Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

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

10/16/2008 01:40:47 PM · #251

Originally posted by Mousie:

It's a real shame that this homo won't be heard by those who need to hear him the most, because he's so darn disordered, and so easy to discount out of hand.

Who is trying to change your BELIEFS? Please notice that in almost every one of your examples, the religious group involved is engaged in a non-religious activity governed by LAW. The use of a public marina. Providing student housing. Adoption services.

Following those laws is the price you pay for tax exemption, business licences, and the like. If you you want to run a business, a school with access to the general public, or a service that recieves government aid, you obey the LAWS that come part and parcel with such contracts. If you don't want to follow those dictates, you have the CHOICE of simply NOT SIGNING THOSE CONTRACTS, doing something else, and believing whatever the hell you want, safe within the walls of your church.

But nooooo, the religious are simply unable to live and let live. They have to ENSURE, as much as possible, that others conform to their will, or face scorn, discrimination, retribution, banishment, supression, witch hunts, lynching, genocide... we have seen it over and over and over throughout history. It is an undeniable, incontrovertible urge (and often a clearly stated imperative!) on the part of those with "god on their side".

Oh pity the poor religious folk who have to live in a world where people differ from them, and god forbid they have to acknowledge that those differences exist. It's so much easier to just deny or exterminate, isn't it?

And on a final, depressing note...

It's so great to be compared to pedophiles and animal rapers again. Really. I just love that. I wonder if my brother and his wife (who happen to be visiting for my wedding) should keep me away from my two year old niece and 1/2 year old nephew, or if I should give my pug up for adoption. I'm in the same group of degenerate freaks, apparently. I can't see a compelling reason why they SHOULD let me own a dog or play with some of the most adorable little kids ever.

I am completely sickened. I hope it shows.

I hope that when DrAchoo reads this (I know it was not directed at him), he can objectively compare the real suffering you endure to the suffering he alleges will occur if the word "marriage" is used instead of civil unions. Is there really any comparison? I am always astonished how quickly people can forget that the targets of their discrimination are flesh and blood humans who should never have to tolerate the kinds of abuse that are thrown at them.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

10/16/2008 03:55:39 PM · #252

Originally posted by eqsite:

I am always astonished how quickly people can forget that the targets of their discrimination are flesh and blood humans who should never have to tolerate the kinds of abuse that are thrown at them.

Hear, hear....

10/16/2008 05:33:28 PM · #253

Originally posted by eqsite:

I hear it and I know it's a difficult situation when two groups of people have very different opinions about something that affects both groups. I will caution people to not simply throw back the same vitriol and hate at the opposition. There are devoutly religious people who are trying their best to live in a society they feel has values very different to their own. I'm not pointing at mousie, but I have to say there is scorn, and ridicule and rejection apparent on this thread that would be untolerated if the word "religious" was replaced with the word "gay".

I happened to see on Google news an article concerning Proposition 8 in California which is one of these typical constitutional amendments defining marriage as "between one man and one woman". The article can be found, oddly enough, on the MarketWatch website and can be read here. The takehome message, I think, is to see this through the eyes of the devout. They already find it hard enough to raise their children with the values they choose. Now they are afraid that "gay marriage" is going to be taught to their kindergarteners with books like "King and King". Without judging, can people take a step back and see how threatening this is? I am sure there are lots of devoutly religious people who would be perfectly happy if gay marriage existed but was out of sight and out of mind. I think they are not aggressively looking to stamp this out, but they feel their own lives will be intruded upon in ways like the one mentioned above.

The hard fact of the matter is western religion, at some level, does not agree with homosexuality. I can't somehow deny that. Certainly they have the right to believe so (see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articles 18 and 19). The problem arises in finding the best way to have two groups with very different beliefs coexist in peace. This is very difficult. One group cannot simply walk on the rights and views of the other group, but that goes BOTH ways. If gay marriage leads to books like "King and King" as part of a kindergarten curriculum, I think this amounts to a "tyranny of the vocal minority". Now, certainly the argument we have been having about rights for gays should be divorced from the argument about diversity training in schools, but sometimes the real world is a messy, gray, complicated place.

OK, I'm probably rambling now. Takehome messages:

1) The "flesh and blood humans" exist on BOTH sides of this dilemma.
2) Try to understand the perceived threat gay marriage represents.
3) I remain in favor of protecting the rights of gays.
4) OK, this is new, but if domestic partnership exists in California and is viewed equal under the law, why all the hubbub about how we define "marriage"? I still don't quite understand this. Is it important or not to simply call a gay union a "marriage" if they are already viewed as equal under the law?

Message edited by author 2008-10-16 17:50:28.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

10/16/2008 05:38:56 PM · #254

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

4) OK, this is new, but if domestic partnership exists in California and is viewed equal under the law, why all the hubbub about how we define "marriage"? I still don't quite understand this. Is it important or not to simply call a gay union a "marriage" if they are already viewed as equal under the law?

I don't know why, but I have heard several discussions where those who object to gay "marriage", for any number of reasons, also object with equal vehemence to any equivalent union that is named something else.

10/16/2008 05:46:45 PM · #255

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
4) OK, this is new, but if domestic partnership exists in California and is viewed equal under the law, why all the hubbub about how we define "marriage"? I still don't quite understand this. Is it important or not to simply call a gay union a "marriage" if they are already viewed as equal under the law?

I don't know why, but I have heard several discussions where those who object to gay "marriage", for any number of reasons, also object with equal vehemence to any equivalent union that is named something else.

Well, that's a whole nuther ball of wax and one you'd have to find someone else to argue for.

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

10/16/2008 05:48:26 PM · #256

The threat that exists if gay marriage is allowed would be the threat of families having to change their view of the world.

The threat that exists if gay marriage is not allowed is the continuing ability for people to have an excuse to treat a whole separate group of people with fear, hatred, disgust, amusement, violence, contempt... the list goes on, instead of a societal shift that allows much of this to begin to end.

The relgious "values" that you talk about were the same ones thrown forth to support slavery, and then segregation. That were thrown forth to begin genocides. That were thrown forth for so many different things that history has since proven were a terrible tragedy.

Yes, it's difficult to live with a set of values that you've chosen, but when those values are found to be hurtful to people for NO GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER, then history shows those values are bound to change, and that's what's going to happen here, eventually.

Kindergartners today encounter "Noah's Ark" and similar stories just about every day. As an atheist, this goes against many of my values and brings up questions I'd rather not answer, but I answer them, because this world is better when we teach our children to appreciate and accept many different ideas and beliefs about this world.

Yes, it's frustrating for us all when people start to resort to hate and vitriol and anger on either side, but sometimes that anger comes about because of real and seemingly endless frustrations, and it's a different anger than when it's coming from self-righteousness.

JMart

Nikon D80

10/16/2008 05:48:54 PM · #257

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I think the reasoning is simply this: If marriage is offered as a government contract, then it should be available to any couples regardless of sexual orientation. That's it. To turn the question around, if the different names offer the exact same rights, why should the contracts have different names?

10/16/2008 05:51:06 PM · #258

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Takehome messages:

1) The "flesh and blood humans" exist on BOTH sides of this dilemma.
2) Try to understand the perceived threat gay marriage represents.
3) I remain in favor of protecting the rights of gays.
4) OK, this is new, but if domestic partnership exists in California and is viewed equal under the law, why all the hubbub about how we define "marriage"? I still don't quite understand this. Is it important or not to simply call a gay union a "marriage" if they are already viewed as equal under the law?

1) How often are anti-gay people the victims of violent crimes committed by pro-gay activists? This is an extreme, but I think it highlights a fundamental difference between how the "flesh and blood humans" on each side are being treated by our society. OK, violent crimes are somewhat rare, but take it down to any hate crime -- I don't see it happening in the other direction.

2) I'd like to understand the perceived threat, but I honestly don't. Please continue explaining, because so far I don't think you've made a strong case. I don't like the hip/hop culture. I don't wan't my daughter exposed to it as she grows up. Should I try to legislate it away? No. Will it be more difficult for me to instill my values into her when she's exposed to it -- yes, but that's my job as her parent. Too bad it's not an easy job, but that's what parenting is (or at least what it's supposed to be).

3) I believe you, and I also am in favor of supporting freedom of religion. There is a delicate line to walk here, but equating open and hostile descrimination against gay marriage to the difficulty of explaining to your children why fair and equitable laws may sometimes disagree with the foundations of those religions doesn't compute.

4) My problem is that words have value. If two things are of equal value, then the same word should apply. If the same word can't apply, then there is something differentiating the value. Explain this to me -- if gay marriage becomes "civil union" and straight marriage remains "marriage", how do you explain to your children why there is a difference?

Message edited by author 2008-10-16 17:52:49.

10/16/2008 05:54:00 PM · #259

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I wish I had a big red button I could push which would set off an alarm and a flashing light that says "intolerance".

BZZZT...Intolerance...BZZZT

I quite understand you don't agree with their view, but tolerance would say you need to allow them their right. The first amendment, for example, applies to skin-heads as well as the Quilters of America. You have apparently stereotyped religious people now as possessing, "fear, hatred, disgust, amusement, violence, contempt". That's not very peace-making.

Yes, I understand "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose", but apparently in California nobody's rights are being removed. A word is merely being defined.

Message edited by author 2008-10-16 17:55:06.

10/16/2008 06:01:06 PM · #260

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Takehome messages:

1) The "flesh and blood humans" exist on BOTH sides of this dilemma.
2) Try to understand the perceived threat gay marriage represents.
3) I remain in favor of protecting the rights of gays.
4) OK, this is new, but if domestic partnership exists in California and is viewed equal under the law, why all the hubbub about how we define "marriage"? I still don't quite understand this. Is it important or not to simply call a gay union a "marriage" if they are already viewed as equal under the law?

1) How often are anti-gay people the victims of violent crimes committed by pro-gay activists? This is an extreme, but I think it highlights a fundamental difference between how the "flesh and blood humans" on each side are being treated by our society. OK, violent crimes are somewhat rare, but take it down to any hate crime -- I don't see it happening in the other direction.

2) I'd like to understand the perceived threat, but I honestly don't. Please continue explaining, because so far I don't think you've made a strong case. I don't like the hip/hop culture. I don't wan't my daughter exposed to it as she grows up. Should I try to legislate it away? No. Will it be more difficult for me to instill my values into her when she's exposed to it -- yes, but that's my job as her parent. Too bad it's not an easy job, but that's what parenting is (or at least what it's supposed to be).

3) I believe you, and I also am in favor of supporting freedom of religion. There is a delicate line to walk here, but equating open and hostile descrimination against gay marriage to the difficulty of explaining to your children why fair and equitable laws may sometimes disagree with the foundations of those religions doesn't compute.

4) My problem is that words have value. If two things are of equal value, then the same word should apply. If the same word can't apply, then there is something differentiating the value. Explain this to me -- if gay marriage becomes "civil union" and straight marriage remains "marriage", how do you explain to your children why there is a difference?

1) Watch a documentary called "The Consientious Objector". It's an awesome movie (oscar nominee or winner) about Desmond Doss who was a Seventh Day Adventist who did not believe in killing. He still felt it is duty to join the army in World War II. He wound up winning the Congressional Medal of Honor. The point is, his days in the army, were full of persecution for his belief.

2) The perceived threat is the "slippery slope". One leads to the other. I'm not saying it's true or real, although it appears to be true in Massachusetts (if the article is to be believed).

3) I do not view defining the word "marriage" as open and hostile when an equal entity exists. I'd be happy if they were all called civil unions in the sight of the law. I certainly would disagree with actual hostility toward gays because of their belief.

4) As said, I'd be happy if all were called "civil union", but one could explain it that "marriage" is a term founded in religion and the other is a term founded in civics.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/16/2008 06:04:29 PM · #261

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've always found this notion that tolerant people can only be tolerant if they willingly tolerate intolerant people to be faintly silly and typically used as a dodge.

Karl Popper it turns out, said it a whole lot better than I could:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Maybe not entirely pertinent to this discussion, but this 'tolerance of intolerance' saw comes up often enough to deserve being questioned.

10/16/2008 06:10:47 PM · #262

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) The only parallel I would find in this is if the law were requiring people to enter into a gay marriage against their religious beliefs. Desmond Doss was obviously a victim of discrimination in a number of regards. Are you equating being forced to do something against your beliefs to allowing others to do something against your beliefs?

2) The "slippery slope" works in both directions. If you define gay marriage as different from straight marriage, that leaves open the door to restrict the rights of one over the other.

3) I'd be happy if they were all called the same thing, either way. Equal - not separate but equal. I think we've agreed on this already in this thread.

4) Again, those words have values. If they are the same, then they are the same. You want to reserve the word "marriage" for your definition of it to the exclusion of others, even though you would give everyone the same rights under the civil union. You would thus be saying "The gay civil-unions are just the same as the straight civil-unions, but marriage is just for the straight civil-unions and is therefore special." I don't care if your church doesn't recognize or perform gay marriages, but why the need to co-opt the word? What value are you reserving for yourself that you're not granting to gay couples?

10/16/2008 06:14:32 PM · #263

Originally posted by Gordon:

That's an excellent quote -- thanks for sharing.

10/16/2008 06:14:47 PM · #264

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm actually kind of sitting here a bit stunned that that's what you took away from my post.

10/16/2008 06:16:35 PM · #265

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I'm actually kind of sitting here a bit stunned that that's what you took away from my post.

Welcome to the internet...

10/16/2008 06:16:54 PM · #266

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Kindergartners today encounter "Noah's Ark" and similar stories just about every day. As an atheist, this goes against many of my values and brings up questions I'd rather not answer, but I answer them, because this world is better when we teach our children to appreciate and accept many different ideas and beliefs about this world.

This should be the takeaway from your quote -- well said.

10/16/2008 06:20:41 PM · #267

Originally posted by Gordon:

Maybe not entirely pertinent to this discussion, but this 'tolerance of intolerance' saw comes up often enough to deserve being questioned.

I sorta agree with you Gordon. OTOH, the term "tolerance" is often worn as a magic mantle of protection. The problem comes from it all being relative. Certainly the coin could be flipped and the exact terms could be used the other way around. I find the whole concept to be unhelpful. It seems like some warm, fuzzy way of hoping that everybody can agree on everything. Or it devolves into a term simply to imply "intolerance" is held by those who do not hold your own beliefs. The truth of the matter is there exist dilemmas with adherents to both sides and real world ramifications arise from which side is put into action. Bam. Life sucks.

10/16/2008 06:22:45 PM · #268

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Kindergartners today encounter "Noah's Ark" and similar stories just about every day. As an atheist, this goes against many of my values and brings up questions I'd rather not answer, but I answer them, because this world is better when we teach our children to appreciate and accept many different ideas and beliefs about this world.

This should be the takeaway from your quote -- well said.

I think it's a strawman. I have two elementary school kids and I have never found a religious storybook in their schools. Certainly they may encounter them elsewhere, but we were talking about curriculum in a school. I would be against "Noah's Ark" being taught in school as strongly as "King and King". I wasn't advocating banning all pro-gay books, I was pointing out people fear it will become part of their child's curriculum.

Message edited by author 2008-10-16 18:23:48.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/16/2008 06:35:32 PM · #269

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Kindergartners today encounter "Noah's Ark" and similar stories just about every day. As an atheist, this goes against many of my values and brings up questions I'd rather not answer, but I answer them, because this world is better when we teach our children to appreciate and accept many different ideas and beliefs about this world.

This should be the takeaway from your quote -- well said.

I think it's a strawman. I have two elementary school kids and I have never found a religious storybook in their schools. Certainly they may encounter them elsewhere, but we were talking about curriculum in a school. I would be against "Noah's Ark" being taught in school as strongly as "King and King". I wasn't advocating banning all pro-gay books, I was pointing out people fear it will become part of their child's curriculum.

Then it's a double strawman. I don't recall ever seeing books about marriage period (or any other kind of social idea of the like), being a part of a school curriculum. Especially in Kindergarten. I'm just approaching your arguments at the same level here man. In Kindergarten they teach ABCs and 123s and getting along with your classmates, and language skills, and arts and crafts, then suddenly I see you using some kind of example "King and King" being 'taught' to kindergarteners, and then get labelled as being intolerant myself when I try and ask people to open their minds a bit, and try and separate the difference between a threat to ideas and a threat to people.

So, obviously the definition of a word means more to you than any kind of honest discourse. That's the only conclusion I can draw.

I'm just going to leave it to the more political now, as I'm obviously way over my head. In the end, society will determine where we finally fall, and with history on its side, my only hope is that this will finally become the complete and utter non-issue that it should have always been, and decades from now we'll be focussed on the next humanity issue to come along.

Louis

Nikon D800

10/16/2008 06:38:36 PM · #270

I find no polite way to say that if one's core values reflect nothing but unfounded loathing of a group of people based on how they have sex, then those values are empty indeed. Religious values, are they? It's a strange species of god that would concern himself with the particulars of coitus and the definitions of words, while refusing to take real human suffering seriously, but I suppose the problem of theodicy is a discussion for another thread. Anyway, that anyone would take such "values" into consideration at all is quite stunning. Never mind the fact that said "values" are far-reaching indeed: the denial of rights, the sealing of inequality into the Constitution, the tacit approval of discrimination that leads, as someone has pointed out, to smirking and denigration and violence.

10/16/2008 06:57:00 PM · #271

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

[quote=DrAchoo]Then it's a double strawman. I don't recall ever seeing books about marriage period (or any other kind of social idea of the like), being a part of a school curriculum. Especially in Kindergarten.

Did you read the article I linked? Proposition 8: Who's really lying? Apparently the book "King and King" HAS been presented in schools in Massachusetts.

a quote: The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, "King and King." This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing.

EDIT: I did catch my bad that it was second graders, not kindergarteners.

Message edited by author 2008-10-16 19:00:54.

10/16/2008 07:02:37 PM · #272

Originally posted by Louis:

While I understand your concern, your little essay is full of hyperbole and diatribe.

10/16/2008 07:11:23 PM · #273

Man, Wiki has EVERYTHING: King and King

Our kids will probably wonder how we survived without it.