MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 7 - 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 02-07-2004, 01:16 AM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Technically, the people can decide. In reality, the "higher ups" (i.e. courts) will decide the issue.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 01:17 AM   #92
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:11 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 01:21 AM   #93
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: 19,271
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 01:25 AM   #94
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by beli
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.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 02:39 AM   #95
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: 19,271
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by beli
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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 03:30 AM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
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!
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 04:38 AM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
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.
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 05:19 AM   #98
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 08:14 AM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


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.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 11:13 AM   #100
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by beli


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.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 12:56 PM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
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.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 01:03 PM   #102
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
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.)
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 01:13 PM   #103
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: 19,271
Local Time: 08:11 AM
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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 03:18 PM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:11 PM
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?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-07-2004, 03:59 PM   #105
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


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?
__________________

__________________
Liesje 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 09:11 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