Zepp
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,561
- Reaction score
- 22
An article related to the topic: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041209/wl_afp/canadagaysmarriage_041209223253
Yea Canada!
Yea Canada!
When did same-gender relations become "wrong"?
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
Darksoul
Black Belt
-To me, I see it as an issue of control. If a person or group doesn't like something that really isn't affecting the quality of life for all should accept that some people are different. Oh statistics can say anything you want them to. So let us say there is this one guy, who happens to be gay, and he molests a little boy. Now, does that mean all gay men will molests little boys? I don't think so. Its nothing more than another form of discrimination on the part of those who will not accept others for being different and will do something, such as abusing gays/bis/lesbians, be it verbally or physically, or perhaps vote for or enact laws that will directly affect the lives of these people.
-For example, the controversy concerning marriage. For a nation that was founded on a freedom of religion, especially to escape persecution, look how it has repeated itself here by the people and the gov't against the people. Who said certain religious institutions have any claim whatsoever to the concept of marriage, which has exisited for eons? If any group wishes no homosexuality within their churches or organizations or whatever, thats fine. But those who are gay, etc, should be allowed to practice, worship, preach whatever they desire, including marriage. If that means they have to create they're own centers, organizations, religions, so be it.
-Once again, let me get back to the part about control. How often do we fear something in the world, especially something we either don't know about, or cannot understand? That kind of fear, that kind of paranoia is strong, so strong its lead to tragedies on grand and small scales throughout history. And how do we usually deal with that kind of fear? We find ways to control it. And if I don't agree with others being "different", I may feel possessed to do something about it, to protect my way of life.
-Judge people as individuals, standing on their own merits and actions. Just as you would for a martial artist. If you went into a tournament, and found out your next opponent was gay, how would you react? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Before the names, lables, stereotypes, colors, nationalities, orientations, when you get down to basics, one thing binds us all together: WE ARE ALL HUMAN. Everything else divides us.
A---)
-For example, the controversy concerning marriage. For a nation that was founded on a freedom of religion, especially to escape persecution, look how it has repeated itself here by the people and the gov't against the people. Who said certain religious institutions have any claim whatsoever to the concept of marriage, which has exisited for eons? If any group wishes no homosexuality within their churches or organizations or whatever, thats fine. But those who are gay, etc, should be allowed to practice, worship, preach whatever they desire, including marriage. If that means they have to create they're own centers, organizations, religions, so be it.
-Once again, let me get back to the part about control. How often do we fear something in the world, especially something we either don't know about, or cannot understand? That kind of fear, that kind of paranoia is strong, so strong its lead to tragedies on grand and small scales throughout history. And how do we usually deal with that kind of fear? We find ways to control it. And if I don't agree with others being "different", I may feel possessed to do something about it, to protect my way of life.
-Judge people as individuals, standing on their own merits and actions. Just as you would for a martial artist. If you went into a tournament, and found out your next opponent was gay, how would you react? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Before the names, lables, stereotypes, colors, nationalities, orientations, when you get down to basics, one thing binds us all together: WE ARE ALL HUMAN. Everything else divides us.
A---)
I'm putting on my flame-retardant boxers as I type this, but the Catholic stand on homosexuality seems to be that it is acceptable only when a priest is involved...PeachMonkey said:
Jeff
Man I'm breaking all my rules today! I normally dont get involved in these threads, but there have been some interesting and very good points made here and I wanted to add some of my own "opinion" or "beliefs".
We have talked about the greeks and their openly accepted gay lifestyles, but lets not neccessarily combine the lifestyles of being gay with being bi-sexual. In my humble opinion, they are different. For the greeks did have a wife and family usually, and as much as their homosexual realtionships on the side were accepted, so were heterosexual relationships "on the side". If we ask the question, "when did homosexual lifestyles become wrong" I think we also have to understand and look at when relationships while being "married"; homosexual or otherwise, became wrong. There was a time and a place that these relationships with other women while being "married" was openly accepted, and they fit the same time periods and geographical locations.
Just my 2 cents,
7sm
We have talked about the greeks and their openly accepted gay lifestyles, but lets not neccessarily combine the lifestyles of being gay with being bi-sexual. In my humble opinion, they are different. For the greeks did have a wife and family usually, and as much as their homosexual realtionships on the side were accepted, so were heterosexual relationships "on the side". If we ask the question, "when did homosexual lifestyles become wrong" I think we also have to understand and look at when relationships while being "married"; homosexual or otherwise, became wrong. There was a time and a place that these relationships with other women while being "married" was openly accepted, and they fit the same time periods and geographical locations.
Just my 2 cents,
7sm
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
I'm sure you're right. But I guess I just never understood what's so interesting about who's doing whom that it should be part of our national agenda.PeachMonkey said:Awww, c'mon, Phoenix... clearly a doctor in mass communications with an anti-gay agenda has more credibility than an institute for sexual research at a major Big-Ten state-sponsored University with some of the finest psychological and sociological researchers in the world!
You're clearly a a biased elitist.
This is very true. A relative of mine is a former priest. He's told my family that homosexuality is rampant in the priesthood, and other priests and ex-priests have confirmed this to me. The church looks the other way when it's their priests involved.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #27
As another interesting point....in several conversations over the years I've seen a trend.
Guys who are very much in the "2 guys icky" crowd would usually do the "I love lesbians" bit. So, 2 guys is evil, wrong and disgusting, but 2 gals is soft, nice, exciting and delicious?
Interestingly enough, in converstations with women, I've found that the opposite is often true, though not as greatly.
Lesbianism amoungst nuns has also historically been ignored, and I do know of at least 1 convent across a river from a monestary in France I believe, what was separated by an underground tunnel. The tunnel was filled with the corpses of the children of the priests and nuns who would 'commune' together. Hypocracy in the Church traces back centuries, so is nothing new.
Guys who are very much in the "2 guys icky" crowd would usually do the "I love lesbians" bit. So, 2 guys is evil, wrong and disgusting, but 2 gals is soft, nice, exciting and delicious?
Interestingly enough, in converstations with women, I've found that the opposite is often true, though not as greatly.
Lesbianism amoungst nuns has also historically been ignored, and I do know of at least 1 convent across a river from a monestary in France I believe, what was separated by an underground tunnel. The tunnel was filled with the corpses of the children of the priests and nuns who would 'commune' together. Hypocracy in the Church traces back centuries, so is nothing new.
IMO, there is no argument against same-sex marriage that is not religious in nature. As such, I can't see a justifiable reason that it can be banned by our government.
Jeff
Jeff
loki09789
Senior Master
Cultures have either tolerated or even encouraged same sex relationships in some way for along time in a wide number of places. When did it become 'wrong?' by the modern sense? I would put it at the moment that Western perceptions of 'marriage based on love, affection and fidelity' would be the beginning of the 'end' of acceptable homosexual relations.heretic888 said:
Greek/Spartans and Thebans (along with other Greek nation states/cultures) encouraged same sex relations to build espirit de Corps among troops. It was fine as long as it didn't interfere with the marriage as political/cultural perpetuation machine of the day.
The shift in perception of marriage as more than just a contractual/political arrangement to one of romantic/loving/spiritual bonding would be the time of change IMO.
Even in China and Japan, homosexual -even pederastic practices- were acceptable parts of the culture as long as they didn't interfere with the creation of heirs/inheritors to the estates of the family. Western culture introduced in both those cultures helped squash that view.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
Paul, would you care to expand on that? I'm having trouble understanding the implication of this statement.
loki09789
Senior Master
Flatlander said:
Basically, when marriage became something that was a Western/Judeo-Christian 'sacrament' or an earthly sign of God's presence in the world (though it isn't ONLY a christian idea that marriage is a 'forever thing').
Before this idea became more commonly believed, marriage was something used to strengthen political/family ties.
You married your daughter off (after enticing a young man with her dowry) to a family that would improve your/her standing and network. She didn't choose as much as the family did the selecting. When this was the common practice, marriage was about building networks. Remember the whole stink around Romeo and Juliet. Marry for family connection vs. marry for love.
Once marriage was commonly scene as a 'union between a man and woman as a sign of divinity/God's grace' it became sacred and ALL other forms of intimacy were taboo (homosexuallity, extra marital affairs, concubines...) - though they still existed in reality - they were not as acceptable/seemly. People had to go underground with the habit - it never disappeared.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #32
So, if traditionally, mariage was used to cement alliances, forge partnerships and improve social standing....what does that say for the significance of a constitutional admendment to 'protect the sanctity of mariage'?
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
Senior Master
If you're bi-curious, Bob, just go for it. You don't have to justify it here on the forum . We already expect the "outlier" in you to come out...this is just a new way.
Unless (in the spirit of Groucho Marx & the Complex Question with Presuppositions): Are you too comfortable in your closet, or are you ready to go public?:boing2:
D
. We already expect the "outlier" in you to come out...this is just a new way.Unless (in the spirit of Groucho Marx & the Complex Question with Presuppositions): Are you too comfortable in your closet, or are you ready to go public?:boing2:
D
Old Fat Kenpoka
Master Black Belt
Kaith Rustaz said:
While the Greeks and Romans may have been doing the nasty in nasty ways, the Israelites were prohibited from incest, homosexuality, and sodomy with animals from the time of Moses around 1,300 B.C.E.
Please see Leviticus Chapter 18.
Raewyn
Master Black Belt
Here in New zealand our government has just passed a Civil Union Bill which has had alot of opposition but not enough to stop is being passed and made law:
{quote}
Civil Union Bill becomes law
09 December 2004
By PETER WILSON
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships became law today, and from April 26 next year couples can commit themselves to the new civil union.[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Parliament voted 65-55 to pass the controversial legislation which has polarised opinion and split political parties. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]During the past three days MPs opposed to it fought to change the Civil Union Bill and to force a referendum on it. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]They failed, and today the majority on the third reading was the same as it has been through most of the legislative process. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]The bill also applies to opposite-sex couples, but it does not change the Marriage Act which still applies only to men and women. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]After MPs cast their conscience votes and the final count was announced, the debating chamber was drowned in applause from the public galleries. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]MPs embraced, cheered and congratulated each other while Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki and his followers glowered down. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Outside Parliament rival rallies attracted about 400 people, with opponents slightly outnumbering supporters. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]While the bill's backers played music and threw orange balloons, opponents stood in silent protest. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Conservation Minister Chris Carter, who is planning a civil union with his partner Peter Kaiser as soon as the law is implemented, told Parliament history was being created. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"Today I sense tremendous joy and enthusiasm," he said during the third reading debate. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"We will have an opportunity we have always been denied." [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]The minister in charge of the bill, David Benson-Pope, said the legislation took nothing away from marriage. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"Once this bill is passed, and the sky doesn't fall in, the opposition to it will very quickly evaporate," he said. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"It gives the simplest of things - the formal recognition and respect by our laws for the individual choices of New Zealanders." {quote}[/font]
{quote}
Civil Union Bill becomes law
09 December 2004
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Legal recognition of same-sex partnerships became law today, and from April 26 next year couples can commit themselves to the new civil union.[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Parliament voted 65-55 to pass the controversial legislation which has polarised opinion and split political parties. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]During the past three days MPs opposed to it fought to change the Civil Union Bill and to force a referendum on it. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]They failed, and today the majority on the third reading was the same as it has been through most of the legislative process. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]The bill also applies to opposite-sex couples, but it does not change the Marriage Act which still applies only to men and women. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]After MPs cast their conscience votes and the final count was announced, the debating chamber was drowned in applause from the public galleries. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]MPs embraced, cheered and congratulated each other while Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki and his followers glowered down. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Outside Parliament rival rallies attracted about 400 people, with opponents slightly outnumbering supporters. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]While the bill's backers played music and threw orange balloons, opponents stood in silent protest. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]Conservation Minister Chris Carter, who is planning a civil union with his partner Peter Kaiser as soon as the law is implemented, told Parliament history was being created. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"Today I sense tremendous joy and enthusiasm," he said during the third reading debate. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"We will have an opportunity we have always been denied." [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]The minister in charge of the bill, David Benson-Pope, said the legislation took nothing away from marriage. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"Once this bill is passed, and the sky doesn't fall in, the opposition to it will very quickly evaporate," he said. [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, MS Sans Serif]"It gives the simplest of things - the formal recognition and respect by our laws for the individual choices of New Zealanders." {quote}[/font]
This letter, while an urban legend, points out some other interesting laws referenced in the Old Testament.Old Fat Kenpoka said:
Jeff
M
Melissa426
Guest
Since when does posting a thread about a pertinent social-political issue imply sexual persuasion? Or religious or political or anything, for that matter?Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:If you're bi-curious, Bob, just go for it. You don't have to justify it here on the forum
Unless (in the spirit of Groucho Marx & the Complex Question with Presuppositions): Are you too comfortable in your closet, or are you ready to go public?:boing2:
D
Not funny, IMO.
Regarding what NightingGale posted re: priests. I remember a statistic of about 30% of all priests are probably gay. Perhaps, the priestly vow of celibacy is what lead them into priesthood, when the possibility of acting on their desires is markedly diminished (understated, to be sure).
Peace,
Melissa
OP
- Thread Starter
- #38
Hehehe....Naw...no closet here. I'm comfortable in my own masculinity and at peace with my female side....then again, I live in Buffalo, and as my GF is constantly complaining, there just aint no 'hot guys' here. :rofl: So, it's very unlikely that during my next grappling match, that I'll suddenly 'come out' and ask my opponent out for an espresso. :rofl::rofl:Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:If you're bi-curious, Bob, just go for it. You don't have to justify it here on the forum
Unless (in the spirit of Groucho Marx & the Complex Question with Presuppositions): Are you too comfortable in your closet, or are you ready to go public?:boing2:
D
Personally, getting back to serious here, I don't see how it matters. You like what you like, you don't like what you don't like. Love isn't a limited concept, from where I stand. I don't have to be sexually attracted or involved to love someone, male or female. The ancient Greeks seemed to understand that. I'm just curious when we lost it.
Now, back to me, and my closet... true story. In my early 20's I went through a short 'goth' stage. The eyeliner, nailpolish, lipstick, etc. My mother tells me she knows I'm gay, and it's alright. I should just admit it. Mind you, at this point in time, I'm fighting over my kid, dating 1 girl and chasing another girl. No guys involved there. If you look at what has covered my bedroom, office and apt. walls over the last 15-20 years, you would find rock posters, playboy centerfolds, and old vinyl lp covers. I think the guys hiding are those with all the body builder and wrestler posters everywhere.....Then again, maybe bisexuality is really prevalient in the martial arts....
How many of you have 1 or more pictures of that hot sexy beast Bruce Lee, all sweated up, hangin on a wall some where? Hmmm...... :rofl:
:wavey:
Two words: Rob Halford...Bob Hubbard said:
Jeff
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
Old Fat Kenpoka said:
It should be noted that the Bible has no weight whatsoever as a historical document.
The laws you were referencing were probably not created until sometime between 500 BCE and 200 CE, coinciding roughly with Jewish freedom from Babylonian captivity (in which a new priesthood arose to form order in the new Hebrew society).
In all likelihood, the Hebrews were not strictly 'monotheistic' before this time --- in which the new priesthood took many pre-existing, separate deities (El Elyon, Yahweh, Adonai, El Elohim, and so on) and cleverly scripted them into a single deity. Even in Proverbs, we see reference to the goddess Wisdom.
Laterz.
