MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 11 - 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 02-09-2004, 04:54 PM   #151
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 12:13 AM
Just wanted to say that my post about human rights abuses was in relation to the suggestion that women were/are being abused in polygamous relationships. ie the polygamy and group marriage thread that this thread has become (dis)entangled with.

I dont believe anyone has suggested homosexual relationships involve a large scale abuse of human rights.

Bizarrely, my post seems to almost fit in this thread too.

Just wanted to clarify that in case anyone thought I was a bigger rambling twit than I actually am.
__________________

__________________
beli is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 05:02 PM   #152
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
Which leads me to wonder, once again, why Dershowitz's solution cannot be used; that is, call ALL legal unions "civil unions," regardless of whether the participants are gay or straight, and leave the question of *marriage* to the churches.




p.s.: beli, I still sort of like you anyways
__________________

__________________
β€œSome scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 05:47 PM   #153
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem

This topic is old in this forum, and even older and larger in real life. But in here, I keep getting the feeling there is some definite resistance to the idea of gay marriage and yet due to fear of speaking an unfavourable view, or perhaps from sheer lack of valid basis, no good arguments are ever put forward as to why these marriages cannot be allowed. People hedge, bring in convoluted bible passages which are so prone to interpretation no one can even agree on what an otherwise mutual faith is wanting and so on.
Hello....I think there has been some good arguments as to why...

If you want I will switch sides. I have no problem arguing unpopular positions.

That is why I skipped the religious argument over sin. A marriage does not prevent one from sinning!

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 06:17 PM   #154
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Hello....I think there has been some good arguments as to why...
Not that are based on legal issues.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 07:35 PM   #155
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 08:13 AM
link to essay

Quote:
E S S A Y
Why The M Word Matters To Me
Only marriage can bring a gay person home
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

Monday, Feb. 16, 2004
As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home — Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was raised to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn't gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What mattered was not how far you went in life, how much money you earned, how big a name you made for yourself. What really mattered was family and the love you had for one another. The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness — your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that put everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me. I didn't feel the things for girls that my peers did. All the emotions and social rituals and bonding of teenage heterosexual life eluded me. I didn't know why. No one explained it. My emotional bonds to other boys were one-sided; each time I felt myself falling in love, they sensed it, pushed it away. I didn't and couldn't blame them. I got along fine with my buds in a nonemotional context, but something was awry, something not right. I came to know almost instinctively that I would never be a part of my family the way my siblings might one day be. The love I had inside me was unmentionable, anathema. I remember writing in my teenage journal one day, "I'm a professional human being. But what do I do in my private life?"

I never discussed my real life. I couldn't date girls and so immersed myself in schoolwork, the debate team, school plays, anything to give me an excuse not to confront reality. When I looked toward the years ahead, I couldn't see a future. There was just a void. Was I going to be alone my whole life? Would I ever have a most important day in my life? It seemed impossible, a negation, an undoing. To be a full part of my family, I had to somehow not be me. So, like many other gay teens, I withdrew, became neurotic, depressed, at times close to suicidal. I shut myself in my room with my books night after night while my peers developed the skills needed to form real relationships and loves. In wounded pride, I even voiced a rejection of family and marriage. It was the only way I could explain my isolation.

It took years for me to realize that I was gay, years more to tell others and more time yet to form any kind of stable emotional bond with another man. Because my sexuality had emerged in solitude — and without any link to the idea of an actual relationship — it was hard later to reconnect sex to love and self-esteem. It still is. But I persevered, each relationship slowly growing longer than the last, learning in my 20s and 30s what my straight friends had found out in their teens. But even then my parents and friends never asked the question they would have asked automatically if I were straight: So, when are you going to get married? When will we be able to celebrate it and affirm it and support it? In fact, no one — no one — has yet asked me that question.

When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category — civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever — may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It's too late for me to undo my past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn't have to choose between himself and his family anymore. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home.

From the Feb. 16, 2004 issue of TIME magazine
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 10:25 PM   #156
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Hello....I think there has been some good arguments as to why...

If you want I will switch sides. I have no problem arguing unpopular positions.

That is why I skipped the religious argument over sin. A marriage does not prevent one from sinning!

Peace
What, a few based on someone's religious beliefs?

Please Dread. Lets do better than this. We all know Christianity and Catholicism is not for everyone. We all know not everyone follows a religion of any kind. The whole religious debate is complete and utter bullshit because IT DOES NOT FIT EVERYONE.
Show me how faith is licence to dictate and control the life of someone else. How pious of those who do this.


Legally and speaking from a societal level, where are the good sound arguments against?

I challenge again, everyone against it to speak out, don't use the bible. There are no good arguments as to why in here. It is hinted that there is opposition, yet somehow no one steps up and takes the plunge. Why is this? Because of fear of reprisal? Because deep down those people know their arguments are pretty half arsed?
Who knows.
Who cares.
Don't tell me this is a bad idea unless you can back it up.

*general response, not to you specifically Dread even though I said your name...*
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 11:10 PM   #157
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


What, a few based on someone's religious beliefs?

Please Dread. Lets do better than this. We all know Christianity and Catholicism is not for everyone. We all know not everyone follows a religion of any kind. The whole religious debate is complete and utter bullshit because IT DOES NOT FIT EVERYONE.
Show me how faith is licence to dictate and control the life of someone else. How pious of those who do this.


Legally and speaking from a societal level, where are the good sound arguments against?

I challenge again, everyone against it to speak out, don't use the bible. There are no good arguments as to why in here. It is hinted that there is opposition, yet somehow no one steps up and takes the plunge. Why is this? Because of fear of reprisal? Because deep down those people know their arguments are pretty half arsed?
Who knows.
Who cares.
Don't tell me this is a bad idea unless you can back it up.

*general response, not to you specifically Dread even though I said your name...*
This makes me laugh....

OK....why are people quiet on this was your original question.....I think i have figured it out.

While you may find the religious aspects of this complete and utter bullshit.....others do not. If I happened to be someone of deep faith, with strong religious beliefs, I would pretty much not post in here based on your statements above.

To you it is bullshit, but to them, it is not.

The polls tonight show that there is not even CLOSE to a majority of Americans in support of Gay/Lesbian Marriage. Those in favor are outnumbered by a two to one margin.

Again, pax's article is not a bad solution.

Good grief....I am too tired for this.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-09-2004, 11:32 PM   #158
Acrobat
 
S|aney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Oprah's kitchen
Posts: 341
Local Time: 08:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


The polls tonight show that there is not even CLOSE to a majority of Americans in support of Gay/Lesbian Marriage. Those in favor are outnumbered by a two to one margin.

That's why I appreciate the fact that the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." [Ayn Rand]
__________________
S|aney is offline  
Old 02-10-2004, 02:51 AM   #159
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Dread you mistook what I said. Or I didn't clarify it well enough. If I didn't, apologies.
I am not trying to imply religion is bull. Nor are people's views necessarily. Why should though, aspects of individual's personal faith be a basis for a national standard, so to speak? That is bull. What about those who don't follow religion or even believe in God?
You specifically are playing devils advocate I know as you personally think marriage should be for any 2 consenting adults. But those who aren't, what is their basis for saying their own religious views are so right it should cover everyone?

I dont believe in polls. The one you quote indicates a sad state of affairs I feel. To deny these people rights which we all take for granted is disappointing to say the least.

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-10-2004, 02:56 AM   #160
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 08:13 AM
i don't think what the majority wants should have a bearing on this kind of legislation. a majority of the people used to be for segregation, against womens suffrage, etc. I fear were we would be today if the courts hadn't gone against popular opinion on these matters.
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 02-10-2004, 07:28 AM   #161
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:13 AM
There's also the economic reality. Who wants to deal with an entity that is perceived as bigoted?

Quote:
Repeal Of Anti-Gay Measure Heads Toward Vote

(Cincinnati, Ohio) Cincinnati LGBT community leaders said Monday that they have collected enough signatures to force a referendum to repeal a city charter amendment that made Cincinnati the only U.S. city to ban the enactment or enforcement of gay-rights laws.

The amendment was approved by 62 percent of voters in 1993.

Citizens to Restore Fairness said it has collected about 13,000 signatures, more than double the number required to put the issue on the ballot.

Last week, Cincinnati mayor Charlie Luken called for the repeal of the law.

"Times and attitudes have changed, and that Cincinnati should rescind the amendment in the interests of showing tolerance and supporting diversity," Luken said in his State of the City address to council.

Tourism officials say the amendment has cost Cincinnati more than $64 million because organizations concerned that the city is unfriendly to gays have moved conventions elsewhere.

Supporters of the measure have pledged to fight any repeal effort. Phil Burress, chairman of the group Equal Rights, Not Special Rights, said there is no room for "special rights" in Cincinnati.
And I love how bigots like Mr. Burress interpret equal rights for gays as "special rights" and downright discrimination as "equal rights." No wonder that people with an actual college education see through this illogic, and, by a clear majority, favor gay marriage.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-10-2004, 09:53 AM   #162
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
i don't think what the majority wants should have a bearing on this kind of legislation. a majority of the people used to be for segregation, against womens suffrage, etc. I fear were we would be today if the courts hadn't gone against popular opinion on these matters.
Exactly! Just because the majority says something is wrong, that doesn't automatically mean it is.

And ditto Angela's post, too. Whenever it comes to these kinds of debates, people have heard the religious reasons time and time again. It'd be nice to try and hear some non-religious arguments against homosexuality for once, see if there happens to be any valid non-religious reasons for why homosexuals shouldn't marry.

Besides, while I understand religion is very important to a lot of people...I just feel that it never hurts to question this stuff. Perhaps some people out there have, and have still come to these conclusions. But a lot of people I've debated this with have pretty much shown that they never questioned their religion on this kind of thing, that they figure that since their religion says this is the way it is, then that's that. And that kinda concerns me, personally.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-10-2004, 01:11 PM   #163
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:13 PM
Another thing: why, if gays marrying would destroy the "sanctity of marriage," is there not a similar uproar about, say, banning quickie marriages and imposing penalties for adultery? I know I'm not alone in saying that Britney Spears' "marriage," for example, made a mockery of the institution much more than two men or two women who have loved each other for a long time deciding to spend the rest of their lives together.

To speak in the terms of analytic philosophy: is "sanctity" either a necessary or a sufficient condition for marriage *as our society has come to understand it*?

For starters, we'd need to define "sanctity." Let's say that for a marriage to possess "sanctity," it would have to entail fidelity on the part of both partners, a relationsip entered into freely and without coercion, a sincere intent to continue this relationship in the future, and a desire for the help and love of God and/or the community to help sustain the relationship. As far as I can remember, being as I've attended a number of Catholic weddings (more Catholic weddings than any other, as I have a sort of standing engagement at a Catholic church as a wedding cantor and soloist for couples who don't provide their own), this is patterned after the questions the priest asks a couple just before he marries them.

So, basically, sanctity would involve: fidelity, a relationship chosen freely by both partners, a sincere intent to continue the relationship (presumably until death), and the desire for the love and help of God and/or the community.

The first question: is sanctity *necessary*? Let us use our friend Britney as an example. Britney and her fellow Jason were married in accordance with the law of the state of Nevada (the only state, need I remind you, which requires no waiting period for marriage licenses). And let us be charitable. It is indeed possible, indeed even likely, that from the time Britney and Jason began their relationship, they were faithful to each other. Let us assume that the fidelity condition holds. Next, there is no evidence that either Britney or Jason was coerced into the relationship. The second condition of freedom also holds. The third condition, the intent to continue the relationship, seems a bit murky. Being as the marriage was annulled less than three days later, we can assume that there was not a serious intent to continue the relationship. The intent to continue condition, then, does not hold. The fourth condition, the desire for the love and support of God and/or the community, may or may not hold. We do not know if Britney and Jason prayed, for example, before their wedding. We do not know if they had friends or family present. So the fourth condition may or may not hold. But the third condition clearly does not. Thus the "sanctity" of Britney and Jason's marriage may certainly be called into question. Yet they were married in full accordance with the laws of the state of Nevada. Thus we may conclude that "sanctity" is not a necessary condition of legal marriages. (This is to say nothing of church marriages, where individual faiths and churches are free to set their own guidelines for the conditions under which weddings may take place A Catholic priest, for example, certainly would not have married Britney and Jason without lengthy premarital counseling, sometimes called "pre-Cana" classes.)

Next: is sanctity a *sufficient* condition for marriage? That is, if a relationship exhibits fidelity, a freely chosen state for both partners, the desire to continue the relationship in the future, and the desire for the love and help of God and/or the community in sustaining the relationship, is it, then, a marriage? One might be inclined to say yes. But this is also untrue.

Consider, for example, persons who enter the religious life. A Catholic priest (sorry for all the Catholic examples, but my background is predominantly Catholic) is said to be "married" to the Church. He may be faithful to that relationship. He may not have been coerced to become a priest, and the Church may not have been coerced to accept him as a priest; that is, he freely chose to become a priest (the issue of vocation aside--he could have chosen to ignore the voaction), and the Church freely chose to ordain him as such. He may wish to remain a priest for the rest of his life. And when a priest is ordained, the people are beseeched to support him in his ministry, and the Holy Spirit is invoked to help him as well. Yet, for legal purposes, this man is not called "married." He files his taxes, say, as a single person. No matter how wonderful his relationship with the Church might be, the law regards Father Whoever as a single person because he has not entered into a relationship recognized by the law. Thus those four conditions of "sanctity" do not hold.

THUS, "sanctity" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for LEGAL marriage. Again, churches/faiths are free to make their own choices about unions they prefer to recognize.

One possible objection to my argument: under the definition of "sanctity," one might also add the intention (and indeed innate biological ability, which only a heterosexual couple would have) to begin and sustain a family. Indeed, in a Catholic wedding, this is a question the priest asks ("Will you accept children gratefully as a gift from God?" I believe is the correct wording). However, I left this condition out due to the fact that the marriages of infertile, childless couples are still recognized as legitimate even in the Catholic tradition (even if those of couples who are voluntarily childless might be questioned). Thus the condition of children cannot be applied.

I realize that there remain arguments for not compelling churches to recognize gay marriages. I agree that each church and faith tradition is free to bless and recognize only the unions they choose. But legally, there have STILL been NO compelling arguments against allowing gays to marry. And I think I've done a decent job of deconstructing the philosophical argument. But like any good philosopher, I welcome debate.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-10-2004, 03:01 PM   #164
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 10:13 AM
Very nicely put, paxetaurora. .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-10-2004, 03:59 PM   #165
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:13 PM
I printed it out for my philosophy advisor so he could check the validity of my argument.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax 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 11:13 AM.


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