Homosexual Marriage

[bullshitdetector]

Quote by: Suburbanite it is as much profiling as any adjective, or even a noun. Calling someone a homophobe is as labeling as calling someone white isn't it? Though, I can understand why people have a problem with being labeled in such a way, in fact, I even agree with the logic. Labeling allows people to mentally mark a group of people based on certain true or false impressions. Like when people label homosexuals and think that all homosexuals have rampant sex. When anyone against homosexual marriage is labeled a homophobe it enforces a stereotype of, perhaps, Christian Red Necks or something. It always sucks to be labeled, but wonder to label others, it really helps us digest issues.

The word homophobe by definition describes a form of fear which is disengenuous, that being said it is casting an aspertion onto people to put them into a negative light, hence the logic for why there is nothing in the dictionary or PC language called heterophobe. If you call me white I am not going to be offended as PC hasn't deemed it an insult yet like calling some people black, black.

PC language is designed to stop debate and lock anyone who opposes into a corner, that way anyone engaging in it doesn't have to have a brain any bigger than a gnat to win a discussion or get their desired end result.

[Suburbanite]

You're getting far too wrapped up in the suffix "phobe". It isn't like fear of falling or fear of spiders. It is a fear of social changes from sexual deviance. Someone who fears the definition change of Marriage is being homophobic. It doesn't lock anyone into debate whatsoever. It isn't used in a way any different than you have called people liberals.
Remember Political Correctness is a bipartisan affair. Liberals have their words, sure, but Conservatives are not without their own either. As for the design of Politically Correct language it is actually based off the philosophy of post-modernism by Richard Rorty who explains that how we describe the world is with language, and what that language is will change our outlook. If instead of saying retarded we say mentally challenged than society as a whole will feel obligated to empathize.
That said, homophobia is not a politically correct word, it does not fit within the philosophy of political correctness whatsoever. Homophobia is a defensive labeling of those who disrupt the would-be rights of homosexuals.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Rainbow, I rarely debate you since your posts are often inscrutable. And even here, I can't figure what you are really driving at. In my poll, I did the best I could to provide what I thought might be the most common responses to a controversial issue. I knew I couldn't think of everything, so I left the option to the debaters to bring up another, unforeseen viewpoint. I overlooked nothing on purpose. Extend me a little grace. Now to the issue you raised: Mankind's existence. Are you implying that the future and continuing existence of humanity is threatened by same-sex marriage? That would be a very far-fetched argument, mainly because so few of us are likely to abandon our opposite gender partners and traditional families in preference to a same-sex union. I just don't see that as a realistic argument. Or are you saying something else?

Thank you for your fascinating and a very educational lecture :-)))
Grace ?
I value your work and attempts.
A person who does not speak is a mute ?

The world we live in today, not necessarily may look similar tomorrow.
We need to prolong and preserve Mankind's existance in its the most original shape, unless we know the future.

[dotcoma]

Rainbow, give me an example of how "preserving" mankind's "original shape" has been done, and how it has been beneficial.

Isn't mankinds original shape one of reason and progress? We learn, we change, we adapt

In my opinion this is a civil rights issue, so I voted that way. Just as the definition of a citizen changed, so should other definitions that treat people like second class citizens in my opinion.

[crayola]

But it's also a religious issue due to the biblical prohibition against it.

Do you think people in Christiainity will ever recognize that the prohibition against same sex unions was meant for the sons of Jacob only? And the purpose was to insure lots of children to be born as Israelites. And lots of children were only needed to fight in wars, thus the male gender was more valued than the female counterpart.

Could God do anything without a fight?

[dotcoma]

Wait, but I was talking about marriage via the courts-that is how most gay people have been getting married...

I do not care what Christians think about marriage that is not within the church anyway. The religious aspect of marriage is a private property matter. That is, the church should be free to do as it wishes.

Although, one could look at it another way. It's the same issue with abortion. The value of life the church puts on unborn children is being forced into our system of government (as I think it should..I am pro-life), but how is this different then forcing the church to accept that gay people are indeed sons of their God too...

Complicated issue, but I beleive that they deserve the same rights via the state, but not the church.

[marco_funk]

In my opinion, as far as I can say from what I know, is that government should not be in the marriage business. Let local communities/religious/culture groups make these types of decisions. The government should be in the business of keeping order within its borders; that is, order between the diverse groups that live there, whether they permit homosexual marriages or not. The government is not there to push morality but rather to keep the peace as the people work out there problems and enjoy life.

[dotcoma]

marco, Marriage also has a ton to do with property rights and taxes now though, so it cannot be strictly left to the church in my opinion.

[PatrickHenry]

I think that ALL of the issues relating to property rights, custody of children, taxes and so on could be easily worked through with explicit contracts. Indeed many marriages nowadays are initiated with a pre-nup contract anyway. The implied contracts in marriage are not really a necessary adjunct. I would like for gov to stay out of marriage in toto and just leave it up those who are doing the deed.

As to the contracts: there would be no need to get the lawyers involved in a simple marriage contract. Boilerplate would suffice in most instances I'd wager.

And from my viewpoint, then gays could say, "We're married!" and eyebrows would raise, but there would be nothing legal to be done. The controversy in the conservative areas would go away. It would be acknowledged that it isn't a public matter. Sorta like what you read or who you pray to. Not the government's business. But by the same token, I refuse to have the government REdefine what constitutes marriage. Especially at the instance of a minority. Marriage is an enormous boulder with its definition buried in the sediments of the ages. The definition will not be budged.

[CherryPie]

Quote by: dotComa marco, Marriage also has a ton to do with property rights and taxes now though, so it cannot be strictly left to the church in my opinion.

this is exactly right.... Marriage is no longer a religious thing..... being Married entails much much more than it used to and people need to think of all the implications of marriage including property rights and taxes, but also extending to things like hospital visitation rights.....under certain circumstances hospital visitation rights include immediate family only.... boyfriend/girlfriend are not included in the "Immediate Family" Category

Also i kinda don't think religion is a valid arguement in this case as so many religions are practiced now and many people who are atheists still get married....

[nuance]

With a 50% divorce rate, maybe it's time to redefine Marriage. What do you think?

My choice would be, for all of it to be left alone for the two people.... even the sharing of property. I prefer, if the government does not have an assumed 'model' relationship for me.... since, connections between couples are unique for each of them.

Of course, always looking out for children, and preserving the relationship between parent and child, when they are involved.

If almost 50% of the people, want to promise in front of their god, and break the promise.. then so be it.
For me, it's a promise between two people. And gays and lesbians are welcome to be in love, and feel a permanent connection.

[spinalmanu]

:( This whole issue is incredible to me. Marriage is a complicated endeavour. It harmonizes the dynamic spiritual, psychological, physiological and emotional structures of a man and a woman.

I can't put two plugs together and call it "electrical wiring" because it's not. It won't work. Same goes for homosexual unions: they don't work to create a marriage, so why call it that?

Next decade we'll be asked why incestuous relationships can't be codified into marriage, or beastiality.

[marco_funk]

Quote by: CherryPie Marriage is no longer a religious thing..... being Married entails much much more than it used to and people need to think of all the implications of marriage including property rights and taxes

I would hesitate to say that Marriage entails much more than it used to, especially in regards to taxes and property. In fact, I would argue quite the contrary. Marriage was, in the past, far more about property, land titles, and other socio/economic factors than it is now. In our society marriage seems to be centred far more around the notion of 'being in love', a notion that is relatively new in history, and not normative in many countries in today's world.

What has essentially changed is not the nature of marriage, although changes have and still do occur; the essential change has occured in our understanding of religion and faith in today's society. Religion is a relatively new term, it gained its usage after the fall of Christendom and the start of the Renaiscance. The practice of the Christian faith during the Christendom era entailed instructions regarding property, food, marriage and divorce, sexuality, citizenship, social ethics, etc. All of life was informed by one's faith.

Since the fall of Christendom and the rise of the modern state, the church moved out of the secular sphere, either by choice or by force, and into the private sphere. In this 'private sphere' the church was relegated to the task of shepherding the souls of a nation while its prince commanded the allegiance of its bodies. This privatizing and interiorizing of the nature of the church was left largely unchallenged. It was then that the practice of the Christian faith became known as a 'religion'; a notion conjured up by the state in order to maintain peace with the church that was no longer welcome at the political bargaining table.

The reason for this short history lesson is to show that it isn't the nature of marriage that has changed but the role of the church. Ever since the fall of Christendom there was a growing trend to think of faith as a private thing that has nothing to do with politics, social ethics, marriage, ruling, etc... The growing resistence within the Christian churches regarding same-sex marriage is partially a left-over, half-dead, notion that the Christian faith teaches specific lessons regarding marriage and its form, function, and purpose. Most of this reactionism, however, does not come out of a desire to be 'in charge' again in a neo-Christendom, although it often sounds like it, but rather an expression of the personal fears and discomforts of individuals stuck in phobias and taboos.

If one good thing can come out of this struggle with the same sex marriage issue, it will be that Christians will realize that their faith is not only an interior spirituality but rather a way of organizing all of life; including our practices of marriage and sexuality.
peace,
Marco Funk

[trixmix]

That is a concept I will never grasp, nor do I think that it should even be an issue...Frankly, I am getting quite sick & tired of hearing about it...Marriage is a union between a man & a woman...PERIOD...If the gays want their 'domestic partner' arrangements to be able to include death benefits, inheritance issues, insurance etc. etc. so be it...I can deal with that, and do feel that they are entitled to these things if they are in a long term relationship, I suppose. But, let's not take the sanctity of marriage and rewrite it's definition and what it stands for...True, lately 'marriage' has become a term for combining two things together, as in restaurants-when they combine 1/2 ketchup bottles together, they call it 'marrying the ketchup'...which is all fine & dandy...When I am in a hurry I describe it to others that I was flying, it doesn't mean that I grew wings & actually 'flew'. But, when we are talking about 'marriage'...the true definition is 'to join as a union as husband & wife' (husband being defined as the 'male' partner in a marriage, and wife - the 'female' partner in a marriage)...There is no bending that! We don't classify grown people as adults, and youth as minors and have a third classification of minors that are acting as adults, or vice versa. It's cut & dry...a marriage is a union of 'husband' and 'wife' or man & woman...bottom line. They can't have their cake & eat it too...They are in a lifestyle that takes them out of the norm...They cannot be 'married' nor should they be allowed to adopt children. (which I might add, is one of the main reasons that I definitely don't advocate gay marriage)

What gay people are not understanding is, the more we push this lifestyle, the more we are stifling population growth...Not that it's even come close to making a dent in the population yet, but just think...The more gay couples there are, the less procreation that is going on...And let's face it, God designed us with the ability to have sexual relations-for what? For fun? Or wasn't there another purpose behind it? Oh yes, procreation, or basically, survival of the species. Just think of the extinction issues we'd have if the animal kingdom decided to follow 'gay lifestyles'...They would wipe themselves off the face of the earth...And we'd never be able to slowly bring back the condors or the pandas or whatever other animal that we've saved from being known only in museums and science textbooks.

Unless, of course we started artificially inseminating them, or even more macabe-we could allow them the right to 'same sex-same species' marriage, then perhaps they would be allowed to adopt offspring...and continue on with their existance....before being extinct.

[trixmix]

Quote by: spinalmanu Next decade we'll be asked why incestuous relationships can't be codified into marriage, or beastiality.

Ha ha ha!!!! My sentiments exactly!!!

What's next?



What in the Hell is next?

[trixmix]

Quote by: Mulkaccino Whats special about black people over gays that they should be allowed to participate in a public national institutions yet gays should not? Can someone show me why my mentality is incorrect?

We are talking about apples & oranges here...Black people are not practicing an alternate 'lifestyle' - the only reason they were treated unfairly was the color of their skin...whereas gay people are making a conscious decision to stray from the norm...okay maybe not a conscious decision, but they, inadvertantly or not, have chosen a path of deviance from the norm....that is why there is no 'fair marriage' clause, because marriage has a description-which has been many many years in the making-a union between a MAN & a WOMAN....For example, there was no 'traditional' definition for a restroom that defined it for hundreds of years as 'white only'. That is why we had to take a look at unfair practices, and consequentally-That is why it was only right to give the black people fair treatment insofar as civil rights etc...Because we were discriminating against them, because of the color of their skin...
We are not discriminating against gay people...We are upholding a tradition that has spanned years upon years upon years...

That is what is incorrect with what you are saying!!!!

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanks for your opinion Trix, check out the law, and who defines it. (the government) Check out the word marriage.(its religious) Who defines it? (The church) It is up to the church to define marriage, it is not the auspice of the Federal Government, nor is it within the bounds of authority granted to it by the Constitution.

[mr.perfecto]

In the recent past marriage has been defined by state constitutions. Of course, if the states are violating their citizen's/vistor's rights, the Feds have to step in.

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.

[libertyminded]

Personally I don't think the government has any business marrying anyone to anyone. In what way is it of vital interest to the government with whom you are cohabitating or copulating? Taxes that's why... and they'll consider you common-law if you live together anyway. As far as I know marriage was originally the providence of religion and was primarily a function of passing women from their father's possession off to the possession of the husband. A quaint idea that's long since gone by the wayside. If it's the legal protections gays are interested in (i. e. medical decisions, passing on of property) then you can go to a lawyer with your partner... or whatever... and get that all drawn up. I think straights should have to do the same thing.

In the mean time I'm a little perturbed at how gays are attempting to equate their fight for marriage with the civil rights movement in the 60s. Racial discrimination seemed inherently unfair because you are born with black skin or slanted eyes or whatever, and it's an inalienable physical feature (i. e. you are black or asian or indian). Homosexuality is a behavior you engage in. It is an aspect of your psychological makeup not of your physical makeup. Schizophrenic people believe there are voices in their heads, hypochondriacs believe they're sick when they are not, people with severe depression perceive the world in much gloomier way than the rest of us and homosexuals urge to mate is directed towards the wrong gender. These are characteristics of mental abnormalities but society does not have to endorse these behaviors. If you have an urge to act in a way out of the ordinary, great, but don't come up to me and demand that I recognize it as perfectly normal.

I can understand gays not wanting to be thought of as pariahs (after all, having gotten out of high school recently I can attest to the fact that the primary insult between adolescent boys is "faggot"), but there's no getting around that. As long as the behavior that homosexuals engage in is inherently repulsive to the majority of people (and it will be forever) then homosexuals will always be looked down on, even if we try our best not to openly discriminate it will always "gross us out".

No it's not fair... but hey... that's life.

[trixmix]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready check out the law, and who defines it. (the government) Check out the word marriage.(its religious) Who defines it? (The church) It is up to the church to define marriage, it is not the auspice of the Federal Government, nor is it within the bounds of authority granted to it by the Constitution.

Okay, I'll give you that one...perhaps the government shouldn't really have control of the actual 'union of marriage'...But, we know that it boils down to tax and probate issues...The government, I am sure, wants to keep those things in their court...And for the sake of keeping things legit, so to speak. Otherwise, like someone posted before...who the hell knows what kind of fanatical group will pop up, advocating human/animal, or adult/child marriage unions...It could get really ugly!