MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Does anyone have any comment on the Provincetown situation?
MrsSpringsteen said:Does anyone have any comment on the Provincetown situation?
MrsSpringsteen said: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.
AEON said:
Which ones? The thread moved pretty fast.
MrsSpringsteen said: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 said: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."
Irvine511 said:
at it's core, homophobia is really misogyny in disguise.
MrsSpringsteen said:
Can you explain more why you feel that way? I am so interested in that
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Do you know what else the Bible says about Marriage? Paul says it is good not to marry, BUT if you must do so...
AEON said:
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.
AEON said:
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.”
Dreadsox said:There are plenty of things once considered sinful from scripture that are no longer considered sinful.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
This makes about zero sense. How does, "It's not good to marry" translate to "have sex within marriage"?
nbcrusader said:
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.
nathan1977 said:
Funny, all this talk about cutting and pasting scripture, but it seems that everyone does it.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
You too missed my point.
nathan1977 said:
Still, the point stands -- saying that Paul's only perspective on marriage was that it was good not to marry, is misleading
nbcrusader said:
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.
Dreadsox said:Application is everything and I think that is one of the biggest issues...we have picked and choosed how we apply it, and not just on this issue. So why have we allowed the applications of things to evolve and change. Divorce is the main thing I am thinking of in this instance. The biblical application of this concept has evolved and changed. Has it changed because of society? Is it because as a society we changed? Has it changed because it impacted the MAJORITY of people, rather than 10% of the world wide population?
MrsSpringsteen said:"Should an amendment banning gay marriage ever reach the ballot, I hope all fair-minded people will vote decisively against it. I would hope that even people who are opposed to homosexual behavior on moral or religious grounds will be able to coexist with people who differ from them, as people morally opposed to drinking have learned to tolerate the legal sale of alcohol and people disgusted by rap music manage to keep their distance from it without depriving others of the right to listen.
MrsSpringsteen said:Should an amendment banning gay marriage ever reach the ballot, I hope all fair-minded people will vote decisively against it. I would hope that even people who are opposed to homosexual behavior on moral or religious grounds will be able to coexist with people who differ from them, as people morally opposed to drinking have learned to tolerate the legal sale of alcohol and people disgusted by rap music manage to keep their distance from it without depriving others of the right to listen.
Dreadsox said:[Q]If the application of Scripture with respect to divorce has changed, has it changed for the better? (And I realize the sensitive nature of this topic, having very close friends and a mentor with divorce in their backgrounds).[/Q]
My point is not to debate divorce...
However...
If it has applied to divorce.....Why not Gay marriage?