homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » GLBT is a facade (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: GLBT is a facade
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Hmmmm. Let me change that last statement. I haven't so far posted any such threads or made any such claims.

(I've learned from experience that whenever I make such bald statements I'm soon to do exactly the very thing I claim "never" to do! Truly - it never fails.

So let me nip that whole thing in the bud right now....)

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Curious Kitten
Shipmate
# 11953

 - Posted      Profile for Curious Kitten     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not. And that's where the litigation will force the change, one case at a time; one victory at a time. GLBTs can cohabit in the modern world (USA and the "West"); it isn't easy for them, still, but the climate of change is already well under way - the momentum is still building. We don't require specially recognized minority groups: legally recognized minorities are a huge step in the wrong direction. (that's actually a different subject)

This is a pond difference but when I was a secondary school section 28 was still a valid piece of law as a result gay safe sex isn't taught as part of sex ed and support for victims of homophobic bullying was severly limited depending on the LEA and school's interpertation of section 28. The laws are not equal and protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation should be a right for every human being.

Curious Kitten

--------------------
Happiness is not having what we want but wanting what we have.

Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Kitten:
This is a pond difference but when I was a secondary school section 28 was still a valid piece of law as a result gay safe sex isn't taught as part of sex ed and support for victims of homophobic bullying was severly limited depending on the LEA and school's interpertation of section 28. The laws are not equal and protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation should be a right for every human being.

Curious Kitten

It's not that much of a Pond difference. The U.S. equivalent is abstinence-only sex "education", which at least promotes equality insofar as neither gay nor straight safe sex is taught. Of course, when the core principles of the abstinence-only program ("don't have sex until marriage") are coupled with the legal realities in most U.S. states ("same-sex couples can't be married"), it does logically demand a lifelong chastity of homosexuals that it doesn't require of heterosexuals.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[qb] "You" are not being well-served by the Media in your cause.

Actually, we have quite well served by the media. Polls showing approval of of gay relationships and support for gay marriage has been on a trend up for 20 years.

Over the past decade gay marriage became law in Canada, parts of Europe, several U.S. states, parts of Mexico, South Africa and Argentina, Civil unions were implemented in the UK, New Zealand, parts of Latin America and U.S. states.

Support for gay relationships is increasing in most of the mainline Protestant denominations and amongst the Roman Catholic Church laity.

And for all the debauchery at gay pride parades, the major politicians always show up and give their support and these parades are carried on more and more TV channels.

Heck, even the Republicans are realizing this is a losing issue.

So I think the parades and media have served us quite well.

[ 13. October 2010, 18:23: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That the GLBT component of society gets understood via the Media is only to be expected.

Baloney. "Gets understood via the Media?" By whom, pray tell? I am a member of society. I get my understandings of the "GLBT component" through my relatives, friends and acquaintances and their discussions of their own lives, hopes, tribulations, and experiences. I rarely see ANY depictions of GLBT people on the media (which may be a problem in and of itself), extreme or otherwise.

Maybe you ought to switch to a different channel. Or get out more.

Last I heard, sexual minorities constitute about 10% of society. If you know 100 people, 10 of them (statistically speaking) belong to a sexual minority. No media are needed to form an understanding; we can talk to folks we already know.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And the Media does not serve up the mundane masses, only the exceptional, sensationalized minority: the very group, in this case, that pisses off the "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

What are you talking about? You seem to envision a society in which we've all been sorted into separate, closed boxes, with all our info about each other being beamed at us through TV and computer screens.

The "GLBT component", as you call them, are the ordinary, average sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, mothers and fathers, and occasionally also the wives and husbands, of mundane masses of ordinary, average heterosexuals. We know each other. We're related to each other. We work together. We belong to the same clubs, play sports on the same teams, drink at the same bars, attend the same meetings.

Beyond this, I call bullshit on your terminology, your tactics, and your true purposes here.

Point one: In your OP, deliberately introduced in Dead Horses, you mention general "sexual immorality" by name twice. Of the examples you offer, you mention pedophilia once and make reference to GLBT people six times. You mention society's "duty" to impose "limits" on GLBT people, but fail to hint at any limits for anybody else. You make no mention at all of hetero promiscuity or infidelity.

Incidentally, that "cesspool of porn" that is the Internet? You might be interested to know that I have literally NEVER, despite spending substantial time at my computer, seen anything pornographic on my screen. Risque? Okay, yeah. Porn? No. I manage this astonishing feat of cesspool avoidance by NOT SEARCHING FOR OR CLICKING ON LINKS LIKELY TO LEAD TO PORNOGRAPHY. I'll bet, with a little practice, you could manage this too.

Point two: a couple of phrases:

"pushing sexual immorality"

"a push to break down the barriers to sexual excess"

There can't be "pushing" or a "push" without a "pusher."

Come on, get it out on the table. Who's the pusher? Why are they "pushing" this? Who are you accusing, and of what?

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The best march I ever went to was the one in 1994 in New York, on the 25th Anniversary of the Stonewall uprising. (And yes, it was called a "march.") It was an international event, and it was spectacular!

Literally hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of people came from all over the world; the whole city was gay that weekend.

I personally have a much deeper suspicion of the media than Dan apparently does. It can help at times - but it has definitely hurt at times. I think it much more likely that acceptance has come from the gay mass exodus from the closet over the past 40 years, as Apocalpso hints.

But then, the media used always to show (only) the most outrageous things from Gay Pride on the news; they've stopped doing this in the past few years as it's become kind of a non-story (which is why I'm suspicious, actually - who can trust that approach at all?). It's probably still a big story in some places, though, so I bet they're still up to their old tricks there....

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: e "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

What on earth is a 'hard-wired gay'?

As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

Merlin, you are repeating your ignorant rant. Why not slow down and answer the questions we are putting to you? like the above?

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Curious Kitten:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not. And that's where the litigation will force the change, one case at a time; one victory at a time. GLBTs can cohabit in the modern world (USA and the "West"); it isn't easy for them, still, but the climate of change is already well under way - the momentum is still building. We don't require specially recognized minority groups: legally recognized minorities are a huge step in the wrong direction. (that's actually a different subject)

This is a pond difference but when I was a secondary school section 28 was still a valid piece of law as a result gay safe sex isn't taught as part of sex ed and support for victims of homophobic bullying was severly limited depending on the LEA and school's interpertation of section 28. The laws are not equal and protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation should be a right for every human being.

Curious Kitten

I was teaching Sex Ed. all the way through the time Section 28 was law. It forbade local authorities, not schools.

We taught ABOUT gay sex and certainly about safer sex.

All bullying was dealt with if it came to light. Admittedly, some colleagues weren't clued up about homophobic bullying but they tended to be the ones who weren't clued up about anything.

[ 13. October 2010, 18:49: Message edited by: leo ]

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The media does sensationalize the parade.

You'll see far more drag queens and grinding muscle boys than the "boring" church groups, social service agencies, university support groups and the gay businesses that probably account for 80% of the parade's participants, but then you'll also see politicians like the city council, mayor, congressional delegation (and at least here in NY) governor and Senators.

The media is the media. It's going to focus on the most outrageous aspects of any event, but the parade is mostly average people quietly doing positive things who come out for a little recognition once a year. If it wasn't so hot and crowded, I'd probably still go. But these days I'm content to watch it on TV with a beer in my hand.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Missed the edit window.

"You'll see far more drag queens and grinding muscle boys"

should be:

"You'll see far more drag queens and grinding muscle boys on TV"

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Curious Kitten
Shipmate
# 11953

 - Posted      Profile for Curious Kitten     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originaly posted by leo

All bullying was dealt with if it came to light. Admittedly, some colleagues weren't clued up about homophobic bullying but they tended to be the ones who weren't clued up about anything.

leo, you're talking from the point of view of a teacher who was aware of the issues. Other schools did not have that support and other LEAs really did suggest that nothing should be done. In my school the homophobic bullying was so bad that we had Year 10 students reading the Human Rights Act to try to persuade teachers they really did have to intervene on Human Rights grounds.

Curious Kitten

[ 13. October 2010, 21:34: Message edited by: Curious Kitten ]

--------------------
Happiness is not having what we want but wanting what we have.

Posts: 107 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Merlin, you are repeating your ignorant rant. Why not slow down and answer the questions we are putting to you? like the above?

Because he's not interested in having a intelligent dialog. He wishes to make provocative and unsubstantiated claims about a group of people he clearly has no familiarity with. He wants to flaunt his heterosexual superiority. I don't know why.

Pish. Not worth the electrical current through the brain cells.

Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
To be clear: my "rant" is focused only on sexual immorality: which I assert is the same no matter what your gender attraction happens to be.

Then why did you start this thread in Dead Horses?

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
If it wasn't so hot and crowded, I'd probably still go. But these days I'm content to watch it on TV with a beer in my hand.

Aw come one, Dan. Now that we've actually met, you have to join us at Pride next year! it'll be fun!

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Likewise, it is a fallacy (slippery slope) to assume that, as homosexual relationships gradually gain acceptance among the general population, other kinds of sexual practices, currently considered unacceptable, will also gradually gain acceptance.

erm...actually this may be true. In Britain now that the age of consent has been reduced to 16 through the highly publicised campaignings of people like Peter Tatchell, we are having to listen to his assertion that the age of consent should lowered to 14. He says that it's because he wants 14 year olds to be free to have sex with each other, but what he doesn't realise is that the age of consent is not there to let same age people have sex, it's to stop older people touching younger ones - that's the reason The Salvation Army got the heterosexual age of consent raised to 16 in the first place!

If the age of consent is lowered to 14 it will be the older guys who will have most to 'gain' I suspect.

Rather ironic really seeing that Tatchell is the man who wanted to arrest Pope Benny for not doing anything about 'paedophile priests'.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
A few guys like Tatchell wanting to lower the age of consent does not constitute widespread social acceptance. I suspect he and his ilk (and any 14-y.o.contingent in favor) will be out-shouted by the parents of 14-y.o.s.

Though where I live, by age 14 far too many kids have "concented" already.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Likewise, it is a fallacy (slippery slope) to assume that, as homosexual relationships gradually gain acceptance among the general population, other kinds of sexual practices, currently considered unacceptable, will also gradually gain acceptance.

erm...actually this may be true. In Britain now that the age of consent has been reduced to 16 through the highly publicised campaignings of people like Peter Tatchell, we are having to listen to his assertion that the age of consent should lowered to 14.
"Assertion" is a strange word to use for someone expressing his opinion, and the rest of your post is similarly odd.

Tatchell (along with many other people) has long been a campaigner for a general reduction in the age of consent to 14, in line with much of Europe - this isn't some sort of twisted salami tactic to allow him to sleep with 3yos, and your reference to paedophiles is both irrelevant and thoroughly sickening. In fact, when the subject comes up, it's almost invariably with the condition that people over a certain age (usually 18 or 21) would still be committing an offence if they slept with someone under the age of 16, which blows your idea of a Dirty Old Man's Chartet out of the water.

Slippery Slope isn't always a formal logical fallacy, but unless you can provide evidence of a necessary progression from A to B to C, it remains a weak and flawed argument.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
We start out with an incoherent rant about GLBT people being intrinsically sexually immoral and we proceed swiftly to the pedophile insinuation.

Par for the course.

Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Tatchell aside, I very much doubt that the vast majority of gay people want the age of consent lowering any further. And of course there are straight people who want the hetero age lowered, but one loud-mouthed straight person who thinks that sex with 14-year-old (or 12, or 10) girls should be legal isn't misrepresented as a mass movement among heterosexuals. This is, however, symptomatic of the problems of belonging to a minority group: you get criticised for what one person says because it's assumed that that is what the group as a whole, and everyone in it, wants.

For me the most important thing is that the age of consent is equal for gay and straight people. I think 16 is ok; I'd be happy with 17 or 18 provided that it was equal, because having different ages signifies that one is better than the other. It's a bit like allowing men to vote at one age and women having to be older.

Leo: I appreciate that you may have been a clued up teacher. Lots of teachers aren't or weren't. Even though section 28 didn't apply to schools but to LEAs, many schools avoided discussing sexuality because teachers didn't really understand the legislation so played it safe. I remember in about 1996 in a secondary school class my biology teacher was asked a perfectly sensible question about safer gay sex in a sex ed class, and said that she couldn't answer any questions on gay sex because of section 28, and quickly changed the subject. It also seemed that other teachers thought they could be as nasty about homosexuality as they liked because section 28 said so. I remember a lengthy and completely unprovoked tirade from a maths teacher about Pythagoras' sexuality at the start of a lesson about his theorem!

--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142

 - Posted      Profile for amber.   Email amber.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yup, I too get fed up with the 'all gays are promiscuous/gays are paeophiles/gays are all out to prove some media point' rubbish.

Here I am, part of the LGBT community.

Rather than try to sleep with every woman that moves, I'm in one long term happy monogamous relationship, just like just about every other person on the LGBT community I know.

Rather than being a predator, I'm a school Governor with responsibility for child protection and safeguarding issues, a national level campaigner for child safety in domestic violence situations, and a co-writer of national reports on how to safeguard children from harm.
I know plenty of LGBT parents who are splendid, and plenty who work with children in utterly safe and normal ways, just as you would expect any other 'category' of person to do.

As for the gay 'scene', I have friends who go to gay pride events, and friends who don't, and none of them are aggressively awful about it.

So there. [Biased]

Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

The "facade" is that "Gay Pride" is only about gaining full acceptance by the heterosexual "Moral Majority", i.e. getting equality under the laws. In fact, if they can pull this off, the GLBT will get special-mention laws passed wherever they can. And those special exceptions (protections) are a form of reverse discrimination against the majority in society. This is very, very bad: because if successful, the GLBT will have opened the door to any and sundry other special groups to get similarly "special" (exclusive) laws passed to recognize and protect themselves.

I don't agree with special protection laws, but I'm not aware that gay people actually want any. Do you have any specific examples to hand that would support this part of your argument?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

Leo: I appreciate that you may have been a clued up teacher. Lots of teachers aren't or weren't. Even though section 28 didn't apply to schools but to LEAs, many schools avoided discussing sexuality because teachers didn't really understand the legislation so played it safe. I remember in about 1996 in a secondary school class my biology teacher was asked a perfectly sensible question about safer gay sex in a sex ed class, and said that she couldn't answer any questions on gay sex because of section 28, and quickly changed the subject. It also seemed that other teachers thought they could be as nasty about homosexuality as they liked because section 28 said so. I remember a lengthy and completely unprovoked tirade from a maths teacher about Pythagoras' sexuality at the start of a lesson about his theorem!

My understanding is that Department of Education guidance was quite clear on this point. If a teacher was not able to follow, or was unaware of, clear DofE guidance, then that would seem to be bad teaching rather than the fault of that specific law.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Perhaps these weren't the intended consequences of Section 28 (though tbh I'm really not sure what it was supposed to achieve) but real life consequences like these were very widespread and clearly there was no political will to change that. Another example: a friend who reported homophobic bullying to teachers was told that they couldn't do anything about it because of Section 28 and that she should report it as racist bullying instead (it wasn't) so that they could.

--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
"Assertion" is a strange word to use for someone expressing his opinion,

[Confused] That's what assertion means, isn't it? To state something you believe is true.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You're married, according to your website; was that an effort on your part to obtain "special rights"?

Why is it so hard to believe that gay couples simply want to cease being "strangers before the law"? You and your wife and family are recognized as related; why shouldn't gay families be accorded the same?

And please give some examples of what you think will happen at the end of this "slippery slope"; it's pretty hard to have a discussion about abstractions.

The "right to be married" is not in fact an inalienable right at all. Anything licensed is not a right, it is a privilege. That GLBTs are denied that privilege is not a reason to push for special legislation regarding themselves as some kind of legally recognized minority group. This is what most of the push for "gay marriage" is shooting for.

The chasm lying between the heterosexual majority and the GLBT advocacy is the meaning of "marriage" in the USA. (Ironically, it was a SCOTUS decision in the late 19th century, dealing with polygamous Mormons, which drove the Fed definition of "marriage" to be one man and one woman.) The hardliner GLBTs who insist that the word "marriage" be redefined to include them, are the ones causing most of the trouble now. "Civil union", et al. the other euphemisms for the legal contract that marriage is to heterosexuals, is not acceptable (good enough) for the hardliners. They want it all: the sentiments of the majority be damned.

If they win everything that they want, the "slippery slope" is not upward for more recognition of basic civil rights; it is an open door to every other "special minority" group to try for their own special legislation. That includes pedophiles, polygamists, and virtually any definition of "family unit" you care to imagine.

So either "marriage" means what it does, or we can just chuck the word out of the legalese altogether and substitute generic terms in its place.

There's no reason why contracts between two or more people can't be entered into that provide every advantage and obligation that "marriage" does. Any remissness in the laws can be addressed and eradicated through admitted terminology. And all of this can be done without altering a single word in the present marriage laws between "one man and one woman" (thus preserving the definition of "marriage" legally for the enormous majority).

But that isn't good enough for the hardliner GLBTs; or their counterparts, the morally outraged religious fundies who want to push all the GLBTs back into their closet and away from polite society.

The hardliners of both polar opposites need to be denied. Neither extreme will answer the needs of the "general welfare". The marriage laws need not be changed. And the GLBTs, et al. those advocating for equal recognition under the laws, require the same legal protections and obligations that married people and their families already possess....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

The hardliners of both polar opposites need to be denied. Neither extreme will answer the needs of the "general welfare". The marriage laws need not be changed. And the GLBTs, et al. those advocating for equal recognition under the laws, require the same legal protections and obligations that married people and their families already possess....

How on earth does wanting equal rights (nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary, nothing just for us - just equality) make one a hardliner? Of course we want to be treated equally before the law. Doesn't everyone? If a legislature announced a tax-cut on savings or some similar privilege, but decided not to offer it to people who were left-handed or red-headed or something, would those who objected be a 'hard-liner'?

I don't see how you get from 'equal rights' to 'special treatment', really I don't.

[ 14. October 2010, 16:54: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For the record: Gay people didn't ask to be singled out as a special group and treated differently based on who we find attractive. Heterosexuals have done that for millenia. All gay people want is legal protections to ensure that doesn't continue.

Historically, looking at most societal approaches to homosexuality and its offshoots, we nevertheless find that "marriage" remains a uniquely heterosexual institution. All and sundry other sexual activities were separate from marriage. Homosexuals had a duty to their society to marry and breed. That was the legally recognized union and line of inheritance. All other sexuality was for play only. If the "favorite" was granted too much favor and the power that went with it (e.g. England's Ed II and his Gascon favorite Piers Gaveston), the social order (legality) was threatened and the outcome was usually tragic.

I don't think that there are many in the USA by now who are prepared to fight the GLBT advocacy back into the closet. Most of the heterosexual majority are willing to allow any and all consenting adults to engage in whatsoever legal contracts with each other that they choose; and to facilitate such contracts so that there is no discrimination based on comparisons to heterosexual, monogamous marriage....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous!

Is this more or less ludicrous than "religious rights", identifying a group of human beings based solely on their worship practices?
Religious rights apply to everyone. But claims to individual expression can be, and are, denied: e.g. the Muslim woman in Florida being denied her right to have her driver's license picture taken in full burka (to do otherwise would be the ultimate Pandora's Box; allowing literally infinite claims to "religious expression"). So using sexual expressions/attractions as a basis for a definition of "legally recognized minority", cannot be allowed. We The People must attend to the dichotomies already won by special interest advocacy groups: the Law needs to be made more consistent, not less!...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
The "right to be married" is not in fact an inalienable right at all. Anything licensed is not a right, it is a privilege. That GLBTs are denied that privilege is not a reason to push for special legislation regarding themselves as some kind of legally recognized minority group. This is what most of the push for "gay marriage" is shooting for.
The question then is whether or not the difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship warrants a different legal standing before the law. Note, that I said "legal". The movement towards legal same-sex marriage will not affect a whiff of whether or not a religious community chooses to bless a same-sex relationship. Mormons, Roman Catholics, and other conservative denominations are free to say no if they do not agree in affirming same-sex marriage.

Legally, the courts have come around to say that there is no difference between a same-sex and a different-sex relationship that should necessitate different treatment under the law. Procreation is no longer taken as the defacto definition of a heterosexual relationship. Infertile couples and couples where the wife is past the age of childbearing, are legally married everyday with nary an objection.

Here in Canada, the sky hasn't fallen since same-sex marriage was legalized. My heterosexual couples have all gotten married being unaffected by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Roman Catholic priests hasn't been thrown in prison for exercising their conscience in denying couples a Catholic wedding if it contradicts their beliefs.

Incidentally, my only complaint like some of my other 20 something heterosexual girlfriends is that I can't find a good man. The good ones are either taken or not of my sexual orientation. [Devil]

[ 14. October 2010, 17:12: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: e "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

What on earth is a 'hard-wired gay'?

As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

A homosexual man not remotely bisexual is "hard-wired gay". This is far more common with men than women homosexuals. The 30 year-old who was recently tortured by the gang in NY is probably yet another of these: who approach younger men/boys for casual sex. They make the News. The more common gays and lesbians do not even cause a ripple, and fit into the claims predominating on this and other GLBT threads: that they want a meaningful, lasting relationship with one loved person.

Your assertions that GLBTs cannot inherit or even visit in hospitals, or be granted the decency of being informed of funerals, etc., is not the reality as far as the laws, as written, are concerned. But rather, these kinds of treatments, as transmitted through the media (and GLBT propaganda), are examples of bigots behaving as such. The civil courts can be, and are, used to address all such discrimination.

And as I said, the laws where the language is remiss can be altered (as little as required) to provide for ANY consenting adult contracts, vis-a-vis defining (effectively) "next of kin", inheritance or any other advantage and obligation that heterosexual marriage contracts do....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For the record: Gay people didn't ask to be singled out as a special group and treated differently based on who we find attractive. Heterosexuals have done that for millenia. All gay people want is legal protections to ensure that doesn't continue.

Historically, looking at most societal approaches to homosexuality and its offshoots, we nevertheless find that "marriage" remains a uniquely heterosexual institution.
What on earth is an homosexual 'offshoot'?


(and how does one get one, I'm intrigued! [Two face]

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Don't just be flippant; show some examples of that you mean. What other moral and immoral groups are there? If you come up with "threesomes" as an okay expression of fidelity to "The Other", then we part ways on irreconcilable differences in definition of "sexual morality".

Merlin - you seem to me to be failing utterly to explain whatever point it is that you are trying to make. At one point you seem to be saying that straight/gay is a meaningless distinction, and monogamy vs promiscuity is what counts, and the next minute you appear to be saying that gays should be allowed legal recognition of monogamous relationships in the way that straights are.

Is your point essentially that you distrust the 'gay rights' movement because it includes BOTH moralists who are seeking to place faithful gay relationship into a moral context AND immoralists who would destroy the whole concept of sexual morality altogether?

Or is it that human sexual behaviour requires a moral framework for society to function, and that the moral framework we have as a 'given' is to be treated respectfully, because it would be difficult or impossible to vary it to include, say, gay marriage, without making sexual behaviour essentially a matter of personal free choice and legitimising such things as group sex, polyamory, pornography and exploitative sex, which ought to be discouraged? That it is, basically, better to have a traditional moral code which more-or-less works, than to be liberal about sexual morality and find that we have no basis for condemning what may be formally consensual, but which all decent people would say is immoral?

Or are you saying something else?

Very good. I am making all of those points. And it is a complex subject!

Yes to: society cannot function or long survive if sexual immorality becomes rampant. That vice feeds on itself and destroys every definition of what "consent" means to us even today. Many people don't appreciate how dangerous such license can be and has been in history. Take away our form of gov't (that champions individual civil rights), and replace it with any of the old, hierarchical forms (tyrannies), and you have only the powerful few and their (sex) slaves.

So individual repugnance (no matter what it is based on, religion, biology, upbringing, etc.) is no basis for defining what is moral conduct, in sex or anything else. Justice is the only basis for defining morality. And consenting adults playing with sex is their "affair" and not the concern of gov't or even society. This is true in simple terms of stating fact, but the reality is that people who screw stupidly and indiscriminately cause a lot of trouble for the rest of us. So "morality" can be said to be best defined as monogamous fidelity to "The Other" and none else. This must apply to ALL and sundry without exception. Any other definition of morality is Pandora's Box losing its lid.

In the USA we are deeply concerned to protect individual rights, especially of the weaker persons in society, women and children. The GLBT advocacy can be turned to the advantage of other forms of sexual expression, to the danger of women and children.

Yet gov't can be granted too much licence to interfere too. We cannot allow gov't in any degree to get into the private affairs of consenting adults, where their decisions about sex affect no one and nothing but themselves. (Some people think that legalizing everything is the answer, then deal with the fallout, i.e. the actual criminal behavior that results from excess, e.g. like drunk driving accidents. Obviously a middle ground approach is best; some things and activities must remain illegal, to keep the cost to society as a whole from becoming inimical and unsupportable....)

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "right to be married" is not in fact an inalienable right at all. Anything licensed is not a right, it is a privilege.

Err...
Loving v Virgina would seem to disagree.

quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
iGeek

Number of the Feast
# 777

 - Posted      Profile for iGeek   Author's homepage   Email iGeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Pardon the double post.

We've moved on from insinuation of pedophilia to assault on the institution of marriage.

Boy this journey looks familiar.


*yawn*

Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

This is at the heart of the matter for me. A gay couple should be able to be 100% each other's 'next of kin' under the law. Nothing else could be called equal rights - which is why I reckon there is a way to go in many parts of the world.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
A homosexual man not remotely bisexual is "hard-wired gay". This is far more common with men than women homosexuals. The 30 year-old who was recently tortured by the gang in NY is probably yet another of these: who approach younger men/boys for casual sex. They make the News. ''''Your assertions that GLBTs cannot inherit or even visit in hospitals, or be granted the decency of being informed of funerals, etc., is not the reality as far as the laws, as written, are concerned. But rather, these kinds of treatments, as transmitted through the media (and GLBT propaganda), are examples of bigots behaving as such. The civil courts can be, and are, used to address all such discrimination.

In the first bit, you are equating paedophiles with gay men. That is despicable and ignorant.

In the 2nd bit, you are wrong. I could give chapter and verse on three people who have been denied such rights in this city alone during the past ten years - but I won't because of pastoral confidentiality.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
]A homosexual man not remotely bisexual is "hard-wired gay". This is far more common with men than women homosexuals. The 30 year-old who was recently tortured by the gang in NY is probably yet another of these: who approach younger men/boys for casual sex.
I'm reminded of what happened a century ago when racists justified lynching African American men by arguing that they posed a threat to white women.

The same line of thinking applies here. No one likes openly hating a minority. So instead, the trick is to demonize the minority, to instill fear among people that the minority is out to destroy everything that is good and wholesome in society. Once the people are throughly gripped by fear, then it is easy to justify all sorts of violence and hatred against them.

All people deserve to be free from violence, hatred, and discrimination. How exactly are you harmed by the same-sex couple next door getting married? Are you being prevented from marrying a member of the opposite sex? Are your religious leaders being thrown in prison for acting according to conscience?

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The chasm lying between the heterosexual majority and the GLBT advocacy is the meaning of "marriage" in the USA. (Ironically, it was a SCOTUS decision in the late 19th century, dealing with polygamous Mormons, which drove the Fed definition of "marriage" to be one man and one woman.) The hardliner GLBTs who insist that the word "marriage" be redefined to include them, are the ones causing most of the trouble now. "Civil union", et al. the other euphemisms for the legal contract that marriage is to heterosexuals, is not acceptable (good enough) for the hardliners. They want it all: the sentiments of the majority be damned.

Ah. So we can have exactly the same thing as you so long as we use a euphemism for it???

I'm a legislative drafter. One of the fundamental rules we have is that if you mean the same thing, use the same word. Having two different words or expressions in a law that actually mean exactly the same thing is fundamentally poor law-making.

If you want to have one word for the religious union and a different word for the contractual relationship formally recognised by law, then that would make sense. But so long as the word in the laws is 'marriage', then I'm going to keep arguing for 'gay marriage'. If the word in the laws changes to 'civil union', then I'll be happy to have a 'civil union' until such time as there's a church that will allow me a religious 'marriage'.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I really thought this might have a chance at being a reasonable discussion.

I see now I was wrong. Merlin, you are operating inside your own head, and declaring all your fearful fantasies to the world as facts. But it really does seem that you don't know any facts; you haven't once posted a link or any sort of support for what you're saying here. I've actually had this same "discussion" - hysteria over "gay rights" justified by inflammatory (and never documented) accusations of pedophilia and the imagined total destruction of society - thousands of times over the past decade or two. I'm a little bit surprised to hear it again at this late date, but I guess there will be stragglers....

The world has changed, MtM. "Gay marriage" - which is really only "marriage" in fact - is now supported by between 37 and 42 percent of Americans:

quote:
American support for same-sex marriage is rising steadily - and conservative Protestants seem to be the last religious group holding out against it, a large new poll suggests.

Nearly six out of 10 white evangelicals were against gay marriage, and just over five out of 10 black Protestants opposed it, the Public Religion Research Institute announced Wednesday.

But among Catholics and members of so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, more people favored gay marriage than opposed it.

People not affiliated with any religion back gay marriage by a 4-to-1 ratio, the 2010 American Values Survey found.

Among all Americans, backing for allowing gay and lesbian marriages rose from 29 percent in 2008 to 37 percent today.

And a majority of young people back gay marriage, their survey found - 52 percent of 18-29 year-olds are in favor, while another 23 percent support civil unions.

The results mirror similar findings from another recent survey.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, another Washington think tank, found last week that 42 percent of Americans favored gay marriage, while 48 percent opposed it.

It was the first time in the 15-year history of the Pew Forum asking the question that opposition to gay marriage fell below 50 percent, the think tank said.

So there's no "outraged majority" out there at all, in fact.

Anyway, you're simply and demonstrably wrong about most of what you're saying here - see Igeek's "Loving v. Virginia" quote for more - so there's not much point in bothering any longer. I mean, the more you write, the bigger the hole you're digging for yourself, so it all works out well for us in the end - but it's really "not on" to be making these sorts of accusations against people without any sort of evidence or even the remotest knowledge of the topic. Yuck.

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
One reason for the increase of support for same-sex marriage is that more and more people are coming out of the closet. The gay community is like every other community: we have every sort of person imaginable. So the stereotypes and prejudices that people originally have melt away when they meet an actual LGBT person.

The analogy I was thinking this morning is with the female suffrage movement. The people opposed to granting the vote to women resorted to stereotypes about women that frankly is laughed at today: women being less intelligent and more passive than men. When people realized that the only arguments against giving the right to vote to women were these flawed prejudices, the opposition melted away.

That will happen with gay rights. There will always be people trapped in their own prejudices who will never accept LGBT people as full human beings. But the majority of people are coming around to the fact that to really love and respect others, they must be prepared to leave their prejudices and presuppositions.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The analogy I was thinking this morning is with the female suffrage movement. The people opposed to granting the vote to women resorted to stereotypes about women that frankly is laughed at today: women being less intelligent and more passive than men. When people realized that the only arguments against giving the right to vote to women were these flawed prejudices, the opposition melted away.

Opposition to women's suffrage in the U.S. (I can't speak about where you're from) didn't simply melt away; the ratification of the 19th Amendment passed in Tennessee by just one vote, and the whole thing was challenged in court just two years later. The successful arguments in favor of women's suffrage depended upon stereotypes of women; it was argued that women should be enfranchised so that their very different values and contributions would have a positive effect upon the public sphere.

Edited to add: the stereotypes that women are more passive and less intelligent than men are unfortunately not simply historical relics, either.

[ 14. October 2010, 21:36: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
testbear
Shipmate
# 4602

 - Posted      Profile for testbear     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Most of the heterosexual majority are willing to allow any and all consenting adults to engage in whatsoever legal contracts with each other that they choose; and to facilitate such contracts so that there is no discrimination based on comparisons to heterosexual, monogamous marriage....

Merlin, you appear here to be asserting that the majority of Americans are happy to allow homosexual, committedly monogamous couples to enact a (legal) contract between them which affords exactly the same rights (etc) as a marriage contract does.

I assert the following (as has been mentioned by posters trained in American Law):

IF America establishes the legality of such a contract, it is legally exactly the same as a marriage contract, with the sole exception of the gender of the parties. ("one man and one woman")
AND
IF there are allowed two types of legal contract which are identical in every way except for the genders of the parties involved, then this difference in gender is not enough to distinguish the two types of contract as distinct.

As has been pointed out, IF this is true, how can you argue that the majority of Americans are happy with this, yet not happy with homosexual couples getting (legally) married?

Either you do not believe or accept the sentence I quoted of yours above, or you do not agree with my reasoning, or you accept that (given that the majority of Americans agree with the idea) homosexual couples should be allowed to be legally married.

Which is it?

--------------------
"If you really believe what you say you believe / you wouldn't be so damn reckless with the words you speak"

Posts: 127 | From: a town where you can't smell a thing | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Regarding the issue of separate legal contracts which grant the same rights as marriage as opposed to actual marriages, allow me to remind people that in America at least a greater mind than mine has ruled that:

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes to: society cannot function or long survive if sexual immorality becomes rampant. [...]

So individual repugnance (no matter what it is based on, religion, biology, upbringing, etc.) is no basis for defining what is moral conduct, in sex or anything else. [...]

In the USA we are deeply concerned to protect individual rights, especially of the weaker persons in society, women and children. [...]

Yet gov't can be granted too much licence to interfere too.

OK.

Given that the USA is also democratic, and has the Constitutional non-establishment of religion, your personal moral convictions about fidelity and exclusivity aren’t going to be the basis of any law. And you don’t appear to want them to be.

So are you saying that consent/harm reduction/personal freedom concerns define what the law should provide? Or something else? And why do those grounds justify the prohibition of gay marriage?

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
Back again: I was gone since yesterday with my wife on an outing.

I don't have the time to answer each and every question, or address every misconception or assertion about what I meant.

The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals. I pointed out with subsequent statements/responses, that the popularized media image of homosexuals (especially men) is one of licence and excess: yet heteros are no less libertine when they are immoral. (For some reason, my focusing on GLBT immorality caused the assertion that I am giving heterosexuals a pass.)

My purpose in pointing out the media-hyped immoral image of GLBTs was actually to show that I know where such an image comes from, and don't believe it: which was supposed to lead to the obvious conclusion that sexual morality is largely understood to be the same within both segments of society; and that everyone needs to agree on what sexual morality is in order to eliminate misunderstanding and acrimony. (I don't think I botched my point; I think some people on The Ship are understandably excitable on this topic and leap to conclusions about the intent of non GLBTs.)

When we allow that the same commitment to what amounts to a marriage defines morality, then there is no legal reason to make any distinction about the meaning of "infidelity".

The laws regarding homosexual "unions" are in need of more explicit interpretation, rather than much change. Where the old "one man and one woman" exclusivity is either in the wording or the local interpretation, civil court rulings need to push these dichotomies up the ladder till they reach the SCOTUS: because as heterosexual marriage is deemed universal throughout the USA, so too must the acceptance of all equal contracts of "marriage".

The word "marriage" is a battleground word. My personal feeling is that it ought to mean what it has always meant historically: which is why I mentioned the earlier, historical fact of homosexuality not being an allowed excuse for a man to shirk his duty to marry and beget children: "marriage" was never remotely associated with same-sex unions. And there is no reason why it should be redefined to apply to what it has never been legally applied. But, my personal feeling is not likely to win the day. And the universal contract between consenting adults, allowing the exact same privileges and legal obligations, will be defined by whatever term (likely "marriage") is finally resolved upon at the Fed level, applying to all the USA.

I don't post links to support what I have said, because, imho, it is irrefutably true in enough instances and places to qualify as "how things are".

Of course anecdotal exceptions to anything can be presented; e.g. the assertion that gays don't get visiting rights in hospitals, or count as "family" (next of kin if they've set up such a relationship via legal channels), etc., I have pointed out are examples of local prejudice, not how the laws can be and ought to be applied. Of course, a comeback points out that I am mistaken: and of course I can point out that I have never known personally of such prejudices, but only heard of them via the media. I have friends who work (and have worked) at hospitals: and I have yet to hear of a single such case of blatant prejudice against gays. It is in the interest of the hospital to benefit the patient as much as possible: to my perspective, any cretin forbidding visiting rights on the basis of being GLBT is a mythical creature! I am sure they must exist if "you" (collective) insist, but I have to take this on faith, since I have no experience with it, nor does anyone else I have known.

(And this is Utah, land of the Mormon fundamentalists; who just saw over 2,000 GLBT and friends - including two of my daughters - attend a silent protest last week outside LDS headquarters. If I haven't run across any examples of this media-hyped discrimination, then it must be very exceptional, and perpetrated by the homophobes I seem to have been associated with....)

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:

The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals. I pointed out with subsequent statements/responses, that the popularized media image of homosexuals (especially men) is one of licence and excess: yet heteros are no less libertine when they are immoral. (For some reason, my focusing on GLBT immorality caused the assertion that I am giving heterosexuals a pass.)

If you demand the same morality from both heterosexuals and homosexuals than you ought to support giving the same pastoral support and care to both.

Marriage, in addition to being a commitment between two people, is also a commitment by the whole community to support the relationship. I sometimes believe that we lose sight of that and assume couples are solely responsible for the wellbeing of their relationship.

With same-sex marriage, the community not only accepts a same-sex relationship but publicly declares that it will support that relationship until death.

quote:

My purpose in pointing out the media-hyped immoral image of GLBTs was actually to show that I know where such an image comes from, and don't believe it: which was supposed to lead to the obvious conclusion that sexual morality is largely understood to be the same within both segments of society; and that everyone needs to agree on what sexual morality is in order to eliminate misunderstanding and acrimony. (I don't think I botched my point; I think some people on The Ship are understandably excitable on this topic and leap to conclusions about the intent of non GLBTs.)

How exactly should LGBT people accept the same sexual morality that you propose if you refuse them the same treatment accorded to heterosexual couples? Without marriage, gay relationships will always be seen to be inferior to heterosexual relationships.

quote:
When we allow that the same commitment to what amounts to a marriage defines morality, then there is no legal reason to make any distinction about the meaning of "infidelity".
I don't follow. Faithfulness means to be faithful to one's partner. I don't see any difference if I'm making a pledge of fidelity to a man or a woman.

quote:

The word "marriage" is a battleground word. My personal feeling is that it ought to mean what it has always meant historically: which is why I mentioned the earlier, historical fact of homosexuality not being an allowed excuse for a man to shirk his duty to marry and beget children:

LOL. I don't know any straight man who pretends to be gay just to get out of marrying and having children.

We are beating around the bush. I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why marriage should be reserved to heterosexual couples. Saying that civil unions should be given to same-sex couples instead of marriages doesn't address the fundamental issue of denying gays to that institution.

Because there is nothing in marriage that can't conceivably apply to same-sex couples. Procreation is not an essential requirement for marriage because we marry infertile and post-menopausal couples all the time.

In short, why should we accept discrimination when there is no legitimate reason for it?

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back again: I was gone since yesterday with my wife on an outing.

I don't have the time to answer each and every question, or address every misconception or assertion about what I meant.

Yet you do have time to post lengthy screeds of your own devising.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Yet most responders have understod it otherwise. And again, this is in Dead Horses . . . why?

And again, I call bullshit.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

If you demand the same morality from both heterosexuals and homosexuals than you ought to support giving the same pastoral support and care to both.

You'll notice in that Desert News coverage of the GLBT protest last week, that the LDS response was one of acceptance and love. So they claim. I am not aware of any official policy of the LDS Church that marginalizes homosexuals because of their same-sex attraction; and the same requirements for repentance apply to heterosexuals who give into temptation and act upon their inclinations. Admitting that you are same-sex attraction tempted does not constitute a state of sin, anymore than admitting that you are tempted to get more than one wife, or sleep around.
quote:


Marriage, in addition to being a commitment between two people, is also a commitment by the whole community to support the relationship. I sometimes believe that we lose sight of that and assume couples are solely responsible for the wellbeing of their relationship.

Looks good in print, but I don't see how this altruistic concept has any real chance of being practically applied without the "Gov't" intruding to accomplish "the common good" of the community. In fact the couple in question IS solely responsible for the wellbeing of their relationship. The community interest should be no more than allowing said-couples to be as invisible to the community as a whole as possible and permissible. When a crisis occurs (for whatever cause), the community needs to treat every person equally in the areas of support and healing.
quote:


With same-sex marriage, the community not only accepts a same-sex relationship but publicly declares that it will support that relationship until death.

More fuzzy-feelkng altruism. I like the sound of it. But really, this world isn't made that way and never will be. Acceptance for hardwired heterosexuals will always be to ignore the same-sex relationships, i.e. put up with them: the same way we have to put up with a ton of differences we don't prefer: the color of the neighbor's house, how many children they have, the kind of noise emitting from their property, their religious beliefs, their cultural background (including the smells of their food wafting into your space), their pets, etc. ad nauseam. We live close physically to each other, and there are constant compromises we must make in order to do so. I don't support any other relationship entered into by my neighbors "till death". Those are their own concern. My duty as a citizen of the community is to defend justice and see that I don't commit any myself. Period.

quote:

How exactly should LGBT people accept the same sexual morality that you propose if you refuse them the same treatment accorded to heterosexual couples? Without marriage, gay relationships will always be seen to be inferior to heterosexual relationships.

I don't refuse them the same treatment. Where have I said that I'm for a double standard? I admitted my personal feelings about the word "marriage". And you are proving the point: that GLBTs will not stop till they get it too. Which, as I suspect, will piss off the heterosexual majority no-end. You want the same word, thinking that when you win it, that will somehow compel a change in attitude in the non-homosexual majority toward GLBTs. It won't. This is similar to the fracas over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque: the feelings are there and remain alive, no matter how much opponents of the protest against the religious center try and compel the protesters to see that they are only being bigots to feel the way that they do. In similar fashion, anti-homosexual feelings will not die out sooner because GLBT wins the word "marriage" to recognize their legalized unions.

quote:
When we allow that the same commitment to what amounts to a marriage defines morality, then there is no legal reason to make any distinction about the meaning of "infidelity".
quote:
I don't follow. Faithfulness means to be faithful to one's partner. I don't see any difference if I'm making a pledge of fidelity to a man or a woman.


And I don't see what your difficulty is: since you repeated in your own words what I meant. What is it you are not following?

quote:

The word "marriage" is a battleground word. My personal feeling is that it ought to mean what it has always meant historically: which is why I mentioned the earlier, historical fact of homosexuality not being an allowed excuse for a man to shirk his duty to marry and beget children:
quote:
LOL. I don't know any straight man who pretends to be gay just to get out of marrying and having children.


You must not be familiar with the historical presence of homosexuality in various societies, to make such an assertion about "pretending". The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel. When homosexuality was not only condoned by openly admitted/accepted (e.g. ancient Greece and Rome), men still were required to marry and beget children. There was no getting out of it be "pretending to be gay". What an idea! You have it backwards.
quote:


... I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why marriage should be reserved to heterosexual couples. Saying that civil unions should be given to same-sex couples instead of marriages doesn't address the fundamental issue of denying gays to that institution.

Because there is nothing in marriage that can't conceivably apply to same-sex couples. Procreation is not an essential requirement for marriage because we marry infertile and post-menopausal couples all the time.

In short, why should we accept discrimination when there is no legitimate reason for it?

As I said, popular feeling over the word "marriage" (and its historical, traditional meaning) is not something you can brush aside by claiming that without it "your" unions are somehow going to be discriminated as "second class". You want to get your equality legalized, and have your public acceptance "cake and eat it too". It won't happen by cramming "gay marriage" down heterosexual's throats.

Get your legally recognized "civil unions", enter into them as you desire, and vanish into the background like normal (as in vast majority) people do. Parading and protesting has to have an end, when the compromise has been achieved. Total victory will only make antagonists out of most of your neighbors. It will end in tears....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Yet you do have time to post lengthy screeds of your own devising.

Easier to restate than to address misconceptions and assertions in multiple posts by multiple posters.

quote:
The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals.
quote:
Yet most responders have understod it otherwise. And again, this is in Dead Horses . . . why?

And again, I call bullshit.


Most responders are GLBT with a chip and a ready response? So it seems to me. Sometimes you can't even tell when someone is agreeing with you.

The Purg mods would have relegated this thread to DH on the first page. Sooner or later the topic always gets DHed if started in Purg.

And I call out "horse shit". So what?

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
You'll notice in that Desert News coverage of the GLBT protest last week, that the LDS response was one of acceptance and love. So they claim. I am not aware of any official policy of the LDS Church that marginalizes homosexuals because of their same-sex attraction; and the same requirements for repentance apply to heterosexuals who give into temptation and act upon their inclinations. Admitting that you are same-sex attraction tempted does not constitute a state of sin, anymore than admitting that you are tempted to get more than one wife, or sleep around.

Shall I mention the fact that the LDS Church poured substantial contributions to the Prop 8 campaign in California?

No one cares if the LDS Church makes doctrinal decisions for its members. People do care when they get involved in the political process and attempt to enforce their morality on people who are not Mormon.

quote:

More fuzzy-feelkng altruism. I like the sound of it. But really, this world isn't made that way and never will be. Acceptance for hardwired heterosexuals will always be to ignore the same-sex relationships, i.e. put up with them: the same way we have to put up with a ton of differences we don't prefer: the color of the neighbor's house, how many children they have, the kind of noise emitting from their property, their religious beliefs, their cultural background (including the smells of their food wafting into your space), their pets, etc. ad nauseam. We live close physically to each other, and there are constant compromises we must make in order to do so. I don't support any other relationship entered into by my neighbors "till death". Those are their own concern. My duty as a citizen of the community is to defend justice and see that I don't commit any myself. Period.

Do you put up with your children's marriages? Of course the couple is primarily responsible for their relationship. The community's role is to:

1) Acknowledge and celebrate their relationship when they are present. "So and so is the spouse of so and so."
2) Do not undermine the relationship when it is going through tough times, ie: Do not start dating one spouse during the marriage.
3) Pray and support them in their continual happiness.

quote:

I don't refuse them the same treatment. Where have I said that I'm for a double standard? I admitted my personal feelings about the word "marriage". And you are proving the point: that GLBTs will not stop till they get it too. Which, as I suspect, will piss off the heterosexual majority no-end. You want the same word, thinking that when you win it, that will somehow compel a change in attitude in the non-homosexual majority toward GLBTs. It won't. This is similar to the fracas over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque: the feelings are there and remain alive, no matter how much opponents of the protest against the religious center try and compel the protesters to see that they are only being bigots to feel the way that they do. In similar fashion, anti-homosexual feelings will not die out sooner because GLBT wins the word "marriage" to recognize their legalized unions.

It has nothing to do with wanting a "word." You still have not addressed the central question. Why should marriage be limited to heterosexuals? You bring up civil unions, but my question is why should gay couples settle for a different institution other than marriage?

There are plenty of heterosexuals who are perfectly fine with allowing legal same-sex marriage. Are you implying that they are lesser heterosexuals because they refuse to pick up the banner and fight against LGBT people?

There is no significant difference between gay and straight couples. To deny marriage to gay couples makes about as much sense as denying marriage to blonds. We no longer make procreation the litmus test for marriage. As well, there are plenty of same-sex couples who adopt and raise children. In everything that matters, they are a family and thus entitled to the same rights of other families.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools