|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 18, 2004 12:58:11 GMT -5
maybe it's because i'm an atheist, but i'm all for gay marriage. well, it isn't that i'm for it as much as it is i'm not against it. either way, i don't think it's something that can be held back. it'll continue happening, one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 18, 2004 15:49:25 GMT -5
You also have to understand that I have only ever met two conservatives in my life. My local MP and her yesman who went to my high school and used to say things like burn all gays, etc etc etc. I'm not accustomed to those beliefs even existing. CE is the only interaction that I have with conservative people. It boggles my mind that homophobia exists. - kats
Aren't you being a little hard on conservatives, kat? "Burn all gays"? (btw, I'm afraid I'm out of the loop on the "mash fan" thing, kat!)
I'm going to put up a post I saved before posting it at RS that kind of spells out my feelings on gay marriage and marriage in general. (I only have it because I composed it in Word before posting, knowing it was going to be a lengthy post and not wanting to labor over it only to have it eaten by the RS boards - how many of us experienced that bite in the rump?) It was a response to Mary - so I know she and some of the CE faithful have already seen it and need not reply again unless they just want to.
[Mary]... But I just get lost when people don't express any particular animus toward hom<b>o</b>sexuality or any particular reason why recognizing gay marriages would lead to the collapse of society, yet still oppose it ... But I would like to be able to understand chrisfan's and strat-'s positions, and I can't. I guess that's why I keep going around in circles.
Very well, Mary, I’ll give it a shot. It’s personal for me too, but I’ll get to that later. You are correct that my anti gay marriage stance is not borne out of an anti-gay animus. It’s more from my malaise about the general erosion and deterioration of the institutions of marriage and the family that has been escalating since the 1960s. The sexual revolution and the various rights movements had their merits and validities, and I generally approved of them (hey, I cut a pretty wide swath in the 70s and 80s myself), but they also had some unhappy and unhealthy side affects. One was the weakening and disintegration of marriage.
Then, as now, I held the institution of marriage as sacred, as a solemn and serious commitment between a man and a woman - as the seed and foundation of a family for all time (whether children issue or not). Don’t get me wrong – I’m glad that women are no longer subjugated or trapped in bad marriages that include abuses. But marriage has become an institution of “serial monogamy” and I feel that weakens the entire structure and fabric of family and society, and makes us the poorer for what we’ve lost. Women should be treated as equals and should have the same opportunities for careers as men – but that doesn’t mean they have to, as I think they have been made to feel. Hey, I’m all for “house husbands,” too! The idea that we simply have to have two incomes “these days,” so we can afford all of the creature comforts we want and “deserve” is just out of whack. The home needs a steward. But I’m getting off track. What does this have to do with my opposition to gay “marriage”? Well, I hope it illuminates my attitudes about the sanctity of marriage, and that to me, gay “marriage” is just one more coffin nail, one more cheapening, casual, and cavalier blow to an already battered and staggering institution. I believe the pendulum will eventually swing, but the cost has been very high. I know that there are some gay couples who have been together for scores of years, and perhaps others will be too, but they can’t be married! And many more crumble rather quickly. As for myself, I’ll never accept it or recognize it. I’m not dismissing the depth or validity of anyone’s love, just call it something else, and admit that it’s not the same!
Well, I promised the “personal” part, so I guess I’ll have to ‘share.’ I didn’t marry until I was 34, though I did have many relationships. I wanted to be sure it was right, because I intended to marry for life. When I found the ‘one,’ and was sure, and she was too (to the point of insistence), we were married, and we had five years of truly blissful happiness. Then, one day, without any warning or reason, she walked out without explanation. A month earlier, we were happily planning and trying to conceive. I still don’t know what the fuck. Yeah, I have some ideas... While I now have a wonderful lady to share my life with, the chances for kids look pretty slim for me. When you look at these old couples who have been married for 40 or 50+ years, and see the love and happiness in their eyes, that’s what marriage is about for me. Not a political statement or a celebrity flavor of the week, or something to gain “benefits.” They stuck it out through thick and thin, through good and bad, when they might have bailed – but they didn’t, and they are always happy they stayed together. I don’t mean to dismiss committed same sex couples, but I’m talking about reality and a lifetime of sharing and commitment and family. Marriage is in trouble, and I think that means we are in trouble. I hope this helped to clarify my position, but it may have only obscured it all the more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 18, 2004 15:57:31 GMT -5
like it or not, those times are gone.
sometimes i think we should just abolish marriage, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 18, 2004 15:59:33 GMT -5
gay “marriage” is just one more coffin nail, one more cheapening, casual, and cavalier blow to an already battered and staggering institution.
Well put, strat-o.
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 18, 2004 16:01:56 GMT -5
sometimes i think we should just abolish marriage, plain and simple.
Never rule out the possibility of revival.
Do you love your wife?
For her and for your children are you laying down your life?
What about the others?
Are living as a servant to your sisters and your brothers?
Do you make the poor man beg you for a bone?
Do the widow and the orphan cry alone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 18, 2004 16:07:05 GMT -5
well, i'll say this... marriage is in a pretty awful state right now. i don't know what the percentage is, but i heard somewhere around 2/3 of marriages end in divorce (certainly more than half, anyway).
maybe the best thing to do is to take a lot of social focus off of marriage. think of it as a thing of the past. let the few who enjoy it and live by it do what they want. but not even bring it up for anyone else. continue removing social pressures of getting married. perhaps continue pushing adoption. we have enough people in this world as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 18, 2004 16:40:53 GMT -5
That's a little fatalistic, Proud. Do you really think society would be better off it we just tossed the institutions of marriage and the nuclear family into the trash heap? I don't think that's the kind of Brave New World we need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 18, 2004 16:48:41 GMT -5
and what are the other options? besides simply telling people to be better husbands/wives/parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 18, 2004 17:55:13 GMT -5
I don't think we need to get rid of marraige, but I just don't think the state should have anything to do with marriage. I think the state should simply enforce various kinds of civil contracts between people who plan to cohabit for long periods of time. There could be different types of contracts depending on the specific nature of the relationship. These would be nothing but civil union contracts for everyone - gay, straight, long-term roommates, siblings who live together, whatever. For those who still want the additional meaning they feel is invested in more traditional kinds of marriage, they can get married by a private religious entity—a church or a synagogue or whatever.
This wouldn't be the end of traditional marriage. I really don't understand why people think this. If you still believe in a traditional marriage, then you can still have one, and you can still have a nuclear family as well. The point is only that the state shouldn't be in the business of favoring particular kinds of family arrangements when this favoritism unjustly denies other substantial benefits to other kinds of relationships.
I must say I always found it a bit ironic when conservatives and libertarians insisted on the importance of strong state involvement in enforcing marriage. This strikes me as deeply antithetical to conservative ideology more generally, which usually holds that the State can't help people or make people better off, they are responsible for themselves and private decisions are the foundation of the shape of our lives. Moreover, if a relationship between a man and woman in an nuclear family is "natural" then it makes no sense why all the coercive power of government must be desperately arranged to "protect" it - if it's natural, it's going to last on its own. If it can't survive without state support, then there was nothing "natural" about it to begin with.
Which is qute likely anyway, frankly. I find it hard to believe that early mankind, before any kind of formal political arrangements and social structures existed, pair off in monogamous unions for life. Far more likely is that marriage is an artificial creaton of human society. Which doesn't make it bad, it just means it's unclear why expanding its reach or changing its terms would have such a horrifically devastating impact, especially when it appears the vast majority of humanity is straight and would continue to pair off in different-sex couples.
In short... as mcuh as I respect strat-o's opinion, I just don't get it. I'm part of a different generation or a different worldview on this, I suppose. But I'm skeptical about the "sanctity" of any institution which somehow loses its sanctity when the state no longer protects it. Are you claiming that sanctity derives from the government?? What a bizarre position for a libertarian.
Cheers,
M
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 18, 2004 18:49:16 GMT -5
The point is only that the state shouldn't be in the business of favoring particular kinds of family arrangements when this favoritism unjustly denies other substantial benefits to other kinds of relationships.
I think the Founding Fathers would consider it quite important to favor the nuclear family if the society of that time was in as much disarray as it is today. You are quite right in pointing out that it is a conservative philosophy to stay out of the lives of the citizenry as much as possible, but this involves letting people make mistakes and suffer the consequences putting dependence on the community to help them out. Why? Because according to George Washington, the job of welfare was not for the government and according to the Constitution the government is only to "promote the general welfare". That's the conservative philosophy of staying out of our lives. But when it comes to establishing a society of Democracy that will work, the family must be stressed as the focal point of that society's survival. So since the Constitution is a "living, breathing document", (right?), we should consider more and more the Founder's original intent, shouldn't we? We shouldn't pretend for a minute that the Founding Fathers didn't believe that the family was the most important institution in our society. And we also shouldn't be willing to redefine, or heck, even try to do away with, the 10th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and marriage while doing an about turn and saying that we must be so strict and legalistic about what the Constitution has NOT mentioned, given the social climate of the time(minus the bad things like slavery). Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 18, 2004 18:59:51 GMT -5
I must say I always found it a bit ironic when conservatives and libertarians insisted on the importance of strong state involvement in enforcing marriage. This strikes me as deeply antithetical to conservative ideology more generally, which usually holds that the State can't help people or make people better off, they are responsible for themselves and private decisions are the foundation of the shape of our lives. Moreover, if a relationship between a man and woman in an nuclear family is "natural" then it makes no sense why all the coercive power of government must be desperately arranged to "protect" it - if it's natural, it's going to last on its own. If it can't survive without state support, then there was nothing "natural" about it to begin with. Which is qute likely anyway, frankly. I find it hard to believe that early mankind, before any kind of formal political arrangements and social structures existed, pair off in monogamous unions for life. Far more likely is that marriage is an artificial creaton of human society. Which doesn't make it bad, it just means it's unclear why expanding its reach or changing its terms would have such a horrifically devastating impact, especially when it appears the vast majority of humanity is straight and would continue to pair off in different-sex couples. In short... as mcuh as I respect strat-o's opinion, I just don't get it. I'm part of a different generation or a different worldview on this, I suppose. But I'm skeptical about the "sanctity" of any institution which somehow loses its sanctity when the state no longer protects it. Are you claiming that sanctity derives from the government?? What a bizarre position for a libertarian. Cheers, MI heard it said one time than when dealing with complex issues of spirituality and religion, a person cannot help but be hypocritical at some point. I think that without question, the same can be said of politics. ALL sides have issues and arguments that could be viewed as hypocritical and/or contradictory. That's just the way life is. But I have to say, I get rather annoyed every time the "conservatives want govenrment to stay out of people's lives except for it in X issue" argument. Conservatives are not about keeping the government out of our lives all together. They're about MINIMIZING the role of the government in our lives. You lookat an issue, and BEFORE turning to the government for a solution, you look at other alternatives. If nothing else will work, THEN you turn to the government. We're not anarchists ... we're conservatives. Mary, I have to say that as complex and deep as you look into most any argument, it kind of shocks me that you of all people would look at conservatisim and liberatarianism in such simplistic terms. |
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 18, 2004 19:21:47 GMT -5
I heard it said one time than when dealing with complex issues of spirituality and religion, a person cannot help but be hypocritical at some point. I think that without question, the same can be said of politics. ALL sides have issues and arguments that could be viewed as hypocritical and/or contradictory. That's just the way life is. But I have to say, I get rather annoyed every time the "conservatives want govenrment to stay out of people's lives except for it in X issue" argument. Conservatives are not about keeping the government out of our lives all together. They're about MINIMIZING the role of the government in our lives. You lookat an issue, and BEFORE turning to the government for a solution, you look at other alternatives. If nothing else will work, THEN you turn to the government. We're not anarchists ... we're conservatives. Mary, I have to say that as complex and deep as you look into most any argument, it kind of shocks me that you of all people would look at conservatisim and liberatarianism in such simplistic terms. Mary, can I pile on? You have always tried to make the point that liberals/leftists aren't monolithic in their thinking...that there's many diverse views within your ideology. Why wouldn't you think the same about conservatives? You'll cut your side some slack, but pigeonhole the other into the box you choose to believe? It may come as some surprise to you, but there is diverse thought on the conservative side as well. Abortion, tax rates, regulation, etc., a whole host of issues I dare say that number as numerous for us as your issues do on the left. I tend to fall to the right of most issues (within my party), but then you already probably surmised that.  Chrisfan was also right, IMO, about the nature of religion, politics, and hypocrisy. There are too many gray areas, too many areas for dispute/discussion (honest discussion) to conservatives (or anybody) to paint someone into such a narrow box. I've been a "hypocrite" many times, if that means that I think for myself, and it diverges from my stated political ideology. I'm disappointed Mary, that you gave my side's POV such little credit. I'll just chalk it up to your lack of sleep.  I stayed out of the whole gay marriage thing because everyone here knows how I feel about it, and I really had nothing to add. |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Jul 18, 2004 22:36:43 GMT -5
I’m not dismissing the depth or validity of anyone’s love, just call it something else, and admit that it’s not the same!
Let me get this straight... The love that a man feels for a woman is different than the love a man feels for another man or a woman feels for another woman? Do you realize how insulting that is?
I'm not a badge-wearing homosexual who does the whole GLAAD thing, and honestly the issue of gay marriage isn't all that important to me even though I believe gays should have that right. What is really irritating me is the arguments that are being used against it. As much as you don't want the institution of marriage "cheapened" by having someone like myself marrying my lover, I don't want the love that I feel for my lover being "cheapened" by the fact that some straight people don't seem to get the fact that the feelings we feel are the same as what you feel. Is the difference in genetalia and societal behaviors all that important to justify love?
Maybe gays are just tired of being treated differently from the rest of America, much like blacks experienced for the difference in their skin color. It's really the same sort of issue. This whole concept of separate but equal just doesn't work, and I can't believe society doesn't see that. It is especially mind-boggling when some of the people I've heard speak on the issue are good, decent people. Do you really think that gays should be kept separate from what other people get to experience just because they love someone of the same gender, or to have it cheapened by government and religious institutions (and especially other people who know what love feels like), who in this country are supposed to be kept separate.
Why in the world should gays not have the right to marry other than surface stuff that we all know doesn't really count?
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 18, 2004 22:51:23 GMT -5
Aren't you being a little hard on conservatives, kat? "Burn all gays"? (btw, I'm afraid I'm out of the loop on the "mash fan" thing, kat!)
Nowhere did I say all conservatives are like that. I was saying that in my experience with meetinv conservative epople, the only two I have ever met are incosiderate, uneducated arseholes.
Fpr eg;/ local mp just said in the national newspaper that no-one in her electrocate goes to uni, or wishes to. She refers to our town as 'pram city' because it's a low socioeconomic area. She's fullashit.
But clearly all conservatives aren't like that, that I am well aware of. I just haven't met any besides those two in my life, besides on rollingstone.
That's all I was saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 18, 2004 22:57:36 GMT -5
Oh well, Melon. I must really irk your goat. Believe in God and enjoy a bit of gay sex. Deary, deary.
Meh.
Start-o, wasn't attempting to start something on us/them because I think it's entirely useless. ZZJust trying to point out how different my situation here is. You don't meet conservatives very often. It's always a bit of a culture shock to hear some of these views being heard. Tis all.
|
|
