Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 309 (159966)
11-15-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Itachi Uchiha
11-15-2004 9:17 PM


READ THE FRICIN POSTS!
Jazzlover responds:
That you want to accept it is another matter. God forbids homosexuality because that kind of conduct goes against the natural use of our body as stated specifically in Romans 1 - 26,27.
And:
If the purpose of God was for us to be homosexual he either would of have created just men or just women and some natural method of asexual reproduction would exist for humans, or second he just wouldn't have said anything at all on the subject, indirectly saying to us that homesexuality was not important to him or that it is allowed. It's an incorrect use of our body's parts.
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to ask this question before someone decides to awnswer it.
Why is doing something "unnatural" wrong? What are your criteria for deturmining what is and isn't unatural? Is getting a haircut unnatural? Becase, after all according to your logic, if God had wanted us to get our hair cut he would have had it stop growing after it becomes the approprate length? Is planting crops unnatural? After all according to your logic if god had wanted us to have feilds of crops he would have made them grow like that. You need to prove that:
1) Homosexuality is somehow unnatural (see the earlyer part of this thread).
2) That unnatural things are also immoral.
3) Clearly define what you mean when you say unnatural.
If I wear glasses am I donig something immoral becase I am using the bridge of my nose and the tops of my ears to do something they "weren't intended for".
I also notice that people who post Homophobic remarks on this thread keep bringing up anal sex in grapic and inaproaprate terms. Why do you have to resort to swearing? Why are you trying to disgust us? Why can't you use the proper terminology? (edited for grammar)
This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-15-2004 10:22 PM
This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-15-2004 10:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-15-2004 9:17 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-17-2004 5:40 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied
 Message 232 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-19-2004 1:33 PM The Dread Dormammu has replied
 Message 284 by gene90, posted 11-23-2004 10:15 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 309 (159970)
11-15-2004 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Itachi Uchiha
11-15-2004 9:17 PM


And another thing.
Jazzlover says:
A gas tank is made with the purpose of storing gas. So why the heck are you gonna use it as a dog house.
Well, why not. Lets say I have a big propane tank that I decide to turn into a doghouse, if I wash it out and clean it up so that it makes a good doghouse why is that wrong? Why is using something in a way other than for its intended use morraly wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-15-2004 9:17 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-17-2004 5:50 PM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 309 (159978)
11-15-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
11-15-2004 6:53 AM


In response to my challange:
I would like someone to explain why God forbids Homosexuality. Christians argue that God does forbid it, but I want to know why. I will not be satified unless their explanation can show legitimate harm.
Holmes wrote:
So what this is saying is that you want to know why but are unable to accept any other answer than something you are willing to accept. Yeah that will go far.
I absoultutly know the criteria for the kind of answer that will change my mind if you, or anyone else can prove that homosexuality is harmfull then I will change my stance. Let me say I doubt very much that this will happen but I could theoreticaly be convinced.
You either want to know why and try to get to the root of why God would forbid such a thing, or you want to know why it is harmful. It is very possible that the two have nothing to do with each other.
Well so far I have not seen aything close to sound reasoning for either.
And so it is bad because as a Jew or Xian he said not to (note: I realize the proscription itself is contended but that is another topic). It is wrong for this reason. And it is harmful because he does not like it and says he will leave you if he does not like you.
Kind of like okay you wanna have sex with another person of the same sex, then go ahead and do so... see where it gets you because I am out of here. That would be a pretty solid reason why you wouldn't want to engage in such an act and view its spread as somehow harmful.
Why does God do this, in your opinion? It seems like a bad law. See my post regarding good, arbitrary, and bad laws.
If your only reason for beleving homosexulaity is wrong is becase God will punish you if you are homosexual doesn't that stike you as arbitrary? You mentioned that God says that he doesn't want to see crippled people dosn't that stike you as a bed law?
I don't base my moral choices on nature as you claim. Ethics are not a matter of personal taste. Things are wrong if they hurt others and right if they benefet others or stop harm to others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2004 6:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2004 7:08 AM The Dread Dormammu has replied

happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 109 of 309 (160030)
11-16-2004 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Itachi Uchiha
11-15-2004 9:17 PM


Just to add some more to the examples, is colouring my hair purple with green streaks bad, since it is just as unnatural as anal sex, and why single out homosexuality for anal sex when heterosexuals have anal sex too?
A question, can a celibate person be homosexual in your opinion, and if not does that mean that a celibate person isn't heterosexual either? It seems that a person who willfully chooses not to have sex is misusing their body too, since they're not procreating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-15-2004 9:17 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 110 of 309 (160031)
11-16-2004 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by The Dread Dormammu
11-15-2004 11:03 PM


I absoultutly know the criteria for the kind of answer that will change my mind if you, or anyone else can prove that homosexuality is harmfull then I will change my stance.
Heheheh... you realize you just said exactly what I said you were saying. Yeah, you have your criteria and that is what everyone else must match or they are wrong.
Of course if they said such a thing too, that would be ridiculous, right?
Well so far I have not seen aything close to sound reasoning for either.
Actually I did a pretty good job, I have yet to see a refutation.
Why does God do this, in your opinion? It seems like a bad law. See my post regarding good, arbitrary, and bad laws.
I already said why he might. And I loved your post on good, bad, and arbitrary laws. It was good for a laugh as it totally showed (once again) the problem you are having with this subject.
Let's start by accepting for sake of argument your three categories of laws. Now we don't logically have to as a God defines good/bad and it may not be based on doing harm at all. For example a God might need sacrifices to stay alive (what do we know about souls) and so harm is a part of being good. Or a God might be utilitarian as far as good is concerned and so allow a lot of harm to be done as long as benefits to a majority are maximized.
But like I said, for sake of argument (for now) we'll accept your categories. Good laws are ones that benefit those ruled. Arbitrary laws are made for distinction but could be changed. Bad laws are those which cause needles suffering. Even accepting this...
MAYBE IT IS A GOOD LAW?...
1) How do you know these laws do not promote longterm benefits or prevent harms we as humans are unable to understand given our limited nature? That is kind of part an parcel for what separates Gods from humans. Its interesting that you never did have anyone ask why in the Bible and receive an answer, but maybe that was lost and not combined in the final collection which is the Bible?
2) How do you know that some laws do not help or prevent hurt to a God itself? Maybe not in a physical way where it would die, but that it would be offended or sickened as you might be if you were being served rotten meat every meal by those that might worship you. The Xian God clearly does have tastes and reacts to even bad sacrifices (he's pretty particular).
3) How do you know that some laws do not prevent others from accidentally giving power, or being seduced, by other deities. There is no statement that there are no other Gods, just that his own people should not worship them. Many laws seem to be related to preventing his people from giving power to them. Male prostitution was heavily tied to a major competing religion at the time. It may be (and this has been stated in the past) that homosexual proscriptions avoided any possibility that his people might inadvertently (or claim to not know that they were) giving power to that other God.
THE NATURE OF ARBITRARY LAWS...
4) This one is what gave me the biggest laugh. You argue that arbitrary laws are ones which can be used to create an identity (which could be argued as a positive), but could be changed with no effect. For example switching yamulkas with wearing red. You then suggest it could be an arbitrary law. This appeared to imply that it meant that we could change them. That denies the very concept of what having a God means. Yes it might be arbitrary, but then you have to stick with it until the God decides to change it... not us.
YOU WOULD NEVER ACCEPT A BAD LAW...
5) According to you harm is the rule for deciding if something is good or not. That is not true at all. Of course we can't provide evidence for this in this thread. This appears to be a thread for punking on people who have laws against gays from an asserted lofty moral position, without anyone pointing out the hypocrisy or inconsistency of that asserted position.
You mentioned that God says that he doesn't want to see crippled people dosn't that stike you as a bed law?
If you mean does it offend me, then I would say yeah it seems pretty stupid. But the question is how does it effect God, or what does God see as the effects of such an act that he might not want it?
Again, you are consistently imposing your values on another group of people and insisting that is some objective criteria.
If I honestly believed there was a God, and therefore he knew more than me or had different needs, and a certain text contained the rules he set out, then your good/bad/arbitrary law categories would look as stupid as their rules do to you. How can you claim to judge what causes the most harm or not, especially when it includes what a God might need?
I don't base my moral choices on nature as you claim. Ethics are not a matter of personal taste. Things are wrong if they hurt others and right if they benefet others or stop harm to others.
Oh by all means you are safe to claim this in this thread, while punking on others. In fact you have already shown as complete a disregard for estimating harm as a condition for right/wrong as the antigay crowd. We just can't talk about it.
But we can even put that aside. Ethics remain a matter of personal taste. Things are wrong if they hurt others and right if they benefit or stop harm to others? How do you choose in conditions where it will hurt some but benefit others? For example one could lie to or steal from a millionaire in order to get money that will make you happy but not harm them at all. Does that make lying or stealing right? Give me that objective logical criteria you use...
(added in: I forgot to mention that I also outlined how religious concepts of natural may differ from scientific standards. I notice in another post you raised that issue again. Natural from a religious standard can mean intended purpose, particularly purpose from God. I'm not claiming that is superior, just that that is what they are using.)
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-16-2004 07:25 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-15-2004 11:03 PM The Dread Dormammu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-16-2004 8:40 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 111 of 309 (160032)
11-16-2004 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Itachi Uchiha
11-15-2004 9:17 PM


I guess AIDS are harmfull enough. But then again thats just me.
I take it you did not read my rip on this point earlier?
Let me take a different tack on this subject. Why is HIV being linked to homosexual activity? Because gays get sick?
People that have blood transfusions or share needles get HIV just as easy. Does that mean Xian scientists are correct that transfusions and other medical procedures are immoral?
Many say no, maybe you do too, claiming that HIV first appeared in gays and everyone else is just an innocent victim.
But in that case we are ignoring the deeper truth. HIV has been tracked to its origins and it has little to do with homosexual sex, or sex at all. It appears that HIV began as a simian virus which transferred to hunters who slaughtered monkeys for bush meat. As far as anyone knows they were perfectly heterosexual and it spread that way until hitting the homosexual population through a bisexual encounter, or perhaps a shared needle?
In this case if we are to discount the idea that transfusions were not the target, we can consistently discount the idea that gay sex was the target. Perhaps in the end God was just punishing people for not sticking to kosher standards of food. Those were just as important as other rules.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-15-2004 9:17 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 112 of 309 (160052)
11-16-2004 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by coffee_addict
11-15-2004 3:41 PM


I am lactose intolerant meaning milk gives me the worst pain... I say we come up with a constitutional amendment to ban milk in this country.
Let's examine this position.
There are people that suffer from many different dietary disorders. In order to accomodate them, even the obese, we have as a nation created a variety of laws which mandate proper labelling of contents. This is not just ingredients but nutritional value.
Lately peanuts have become such a common factor in causing problems in others... apparently just proximity to peanut related products (and thus smelling) can result in pain... that some schools and businesses are trying to ban such products from being brought in for lunch. That would have really screwed me at school as I love peanut butter.
Thus the concept of creating laws and regulations around physical dietary issues is an acceptable practice. I assume you have no problem with this, and see a benefit? Maybe not in going so far as banning something, but labelling and separating it for accuracy?
But such regulations do not end at physical dietary issues. You can see labelling and separation of food items based on moral or emotional issues... well lets be honest here, they are about karma of some kind.
There are biological or organic sections and labels to clearly identify how meat or vegetables have been handled so that people can avoid putting money into factory farming. Brutality does not change the food, but you might care anyway.
There are vegetarian sections and labels to allow vegetarians and vegans know that there was no animal products used in the manufacture of the food. This includes oils used to cook the food.
There are also labels for irradiated and genetically modified foods. Even cases where they pretty obviously will not affect your life, they can be stickered just so you can "feel" safer.
For longer than this there have been labels of Kosher and Helal. These are religious specific designations for foods prepared according to scripture. They only exist to make sure that if you are eating, you are not damning your soul for eternity.
And let me tell you some people take that really seriously. I saw a guy almost beat the tar, perhaps he would have even killed, the manager of a food service because he was given nonhelal food and told it was helal (by people that didn't care less). The guy was certain he was going to hell.
I assume that you do not feel violated or put down when you are going through a store and stumble upon the veggie, or kosher section? Do you worry that your food products are unnecessarily being singled out as evil? Indeed they are, but does it really bother you?
I'm going to assume it doesn't. If it does your next trip to the store might be interesting to watch.
In any case, we have a clear precedent of regulating, or more specifically labelling and separating things for both physical and moral protections as the population desires.
Now let's look at gay rights. I'm not going to get into the constitutional amendment thing as that is ridiculous for different reasons... we don't need one to label food. What I want to address is the initiatives protecting "marriage", whether at the law or state constitutional level.
Up till now (and for at least a 1000 years) there has really been no such thing as gay marriage. There didn't really need to be as children could not be an issue, and marriage was principly about that. And it has been getting used principly along a specific Xian line of thinking on marriage, thus restrictions on polygamy, incest.
Within the last 50 years or so gays have increasingly wanted to share the same rights with their loved ones as Heteros have been enjoying for a long time. This really makes sense with the increased legalistic nature regarding property rights with partners, and the ability for gay couples to have children. Not to mention a bizarre (IMO) desire for gays to share "traditional values" with others.
What you can clearly see is that the majority of the US is behind giving gays the same rights as hetero couples. The problem is with the use of the term "marriage". In the end, even Bush's constitutional amendment appears aimed at just the use of the name. As silly as this may seem, it has some basis in precedent with foods.
Imagine we had been a Jewish nation, with a solid Jewish history and all food up till now was forced to go through the criteria for getting a kosher label. This means all foods got a "kosher" stuck on it or it simply was not allowed to be sold. Of course no one really cared, as the majority was Jewish or enjoyed kosher tenets of food production.
Then Xians moved in, or jews converted, and realized they could manufacture, sell, and eat nonkosher meals just the same. There was no real nutritional difference, simply a moral one. Yet given the regulations set in place by a majority jewish population... that had no need for nonkosher foods in their history... the kosher regulations barred them from putting nonkosher foods into the market.
So the nonKoshers protest and say that there is no logical reason for this, it is not physical health concerns, and they should be able to make their foods.
Fine says the government and agrees to create a new class of accepted foods, which are safe to eat but not labelled kosher (which makes sense since it did not go through the traditional process).
Does it make sense for the nonKosher desiring population to say that that isn't fair and force the government to label all foods Kosher, just to allow them to get their foods out in the market? Would it be so bad to get their foods out into the market even if it means essentially being labelled nonkosher?
That is a pretty solid analogy. We are down to debates over the use of a name, and to be honest those who feel it carries a previous connotation (which allowing another group to share would seem odd) have a point.
This brings up issues of whether secular gov'ts should use such loaded terms at all. But that is a different topic.
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-16-2004 08:59 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by coffee_addict, posted 11-15-2004 3:41 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by happy_atheist, posted 11-16-2004 9:18 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 117 by coffee_addict, posted 11-16-2004 1:46 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 11-18-2004 2:37 AM Silent H has not replied

happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 113 of 309 (160056)
11-16-2004 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Silent H
11-16-2004 8:44 AM


Holmes writes:
This brings up issues of whether secular gov'ts should use such loaded terms at all. But that is a different topic.
I was just about to point out that very problem, but it seems you already thought of it. I agree that a discussion of wether secular governments should use the term is a seperate topic, but nevertheless it harms the precedent you were mentioning.
Kosher food has a very strict definition (I honeslty have no idea what the defintion is, but I assume it's to do with perceived cleanliness of food??). So does the term vegetarion, and even moreso the term vegan. The term marriage has two definitions though. On the one hand it has the religious definition. In the case of christianity, marriage is inescapably to do with god. The second definition of marriage is a legal one, and this is to do with the respective rights of both parties, what benefits they are entitled due to the marriage etc. The two definitions are very different, and the second one clearly applies to gay couples (if they are indeed to have those rights). To call "gay marriages" something other than marriage is legally seperating them from other unions with no apparent reason to do so.
So the precedent for marriage is clear, it is not and should not be confined to christianity (other than marriages in churches of course).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2004 8:44 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2004 2:34 PM happy_atheist has replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 114 of 309 (160057)
11-16-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rrhain
11-14-2004 8:43 AM


Re: No I am making a seprate argument.
I'm leaping in here with both feet before finishing reading the thread, but I think I might be able to clarify something here. I could be wrong, but I don't think that the D D is equating homosexuality and paedosexuality (mmm... why doesn't that word exist?) in the way you feared. I think that they came up together because
1)they both are percieved as "minority" sexualities in our culture,
and
2) both have/have recently had a social stigma attached to them.
In the '50s, most people probably viewed them with similar disgust. Some people still do. That is why it is worth comparing and contrasting them for people who do have a problem with homosexuality. And whether a sex act is harmful or not is totally a matter of informed consent, as I think you said. That's why bestiality and necrophilia are more questionable than other kinds of consenting sexual preference, like consenting hetero/homosexuality or incest. I don't know if its ever possible to get an animal's consent, so bestiality seems very suspect (having said that, I tacitly endorse the hideous slaughter of factory farms by eating the flesh of animals killed in them, so there's a contradiction. Why's jacking a Jack Russel off worse than slitting its throat?). Necrophilia could be different. At the moment it becomes even more disgusting to people because it is forced into a clandestine shadow-world. There could be workrounds put in place to make it easier for people with necrophilic leanings to satisfy themselves legally, if our society was more tolerant. Imagine leaving your body to a sex-morgue for the benefit of the necrophiles of your district!
I personally see incest as the next archaic taboo that should be tackled. I think many people would benefit if social attitudes softened towards it, in the same way that the change in social attitudes towards people who are attracted to people of the same sex has allowed us to live more fullfilling lives, less filled with fear.
So in conclusion: if they're a concenting couple, what's the problem?(Anyone seen Lone Star?).
Tusko x

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 11-14-2004 8:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by happy_atheist, posted 11-16-2004 11:26 AM Tusko has replied
 Message 121 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2004 3:37 PM Tusko has replied
 Message 175 by Rrhain, posted 11-18-2004 2:45 AM Tusko has replied

happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4913 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 115 of 309 (160079)
11-16-2004 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Tusko
11-16-2004 9:21 AM


Re: No I am making a seprate argument.
Well as far as incest goes I imagine there are genetic difficulties to consider for any children that inadvertantly resulted from it, but I agree with the overall sentiment that couples that consent to the relationship should not be ostracised (sp?). As for necrophilia, if people want to donate their bodies to necrophiliacs once they're dead they can if they want to as far as i'm concerned. I'm not sure how popular such a thing would be though! lol
This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-16-2004 11:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Tusko, posted 11-16-2004 9:21 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Tusko, posted 11-16-2004 11:33 AM happy_atheist has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 116 of 309 (160081)
11-16-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by happy_atheist
11-16-2004 11:26 AM


Re: No I am making a seprate argument.
I think that any genetic implications for incest become less significant in these post-pill times, but I take your point.
As for the necro-sex donations... I think we may have to wait a while before we can become card-carrying post-death sex-workers! The main point is that "deviant" sexualities become so much more corrosive when they are forced to become clandestine. But I think this is well off-topic. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by happy_atheist, posted 11-16-2004 11:26 AM happy_atheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2004 3:42 PM Tusko has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 117 of 309 (160117)
11-16-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Silent H
11-16-2004 8:44 AM


holmes writes:
That is a pretty solid analogy. We are down to debates over the use of a name, and to be honest those who feel it carries a previous connotation (which allowing another group to share would seem odd) have a point.
I would agree with you if seperate but equal does indeed work. If they would call it civil union and give it exactly everything that a marriage would have, I would have no problem with it.
However, we are dealing with reality, not theoretical concepts. Just look at California.
A few years ago in California, a measure to ban gay marriage in the state constitution was put up to a vote. The pro amendment side was very flowery and kind, and had everything nice and wonderful to say about gay people. You'd read the official position papers written "by the amendment sponsors" (you know, the ones that come with your sample ballots) and they'd say things like "This amendment does not, nor is it intended to, prevent the rights or benefits of marriage from being granted to gay couples through some other institution, only to define the word marriage" (the amendment itself was only like 9 words "Marriage in California is between a man and woman" or the like). You'd see these wonderful TV commercials talking about how important gay people are to California, and how the amendment isn't trying to restrict their rights, only to define simply "marriage".
The amendment passed.
Last year, the California legislature passed some minor domestic partner legislation, giving gay couples things like hospital visitation rights. Immediately (within days), the same group that sponsored the amendment sued! But on what grounds? Because the California constitution says that marriage can't be granted to gays, so how dare the Legislature try to give some of the rights associated heretofore with marriage to them. The Constitution singles gays out as an "unfavored" group, so you can't give them equal rights! And that lawsuit wasn't dismissed - it's in the courts now. And pretty much every gay rights legislation since in California has been tied up in courts, because of that amendment - the group suing is claiming that since Californians voted to limit gay rights, that ALL gay rights legislation is suspect - and that argument, while it might not win in California, isn't getting thrown out of court, either.
But what about the fact that the very group that is suing, is the same group that said in every commercial, every position statement, even in the sample ballot, that they had no problems with gay rights? That their amendment wasn't meant to prevent any marriage rights being given to gays? Forgotten. Ignored. They made the argument they had to make to get that amendment passed by California voters, and that's all. Now that they got their amendment in the state Constitution, it's a crack, a wedge, they want to slowly use to try and break apart the cadre of rights that homosexuals DO have.
"All we want is to define the simple word marriage."
Do you see the problem? I honestly would have no problem with the "seperate but equal" policy, but in reality seperate does not mean equal. This is the reason why I and many others are not satisfied with just civil union. There are just too many loop holes for the homophobic conservatives to jump through.

Hate world.
Revenge soon!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2004 8:44 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by berberry, posted 11-16-2004 2:29 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 120 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2004 3:14 PM coffee_addict has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 309 (160132)
11-16-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by coffee_addict
11-16-2004 1:46 PM


Marriage vs. Civil Unions
I am one of an apparently growing number of people who favor civil unions for gays IF AND ONLY IF the government gets out of the marriage business altogether. In other words, the word 'marriage' will be bestowed and recognized only by churches, not the law.
Much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to be centered on the idea that marriage is a blessing or sacrament from God. If that's true, then why does the government issue civil marriages at all? Shouldn't the blessing or sacrament be reserved for the churches to dispense? The government can issue civil unions, with precisely the same rights and benefits as marriage, to any couple, straight or gay. The churches can choose for themselves which of these civil unions they wish to recognize as marriages, but the government would be restricted to only recognizing civil unions.
If we can't have it this way, then I agree with Lam and others that gays and like-minded straights should unrelentingly push for full marriage rights for every couple, straight or gay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by coffee_addict, posted 11-16-2004 1:46 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 119 of 309 (160133)
11-16-2004 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by happy_atheist
11-16-2004 9:18 AM


The term marriage has two definitions though. On the one hand it has the religious definition. In the case of christianity, marriage is inescapably to do with god. The second definition of marriage is a legal one, and this is to do with the respective rights of both parties, what benefits they are entitled due to the marriage etc. The two definitions are very different, and the second one clearly applies to gay couples (if they are indeed to have those rights).
I want you to think about this very carefully and honestly. Marriage as had been practiced in this nation and for centuries was exclusively man and woman.
You are correct there was a religious component which was before which God, and a legal component sealing the union before society, but there was never any concept of marriage that it is a union between two "people".
This is something that began to pop up last century. That is why almost all marriage laws clearly specify man and women and in their contracts use male/female terminology. That is why people really do have a case that marriage means just man and woman. That is the tradition, and the US government has practiced defending traditions as long it does not hinder someone else. Clearly keeping marriage with its original meaning and creating a new union with a different name defends the tradition without actually hindering anyone.
Now frankly I think there are many questions raised, such as can't people start new traditions? But this goes on to another topic.
Honestly marriage as it is written in almost all law books is in no way applicable to gays, and it certainly never was in practice. I do agree that in states that use gender neutral terms for their laws, there is no legal standing to deny gays getting married.
To call "gay marriages" something other than marriage is legally seperating them from other unions with no apparent reason to do so.
Just remember the analogy. Food would have been always called kosher in a jewish run state and set with those codes. Thus the religious and legal "class" used the term "kosher", the legal borrowing from the traditional term.
Do you feel that people who wanted to sell nonkosher (in the traditional sense) food should be able to demand the legal title "kosher" just to get okayed into the market, when they could just as easily be classified as nonkosher-safe-for-consumption?
Would they really be getting classified legally as nonkosher for no apparent reason? It seems to me that there is a reason, a cultural reason and the people could say it is a misuse of their term.
That is of course when people can say maybe the gov't should get out of the "term" business, if they have connotations beyond the legal.
it is not and should not be confined to christianity (other than marriages in churches of course).
Heheheh... to be honest "marriage" is not just used for Xian marriages, but other religions which have, or accept the same criteria as Xian marriages. This both hurts and helps the gay marriage cause.
It hurts because pretty much worldwide, in just about every religious tradition, there is no such thing as gay marriage. Certainly none have been trying to get into the US law books. This supports those claiming it is not just Xian bigotry but an actual suggestive fact that marriage is traditionally defined as between a man and a woman.
It helps because people can point out that not everyone is getting married in a set Xian tradition. Obviously many nonXians are getting "married" despite being atheist or worshipping other deities. Isn't that an affront to Xian values? Doesn't that mean we should invent other unions for different religions?
That argument is not as strong as the one that hurts progay arguments. But all of this is another topic.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by happy_atheist, posted 11-16-2004 9:18 AM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by happy_atheist, posted 11-16-2004 7:20 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 11-18-2004 2:53 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 120 of 309 (160145)
11-16-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by coffee_addict
11-16-2004 1:46 PM


However, we are dealing with reality, not theoretical concepts.
Well the reality is that the majority are in support of totally equal rights, just not with the name.
I am aware of the case, as I believe you have mentioned it before. What this reveals is that there are some willing to take advantage of the situation to create problems for gays. That is simply a reality that needs to be dealt with.
It appears that you are saying because of such incidents you must now antagonize those that might support what you are willing to accept in order to beat those against gay rights? I don't think that is the right solution.
Indeed, perhaps gay activists are playing right into the hands of those that want to destroy them, just as Bush played right into the antagonism game Islamic militants played. It is quite clear that gay marriage initiatives created to protest the opposition ended up polarizing citizens and riled many up to take a stance against more gay initiatives.
That is the reality and not theory. Perhaps gay activists should be reaching out to the majority and undercut the radical right by working to get civil unions that are appropriate into law.
Of course we are now wayyyyy off the subject of this thread.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by coffee_addict, posted 11-16-2004 1:46 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by coffee_addict, posted 11-16-2004 7:36 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 177 by Rrhain, posted 11-18-2004 3:00 AM Silent H has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024