Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to MARRIAGE DOES NOT TRADITIONALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOD OR THE CHURCH
dylan, the norms are constructs
built around limited perceptions.
informed and educated perceptions tell us, just as they have told us that we have evolved from a lower species, that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation, just as is maleness and femaleness.
with this in mind, then we must recognize that homosexual partnerships can be as valid as heterosexual.
human laws restrict opportunities for homosexuals to live their lives as do heteros.
gays want to have partnerships, want to adopt and raise children, want the partner to have the same rights vis a vis property and children as heteros.
If there is nothing wrong with being gay, then gays should be given equal legal status as heterosexuals.
it should have nothing to do with relligious (and bias) based perceptions.
posted by
Xeno-x
on March 13, 2006 at 2:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-X and Kooka Lives,
I am not beholden to medieval norms. The burden of proof is on those who challenge long-standing norms, such as one man/one woman marriages.
We have to demonstrate why holding to such norms does not make sense in the present age, if it ever did.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on March 10, 2006 at 7:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, Dylan
The truth is that no matter how you look at the issue those against homosexual marriages have yet to present any real reasoning as to why they are wrong. I have yet to see any well thought out argument from their side that makes sense. The right seems to be afraid of homosexuals for some reason. More and more all logic and facts point homosexual marriages (Or unions if you really have trouble with that term) being a positive thing and all in all a healthy thing for society.
We have each presented a very definite argument here that the right truly can not dispute. The religious angle is not accurate, the moral angle is off and the ‘traditional’ B.S. has no real backing. All the right is doing is spitting out crap that actually does not agree with their claims.
posted by
kooka_lives
on March 10, 2006 at 11:09 AM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - the bible thumpers always crack me up on this issue
They are truly asking everyone else to live by a prescription that they have derived from their own holy book. It also doesn't seem to matter if they themselves are capable of maintaining the standards they ask of others. The Christian right defending the sanctity of marriage? Is there a bigger joke in modern day history than a group with the highest divorce rate of all identifyable groups on this planet attempting to act as guardians of an institution that they have led the way in FUBARing? Give us a break, we wouldn't ask blind people to teach us how to drive. Then there is the question of just what are people afraid of? 4% of the population is somehow going to dictate societal norms for the remainder?
posted by
gomedome
on March 10, 2006 at 9:33 AM
| link to this | reply
dylan
a great Irish poet (Go not gentle into that good night)
"when you say 'Dylan' he thinks you're talkin' 'bout Dylan Thomas. The man ain't got no culture!"
had to put that in there -- sorry.
Gays are responding to the fundies' contention that gay marriage will disrupt the "institution" of marriage. And I can see where it would bolster that "institution" -- legal gay marriage will cause more gays to be faithful to one person.
The culture beinbg for the most part underground, there is no "governance", and no "compass", so there is a lifestyle there of multiple partners, etc, which is quite destructive.
But let's not confuse "lifestyle" with orientation. The overwhelming evidence is that as homosexual sexual orientation comes from the same natural body chemicals and genetic sources as does maleness and femaleness.
The ting is, why should we accept a medieval concept ( I've got to do a blog on that)? This is like accepting much medieval religious thought, which was "developed" and not part of the "original" religious thought.
Much of what religion today gives us does not meet reality -- it resides in a superstitious past. We need a way of looking at the around that does deal with the realities of situations instead of a mythical "wishfulness".
posted by
Xeno-x
on March 10, 2006 at 8:09 AM
| link to this | reply
I agree with you as to the rights of gays, but I take a different path.
It may be true that some of the norms and beliefs that we consider traditional are not original to our species, but products of the Middle Ages. But for most of us, that is probably old enough. The Middle Ages were a long, long time ago. Norms established then, and surviving until the present, are bound to strike us as compelling.
I know from my study of Sociology and Psychology that polygamy is historically more common than monogamy, but that doesn't mean monogamy lacks a strong basis in our cultural traditions. As long as it has been the prevalent form of marriage for several hundred years in our nation and the nations sharing our traditions, that will be sufficient for most people to consider it a well-established norm.
The way gay-rights advocates are going about making their case actually embraces this. They argue that gay marriage will extend the personal and social benefits of monogamy to gay couples -- lifetime commitment to one person, raising children (albeit perhaps adopted ones, or artificially-created ones), etc. They make an essentially conservative argument for a liberal proposition, which strikes me as a pretty solid argument.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on March 9, 2006 at 11:41 AM
| link to this | reply