[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OAW:
First of all, the notion of marriage being based upon "romantic love" is a relatively modern, western phenomenon.

Well, I am a relatively modern, western citizen of the United States and I have this funny idea about being treated equally by my govenment.

OTOH, the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is most universal. Without exception.

Wrong. There are now several exceptions, soon to be joined by Canada.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by OAW:
As Tina Turner once said ...

"What's love got to do with it?"

First of all, the notion of marriage being based upon "romantic love" is a relatively modern, western phenomenon. Marriage historically, and currently in many if not most non-western cultures, has been about the pooling of financial resources and procreation. Why do you think so many cultures have arranged marriages? It certainly isn't about "love" in the Harlequin romance novel sense of the word.

Um, wouldn't that be an argument in favor of same-sex marriages? Gays have financial resources too...

[OAW]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
he maketh some powerful points.

Thank you!

[OAW]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
OAW, if we just assume for a second that you're right, I just have one question for you. What's the harm in changing the definition of marriage to allow two people of the same sex to get married? I just don't see what would be so bad about doing this. And I say this as a straight man who has no particular desire to marry another man.

Again. My position in this forum has been to argue that the law as it stands now is not discrimination.

I have not said one way or the other whether changing the legal definition of marriage is a good or bad thing.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Wrong. There are now several exceptions, soon to be joined by Canada.

Of course you know that I was speaking in the historical sense. So after a tens of thousands of years the world finally has a few instances. I suppose you now want a cookie?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Um, wouldn't that be an argument in favor of same-sex marriages? Gays have financial resources too...

I see you conveniently left out that part about procreation. Nice try though!

OAW

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OAW:
Of course you know that I was speaking in the historical sense. So after a tens of thousands of years the world finally has a few instances. I suppose you now want a cookie?

OAW

No. Just equal rights.

[OAW]

I'm not trying to be a smart ass about this, but this is something that I'd really like to know ...

A man and a woman get married, and they are known as "husband" and "wife". Now if two men get "married", how would they be described .... "husband" and "husband" .. or just the generic term of "partner"? I know the latter is generally used in the US, but I was wondering what terminology is used in those countries that now allow same-sex marriage? Same question for the lesbians.
Part of the reason I ask is because same sex "marriage" has historically been such an inconceivable concept that we as a society don't even have the language to describe it. It's like there are certain Eskimo tribes that have over 50 different words for "snow". Whereas in the English language we only have 4 or 5. Some of the concepts they express in language about "snow" just don't exist for us so an accurate translation is impossible.

Anyway, I was just wondering.

OAW

[thunderous_funker]

As I see it, your only argument is still "because it's always been that way".

Fine. You can stick with that if you want to. I just don't think that will last much longer. Not even in puritanical USofA.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OAW:
I'm not trying to be a smart ass about this, but this is something that I'd really like to know ...

A man and a woman get married, and they are known as "husband" and "wife". Now if two men get "married", how would they be described .... "husband" and "husband" .. or just the generic term of "partner"?

Spouse.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by OAW:
Again. My position in this forum has been to argue that the law as it stands now is not discrimination.

I have not said one way or the other whether changing the legal definition of marriage is a good or bad thing.

OAW

So then you're not arguing against same-sex marriage?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by OAW:
I see you conveniently left out that part about procreation. Nice try though!

OAW

I'm a big fan of adoption. There are already too many children out there with no parents to stop people from getting married just because they won't be bringing more into the world.

[Logic]

Sorry to interupt you guys, but have you noticed that we are now on the second page in a thread about homosexuality and we are still staying civil? Also, Zimph hasn't been able to derail this thread into Yet Another Flamefest�

OK, continue. This is interesting...........

[planetpetey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
If gay is the new black I wonder how long it'll be before it becomes cool to be gay!

uh..hello? what planet have u been living on? it's been cool to be gay for over 40 years!
(ok, well perhaps not in hicksville, tennessee or the average puberty infested high school, but...

makes me wonder...how many generation X'ers realize that the roots of all the things they take for granted in regard to fashion, popular and dance music, television, clubbing, piercings, and even a heap load of civil rights, lay in the creativity, style and innovation born out of gay culture, and slowly seeping into the mainstream?

[OAW]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So then you're not arguing against same-sex marriage?

Not thus far. I was just refuting the contention that the situation as it stands now is discrimination against homosexuals. And rather effectively at that!

If you want to know what my opinion on the issue is, I will state it now ...

If the issue is about having similar legal status as a married couple with respect to inheritance, taxation, intensive care access, etc. then I have no problem with the creation of a legal arrangement that grants those things to same sex couples.

However, to refer to that as "marriage" simply flys in the face of the definition of the term. Let's consult Webster's .....

Main Entry: mar�riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

As I said earlier with my "fraternity" and "sorority" example ... if a person of the opposite sex joined one of those organizations, it would change the fundamental nature of the organization. It would no longer be what it was. All I'm saying here is basic common sense. If girls could join the Boy Scouts then it would no longer be the Boy Scouts. And vice versa.

Having said all that, if the issue is not about having similar legal status as a married couple with respect to inheritance, taxation, intensive care access, etc. .... or rather, if it's about more than that ... say, if the utltimate objective is the "social approval" of the homosexual lifestyle by the overwhelming majority of society ... then such a "civil union" or whatever you want to call it will be deemed unacceptable. Because such terminology would be perceived as not relaying the same level of legitimacy in the social, moral, and cultural arena as "marriage". It would only be a "legal" thing ... and that won't be considered good enough.

So the bottom line is what is actually being sought? Legal standing? Social approval? Or both?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by Logic:
Sorry to interupt you guys, but have you noticed that we are now on the second page in a thread about homosexuality and we are still staying civil? Also, Zimph hasn't been able to derail this thread into Yet Another Flamefest?

OK, continue. This is interesting...........

Yeah that is rather remarkable!

OAW

[SimeyTheLimey]

What is being sought? Equal rights under the law, plain and simple.

Personally, I don't much care what you call it. If it makes you happy to call it something other than marriage, so be it. In the long run, it won't make any difference anyway. Dictionaries follow popular usage, not the other way around. No matter what you try to call it, in time, if it is really equal, it will be called marriage. As you say, the term has been around for a long time. It isn't going to be surplanted by new terminology that easily. Old habits die hard, and if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is going to end up being called a duck no matter what you might prefer.

Of course, if you really want full equality in a separate institution, then what you are really arguing for is "separate but equal" all over again. That wasn't terribly successful in the race field. But whatever floats your boat.

[Hugi]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What is being sought? Equal rights under the law, plain and simple.

I believe this sentence says it all, basically. If two people choose to live together and create a lasting relationship (marriage), the government should not care if the relationship is between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Married couples usually receive benefits that single people do not get. Gay people should definately have equal rights to these benfits.

In Iceland, Civil unions are allowed, but the church does still not allow gay marriages. In fact, I don't see the church developing with the times on this issue, since the bible explicitly forbids man/man relationships. But then again, the Bible explicitly forbids many things that the clergy chooses to ignore as time goes by

[OAW]

Originally posted by hugi:
I believe this sentence says it all, basically. If two people choose to live together and create a lasting relationship (marriage), the government should not care if the relationship is between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

So let me ask you this ....

Should the government allow same sex couples to get married ... even though such a union has no historical precedent .. but disallow a man from having more than one wife .... even though that does have historical precedent?

If so, why? If not, why not?

OAW

[Hugi]

Originally posted by OAW:
So let me ask you this ....

Should the government allow same sex couples to get married ... even though such a union has no historical precedent .. but disallow a man from having more than one wife .... even though that does have historical precedent?

If so, why?

I believe the real question is: Why should people of the same sex not be allowed to marry? The government allows unions between people of different sex, why should gay couples not be allowed the same privileges as opposite-sex couples? Do you honestly believe that gay people are perverts and abominations of nature and should be punished? You certainly sound like you think so, and if you think so, WHY DON'T YOU SAY SO!?

If not, why not?

Well, thank you for bringing on an amazingly unrelated discussion. Honestly, I think multiple marriages are fine as well, although they are not nearly as neccessary concerning human rights. After all, we know why multiple marriages happen - because the supply of male/female partners is scarce (or used to be scarce, and thus multiple marriaging has become tradition).

Again, basically: A gay couple should have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. It seems so simple when I say it, but some people apparently don't understand this at all.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by OAW:
So let me ask you this ....

Should the government allow same sex couples to get married ... even though such a union has no historical precedent .. but disallow a man from having more than one wife .... even though that does have historical precedent?

If so, why? If not, why not?

OAW

I think people should be able to marry as many people as they want of whatever sex they want. Why shouldn't they be able to?

As far as calling it 'marriage': if it functions like marriage and confers the same benfits, responsibilities, &c as a marriage, why shouldn't it be called a marriage?

[finboy]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I think people should be able to marry as many people as they want of whatever sex they want. Why shouldn't they be able to?

As far as calling it 'marriage': if it functions like marriage and confers the same benfits, responsibilities, &c as a marriage, why shouldn't it be called a marriage?

Because "marriage" is a special status reserved for breeder-types, to encourage reproduction and balanced gender nurturing. That's the ONLY reason that flies, logically. Otherwise, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a "union" and a "marriage", nor should there be one.

Even the so-called "religious" reasons were originally designed to back up this one, and it's time for people to get away from the arbitrary "morality" of condemning those kinds of things and start looking at intent. Anything that encourages stable same-sex relationships is a positive thing for society.

[OAW]

Originally posted by Hugi:
I believe the real question is: Why should people of the same sex not be allowed to marry? The government allows unions between people of different sex, why should gay couples not be allowed the same privileges as opposite-sex couples? Do you honestly believe that gay people are perverts and abominations of nature and should be punished? You certainly sound like you think so, and if you think so, WHY DON'T YOU SAY SO!?

As the late, great Mr. Rogers would say ....

"Can you say .... duck the question? I knew you could!"

I, OTOH, don't have that issue. So I'll give a direct answer to a direct question.

I would not use the word "abomination" because it's such a loaded term. It has certain religious connotations that, quite frankly, are not the issue. I also don't think gay people should be "punished". If somebody wants to be gay, then that's their business as far as I'm concerned. However, I admittedly find homosexuality to be unnatural ... and I see no reason for society at large to "encourage", "sanction", or otherwise "legitimize" it. Now perhaps that's considered to be a "politically incorrect" thing to say in certain circles. But the fact of the matter is this. Heterosexuality on a large scale, as the "norm" for society so to speak ... continues the propagation of the species. Life goes on. And that's a good thing. OTOH, homosexuality on a large scale does not. Thus, it is an inherently self-destructive behavior from a procreation point of view. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

Having said all that, I stand by my earlier statement that I wouldn't have a problem if there were a legal "civil union" for same sex couples. I suppose I'm rather ambivalent on the issue. You certainly won't see me at a rally advocating for "gay marriage". At the same time, you won't see me sending letters to my congressman encouraging him to support the "Defense of Marriage Act" either. Because when it's all said and done, I'm basically a "live and let live" kind of guy. I don't approve of homosexuality ... but I am tolerant of it. Unfortunately, there are those who confuse the two terms. As if there is no middle ground between being someone who would say that homosexuality is just fine and dandy ... and being some homophobic person who would physically attack gay people on sight or advocate that they as individuals should be denied the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else when it comes to employment, housing, education, etc.

So again, when it comes to the topic of "marriage", my position remains the same. It is not discrimination because homosexuals are not prohibitied from getting married under the rules that apply to everyone else just because they are homosexual. Now if someone wants to advocate that the rules be changed, or advocate for a "civil union" arrangement that has similar legal privileges as marriage ... then hey, knock yourself out. I wouldn't be one to help ... but I wouldn't be one to stand in the way either.

OAW

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
Because "marriage" is a special status reserved for breeder-types,

I.e. government discrimination, which is unconstitutional. Whether or not it can be justified by traditions about child rearing is irrelevant. The fact is marriage among heterosexuals is legally a completely separate issue from child-rearing. Not only can sterile couples marry, so can couples who simply have no interest in children. On the other hand, gay couples with children can't. So it is a distinction that makes no sense -- least of all for the children (either adopted, or natural from other relationships) of gay couples. Those kids are being unfairly disadvantaged in life by their government because of things that adults are deciding for them. That is just wrong.

However, I am happy to see that you get the fact that gay marriage would be a good thing for society. There are, frankly, no downsides to this other than the fact some sexually insecure straights might get the heeby-jeebies.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OAW:
So again, when it comes to the topic of "marriage", my position remains the same. It is not discrimination because homosexuals are not prohibitied from getting married under the rules that apply to everyone else just because they are homosexual.

Obviously you haven't been reading what I have been posting. Yours is an argument that has already been rejected by the Supreme Court. See my post above where I linked to Loving v. Virginia. Read the case, then try again with an argument that isn't unconstitutional.

[OAW]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Obviously you haven't been reading what I have been posting. Yours is an argument that has already been rejected by the Supreme Court. See my post above where I linked to Loving v. Virginia. Read the case, then try again with an argument that isn't unconstitutional.

And you obviously didn't read my reply to you on this issue. I certainly didn't see you refute what I had to say. If the post I'm talking about doesn't ring a bell, just look for a post of mine that contains the word "Othello".

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

dammit.

I'm struggling here.

In one thread I'm supporting OAW's viewpoint - and in another thread I'm doing my level best at setting him up for a proper smackdown.

Life is tough like that sometimes.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Obviously you haven't been reading what I have been posting. Yours is an argument that has already been rejected by the Supreme Court. See my post above where I linked to Loving v. Virginia. Read the case, then try again with an argument that isn't unconstitutional.

I think OAW is saying that homosexuals can get married under the same rules as everyone else, just not to each other.

Meanwhile, I think the institution of marriage is pretty archaic, but I understand the urge, having done it once myself. To quote Rodney Dangerfield, "I got married because I wanted to have sex in the worst way. And that's exactly what I got."

Just kidding.

I don't agree with OAW's opinions about homosexuality - that it's characteristic of a small percentage of the population and non-procreative doesn't mean it's unnatural. But I do agree with him that there's not much reason to prohibit polygamy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OAW:
And you obviously didn't read my reply to you on this issue. I certainly didn't see you refute what I had to say. If the post I'm talking about doesn't ring a bell, just look for a post of mine that contains the word "Othello".

OAW

I'm talking about contemporary laws in these United States. I don't care about laws elsewhere*, still less in other times and certainly not marriages in Elizabethan literature. Those are irrelevant distractions.

This is what you are not dealing with. There were laws in this country, not so long ago, that forbade blacks and whites from marrying each other. It was argued that was not discrimination, since the law restrained both races equally, and because both could get married if they just followed the rules and married according to the law. Is this argument begining to sound familiar? It should, it is structually identical to your argument.

It is, I admit, an alluring argument on its face. The problem is it completely ignores the human reality that if you allow one group of people to have something as basic as marriage, and then systematically disallow it to another, it is discrimination no matter how much you try to dress it up. That is, in effect, what the Supreme Court said when they struck down the bans on mixed race marriages. Laws that appear to be equal on their face can be discriminatory if they in fact systematically deny things as basic as marriage. That's why I'm telling you that you need to find another argument, because that one is constitutionally very shakey indeed.




* OK, it is nice that Canada, the Netherlands et al are doing what they are doing, but I live here. What they do doesn't legally affect my rights, and what others don't do isn't an argument why I should give up on equality under the constitution of my country.

[Spliffdaddy]

Three things I'll see in my lifetime:

1) gay marriage

2) decriminalization of marijuana

3) another black NASCAR driver besides Willy T Ribbs.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
But I do agree with him that there's not much reason to prohibit polygamy.

I agree. There is no logical, non-theological reason for the state to intervene and ban it. It is just that polygamy, like homosexuality, is unpopular.

That's one of the problems. what people want to ban can't be banned without violating basic rules of equal protection. So when people try to defend that, they end up bending logic into a pretzel. Then people get stupid and stubburn and try to paint political decisions as being somehow part of the natural structure of the universe. And it isn't something confined to any one political stripe. Every judicial opinion that has tried to extend individual rights containes some heinous line saying "but of course I don't mean to grant rights to those people. They are still beyond the pale." For example, the line in Griswald, about how privacy doesn't apply to homosexuals or bigamists, or the line in the dissent in Plessy that denigrates "Chinamen". As long as people try to defy the logic of their opinions, this will continue.

[finboy]

I just heard NPR talking about "Gay music" and "Gay heritage." Evidently Elton John is only a brilliant performer & writer because he's gay. Same with Joe Jackson and the Pet Shop Boys. NPR hinted that without their gayness they wouldn't have been nearly so great. Oh, and they managed to throw in that Cole Porter was gay, along with Melissa Ethridge, kd lang and numerous others. In case anyone cared or (gasp) forgot.

Anything that acts to divide people into little groups is suspect, and this kind of commentary on NPR doesn't help anything. If I were gay, I'd be terribly offended at being pandered to.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
I just heard NPR talking about "Gay music" and "Gay heritage." Evidently Elton John is only a brilliant performer & writer because he's gay. Same with Joe Jackson and the Pet Shop Boys. NPR hinted that without their gayness they wouldn't have been nearly so great. Oh, and they managed to throw in that Cole Porter was gay, along with Melissa Ethridge, kd lang and numerous others. In case anyone cared or (gasp) forgot.

Anything that acts to divide people into little groups is suspect, and this kind of commentary on NPR doesn't help anything. If I were gay, I'd be terribly offended at being pandered to.

I didn't hear the show. There is a line between acnowledging that we exist and are not trivial contributors to society. On the other hand, nobody wants to be reduced to their sexuality (or any other single trait, for that matter). It sounds like NPR was doing that. It isn't uncommon and I don't particularly like it, although I note that this is Pride Month. Gay contributions to society only get menioned in June. The rest of the year, we are invisible even to the liberals at NPR. In June, however, we are a "story."

I'll give you a personal example. A few months ago, ROTC recruiters came to my law school. I was taking a constitutional law class at the time, and my professor (a very liberal guy) took a few minutes at the begining to class to discuss the protest he was organizing to protest the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I raised my hand and spoke. I agree with him that the policy is an abomination, and as a gay veteran, I have personal reasons to dislike it. But as a veteran who happens to be gay, I was deeply uncomfortable about the fact that he was planning to protest innocent recruiters and people considering a military career. I think the proper place to direct the protest is to Congress, since Don't Ask, Don't Tell is Congress' law.

To say the least, the professor looked very uncomfortable. Victims who are the hobby horses of well meaning liberals aren't supposed to speak for themselves. We are supposed to be nothing more than abstract symbols for their activism.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by finboy:
I just heard NPR talking about "Gay music" and "Gay heritage." Evidently Elton John is only a brilliant performer & writer because he's gay. Same with Joe Jackson and the Pet Shop Boys. NPR hinted that without their gayness they wouldn't have been nearly so great. Oh, and they managed to throw in that Cole Porter was gay, along with Melissa Ethridge, kd lang and numerous others. In case anyone cared or (gasp) forgot.

Anything that acts to divide people into little groups is suspect, and this kind of commentary on NPR doesn't help anything. If I were gay, I'd be terribly offended at being pandered to.

Maybe they were trying to inform/educate people?

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The rest of the year, we are invisible even to the liberals at NPR. In June, however, we are a "story."

The story mentioned that June was Gay Pride Month or whatever. I mentioned the story because it's pretty typical for NPR to mention someone's lifestyle when discussing their accomplishments, or someone's race. To point it out as though it were some kind of special attribute that made their contribution mean MORE than some other person's contribution because of "race" or gender or sexual orientation or geographic location or "ethnicity."

At the same time, it always pisses me off when reporters pronounce foreign-root words in a mocking semblance of the foreign tongue. Eeek.

[zigzag]

I'm confused. finboy appears to be saying that it's wrong for NPR to mention gayness at all, even during Gay Pride Month, while Simey appears to be complaining that gays are invisible to NPR except during Gay Pride Month. Yet both appear to disdain NPR's liberal bias.

OK, I have my own beefs with NPR, so I don't mean to blindly defend them, but how exactly would you guys have them handle it?

I'm reminded of some interviews they did with American Jews and Arabs last year. The Jews said that NPR was invariably slanted towards the Palestinians, and the Arabs said that NPR was invariably slanted towards Israel. But at least there was a consensus: all concerned appeared to agree that NPR did a lousy job.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm confused. finboy appears to be saying that it's wrong for NPR to mention gayness at all, even during Gay Pride Month, while Simey appears to be complaining that gays are invisible to NPR except during Gay Pride Month. Yet both appear to disdain NPR's liberal bias.

I don't have a problem with them makiing a special effort during gay pride month. Far from it. But it is a little insulting when that is the only time they mention the issue. It makes you feel like the christmas tree that spends 11 months in a dark closet (so to speak), then for one measly month, you are the center of highly labored attention. Well, this christmas tree would rather just be a regular part of the furniture. Not special for one month, and ignored the rest of the year.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't have a problem with them makiing a special effort during gay pride month. Far from it. But it is a little insulting when that is the only time they mention the issue. It makes you feel like the christmas tree that spends 11 months in a dark closet (so to speak), then for one measly month, you are the center of highly labored attention. Well, this christmas tree would rather just be a regular part of the furniture. Not special for one month, and ignored the rest of the year.

I understand, I was partly teasing. I couldn't help seeing the irony in two conservatives complaining about NPR's liberal slant while being diametrically opposed about its coverage of this particular issue.

Not that I expect conservatives to agree on everything any more than I expect liberals to agree on everything, although (as finboy demonstrates), identity politics is not something conservatives are traditionally associated with.

Identity politics are often annoying to everyone except the group engaging in them. But I would say to finboy that it's a necessary part of the process of developing a truly egalitarian society. Every group seeking respect from the majority goes through it and has conflicting urges - to assimilate on the one hand, and to assert and celebrate their culture on the other. It's hard for me to fault NPR for reporting on gay culture in the middle of Gay Pride Month. If we were truly egalitarian, there would be no need for a Gay Pride Month.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I understand, I was partly teasing. I couldn't help seeing the irony in two conservatives complaining about NPR's liberal slant while being diametrically opposed about its coverage of this particular issue.

It's not NPR's liberal slant that bothers me, it is the liberal tendency to treat minorities (in this case, my minority) as a cause rather than as people. It's hard to explain why it is annoying, and I know that it is well-meaning and most of the time helpful. But it is also a bit patronizing.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not NPR's liberal slant that bothers me, it is the liberal tendency to treat minorities (in this case, my minority) as a cause rather than as people. It's hard to explain why it is annoying, and I know that it is well-meaning and most of the time helpful. But it is also a bit patronizing.

Yeah, a difficult line to tread, and I'm not sure how I would handle it myself if I were a broadcaster. As I remarked in another thread recently (about racism), there seems to be a natural but difficult transition from oppressed victim status to full citizenship (in the figurative sense), and at any given time you're going to offend somebody's sensibilities. If I were gay (or, for that matter, Serbian), I'd probably look askance at the very idea of a Gay (or Serbian) Pride Month, but that has as much to do with my personality as anything.

[OAW]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm talking about contemporary laws in these United States. I don't care about laws elsewhere*, still less in other times and certainly not marriages in Elizabethan literature. Those are irrelevant distractions.

This is what you are not dealing with. There were laws in this country, not so long ago, that forbade blacks and whites from marrying each other. It was argued that was not discrimination, since the law restrained both races equally, and because both could get married if they just followed the rules and married according to the law. Is this argument begining to sound familiar? It should, it is structually identical to your argument.

It is, I admit, an alluring argument on its face. The problem is it completely ignores the human reality that if you allow one group of people to have something as basic as marriage, and then systematically disallow it to another, it is discrimination no matter how much you try to dress it up. That is, in effect, what the Supreme Court said when they struck down the bans on mixed race marriages. Laws that appear to be equal on their face can be discriminatory if they in fact systematically deny things as basic as marriage. That's why I'm telling you that you need to find another argument, because that one is constitutionally very shakey indeed.

My point was that to compare anti-miscegenation laws, which were relatively recent in human history and not universally applied and quite obviously designed to protect the false notion of "white racial purity" .... to the fact that gay "marriage" has never been allowed in any society on the entire planet at any time in human history is quite frankly, beyond a stretch. Of course, there are the noted exceptions of the 3 countries that now allow "gay marriage". I'm not sure if they have officially changed the definition of marriage or if they have instituted a legal "civil union" arrangement for gays. Regardless, when compared to the time frame involved in human history this just happened "yesterday", so my point still applies.

You speak about the laws just in this country. Ok. My point is still valid when I said that such laws weren't universal.

"In all, 30 states passed anti-miscegenation laws that stayed on the books until the advent of the civil rights movement. Of these, 16 kept their laws on the books until the Supreme Court threw them out in 1967: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Another 14 states passed anti-miscegenation laws, but repealed them in the 1950s or 1960s: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. "

So we have these laws only in 30 of the 50 states. And they didn't even start showing up until after the Civil War. These were laws specifically designed to restrict and denigrate black people. Laws that did not exist before, that all of a sudden got passed because certain white people were looking to maintain the system of white supremacy as much as possible after slavery was abolished. That is not the same as what is going on with the gay "marriage" issue. There were no laws passed specifically to exclude gay people from getting married that at one time did not exist. The fact of the matter is that gay "marriage" has essentially been inconceivable to the public at large because of the long standing and commonly understood definition of marriage.

Which leads me to another point in this whole "marriage" debate. There is a societal dimension in all of this. It is not just about individuals. Marriage is not only a covenant between two individuals, it is also a joining of two families, and is something that is recognized and approved of by society at large. The reason why polygamy is not allowed in our country is because our society does not approve of it and thus not recognize it. A group decision has been made that essentially says that we will not organize our society in such a fashion. So the reality is that it's a lot more complicated than two individuals doing whatever they want to do and the government simply staying the hell out of it. We won't see gay "marriage" in the US until the public at large comes to accept such a notion. If places like the Netherlands are just now allowing this, then you can best believe that the US is a loooong way from going there .... if ever.

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

'civil union'; the G.E.D. of marriage licenses?

[finboy]

Originally posted by planetpetey:

makes me wonder...how many generation X'ers realize that the roots of all the things they take for granted in regard to fashion, popular and dance music, television, clubbing, piercings, and even a heap load of civil rights, lay in the creativity, style and innovation born out of gay culture, and slowly seeping into the mainstream?

I hope there aren't many -- they'll just be disappointed when they find out that all that has been overstated by gay-centric revisionists. To be sure, gay folks have contributed as much as any other group in society, but to hold them up as EXTRA creative and cool is ludicrous. And dangerous: if you can exaggerate about the contribution of the gay (stereotypically) lifestyle, then others can paint with a broad brush too.

The whole argument revolves around reducing the idea that gay people are DIFFERENT from everyone else in the steaming mass of humanity. Trouble is, folks have been brainwashed to think that our subtle differences are more important than our similarities. Hence, the Middle East. And this thread.

[simonjames]

Excellent point finboy - we aren't different - we just want the same rules and regulations that apply to you and most other people - nothing special - nothing different - no "special rules just for gays" - just the same all-encompassing set of laws and benefits.

And OAW - you *really* must get out more - life has moved on past where you are sitting. Two people of the same sex is a joining of families. My partner of 14 years gets along fine with both of my parents. Sometimes they call him to ask him something - they don't even feel the need they have to talk to me everytime they call. Same goes for his family though they are on the other side of the world. I haven't been "home" for 3 years now. As in their home - and I have been "told" I should come - pity the thing is its expensive to fly to Europe - especially spending Aussie Dollars.

What am I trying to say here? I am trying to say that you guys live in the past. Gays aren't asking for anything extra - we aren't a bunch of pedophiles - I personally don't like any young people but there are others out there with very strong parenting needs with a desire for family - funny that - I have straight friends who feel just as strongly for the need to bare offsrping and other straight friends who have decided to never have children - just like me!

Whether you are Christian, Jew, Atheist, Born-again, Orthodox, Agnostic or Jedi

Whether you are left handed or right handed or ambidextrous

Whether you are straight or gay or bi or transgender or Grace Jones

Whether you have auburn, brown, jet black or blonde or no hair at all.

Whether you are a Moor, or from the middle-east, upper or lower African, Asian, Eurasian, Indian, Islander or white or even from Cleveland

We are all the same - we all want a safe clean place to live - friends and lovers to share our lives with - lifes achievements and the inevitable disappointments - we all want what we can make of life - without special rules and without discrimination


but gays are people who don't want to sit at the back of the bus anymore



ok - thats my rant - doubt it has done any good