SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage

[deep]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
People don't have the same abilities, relationships are very rarely equal, but under law the involved parties should have equal rights.

I guess I included "abilities" because a marriage, now, is more than a union between one man and one woman.

Each party must have mental "capacity".

[BVS]

Originally posted by deep
I am 'somewhat' serious here.


I think it is a losing battle to approach this argument by trying to change people's religious beliefs.


It is not possible to legislate what Church's preach.

So again, I say let's not fight over the word "marriage".


Anyone that goes to a "Government Agency" should be offered a "Civil Union".


It might be a good start.

It seems like many "Marriages" end up not being very civil, these days.

I agree, as long as legally they carry the same exact weight.

(But many don't want this)

If the church wants to extend marriages to homosexuals, then they can...

Until it's equal it's bigotry...

[yolland]

Originally posted by diamond
A civil union would afford 2 human beings the right to co habitate legally, enjoy heatlh insurance, right of survivorship, alimony bennies if disolving the union etc-things like that.

But why should the prospect of legalized gay marriage in particular necessitate this change? Civil marriages (for heterosexuals) have been around since the 19th century--obviously they don't entail any pledge that the spouses will abide by some denomination or another's understanding of how marriage should proceed and what its purpose is, and I've never heard a peep from people who oppose legalized gay marriage over that. Why was that loosening of religious institutions' prerogative to define 'marriage' acceptable, whereas this is not?

[deep]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I agree, as long as legally they carry the same exact weight.

(But many don't want this)

If the church wants to extend marriages to homosexuals, then they can...

Until it's equal it's bigotry...

So let's change the conversation.

I think this can split off quite a few "decent" religious people.

Those that are anti- Civil and full rights for all will have to out themselves.


It is perfectly legal for good religious people to say "Jews and gays will burn in hell."

But will they argue to put them in the ovens?

[melon]

Originally posted by diamond


because it's legal?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep

It is perfectly legal for good religious people to say "Jews and gays will burn in hell."

ah, but it can be argued that both Jews and gays can be perfected -- thus, if we would just work on that, then all that God wants for us (heterosexual marriage, Christ in our mouths, and thusly heaven) is achievable.

[yolland]

Originally posted by INDY500
One or two word dismissals and personal attacks are the type of intellectual debate that is supposed to change your opponents (of which there are more of than proponents) deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?

There are a couple of exceptions and you can read down the posts and identify them pretty quickly. To the rest I'll just say... you're not helping.

This was more or less my earlier point about dialogue being necessary given the realities of the context, whether any of us like it or not.

However Irvine had a valid point in his response to your last post today, i.e. that he (for example) has offered numerous thoughtful reflections at length on the implications about gay people's integrity and capacity for love and nurturance in opposing their right to marry, as well as the extreme shakiness of Kurtz's use of statistics to argue against gay marriage as destroyer of straight families' welfare (which I addressed at the time nathan posted it--no one responded to me), none of which you've acknowledged. Not confronting those questions head-on is the debate-forum equivalent of refusing to look someone in the eye and settling for quoting the rulebook to them while ignoring their pleas and objections. If thinking all this controversy will just go away if we keep on harshly ridiculing gay marriage opponents is sticking our heads in the sand, then so is thinking we can afford to just tread water by not acknowledging the direct and highly personal pain this issue causes gay people.

[melon]

Originally posted by deep
If we all worked towards "Civil Unions".

There is a much better chance of getting rights, benefits and protections for all Americans.

So, basically, as long as there's a separate water fountain for the "colored folk," then all is well?

Civil unions are not the same as marriage, and that's by design. Who is going to stand proud and say that they got "civil unioned"? Boy...that reads great on a "civil union invitation."

And let's not forget here that, for all this talk about "religious significance," that there are plenty of religions out there that are more than happy to grant marriages to gay people. No, as usual, the purpose of setting aside a theoretically "separate but equal" classification is to have a display of "moral superiority." By going so far as to throw a "civil" in that title, they've made damn sure to say, implicitly, that their "marriages" are superior to those icky gays and their kooky "man-made arrangements."

That is, after all, what this is all about: maintaining superiority. The justification for these "civil unions" are no different than the justifications for racial segregation. And the overt and irrational hatred for homosexuals, blaming them for every possible global ill imaginable, is based on the same kind of irrational arguments that I'd expect to see in the anti-Semitic text, "The Protocols of Zion."

So, like before, since we're past the old days of proper decorum and protocol here, let's cut the crap. "Civil unions" will never--and were never intended to--be equal to "marriage."

[melon]

Originally posted by INDY500
One or two word dismissals and personal attacks are the type of intellectual debate that is supposed to change your opponents (of which there are more of than proponents) deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?

If that's sincerely all you read from everything I wrote in this thread, then I seriously question if you're illiterate.

More likely, it's just a chronic case of "willful blindness."

[financeguy]

I think it's not unreasonable to ask the question of the gay posters on here if they in fact intend getting married, and to elucidate how precisely the lack of availability of gay marriage is oppressing them.

'Cos you know, if people are seriously arguing that the lack of legal availability of gay marriage is morally equivalent to the oppression of African slaves, or the oppression of Jews in Europe in the 1930's, I'd have to say that's a grotesque and laughable exaggeration.

I know a gay poster on another forum who is dead set against the idea of gay marriage. He actually says that not having any social pressure whatsoever to get married is one of the great, empowering things about being gay. He views legalised gay marriage as a kind of sell out - once the gay community can get married, they become 'just like the straight mainstream', as it were. It's a legitimate point of view within the gay community, even if it may not be in agreement with the posters on here. To some extent, I can sympathise with that as personally I have no real intention of getting married.

But yeah, I guess it's easier to just issue blanket dismissals of anyone who has any reservations whatsoever about gay marriage as equivalent to propagandists for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

[financeguy]

Having said that, I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage, but some of the hyperbole on here is getting ridiculous.

[BVS]

Well there's quite a few straight people against straight marriage as well, what's your point?

[melon]

Originally posted by financeguy
'Cos you know, if people are seriously arguing that the lack of legal availability of gay marriage is morally equivalent to the oppression of African slaves, or the oppression of Jews in Europe in the 1930's, I'd have to say that's a grotesque and laughable exaggeration.

Now who's "exaggerating"? I didn't equate anything to "slavery" or, as you implied, "the Holocaust" (lest you forget, though, homosexuals were tagged and rounded up in Nazi concentration camps just like Jews were. And, unlike the ultimate vindication of Jews in Germany after World War II, laws repealing Nazi-era anti-gay laws weren't enacted until the 1980s!).

It is perfectly reasonable to make comparisons to racial segregation--NOT slavery--and it is perfectly reasonable to make comparisons to historical and modern anti-Semitic rhetoric, because anyone who has actually bothered to study this area would see many connections between the kind of things Jews were blamed for for centuries (i.e., the downfall of Western civilization, for one; the cause of diseases like the Black Death [AIDS, anyone?]; how they "control the media" ["Gay mafia"]; how they are all rich and don't deserve protections [uttered by Supreme Court Scalia]; how they target children to abuse them [something Hamas revived in recent years against Jews, and accusations I hear constantly as to why gay adoption should be banned], etc.) would see that are eerily similar.

I respectfully request that you do your research for once, instead of reverting to the usual "oppressed angry white male" shtick that I hear on FOX News ad infinitum.

I know a gay poster on another forum who is dead set against the idea of gay marriage. He actually says that not having any social pressure whatsoever to get married is one of the great, empowering things about being gay. He views legalised gay marriage as a kind of sell out - once the gay community can get married, they become 'just like the straight mainstream', as it were. It's a legitimate point of view within the gay community, even if it may not be in agreement with the posters on here. To some extent, I can sympathise with that as personally I have no real intention of getting married.

Big whoop. So now we must define the nature of gay rights, because you found one person who likes being "a rebel"? I can most assuredly tell you that, while it's his right, he does not represent the majority thought of homosexuals. He, most certainly, doesn't represent me at all.

But yeah, I guess it's easier to just issue blanket dismissals of anyone who has any reservations whatsoever about gay marriage as equivalent to propagandists for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

You know how it goes. Us "feminists" are just interested in emasculating and castrating "the Man."

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by financeguy
I think it's not unreasonable to ask the question of the gay posters on here if they in fact intend getting married, and to elucidate how precisely the lack of availability of gay marriage is oppressing them.

firstly, no, it's not a legitimate question, and here's why: it doesn't matter what i plan on in my life, what matters is that citizens are treated equally under the law, and because i have a vested interest in "my" group, i want to make sure that "my" people are treated fairly. what if i were black but had no interest in white women. but i had a black friend who was in love with a white woman. is it not unreasonable for me to want their relationship recognized despite the fact that i won't materially gain from it? if one person is oppressed, then all are oppressed.

however, in my specific situation, here's how i'm oppressed. firstly, because there is so much homophobia, i did not come out until my early 20's. i missed all of the dating and rules and rituals that straight people get socialized into in their early teens, all of which is a prelude to, yes, marriage. dating has a goal (for most). and that goal is to achieve a stable relationship where one can find love, companionship, stability, sex, and solidarity. for straight people, that can and is called marriage. and it gives purpose, meaning, and structure to the relationships they begin from the age of, say, 15 or so. also, should they choose to have a family, it provides coveted tax benefits and it also confers societal respect. and there's something quite powerful about standing up in front of your family and friends and saying that i, an adult person, love this person so much that i am going to commit my life to them, and i want you all to witness this, one of the most momentous moment in my entire life, up there with birth, the birth of a child, the death of parent, and death itself.

i had NONE of that. none of those goals. none of that implicity legitimacy and sanction and approval. so what you absorb as a gay person is that, no, you aren't good enough. you aren't worthy. don't take your relationships so seriously. if you're a man, well, go get some sex, but why bother with the love and relationship part.

and, suddenly, marriage appears as a goal. i honestly thing that one of the reasons why my relationship with Memphis has flourished is that we are both very interested in being "married" -- however that happens. we are both interested in long term commitment, in respect, in legitimacy, in being taken seriously, and, yes, in possibly having a family.

on a very personal level, i honestly fear what Memphis's family might do to me later on down the line. say we do well. say we build a good chunk of money togther. and say he has a heart attack at 48 and dies. can they take half of that? what if he had stroke and were in a permanent vegetative state? might their Christian beliefs keep him on life support for decades? would the bar me from the hospital room?

do you, as a straight person, *ever* have to think about these things?




[q]'Cos you know, if people are seriously arguing that the lack of legal availability of gay marriage is morally equivalent to the oppression of African slaves, or the oppression of Jews in Europe in the 1930's, I'd have to say that's a grotesque and laughable exaggeration.[/q]

firstly, the gays were in the concentration camps along with the Jews. and they're executed in Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Africa. even in the US, you can be killed or bashed or fired for being gay.

no, not everyone's oppression is equal, but much oppression operates with the same blueprint.

so, yes, scapegoating gays for the failure of straights to live up to whatever 1950s ideal the Christians have is no different, in structure, than blaming the Jews for inflation in Weimar Germany.




[q]I know a gay poster on another forum who is dead set against the idea of gay marriage. He actually says that not having any social pressure whatsoever to get married is one of the great, empowering things about being gay. He views legalised gay marriage as a kind of sell out - once the gay community can get married, they become 'just like the straight mainstream', as it were. It's a legitimate point of view within the gay community, even if it may not be in agreement with the posters on here. To some extent, I can sympathise with that as personally I have no real intention of getting married.[/q]

so he'd deny other people the right to get married? you should ask him that.

besides, there's diversity of opinion in the gay community. wow.

But yeah, I guess it's easier to just issue blanket dismissals of anyone who has any reservations whatsoever about gay marriage as equivalent to propagandists for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

again, it's the structure of the argument that people are talking about.

[financeguy]

Interesting responses, worthy of consideration - I must retire for the evening. Adieu.

[melon]

Originally posted by financeguy
Interesting responses, worthy of consideration - I must retire for the evening. Adieu.

Have a good night.

[melon]

Just to shake things up a little...

Marriage?

"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." - 1 Samuel 18:1-3


Consummation?

"Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt." - 1 Samuel 18:4


Homophobic father?

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" - 1 Samuel 20:30

Reference to the nakedness of one's parents is one of the methods used in the Bible to refer to a sexual relationship.

"Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!" - 1 Samuel 20:31

With a mindset that a king that cannot produce an heir if in a relationship with a man, this makes sense.

"At this Saul brandished his spear to strike him, and thus Jonathan learned that his father was resolved to kill David." - 1 Samuel 20:33


True love?

"David rose from beside the mound and prostrated himself on the ground three times before Jonathan in homage. They kissed each other and wept aloud together. At length Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, in keeping with what we two have sworn by the name of the LORD: 'The LORD shall be between you and me, and between your posterity and mine forever.'" - 1 Samuel 20:41-42

That must be a translation error. After all, God is only between a man and a woman, right? That's what the conservative Christians tell me is in the Bible.

"Saul and Jonathan, beloved and cherished, separated neither in life nor in death, swifter than eagles, stronger than lions!" - 2 Samuel 1:23

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother! most dear have you been to me; More precious have I held love for you than love for women." - 2 Samuel 1:26

Gay? Nah...I know plenty of straight people who do these kinds of things with their best male friends.

...

[martha]

Originally posted by INDY500
deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?

But why do your beliefs about the definition of marriage get to rule the day? Why not mine?

[BVS]

Status quo...

[deep]

it is not what the framers had in mind what they founded this country.