Marriage-The topic

[13788]

Inwood: Well golly, every one's been so nice except for that unfortunate cap locks finger problem.

Gig, I don't hate you. I like reading your posts. Just a comment or three. He's only said he'll support the amendment. As to states being considerate of other states. While state's are required to recognize as lawful other states laws they aren't required to consider other states when making their laws. If they were Florida probably wouldn't have the bankruptcy laws which allow people to shield millions of dollars from creditors.

I don't see how it's any more shitty for 4 guys to make a decision about gay marriage then it is for one man to make a decision about draging the country into war. But no matter what either of our opinions are about those decisions, in both cases, those same men are empowered by the relevent consititutions to make those types of decisions.

As to taking baby steps. It's always easier to tell someone else to wait on their full rights while you have your own. Cases in point, slavery-yes I know old news but still it's there, women voting, interracial marriage-egads. In each case, there were predictions that our world as we knew it would go to hell if those things changed. They did and it didn't.

Those were just some items to maybe consider. Personally, I'm not that interested in the marriage debate right now. I know I started the thread. I think there are more important things in the world to deal with and I'll leave the heavy lifting to others right now. Would I marry another man? I would have married my first companion if the option had been available. But I think of marriage as being a very serious undertaking and is not something to be entered into lightly.

Mr. Grantstephens, in regards to genetics, uh...men are men and women are women being scientifically proven...well, not exactly. There was an article recently that it's been found out that there are a lot of women who are men and vice versa. One of the cases they talked about was a woman who is visually and, if you cut her open, internally all woman. However, if you take a genetic sample, she's all man. And apparently this is a lot more common then had been known. I think the story was either on the CNN site or in the New York Times paper. It appears that what seems so self evident, sometimes isn't.
 
As to it being a civil rights issue perhaps your right. Maybe a better term would be it's a human rights issue. That gets the UN involved and makes it more international in scope.

Again this has been a great piece of response. Not too much dissing of other opinions. More a statement of what you feel about the issue with a little commentary/critique on the side which was what I hoped to get. Thanks so much.

 

[jay_too]

[quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#52 date=03/02/04 at 12:54:33]My problem with Gay Marriage is that it is being portrayed as a Civil Rights issue.  Civil Rights to me is you are being denied a right because of Race, religion, and sex (male/female), not sexual preference/choice.
[/quote]

To most people, civil rights means equal treatment/protection under the law. Mindseye and others have pointed out that gay couples do not have these rights.

jay

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#51 date=03/02/04 at 07:23:30]Jon, I think he meant gay people cant make babies  [/quote]
Nor can celibate priests and nuns. Oh, wait, the priests aren't really celibate. (That has to be the most sacreligious thing I've ever said, even in this thread.)

 

[jonb]

[quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#59 date=03/02/04 at 17:31:17]Blacks are black.  Women are women.  Men are men. That can be scientifically proven.[/quote]
Actually, there's no majik line between Oslo and Lagos with 'black on this side, white on the other'. The genetic data are interesting: Greeks are actually closer to several African groups than they are to the British. And I don't mean Egyptians; I mean pygmies and bushmen. Similarly, the British are actually closest to a Siberian group, the Selkups. At the extreme least-related-to-other-populations are American Indians and Austronesians, perhaps an earlier migration from Africa. (Ha! You thought I was going to say out of Africa. ) Quite amazing, considering that these peoples are typically matrilocal (I'm using the Y chromosome.) and exogamous.

Of course, a few insist on using traditional racial categories. But Cavalli-Sforza's basically a demagogue, and other than that, every use of traditional racial categories I've seen comes from the Pioneer Fund. Essentially, anyone using 'races' today in biological discussion is over 30 years behind the times.

 

[jonb]

Oh, as far as the abortion debate goes, the Bible is pro-abortion, just not pro-choice because women should NEVER have a choice.

Exodus 21:22-23
Numbers 5:11-31
Hosea 13:16

Oh, and while researching, I found more bad news for Santorum: The Bible has nothing to say about pedophilia. That just leaves bestiality.

 

[13788]

mindseye: [quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#59 date=03/02/04 at 17:31:17]If there is clear cut scientific proof that being gay is a genetic disposition than I would be inclined to agree that this is a Civil Rights issue, but if this is still an argument of Orientation vs. Choice shouldn't that be clarified by the scientific community 100% before this became a Civil Rights issue?

Is there conclusive scientific eveidence that being gay is an orientation - in essence a minority race? At this point, I have seen many conflicting studies arguing both ways (no pun intended).[/quote]

"Orientation vs. choice" is a red herring for two reasons. First, it's unlikely that all orientations are determined in the same way. (Heck, not even all sexes are determined in the same way!) At best, it will be accepted someday that there are genetic factors that influence orientation, but that a small percentage of cases are left unexplained by this.

Second, US law doesn't make this distinction between orientation and choice when granting rights or protecting from discrimination. We don't grant Stephen Hawking more rights than Christopher Reeve, for example, because Reeve made the choice to go horseback riding and Hawking didn't choose to contract ALS. Moreso, we codify the right to practice one's own religion, which is definitely not a genetic construct but a choice.

Using orientation vs. choice as an excuse to deny fundamental human rights to one's fellow citizens is a flimsy veil that only conceals the underlying homophobia from its wearer.

 

[13788]

tomarctus: [quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=60#65 date=03/03/04 at 03:27:31]Using orientation vs. choice as an excuse to deny fundamental human rights to one's fellow citizens is a flimsy veil that only conceals the underlying homophobia from its wearer.[/quote]

Thank you, mindseye. I was having trouble composing an educated response.

 

[13788]

tomarctus: jonb:
Thanks for your continued research and science-specific language and explanations.

grantstephens;
I can't "agree to disagree" with your last post in regard to orientation versus choice.
I trust you will continue to learn about what rights are still denied to gays and lesbians and will try to understand the accurate posts explaining the issue. You've seemed very open and respectful to my comments so far.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=jonb link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=60#64 date=03/02/04 at 21:54:39]Oh, as far as the abortion debate goes, the Bible is pro-abortion, just not pro-choice because women should NEVER have a choice.

Exodus 21:22-23
Numbers 5:11-31
Hosea 13:16

Oh, and while researching, I found more bad news for Santorum: The Bible has nothing to say about pedophilia. That just leaves bestiality.[/quote]

Jon, quoting certain parts from the bible is a dangerous thing. I cant control the muscles in my stomache revolting when I hear the KKK quoting the bible by saying: races shouldnt mix.

The bible isnt a book to be quoted like that, although I know many people do it to support their illogic, or sometimes bestial motives. But joining the crowd doesnt add to the solution.

Regarding the orientation vs. choice thing. Anyone telling me being straight, bi , or gay is a choice in my optics doesnt know what the hell s/he is talking about. There are quite a number of people, like myself, who did not ask for the sexual orientation they have. To me it is a narrowminded view at sexuality, and like mindseye said, an expression of homofobia.

Nature has to be rational, well sorry, it isnt. It is random, very random.

I am not at all well versed in biology or genetics, but I have seen a documentary recently where a part of the brain for gay people, was a bit smaller, than with self proclaimed straight people. It had something to do with hormone activity. Jon, maybe you know more about this, or somebody else can add to this? I am the biggest illiterate ever on this.

Anyway...let me tell you, it is never a choice.

 

[B_RoysToy]

[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=60#68 date=03/03/04 at 09:30:35]
Regarding the orientation vs. choice thing. Anyone telling me being straight, bi , or gay is a choice in my optics doesnt know what the hell s/he is talking about. There are quite a number of people, like myself, who did not ask for the sexual orientation they have. To me it is a narrowminded view at sexuality, and like mindseye said, an expression of homofobia.

Anyway...let me tell you, it is never a choice. [/quote]
Javierdude24: Had you not used the word "never", I could agree with your post, however, I think under certain conditions a person may choose. In considering sexual orientation being anywhere along a line from straight to gay, the center (bi) can feasibly be able to make a choice. I don't believe any orientation is totally specific, even bi possibly leaning in one direction or the other, but still permit choosing which road to take.

Had I been lucky enough to have been born bi, I would still be married to one of the most perfect women anyone could imagine. But after 29 years, I gave in to my m/m cravings and destroyed what could have been a life-long happiness.

Peace, Luke

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=RoysToy link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=60#69 date=03/03/04 at 11:24:52]
Javierdude24:  Had you not used the word "never", I could agree with your post, however, I think under certain conditions a person may choose.  In considering sexual orientation being anywhere along a line from straight to gay, the center (bi) can feasibly be able to make a choice.  I don't believe any orientation is totally specific, even bi possibly leaning in one direction or the other, but still permit choosing which road to take.
[/quote]

Luke...I see what you mean, but, I also meant being bi wasnt my choice. To use the Kinsey scale, being anywhere on the Kinsey scale in my opinion isnt a choice.

Sure, if we by choice mean, man or woman, instead of place on the Kinsey Scale, then I agree with you that when your close or on the middle of the spectrum , the side to take can be a choice.

However, now that I think of it, it is a short term choice. The long term choice to me still is difficult. For me at least, being Bi means I -want- both sides at a certain point in time, making a choice again, very hard. Ya know?

As a straight man, you never had any say in wanting girls, as a gay man you never had any choice in wanting guys, as a bi man you never had a choice in wanting both.

Jav

 

[13788]

grantstephens: What the trick to using quotes here? I tried it earlier and didn't get it right.

Javier, are you a Christian? Chatholic? Because in many of your post you seem to stand up for Christianity. Just wondering.....

Your post are very thoughtful and thought provoking.

 

[B_RoysToy]

[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=60#70 date=03/03/04 at 14:36:43]
As a straight man, you never had any say in wanting girls, as a gay man you never had any choice in wanting guys, as a bi man you never had a choice in wanting both.
Jav
[/quote]
Jay, I wish I had thought of your last sentence, which I quoted here. Exactly. I have a friend who is bi and always said he actually didn't know if he were straight or gay because there would be times he wanted each.
He, also, said he had to have a man one night before he could really get it on with a female the next night. He has been living with a female the last 4-5 years, but would still take me on with I were to accept his offer. Your last sentence packs a wallop!

grantstephens: click the "quote" on the top right margin of the post you plan to quote. This will appear at the top of your post reply block for your typing. If you only want to quote a portion of the post, delete what you don't want, making sure you leave the last
[/quote] as well as the beginning [quote author (followed by all data ending with the ]. I hope this helps you and BTW, I am a Christian.

Luke

 

[jonb]

Mostly, I was showing the problem with the literalist/theocratic standpoint. It's not so much the Church I have a problem with, but those who essentially believe that they have to convert everyone by any means necessary. (And I mean any means; most denominations have finally agreed that complicity in genocide is wrong, but I wouldn't put it past some fundamentalists.)

I'm not that familiar with the biological issues of homosexuality, but from a cross-cultural perspective, it would seem to have a great deal of plasticity (environmental influence). It can be tied-in with military bond (Thebians), pedagogy (New Guinea highlanders), alternative genders (various cultures around the world), or just simple class exploitation (Persians). Or, like with the Chinese, it's just another type of sexual relationship. Sometimes these even occur together.

Lesbianism probably has completely different issues than male homosexuality, simply because women are different from men. Cross-culturally, lesbianism is typically either associated with alternative genders or not associated with anything at all.

Confusing, no?

[quote author=Javierdude24 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=60#68 date=03/03/04 at 09:30:35]Jon, quoting certain parts from the bible is a dangerous thing. I cant control the muscles in my stomache revolting when I hear the KKK quoting the bible by saying: races shouldnt mix.

The bible isnt a book to be quoted like that, although I know many people do it to support their illogic, or sometimes bestial motives. But joining the crowd doesnt add to the solution.

Regarding the orientation vs. choice thing. Anyone telling me being straight, bi , or gay is a choice in my optics doesnt know what the hell s/he is talking about. There are quite a number of people, like myself, who did not ask for the sexual orientation they have. To me it is a narrowminded view at sexuality, and like mindseye said, an expression of homofobia.

Nature has to be rational, well sorry, it isnt. It is random, very random.

I am not at all well versed in biology or genetics, but I have seen a documentary recently where a part of the brain for gay people, was a bit smaller, than with self proclaimed straight people. It had something to do with hormone activity. Jon, maybe you know more about this, or somebody else can add to this? I am the biggest illiterate ever on this.

Anyway...let me tell you, it is never a choice. [/quote]

 

[jonb]

[quote author=tomarctus link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=60#67 date=03/03/04 at 09:17:02]jonb:
Thanks for your continued research and science-specific language and explanations.[/quote]
Well, I just had to debunk the 'race can be scientifically proven' business.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=60#71 date=03/03/04 at 14:46:56]What the trick to using quotes here?  I tried it earlier and didn't get it right.

Javier, are you a Christian?  Chatholic?  Because in many of your post you seem to stand up for Christianity.  Just wondering.....

Your post are very thoughtful and thought provoking.[/quote]

Thanx granstephens...I am Christian indeed, sometimes Protestant, sometimes Catholic, tomatoes, tomâtoes, its all the same...and its quite the rollercoaster-ride .

 

[13788]

ceg1526: I'm amazed at the threads that show up on this forum. Most of the posts have been very fair and reasoned - I chuckled at the reference to Brittney Speers as a role model for marriage.

Based on the posts, the state of marrige today is quite depressing. 60% will fail; a lot of kids will grow up without two parents (they may have 1, they may have 4 - it gets confusing).

As an aside, my father died when I was 5, and I think my brothers and I turned out pretty good. My Mom's parents helped, but I and my 4 brothers still outnumbered them. I also got to see a bad example of a marriage that lasted 50 years (or 50 rounds as my grandmother said) - my grandparents verbally sparred for 50 years, although I never saw either one lay a hand on the other.

I'm starting to become inclined to go back to arranged marriages, no divorce, mutliple mistresses (or misters) on the side, and if the wife delivers a kid, it's yours. And I'd like to throw a two week festival in there (like carnival) where no one is married, and no one talks about it the rest of the year.

Take care

Ceg

 

[lacsap1]

First I should point out as a disclaimer - I am not a Christian (although I find a lot of what Christ said to be inspiring). I was born in a semi-Christian household but have developed my own spiritual beliefs. I am fascinated with religion and religious concepts of the body and spirit and that is why I have studied Christianity.


Nothing in the Bible would have categorically precluded homosexual relations. If old testament texts and the words of Paul are used to construct anti-homosexual Christian propaganda then they are ignoring the words of the savior himself, who never once chose to speak on the subject of sex between men or sex between women. Christ would break bread with those who were judged and cast out by others. His primary message was love, and in no instance did he even speak of homosexuality.

Jesus talked about the story of Sodom, but only in regards to the sin of inhospitality (If Jesus really had a concern with homosexuality this would have been a good time to bring it up...) The bible refers to Sodom 12 times in the context of evil, but not one of those times makes mention of homosexuality, yet other sins are explicitly mentioned.

The only specific mentioning of homosexuality in the old testament; "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." (But remember, abomination is a strong word used to restrict many other things under leviticus law that modern Christians have completely discarded - to live by leviticus rules today would mean eating a completely kosher diet, not wearing clothes of mixed types of thread, following a whole set of regulations against "abominations" that most Christians do not follow...)

Paul, who saw Christ after he had risen made the following statement: "And likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one towards another: men with men working that which is unseemly." Are Christians "Paulists" or "Christians"? Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. It is likely that Paul (who shows signs of internal struggle with this issue in his own life - that 'thorn in his side'...) was presenting his own anxiety about the issue. If Jesus wanted us to know his opinion on this, he would have said something about it. He wasn't shy about speaking his mind...

The development of anti-homosexual sentiment then, is not a representation of the ideals of Christ. It is an expression of theology that reaches back to the early years of the church and has more to do with church doctrines developed by men than it does with the words of Christ.

So, now a little background on medieval original marriage:

*Marriage in pre-modern Europe was predominately
about property, not love.
*Inheriting money was the chief way to attain wealth
in this world, so families controlled their wealth by
selecting spouses for their children that would
enhance or maintain the families wealth. The poor
would marry the poor.
*In Christian terms, marriage was a compromise with
the material world: the only appropriate venue for sex
because it created children.
*The church stayed out of the business of marriage for
the first 1000 years of Christianity because it was
about property and was lower than celibacy.
*Clerics only gave nuptual blessings at marriages for
royalty, not for commons. Marriage ceremonies were
not held by the church.
*1215 4th Lateran council: Matrimony became a
sacrament. Rules were developed for performing the
sacrament.

There has found evidence of 4 types of ceremonies for marriage sacrament for this period:

1) heterosexual betrothal
2) 2 types of ceremony for heterosexual marriage
3) A comparable prayer for uniting two men

Same Sex Ceremony specifics:

The name of the ceremony "prayer for making brothers". The ceremony is found in manuscript collections from locations all over the Christian world, but it appears that most of the manuscripts were destroyed and only recently have many of them been found. The ceremony involves a ritual of burning candles, placing two right hands together joined on the Gospel, crowning the two partners, the lords prayer, communion, a kiss, and then sometimes circling around the alter. The symbols of marriage were all present: right hands joined (a traditional symbol of marriage) being blessed by a priest, sharing communion and holding a banquet. Because we are talking about non-literate societies, the symbolism of these ceremonies is very important for determining their meaning. If two men walked down the aisle in a modern church with bells ringing and the song "here comes the bride" playing, you would immediately get the picture of what was going on. That is why the symbolism means so much here. People only did these rituals in marriage - and when you consider the history of Ancient Greek and Roman attitudes towards sex between men, this ceremony seems to be an appropriate compromise. This ceremony was a voluntary emotional union not involving property or family loyalty (this is one distinction from heterosexual marriage which was largely about property). Was the ceremony representative of a sexual union? We will never know. BUT: Monks were prevented from the ceremony - if it was non-sexual, they would be the ideal candidates. If it was sexual, this would explain them being excluded. Furthermore, why were manuscripts of documenting the ceremony destroyed? If this were a non-sexual ceremony why would the church care? It appears that the church accomodated local customs that had been supportive of sex between men and boys for many years by creating a relationship of monogamy between men. Eventually as anti-sodomy sentiment grew, these rituals became increasingly suspect and disappeared.

So all religious people having difficulties with the gaymarriage and building there defense on religious grounds should also be aware that Christ gave no opinion on the subject and that to be truly Christian, one should focus more on the Christian ideals of unconditional love than on human bias against difference.


Lacsap=pascal


=====================================
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image, when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -Anne Lamott

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=lacsap1 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=60#77 date=03/07/04 at 08:14:54]Paul, who saw Christ after he had risen made the following statement: "And likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one towards another: men with men working that which is unseemly."  Are Christians "Paulists" or "Christians"? Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. It is likely that Paul (who shows signs of internal struggle with this issue in his own life - that 'thorn in his side'...) was presenting his own anxiety about the issue. If Jesus wanted us to know his opinion on this, he would have said something about it. He wasn't shy about speaking his mind...

[/quote]

Could be, but it doesnt work like that. Christians believe that everything in the bible is written by Gods hand. Thus, God gave his word through the apostels and profest, and they wrote it down.

That is why it still remains an issue for Chrsitians, even though Jesus never mentioned it himself.

 

[13788]

blo1988: Regarding gay marriage or civil unions (take your choice)......
Can someone explain to me why refusing two comitted adults the right to codify their relationship in a publically licensed ceremony NOT a CIVIL rights issue????? The absence of this right affects one's inheritance, hospital visitation , adoption, banking, joint property ownership, and other rights. All of these issues exist in the public, i.e. civil, domain.
So just how the fuck can this be ignored as a civil rights issue???????