Friday, May 29, 2009

GAY MARRIAGE again...

Before I forget, there is Zazen tomorrow (May 30th) at Hill St. Center. I just updated the page about it & realized I had not listed that date. Sorry!

A funny thing happened. I looked at the comments to the most recent posting and it was a pleasant experience. The comments were mostly intelligent, even funny. Maybe I should look in there more often. So I thought I'd run with the whole gay marriage thing for just a bit longer.

In response to a couple of those who commented; I don't think Japan is free from anti-homosexual prejudice and I don't think gay marriage is a completely trivial issue.

I've never really studied Japan's attitude towards homosexuality. But I was surrounded by that nation's attitudes towards everything for 11 years. What I've gleaned is mostly through interested observation rather than study. The main thing I wanted to point out is that gay bashing is pretty well non-existent in Japan. Homosexuality has never been regarded as sinful behavior there. There is no history of people being burned alive for the crime as there is in Europe. There is no precedent for shunning homosexuals or beating them up.

Which is not to say everything is open and free either. It's just that what prejudice does exist (and it does exist) comes from a very different place, and is expressed far more mildly. But if you really want to know the details there are certainly better sources than me!

As far as the importance of the issue, I agree it is a civil rights matter. I heard one person here in California say that a good compromise would be to just make all marriage -- gay or straight -- illegal. It's an interesting proposition.

One argument you hear a lot in California is that homosexuals are already allowed to enter into legally recognized domestic unions with most (though not all) of the same rights and privileges as marriage. Again, I am a poor source of information on this. Still it seems the main thing that supporters of same-sex marriage want is for their unions to be recognized by the state as marriages.

It's certainly fine by me.

I don't know if I really understand the anti-same-sex-marriage argument. It certainly doesn't seem to be well presented in the media here. The stories I read in the LA Times over the past few days don't do much to explain the reasons anyone would want to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

The opponents of Proposition 8 (which made same-sex marriage unconstitutional) largely characterize the supporters of Prop 8 as being hateful. I don't think that's really fair. There must be something else...

Now here's where I'll get myself in trouble. Cuz I went to that pro-same-sex marriage rally the other day and, frankly, what I saw there made me sorta kinda maybe understand why people oppose same-sex marriage. Much of the rally seemed almost as if it were calculated to annoy anyone who would be opposed to same-sex marriage. I know it wasn't. But if it had been consciously designed to annoy them it could not have done a better job. Because, and may Jesus have mercy on my soul for admitting this, it sort of annoyed me. And I support same-sex marriages!

Dig. You had parents come up on stage with their children saying, "I want to teach my little girl that if she wants to marry a girl when she grows up, she can." You had a pair of 14 year old girls saying they wanted Prop 8 overturned so they could be married when they grew up. You had high school boys pledging their love for one-another and dancing together. And you had Jerry Rubin, for God's sake! Jerry Rubin!

All of this is exactly what scares the opponents of same-sex marriage. If they wanted to inflame the hearts and minds of their supporters they could just have video taped that rally and put it on YouTube without comment. Maybe they did!

Now, I believe everyone should have the right to live as they want to as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But what these folks are fighting for is a to be recognized by the society as a whole as OK, safe, not threatening the established order. You can't win that kind of recognition by giving your opponents precisely what scares them the most.

This is an example of people being too idealistic. I'll say it again for anyone who can't read very well -- I support the rights of same-sex couples to legally wed. I want to see the law changed. But at the same time, the flaws in their approach are so glaringly obvious I can't comprehend how they cannot see them.

I don't have any suggestions, really. And even if I did, I don't think anyone's listening to me on this issue. But it was interesting to me to see the way an overly idealistic approach will always fail. These folks need to try and understand their opponents and make their opponents understand that they are not scary, freaky people (again, again, again, they are not scary or freaky to me, but it's not people like me they need to convince of that).

And that's all I want to say about that!

105 comments:

Erik said...

Primero! Yes!

Anonymous said...

two is too too sweet too

Anonymous said...

"what I saw there made me sorta kinda maybe understand why people oppose same-sex marriage. Much of the rally seemed almost as if it were calculated to annoy anyone who would be opposed to same-sex marriage."

I get you Brad.. I hate it when gays hold hands too. No one wants to see that kind of loving behavior in public!

Outlandishness doesn't have anything to do with being gay. It is just politically true that squeaky wheels get more grease..

BTW Jerry Rubin died in 1994.

Rob Myers said...

I'm a married gay man who is happy that his own marriage didn't get annulled, and sad but unsurprised that Prop 8 was upheld.

You're right, Brad, our cause might be better served by the voices of moderate, adult gays speaking clearly to those who oppose gay marriage. But the energetic youth have a lot invested in their identity as "gay." Particularly when we're young, our sexuality is a lot of who we "are," and it feels good to throw our uniqueness in other folk's faces; just as many young adult Buddhists get wrapped up in all things "Buddhist" (like the clothes and the beads and the Buddha statues...). I'm not sure there is much we can do about this except to continue forward, each using our own talents to help improve society's understanding of The Golden Rule.

To me, the gay marriage issue has always hinged on religious intolerance. Here's a very old post from a stale, cobwebbed old blog that no one ever read, written by some pretentious nerd. But most of it still makes sense to me:

http://www.melstrom-myers.com/thebroom/2006/06/marriage-amendment-is-already.html;-)

PhillySteveInLA said...

Y'know, I've been to a number of pro-gay rallies and events back home, as well as having a number of gay friends, and I gotta say I more or less agree with you.

When you see a nun in garish white make-up and false eyelashes brandishing a dildo leading a hairy slave in latex shorts and full harness down the street by the chain attached (presumably) to his Prince Albert(the chain came out the shorts and I was afraid to ask), it makes it easy to hear the religious right go, "See! See! I TOLD you!!!"

And yes, I actually saw this at PrideFest one year. Freakin' hilarious!

Jim T said...

An interesting video listing the main arguments against gay marriage and some responses to them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTv7Xao93I

Although I agree with Brad that it does feel like there should be something more

DB said...

Brad wrote: "This is an example of people being too idealistic...the flaws in their approach are so glaringly obvious I can't comprehend how they cannot see them."

Your take on the issue mirrors mine, Brad. Pushing boundaries can be scary to people on both sides.

floating_abu said...

Live and let live.

These Are My Opinions said...

I'm a chap. I don't fancy other chaps...not since my adolescent crush on anon at school. And that was a serious crush. But anon was a very pretty, unhairy young man, much more like a girl than a chap. I went to a boy's only school, so... It was never consumated, my love for anon.

Meanwhile I grew up. And I haven't fancied a chap since. Many ladies, but not chaps. That summarises my sexual predilections, by way of introduction.

Homosexuality disturbs me. Male homosexuality, that is. Not a lot, but I don't relate to it. I find it distasteful. On the very rare occasions when I see evidence of it (in the street on or TV...) or am in the presence of a gay man I become uncomfortable. Just a little. (Female homosexuality turns me on, of course).

But I don't think it's wrong. I don't think it's sinful. It exists, so I don't think it's unnatural. Although it may be abnormal. I've nothing whatsoever 'against' gay relationships, practices, or marriage. The feelings I have about homosexuality are, I believe, hard-wired. Very likely culturally conditioned too, but most likely predominantly hard-wired.

That's my only point. I suggest that such prejudice as there is against homosexuality is hard-wired. I mean bio-chemically-neurologically-whatever-wired. No less when justified by biblical authority. So perhaps, as Brad writes, the gay community "need to try and understand their opponents..." And I'm sure very many do.

Hi Brad!

grisom said...

'But if it had been consciously designed to annoy them it could not have done a better job....

You had parents come up on stage with their children saying, "I want to teach my little girl that if she wants to marry a girl when she grows up, she can." You had a pair of 14 year old girls saying they wanted Prop 8 overturned so they could be married when they grew up. You had high school boys pledging their love for one-another and dancing together....

All of this is exactly what scares the opponents of same-sex marriage.'


I really don't understand what you're getting at here, Brad. I mean, in general I agree that a lot of political protestors need to think more about who they're trying to persuade. But... we're talking about a rally in favour of letting same-sex couples get married, and your examples of bad tactics are same-sex couples saying that yes, in fact, they would like to get married. How is that especially annoying? Is it something about their age?

rgn said...

What in the world does any of this stuff matter? Life is short. Practice!

More of my opinions said...

Hi grisom,
(while we await Brad's reply)

"Is it something about their age?"
It would seem so.

But we wouldn't object (would we?) were straight teenagers to discuss their 'when I grow up' marriage plans. I guess we'd find it cute. So I see your point - inconsistent reactions. Hard-wired perhaps.

Scott said...

Come on, let's be serious - why oh why should homosexuals be excluded from the misery of marriage??!

If they're daft enough to want it, against the tide of the rest of the world trying it out and finding that it just doesn't work, then let 'em have their misery just like the rest of us!

Too cynical? Okay, my tongue was halfway in my cheek but seriously guys and gals, isn't this a no-brainer? If we consider everyone equal then how can we deny anyone considered legally able to consent the right to be married?

I get people's prejudices, and that's fine, enjoy them cos I have my own too. But when they evolve into discrimination that's not a good thing. Not at all.

Anonymous said...

Blogger rgn said...

What in the world does any of this stuff matter? Life is short. Practice!
And yet, here you are, finding time to post your opinion on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Hi rgn -

"What in the world does any of this stuff matter? Life is short. Practice!"

What are you doing here then?
Please go away and practice.

Anon #2 said...

OOps

Anon #2 said...

...and expressing your mature wise self all over your blog. Tut!

floating_abu said...

rgn said: What in the world does any of this stuff matter?

Distraction/entertainment.

Life is short. Practice!

Well said. Thanks.

proulx michel said...

I think part of the problem lies in our failure to recognize women as equal to men. If not, why feel so bad about men who "act like they were women"? And why the drag queen stereotype?
I have the feeling our macho societies object much more to normal looking, quiet and unassuming gays than to those who display those loud warning signs which you can see for mile...

Opinions... said...

There's a whole bunch of assumptions there, pm -

"I think part of the problem lies in our failure to recognize women as equal to men."
Our failure?
Your failure?
Society's failure?
Economic equality?
Some other sort - what might that be?

"If not, why feel so bad about men who "act like they were women"?
Who does?
Who said that?

"And why the drag queen stereotype?"
What "stereotype"? There are actually drag queens, both gay and, sometimes, straight. Usually found in clubs and on marches. And so?

"I have the feeling our macho societies object much more..."
Have you ever interviewed a macho society?

Projection, peut-etre ?

Allison said...

I myself wondered for a while why folks weren't content with civil unions with all the same rights and privileges as marriages. From what I learned through discussion with some of my gay friends, it all comes down to being discriminated against because of an innate quality. It's like women not getting equal pay for equal work or blacks having to use separate bathrooms, even if they're exactly the same as the bathrooms for whites. I know that it's still an argument in some people's mind as to whether or not homosexuality is an innate quality in the first place...but that's another story.

What I don't understand is the logic AGAINST gay marriage. Because the Bible says so? What else does the Bible say is an "abomination"? Everyone would be going to hell.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

Smoggyrob said...

Hi everyone:

I work with some flat-out homophobic guys. I like to tell them that the best way to express their opposition to homosexuality is to stop fucking other guys. Their flustered denials are cuter than kids saying they want to get married.

Hey, I went to church last Sunday, my first time in over 30 years. I'm an atheist, but I'm trying to better understand Christians. First thing I noticed was that people don't dress for shit for church anymore, I was stylin' more than the pastor. This nice, smiling, white-haired woman came up to welcome me. She cracked a couple of jokes. My favorite was, "You know what you miss after becoming a Christian?" [I didn't know] "Hell."

Bible study afterward was interesting. The fact that unbelievers will burn in Hell for all eternity was mentioned a half-dozen times. Funny, I hadn't forgotten that from the last time a Christian told me. We talked about the tax collector, Peter, Jesus, the fish, and the coin. No cussing or personal attacks, but I saw the same sort of battling opinions, the same forcefulness, that I see in this comment section. Slightly different, but mostly the same.

Rob

delictoaquinas said...

*I myself wondered for a while why folks weren't content with civil unions with all the same rights and privileges as marriages.*

Want to write more later, but for now I just have to point out that civil unions DON'T give the same rights. It's a myth pushed by anti-gay marriage activists.

But beyond that, yes, to some extent it's just an equality issue.

Anonymous said...

smoggyrob said:

"No cussing or personal attacks, but I saw the same sort of battling opinions, the same forcefulness, that I see in this comment section. Slightly different, but mostly the same."

Yep. That's people for ya.

delictoaquinas said:

"Want to write more later..."

Hurry, do, delictoaquinas.

Anonymous said...

Hi Grisom,

I think what Brad was trying to get at when he said...

"'But if it had been consciously designed to annoy them it could not have done a better job....

You had parents come up on stage with their children saying, "I want to teach my little girl that if she wants to marry a girl when she grows up, she can." You had a pair of 14 year old girls saying they wanted Prop 8 overturned so they could be married when they grew up. You had high school boys pledging their love for one-another and dancing together....

All of this is exactly what scares the opponents of same-sex marriage.'"
...is not what his attitudes are about it, but how something like that looks to your average mom and dad types. A lot of people will object to flashy behavior from gay folks just as much as they might object to people on the pro side of marijuana legalization that wear tye-dyes, have long hair and are stoned all the time.

Jeffrey said...

Thanks for your thoughtful response Brad. I was one of the ones questioning your statements about the acceptance level of homosexuality in Japan, and I really appreciate you taking the time to clarify. I'm glad to hear about what you observed in a little more detail.

Lots of Information said...

delictoaquinas said:

"civil unions DON'T give the same rights. It's a myth pushed by anti-gay marriage activists."

For those of you interested, this is the situation in the UK:

"On December 5, 2005 gay and lesbian couples in Great Britain became eligible to register as “civil partners.” The law extends almost all of the rights of marriage to gay and lesbian couples...Civil Partnerships are open to any two unrelated people of the same sex who are over 16, as long as they are not already partnered or married to someone else. Any two people of the same sex are eligible to register their relationship. They do not have to be a gay or lesbian couple, but it is expected that most will be...Consummation was not made a condition for making partnership valid therefore it can't be used as grounds for dissolving it (neither can adultery). A civil partnership ceremony can't be performed by clergy nor can it be held in a place of worship. Every other legal right that is afforded to a married couple is given to civil partners."

Some of the rights gay and lesbian couples will be eligible for are:

* If one partner dies before the other, the survivor will be treated like married couples if there is no will
* Survivors will inherit property the same as married couples
* Social Security Rights
* Pension Benefits
* The ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children
* Recognition for immigration
* Recognition under intestacy rules
* Income related tax benefits
* Responsibility for child support
* Civil Partners may jointly apply to adopt children

(from http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/a/CivilPartners.htm - no idea whether the source is reliable or not, but it looks kosher to me).

Mysterion said...

It's dated, but it's a sample of gender issues in Japan.

As I previously posted:

"The 2001 Kinpachi series, costaring Aya Ueto, also turned gender identity disorder (confusion) into a rights issue in Japan. It's one of those thinking issues."

Where believing dwells, thinking is unusual.

Grade 3, Section B
3 nen B gumi Kinpachi Sensei

Lots of opinions said...

So what do you want? Full rights under civil unions or redefining marriage to include same sex couples?

donkey kong on smack said...

"A funny thing happened. I looked at the comments to the most recent posting..."

Man O man that is so fvcking weird!
Brad looked at the comments!
But Brad rarely ever reads the comments.
Except when he does.
Which looks like all the time.

Anonymous said...

As a heterosexual, I've always been envious
of homosexuals...

I'm all for outlawing hetero marriage and
inlawing homo marriage, but only if I can
have anonymous sex with women in public
restrooms. (Hot damn! Life is so unfair :(

Lots of opinions said...

I believe everyone should have the right to live as they want to as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. And that includes the right to sit naked in Starbucks.

Mysterion said...

There is a rather famous girl's college near where we now live. Some less-than-open folks refer to the students unkindly as LUGs (lesbian until graduated). This may not be a reflection of reality. Why the attempted put-down? To begin with, I seriously doubt if there is an eligible male within 3 miles of the place and then even if there were a few, none would have an opportunity to meet one of the girls anyway. The culture is quite different between an academic institution and the mean streets.

Even in JAPAN, there is a paradigm shift in reality.

The new world is impoverished, helpless, and hopeless. World-wide, 99% of the wealth is in the hands of just .01% of the population. The remaining 99.99% of the population just has to grovel over 1% of the wealth. Even in the 'land of opportunity' reality (PDF) is an abrupt departure from myth.

In short, get your rice bowl and stand on the corner now. Tomorrow that corner is going to be more crowded.

Call me the eternal optimist.

Anonymous said...

Not sure if it's a good idea to compare Japanese and American cultures as being equivalent. Pretty sure Fearless leader Brad Warner-san said Japan never had this religious concept of sin. So, legalizing gay marriage in America will also be perceived as an attack on many peoples religion.

Mysterion said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
"So, legalizing gay marriage in America will also be perceived as an attack on many peoples religion."

Any religion IS an attack on many other peoples religion(s). That is the problem with a religion (believing) v. a philosophy (thinking).

Anonymous said...

Rob Myers said...
"They are answering to their own human need to be right."The "need to be right" also helps explain
why people are unable to accept that they
may be the victims of a well-orchestrated
hoax when it comes to 9/11.

I admit that I was wrong about 9/11, that
is until I stumbled across the corporate-
media-censored video footage of WTC7.

Thanks to whichever anonymous first posted
it in these comments.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
> BTW Jerry Rubin died in 1994.

LOL!

Brad, when you practice zazen,
you're supposed to put your foot
on your thigh, NOT in your mouth!

Yen CanCook said...

¥ 2,000,000 = $ 20,851.90 US

mudo said...

Certainly wouldn't want to say or do anything that might ANNOY people. This from you, Brad? Really?

And yes... would presumably straight opposite sex 14 year olds who expressed the desire to get married when they grow up "annoy" you?

PhillySteve: so, let's see. kids saying they want to be treated equally, public diplays of affection and Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (those are the nuns in white face) waving a dildo and leading a guy around in a harness ... pretty much all the same outlandish behavior designed to annoy the status quo? Really?

Ok to be gay and all but come on, folks, don't rub our noses in it by holding hands or kissing or allowing kids... OUR KIDS for god's sake... want to be able to get married.

Those coloreds would get their rights a lot faster if they'd just act more white. All that "black power" stuff seems designed to annoy us white folks.

Anonymous said...

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
is entertaining.

Obama sucking Saudi cock-- now that's offensive:

"Today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration's decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens -- 9/11 family members -- to have our day in court."

grisom said...

Hi Anon,

'I think what Brad was trying to get at ...is not what his attitudes are about it, but how something like that looks to your average mom and dad types. A lot of people will object to flashy behavior from gay folks just as much as they might object to people on the pro side of marijuana legalization that wear tye-dyes, have long hair and are stoned all the time.'

Hee. Yeah, no, I got that Brad was talking about how anti-gay-marriage types (or fence-sitters) would take it. I just honestly don't understand how 14-year-olds saying they want to get married when they're older would be perceived by anyone as "flashy" or in-your-face. As in, I can't even imagine someone having that reaction. This is maybe because I've grown up surrounded by liberal artsy types. Or maybe also a Canadian/American cultural difference? Our age of sexual consent was 14 until very recently...

I know people who would be unsettled that it's two girls saying that, because they don't approve of gay marriage, but that's just the issue being argued about, so I don't see how you'd get around that even if you wanted to.

Anyway, so I just don't get it. But I do believe all the stuff about trying to understand & respect people you disagree with, so I'd like to know what the deal is.

grisom said...

The stories I read in the LA Times over the past few days don't do much to explain the reasons anyone would want to keep same-sex marriage illegal.Up here we had our own debate a while back about same-sex marriage vs same-sex civil unions—where the "civil unions" would have been defined as being legally equivalent to marriage in every way.

The main fear on the conservative side seemed to be that if the gay-marriage side won, the government might overreach and start e.g. forcing clergy to perform gay marriages, even if they believe strongly that homosexuality is a sin, or forcing schools to teach kids that it's okay to be gay, regardless what their parents think. If you believe that gay sex leads to hellfire, the idea that state power might be used in this way understandably quite scary.

The politicians on the Left attempted to assure everyone that it was a purely a question of secular law and that people's rights to their religious opinions would not be interfered with, but, well, who believes a politician?

delictoaquinas said...

I see what Warner is saying. I disagree to some extent, but I see what he's saying. I do think politics is the art of the possible, and political idealism and "statement" politics can be a little silly. That being said, Mudo is right that it's somewhat irrelevant that people are loud and proud. I dislike identity politics and find people whoa re tied to an identity very obnoxious. But I'd never say that people who are excessively vocal about being Latino, for example, are less deserving of civil rights than Latinos who act more "white". Warner is on the right side here (and there is a right side at times, no matter how much psuedo-Buddhist stuff some people want to say about 'dropping preferences'). And depending on how one reads this, I think you could either see him giving cautionary and practical political advice, which is cool, or saying that people should have to fit an image of being respectable to middle America to gain basic rights, which is not. And Warner has said a lot of things to basically piss people off, which may not make his point invalid but is a bit weird since his point seems to basically be "don't piss people off". And as other people have pointed out, little straight kids express plans to marry all the time and we mostly just think it's adorable. Gay friends and relatives of mine have pretty much universally told me that they're known they were gay from early childhood, so I don't see any problem with them expressing it or being coralled into thinking that they're heterosexuals. The last thing the world needs is more closet queens going to a glory hole at a bookstore on saturday night and then to the store with their wives the next day(bonus points to anyone who can name the hardcore band I'm referencing).

Anyway, liked this piece despite my reservations.

Smoggyrob said...

Hi everyone:

The Dicks. Great song.

Rob

Anonymous said...

DA - I thought you were gonna explain to us how "civil unions DON'T give the same rights. It's a myth pushed by anti-gay marriage activists." You didn't address it at all. You just stated it as a fact.

For that seems to be the issue. In what way don't gays have rights? Apparently all's cool in UK now, so what the situation in the USA?

Mysterion said...

The body of research suggests that genetic interactions are complex but insufficient to explain homosexuality.

MOREQUEST Community Science Blog - KQED
"These twin studies show that being gay is at least partly genetic."
www.kqed.org/quest/blog/tag/gay/

There has been increasingly careful theological and ethical reflection on both HGP per se and the much broader scientific and technological context in which it is located. We now have instructive summaries of the ecumenical conversations of the World council of churches and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U. S. A. by Roger Shinn,Roger L. Shinn, "Genetics, Ethics, and Theology: The Ecumenical Discussion," in Genetics: Issues of Social Justice, ed. Ted Peters (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1998), 1-48.of Roman Catholic reflections by Thomas A. Shannon,Thomas A. Shannon, "Genetics, Ethics, and Theology: The Roman Catholic Discussion," in Genetics: Issues of Social Justice, ed. Ted Peters (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1998), 1-48.and of Jewish reflections by Laurie Zoloth-DorfmanLaurie Zoloth-Dorfman, "Mapping the Normal Human Self: The Jew and the Mark of Otherness," in Genetics: Issues of Social Justice, ed. Ted Peters (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1998), 180-204....Karen Lebacqz has written on justice issues related to the Genome Project.Karen Lebacqz, "Fair Shares: Is the Genome Project Just?" in Genetics: Issues of Social Justice, ed. Ted Peters (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1998), 1-48; see also Karen Lebacqz, "Fair...In a wide-ranging survey, Ted Peters brings these conversations together under eight major issues which entail, in turn, deeper theological assumptions about God, evolution, and the human person.Ted Peters, "Genes, Theology, and Social Ethics: Are We Playing God?" in Genetics: Issues of Social Justice, ed. Ted Peters (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press, 1998), 1-48.These issues include: genetic discrimination; an intensification of the abortion controversy; patenting and cloning God's creation; genetic determinism and human freedom (and what Peters calls the "gene myth"); the "gay gene"; somatic vs. germ-line intervention; and "playing God". sourceTHE problem is that he undisputed authority of the ____________ church is more frequently being disputed. And the Mother Church doesn't like it!

Oh, and Noah's Nakedness was incest and not homosexuality in the Noah Myth (biblical).

None the wiser said...

From "The Gay Gene and Evolution--A Problem?" by Richard Pillard (professor of psychiatry at the Boston University School of Medicine), the first article that mysterion just referenced.

"One might take a sort of verse comfort in knowing that homophobia, like racism (an all the xenophobias), exists regardless of whatever might be considered "the facts" of the moment."

And that's a fact. (Pillard is referring to whatever "facts" science might establish to explain the existence of human homosexuality).

So I ask again: what rights do gays not have? That's the only issue - there will be 'prejudice' for the forseeable future.

And M, I think your critiques and deconstructions of established religious dodctrine preach to the already de-converted here.

None the wiser said...

Well, I'm dissapointed, delictoaquinas, and all you other compassionate Buddhists. The relevant information I sought was very easy to find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

I shall knock myself out. And I might get back to you with a summary. Like you care.

Learning... said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States#Efforts_to_enable_same-sex_unions

Anonymous said...

Brad>

Do the Japanese usually express overtly how they feel about everything? Does the fact that they don't actively persecute homosexuals mean that that are a totally accepting society in relation that issue?

Does the term "straw-man" mean anything to you?

Jesus f___ing christ man, since you put yourself out here like this - just give us your interpretation (teaching) as to how the "Buddha" would address this issue.

delictoaquinas said...

Well, I never said I was going to talk more about that--just talk more, period--but here's a good document about the difference. Someone might point out that it's a partisan source, which is true, but such sources inevitably are in this subject.

http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/marriage/marriagevscivilunions.pdf

And I would never suggest that Buddhists are inherently more compassionate than Christians. There are plenty of compassionate Christians; they just spend their energies helping others rather than screwing them.

Proposition 108 has been a great example of the doublespeak and just general awfulness of the coalition to screw gays over. It's made me actually side with Perez Hilton a few times, which makes me want to take a shower.

Smoggyrob-Good call.

I can report said...

Thanks DA. I'll check it.

Meanwhile, the situation is complex and changing. Like all situations, as any good buddhist will tell you.

Going, as it does, to the heart of human relations social, sexual and legal, it's not surprising that same sex marriage is controversial. I think it'd be a simplistic error to believe that the only bar to swift 'progress' in this matter is homophobia or religious zeal.

Jesus f___ing christ man said...

"Hi Anon at 6.38pm -
You asked "Does the fact that [the Japanese] don't actively persecute homosexuals mean that that are a totally accepting society in relation that issue?"

This is how Brad answers:

"What I've gleaned is mostly through interested observation rather than study.There is no precedent for shunning homosexuals or beating them up.

Which is not to say everything is open and free either. It's just that what prejudice does exist (and it does exist) comes from a very different place, and is expressed far more mildly. But if you really want to know the details there are certainly better sources than me!"

Does the term "straw-man" mean anything to you?

delictoaquinas said...

When I see anyone pushing anything other than biblical literalism, empty semi-philosophical homilies, or juevenile "fags are perverts" talk in opposition to gay marriage, I'll let you know.

Meanwhile, I think the biggest problem isn't the homophobes, it's the paternalistic people who say it's a complex issue and that we need to just study it more, or that it's not a top priority. King and Shabazz debunked this argument about civil rights in the 60s and it's just as bogus now.

I can report said...

What a shame, DA. You've gone all rude, judgemental and cock-sure of yourself again, And you were doing so well! (bonus points - but not many - available for source of quote).

You're young, aren't you?
"When I see anyone pushing anything other than..."
Seek and you shall find, grasshopper.

"it's the paternalistic people..."
That'd be me then. I'm outa here before you get really angry.

Anonymous said...

right. completely understand that. you know it makes people unconfortable. making them really uncomfortable is not going to win people over. hey brad! what happened to those shirts for sale? - dave

Anonymous said...

Societies move at the pace they move.
Black civil rights took time. But great change has taken place.
Same happened with women's rights and is now happening with gay rights.
Some want it now. They'll campaign.
Some want it never. They'll campaign.
Many don't care. They won't bother.
The way that things are moving, that's the way they'll go.
As fast as things happen, that's how fast they'll change.

No need to panic.

empty but true semi-philosophical homilies said...

^^^

delictoaquinas said...

Sorry I'm not bullshitting you and talking in fake conciliatory tones. I don't feel like having leisurely conversations about denying people basic rights--it smacks of the way white liberals used to wring their hands *tsk tsk, those darkies--damn shame, you know, but they just need to be patient* People of priveledge (that's just about everyone who comments here, I'd reckon) should feel a bit hesitant to set a timetable on the rights of others. I feel no need to equivocate on this point.

And I'm about a year shy of thirty. Who gives a shit? There are plenty of old windbags whose life experience has just taught them to act like pompous asses.

delictoaquinas said...

Schulman's anti-gay marriage mess taken apart point by point. No, but really, I'm sure there are LOTS of valid reasons two dudes getting hitched will destroy civilization.

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/21490.html

Anonymous said...

In the past, religion completely dominated society, both east and west. With the rise of science and humanism, and the notion of the separation of church and state, religion has been pushed further and further back to where it is simply a private matter that has no bearing on others, or in many cases, even how a person lives their own life, because religion is now simply a matter of personal choice. If you don't like what your religion teaches, you either ignore it (the cafeteria approach) or you simply jump ship and find another religion or ditch it altogether. Marriage, degraded as it is with rampant divorce, drive through wedding chapels, is in many ways the last place that religion has in public life. Marriage, in the Christian religious context, is a sacrament established by God that has as its basis the creation of mankind as male and female, and the imperative of procreation (prior to 1939, all Christian denominations were opposed to birth control). Same-sex marriage does not respect any of these foundational purposes of marriage, so strictly speaking, it is not even something that is possible to do. And, of course, both the old and new testaments speak of homosexuality as being sinful, so that is a pretty big issue as well.

If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, it is only a matter of time before the state starts to pressure religious groups to perform gay weddings or at least allow their spaces to be rented for that purpose. Thus, the argument is a matter of religious freedom.

delictoaquinas said...

Bullshit, no church today has to marry anyone they don't want to. You know this and you're just a disingenuous asshole.

Pirooz M. Kalayeh said...

I don't know if having moderately gay presenters would make same-sex marriages any less threatening.

If a presenter at a prop 8 rally in support of same-sex marriage is moderately or overtly gay, he or she will still be at odds with most Americans who aren't willing to accept homosexuals--let alone the possibility for a same-sex marriage.

Maybe, we could identify the problem at all rallies--both for and against any issue--as the attitude and anger that comes with the acts of protesting. If an individual weren't so angry, and could approach a protest with a wider lens, they just might be exactly who they are without forcing an identity or position onto others.

I don't know if this is possible, but it does make me curious about successful protesters, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. Were they successful because of their non-violent approach? What created success for them? Were they less black or Indian? Or was it because they simply marched and protested without being in a state of aggression?

I don't know. I'm guessing there might be something there. I can say this because I am constantly in some kind of protest or another. I'll hear my wife, mom, friend--you name it--tell me some story, and I'll run with it, taking sides and trying to prove my point by pushing other people's buttons when I can't convince them I'm right--whether I'm aware I'm doing such a thing or not.

I think I'm better off when I don't take sides. I don't know, though. How can I not take sides in certain situations? Like when people are being discriminated because of sexual orientation?

I would say half the times I get upset are when I hear that someone is being hurt in some way. It makes me angry immediately. I go right for trying to help. I might say something that doesn't help though. I might even go to a protest and wear a Prince Albert chained to a friend in a Pride festival. I don't know. It's possible.

I suppose I definitely want to throw up my anger on people when I feel like I am right. That probably makes other people uncomfortable or annoys them. I can see that, Brad. I don't know if it's a question of the level of one's exhibitionism as much as the attitude that brings such behavior about though.

Who knows? We could also start talking about how any level of exposure at a protest puts the actual exhibition within a more exaggerated context. Just think of a rock show. If you have Green Day playing at a protest rally, it'll be different than seeing them at a stadium. The climate will suddenly change based on the location. Suddenly, the songs will be more political and less fun. Couldn't this be the intention of some overtly gay presenters--just having fun? Could they simply just be acting as exactly the people they are? Could homosexuals be seen as more threatening to individuals who are not exposed to homosexuality simply because they are presenting at a public protest?

(continued below...)

Pirooz M. Kalayeh said...

Continued...

It's a tough call. All in all, I would say there is going to be discrimination whether an individual is "overtly gay", or trying to pass as someone who is "less gay". Since Proposition 8 is linked to this dilemma, I don't see same-sex marriages being allowed until homosexuality is accepted.

Having a platform where A-gay folks, like Ellen Degeneres, are presenters during campaigns might bring more votes to the Prop 8 cause, but it certainly won't bring all the homosexuals who are at this very moment "passing" as doctors, lawyers, milkmen, postal workers, investment bankers--and other jobs where a majority of "moderate" homosexuals might be found--into the forefront of the debate. They are simply busy hedging between saying anything or sitting on the sidelines (much like that recent Tom Cruise movie, "Vallkyrie", where Nazis are afraid to come out against Hitler, unless they know they're going to be supported) . That's why you have more of the "overt" crowd representing at this point--folks are still too frightened.

It's simply going to take more discrimination and unfair laws passed--and people affected--before there are enough moderates to organize the factions into a legitimate political power--capable of raising votes, shaking hands, and kissing babies.

What do you all think?

Ad Hominem said...

Yep. DA got angry.

Heard of right speech, DA?
Of course you have. You just don't think it applies to you - coz you ARE right, right? And it follows that everyone else is wrong, so you have the right, indeed the duty, to tell them so in the most arrogant, insulting terms: "Bullshit, no church today has to marry anyone they don't want to. You know this and you're just a disingenuous asshole." (One example among many).

Talking to people you happen to disagree with like they're shit isn't "not bullshitting you and talking in fake conciliatory tones." It's ignorance. It's anger. It's delusion. It's behaving like a snotty kid. It's failing to realise the Buddha's truth that what you sow you reap. Trashing people just creates suffering, for you and others. It's possible to express yourself uncompromisingly without being aggresively rude.

The important truth that your opinion, your "truth" is provisional, and should be held lightly seems to have completely evaded you.

I suggest you tell people what you think in such a way that the discussion can continue. But I'm not sure you're intersted in anything anyone else might have to offer. At the moment it seems to be all about you. Perhaps that's what you're looking for. Attention.

So should I publish this? I think so. I think it could be an act of compassion.

Anonymous said...

delicto... said:

"People of priveledge (that's just about everyone who comments here, I'd reckon) should feel a bit hesitant to set a timetable on the rights of others."

I guess you were referring to the comment of anon @7.54pm.

Anonymous said...

^^^ My mistake. Try again.

delicto...said:

"People of priveledge (that's just about everyone who comments here, I'd reckon) should feel a bit hesitant to set a timetable on the rights of others."

I guess you're referring to the comment of anon @7.54pm

No timetable being set. Just a statement of fact. A series of facts. Making the point that change is happening. It takes time. It is what it is. No need to panic, spit the dummy or curse those with whom you disagree.

no way said...

don't tell me:

"the times: they are a changin'"

no way

Anonymous said...

DA,
Just trying to help present something of the other side, as Brad requested. The issue of the state forcing religious groups to perform gay marriages or cater to their needs is a major concern that conservative religious folks have. If anyone here wants a full treatment of the matter, go to Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con blog on beliefnet and have a look in his archives. I don't think that the majority of people opposed to gay marriage hate homosexuals, but they have deeply held beliefs on the matter that cannot be changed without some major theological renovations. It's not even necessarily because it is two men or two women. The kinds of acts that comprise gay sex are in some cases forbidden to married heterosexuals as well.

If gay marriage is made legal, will religions that oppose it be forced to comply? Probably not at first, but any public service, like couples counseling, rental use of their space, adoption services, and so forth, will most definitely be challenged. Precedents already exist for it: a photographer successfully sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding, a doctor sued for refusing to provide artificial insemination to a lesbian couple, and a Catholic adoption service in Boston that actually shut down rather than be forced to assist gay couples. Conservative religious people take note of these developments, and they are rightly concerned.

Although few people wait for marriage to have sex anymore, marriage is still seen as the ultimate legitimator of sexual acts. Sex in marriage is beyond reproach. Therefore, gay marriage indicates society's full acceptance of homosexual sex as something that is good and equal to heterosexual sex. It creates a climate of normalcy that eventually will erode any opposition to it, or at least put those that do as being a bunch of wackos.

These are my opinions etc said...

Pirooz M. Kalayeh -

Appreciated your thoughtful contribution - and your invitation to the listen to thoughts of others. I've made a couple of contribs already, so nothing to add.

These are my opinions/Ad hominem etc said...

...except to Anon @ 8.04am -

Thanks for putting one of the other sides.

Yes. Governments/legislatures should take all interests and shades of opinion into account in a democracy. These things aren't as straight forward as (often young) radical idealists presume. Different people sincerely hold irreconcilable views.

I don't believe anyone in the gay community is currently suffering from thier inability to have a federally recognised church wedding in the USA. That they campaign for that right is fine. That others oppose them is how it is. So it too, like it or not, is fine.

But not to worry. The times have never stopped changing. It's not possible. No way.

delictoaquinas said...

The religious freedom argument is a LIE. Not something where someone is mistaken, a straight up LIE. The vast majority of people who push it know that gay marriage doesn't mean that priests, imams, and rabbis will be suddenly forced to marry gay couples, just as they haven't been forced to perform a single marriage against their wills ever by the government in the 20th century. I'm not going to be gentle on people who lie to restrict the rights of others. If you think right speech is using a series of anonymous names to be a condescending smarmy prick, well, have fun with that. You haven't put forth a single actual argument here, so I can't really take you that seriously.

delictoaquinas said...

Also, as to democracy weighing the rights of everyone, well that's quite simple. The right fo gays to marry does not impinge on anyone elses rights, at all. Meanwhile, we've accepted that democracy does not mean mob rule, and pretty consistently upheld that the majority can't just vote en masse to restrict rights of a minority. No matter how many white people wanted Jim Crow to stay in place, no matter how much of a 'majority' they formed or didn't form, they were found not to have the right to restrict the rights of others. This is all empty talk and you're all looking ridiculous.

Mysterion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mtto said...

We talked about this briefly at Hill Street.

1. It is a different Jerry Rubin.

2. Using children for propaganda is creepy. Like Jesus Camp. Using children for politics is using them for propaganda, even if it is a good cause. Using children for sexual politics is even more creepy.

In a non-political situation, two children talking about getting married is cute. In a political situation, creepy and ineffective politically.

A Condescending Prick said...

HI delictoaquinas,

"If you think right speech is using a series of anonymous names to be a condescending smarmy prick well have fun with that"

Good point, DA.

When we meet personally, I'll formally introduce myself. Until then, I'll continue to have fun. Condescending? Smarmy? It's true. You bring out the best in me ;-)

"This is all empty talk and you're all looking ridiculous."

LOL! Unbelievable.

Prick said...

DA -

Just chill.
It ain't gonna happen any faster just coz you're right, and call everyone else a prick and an asshole.

That's all I'm saying.
That's my argument.

mtto -

That makes sense. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Geez, DA, if anyone seems to be lacking in argument, it must be you, as all you can seem to come up with is a bunch of insults rather than anything substantial, just shouting people down rather than having a constructive discussion of the issues. Nice.

Anonymous said...

Anyone else read it like

"-- I support the rights of same-sex couples to legalize weed. "

?

delictoaquinas said...

If you think there's a pressing reason for society to maintain a class of second class citizens, the onus is on you to provide a reason why, not me to say why you shouldn't. I don't even know why there's a debate here. I feel like I'm being asked to defend interracial marriage and we're saying "well, let's hear the well-reasoned and compelling arguments the Klan is going to make." If this thread is still archived in 40years, you guys will have a lot more to be embarassed about than me.

Way to post under multiple fake names though. Classy way to create fake consensus.

Me again said...

DA -

Anon @2.25pm = NOT ME.

It's pretty obvious who's me: I've been referencing previous posts and consistently saying the same thing, chosing names that, I feel, specifically relate to the point I'm making, or answering.

To use multiple names to create fake consensus would indeed be self-deceptive and cheap. Whatever else I am, I try not to be that.

I do, of course whole-heartedly agree with anon @2.25pm. S/he stated the point very simply, and without condescension, I thought.

Mysterion said...

Now that North Korea is going to blow up the world, or a small part of it, we need to see this movie.

It's Duck and Cover time...

Help neighborsstay in your fallout room a week...

or not...

reenactment

Anonymous said...

I think the guy might be....
{{{{ Mysterion }}}}

Matt said...

mtto:

+5

Me again said...

Delictoaquinas said:

"I feel like I'm being asked to defend interracial marriage and we're saying "well, let's hear the well-reasoned and compelling arguments the Klan is going to make." If this thread is still archived in 40years, you guys will have a lot more to be embarassed about than me."

Not to be unfair to you, I've just re-read the whole page. Apart from anon @ 10.06pm and 8.04am (I assume same guy), who put the case against, NO ONE, NOT ONE PERSON has argued that gays should not have equal civil rights, or the right to marry in church.

Stimulated by Brad's post, the discussion has largely been about tactics and attitudes. All pretty civilized and intelligent, IMHO. Yet, somehow, what you hear is a bunch of intolerant bible-bashing homophobic nazis screaming "lynch the sodomites".

Where does that come from?

Base of the pillar said...

I read through all the posts on here an decided I should put my two sense in. (What can I say I'm selfish. I have to have an opinion in everything.)

I don't believe in Gay Marriage. There did that get everyone's attention. Good then this is gonna shock you even more. I don't believe in strait marriage.

About this time your all probably questioning whether I'm going to start on the line about marriage as a bad, and no that is not where I am going. I think "marriage" as an institution is by definition a religious one. The state has no right trying to define marriage be it strait gay or man and donkey. My view is that you should have, and I know I'm gonna get crap for this "ducks out of the way of the fan",. civil unions for all couples that wish to be "Joined" and these unions should be what the state uses for purposes of insurance and taxes etc. Once that part has been decided I believe that ANY couple that can find a religious leader who wishes to bond them in any kind of religious union more power to them and please tell me where the reception is.

Now since I've already buried myself up to my elbows I'm also gonna way in on Brad's comments about the protest. I understand the point that he was trying to make and I agree with an earlier poster,whose name I am deeply sorry for not putting in here, but I can't remember, that the issue is with the attitude and not the people. Rubbing anyones face in who you are be you gay straight religious or atheist can often be seen as an attack which is where I think Brad was going. Trust me I know this one as I myself have been guilty of being on both ends. I have gotten angry at someone for doing this and have actively tried to push someone's buttons on certain issues.

If you read to the end of this post thank you may you have a pleasant day whoever you are.

Anonymous said...

Base of the pillar,

I agree completely. Make marriage a religious ceremony and make all unions civil unions. It's the best proposal I've seen so far. By this criteria, my wife and I are not married and have only a civil union. I'm ok with that.

PhillySteveInLA said...

Mudo,

I'm well aware of who the nuns are, but it's not necessarily general knowledge. If I said "Sister of Perpetual Indulgence dragging a slave down the street..." I don't think many people would've known what I was talking about. I've even mentioned them to gay people since I've been out here and drawn blank stares.
And no, Brad's examples are not equivalent, in fact I have no problem with a gay (or straight) couple saying they want their kids to have the right to marry when they grow up.

I was more commenting on the general idea of pushing the extremes in the faces of those you are trying to convince that you are "normal"( I use the quotes because there is no such thing as normal and I, personally, have no problem with any of the "extreme" behavior I've seen at gay rights rallies and marches). That said, I even only really think it's a bad idea at marches aimed at convincing others of your position or to enact a specific change.
When it's at a rally or gay pride event or a club or someone's house or anywhere else where there is a predominantly gay or sympathetic crowd, have at it! All I'm saying is remember the audience you're playing to. It's like if I want to convince someone that video games aren't all bad, am I going to show them Grand Theft Auto or Wii fit?

And as for the whole "how would you feel if it was 14 year old straight kids" argument- I don't think ANYONE- that's gay, straight, bi, furry, pillow lover, chicken f*cker, whatever- ANYONE should use kids to fight their political battle.

I don't want straight kids telling me gay marriage will destroy their chances at a happy marriage(which I've never understood), or gay kids telling me they want to get married when they grow up(which I understand, but still don't want to hear).

But then, maybe that's just ageism on my part- I don't really trust a kid's opinion til they hit about 16,17. Before that I think they're too influenced by family and social norms.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't using the name Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have further proved your point? I don't see that going over well with Christians-especially the Catholics!

Anonymous said...

Is marriage actually a right? It seems that there are quite a few limits on who is allowed to get married, such as close relatives, a person who is already married, people below a certain age, and so forth. Up until the present day, with the rise of the gay-rights movement, marriage was not a gender neutral concept. Whether it was the basic man/woman union, or polygamous, the idea is that a man and a woman are joined in a socially legitimate union, with an eye towards procreation. Even in polygamous marriages, the women are married to the man, not to each other. Historically, marriage has not even made love between the parties a necessity- you have arranged marriages, and marriages to solidify relations between clans or states.

When men and women have sex, unless they are sterile or take preventative measures, babies are made. This is not so with gay couples. Because children require so much effort and commitment to raise to a point where they can live independently, the larger society has had an interest in encouraging men and women to make a binding commitment to one another to ensure that this is so. This is one of the major reasons that premarital and extramarital sex were traditionally frowned upon. Some societies are also very concerned about maintaining bloodlines, particularly ruling classes.

Of course, things are different now. Because of birth control, children are now considered optional to marriage. Sex has pretty much lost its procreative meaning, and is now primarily about pleasure, love, entertainment, and so forth. Marriage itself has become optional for many couples. Where before you needed to be married before men and women could honorably have sex and live together, now people just live together without any plan for marriage. Or they just hook up and go their separate ways. And it wasn't really that long ago that "shacking up" was considered taboo- remember "Three's Company?" The guy had to pretend he was gay so that he could live with a couple of women for cheap rent.

Nowadays, the only people that maintain a strong, traditional viewpoint on sex and marriage are religious conservatives. Everyone else is pretty fluid on the matter. It seems to just come down to consent, and being of legal age.

So, we can see that the concept of marriage has changed from being a kind societal support for the raising of children to it simply being the recognition of a couple's love and commitment to one another. Since we have for the most part come to accept that gay people can love each other and have committed relationships, it is probably inevitable that we will have full legal recognition of gay marriage in the United States, as well as the rest of the non-Islamic world. A good question is what will come next? Who else will demand their "right" to marriage?

Carmello said...

Why would any gay couple want to be married when the institution is anti-gay by it's very nature.

What the fight should be about is civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage, not what it should be called.

Delictoaquinas and the people he is arguing with have very similar views. The problem is in the language. Gays should have equal rights under the law. Who on this forum could not agree to that?

Anonymous said...

Carmello-
Best post so far!

mother earth said...

So many people say :

"I just don't get it"

when dealing with a different point of view.

Maybe you think that to get it you have to actually agree.

Just let go of your own having to agree with your own opinions. Then you won't even need to "get it"

oh, and by the way--

you all suck royal ass

Anonymous said...

My partner and I are heterosexuals who were
forced by the Church-infested State to get
married so that we could provide each other
with affordable health care. The only way
powerless slaves like ourselves could say
'Fuck You' was to get married by a lesbian
Unitarian minister.

I hate the fucking State and all the assholes
who use it to restrict the rights of others!
It is a profoundly corrupt and evil institution,
and the only way to control it is to repeal the
Sixteenth Amendment.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington

delictoaquinas said...

Umm, did you actually read the thread before me? Several people made anti-gay marriage arguments. Including a ridiculous one about churches being forced to perform gay weddings. For the record, I wouldn’t support any effort to force churches to do so anyway, which is fine because just as clerics have been allowed to refuse to perform all other kinds of weddings that are protected in the legal sense, they’ll be allowed to keep on hating fags and living in the 10th century all they want. I have no interest in getting people to love their LBTGQ neighbors; be a racist, be a misogynist, be a homophobe all you want. Just don’t deny people basic legal rights and beyond that it’s your own business. Though I do love the irony of the people here who are advocating using the law to keep people down accusing me of “shouting people down”. And I by people I mean “probably one or two people posting under multiple names”.

Also, arguments as to what else gay marriage would “open the door to” miss the point to some extent. Leaving aside any argument over whether polygamy should or shouldn’t be legal, polygamy is not a sexual orientation. Incest is not a sexual orientation, and often involves parties that aren’t consenting adults. So allowing people who are sexually incompatible with any gender but their own won’t magically make it okay to marry ten people, or animals, or your own kids. It’s another straw man because there IS NO LEGITIMATE, SECULAR REASON to disallow gay marriage at this point in time. Nobody has presented one, here or anywhere else I’ve seen.

Anonymous said...

>BTW Jerry Rubin died in 1994.

Not all Jerry Rubins died in 1994. Case in point: http://www.jerrypeaceactivistrubin.com/

Anonymous said...

DA -

You really haven't listened to a word that's been said to you, have you? Whether by one , two or ten people.

Print it out, archive it, and read it in 40 years time.

Mysterion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Dave, A lot the people commenting here are just starting to work on their own shit. We like to hear ourselves talk.

midorinosaru said...

"You had parents come up on stage with their children saying, "I want to teach my little girl that if she wants to marry a girl when she grows up, she can." You had a pair of 14 year old girls saying they wanted Prop 8 overturned so they could be married when they grew up. You had high school boys pledging their love for one-another and dancing together."

So, gay people acting gay is too gay? Too idealistic? Disagree.

I'm sure as hell going to teach my kids that they can/should be allowed to marry the person they love. And so many young girls dream of their weddings, why can't the girls who know they are gay have and admit to the same dreams? Why can't boys dance together? I fail to see the outlandishness of any of this behavior.

Lauren said...

I totally agree. I went to a pro-gay-marriage rally and felt the same way. It just seemed a little too in-your-face, and sometimes the protesters were a little too disrespectful to authority figures who were just trying to make it a safer rally for everyone (I could understand if the authority figures were being dicks, but they weren't at all). I hope gay marriage becomes legal someday too, but it is funny to note that the idealists really are going about it all wrong.

Stuart said...

It's hard to overstate the damage that was done to the cause when San Francisco mayor Newsome was taped at a pro-gay-marriage rally telling a cheering crowd, "It's coming, whether they like it or not!"

This frames the issue as giving one side victory over their enemies, allowing them to force their superior righteousness on those who resist it. This is not an effective argument. Total 100% live-and-let-live is highly effective; it's already strongly embraced by society.

Brad wrote...
> a good compromise would be to
> just make all marriage -- gay or
> straight -- illegal

Of course we don't need for the government to make any marriage illegal. And even today, it's not as if police bust into the houses of married gays to arrest them (as they might in the case of something that's really illegal, like smoking pot). It's not that gay marriage is illegal, it's that it's not recognized by the government. Best to be clear about that.

What we do need is for the govt to just get out of the marriage issue entirely. After all, it's a slippery slope. If the govt certifies the marriage of a man and a woman, what's to stop it from cerifying the marriage of a man, two cousins, and a horse?

Stuart

Carrot said...

"...overly idealistic approach will always fail." true, very well said but this where everyone grabs in times of uncertainties - in short, this is purely human.

Anonymous said...

3....sexual misconduct.

what would you say Brad warner to zen monks and who say you are breaking the precepts by writing and being apart of the suicide girls?

Anonymous said...

Who cares what a group of people at a rally said or did? It has nothing to do with the issue, other than the fact that a tiny minority of people who happen to support the law were in attendance. Besides, being "annoyed" is not a reason to be against a law... I realize you are not against gay marriage, but you seem to be implying that being annoying should have some relevancy to the issue.

I hope you're just kidding around or trying to be controversial. Otherwise I fail to see any of your logic :)