Business History Books » Business Plans » Our A.W. abreviations are catching on!
Our A.W. abreviations are catching on!
Question:
> (For the record, I’m bisexual (all my life, my relationships have been > based on the *person*, not the *package*), age 34, and married to a man > who is by all definitions "straight" but honestly truly understands me – > bettr than I do myself, sometimes 
Hmmm…I’m only 21, and not yet married, but other than that, the above paragraph could be written by yours truly. Since I privately accepted the label when I was about 13…., I feel pretty safe when debating with those that proclaim bisexuality to be a phase….:) In any case, that isn’t the point. I wanted to say, Joan, as you may have read in some of my previous posts (since you’ve been lurking! <grin>), that my aunt has been with her partner for 14 years, and they have been married for – um – six? seven? I don’t know exactly because she didn’t tell our family (very conservative!) about it and so I didn’t find out until I went away to college and got enough balls to officially out myself to my family, at which point I had a lovely and fondly-remembered four day heart-to-heart with my aunt and her wife about every GLBT issue you can think of. So …. back on track … my aunt is ordained within the MCC, and will be performing our ceremony for us (in a Mennonite church, no less!!). I am thrilled, as she means a great deal to both Adam and I, and I know she won’t stick in all that scary stuff about the blood and the body, prefering instead to use inclusive language in scripture and speaking of the life and the love of our God(dess, although she won’t say that, I don’t think, unless she’d like to give my grandmother a heart attack!) Just a note to say I am happy for you in your marriage, and if you ever would like to get advice, or dish out some, I’m right here. ~Crystal ….and the cloud forest around me hummed with the music of contentedness….
Response:
> So …. back on track … my aunt is ordained within the MCC, and will be > performing our ceremony for us (in a Mennonite church, no less!!).
"MCC" as in ‘Mennonite Central Committee’?? If that’s what you mean then… well, wow. I was raised Mennonite and had no idea there were any Mennonite churches that would even entertain the idea. I’m impressed, I just would have thought this was outside the realm of possibility within the M. church. (in fact, I had to pick myself up off the floor to post this…) Rose – (who’s brother met his wife while they were in a 2 year VS program with MCC in Pennsylvania)
Response:
I think in this context MCC = Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination whose members are mostly gay and lesbian. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So …. back on track … my aunt is ordained within the MCC, and will be > performing our ceremony for us (in a Mennonite church, no less!!). > "MCC" as in ‘Mennonite Central Committee’?? If that’s what you mean then… > well, wow. I was raised Mennonite and had no idea there were any Mennonite > churches that would even entertain the idea. I’m impressed, I just would have > thought this was outside the realm of possibility within the M. church. (in > fact, I had to pick myself up off the floor to post this…)
Response:
> > The problem gays have currently (at least among themselves ) is that the > modern gay movement was founded on sexual liberation from the oppressive > institution of marriage which they felt suppressed the expression of > sexual choices. Same sex marriage was doomed from the start because of > the split within the gay community over the issue with some seeing it as > a total abandonment of the idealogies on which the gay movement was > founded. Others see marriage as a means of assimilating into the > overall culture which again dilutes the gay agenda or message. > There’s a difference, though, between the gay movement and the gay people. > Most of the gay people I know (not a small number) have a passing interest in > the gay movement but are not participating in it themselves. Most of the gays > I know (not all, but most) either are in or are seeking monogamous life-time > relationships with a same-sex partner.
Someone is supporting these national gay lobbying/political groups with their money. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has an annual budget of 7 million dollars a year, for one example. _The Advocate_ and _Out_ magazines claim to be the most influential and widely read gay publications in the US. > Because there already are laws restricting civil contracts of marriage > to one man, one woman and to reverse these Supreme Court decisions > carries far more ramifications which I sincerely doubt the average > American citizen would tolerate. > No, the "average" American citizen wouldn’t tolerate it because most are > operating on those gut reactions of homophobia. Keeping same-sex marriage > illegal for *this* reason is akin to the situation in the ’50s and ’60s when > folks wanted to keep up those segregation laws.
However, Hawaii’s citizens overwhelming rejected SSM in last fall’s balloting by a 69% to 30 margin. It was not based on homophobia but on an educated decision since both political sides calculate that every Hawaiian household received literature on the vote once and 30% got a second mailing. Because of the state constitutional requirement that all blank votes be counted as "NO" votes, it was imperative that voting citizens understood the issue. They did and voted accordingly. Alaska citizens also voted on Nov. 3rd to ban SSM. Neither state is particularly known for being bastions of conservatism and "hate". Also, your reference to segregation laws was based on discrimination of people with immutable characteristics such as color and sex. The mere presence of Exodus International, PFOX and the growing numbers of ex-gays willing to go public contradicts such claims of immutability in ways that are awkward to explain away. > Justice Scalia asked in his dissent of Evans v. Romer (1996), "Has the > Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a > ‘legitmate concern of government’ and the perceived social harm of > homosexuality is not?" > Just what is the "perceived social harm of homosexuality", anyway? I’m not > talking about gay marriage in this question. The only arguments I’ve ever > really heard about homosexuality are those of the Old Testament and gut > reactions. Glorification of promiscuity–I can see the harm, but > heterosexuals are just as guilty of that.
Well, we’re going to get into some touchy areas here but here goes….When I view a Gay Pride Parade (Seattle’s comes to mind) and see parade floats with near naked men hanging in slings simulating sex acts which the parade organizers seem to allow, I wonder about the socila harm of homosexuality. When every Gay Pride Parade in every major city claims to have a contingent of the North American Man-Boy Love Association marching without objection, I wonder about the social harm of homosexuality. When 100 of the nation’s leading gay activists, authors and media sign a manifesto condemning the exclusion of the North American Man-Boy Love Association from participating in the Stonewall 25 anniversary march and organizing a counter protest march of 15,000 gays and lesbians of which many paraded the streets of NYC naked or topless, I have to wonder about the social harm of homosexuality. When the nation’s leading publisher of homosexual literature (Allyson Publications which brings you "Daddy’s Roommate" for 1st graders) is also the nation’s leading publisher of pedophile literature, I wonder. When the International Gay and Lesbian Association losses it United Nations consulting status as a human rights group because they cannot muster a majority vote among its multi-national members to kick out the pedophile groups in their membership, I wonder. When the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (*the* largest gay lobbying group in DC) postponed voting on a resolution condemning the North American Man-Boy Love Association after four of 12 board members protested, I wonder. When gay media talk of redefining marriage to move it out of its "archaic moral code" to a more "queer value system", I wonder. > In regards to Same Sex Marriage (SSM) between consenting adults of the > same sex, the Court and Congress has repeatedly denied marriage to > multiple consenting adults despite their claim that it is a violation of > their constitutional right to freedom of religion. When I ask gay > activists how they can expect the Court to overrule previous decisions > PLUS state constitutions to redefine marriage as something other than > one man, one woman, the answer I invariably get (when they are not > screaming "bigot" for merely asking the question) is that polygamy > should be allowed as well. > Ouch. Sounds like we need new gay activists. I’m a little unclear on how > redefining marriage to something along the lines of "two consenting adults" > makes polygamy okay. I’m also not sure how allowing those gay couples who > would choose to enter marriage do so would lead to legaliztion of polygamy.
The US government and the US Supreme Court have already set the precedent for defining marriage as "one man, one woman" as a "legitimate concern of government". Mormon splinter groups have challenged this for over 103 years with no success. Speaking strictly from a legal stnadpoint, I dont see how homosexuals can expect to change the same Supreme Court decisions to redefine marriage to be something other than "one man, one woman" when religious groups have failed to do so for a century claiming that their right to freedom of religion is violated. The Supreme Court justices are obligated to examine all legal precedent when deciding a suit brought before them and you cna be assured that the ramifications on Davis v.Beason and subsequent failed challenges will not be ignored. If the justices were to change Beason after 103 years to redefine marriage, this legally opens the door for the first time for religious groups to claim similar redefinitions based on freedom of religion. To think otherwise is to be woefully naive as to how the political legal systems works to exploit loopholes in laws. What if something > happens down the road and one of us becomes abusive? Prohibition of divorce > in that situation would be detrimental to the physical and emotional > well-being of the abused partner. That’s too high price to pay, IMO.
I think divorce should be harder to get than it is. > Just how does this relate to homosexual marriage and wouldn’t marriage > make homosexuals more monogamous? In the modern history of the Gay > Liberation Movement, heteroseuxal marraige was and is viewed as a failed > institution which subjegated women and was not to be emulated. > "Liberation" referred not so much to political liberation but rather > sexual liberation wherein all expressions of sexuality were > permissable. In the current homosexual media, "gay marriage" advocates > openly admit that they would not remain faithful if married. > Once again, the difference between the gay activists and real people. Gay > people are not really any different than the rest of us. Some of them (like > some of us) are not cut out for mogamous relationships. Unfortunately, this > seems to be the group at the forefront.
Then how are we to believe the gay media and lobbying groups? I read probably more gay literature than the average person and I have yet to see an appreciable "backlash" against these ideas. Andrew Sullivan, gay author and columnist, does present the case for gay marriage as you suggest above BUT even he tells of ostracism by his gay peers, being spat on, shunned and heckled by gays for his views. I already noted Michelangelo Signorile’s stories of reactions on college campusses to the lone gay calling for fidelity/monogamy in marriage. > In conclusion, I am opposed to same sex marriage because I view it as a > path to societal and cultural degradation; it sets the precedence for > the repeal of antipolygamy provisions, statutes and laws; as defined by > the gay media, it is an attack on the attributes of traditional marriage > namely monogamy, fidelity, erotic exclusivity; > I don’t see this. Legalizing same-sex marriage (while keeping to defined to > just 2 people) does not legalize polygamy. Same-sex partners can be just as > monogamous, faithful, and exclusive as opposite-sex partners.
But that is not what the gay media nor gay political groups are advocating. I notice that all of my quotes from gay pundits and media were snipped out and left uncommented on. Go back and reread those quotes. The goal is to REDEFINE marriage to be something other than monogamous. Even Andrew Sullivan doesn’t come out in favor of 100% monogamy. As far as homosexual – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> education, I’m not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that you’re > against teaching tolerance for homosexuals in schools? I think that’s even > more detrimental than the ills you referred to earlier because it propogates
… read more »
Response:
>Joan >(For the record, I’m bisexual (all my life, my relationships have been >based on the *person*, not the *package*), age 34, and married to a man >who is by all definitions "straight" but honestly truly understands me – >better than I do myself, sometimes
Joan, Just wanted to say, THANKS for having the courage to post and I wanted to tell you that I am really and truly happy for you that you are now with the "right" person who loves and understands you. I wholly support gay/lesbian marriages as well. Im marrying my "right" person, Eric, on april 8, 2000! Thanks again for posting and best wishes! -Amy (to Eric 4/8/00) "Our deepest fears are like dragons guarding our deepest treasures." - Rilke Please remove "NOSPAM" from email address to email. Thank you.
Response:
> Anyone else interested in discussing the religious, moral and legal > standpoints of homosexual marriages? I know a few same-sex > HC’s have poked their heads in here before, and this topic has been > discussed, so I thought I’d check before we open this can of worms > in public again. > I am interested but not if it is going to degenerate into an emotional > namecalling session. Facts, I want data, not emotional gut reactions.
Sounds good, as long as we agree to take into account that personal experience can and should be treated as "factual" to an extent. (snip) > The problem gays have currently (at least among themselves ) is that the > modern gay movement was founded on sexual liberation from the oppressive > institution of marriage which they felt suppressed the expression of > sexual choices. Same sex marriage was doomed from the start because of > the split within the gay community over the issue with some seeing it as > a total abandonment of the idealogies on which the gay movement was > founded. Others see marriage as a means of assimilating into the > overall culture which again dilutes the gay agenda or message.
The feminist movement had similar schisms, if I remember – one of it’s first and loudest objections was based on the perception that women were "trapped" into marriages with the same suppression that you describe above. That may not have been the opinion of all feminists, yet it was one of the loudest expressed, supposedly giving the idea credence through volume. Division within movements – especially due to the founding issues – are found throughout history. Martin Luther King’s non-violence vs. Malcom X’s strident activism, as an example. Yet no one questions the validity of the civil rights movement, or the tide of feminism that swept the country and forced many changes in governmental and social arenas. > Marriage is not a right but a privilege. A single person can demand a > right to be married til he/she are blue in the face but until such time > as another person wishes to be married to him/her, he/she is denied > marriage.
Under the same argument, representation by legal counsel is not a right, either. You can demand it all you want, but until someone agrees to represent you (or until they are appointed directly to your case) you are denied counsel. I demand the right to free assembly, but until someone approves my petition, I am denied the ability to gather on the capital steps. Marriage as a religious institution I can see as a privilege. I believe marriage as a legal institution, largely due to the benefits given by the government and the law, should be filed under "pursuit of happiness". But just because I believe it, doesn’t make it so. Which means I have to lobby and vote and call my congressman(woman) to change the way laws are written or enforced. And that is my right *and* privilege as a citizen of this democratic union. (snip) > Anyone? > Same Sex Marriage FAQ > 1.) "Why would the State choose not to sanction stable relationships > between same-sex couples, when it is clearly in the State’s interest to > sanction such relationships (stable relationships lead to more community > involvement, economic benefit to all and such, less of a health hazard > to all?" > Because there already are laws restricting civil contracts of marriage > to one man, one woman and to reverse these Supreme Court decisions > carries far more ramifications which I sincerely doubt the average > American citizen would tolerate.
I would have to agree with Jennifer here – the "average" American tolerance level is highly debatable and should not be used to make a point against revising the law. Change, in any form, is always resisted, but that doesn’t mean that change shouldn’t happen. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There already is a long legal precedence for the government’s concern > for a potential social harm, i.e. polygamy. > The United States Congress required the inclusion of antipolygamy > provisions in the constitutions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and > Utah as a condition of their statehood. For Arizona, Nwe Mexico and > Utah, the Enabling Acts required that the antipolygamy provision be > "irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of > said ‘State’." Davis v. Beason (1890) clearly deprives those who engage > in polygamy (plural or "celestial" marriages) the right to vote, hold > any "position or office of honor, trust or profit" and that "it is not > open to any constitutional or legal objection". The proposition that > those who engage in polygamy can be criminalized, and those engaging in > that crime deprived of the vote remains good law according to Richardson > v. Rameriz (1974) and Beason was upheld as good law as recently as 1993. > In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), the court rejected a constitutional > challenge to a United States statute that denied the franchise in > federal territories to those who engage in polygamous cohabitation by > stating: "Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and > necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to > take rank as one of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on > the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and sringing from > the union for life of one man and one woman in the estate of holy > matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our > civilization; the best guaranty of that reverant morality which is the > source of all beneficient progress in social and political > improvements…"
Again, I agree with Jennifer’s supposition that the inclusion of "two consenting adults" – or even ":two consenting citizens" for those states who allow marriage at 12 – would rule out the polygamy "loophole" should SSM be recognized. Is there any legal reason why that would be more difficult than just passing SSM’s without the wording changes? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Justice Scalia asked in his dissent of Evans v. Romer (1996), "Has the > Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a > ‘legitmate concern of government’ and the perceived social harm of > homosexuality is not?" > In regards to Same Sex Marriage (SSM) between consenting adults of the > same sex, the Court and Congress has repeatedly denied marriage to > multiple consenting adults despite their claim that it is a violation of > their constitutional right to freedom of religion. When I ask gay > activists how they can expect the Court to overrule previous decisions > PLUS state constitutions to redefine marriage as something other than > one man, one woman, the answer I invariably get (when they are not > screaming "bigot" for merely asking the question) is that polygamy > should be allowed as well.
See above statement. As to why they might expect the Court to overrule other decisions – that is the Court’s function. But, I don’t necessarily buy the "freedom of religion" excuse, either. Can anyone tell me if simply believing in tenets opposite to an organized religion is enough to qualify as a "religion"? As far as I know, homosexuals do not belong to one organized religion, per say, as much as those who want to be married believe in their rights to do so under God. Can anyone clarify? > This is not as farfetched as some would think since the Utah chapter of > National Organzation of Women recently came out in favor of polygamy as > an institution which is "pro-woman". The 1995 Gay March on Washington > had a political platform which included the legalization of multiple > partner unions. This plank was later dropped. The Metropolitan > Community Church, which many believe to be a conservative gay religious > institution, has already begun performing "truple" marriage ceremonies > (source for this data comes from _Lesbian and Gay Marriage_, page 256).
I am not surprised by any of these things. Polygamy may be the answer for very few, but to judge the rest of the population on their actions is shortsighted and wrong minded. The Christian religion has members who still believe that blacks are far less than whites, and advocate torture and intimidation as tactics. Yet because they are Christian, and seemingly contradict the tenets of Jesus and the Apostles, we take their actions and beliefs with a grain of salt, and do not judge all Christians by their example. There will always be those who do not conform to our norms, but to see only those who fall beyond our boundaries and judge all according to their standard does far less justice to ourselves than to our targets. Question: Did the National Chapter of NOW support the Utah women’s declaration? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As for societal harms, I refer to the definitive work by Oxford > anthropoligist, J.D. Unwin, Ph.D. entitled _Sex and Culture_ in which he > studied 86 human civilizations ranging from the Rome to Tahiti and found > that a society’s destiny is tied inseperately to the limits it imposes > on sexual expression. The highest levels of social development are > reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called "absolute > monogamy", in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman and sex > outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce prohibited. Unwin found > that every society, without exception, that rejects absolute monogamy > either becomes a stagnant cultural backwater or collapses altogether. In > _Social and Cultural Dynamics_, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin > studied 1,623 "internal disturbances in Greco-Roman and European > history" and found that sexual permissiveness almost always precedes or > accompanies "an explosion of sociopolitical disturbances."
I would appreciate the dates of study and publication to go along with these works. As to the Unwin study, I think Wende brings up several important points to consider before taking the study at face value. As for Sorokin’s work, while he does draw … read more »
Response:
I probably shouldn’t be doing this, but I’m going to go ahead and respond to this: >I am interested but not if it is going to degenerate into an emotional >namecalling session. Facts, I want data, not emotional gut reactions.
I hope you won’t mind if I point out the logical holes in your data and the places where you rely on emotional assertions to carry your point, then. >The problem gays have currently (at least among themselves ) is that the >modern gay movement was founded on sexual liberation from the oppressive >institution of marriage which they felt suppressed the expression of >sexual choices.
Okay, let’s start here. First of all, there have been established gay communities and subcultures in America for much longer than there has been an organized political movement for gay rights. (I refer you to Lilian Faderman’s book ‘Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers’ for documentary evidence of lesbian communities and social organizations throughout the 20th century.) In the late sixties and early seventies, a subset of the gay communities were inspired by the civil rights and feminist movements to begin demonstrating for their rights. At that time, their primary concerns were an end to police harrassment (police used to conduct regular raids of gay bars, arrest all the patrons, and have their names printed in the paper for ‘public indecency’ …for example) and the right not to be fired from their jobs or evicted from their housing for homosexuality. Again, easily verified information – do a Web search on ‘Mattachine Society’ or ‘Stonewall.’ During that time period – again, the late 60s and early 70s – there were attacks on traditional views of marriage and the family from a variety of sources – the hippie counterculture, for example, and feminists. There *were* gays who felt, and said, that marriage was an oppressive institution – especially those who found themselves forced into unwanted marriages by social pressure or their own denial of their sexual orientation. But they were certainly not alone in their criticisms of traditional family structures, nor was that the primary organizing principle in the gay community or the gay liberation movement. >Marriage is not a right but a privilege. A single person can demand a >right to be married til he/she are blue in the face but until such time >as another person wishes to be married to him/her, he/she is denied >marriage.
It is the right of heterosexual couples to marry, if both members are of legal age. Consider that the Supreme Court struck down laws forbidding interracial marriage. If marriage were indeed a ‘privilege’ to be granted or taken away at the whim of the state, it would be Constitutional for states to forbid interracial marriage – and it has clearly been ruled that it is not. >It doesn’t have to be that way. I still keep in friendly contact with >two very pro-gay activists on political newsgroups after several years. >Granted, the vast majority will react with an emotional gut reaction >though due to a total inability to argue based on facts.
I submit the fact that I have passed a Ph.D. comprehensive exam as evidence that I have the ability to argue based on facts. <grin> >Justice Scalia asked in his dissent of Evans v. Romer (1996), "Has the >Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a >’legitmate concern of government’ and the perceived social harm of >homosexuality is not?"
Begging the question. *What* ’social harm of homosexuality’? >When I ask gay >activists how they can expect the Court to overrule previous decisions >PLUS state constitutions to redefine marriage as something other than >one man, one woman, the answer I invariably get (when they are not >screaming "bigot" for merely asking the question) is that polygamy >should be allowed as well.
Personally, I don’t have any objections to relationships between more than two people, as long as those relationships occur between equals. Unfortunately, religious-based polygamy in Utah as recently practiced has *not* been a good example of this, as another poster pointed out – those ‘marriages’ tend to be rigorously male-dominated and the wives are often ill-treated. I think *that’s* why NOW of Utah supports the legalization of polygamy, incidentally – as long as those ‘marriages’ are illegal and continue underground, the women involved are denied the rights and protections of legally married women. I do, however, know many people in stable, happy multi-partner families in which the partners treat each other with equality and respect. (If you’re curious or interested, see www.polyamory.org or the newsgroup alt.polyamory.) They don’t seem less loving, less committed, or less socially productive than the monogamous couples I know, and I don’t see them as representing a ’social harm’ either. I realize that that may put me beyond the moral pale in your eyes, Jeanne, but we’d agreed to keep the discussion to civil and legal terms rather than religious ones. >As for societal harms, I refer to the definitive work by Oxford >anthropoligist, J.D. Unwin, Ph.D. entitled _Sex and Culture_ in which he >studied 86 human civilizations ranging from the Rome to Tahiti and found >that a society’s destiny is tied inseperately to the limits it imposes >on sexual expression. The highest levels of social development are >reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called "absolute >monogamy", in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman and sex >outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce prohibited. Unwin found >that every society, without exception, that rejects absolute monogamy >either becomes a stagnant cultural backwater or collapses altogether.
Dr. Feller critiqued this study beautifully, and said everything I would’ve said. Leaving aside the obvious question of how one defines ‘the highest levels of social development’ and the problem of distinguishing societal values from societal practices (for example, premarital and extramarital experience has always been more tolerated for men than for women, in American culture. And in colonial America, it has bee estimated that half of all brides were pregnant.), the greatest problem is that even if those problems were satisfactorily resolved, Dr. Unwin would still only have a *correlation*, not proof of *causation.* The mere fact that two things tend to co-occur does *not* constitute proof that one causes the other. For example, my age is correlated with the national debt – my age keeps increasing every year, and so does the national debt. That doesn’t mean that my age *causes* the national debt, does it? >In the modern history of the Gay >Liberation Movement, heteroseuxal marraige was and is viewed as a failed >institution which subjegated women and was not to be emulated. >"Liberation" referred not so much to political liberation but rather >sexual liberation wherein all expressions of sexuality were >permissable.
If you are being politically oppressed because of your sexual behavior, political and sexual liberation are inextricably linked. Anti-sodomy laws, for example, make gay people into criminals and even into felons in some states, just for engaging in sexual behavior (such as oral sex) which most heterosexual couples routinely engage in. In situations such as those, the political response must be focused on sexual issues because that’s what the laws are focused on. > In the current homosexual media, "gay marriage" advocates >openly admit that they would not remain faithful if married.
…And then you go on to quote a great many statements by Michaelangelo Signorile, who is a controversial figure among gays; he’s also a member of a specific gay subculture – the upper-class gay male urban intelligentsia – and therefore is hardly representative of the hundreds of thousands of gay people across the country who pretty much lead ordinary lives. I know a number of lesbian couples who have children and own homes together, women who have been together for ten years or longer. They’re not out there every day trying to undermine the family. >The purpose of "gay marriage", he further writes, is to win >legal benefits and social sanctions for homosexual couples, NOT to >improve their behavior.
Well, yeah. Gays want to get married because they want the same legal and social benefits that are awarded to straight couples who marry. The legalization of gay marriage isn’t going to suddenly make bar-hopping promiscuous gays into Ward and June Cleaver… any more than the existence of heterosexual marriage means that all heterosexuals live lives of traditional sexual morality. Is this surprising? >" A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its >benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage >completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to >society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an >archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most >subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake – and one that >would perhaps benefit all society – is to transform the notion of >"family" entirely."
Yeah, okay. Victoria Woodhull, Emma Goldman and other anarchists of the 19th and early 20th centuries wanted to bring down the institution of marriage and turn the concept of family inside out. So did a lot of the radical feminists of the 60s and 70s. The institution of marriage still seems to be doing okay, despite their best efforts. Some of the changes people pushed for got adopted – for example, more equitable sharing of household responsibilities. Some of them didn’t, such as the various proposals for time-limited "term marriages." The views of a few radicals aren’t going to destroy the institution of marriage; ordinary people will adopt changes that make sense to them and discard the rest. And what those radicals are doing in their *own* marriages is, in my … read more »
Response:
> I would point out early in this discussion that the very real > possibility exists for this to get quite ugly. May I suggest early on > that if any truely hateful posts are made that they simply be ignored by > EVERYONE, regardless of your position? This is a three course meal for > trolls.
You have my support on this one, Steve, and as hard as it may be, I won’t reply to any obvious trolls or flame-baiters. One down, one billion to go! > It is also quite likely that this thread could be picked up and > crossposted to other newsgroups.
(sniperoo) > Anyway, if this happens, you might want to keep an eye on the replies > and not crosspost to forums where folks might not be as harmonious and > civil as we are here <tongue in cheek>!!! > Steve Kimbell
Thanks for reminding me – I usually never check until someone from alt.fan.ozzy bite.bite.bite or alt.computer.code.warriors post to say : "What does this have to do with me?" I’ll keep an eye on my posts from now on. Tami
Response:
> > I think it would be interesting to exchange viewpoints with you, but >we might want to poll the group to see if anyone else is interested in >this topic first. If not – we should take it to e-mail. > Nothing else seems to be off-topic here, and since this *actually has > to do with marriage* unlike most of the stuff we ramble on about, I > say go for it. I’ll be "listening" and may chime in every now and > again.
I would point out early in this discussion that the very real possibility exists for this to get quite ugly. May I suggest early on that if any truely hateful posts are made that they simply be ignored by EVERYONE, regardless of your position? This is a three course meal for trolls. This is also the kind of discussion where it is quite unlikely that anyone’s philosophy is going to be changed. For the sake of harmony within the group, and to avoid a major flamewar, please keep this in mind as the thread progresses. It is also quite likely that this thread could be picked up and crossposted to other newsgroups. You will note that this has already been crossposted to alt.newlywed, where I don’t know if they consider this an appropriate topic or not. (I still haven’t figured out exactly what IS considered on-topic over there, but I love reading the posts 
)! Anyway, if this happens, you might want to keep an eye on the replies and not crosspost to forums where folks might not be as harmonious and civil as we are here <tongue in cheek>!!! Just trying to preserve the peace… — Steve Kimbell
Response:
*snip* Wende and Robin … > All those in favour of legalizing gay marriages? I say YEA! I say > every human being (regardless of religion) has the right to love and >to have that love acknowledged, even if it’s among those who care about those >individuals, or the couple alone.
(it *would* take this to make me finally delurk Hi – I’m Joan, married to Don since Christmas Day ‘98, and been lurking here since September. I’m much more of a reader in all my newsgroups, but occasionally certain topics encourage me out of my quiet … this is one. I’ll try to keep this short, and I’m more than willing to discuss in private email if we move it off-list. I’ve been there. Done that. Bought the t-shirt. I was once "married" (and I put this in quotes because of its lack of legal status, nothing more, nothing less) to a woman. We were together almost 12 years – married for less than 2 months when I left. I got married because I wanted to save the relationship, wanted things to be better, wanted to *make* myself and her and other people happy. All the wrong reasons in *any* relationship. There is *tremendous* pressure in the gay/lesbian community to STAY TOGETHER, in long-term, monogamous, committed relationships, to show "them" that we, too, can be stable and loving. We certainly felt that pressure, and it left us in a pretty awful place. We had a pretty "traditional" wedding (details available if you want ‘em), with all the usual trimmings, complete with ministers from her church and the few biological family members we could dredge up. If I hadn’t been so scared and unhappy, it would have been a lovely day. Despite my personally "bad" experience, from where I am, and where I’ve been, I still *strongly* support the idea of gay and lesbian marriages. Not only for the tangible benefits (legal, medical, financial), but also for the intangibles – societal acceptance (at least in word if not in deed), community support, the ability to openly *care* for someone. I can see why many gay activists would *not* want to follow what is considered a demeaning, patriarchical tradition (the whole historical argument) – it took me years to recognize where my own prejudices were coming from. However, it is (like another poster said) an individual’s (or couple’s) decision to make – just like many "straight" couples don’t marry, many gay ones don’t (and wouldn’t, even if "allowed"). And just like many "straight" couples marry without religious aspects in their weddings, so will (and do) many gay ones. When it becomes yet another legal "right", then we can talk about the church. I feel like I’m talking in circles around this, and probably not making any sense … if this discussion continues, feel free to ask questions. However, I will *not* turn myself into the "alternative lifestyles poster child" for the sake of a discussion – I’ve already lived that life, thanks. Joan (For the record, I’m bisexual (all my life, my relationships have been based on the *person*, not the *package*), age 34, and married to a man who is by all definitions "straight" but honestly truly understands me – better than I do myself, sometimes
Response:
> [the two-indent messages are JMH] > As for societal harms, I refer to the definitive work by Oxford > anthropoligist, J.D. Unwin, Ph.D. entitled _Sex and Culture_ in which he > studied 86 human civilizations ranging from the Rome to Tahiti and found > that a society’s destiny is tied inseperately to the limits it imposes > on sexual expression. The highest levels of social development are > reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called "absolute > monogamy", in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman and sex > outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce prohibited.
This begs an important question: how did Dr. Unwin define "highest levels of social development"? Also question 2: given this range of cultures, how did he control for other differences in society, technology, beliefs, etc? Did he assume that sexual expression is the only independent variable, and if so, on what basis? How does he handle other independent variables, interactions among dependent variables, etc.? Also question 3: since your description suggests that Dr. Unwin implicitly or explicitly treats sexual expression as an independent variable, what is his research methodology? It clearly isn’t lab experimentation. Is it naturalistic observation? Review of historical documents? Review of studies by other anthropologists? How did he control for observer bias? How did he control for different researchers studying different concepts? If he rated behaviors according to his scale, was there any effort to validate the scale or to establish inter-rater reliability? Also question 4: the disjoint between attitude and behavior is quite well known in the social sciences since at least the early 1970s. How did Dr. Unwin handle the distinction between societies that *believe* in monogamy versus societies that actually practice it consistently? These are all perfectly rational questions that any dissertation committee would ask. Wende
Response:
> I am interested but not if it is going to degenerate into an emotional > namecalling session. Facts, I want data, not emotional gut reactions.
Difficult, but I’ll try. I certainly will not resort to namecalling. I grew up in a very accepting household (especially given how tightly my parents hold to their religious beliefs) and intolerance is one of those things that I have a VERY hard time understanding. > The problem gays have currently (at least among themselves ) is that the > modern gay movement was founded on sexual liberation from the oppressive > institution of marriage which they felt suppressed the expression of > sexual choices. Same sex marriage was doomed from the start because of > the split within the gay community over the issue with some seeing it as > a total abandonment of the idealogies on which the gay movement was > founded. Others see marriage as a means of assimilating into the > overall culture which again dilutes the gay agenda or message.
There’s a difference, though, between the gay movement and the gay people. Most of the gay people I know (not a small number) have a passing interest in the gay movement but are not participating in it themselves. Most of the gays I know (not all, but most) either are in or are seeking monogamous life-time relationships with a same-sex partner. They are doing things like buying houses together. From my point of view, that’s quite a committment. > Oh, I quite agree. I think I can make a compelling arguement from civil > and legal aspects.
That would be refreshing. Too much of what I hear comes from the religious right and is based on religious views that not everyone shares. Including myself. > Because there already are laws restricting civil contracts of marriage > to one man, one woman and to reverse these Supreme Court decisions > carries far more ramifications which I sincerely doubt the average > American citizen would tolerate.
No, the "average" American citizen wouldn’t tolerate it because most are operating on those gut reactions of homophobia. Keeping same-sex marriage illegal for *this* reason is akin to the situation in the ’50s and ’60s when folks wanted to keep up those segregation laws. > Justice Scalia asked in his dissent of Evans v. Romer (1996), "Has the > Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a > ‘legitmate concern of government’ and the perceived social harm of > homosexuality is not?"
Just what is the "perceived social harm of homosexuality", anyway? I’m not talking about gay marriage in this question. The only arguments I’ve ever really heard about homosexuality are those of the Old Testament and gut reactions. Glorification of promiscuity–I can see the harm, but heterosexuals are just as guilty of that. > In regards to Same Sex Marriage (SSM) between consenting adults of the > same sex, the Court and Congress has repeatedly denied marriage to > multiple consenting adults despite their claim that it is a violation of > their constitutional right to freedom of religion. When I ask gay > activists how they can expect the Court to overrule previous decisions > PLUS state constitutions to redefine marriage as something other than > one man, one woman, the answer I invariably get (when they are not > screaming "bigot" for merely asking the question) is that polygamy > should be allowed as well.
Ouch. Sounds like we need new gay activists. I’m a little unclear on how redefining marriage to something along the lines of "two consenting adults" makes polygamy okay. I’m also not sure how allowing those gay couples who would choose to enter marriage do so would lead to legaliztion of polygamy. > This is not as farfetched as some would think since the Utah chapter of > National Organzation of Women recently came out in favor of polygamy as > an institution which is "pro-woman".
Polygamy, as practiced these days in Utah and Arizona, renders women powerless. The men take wives at will. The women have little choice, are denied knowledge of the world outside, and are for the most part incapable of leaving the situation. Not to mention the physical abuse. This, to me, is a far cry from a monogamous, same-sex marriage where both partners are assumed to have equal power. > As for societal harms, I refer to the definitive work by Oxford > anthropoligist, J.D. Unwin, Ph.D. entitled _Sex and Culture_ in which he > studied 86 human civilizations ranging from the Rome to Tahiti and found > that a society’s destiny is tied inseperately to the limits it imposes > on sexual expression. The highest levels of social development are > reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called "absolute > monogamy", in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman and sex > outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce prohibited.
So, would you suggest a return to those days for the good of our social development? I wouldn’t. Prohibition of divorce is actually the biggie for me. I plan to never divorce Brian. I feel I know him well enough to know that he will always treat me well and would never give me a reason to leave him. Based on his proposal of marriage, the plans we’re making for next July, and discussions we’ve had on this very subject I assume he feels similarly. However, there is always the possibility that we are wrong. What if something happens down the road and one of us becomes abusive? Prohibition of divorce in that situation would be detrimental to the physical and emotional well-being of the abused partner. That’s too high price to pay, IMO. > Just how does this relate to homosexual marriage and wouldn’t marriage > make homosexuals more monogamous? In the modern history of the Gay > Liberation Movement, heteroseuxal marraige was and is viewed as a failed > institution which subjegated women and was not to be emulated. > "Liberation" referred not so much to political liberation but rather > sexual liberation wherein all expressions of sexuality were > permissable. In the current homosexual media, "gay marriage" advocates > openly admit that they would not remain faithful if married.
Once again, the difference between the gay activists and real people. Gay people are not really any different than the rest of us. Some of them (like some of us) are not cut out for mogamous relationships. Unfortunately, this seems to be the group at the forefront. > In conclusion, I am opposed to same sex marriage because I view it as a > path to societal and cultural degradation; it sets the precedence for > the repeal of antipolygamy provisions, statutes and laws; as defined by > the gay media, it is an attack on the attributes of traditional marriage > namely monogamy, fidelity, erotic exclusivity;
I don’t see this. Legalizing same-sex marriage (while keeping to defined to just 2 people) does not legalize polygamy. Same-sex partners can be just as monogamous, faithful, and exclusive as opposite-sex partners. > it is a cover issue for > the bigger issues of antisodomy law repeals, homosexual education in > elementary schools.
What’s wrong with repealing anti-sodomy laws? I don’t want cops poking into my bedroom window anyway. Whatever acts two consenting adults choose to engage in with each other is *their* business. As far as homosexual education, I’m not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that you’re against teaching tolerance for homosexuals in schools? I think that’s even more detrimental than the ills you referred to earlier because it propogates hate. We have enough hate in the world (Matthew Shepard, the dragging death case in Texas, etc.) we don’t need more. OTOH, I don’t see a need to explicitly teach young children about sex in all its varieties–the basics will do just fine. Just my opinion. Jennifer (and Brian) July, 2000
Response:
> Believe it or not, Jeanne, the vast majority of the Catholics I know > (and the vast majority of the *people* I know are in fact Catholic) > disagree with one or more Church teachings to some degree. Perhaps in > theory we’re supposed to obey blindly, but in reality, each Catholic, > just as any member of any other faith, decides for himself or herself > how to react to and live (or not) the Church’s teachings.
Nope, blind obedience is definitely not required. See, e.g., the Catechism of the Catholic Church, part 3 section 1, chapter 1, articles 3 through 6, and part 3 section 1, chapter 3, article 3. (http://www.catholic.net/rcc/documents/teachingindex.html). The five obligatory precepts in the latter are all about communion and fasting — no mention of agreeing with things. It’s fairly obvious from the text that the Church would be *very* happy if no one argued with the bishops, but it’s not treated as an enforceable wish. For that matter, if you blindly believed everything the Church said to justify its pre-Vatican II practices, and everything the Church said to justify the Vatican II changes, you’d go nuts rather quickly. What mattered in the change was that the Church had the legitimate authority to re-examine its practices in the light of the Holy Spirit and to make different rules. (V2 was not the first time this had happened, but very few of us get excited about, say, the Council of Chalcedon any more — except for my husband, who woke me up early Saturday morning to tell me about it.) > I, on the other hand, *must* be an evil rebel child who has no right > to call herself Catholic, given the number of Church teachings with > which I disagree. I’ve been baptized, eucharisted, reconciled, > confirmed, and am about to be married, but as far as I know, I haven’t > committed an act that could get me excommunicated yet…
Made any bishops lately? Really, there is not *that* much that can get you excommunicated! I am distantly acquainted with some people who are so fringe that the Archbishop’s staff is downright open in their personal loathing for them — but they were officially in communion and considered Catholics up to the moment that *they* left to start their own non-RC church. Shredding the Catechism on the Cathedral steps and tapdancing nude on it, in front of the cameras for the local Eyewitness News, would probably get you in trouble, as that’s a bit over the line for liturgical dance, but quite amazing amounts of dissent are tolerated. Wende
Response:
> I think it would be interesting to exchange viewpoints with you, but >we might want to poll the group to see if anyone else is interested in >this topic first. If not – we should take it to e-mail.
Nothing else seems to be off-topic here, and since this *actually has to do with marriage* unlike most of the stuff we ramble on about, I say go for it. I’ll be "listening" and may chime in every now and again. This address is unread due to spam. Please post all replies.
Response:
> > And before the flame war starts, yes, I am totally in favor of > legalizing gay marriages. All the more reason to give anti-gay-rights > organizations a scare! > Hmm, in total opposition to your faith of choice’s stance? Care to have > a rational, factual debate on the issue?
I can’t say that I’m mustering a lot of enthusiasm for the prospect… My "faith of choice" says that a believer may make a sincere, prayerful choice of an informed conscience to believe contrary to one of the many current doctrines that are believed by Catholics but don’t define you as Catholic — it’s sort of a "civil disobedience" clause. Since supporting gay marriage does not prevent me from believing in Jesus Christ as savior, in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or in the teaching authority of the Church (and some other things, but you get the idea), my belief does not make me a bad Catholic. My participating in a gay union ceremony as an attendant doesn’t even qualify as a sin, unless the local bishop specifically forbids it, in which case the problem is defying his authority, not having pro-gay beliefs. Non-Catholics tend to misunderstand the issue of the authority of the Church to make rules. It is *teaching* authority. When you (people in general, not you in particular) sat in high school history, you were not required to believe everything your history teacher said. He or she was presumably right on most things, having been properly trained and qualified before being set loose — but nothing ruled out the possibility that later study by historians would show that his/her current state of knowledge wasn’t the whole story. There was a price to pay if you didn’t remember enough to pass the exams — but you weren’t going to be tossed out unless you did something actively disruptive to the point of undermining the teacher’s authority to instruct the rest of the class. So that’s *how* I can disagree. *Why* I disagree is because I cannot believe that a merciful God can grant my gay friends the kind of whole-hearted and enduring love that they share, then tell them that it’s a sin to be together — at the same time that far less committed heterosexual unions are permitted within the Church. My reluctance to have a "rational" debate is because my belief does not pretend to be rational — it’s based on my best understanding of human dignity and compassion, which may not be good enough, but it’s what I have to work with. Wende
Response:
> I think it would be interesting to exchange viewpoints with you, but > we might want to poll the group to see if anyone else is interested in > this topic first. If not – we should take it to e-mail.
I think the consensus is to go ahead since several people are already speaking their mind on the issue. > Anyone else interested in discussing the religious, moral and legal > standpoints of homosexual marriages? I know a few same-sex > HC’s have poked their heads in here before, and this topic has been > discussed, so I thought I’d check before we open this can of worms > in public again.
I am interested but not if it is going to degenerate into an emotional namecalling session. Facts, I want data, not emotional gut reactions. > Just for the first volley – even though marraige is not supported by > all homosexuals, does that make the topic any less relevant for those > who do believe in marriage?
The problem gays have currently (at least among themselves ) is that the modern gay movement was founded on sexual liberation from the oppressive institution of marriage which they felt suppressed the expression of sexual choices. Same sex marriage was doomed from the start because of the split within the gay community over the issue with some seeing it as a total abandonment of the idealogies on which the gay movement was founded. Others see marriage as a means of assimilating into the overall culture which again dilutes the gay agenda or message. Marriage is not supported by all > heterosexuals, yet they are not legally denied the right because of the > abstainers.
Marriage is not a right but a privilege. A single person can demand a right to be married til he/she are blue in the face but until such time as another person wishes to be married to him/her, he/she is denied marriage. The religious aspects of marrige and the legal aspects > are hard to distinguish as seperate debates, but they are, in fact, > seperate.
Oh, I quite agree. I think I can make a compelling arguement from civil and legal aspects. I am particualrly interested in finding out the legal > basis of discrimination in these cases, as the religious discussions > tend to be very emotional,. and in the end, come down to one > person’s interpretation of their religion versus anothers.
OK, I accept the ground rules. I’ll post my research into the legal aspects and ramifications of same sex marriage and let’s see if you or others can refute it with similar legal rebuttals. A debate, > unfortunately, that usually cannot fully be resolved – and has > a tendency to turn netizen against netizen.
It doesn’t have to be that way. I still keep in friendly contact with two very pro-gay activists on political newsgroups after several years. Granted, the vast majority will react with an emotional gut reaction though due to a total inability to argue based on facts. So – any lawyers out > there brushed up on recent events that can shed light on the > legal aspects of allowing (or disallowing) same-sex marriages? > Anyone?
Same Sex Marriage FAQ 1.) "Why would the State choose not to sanction stable relationships between same-sex couples, when it is clearly in the State’s interest to sanction such relationships (stable relationships lead to more community involvement, economic benefit to all and such, less of a health hazard to all?" Because there already are laws restricting civil contracts of marriage to one man, one woman and to reverse these Supreme Court decisions carries far more ramifications which I sincerely doubt the average American citizen would tolerate. There already is a long legal precedence for the government’s concern for a potential social harm, i.e. polygamy. The United States Congress required the inclusion of antipolygamy provisions in the constitutions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah as a condition of their statehood. For Arizona, Nwe Mexico and Utah, the Enabling Acts required that the antipolygamy provision be "irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said ‘State’." Davis v. Beason (1890) clearly deprives those who engage in polygamy (plural or "celestial" marriages) the right to vote, hold any "position or office of honor, trust or profit" and that "it is not open to any constitutional or legal objection". The proposition that those who engage in polygamy can be criminalized, and those engaging in that crime deprived of the vote remains good law according to Richardson v. Rameriz (1974) and Beason was upheld as good law as recently as 1993. In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), the court rejected a constitutional challenge to a United States statute that denied the franchise in federal territories to those who engage in polygamous cohabitation by stating: "Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and sringing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the estate of holy matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverant morality which is the source of all beneficient progress in social and political improvements…" Justice Scalia asked in his dissent of Evans v. Romer (1996), "Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a ‘legitmate concern of government’ and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?" In regards to Same Sex Marriage (SSM) between consenting adults of the same sex, the Court and Congress has repeatedly denied marriage to multiple consenting adults despite their claim that it is a violation of their constitutional right to freedom of religion. When I ask gay activists how they can expect the Court to overrule previous decisions PLUS state constitutions to redefine marriage as something other than one man, one woman, the answer I invariably get (when they are not screaming "bigot" for merely asking the question) is that polygamy should be allowed as well. This is not as farfetched as some would think since the Utah chapter of National Organzation of Women recently came out in favor of polygamy as an institution which is "pro-woman". The 1995 Gay March on Washington had a political platform which included the legalization of multiple partner unions. This plank was later dropped. The Metropolitan Community Church, which many believe to be a conservative gay religious institution, has already begun performing "truple" marriage ceremonies (source for this data comes from _Lesbian and Gay Marriage_, page 256). As for societal harms, I refer to the definitive work by Oxford anthropoligist, J.D. Unwin, Ph.D. entitled _Sex and Culture_ in which he studied 86 human civilizations ranging from the Rome to Tahiti and found that a society’s destiny is tied inseperately to the limits it imposes on sexual expression. The highest levels of social development are reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called "absolute monogamy", in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman and sex outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce prohibited. Unwin found that every society, without exception, that rejects absolute monogamy either becomes a stagnant cultural backwater or collapses altogether. In _Social and Cultural Dynamics_, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin studied 1,623 "internal disturbances in Greco-Roman and European history" and found that sexual permissiveness almost always precedes or accompanies "an explosion of sociopolitical disturbances." Just how does this relate to homosexual marriage and wouldn’t marriage make homosexuals more monogamous? In the modern history of the Gay Liberation Movement, heteroseuxal marraige was and is viewed as a failed institution which subjegated women and was not to be emulated. "Liberation" referred not so much to political liberation but rather sexual liberation wherein all expressions of sexuality were permissable. In the current homosexual media, "gay marriage" advocates openly admit that they would not remain faithful if married. Michaelangelo Signorile notes that in his lectures to college gay groups, comments by the rare homosexual about how marriage would "stabilize gay relationships and improve the image of the promiscuous gay" are met with derision and mockery by the majority. Homosexual columnist and author Signorile writes that "gays" would seek instead to make adultery acceptable, by redefining the "archaic institution" of marriage. The purpose of "gay marriage", he further writes, is to win legal benefits and social sanctions for homosexual couples, NOT to improve their behavior. Here are few quotes to chew on: " A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake – and one that would perhaps benefit all society – is to transform the notion of "family" entirely." — Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," _Out_ magazine, December/Jan 1994, p. 161 "In my mind, to perpetuate this gross institution of marriage is to limit us and the kinds of relationships we have." –Paula Ettelbrick, quoted by Signorile in _Out_, ibed. Ettelbrick is the public policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "The trick is, gay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down–"this is simply about equality for gay couples"– and offer same-sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing it to our more equitable … read more »
Response:
>> > And before the flame war starts, yes, I am totally in favor of > > legalizing gay marriages. All the more reason to give anti-gay-rights > > organizations a scare! > Anyone else interested in discussing the religious, moral and legal >standpoints of homosexual marriages? I know a few same-sex >HC’s have poked their heads in here before, and this topic has been >discussed, so I thought I’d check before we open this can of worms >in public again.
I agree that it is important to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage. Plenty of civil marriages are not recognised by the Catholic Church, for example. Same-sex civil marriage would be in the same basket as marriage of divorced persons. Civil marriage gives a couple lots of legal rights because they become one another’s "next of kin". Adoption, birth and death also can change your next of kin. It seems quite unjust not to allow a same-sex couple to become next of kin to one another, whether you call the arrangement "marriage" or another name. jen.
Response:
>> And before the flame war starts, yes, I am totally in favor of > legalizing gay marriages. All the more reason to give anti-gay-rights > organizations a scare! >Hmm, in total opposition to your faith of choice’s stance?
WHAT??? A Catholic who doesn’t agree 110% with the Church’s teachings on a controversial topic??? Pass the smelling salts, I think I’m gonna drop! Guess what, Jeanne? I know a lot of Catholics who use artificial means of birth control, live together before marriage, are pro-choice, believe women should be ordained, and/or disagree with the Church’s teachings on other *major* topics of controversy. Believe it or not, Jeanne, the vast majority of the Catholics I know (and the vast majority of the *people* I know are in fact Catholic) disagree with one or more Church teachings to some degree. Perhaps in theory we’re supposed to obey blindly, but in reality, each Catholic, just as any member of any other faith, decides for himself or herself how to react to and live (or not) the Church’s teachings. We found it very interesting at our marriage prep day that fully 40% of the couples who attend are already living together before marriage. Clearly, a whole lot of folks have reconciled their faith with their personal choices. Wende obviously believes deeply in most of the Church’s teachings, or she would not have *elected* to become a Catholic. The fact that she disagrees with the Church’s stance on one or more issues doesn’t mean she’s a "bad" Catholic. *Disclaimer: I don’t mean to suggest that Wende disagrees with any other teachings, or violates Church doctrine in any way, shape, or form.* I, on the other hand, *must* be an evil rebel child who has no right to call herself Catholic, given the number of Church teachings with which I disagree. I’ve been baptized, eucharisted, reconciled, confirmed, and am about to be married, but as far as I know, I haven’t committed an act that could get me excommunicated yet… M.
Response:
I see nothing wrong with legalizing gay marriages. I have friends that are same sex HC’s and I totally support them. Why punish them just because they were born with different sexual preferences? It is not their fault. Dodie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So Will of NBC’s new sitcom "Will & Grace" leads the > hit list of the > Christian Action Network, a "pro-family" > organization that is steamed over > the multitude of homosexual characters on prime-time > TV and wants a new > "HC" rating slapped on every show that’s got one. > That’s HC for > homosexual content. > I sent Christian Action Network a stern e-mail asking how dare they > co-opt a term that refers to the sanctity of marriage. That should make > steam come out of their ears… > And before the flame war starts, yes, I am totally in favor of > legalizing gay marriages. All the more reason to give anti-gay-rights > organizations a scare! > Wende
Response:
> I was challenged two years ago >to articulate my anti-gay marriage beliefs into a cogent document that >did not use religion as an argument. I did precisely that siting >precedent setting Supreme Court cases, social research and quotes from >gay pundits demonstrating that gay marriage is not embraced by all gay >activists for a variety of reasons.
What on earth does that last item have to do with anything? No gay couples should be able to be married unless they all want to be married? Gee, I don’t embrace the idea of women taking their husbands’ last names. Perhaps none of you should be allowed to do so. Rivka
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And before the flame war starts, yes, I am totally in favor of > legalizing gay marriages. All the more reason to give anti-gay-rights > organizations a scare! > Hmm, in total opposition to your faith of choice’s stance? Care to have > a rational, factual debate on the issue? I was challenged two years ago > to articulate my anti-gay marriage beliefs into a cogent document that > did not use religion as an argument. I did precisely that siting > precedent setting Supreme Court cases, social research and quotes from > gay pundits demonstrating that gay marriage is not embraced by all gay > activists for a variety of reasons. It must be scaring the living > bejeebies out of someone because twice now I have posted it *on request* > to relavent newsgroups only to have someone delete it from dejanews both > times without my permission. > — > Jeanne’s Wedding Info Page – > http://www.mindspring.com/~thinds/jmh/wedinfo.htm > The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – > http://www.mindspring.com/~thinds/advocate > The Gang of Steves FAQ http:// > www.mindspring.com/~thinds/jmh/gosfaq.htm
I think it would be interesting to exchange viewpoints with you, but we might want to poll the group to see if anyone else is interested in this topic first. If not – we should take it to e-mail. Anyone else interested in discussing the religious, moral and legal standpoints of homosexual marriages? I know a few same-sex HC’s have poked their heads in here before, and this topic has been discussed, so I thought I’d check before we open this can of worms in public again. Just for the first volley – even though marraige is not supported by all homosexuals, does that make the topic any less relevant for those who do believe in marriage? Marriage is not supported by all heterosexuals, yet they are not legally denied the right because of the abstainers. The religious aspects of marrige and the legal aspects are hard to distinguish as seperate debates, but they are, in fact, seperate. I am particualrly interested in finding out the legal basis of discrimination in these cases, as the religious discussions tend to be very emotional,. and in the end, come down to one person’s interpretation of their religion versus anothers. A debate, unfortunately, that usually cannot fully be resolved – and has a tendency to turn netizen against netizen. So – any lawyers out there brushed up on recent events that can shed light on the legal aspects of allowing (or disallowing) same-sex marriages? Anyone? Tami (and Jeff – we’re *really* doing it this time ) Keep your fingers crossed – OCT 9, 99
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I sent Christian Action Network a stern e-mail asking how dare they > co-opt a term that refers to the sanctity of marriage. That should make > steam come out of their ears… > And before the flame war starts, yes, I am totally in favor of > legalizing gay marriages. All the more reason to give anti-gay-rights > organizations a scare! > Hmm, in total opposition to your faith of choice’s stance? Care to have > a rational, factual debate on the issue? I was challenged two years ago > to articulate my anti-gay marriage beliefs into a cogent document that > did not use religion as an argument. I did precisely that siting > precedent setting Supreme Court cases, social research and quotes from > gay pundits demonstrating that gay marriage is not embraced by all gay > activists for a variety of reasons. It must be scaring the living > bejeebies out of someone because twice now I have posted it *on request* > to relavent newsgroups only to have someone delete it from dejanews both > times without my permission.
All those in favour of legalizing gay marriages? I say YEA! I say every human being (regardless of religion) has the right to love and to have that love acknowledged, even if it’s among those who care about those individuals, or the couple alone. In the beginning God created …. and in the end, man destroyed. Let’s leave it alone for onceand let nature take its course.
Response:
> So Will of NBC’s new sitcom "Will & Grace" leads the > hit list of the > Christian Action Network, a "pro-family" > organization that is steamed over > the multitude of homosexual characters on prime-time > TV and wants a new > "HC" rating slapped on every show that’s got one. > That’s HC for > homosexual content.
I sent Christian Action Network a stern e-mail asking how dare they co-opt a term that refers to the sanctity of marriage. That should make steam come out of their ears… And before the flame war starts, yes, I am totally in favor of legalizing gay marriages. All the more reason to give anti-gay-rights organizations a scare! Wende
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> So Will of NBC’s new sitcom "Will & Grace" leads the > hit list of the > Christian Action Network, a "pro-family" > organization that is steamed over > the multitude of homosexual characters on prime-time > TV and wants a new > "HC" rating slapped on every show that’s got one. > That’s HC for > homosexual content. > I sent Christian Action Network a stern e-mail asking how dare they > co-opt a term that refers to the sanctity of marriage. That should make > steam come out of their ears… > And before the flame war starts, yes, I am totally in favor of > legalizing gay marriages. All the more reason to give anti-gay-rights > organizations a scare!
Hmm, in total opposition to your faith of choice’s stance? Care to have a rational, factual debate on the issue? I was challenged two years ago to articulate my anti-gay marriage beliefs into a cogent document that did not use religion as an argument. I did precisely that siting precedent setting Supreme Court cases, social research and quotes from gay pundits demonstrating that gay marriage is not embraced by all gay activists for a variety of reasons. It must be scaring the living bejeebies out of someone because twice now I have posted it *on request* to relavent newsgroups only to have someone delete it from dejanews both times without my permission. — Jeanne’s Wedding Info Page – http://www.mindspring.com/~thinds/jmh/wedinfo.htm The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – http://www.mindspring.com/~thinds/advocate The Gang of Steves FAQ http:// www.mindspring.com/~thinds/jmh/gosfaq.htm
Response:
According to this article in today’s Washinton Post, TV execs are going to start letting us know when shows feature "Happy Couples." The Outer Limits Gay TV Characters Break New Ground, Old Taboos By Lisa de Moraes Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 3, 1999; Page C01 You’d think he’d be a darling of conservative media watchers. Will Truman is a handsome single male attorney on a TV show who is not having and never will have out-of-wedlock sex with his beautiful female roommate. But, oops — he’s gay. So Will of NBC’s new sitcom "Will & Grace" leads the hit list of the Christian Action Network, a "pro-family" organization that is steamed over the multitude of homosexual characters on prime-time TV and wants a new "HC" rating slapped on every show that’s got one. That’s HC for homosexual content. This address is unread due to spam. Please post all replies.