interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate - Page 15 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-14-2006, 10:08 AM   #211
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Does anyone have any comment on the Provincetown situation?
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 10:19 AM   #212
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Does anyone have any comment on the Provincetown situation?


i suppose i'm not surprised at the hostility towards Jamaicans -- Jamaica is widely known as being one of the most overtly homophobic societies on earth, and there has been some well-publicized controversy over certain reggae lyrics that talk about burning a gay man alive or shooting lesbians.

it's of course wrong to assume that all (or even some) Jamaicans think it's a great idea to burn a gay man to death, but i also think we shouldn't think that gay people are somehow exempt from the very human tendency to stereotype and think as groups. it would be nice to think that through a history of profound discrimination a gay person would never turn around and do the same thing to another person, but gay people are people and people are stupid. i would imagine that, on the whole, Provincetown is one of the most liberal, tolerant places in the entire US, if not the world, which is why something like this makes news, and the fact that it is actually being addressed by town leaders speaks to the high level of concern about bigotry held by most Provincetown residents.

i also have to wonder what that woman was thinking signing an anti-gay marriage petition in Provincetown. did she think that people would just smile and say, "well, you have the right to your opinion!" especially when there have been thousands upon thousands of same-sex marriages in MA since 2004 and many of them probably spend some of the summer in Provincetown?

it seems like someone moving to Queens and then complaining about all the noise from the airplanes flying into La Guardia.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 10:32 AM   #213
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:40 AM
But that woman was shopping and was called a bigot, and people are spreading manure on lawns etc. As I hope you know by now, I would never defend bigotry of any kind against homosexuals- but is what they are doing to those people productive in any way? Is it "intolerance"? I defend their right to be angry and hurt as well, and human beings naturally react in many ways when they feel angry, hurt, discriminated against, etc. Are they reacting to intolerance with intolerance of their own? Of course I'm not comparing what gay people are sublected to to what these people are being subjected to, that would be ridiculous. Apples and oranges and all that.

Is that knowthyneighbor site a good idea?

I'm not defending anyone signing that petition in PTown or elsewhere because just for me personally, I would never do such a thing. I just think the whole situation raises some interesting questions.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 10:50 AM   #214
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
But that woman was shopping and was called a bigot, and people are spreading manure on lawns etc. As I hope you know by now, I would never defend bigotry of any kind against homosexuals- but is what they are doing to those people productive in any way? Is it "intolerance"? I defend their right to be angry and hurt as well, and human beings naturally react in many ways when they feel angry, hurt, discriminated against, etc. Are they reacting to intolerance with intolerance of their own? Of course I'm not comparing what gay people are sublected to to what these people are being subjected to, that would be ridiculous. Apples and oranges and all that.

Is that knowthyneighbor site a good idea?

I'm not defending anyone signing that petition in PTown or elsewhere because just for me personally, I would never do such a thing. I just think the whole situation raises some interesting questions.


gay people can be idiots -- by saying i'm not surprised doesn't mean that i condone such behavior.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 01:54 PM   #215
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:40 AM
hmm, interesting

http://www.slate.com/id/2145620/

"But what if these gay-marriage bans were not animated by anti-gay bigotry? What if they represent a deeper-seated anxiety about gender and gender roles? What if popular aversion to gay marriage has less to do with hating same-sex couples than with a deep psychological attachment to a powerful symbol of sex difference: the tulle-covered bride and the top-hat-and-tails groom."

...."If I'm right, there are two reasons someone might oppose same sex-marriage: anti-gay animus or a desire to protect traditional sex roles. It's no secret that traditional sex roles are in crisis. They've been battered by feminism's attacks on male privilege and feminine mystique. Macho women have mocked female virtues (consider the gun-toting Thelma and Louise, the oversexed Samantha Jones of Sex and the City, or the wooden-stake- and holy-water-wielding Buffy). And house husbands, Mr. Moms, and "metrosexuals" have similary rejected or lampooned traditional masculinity. Today both men and women reject the constricting and unequal sex roles of past generations, but most still desperately want meaningful sex identities. So they cast about, all too often buying into crude stereotypes, such as those offered in books such as The Rules, which counsels the single girl to deploy the catty feminine wiles and emotional manipulation learned in junior high school; or The Game, which counsels the single boy to use psychological manipulation and deception to wrangle sexual favors from reluctant women. Marriage fills that gender gap: It is one of the few social institutions left that rigorously and unapologetically divides the sexes into distinctive, almost ancient, gender roles."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 02:08 PM   #216
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Which ones? The thread moved pretty fast.

Do you know what else the Bible says about Marriage? Paul says it is good not to marry, BUT if you must do so...

That puts an interesting spin on your procreation reasoning doesn't it? If all took Paul's advice we wouldn't be here.

It also says that only a man can divorce his wife, his wife cannot divorce him.


But let me ask you this AEON, is it at all possible that the reason it says man and women is that in this day and age there were no open homosexual relationships? Is it at all possible that Jesus spoke to people in their terms, what they could understand. Such as when Jesus refered to Noah he told them it wasn't really the whole Earth, it was just a small part and it really wasn't EVERY animal just a few... They would have stoned him, they wouldn't have been able to wrap their minds around it.

There were a lot of things going on during the times of Jesus that he didn't talk about but we can all assume he didn't like, but he never specifically talked about. Yet he used parables like 'judge not lest ye be judged' and others to take care of these concerns. There was slavery, oppressed women, racism, all kinds of things. But he never addressed these things specifically because there were things 'because of tradition' that people wouldn't be able to wrap their minds around, so he gave them his teachings hoping they will someday come around.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-14-2006, 02:10 PM   #217
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
hmm, interesting

http://www.slate.com/id/2145620/

"But what if these gay-marriage bans were not animated by anti-gay bigotry? What if they represent a deeper-seated anxiety about gender and gender roles? What if popular aversion to gay marriage has less to do with hating same-sex couples than with a deep psychological attachment to a powerful symbol of sex difference: the tulle-covered bride and the top-hat-and-tails groom."

...."If I'm right, there are two reasons someone might oppose same sex-marriage: anti-gay animus or a desire to protect traditional sex roles. It's no secret that traditional sex roles are in crisis. They've been battered by feminism's attacks on male privilege and feminine mystique. Macho women have mocked female virtues (consider the gun-toting Thelma and Louise, the oversexed Samantha Jones of Sex and the City, or the wooden-stake- and holy-water-wielding Buffy). And house husbands, Mr. Moms, and "metrosexuals" have similary rejected or lampooned traditional masculinity. Today both men and women reject the constricting and unequal sex roles of past generations, but most still desperately want meaningful sex identities. So they cast about, all too often buying into crude stereotypes, such as those offered in books such as The Rules, which counsels the single girl to deploy the catty feminine wiles and emotional manipulation learned in junior high school; or The Game, which counsels the single boy to use psychological manipulation and deception to wrangle sexual favors from reluctant women. Marriage fills that gender gap: It is one of the few social institutions left that rigorously and unapologetically divides the sexes into distinctive, almost ancient, gender roles."
This is a pretty interesting take on the subject. i have to think about this one, let is sink in.

Nice find MrsS
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 02:24 PM   #218
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
hmm, interesting

http://www.slate.com/id/2145620/

"But what if these gay-marriage bans were not animated by anti-gay bigotry? What if they represent a deeper-seated anxiety about gender and gender roles? What if popular aversion to gay marriage has less to do with hating same-sex couples than with a deep psychological attachment to a powerful symbol of sex difference: the tulle-covered bride and the top-hat-and-tails groom."


well, if we are to buy into the idea that gay men are just men who think they are women, which i'm sure many people do, then that starts to make sense.

at it's core, homophobia is really misogyny in disguise.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 02:33 PM   #219
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

at it's core, homophobia is really misogyny in disguise.
Can you explain more why you feel that way? I am so interested in that

I didn't post that article to "refute" anything about homophobia or anti-gay marriage feelings-just to make that clear. It was just a concept I had never heard before or thought about.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 02:47 PM   #220
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


Can you explain more why you feel that way? I am so interested in that


it's about a fear of feminized men, about a fear of men performing a gender or sex role (or sexual role) that cannot be understood as masculine. in many cultures, as has been discussed on this board, men are not considered gay unless they are the receptive partners in sex. that is, a man can retain his masculinity even if he has sex with men so long as he is the active partner, because being a receptive partner is viewed as being the same thing as being the woman in the relationship. i think it's a combination at percevied disgust about a man abdicating his "natural" role as the dominant penetrator and adopting the passive role as, bluntly, a seminial receptical, a woman. this is based upon common assumptions about the superiority of the masculine role and the inferiority of the passive, feminine role in heterosexual sex. misogynist men need their women to be submissive so they can reaffirm their traditional masculinity and manhood because it is so delicate that it can only be asserted through the denigration of the opposite gender.

also, and i know Dan Savage has said this, but for all the women out there -- if your boyfriend or husband is a homophobe (not just opposed to gay marriage, but a genuine, red-blooded homophobe, uses the word "faggots" or whatever) then he probably not only hates gay people, but he hates women as well.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 02:53 PM   #221
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 06:40 AM
I see, well that's very interesting and does make sense.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 06:15 PM   #222
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 06:40 AM
to go back to the original intent of this thread, here's an interesting op-ed in the NYT. an excerpt:

[q]The more traditional argument stated that the Legislature could reasonably suppose that children would fare better under the care of a mother and father. Like most arguments against gay marriage, this “role model” argument assumes straight couples are better guides to life than gay couples.

And like other blatantly anti-gay arguments, it falls apart under examination. In a decision last month in a case concerning gay foster parents, the Arkansas Supreme Court found no evidence that children raised by gay couples were disadvantaged compared with children raised by straight couples.

But the New York court also put forth another argument, sometimes called the “reckless procreation” rationale. “Heterosexual intercourse,” the plurality opinion stated, “has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.” Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”

Consequently, “the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples.”

To shore up those rickety heterosexual arrangements, “the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.” Lest we miss the inversion of stereotypes about gay relationships here, the opinion lamented that straight relationships are “all too often casual or temporary.”

When an Indiana court introduced this seemingly heterophobic logic last year in upholding a state ban on same-sex marriage, I thought it was a cockeyed aberration. But after both New York City and New York State presented similar logic in oral arguments, and the court followed suit, I began to understand the argument’s appeal: it sounds nicer to gays.

It also sounds more desperate. New York’s ban on same-sex marriage is based on provisions enacted in 1909. It is preposterous to suggest the Legislature promulgated and retained the law because it believed gays to be better parents. Moreover, as New York’s chief judge, Judith Kaye, pointed out in her dissent, even if marriage were a response to the dangers of “reckless procreation,” excluding gay couples from marriage in no way advances the goal of responsible heterosexual child-rearing. “There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone,” Judge Kaye noted.

This is not the first time courts have restricted rights with a flourish of fond regards. In 1873, the United States Supreme Court upheld an Illinois statute prohibiting women from practicing law. Concurring in that judgment, Justice Joseph Bradley observed that the “natural and proper timidity and delicacy” of women better suited them to “the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.”

Hostile rulings delivered in friendly tones can take longer to overturn, as evidenced by the century that passed before members of the Supreme Court reversed their thinking about women and, in a 1973 opinion in a sex discrimination case, recognized that confining women in the name of cherishing them put them “not on a pedestal, but in a cage.”

We should not need a century to unmask the “reckless procreation” argument as a new guise for an old prejudice. The “reckless procreation” argument sounds nicer — and may even be nicer — than the plainly derogatory “role model” argument. But equality would be nicer still.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/op...abd&ei=5087%0A

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 06:40 PM   #223
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar



Do you know what else the Bible says about Marriage? Paul says it is good not to marry, BUT if you must do so...

The word that most Bibles translates as “marriage” is really synonymous with “sexual intercourse” – a meaning it carries in other places in the New Testament.

Conservative scholarship believes the passage is teaching this:
”In the face of all this sexual immorality, remember that each of you should be having a sexually intimate relationship within marriage.

“Each man having his own wife” means, “Each man having this special sexual relationship only with his wife.”
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 06:52 PM   #224
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


The word that most Bibles translates as “marriage” is really synonymous with “sexual intercourse” – a meaning it carries in other places in the New Testament.
So marriage is just about sex.


Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

Conservative scholarship believes the passage is teaching this:
”In the face of all this sexual immorality, remember that each of you should be having a sexually intimate relationship within marriage.

“Each man having his own wife” means, “Each man having this special sexual relationship only with his wife.”
This makes about zero sense. How does, "It's not good to marry" translate to "have sex within marriage"?

Little bit of a stretch.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-14-2006, 07:12 PM   #225
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
There are plenty of things once considered sinful from scripture that are no longer considered sinful.
I think this is true in application, but not true in Scriptural interpretation. We often see a divide between Old Testament and New Testament as one “replacing” the other. I think the reality is that God has always offered salvation by grace through faith. In the alternative, when people asked for something more specific than faith, we received the Law. We can work our way to heaven by perfectly keeping the Law. This, of course, will never happen as we all fall short.

Thus, the sin described in the Law is still sin. Obedience to the Law is not required for salvation if we have accepted God’s gift of grace (today, it is through the Son; for Abraham, it was directly through the Father). Romans 6 tells us that even though the Law is not required for salvation, it is still there to show how we should live.

As for the original subject of the thread, the NY case Hernandez v. Robles, I don’t know if anyone has read the actual opinion. Perhaps the furor of same-sex marriage supporters should be directed at plaintiff’s counsel. First, the real fallout from the case is the court’s declaration that laws governing same-sex marriage need only pass the rational basis test, not a higher scrutiny test. In most Constitutional arguments, determination of the balancing test is more determinative of outcome that the case facts. By allowing the court to set the balancing test at rational basis, it will be more difficult to win future cases. Second, the rational basis argument of promoting permanent relationships where children are potentially unplanned was previously used in Indiana. If this analysis does break down so easily, plaintiff’s counsel should have been able to expose those flaws in this matter.

The court does mention other arguments for applying the rational basis test exist, but did not elaborate on the substance of those arguments. Perhaps the NYT editorial is correct, the court used this argument because it “sounds nicer to gays.”

BVS – 1 Corinthians 7 makes perfect sense in the context of this discussion. “Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry (or ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’) But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-2. In this chapter, Paul is telling people not to get married if their primary calling is to the Lord. But if the desire for sexual relations is too great, then a person should get married. (verses 8 & 9) Reading through the passages would help understanding on this point.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com