Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

04/13/2009 10:00:35 PM · #2076

Originally posted by Mousie:

So no, while I may not be able to make the two (universalist/relativist) ends meet, I can certainly point out how people don't act much like universalists, meaning I don't really HAVE to make the ends meet. We all tell white lies. We all treat some better than others based on our affiliations. We all let slide that which is expedient. We're all relativists.

This actually may give us hope to foster bridges of understanding. Believe it or not, I was having a conversation with my dad this weekend and our conclusion: We're all Universalists. :) So maybe we all exhibit some traits of both. I'd say we are all Universalists because everybody can play a great Relative game until the chips are down and our toes get stepped on. At that point we all become Universalists and are keenly aware that we have been Wronged! Forget what the other guy thinks, we are due JUSTICE!

So I can see your point. But I will point out that a Universalist is allowed to adapt and change. To a Universalist that can mean progress toward understanding a real truth. If Action X is wrong for all people at all times in a given situation, if you hold that Action X is right, then you are merely incorrect. The truth exists outside your own perception.

Message edited by author 2009-04-13 22:01:42.

04/13/2009 10:39:14 PM · #2077

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
Ah but even in jest you are missing something key. I'm a monogamist. It doesn't matter which gender, I still pick one person. In other words I give myself more options but at the end of the day, there is still only one person in my bed.

Which is more than can be said for many people, gay, straight, or bi!

Serial monogamy to me is an oxymoron. And how many people actually have more than one person in their bed at a time? That's the world of porn and teenage boob movies.

I mean open relationships, casual dating, cheating, being single and having random multiple partners. But even if I did mean multiple partners in the same bed at the same time, that still happens. If you think any of that only exists in movies I'd say you are really sheltered... ;)

ETA: How is serial monogamy an oxymoron?

Wikipedia:
Monogamy is the state of having only one husband, wife, or sexual partner at any one time. The word monogamy comes from the Greek word monos "μονός", which means one or alone, and the Greek word gamos "γάμος", which means marriage or union. In many cases, the word "monogamy" is used to specifically refer to marital monogamy.[1]

* Social monogamy refers to two persons/creatures who live together, have sex with one another, and cooperate in acquiring basic resources such as food, clothes, and money.
* Sexual monogamy refers to two persons/creatures who remain sexually exclusive with one another and have no outside sex partners.
* Genetic monogamy refers to two partners that only have offspring with one another.
* Marital monogamy refers to marriages of only two people.

I would fall into the first 2. Monogamy implies exclusivity, not lifelong commitment.

Message edited by author 2009-04-13 22:51:09.

04/13/2009 10:45:51 PM · #2078

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, I'm clear on it. Maybe you still need to commit. ;)

To use your CS Lewis analogy of the many rooms off the hallway, some of us are committed, but we are committed to the hallway. I know to those who have settled in one room for the rest of their lives it looks indecisive, but it is not, we have made a well studied and rational decision not to limit our lives to one room. We might visit your room and take something from it, but then we are called to see what is next door.

'Tis true. I guess I'll just say it's the least understandable position to me. I'm not saying nobody takes it, but I don't quite get it. I can understand the atheist and identify with him much better.

I did catch some flavor of agnosticism in Monica's post where she answered my questions about her view of God and I can respect that view somewhat. I don't quite know what position you fall in, although I'd guess it was along these lines as well. I could be wrong about it though.

I was trying to express this very sentiment to you earlier. I don't understand why my position is MORE frustrating than the exact opposite of yours?

But now I get it now. Because you can't really argue with me. Because I will never say "God doesn't exist" like an atheist. I will only say "I don't think you can know that God exists".

Jell-o always breaks the mold! *wink*

04/13/2009 11:00:34 PM · #2079

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Yes, it is more frustrating because I understand the position of the atheist. I know what their axioms are and what the logical conclusions are. The "in between" positions are varied and fluid. They are also, usually, less thought through and so often lead to conversations where people go back on things they say, etc.

Frankly, if I were not a Christian, I would next be an atheist.

04/13/2009 11:01:49 PM · #2080

Originally posted by escapetooz:

That makes some more sense to me. :)

Still, even the phrase "serial" (more than one) and "mono" (one) are somewhat contradictory. I'm a fan of monogamy monogamy.

04/13/2009 11:05:43 PM · #2081

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
I was trying to express this very sentiment to you earlier. I don't understand why my position is MORE frustrating than the exact opposite of yours?

But now I get it now. Because you can't really argue with me. Because I will never say "God doesn't exist" like an atheist. I will only say "I don't think you can know that God exists".

Jell-o always breaks the mold! *wink*

Yes, it is more frustrating because I understand the position of the atheist. I know what their axioms are and what the logical conclusions are. The "in between" positions are varied and fluid. They are also, usually, less thought through and so often lead to conversations where people go back on things they say, etc.

Frankly, if I were not a Christian, I would next be an atheist.

I think again you are jumping to the conclusion that these positions are less thought through. I could jump to the same conclusion about Christianity. I mean come on, when the answer is always "God said so" there doesn't have to be much thinking involved.

There are people that don't think on all end of the spectrum. I shouldn't have to keep reminding you of that.

I don't go back on things I've said, I just humor other positions with my "if" statements and then when I admit it doesn't matter because I was only humoring, it appears I'm going back on a position when I have not.

i.e. IF there is a God with a will and thoughts, THEN I don't think he cares that I'm gay. But since I don't know there is a God, and don't know what he thinks, the point is moot. That doesn't mean I've changed my mind on what God thinks.

04/13/2009 11:39:54 PM · #2082

Originally posted by escapetooz:

i.e. IF there is a God with a will and thoughts, THEN I don't think he cares that I'm gay. But since I don't know there is a God, and don't know what he thinks, the point is moot. That doesn't mean I've changed my mind on what God thinks.

I can agree here. If you don't believe in God, then why bring this up? It certainly is moot and only leads to extra noise on the thread.

04/13/2009 11:58:24 PM · #2083

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
i.e. IF there is a God with a will and thoughts, THEN I don't think he cares that I'm gay. But since I don't know there is a God, and don't know what he thinks, the point is moot. That doesn't mean I've changed my mind on what God thinks.

I can agree here. If you don't believe in God, then why bring this up? It certainly is moot and only leads to extra noise on the thread.

Because people of faith do not allow me to leave it out of the discussion. It is a game of "ok lets just pretend I think for a minute your faith should have anything to do with MY rights for the sake of argument. If it does matter then ______" Because when faith is left out, you do not have a leg to stand on. There IS no argument there against being gays and allowing gays rights. I mean, there are attempts, but every "non-faith" argument I've ever heard against gays holds no water.

It's like that article posted in that other thread about how atheists have to pussy-foot around everything.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/14/2009 12:49:24 AM · #2084

Originally posted by escapetooz:

It's like that article posted in that other thread about how atheists have to pussy-foot around everything.

And never get elected to any office of significance, anyway!

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/14/2009 02:25:45 AM · #2085

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Interesting, so those who jump to extreme conclusions actually think things through? Wow, I did not know that. I would have thought the opposite given the quickness in life you've reached such sweeping conclusions but hey apparently you're a prodigy and based on your last sentence you're also an expert on just about everything now since you've already dismissed thousands of religions and other schools of thought and narrowed the field to just two (i.e. Christianity or Atheism). I'll be sure to rely on you're ~~wikipedia abilities~~ expertise in Tengriism, Valentinianism, Manichaeism, Taoism and every other ism, whenever I have a question on such things. Wow, Doc I'm really impressed but I'm puzzled. Given your vast abilities why are you wasting your time here? Shouldn't you be flying around in a cape or something? :P

ETA: Now with new and improved sarcasm and peppermint snarkiness.

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 02:53:59.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/14/2009 09:25:04 AM · #2086

Originally posted by David Ey:

Which brings us to another non-liberal thought. In nature, those who don't work don't eat and therefore die. Natural, isn't it?

Hmmm, not too familiar with the antics of the Cuckoo bird or how some species of wasps ensure the survival of their larva are we?

There are countless numbers of examples in nature where survival has nothing to do with work per say, but more on feeding off of a host.

Ray

04/14/2009 09:47:00 AM · #2087

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes, it is more frustrating because I understand the position of the atheist. They are... less thought through and so often lead to conversations where people go back on things they say...

I challenge you to find ONE that's actually a reversal rather than your failure to grasp a concept.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/14/2009 10:41:04 AM · #2088

This may have already been covered but I 'm not about to read through 84 pages to find out. Why does this arguement have to be just about Gay marriage? What about all the single people out there gay or straight? The people who choose not to get married. Should we extend privillages to them just as we have for centuries to people who chose to get married? I personally think NO ONE should ever be stopped from being with the one they love in any situation reguarding society, government or private organizations rules. IE hospitals..

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/14/2009 10:48:47 AM · #2089

Originally posted by coronamv:

The issue is fundamentally about the disparity in the civil rights of a gay couple versus a straight couple despite the same commitment.

The illegality of gay marriage resulting in this discrimination makes no sense to many of us, especially since one of the reasons being put forth is that somehow, allowing gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage.

There are an awful lot of people who cannot understand this reason on any level whatsoever.

Subjectively, I always thought that the sanctity of marriage was about the commitment to my partner at the ultimate level, not my partner's gender.

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 10:50:18.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/14/2009 10:56:42 AM · #2090

I follow your statements but fail to see why it has to be about gay vs straight.It seems we have missed the bigger picture. Married vs not married. My question is not to say gays should not be allowed to marry, but more to ask the question why do married people get special privillages vs non married people? With my arguement we take sexual preference out of the picture completely.
BTW I always thought marriage was a privillage not a right.

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 10:58:06.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/14/2009 10:58:18 AM · #2091

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Subjectively, I always thought that the sanctity of marriage was about the commitment to my partner at the ultimate level, not my partner's gender.

Well, "sanctity", of course, is a religious concept. So it should be no surprise that folks of particular religious stripes think gay marriage is an abomination. I don't think that's correct thinking, myself, and neither, obviously, do you, but it certainly doesn't surprise me when people feel that way...

R.

04/14/2009 11:01:40 AM · #2092

Here is a question. Did marriage originate with religion? Each religion defining it in their own interpretation. Then society accept it and assign certain privillages to it.

04/14/2009 11:22:27 AM · #2093

Originally posted by coronamv:

why do married people get special privillages vs non married people?

It's a question of joint right on issues like taxes on combined income, inheritance, custody, medical decisions, and so on where more than one person has a personal stake in the outcome. Of course single people already have personal legal rights regardless of sexual orientation, but if you're incapacitated or die without a will, your significant other should be next in line to make decisions in your place.

04/14/2009 11:26:28 AM · #2094

Originally posted by coronamv:

Here is a question. Did marriage originate with religion?

No, it didn't. For most of history, it was little more than an oral commitment, a business agreement of sorts. The church was not significantly involved in Christian marriages until the mid-1500's.

A brief history:
For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential. In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage. Like with the Greeks, Roman marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval. Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement. From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life." This change did not extend to the regions affected by the Protestant Reformation, where marriage by consent continued to be the norm. As part of the Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state. By the 1600s many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage.

It's almost comical that Protestant groups are now trying to adopt the Roman Catholic version as if that's the way it's always been defined. Nope!

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 11:36:18.

04/14/2009 11:34:41 AM · #2095

Shannon, I think you did nail one in the head should we as adults have wills to protect our interest instead of depending on government to sort the mess out. Back to the question at hand. Why single out gay people over any single person who are being denigned the same privillages?

04/14/2009 11:39:43 AM · #2096

Originally posted by coronamv:

Why single out gay people over any single person who are being denigned the same privillages?

Your question doesn't make sense. Joint rights involve additional legal issues that simply do not apply to an individual.

04/14/2009 11:57:56 AM · #2097

Why are we just arguing for more rights/privillages for gays over arguing equal rights/privillages for all single people equivalent to those of married people?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/14/2009 12:09:15 PM · #2098

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'd say we are all Universalists because everybody can play a great Relative game until the chips are down and our toes get stepped on. At that point we all become Universalists and are keenly aware that we have been Wronged! Forget what the other guy thinks, we are due JUSTICE!

And yet even then we are subject to social norms that change over time. The idea that people should not be owned as slaves or women should have the right to vote seems like a universal" moral truth today, but both were radical concepts only a few hundred years ago. A little perspective. Someone born into slavery or a lower Indian social caste may accept their situation as "right" (because that's the cultural norm they're accustomed to), and actually demand the beating of a peer who broke the rules. Kamikazes and radical suicide bombers may be willing to takes their own lives as well as others' because they believe it's the honorable thing to do, even if they would otherwise decry murder as immoral. It's all about context, and context is subject to constant change.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/14/2009 12:11:55 PM · #2099

Originally posted by coronamv:

Why are we just arguing for more rights/privillages for gays over arguing equal rights/privillages for all single people equivalent to those of married people?

That's not making sense. The rights being discussed are the ones that come appended to legally recognized partnerships between people. "Single" is not an issue here. Unless you think your roommate, whoever s/he happens to be this week, should automatically inherit your stuff if you die suddenly and intestate?

R.