The Retreat
April 18, 2024, 03:59:41 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Retreat.

 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Gay Marriage

Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Gay Marriage  (Read 694 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« on: June 07, 2009, 12:31:52 pm »

Quote

- Churchgoing heterosexuals are told – sorry you can’t marry in church because you are divorced and if you marry outside of church you will be in a state of sin and won’t be able to receive communion.

- Women continue to be told – sorry you can’t become priests because only men can take a leadership and sacramental role.

- Jews in Israel are told sorry – you can’t marry your non-Jewish partner in this country, you’ll have to go to Cyprus.

- Aboriginals in Australia are told by tribal elders  – sorry you can’t marry that woman because she is the wrong “skin” for you.

Before we got married my fiancé took me to visit a Reform rabbi thinking we might get married in a synagogue even though I am not Jewish – so little did he understand about the religion he was born into. I sat there at the interview ignored by the rabbi as if I didn’t exist. I knew it was nothing personal – it was just that against thousands of years of tradition and the survival of the faith my feelings didn’t amount to a hill of beans.

Societies and religions everywhere have always ruthlessly enforced rules in the name of ensuring social order over and above regard for the feelings of individuals. And there is centuries and centuries of tradition backing them up.

My advice: If you want or expect genuine sympathy turn to family, friends or find a counsellor. Keep up the struggle and good luck with it too. But if you take these things personally you will be emotionally ground down under the chariot wheels.

and the thing is that in many cases, there is value in those old rules...which isnt' to say we dont' need to look at them on a regular basis and adjust our own behaviours or change them but we NEED rules.

anything else is anarchy...and then you get back into that  'are people inherently good or inherently selfish?'..people run to what they love; we can hope they can live their lives without rules but invariably someone that is bigger and stronger will inflict his will on the weaker..rules prevent the strong from taking from the weak.

the problem comes when people the rules are supposed to protect become the strongest and use the rules to oppress the weaker class.

Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2009, 12:44:45 pm »

Quote
Yes, many people against gay marriage care very much about people. Their issue isn't about people, it is about the institution of marriage as they define it. And, in California, it is the majority. I don't agree with the majority, but I respect the majority. It is the law in this country (Kinda like the majority elected B. Obama as our president). And to make a blanket statement that these voters don't care about the psychological effects of these people is baseless, immature, and short sighted.

Brad

I heard on a local radio call in show a bunch of opinions on gay marriage from local people...very few were for it..

even people that admitted they had family members that are gay

the worst for me was a woman that said "My son is gay and I think it is an abomination! so NO I am not for gays getting married.'

 Undecided

I felt so sorry for her son...wondered how old he is. I hope he is old enough to get away but still it has to hurt.
Report Spam   Logged
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2009, 12:53:48 pm »

Quote
Also, the fact that the debate is going on at all shows an aspect to the friends and relatives of gay people that maybe they didnt think on before. I think a lot of folks think on gay people as "alternative", in the sense that they imagine them in an urban setting, involved in a "creative" field, holding non-mainstream political views, agnostic or atheistic in their beliefs, or into Eastern religions or wicca, and are sexually "alternative" too, into things like bondage, piercings, etc. Its the murky cocept of the "gay lifestyle" if they had to articulate it, it would be along those lines. Theres not necessarily an viewpoint to this, though there can be.

So a lot of strait people (as well as gay people themselves) got a view of their brother or uncle or coworker as the one in the family that moved to the big city and has blue-streaked hair, and most likely wouldnt be interested in something "Bourgoise" like settling in the suburbs and getting married. I rememeber about 20 years ago, these 2 bodybuilders got "married", thats how they reported it in the media, always with quotes, and they was on all the talk shows, presented along with the usual fare of sideshow freaks.

I remember my own reaction, how crazy is that, but the more I thought on it, the more I thought, why not, and over time, my thinking went from, why not to, this is the heart of the matter. That was back in the AIDS epidemic, and it got me thinking, if the idea that 2 men met and over time, found they had something that they wanted to preserve and formalize, led to the natural next step, of "making it official", there might never of been an AIDS epidemic to begin with.

and this to me is one of the best arguments FOR gay marriage..opponents of gay people talk about how promiscous they are then deny them the chance or notion that fidelity is worthwhile
Quote

Likely get myself in trouble again, but Im of the belief that very few people can have 1000's of sexual partners and be right in the head, and yeah, there WERE guys like this, venues like this, that were like vectors for the virus, no point pretending different. Men are supposedly naturally promiscuous, but I think most of us will admit a large portion of our sex life is bragging and creative writing, and even if we do follow our dicks around happily for a stretch, the numbers generally dont get out of the low 2 figures. To me, promiscuity, the compulsive kind that was such an effective transmission mode for HIV, is mainlu a sign of unhappiness, a fundamnetal lack of faith that true intimacy and devotion can  exist between 2 people. Its a sign of fear that those hopes were too cool to admit we have will only be dashed, so its on to the next notch in the headboard, and on to th next one.

for me it is the notion of putting sex in the forefront of everything...our very society is so sexualized...everything is about sex. well life ISN"T about sex, it is about helping others, building something for the future, for learning and doing..Don and I have a good sex life but I really dont' think he thinks about sex ALL the time...it is important of course but it is only ONE part of a full life...there is more to living.

and I agree people like you are describing..the multiple partners? not right in the head..gay OR straight, cause I know women like that...
Quote

What if we had grown up with the concept that there WAS a natural next step for us to take, just like a man and a woman?

Well, now there is. And it seems a lot of folks were thinking along the same lines I was. The plain fact is, the more the phrase, same-sex marriage is uttered, even by a dead-opposed preacher in the pulpit, the more people will get use to the idea.

theres also the effect of hearing, maybe for the first time, about the personal lives of gay people who were always kind of a walled-off mystery to their relatives, and when i say "personal" I mean personal, not sexual. Not accounts of off-the-wall behavior in the bad part of town, but aaccounts of their friend as half of a couple, doing kinky couple stuff like arguing over which set of in-laws to go to at Thanksgiving. It sounds so obvious, but the heart of the matter is love, not sex. Any strait guy can have sex with another man and be totally heterosexual in his heart.

Its one thing to imagine all the wild and crazy stuff your gay cousin (probably never) gets up too, but its a total different thing to hear his life framed in the familiar terms of marriage, something most people do at some point. I think unconsciuosly, gays are viewed as not quite adults, espcially not gay men, because they dont make big serious committments or take on the responsibilities of family life. This goes to some extent for heteros who live together outside of marriage.

Once the official step is taken and vows are exchanged, couples find that oh no, it aint "just a piece of paper" after all. No offense to those here who have opted to live together outside of traditional marriage, though thats a choice that is theirs to make, and they can change their mind. "My husband" has a different ring to it than "my partner" or "My boyfriend". Partner or boyfreind can mean different things, and to a lot offolks, they will always mean that theres at least the possibility of one foot out the door.

Everyone know s what a HUSBAND is: Someone you have officially pledged in front of a bunch of people, to bind yourself to for life, who will now be your next of kin, before all your blood kin. No explanation needed. And as more gay people make this commitment, with or without the recognition of the state, they will force a conceptual shift in the minds of the people who witness it, to take it more seriously. Where previously they may of unconsciously viewed their brother or coworkers relationship as not as serious as their own. equated it with playing house or making a statement, there is something about those ancient words spoken in public that makes folks straighten up and take notice.

Then it becomes like the resistance of air to a speeding object: at a certain point, the speed is enough that the resistance becomes negligible, and as the object gathers more momentum from the lack of resisitance, the resistance becomes even less of a factor. Then the primary limitation is the objects own power. Thats how I see this issue, as having intense resistance at the outset, barely making progress for a long time, and actually losing ground along the way, but sure enough, it has gone from insanity to inevitability. And, important to remember in the heat of folks wanting to grab signs and march on government buildings and churches, the momentum is coming from people getting married, not from the law. Attitude is leading the law in the case of this issue. The law will eventually catch up


and here is where you and Brad and Terry are doing a greater good than you know.

I know my son and his partner watch the bunch of you and learn...thank you all..

you're giving them something they cant' get anywhere else.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 02:08:44 pm by injest » Report Spam   Logged
JudgeHolden
Guest
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2009, 02:00:52 pm »


Well well. Looks like someone found the back-door sneak-in route to BM Wink
Report Spam   Logged
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2009, 02:07:44 pm »

hey it is open to guests...I hope you don't mind but I always gotta get my two cents in!
Report Spam   Logged
JudgeHolden
Guest
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2009, 02:26:19 pm »

Naw, I dont, maybe the other guys will un-lock their blogs sos you can have more access.
Report Spam   Logged
bradINblue
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1908



« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2009, 02:58:09 pm »

hey it is open to guests...I hope you don't mind but I always gotta get my two cents in!

I'm liking it. I thought they banned your ISP so you couldn't even view. That creep Lance at DCF did that when I closed my account. Glad you are looking in Jess.

Brad
Report Spam   Logged

The Maker keeps making but I finally broke through. I love you Steve.
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2009, 03:11:40 pm »

I'm liking it. I thought they banned your ISP so you couldn't even view. That creep Lance at DCF did that when I closed my account. Glad you are looking in Jess.

Brad

I dont know why they do that...what harm can I do now?

good to see your posts..ya'll are hitting on point..
Report Spam   Logged
MagicM
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2436



« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2009, 11:33:43 pm »

That creep Lance at DCF

Creep indeed. I had a few run ins with that bloke myself.
Report Spam   Logged

“Beauties in vain their pretty eyes may roll; charms strike the sight, but merit wins the soul.”  Alexander Pope
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2009, 07:23:32 pm »

Quote
I also think that there was a difference in level of involvement by different religious groups.  The Roman Catholic Church was pro-Prop 8 but it isn't well known whether there was any organized fundraising or activism within the Church for advertising, and etc.  However, the Mormon church spread PR materials through its pulpits, actively supported it and raised $25 million for the Pro-8 campaign, thus making a huge difference in the profile of that particular church in its activism against gay marriage.  So understandably, there would be more anger at the Mormons for pouring in a $25 million dollar war chest and widespread preaching to members - from a Utah base - commuting in en masse from Utah to get out every last Mormon vote and paying for the scary "they'll recruit your kindergartners" pro-8 ads.   Your rank and file Baptist who believes gays go to hell isn't going to be perceived in the same way because they aren't trying to scare the entire population into turning on gays - they simply cast their vote and go home - they'd never support gay marriage anyway.  But the Mormon church conducted a PR campaign to sway the undecideds, and the scary recruitment of school children tactic was unfortunately effective.

they could have SAVED their money and just broadcast the news videos of the Lesbian couple that took a first grade class on a field trip to a gay wedding...

and this is less than a MONTH before the election.

it was a selfish thing to do...and kicked other gay people in the teeth. all this teacher cared about was herself. When you KNOW the other side is afraid of something..and is spreading lies about 'recruiting' kids....and you deliberately go out and do JUST THAT..then you are proving it is NOT a lie and it will make it a million times harder to convince anyone otherwise.

oy!


Report Spam   Logged
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2009, 04:48:00 am »

well it didn't take them long to fall back to their only defense..."you're a homophobe!"

Quote
This thread is evidence that we have discrimination within the gay community as well as outside it.

It's a lot easier to blame the oppressed, rather than confront the oppressors directly.  The oppressed are easier targets, they don't fight back as much.

That's the same strategy the bigots are using.

it is SOOOOO oppressive to not like some fool trying to look like a cheap Dolly Parton. a TRULY enlightened person would be like all blase' you know. It isnt' like he is trying to act all conservative! *shudder*
Report Spam   Logged
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2009, 04:59:29 am »

Turn people off? Who cares? That something "turns  some people off" doesn´t give anyone right to discriminate against them. It´s like saying that women in short skirts deserve getting raped.
¨

Personally I admire them. I wish I could be more like that.


so says yet ANOTHER straight supporter...."look at ME! I am so cool and all liberal! yep, I am one of the 'in' crowd....what? my attitude is driving away other supporters making it harder to get real rights passed? oh well! that's their problem! I am DOWN with the struggle of my gay brothers!"

"now that I have made some enemies for my gay brothers, think I'll go home to my husband and watch some tv...he'll be so proud of me...you gay guys go on to the bars and try to hook up with some drag queen for some meaningless sex, maybe take some drugs...to dull the pain of your oppression.....gay rights! gay rights!!"

 Angry Angry

you know the bad thing? the drag queen HAS all the rights to be a drag queen...there are no laws that say they cant get some cheap Dolly Parton wig and parade around in a dress. There was some guy out at Walmart the other day in a ragged ol evening dress (at eleven in the morning) in Lakeport. No one beat him up....they just sneered and laughed at him...HE just got louder and more obnoxious...I can assure you, he DID change some minds, particularly those with small children that looked at him with something akin to fear...whatever tolerance they had for gay people? just left.


« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 06:05:14 pm by injest » Report Spam   Logged
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2009, 05:04:12 am »

A man walks down the street in a business suit.  What is he communicating?

A man walks down the street in a work shirt and jeans.  What is he communicating?

A man walks down the street in a wig, a dress, and makeup.  What is he communicating?

As far as I'm concerned there's only one way to answer all those questions for sure.  Ask.



as Brad has tried to explain a kabillion times in other threads...the first TWO are not trying to 'communicate' ANYTHING...they just ARE. Their clothes are what they wear for their jobs, there is no thought of how politically their attire will be judged. The only thought is "are these clothes suitable for my job and do they look nice"

the third is trying to communicate. His outfit is considered and designed to communicate something..and what it says in a gay bar or at a gay party is one thing...what it says marching down the street with a sign is something different.

Report Spam   Logged
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2009, 05:11:21 am »

And, in fact, he doesn't look like a woman. He looks like, well, a mess.

And the true measure of a man/woman isn't his/her intent, but his/her action.

Brad


and here is something I do not understand. if they so want to imitate a woman, why do they choose to imitate the most extreme messes of a woman they can find?

in the "Crying Game" for example...Dil wasn't wearing bizarre blonde wigs...he was wearing his own hair cut a more feminine way, he wore (ON STAGE) a sequined miniskirt...off stage some women's clothes but the kind of clothes any hip young woman would wear...he LOOKED like a woman. anyone passing him on the street wouldn't give him a second look. He was 'living his life..being himself'.

so why is it that the drag queens you see in real life all are so bizarre? evening gowns (ragged and so thin and tight you can see their genitals) at eleven in the morning at Walmart...and cheap hooker wigs? if they wanted to look like women, why not dress like Dil?

a character I really like by the way...he showed a great deal of courage and class...
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 12:09:20 pm by injest » Report Spam   Logged
injest
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18510



« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2009, 01:27:18 pm »

here is a viewpoint I have not heard..or maybe don't remember..

http://tobyjohnson.com/dontamend.html

Quote
In the name of saving American morality, the legislatures of the various states are moving to pass constitutional amendments that would define marriage as between hetoersexual couples only and, in some states, outlaw any kind of parallel to marriage for homosexuals, like civil unions or domestic partnerships, and, indeed, in some cases, invalidate contractual agreements between gay couples regarding inheritance, powers of attorney, authority over medical decisions, and even common ownership of property.

These efforts have nothing to do with morality. They seem more like ploys to distract the American people from real issues facing us in the first decade of the 21st Century.


Getting married and pledging monogamy is about as conservative and "moral" as you can get.


In November 2005, Texas voters were asked to vote on the Anti-Gay-Marriage Amendment.

The amendment passed statewide by some 70%. Only in Austin did it fail to get a majority of votes.

What a nasty thing that says about Texans. What about the old "live and let live" ideal of the West? What happened to Texan rugged individualism? What happened to Texans love of freedom and distaste for government meddling?


What a waste of money and time and effort
to have an election for a non-issue!

Marriage in Texas is already defined as the union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Texas, and there's very little chance the legislature would make it legal.

The supposed threat that merited this was that so-called "activist judges" might force gay marriage on Texans by overturning the opposite-sex requirements as unConstitutional.

It's certainly true that laws against gay marriage amount to unequal treatment of individuals before the law. These laws truly are unAmerican and unConstitutional. And the "activist judges" are serious, intelligent, experienced jurists who are looking very carefully at the issues of same-sex marriage and deciding that allowing gay people the same freedoms as straight people is simply unavoidably American.


What else could "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" possible mean?


But the Texas Supreme Court is not about to legalize gay marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court is not about to legalize gay marriage. There was no need for this amendment.

Worse than what the "Defense of Marriage" campaign might do to gay couples is what it does to American democracy and Founders' vision of a free society. For the reality is that this amendment is blatantly religious and driven by politicized religious officials.


The amendment writes into American law a particular religious doctrine.

It may be so that the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman is widespread and generally accepted by the vast majority of Americans, but it is still a tenet of a very specific religion. Not all religions oppose gay marriage: some Native American traditions on the American continent practiced same-sex marriage long before Europeans came and tried to kill them all; African-disaporic religions in the the Caribbean recognize religious forms of same-sex marriage; in the early days of Christianity, apparently, there were rites for declaring a pledge of lifelong companionship between same sex individuals.

There are currently progressive churches in the U.S. -- like the United Church of Christ -- that officially support gay marriage. For the government to come down on one side of this issue is to establish one religious doctrine over another. That's not permitted in the United States Constitution.

Besides, everybody knows it's the particular brand of right-wing, neo-conservative, Fundamentalist Christianity that has been drawn into the Republican Party that is pushing this idea of "Defending Marriage" by making homosexuals the scapegoats for all the problems striaght people are having with traditional marriage today. (The nuclear family that these conservative Christians declare to be the backbone of civilization is really only less than a hundred years old. It's a new thing for a man and a woman and their couple of children to live separate from the grandparents, aunts and uncles--some of them "maiden aunts" and "gay uncles"--and cousins and family friends that make up the real family.)

The Defense of Marriage Amendment is really about the Republicans giving official recognition to right-wing Christianity. It's a sort of indirect way of "establishing" them as the religion of the United States--something they very much want. (These Fundamentalist Christians DO NOT believe in separation of Church and State.)

Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy