1
   

Same Sex Marriage

 
 
JerryR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 10:48 am
Sozobe - I understand what you mean, but don't you think that many of these activists just need an issue to be active about,..it's just their nature. Thank God for them, they've done a lot of good things for many people, but if, for the sake of argument, the need for gay rights ended tomorrow, then most of them (activists) would move on to the next problem.

Steissd- You've got he right idea, no special laws,..just treatment the same as all. (btw, activists come from all financial backgrounds)

Here's my view:

Everyone has a sexual preference, be it for men, women, blonds, brunettes, Italians, Albanians,...whatever!. It's really not my business, unless I'm intimate with you,..and it really has nothing to do with anything else but that kind of relationship.

So being gay is about who I'm sleeping with,..not who I am.

It is not a political group, if you believe that it is (and some gays do), then so is the group of men that like blonds with big boobs. (just a silly example,..not an actual voting group)


Predjudice cannot changed by legislation, acceptance of differences only comes with time and peaceful, natural interaction.

It's already happening, my younger nieces and nephews think that being gay is "cool", and that was before they knew I was.(I'm gay, and "cool" Very Happy ),...now that's a far cry from when I was in highschool and the footall team used to beat up kids that they thought were gay,..now in that same school there are gay groups, and counseling for kids so they don't grow up as confused or ashamed (and that's thanks to activists). So, with all this changing, it's really only a matter of time til those kids take over for us, just as we did for our parents, and tolerance becomes more and more of the norm.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 10:57 am
But but but Jerry... how did it GET to that point? Kids just naturally did it with no, say, sex education, which was pushed by gay activists AGAINST the wishes of many many parents? And are things totally across the board hunky dory now?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 11:00 am
Well, I have to repeat that Jerry's position seems to be the most balanced and reasonable in this thread.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 11:14 am
steissd

Once again the words that come off your keyboard tell us rather more about you than you dream.
0 Replies
 
JerryR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 11:19 am
Sozobe - I have never said that activism wasn't necessary or helpful, for any cause.
As a matter of fact, I think I said "thank God for them, they've done so many good things".
Sex education, btw, was pushed through, against many parents wishes,.....but that surely isn't just a "gay thing".
And to be quite honest, we'd have to thank the HIV virus too, cause that was surely a huge catalyst in gay awareness, and sex education in schools.

"Hunky Dory accross the board",..well no, but is anything?
It's a matter of time, is what I said. Good things always spread slowly, where as the bad things spread like a wild fire. I have not called for an end to awareness, nor have I said that activism should stop. I did say that I think gay marriage should be legal. That's the only legal matter I see that needs changing.

I do not believe that we are the group you think we are.
It's not like the blacks, we were never sold into slavery, or had to fight for rights that other people had and we didn't.

It's not like women, we did not have to fight for the right to vote, or for fair wages.

It's just not the same kind of thing,..no matter how you slice it!

It's purely sexual,..it's not a heritage or a religion.

It is statistically 10% of the population, accross the board,..all cultures.

This is an issue of acceptance,.not of legalities.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 11:20 am
I am not gay, but if I were the one, I would like the people to ignore my sexual orientation, unless any of them wants to be my partner/significant other. It seems to me, Jerry wants the same.
And some people try to make the gays happy against their will: such a familiar Bolshevik approach. Stalin once claimed that the Communists will push the mankind to happiness by means of iron fist.
Another example of Bolshevik approaches is (it was a popular Soviet joke): "We shall fight for peace so vigorously, that everything around will be destroyed!!!"
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 11:49 am
Quote:
I understand it is a constitutional argument, but I also understand that it falls out from the strict reading which is, as you know, not even nearly the unanimous view of constitutional scholarship.

It is the only reading which springs from reading the Constitution with one bias only: What does the Constitution tell us on this issue?

Others who "read" other things into the Constitution begin with the bias that doing X is desirable, and then consult the Constitution to see whether they can "find" permission to do X. It is no wonder that so many of these claim to find what they first went looking to find.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 12:12 pm
Tres

Of course, neither I nor many others accept that framing of the question at all.

The legitimate question here is, given what we know of these gentlemens' intent and words, what is it most likely they might say if they got plunked into 2003? To assume that they would say 'never alter a damned thing no matter how the world around you changes because we have it perfect' doesn't seem much in keeping with the intelligence nor the realism of these men.

It is simple, always, to settle for the literal interpretation. It is complicated to move beyond that, both in terms of the legal parameters and in terms of the dangers to loss of intention. But it is clearly equally as possible to thwart their intentions in maintaining a 'literal' reading. None of those men would have said 'Stop Thinking'.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 12:26 pm
Quote:
The legitimate question here is, given what we know of these gentlemens' intent and words, what is it most likely they might say if they got plunked into 2003?

With respect, that is not even close to the legal standard for determining original intent, and where laws are concerned, the original intent of the law as written, when written, is the only pertinent question. If that meaning is outdated, the law needs to be amended or repealed, not partly or completely ignored.

The intent of a law is determined by considering what a person of the time when it was written would have understood it to mean. Period. This idea of how much time has passed since then is irrelevant except as pertains to considering whether it is time to amend or repeal that law.

Laws exist to give men a template for how to behave within society. If laws are maleable and can be interpreted to mean different things depending on context (time, situation, whatever) then we have no cohesive, predictable rules for society. Would you accept as a defense of murder that when they wrote the statute so long ago they hadn't considered the situation you found yourself in which caused you to kill the other person?

Law is law only if it means something specific and immutable. A "living" Constitution is no Constitution at all.

Now, I know it's convenient to think that we can just ignore the parts of the Constitution that we consider outdated--always those, curiously enough, that get in the way of doing things we want. But when we allow the government to ignore the black-letter law of the Constitution where we want them to, we lost the power to block them from doing so when we don't.

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." -- Barry Goldwater
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 01:22 pm
Hi Jerry,

I missed your "and that's thanks to the activists" parenthetical in your first post, sorry. That was my point. I was mostly reacting to this:

Quote:
Predjudice cannot changed by legislation, acceptance of differences only comes with time and peaceful, natural interaction.


I absolutely think that legislation can help that along. Schools did not become peacefully, naturally integrated without a legislative push. Women did not get the vote without a legislative push.

I guess I've been hanging out with particularly uppity or particularly unlucky gay people, but I have heard many many many first-hand horror stories. Some scary -- physical beatings. Some more subtle -- being fired after bringing a boyfriend to the holiday party. But I find it a little boggling that it could be suggested that gays and lesbians, as a group, have not experienced more discrimination than straight men who like big-boobed blondes. (I know you were being facetious, but still.)

Quote:
or had to fight for rights that other people had and we didn't.


What about the right to marry?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 01:37 pm
This is the way someone explained the "it's just sex" thing to me:

If someone is an absolutely perfect Kinsey 3 (?), exactly in the middle, no homosexual or heterosexual preferences, either is just fine and dandy, thanks -- then for that person, being gay is "just sex". It's truly a choice.

But for someone at the far end of the scale, totally homosexual, no heterosexual preferences, the idea of being with a person of the opposite sex utterly physically repugnant, it's not "just sex." In a heterosexual world that does not afford the same rights to homosexuals, the "...pursuit of happiness" is curtailed. Choices are be alone forever, or suffer through a loveless marriage -- or risk beatings, unemployment, being evicted, etc.

Of course that's strong -- things are not that bad anymore. And I'm really really happy that they're not. But for a long time, in many places, it really was that bad. And in too many places, in the present time, there are still disturbing vestiges. I see nothing wrong with trying to do something about those vestiges.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 02:02 pm
sozobe - I did not mean to suggest that anyone chooses his or her preferences, I wrote that people choose their actions. I know a man who is openly gay (preference) and who is also a Christian and active in his church. As such, he chooses to be celibate (action), because he believes the promiscuous sex in which most gay men engage goes against the teachings of his religion and the way his God calls for him to live. He believes he can not control which gender he finds attractive, but that he can--and is called by his religion to--control his behavior.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 02:14 pm
Tres

We ought to do the constitutional issue another time, but I'd look to in a couple or three weeks when I have more time. Here in Canada, with our brand spanking new charter, we are rather more resilient than some in the US suggest you ought to be with your constitution. But I know you'll acknowledge it isn't a clear and settled question amongst bright scholars of the subject.

As regards the gay 'action' point above....I'll guess you do know how much I want to fight THAT literal interpretation (and you likely know all the Leviticus passages I would use to show it a bit on the silly side). Still, I think you admirably without prejudice.
0 Replies
 
JerryR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 02:16 pm
Hi Sozobe-
I think that we're agreeing on almost all points, but getting lost in semantics.

Quote:
Predjudice cannot changed by legislation, acceptance of differences only comes with time and peaceful, natural interaction.


I was simply saying that you cannot legislate the way people feel about us, and if you do, you risk that the positive changes you were trying to make could turn negative. You also cannot make laws pertaining solely to one section of the population.
I know that discrimination exists, I do not deny that. I am saying that legislation will not change people's personal feelings, if someone's a bigot, a law is not going to change that at all.
I know that "gay bashing" happens, have some friends that have been beaten up,..but it's not more illegal to beat up someone because they're gay, than to beat them up cause they're straight and in the wrong neighborhood, or to steal their money.
There are already laws against this.

However, changing the right to marry (which I agree needs fighting for, as I have mentioned, alot), is the (imho) last bastion of rights that we need to make us equal. Once that happens, and it is given time for the novelty to wear off, it will become respectable, and help to break down personal barriers and lessen dicrimination.

I did say:
Quote:
So being gay is about who I'm sleeping with,..not who I am.
It is not a political group, if you believe that it is (and some gays do), then so is the group of men that like blonds with big boobs. (just a silly example,..not an actual voting group)


I stand by that statement, I never said or meant to infer, that gay people were not discriminated against, it had nothing to do with that. Taken within the context I intended, I was saying that gay people, as a group, are a sub-culture of all of the other groups,..meaning: there are gay democrats, republicans, men, women, asian, steel workers,...you name it, so in that, I guess it could be possible that you are fighting for, and against yourself at the same time Shocked .
It's the most similar to the the fight for women's rights, as women are a part of every other grouping (cept for men Very Happy ),but the only obvious right that we don't have, that others do, is marriage.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 02:17 pm
Well, TW, let us be realistic. Not all the people are able to keep celibacy all their lives. Even not all the Popes in the history of the Catholic church did. Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander VI) did not, and this is known.
Therefore, same sex marriage is the best alternative to promiscuity for the gays/lesbians. Technically, it is not some excessive right, we, the straight people, are not entitled to. In framework of legal equality of all the people it seems reasonable. Of course, churches cannot sanctify such marriages, but I see no reason civil marriages of such kind should not be permitted. I have no idea regarding adoption rights, I am not sure whether this will not impair quality of life of the adopted children, such a thing requires expert opinion of the children psychologists. But any real reason not to permit same sex marriages (outside the religious framework, that is surely incompatible with homosexuality) I do not see.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 02:29 pm
Oh my gosh, everyone's agreeing! What is the world coming to?!

Very Happy

So -- gay marriage GOOD.

Discrimination BAD.

Constitutional aspects to be discussed later.

(And Jerry, I agree that you and I agree on most everything we agree with and some things we don't agree with... that is, if you agree. Very Happy)
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 02:33 pm
steissd - I started this discussion by stating my support for same-sex unions.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 02:36 pm
and yes, tres there are many very good and postive ideas inherent in a Libertarian gestalt. Wink
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 02:39 pm
There is nothing to disagree about: equality of rights is equality of rights is equality of rights. And if I have rights to marry, I guess, others must have the same rights, whatever they are: gay or straight.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2003 02:41 pm
"Libertarian gestalt?" Oh, my! Haven't heard that kind of language since leaving college about ten life-times ago. c.i.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

A good cry on the train - Discussion by Joe Nation
I want to run away. I can't do this anymore. Help? - Question by unknownpersonuser
Please help, should I call CPS?? - Question by butterflyring
I Don't Know What To Do or Think Anymore - Question by RunningInPlace
Flirting? I Say Yes... - Question by LST1969
My wife constantly makes the same point. - Question by alwayscloudy
Cellphone number - Question by Smiley12
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Same Sex Marriage
  3. » Page 13
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 01/27/2025 at 08:07:12