Understanding the Gay marriage problem

[mismused]

******

 

[Stella_Omega]

I appreciate your efforts, but I can only say;

Yeah, duh. You are saying nothing new, my love. Advice we have in pah-lenty.

 

[Safe_Bet]

~ Hugs ~ Well said.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

societies have never embraced the homosexual lifestyle; youre fighting the dominant, prevailing human attitude. its like arguing for dwarfs

 

[Katyusha]

societies have never embraced the homosexual lifestyle; youre fighting the dominant, prevailing human attitude. its like arguing for dwarfs

If you say so.

"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.

To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.

Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Prior to the 14th Century, it was considered perfectly normal for same sex couples to exist. There were (and still exist) rites within both the Western and Eastern Orthodox traditions for same-sex couples to marry under the laws of the church. So what you keep calling a "religious problem" isn't historically accurate. Plus I'd like to point out that your own insistance of repeating this piece of your own bias doesn't help the cause one iota. Now I've posted this at least three times but I realize that it takes some people getting hit over the head with a 2x4 before they pay attention.


Yo-yo, the California Council of Churches publically opposed Prop 8!! Do you get it this time?

It's not a religious issue. No one can establish why homophobia rose up in the 14th Century and has cursed us ever since even though a good number of excellent historians have tried. It is not doctrinal, it never was doctrinal and it never will be doctrinal and playing the "Religion Card" ain't gonna get no one, no where, any more than playing the "Race Card" works in politics any more. Now can we all work together to repair a 700 year old damage to society? Or shall I just throw up my hands and walk away from the whole thing while the finger-pointers take over . . . and lose it all!

Crap!

 

[Katyusha]

Prior to the 14th Century, it was considered perfectly normal for same sex couples to exist. There were (and still exist) rites within both the Western and Eastern Orthodox traditions for same-sex couples to marry under the laws of the church. So what you keep calling a "religious problem" isn't historically accurate. Plus I'd like to point out that your own insistance of repeating this piece of your own bias doesn't help the cause one iota. Now I've posted this at least three times but I realize that it takes some people getting hit over the head with a 2x4 before they pay attention.


Yo-yo, the California Council of Churches publically opposed Prop 8!! Do you get it this time?

It's not a religious issue. No one can establish why homophobia rose up in the 14th Century and has cursed us ever since even though a good number of excellent historians have tried. It is not doctrinal, it never was doctrinal and it never will be doctrinal and playing the "Religion Card" ain't gonna get no one, no where, any more than playing the "Race Card" works in politics any more. Now can we all work together to repair a 700 year old damage to society? Or shall I just throw up my hands and walk away from the whole thing while the finger-pointers take over . . . and lose it all!

Crap!

Are you yelling at me or JBJ?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Are you yelling at me or JBJ?

I'm yelling at a world that keeps on ignoring my history lessons, in general. It's not personal, Kat, never personal from me.

 

[Pure]

question

minsue, i have no objections to your line of argument, BUT for the sake of discussion...

suppose for the sake of argument:

no penalties against any 'gay'/lesbian acts

no discrimination in hiring, firing etc.

gays and lesbians in mainstream media, tv dramas, etc. 'out.'

etc.

assume further that there ARE legal mechanisms to insure that one's property goes to one's designated 'partner' upon death.

NOW. suppose any given couple who are gay cannot secure the state's sanction for a union.

so they pledge a union privately.

they announce it and celebrate it and ratify it *in their community*.

now, what exactly is the problem? where is the oppression?

just asking.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

minsue, i have no objections to your line of argument, BUT for the sake of discussion...

suppose for the sake of argument:

no penalties against any 'gay'/lesbian acts

no discrimination in hiring, firing etc.

gays and lesbians in mainstream media, tv dramas, etc. 'out.'

etc.

assume further that there ARE legal mechanisms to insure that one's property goes to one's designated 'partner' upon death.

NOW. suppose any given couple who are gay cannot secure the state's sanction for a union.

so they pledge a union privately.

the announce it and celebrate it and ratify it *in their community*.

now, what exactly is the problem? where is the oppression?

just asking.

If they did so on the steps of the nearest cathedral, they would have been married in the view of society prior to the Vatican's heretical establishment of marriage as a "sacrament" in order to be able to charge for it. It helped build the physical Vatican along with the selling of indulgences. Formal marriage, before that time (Middle Ages) was only for the rich because its major purpose was to reinforce family fortune and build alliances. For the poor, no one cared much. They just told the community they were married and everyone said "Really? Okay." and went on with trying to survive.

 

[Stella_Omega]

minsue, i have no objections to your line of argument, BUT for the sake of discussion...

suppose for the sake of argument:

no penalties against any 'gay'/lesbian acts

no discrimination in hiring, firing etc.

gays and lesbians in mainstream media, tv dramas, etc. 'out.'

etc.

assume further that there ARE legal mechanisms to insure that one's property goes to one's designated 'partner' upon death.

NOW. suppose any given couple who are gay cannot secure the state's sanction for a union.

so they pledge a union privately.

they announce it and celebrate it and ratify it *in their community*.

now, what exactly is the problem? where is the oppression?

just asking.

I'm not sure what your point is.

All of your suppositions are, at this time, false and therefore moot.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Yo-yo, the California Council of Churches publically opposed Prop 8!! Do you get it this time?

First of all, this has BECOME a religious issue because those "Fundie mother fuckers" have made it one. Give me the right to have a legal, honest civil marriage or a marrigae within a religious organization that accepts gay marriage and I am perfectly fine with them keeping their religious beliefs to themselves without interference. But that is not acceptable to them. They insist on fourcing THEIR beliefs down my throat.

VM, I respectly submit that you are correct about the California Council of Churches. You are further more correct that I should not paint with such a broad brush when I express my disgust of organized religion. So let me correct and clarify my stance:

The California Council of Churches are not the “bad guys.” This is a quote from their web site:

“An important point for this study is the distinction between marriage as a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony or sacrament. We call on all people to acknowledge the secular civil right even as churches wrestle with the sacramental issues. We can agree to guarantee civil rights even as denominations deliberate with the issue of marriage equality as an element of church law/rites/blessings. Equal protection under the law, tolerance and respect for diversity, and defining one’s own views while permitting other views, are consistent with authentic religious commitments where we all can live in a world of differences and ambiguities while still respecting other people’s secular rights.

It is very important for communities of faith of all perspectives to understand that there is no law or pressure that any individual or faith community will be forced to perform marriages against their beliefs. Conversely, there is pressure to deny churches and individuals to have or bless same-sex unions. Separation of church and state requires us to respect differences in each denomination or church. Those seeking to permit same-sex marriage must have equal standing with those that do not. To forbid such marriages across the board infringes on the religious liberty of clergy and congregations whose faith requires them to perform this pastoral care. It is anti-democratic to impose one religious viewpoint on everyone else.”

They are committed to staying the hell out of my marriage and I am committed to leaving them the hell alone to enjoy their religious beliefs as they wish. Membership is as follows:

American Baptist Churches
• American Baptist Churches of the West
• Pacific Southwest Region
African Methodist Episcopal Church
• Fifth Episcopal District
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Armenian Church of America
• Western Diocese of the Armenian Church
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
• Ninth Episcopal District
Church of the Brethren
• Pacific Southwest District
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Northern California-Nevada Region
• Pacific Southwest Region
Community of Christ
The Episcopal Church
• Episcopal Diocese of California
• Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real
• Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles
• Episcopal Diocese of Northern California
• Episcopal Diocese of San Diego
• Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Pacifica Synod
• Sierra Pacific Synod
• Southwest California Synod
Greek Orthodox Church
• Orthodox Diocese of San Francisco
Independent Catholic Churches International
Moravian Church
National Baptist Convention
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
• Presbytery of Los Ranchos
• Presbytery of the Pacific
• Presbytery of the Redwoods
• Presbytery of Riverside
• Presbytery of Sacramento
• Presbytery of San Diego
• Presbytery of San Fernando
• Presbytery of San Francisco
• Presbytery of San Gabriel
• Presbytery of San Joaquin
• Presbytery of San Jose
• Presbytery of Santa Barbara
• Presbytery of Stockton
• Sierra Mission Partnership
• Synod of the Pacific
• Synod of Southern California & Hawaii
Reformed Church in America
Swedenborgian Church
United Church of Christ
• Northern California/Nevada
• Southern California/Nevada
United Methodist Church
• California-Nevada Conference
• California-Pacific Annual Conference
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
• Region 1
• Region 6
Church Women United
Orthodox Clergy Council


So from now on when I refer to “those fundie mother fuckers” I am specifically speaking of :

The Roman Catholic Church
The Baptist Church (Excluding the two listed above)
The Lutheran Church (Excluding the Synods listed above)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
ALL Evangelical Christian Churches that have not directly fought for gay marriage.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm not sure what your point is.

All of your suppositions are, at this time, false and therefore moot.

I might propose that neither of them has read what the legality of marriage consists of. It's a contract, folks, a civil contract. Unfortunately, to write up a private contract that did the same thing without the license would be extremely expensive . . . and would have to be upheld in court before employers, hospitals, the IRS, etc. would accept it.

We shouldn't have to wait that long!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Too much preaching to the choir here.

 

[john-the-author]

I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is between "marriage" and "civil union." My wife and I have a 'civil union' because our ceremony didn't have any gods involved. It wasn't sanctioned by a church, it was done at what used to be an old movie theater... so what's the difference? But there are people who've got their hormones wrapped around the idea that civil unions are okay but *M*A*R*R*I*A*G*E* is a no-no.

 

[Misty_Morning]

I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is between "marriage" and "civil union." My wife and I have a 'civil union' because our ceremony didn't have any gods involved. It wasn't sanctioned by a church, it was done at what used to be an old movie theater... so what's the difference? But there are people who've got their hormones wrapped around the idea that civil unions are okay but *M*A*R*R*I*A*G*E* is a no-no.

"The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law."

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is between "marriage" and "civil union." My wife and I have a 'civil union' because our ceremony didn't have any gods involved. It wasn't sanctioned by a church, it was done at what used to be an old movie theater... so what's the difference? But there are people who've got their hormones wrapped around the idea that civil unions are okay but *M*A*R*R*I*A*G*E* is a no-no.

That varies from state to state. Like the CalCoun of Churches said, here a marriage can be a civil ceremony, i.e. a civil contract or it can be a religious ceremony. (Anyone who really thinks it's a sacrament is theologically unsound.) The difference in California deals with rights of visitation in hospitals and other things that only exist within marriage vs. domestic partnerships where you can be recognized for insurance purposes, community property, etc.

Honestly it makes no real logical sense. The smart (which is to say it won't happen) thing to do is to give the current title of 'marriage' to the religious ceremony that can be performed in whatever version of 'religion' the couple (or more) want and just label what we now call 'marriage' a 'domestic contract' and include all the benefits there due.

 

[mismused]

******

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you. My apologies, I know of your love only somewhat, and lately. To me, love is beautiful, and not something to be legislated. Enjoy.

Insofar as that unholy triumvirate that I understand was formed, Catholic, fundamentalists, and Mormon, most of us know much about Catholicism and Protestantism/fundamentalists, but many may not know about Mormons.

I respect much of what Mormons do/have done, and respect their right to have their church as they wish. But to act in collusion with those other two factions is more than hypocritical to say the least.

Unless the Mormons have changed it in the recent past, one of the tenets of their belief is "permanant" wife, or a forever wife, or whatever it's technically called now. This is what it is:

If a man marries, has children with his wife, and she subsequently dies, if that man remarries, but has not taken either of his wives as his permanent wife, then his children, one of his sons, can be his proxy and make one of his wives his permanent wife after the father's death.

Okay, so they go by the Book of Mormon, etc., as well as the bible, and, I think, Jesus as savior, along with whatever (no, not that well versed in it, or don't remember it all). In the New Testament, a similar situation is given. It is Jesus' answer that is salient to this, and not the exact question for it is recorded as:

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage..." (Matt. 22: 29 & 30)

And they helped snooker you and the rest of America? Better that they clean up their own acts, as well as the Catholics. The Protestants? "God said it, believe it, and that's that." They need a new slogan.

At this moment? I think;

"HELP! FIRE!"

would be a good slogan for these churches.

Or even better; "Hello, H&R Block? We owe the IRS sooooo muuuuuch moneyyyyyy..."

But please, don't say they snookered "us." "We" had no problem separating the lies from the, well, other lies.

 

[Misty_Morning]

That varies from state to state. Like the CalCoun of Churches said, here a marriage can be a civil ceremony, i.e. a civil contract or it can be a religious ceremony. (Anyone who really thinks it's a sacrament is theologically unsound.) The difference in California deals with rights of visitation in hospitals and other things that only exist within marriage vs. domestic partnerships where you can be recognized for insurance purposes, community property, etc.

Honestly it makes no real logical sense. The smart (which is to say it won't happen) thing to do is to give the current title of 'marriage' to the religious ceremony that can be performed in whatever version of 'religion' the couple (or more) want and just label what we now call 'marriage' a 'domestic contract' and include all the benefits there due.

Gotta disagree.

I really don't care about how a marriage ceremony is performed. Whether in the Courthouse at luchtime, in a big church after months and months of planning, of eloping to Vegas. But it does to some...and that cool.

Gays and lesbians are being denied that piece of paper that says Marriage Certificate.


And the vaious religious organizations that sanction hatred should be targeted for hate crimes. If they were sending the same message about marriages between people of different color, they would be.

But until this issue goes to the US Supreme Court and they have the cajonies to rule on it....we will just go around and around.

And Iam going to be quite honest....I am a little disgusted with the large amounts of minories that voted in favor of the bans. No.....I am pissed off.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I really like this quote:

"…we must also remember that Jesus, the Jewish prophets, and even Paul never even comment on the responsible love a gay man or lesbian feels for another. The Bible is completely silent on the issue of homosexual orientation. And no wonder. Homosexual orientation wasn't even known until the 19th century. The discovery that some of us are created and/or shaped in our earliest infancy toward same-gender attraction was made in the last 150 years. Biblical authors knew nothing about sexual orientation. Old Testament authors and Paul assumed all people were created heterosexual, just as they believed the earth was flat, that there were heavens above and hell below, and that the sun moved up and down."

“What the Bible Says - and Doesn’t Say About Homosexuality”, Rev. Mel White

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Gotta disagree.

I really don't care about how a marriage ceremony is performed. Whether in the Courthouse at luchtime, in a big church after months and months of planning, of eloping to Vegas. But it does to some...and that cool.

Gays and lesbians are being denied that piece of paper that says Marriage Certificate.


And the vaious religious organizations that sanction hatred should be targeted for hate crimes. If they were sending the same message about marriages between people of different color, they would be.

But until this issue goes to the US Supreme Court and they have the cajonies to rule on it....we will just go around and around.

And Iam going to be quite honest....I am a little disgusted with the large amounts of minories that voted in favor of the bans. No.....I am pissed off.

Sadly it just goes to show that there is no one so conservative as an old revolutionary after the revolution has been won. "I got mine, so fuck you!"

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I really like this quote:

Wanna know somethin' even better? He's a Southern Baptist!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOIN THE AUTHOR

The only substantive difference is status in the esteem of the community.

Common law marriage existed forever but never had the cachet of an ordained marriage. Ditto for the civil union.

 

[3113]

Well, let me throw this out and ask how is the best way to get around it, as it will come up. Let me start, however, with a few truths on the "Yes" voters just to be clear:

1) A certain number of people voted for this because they are bigoted and homophobic. This is a cultural thing, how they were brought up, what they fear. And they can cover this with whatever excuse they like including "the bits don't fit" and "it's a sin," but in the end, their community is homophobic, their culture is homophobic and so are they (this accounts for most black voters by the way. AIDs is a big problem in the black community as no one will talk about it because of homophobia. Obviously--and I hope it's obvious--skin color has nothing to do with how people voted. Culture, community, upbringing did. Caring or not caring enough to be fully aware of the issue did).

2) A certain number of people voted for this because they actually believe their preachers/churches (who may be just homophobic--see above) and do as they are told because they want to be "godly" people. To them, this is an issue of morality, like not lying or cheating or stealing. This was one of the ways that the "No" ads (IMHO) fell down, by not aggressively pointing out that gay marriage would NOT lead to teaching a certain type of morality to kids that was objectionable to the parents. By not outright mocking that ad about the fairytale.

3) A certain number of people voted for this out of ignorance. They misunderstood the issue. Yes, there were those who were either stupid or misinformed. I know someone who thought it had to do with pedophilia!

Now, eventually, this issue will move its way up the courts. Religious reasons won't hold water at this time. The opposition can't argue that gay marriages will hurt other marriages (no evidence), nor can they argue that it's against any religious tenants (separation of church and state), nor can they argue that "marriage is for producing children" or any of that other hogwash. None of that will hold up in court.

What could and might hold up in court is this: That the U.S. has a right to put limits on marriage. We limit marriage to people of a certain age. We limit marriage to one spouse at a time. So why can't marriage be limited to a man and a woman?

That is the one and only argument the opposition has. I don't defend it, I don't agree with it, but it is the one that any of us here, favoring gay marriage, still have to be able to answer. Thoughts?