Gay Marriage

Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by overdose, Mar 8, 2004.

  1. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    419
    Kindest Regards, Pagan-prophet! Great to hear from you again!
    Oh now, how can you possibly confuse the autonomous systems with lifestyle choice?

    I do believe it is a choice, because I have seen nothing to prove otherwise, other than hearsay taken on faith. How could such a discriminating mind as yours be content with such little evidence? There are few examples in nature to support what is said about no control over same-sex infatuation. The few examples I have seen that tenuously imply such, such as fish changing gender, are without exception to continue the species.

    I am truly saddened for your friend, and for your experience. I too, have seen grown people cry over their addictions and lifestyle choices, wondering why they do such things as get hooked on drugs, and return to those choices anyway.

    One of my professors pointed out only this morning, that all men are equally unable to marry other men. I presume that applies to women as well. In other words, by your position, "gays" are already being treated equally with everyone else.

    There is a validity to your point here. I am not saying wholesale that they should not be allowed. I do believe society should have input into that decision, and if the minority does not specifically get their way, they should be willing to abide by it. Civil union seems to me a reasonable accomodation for the protection and distribution of assets and the other legal concerns.

    This is already covered above. Men are not currently legally able to marry men, same for women. Allowing gay marriage would be giving something to a select minority in preference to everyone else.

    Point taken, I suspected I picked a bad choice with that specific example. Yet it serves to demonstrate an addictive (seemingly arguably "genetic" and/or "natural") lifestyle choice.

    Agreed. I don't foresee any specific economic damage. I do see a serious shift in social mores and norms. Whether good or bad, only time can tell, but I have my personal suspicions. Not to mention, I too, have "rights." Should I not have the right to live my life in an environment that does not encourage or endorse what is socially viewed as unacceptable behavior? I mean this in no way intolerant, yet my considerations (and those of a like mind) are left out of the equation. I am not so naive as to think it does not go on around me, but must I be acceptant? Understand, I do not have to accept to tolerate. Tolerance, even respectful tolerance, is not acceptance, adoption or endorsement.

    It is an opinion based on scientific fact. See above regarding Francis Collins and the genome project. It is also based on religious wisdom traditions from around the world.

    You are correct in one regard. However, might I pose another consideration? Does one ask a person with a cold about the rhinovirus? No, one asks a doctor. Does one ask a drug addict about the recreational drug of his choice? No, one asks a pharmacist. Does one ask a pedophile for advice in caring for a young child? Does one ask a person in an adulterous affair for marriage advice? Do you see how asking the person intimately involved will get an answer slanted in a direction favorable to that person? Rather, to better understand, is to find a specialist who has spent time in study and observation of the subject, who is neutrally removed from the subject and has no inherent bias to slant his/her posiition. Again, I recommend Mr. Collins.

    Thank you for your input. It is always a pleasure to hear from you.
     
  2. Baud

    Baud Seeker of Knowledge

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Juan, I think you are making a fundamental confusion about what one is or likes and what one does. I apologize to the gay people for the comparison, but I will take an easy example.

    I prefer wine over water. This is not a choice, it is a preference. I like to read prose and not poetry. Likewise, this is a preference. I don't think I have a choice about that. Maybe these preferences are conditioned by my youth, by my parents, or by many other things like the human genome, but I don't think this makes a big difference. Whatever the cause, I still prefer wine. Maybe a therapist could tell me why this is so, but I must say I don't really care.

    Now, I choose to drink wine at lunch. In France, this is a generally acceptable practice, although frowned upon by some people. I some other countries (e.g. Germany), this would be near unthinkable. Now I know that I should not drink too much wine at lunch, otherwise my afternoon at work would become interesting. ;) However, I could choose to get drunk at lunch once in a while, although I do not choose to do so. I could also choose to refrain from acting on my preference for wine over water and just drink water. That way I would be sure never to be drunk after lunch...

    For all I know, homosexuality/bisexuality is not a choice. One has a preference for persons of the other sex or of the same sex, or both. It is a preference, like liking wine over water, although a little less mundane one. On the other hand, living a homosexual lifestyle - acting one one's preference for people of the same sex - is a choice and you are certainly right on that one.

    Now, do homosexuals have the right to act on their preference for people of the same sex in our current society? We can ponder over what was accepted in the past, in Native American tribes, or what is written in the Bible, but the basic fact is that acting on one's homosexual preference is currently accepted in our society, albeit sometimes frowned upon. So that choice is now generally allowed.

    Bottom line is: conduct and lifestyle is usually a choice. That can be regulated. What one is or likes simply cannot (unless maybe through therapy, but this is another story).

    Baud
     
  3. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    419
    Kindest Regards, Baud!

    You make a very good point. I believe I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense. Without belaboring the point, conditioning would still be a choice (which by your acknowledgement could be changed), which precludes a genetic predisposition. I suppose what I am attempting in my own futile way is to say that presupposing genetic predisposition with no evidence is a political and social crutch. People are going to be what they will themselves to be. Always have, always will.
     
  4. Baud

    Baud Seeker of Knowledge

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe that conditioning is a choice. In that field, one could only argue that a choice would be to change one's conditioning - meaning changing who one actually is. This seems to me as such a fundamental step that I don't even consider it a real choice. It can be a remedy to an addiction or to a socially disruptive tendency, a thing homosexuality, in our current society, is not (IMHO, and seemingly in the majority's opinion).

    Baud
     
  5. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    The trouble is that genetics is at such an incredible early age of infancy, in scientific terms. Truly the strides in this field cannot be underestimated, but unfortunately, are often easily over-estimated. Media ideas of a single gene as a cause for criminal behaviour, or else a single gene expression for "intelligence" (whatever that is) represent the sort of hype I believe Dr Collins refutes primarily.

    A gay gene? It remains a hypothesis, as does the notion of homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice". However, the general reports from "subjects" is that no conscious choice was ever made, hence why there's a general favouritism, in more politically liberal communities at least, to see a genetic cause as the most relevant explanation.

    As for the question of what Jesus said - as plainly stated, Jesus made no proclamation on the issue. In the "Old Testament" it is one of aorund 600 proclamations, and in the New Testament I believe it is the epistles of Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) that are the main source.

    I believe Jesus made the point about "casting stones".
     
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    419
    Kindest Regards, Brian!
    Thank you for the confirmation, with the differentiation between the active science and the political bias.

    I actually laid down the challenge for the benefit of our new member who made the original statement. I am aware of the Old Testament positions on the matter, as well those of Paul.

    Which is precisely why I temper my discussion in this matter. Because someone has chosen a lifestyle I would not choose for myself is not any reason for me to cast judgement. What I have done is attempt to clarify my stance on the issue, demonstrating that I have given it considerate thought across many fields. The issue and the individual are two separate matters. I have no quarrel with an individual who makes such a choice, that is theirs to make. I do consider my place within the issue, and that has been my intent to bring forth in this discussion. If that makes others uncomfortable, that is not my direct intent, yet I too am uncomfortable with some of the issues that are being promoted, seemingly at times at my expense (not here, but in the world at large). If society chooses to shift in that direction, I will simply have to find a way to better accomodate within my reasoning. Society should have the final say, after all.
     
  7. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Two contributions

    One:
    I understand that in some jurisdictions civil union for same sex partners has everything that is found in marriage between opposite sexes. If gay folks in these jurisdictions insist on the name 'marriage' in place of 'civil union', I think they are entitled to the label also; for the label 'marriage' should not be copyrighted to straights only. And I believe that other jurisdictions should also allow marriage to gay folks; because it does not take away anything from straight folks. In which case marriage is a union between two persons without distinction of sex combination or permutation.


    Two:
    About homosexuality in the Old Testament, I think the question should be homosexuality among Jews who take their ethnic religion seriously. I learned from a Jew poster somewhere else -- and he is like Banana here, who can quote all kinds of writings from their version of the Old Testament and all kinds of supplementary texts in support or explanation or elaboration or expansion thereof, that anal coitus is allowed for pleasure between a man and a woman his wife. But we are talking about in effect anal coitus between two men. I seem to get the impression also from him that anal coitus between two men is alright if there is love between them. Please correct me, Jewish friends in this internet forum. I stand to be corrected in what I seem to have learned from that very knowledgeable Jewish poster in another forum, not the present one of Brian.

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  8. El Greko

    El Greko New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Adam and Eve?

    God created Adam and Eve, I believe not Adam and Steve!
     
  9. suanni

    suanni Confused

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Homosexuality has been around since mankind was born and it seems strange that the main bone of contention has been with male-male homosexuality and this seemingly has religion at the back bone of the contention.
    If God made all then God made the person homosexual. It has been shown that a person is predisposed towards homosexuality by genetics and this gene has been multiplied many times over by denying and outlawing homosexuality because it is 'an abomination towards God'. If homosexuality is indeed a genetic trait, then by allowing homosexuality to exist in society the numbers born as homosexual will reduce because those who bear the gene cannot breed with their partners.
    As for marriage between homosexual partners. I see marriage being created by man, not God, to give rights to the children born to that partnership. Religion and politics have always gone hand in hand and as the years/centuries have progressed and society has become more complex, many,many laws and rights to this 'blessed' relationship have been written.
    Maybe what is needed is for some of these partnership laws to be rewritten to include all partnerships and other ceremonies to be written to celebrate the love and intention of lifelong love between partners regardless of their sexual orientation. Marriage afterall is the proclamation of intended life long love for one partner, and it is only this (and the laws that are associated with this ceremony) that homosexuals are seeking.
    As far as I'm aware the marriage of gay partnerships is not legal in the UK either.
     
  10. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sound reasoning

    Well, I'll be darned; your message is a fresh breeze for me. Thanks.

    Susma Rio Sep
     
  11. suanni

    suanni Confused

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're more than welcome. It is merely my viewpoint.
    Homosexuality isn't a life-style choice, it is how a person is born. I understand that for those who are homosexual the thought of coupling with someone of the opposite sex is as repulsive as for a heterosexual thinking of coupling with someone of the same sex. Whilst nobody is 100% of one orientation, most certainly most are at least 75% orientated towards one sex. And I have also seen a man cry because he is homosexual and would give anything to change that but that is the way he is born. It is strange that those who are born homosexual would do anything for their parents, would love to live up to their expectations and produce the many grandchildren that their parents would love to have. I suspect that many feel that they have betrayed their parents by their in-borne sexual orientation.
    I also understand that many teenage boys on understanding the true nature of their sexual orientation choose to end their lives rather than live with society's attitude towards homosexuals. They often feel that they are failing their parents and society because of their sexual orientation.
    This can't be right!
    From what I have been reading there have been advantages in society producing homosexuals
    http://signalshift.com/homosexuality.html
    A lot of the disadvantages are caused by man who claims to be exerting God's will in discriminating and in some cases brutualising homosexuals. Gay bashing doesn't just exist in the form of words and I would love to know where in the holy books it states that man must half kill someone because of their sexual orientation.
    I don't believe that because of one small passage in the Old Testament is the cause of such laws & unnecessary hatred, I think its man himself. It also has to be remembered that the Holy books were written by man who believed he was writing the word of God and that those books have been rewritten many times over. The laws of the land have been written by man. It is the heterosexual male who has the homophobia (and no doubt this has existed throughout time). I suspect that if heterosexual women wrote the laws there would be laws regarding lesbian love. The overall messages of the religious texts throughout the world is to love one another without judgement.
    What is strange is that many centuries ago when the mesh of society was no doubt religion rather than politics (before the laws governing homosexuality were put in place), homosexuality was accepted, it wasn't frowned upon. I believe that today we are much more prudish than our forefathers.
    As for God created Adam & Eve and not Adam & Steve? God created Adam,Eve, Steve, Dave, June, etc etc. God made us all regardless of our sexual orientation!
     
  12. Pagan-prophet

    Pagan-prophet (Protect Computer)

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^--*Applause*
     
  13. Kaldayen

    Kaldayen Spiritual ronin

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quote by Paganprophet:
    It would not be discriminating to the crack-heads by not giving them something that is not given to everyone else…

    Quote by juantoo3:
    This is already covered above. Men are not currently legally able to marry men, same for women. Allowing gay marriage would be giving something to a select minority in preference to everyone else.


    I'd like to point to juantoo3 that allowing gays the right to marriage wouldn't give something only to them. Straight would also be allowed to marry someone of the same sex! Does that sound weird to you? Maybe because you didn't choose to be straight... the same way that I didn't choose to be gay.

    I was born that way and if I could choose not to be, my life would have been much easier...
     
  14. Pilgram

    Pilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Be a homo or eat a lobster! Same thing.

    An "abomination" is an "abomination" is an "abomination." The Bible tells us that homosexuality is an abomination. But it also tells us that eating lobster is too. (See the preceding thread, "Be a homo, eat a lobster").

    If you believe homos are equal to you, why not give them equal rights?
    If you believe they are abominations, why not kill them as God has commanded?

    All this "civil union" talk reminds me of the "separate but equal" nonsense put out by bigots who opposed blacks having equal rights. The mere difference in the title of the thing, "civil union" or "marriage" screams that they are not the same thing. This is the intent of those who want to offer an accomodation or settling for something less than "the real thing." Maybe we can placate the homos and they'll go away and leave us alone. AND we can tell the homophobes that only heteros are good enough to have "real" marriages. (Heteros really value their marriages, too. More than half of all first marriages are thrown away.)

    Why anyone would care if two women (or two men) wanted to live together "married" is beyond me. I guess some people just don't have enough to worry about with terrorism, domestic violence, child abuse, ad nauseum...

    A gay marriage! Wow! Now that will really keep me up nights pacing and wringing my hands.
     
  15. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    Recently, the British government legislated to allow "civil unions" whih could be entered into by homosexual couples.

    It's not marriage, per se, but it is a way that society is made to recognise that there is a very real - and legally represented - way in which two people of the same gender can live together.

    Of course, the problem is that all of us "common-law" heterosexual households are still left without the proper recognition in terms of legality and tax issues, unless we go through some of "marriage ceremony". Some of us have chosen specifically to avoid doing so - we do not want to hold a civil gathering simply so we can be recognised as a couple by the tax man, and we don't want a ceremonial act with religious overtones because it simply does not suit us.

    I wonder how that affects this entire equation of "civil unions"?

    Btw - El Grecko - you deleted your own post, but nothing is actually removed from the database unless I complete the process. Having read your posting I really don't think it was offensive - it was a heartfelt personal opinion. So long as there is civility in postings then I really don't mind what "political" opinion is expressed. Would you like me to restore it?
     
  16. Pilgram

    Pilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    From social commentary to monotheism, next on Oprah!

    For those of you who may be confused, the post, "be a homo or eat a lobster - same thing" has been moved from the politics and society forum to the the monotheism forum.

    I have written asking for an explanation in case anyone was looking for it in the "previous post" that I mentioned above. Confused? I am too.
     
  17. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    419
    Kindest Regards, Kaldayen!
    Perhaps, but something about this concept just doesn't sit well. I will grant, "marriage" is the legal endorsement of a "committed" relationship. Yet, something about the "two become one" thing, ostensibly with the intent to procreate (realizing as someone else pointed out, that procreation is not always the intent or even possible even in male/female relationships), something spiritual here is being circumvented. I believe the Tao addresses "dragon yang."

    It is difficult to pull genuine examples from nature, so few animals are monogamous. I am not talking about extreme laboratory examples, like the overstressed rats. I am speaking of the likes of a pair of geese in their natural environment. I can think of no example of homosexuality in the natural environment between same sex among "mate for life" creatures. In other words, homosexuality is not the natural order of things, and because it's not the natural order of things, I find it difficult to believe there is a genetic cause. Especially if one adheres to evolutionary dogma (read: logic applied to natural science).

    But that's my point, I can be whatever I will myself to be.
    "I can do anything I want to do, if I want to do it bad enough." corrollary-"If I want to do something bad enough, I will find a way to do it." By extension, in this example, homosexuality is a choice, one wants to do so bad enough, that they find a way to justify it to themselves and to others.

    Again, I state emphatically and for the record, I am not participating in this thread to pick on any individual, I am speaking about the concept, the issue.

    So, what offends you, the fact I disagree? Would that make you heterophobic? Are you disagreeable to society as a whole granting or not legal privileges based on behavior? Or perhaps your view is more exclusive, that is, as long as society agrees with your position, then it's OK, but if the majority disagree with you, why, then they must be a bunch of backward cretins who aren't possibly enlightened enough to steer social mores.

    That is the propaganda to promote a feel good attitude about the whole thing. If that makes you feel better about yourself, more power to you. I prefer not to disillusion myself with such hype.
     
  18. brucegdc

    brucegdc Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    1
    My guess would be because it is 99% quotes from Torah/The Bible, and a forum moderator felt that a biblical argument belonged better there than here.

    By the way, it's usually not a good idea to come across as challenging forum moderators :) It's being impolite - somewhat like being demanding to your dinner host that you want only Grey Poupon, not that yellow "mustard" stuff to put on your hot dog. (Or, lobster, if you prefer)
     
  19. brucegdc

    brucegdc Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    1
    Tax issues are an interesting problem. (And social security....). My wife's grandmother has specifically not married her long-time partner for income reasons (they're both widowed and get an increased Social Security because of their departed's contributions). Unfortunately over time the government has so complicated things that you end up with massive monetary consequences that are unintended. (In the US you have an income tax "marriage penalty" with two working spouses - sometimes rather severe, sometimes a positive effect).

    My thought is that we should treat marriages just as any business partnership for tax and income reasons. If you're a widow/er the SSI survivor benefits should be payable no matter your future marital status. (Of course, that raises the question of repeat widowhood.. but that's a matter of math).

    On the other hand, simplifying the tax system would get rid of a lot of these problems, too.
     
  20. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    10
    No PM or e-mail received - but it does indeed address issues of the Old Testament quite fully and directly, so the "Politics and Society" didn't quite seem the fitting place to leave it. I believe I left a redirect so that you would know it was moved rather than deleted. :)
     

Share This Page