Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

The politicization of homosexualityFollow

#1 Feb 18 2004 at 1:00 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Bear with me here since I heard this on the radio tonight, but an interesting thing was said on a political talk show. The subject was on the recent spat of homosexual marriages. A caller-- writer more accurately since he sent in an e-mail --proposed that the issue of marriage between a same sex couple is not one of connection or love, but is a step in the inclusion of homosexuality as being perceived mainstream. The writer, a self proclaimed homosexual from Toronto, Canada, made the startling statement that the goal is political power, not civil rights or love.

His evidence of this was the breakdown of gay marriages by percentages which, in his eyes, proved that marriage is not something the vast majority of homosexuals are even persuing or find desirable. He threw out some numbers (which I cannot give but in general terms due to me driving and this being a radio program) which divvied up the numbers of married gay couples as such:

Of the tens of thousands of gay couples in Toronto (which I gathered was the Canadian equivilent of San Francisco) only about 1000 marriages had been conducted. This is notable since in Canada homosexual marriages are legal, thus taxation and beneficiary issues are null. Of those 1000 marriage licenses about 600 were issued to Canadians, 350 to Americans, and about 50 went to Europeans.

What this said, he believed, was
1) marriage is not a priority among gays,
2) and marriage is a staid, boring, or "unprogressive" institution which did not reflect the social values of the homosexual community.

This notable in that only a small fraction of eligible gay couples are actually taking part in marriage and, perhaps more importantly, do not see marriage as being a gay custom.

Interesting, yes? Here we are having this discussion in the United States, but the people who ostensibly would benefit from such a legal action do not actually partake in the institution which they supposedly are fighting for. So assuming this is all true-- something which is debatable since the evidence so far is anecdotal --what exactly is the goal of the homosexual community here? Is it marriage? Is it universal acceptance? Is it respectability? Is it tax relief? Or is it just another step in something larger: the wielding of political power by a small vocal minority within a small minority?

Your thoughts?

Totem
#2 Feb 18 2004 at 1:14 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The goal is equal rights. That's all. It's not confusing.

Let me share a little and draw a comparison. I'm personally think abortion is a bad idea. That's right.

I'll pause for a moment for those of you who had minor heart attacks or strokes while reading that.

Personally, were I to be involved in an unwanted preganancy, I'd want the child to be born. Here's the thing, though:

It's fairly unlikely that I'm the only man in the world who will ever have the possibility to be involved in an unwanted pregnancy. I don't feel that my personal belief should legally supercede the rights of other people to do as they chose.

I'm not gay. Here's the thing though:

I don't feel that my personal sexual orientation should legally supercede the rights of others to do as they choose.

I have a lot of gay friends. Most of them aren't intrested in marrige, or manogomy for that matter. That's not me making a statement about gay people, just a comment on the people I happen to know.

Here's the thing though:

My gay freinds who aren't intrested in being married still would like the right to be married should they change their mind, and more importantly they don't feel that their personal lack of desire to be married should legaly supercede the [/b]rights[/b] of others to do as they choose.

I, and most people on my side of the gay marrige issues, could care less if no one ever gets married when gay marrige becomes legal.

So long as they have the right to do so.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Feb 18 2004 at 1:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Hmmm.

I'd have to respond to that by saying that it is not a civil rights issue in that they are free to marry anytime they choose-- assuming age, geneology, prior marital status, and gender conditions are met. Are we to throw the other three prohibitives out as well then once gender is no longer a factor?

Totem
#4 Feb 18 2004 at 1:28 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:
I'd have to respond to that by saying that it is not a civil rights issue in that they are free to marry anytime they choose-- assuming age, geneology, prior marital status, and gender conditions are met. Are we to throw the other three prohibitives out as well then once gender is no longer a factor?

Fifty years ago Conservatives would have and did add the word "race" right between age and geneology. Throwing out that prohibitive didn't seem to effect the others now did it?

Why would gender result in anything diffrent? It's presicely the same situation.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#5 Feb 18 2004 at 1:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Conservatives weren't the only ones who objected to race. Liberals were part and parcel of the racial problem as well-- that is, unless Liberals suddenly popped up on the political landscape a week or two before civial rights legislation was signed.

However, you have added fuel to the fire in that since race was swept aside and now gender is threatening to do the same, what about geneology, age, or existing marital status? Are those inviolate or are they to be pushed aside as well when that particular group screams about civil rights?

Totem
#6 Feb 18 2004 at 1:38 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Ding ding. In the red corner, weighing in at 6115 posts, the one, the only... TOTEM

And in the blue corner, weighing in at 6102 posts, the defending political heavy-weight champion,... SMASH

Alright guys, touch gloves. Now, protect yourselves at all times or I'll stop the fight, and no hitting below the belt. Go to your corners and come out swinging.

Let's get it on!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#7 Feb 18 2004 at 1:43 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Again, where is the civil rights violation? Homosexuals are free to marry any time they wish as long as they meet the requirements of age, geneology, prior marital status, and gender. As far as I know, those are the same standards which are applied to me, a white male, middle class, professional.

Totem
#8 Feb 18 2004 at 1:59 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Conservatives weren't the only ones who objected to race. Liberals were part and parcel of the racial problem as well-- that is, unless Liberals suddenly popped up on the political landscape a week or two before civial rights legislation was signed.

Well, honestly, I think Storm Thurmond was probably a little more opposed to interacial marrige than, say, Ted Kennedy but whatever. If you want to deny that Liberals pushed the civil rights agenda and that Conservatives were an equal part that's another discussion.

Quote:

However, you have added fuel to the fire in that since race was swept aside and now gender is threatening to do the same, what about geneology, age, or existing marital status? Are those inviolate or are they to be pushed aside as well when that particular group screams about civil rights?


It's not an equitable comparison.

Age is there clearly to protect people from being exploited at a young age. There's no symetry with gender there at all.

Geneology is there largely to protect society from inbreeding. There's not a valid comaprison there with gender either.

Existing marital status is a semantic concept at best than can be changed by either party without great difficulty. Were there a way to arbitrarily change one's gender at will there would be a comparison there, but there isn't.

Here's the real problem with the "slippery slope" argument. There's lots and lots of perfectly valid sensible legal reasons that the other restrictions are there. Age prevents explotation. Previous marital status prevents poligamy which would require brand new law seperate from marrige to tackle the myriad of legal issues it would raise should it ever become legal. Geneology is probably largely a societal hangup that doesn't really protect anyone, but I don't find it terribly likely that there will be a sudden uprising of brothers and sisters wanting to marry.

The problem with marrige is that that marrige is largely a code word for State Sanctioned *******. It makes a large segement of the population who tolerate homosexuality "so long as they don't touch me!!!!!" very uncumfortable that gay's might be viewed as equals with heteros. That's all it's about.

Who's harmed by two gay men or two lesbians being married?

From a legal standpoint, being married is equivilent to getting a driving liscence. There's requirements for that too. You must be a certain age, pass a certain test, etc.

Would your reaction be anything but "That's Ludicrous" if you found out there was a state that didn't allow gay people to drive simply because they were gay?

If your feelings are grounded in the legal civil process of granting marrige lisecnes, you should feel the same.

If your feelings are involved in something else, be it the religious implications of marrige, or your oppinion of homosexuals in general you need to just say so, because all the Governemnt has to do with marrige is the legal granting of liscences and the conveying of legal privlidges to those who get married.

There's simply no argument that makes any sense from a civics standpoint for not allowing gays to marry. There's no negative effects for anyone involved in granting gays marrige liscences. If you want to argue the relative "evilness" or whatever of homosecuality, fine. That's a seperate subject.








____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Feb 18 2004 at 2:03 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Again, where is the civil rights violation? Homosexuals are free to marry any time they wish as long as they meet the requirements of age, geneology, prior marital status, and gender. As far as I know, those are the same standards which are applied to me, a white male, middle class, professional.

Imagine for a breif moment the situation was reversed. Only gay couples were allowed to marry. Would you be able to see the civil rights implications then?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Feb 18 2004 at 2:20 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
You touched on exactly the point that makes marriage between same sex couples invalid, at least from a "do no harm" standpoint. Incestual marriage, as long as children are not produced, brings no physical harm-- that, of course, does not exclude mental or emotional damage --so why not allow it? When viewed from the standpoint of proponents for homosexual marriages it doesn't make logical sense not to allow such a union.

Age isn't difficult to get around either when seen from the perspective of other cultures who are comfortable with childhood arranged marriages. it just becomes our hangups with age that prevent such a thing from occuring.

It amounts to a perferencial thing. Homosexuals prefer another person of the same sex to the traditional male/female standard and want us to recognise the legitimacy of their wants and desires. So to this point I avoided going to the "slippery slope" argument, but I ask that you address from a logical standpoint why one is valid but not the others? If preference is the sole basis for a legal and binding marriage contract, then why not accept other people's desires?

Yet the question must inevitably be asked: When the basis for marriage is changed what is to prevent it being changed again at a later date? If history is any indication then being married or getting married will soon be moot.

Totem
#11 Feb 18 2004 at 2:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
But Smash, what if the moon were made of blue cheese? That has about as much relevancy as asking if gay marriages were the standard would I feel discrminated against. The fact is and remains it doesn't matter because gay marriages aren't the standard and the moon is, indeed, made up of rock not milk byproducts.

Totem
#12 Feb 18 2004 at 2:27 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Because you could then use the same argument for my dog marrying me-- he followed my willingly into the JP's office and wags her tail in affirmation of her love and affection for me. Obviously the dog wants to marry even if it can't physically say so. But after all, if dog-human marriages were the standard would cat lovers feel left out?

In the same way your question has no bearing since it is not based in reality.

Totem
#13 Feb 18 2004 at 2:31 AM Rating: Decent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
Totem wrote:
This is notable since in Canada homosexual marriages are legal, thus taxation and beneficiary issues are null.


Not all over Canada. Just sayin'.

____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#14 Feb 18 2004 at 2:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
And all this is beside the point-- my question is is gay marriage an end in and of itself or is it a tool for greater political power?

I ask this because I am seeing what could possibly be a ninja move on the part of the radical homosexual community: Framing the question in a manner which draws heterosexuals into the discussion for the express purpose of leveraging greater influence on the political process.

To hear this person's email tell it, marriage is not even the question-- it just is the vehicle for the homosexual community to get to where they want to go. It would be a clever-- and cynical --use of normal people's prediliction to view marriage as the goal, when, if this writer is to be believed, not something which is even desirable in the first place for gays. If that is not a cynical use of an traditional and honored institution, I don't know what is.

You, Smash, according to this person, are seeing it from exactly the vantage that those in the homosexual community want you to see it-- as an issue of civil rights, fairness, and inclusivity, when that is not at all what they are working towards. You end up being their puppet albeit for different reasons. They state they want marriage, but they don't actually engage in it. Do you see the disconnect here?

Marriage becomes a means to an end.

And if that is the case then there is no logical reason why marriage is even a viable institution.

Totem
#15 Feb 18 2004 at 2:40 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
So would it just be in Ontario then, Tare? A kind of state's (province's) rights thing for Canadians? That would make sense considering how fragmented Canadian society is.

Totem
#16 Feb 18 2004 at 2:45 AM Rating: Decent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
Totem wrote:
So would it just be in Ontario then, Tare? A kind of state's (province's) rights thing for Canadians? That would make sense considering how fragmented Canadian society is.


Actually, yeah. I live in the west, and I can tell you that gay marriage is not acceptable here. Ontario is a lot more liberal than most provinces...ok...well...all provinces.

And come on, Totem, "fragmented"? Maybe...but the US isn't exactly forging ahead here, are they?

____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#17 Feb 18 2004 at 3:01 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Awwwww, now you know it's true. There is nothing that resembles an national identity in Canada outside of a love for hockey and whale blubber.

Ok, ok, no more Canada jokes. But you know it's true about the fragmentation of Canadian society. French language having equal priority as English despite what it does to one's masculinitiy and sperm count. Stuff like that, you know...

Totem
#18 Feb 18 2004 at 3:07 AM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
Here ya go...this ones for Pat (and to spin up smash more):



Quote:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:


Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


God gives the world to the sin we all are asking for. The first step, homosexuality. bask in it...its only the beginning. ;)
#19 Feb 18 2004 at 3:18 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
All religious connotations aside I just find it remarkable that homosexuals are not getting married in a province that recognises the legality of same sex marriages. I think that speaks volumes about the mindset of homosexuality since they are not taking advantage of whatever tax breaks, social acceptability, or whatever marriage would confer on them.

I don't know-- does that say anything about promiscusity or some vaunted "progressiveness" of a marriage-less relationship? I have no idea. But it definitely does say that marriage is not a priority for them.

Totem
#20 Feb 18 2004 at 3:41 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Twice now, it's not about marrige, it's about equal rights.

Quote:

Because you could then use the same argument for my dog marrying me-- he followed my willingly into the JP's office and wags her tail in affirmation of her love and affection for me. Obviously the dog wants to marry even if it can't physically say so. But after all, if dog-human marriages were the standard would cat lovers feel left out?


Not even close, Sparky. There's no where else in the US where we use gender as a descriminating factor. Tell me why we should in marrige. You haven't started to present a reason yet.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Feb 18 2004 at 4:21 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
But the issue isn't gender related except in the negative sense. Anyone can marry as long as they meet the standards for marriage. A homosexual man can marry a woman as many times as he wants-- there's no law against that. He's free to marry whenever, whoever, wherever, and however he wants-- as long as that is a woman. The same as me. There is no civil rights issue here. He is as free to marry as I am. How much more equitable can that be?

What? Sexual desire now plays a role in desire to marry? Since when? So when my prostate goes kablooey and I no longer feel my libido that should factor in who I am allowed to get hitched to?

Again, apparently marriage is not what they want-- at least in Toronto --considering how many gays have gotten married. So what is the point except to break an institution of its' meaning in the interests of progressiveness or politicization? That is their goal.

Totem
#22 Feb 18 2004 at 4:40 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Again, apparently marriage is not what they want-- at least in Toronto --considering how many gays have gotten married. So what is the point except to break an institution of its' meaning in the interests of progressiveness or politicization? That is their goal.

One, every gay person in the world doesn't speak with one voice, so "they" don't actually exist. Two, there are THOUSANDS of gay people who DO want to be married. Three the meaning of marrige isn't effected at all by allowing gay people to marry. Four, what one guy says anecdotally about gays in Canada has virtually nothing to do with the motivation of gay marrige activists here in the US.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#23 Feb 18 2004 at 4:45 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

But the issue isn't gender related except in the negative sense. Anyone can marry as long as they meet the standards for marriage. A homosexual man can marry a woman as many times as he wants-- there's no law against that. He's free to marry whenever, whoever, wherever, and however he wants-- as long as that is a woman. The same as me. There is no civil rights issue here. He is as free to marry as I am. How much more equitable can that be?

Sure, that makes sense. So if we made it so two blue eyed people couldn't marry that wouldn't be a civil rights issue either, right? They'd be as free as the next person to marry anyone without blue eyes. Interacial marrige wouldn't be a civil rights issue either by your logic. People would be free to marry anyone in their race just like you would be. Fair, right?

It's a logically false argument. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation any way you cut it. Either you want legislated decrimination or you don't. It's simple. If you do, that's your oppinion and you're entitled to it.

Don't try to spin it as something innocent though.

Edited, Wed Feb 18 04:47:10 2004 by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Feb 18 2004 at 5:02 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
So you would be in favor of legalizing marriage between a parent and a (presumably adult) child or between siblings? If not, how about if one or both were sterile? What you are saying is as long as two adult individuals wish to get married it is acceptable in your eyes, because if you add any caveat to that then that smacks of discrimination.

Just to be clear, you believe marriage should be allowed between any number of consenting adults regardless of any extemporaneous circumstances or taboos. Is that correct?

Otherwise to argue that homosexuals can marry, but siblings, polygamists, and in some cases child/adult would be construed as discrimination as well. One man's homosexuality is another man's sister in terms of relativism. One man's goat is another man's Mom according to the sliding standard of formerly traditional institutions.

Totem
#25 Feb 18 2004 at 5:21 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:
So you would be in favor of legalizing marriage between a parent and a (presumably adult) child or between siblings?

You know what? YES. But that has nothing to do with Gay marrige.

Quote:

If not, how about if one or both were sterile? What you are saying is as long as two adult individuals wish to get married it is acceptable in your eyes, because if you add any caveat to that then that smacks of discrimination.

It is discrimination. QED. That's what discrimination IS. Disallowing something for some reason. Not letting two year olds marry is discrimination. It happens to be discrimination that I'm in favor of, but it's still discrimination.

That's the whole point. Not that nothing should ever be descriminated against ever. That each thing that you descriminate against should have a REALLY GOOD REASON for that discrimination. Considering anti-gay marrige people can come up with a REALLY BAD REASON for descriminating in that way, they resort to trying to make this ludicrous argument that gay marrige equates to marrying sheep or whatever.

Quote:

Just to be clear, you believe marriage should be allowed between any number of consenting adults regardless of any extemporaneous circumstances or taboos. Is that correct?

That's not correct, obviously. Just as I imagine you're in favor of allowing interracial marrige but not gay marrige. WHY?

Quote:

Otherwise to argue that homosexuals can marry, but siblings, polygamists, and in some cases child/adult would be construed as discrimination as well.

Sure it can. It IS discrimination, as I've allready said. Any law is discriminating against something. Laws against murder are discriminating against people who kill other people. Personally, I think that's a good idea. Is your case against gay marrige SO ALLARMINLGY POOR that you have to resort to arguing other issues to even try to present it?

Stick to the issue. What's the problem with gays marrying?

Quote:

One man's homosexuality is another man's sister in terms of relativism. One man's goat is another man's Mom according to the sliding standard of formerly traditional institutions.

What's immoral about being gay, exactly?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#26 Feb 18 2004 at 5:26 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
To sum up, the rub of the whole thing to me is this:

If you try to make the slippery slope argument you're faced with this simple question:

Wouldn't it have been better, then, to continue the illegality of interacial marrige?

If you can't answer that question "Yes!" Then you're making an inherantly hypocritical argument.

If you can answer it "yes" you're making a racist argument QED.

Can't have it both ways. Pick one and let me know.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 263 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (263)