| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| duh |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 15:46:50
I saw the part from the Ellen show where she questioned McCain about his opposition to same-sex marriage. I think it was good strategy for McCain to appear on Ellen, but I also think he seemed a bit uncomfortable with the question.
Since then, the thought has occurred to me that I can't think of any good reason for a person to oppose same-sex marriage.
It seems that lots of people are virulently opposed to it. I am puzzled by that virulence. Why would someone care that much about it?
I think life is hard. If someone can find someone to share the journey with and to make it easier and more fun, what difference should it make what gender they are?
I must be some kind of oddball. I think 'peoples is peoples' and I think that sexuality comes in an array of flavors and that marriage is a stabilizing thing that society should encourage.
Isn't it ironic that through the 60's and 70's, heterosexual couples were moving in together 'because we love each other too much to get married,' (bullshit honey, he wants the milk for free) and now same-sex couples love each so much that they want to get married?
In the community I live in, there is quite a divide between the people who don't care what consenting adults do in private, and people who are adamantly opposed to anything 'progressive.'
I know of a woman who married and had kids but then left her husband and moved in with her girlfriend. They conduct themselves with dignity while in public, which is more than one could say for some hetero couples. Anyhow, they attended together, a football game at one of the kid's high school.
My cousin, who is a very nice person, was offended that the two had appeared together at the game. She said how embarassing it must have been for the kid.
I was left wondering, WHY did anyone CARE that the women were a lesbian couple? WHY was there an assumption that their teenager would be embarassed?
So, although gay couples are making progress, they still have a long ways to go towards acceptance.
I've heard that one reason some people are so worried about gay marriage is that they are afraid it will open the door to group marriage and perhaps even some truly aberrant variations. Is that a legit concern? I don't know.
I suppose there could be problems if polygamist marriage was legally recognized, because it seems that polygamist marriages tend to have accompanying perversions such as incest and child abuse and wife battering.
I've heard that at the local high school, the gay students are now a rather large and 'out' group. When I attended back in the early 70's, the gay students were tolerated, but treated somewhat as a joke. They could not be open about being gay even though everyone knew they were gay.
I was not gay, but because I was an oddball, some of the others treated me as though I was gay and made jokes about me being a lesbian. Even one of the gay boys did that to me.
The whole issue puzzled me. As I've stated before, I was 'reared by wolves' and the behaviors of the other kids usually puzzled and confused me.
I could never understand why it was such a big deal as to whether one liked girls or boys or both. Shouldn't it be the person that matters, not the genitalia?
As far as rearing children goes, I do see benefits to the child for having both a male parent and a female parent. I was protective and careful with the children, my husband was playfully rough and encouraged adventurousness. But what matters most is to model civilized behavior and to provide stability for children. That becomes a matter of the character of the parents, rather than gender. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/01/2008 : 06:42:59
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
always results in the shame of tyanny.
Who's Tyanny and why is he/she ashamed? 
She's that singer Spears' youngest sister, I think. |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 13:58:26
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G 0 1 f
Foxboy: Can you attack both these two and get them on the same side again so we don't get a flame war?
No, I wanna see where this one ends.  |
| duh |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 13:57:42
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
BTW, shouldn't this have been in the Off Topic section? What's it got to do with Film? 
Another brain fart on my part...I thought I was clicking on General/General. So shoot me.
Bang!
hee hee hee 
Perhaps benj will be kind enough to move this discussion to the appropriate category. |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 10:39:38
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
always results in the shame of tyanny.
Who's Tyanny and why is he/she ashamed? |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 09:35:24
Relevant tangents:
1. Mormons
2. Polyandrous and polygamous tribes/societies found all over the world - some known about by sociologists like Margaret Mead, some not
3. Our species has existed for about a million years, give or take five minutes. The concept of nuclear family structure and, later, a ritual of marriage, did not emerge until the transition from hunter-gatherer to settler - some 10,000 years ago.
We all belong to the same species, yet we solve our day-to-day issues in various ways. Clearly that includes sexual practice and child-rearing, and the invention of a legal system which may or may not impinge on them.
4. Prejudice is a manifestation of fascistic control as a projected expression of feelings of low self-esteem.
5. quote:
The Code of Hammurabi (Codex Hammurabi), the best preserved ancient law code, was created ca. 1760 BC (middle chronology) in ancient Babylon. It was enacted by the sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi. Earlier collections of laws include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).
Evolved legal systems came late onto our social scene, primarily as a means of protecting property for a ruling class, and ensuring the structure of control - whether benevolent or repressive. The very concept of a ruling class never existed for most of the history of our species.
Legal systems then and now operate by the phenomenon that socio-cultural practice is in the vanguard of legislature.
I'm sure MguyX will correct me for anomalies, but the concept of "the law" - at least in western sociey - operates on the basis of precedence. We forget at our peril that, over the history of our species, a legal framework did not exist, yet society functioned successfully because it operated collectively and on a case-by-case basis.
When so-called moral matters began to be incorporated into legislative systems the potential for tyranny grew exponentially, giving rise to such patently unfair social restrictions as are implied in this thread.
6. Theocracy has never been a healthy basis for the structure of society. Militant theocracy of whatever denomination always results in the shame of tyranny. Religion has no dominion over morality, nor does a legal system have meaningful charge over human behavior - not in the long term.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 09:03:22
After reading a few more posts here I see semantics is a problem. Most people think of the word marriage as being defined as a man and a woman becoming united. But that's not necessarily true. In its most basic form, the word "marriage" means a social joining of two people into a union. There's no God, or gender in that definition, and nor should there be.
|
| Sean |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 07:04:18
No, as it was more of a "Yes" than a "No". If you wanted a career in politics it would have been exactly in the middle. 
 |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 05:46:41
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, from your perspective, can this be solved by calling a "gay marriage" something else? This was how this issue was solved in NZ. It's called a "Civil Union".
From my understanding the issue for many long-term gay partners is recognition of the legality of their partnership for superannuation, medical coverage and estate planning. Others such as carers, can face similar hurdles. Some conservative commentators critise the premise of civil unions as marriage-lite and when some Australian states proposed such measures they made allowances for 16 year olds to enter into such contracts. While being concerned with younger people entering into such agreements, I don't have a problem with people being able to nominate a partner for legal situations.
I'll take that as a "Yes".
Did my answer qualify me for a career in politics? |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 05:26:21
quote:
Originally posted by duh Improper Username
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
BTW, shouldn't this have been in the Off Topic section? What's it got to do with Film?
Another brain fart on my part...I thought I was clicking on General/General. So shoot me.
Bang!
|
| Sean |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 05:25:39
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, from your perspective, can this be solved by calling a "gay marriage" something else? This was how this issue was solved in NZ. It's called a "Civil Union".
From my understanding the issue for many long-term gay partners is recognition of the legality of their partnership for superannuation, medical coverage and estate planning. Others such as carers, can face similar hurdles. Some conservative commentators critise the premise of civil unions as marriage-lite and when some Australian states proposed such measures they made allowances for 16 year olds to enter into such contracts. While being concerned with younger people entering into such agreements, I don't have a problem with people being able to nominate a partner for legal situations.
I'll take that as a "Yes".
Rather than "marriage-lite" I'd call it "marriage by another name".
BTW, I'm pretty sure that 16-year-olds can't be married here without parental consent, I think it's virtually unheard of. 18 is the age here for doing anything you want; marriage, alcohol, joining the army and killing people, voting etc. |
| duh |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 05:17:24
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
BTW, shouldn't this have been in the Off Topic section? What's it got to do with Film?
Another brain fart on my part...I thought I was clicking on General/General. So shoot me. |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 04:49:08
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Lots of marriages take place between infertile couples or couples who won't ever have kids, marriage is hardly an institution reserved for those making babies.
Until the pill, the choice to remain childless (unless through infertility) was a bit hit & miss; the withdrawal method being somewhat unreliable. Historically, marriage was designed as the place to make babies and there was a terrible social stigma visited, especially upon the child and mother, in cases of illegitimacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Me
I believe that God intended marriage to be a life-long commitment between a man and a woman - a pairing to provide the most stable basis for raising children, and although I've seen some pretty dysfunctional family units in my time, I'm yet to be persuaded that any of the alternatives work better.
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Most studies have shown, Conan, that two-parent households work just as well whether gay or straight. It's the one-parent households where things start to fall apart. This is not saying that all one-parent households suck, that all two-parent households work, or that homosexuals are automatically fit for parenting -- just that they're no more or less likely to come out messed up if they're raised by a gay couple as they are by a straight couple.
I believe that remains to be seen. For the sake of the children, I hope you're right. It can take a long time for all the effects of our experiments to be seen. Remember it wasn't that long ago that people were happily mining asbestos for use in homes and car brake pads. In hindsight, we know better. I really hope that our social experiments don't come back to bite us on the butt. |
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 04:36:12
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So, from your perspective, can this be solved by calling a "gay marriage" something else? This was how this issue was solved in NZ. It's called a "Civil Union".
From my understanding the issue for many long-term gay partners is recognition of the legality of their partnership for superannuation, medical coverage and estate planning. Others such as carers, can face similar hurdles. Some conservative commentators critise the premise of civil unions as marriage-lite and when some Australian states proposed such measures they made allowances for 16 year olds to enter into such contracts. While being concerned with younger people entering into such agreements, I don't have a problem with people being able to nominate a partner for legal situations. |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 03:29:39
BTW, shouldn't this have been in the Off Topic section? What's it got to do with Film? |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/31/2008 : 03:27:48
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
Part of the difficulty with "gay marriage" is that there has been an established criteria of one man-one woman for marriage in western society for millenia. If that definition changes, it's all up for grabs.
So, from your perspective, can this be solved by calling a "gay marriage" something else? This was how this issue was solved in NZ. It's called a "Civil Union". |
|
|
