|
On June 24 2013 03:41 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 03:26 koreasilver wrote:On June 24 2013 03:04 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:59 koreasilver wrote:On June 24 2013 02:51 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:44 Shady Sands wrote:On June 24 2013 02:42 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 02:37 Shady Sands wrote:
[quote]
Because marriage is a cultural and social compact as opposed to a legal one.
Consider the concept of "friendship". Would you want the state to define who you can and cannot be friends with? On the other hand, would you want the government to offer some stamp of approval that you and somebody else are "officially friends"? I fail to understand how you can say that marriage is not a legal term. There are laws defining marriage, seems like a pretty big clue if you see what I mean... From my POV, the existence of those laws is more a demonstration of legal inertia than any sort of rationality. It's the government attempting to regulate/define something that it lost the mandate to do so when it gave up authority over religious affairs. Is every marriage a religious marriage in the US ?? If you define marriage as a religious concept, then yes, every marriage to you will be religious. If you don't, then no, no marriages are religious. What I'm saying is that the government has no right to define marriage, since it's inherently a subjective concept Yeah except it's never ever been like that ever in history. Whether you like it or not marriage as always been a legal concept with laws that regulate it because marriage has aways been a political affair, be it between the children of royalty and aristocrats or between farmers and fishermen. What you said could be true for the concept of freedom of speech or separation of church and state or even the concept of absolute natural rights until the Enlightenment. Just because something has not happened or is not happening does not make it undesirable from a normative perspective, nor does it make it impossible from a positive perspective. Except given how freedom of speech has to be upheld through law, and that the separation of church and state was realized through the cooperation between the Protestant reformers and political leaders, and that the concept of universal human rights is upheld by law (modern Europe didn't begin with the Enlightenment either, it began with the Reformation). Given that all the examples you gave all survive artificially, which is why they are knocked over again and again in history and today, and the fact that these concepts actually were new when they developed in Europe from the Reformation through the Enlightenment to today and that marriage as a concept is much more ancient and has always been regulated by law, I don't even understand what in the world you are trying to say. My understanding is that he's trying to say something akin to "I wish moon did not mean moon, but cauliflower instead". Why not, after all. Except marriage has basically always been related to religion and the concept of a civil union, just for practical purposes, already exists. There's nothing so absurd about separating the religious and legal parts of marriage. Then everyone would be able to enjoy the same legal rights and "marriage" would be a completelly religious affair, so it would be up to each person and their religion to decide how that works out.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, you want to change the definition of marriage. Wether you like it or not, marriage has a legal aspect, it englobes it. If you want to talk specifically about religious marriage, there is a word for it : religious marriage. Which is a completely religious affair.
Reality ain't that bad, ain't it ?
|
On June 24 2013 03:28 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 02:57 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2013 02:55 Fruscainte wrote:So explain again why you are allowed to draw the line at gay marriage but I'm not allowed to draw the line at polygamy or bestiality or straight marriage? How is it not also bigoted to say that I can't love multiple women and I shouldn't be able to marry them all? Also, it is not a word with the exact same meaning. Gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is not the same as a man and a woman. Would you like me to explain the biology behind that? My point from the beginning that focusing on the word is fucking pointless. If gay unions get the same exact rights from top to bottom as straight unions do, who the fuck cares what they decide to call it? The rights are what should matter, not what you're being called. I'm saying it's the bottom of the totem pole. But that doesn't mean it's justified to go around wantonly changing 225 year old legal definitions because of some hurt feelings. I love how every single post you post has subtle insults towards me by the way. You're very mature.  Specifics of this debate aside, historical precedent tells us that "separate but equal" in theory is almost always "separate and inequal" in practice. I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I think I'm really teetering on the edge of that abyss with where I'm going with this, but my logic is this: The difference here between this and say "separate but equal" in the case of blacks and whites is that here it's not about giving gay couples different bathrooms or different portions of the restaurant. I don't personally see how a gay couple could be given an 'inferior' service of being able to see their partners in ICU or be able to write wills for their partners or have burial rights and the like. I like to think I'm not unreasonable, so I'm curious precisely where you think unequal treatment could come from this if gay couples were given the same legal protection but different legal names for their unions?
Well, on some level, I do not think that the nominative difference between civil union and marriage would amount to a similar situation as that of the Jim Crow south. But, that is not important here. At the base of all this lies a respect for self-determination in title, or the ability for individuals in society to, within reason, dictate the manner in which they are addressed. Whether or not "separate but equal" applies to this debate is not for me to decide; if homosexuals are invested in appropriating the word marriage insofar as their unions are concerned, the case against this desire is weak enough to be put aside in my opinion. Having taken part in a few religious homosexual marriage ceremonies and being fairly invested in the study of Christianity, the religious arguments against gay marriage are inevitably denominational and hardly emblematic of Christianity as a whole. In other words, the notion that gays ought to stay away from the word marriage is unique to only some Christian sects/denominations, and an according governmental policy supporting that perspective tacitly endorses certain brands of Christianity in a manner I find wholly unacceptable.
|
On June 24 2013 03:45 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 03:41 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 03:39 Fruscainte wrote:
My reason isn't obscure at all. I don't like redefining words over hurt feelings. It's not about being "basically" the same, it's about being "the same" at all. The point is that our Constitution is based around protecting the individual and natural rights of all people. I believe firmly that a gay couple and a straight couple should have the same rights protected under the law and the same rights ensured under the law. I also believe that to call them the same is the most wrong statement a person can make. A straight union is about procreation and love, a gay union is about love alone. Straight unions have another aspect to them that gay unions can never naturally have.
There is a distinct difference between being protected equally under the law, and being the same thing.
That's what I'm trying to get into your head here. Gosh, you wrote an argument ! To which I'm going to retort : do you need to be married to have children ? But sir, I've written plenty of arguments already! Of course not. However, why do you think straight couples get tax breaks? Because living together is such a horrible thing and the government feels sorry for them? No, it's because it's expected when you get married children are going to be on the way shortly after or are already there and you'll need financial assistance since the child can not work to pull his weight and one of the partners will need to stay home with the child likely to take care of it. I can already feel the hate coming about how I think gays should get unequal tax breaks, I think that straight couples shouldn't get these tax breaks either if they dont have children and I think gay couples should get these tax breaks too if they adopt children. It's not about the legality of it at this point though, it's just a logical one. A straight couple is biologically not even close to the same as a gay couple. That doesn't mean one is better than the other, it just means they are different and to call them the same is disingenuous imo.
What you don't get is those two things :
-marriage has a legal aspect, it's undeniable, it is therefore normal that the legal definition of marriage should be defined by law, and that it can be changed, like many other legal definition change.
-your complaint that this definition shouldn't be changed over hurt feelings is self-contradicting. Either you think it's just a question of word, and then, does it really matter if we change the legal definition to please them ? Either you do care about the word, and you think it's important (which seems to be your position btw), and then I don't see how you can deny your opponents the right to care about the word too.
The tax break argument isn't very good either. In France for instance, married couple get some tax breaks, and then get other ones when they get children. So it seems that your personnaly interpretation of what those tax breaks means is not automatically true.
Finally I'm not arguing that same-sex couple and straight couples are the same things, I'm perfectly aware they are, thank you. I just don't see how the difference between them implies we need two words for their union. After all, you just need to use an adjective to differentiate them, if you need to.
|
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal.
|
On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote:
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal.
How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this?
|
United States37500 Posts
haji,
When you say "uneasy", what exactly are you referring to? Most opponents to gay marriage usually cite morality and how it is wrong. "marriage is between man and wife". I guess if your upbringing was based off (slightly) Christian values, I can understand. My own parents never emphasized much about marriage itself but sure, family was important. While I never really thought about homosexuality as a third party until high school, it never concerned me whether marriage/being together with someone for life/loving another individual was between man/woman, man/man or woman/woman. The crux of my analysis while growing up was that if two consenting adults love each other, that should suffice. If what other people are not harming themselves or the general public, why intervene? Why should they have fewer rights because of the gender of their partner? And as you've mentioned in your OP, the benefits of martial status is rather big in this day and age.
"Civil union" feels like such a cop out. It goes back entirely to the "separate but equal" concept, which in my opinion, is not all that equal if you have to rename something you're not comfortable with. ['you' here being a generalized 'you']
|
I never said that's Fruscainte's reasons. Given how common it is within LGBT communities to be apathetic, wary, and weary of the politics of gay marriage and the conception of marriage as a whole, your derision towards Fruscainte is incredibly annoying and your inability to give any room for conceptual space or the possibility of arguing against gay marriage due to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is reflects a real lack of understanding and is a trait that is very common among Western liberals.
|
On June 24 2013 04:23 koreasilver wrote:
I never said that's Fruscainte's reasons. Given how common it is within LGBT communities to be apathetic, wary, and weary of the politics of gay marriage and the conception of marriage as a whole, your derision towards Fruscainte is incredibly annoying and your inability to give any room for conceptual space or the possibility of arguing against gay marriage due to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is reflects a real lack of understanding and is a trait that is very common among Western liberals.
just cause the word marriage is spoiled by romantic movies doesn't mean you have to invent a new word. please don't pretend like the word civil union has anything to do with a more progressive view on marriage, a desire to reinvent the concept etc. nobody ever would have obsessed about the term civil union if homosexuality was a non-factor.
|
The traditional concept of marriage should just be abolished, and everyone could get a "civil union" (with any number of other people, or whatever). Religious people would then go and get "religious marriage" (that doesn't have any legal impact/doesn't actually do anything). Everyone has the same thing, and if someone wants something more for aesthetic reasons, they can get it, everyone is happy.
It's the same thing as getting married in a church in the past, while now you just go sign some papers and say some words at the town hall, and ceremony in the church/mosque/deathstar is optional. No idea why separating the religion and state takes so long.
|
I don't agree with Fruscainte at all and you've completely missed the point. You can continue with your self-righteous indignation if you wish.
|
On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote:
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this?
The funny thing is he's completely right
I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be.
Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially:
to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is
and
they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face
I can't tell you the amount of times in real life someone has acted just like Grumbels. A bunch of liberals talking about gay marriage or oppression or something of that nature and I or a friend of mine pipe up about how we're bisexual/gay/whatever and we don't really give a shit and they instantly turn around being really passive aggressive and patronizing talking about how sorry they feel for us that we're so repressed in our feelings and shit. It's fucking annoying.
|
On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote:
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: Show nested quote + to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is
I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. I'm very happy some people in the LGBT movement put those things under question, and as a heterosexual male, I also hope it will help heterosexual rethink the way they live.
But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ?
|
On June 24 2013 05:22 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote:
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ?
Like I said, we're being thrown into an everlasting circle here of semantics or clashing viewpoints.
I think "marriage" is a strictly religious term and the government should have no interference in that and that it has traditionally referred to a man and a woman. I think that the individual and natural right to be able to love anyone you want and to have a union with any man or woman you want should be protected and every union should be treated equal and be granted the same precise rights. Like I said in my analogy before, if a hotel refuses females to become patrons in their hotel a policy change would be in order. They'd have to be pressured into forcing women to be allowed to stay in their hotel under the same service and the same rooms. You wouldn't go to the government and demand that they change the definition of a woman to be that of a man so that women can stay in the hotel. Women and men are different and should be called different terms. They're both humans (they're both civil unions, in this case) but they're not the freaking same thing and they shouldn't be called the same.
This is me just freaking out about semantics though. Some take it as separate but equal, and that's their prerogative but I take it as a complete waste of time to focus the efforts on trying to redefine a term rather than focusing on the human rights aspect of it which I can assure you many Christian Conservatives could have a much better time getting behind.
|
On June 24 2013 05:27 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 05:22 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote:
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ? Like I said, we're being thrown into an everlasting circle here of semantics or clashing viewpoints. I think "marriage" is a strictly religious term
See I don't even have to read what follows. You think that, but it's objectively not true. Marriage is not a purely religious word.
|
Yeah, that's the fundamental part where I disagree with Fuscainte and many of the LGBT people I've met over the years. I think that's a socio-cultural aspect where Christian social conservatives have won out I think, unfortunately. But looking back to Korea and the history of marriage in the Far East neighbours, I just don't buy it. While it may be true that all Western nations uphold a particularly Christian-influenced conception of love and marriage, I don't think one has to capitulate and say that marriage as a whole is intrinsically religious because of it.
|
On June 24 2013 05:30 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 05:27 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 05:22 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote:
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ? Like I said, we're being thrown into an everlasting circle here of semantics or clashing viewpoints. I think "marriage" is a strictly religious term See I don't even have to read what follows. You think that, but it's objectively not true. Marriage is not a purely religious word.
Well I'm glad you have the intellectual honesty to give entire post context instead of cherry picking out the first half sentence and working off of that. :|
On June 24 2013 05:36 koreasilver wrote:
Yeah, that's the fundamental part where I disagree with Fuscainte and many of the LGBT people I've met over the years. I think that's a socio-cultural aspect where Christian social conservatives have won out I think, unfortunately. But looking back to Korea and the history of marriage in the Far East neighbours, I just don't buy it. While it may be true that all Western nations uphold a particularly Christian-influenced conception of love and marriage, I don't think one has to capitulate and say that marriage as a whole is intrinsically religious because of it.
I suppose I can see where you're coming from. I don't really want to speak on that though as it's not really part of my culture and I have no exposure to that.
|
On June 24 2013 05:36 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 05:30 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 05:27 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 05:22 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote:
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is I'm all for rethinking the way we live our love life, our intimity, our sexuality etc etc. But it's so happens there are some gay people who want to get married. Now, the question is, why should we deny them this right ? Like I said, we're being thrown into an everlasting circle here of semantics or clashing viewpoints. I think "marriage" is a strictly religious term See I don't even have to read what follows. You think that, but it's objectively not true. Marriage is not a purely religious word. Well I'm glad you have the intellectual honesty to give entire post context instead of cherry picking out the first half sentence and working off of that. :|
I read what followed, that's just rhetorical. But I think that's the crux of your argument. If just accept that you're wrong here (and I have no doubt that you are), and the rest should follow. So I'm arguing against what I think is the crux of your argument. Is that intellectually dishonest ?
I also have developped my point of view in several posts above.
|
On June 24 2013 05:16 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 04:15 Grumbels wrote:On June 24 2013 04:00 koreasilver wrote:
Grumbels, you have to be aware but it's actually quite common within NA LGBT communities to actually not want to get married because they want to discard the entire conception of love, sex, and marriage of the Christian tradition that permeates the West. Much of what you two have been going off about is semantics, but I don't think many people know that the issue of same sex marriage is as much of a divisive question within gay communities as it is outside it. So this is one of the main failures of the NA liberals for me - they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face. And when they are met with members of the "oppressed" that don't agree with their liberal agenda to word by word they try to talk their ideology through the mess with hackneyed "psychonalysis". I've had the amusing opportunity of being the rather orthodox Christian arguing for same-sex marriage rights against members of a local LGBT group that wanted to disregard the concep of marriage altogether along with its underlying Christian morals on love and sexuality. It might be bewildering to you, but after my own experiences I just gotta say that anyone who can't understand why a gay individual might not care for gay marriage at all just haven't actually spent their time to become involved with LGBT communities in reality. This isn't to say that I agree with Fruscainte, but your derision to him and threat-mocking him with "psychoanalysis" as if he's a repressed gay man that has internalized oppression just because he disagrees with you like so many gay people would (not as conservatives either, but as radical leftists) shows that you're just like the typical Western liberal. How is this post anything other than psycho analyzing him? He never talked about anything like this. And I'm the 'typical liberal' for not seeing through all this? The funny thing is he's completely right I've never met a single gay male who feels "oppressed" or thinks very separate from me. In fact the only people I see freaking out about how oppressed and repressed we are are straight white male liberals who want to pidgeonhole everyone into their narrow worldview of how things should be. Every single post Korea has made on this page has been 100% correct. Especially: Show nested quote + to not wanting a same sex relationship to fall under the rubric of the Christian forms of love, sexuality, and marriage regardless of how secularized it is and Show nested quote +they speak endlessly of oppressed demographics and the need to make things better for minorities, homosexuals, the disabled, etc., but often they've never actually met, spent time, and have come to know these people in the flesh face-to-face I can't tell you the amount of times in real life someone has acted just like Grumbels. A bunch of liberals talking about gay marriage or oppression or something of that nature and I or a friend of mine pipe up about how we're bisexual/gay/whatever and we don't really give a shit and they instantly turn around being really passive aggressive and patronizing talking about how sorry they feel for us that we're so repressed in our feelings and shit. It's fucking annoying.
So you are a member of a minority who is apparently too hipster to really care about such a quaint thing as marriage and therefore you don't wish to spend any political capital on this and you feel okay throwing everyone from your group under the bus, and you justify this by saying 'me and my friends don't really care about this' as if that excuses it. The fact you make it so easy to have yourself be mistaken for someone that's anti-gay is quite telling in that regard.
|
Nice discussion. I enjoyed reading through the thread so far and agree with Fruscainte 100%.
I find all too often what gets lost in the debate of whether or not one supports gay marriage is the actual definition and concept of what marriage is and why the government or any form of legal system needs to acknowledge it in the first place. As Fruscainte has said, marriage for 225 years has been defined as a union between a man and a women, to demand a restructuring of this definition and demand everyone recognize and change their views of the issue purely off of a choice some people make with their personal life is wrong.
A marriage between a man and a women could result in children which is the primary reason the government is involved in marriage in the first place. Sure there are marriages between a man and a women that do not result in children, but a same sex marriage naturally can never result in children. I don't have anything against gay "marriage" as a concept but it is and never will be marriage in terms of ability to produce a child without external means. Changing the definition of marriage just to make a group of people feel better about their personal choices in life seems like it's doing a disrespect to what marriage is all about as it stands and is what I have a problem with, not the people or individuals at all.
I really hate how as soon as anyone stands up for defending the definition of marriage it suddenly gets construed into "How can you be such a hateful bigot? How can you not support gay marriage?" It's the same thing as somebody saying do you support a square circle? You don't because it naturally doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint, and yet when you try to say that you're questioned as to "But how can you be so close minded and hateful towards it?" I don't hate the object itself, I just don't believe in changing my viewpoints to fit in with something that doesn't make sense from a natural standpoint.
square circle argument shamelessly stolen from Ryan Anderson during a fairly recent exchange he had with Piers Morgan on gay marriage, really sums up my thoughts on the subject in a pretty clear and concise way.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Yeah, it's so wrong to pass up a law to change the definition of a legal term to makes society more equal. We're just not arguing against it only in the case of mariage of homosexual at all, and you would definitely care in all other cases...
Marriage has been less and less connected with children over the past 60 years. Its link with children is less and less obvious. If you want to deny homosexual the right to marry on the ground that they can't bear children, then by the same logic you should deny infertile hetero couple the same right. I'm pretty sure you're not arguing for such a change in the definition of marriage though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
