Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 19 - 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 04-24-2008, 08:11 AM   #361
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
However, it's important to remember that the end of the day the outcome of these issues won't effect our lives one way or the other.
Which is why I can't understand why straight people are so dead set against this.

It will have no other effect on us but to extend the happiness that marriage can bring.

So why the hate?
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 04-24-2008, 08:22 AM   #362
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Which is why I can't understand why straight people are so dead set against this.

It will have no other effect on us but to extend the happiness that marriage can bring.

So why the hate?
Because people are taught to respond this way to this issue. As we have seen over the years, there is nothing reasonably rational to homophobia. It is almost always based on fear and stereotypes--not all that different from the "reasoning" behind anti-Semitic laws that Europe had for nearly 2,000 years, laws "justifying" segregation and anti-interracial marriage.

Quote:
Writing in a now-infamous 1893 "open letter" published in the Virginia Medical Monthly, Hunter Holmes McGuire, a Richmond physician and president of the American Medical Association, asked for "some scientific explanation of the sexual perversion in the Negro of the present day." McGuire's correspondent, Chicago physician G. Frank Lydston, replied that African-American men raped white women because of "[h]ereditary influences descending from the uncivilized ancestors of our Negroes." Lydston's solution to this problem was not lynching, but surgical castration which "prevents the criminal from perpetuating his kind."
Quote:
On 6 January 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that...

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Quote:
Slavery is against nature, because it treats human beings like subhuman chattel. Sodomy is against nature, since it treats men as if they were women.

...

Some homosexuals, especially women, maintain "exclusive" relationships. These may reduce somewhat the incidence of venereal disease. If they are sufficiently discreet — that is to say, if they remain in the closet" — they may avoid the evil of scandal. "Marriages" between homosexuals would not solve any problems, however. It was not the lack of marriage certificates that produced the bathhouse culture, but rather the uncontrolled indulgence of sexual perversion. Legalizing sexual perversion could only make matters worse. - Harry V. Jaffa, neoconservative at The Claremont Institute, 1992
I mean, who can argue with logic like that?

As always, we let fear win, and we just spend all of our time trying to rationalize these irrational, baseless fears of "the Other." But let there be no mistake about it; no amount of rationalization can cover up the fact that it is still nothing, but irrational.
__________________

melon is offline  
Old 04-24-2008, 10:02 AM   #363
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:02 PM
martha is offline  
Old 04-24-2008, 02:54 PM   #364
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Because people are taught to respond this way to this issue.





I mean, who can argue with logic like that?

.
Perhaps this man, if he were still alive today:



Quote:
Because people are taught to respond this way to this issue.
The sword cuts both ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-24-2008, 08:04 PM   #365
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 06:02 PM
The reason Melon, is because we are a nation built on the Puritanical belief that our ancestors engaged in a new covenant with God. He provided us with this country to create a Christian country to be his tool to spread his word throughout civilization. If we allow homosexuals to marry, we would be condoning immoral behavior. If we allow immoral behavior to be condoned in our laws, then, the mighty God will smite us down and Al Qaeda will win the war on terror, and Islam will be triumphant.

Get it?

If it were not for this topic and abortion, we would be a completely perfect and moral society.

That is as long as we do not look in the mirror too often.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 12:49 AM   #366
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

And Nathan, I'd like to commend you on your respectful even-handed tone. However, it's important to remember that the end of the day the outcome of these issues won't effect our lives one way or the other. On the other hand, Melon has to live with the consequences of these issues everyday, so I think he's entitled to get a little hot under the collar.
Firstly -- good Lord, I step out for 24 hours and Diamond shows up. Maybe I should quit while I'm behind.

Second -- I said earlier that I understand that there is deep-seated passion behind the issue, on both sides. At the same time, it's not necessary to call someone willfully ignorant when they're trying to engage and discuss the issue. (Melon apologized, which I accept.)

Third -- to address the question of whether the subject of gay marriage does/does not affect anyone else. As the fascinating back and forth in this thread earlier illustrated, those who are outside the boundary definitions of marriage, even at its most elastic -- one partner/one partner, regardless of gender or gender identification -- are going to seek to redefine marriage to accomodate them. So redefining marriage certainly affects those who will still be left outside its bounds. And if we can agree with most sociologists that marriage and family are traditionally considered to be at the center of society, then any redefinition thereof will have some kind of ripple effect. We can argue whether that effect will be positive or negative, but regardless, an effect will be had. One could argue that the rise of no-fault divorces in the 70s had an impact on the children and families affected by divorce, and certainly affected perspectives on marriage (how many of us know friends who don't want to get married because they're afraid of getting divorced...or who think that themselves?).

So we can discuss the pros and cons of marriage redefinition however we want, but I think it's a bit of a fallacy to say that it doesn't affect anyone else.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 02:11 AM   #367
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Firstly -- good Lord, I step out for 24 hours and Diamond shows up. Maybe I should quit while I'm behind.

Second -- I said earlier that I understand that there is deep-seated passion behind the issue, on both sides. At the same time, it's not necessary to call someone willfully ignorant when they're trying to engage and discuss the issue. (Melon apologized, which I accept.)

Third -- to address the question of whether the subject of gay marriage does/does not affect anyone else. As the fascinating back and forth in this thread earlier illustrated, those who are outside the boundary definitions of marriage, even at its most elastic -- one partner/one partner, regardless of gender or gender identification -- are going to seek to redefine marriage to accomodate them. So redefining marriage certainly affects those who will still be left outside its bounds. And if we can agree with most sociologists that marriage and family are traditionally considered to be at the center of society, then any redefinition thereof will have some kind of ripple effect. We can argue whether that effect will be positive or negative, but regardless, an effect will be had. One could argue that the rise of no-fault divorces in the 70s had an impact on the children and families affected by divorce, and certainly affected perspectives on marriage (how many of us know friends who don't want to get married because they're afraid of getting divorced...or who think that themselves?).

So we can discuss the pros and cons of marriage redefinition however we want, but I think it's a bit of a fallacy to say that it doesn't affect anyone else.
I'd be interested in you unpacking exactly what you expect the ripple effects might be of such a redefinition of marriage. What are some of the consequences you anticipate if we broaden the definition of marriage.

And does a redefinition always indicate negative results? The defintion of marriage has narrowed in Western society over the past several hundred years to be strictly one man and one woman. Is it that narrowing the defintion of marriage will always be positive but the broadening will always be negative?
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 08:06 AM   #368
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


And if we can agree with most sociologists that marriage and family are traditionally considered to be at the center of society, then any redefinition thereof will have some kind of ripple effect.
More couples commited to love. That has to be a bad thing, right?


This just sounds like fear.


BVS is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 08:17 AM   #369
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
More couples commited to love. That has to be a bad thing, right?


This just sounds like fear.


And it is just that...fear.

Gay marriage has not changed Massachusetts, Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, or South Africa. And, in fact, if we gauge a state based on its divorce stats, then we can say that Massachusetts is the state that "values" marriage the highest!

One can argue that Massachusetts is that way because it is predominantly Catholic, which frowns on divorce. Either way, all an argument like that proves is that gay marriage has nothing to do with any of this! It has everything to do with--surprise, surprise!--how heterosexuals themselves and their own beliefs impact how they value their marriages.

Blaming homosexuals for why heterosexuals have fucked up their marriages is like medieval Europe blaming Jews or "witches" for why their crops aren't growing. It's downright preposterous. It's time for the heterosexual world to stop scapegoating and blaming everyone else for all of their problems in life, and to take a nice good look in the mirror. The GOP is supposed to be the "party of personal responsibility," right?
melon is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 08:27 AM   #370
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
And if we can agree with most sociologists that marriage and family are traditionally considered to be at the center of society, then any redefinition thereof will have some kind of ripple effect.
Increasing the numbers of loving, committed families can only have a positive effect.

I still can't understand the stubborn resistance that some straights have to extending such a positive and beneficial thing to two already committed adults. Why is it so scary? It's just love and commitment. I thought that was a good thing.

And no, I don't see how a loving, committed marriage between to men or two women can have anything but a positive effect on me and my country.
martha is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 01:50 PM   #371
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha

I still can't understand the stubborn resistance that some straights have to extending such a positive and beneficial thing to two already committed adults. Why is it so scary? It's just love and commitment. I thought that was a good thing.
I realize that I'm pissing in the wind here, but for the sake of discussing this at a high level, we're talking about a number of factors here.

1. Redefining marriage at its fundamental level as one man/one woman opens the doors to legitimizing other forms of alternative family groupings and giving them marriage as well. Despite the firestorm of posting that went back and forth on polygamy/bigamy earlier in this thread, it's naive to think that we don't open the doors to such discussions, and those who insist we don't strike me as those in the 70s who said that legalizing abortion would not lead to euthanasia. Yet here we are.

2. Removing the notion of BOTH male and female as essential for family structures is a fundamental rethink of the value we place on gender both in families and by extension in society.

To address Melon's points:

Quote:
One can argue that Massachusetts is that way because it is predominantly Catholic, which frowns on divorce.
This is not an insignificant point to gloss over.

Quote:
how heterosexuals themselves and their own beliefs impact how they value their marriages.
I don't disagree. At the same time, I think that perhaps after 30 years of watching the steady erosion of marriages, the rise of divorce, the effects on the next generation of kids, its effect on families and on society, I wonder if perhaps we ought to spend some time re-emphasizing the core of what marriage is and has been, rather than saying that fundamental redefinitions don't matter.

It is naive for anyone to scapegoat anyone else for the breakdown of marriage. I don't think I've ever scapegoated the gay community for the breakdown of marriage. I certainly don't think that, though I understand it's an easy charge for the intellectually lazy to make. I personally think that the rise of no-fault divorce in the 70s had much more of an impact on marriage than the push for gay marriage. At the same time, we would be naive to believe that blowing cultural winds do not have an affect. The rise of cohabitation in the 90s -- which I would argue emerged from the divorces of the 70s (again, how many people want to live together first to see if it works out before embarking on marriage?) -- created the space where we are now and the conversation we are having. However, while one could have argued in the 70s that divorce was a private matter and it wouldn't affect those in marriage, here we are, with the country at sky-high divorce rates. Everything has an effect, and I would argue that this subject has a real significance at the core definition level.

But I realize that people are going to disagree, and I don't pretend to think that I'm going to convince anyone on this board of any of these things. This is a passionate issue, but it is passionate on both sides, because it will have an effect...as activists on both sides will attest.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 01:54 PM   #372
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977

At the same time, I think that perhaps after 30 years of watching the steady erosion of marriages, the rise of divorce, the effects on the next generation of kids, its effect on families and on society, I wonder if perhaps we ought to spend some time re-emphasizing the core of what marriage is and has been, rather than saying that fundamental redefinitions don't matter.
I think any reasonable discussion of the changes made to divorce laws from the late 60s onwards in the West is incomplete without recognizing that it also played a crucial role in the empowerment and liberalization (some would even say emancipation) of women.
anitram is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 02:35 PM   #373
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I think any reasonable discussion of the changes made to divorce laws from the late 60s onwards in the West is incomplete without recognizing that it also played a crucial role in the empowerment and liberalization (some would even say emancipation) of women.
Naturally.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 04:51 PM   #374
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Firstly -- good Lord, I step out for 24 hours and Diamond shows up. Maybe I should quit while I'm behind.
i think you're doing yourself in all by yourself.



<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 05:09 PM   #375
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,738
Local Time: 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


1. Redefining marriage at its fundamental level as one man/one woman opens the doors to legitimizing other forms of alternative family groupings and giving them marriage as well. Despite the firestorm of posting that went back and forth on polygamy/bigamy earlier in this thread, it's naive to think that we don't open the doors to such discussions [...]
Perhaps I've been left out of the national discussion loop, but I don't see discussions of "legitimizing other forms of alternative family groupings and giving them marriage as well" occurring here in Canada.

Citizens from other nations that have allowed gay marriage and have since upped the ante by discussing the legalization of polygamy, inter-species marriage, etc, please chime in. Let us know how the discussions are progressing!
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 04-25-2008, 07:13 PM   #376
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 PM
I would be ok with callng a post op tranvestite coupled with a person of the opposite gender of them as-married.

Polygamous marriages altho outlawed, technically follow under the term of "marriage" because it involves persons of the opposite sex.

Gay multiple couplehood partnerships as straight multiple couplehoodships should not be considered legal marriage either, but outlawed just the same.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-26-2008, 01:22 AM   #377
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977

It is naive for anyone to scapegoat anyone else for the breakdown of marriage. I don't think I've ever scapegoated the gay community for the breakdown of marriage. I certainly don't think that, though I understand it's an easy charge for the intellectually lazy to make. I personally think that the rise of no-fault divorce in the 70s had much more of an impact on marriage than the push for gay marriage. At the same time, we would be naive to believe that blowing cultural winds do not have an affect. The rise of cohabitation in the 90s -- which I would argue emerged from the divorces of the 70s (again, how many people want to live together first to see if it works out before embarking on marriage?) -- created the space where we are now and the conversation we are having. However, while one could have argued in the 70s that divorce was a private matter and it wouldn't affect those in marriage, here we are, with the country at sky-high divorce rates. Everything has an effect, and I would argue that this subject has a real significance at the core definition level.


i'm too busy to take a bathroom break right now, let alone post in FYM in any meaningful sense, but why do we stick to the word "redefinition"? isn't "expansion" a far more accurate word? we're simply allowing gay people to enter into the institution. why "redefinition"? hasn't marriage already been "redefined" insofar as many adults marry with no intention of having children? hasn't this already happened? haven't straight people made marriage far more elastic than the centuries old women-as-property-and-breeding-material definition? aren't we actually incredibly lucky to be living in a world where marriage is now as idealistic as it's ever been? that it is about love? and joyful commitment?

and i'd argue that most couples who cohabitate and, more importantly, marry later in life stay together longer than those who don't. the reason why Massachusetts has such a low divorce rate compared to, say, Tennessee, i think, has less to do with Catholicism vs. Baptist and much more to do with the vastly higher rates of education in the northeast versus the south, and the age at which people get married and then have children.

and none of this has anything to do with gay people.

i also hear in your post, nathan, a yearning for some other time, some other place and age when things were better, when men and women looked each other in the eye and meant it to be for life, and that was that, and the sun set and it was all perfect. and that's nonsense. anyone who was actually alive 50, 60, 70 years ago knows that the "success" of marriages often relied upon strict adherence to traditional gender roles, wherein women had no other economic alternatives than marriage. so what if he hits you, so what if he rapes your daughter, so what if he would rather wipe his feet on your face than say good morning to you. you, the woman, have no other option. so grin and bear it, and make it better, because it's probably your fault anyway.

despite our "sky high" divorce rates, marriage today is a healthier institution than it has ever been, and the deep dark secret behind many divorces is that many involved, kids included, do understand that it's often for the best. better to live with one happy parent than two miserable, bickering people.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-26-2008, 01:27 AM   #378
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
and those who insist we don't strike me as those in the 70s who said that legalizing abortion would not lead to euthanasia. Yet here we are.


this strikes me as a breathtaking assumption.

how can you make this argument? what does one have to do with the other? we all know the #1 rule taught in freshman Psych 101 is that correlation does not prove causation -- what kind of thought process is this?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-26-2008, 01:35 AM   #379
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
Redefining marriage at its fundamental level as one man/one woman opens the doors to legitimizing other forms of alternative family groupings and giving them marriage as well. Despite the firestorm of posting that went back and forth on polygamy/bigamy earlier in this thread, it's naive to think that we don't open the doors to such discussions
But bigamy cases have been around for a long time, and aren't likely to go away anytime soon--Reynolds v. United States was in 1878, and there have been numerous others at the state court level. I can't think of how a legal case for gay marriage would "open the door" to new forms of legal argument for polygamy; the legal issues raised by increasing the number of parties to a marriage contract, particularly when only one party is actually married to all the others, are entirely different from a civil-rights-based argument, where qualities inhering in the two spouses as individuals (their race, religion, sexual orientation etc.) are argued to be unconstitutional grounds for denying them access to said contract.

Using polygynists as an example, since that's overwhelmingly the quarter where interest in legalizing polygamy comes from: How much say would a polygynous man's existing wife/wives have on whether he takes another? What if one of them develops irreconcilable differences not with him, but with another wife? What if one wife wants a divorce but the others don't--how is dividing up the property going to work? How about custody arrangements (perhaps one of the wives has done more caretaking for everyone's kids than the others)? What if the husband, or one of the wives, dies--how will inheritance distribution work? These are all issues that would have to be grappled with before polygamy could be legalized, but gay marriage doesn't raise those issues at all. (Of course, I realize these issues DO come up in traditionally polygynous cultures all the time...but personally I'm not aware of any such culture in which women have equal legal footing to men in family and marriage law to begin with--as would be constitutionally required here.)

I really think this 'It opens up Pandora's box...' line of argument is a red herring, and not anchored in the reality of how legal arguments actually work.
Quote:
Removing the notion of BOTH male and female as essential for family structures is a fundamental rethink of the value we place on gender both in families and by extension in society.
I know you don't mean to scapegoat, but when you bring up our divorce rate (which has dropped steadily since peaking around 1980, and is now very close to the 1970 level) in the context of arguing against gay marriage, it's difficult not to get the impression that you're implying legalizing gay marriage would somehow worsen it--even though the international data doesn't support that concern. I can understand wishing that more people were enthusiastic about getting (and staying) married and having children, but how exactly is denying gay people the right to marry going to help with that? And if it won't help, then how is it relevant to the issue? Gay marriage wasn't even on our collective radar screen when divorce rates shot up in the mid-70s. "Rethinks" of which avenues to economic and social stability women deserved access to certainly were though--and yes, that much WAS a radical redefinition of how men and women stand relative to each other in society, including in the family.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-26-2008, 05:35 AM   #380
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,725
Local Time: 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




this strikes me as a breathtaking assumption.

how can you make this argument? what does one have to do with the other? we all know the #1 rule taught in freshman Psych 101 is that correlation does not prove causation -- what kind of thought process is this?
Apart from that, I don't care what those people "agreed on" thirty years ago.
__________________

Vincent Vega 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 06:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×