| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2009 07:00:00 PM · #2826 |
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
I'd like to make a few points and I apologize if someone else has made them.
Firstly, marriage is something that is more often than not associated with the Church and religion. Christianity is so incredibly hostile towards homosexuality. I don't understand why gay people would spend their time fighting against a hostile force to establish marriage rights. The Church has been so horrible to them, why would they try to win their approval? |
In the US, no marriage is recognized as legal unless confirmed by a civil license issued by the government, and that license confers certain specific legal rights regarding property, inheritance, taxation, and about 1500 others I don't have the time/knowledge to list. It is equal treatment under the law and impartial application of those civil rights over which this fight is being fought -- it has nothing whatever to do with asking for any religious body to change their own policies. |
|
|
|
11/06/2009 07:16:40 PM · #2827 |
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
The Church has been so horrible to them, why would they try to win their approval? |
They're not. Like any other minority, I'm sure many couldn't care less whether or not a church approves of "the way God made them." No openly gay priest, politician or pope chooses to risk excommunication and alienation from friends and relatives. Despite the popular misconception, marriage is *NOT*, and never has been, dictated by religion. Marriage licenses are issued by the government, and no church involvement is necessary. Tax forms ask your marital status (including common law marriage) and don't ask your religious status. Hospitals restrict visitors by marital status, not religion. Defining ANY civil matter in religious terms is an appeal to the masses fallacy used as justification to oppress others. This is why many colonists came to the New World in the first place, and expressly what the framers of the Constitution were trying to avoid.
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
Secondly, fighting for gay rights, or women's rights, or black rights, or any kind of 'minority's' rights, is identity politics. |
If those in power actually identified with the plight of others, there wouldn't be any discrimination to fight against. All inequalities boil down to sheer greed, and might (unfortunately) makes right. Every issue, political or religious, is a matter of maximizing opportunities for "us" at the expense of "them," and generally driven by fear and suspicion. Those who would yell, "God is great!" while gunning down unarmed innocents or, "The majority has spoken!" while restricting the rights of others are equally cowards. No god worthy of devotion requires the assistance of a murderer, and no heterosexual couple needs everyone else to live the same lifestyle for their own marriage to be valid. True strength of character and morality is being comfortable enough with your own life to let others live theirs without your approval.
Message edited by author 2009-11-06 21:12:17. |
|
|
|
11/06/2009 09:34:29 PM · #2828 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
True strength of character and morality is being comfortable enough with your own life to let others live theirs without your approval. |
Bravo.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2009 09:48:51 PM · #2829 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
True strength of character and morality is being comfortable enough with your own life to let others live theirs without your approval. |
Bravo. |
Agreed... Bravo.
I would even add that true strength of character and morality is being comfortable enough with letting others develop their own ethics and morals, and respecting that decision even if it differs from your own. Embarrassingly, the church, and other religions, do not do this. |
|
|
|
11/08/2009 11:41:47 AM · #2830 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
True strength of character and morality is being comfortable enough with your own life to let others live theirs without your approval. |
Bravo. |
Agreed... Bravo.
I would even add that true strength of character and morality is being comfortable enough with letting others develop their own ethics and morals, and respecting that decision even if it differs from your own. Embarrassingly, the church, and other religions, do not do this. |
The Amish do. :) I can respect that.
Now... why get married despite marriage's (loose) association with 'the' church?
Because my families and I wanted it.
To celebrate an official joining of our two clans, Masyk & Kemmer.
To secure the legal rights and accept the legal obligations that come with marriage.
And, to be honest, as a political act to demonstrate just how arbitrary and unfair this all is, for everyone. To risk my own privacy and safety by openly living as a model for my vision of justice. To make this justice a reality, and take away the conservative's ability to use my very existence as a bogeyman.
To be just like you. To be SEEN just like you.
For the first time in my life, the thought that I'd be proud just because of my homosexuality has crept in, and it's kind of shocking. I used to feel no more proud of my orientation than I did my right-handedness, or my blond hair. But I've been given a real opportunity, by just living in the right place and at the right time, by just living my life, to stand up for what is right. To be counted. To fight for fairness. If my own marriage can help achieve that, damn right I'm proud.
Not proud that I'm gay mind you, but proud that I don't let the people who'd rather pretend I don't exist win! We might have regular political setbacks, but nobody's taking that picture of my husband off my desk at work, or taking down my rainbow flag. I'm proud to have the balls to be who I am despite people telling me I'm wrong and trying to deny my equality. I'm proud to keep coming back here and showing everyone what us gays really want.
I'm proud of my 15 year relationship with my husband. I'm proud of the year we've been married. I'm proud of my parents' 42 year marriage, and aspire to make it that far, too.
That's why.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2009 11:49:51 AM · #2831 |
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
People need to band together and fight for their living conditions and working rights - not their right to marriage etc. These kinds of rights will follow once equality is achieved. |
I don't believe it. We've had plenty of time to determine that nobody gets what they deserve unless they fight for it. Nobody's handing out free respect. The default human response to 'the other' is to see it as less than oneself.
Case in point, the very people who have banded together best, the religious, use their fellowship to deny me my rights, using me as a pawn to strengthen their own position and fill their coffers... when they should be out there feeding the poor, protecting workers, and stopping wars.
I worry you have an inflated image of the good in man.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2009 06:29:48 PM · #2832 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
People need to band together and fight for their living conditions and working rights - not their right to marriage etc. These kinds of rights will follow once equality is achieved. |
I don't believe it. We've had plenty of time to determine that nobody gets what they deserve unless they fight for it. Nobody's handing out free respect. The default human response to 'the other' is to see it as less than oneself.
Case in point, the very people who have banded together best, the religious, use their fellowship to deny me my rights, using me as a pawn to strengthen their own position and fill their coffers... when they should be out there feeding the poor, protecting workers, and stopping wars.
I worry you have an inflated image of the good in man. |
I have an objective view of mankind.
It is not mankind that is "bad", but the economic system humans are living under i.e. capitalism. Capitalism pits people against one another in a competition to see who can be wealthiest. Humans do not have an inherent greed built into them. Capitalism makes it seem that way however.
"Free respect"? "The Other"? I know that I respect gay people, and other "minorities". My automatic response is definitely not to see them as less than me. And I have many, many friends who have the same feelings.
Perhaps we grow up with prejudices (my parents were narrow-minded and I had to break free from their views), but ultimately when we are independent human beings we make our own decisions. And if we do not respect a particular type of person, that is not saying something about humanity in general, but a particular person's experiences and influences.
Nobody has to win my respect. That implies that humans have an instinctual suspicion or dislike of everyone until they prove themselves. This is highly cynical and I believe incorrect. |
|
|
|
11/08/2009 07:05:47 PM · #2833 |
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
Nobody has to win my respect. That implies that humans have an instinctual suspicion or dislike of everyone until they prove themselves. This is highly cynical and I believe incorrect. |
It's probably entirely correct. Humans inherently favor those they identify with, and view anybody who's different with suspicion and distrust. This is true of race, language, culture, mannerisms, religion, politics, left-handedness, etc., and more likely a consequence of natural selection than a moral failure or lack of compassion. Whether you're a Christian in Iran or a Caucasion in Zimbabwe, the default attitude is that you're "not one of us." It takes enormous effort to put yourself in another's shoes when the shoes don't fit. |
|
|
|
11/08/2009 08:57:50 PM · #2834 |
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
Nobody has to win my respect. |
Respect must be earned. You may feel that the next guy, or girl, has the right to be treated with decency, kindness, and courtesy, but respect is not something that is automatic.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2009 09:48:49 AM · #2835 |
Originally posted by CrazyDiamond:
Perhaps we grow up with prejudices (my parents were narrow-minded and I had to break free from their views), but ultimately when we are independent human beings we make our own decisions. |
I think that this is very misleading. Our prejudices are informed by the society we keep (and inherit). Very many of our prejudices are unconscious or unthinking but they are influential in our decision making.
So, society has a huge impact on our prejudices and our prejudices have a huge impact on our decision making. Society's prejudices therefore affect our decision making far more than you imply.
This highlights the importance of acting consciously to minimise prejudice in society as a whole. Diminishing prejudice in society has a positive spiral effect:
(1) We build a more pleasant society for everyone today; and as a result
(2) We diminish the level of unconscious prejudice in future generations (reinforcing (1)).
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 08:33:14 PM · #2836 |
I think the last election day results give the movement some real thinking to do. I agree with both the results of Maine and Washington. The NY Times had a great blog article you can find here which has, I think, well thought out quotes from both sides of the debate that go beyond the typical rhetoric. I recommend it.
The dilemma remains difficult. Clearly the movement needs to face up to a 0 for 31 voting record which strongly says the public is not currently ready for such a redefinition of the institution of marriage. Should they now move to an all-or-none strategy in federal court, which is a risky proposition given its current makeup, or do they continue to try to find low hanging fruit at the state level (although Maine may have represented the lowest hanging of remaining states)? Or do things get put on the back burner until the next generation asserts more political power?
For the intellectual debate, the question remains as to what instution the movement points to as a moral authority that trumps the public's opinion? SCOTUS? UN? And what happens if such an authority rules against them? Does that make the movement morally "wrong"? or does it just mean a failure of the institution?
It will definitely be something we will watch unfold as we live our lives. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 09:48:35 PM · #2837 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the last election day results give the movement some real thinking to do. Clearly the movement needs to face up to a 0 for 31 voting record which strongly says the public is not currently ready for such a redefinition of the institution of marriage... For the intellectual debate, the question remains as to what instution the movement points to as a moral authority that trumps the public's opinion? SCOTUS? UN? And what happens if such an authority rules against them? Does that make the movement morally "wrong"? or does it just mean a failure of the institution? |
Those thoughts would apply to African Americans in the 1930's or women in the 1800's. We weren't ready back then to "redefine" the institution of voting or leadership as anything other than the exclusive domain of white men. The same moral authority people claimed as justification for their bigotry back then is still rearing its ugly head now, and it's just as shameful. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 09:59:56 PM · #2838 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the last election day results give the movement some real thinking to do. Clearly the movement needs to face up to a 0 for 31 voting record which strongly says the public is not currently ready for such a redefinition of the institution of marriage... For the intellectual debate, the question remains as to what instution the movement points to as a moral authority that trumps the public's opinion? SCOTUS? UN? And what happens if such an authority rules against them? Does that make the movement morally "wrong"? or does it just mean a failure of the institution? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Those thoughts would apply to African Americans in the 1930's or women in the 1800's. We weren't ready back then to "redefine" the institution of voting or leadership as anything other than the exclusive domain of white men. The same moral authority people claimed as justification for their bigotry back then is still rearing its ugly head now, and it's just as shameful. |
Yep.....pretty much.
Thing is....the whole argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with the institution and ethics of a committed relationship between two people.
It has to do with ignorance and fear.
And that's not right.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:04:47 PM · #2839 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think the last election day results give the movement some real thinking to do. Clearly the movement needs to face up to a 0 for 31 voting record which strongly says the public is not currently ready for such a redefinition of the institution of marriage... For the intellectual debate, the question remains as to what instution the movement points to as a moral authority that trumps the public's opinion? SCOTUS? UN? And what happens if such an authority rules against them? Does that make the movement morally "wrong"? or does it just mean a failure of the institution? |
Those thoughts would apply to African Americans in the 1930's or women in the 1800's. We weren't ready back then to "redefine" the institution of voting or leadership as anything other than the exclusive domain of white men. The same moral authority people claimed as justification for their bigotry back then is still rearing its ugly head now, and it's just as shameful. |
Tell me more, Mr. Shannon. I've never heard that argument before...
I'm actually still waiting for you to tell me whether you would be against a position held by the society you are part of if the SCOTUS rules in support of the DOMA. Or would you then change your opinion? |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:22:56 PM · #2840 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Those thoughts would apply to African Americans in the 1930's or women in the 1800's. We weren't ready back then to "redefine" the institution of voting or leadership as anything other than the exclusive domain of white men. The same moral authority people claimed as justification for their bigotry back then is still rearing its ugly head now, and it's just as shameful. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me more, Mr. Shannon. I've never heard that argument before...
I'm actually still waiting for you to tell me whether you would be against a position held by the society you are part of if the SCOTUS rules in support of the DOMA. Or would you then change your opinion? |
Oh, please!
We've been talking about this being an equal rights issue all along.
Trying to cloud the issue by imposing your morality on others doesn't make it any less a case of discrimination.
Message edited by author 2009-11-10 22:24:37.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:24:09 PM · #2841 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me more, Mr. Shannon. I've never heard that argument before...
I'm actually still waiting for you to tell me whether you would be against a position held by the society you are part of if the SCOTUS rules in support of the DOMA. Or would you then change your opinion? |
SCOTUS ruled in 1857 that Africans imported into the United States as slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never become citizens of the United States (Dred Scott v. Sandford) and against racial integration in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson). Fortunately, enough people continued to see those decisions as morally wrong that they were eventually overturned.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:24:31 PM · #2842 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Those thoughts would apply to African Americans in the 1930's or women in the 1800's. We weren't ready back then to "redefine" the institution of voting or leadership as anything other than the exclusive domain of white men. The same moral authority people claimed as justification for their bigotry back then is still rearing its ugly head now, and it's just as shameful. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me more, Mr. Shannon. I've never heard that argument before...
I'm actually still waiting for you to tell me whether you would be against a position held by the society you are part of if the SCOTUS rules in support of the DOMA. Or would you then change your opinion? |
Oh, please!
We've been talking about this being an equal rights issue all along. |
He's being sarcastic, Jeb...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:49:43 PM · #2843 |
| I think people are misinterpreting the intention of my post. I wasn't setting myself up for another 1,000 post round and round discussion. I was rather just commenting on the state of current affairs (I agreed with Maine, but also Washington) and inviting people to read an article which seems to present intelligent people from both sides. Such journalism these days seems to be rare and I think it is worthwhile to point it out when it exists. |
|
|
|
11/10/2009 10:51:22 PM · #2844 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me more, Mr. Shannon. I've never heard that argument before...
I'm actually still waiting for you to tell me whether you would be against a position held by the society you are part of if the SCOTUS rules in support of the DOMA. Or would you then change your opinion? |
SCOTUS ruled in 1857 that Africans imported into the United States as slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never become citizens of the United States (Dred Scott v. Sandford) and against racial integration in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson). Fortunately, enough people continued to see those decisions as morally wrong that they were eventually overturned.
~Terry |
Don't worry Terry. Personally I think the SCOTUS is fully capable of making an "immoral" decision. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 12:06:35 AM · #2845 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm actually still waiting for you to tell me whether you would be against a position held by the society you are part of if the SCOTUS rules in support of the DOMA. |
I'm not sure why that should matter. Whatever the court rules regarding abortion, slavery, minority rights, etc., there will always be some who agree and some who disagree. Even within the court rulings, there are minority opinions and majority opinions (like the views posted here, they're ALL opinions). Their opinions are supposed to be based upon the "absolute standards" of the Constitution, but like any textual model applied to a continually changing society (ahem), it's subject to radically different interpretations and personal bias. If this were not true, then people wouldn't get all uptight over the opinions of a prospective judge.
It's a popular misconception that democracy means the minority has to do whatever the majority demands. It's just not so. Catholics can't tell Muslims that they must be baptized, and and right-handed people can't force left-handed people to switch. There are certain boundaries of respect for the rights of others that you just can't cross, and this is one of them IMO. Another citizen's relationship with a consenting adult of any race, religion or sexual orientation is frankly none of your business. Whether a gay couple is married by a justice of the peace or another church down the road has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your own relationship, and you have no business dictating theirs. A honest campaign for the sanctity of marriage would be targeting abuse and divorce as immoral rather than private, but loving, relationships that you just don't approve of. It's plain, bare-naked bigotry in neon lights and maribou, and will eventually be looked back upon as shamefully as the campaigns against abolition and women's suffrage even if the majority once agreed with such discrimination. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 12:41:35 AM · #2846 |
I think that's an eloquent statement of your opinion Shannon. I just think you are well aware of the position you are in. If you declare the SCOTUS to be the standard bearer for what is "right", then you risk them ruling against you and thus being required to reverse your position. If you declare the SCOTUS to be capable of making immoral decisions (like Dred Scott), then your opinion on the subject become only one voice among many. A voice that currently appears to be in the minority. So while you conclude that the prohibition of gay marriage is against the constitution (and thus immoral), you also fully admit that the constitution is "subject to radically different interpretations and personal bias". So it appears that your position is weak. Either you stand at risk of being told you are wrong by the current interpreters of the constitution (with no recourse to disagree), or you stand merely as one voice among many in a current minority. That doesn't seem so strong either.
In the article I linked, I found this quote to be very balanced and something to ponder. It hits home at the end:
"You can come up with all kinds of theories about why this is, blaming the voters for being bigots, accuse the churches of playing dirty, whatever. The plain fact is, every single time it’s been put to a popular vote (as opposed to allowing a tiny number of elites to vote on it), gay marriage has been a loser.
Do I think it always will be? No, I do not, in part because homosexuality is far more accepted by young Americans, and in part because heterosexual America has already conceded the philosophical grounds on which traditional marriage was based (which is why younger Americans are more comfortable with gay marriage). Nor do I believe that the voters are always right. But unless you’re prepared to call more than half the country bigots — and I have no doubt that many, perhaps most, gay marriage supporters are, and let that self-serving explanation suffice — maybe, just maybe, you ought to ask yourself if there’s something else going on here. And that maybe, just maybe, serious attention should be paid, instead of paying attention long enough to insult people who disagree with you as evil people who deserved to be excoriated and harrassed."
Message edited by author 2009-11-11 00:42:28. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 12:46:49 AM · #2847 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...against the constitution (and thus immoral)... |
These are the same things? |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 12:58:00 AM · #2848 |
Incidentally, your article over dramatizes the issue. I have some fine people on my street. They're very kind to us... I particularly remember watching a couple of guys rolling a huge bundle of planks for our new fence off our grass in the middle of the night shortly after we moved here so the lawn wouldn't get damaged. The neighbours beside us are our best friends on the street, and have us over all the time. We exchange keys when we respectively go away for a while, taking in the mail, watering plants, and so on. They're in their sixties, and Catholic, and very religious.
I don't believe any of our neighbours to be deserving of excoriation and harassment, but I'm all but certain that very few of them are gay marriage supporters -- we live in a conservative part of the province. I think those who don't support gay marriage do so for religious or bigoted reasons, or both, and usually the two are intermingled. I believe such attitudes deny what should be a basic human right. (In my country all people have the right to marriage, so it isn't an effective denial, only a moral one.) But my disagreement with them is not an insult, nor is their disagreement with me. One can actually have a strong view of something and not demonize one who has a completely opposite view. Like you with respect to me. ;-)
Message edited by author 2009-11-11 00:59:08. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 12:59:08 AM · #2849 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...against the constitution (and thus immoral)... |
These are the same things? |
No, I would disagree. But I have seen that implication many times on these threads.
PS to add, thanks for the mutual nod of respect. You and I, of course, disagree quite strongly on a good many things, but I do count you as a friend and would probably blend in invisibly with your street's disagreeing but tolerant cohort. Although it seems so on Rant, we need not be barbarians. :)
Message edited by author 2009-11-11 01:03:26. |
|
|
|
11/11/2009 01:00:08 AM · #2850 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But unless you’re prepared to call more than half the country bigots ... |
Those who vote(d) are far less than half the country ... |
|
