| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[evil conspiracy] Lets give them the right to marry... but no right to divorce! MUahahahahahhahhaah![/evil conspiracy]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I look at the issue of marriage and the vehement opposition to same-sex unions by a loud contingent of the population, what I see is a problem with definitions. The current concept of marriage is a merger of two separate things that, in the 21st century, should be unbundled: a set of legal rights, and a religious rite.
Civil unions should be the purview of the government, to codify the legal rights of marriage, as currently practiced. Civil unions should be nondiscriminatory and open to all couples regardless of the sexes of the parties. Essentially, this is a purely legal contract.
Marriage should be a purely religious rite. Eligibility should be determined by the creed of the particular religious group. As a religious rite, marriage should not confer any secular legal rights at all-- no more do than any other religious rite, like baptism, confirmation, confession, a bar mitzvah.
Under that paradigm, everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too. Religious groups are free to allow our disallow marriages as they see fit, the state can confer legal status to qualified couples. Win-win.
And this has absolutely zero chance of coming to realization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haladir, we already have that. The civil word is "marriage" and the religious one is "holy matrimony."
Biggest question, why not?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well... As an straight man, these are my 3 answers for why people should fight (and many are fighting) for their rights to marry to someone of the same gender:
1- Being legally married has all sorts of legal benefits, which can't be achieved by just declaring mutual love and commitment in front of families and friends.
2- It promotes equality. Equality is a good thing.
3- It doesn't matter why people want it! It doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't cost anything and will allow many, many people to have a happier life, so why the hell not allow them to do it? There is nothing to be lost, and much to be gained!
I'm a great proponent of the idea that everyone should have equal rights and be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. This includes consenting adults getting married to whatever other consenting adult they want to get married to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NZ Politician who puts it better than I can:
"I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life. Celibacy... I haven't done it so I don't know what it's about.
"I also had a leader tell me I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity and that was a bad mistake because I've got a degree in physics. I used the thermodynamic laws of physics. I put in my body weight and my humidity and so on. I assumed the furnace to be at 5000 degrees and I will last for just on 2.1 seconds. It's hardly eternity. What do you think?
"I also head some more disgusting claims about adoption. Well, I have got three fantastic adopted kids. I know how good adoption is, and I have found some of the claims just disgraceful. I found some of the bullying tactics really evil. I gave up being scared of bullies when I was at primary school.
"However, a huge amount of the opposition was from moderates, from people who were concerned, who were seriously worried, about what this bill might do to the fabric of our society. I respect their concern. I respect their worry. They were worried about what it might do to their families and so on.
"Let me repeat to them now that all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing. We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign State. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector forever.
"We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that for neither love nor money. I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed. I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine. We are all in that category.
"But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise.
"The sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back to you as if she knows everything. Your mortgage will not grow. You will not have skin diseases or rashes or toads in your bed. The world will just carry on.
"So do not make this into a big deal.
"This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.
"Finally, can I say that one of the messages I had was this bill was the cause of our drought. Well, if any one you follow my Twitter account, you will see that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning, it was pouring with rain. We had the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate. It has to be a sign. If you are a believer, it is certainly a sign.
"Can I finish, for all those who are concerned about this, with a quote from the bible. It is Deuteronomy. I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of the musical 'Cats,' but never mind. The quote is Deuteronomy 1:29. 'Be ye not afraid.'"
I'm not gay, bi, or anything other than plain vanilla straight. I don’t normally care about the topic, because I don’t care about marriage as a thing. If I were divorced I would never marry again as my wife is the only person in the universe I would marry. However..
Performing a Full Honors funeral for a dead hero (no, I don’t care about your venomous anti-military opinion, so don’t bother) and seeing that his partner didn’t receive the flag or his benefits in lieu of his estranged, adulterous, morally vacuous ex-wife made me care. Either give it to everyone or make it a church only thing, represented by a legal union available to everyone of consenting age.
Interesting statement, and I'd like to clear up some misconceptions here.
First, if the spouse is divorced from the Veteran, they cannot receive benefits.
If he didn't divorce his spouse, I would question how dedicated he may be to his partner? Not that one should slander or question the dead, but in this instance, it wouldn't matter if the partner was male or female, if he didn't divorce his old spouse. This is a problem I saw all the time in the administrative law/legal stuff I used to do. It is not necessarily a gay or non-gay problem, but an administrative problem of making sure one's affairs are in order.
As for the flag, the same issue applies. If he had not divorced the spouse, then by default she is considered the next of kin in many instances. This is a VERY sticky issue. It doesn't matter if he has another partner (male or female), it comes into the paperwork issue.
There are instances, where accommodations are made. For example, at times the things are given to the parents or mother instead of a hostile spouse. I am not privy to how all these decisions are made, but that once in awhile considerations are made.
However, not divorcing a hostile spouse really creates problems with paperwork and legal issues like you wouldn't imagine.
There are times when the law is neutral, and you know it's absolutely against what the Veteran would have wanted, but because they never divorced their spouse...OR (and this is another biggie) changed their will or legal papers...their spouse (or sometimes even ex-spouse) gets things that under the law...they are entitled. This is also an issue with active duty military and insurance payouts.
Currently there are changes occurring at the VA. You can apply for a spouse under Federal law for Gay marriage...irregardless of whether it is legal in your state or not. You will need to show that you were legally married however.
Now, I haven't been involved with this stuff for around a year, and at that time, though they were accepting the dependency paperwork, they had not actually processed any that I had seen personally. It may be that they have processed them by now (or not, still haven't seen any personally).
I'm sorry you saw a bad instance in this regards. It sounds like it is a common occurrence we have (whether someone is LGBT or not) in regards to paperwork. It can be heartbreaking, but the law isn't something that necessarily is compassionate or understanding. Whether LGBT or not, Traditional or Gay in Marriage, the biggest thing I can say is ensure ALL your paperwork is in order before you pass on. This is especially true for insurance (one of the biggest things we see is where an ex-spouse gets the insurance pay out and the spouse does not because the insurance paperwork was never updated...stinks to high heaven, but happens all the time). It also applies to anything and everything else.
There are other things that are problems with the paperwork and the rights issues of LGBT individuals in regards to marriage (as some have pointed out in this thread) but in this case, from how you explained it, it sounds specifically as an issue that was in regards to paperwork and would have been the same whether the the veterans current partner was male or female, gay or hetero or other.
As an addendum, did a quick look, it appears that the flag issue is something that IF the paperwork was in order, IF the partner of an individual, irregardless of whether it is a Gay or traditional marriage, currently can be given the flag (if I read it all correctly).
However, the biggest obstacle that appears to be a hindering is residency at the time of Gay Marriage and the laws of the state.
I believe for a VA cemetery, one can have their spouse (irregardless of marriage type) for all the benefits, however, I think there is currently a case ongoing in regards to State Veteran cemeteries (I haven't looked it up recently though, it may have been resolved, it is an Idaho case if I recall from memory and the Idaho state cemeteries).
...though I am also forced to acknowledge that by a very, very wide margin, those who hold themselves to a higher power, a greater moral authority, tend to be the most generous and most compassionate among us.
I laughed so hard at the absurdity of this statement I almost pooped my pants. I apologize for that, being an atheist I lost all compassion for my fellow humans long ago.
Anyway, in general gay marriage seems to be one of those rare social issues where there really is a straight up correct answer and all the opposition to it seems to be either based in mysticism or faulty logic stretched so thin as to be borderline incoherent.
For myself once I realized that many arguments against gay marriage seemed taken verbatim from the arguments against interracial marriage back in the day it was time to throw in the towel on the idea the issue had two legitimate sides.
That being said I always keep an eye on discussions like these in case some random person does actually come forth with a good anti-gay marriage argument because I am curious, such a thing could exist, though I personally can't imagine what it would be.
On the issue of why gay people want to get married: it's true the legal rights involved are important but it also has to do with how our culture at large views marriage; as a stamp of legitimacy to a relationship and a mark of love and permanency to their romance which is generally thought to lead to a stable family life, kids, etc. (despite the actual state of matters)
Lots of kids grow up dreaming of getting married, not sure if any do dreaming of a domestic partnership with their long term boyfriend/girlfriend.
Is this desire for external acknowledgment rubbing their gayness in everyone's faces? Sure, in the same way a black man marrying a white woman is rubbing his blackness in everyone's faces.
|
I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I put Him before everything.
The reality put forth in the Bible is that God and Jesus love gay people. Straight people too as well as people with no interest in sex/marriage etc. God and Jesus also tell their followers (of which I am one) to also have brotherly love toward gay people (and straight people and people who opt out of relationships).
Jesus teaches me what I should and should not do. He does not teach me to force my understanding of what He is asking me to do on others.
However, God is also justice and He has rules for his followers. The Bible tells followers of God not to be in homosexual relationships along with a whole host of other sexual restrictions. However, homosexuality is not a big topic in the Bible.
Staying faithful in marriage and not divorcing (except for a breaking of marital vows such as abuse, adultery etc.) is a much bigger topic as is the Sabbath (taking a day off once a week and is one of the Ten Commandants). Yet Christians divorce nearly as often as non-Christians and many Christians don’t observe a Sabbath. So Christians should not be too quick to point out perceived flaws in others when we ourselves have bigger issues of our own to deal with.
If you want to try to understand one Christian viewpoint, however, here it is illustrated by looking at other marriage restrictions in our society.
Another restriction in the Bible is that a parent and a child can’t have relations together. Now imagine in our society a 50 year old father. His son is 30. They say they love each other not in a parent/child way but in a lover way. They want to get married.
Should society say no? Both are consenting adults. We currently do say no. Does that make us all bigots? Why or why not?
The Bible also says a man should not have relations with a mother and her child or with his sister. Now say a 60 year old man wants to marry his sister, a 40 year old woman, and her 20 year old child.
Should society say no? All three are consenting adults. We currently do say no. Does that make us all bigots? Why or why not?
If society does say yes to any and all consenting adults marrying each other in any number, how do we handle those changes? How much will it cost? Will changing how families are raised have any long term impact to our society good or bad? Do we have any facts to back up either side or are we dealing strictly with opinion? By what authority or logic or facts are we basing this change to marriage in our society?
These questions are what Christians struggle with. Balancing what we learn through study, prayer, and discussion with what our fellow humans see as fair can be difficult. And at the same time, we have our own sins we should be working on before we judge what we perceive to be sin in others.
My question for my fellow human beings is, how do you determine what is just and fair? When we are born we don’t have an intrinsic understanding of justice, mercy, and brotherly love although a conscience does seem to be a component of rational human beings once the brain begins to develop. So what criteria do you use to determine what lines society should draw in regards to marriage and other topics? And once you have made this decision, do you gather facts to either re-examine your decision or reinforce your decision on what criteria to follow or do you just stick with what you know?
For example, if you believe I would be better off not being a follower of Jesus what argument would you use to convince me? Do you have any facts or just opinions or perhaps an experience or series of experiences that led you to your conclusion? Do you go with gut instinct, what an expert says, a logical argument, facts, faith, or something else or a combination?
I am honestly curious and would like to hear what authority or logic or well-argued case helps show you the way in a complicated world.
I'd like to express appreciation for the number of thoughtful and sincere responses offered up. Its given me some interesting perspectives to consider. Thank you.
|
|
That's pretty sad. I think I'm far more empathetic now as an Atheist, than I ever was as a Catholic who went to several Protestant Sunday Schools. Not being locked into a strict set of theistic beliefs gave me more freedom to respect others whether they were believers or not.
I am curious about this positive change you experienced. What theistic beliefs made it more difficult for you to respect others? What atheist beliefs give you more freedom to respect others?
Honestly curious and trying to learn more about what others believe.
@ LazarX that was a joke, though I realize sarcasm is often lost on the interwebz.
@ Charlie D While making a gay/incest comparison right off the bat does make me sigh a bit I hear what you are saying, response forthcoming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I put Him before everything.
The reality put forth in the Bible is that God and Jesus love gay people. Straight people too as well as people with no interest in sex/marriage etc. God and Jesus also tell their followers (of which I am one) to also have brotherly love toward gay people (and straight people and people who opt out of relationships).
Jesus teaches me what I should and should not do. He does not teach me to force my understanding of what He is asking me to do on others.
However, God is also justice and He has rules for his followers. The Bible tells followers of God not to be in homosexual relationships along with a whole host of other sexual restrictions. However, homosexuality is not a big topic in the Bible.
Staying faithful in marriage and not divorcing (except for a breaking of marital vows such as abuse, adultery etc.) is a much bigger topic as is the Sabbath (taking a day off once a week and is one of the Ten Commandants). Yet Christians divorce nearly as often as non-Christians and many Christians don’t observe a Sabbath. So Christians should not be too quick to point out perceived flaws in others when we ourselves have bigger issues of our own to deal with.
If you want to try to understand one Christian viewpoint, however, here it is illustrated by looking at other marriage restrictions in our society.
I am not a Christian, so I don't particularly care what the Bible say. I do know that other Christians interpret the various passages on this topic differently than you seem to.
That said, I also don't think that religion, in any flavor, should dictate our laws. Do you think that non-Christian gays (or those whose sects allow same-sex marriage) should be legally prevented from marrying?
That's the question at hand. You don't have to take part yourself. You don't even have to approve. All you have to do is not try to stand in the way.
Exactly. You are welcome to believe whatever you desire as a Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian, and so on. However, your beliefs on the matter should not affect the rights of others. Your religion or their religion or that religion over there should have zero impact on the civil and social rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, be that union straight or gay or neutral.
I am curious about this positive change you experienced. What theistic beliefs made it more difficult for you to respect others? What atheist beliefs give you more freedom to respect others?
I can't speak for LazarX, but in my own case, not following a canned set of "morality instructions" means that I'm forced to carefully observe the long-term results of every action and see if it leads to good or bad outcomes ("bad" being shorthand for suffering of self/others).
That means I can't just say "murder is bad because this book says so." I have to see what happens when someone murders someone else, and what happens when people respond to that, and so on -- ripple effects can be really big, of course. And, ultimately, come to the conclusion that, yeah, murdering someone might be convenient or emotionally satifying in the short term, but in the long run it creates nothing but problems and woe.
By the same token, I can't just say "Gay is unnatural because my book says so." I have to look at what they actually do, and see what the long-term consequences of those actions are, and so on. And, guess what -- I've done that, too. And seen that, on the whole, they're not making anything worse than straight people are.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I worry about, based on my own experiences, is that that wouldn't resolve the issue for many, who seem to have taken up this cause not as a case of their rights being infringed upon but rather in an effort to force those who might say 'what you do in your bedroom is your business but I don't want to hear about it' to have to somehow be legally compelled to say aloud 'I accept your lifestyle'.
Right now, we [heterosexuals] legally compel the gay community to say "I accept your lifestyle." And we don't think twice about it.
And, guess what -- they don't give us a problem about it, either. When I got married, no gay people said, "Mr. Gersen, what you're doing with that woman is shameful and unnatural!" No one said, "I can't believe they're letting him do that -- he's damaging the fabric of our nation!" No gay people tried to pass laws preventing it.
Is it really unthinkable that I would want to extend them the same courtesy?
@ Charlie D
As far as being bigots? I never called anyone that, my problem has purely been with gay marriage opponents arguments which, as I have said, have all been either based on mysticism or have been largely incoherent. Maybe I have just heard some bad arguments, I am willing to listen to yours and give it a fair shake if you have one.
The effect on giving a group of people equal rights will always have some effect on society, some positive some negative, for example when the slaves where freed after the American Civil War the south's economy took a nice kick to the balls and society experienced many changes, should the slaves have been kept for that reason? Isn't equal rights worth more than that? Or should they have just languished in slavery until some hard facts (somehow) showed that freeing them wouldn't destroy everything?
In terms of figuring out what is just and fair in this world empathy really is the basis for that, put yourself in others shoes as best you can and see where it takes you. As far as facts go in my opinion the best thing to do is examine everything over and over again as new info is added and be willing to travel where the facts lead. As I mentioned in my initial post, despite being relatively sure of my position on gay marriage I am actively keeping an eye out for a good dissenting opinion.
I would never try to convince you to abandon your faith in God. If it makes you happy more power to you.
The reason I personally don't believe in God is because I have never seen any evidence of a divine existence anywhere in the world, ever.
However if you have some please show. I am not making fun of you, I genuinely want to see or hear it.
As to what well thought out argument helps show me the way in a complicated world the answer is all of them.
To the original questions asked by the OP: Lots of good thoughts in here. Good food for thought. It's always good to hear other peoples' opinions and perspectives on challenging issues.
To this whole christianity vs. gay marriage thing: I’ve thought about this a lot, and I think it’s incredibly short-sighted (to say the least) for religious folks to try to limit other citizens’ legal rights and freedoms based on their own world-view or belief set.
… cuz … ya know, that couldn’t come back to bite you, right? (sarcasm)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other side,.... religion. Nothing brings out the crazy obstructionism like religion.Well, I'll be the first to say that the less government and religion intersect the better... though I am also forced to acknowledge that by a very, very wide margin, those who hold themselves to a higher power, a greater moral authority, tend to be the most generous and most compassionate among us. The biggest problems seem to arise when they get their old testament chocolate mixed up with their new testament peanut butter.Your experiences and opinions are of course your own -- I don't share them. But "religion" also doesn't vote. I've never seen "Catholicism" in the voting booth. What does vote are, of course, people, with or without religious views.
And religion seems to be a very effective tool for bringing crazy obstructionists into the voting booth. Indeed, I think the current nutcase wing of Christianity was deliberately cultivated by the Republican party in the 1970s and 1980s to provide reliable voters who would thereby support the economic policies that were being pushed.
And the results are rather predictable. "They have sown the wind, and shall reap the whirlwind." (Hosea 6:7, IIRC) One of the problems for the modern Republican party is getting out from under the shadow of those same crazy religious obstructionists.
Missed this the first time, but its a good point and worth responding to.
I think that the Republican party is in many ways held hostage by the religious right because they feel they need their influence and voting block to counter that of those the Democratic party is in turn beholden to - those who have, by design, become dependent on the government's redistribution of wealth. A significant portion of the Republican party votes because they want their religious beliefs (which they perceive as their moral beliefs) represented while a significant portion of the Democratic party vote because they want their social beliefs (which they perceive as their moral beliefs) represented. The religious right warps and even reverses the basic fundamental tenant of the Republican party which is 'less government' by attempting to directly interfere in the private lives of our citizens while the liberal left creates abject dependence, crushing regulation and oppression of everything from religion to patriotism in the name of promoting freedom. Constant Gerry-mandering and redistricting has created ever more polarized constituencies which in turn produced ever more polarized candidates which has led us to the gridlock we're in now. I can't argue that many religious voters could indeed be considered 'crazy obstructionists' just as I can't argue that the same couldn't be said of unions (for instance), especially those in the public sector. Collectively their goals are usually well-intentioned if often misguided, and as a group their influence can be harnessed and directed by leaders for whom the welfare of all is far from their chief priority.
I'm a very active Libertarian which I've always considered an ironic thing to say, as the goal of every Libertarian is to one day be as necessarily inactive as possible. Having said that, I'm digressing away from the original topic here and into a whole new arena, which wasn't my intent and probably isn't a good idea - I just didn't want your response to go unrecognized.
However, God is also justice and He has rules for his followers. The Bible tells followers of God not to be in homosexual relationships along with a whole host of other sexual restrictions.
The Bible tells followers of God a lot of things. There are, however, two problems with this.
The first is that it doesn't tell people who aren't followers of God anything. If I were to wave an X-Men comic around and tell you what you could and couldn't do based on the moral authority inherent in Charles Claremont,.... well, let's just say that you'd not feel particularly compelled. More seriously, you have no problem looking at other holy books such as the Koran, or the Tao Te Ching and judging their messages with a critical eye.
In fact, you yourself probably do the same thing with the Bible. I'd be willing to place a small wager that you routinely violate Deuteronomy 22:11 by wearing mixed-fiber clothing, and Leviticus 19:27 by shaving.
Staying faithful in marriage and not divorcing (except for a breaking of marital vows such as abuse, adultery etc.) is a much bigger topic as is the Sabbath (taking a day off once a week and is one of the Ten Commandants). Yet Christians divorce nearly as often as non-Christians and many Christians don’t observe a Sabbath.
... and in fact, there was an article in the New York Times only a few days ago about how the Catholic Church is denying communion to people involved in gay marriage, but not to divorced people.
If you want to try to understand one Christian viewpoint, however, here it is illustrated by looking at other marriage restrictions in our society.Another restriction in the Bible is that a parent and a child can’t have relations together. Now imagine in our society a 50 year old father. His son is 30. They say they love each other not in a parent/child way but in a lover way. They want to get married.
Should society say no?
A good question.
There are probably arguments both for and against. But "the Bible says so" isn't an argument.
Can you present a case for this restriction without using the Bible as a source? If you can't, I'd suggest that, no, society shouldn't say no.
That's basically what happened with gay marriage. Judge Posner wrote that "[T]he governments of Indiana and Wisconsin have given us no reason to think they have a 'reasonable basis' for forbidding same-sex marriage."
If you actually have an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn't come down to "the Bible says so," you will be the first.
...which in turn produced ever more polarized candidates which has led us to the gridlock we're in now.
I think we need some perspective here, for a moment. Check out the Adams-Jefferson election, for example. Or the aftermath of Jackson's election, etc. U.S. politics have been 100% polarized since the Washington administration -- that's nothing new.
...which in turn produced ever more polarized candidates which has led us to the gridlock we're in now.I think we need some perspective here, for a moment. Check out the Adams-Jefferson election and rivalry, for example. Or the aftermath of Jackson's election, etc. We've been 100% polarized since the Washington administration -- that's nothing new.
It's certainly a new development over recent terms. I disagree with your assessment of distant history, by the way -- there's a reason the "Era of Good Feelings" was called that -- but more to the point, I disagree with the relevance of distant history.
If you actually have an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn't come down to "the Bible says so," you will be the first.
A great many 'religious teachings', particularly those found in the Torah and the Old Testament were more intended to serve a social, legal or practical purposes than spiritual ones. It provided for things like a healthy diet, the hygienic storage and preparation of food and any number of legal matters to authoritatively establish themselves before an uneducated public. Considering that for the longest time legal marriages were established almost exclusively for propagating the family bloodline and producing heirs, that producing offspring and growing your family was a key to survival among the impoverished and a key to economic and political stability among the elite, its understandable that formal same-sex unions would be discouraged/forbidden... and as is so often the case, things prohibited by religion became forbidden by God, which could then only be justified if it were somehow inherently wrong in and of itself. The same thinking has led to any number of wars and the brutal and horrific abuse and subjugation of women - and still does in many cases around the world.
The problem arises in modern society where we don't share the same priorities of simple survival, where our understanding and - one hopes - degree of enlightenment has exceeded subsistence level living. Successful breeding, for instance, is no longer a necessity for survival. Some hold onto those antiquated views since so many still-relevant aspects of it hold sway and confuse the 'teachings of God' with what was shoe-horned in by man. Most western-based faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) don't encourage a great deal of questioning or in-depth research of the origins of their faith and for good reason, so its understandable how an outside perspective can be hard to come by. We should also keep in mind, however, that these same belief systems established community, charity and compassion as cornerstones of their faith, instincts not necessarily prevalent in the instinctive, survival-minded human and those tenants have also survived to permeate every aspect of our culture, secular and non-secular alike.
When you meet a Jew, Christian or a member of the Islamic community who does not have compassion or charity in their hearts, it is a failing of the individual, not of their church regardless of how that individual may choose to cloak themselves. Anyone who teaches hate or intolerance is not representing one of those faiths, but rather is representing their own cult of personality under its guise.
|
I'm trying to learn what, if anything, that I'm not considering.On the one hand, I think you're underestimating what "legal convenience" actually amounts to. It has been estimate that there are something like 2000 individual legal rights that accompany a legal (heterosexual) marriage by default, many of them traditions (like spousal testimonial privilege) that date back to common law and that may not have been formalized into statute, depending upon where you live. If you assume that each right requires one document to formalize, and each document, in turn, requires an hour to prepare, that's a full-time job for a lawyer for a year to draw up an equivalent of marriage..... and then you have the risk that there were actually 2001 rights, and he through ignorance, mischance, or error missed one.
There is also an issue is that many of the privileges attendant upon marriage are in fact policy decisions that depend upon a third party. Insurance companies, for example, don't generally have a choice about whether or not to cover a legal spouse, but they can and do play games about unmarried partners (see pH unbalanced's comments above). The middle of a medical crisis is not a time to have to worry about legal and financial ones as well.
On the other side,.... religion. Nothing brings out the crazy obstructionism like religion.
You know there are progressive christians and gay christians
gaychurch.org or gaychristian.net are some gay christian websites
And there are LGBT affirming denominations like
Ecumenical Catholic Church
Metropolitan Community Church
Old Catholic Church
Quakers
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Yeah you missed one big one the Episcopal Church, who have been in support of Gay Rights for quite a while now.
"In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church" (1976-A069). Since then, faithful Episcopalians have been working toward a greater understanding and radical inclusion of all of God’s children.
Along the way, The Episcopal Church has garnered a lot of attention, but with the help of organizations such as Integrity USA, the church has continued its work toward full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians. In 2003, the first openly gay bishop was consecrated; in 2009, General Convention resolved that God’s call is open to all; and in 2012, a provisional rite of blessing for same-gender relationships was authorized, and discrimination against transgender persons in the ordination process was officially prohibited."
Where this quote came from as well as some additional links if you are interested
If you actually have an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn't come down to "the Bible says so," you will be the first.A great many 'religious teachings', particularly those found in the Torah and the Old Testament were more intended to serve a social, legal or practical purposes than spiritual ones.
So was drilling a hole in a madman's head to let the evil spirits out.
I like to think that our understanding of the world, and hence our ability to serve various social, legal, and practical purposes, has improved since the Bronze Age.
It provided for things like a healthy diet, the hygienic storage and preparation of food and any number of legal matters to authoritatively establish themselves before an uneducated public.
We no longer rely on our priestly cast to tell us about food safety. There is the Department of Agriculture, which employs actual microbiologists.
The problem arises in modern society where we don't share the same priorities of simple survival, where our understanding and - one hopes - degree of enlightenment has exceeded subsistence level living.
It's not even a question simply of priorities. It's an epistemological question as well. Many of the rules written in the Bible are obviously misguided, just as a lot of the information contained in a 19th century medical text is also wrong. As a society, we've learned some things since 600 BCE.
We should also keep in mind, however, that these same belief systems established community, charity and compassion as cornerstones of their faith
Piffle. This is conservative fantasy revisionism at its worst. Prior to the Resurrection, humans did not organize themselves into communities. Compassion did not exist before the Christians discovered it. Riiiiiight.
Every belief system, atheism included, recognizes the value of community, charity, and compassion, because humans are social animals.
@ TheJeff (from your response to me) Yeah I used to just dismiss out of hand any false equivalency argument along the lines of "but if you support gay rights why don't you support the rights of -something our society almost universally despises-?"
But then I realized that most of the time I didn't know jack about those -something our society almost universally despises- issues and dismissing them out of hand might just be a case of me pulling the whole "that's not the social issue on the table right now, people with that issue can wait in the wings till we've fixed this current mess."
I dunno, maybe directly answering those comparisons is a bad way to have a conversation but just because people with -something our society almost universally despises- circumstances are invisible to us surely doesn't mean they don't exist as they prolly just won't talk about it because, after all, they are a part of -something our society almost universally despises-
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, I'm a straight man married to an actively bisexual woman who is the absolute love of my life (on the boards as Story Archer). She has a number of gay and bi-sexual friends which means I now have a number of gay and bi-sexual friends. To a fault none of them are activist or concerned about much more than getting through life the way we all are, and none of them consider gay marriage much of an issue (including two couples who have had marriage ceremonies themselves). I'm putting those details out there just to provide context for the question and what must be my own ignorance on the subject.
So, obviously, you've received a good amount of info on this topic now, and I appreciate that you've reached out to educate yourself.
That said, there are actually a lot of people in the LBGTQAetc community who are also less concerned about gay marriage, because there are bigger issues that don't receive as much attention. Here's an unorganized list:
-First of all, gay marriage seems to be the cause championed mostly by white and/or middle-class/wealthy people. And it is important, as an issue of inequality, but being able to get married is not the most important issue of inequality facing the queer community.
-For instance, a disproportionately high amount of homeless youth are gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender. This is because of bigoted and abusive parents who these youth either flee from, or get kicked out of the house by. Interestingly (and this is pure correlation), the average age at which these youth come out is dropping as gay marriage acceptance across the country rises; the former means that kids are coming out while they're still minors with only their parent or guardian's roof, and homelessness among these youth has risen something like 40% in recent years.
-Gay, lesbian, bi, and especially trans individuals have a difficult time finding and keeping jobs due to homophobic and transphobic discrimination.
-This discrimination also leads to much higher rates of mental illness (especially depression) and suicide.
-Gender-nonconforming individuals especially face harassment, abuse, and violence from their families, schools, work, doctors, and police officers. Seriously, suicide attempt rates among transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals can be as high as 65%, and 69% of them have been homeless.
So, like, that's a couple of things we could probably be working on instead. Another fun fact: the percentage of gender-nonconforming, lesbian, gay, and bi people in the US are higher among racial minorities than white people. So while Cam and Mitchell on Modern Family can't get married (unless they had an episode where it became legal? I dunno), they're still wealthy white guys, which is a rarity in the queer community (even though that's one of the most common portrayal of non-heterosexual characters in media, especially television). Should they be able to get married? Yes. But should we as a society focus more on the issue that trans women of color are statistically the most likely people to be murdered in the US? I think so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Wiggz, apologies for entering this thread by taking a mocking swing at your beliefs. I'm kinda a d-bag when I first wake up before my morning cup of joe (actually, I am always a d-bag, being awake just helps me think clearer and channel my better nature=D)
But then I realized that most of the time I didn't know jack about those -something our society almost universally despises- issues and dismissing them out of hand might just be a case of me pulling the whole "that's not the social issue on the table right now, people with that issue can wait in the wings till we've fixed this current mess."
Why is that a problem? Wants are unlimited, resources are limited. And chasing three rabbits at once is an easy way to guarantee you'll catch none.
From a political point of view, if you agitate for too much change at once, you'll almost certainly not get any of it, since you'll draw opposition from groups opposed to part of what you want. That's one of the big problems with the modern Libertarian movements -- the bathwater to baby ratio in their proposals is way too high low for the vast majority of voters, which is why they rarely draw higher than "error, margin of" in the voting booth.
The standard Libertarian response to gay marriage, "get the government out of the marriage business," for example, simply will not happen. Not in 2014, and probably not for at least twenty years, if that. If nothing else, it would take more than 20 years to re-write all the various laws that impact or depend upon marital status, laws that grant effects that people depend upon every day, and so you can't just throw those laws out. (What does a "community property state" mean when there's no longer a legally-recognized "marriage"?) During those twenty years, people will raise children, invest, get sick, die, and need/want the traditional protections granted by "marriage."
And they want those protections now, not twenty years from now. By allowing gays to marry, they can have those protections. By not allowing gays to marry until you've rewritten the marriage laws,.... well, I'm not sure that will ever happen, and there's a good chance I won't be alive if/when it does happen.
(Edited to fix embarrassing mistake.)
@Orfamay Quest
I hope you realize that the entire point of my post was to establish how we got here from there, not to justify the current viewpoint among those who use religion to justify their anti-gay beliefs. In fact quite the opposite, I made the point that we need to divorce ourselves from those antiquated views and recognize them in the context for what they were.
'Compassion didn't exist before the Christians discovered it'? That's not remotely what I said or even suggested - didn't the Jews, for instance, predate the Christians by a pretty wide historical margin? I'm not a Christian, so getting your back up in response to my 'pro-Christianity position' is just a waste of time and key strokes.
More babies for wars!
Mandatory divorce for infertile couples and the menopausal!
'Compassion didn't exist before the Christians discovered it'? That's not remotely what I said or even suggested - didn't the Jews, for instance, predate the Christians by a pretty wide historical margin?
So you're suggesting the Jews discovered compassion, instead?
Compassion is a human attribute, or more accurately a mammalian attribute (at least, and possibly avian as well) -- suggesting that (human) religion has any relationship to compassion is like suggesting mornings didn't exist before the alarm clock was discovered.
'Compassion didn't exist before the Christians discovered it'? That's not remotely what I said or even suggested - didn't the Jews, for instance, predate the Christians by a pretty wide historical margin?
So you're suggesting the Jews discovered compassion, instead?
Compassion is a human attribute, or more accurately a mammalian attribute (at least, and possibly avian as well) -- suggesting that (human) religion has any relationship to compassion is like suggesting mornings didn't exist before the alarm clock was discovered.
I think you may be confusing instinctive behavior necessary for survival with existential selflessness, where one deliberately gives of themselves to their own detriment for the welfare of others. One is evolutionarily hard-wired and is done for the inherently selfish desire to exist and thrive, as an individual or as a species... while the other is spiritual (and in many cases cultural), an actual sacrifice performed for the betterment of one at the expense of the other. Its a fine distinction for some, I'll admit, but consider this - if compassion and self-sacrifice is an inherently mammalian trait, where did all these mammalian 'bigots' come from?
Don't marginalize those whom have lived lives of compassion and sacrifice for others by suggesting that its no more than an ape, or a housecat or a toucan might do.
I think you may be confusing instinctive behavior necessary for survival with existential selflessness, where one deliberately gives of themselves to their own detriment for the welfare of others. One is evolutionarily hard-wired and is done for the inherently selfish desire to exist and thrive, as an individual or as a species... while the other is spiritual (and in many cases cultural), an actual sacrifice performed for the betterment of one at the expense of the other. Its a fine distinction for some, I'll admit, but consider this - if compassion and self-sacrifice is an inherently mammalian trait, where did all these mammalian 'bigots' come from?
In-group/out-group distinction, which in turn is generally related to kin-selection since most in-groups until recently were genetically more closely related than the out-group. This, in turn, gets modified since humans have a much larger ability to override instinct via culture than most other mammals.
But all human cultures make the in-group/out-group distinction, where membership in the relevant groups is learned (e.g., is inherited memetically), and generally practice higher degrees of compassion, &c. within the group.
@ Orfamay & TheJeff Ah, to clarify I was talking strictly about my personal behavior in relating to these topics of conversation, not suggesting a wide movement be launched and I understand that when used in conversation the comparison is most often used as a deceptive slippery slope argument.
*shrug* I am just trying to keep in mind that the invisible in our society can suffer greatly too and that I find it a bad idea for me personally to hand waive their existence away as meaningless.