|
Post by fawnmarie on May 18, 2005 10:27:17 GMT -5
LR - you do have a point. One of the legitimate gripes that heteros have about homosexuals is not so much that they are openly gay, but that their sex-style encompassing and effects areas of their lives that most heteros keep private. I mean, I certainly don't have parades or fairs or develop lobbying agencies for my personal kinks - why should they?
I dunno.
As for civil union vs. marriage - if you think about it, any "marriage" between people performed outside of a church is a 'civil union'. Many people have civil marriage ceremonies - and why is that any different than a civil union between gays?
"Marriages" are performed in churches, right? Civil ceremonies in court. So, wouldn't it really be up to the church itself to decide whether or not it will perform a "marriage"? And that being the case - at what point can law govern what an established church is allowed to do, what it's dogma is, etc? Is that what we want? If the Episcopalian church decides to condone gay relationships (as it seems it will), and perform gay marriages - who are we to tell that religion what their dogma is? If the gay couple has a civil union contract through the state, and their religion recognizes and "blesses" them, isn't that a "marriage" in the true sense of the word? Blessed by god, and whatnot?
Is that where we want to go? When the state or federal government can decide what churches are allowed to condone, bless, encourage, etc.? Is THAT freedom of religion?
As for Wahaika - now I know you're not a homophobe or a anti-gay terrorist and you do seem very tolerant. My point to you is only that opinions vary even amongst the judeo/christian society, and we really can't afford to pick and chose which one will get its way. So, it sort of HAS to be up to the majority. There are a variety of opinions within the christian religion, so it's just too hard to pin down without going for a majority vote.
And excluding the other religions from the basis of our law is one thing, but the laws change, and our countries stong point is that it has been able to grow, adapt and change over the years to include and accommodate a wide variety of individuals with different religious ideals.
And do please refrain from questioning my reasons for my military service - that's just insulting. Unless you can claim you've done the same. What I was protecting was my fellow citizens rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - this includes gay people and fundamental christians.
As for Jesus - he was a Bodhisattva.
Fawn
|
|
LadyR
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by LadyR on May 18, 2005 12:02:24 GMT -5
Fawn...you are absolutely correct regarding civil unions. I guess that what I was trying to say is that I would not have an issue with gays entering into a union of some sort that was not recognized as marriage, yet provided some of the same benefits. In other words leave marriage as we know it alone but devise a union that would allow gays to perhaps provide medical benefits for their partners, etc. My point is that I believe that the institution that we recognize as marriage is, and should be, between a man and woman. Not sure if this would even make a difference in the long run, but I think you know what I mean. I suppose that churches can lend their blessings to whatever they choose, but if it isn't condoned by the government, it isn't legal.
|
|
|
Post by flatandgreen on May 18, 2005 12:36:45 GMT -5
The people you see at gay pride parades making huge public displays of SEX are part of a schism in the gay community. Back in the day when people wanted to have gay bars that weren't run by mobs and subject to police breaking them up, finally GETTING gay bars where you weren't going to be harrassed by the law was a big, huge deal. People from everywhere in the nation and world flocked to San Fran to find other gay people. This, of course, turned into a lot of free sex to be had by all and some people saw that sex as an act of rebellion -- they were turning their backs on hetero-rules and ideals. The other side didn't see gay rights as being the right to have as much sex at public venues as they wanted. They were/are more traditional and want legal protections. The "promiscious" group saw the "prude" group as boring, staid, and clinging to hetero-institutions. The "prude" group wanted more traditional desires filled than the right to have sex. The gay group itself is very conflicted and many gay people I know eschew marriage altogether as an antiquated institution.
AIDS was an unfortunate accident. Patient "0" was an extremely promiscuous flight attendant that frequented the major gay hubs -- San Fran and NYC. Based on the way AIDS is spread, the notorious promiscuity of gay men, the long incubation period that threw people off track, and the media's insistence on classifying it as a "gay disease," the real cause was long unknown while gay men and intravenous drug users blithely infected everyone while scientific institutions ignored REAL evidence that AIDS is spread through blood. If the first AIDS patient had been someone else, the virus would not have gotten so far and CERTAINLY would have recieved MUCH more media attention and things could have stopped earlier. Compare early media coverage of Legionairre's Disease or TSS and you'll see that too many institutions stood by and let this happen because they thought of it as a solely gay disease. If you want more specific info on it, I highly recommend reading a book called And the Band Played On. There's also a movie.
I have absolutely no idea if I was born this way and I don't really care. I think I've already discussed this earlier. It's that old, nature vs. nurture debate. I actually think that claiming I was born this way and am a small minority argument is pretty weak and makes us even stranger to the rest of the population who can rest easy in their biologically 'normal' sexuality. What I've noticed is that women, who in the past tended to be most bisexual, are being caught up by men who feel freer to experiment. I think this is AWESOME! I think making sexuality a binary concept that one has no control over makes sexual confusion an overlooked concept. I can't tell you how many people I know who've been confused about their sexuality at some point in their lives. However, if homosexuality IS a choice and we're not imposing our morals on other people (except to the extent that I'd like to walk down the street without seeing crazy groping), who are we to say what's 'normal?'
|
|
|
Post by Wahaika on May 18, 2005 23:07:34 GMT -5
>>Is that where we want to go? When the state or federal government can decide what churches are allowed to condone, bless, encourage, etc.? Is THAT freedom of religion?
I think we're already there.
>>Many people have civil marriage ceremonies - and why is that any different than a civil union between gays?
Marriage is a civil union due to the requirement of a marriage license, no matter where it is performed. There is no real difference. So, if a legislature comes out with something that is called a "Civil Union" it would be a distinction without a difference.
Marriage licenses are one of the many points where government tells churches what they can and cannot do. They cannot legislate beliefs, but they can legislate actions. So, the Episcopalian church can believe whatever they want, but the couple being married cannot be married without a license, and no entity can perform a marriage without authority from the state to do so. Otherwise it is invalid. I would have to say that is definitely a step backwards!
Actually, I think that the only difference between a civil union and the current domestic partnerships would be that in the case of civil unions, they would probably license it like they have marriage. Domestic partnerships would be renamed to Civil Unions and then regulated. I wonder if all those domestic partners know what they're in for?
Which sparks another question: What did gays do before there were marriage licenses?
|
|
|
Post by Wahaika on May 18, 2005 23:10:11 GMT -5
Fawn,
Sorry about the misunderstanding on whether I questioned your reasons for military service. On the contrary, I have a lot of respect for those who serve. But I did not question your reasons for military service.
It is as you were saying earlier, there are a lot of opinions out there on religion. There are also a lot of opinions on what "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means as we have seen.
Wahaika
|
|
|
Post by PepeLePewtheDivine on May 19, 2005 2:17:54 GMT -5
>>>All the comments that suggest that gays are born this way. Is there proof of this? It seems to me that we are all just born. Period. From that moment on, our families, friends, personal experiences, etc. help to form the people we become. Think back to your first crush. It was probably pretty young, and I dont know about the rest of you but society wasnt telling me when I was 5 that being queer is equal or better than being straight and so I decided I was gonna be queer. I KNEW before my parents had anything to say to me about sexuality that I wanted MALE affection. I guess the point im trying to make is I think that who we are is absolutly a combination of the personality traits that we entered this world with, as WELL as how we are conditioned by society. ie: there is no denying that there are specific male and female traits that we all posess in varying degree's. However, we are conditioned to characterize the traits specific to our gender and to our gender only, to perhaps greater extents than what is natural. I think we can be conditioned to DENY our true sexuality (gay or straight) but I dont think our true sexuality is determined by conditioning. ....if that made any sence.... Pepe!
|
|
|
Post by Wahaika on May 19, 2005 11:19:05 GMT -5
>>ie: there is no denying that there are specific male and female traits that we all posess in varying degree's. However, we are conditioned to characterize the traits specific to our gender and to our gender only, to perhaps greater extents than what is natural. I think we can be conditioned to DENY our true sexuality (gay or straight) but I dont think our true sexuality is determined by conditioning.
99.9% agree. (I would disagree that "gay" is a true sexuality in terms of what we are born with - side issue)
Would you say that one's true sexuality (as opposed to practiced sexuality) is fixed to gender (male/female)? That practiced sexuality (gay or straight) is a choice at some point in life - regardless of conditioning?
Wahaika
|
|
|
Post by fawnmarie on May 19, 2005 15:40:20 GMT -5
From the US Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
From Mirriam Webster Online Dictionary:
LIFE:
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings -- compare VITALISM 1 c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction 2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b : one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog> 3 : BIOGRAPHY 1 4 : spiritual existence transcending physical death 5 a : the period from birth to death b : a specific phase of earthly existence <adult life> c : the period from an event until death <a judge appointed for life> d : a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life 6 : a way or manner of living 7 : LIVELIHOOD 8 : a vital or living being; specifically : PERSON <many lives were lost in the disaster> 9 : an animating and shaping force or principle 10 : SPIRIT, ANIMATION <there was no life in her dancing> 11 : the form or pattern of something existing in reality <painted from life> 12 : the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something <the expected life of flashlight batteries> 13 : the period of existence (as of a subatomic particle) -- compare HALF-LIFE 14 : a property (as resilience or elasticity) of an inanimate substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being 15 : living beings (as of a particular kind or environment) <forest life> 16 a : human activities b : animate activity and movement <stirrings of life> c : the activities of a given sphere, area, or time <the political life of the country> 17 : one providing interest and vigor <life of the party> 18 : an opportunity for continued viability <gave the patient a new life> 19 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD 1b 20 : something resembling animate life <a grant saved the project's life>
LIBERTY:
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice 2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : PRIVILEGE b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits 3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : FAMILIARITY b : RISK, CHANCE <took foolish liberties with his health> c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact 4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours synonym see FREEDOM - at liberty 1 : FREE 2 : at leisure : UNOCCUPIED
PURSUIT:
1 : the act of pursuing 2 : an activity that one engages in as a vocation, profession, or avocation : OCCUPATION synonym see WORK
PURSUE:
1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat 2 : to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : SEEK <pursue a goal> 3 : to proceed along <pursues a northern course> 4 a : to engage in <pursue a hobby> b : to follow up or proceed with <pursue an argument> 5 : to continue to afflict : HAUNT <was pursued by horrible memories>
HAPPINESS
1 obsolete : good fortune : PROSPERITY 2 a : a state of well-being and contentment : JOY b : a pleasurable or satisfying experience 3 : FELICITY, APTNESS
Ya know we could have a hell of a good time mixing up the definitions!
The creator gave us an inalienable right to shore leave?
(Snork)
Personally, I think they all fit.
Fawn
|
|
|
Post by Ruderico on Oct 4, 2005 17:10:09 GMT -5
About the gay debate: I'm half way through the whole thread, but the culture clivage becames broader and broader. I accually became scared so now and then when I read through some post of Dot, Wahaika and some others... I didn't know people could have such extreme ideas about gays! Even very conservative christian groups in Holland would not dare to say something like that in public... I mean, even our conservative prime-minister and his even more conservative minister of justice would prosecute people who would call on others to hate gays and discriminate against them...I guess some people here make our conservatives look like a big Clinton family! ;D But reading this I'm sure gay people are safer in Europe...and athyist people as well. The idea of being shot or beaten because you are obvious gay or athyist makes me doubt American freedom - It also makes me wonder whether or not I would want to move to the USA in the future or not, since I considered it as an career option (I would like to work for the UN). I guess Europe might have some problems that the US handles better, like the immigration problem, but this lack of respect and tolerance for racial and sexual minorities is certainly a point America needs to work on... About the so-called "choice" of homosexuality: scientist are assuming now that gay sexuality is inheritant (so it's genetic)!! Research makes the assumption likely that in the early development of a child, a genetic caused "mix-up"* of sexual hormones creates difference in sexual development and orientation. This means that a defect gene causes that a boy gets too many feminin hormones, and a girl too many masculin hormones. This will lead to feminin behavior of boys and masculin behavior of girls, later on this will develop into a gay sexual orientation. This is very likely to be true, since my best friend is lesbian/bi-sexual and before she "came out" and was in denial, I always knew, because she was so "manly" in a way: she had no hips, walked like a boy and acted a little tougher than other girls (she even fulfilled the cliché of playing soccer, a typical "dyke-thing"). The funny thing is her uncle is gay as well, and almost all gays I know have someone else in the family (sometimes even a sister or a brother) who is gay too. And trust me, my best friend does NOT like to be gay, and would surely change into "normal" if she could! And her gay-uncle did not "convert" her or anything, she has barely seen him in her life. And he did most certainly not "choose" to be gay: his father did not recognize him as a son for years, and their close relationship was never restored. Gays don't want to be gays! Most of them have serious self-hatred problems and suicide ideas. So don't make up stories about "choosing" or "wanting" to be gay, just because you happen to hate them!! Saying this hurts a lot of people and I don't see why you can't just let them be. You don't have to be one of them!
|
|
|
Post by hydeandseek on Oct 4, 2005 19:46:57 GMT -5
i don't hate gay people, i don't understand people that hate them. to me, people that hate gays are just insecure about their own sexuality, i mean, i'm straight, so its not like i gotta go out of my way to convince people i'm straight by bashing gays.
man, if bill clinton would and could run for office i'd vote for him all over again. his worst problem was that he couldn't keep his pants zipped. pres. bush is a national embarassement, he let all those people starve and suffer in new orleans but he could get troops and a military prescene in iraq faster than bin laden could run away from the law.
ever since bush has taken office this country has just gone further down the toilet. the econony sucks, its next to impossible to get a job---espeically since bush decied to outsource a lot of jobs to other countries...after hurricane katrinia it was obvious that we can't even help our own people, but we'll roll out the red carpet for others.
what is up with bush's choice for supreme court justice...you nominate someone to be on the highest court in the nation but they've never served as a judge. it wuold be like hiring someone with no knowledge, pilot's license and flight training to fly commercial airliners.
oh well, 3 more years til this clown is out of office cuz somewhere in texas a village is missing its idiot.
|
|
|
Post by gigi on Oct 4, 2005 21:37:20 GMT -5
Ruderico, I understand your consternation over the various biases perceived or otherwise in the US. However, all of Europe isn't as completely tolerant of differences as you maintain. The US is a large country and not everyone is the same in each part of this country so painting us all with the same brush is unfair. Hydeandseek, With regard to "W's" choices, he is consistent. I refer you to his buddy from FEMA I am not a fan but the man was re-elected.
|
|
|
Post by Wenonae on Oct 6, 2005 13:22:36 GMT -5
I am not a fan but the man was re-elected. Really though, I think we all need friends like Bush has...ones that allow us to be complete idiots, but because we are so well connected that we still get to 'run the show' no matter how 'off' we look.
|
|
|
Post by hydeandseek on Oct 6, 2005 16:28:41 GMT -5
omg, wenonae, where did you find that picture, that is hilarious!!!! i'm just totally LMAO! and, bush has someone that write all his speeches but the man can't even speak in complete sentences. and what's up with all this stuff about him falling off his bicycles lately while riding on his ranch? than moron needs training wheels.
|
|
|
Post by gigi on Oct 6, 2005 23:46:46 GMT -5
Hydeandseek, It's pathetic that he can't adequately deliver a written speech. Have you ever observed his behaviour when taking questions? He looks around for someone to help him out with the answers.
|
|
|
Post by Wenonae on Oct 7, 2005 11:31:48 GMT -5
omg, wenonae, where did you find that picture, that is hilarious!!!! i'm just totally LMAO! and, bush has someone that write all his speeches but the man can't even speak in complete sentences. and what's up with all this stuff about him falling off his bicycles lately while riding on his ranch? than moron needs training wheels. One of my friends sent it to me. I just about died when I saw it, too. All I can say is..we almost have only 2 more years left. Where's a durn time machine we ya need one? Wen'
|
|