Same Sex Marriage

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=DanieMarie link=topic=259.msg10798#msg10798 date=1289226919]
I didn't mean slavery, I meant confronting racist things like segregation. And not just in the US, but in Canada and Europe as well.
[/quote]

Well, I don't know about Canada and Europe, but I can tell you that in the U.S., segregation, as it was actually practiced, was not just inconvenient to the minority, it included a lot of other horrible abuses. Schemes to keep people from voting, confined to specified areas, banned from certain types of education and jobs, organized and violent methods of intimidation - none of which are being used against gay couples today (in anything other than isolated incidents, which are then treated as crimes).

If they were, I'd be in favor of calling in the National Guard to secure their rights, as was done during the segregation battles I watched when I was a kid.

Again, it's a very different thing.

It's a word.

"Marriage".

???

[DanieMarie]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

I understand what you're saying with that, and I wasn't comparing it directly as having the same history. I just meant that it's not right to exclude people from the same rights as everyone else because of their race or religion or gender, and though some people had a problem with equality they had to let go of that, and it shouldn't be right to discriminate against people for their sexuality either and exclude them from the same rights as everyone else because of it.

I guess I just meant it a lot more generally and people got really specific about it....

[Dez]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=DanieMarie link=topic=259.msg10826#msg10826 date=1289231436]
I guess I just meant it a lot more generally and people got really specific about it....
[/quote]

Fair enough Danie...it's a comparison that a lot of people are batting around these day, and so it rolls off the tongue for a lot of people easily.

It still doesn't make it accurate.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=DanieMarie link=topic=259.msg10826#msg10826 date=1289231436]
I understand what you're saying with that, and I wasn't comparing it directly as having the same history. I just meant that it's not right to exclude people from the same rights as everyone else because of their race or religion or gender, and though some people had a problem with equality they had to let go of that, and it shouldn't be right to discriminate against people for their sexuality either and exclude them from the same rights as everyone else because of it.

I guess I just meant it a lot more generally and people got really specific about it....
[/quote]

I agree with you all the way. It isn't right - but then you get down to the idea "If it isn't right, how can you correct it?"

I'm a realist, so I look for an effective way of making the change, which will not cause more problems than it solves. If the government tries to force a change without the consent of the people, they get angry - Americans are very, very touchy about this - and there is likely to be a political backlash which will set the whole thing years back, and possibly result in violence (or, at least, additional discrimination) directed at the very people the forced change was intended to help.

However, if the change is allowed to happen gradually, over time, as the attitudes of the people change, then the whole thing happens with much less likelyhood of creating additional social problems. Grass roots change is always better and more effective in the long run than top down changes - although, admittedly, it takes longer.

If the people in question were being actively repressed or persecuted, that would be a different story - the need for immediate change would be pressing.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=B. de Corbin link=topic=259.msg10860#msg10860 date=1289238600]
I agree with you all the way. It isn't right - but then you get down to the idea "If it isn't right, how can you correct it?"

I'm a realist, so I look for an effective way of making the change, which will not cause more problems than it solves. If the government tries to force a change without the consent of the people, they get angry - Americans are very, very touchy about this - and there is likely to be a political backlash which will set the whole thing years back, and possibly result in violence (or, at least, additional discrimination) directed at the very people the forced change was intended to help.

However, if the change is allowed to happen gradually, over time, as the attitudes of the people change, then the whole thing happens with much less likelyhood of creating additional social problems. Grass roots change is always better and more effective in the long run than top down changes - although, admittedly, it takes longer.

If the people in question were being actively repressed or persecuted, that would be a different story - the need for immediate change would be pressing.
[/quote]

I think this may be where the difference of opinion is coming from. I see your point when it's brought to my attention, but I don't see things as much that way automatically because while people in every country hate change, we have very different ways of carrying out change and people react quite differently. So it's just not really something I consider unless it's brought to my attention.

For example, when gay marriage was legalized in Canada (and I think gay rights were a slow process there as well, starting in the 60's when it became legal to be homosexual in the first place), there were people that were angry about it and there was talk a while ago from the Conservative party about changing to civil unions for gays and keeping marriage for straights (which didn't happen), but it was really kept to media fighting and people writing angry letters to their representatives. But Canadians by nature just aren't radical people.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

LOL - well, ya know - I'm an old red neck, and I hate the idea of being dictated to by stuffed shirts and talking heads in Washington .

When it becomes clear that attitudes are changing, it seems to me that the role of the government is to, perhaps, provide a forum for discussion, moderate the discussion, help negotiate meaningful compromises, then make sure that the law is followed.

This way, the people feel that the change is one they wanted, and that they made - which means that they will support it - rather than one which was forced on them by the powers above - which they may submit to, but grudgingly, and by force.

I think this is part of what Lao-tzu was trying to teach us...

[Medusa]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=DanieMarie link=topic=259.msg10826#msg10826 date=1289231436]
I understand what you're saying with that, and I wasn't comparing it directly as having the same history. I just meant that it's not right to exclude people from the same rights as everyone else because of their race or religion or gender, and though some people had a problem with equality they had to let go of that, and it shouldn't be right to discriminate against people for their sexuality either and exclude them from the same rights as everyone else because of it.

I guess I just meant it a lot more generally and people got really specific about it....
[/quote]
I, for one completely agree with you. And I am not very compassionate with people who are afraid. Touch shit. It ain't your hoo ha or ho ho. So don't worry where it gets sticked.

[thalassa]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=Medusa link=topic=259.msg10979#msg10979 date=1289252724]
I, for one completely agree with you. And I am not very compassionate with people who are afraid. Touch shit. It ain't your hoo ha or ho ho. So don't worry where it gets sticked.
[/quote]

Compassionate? nah...

But realistic as to the fact that the morons that do worry about whose hoo ha and ho ho goes happen to vote :...well...thats another story.

[Medusa]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=thalassa link=topic=259.msg10983#msg10983 date=1289252930]
Compassionate? nah...

But realistic as to the fact that the morons that do worry about whose hoo ha and ho ho goes happen to vote :...well...thats another story.
[/quote]
Well us gay loving Satanists just are gonna have to vote a little louder then them, now aren't we? I am all for understanding another view point...if that other understands mine. Which doesn't seem like they do. So the only thing prudent to do is to stop trying to udnerstand them and try to vote them over. Then again they tend to multiply like Catholics.


it's a joke :P

[Raphaeline]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Going back for a moment to that part of the discussion I was mentioning before, about calling same sex marriages "unions":

(Sorry, it took me a while to get back to it but I'll make it short.)

If we want to call all domestic partnerships "marriages", OR call them all "unions", I'm down with that. But I will never say I'm okay with giving a man and a woman a "marriage" and a man and a man or a woman and a woman a "union". As far as I'm concerned, it's unfair. I understand that compromising would at least be a move in the right direction, but I don't think it's saying what it needs to say - "unions" doesn't say, "I think gay men and women are equal to heterosexuals." It says it's close enough. It says, this will suffice. Having them separate, to my ears, is it's good enough when I don't believe anything less than giving gay men and women the same concept of partnership IS good enough.

Usually I'm not so black and white about things, but I've had a gay best friend since grade school. The groups of people I hung out with in high school and college and beyond - mostly gay or transsexual. I see absolutely no difference whatsoever in couples made up of men, women, or one of both. I can't even wrap my brain around why a marriage between two people of the same sex could possibly be wrong or immoral. I know that some people do feel that way, but I can't help but see giving gay couples "civil unions" is supposed to make up for not giving them the same rights as heterosexuals.

[thalassa]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=Raphaeline link=topic=259.msg11040#msg11040 date=1289259565]
If we want to call all domestic partnerships "marriages", OR call them all "unions", I'm down with that. But I will never say I'm okay with giving a man and a woman a "marriage" and a man and a man or a woman and a woman a "union". As far as I'm concerned, it's unfair.
[/quote]

IMO...this is what the compromise should be:
NO ONE gets "married" by the state, EVERYONE has a civil union--or even just a civil registration of "domestic partnership" for all I care. If you need your union to feel special and "married", go see your clergy person. They can sort out who they will or will not "marry" according to the rules of their religious institution.

And, if you happen to be gay the UCC among others are happy to perform your ceremony.

Judicially speaking, it would be far simple just to let everyone get married...but if the conservative religious types have their panties in such a twist over who gets a piece of paper legitimizing whom they put their hoo hoos and ha has together with...then the (US) government should get their hand out of the marriage cookie jar all together.

[Corvus]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=thalassa link=topic=259.msg11074#msg11074 date=1289267752]
IMO...this is what the compromise should be:
NO ONE gets "married" by the state, EVERYONE has a civil union--or even just a civil registration of "domestic partnership" for all I care. If you need your union to feel special and "married", go see your clergy person. They can sort out who they will or will not "marry" according to the rules of their religious institution.

And, if you happen to be gay the UCC among others are happy to perform your ceremony.

Judicially speaking, it would be far simple just to let everyone get married...but if the conservative religious types have their panties in such a twist over who gets a piece of paper legitimizing whom they put their hoo hoos and ha has together with...then the (US) government should get their hand out of the marriage cookie jar all together.
[/quote]

I was in the process of typeing this very thing. Gay people want the same things as regular people their choice of partners dosnt (or at least shouldn't) matter, except of course to those religeous leaders that find it an "abomination".
The goverment should give out generic unions for any two adults which want to be bonded and given the very same rights. As has been said earlier marrige is a spiritual union not something the goverment should mandate.

[zachai]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

Its hard to say that marriage is neither a religious nor a government issue. in todays society a marriage is a legal contract so by that definition the government is involved 100%. however if you look at it like that then marriage is one of few concepts that makes no sense for the government to restrict. imagine if it was decided gay people couldn't get a loan or buy a car, legally the same deal.

on the religious front i believe that the whole point of having a marriage is to say that you will be together and make that promise upon a symbol whether that is god, Eros or the magical spaghetti monster. otherwise arn't you just having a big party?

[Clive]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=zachai link=topic=259.msg22940#msg22940 date=1292533567]
on the religious front i believe that the whole point of having a marriage is to say that you will be together and make that promise upon a symbol whether that is god, Eros or the magical spaghetti monster. otherwise arn't you just having a big party?
[/quote]

Well, yeah. A wedding ceremony can be just a big party. Whether you believe in some god or not, a wedding is about making a commitment to each other, in front of friends and family, or just a judge. Atheists get married, too, and I don't think they're pledging themselves go Yahweh or Eros.

And let's face it. The real reason most people get married is for the free stuff, otherwise they wouldn't have bridal registry.

[zachai]

Re: Same Sex Marriage

[quote author=Clive link=topic=259.msg22972#msg22972 date=1292542699]

And let's face it. The real reason most people get married is for the free stuff, otherwise they wouldn't have bridal registry.
[/quote]

well you've gotta admit free stuff is a pretty big bonus