|
|
Post by kats on Jul 18, 2004 23:05:01 GMT -5
For eg:/ I went to a selective high school, where our fail mark was 55-60. You had to do a test to get in at the end of 'grade' school. If you dropped below the 60 mark, you were advised to leave. We only had one loud conservative student who had slogans on his book like 'Ban Homos', 'Homosapians are not homosexuals', and 'Israel Only Defends- Islam Kills' and had all these whjack conspiracy theories. He got elected to local council in an 'ethnic' low socio economic area where people aren't aware the guy is a freaking lunatic, who would forcibly remove every person of Arab descent if he could. Now I'm in a well to do uni, where everyone in my degree is in the top 1.5 per cent of the country standardised test wise and the most conservative person I've met is some guy who is anti-smoking. So, I dunno. Just haven't come across this type of beleif, not even from religious people. Australia is a different place, obviously!! And then there was the prowar protestor who kciked me in my special place. But, I would never judge all conservatives by my incredibly nutty experiences with the biggest morons on earth, because by the same token, I couldn't count the amount of paid socialist alliance protestors who chafe my fucking hide. Rent-a-crowd paid protestors are the worst people in the world. EDIT- Walked away from the pewter and realised that didn't come across as I intended it to...and might have sounded like I was equating intellectualism with liberalism, but I wasn't. Whilst that is a heavily held opinion over here, I don't think its right, and I don't endorse that view. What I meant to mean was that I have had a pretty selective exposure to certain types of people in certain types of situations and that may have led to my greater exposure to left wing and kinda like minded people. So, I put that down to not so much experience meeting all different kinds of people. But I live in a mostly left wing country, where I'm buggered to understand why we have the leader we do  |
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 18, 2004 23:07:19 GMT -5
I don't think its possible to speak in absolutes about a political affiliation. Except for Socialist Alliance, a student movement, who believe that they are going to revolutionise the world with their group of twenty people and their paid protestors. I hate those morons.  |
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 18, 2004 23:35:30 GMT -5
Gee, Mary, you were much kinder to me the first time I put that up! Please let me clarify some of my feelings.
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.
If by Libertarian, you mean me (I do identify with the Libertarian Party more than any other, though not with everything in their platform), I don’t want “strong state involvement in enforcing marriage,” but the state has the right to define what will be recognized as a marriage in that state, as reflected by the constituency and what they feel is in the best interest of society. That’s not exactly a totalitarian blank check.
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.
It will last – I’m not worried about that. But it seems that, for some pretty good reasons, our society is set up to provide a few very small perks to encourage people to marry when they want to have a family. It seems to promote stability (though children can be effectively raised in other than a mother/father situation).
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 creation of human society.
Why do you find that hard to believe, Mary? Of course, it’s absolutely unproven, and unprovable as yet, but it’s interesting that you would make that assumption. But, that marriage is an artificial creation of human society is not only likely; it’s a certainty – it’s civilization. I think that’s a step forward.
In short... as much 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.
Different generation or worldview? Aw, now you’re making me feel old, Mary. My generation helped end a war, championed civil rights, and put forth a message of tolerance, personal freedom, fraternity, music, and love. But before I get too puffed up, I should admit that I was mostly too young to do more than sit on the sidelines and watch, but that’s what I identified with. By the time I was old enough to do much about anything, the war was over and huge inroads had been made in civil rights. So, my friends and I were mostly freaks with long hair and bell-bottom jeans who smoked weed and went to rock concerts. Besides, I mostly needed to get laid. Eventually, I fell in with the Democrats, which was pretty natural for me (who else, from there?) and it didn’t give me heartburn too bad, since my mother and all my grandparents were Democrats. But then the Democrats seemed to lose their way and I had to bail. But enough of that; that is neither here nor there.
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.
Its sanctity doesn’t derive from the government; the government recognizes its sanctity.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 19, 2004 4:40:33 GMT -5
Gay marriage makes about as much sense as a gay bishop. Why on earth do gays want to have a part of a code or dogma that condemns or excludes them from the get go?
What next, black folk demanding entry into the KKK on the grounds of equality?
I've no patience for this nonsense. Marriage is logically excluded to gays, and I don't think they should be upset about it... why try to gain admittance to the pointless institutions of the hetero world?
Now, rights and benefits is another matter entirely. There should, as many have agreed, be some change in law to confer all the benefits to monogamous gay couples that apply to husband and wife. That's what equality is all about. Equality is not about falsely acquiring labels that don't apply to you, just because other people have them.
But of course, this bloody ridiculous PC world we live in confuses the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by dolly on Jul 19, 2004 4:57:20 GMT -5
You can over-intellectualise on the subject of marriage and how it is a religious institution that does not allow for the possibility of same sex unio0n all you like. The fact is that - to some people - marriage is not about religion. It's about a union between two people - the ultimate commitment. Not all couples (maybe an overwhelming percentage in this day and age - certainly in Britain) are religious - yet they still want to get married. And why? Because it means something to them - emotionally. Forget benefits etc - some people just want to join themselves symbolically to the person that they love. And why anyone should wish to deny them or call them a fraud for it is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 19, 2004 5:21:32 GMT -5
How is marriage "logically" excluded to gays?
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Jul 19, 2004 7:44:06 GMT -5
Marriage is a sacrament, so it's difficult for many (if not most) people to view it outside of it's religious significance...It's been watered down and disrespected for so long now that it's lost much of it's authority as a sacrament (what with chapels in Vegas, open marriages, pre-nuptial contracts, easy and cheap divorces, etc.), and so I agree with JLLM insomuch as I don't understand why gay folks would embrace this sacrament over any of the others proferred by the church. It's a rare thing indeed to hear a homosexual person with good things to say about Christianity...
And the animosity, I'm afraid, is justified in most instances, as too many Christians, IMO, carry around a "panic-button" judgementality (did I just make up a new word?) against homosexuals and/or homosexuality. Personally I think this is too bad, for indeed Jesus shed His blood for all mankind, and all of us who have recieved Him into our lives as Lord need to remember that we are no less sinners than they or anyone else. Jesus taught that the measure with which we judge others is the measure with which we ourselves will be judged. So it just doesn't pay to put oneself in a position where we think we have the "upper hand" over somebody because they engage in behaviour that some (many?) find offensive. Fact is, we all have something about us that could be considered offensive by someone...
**************
Homosexuals, as far as I'm concerned, are free to call their unions "marriages" if they so desire. I can call myself a "Catholic" if I want to and even believe in the Catholic's doctrine, but that doesn't make me an official Catholic, because I haven't been recognized as such by the Catholic clergy.
Similarly, for all people (Christians and unbelievers alike) who view the institution of marriage as a sacred covenant instituted by God with the view of procreation and the upbringing of offspring in mind, there's no way you're going to convince them that a homosexual union is anything more than a couple of guys or girls calling themselves "married" just because they want to express themselves, even though their union is not sanctioned under the laws of the covenant.
But alas, I'm wasting my time contemplating this in a religious light, because I understand that the reasons gay people are just now making such a fuss about the subject have more to do with attempting to mainstream the lifestyle into acceptance by the status quo and procuring certain legal rights than anything to do with religion...
*************
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 19, 2004 8:03:31 GMT -5
Marriage is a sacrament, so it's difficult for many (if not most) people to view it outside of it's religious significance... I disagree with this, simply because marriage in some form or another is present in just about any culture. Religion, or the same religion, is not. Therefore, if we were to make it a chicken or the egg question, I'd say that marriage came first and religion accepted it. Not the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 19, 2004 8:45:10 GMT -5
Chrisfan and stratman,
Yes, of course conservatives are no more homogenous and single-minded than leftists. I realize there is disagreement among conservatives on a wide range of social issues. Heck, I realize there are lots of libertarians who couldn't give two shits about this issue, and others who strongly believe gays should be able to get married. I also don't think there's a contradiction every time a conservative advocates government involvement in something—in fact, anarchists wouldn't be supportive of gay marriage either, insofar as they wouldn't be supportive of any State existing to recognize the legitimacy of that marriage!
However, I do think there's a tension between conservative suspicion of government and many parts of the anti-gay marriage movement who are particularly adamant about the desperateness of the situation, of the need to safeguard traditional marriage. I realize that, as chrisfan said, conservatives are willing to turn to the government when there's "no other way" - but here, I'm wondering why any conservative would believe there's no other way to safeguard traditional marriage. If the implication is that allowing the miniscule proportion of the society that is gay to get married will somehow drag the vast majority of heterosexual couples into the gutter and destroy their marriage, then this implies an extraordinarily pessimistic view of the human capacity to make responsible moral decisions on their own, and I really do believe that personal moral responsibility is a pretty damn fundamental tenet of conservatism.
My parents, for example, have a fairly traditional marriage—it's survived Britney's annullment, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance, a skyrocketing divorce rate, and now gay marriage in Massachusetts. There is no visible effect whatsoever on their marriage of the fact that gay couples are now also getting married in their state. I don't see why those straight couples who are committed to traditional marriage wouldn't continue to carry the torch for the institution just because the state expanded its parameters, and I don't see why any conservative would believe this unless they had a very dim view indeed of peoples' ability to live up to traditional moral standards absent explicit state protection. And again, yes, I find that odd.
The state allows—even supports—many things which religious people likely find abhorrent. The FCC distributes broadcast licenses to radio stations with a wide array of viewpoints, but no one suggests that the presence of atheist voices on the radio is going to destroy Christian preachers on the radio. I view gay marriage in a similar way. If someone is of a traditional mindset and they believe in the sacred status of marriage, then they should invest their own marriage with that sacredness through their own personal choices and actions. If they can't do that without the help of the state drawing protective boundaries around marriage, then I have to question their commitment to their own values. I don't see why we need the goverment to "recognize" the sacredness of marriage, anymore than we need the government to recognize the sacredness of Catholic Mass. As long as it's sacred to the people participating in it, it will continue to be sacred.
Cheers,
M
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 19, 2004 8:49:29 GMT -5
I've no patience for this nonsense. Marriage is logically excluded to gays, and I don't think they should be upset about it... why try to gain admittance to the pointless institutions of the hetero world? As I said in my earlier posts, I could care less whether gay unions are called Marriage or Giant Purple Hippos. Whatever. But with all due respect of course, I have to point out that this concept of "logical exclusion" is utter, complete nonsense. Marriage is nothing but a legal construct. It doesn't have some kind of pure, ontological status outside the legal categories that define it. If those legal categories are changed to include same-sex unions, then gays are no longer "logically excluded" from marriage. ...and regarding JAC's assertion that marriage is a sacrament, I just have to echo Chrisfan here: what about the thousands of different cultural approaches to marriage throughout human history, many of which had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity? What about the ancient Greek marriages that existed prior to Christianity even existing?? Cheers, M |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 19, 2004 8:57:37 GMT -5
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 creation of human society.Why do you find that hard to believe, Mary? Of course, it’s absolutely unproven, and unprovable as yet, but it’s interesting that you would make that assumption. You're right, of course, that we can never determine anything conclusively about this. But I find it difficult to believe because monogamy as the norm within a society tends to be associated only with highly refined, civilized, complex societies. The more "primitive" (for lack of a better word) a society, the less likely that society is to associate marriage with one husband and one wife. Far more likely is that power and prestige within that society confers upon a man the right to have many, many wives–the more wives, the more power and prestige. This suggests (but of course does not prove) to me that monogamy comes up relatively late in the game, and is a pure social construction related to the needs and conveniences of particularly complex civilizations. I suppose one could also look at biological evidence—is monogamy practiced amongst humans' closest biological relatives? Do apes and monkeys pair off in monogamous pairs? It's been a long time sine I studied biology, but I'm fairly certain that the answer is no. So, by all means, not proof - but enoug evidence to make me skeptical that monogamy is really somehow hardwired into the human brain. ....and strat, when I said that I was perhaps from a different generation, I didn't mean that in a disparaging way. I didn't mean I was from the wonderful open-minded generation and you were from the horrible close-minded one or something like that. I meant it solely with regard to all the statistics that demonstrate increasing acceptance of gays among young people. It's not that I'm part of some astonishingly open-minded generation, it's that I grew up around so many out-of-the-closet gays living such perfectly ordinary lives that homosexuality is utterly, completely banal and uninteresting to me, and I can't fathom why anyone would feel any differently. Cheers, M |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 19, 2004 9:10:10 GMT -5
Mary, I mean this with all due respect, but what is your goal here? Obviously, none of us on the conservative side are discussing this with you trying to change your mind, but rather to explain where we are coming from. And as much as we've done that, you continue to mis-characterize what we've said / what we believe, making comments such as "If the implication is that allowing the miniscule proportion of the society that is gay to get married will somehow drag the vast majority of heterosexual couples into the gutter and destroy their marriage, then this implies an extraordinarily pessimistic view of the human capacity to make responsible moral decisions on their own, and I really do believe that personal moral responsibility is a pretty damn fundamental tenet of conservatism." Can you begin to conceive of just how vast the space between "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and "Dragging heterosexual couples into the gutter and destroy their marriage" is? Several of us have expressed our views on this countless times, and STILL you insist on mis-characterizing this.
I know that this is a very personal issue for you, given your friend's situation. I just think that in this particular case, you're more interested in proving the other side "wrong", or expressing your anger towards the other sides viewpoint, than understanding where the other side is coming from. So given that in all this time, your mischaracterizations continue, is there really any point in continuing this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Jul 19, 2004 9:21:20 GMT -5
p.s
Riley your wearing the dress.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 19, 2004 13:42:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 19, 2004 14:19:56 GMT -5
Mawwiage... Mawwiage is wot bwings us togethah today. Mawwiage, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wiffin a dweam... And wuuv, twu wuuv, will fowoh you fowevah...!
|
|
