Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Spock

The rest of society will just have to cave in to deconstructionalists and those who would do away with all the foundations concerning values.

Actually, legalizing same-sex marriage would be a big step towards stronger values for the society as a whole. Legalizing same-sex marriage would be the rejection of discrimination and the rejection of the deception that the discriminators perpetrate. It would be the rejection of the travesti of the pseudo-values of one-man-one-woman (that just does not mean anything), in favour the true values of dignity and respect for all, or recognition of equality and liberty of people to chose their partner for themselves

[Nurvingiel]

Inked, about the "Forget monogamy and swinging. We're seriously polyamorous" article... what does that have to do with gay marriage? But that was an interesting article. I actually had know idea people did that. You learn something new every day!

Originally Posted by Spock

oh goodie, N and BJ agree, how unique.
The rest of society will just have to cave in to deconstructionalists and those who would do away with all the foundations concerning values. Too bad I don't know all the words to "koom-by-ya"....I am familiar with "on the paths to destruction."

You forgot to include a [/sarcasm] tag after "oh goodie, N and BJ agree, how unique." Sometimes sarcasm is hard to discern in text, though in this case, it wasn't.

How exactly is gay marriage deconstructionalist? Isn't marriage, by its very nature, constructionalist? I think including more loving couples in the institution of marriage strengthens it, and is therefore the exact opposite of deconstructionalism. Your thoughts?

[inked]

Nurv, did you read the article? In its entirety? Plybihomohetero-amory.

Anomalies are not constitutive realites, TWFM. There are no societies that have done as you suggest in regard to wholesale homosexual "marriages".

That's why yo call for the changing of tradition - which is absolute testimony to the reality of heterosexual marriage being the state of marriage and the anomalies being, in fact/history/reality, anomalies.

[Nurvingiel]

I did read the whole article. The reference that some of the married couples also had gay partners totally slipped my mind. I still don't know what exactly this says about gay marriage though. It's really a confusing situation over-all.

Plybihomo-what now? Wouldn't that situation make the person bisexual? And also cheating on their husband or wife, except not, since the other person seems cool with it.

Edited to add:

Originally Posted by inked

That's why yo call for the changing of tradition - which is absolute testimony to the reality of heterosexual marriage being the state of marriage and the anomalies being, in fact/history/reality, anomalies.

One could argue our society is built on anomalies and traditions. Let's take the United States for example. Many of its founders were people who were persecuted for their religion in England (the Puritans). The United States doesn't have a state religion (like the Church of England), and no one religion is superior to another. You guys have been saying that for three hundred years. It's the norm now, but "back in the day", it was quite the anomaly!
I'm not saying the Founding Fathers were Puritans. My point is many early settlers experienced persecution for their religion, and when the USA was founded, the founders made sure that wouldn't happen again.

(I really hope the above was right. If not, I apologize for misquoting your history, and I'll think of a better example.)

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Anomalies are not constitutive realites, TWFM. There are no societies that have done as you suggest in regard to wholesale homosexual "marriages".

That's why yo call for the changing of tradition - which is absolute testimony to the reality of heterosexual marriage being the state of marriage and the anomalies being, in fact/history/reality, anomalies.

You only see things with through the glasses of your prejudice:
I said:
1. committed same-sex relationships have existed since the beginning of humanity, well before cristrianity. I have not claimed that they were common but I have claimed that they were not anomalous

2. cristianity is not traditional, rather it is an invention that occurred in a very specific historical moment around what is now called 30-150AC by either one man, Paul, or two, Jesus and Paul (we are not really sure whether Jesus really existed or whether (if he existed) he meant to rupture with the Jewish religion)

3. I don't give a damn about what is the tradition and all women and men of good will should not give a damn about tradition. All women and men of good will should be concerned to do what is right and what is right is to give same-sex couples the same rights and the same obligations as different-sex couples

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

2. cristianity is not traditional, rather it is an invention that occurred in a very specific historical moment around what is now called 30-150AC by either one man, Paul, or two, Jesus and Paul (we are not really sure whether Jesus really existed or whether (if he existed) he meant to rupture with the Jewish religion)

Christianity was, in fact, an anomaly! It was one of those wonderful anomalies that helped build and shape our history, and many cultures, into what it is today.

You say anomaly like it's a bad think Inked!

[Rían]

Christianity has existed since the beginning of time

(actually, even before!! )

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Christianity has existed since the beginning of time

Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of man

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Christianity has existed since the beginning of time

(actually, even before!! )

Fair enough, but no one knew about it until Jesus came along to tell us about it.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

3. I don't give a damn about what is the tradition and all women and men of good will should not give a damn about tradition. All women and men of good will should be concerned to do what is right and what is right is to give same-sex couples the same rights and the same obligations as different-sex couples

Reminds me of a GK Chesterton quote:

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who happen to be walking about.

[inked]

Well quoted, Mercutio!

I note for the record, again, that TWFM wants us to go along with the tradition of justice as he understands it. Why, precisely, his selection of which traditions to make binding have more force than any others, I have repeatedly questioned and obtained the response "because I say so." That is adisguised argument from tradition. Note that it is a tradition of one.

However, the tradition of justice has its origins in natural philosophy and in religion. In point of fact, the Ten Commandments are a specific expression of that part of the natural order as a constituitive part of the created order (sourced in the Creator) and remarkably, as recorded in the Old Testament prophetic explications and calls to renew and remember that covenantal relationship, became the foundation of western concepts leading to democratic polity. The alien and stranger are to be cared for in response to the mode of justice and mercy. That does not entail, IMHO or necessarily, the abdication of tradition in this matter. What we have is a call to upset the apple cart so the oranges won't be offended. It's alright to be an orange, but all apples are not thereby oranges.

[Jonathan]

We can't be blinded by our faith and ruled by our traditions. When the New Testament was compiled, we did away with old traditions such as circumcision and staying away from pork. Societies change as so should we.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

I note for the record, again, that TWFM wants us to go along with the tradition of justice as he understands it. Why, precisely, his selection of which traditions to make binding have more force than any others, I have repeatedly questioned and obtained the response "because I say so." That is adisguised argument from tradition. Note that it is a tradition of one.

However, the tradition of justice has its origins in natural philosophy and in religion. In point of fact, the Ten Commandments are a specific expression of that part of the natural order as a constituitive part of the created order (sourced in the Creator) and remarkably, as recorded in the Old Testament prophetic explications and calls to renew and remember that covenantal relationship, became the foundation of western concepts leading to democratic polity. The alien and stranger are to be cared for in response to the mode of justice and mercy. That does not entail, IMHO or necessarily, the abdication of tradition in this matter. What we have is a call to upset the apple cart so the oranges won't be offended. It's alright to be an orange, but all apples are not thereby oranges.

There is only one thing in this whole post that is correct: the "because I say so" part.
I am not appealing to any tradition of justice. I am telling you what justice is. I am defining the moral values and call on you to respect them. You either believe my view of ethics (either because you believe my word or because you happen to share the same ideas) and therefore act morally; or you don't share my view of ethics and therefore act immorally

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of man

And women. I think lesbians get left out too much in this thread. (Not by you Jon, just in general.)

Somehow our society seems much more fascinated with two men having sex than two women. Thoughts?

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

And women. I think lesbians get left out too much in this thread. (Not by you Jon, just in general.)

Somehow our society seems much more fascinated with two men having sex than two women. Thoughts?

I must say that I disagree....here in the States, 2 women together is thought of as the pinacle of sexiness whereas 2 men together...well...it just isn't...at least that's what all the straight men out there say as well as lesbians and bisexuals I'm assuming (but I'm not going to speak for all bisexuals and I can't really speak for straight men as well as lesbians b/c I am neither....I'm going on what I see advertised; in movies , on TV etc)...that's the vibe I pick up all the time...2 women together is fine but 2 men..heck no...again just my observations

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

And women. I think lesbians get left out too much in this thread. (Not by you Jon, just in general.)

Somehow our society seems much more fascinated with two men having sex than two women. Thoughts?

Hmmm. That's a good point, at least lately it seems thus, that lesbians don't get hardly as much "press" as the gay men do. But then there's women like Ellen Degeneres who has her own (really cool) show, and there's Melissa Etheridge, and that show on HBO (is it HBO? or Showtime) now I'm totally drawing a blank as to the name of the show, but it's really good, I've seen it a few times. Maybe women are generally just more laid back & accepting and matter of fact about who they are, and less inhibited or nervous or whatever about their sexuality, and have (I really risk pissing off the guys here, sorry guys) more ability to utilise an inner stoicism and strength - I don't know. As for society being fascinated more w/ two men than w/ two women, I'm not so sure about that. Or maybe it just (for whatever absurd reason) seems more "taboo," more sensationalist, the idea of two men as opposed to two women. Hot topic, this. Good question, Nurvi!

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Lotesse! Maybe men have a lot to deal with in terms of society's expectation of gender roles. I have a theory about sexism in western society today. Bear with me here, as this does become relevant.

It used to be that our society was sexist against women. Our society was male-dominated. In some ways, this still does occur, but the most dominant form of sexism now is against femininity. It is acceptable for women to wear men's pants. It is unacceptable for men to wear women's dresses. Women work in traditionally male-dominated careers like lawyers, doctors, or politicians. (Women only appear to be largely absent from trades.) Men do work in traditionally female-dominated careers like care-givers or nurses, but to a lesser extent.

A woman who has a number of masculine traits is seen as being cool. Let's say she drinks beer, drives a pick-up truck, and changes her own oil. This woman is approved of by society. Women who have more female traits like wanting to be a stay-at-home mom, baking, or sewing are looked down on by men and other women. In sum, women are equal as long as they're masculine (because they display mostly masculine and/or gender-neutral traits).

At this point I'll point out that obviously people aren't this simple, and neither is our society. But I think there is a sexism towards femininity that can be expressed in this cut and dry way.

Now, let's take society's view of gay people. I think where there is a couple, one is the male figure, and one is the female figure. In straight couples, the man is the male figure, and the woman is the female figure. Note that when the woman is seen by others as "wearing the pants" in the relationship, it is the man, and not the woman or both of them, who is mocked.

Between two women, society (by which I mean other people's perception of them as a couple) puts one woman into the "male" role, and the other into the "female" role, regardless how the two women define their relationship. They may not have traditional roles at all, though neither to my straight boyfriend and I. I think slotting people into traditional roles has contributed to the silly short hair = lesbian stereotype, for example.

For gay couples, society also imposes these roles on them. While it is acceptable for women to be masculine, it is not okay for one of the men to be in the female role (even though again, they may not see themselves that way). I think society's fascination about gay couples is partly due to our insistence upon gender roles. (I think there are also other factors like the media and probably a host of others.)

I also think that insisting upon traditional gender roles fosters non-acceptance of sexuality that isn't expressed traditionally.

Personally, I don't give two craps if a man likes to sew or wants to go about in a dress, but I think you can tell from my postings that I'm not worried about gay people either. (Now I almost want one of my male classmates to show up in a dress to test me on that. I really think that I wouldn't judge him though. I might be curious, but I don't think I would judge.)

Thoughts?

[Lotesse]

Great points! The dress-wearing exception could be the Saudis, running around w/ robes on... no just kidding. It's true, in general there is DEFinitely a discrimination against femininity across the board, and it'll probably still be more time that has to go by until the world slowly but surely "evens out" in this regard, just as it has taken so many thousands of years of human progression society-wise just to get to the points we're at today, as far as equality in the workplace, acceptance & integration of sexual differences, giving women the friggin' VOTE didn't even happen 'til the early twentieth century - not that long ago.

[Nurvingiel]

Actually, a lot of cultures have dress-like clothes. In India there are dhotis, for example. (I don't know if I spelt that right.) I was confining my comments to modern western society, though I agree that sexism is global.

You bring up a good point with women and the vote. Equal rights is a relatively new idea (an anomaly, even ), and we still have not properly put the concept into action.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

There is only one thing in this whole post that is correct: the "because I say so" part.
I am not appealing to any tradition of justice. I am telling you what justice is. I am defining the moral values and call on you to respect them. You either believe my view of ethics (either because you believe my word or because you happen to share the same ideas) and therefore act morally; or you don't share my view of ethics and therefore act immorally

Why do you get to define ethics and morality, as opposed to inked? "because you say so"?