection between spouses.
If I agreed with you, then having sex with my husband right now would be harmful to the strength of our relationship, since I'm already pregnant. And having sex during the ten months after our first child was born would have been harmful, since it took that long to start ovulating again. But I'm pretty sure the opposite is the case.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin (not inherently a religious term)."
Are you quoting that because you agree with it and thinks it needs to be said again? If so, I think this is one of those types of statements that can only properly be evaluated by the people involved in a relationship, and trying to teach this belief as if it can be adopted in practice by any couple does more harm then good.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage ought to be the strongest, most resilient, and flexible bond that can exist between two beings, and sexual desires are only a disposable hook that makes a starting latch, so that the rope can be tied (beware the extended metaphors!!!). This magnificent fiber is woven not only to bridge the couple, but to support the child that springs from it.
So we can't let the scissors of gay cut through the moral fiber of the web of religious holy yanrness because the incision of homogay when allowed to take place on equal footing means that you are not optimally continuing the process of life which is how you bridge a straight heterosexual bridge of ungay purity spanning a wreath of children over a valley of debauchery and hormonal satiation through entirely functional application of clinically necessary sexual urges. Of thread.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: So now we're back to a situation in which infertile heterosexuals should also be prevented from marrying. Unless there is more to marriage than reproduction, or if marriage can be valuable without producing new life through procreative sex between spouses.
Preventing infertile heterosexuals from marrying is impractical.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: C'mon, doesn't everyone itch to enlighten an ignorant bigot like me?
I daresay that is what has been attempted for the last few pages, but it seems to be hitting a rather dense rubber wall. Whenever somone posts something that is a direct and verifiable counterexample to one of your claims, or even just a cogent and clear assessment of a logical problem in the reasoning you present, it does not seem to be noticed.
[For example, consider the many ways in which a couple cannot currently achieve all of the tangible secular benefits of "marriage" without actually becoming married. Rejecting that such barriers exist seems to be a fundamental basis of your argument, and it was clearly demonstrated to be untenable -- by multiple people -- yet there was no response from you. Except to continue as if that never happened, even though it was a fundamental point.]
Like Lisa, I'm seeing rhetorical stance-taking and polemicizing, not a good faith effort to have a conversation, much less get informed.
Regardless, welcome to Hatrack. Hope you have a good time here.
But I thought that having legal/civil parity was what the DOmestic Partners Act was all about.
How is it not?
I am trying to learn. I'm sorry that my asking questions sounds like absolute obtuseness to you. I guess there really is such thing as a dumb question, eh?
What is a "good faith effort", then?
I am asking about the motivation behind same-sex marriage. Also I am getting to know people who are strongly in favor of it,and I want to make friends with people, both by being interested in what they are thinking here, and in making sure I don't engage in a faux pas out in public.
I am starting to get the feeling that a "good faith effort" is pretty much dumbly nodding and agreeing mutely to what people say here.
If there was someone who didn't like Mormons, and they wanted to know more about the church, I wouldn't tell them how offensive they are for not believing in my version of the gospel and tell them they are being offensive by asking questions.
How else do you want people to get informed?
I had assumed that people in favor of gay marriage would be eager to discuss it.
I am asking, What is the point of the Domestic Partners Act, if it doesn't provide parity under the law? If it does such a poor job, then why would anyone support it?
I don't assume anyone here is a Very Bad Person for disagreeing with me--otherwise I'd have to assume a lot of people here are Very Bad People. And I don't.
Would it please you, then, if I shrugged and said, "You're right, you can't change my mind, you're all wrong and I refuse to discuss it anymore"?
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And since legal parity is offered to same-sex couples under the Domestic Partners Act, the same legal rights as heterosexual couples have, then I don't see how a ss couple that is called "married" versus a "united" one (or married/Married) will be subject to any more or less discrimination.
Using different terms is inherently polarizing. That's why "separate but equal" is not achievable, even in principle.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko, if you edit a post to add substantial information or additional commentary, it is considered courteous here to make explicit note of that. BlackBlade notes this here.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What is a "good faith effort", then?
You could try by answering the prior comments referenced in this next quotation:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: [For example, consider the many ways in which a couple cannot currently achieve all of the tangible secular benefits of "marriage" without actually becoming married. Rejecting that such barriers exist seems to be a fundamental basis of your argument, and it was clearly demonstrated to be untenable -- by multiple people -- yet there was no response from you. Except to continue as if that never happened, even though it was a fundamental point.]
If you need me to spell out exactly where and how they directly contradicted your claims, I can do so. [Actually, I probably won't, for reasons noted below. It should be fairly clear, though.]
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: I am starting to get the feeling that a "good faith effort" is pretty much dumbly nodding and agreeing mutely to what people say here.
Nope. Plenty of people here -- some of LDS faith, some not -- have managed to disagree with same-sex marriage without interacting in ill faith. I see the problem here as being in the interaction, not in the content.
quote:If there was someone who didn't like Mormons, and they wanted to know more about the church, I wouldn't tell them how offensive they are for not believing in my version of the gospel and tell them they are being offensive by asking questions.
Again, it is not the questions, but the interaction. The way the questions are asked, not the content of the questions. I am sure it is perfectly possible for someone to ask questions about the LDS faith in a way that is disingenuous and offensive.
Some have done it here, in fact.
quote:How else do you want people to get informed?
I had assumed that people in favor of gay marriage would be eager to discuss it.
Well, yes, with someone who is willing to engage in appropriate discussion. I would like that to be you.
Look, I may be the only person who gets this vibe from you. (Well, and Lisa, too, obviously.) Or it may be that other people do but are more reserved about expressing it, whether out of common courtesy or other reasons. No matter. I am bothering to engage you on this because you strike me as an intelligent, well-spoken person with interesting things to say.
I'm not so motivated as to spar idly unless I do get the feeling you are speaking in good faith. Nor if you cannot figure out what is meant by "good faith" irrespective of the time I have spent to clarify it. That would be tilting at windmills, and I have better things to do. As, I'm sure, do you.
But I figured it was worth a last shot.
quote:I am asking, What is the point of the Domestic Partners Act, if it doesn't provide parity under the law? If it does such a poor job, then why would anyone support it?
I'd rather see you answer the earlier comments addressed to your prior conversation before moving on to another topic like this. (Specifically, where you argued that there were no substantial benefits to marriage that were not available to same sex partners.) Making the topic of the conversation a moving target only frustrates the matter and leads to a lack of clarity.
quote:Would it please you, then, if I shrugged and said, "You're right, you can't change my mind, you're all wrong and I refuse to discuss it anymore"?
Actually, it would please me if you wouldn't construct a straw man to stand in my stead. This, too, feels disingenuous to me.
You may not be aware that we have many members here who are practicing LDS. Many of them (and others) agree with you on this topic, some do not, but most all of us like and respect one another. In good part this is because there is a shared history of actually trying to understand one another, to move forward together in understanding, and to assume the Principle of Charity to one another. (It doesn't always happen that way, and less so frequently, but that may well be due to the fact that many oldtimers have moved off to private fora out of frustration with just these sorts of issues.)
Now, I note I haven't been very charitable to you in my 2 posts. That is my lack. I have actually tried very hard to be in my own head, but I cannot. It may just be my further failing, as I haven't been able to work out a way to engage with you in a more tactful way. My apologies for that, and I will leave it at this.
(Though I'll continue reading and happily take my lumps from my peers as they filter through. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, I may be the only person who gets this vibe from you.
I get the vibe too, I'm just not the vibe-pointing-out type. Not that I don't think it should be pointed out. I appreciate your contribution here, CT. It cuts through the fluff to highlight some key difficulties in the conversation here.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figured there were people here who are practicing LDS, since it seems as though OSC attracts many.
I'm sorry I offended you. I don't always manage to read every post--I went back through the thread and realized I totally missed a long post of Lisa's when scrolling through.
Sorry about that. I try not to ignore anyone; however, I also am jumping up and doing other things in between stolen minutes at the computer. That's my lack, and I apologize.
I assure you that I mean my questions in a friendly manner; however, I seem to entirely lack the ability to put that friendliness through via the written word.
I'll go ask obnoxious questions somewhere else, then. Pardon my intrusion, everyone, and thank you for your forbearance. Not to sound cheesy, but I figure, we're all God's children, and if I am ignorant on an issue, it's up to me to go to the source, so to speak, and get myself enlightened. Unfortunately, I tend to not accept just any answer, and I can see where that would be frustrating to you all.
And, ClaudiaTherese, I'm sorry I did not have the proper posting form, and tried your patience so much with incorrect arguing. Thank you for your welcome to Hatrack.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I don't know, MattP. I think I'm likely to do more harm than good. But thanks!
At this level of irritability, I know to assign myself a few days in the corner, far away from Hatrack. )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko, I won't be around for awhile anyway (as per above). If it is best for you to be elsewhere, then that certainly is the decision you should make. However, it is not necessary to do so.
And if you do, you should know that there is a longstanding tradition of welcoming people back who have taken a leave of absence, without any need for explanation whatsoever. It's generally a nice place, people generally manage to be pretty polite ( ), and there is a wealth you have to contribute, I'm sure.
I've gotten old and cranky, and you had the pleasure of being hit with two barrels of my surly right in the midst of what seems to be a busy time for you. My apologies, again. There were so many people writing to you that I'm not surprised you missed Lisa's long post. Happens to most everyone some time or another.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well, time for my bed, and time for my break away from HatCrack. I do hope you stay, you know.
And should we meet up again, I will make sure I am more truly welcoming. All the best.
---
Edited to add: Hah! You didn't need a "welcome," as you are an oldtimer yourself. Again, my apologies -- I'm sure that came off as condescending, but I really didn't see. I read the "4" as an "8."
I think you were starting to post right at the time I was at the busiest in my life. Sorry I missed you in 2004, but I imagine I would have been even more impossible then. *twinkle
Anyway, welcome back to Hatrack.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko, you still haven't answered the question as to why allowing Lisa to marry will cause large amounts of demonstrable harm. I am startin' to think you maybe can't. Personally I don't think it would make a big difference either way. Our great-great grandchildren are going to wonder what all the fuss was about as they genetically modify themselves to be without genitalia, is my guess.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow - she just misses the point over and over and over again, doesn't she?
Scahiko - you have brought up many concerns and questions that people have addressed clearly & thoughtfully. You have never acknowledged this, just moved onto another argument about why there shouldn't be gay marriage. That's extremely frustrating to those of us who are answering your questions patiently. Your questions aren't offensive, your lack of admiting that you were wrong - saying "oh, I guess I was wrong that homosexuals can gain equal rights under the law without marriage" - is the problem. There's no use discussing or arguing with a brick wall, and that's what you seem like.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am starting to get the feeling that a "good faith effort" is pretty much dumbly nodding and agreeing mutely to what people say here.
Sorry, mang — while that feeling is not exactly the case, it's truth that you are going to incense people if you insist that they should be maintained as legal inferiors for the sake of society.
It would be just the same as if a person with a racist religion opposed to miscegenation was asking "Is there any way I can maintain my belief that schools should remain segregated without, you know, stepping on any toes?" — you're essentially wondering why you can't advocate discrimination (or 'only not agreeing upon equality' or 'being for separate equality' all of which are the same thing) without seeming 'impossibly rude' to the discriminated-upon.
Too bad it's something a person can't fairly request. Welcome to the cultural impasse.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin.... I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator.... If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade...
In all seriousness, have you considered the possibility that you might be gay? Your post here, for a lot of reasons, really triggers my gaydar.
The above sentiment from C3PO didn't strike me as latent homosexuality (though I admit to have no functional gaydar), but it did seem to me to be sad.
I love having sex with my wife. It isn't some hook that got disposed of once we were in a "deeper" relationship. It's part of what makes our relationship deep. It's not the only part, but it's a joyous, important part that has yet to wither away... Though having a one-month-old certainly requires postponement of it, and gladly so. To restate a slightly different way, I don't have a finite level of depth that I must mete out or partition across the various facets of my relationship with my wife; love is infinite. I admit to feeling a bit bummed that you see the need minimize sex in your life, but more power to you if it works for you.
Stupid analogy to illustrate this all yet again (sorry it popped into my head just now): I'd rather build a larger pool to fit my love, all my loves, of my wife into, rather than keep any part of it in a thermos and dump the rest down the toilet.
quote:"What disparities exist, that cannot be solved through civil unions?"
IMO that's a flawed question. The blue stands for freedom, the white stands for equality, but the red stands for solidarity. (yeah, I'm aware that's the French flag, not the American one -- nonetheless).
Even if "civil union" satisfied the quest for equality - it would still be deficient in regards to solidarity.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this were France, that would be relevant.
That's not just me being flippant. There are many things the countries have in common, but they don't share all of them. Something being relevant to France is not an argument for its implementation in the United States.
More specifically, solidarity isn't a big American value.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyways, it's a moot point, since, as the California Supreme Court correctly showed, civil unions do not pass the equality test - "separate but equal" is not equal.
There's a very good article on why the California ruling is such a watershed case here. In particular, as the article points out, this is the first time that a court has applied strict scrutiny to a case involving the rights of homosexuals;
quote:There are, however, circumstances under which the reason for a law must be more than rational; it must be compelling and the law must be drawn as narrowly as possible to meet that need. This is called "strict scrutiny" and kicks in when a law singles out for disparate treatment a group that has long been subjected to discrimination (known as a "suspect class") or when a law restricts a "fundamental right."
posted
[quote]I love having sex with my wife. It isn't some hook that got disposed of once we were in a "deeper" relationship.[quote]
Personally, I think the functional notion of our sexuality as a 'disposable hook' comes off as an utter tragedy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko, if you need to leave, you're certainly wise to do so. I'll be sorry to see you go, though, and will hope to see you return.
As CT has mentioned, people are feeling frustrated with you because they've felt that you have been selectively ignoring the various posts that refute the assertion that you've placed as the keystone of your argument. Now, I hear you about missing people's posts--that happens to all of us, especially when there are tons of people replying to us.
One such post was written by MattP at 4:06 PM on May 19th. The text of it read
quote:
quote:And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means,
All of the civil/legal benefits can not be obtained by other means. A power of attorney may grant some subset of marriage rights, but it does achieve full parity.
Take a look at the number of documents that need to be prepared, along with the caveats about their enforcability in different juridictions, at this site:
All of that just to get a portion of the benefits that occur automatically when a couple is married. And that page is only covering estate planning issues.
If you were to respond to that post, either to point out the flaw in Matt's thinking or to acknowledge his point, it would probably go a long way toward ending both their frustration and the frustration that you're no doubt feeling at having your motives questioned.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin.... I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator.... If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade...
In all seriousness, have you considered the possibility that you might be gay? Your post here, for a lot of reasons, really triggers my gaydar.
Is this helpful?
("Oh, I guess I AM gay! thanks Tom!")
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to address that, because I think it is important.
Having a crush on a member of the same sex does not necessarily mean you are gay. Especially, especially, when you are a kid, or when you are transitioning from being a kid to being an adult.
That's why I am so annoyed by children who are coded as gay in movies, like in School of Rock. Nothing has settled yet, and putting that kind of pressure on kids is entirely unfair. Just like playing doctor when you're five doesn't mean you're going to grow up to be an exhibitionist, having a crush when you're in junior high doesn't mean you're gay. People are learning what it means to be friends, what it means to be sexual, and what the difference is between all the different kinds of love.
I also think that it is a cheap rhetorical technique to accuse those opposed to same sex marriage of being gay themselves. It's not an argument - it's an attempt to shut someone up.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While not invalidating your point as a whole, katharina, I want to quickly point out that there are plenty of gay & lesbian adults who admit to knowing their sexual preference pretty young - like 8 or 10.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of the civil/legal benefits can not be obtained by other means.
Wrong! What was meant was "Not all of the legal benefits..." Or in other words "Some of the legal benefits are not obtainable by other means". What is in fact being said is "None of the legal benefits can be obtained by other means", which is plainly untrue. Get it straight, people. Don't they teach Venn diagrams anymore?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Multiple, or continuous crushes DO mean something.
I knew I liked other little girls at 4.
And I totally agree with Tom. Seeing hetsex as a "hook that goes away" pings my gaydar too. Like, he doesn't really like hetsex, he only does it... maybe because he's told he's supposed to like it... maybe because he just wants kids.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like, he doesn't really like hetsex, he only does it... maybe because he's told he's supposed to like it... maybe because he just wants kids.
It's fruitless and rude to speculate publicly. Maybe you and Tom can email one another if you're that interested.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the hook that goes away is supposed to be the initial strong sexual infatuation which does nearly always go away or at least settle down to a much lower intensity. From Bob, of the Bob & Tom show: Show me the most beautiful woman in the world, and I'll show you a guy who is tired of having sex with her. (paraphrased). I don't read much into C3PO's argument other than an earnest attempt to frame sexuality in a way that religious restrictions on it can be seen as sensible.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, it's completely inappropriate to be speculating about 3PO's sexual orientation here. It really needs to stop.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I *am* amused by the You and Kat vs Me and Tom angle though. That's a critical mass of something, but I don't know what.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that the problem here is that marriage has two distinct meanings related to the status of a relationship.
One, it has a legal status. You can go to the justice of the peace, etc... and this has implications for you related to taxes and a variety of other legal moves. This is regardless of religious affiliation. Atheists can be legally married and enjoy the benefits of that status.
Two, it has a religious status. This will normally involve a minister and religious ceremony... and some churches will have very specific things that are required of married people before they can be wed in the church and recognized as married. In this context, many believers hold marriage as a sacred activity and it means something very specific.
These folks believe that marriage is the relationship between a man and a woman and is a necessary coventant and foundation for a sexual relationship and all the things surrounding that, including intimacy and including children.
For these people, homosexuality, bestiality, sex with children, sex between unmarried people, pornography, etc... are all things that are unhealthy for us. And those kinds of sexual behavior are ethically and morally out of bounds.
Some churches would not consider a couple actually married if they were married as unbelievers and without fulfilling the specific requirements and the vows of marriage as defined by the church as a sacrament.
You can disagree with that if you want to, many do.
But the religious meaning came first.
I think most people would agree that people who are involved in a homosexual relationship should be allowed to have the legal benefits of marriage in practical ways. Even people who believe that homosexuality is wrong from a religious point of view (many of them anyway) would agree to the practical equality.
But by calling it marriage, you are asking the religious person to divorce the sacred nature and meaning of marriage from the term and cause it to mean something fundamentally different than what it means currently.
For the person to whom marriage is sacred and to whom homosexuality is sin, this is a real problem.
People asking for homosexual marriage to be recognized are asking to make something sacred allow things that they believe are wrong.
So in effect, you're asking people to set aside their belief in a sacred relationship so that you can do something they believe is wrong.
They can't do that in good conscience.
Call it something else. Civil union, whatever. And if that is some weird discrimination because of the different name, then let heterosexual unions be called civil unions too and let marriage become a strictly religious term.
People are claiming that they have the right to demand equal treatment and maybe they do.
I don't think they have the right to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years and cause those words decribing sacred things to mean something else.
Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's nice. Hinduism predates the Judeo-Christian religion(s) by quite awhile, and, as I pointed out earlier, in that religion homosexuals are free to marry.
Why do Christians get to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years longer because their religion's words describing sacred things mean something else from what it means to Hindus?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no objection to the state starting to recognise only civil unions for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, but as a matter of practical politics it won't happen.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think they have the right to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years and cause those words decribing sacred things to mean something else.
Very thoughtful post, Humility Rocks. And I appreciate yout taking time to explain why the terminology is so important to people, and I agree with much of what you said.
However, no one "owns" words or can dictate who has the right to define them. If we were to adopt that reasoning, then who would be responsible for dictating what "marriage' means? Put it up to popular vote? Get religious leaders together to get a concensus (good luck!)? See my point?
Some Christian denominations already recognize homosexual marriages. So you can't even say that all Christians are opposed to this definition of the term. The group down in Texas thought marriage could be between multiple women and girls and one man. They still called it "marriages."
Then you start to say whether or not something in the court house is a civil union and something in the church is a marriage...and it just turns into chaos.
I personally know what marriage means to me and how I define it. Nothing any homosexual or polygamous, or Hollywood couple or can ever do will diminish my personal view of marriage. (Let us please not forget plenty of heterosexual couples throughout history have done a lot to diminish the sacred nature of marriage). I'm not willing to give others power over my view of marriage as a covenant bond - that is ridiculous. If I believe my marriage is a covenant promise between myself and my husband before God - then how in the world could someone else's usage of that word affect it?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, I'd be fine with civil unions if everyone got them from the state (such as what occurs in Germany), but I agree with KoM that that's unlikely to happen. Marriage for all, or marriage for none.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think they have the right to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years and cause those words decribing sacred things to mean something else.
Who is taking the meaning away from you?
As I pointed out earlier in this very thread, it's legal for two atheists to get married. Why? Because the legal definition is not related to the religious definition.
And guess what, YOU don't have to recognize gay marriage. Neither does your church.
But as long as these people are citizens and pay taxes, the government has to recognize it.
It's just taking them too long to figure that out.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Wow, Lisa, I don't dislike you, but you sure seem to dislike me.
No, I'm sure you don't dislike her, you just want to deny her equal rights.
Honestly, that's not my issue with her. The difference in my reaction to her and, say, to SenojRetep is pretty major. That's because Peter has a right to his views, as wrong as I think they are (so long as he doesn't do anything to force them on me). Sachiko is arguing dishonestly. I dislike that intensely.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: You can disagree with that if you want to, many do.
But the religious meaning came first.
I want to, not so much disagree, but suggest that this is an oversimplification to the point of misleading. In the beginning, religion was law, and law was religion. There was no distinction, it would have been unfathomable. This worked because societies were small and largely homogeneous, and if one group interacted with another group at all, it was usually to eradicate the other group from the planet.
As societies grew, and started assimilating or tolerating disparate religions, separate, secular laws were created. This was pretty much done ad hoc, organically. People only changed those parts that were causing the biggest social frictions, by and large, leaving the rest as is.
So you are right, but as your simple statement, there is no point to it.
And even if you could prove that the religious meaning of marriage was separate and meaningful from the legal definition first, you'd be hard pressed to argue that Egyptian or Hindu definitions were the first religious meanings that survive to our knowledge. Their religious texts predate the Abrahamic religion's texts by a fair bit.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'd like to address that, because I think it is important.
Having a crush on a member of the same sex does not necessarily mean you are gay. Especially, especially, when you are a kid, or when you are transitioning from being a kid to being an adult.
I agree. And the opposite is true as well. When I look back to my relationship with my best friend in 6th grade, it's pretty clear that I had a crush on him. And I definitely had a movie crush on the guy who played Marcus in B5. (I know, movie crushes are different, but still.)
I've seen people absolutely crushed by straight girls who thought a crush meant something more than it really did and who wound up realizing (after leaving wreckage behind them) that they were really straight after all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: But by calling it marriage, you are asking the religious person to divorce the sacred nature and meaning of marriage from the term and cause it to mean something fundamentally different than what it means currently.
Nope. If it's a fundamentally religious thing, then the government shouldn't be registering it any more than the government registers baptisms or bar mitzvahs.
To the extent that the government does register it, and to the extent that the government does give economic and legal favors to those it registers it for, there is no justification for the government to restrict that to opposite sex couples only.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: For the person to whom marriage is sacred and to whom homosexuality is sin, this is a real problem.
Not really. There are millions of Catholics who don't believe in divorce. Yet the government recognizes divorce. Why should one set of religious principles be underwritten by the government, and another set ignored? That's the reason for the Establishment Clause. The government shouldn't be underwriting any religious status. To the extent that it's religious, the government shouldn't be involved. To the extent that it's not, religious principles shouldn't be involved.
Either way, your point isn't relevant in the context of government perks in a supposedly equal society.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: People asking for homosexual marriage to be recognized are asking to make something sacred allow things that they believe are wrong.
No, they are not. Having the government remove its institutionalized discrimination against same sex couples when it comes to marriage wouldn't force Christians or Jews or anyone else to recognize same sex marriages any more than the Catholic Church is currently required to recognize civil divorces.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: So in effect, you're asking people to set aside their belief in a sacred relationship so that you can do something they believe is wrong.
It's amazing how far you can go starting with a false premise. No, no one is asking that. Keep your beliefs. Just keep them out of the government.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: They can't do that in good conscience.
No one is asking them to.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: Call it something else. Civil union, whatever.
No. Not unless you're going to call it that for opposite sex couples as well. When a man and a woman go to get married, let them get married in their church or synagogue or mosque or ashram or whatever, and let them register a civil union with the government. If the government must be involved. That, or call it marriage for everyone.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: And if that is some weird discrimination because of the different name, then let heterosexual unions be called civil unions too and let marriage become a strictly religious term.
That's fine with me.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: I don't think they have the right to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years and cause those words decribing sacred things to mean something else.
No one is asking them to. Hell, the English language isn't even that old, so your claim that it's taking away "the meaning of sacred words" is kind of silly.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And I don't. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
