|
thedeadhaji
37904 Posts
Last fall, as election season raged on, I was thinking about the candidates and California State Propositions I would vote for. Same sex marriage was not on the ballot this year for California. Prop 8 had reached the Supreme Court earlier in the year. However, the issue was front and center in several other states.
I started thinking in earnest about what my views were regarding same sex relationships and same sex marriage, and how I should best make my voice heard (through votes and other actions) given my beliefs. I decided to throw out my incumbent positions from my mind and construct a belief and decision framework from scratch.
Previously, my position was that I was is favor of providing all the rights afforded to "married couples" (tax benefits, visitation rights, etc) but in an ideal world I preferred this to manifest itself through a civil union rather than "marriage". Having had gay friends in college for the first time in my life, I definitely wanted them to enjoy all the rights and privileges that heterosexual couples have access to. Growing up in a fairly conservative family and attending a prep school founded by a Mormon family, I unfortunately can't confidently say that I held these beliefs prior to college. But once I had personal relationships with friends who, at that time, wouldn't have the same rights and privileges as I would, I knew for sure that they deserved all the nice things I had access to.
But at this time, I wasn't quite comfortable with gay "marriage". This was certainly due to my conservative upbringing with the undertones of a Christian values. While I myself am agnostic, the values and positions of those around me had permeated into me over the years. While I wasn't "against" gay marriage, I definitely wasn't comfortable with it either. When every image of marriage I'd had in my life had been between a man and a woman, same sex marriage instinctively felt somewhat awkward.
As I sat there in the fall of 2012, I was adamant about throwing all these preconceptions and existing beliefs out the window. I was going to start from scratch, start from the very basic building blocks of my attitudes and wishes for my gay friends as well as my assessment of the political situation, and construct a position anew.
What was the most important thing in all of this? Until now the most important factor was myself and what I was comfortable with. Since I wasn't quite at ease with "gay marriage" itself, I had wanted to see a civil union with full rights. But when I really thought hard that day in my kitchen, feet on the counter with an absentee ballot in front of me, I realized that the most important thing in all of this wasn't me and what I ideally wanted. What mattered most were my friends who still didn't have all the rights they deserved. It became clear to me then that a future where they'd enjoy all the benefits I had access to, currently kept away from them owing to the random whim of genetics, was infinitely more important than my nit picky discomfort.
The political situation is very polarized. The choices are either "yes gay marriage" or "no gay marriage". The choices presented to me as a voter doesn't include "civil unions with full rights". So there are only two possible futures. Yes or No. No middle ground. Faced with a choice, Yes or No, I could no longer say No in good conscience, now that my values and priorities were made anew. I had to say Yes. Even if I still wasn't 100% comfortable with what the Yes would bring, the Yes world would be much better than the No world for me. It's not the best world for my selfish soul, but it is easily the better choice and the only good choice that had a chance of becoming a reality.
And so finally, after all these years, I am a supporter of gay "marriage". I still feel a little bit uneasy when thinking about it. But this isn't about me. This is about the people who are affected directly by this. This is about the people, friends, who should have every right I have and yet don't.
In closing, I should mention that while I have "come around", I don't think everyone needs to do the same. Whatever decision we make by examining our own beliefs deeply is fine by me, whatever that decision and position may be.
But I do hope that the decision is yours and yours only. I hope that we all think hard for ourselves, looking back at who we know and what we value, and come up with our own choice, rather than hazily following the lead of others. It's not our community's choice or our parents' choice or our religion's choice. It's our own choice as independent, introspective, incisive individuals.
----
Crossposted from http://www.hkmurakami.com/blog/
 
|
They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman.
The stereotypes need to fall though, probably the biggest hurdle LGBT faces.
|
reading
I am a supporter of gay "marriage"
doesn't fully convince me that you are in fact a supporter  but it's good to see you reflecting on this and be willing to change your viewpoint (lot of people don't so kudos)
Do you thinks you would have come to this conclusion without meeting gay friends as well?
also
On June 23 2013 18:23 iTzSnypah wrote:
They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman.
The stereotypes need to fall though, probably the biggest hurdle LGBT faces.
reads like a contradiction to me somehow, stereotypes should fall but marriage is always man&woman ... ?
|
you finally woke up. congratulations but most of us have been awake for some time now. marriage itself is a ridiculous notion. if you want to get married thats fine by me, but humans are one of the rare species that partner for life. and since half of people who start partnering for life dont end up that way, maybe we are incorrect on that too. since it is impossible to know for sure, the best situation is to let people choose what they want as long as they have the same rights. call it what you want, but semantics is not really the issue here
|
I've always had the opinion that legally, all partnerships of the sort, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be treated as a civil union. The term marriage should not be recognized by law or used anywhere in an official context.
If people want to feel that they're married, or engage in related customs and rituals of any culture or religion, that is entirely up to them, it's their own private thing.
|
On June 23 2013 18:41 balls516 wrote:
you finally woke up. congratulations but most of us have been awake for some time now. marriage itself is a ridiculous notion. if you want to get married thats fine by me, but humans are one of the rare species that partner for life. and since half of people who start partnering for life dont end up that way, maybe we are incorrect on that too. since it is impossible to know for sure, the best situation is to let people choose what they want as long as they have the same rights. call it what you want, but semantics is not really the issue here
yeah people turn this into semantic bullshit so they think they have no moral implication when denying another human beeing of the basic rights
|
Temple of EE-Sama22475 Posts
On June 23 2013 18:23 iTzSnypah wrote:
They need to think of a better word than marriage for same sex couples. Marriage for me will always mean man and woman.
They need a new word to describe it because you have a limited view of what a union is? That seems like a pretty roundabout solution, no?
|
On June 23 2013 18:51 Talin wrote:
I've always had the opinion that legally, all partnerships of the sort, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be treated as a civil union. The term marriage should not be recognized by law or used anywhere in an official context.
If people want to feel that they're married, or engage in related customs and rituals of any culture or religion, that is entirely up to them, it's their own private thing.
i feel like you said what i was trying to say much more clearly and fluently. thank you.
|
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud.
So I would actually object the definition of marriage is very far away from the perverted and distorted version of the catholic/jewish/muslim books, and we should ban any religious group from using the term !
edit : it's also always fun to see the same arguments used against gay marriage are pretty much word for word the same arguments people used that were against the end of segregation and apartheid.
You people sayin this shouldn't be called "marriage" are basically the new avatars of these people saying whites shouldn't marry blacks..
edit 2 : and haji, really wtf ? what you wrote sounds so much like a little arrogant and ignorant saxon shit.
|
I don't have the energy to write the several pages that would if I were to discuss my journey from conservative to liberal but in short:
It's semantics about "marriage"- it's either a religious/traditional term or a LEGAL term (pick 1).
It's not about "sex" - opposing the same legal rights and terms doesn't hinder homosexuality.
Laws should not be about religious beliefs, morals or traditions - they are about rights and equality.
Finally, my belief is to LOVE.
Sadly, I might not have taken the time to consider those things if not for some of the friends I made that weren't all like me.
|
On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud.
Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion.
It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue).
|
Isn't it part of the american separation of church and state that the state cannot FORCE the church to redefine marriage? If the church has one definition, which is that it is between a man and a woman, can the US state legislate to force the church to accept gay marriage? Or does a state allowing gay marriage still require a non mainstream church to marry the couple?
I guess you have a bunch of churches tho', not a state one like we do 
|
On June 23 2013 19:20 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:05 Boonbag wrote:
I actually believe the total opposite, as human beeing partner since dawn of time, and the church copyrighting the marriage concept is basically a fraud. Since the dawn of civilization, those partnerships have been made official with religious rituals of some sort, usually performed by the priesthood of said religion. It was a mistake to ever introduce the term marriage into legislation and keep it for this long, at least for societies that truly want the separation of state and church (which United States don't really, but that's a different issue).
wait what ?
how do you know humans are religious since dawn of time ? that's a very big historical misconception, that was introduce by catholic church
"priest hood" for all i know is a very very very recent thing
edit : and don't come an say "egyptians had priests"
|
On June 23 2013 19:28 Catch]22 wrote:Isn't it part of the american separation of church and state that the state cannot FORCE the church to redefine marriage? If the church has one definition, which is that it is between a man and a woman, can the US state legislate to force the church to accept gay marriage? Or does a state allowing gay marriage still require a non mainstream church to marry the couple? I guess you have a bunch of churches tho', not a state one like we do
The state wouldn't NEED to force Church to redefine marriage if the term marriage was never in the state legislation to begin with. The religions can just do whatever they like, their opinion wouldn't matter.
If what we know as "marriage" was simply defined as something like an union between two consenting adult citizens with a set of benefits and specific treatment, there would never have been any obstacles to homosexual couples.
However, if you borrow the term and definition of marriage, you not only have an archaic term and definition that can't stand the test of time, but you also empower the religion to be the moral authority on the subject and judge what can and can't be a marriage in the future.
|
hinduism has been around way longer than catholicism. so have other religions. the greeks hve been trying to describe things they didnt understand using gods well b4 the catholics. where are u getting your information? religion has existed for as long as humans have been trying to explain things they cant understand at the time.
edit: o and Egyptians had priests.
|
On June 23 2013 19:48 balls516 wrote:
hinduism has been around way longer than catholicism. so have other religions. the greeks hve been trying to describe things they didnt understand using gods well b4 the catholics. where are u getting your information? religion has existed for as long as humans have been trying to explain things they cant understand at the time.
edit: o and Egyptians had priests.
haha
okay
fyi : you don't "describe" things with symbols. Maybe you don't exactly understand the word "religion".
And greeks certainly did not comprehend their world through religion
I'm tired of ignorant biggots. Bye.
edit : you guys really think we're the shit and the smartest civilization all around history
we're prolly close to mentally degenerated beings compared to a noblesman of pericles time
so to say they understood their world through superstious bielefs and funny symbols they theirselves designed for the slave masses is pretty fun to say the least
edit 2 : and that big lie about "religionS" beeing present since dawn of time was introduced by the catholic church around the time of the first modern archeological searches at the end of the XIX century.
edit 3: A cult isn't a religion.
|
On June 23 2013 19:54 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:48 balls516 wrote:
hinduism has been around way longer than catholicism. so have other religions. the greeks hve been trying to describe things they didnt understand using gods well b4 the catholics. where are u getting your information? religion has existed for as long as humans have been trying to explain things they cant understand at the time.
edit: o and Egyptians had priests. haha okay fyi : you don't "describe" things with symbols. Maybe you don't exactly understand the word "religion". And greeks certainly did not comprehend their world through religion I'm tired of ignorant biggots. Bye.
lol is it me? how do you define religion? because even the catholicism you describe was quite casual, looking more like an ancient religion, until the 5th and 6th centuries.
|
On June 23 2013 19:58 balls516 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 19:54 Boonbag wrote:On June 23 2013 19:48 balls516 wrote:
hinduism has been around way longer than catholicism. so have other religions. the greeks hve been trying to describe things they didnt understand using gods well b4 the catholics. where are u getting your information? religion has existed for as long as humans have been trying to explain things they cant understand at the time.
edit: o and Egyptians had priests. haha okay fyi : you don't "describe" things with symbols. Maybe you don't exactly understand the word "religion". And greeks certainly did not comprehend their world through religion I'm tired of ignorant biggots. Bye. lol is it me? how do you define religion? because even the catholicism you describe was quite casual, looking more like an ancient religion, until the 5th and 6th centuries.
you have pretty bad history books ! christianity beeing an ancient religion ? erm ? christianity is the fusion of jewish and greek litterature. Won't be older than these two =(
|
ok obviously something is being lost in translation here and you are not very strong in the english language. my apologies. someone get this thread back on topic.
|
On June 23 2013 20:10 balls516 wrote:
ok obviously something is being lost in translation here and you are not very strong in the english language. my apologies. someone get this thread back on topic.
nothing beeing lost and I'm not gonna take any time to phrase myself properly when I'm answering poorly educated persons over the internetz
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
