Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/18/2009 06:46:53 PM · #2727

Originally posted by rossbilly:

Well that's the confusion. It should be separated, but it isn't. Did you know, there are some countries that don't have a civil marriage. It's all handled by the church.

Here's another wrench, did you know a baptismal certificate can be used instead of a birth certificate. Does that mean homosexuals will now want a baptismal certificate?

I'm trying to point out, there should be a distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think it's us religions that should have to jump through hoops to get our marriage recognized by the state as a civil union.

I think what mouse and others are looking for is acceptance. You want to walk into a hospital and say, "I'm his partner, let me see him."

Even if you have a certificate, that won't prevent you from seeing your partner. There was a post in one of these pages where a woman couldn't see her partner even when she had her certificate.

08/18/2009 06:55:53 PM · #2728

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
Civil Union with legal rights. Just don't call in "Marriage". I'm telling you, it will be a long time coming to get past the marriage term with conservatives and the older generation for quite some time.

As it was with abolishing slavery... equal but not really equal, hence the Jim Crow laws. The subjugation of others to lower "classes" of equality is un-American and shameful. Change is inevitable, and the only difference between then and now is that a Google search will tell our great grandchildren where we stood on the issue.

How can you equate slavery with this issue. Nobody is owning homosexuals. Anyone who thinks a homosexual is a lower class of citizen has other issues.

However, marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman.

You answered your own question. You assert that sexual orientation does not determine a lower class of citizen, and then immediately turn around and declare a particular personal decision to be off-limits to that caste. It's directly analogous to Jim Crow laws ("all men are equal, however voting has always been the right of white men").

Originally posted by rossbilly:

apparently, you are overlooking one very simple fact...

He's overlooking several. Marriage has NOT "always been between a man and a woman." It was simply a commitment between two people until about the 14th century (and didn't really involve the church, either). Before then, homosexual marriage was established and, like other marriages, a private matter. Durable powers of attorney, etc. are not the same as rights afforded by marriage, which are broader in scope.

08/18/2009 07:00:33 PM · #2729

Originally posted by Nullix:

Did you know, there are some countries that don't have a civil marriage. It's all handled by the church.

Here's another wrench, did you know a baptismal certificate can be used instead of a birth certificate. Does that mean homosexuals will now want a baptismal certificate?

Red herrings. There are also countries where the church has no say in marriage, and school matriculation certificates and adoption decrees are just as accepted as baptism records... so? By the way, ALL secular countries have civil marriage. We're not Iran.

By trying to distinguish marriage from civil declarations, you're ignoring a basic fact: marriage already *IS* a civil matter. Your marriage license comes from the state, not the church. You can be legally married in the U.S. without ANY church involvement whatsoever, but you can't be legally married by any church without state involvement.

Message edited by author 2009-08-18 19:19:56.

08/18/2009 09:51:35 PM · #2730

Originally posted by Nullix:

If you want to get your union blessed by the church (ie the sacrement of Marriage), you'll have to find a church to do it. This will return the sacrament of marriage back to the churches which have a right to decimate based on their religious believes.

My church marries same sex couples.

Funniest damn thing......they believe in equality.

08/18/2009 09:56:01 PM · #2731

Originally posted by Nullix:

It sounds like you're just looking for acceptance.

No, he seeks equality.....like the Constitution GUARANTEES.

Originally posted by Nullix:

I believe the time will come when you're accepted. Just donâ��t threaten my sacramental covenant called a marriage.

He is accepted by reasonable, compassionate free-thinking people.

Oh, and *DO* explain how on any level Mousie's marriage threatens yours.

So far none of the other people who have tried to fly that one have been able to for one minute.

And marriage was around long before your religion tried to claim it.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

08/18/2009 10:02:03 PM · #2732

Originally posted by Nullix:

Just donâ��t threaten my sacramental covenant called a marriage.

I'm going to guess that you're talking about marriage as it's referred to in the bible.....which includes that part where the woman must submit to her husband in all matters.

So......you pretty much discriminate against both women and gays judging from your stance in the abortion thread.

BeeCee

Nikon D40

08/18/2009 11:05:09 PM · #2733

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by rossbilly:
apparently, you are overlooking one very simple fact. it is NOT the church that issues the marriage certificate, but the government. a church is NOT required in order to create a valid marriage. therefore, there is no need to create some new name for said certificate (like civil union, etc.)

Well that's the confusion. It should be separated, but it isn't. Did you know, there are some countries that don't have a civil marriage. It's all handled by the church.

Here's another wrench, did you know a baptismal certificate can be used instead of a birth certificate. Does that mean homosexuals will now want a baptismal certificate?

I'm trying to point out, there should be a distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think it's us religions that should have to jump through hoops to get our marriage recognized by the state as a civil union.

I think what mouse and others are looking for is acceptance. You want to walk into a hospital and say, "I'm his partner, let me see him."

Even if you have a certificate, that won't prevent you from seeing your partner. There was a post in one of these pages where a woman couldn't see her partner even when she had her certificate.

It all boils down to the bolded statement. Yup, maybe they should have thought about a way to differentiate between the religious and civil contracts way back when, but they didn't. They are BOTH marriage, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. Mousie has the same right to the civil contract as you have, like it or not, and it IS CALLED MARRIAGE.
But it also has NO bearing on that which you call the "sacrament of marriage". Your church is still free to refuse to perform that rite to gays or bi-racial couples or barren couples or divorcees if it wishes. Nobody, NOBODY is threatening your "sacramental covenant called a marriage".

ARGHHH!!! *beats head against brick wall for another few years*

Message edited by author 2009-08-18 23:05:51.

BeeCee

Nikon D40

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

08/18/2009 11:10:48 PM · #2734

Originally posted by Nullix:

Ummm....Tom, I don't think even churches have the right, in this day and age, to destroy every tenth person... at least not in North America!

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

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

08/18/2009 11:12:53 PM · #2735

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by rossbilly:
apparently, you are overlooking one very simple fact. it is NOT the church that issues the marriage certificate, but the government. a church is NOT required in order to create a valid marriage. therefore, there is no need to create some new name for said certificate (like civil union, etc.)

Well that's the confusion. It should be separated, but it isn't. Did you know, there are some countries that don't have a civil marriage. It's all handled by the church.

Here's another wrench, did you know a baptismal certificate can be used instead of a birth certificate. Does that mean homosexuals will now want a baptismal certificate?

I'm trying to point out, there should be a distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think it's us religions that should have to jump through hoops to get our marriage recognized by the state as a civil union.

I think what mouse and others are looking for is acceptance. You want to walk into a hospital and say, "I'm his partner, let me see him."

Even if you have a certificate, that won't prevent you from seeing your partner. There was a post in one of these pages where a woman couldn't see her partner even when she had her certificate.

It all boils down to the bolded statement. Yup, maybe they should have thought about a way to differentiate between the religious and civil contracts way back when, but they didn't. They are BOTH marriage, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. Mousie has the same right to the civil contract as you have, like it or not, and it IS CALLED MARRIAGE.
But it also has NO bearing on that which you call the "sacrament of marriage". Your church is still free to refuse to perform that rite to gays or bi-racial couples or barren couples or divorcees if it wishes. Nobody, NOBODY is threatening your "sacramental covenant called a marriage".

ARGHHH!!! *beats head against brick wall for another few years*

Will the injuries sustained during this type of activities be covered by your medical coverage... and oh, you really shouldn't do that, it might prevent you from reaching that "old folks" status previously referred to. :O)
...Ray now removes tongue from cheek.

Ray

BeeCee

Nikon D40

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

08/18/2009 11:18:24 PM · #2736

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Hellz yeah, I'm a Canuck! ;)

(and I think I've already reached that "old folks" status, dammit)

Message edited by author 2009-08-18 23:19:06.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/18/2009 11:40:29 PM · #2737

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Nullix:
Just donâ��t threaten my sacramental covenant called a marriage.

I'm going to guess that you're talking about marriage as it's referred to in the bible.....which includes that part where the woman must submit to her husband in all matters.

Yes, wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is head of his wife as God is head of the Church, but the husband is also instructed to love his wife.

What does love mean but to give oneself over to another? The husband is to give himself up for his wife as God gave himself up for the Church. This is a form of submission-a form as deep and as serious as the submission of wives. The husband's reciprocal submission to his wife is the only way her submission could make any sense. In the Christian religion, obedience and submission to another's authority is never due to tyranny or despotism, but to love and a covenant between persons that respects the freedom of each.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

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

08/18/2009 11:44:23 PM · #2738

Originally posted by Nullix:

In the Christian religion, obedience and submission to another's authority is never due to tyranny or despotism, but to love and a covenant between persons that respects the freedom of each.

Really now... I guess that puts to rest all those awful things the church has been accused of over the years. Thanks for posting that, it really clarifies things for me.

Ray

08/19/2009 12:01:24 AM · #2739

Originally posted by Nullix:

Yes, wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is head of his wife as God is head of the Church, but the husband is also instructed to love his wife.

Psst... that's exactly how the Taliban interprets the same text.

08/19/2009 08:21:45 AM · #2740

Originally posted by Nullix:

Yes, wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is head of his wife as God is head of the Church, but the husband is also instructed to love his wife.

You have no grasp of the concept of equal rights whatsoever, do you?

David Ey

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

08/19/2009 09:37:10 AM · #2741

Yes, and the Bible warns against it:)

08/19/2009 09:43:24 AM · #2742

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You have no grasp of the concept of equal rights whatsoever, do you?

Yes, and the Bible warns against it:)

Interesting juxtaposition.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

08/19/2009 08:28:30 PM · #2743

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Nullix:
Yes, wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is head of his wife as God is head of the Church, but the husband is also instructed to love his wife.

Psst... that's exactly how the Taliban interprets the same text.

I think you were just making a cute retort, but for clarification the Taliban doesn't recognize the New Testament as scripture at all...

08/19/2009 09:05:26 PM · #2744

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think you were just making a cute retort, but for clarification the Taliban doesn't recognize the New Testament as scripture at all...

It wasn't intended as just a cute retort. The Bible, Koran and Torah all share a great deal of common source material, and the idea that "wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is head of his wife as God is head of the Church" is shared by all three. The Taliban takes that concept very seriously, and with dubious consequences. The larger issue is that it shows equality as a fundamentally foreign ideal (or at best a new concept) within religion. Women are considered inferior to men by all three major religions â�� automatically demoting one half the population to second class citizens with lesser rights. Even within Christianity, the principle has historically been applied to deny women property, education, votes, positions of authority, and even basic human rights.

Message edited by author 2009-08-19 21:06:05.

David Ey

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

08/19/2009 09:11:04 PM · #2745

and your point?

:)

merchillio

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/19/2009 09:58:07 PM · #2746

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you were just making a cute retort, but for clarification the Taliban doesn't recognize the New Testament as scripture at all...

It wasn't intended as just a cute retort. The Bible, Koran and Torah all share a great deal of common source material, and the idea that "wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is head of his wife as God is head of the Church" is shared by all three. The Taliban takes that concept very seriously, and with dubious consequences. The larger issue is that it shows equality as a fundamentally foreign ideal (or at best a new concept) within religion. Women are considered inferior to men by all three major religions â�� automatically demoting one half the population to second class citizens with lesser rights. Even within Christianity, the principle has historically been applied to deny women property, education, votes, positions of authority, and even basic human rights.

we're going a bit off topic here, but to show you the extent of that phenomenon, here in Montreal, in the jewish neighborhood, many citizen give absolutely no authority to policewomen. In that part of tow, squad cars always have a man and a woman, because they have too much problems with a two woman team. They started to arrest people for "obstruction of justice" and "refusal to comply to a police officer" but then they got on the public place accusing the police of racism and antisemitism, so they chose the easy way of the 1 man, 1 woman team or simply a two men team.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

08/19/2009 11:32:38 PM · #2747

Originally posted by scalvert:

On the other hand, the comparison of "inequality" is exponentially different between Islam and Christianity. During Christianity's infancy the role of women in the faith was actually empowering. Women serving in official roles of the Church? Unheard of in Judaism but seen in Christianity. Even the scriptural stories which recorded positions of importance to women were quite "odd" for the time period. Who were the first people to discover Jesus' resurrection? Women?!? Talk about a way for a new religion to lose credibility, but there it is. Let us not forget that in the eyes of Christianity there is "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

These days it is quite easy to take swipes at the views Christianity has to gender roles. The stereotyped meek and mild June Cleaver is held up and mocked, but few people explore the real, complicated view the modern church has toward men and women. Equal, but different is a complicated and nuanced idea. Most people just can't get past the word "submission" not realizing the submission goes both ways.

In the end people just see what they want to see. If you want to see a misogynistic, antiquated religion, I'm sure you can.

Message edited by author 2009-08-19 23:34:09.

08/20/2009 06:00:45 AM · #2748

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

In the end people just see what they want to see. If you want to see a misogynistic, antiquated religion, I'm sure you can.

Unfortunately, as I have seen in all too many churches TODAY......that antiquated, misogynistic view *IS* held, and in matters that are of critical importance, women are not permitted to be heard.

In all too many cases, the scripture quoters are the ones that perpetuate the 'head of" scenario.

Most of the churches around here will not have female elders.

On the other hand, the church I belong to has a man & wife team of ministers.

And currently, the president of the board of directors is a woman.

Jason, you know that I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, how you live your life, and your willingness to try and wrap your head around others' ideas, but unfortunately, in my experience, you're a rarity.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/20/2009 12:28:39 PM · #2749

Originally posted by Nullix:

So Mouse, please don't take this the wrong way. But why do you want marriage certificate?

Let me turn this around for you a bit.

Why not ask my moms why THEY want us to have a marriage certificate. Offer's still open. It's obviously not for their own tax purposes. There must be something... fundamentally cultural... about my entire family's wish for my husband and I to be married, and for our marriage's continued happiness. How does a good, law-abiding citizen go about accomplishing this? A marriage certificate.

Heck, why not just ask a non-religious straight couple. Why would THEY want to get married? I know two unmarried straight couples with kids. Why DON'T they get married?

-----

I think this all resolves down to certain people being completely unable to ascribe normal human emotions and desires to homosexuals because of all that doubled-up pole smoking and carpet munching. My reasons for wanting marriage are so universal that to not understand them would seem to indicate a person's refusal to walk in my shoes and see things from my point of view. Why? Because it makes them feel oogy, or because it threatens their fragile self image. Witness soldiers, supposedly the manliest, ass-kickingest, most obedient citizens of all... who simply can't bear the thought that a gay man in the same room might look at them exactly the same the way they look at women EVERY DAY, even when ordered to by their superiors. Travel to a foreign country, sleep in the dirt, get shot at... no problem. Another guy sees your junk in the shower? TOTAL PANIC. Do you know how much additional yet preventable ass cancer men get in Africa, for fear of the proctologist's gloved digit? I can dig up the statistics.

Never have I dealt with more insecurity than when interacting with men trying to assert their straight manhood in the face of the 'threat' of homosexuality. American heterosexual masculinity is the prissiest, most wounded gender expression of all. Why do you think they constantly project weakness onto us gays? They're like the stick that breaks, not the reed that bends.

Which is stronger?

Thankfully I have the good fortune of living in a place where many if not most straight men have successfully rid themselves of this burden. Witness my former housemate for 7 years, Ed. I was his best man when he married his wife. He was mine when I married my husband. He got to see, right up close and personal, how a gay dude lives, and didn't flinch. Now THAT is being a real man.

-----

Finally, on people who assert that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, or the infinitely weaker corollary that it has always been the purview of the church... this is provably inaccurate. I personally have posted link after link to provide documented cases of cultures throughout history that have had many other forms of marriage, and marriages not performed by churches. Even within the short history of the United States. I'm not the only one to do so!

At this point in our debate, anyone making this assertion is being either purposefully dishonest, or egregiously ignorant. Cut the crap. Seriously. You're not contributing. Libraries exist. Google exists. You have no excuse.

If I hadn't personally witnessed the lengths some people go to literally demonize any new information that challenges their worldview, I wouldn't be able to believe it myself. There's a frightening culture of willful ignorance around us, and it's name is religious fundamentalism.

Message edited by author 2009-08-20 17:48:27.

merchillio