gay marriage

[fatherphil]

for it or again it?

[viscousmemories]

I think it's shameful that it's even a question. I'm opposed to discrimination against homosexuals for the same reason I oppose discrimination against people on the basis of their race, color or creed. I believe in equal rights.

[Farren]

Homosexuality is congenital and in and of itself it harms absolutely no one. Therefore I find unequal treatment of gays and straights in the eyes of the law disgusting. Thank god that particular form of tyranny of the majority (discrimination against gays) is explicitly constitutionally barred in the country I live in.

Homophobia is no less ugly, regressive and irrational than racism or sexism and society should respond to it in the same way. The only position opposed to homosexual marriage as a legal institution affording homosexuals the same partnership rights as straights, is a homophobic position, and should be condemned.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I think it's shameful that it's even a question. I'm opposed to discrimination against homosexuals for the same reason I oppose discrimination against people on the basis of their race, color or creed. I believe in equal rights.

100% agreed

[fatherphil]

to call the anti gay marriage homophobic is to mischaracterize it as it implies fear. i think hate is more involved than fear.

in my country, usa, the homosexual community should approach this issue within the Christian church if they want to have a hope in changing things here. if they can show Jesus Christ as an ally to their cause, they will have a better chance with the religious right that has been successful in using this issue as a political tool.

[Farren]

fatherphil I think the hate and the fear are two side of the same coin. How that coin lands simply depends on the context, but the fear and the loathing are inseperable, IMHO.

Its like racism. Racists hate people of another race, and if they find themselves isolated among many people of that race, experience fear.

[LadyShea]

Homophobia is also defined as contempt of gays, not just fear. Though, I heartily agree with Farren, I have always felt hate/fear are interrelated.

NOUN:

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

[Ymir's blood]

I don't think that governments should involve themselves in any marriage contract other than where it is necessary due to inheritance issues, such as in a divorce.

[Dingfod]

I'm against gay marriage.

I'm against marriage just on general principle.

By that I mean any legal rights or privileges granted over those that choose to remain single or cohabitate with someone they're not having sex with. I mean, why should Adam and Steve or Roman and Julie have any more rights than Uncle Bill and I living together in a mutually beneficial platonic household? None, it's not fair, all the way around.[/trolling]

[Ari]

For it. And I have yet to hear a single good arguement on why anyone should be against legal gay marriage.

Father: Heh, like that will ever happen. People are having a hard enough time convincing the majority of christians in the US that science is not the work of the devil and genesis is not literal, good luck trying to tell them that Jesus liked "fags."

[fatherphil]

i hate brussel sprouts without fearing them. i just think the term "homophobia" does not get to the core of the issue and allows the other side to not be called to task about why they are responding the way they do. its a term that should be recogized as ineffective and be laid to rest. but why argue over it?

the main issue here is coming up with a strategy to get homosexual marriage legalized.

[Ari]

[cynical] All gay men must like Nascar and beer, and donate 20% of their income to those causes. Gay women must all be "lipstick lesbians" and are required to tape and sell their honeymoon. Then you might have a shot. [/cynical]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

i hate brussel sprouts without fearing them. i just think the term "homophobia" does not get to the core of the issue and allows the other side to not be called to task about why they are responding the way they do. its a term that should be recogized as ineffective and be laid to rest. but why argue over it?

Because according to the definition, what they are practicing is homophobia. I do not feel calling it what it is obfuscates the issue.

the main issue here is coming up with a strategy to get homosexual marriage legalized.

It can't be done under the current tyranny of the religious right. There are no arguments that work with the cherry pickers. For example, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, yet he spoke at length about divorce...Christians aren't rallying to get divorce made illegal are they? Why homosexuality? Fear of those that are "different", I say.

[fatherphil]

that's why church is the way to go. if you can use Christ's teachings to prove your case you have a better chance with those who claim to follow Him. with an unbeliever who just chooses to hate gays, you don't have the leverage. use the bible against the bible belt.

i'm going to start using racialphobic and semitephobic instead of racist and antisemitic if you really think its more effective.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

that's why church is the way to go. if you can use Christ's teachings to prove your case you have a better chance with those who claim to follow Him. with an unbeliever who just chooses to hate gays, you don't have the leverage. use the bible against the bible belt.

"The Bible" condemns homosexuality in two places I know of. Jesus, himself never brought up the subject.

How do you use the Bible, which can be cherry picked from massively and is full of contradictions, in an argument?

i'm going to start using racialphobic and semitephobic instead of racist and antisemitic if you really think its more effective.

So what is a better term, homosexualist? Anti-homosexual?

Homophobic is the accepted word, whether it's the best one or not, why do you have such a problem with it? Why the semantics games?

[fatherphil]

anti-homosexual would be better, then you don't have to worry about a person mincing the phobic part and thus missing the point.

Christ of the gospels is the first step. biblically prove that He never condemned those living a lifestyle of sin, nor endorsed the use of His faith to exercise political will. you need to learn the language of your enemies if you intend to change their mind. the bible makes more sense then you give credit for. without it you are stuck with a subjective moral code that failed the homosexual community in the last election.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Homophobia is also defined as contempt of gays, not just fear.

It may be defined that way, but "phobia" literally means "fear".

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

Christ of the gospels is the first step. biblically prove that He never condemned those living a lifestyle of sin, nor endorsed the use of His faith to exercise political will.

The United Methodists and United Church of Christ have already done this. It doesn't matter. People think the Bible says what they want it to say.

As to the question in the OP, I'm for it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

anti-homosexual would be better, then you don't have to worry about a person mincing the phobic part and thus missing the point.

Okay, anti-homosexual it is.

Christ of the gospels is the first step. biblically prove that He never condemned those living a lifestyle of sin, nor endorsed the use of His faith to exercise political will. you need to learn the language of your enemies if you intend to change their mind. the bible makes more sense then you give credit for. .

But it doesn't matter what it says, people interpret it how they want to to justify all kinds of things and always have. Slavery, sexism, child abuse, etc.

And no, the Bible doesn't make sense. I have read it, studied it, I was once a Christian.

without it you are stuck with a subjective moral code that failed the homosexual community in the last election

Morality is subjective, and the Bible shouldn't be used to govern a diverse people. Period.

[PinkRose]

Originally Posted by fatherphil

for it or again it?

WHAT is a good gay gift?

[Dingfod]

A crock pot or a blender, PinkRose. Even gay people need to eat and drink.

[PinkRose]

Originally Posted by warrenly

A crock pot or a blender, PinkRose. Even gay people need to eat and drink.

that is terrible warrenly...something they would both like? spank you.

[Dingfod]

Maybe I'm gay or something, I enjoyed the hell out our blender and crockpot.

[PinkRose]

it is nice the assorted colors these appliances come in now?

[lisarea]

I used to be against marriage in general, but in reading about it in relation to gay marriage, I've changed my mind somewhat.

To me, it makes sense to have a legal institution available for permanent, monogamous adult relationships that's discrete from platonic relationships that aren't monogamous. That's not to say that I wouldn't like certain privileges available to a couple of siblings who decide to establish a household. It's just that those relationships are generally not intended to be permanent or exclusive. It strikes me that you'd need more leeway to define those types of contracts individually. With a permanent, monogamous relationship between two adults, you can reasonably assume the package deal--shared assets, shared responsibilities, mutual decision making powers, etc.. IOW, the marriage contract is pretty narrowly designed for what we currently think of as marriage. And there's no reason at all to discriminate against couples based on what sex the adults are. In fact, it seems weird to me that even so many people who want gay marriage feel that it opens up the doors for all these other permutations and such. Does not. Gay marriage fits pretty seamlessly into the contract as it stands.

As far as how to win the fight, I don't know, but I've always thought that maybe driving home the difference between a civil marriage and a church marriage is fundamental. Civil marriage is nothing but a binding legal contract issued by the state. No sanctity there. The sanctity part comes in with the church marriage or the individual vows.

It seems to me that these people who want their religion to have such influence over state matters fail to recognize the inevitability that the state will in turn exert influence over their religion. People whose religion is in the majority might think that's no big deal right now, but what about when the state decides to put a little finer point on which sects they endorse and which they won't? What about when the state starts to exert influence over very specific doctrines? What about when they (as we are already seeing) start equating religious beliefs with political platforms?

There's just no doubt in my mind that, even for those with remarkably self-serving perspectives on the issues, there's going to be some point at which they'll realize they've been fucked over.

And me? I'll be pointing and laughing, because I totally told them so.