BleepingComputer.com: Gay Marriage

I know that the Gay Marriage issue is one of those hot issues in light of the previous election. In many ways, even though President Obama hopes to unite this country, the gay marriage debate is one that could very well cause another rift in American society. The primary rift of course will be between Christians - primarily Evangelicals, and those in the atheist/gay communities. Between the "no more evangelicals" revolution amongst liberals, and the cussin' mad right wing base, our nation has seen a historic, yet bitter year. So with this I ask: with neither side willing to budge on the issue of Gay Marriage, is it possible for a compromise to be made? An example of this would be, for those who don't want the definition of marriage to see a face lift, a primary and secondary definition of marriage (Heterosexual marriage being the primary, and Secondary marriage being the secondary).

Let's see those proposals people!

Instead of using the term "domestic partnership", which does not cover all the rights accorded to legally married partners, I would propose the term "civil marriage". A couple could choose to have a religion-sanctioned marriage in addition to the civil marriage. Of course, there are gay and lesbian couples who have, for many years, had religious ceremonies performed to celebrate their marriages in the more liberal and progressive congregations.

The point is to educate the public: marriage is a legal term. Sacraments and other ceremonies are religious in nature. Every congregation and minister would have the option of allowing religious blessing/sacraments/ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples or not, at their own option. They should not be permitted to limit the civil rights of an oppressed group because of feelings of insecurity or imagined threats.

In order to promote the public peace and stability, I think it would well behoove religious leaders to consider the latest scientific, medical, and psychological research. Only active bisexuals have a choice. To force those who are capable of entering long lasting, loving, responsible relationships to remain either celibate or to marry those whom they have difficulty considering physically attractive is to encourage more mental illness and dysfunction among families across the generations. Gay marriage is not the same as sexual irresponsibility. It should not be treated in the same way. And pace to Rev. Rick Warren: evolution does not predict "perfection" among entire populations; there is nothing in the theory of evolution or its many suggested updates and improvements that would preclude the existence of homosexuality.

"No, I'm not gay or lesbian--not that there's anything wrong with that." [Seinfeld show] I did, however, vote against Proposition 8. I think G-d is much more forgiving and understanding than some folks can imagine or understand.

"Sympathy takes imagination." Michael Chabon

Uh....what fuzzywuzzy6 said (no seriously. He basically covered all of the bases for what I would probably say....but better).

*is restraining self from pointing out the spelling mistake in title*

This post has been edited by scff249: 22 December 2008 - 09:31 PM

I am not gay I am married to my wife and am male. Same sex couples can have a civil partnership by being married in a registry office in the united kingdom.I am not a defender or attacker of gays.I take the line that if they dont bother me I wont bother them.Its there life.

A "second tier" version of marriage would not be OK. The Supreme Court outlawed "seperate but equal" decades ago, do we really want to reopen that can of worms?

For many, like myself, the terminology is not so important as the rights conferred. Under Federal Law, it was estimated, there are 1,049 rights and priveledges conferred upon married couples (read more). Also, according to Federal Law, homosexual relationships are explicitly excluded from these priveledges (The DoMA).

Decades ago, States enacted laws banning the marriages between blacks and whites. These laws were struck down because they interfered with an individual's inviolable right of self-determination in areas of love. Several years ago, state laws banning consentual adults from engaging in non-penile-vaginal intercourse were struck down for violating the right to privacy.

There are, in my opinion, only two fair solutions:

1. Make marriage an entirely religious state of being, unrecognized by the government.
or
2. Make marriage available to everyone.

I think some of us have been suggesting that we do both. Domestic partnership laws will inevitably miss some important considerations, and there are always new situations arising, so marriage should be regarded as 2 separate institutions: (1) the civil contract, which should be open to any two consenting adults, regardless of gender or xy designation; (2) the religious ceremony, which would be entirely optional, and each denomination or congregation could set its own rules, but should be quite open about its status so as not to cause any confusion. that way people wouldn't join the congregation or donate to its causes in error. Individuals would have to agree whether or not to be bound by the rules regarding divorce in their denomination; in the case of divorce, the religious rules are sometimes so onerous and out-of-date that partners who desire to do so could opt out without damaging the ex-spouse's position in that denomination. So far that hasn't been the case except for those with a lot of money or those who have very influential friends within that denomination.

Some differences of mindset can only co-exist through separation. I think that the possibility of convincing a radically anti-gay congregation that gay marriage is okay or of convincing a gay couple, that their intimate relationship of 20 years doesn't count, is miniscule. Education of masses of people away from fear stances takes time. That there are gay marriages in some parts of the world is a sign of change. The possibility of reducing some of the walls between anti-gays and gays may be achieved within Christian circles through a different position of the church, for instance, in the small steps of an evangelical community accepting that there may be logic in God's design of the world. Nevertheless, I think that as long as the issue is so emotionally charged, it will be a slow process of change.

Some religious, even extremely religious, groups claim that they take scientific and medical advances into consideration when debating whether to change long-held doctrine.

I live in a part of California where the Episcopalian Church is splitting into two over gay rights issues. An openly gay priest, I believe, was promoted to bishop in the eastern U.S. There are some Episcopalian priests who would like to be openly gay, without fear of losing their priesthood or congregation. Some of the congregations which have chosen to affiliate with the Anglican Church still are offended by the notion of female Episcopalian priests, who have been around since the '70's. Of course, not all the female priests are unmarried or lesbian. Some have been married for a long time and have children. It has been reported in the media that some married Episcopalian priests (many of whom have children, and wish to remain married) have become Catholic priests by special arrangement and are able to practice as priests within the Catholic church.

In spite of several recent neurological studies which look at such things as development as a fetus and various hard-wiring issues which suggest that there are physical causes for homosexuality or transgendered identity (and some studies which are looking into a genetic component), some fundamentalist evangelicals have said that homosexuality and transgenderism are still life-style choices while acknowledging the existence and likely accuracy of these studies.

I am a heterosexual female. I do not think a person who wishes for a stable, loving relationship should be condemned to a life of loneliness and celibacy. I don't think homosexuals and transgenders should be punished for being different. Some folks are imputing their own fear of or discomfort with the unknown to G-d; it is much easier to let a church's or religion's doctrine, whatever it may be, make the ethical and rational decisions that face us than to struggle with the questions of whether that religion's or denomination's doctrine is rational or ethical in regard to certain matters. Some people cannot tolerate confusion, uncertainty, or a life that is not lived along ethical black-and-white divisions. Religion does not necessarily equal irrationality and opposition to reason; there are long traditions within the various world religions of attempting to reconcile reason with faith. This is a vital and ongoing process which promotes spiritual, societal and ethical growth. There were protestant denominations within the u.s. which promoted segregation and worse, there are still a few. Is such behavior correct simply because a religious leader, no matter how prominent, or doctrine, no matter how long-established, says it should be so?

This post has been edited by fuzzywuzzy6: 05 January 2009 - 01:06 PM

you're a female!!!

gawd! my estimations are so bad!

Well, when you go out to dinner with someone who's heterosexual, do you sit around thinking about what their sex life is like? I mean, the issue is so strongly impressed upon people that this is a SEXUAL issue, that everyone feels at liberty to try imagining how the sex life of gays look.

(or is that just me)

[quote name='Zllio' post='1077666' date='Jan 5 2009, 11:33 AM']I mean, the issue is so strongly impressed upon people that this is a SEXUAL issue[/quote]

That, unfortunately is the view of most heterosexuals. They don't understand that homosexuality is about more than sex; it's about love. Sex is merely a demostration of that love.

The inability for a hetersexual to understand the homosexual perspective on love (and likewise the inability of a homosexual to understand the heterosexual perspective) leads to inaccurate and misleading conclusions by one about the other.
No one is defined by their sexuality; it is but a stitch in the tapestry of an individual. Nevertheless any sexuality which is perceived to be unusual is instantly the chief characteristic that people latch onto.

Misunderstanding someone else's sexuality is not a blameable offense. It is the reaction to that misunderstanding that can be. Often, the human reaction to that which they don't understand is a negative one, the conclusion that the misunderstanding is due to a flaw on the part of the misunderstood. It is only by accepting that 'different' is not intrinsically 'bad' that true human understanding and compassion can be had. Whither understanding comes, acceptance follows. And acceptance is the ultimate gift of the human capacity of lovingkindness.

Life is too short to worry about what someone else does in bed.


That about wraps it up for me.

[quote name='JohnWho' post='1077724' date='Jan 5 2009, 12:07 PM']Life is too short to worry about what someone else does in bed.[/quote]
Well said!

The summer before I went to college I read The Hite Report, The Joy of Sex, and some other how-to book. This was 1971, which really dates me. I was also reading some feminist works at the time. I hadn't done any dating in high school for various reasons, but I was young, healthy and curious.

Years later, I was living with my elderly father. From time to time the subject of female-with-female sex came up. He kept asking, "How ever can they manage? They don't have the right equipment! Do they have to use an aid?" And I kept telling him, "Dad, men just don't get any woman's state of mind right when it comes to sex. They tend to assume that sex is about one act only, and for women, that is only a small, and sometimes unnecessary or unwelcome part of it."

Dad never did understand. And, so far as I can tell, men might as well be aliens from another planet when it comes to understanding a woman's viewpoint on sex. Most women tend to see it as an integrated activity, combining aspects of emotion, physicality, intimacy, mental state, commitment (sometimes), etc. Men tend to feel much less depressed after sex; women will often feel more depressed after sex than when they started. It is a combination of physiology, acculturation and life experience. Also testosterone levels. (yes, women have testosterone levels--that's why pharmaceutical companies have been looking for a female equivalent to viagra.)

Andrew put it quite beautifully when he said that one's sexuality is part of the tapestry of one's being. In some ways, gender identity and love/sex objects color everything we think and do, without our realizing it, and from a very early age, long before one is capable of feeling sexual arousal. My male friends in college who came out a couple years after I first knew them spoke of how they were aware from quite an early age that they were oriented towards relationships with other males. They tried to explain how, but they never could do so in a satisfactory way, not to themselves, and not to me.

By the way, there have now been two young men on BC who have said they thought I was a male. Is it because of my tedious pedantry? My liberal paranoia? My muscular reasoning? I have been thinking of what to do for an avatar. I was going to do a compost heap, because of a quotation I am quite fond of, and would place in my signature. Maybe I should do a pulsing, idealized heart or unfurling flowers instead. And have the sound of birds chirping, and show Bambi and Thumper in conversation.

I consider myself quite feminine in some regards; the topic hasn't really come up much at BC.

This post has been edited by fuzzywuzzy6: 05 January 2009 - 05:52 PM

[quote name='fuzzywuzzy6' post='1077992' date='Jan 5 2009, 05:50 PM']Years later, I was living with my elderly father. From time to time the subject of female-with-female sex came up. He kept asking, "How ever can they manage? They don't have the right equipment! Do they have to use an aid?"[/quote]

I think your statement brings up what is at the core of many people's stunned reactions to learning someone is gay. Curiosity is a very natural reaction, but in our society, it's completely socially unacceptable to say ... uh ... and how does That work? Moral issues come cascading in to block her majesty curiosity. Moroseness sets in, and ignorance perpetuates itself. With so many social barriers set in place, it's hard to overcome that ignorance without stepping into some underworld of pornography, replete with malware and mafias. But gay relationships do not take place in the underworld any more often than hetero relationships do. Gay people go to work, go to school, tend gardens, wrap presents, shelve books at the library.

Zllio

[quote name='Zllio' post='1078696' date='Jan 6 2009, 03:31 AM']Curiosity is a very natural reaction, but in our society, it's completely socially unacceptable to say ... uh ... and how does That work?[/quote]

I once asked that to some lesbians I knew. Drinks were thrown in my face.

Curiosity is never rewarded on an appropriate level.