MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

[nbcrusader]

Technically, the people can decide. In reality, the "higher ups" (i.e. courts) will decide the issue.

 

[martha]

The people of California, always willing to legislate by referendum, no matter what the cause, passed some kind of "marriage protection" thing a while back. What do you mean by "higher-ups?" Democratically elected representatives? Supreme Court justices appointed by elected Governors and Presidents?



I was thinking about this on the way home from the movie tonight, and thinking about the polygamy thing as well. Marriage has been, at least for the last few millenia, a property exchange between men (changing daughters into wives), or a uniting of familes for economic, political or social gain. Only in the last 150 years or so has marriage been based on love and respect. What then, would gay and lesbian couples bring to marriage? Lesbian couples who marry would have no property to exchange, since they're both women. Gay couples acquire no property, since no women are involved. Maybe this is what upsets straight conservatives so much. That marriage will truly become a partnership of equals; men will finally lose the last remnants of their hegemony. There is no obedience in a homosexual marriage, because there's no true husband to be obeyed and wife to be obedient. There are only equals.

Maybe I'm onto something here.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I was thinking about this on the way home from the movie tonight, and thinking about the polygamy thing as well. Marriage has been, at least for the last few millenia, a property exchange between men (changing daughters into wives), or a uniting of familes for economic, political or social gain. Only in the last 150 years or so has marriage been based on love and respect. What then, would gay and lesbian couples bring to marriage? Lesbian couples who marry would have no property to exchange, since they're both women. Gay couples acquire no property, since no women are involved. Maybe this is what upsets straight conservatives so much. That marriage will truly become a partnership of equals; men will finally lose the last remnants of their hegemony. There is no obedience in a homosexual marriage, because there's no true husband to be obeyed and wife to be obedient. There are only equals.

Maybe I'm onto something here.

...very interesting point...

If that's the thing that upsets those people so much...I don't understand why. What's so wrong with a marriage being a partnership of equals? Since when was equality such a bad thing?

Angela

 

[martha]

I just meant loving more than one person is achievable.

Polygamy isn't about love. Go back and reread my posts when you are less tired.

Polygamy is about male hegemony (damn I love that word) and women as property. My point was that if polygamous marriages ever truly become marriages of equals, men won't participate with such eagerness.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Im not into the bible at all but I would be highly suprised if any God HATED anything. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a caring sharing smarter power.

Exactly. I really don't understand what problems God would have with homosexuals acting on their love for one another. It seems kinda unfair to me that God would allow heterosexual couples to act on their love for one another without any problems, but won't allow homosexuals that same privilege.

Basically, I personally feel that God only has problems with those who hurt or kill other people. I don't think he will mind if a homosexual couple acts on their love.

Also, beli, I agree completely with the rest of your posts throughout this thread. Well said. .

Angela

 

[Liesje]

Only in the last 150 years or so has marriage been based on love and respect. What then, would gay and lesbian couples bring to marriage? Lesbian couples who marry would have no property to exchange, since they're both women. Gay couples acquire no property, since no women are involved. Maybe this is what upsets straight conservatives so much. That marriage will truly become a partnership of equals; men will finally lose the last remnants of their hegemony. There is no obedience in a homosexual marriage, because there's no true husband to be obeyed and wife to be obedient. There are only equals.

I am a straight conservative and do not agree with those conclusions, mainly because when I think of marriage, I'm thinking of the religious union. I couldn't care less who participated in civil unions. But your post does bring up an interesting point!

 

[beli]

I was thinking about this on the way home from the movie tonight, and thinking about the polygamy thing as well. Marriage has been, at least for the last few millenia, a property exchange between men (changing daughters into wives), or a uniting of familes for economic, political or social gain.

I believe the references you make are mostly applicable to wealthy Westerners. Pleb farmer labourers wed and/or shagged who they wanted. There was little gain to be made by either household except perhaps a bigger clan as a result of the children from the new marriage. Where I grew up it was only once a new Aboriginal baby was born that the parents were considered married. Marriage means so many different things to different cultures.

I do like the excellent points you raised about the equality in a same sex marriage. Western women have been considered inferior in the patriarchal west for a bloody long time, its only in the last 30 years has this situation started to rectify itself.

Most of the situations are historical in the west. I believe that in the era we are living in, the western woman has a choice - she can marry a person who treats her with dignity and respect or not. If she does marry a dickhead (technical definition) then its her own stupid fault. I dont think the west produces too many men like that anymore. Some, but not like before where the majority were disrespectful bastards (another technical definition).

Edited to add: I meant the situations are historical in the West.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I'm not saying the urge per se is 'wrong' - we don't have control over the origination of most of our feelings - what we do *in response* to those feelings though, is our responsibility to control. Most recovering addicts don't ever completely lose those cravings for alcohol or another hit, but as long as they don't act on it, they stay out of trouble.

I think most of us will agree that alcoholism and drug addiction are harmful. However, using the analogy of a drug addict always having the "urge" to use drugs and a gay person always having the "urge" to fall in love with someone of the same sex is inaccurate IMO. Inherent in the argument is the assumption that there is something bad or harmful about being gay in the same way there is something inherently harmful about drug abuse. Being gay is no more harmful then being straight and therefore it makes no sense to suggest that a gay person just has to resist their "urges" in the way a drug addict resists the "urge" to use drugs.

In addition, to suggest that a gay person just needs to resist the urge to fall in love with someone of the same sex as them is suggesting that they should deny themselves something which is absolutely fundamental to most people's lives. It's no different than telling a straight person they just need to resist the urge to fall in love, and I can just imagine the outrage people would express if they were told that.

there are enough references in the Bible that God hates the ACTS of homosexuality.

This isn't really directed only at your post, but...doesn't the Bible also tell us not to lie? Not to envy? And yet I don't see huge campaigns to remind people that the Bible tells us that lying is a sin. I don't see people picketing funerals condeming the dead person for envy. Why is homosexuality so much more deserving of condemnation?

In any case, America supposedly has a separation of church and state, so how can anyone call for laws to be made based on what is in the Bible? It seems to me that many of those calling for gay marriage to be banned are doing so based on their religious beliefs, but you wouldn't have much of a separation of church and state left if people could have their religious beliefs made into law.

 

[Dreadsox]

This isn't really directed only at your post, but...doesn't the Bible also tell us not to lie? Not to envy? And yet I don't see huge campaigns to remind people that the Bible tells us that lying is a sin. I don't see people picketing funerals condeming the dead person for envy. Why is homosexuality so much more deserving of condemnation?

This goes to what Melon was saying....

Removing the log from your eye....

Sin is sin....period.

No one is free from it.......PERIOD....and I am not saying go out there and sin all you can.

 

[martha]

I believe the references you make are mostly applicable to wealthy Westerners.

Nope. I'm talking about Eastern cultures too. Teenage girls are forced to marry all the time, forced by their families, which are headed by the fathers. "Pleb laborers" may like to shag, but they control the women they marry.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Do the American people even have a real voice in this marriage issue, ie, do we ever get to vote on it? Or is this something that will be decided by the higher ups?

Well you get to vote for the politicians who will decide the subject, so if you honestly think it's the most important issue for America at the moment then you can use your next vote to support a candidate who doesn't want gay people to get married.

Representative democracies don't allow for the public to have a say on every single issue to be decided. Instead people can vote for the person they think will most closely represent their views. It's not perfect, but realistically an entirely participatory democracy wouldn't be perfect either.

 

[martha]

when I think of marriage, I'm thinking of the religious union.

How does this association work? This isn't a challenge, but a question. I'm thinking of non-Christian and non-Jewish marriages. Are they religious unions? What about Buddhist marriages? Are all marriages religious unions? Even those performed at the courthouse? How did the word "marriage" get to be so loaded with religious connotations?

Am I married? I'm not a Christian; neither is my husband. We both believe in God, and we were married by a Pentecostal Minister. (That still amazes me. But we liked Rodney a lot.)

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I honestly don't see why the politicians feel the need to decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry in the first place.

Angela

 

[verte76]

I am personally confused as to why homosexuality is considered a sin by Christianity, to be perfectly honest. There is a view that marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation--producing children--that was used in the Middle Ages. However, in the late Middle Ages, another view of marriage came in, and that was that it is also for companionship. This view was espoused by a late medieval writer, Christine de Pizan, (1364-1430) the first female professional writer, among other people. Christine was *devoutly* Catholic; she also lost her husband at the age of 25. If marriage is not only for procreation, then why is homosexuality necessarily a sin?

 

[Liesje]

How does this association work? This isn't a challenge, but a question. I'm thinking of non-Christian and non-Jewish marriages. Are they religious unions? What about Buddhist marriages? Are all marriages religious unions? Even those performed at the courthouse? How did the word "marriage" get to be so loaded with religious connotations?

Am I married? I'm not a Christian; neither is my husband. We both believe in God, and we were married by a Pentecostal Minister. (That still amazes me. But we liked Rodney a lot.)

When I say "religious marriage" I'm referring to being married in a church, under God (whichever God if whichever religion), by an ordained minister/pastor/reverend/priest/whatever. It doesn't have to be Christian either. Yes, I do believe there are religious marriages of Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc, etc.

I'm not sure what to say about your marriage. Since you were married in a church by a minister, you could say it was a religious marriage, but if you're not religious and were not marrying with religion in mind, than maybe it was more of a civil union?

Basically, my opinion is that I have nothing against homosexuals being "married" in civil union. That's a state marriage and the state can allow whomever it pleases to marry. However, for religious reasons, my chuch does not marry homosexuals in the religious sense of marriage. But I believe in the importance of separation of church and state, so if the state rules these civil unions are permitted, then so be it. I believe there are TWO forms of marriage. I may not encourage or suppot homosexual civil marriages, but I admit my opinions are tainted by religious beliefs and therefore I keep my voiced opposition strictly to homosexual religious marriages.

Is that more clear?

 

[martha]

Not really. My question was really about the word "marriage." How did it become a relgious concept, when courthouse marriages have been around for a while.


I consider myself married in every sense. I think the idea of "civil unions" is meant to put those who aren't bound by narrow ideas of religion into a different status. I also didn't say that we weren't married with religion in mind.

 

[beli]

I think there are two different issues being discussed here.

Firstly, human rights abuse. I agree completely the abuse of human rights is wrong and I would be down at the protest rally with you on this one. I also believe that human rights abuses are not resticted to the unions being discussed in this forum. There is spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships (married or otherwise), as well as in relationships involving gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) people. ie all forms of relationships.

Bit about me: I worked fulltime for 4 and a half years at Oxfam (here in Perth), volunteered in the evenings at Amnesty, and did the occasional Greenpeace protest on the weekend. I dedicated most of my twenties to what I considered to be 'doing my bit' to contribute to the planet. So I agree with you 100% - human rights abuses are completely wrong.

What I was typing about in this thread is the other side of the coin, the positive side, when things go right. Just as hetrosexual relationships can be respectiful and loving, so can multipartnered and GLBTI relationships. I have been happily in a loving supporting relationship for the past 10 years and I wish the same happiness on everyone - whereever you may find it.

Peace.

 

[Dreadsox]

Maybe this is what upsets straight conservatives so much. That marriage will truly become a partnership of equals; men will finally lose the last remnants of their hegemony. There is no obedience in a homosexual marriage, because there's no true husband to be obeyed and wife to be obedient. There are only equals.

Maybe I'm onto something here.

Then tell my why it is a group of women marching on the statehouse in Boston tomorrow....if it is a group of "conservative men" worried about obeying and being obedient.

I am sorry, but any of my friends who happen to fall into the "conservative " label and are married have partnerships with their wives.

 

[nbcrusader]

Dreadsox...the whole "sin is sin" thing...why exactly is homosexuality looked at as a sin to begin with? What exactly is it that they're doing that's so wrong in the eyes of some people? I've always associated the idea of sin with things that hurt or kill other people. Since homosexuality does neither of those things...I don't see how it can be sinful.

I don't want to answer on behalf of Dreadsox here.

You can either try and define sin yourself and let that definition change with the ebb and flow of life, or you can look to a source

There are many things God calls sin that we, as humans, feel are okay for our lives. We may not get hurt or hurt another by committing these sins, but we cannot have the best life God wants for us (despite our better judgment).

It is human nature to self-justify our behavior. I see it in children every day, and I know I am just as susceptible. We want to do what is right in our own eyes.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Thanks for the explanation, nbcrusader. I guess I'm still just curious, though-if what we do doesn't hurt anybody else, why does God still have a problem with it?

Why am I getting hit with this...??? There were others in the thread that said this....They said that "acting" on sexual urges was wrong...

I know that. I didn't mean it to sound like an attack solely on you-I didn't even mean it as an attack to begin with. I just didn't think right then about who all else had said that whole "sin is sin" bit, so I just picked your post's mention of it to get the questions going. I did remember others mentioning that acting on the urges was wrong, though, and so they were welcome to answer those questions if they wished.

Originally posted by Dreadsox
For the sake of argument...my point was a marriage license is NOT going to prevent the behavior.

There are many here in this forum that believe through biblical teachings it is SIN. Rather than argue if it is or isn't I am trying to say, how does a marriage license change it?

Okay, I see what you're getting at. I honestly don't know how it would change that. People who think it's a sin now will still think so if the marriage was deemed legal, true. But at least the homosexuals would finally have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Angela

 

[melon]

And we have just as much of a tendency to stick with tradition, no matter what, even if that tradition is wrong. The Pharisees are a classic example of Biblical fundamentalists, and look where they ended up with the first coming of Christ?

The Bible does not mention homosexuality. Period. The term originated out of Germany in 1874, and sufficiently shocked people. For that reason alone, supposed condemnations of homosexuals in the Bible are incorrect. Prior to 1874, homosexual acts were viewed within three mindsets: acts performed by rebellious heterosexuals under the influence of "evil," acts performed to humiliate rivals, and acts performed in idolatry. In all three cases, the acts were performed by heterosexuals.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the oft-mentioned anti-gay passages, was not even interpreted that way until the rise of an apocryphal text from c. 200 B.C. called "The Book of Jubilees." This book was known amongst the people of the day, and was found within the Dead Sea Scrolls. All Old Testament references to Sodom and Gomorrah are in the context of inhospitality towards strangers.

All mentions of supposed "homosexuals" in the Bible are really references to male temple prostitutes. In most "pagan" religions of the day, it was believed that sex brought one closer to the gods, and, thus, followers of these religions would engage in mass bisexual orgies in temples. The fact that people translate the "male temple prostitutes" as being homosexual is due to prejudice. A woman is not seen as being a patron to a prostitute, so it is thus inferred that men must be the patrons; thus declaring the prostitutes as "homosexual." That, however, is incorrect. The prostitutes were bisexual, and, thus, slept with men and women. Thus, the outrage was against this practice that we have no name for, as the temple prostitutes have not existed for nearly 2000 years, not "homosexuality" as discovered in 1874.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

Thanks for the explanation, nbcrusader. I guess I'm still just curious, though-if what we do doesn't hurt anybody else, why does God still have a problem with it?

I guess if I am going to compare my wisdom with God's Wisdom, I will go with God.

 

[martha]

Because many women find comfort in obedience and the status quo. You'll find women who opposed sufferage for women, too.

And I said straight conservatives; I didn't specify men.

I'm glad your friends have equal partnerships. I wonder if we'd have the same definition of that?

 

[martha]

But, to pose a different question, if God views homosexuality as a sin, what does that have to do with the right of homosexuals to marry in a democracy where church and state are Constitutionally separated?

 

[martha]

There's some people I know who have no intention of ever having children. Would their marriages, when the time comes, be considered invalid then, too?

Like me?

 

[Liesje]

Not really. My question was really about the word "marriage." How did it become a relgious concept, when courthouse marriages have been around for a while.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. For myself and my family and the community in which I was raised, "marriage" always referred to the religious union. If you were talking about a civil marriage, you'd specify so. Marriage has been discussed in the context of religion for over a thousand years. Just this week for a class I had to read a document from 1439 that outlines the purpose of marriage.

I guess your statement sort of proves my point: that there are definitly two types of marriage and it's easy to get people's beliefs confused if it's not specified which type of marriage they're referring to.

 

[martha]

If you were talking about a civil marriage, you'd specify so. ....

I guess your statement sort of proves my point: that there are definitly two types of marriage and it's easy to get people's beliefs confused if it's not specified which type of marriage they're referring to.

This answers it. There are two kinds of marriage: religious and civil, and they're both labled marriage, which gives them equal weight.

So "civil unions" are not civil marriages. Which relegates homosexual unions to the second-class pile. Which is discrimination. Which is wrong.

 

[Dreadsox]

Because many women find comfort in obedience and the status quo. You'll find women who opposed sufferage for women, too.

And I said straight conservatives; I didn't specify men.

I'm glad your friends have equal partnerships. I wonder if we'd have the same definition of that?

You are making many assumptions about the people who are marching tomorrow.

I don't know, what do you think? Is your definition superior to theirs? Is their definition superior to yours? Or is it more important that people find happiness for themselves in their relationships, rather than let anyone decide what is or is not a partnership for them.

The thrust of your comments however appeared to be an attack on straoght males.....having reread it again.....I still feel that way. If I am wrong...my apologies for misunderstanding.

 

[Liesje]

So "civil unions" are not civil marriages. Which relegates homosexual unions to the second-class pile. Which is discrimination. Which is wrong.

So we've established that there's TWO kinds of marriage, civil and religious. A civil union=civil marriage, religious union=religious marriage. Why does one have to be second to the other? I don't get it.....

 

[Liesje]

People who think it's a sin now will still think so if the marriage was deemed legal, true. But at least the homosexuals would finally have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel. No one has the right to decide which sins are worse than others anyway. And unless we've committed a sin that is a crime and deserves punishment/jail, we should all enjoy the same legal rights, period. Though I may not agree with a lot that's said around here, I can certainly agree on that.