Gay Marriage

[Pisces]

You know, a lot of people are probably expecting me to vote support here, but the odd thing is I really don't know where I stand on the issue.

My attraction to the same sex and my spiritual faith are two things I'm still trying to reconcile. And they are being reconciled, little by little, but I have a long way to go yet.

On one side of the coin, I understand the hurt that homosexuals feel when they're treated like secondary citizens and when they can't participate in certain privileges and things that others have.

I can tell you from experience that it really hurts sometimes to see happy straight couples, married ones, ones with families.

But on the flip side, logic obviously states that well, I'm not attracted to women, a family is something not intended for me. Which creates longing.

But I do understand the Christian view of the sanctity of the home and of marriage.

It's something that's a definite struggle for me, personally. I want more than anything to be a part of that world, the world of the married and the family. But I can't. And I know I can't.

Anyway, be careful, everyone, when speaking to one another. The thing about "terms" and "definitions" goes farther than you know.

There isn't a single person on this planet that is truly speaking the same language, and that is one of Evil's greatest tools in causing pain and suffering. Misinterpretation...misunderstanding...miscommunication...

Anyway, I'm not going to say much more on the issue. I'm not offended by anyone's opinion, here, but I AM curious about something.....

To a few of the people who simply put things like "No gay marriage tyvm" or "Call me a backwater but..." etc...

I'm curious why you're so short and simple about your opinions. Communication is never made in opinions. Only opinions are made in opinions. Communication is made from the talking and learning that comes FROM opinions. I'm not upset that made it short and sweet, I'm just wondering why you would do that, and leave people with nothing more, with nothing to learn from or to understand about your point of view.

[drumlord]

coley: The thing is, people abuse marriage already, as stated by alun in reference to citizenship but also in terms of tax issues. I don't know how much of a real problem it is, but even in terms of tax fraud, abuse of a civil union would be trivial compared to the billions of dollars of undeclared income every year (and the "underground employment income" ... i.e. drugs )

ramza: Good example, but I do actually have a response for that. Interestingly enough, this came up in a discussion at work today. The thing with definitions and linguistics is that certain fields tend to have different definitions for words than mainstream definitions. I already mentioned legal documents making their own definitions for the purpose of said documents. But a better example in this case would be fields like engineering, physics, music, etc. These (and really, most fields you can study) have a set of words redefined or simply not even present in mainstream dictionaries. And in the case of fields of study like that, it's actually somewhat the opposite. You really do want to have some kind of body determine what the appropriate terms are and what they mean and you want to keep those meanings for as long as they are appropriate.

So the Christian churches dealing with the changing definition of sacrement is actually something they really need to do. In this case, Christianity would essentially be a field of study and keeping things to have a particular definition is actually quite important. The definition of God, sacrement, Bible, etc. should not change with the flow of the public like normals words. They should instead be dictated (in this case) by interpretation of religious texts and history. I can't go much beyond this, because G1 is the resident theologian (sp?) and would surely pwn anything I say

I do see your point though. It isn't arguing about "nothing" but I do still believe it is ignoring (or simply sidestepping) the more pertinant issues.

[Coley Lou]

I'm not justifying or not justifying civil unions I'm just showing you a legal aspect of what they are. And I'm glad to say my limited years of legal education have somewhat paid off ^^;;

As for the misionary comment. It wasn't my intent to belittle missionary work. My statement simply was that people will only intake as much as they want to. And perhaps this is a situation where someone elses ideals will never overpower someone elses. /shrug As these men obviously agreed with some of the Christian beliefes, they chose to adopt them as their own. I mean even I agree with some Christian beliefs. Just not enough to call myself that, because I don't think it's being fair to the religion.

And I do have friends who are missionaries, for various different religions. I myself do not agree with missionary work, but that's an entirely different debate.

I got into a funny conversation with Matt this morning about language dictating the dictionary instead of the other way around.

Coley: You know with your smartness and my..
Matt: Did you just say smartness? That's not a word.
Coley: Don't you start! I get enough of this from Kiyo about "funner"
Matt: That's not a word either.
Coley: .....well if enough people say it it'll get into the dictionary cause it becomes a word.
Matt: Stupid people shouldn't dictate what becomes words because they don't know how to speak correctly.
Coley: Alright... say this word for me. ::writes "often"::
Matt: Often. ::with a t::
Coley: That's incorrect.
Matt: It has a t in it.
Coley: It's silent.
Matt: So what.
Coley: Well my name has a silent e at the end.
Matt: Nicoley! That sounds cool.
Coley: My point is, the t is silent but since so many people pronounce the t the other pronunciation made it into the dictionary, so there you go, you're one of the dumb people that changed the dictionary.
Matt: .....
Coley: So as I was saying, with your SMARTNESS...

Anyway you get the point. As for Eric, I remember you were the one that informed me about Nebraska shooting down that civil union law. At anyrate, some of us who are allowed to get married can't have a family either. :\ It's no more your fault you're homosexual then it is my fault I'm one ovary and fallopian tube short of a reproductive system. Them's the breaks I suppose.

BTW, I really do consider slavery a sin...

[Alunissage]

Ah, prescriptive vs descriptive...by inclination I'm the former (always wanting to say what people should be saying and aren't, shouldn't surprise anyone here) but by education I'm the latter, as pretty much all linguists are. You have to describe and analyze what's actually used, not what you think should be used. However, that's a strictly linguistic comment, not a sociological one. Hm, I'm suddenly reminded of how people/companies can lose their trademarks if they don't defend them and they become common usage, which may have a parallel with changing the definitions of marriage through usage.

I wouldn't be surprised if "often" had a pronounced T way back when, as it's surely derived from oft. But it's been fairly standardized with a silent T for a while now. Of course, "correct" is kind of a nebulous term in any case, as correct usage frequently has more to do with class distinctions, or at least used to.

[GhaleonOne]

BTW, I really do consider slavery a sin...

The more modern version, such as here in the US, yes, I'd agree. Same with forms of slavery still going on in the world (and don't anyone kid yourself, slavery is still a major MAJOR problem in parts of the world). Ancient slavery, I wouldn't consider all cases of slavery a sin, as slavery was a wide-ranging term then. To the point that a slave could even just be someone contracted for a set amount of years to do work. For example, Josephus, the most famous Jewish historian (and one of the most famous, if not the most famous ancient historian) was a slave to the Roman emperor after Jerusalem fell in 67AD. He wasn't a slave by the modern terms, but was still a slave nonetheless.

[Dyn]

I'm for Civil Unions.

I can understand people being concerned over the sanctity of marrige, and I realize homosexuals have the right to pursue happiness.

Any person who confines themself to a single partner is much less likely to contract an STD.

It allows homosexuals to be legally binded, as they wish to do, while preserving the sanctity of marrige, which many agree [Of course, there will be nay-sayers in any issue you present.], is between a man and a woman.

This way, I think we can make a compromise to satisfy both groups.

[Scorpioeyez]

I fully support it.

[Coley Lou]

Actually I used to pronounce often with the t because well it does have a t in it. But my drama teacher always had a fit about it, so I finally started saying it "his" way. At anyrate, I did a song from My Fair Lady once called Just You Wait, and in there she says often, british people pronounce the t in often, especially the lower class ones, and so I did pronounce the t in it because it was proper under those circumstances. But boy did he get pissed. Anyway, I think what happens is a lot of british english has been altered in american english as a way to seperate the two countries further, or I would imagine would've been the point originally. But I'm not a linguist. But Henry Higgins is And I do heart that musical

My major point against Matt was that I hate being corrected. So I was correcting him.

And Mickey, but there was bad slavery back then too right? What about the Egyptians and the Isrealites and Noah and stuff? Sorry I can't spell.

[GhaleonOne]

And Mickey, but there was bad slavery back then too right? What about the Egyptians and the Isrealites and Noah and stuff? Sorry I can't spell.

Oh yeah, there was. I was just saying slavery existed in many forms, and a lot of it wasn't in the same form as was, say, in the history of the US.

[MiaOne]

Slavery is slavery I wouldn't want to be a slave during the early days of the U.S. nor would I want to be a slave to some Roman Emperor. It's all the same. Throughout history there have been good slave owners and bad ones...it really depends on the person and not the time period it took place in.

[Alunissage]

No, I don't think that's quite true. In Biblical times one could sell oneself into slavery in order to pay off a debt, I think, and it was for a fixed period of time. They also had rights and protection under the law, unlike slaves in the US.

Argh, why must my posts always fall right after page breaks?

[GhaleonOne]

Mine have been doing that a lot lately too. But yeah, that's what I was getting at on the slavery thing. Another example would be Jacob. He left Isaac's house, went north, and became a servant (or slave as it would have been) to the father of the daughter who he wanted to marry. Course, he got tricked, and was stuck being a "slave" for 14 years, as the story goes, but yeah, slavery existed in many forms. There was of course, the form of slavery we have know the best, in the US's history, but there were definately other forms of slavery.

[Kizyr]

You also forget the Mamelukes in the Ottoman Empire. Their legal status were slaves, but they held government positions and rose up the ranks of the military. Many (if not most or all... I forget) generals in the armed forces of the Ottoman Empire were Mamelukes.

With the Qur'an, I see pretty clearly the apparatus designed for the eventual wearing-away of slavery. Slavery was still around of course in 600AD. What the Qur'an allowed was for a slave to request his freedom, and if the owner knows him or her to be in good standing, then the slave is free to go. I'd have to go back to search for the particular verses, however. But what it allows is for an untenable system of slavery, where slaves can't really be 'kept' for a long period of time. That eventually allows for the dissolution of the institution of slavery with relative ease.

Also, freeing a slave could be counted as an act of charity, repayment of debts, or recompense for some other offense committed.

Anywho, back on the subject of gay marriage... I really thing Alunissage summed it up really well. Though, I don't have a personal problem with homosexuality, but I figure even if I did (on a religious basis), I do have a problem with many other things: alcohol, gambling, premarital sex, etc. I tolerate certain things to a certain degree, provided they don't interfere with the safety of others. That means, I won't stop my friends from drinking, but I will stop them from getting in a car afterwards, and I don't allow alcohol in my home.

Quite similarly, I don't really care if someone is gay, but I don't like a lot of the blatant sexuality in a lot of gay pride parades. Oh, and I really, really, despise the abuse of this issue to manipulate elections like was done last year. It's something I'd expect from no less than an evil genious. KF

[MiaOne]

Yeah, that is very true. I guess the word "slave" as become a more offensive word as the years and centuries have gone on. Which is the reason why I jumped to the idea that all slavery is evil.

Haha yeah my posts have been falling at the very end of pages recently for some unknown reason.

[NallOne]

I don't like a lot of the blatant sexuality in a lot of gay pride parades.

You aren't the only one. The group I was with at a recent Gay Pride parade actually up and left (and I went with them, as they were my ride) because they had decided to bring their children to the 'festivities', and were not expecting it to be quite as 'out there' as it was. It didn't really bother me that they had such things at the parade, but the fact that the couple I was with might not have been the only people to bring small children with them did. You'd think they would have a warning or something. Especially considering the parade in question when right through a residential area, so I'm sure it was open-view for plenty of other children.

[Pisces]

It's actually things like the stuff they put into the gay pride parades that make me uncomfortable and that distance me from the "gay community", so to speak. I really am not what most would consider a "typical" gay man. I mean, yes, I'm into more artistic stuff (blah, blah, blah..) but I just really don't do the whole gay "scene". I don't really go clubbing, I don't like to shop, and for those of you who know me personally, you all know I don't care at all about fashion or my hair or that sort of thing, in general. And I don't like techno music and etc etc etc.

Anyway...I get disgusted with the stuff they put into the pride parades, because it makes me feel like I'm supposed to claim to belong to some ridiculous, flaky "sect" of society. When in fact I just view my sexual orientation as my sexual orientation, not as some ridiculous class of the community. I don't really want to see people flaunting sex at a public parade, whether it's gay or straight or bi or tri or sideways or diagonal. Quite frankly, there's a lot of crap out there that pisses me off because it embarrasses me and makes people think that all homosexuals are screaming, attention-craving narcissists.

Okay, that's my rant on that topic.

[drumlord]

I don't really want to see people flaunting sex at a public parade, whether it's gay or straight or bi or tri or sideways or diagonal.

Personally I don't mind public displays of diagonal sex, but we'll have to agree to disagree there

[Ruby]

Here's a little related thread I thought you might find interesting.

http://www.cohguru.com/forum/showthread ... ge=1&pp=10

I'm sure you can all easily guess which poster is me.

[PrettyGirlJean]

WOW... I read most of that... that was some heated conversing! Thanks for sharing the link! Very interesting and educational! I can see the different sides to the discussion too, its unfortunate that it ended the way it did.

[Kizyr]

I was pretty certain that plenty of homosexuals felt the same way about the public displays of sexuality, no matter what the orientation of the participants / "publicists". Thanks for explaining that further, Eric and NallOne.

I see everything on equal footing... I do not want to see scantily-clad men parading in the streets, and I don't want to see scantily-clad women doing the same thing, I don't care about their orientation. Kissing I'm more lenient on; I'm indifferent if it's a guy and a girl, or two guys, 'cause I won't bother looking either way. If it's two girls, eh...

But, it's hard explaining that without folks thinking you're homophobic. Some will automatically assume that because you don't want to see a bunch of scantily-clad gay men in a parade that automatically you hate all gays. No, I don't hate gays, I hate seeing scantily-clad men parading about. There's a bloody difference. That makes as much sense as saying that I'm sexist because I refuse to go to strip clubs.

When in fact I just view my sexual orientation as my sexual orientation, not as some ridiculous class of the community.

Ok, I'm gonna go WAY off the subject of gay marriage and into the perception of homosexuality for a moment...

Lemme start with a comparison. In Japan, and I'm willing to wager in some ancient cultures like Greece or Rome, homosexual acts were to some extent normal. Not homosexuality per se, as we see it, but having feelings for someone of the same gender. Still, in Japan, many folks who are gay see it more as something they do, not who they are. In the US, by contrast, we see everything in terms of identity. You're gay, straight, or bi... you're black, white, or other... and that's who you are.

With viewing homosexuality as an identity, rather than something you do, a lot of things change. And it's really a cultural thing, why we see it that way. But, if everyone views it as an identity, it changes what we have to do about it. Furthermore, it really allows for discrimination on an entirely different leve--to hate someone for who they are, you have to hate their very identity.

By the way, I'm not saying that bigotry against homosexuals isn't real. I mean, I think race is a fictitious concept, but racism is still real (and a real problem). Bigotry against homosexuals is similar in certain regards; it just requires more effort to create an identity centered about who you're attracted to... Though, I don't think it's so necessary to create that identity. I mean, I'm quite attracted to redheads, I don't need to create an identity based on that.

Though, by the same token, there aren't a whole lot of people who think I'm going to hell because I find red hair attractive. Some differences, but not enough to where folks should get up-in-arms over an issue that's way to magnified already. KF