Homosexual marriage

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Just bieng gay is untraditional right? And Gay Marriage would be extra-untraditional.
And if I'm right in assuming, most gays are rather radical thinkers, and therefore could be classified as left-wing. Completely untraditional isn't it?

I think you're mixing up a few things here. Jonathan did already point out that gay people don't have any one political leaning.

But also, radical doesn't mean left wing. Radical means extreme left or extreme right wing. One could be a radical fundamentalist ("right") or a radical communist ("left"), for example.

Being gay isn't untraditional, telling others and/or ackowledging to yourself is untraditional.

Then again, 100 years ago, women voting was highly untraditional. This doesn't mean the fight for gay rights is exactly the same. I'm mentioning the sufferage movement because saying something is not traditional does not mean that thing is wrong.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The most anti-tradition kind of people want tradition to give them a nodding approval?

Well, yes.

I think it's because generally gay people don't want to be anti-traditional, they just want to be equal.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It can only be this: they want their voice to be heard, blah blah, and they don't give a creek nickel about what things should stay the way they are for either moral or societal reasons.

Firstly, creek nickel = awesome.

Secondly, maybe for societal reasons, the institution of marriage should change.

What if we had this as a comprimise. Marriage becomes entirely the province of religions, and civil unions are entirely up to governments. Governments decide who can have a civil union (both over 19, not drunk at the time, etc. etc.). Religions decide who get the marriage of their respective religion (member of said religion, opposite genders, whatever is required).

If someone wanted to be married, in the way we think of it now, they'd get the government to civil union them, then they'd go down the church/mosque/synagogue/wherever and get a religious marriage too.

A traditional Christian (or Muslim, or whoever) marriage would remain just that (unless you're a heretical liberal Anglican like me ), and governments would be legally recognizing all couples as equal.

[The Gaffer]

Hector, I know you mean well, but I have seldom seen a post so thoroughly steeped in the unconscious prejudice towards gays.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And I acknowledge this...I have heard of them. Though perhaps you are bunching up "republican-voting" with "church going", whereas the church-goers may be the one's bieng elected Bishops or whatever in the Episcopal Church, and are completely liberal.
But that aside...

You have just built an entire argument based on assuming that because gays are "untraditional", a label applied by yourself, then they must also be everything else that you apply that label to. Now you are complaining about people generalising about church-going conservatives. Do you see the double standard there?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It's rare these days to hear about "gay-haters"...

I wish that were true but it's not. From murders to playground bully, homophobia is all around us. It seems that today, prejudice towards gays is far more acceptable in today's society than, say, prejudice towards different races.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

these days a lot of people are angry with (angry, not hating) them BECAUSE of the Gay Marriage issue.

What reason do they have to be angry?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Whatever stereotypes there are about the AIDS afflicted-gay, it is NOT the fault of heterosexuals. Some are responsible gays, some are not...but that issue of bieng seen well in the "eyes of society" is completely for them to accomplish personally. Though I admit, the ACLU doesn't help IMO...

Are you saying that if any stereotypes exist of "gay plague" gays then it's their own fault?

Can I remind you that gays lead the way in HIV/AIDS prevention, education and treatment? In what other ways would you want them to behave so as to be "seen well in the eyes of society"?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Spock

...kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out

this blather is exhausting

How is that helpful to the discussion at hand?

[littleadanel]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If someone wanted to be married, in the way we think of it now, they'd get the government to civil union them, then they'd go down the church/mosque/synagogue/wherever and get a religious marriage too.

Just popping in to say (and excuse me for not getting into the discussion deeper...), this is exactly the way marriage goes where I live. "Marriage", as in officially joining your life with your partner's, to be recognized by the state (and have all the advantages of being an official relative, getting tax cuts etc.) takes place in a government office. Then the same day, you go to have a religious marriage, if it's important for you, for your spouse, for your family, for your religious group to show you're joined; if it is not, you don't. But your legal rights come by the state marriage.

Gay marriage is not allowed, though; and certainly not a very big issue. A balloon blown up before the elections, but nothing more; which is really a shame, if we look at it that way... What they could aim for, it would certainly be the state marriage.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What if we had this as a comprimise. Marriage becomes entirely the province of religions, and civil unions are entirely up to governments. Governments decide who can have a civil union (both over 19, not drunk at the time, etc. etc.). Religions decide who get the marriage of their respective religion (member of said religion, opposite genders, whatever is required).

If someone wanted to be married, in the way we think of it now, they'd get the government to civil union them, then they'd go down the church/mosque/synagogue/wherever and get a religious marriage too.

A traditional Christian (or Muslim, or whoever) marriage would remain just that (unless you're a heretical liberal Anglican like me ), and governments would be legally recognizing all couples as equal.

Actually, that is a perfect description of the existing situation here in Taiwan, as well as Japan and many other countries in Asia- largely, I think, because the Western legal system was grafted onto traditional Asian customs. For legal purposes, you have to be registered at the local government- anything else you want to do is up to you.

[GreyMouser]

I've heard that in Japan, driven by Western media influences, "church weddings" (complete with white bridal gowns, chapels, and walks down the aisle) are so popular that western foreigners- suitably aged and grave looking preferred- can make decent incomes by wearing robes and presiding over said ceremonies

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It seems that today, prejudice towards gays is far more acceptable in today's society than, say, prejudice towards different races.

As is prejudice against Muslims, against Evangelical Christians, and against Catholics.

Originally Posted by Shee

How is that helpful to the discussion at hand?

Yes, we have a certain mod who's rather spam-prone, don't we?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I don't understand your reasoning. Should the gay marriage movement stop up and think "were making matters worse, let's settle and forget all about this issue"? As far as I know, Americans in particular are eager to stand up and fight for their rights. Can't you relate to those gays and gay couples who feel society and the government view them as inferiour to heterosexual couples? Can't you relate to their fight for the rights that they think they are entitled to?
Heck, if I pay my taxes and do my share for the country, I sure want the government to treat me the way other taxpayers are treated

I said they should NOT stop and think about it.

hector: I don't think that saying that to them (gays) will or should convince them, but that's what it seems to be.

And btw Jonathan,
"As far as I know, Americans in particular are eager to stand up and fight for their rights. Can't you relate to those gays and gay couples who feel society and the government view them as inferiour to heterosexual couples? Can't you relate to their fight for the rights that they think they are entitled to?"

Let's not be so wide-brushing , because gays have in fact, made much progress in this country. But this "Final Frontier" to get gay marriage legalized, is NOT just about "us conservatives" bieng "against" them just because they're gay. It's because we don't want to change the meaning of marriage, and our reasons behind that are many, and I wont repeat, because you probably already know.

I disagree. A society, based on whatever traditions it has, might just continue have a negative view on gays or gay marriage or whatever. It wouldn't matter how responsible the gays are. In that situation, the only right thing to do is to start a debate and talk about it.

Also I think it's wrong to see gays as a group separated from the rest of us. You could never say "oh we're so responsible but the gays (or democrats, blondes or even chocolate-lovers) aren't". If the majority of the people in a society are responsible, then so are the gays (and chocolate-lovers like myself too )

Your first point, about society and tradition makes its point well, but! If you go to California, or New York, or Florida...or Oregon, you will see that gays live peacefully without fear of the imagined evil conservative with a bible and cross out to get them.
A few states out here are still pretty conservative, but that doesnt mean they're murderous

Your second paragraph starts with a sentence I completely agree with in a way.

It's not like they're treated like slaves over here if thats what you imagine, so really I can't say that they are treated as a separate race of species...except that it is often put forward by the ACLU that anybody who is liberal like them gets special treatment.


I think you understood that by "responsible" I meant sexually responsible. So Democrats didn't really fit in there too well .


You're right about opening debate and so on, and I agree with that. But in this country its not "should we accept gays or not?" It's "what is going to come with the gay marriage packet?"

And it does entail many things. If we give gays their marriage, we have to legalize polygamy, which is basically economic suicide. We have to legalize inter-species marriage, and heck! probably inter-family marriage too.

Thats a bit of the "economic" side of the issue.

[Butterbeer]

GM : SHEE???

pm me !

*this reminds me* : frowns at earniel

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hector, I know you mean well, but I have seldom seen a post so thoroughly steeped in the unconscious prejudice towards gays.

Kinda like England is "Unconciously prejudiced" against Christianity eh?

You have just built an entire argument based on assuming that because gays are "untraditional", a label applied by yourself, then they must also be everything else that you apply that label to. Now you are complaining about people generalising about church-going conservatives. Do you see the double standard there?

It is built around assuming. Which is why I offered it as just a certain prespective on a certain part of the whole issue.
I don't complain about generalising, I complained about "lumping" political gays with religious gays
It may not be "just labelling", how many diverse kinds of gays am I supposed to imagine? I should only have to know that each person is different enough from hsi neighbor. If you want to really split hairs, this is the country with enough subjects to keep you on your toes for eternity.

I wish that were true but it's not. From murders to playground bully, homophobia is all around us. It seems that today, prejudice towards gays is far more acceptable in today's society than, say, prejudice towards different races.

Actually, in this country prejudice against Catholics is more rampant, if it makes you feel better (for the gays).

What reason do they have to be angry?

Are you saying that if any stereotypes exist of "gay plague" gays then it's their own fault?

Are YOU saying that it's not Billy Joe's fault he stole a cookie? Someone stereotyped him? I said before that some gays were/are responsible, and some were not...
From real things come stereotypes, and it even applies to gays believe it or not.

Can I remind you that gays lead the way in HIV/AIDS prevention, education and treatment? In what other ways would you want them to behave so as to be "seen well in the eyes of society"?

Good for them! it's sad not every single person who belongs to a majority/minority is as responsible as his fellow people...
I want them to show that they are people, not babies who hide behind the ACLU's skirts.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think you're mixing up a few things here. Jonathan did already point out that gay people don't have any one political leaning.

But also, radical doesn't mean left wing. Radical means extreme left or extreme right wing. One could be a radical fundamentalist ("right") or a radical communist ("left"), for example.

Being gay isn't untraditional, telling others and/or ackowledging to yourself is untraditional.

Then again, 100 years ago, women voting was highly untraditional. This doesn't mean the fight for gay rights is exactly the same. I'm mentioning the sufferage movement because saying something is not traditional does not mean that thing is wrong.

Well, yes.

I think it's because generally gay people don't want to be anti-traditional, they just want to be equal.

Firstly, creek nickel = awesome.

Secondly, maybe for societal reasons, the institution of marriage should change.

What if we had this as a comprimise. Marriage becomes entirely the province of religions, and civil unions are entirely up to governments. Governments decide who can have a civil union (both over 19, not drunk at the time, etc. etc.). Religions decide who get the marriage of their respective religion (member of said religion, opposite genders, whatever is required).

If someone wanted to be married, in the way we think of it now, they'd get the government to civil union them, then they'd go down the church/mosque/synagogue/wherever and get a religious marriage too.

A traditional Christian (or Muslim, or whoever) marriage would remain just that (unless you're a heretical liberal Anglican like me ), and governments would be legally recognizing all couples as equal.

*sigh*

I can't defend myself enough I suppose, because I don't want my point to be "why do gays exist?"

I want to get to the bottom of this gay marriage issue.

And for a refresher:

We in the US have Civil Unions

For Societal, as well as some moral and personal reasons, a majority of people reject the idea of gay marriage.


But you guys say that gays are not just one set of radical lefties, and I have to believe that, it's obviously true.

On the other hand, I don't see the desperation to be seen as equal.

Gosh. Time for library to shut down. I'll be back soon!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Actually, in this country prejudice against Catholics is more rampant, if it makes you feel better (for the gays).

There are two different main parts of American society, HB. The one is your average Joe on the street. This one tends to be conservative, and thus is more likely to be prejudiced against gays (if for no other reason, because he is more likely to be himself Catholic than gay), though very often he is prejudiced against Catholics (his non-Catholicism being granted). The other is the public voice; the media (as a whole), celebrities, etc. The latter tends to be not at all prejudiced against gays (or at the least to pretend not to be, though whether they are or not I cannot say), but often is prejudiced against Catholicism.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Kinda like England is "Unconciously prejudiced" against Christianity eh?

who exactly are you quoting here and why?

despite having no or indeed any idea of the context or meaning of this post, since none is given, i get the impression it is anti-british - and anti European Christian - why?

I fail to see why you seem intent on offending both Christians, Europeans, Americans, gays, non-gays et al hector????

what's going on there, man????

[The Gaffer]

Dunno. Some sort of malfunction anyway.

Hector, just saying "some gays are responsible, some aren't" doesn't absolve one from prejudice. You have to actually not be prejudiced as well.

Responsible for what? Getting AIDS? So, no stereotyping going on there then.

As for the "hiding behind the ACLU's skirts" comment, I have no idea where that comes from.

Sorry, but I relaly can't follow your argument. Iit looks to me that in your mind you have all the gay stuff all mixed up in a bucket and are just trotting out whatever fires off when thinking about gays.

And you still haven't stated what reason "other folks" have to be angry with gays. Because they want to be treated equally?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

I've heard that in Japan, driven by Western media influences, "church weddings" (complete with white bridal gowns, chapels, and walks down the aisle) are so popular that western foreigners- suitably aged and grave looking preferred- can make decent incomes by wearing robes and presiding over said ceremonies

Yes it's true. When last there, a few years ago, I was priviledged to see such a wedding in the hotel I stayed at. It blew me away to see them all dressed as westerners. Then three days later, I saw a Shinto wedding in the same hotel. Both couples were in mid twenties by my eyes which shows both the old and the new still hold sway in Japan.

[Spock]

ONCE AGAIN FOLKS-THE SUBJECT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT WHEN POSTING REPLIES-WE HAVE OTHER THREADS FOR CHRISTIANITY, ETC.

[inked]

We WANTSSSSSSSS IT !!!!! WE WANTS S S S S IT !!!!

or doesssss we?

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=91504

excerpt...

Date: 2006-06-24

Same-Sex Marriage Flounders

Few Homosexuals Interested in Tying the Knot

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, JUNE 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- After the clamor to legalize same-sex marriage, it turns out that not many homosexuals really want it. Following a bitter battle last year, the Spanish government gave homosexuals the right to marry. Since the law took effect last July 3, until May 31, only 1,275 same-sex marriages took place, reported the Madrid daily newspaper ABC last Saturday.

Comparatively, that would add up to a mere 0.6% of the 209,125 marriages contracted in Spain during 2005. Of the total number of same-sex marriages, 923 were between males and 352 among females. ....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Of the total number of same-sex marriages, 923 were between males and 352 among females.

Who says men are afraid to commit? Looks like it's the women to me!

[Elfhelm]

I called my best friend back East a few years ago when it got legalized here in Portland and said, "Come on over and visit us and you two can get married." They have been together over ten years now.

He said, "Are you kidding? I don't want D____'s income considered when I apply for college grants. And I don't want to saddle him with my debt."

I said but the house is in his name, what will you do if he dies?

He said he would rather not have the house if D____ died first.

So I guess there's more to consider than the joy of standing up together before all the people in both your families and professing you love, eating the cake, dancing the dances. I guess there's more to life than the cake topping with two males in handsome tuxedos. But since we are "family", in other words, spiritual brothers, I wanted to see them get married. But it's their call, of course.

[The Gaffer]

Similar story here. Many gay couples don't want to "copy" straight ones.