Gay Marriage

[Occhidiangela]

Edited.

Bill Gates Must Die.

[Occhidiangela]

Preface: change is sometimes glacial, sometimes rapid.

The baseline cultural assumption is, and has been for centuries, that marriage is a man and a woman. It was within that mental framework, I presume, the lawmakers were working. At the time that laws were written, that baseline assumption fit the "good enough" standard.

That assumption is being challenged, and it uses a series of arguments that take part, but not all, of the evolving language of our framework law where it is convenient, forgetting, it seems to me, that those laws were also written under the very same cultural assumption.

The fact that voter has evolved into universal suffrage versus the original Caucasian property holder hints at a flexibility in American culture that may, over time, argue that with enough cultural momentum, which may not be present currently, the change will come.

We are at present very much "in process" regarding this marriage issue. Until the attitudes change, the baseline assumption will hold.

Compare how this conversation is going on now, versus how it would have gone in 1964. It is still going, now. Some attitudes have changed, and I would argue that the time for the next pitched battle may be in a half, or a whole, generation, during which the "conventional wisdom" and "general attitudes" are worked on from many angles. Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, anyone?

It does not have to be decided this year. I'd even argue that the President's attempt at creating a Constitutional ammendment advanced the cause, as it may force a decision sooner rather than later, and during a more sympathetic party's reign.

The process is important, and the "I want it now" crap I have no respect for, at all. River banks widen, eventually. For success, I'd suggest more flanking attacks and infiltration, and fewer bloody frontal assaults.

Occhi

[LemmingofGlory]

The union and social fusing, or the older version of the accumulation of feminine/male chattel, "two flesh become one" (and use some KY, fella, yer lover had a jalapeno vindaloo curry chicken dinner last night) of two same genders folks is a rite that does not have a few thousand years of habit and almost universal currency around the globe, so it must have A different name.

Your joking parenthetical seems to indicate some bias. It's not as if heterosexual couples don't engage in anal sex, though it's not as common in US culture as in some others.

A codification that earns the kind of universal norming that marriage now has may well evolve over time for the lesbians and fairiescumrump rangers (cynical terms used deliberately: I am tired of the hijacking of the word "gay" by the homosexual community, damnit).

More bias. You reject using "gay" to refer to homosexuals because, historically, the word didn't come to mean that until relatively recently. So what do you choose instead? Slurs. Say what you want about it being cynicism, but that's the same language I heard just last night on public Bnet. And this is right after you wagged your finger at unrealshadow13 for not bringing himself up to the Lurker Standard.

Bottom line: You could have used "male homosexuals" or "androphiles" instead. Or used "homosexuals" to refer to both male and female homosexuals.

Let's talk just a bit about Pederasty in the Modern World, shall we? That's what is at the bottom of this.

Why? So you can argue against same-sex marriage by illustrating decadance in non-courting relationships? That's what you did, but that's not what we're talking about. The more appropriate terms here are elegantarian androphilia (mutual attraction of adult males) and elegantarian lesbianism.

Men who have sex with young boys are not androphiles. They're pedophiles. We're not considering marrying young children of EITHER sex to adult males, so let's leave that out of the discussion.

Men who have sex with men are not necessarily homosexual. If it's not too much of a stretch to say men who do not identify as homosexual will probably not marry another man, we can leave that out of the discussion as well.

So, let's call a fag a fag, and not a cigarette.

More slurs. You attempt to justify the use of the slur by preceding it with references to same-sex sexual activity and pedophilia. Just what is your implication here, Occhi? That this is the standard pattern of behavior for homosexual men? Do the "buggerers" in Afghanistan identify as homosexual, i.e. did they identify as being (almost) exclusively interested in romantic and sexual relationships with other males? Did you even look into that? If you didn't, then at best you've demonstrated the animalistic tendencies of the male sex drive. You have failed to establish the buggerers as homosexual.

Can society craft suitable codification for a legally sanctioned arrangement for two homosexuals, be they man or woman, so that they can go, in circumstances where such a will evolves, beyond the merely carnal and into the spiritual . . . with complete social sanction?

"Into the spiritual" is bogus. As another poster pointed out, atheists can marry. We're talking purely legal here.

Here's your bias, Occhi: All of your references to homosexuals seem to indicate you think it's just about sex, especially the hedonism remark. "Beyond the merely carnal..." Are you quoting something or do you really think that's what we're talking about? Before you were married, your wife didn't just mean sex to you, does she? You didn't need some marriage certificate to qualify your relationship with your wife as "more than sex." Neither is she just the mother of your children to you, is she? She's more than that. That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about same-sex people experiencing the very things opposite-sex people experience. But you seem to feel better categorizing it as about sex, sex, and only sex.

In any case, in this discussion let's stop, please, confusing the difference a lifestyle, one based on how one get's ones carnal pleasure, and on the combination of spiritual and legal bonds that have the full APPROVAL of society.

Fallacious. If homosexuality is based only around how one gets carnal pleasure, then so is heterosexuality.

-Lemmy

[gekko]

I'm sorry, but it's not sufficient to say "it'll happen in its own time." You can't simply say that homosexual marriage is acceptable when society says it is acceptable, and until then, it's not. If that attitude is universally adopted, then nothing changes.

Will change happen overnight? Of course not. However, you either support such changes, or you oppose them. If the only opposition to a union between two men or two women is the name, then no true opposition exists. If we setup two "seperate but equal" "unions," (one between a man and a woman, the other between two men or two women), and call one marriage and the other a civil union (while giving identical benefits and limitations to both) then we have one type of union. Words are imperfect; words change, meanings change.

It does not have to be decided this year.

For those members of society living without the benefits of marriage for decades, it cannot be decided soon enough. Yesterday would be too late. Already, the law-makers must consider what will come the day after a new law is passed -- compensation for those whose rights were withheld for years? You'd better believe couples will sue.

The fact is that the term "marriage" comes with a large ammount of baggage. Some of this baggage includes the rights given only to married couples (for example, visitation rights). Couples are, at this very moment, living without these rights, even when they're far more "married" than many "normal" couples.

gekko

[Nystul]

I guess it's a sign of the times that seeing a rainbow symbol at a Christian church makes people think of gay rights instead of the story of Noah. But you are right; this is an issue that is being battled out in the mainstream churches (pretty bitterly at the denominational level, I might add), and giving legal legitimacy to such marriages (even if the legal term wasn't "marriage") would increase the momentum of such reform movements. This is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about when I say it is not primarily a legal issue.

[Griselda]

I guess it's a sign of the times that seeing a rainbow symbol at a Christian church makes people think of gay rights instead of the story of Noah.

Well, the fact that it was right next to the words "all are welcome" makes me pretty sure they weren't talking about Noah. I'm 29, and my parents still can't decide whether they're religious (my father was raised Catholic but is apprently considering the Mormon church, and my mother was raised Southern Baptist and is considering Sikhism, so I guess that means neither of them are going to be doing either of those things). So, the only Bible stories I heard were in the periphery.

[Minionman]

Cultural opinions aren't going to just change from from thin air, they change because one group of people can convince other people to have different opinions, beliefs, etc. The people who want gay marriages now are the more extreme group who want change, it won't go as fast as they want it to, but they contribute to the change by convincing other people.

[Chaerophon]

I 100% agree with you Lemming.

[Minionman]

I wish I could write as good as that.

Following Gekko's argument, someone could argue that heterosexual relationships are a bad thing, and use the examples of harems and prostitutes to back it up. Except that we all know marriages mostly work, and work differently that the other heterosexual examples I gave.

[kandrathe]

So the government should decide what is allowed.

>Bristle< As a libertarian, that is like fingernails on the blackboard for me. :)

And as I said before, I think they should decide that gays can also get married.

The question to me boils down to what "marriage" is defined to be, and who gets to make the definition. Traditionally, it has been religion that has determined what is or is not a valid marriage. If the state creates legislation based on marital status they are accepting whatever the religious definition of marriage is, unless they define their own "civil union" class of marriage. That is the case in the US. The state by offering a "marriage" by a justice of the peace has been side stepping the religious aspect by offering a secular option. Now, the gay community is pressing the state to re-define "marriage", when it was never really the state's business to begin with. It's legacy has more to do with laws relating to adultery, pre-marital sex, than of the legal implications of spousal rights. The spousal rights issues can be easily solved by including "or dometic partner(ship)" wherever spouse(marriage) is mentioned in law.

Where the state has failed is by being in the marriage game at all, or creating priviledges or penalties depending on marital status. Part of this is understandable due to changing attitudes over the past 200 years about marriage and homosexuality. So, again, my opinion is that the state should not discriminate based on marital status at all when determining anything.

If you skip the state one, anyone can start their own religion...

And, any fool who partakes will get their just desserts. Fraud will happen. I met a young (naive) woman at college who had been duped by her boyfriend that he was a holy man in his home country, so that they need no go through any formal ceremony. Duh. There are any number of crack pots who always seem to want to form a new sect (which always seems to allow the leader to have all the women) and either arm it with automatic weapons or commit mass suicide. What I don't understand is how anyones actually goes along with such nutballs.

As regards adoption, I would encourage the screening of adoptees based on the kind of committed relationship that the people have, and the kind of environment that the child would be raised within. Evidence shows that children do best with a mother and a father, but any loving parents are better than being raised in an institution. Decisions of placement should always be made with the childs best interest being the main concern, not the sleeping arrangements of the adoptees.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Where the state has failed is by being in the marriage game at all, or creating priviledges or penalties depending on marital status.

Yes. But do not forget the workplace, where insurance, etc. goes with 'marriage'. But, overall, I agree.

The amazing thing is how progressive the founding fathers (especially Jefferson and Franklin) were and how much they were able to transcend their social milieu. From pre-history, religion dominated. "Separation of church and state"? Hell, the church *was* the state (and conversely) since forever. More of the Reformation was driven by politics than by dogma. And a thousand years of uninterrupted and unquestioned Christianity permeated Western Europe. That a small group of intelligent and progressive men (and a few women, Abigail Adams comes to mind) were able to see beyond the blinders of tradition is a tribute to the potential greatness of humanity.

And what a bunch of ignorant rednecks have done to that dream over the past quarter of a millennium is a true tribute to the validity of pessimism. There is no noble endeavor that stupidity, ignorance, and a fear of the unknown cannot derail. Fortunately, where the USA showed the way, others have followed and now (thanks to *their* educational system actually educating) they are showing us the way.

--Pete

[Deadlyman]

After reading more replies (Occhi's was very good :) ) , I decide to throw a curveball into this debate. Say homosexual marriage gets approved, does this mean that churches are now forced to perform cermonies for couples who want them. Now that will create a whole another ball of wax to deal with. I think that is the major sticking point to look at. Government cannot force churches to accept these kind of marriages.
Any other opinions on this?

[Minionman]

Churches won't get "forced". The way they seem to work with gay people now my guess is that the onews that accept gay people already will get almost all the marriage requests because gay people will have already gone to them. There is also always be the non-religious marriages that will soak up a lot of marriage requests.

[--Pete]

Hi,

does this mean that churches are now forced to perform cermonies for couples who want them

Separation of church and state.

Any other opinions on this?

Yeah. Either you posted without thinking, you're incredibly ignorant of the laws and customs of the country, or you are a troll. Those are about the only opinions your "curve ball" (more like a screwball) leave open.

--Pete

[Deadlyman]

Pete, I know the laws and customs of our great country. I was trying put a twist in the debate. I know about seperation of church and state. That is what I was trying to point out. I did think about what I posted. Please dont accuse me of trolling, cause honestly that is not my style. I am just a curious person. Sorry for asking for other opinions. If you want to continue this feel free to PM me.

[eppie]

After reading more replies (Occhi's was very good :)&nbsp; ) ,&nbsp; I decide to throw a curveball into this debate. Say homosexual marriage gets approved, does this mean that churches are now forced to perform cermonies for couples who want them. Now that will create a whole another ball of wax to deal with. I think that is the major sticking point to look at. Government cannot force churches to accept these kind of marriages.
Any other opinions on this?

No of course not. Maybe I should have written it in a different way. This is why I said that the government should arrange these things, I mean performing marriages of people who chose eachother. (I did not say the government should get these couples together :D )

Which is the sole official body of all americans? The government, not the church. So if the government allows gay marriage, the church does not have to. I think it is a bit strange if a gay couple who want to get married should do that in church if they are atheists or muslims or whatever.

Same here, I got married here at the city hall, because I'm atheist, it would be a bit strange if I was forced to get married in church. and to make things clear, I don't think my marriage is worth less than that of somebody who got married in church.

All the arguments about the history of marriage etc..... I'd rather see the church take a somewhat stronger stand on the abuse of small boys by priests, on the people that hit their wifes, on people that commit adultory. If I would say, that the institute of marriage becomes a joke if also gays can marry, I would certainly consider it a joke if I hear all these things about abuse, and (the previously mentioned) 'hollywood" marriages. But I don't because I don't really care what other people do in relation to my own marriage, even if people could marry their toaster, my marriage is as valuable as before.

To occhi: I'm not sure I understood you (are you deliberately using these difficult words to lose all the non mother tongue english speakers on the lounge? :D )

In the US there is a separation of church and state or not? I mean christians have the same right as muslims, mormones or atheists?. I know in practice you hear politicians use religion still a lot (also in Holland there are christian political parties) but officialy they have nothing to do with eachother.

[kandrathe]

Why would an Atheist consider "Marriage" in the traditional sense? It is a religiously loaded word. If the state removed its discrimination for or against marriage, then if two atheists(of whatever sex) lived together or formed some legal pact, it would be of no concern of the state.

[Minionman]

That's where all those tax laws, insurance laws, etc. come in. The government still has to deal with marriage for this kind of stuff.

When you say "traditional marriage" what does that mean? When I think marriage, I think the process of the living together and all the legal stuff put together make marriages.

[Nystul]

Which is the sole official body of all americans? The government, not the church. So if the government allows gay marriage, the church does not have to.

That is correct. For the sake of clarification though, legal marriage in the U.S. is primarily regulated at the state level. Marriage laws are not the same throughout the country; there are small differences from state to state. There is an additional factor, which is that states often have their own vague and broad equal rights laws or, in a few cases, antidiscrimination laws that explicitly include sexual orientation, creating a situation where state judges have to determine how those laws apply to an issue like this when someone makes a lawsuit about it. Gay marriage is on the brink of being a reality in the most liberal states, and this is creating a countermovement in the rest of the country. Here in Ohio, for instance, it appears that we will be voting on a state constitutional amendment on this issue in the November election. A recent article about that can be found here: http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2129132 Our state legislature has recently passed legislation to block gay couples from getting any legal marriage rights within the state. These kind of laws and amendment proposals are popping up all over the country.

In the US there is a separation of church and state or not? I mean christians have the same right as muslims, mormones or atheists?. I know in practice you hear politicians use religion still a lot (also in Holland there are christian political parties) but officialy they have nothing to do with eachother.


From a constitutional standpoint, here is what we have:

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws."

These two have been linked together by Supreme Court rulings. In other words, neither the U.S. Congress nor the state governments can pass laws that violate the criteria in Amendment I. So yes, there is some degree of separation between church and state.

[Occhidiangela]

Edited at Griselda's (wise) request.

Lem:

You analysis through a soda straw is OK within its own limitations, your synthesis is poor, your conclusions erroneous. Don't much care that you are uncomfortable with colloquialisms, deal with it. I have to put up with a lot or rancid PC BS day to day, to include on this forum now and again. You've seen my bit on free speech before, won't bother to repeat it.

You apparently confuse, possibly due to my being obtuse, or too lazy to better craft and edit my post, the difference between bias, and a life long process of synthesis on my part. You also added a set of red herrings, to include heterosexual anal sex as a choice, irrelevant to the discussion, marriage being solely driven by sex, irrelevant and bogus, and then attempted obfuscation in dealing with reality of pederasty as a long standing habit. One day you will learn that it is best to say what you mean and mean what you say. Best of luck on that journey. You conveniently ignore that I make a distinction between homosexuals and lesbians, which I do for a very simple reason: men and women are different, they are made differently. That influences a great number of matters social, to include the ritual killings seen in the average divorce proceeding, and the very important matter of child rearing.

My position on marriage is rather simple: there is no point in doing so unless it is one's intention to have, create, and raise a family. Many man/woman pairs do not marry, for years, and get along just fine. Others do not. It makes zero sens to me to get married "just to be married." Jay Lo has not "gotten" that one yet. I have seen too many marriages break up, some of them due to their being entered into under delusions, others due to a breech of promise, others due to simple violence.

That society has a model in place for adoption presents a path forward, I think, for both homosexual couples and lesbian couples, to continue their efforts to join the socially sanctioned institution of marriage -- which as many in this thread have noted, has much baggage and imperfection. Law is a social tool, and has to try to embody norms and habit of the whole of a society. Those norms evolve over time, and it often takes, in our system, activism and energy to get that done. However, making a new law will not often get the buy in necessary to make the law effective and valid, see please the Prohibition. No buy is, law that could not sustain. Did you even bother to read my commentary to Pete in re the evolving attitudes pro homosexual marriage?

In your soda straw analysis, you completely missed the point of my first and follow on comments, which regards the efforts to earn and gain social sanction and approval via codified law for an unconventional and counterintuitive, (hence my selection of a global, not American, context and frame of reference) arrangement. Remember, base assumption of why marriage has evolved over the millenia is to create and raise, and continue, a family, the core social unit.

Your misunderstanding of the term spiritual, which was not made in a religious sense, shows your own myopia. You can be an athiest and still have a rich spiritual life. What you won't have is a religious life based on a god. Again, you missed the point.

A marriage can be many things: a contract, a profound spiritual bond, a religious rite, a form of slavery in which women ar chattel, or a binding of two neurotic people who should have been shark chum. It can also be a path toward building a deep and profound friendship, which is a spiritual phenomenon that needs neither God nor religion to exist.

If you ever get married, you'll understand . . . or you won't, and your marriage will be a mess. Plenty of that to go around.

In conclusion, nice try.

The next time you want to insult me and my marriage to Mrs Occhi, remember that this rogue bites.

Occhi