Same-sex marriage ban wins OK

[heretic888]

I knew this thread was going to turn back onto the topic of religion. You know there are people in the world who are against same-sex marriage for reasons other than religion.

Perhaps consciously they believe they are, but intentions and worldviews have a context and backdrop that far exceeds the limitations of any one human being's deliberate awareness. Even the language you were raised to speak has a substantial influence on the way you think about and see the world, whether you are consciously aware of this phenomenon or not.

And, make no mistake, these anti-gay prejudices have their origins in the religious context and traditional values of the culture we find ourselves in. Its a common trend in most patriarchal societies, actually (I would consider the democratic West to be a recovering patriarchy). This is especially prevalent in the United States, above many other Western democracies, in that much of the language and values of our nation rests on early Puritan settlers.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the whole idea of two different genders coming together is the whole idea of marriage! I don't know why some people can't figure this out!

Perhaps because, unlike you, not all of us subscribe to the illusion that words and ideas have a predetermined meaning independent of the perception of human beings or the changes of time and history. The world is not pregiven, it is in many ways a construction based on a correspondence with objective reality.

Likewise with sociocultural institutions like marriage. Their definitions and understandings evolve and adapt with the times. Once upon a time, "citizen" only meant able-bodied, land-owning white man, y'know...

At the same time everything can't be the conservatives way which is why this needs to be decided on a centrist fashion! Make a new union, give the same rights as straight couples but call it something different and don't equate the two. Both unions will be considered equal but different. That way everyone will be happy, or at least one group will be as happy as the other and vice versa.

On this I would agree.

My position is essentially that of Howard Dean's in that I support same-sex civil union, but don't believe we should be telling the churches of this country who they can and cannot marry. At the same time, I believe any church that is welling to conduct a same-sex ceremony should be more than legally able of doing so.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

Texas became the 18th state to write a ban on same-sex marriage into its constitution as Proposition 2 was overwhelmingly approved by voters Tuesday (Nov 8th).

How embarassing for you.

In the not too distant future, votes like this will be looked upon as Plessy v Ferguson is today.

 

[arnisador]

Seperate but Equal was struck down in the US in the 60's.

Yes. At first I supported the civil union (only) option, but more and more it became clear to me that this was the right way to view it. It's a civil rights issue.

On another note, whether strictly inborn or not, sexual orientation is set at such a young age that it hardly matters. (A usual number is before 5 years old.) Who here has met someone who said at 29 "Guys, I've thought about it, and I've decided to give the gay thing a try!" Rather, they say at 29 "I've always known, but...".

 

[michaeledward]

Another thing that the gay community is criticized for is its lack of monogamy. I think that allowing them to marry would help, because there is really no tangible commitment right now. If there were marriages, then there would be a certificate and a contract of sorts and I believe that that would help solidify relationships. Could be wrong, I mean there are still married people who cheat, but at least the commitment would be acknowledged more.

Man, that's an embarrasing paragraph. Spoken like someone who has never met a homosexual in a relationship. People who 'criticize' the gay community, apparently aren't aware that their teenaged children probably have 'Friends with Benefits'.

I submit for your review.

http://www.shalom6000.com

 

[heretic888]

Actually, based on the numerous conversations I have had with the numerous gay people who I know, I would say people are born gay. Societal norms often force them to live in denial so it sometimes takes years before they can deal with the fact and get some kind of resolution to the issues that go along with this, but my friends tell me that for as long back as they can remember, from the time they were too young to even understand what sex is, they have been attracted to members of the same sex.

I am no expert on homosexuality, but I do live and work in San Francisco, and I know and work with many homosexuals.

Well, part of the problem is how we define homosexuality in the first place.

Is homosexuality the act of being attracted to the same sex, or is it actual expressions of this attraction?? If we define it only as outward expressions, this means that all celibate people (such as Catholic or Buddhist monks) in the world should be properly categorized as asexual.

What about frequency?? A very high number of people have experienced what we would call a "homoerotic experience" (whether it be actual intercourse or just a dream) than who would actually consider themselves homosexuals. At what point do we cut off saying a person is simply having homosexual experiences into saying this person is actually a homosexual??

What about those that have been continuously raped by members of the same sex (such as is the case in prison), but do not consider themselves homosexuals?? What about those that willingly engage in homoerotic experiences in one setting (again, such as in prison) but freely abandon such practices when they leave this setting??

Again, many on the Religious Right constantly demonize and condemn homsexuality, but I doubt many of them could actually define what homosexuality is. Think about it.

Laterz.

 

[Kane]

Heretic,

Perhaps consciously they believe they are, but intentions and worldviews have a context and backdrop that far exceeds the limitations of any one human being's deliberate awareness. Even the language you were raised to speak has a substantial influence on the way you think about and see the world, whether you are consciously aware of this phenomenon or not.

And, make no mistake, these anti-gay prejudices have their origins in the religious context and traditional values of the culture we find ourselves in. Its a common trend in most patriarchal societies, actually (I would consider the democratic West to be a recovering patriarchy). This is especially prevalent in the United States, above many other Western democracies, in that much of the language and values of our nation rests on early Puritan settlers.

You are making the assumptions that being against homosexual marriage means you are anti-gay. Yes it is all about tradition to a certain extent, what is so wrong about that? What is wrong with tradition? Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman according to conservatives and many (most) people. I'm not looking at Biblical tradition only, I'm looking at humanity as a whole. Marriage on planet Earth dates back to when humans first started to engage in monogamous activities (homo erectus). At that time there was no religion or no big reasons, it was simply a union between a male human and a female human, never a male-male or female-female relationship. That is the tradition that later took more shape under religion, but it doesn't change the fact that marriage has existed before religion for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

What is evil about patriarchy? Are you against anything that has to do with the past? First off in Western Democratic countries women can legally be elected into office, so there are no legals laws in support of a patriarchy (unless you want laws in order to enforce a matriarchy.

Perhaps because, unlike you, not all of us subscribe to the illusion that words and ideas have a predetermined meaning independent of the perception of human beings or the changes of time and history. The world is not pregiven, it is in many ways a construction based on a correspondence with objective reality.

Likewise with sociocultural institutions like marriage. Their definitions and understandings evolve and adapt with the times. Once upon a time, "citizen" only meant able-bodied, land-owning white man, y'know...

Illusion of what? Using your logic we might as well legalize marriage as a union between a table and a chair. Why not? Why don't we just change reality as we see it? Marriage exists in this world like anything else. It has nothing to do with how you look at it, marriage is a male(s)-female(s) relationship. Of course you can look at anything anyway you want, in fact you can call a a truck an TV, but it doesn't change the fact that a TV isn't a truck if you get what I am saying.

If definitions change over time now is not the time. In Canada it did, but the fact remains that majority of the US does not want to change the word of marriage to something else.

Now before you bring up interracial marriage disputes of the past. The arguments against interracial marriage did not make sense considering it never disputed the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether a black man marries a white woman it makes no difference, it is between a man and a woman. A man and man or woman and woman violates the fundamental concept of what marriage is.

On this I would agree.

My position is essentially that of Howard Dean's in that I support same-sex civil union, but don't believe we should be telling the churches of this country who they can and cannot marry. At the same time, I believe any church that is welling to conduct a same-sex ceremony should be more than legally able of doing so.

Laterz.

Glad you agree on at least that. To sum all of it up in a nutshell I do believe conservatives do have a point (as I was explaining) as do liberals (as I have explained in other more conservative forums).

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yes it is all about tradition to a certain extent, what is so wrong about that? What is wrong with tradition? Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman according to conservatives and many (most) people. I'm not looking at Biblical tradition only, I'm looking at humanity as a whole. Marriage on planet Earth dates back to when humans first started to engage in monogamous activities (homo erectus). At that time there was no religion or no big reasons, it was simply a union between a male human and a female human, never a male-male or female-female relationship. That is the tradition that later took more shape under religion, but it doesn't change the fact that marriage has existed before religion for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

No, it has not "always" been "man-woman".

Here are 2 rather long rebuttles:
An Online Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans* History
Gay Marriage: Reimagining Church History

Illusion of what? Using your logic we might as well legalize marriage as a union between a table and a chair. Why not? Why don't we just change reality as we see it? Marriage exists in this world like anything else. It has nothing to do with how you look at it, marriage is a male(s)-female(s) relationship. Of course you can look at anything anyway you want, in fact you can call a a truck an TV, but it doesn't change the fact that a TV isn't a truck if you get what I am saying.

I'll have you know that my sofa and I are very happy together.

If definitions change over time now is not the time. In Canada it did, but the fact remains that majority of the US does not want to change the word of marriage to something else.

So you are saying that Canada is more progressive than the US?
The majority of the southern US didn't want integration.
The majority of the northern US didn't want to fight a war over slavery.
Yet both happened for the common good.

Now before you bring up interracial marriage disputes of the past. The arguments against interracial marriage did not make sense considering it never disputed the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether a black man marries a white woman it makes no difference, it is between a man and a woman. A man and man or woman and woman violates the fundamental concept of what marriage is.

The fact is, the beliefs and the laws have changed over time.

 

[Cryozombie]

seriously, yeah. why would someone choose to be ridiculed and hated by a huge group of society? people are gay because that is how they are.

I absolutly disagree with this, on the basis that you could apply this thinking to other subcultures and your description would fit... Yet Im failry certain people arent born... "Goth" or with Giant green Punk Mohawks...

Yet they choose to be that way despite being ridiculed and hated by society, even if to a lesser extent than say a Homosexual.

Hey... Wait... I am also Christian, and if you look, I am ridiculed and hated by a huge group of society... just read many of the comments on this board alone about how dumb people who are christian are... Guess I was "born" that way too... and all my athiest, deist, and satanist periods in my life were just phases...

Nah, me personally, I have to believe People just make unpopular lifestyle choices.

 

[arnisador]

Is homosexuality the act of being attracted to the same sex

Yes.

or is it actual expressions of this attraction??

Homosexual acts.

A very high number of people have experienced what we would call a "homoerotic experience"

Yeah, the numbers on this really surprise people...the percentage who have 'experimented' is rather high.

What about those that have been continuously raped by members of the same sex (such as is the case in prison), but do not consider themselves homosexuals?? What about those that willingly engage in homoerotic experiences in one setting (again, such as in prison) but freely abandon such practices when they leave this setting??

The latter case is interesting. The former case is non-voluntary, so I don't see what it has to do with sexual orientation. If a lesbian is raped by a man, while it might technically be a heterosexual act, I don't find that a very useful framework from which to view the act.

Again, many on the Religious Right constantly demonize and condemn homsexuality, but I doubt many of them could actually define what homosexuality is.

I think they cover most of the cases. They condemn both the overt acts and the orientation itself, generally. I think they get the difference, but since "I tell you, he who has looked at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery" (a la Jimmy Carter) they don't much care.

 

[arnisador]

Nah, me personally, I have to believe People just make unpopular lifestyle choices.

This has been pretty well studied...it's not a widely held view in the scientific community (regarding homosexuality).

 

[Cryozombie]

This has been pretty well studied...it's not a widely held view in the scientific community (regarding homosexuality).

Well, that specific comment was directed at MY post about not being born Punk or Christian...but making them as choices.

I think (read: my personal beliefs) SOME gay people choose the lifestyle. They do it to shock their parents, or as part of/resulting from a particular lifestyle... (For example, I have a reletive who is a stripper and she has stated that many of the strippers that she has worked with became lesbians after working in strip clubs and seeing the absolute worst in men... they decide they no longer want to have anything to do with them). I also think that many "develop" gay lifestyles as a result of abuse/trauma in their childhoods. I think its also plausable that a certain predisposition to certain sexuality could be genetic... But, then again, is attraction genetic or learned... and is being Gay/Lesbian MORE than an "attraction" to sexual behavior with a same sex person?

 

[Flying Crane]

Personally, I think sexuality is more complex than male/female. I think perhaps homosexuality is a third, altho less common, sexuality that occurs naturally. Perhaps because sexuality manifests itself in two physical forms: male and female (I'm not going to get in to the whole hermaphrodite issue here), we tend to think there are only two forms of sexuality. Maybe we need to rethink this...