Gay marriage

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:17 am

Diuretic wrote: I've ruled out populism obviously. But I've allowed that a line should be drawn. That puts me in a difficult position. I have to seek refuge in superior thinkers.

Emile Durkheim said that we only understand normality by working out what's abnormal, if it's not abnormal then it must be okay* - and that gives us a bit of latitude. We know that some human societies permit polygamy. We also know that some societies (a very few) permit polyandry. If we examine those societies then we see there may be good reasons for those rules. For someone in a western society they are bizarre behaviours but in those societies they are the norm - they serve a purpose. I'd extend that a bit and ask if a certain behaviour does harm. If it does no harm then what's the problem? I will allow that the inquiry in to harm must be extensive though and not shallow.

I read somewhere where someone wanted to marry a dolphin. I think I just reached a Durkheimian limit at that point. I don't think it's possible for a human to "marry" an animal. I have my limits

But if we all agree that it's far too extreme to permit marriage between human and animal, then can't we agree that marriage between two humans is okay? And if a group of humans wish to marry isn't that okay? And if they wish to bring up children in a group marriage isn't that okay? I mean, will it do harm?

*Durkheim preferred to use the terms "deviant/non-deviant".

Touche, well said. It was a difficult position and I don't know the answer either. The "What harm is in it?" is a good start I think. I don't know about the deviant/non-deviant definition though, we're back to who get's define it.

I go along the lines that every case is an individual one in which each individual must ask him/herself "What is this for? Why am I doing this? If someone is not capable of asking this question society needs to step in. If someone can honeslty answer I mean to do harm then society needs to step in? It's not perfect either.

So we agree it's not up to "unwashed masses" (joking) to decide. :-6

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:24 am

Accountable wrote: I think some do choose. Physical appearance, abuse, or some other rejection from the home or "normal society" causes some to look anywhere for acceptance. The homosexual community seems to be more tolerant of the outcast and unaccepted. One finds love and acceptance where one finds it.
It was interesting to note that the cex change doctor was asked about Mark Karr wanting a sex change and he said he did not fit the criteria. He did not wear makeup or wear womens clothes so in his poinion he was not qualified to become a woman.

All fetuses begin life alike. During developement some recieve hormones that make the brain female or male. Later they get hormones that change the genitalia to be male or female and if everything does not happen right then the fetus can develope into a man with a female brain or vice versa. I think actually there are many animals born the same way but since they do not wear clothes or makeup or talk then we do not notice. I have seen female dogs and cats hump on males. I have seen dogs that just will not breed. I do not think its a matter of choice. Yes, a "male" can choose to hide his feelings and wear male clothes. And a female can wear dresses and hide her true self. But a male who dont really like females is not going to get aroused by a female.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:34 pm

Our nearest genetic relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, are fun to watch. Bonbobos use sexual contact as "social glue" and there's no restrictions on it. Same sex, opposite sex, young, old...everybody does it.

My point? It's NORMAL! It's in their genes. Same-sex behaviors have been seen in many other species, as you've said. Religion has always tried to separate "us" from the "animals" and I suspect the prohibitions against same-sex relationships originated there.

I've long believed that society tries to force us all into the HETEROSEXUAL mode and only recently have brave souls stood in the HOMOSEXUAL corner. But, the truth is that most of us probably fall somewhere in between.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:39 pm

There have also been human civilizations based around homosexuality. Shall we harken back to the golden age of Greece. Most of the guys in Athens had young boyfriends even the married ones. Aritsole? Plato? Probably bisexual. In the Spartan Army homosexulality was encouraged to strengthen the soldierly bonds.

Not my cup of tea but not for me to judge either..

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:23 pm

Lulu/Diuretic:-6

I am in agreement.

Diuretic, I know how you feel about religion and have no desire to revisit that but I would like to say that the church at centre left is in agreement with you.

Shalom'

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:26 pm

I am presently reading a book called "Other Voices Other Worlds" by Bishop Terry Brown of the Anglican communion. He is himself a gay person and his book is a composition of several writings from people around the world who are in favour of Durkeims position expressed by Diuretic.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:45 pm

Diuretic:-6

I understood where you were coming from and have absolutely no problem with it. The issue of rationalism as I expressed it was merely my opinion.

In further posts I was trying to point out simply that there are churches that are not as described realizing at the same time there are some. I find it a little disappointing when one uses a blanket description as if the churches were all the same.

At any rate, yes, your Roman Catholic friends ideas might have made for an excellent discussion. Very excellent discussion.

If you have read my other posts you will realize that I condemn no one for their views I just hope that when people point things out that they have it straight. I too must be careful. I was raised in a very staunch fundamentalist/literalist church and not all of the churches on the right are the same as the one I was raised in. But I have seen several that are.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:02 pm

Zinky, I was thinking about the Greeks/Romans, too. Those civilizations which influence us even to this day. Perhaps they understood human nature better than we do.

(Of course, they also had slaves.......):rolleyes:

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:23 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Zinky, I was thinking about the Greeks/Romans, too. Those civilizations which influence us even to this day. Perhaps they understood human nature better than we do.

(Of course, they also had slaves.......):rolleyes:

Well they were not hung up on sexuality like our culture is Lulu. We make everything in that venue a big deal and call attention to it instead of just letting people go their own way. Must be those Puritain roots at work. As you say they had slaves and that was messed up, but most ancient civilizations did.

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:32 pm

zinkyusa wrote: Well they were not hung up on sexuality like our culture is Lulu. We make everything in that venue a big deal and call attention to it instead of just letting people go their own way. Must be those Puritain roots at work. As you say they had slaves and that was messed up, but most ancient civilizations did.
I think even native Americans had slaves from other tribes. And in African tribes theree had slaves from other tribes. I read once that America was not the only destination of the slave trade. I expect it was far the largest market.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:59 pm

zinkyusa:-6

The present Christian attitude toward sexuality you can blame on Augustine. He had some rather wierd thoughts about it and those thoughts have had negative consequences ever since.

But cheers, it is changing slowly but it is changing.

I would agree with you.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:41 pm

Paul didn't help, either.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:31 pm

Lulu:-6

We have to learn to separate the authentic letters of Paul from those attributed to Paul, after his death, by followers of disciples of Paul. Paul is not quite as bad as some folks think because they fail to understand that it was an excepted prastice in those days to write under the name of the one you were following.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:36 pm

As good an excuse as any, I suppose. And who authenticates the 'real' ones? I have a real problem with anyone who tells me that we need to "interpret" certain passages of scripture in one way or another. It's either all genuine....or none of it is.

Either all of Leviticus is true...or none of it is.

Either the universe was created in six days....or none of it is true.

Either Noah found a way to collect two of all species, including koalas, bettongs, echidnas, Andean condors, guanacos, etc, and then return them to the areas where they'd previously lived....or none of it is true.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:46 pm

Lulu:-6

I can appreciate what you are saying. I too used to think like that. No one is trying to tell anyone how to interpret.

If you wish to understand the present scholarly views of the Bible you will have to do some reading and research. No one will tell you what or what not to believe.

The Bible itself is not a history book and was never intended to be read literally. It is a religious book written in a very particular style called midrash. Once you understand that then you begin to understand what the authors were trying to say. It is not a question of did this happen or did it not but what does it mean? When we get into the New Testament we need to consider what are the parables of Jesus and what are the Parables about Jesus. Do not misunderstand, Jesus was indeed an historical person.

Trying to judge an ancient document from the 21st cent. is not at all helpful. We need to read it with the eyes of an ancient Jewish writer and then as how does that apply to today.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:43 pm

Diuretic wrote: Accountable, you're not serious.

Jeez I would think any gay members at FG would be a bit ticked off at the use of a deficit model of sexuality.
I don't recognize the phrase, but I think I get the point. Lots of people get ticked off when they hear/read something they don't like. Doesn't make it less true. Hetero/homosexuality is not a switch thrown at inception, like male or female. If it were, why would kids be at all interested in experimentation?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:45 pm

Diuretic wrote: Who says that there is any link between legislating morality and gay marriage? Legislatures have always tried to legislate morality, usually as a result of moral panics. The minority, whoever it is at the time, are the ones who cop the sharp end of the stick when there's a frenzy of moralistic legislation. But they come and go.

How we define marriage deserves a little more than the usual populist response to the latest moral panic.

As for polygamy. Who the hell cares? Same for polyamory and polyandry. As long as (a) the adults are consenting and (b) any children produced are not abuse - psychologically or physically - then why should big brother society intervene? Just because I favour the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others doesn't mean that I should impose my views on anyone else.:yh_clap Well said!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:50 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Our nearest genetic relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, are fun to watch. Bonbobos use sexual contact as "social glue" and there's no restrictions on it. Same sex, opposite sex, young, old...everybody does it.

My point? It's NORMAL! It's in their genes. Same-sex behaviors have been seen in many other species, as you've said. Religion has always tried to separate "us" from the "animals" and I suspect the prohibitions against same-sex relationships originated there.

I've long believed that society tries to force us all into the HETEROSEXUAL mode and only recently have brave souls stood in the HOMOSEXUAL corner. But, the truth is that most of us probably fall somewhere in between.That complements my point nicely.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:17 am

TED " No one is trying to tell anyone how to interpret.

If you wish to understand the present scholarly views of the Bible you will have to do some reading and research. No one will tell you what or what not to believe.

The Bible itself is not a history book and was never intended to be read literally. It is a religious book written in a very particular style called midrash. Once you understand that then you begin to understand what the authors were trying to say. It is not a question of did this happen or did it not but what does it mean? When we get into the New Testament we need to consider what are the parables of Jesus and what are the Parables about Jesus. Do not misunderstand, Jesus was indeed an historical person.

Trying to judge an ancient document from the 21st cent. is not at all helpful. We need to read it with the eyes of an ancient Jewish writer and then as how does that apply to today."

+++++++++++++++++ I almost copied this statement into the "What's wrong with religion?" thread, but it's been beaten to death there. Sorry, Ted...if the bible wasn't meant to be read literally, it's been misrepresented for thousands of years and is still widely used against people of the same gender who fall in love and want to "legalize" their union.

I see it as a tool to generate homophobia, control human behavior and justify the power structure of organized religion.

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:10 am

Lulu2 wrote: TED " No one is trying to tell anyone how to interpret.

If you wish to understand the present scholarly views of the Bible you will have to do some reading and research. No one will tell you what or what not to believe.

The Bible itself is not a history book and was never intended to be read literally. It is a religious book written in a very particular style called midrash. Once you understand that then you begin to understand what the authors were trying to say. It is not a question of did this happen or did it not but what does it mean? When we get into the New Testament we need to consider what are the parables of Jesus and what are the Parables about Jesus. Do not misunderstand, Jesus was indeed an historical person.

Trying to judge an ancient document from the 21st cent. is not at all helpful. We need to read it with the eyes of an ancient Jewish writer and then as how does that apply to today."

+++++++++++++++++ I almost copied this statement into the "What's wrong with religion?" thread, but it's been beaten to death there. Sorry, Ted...if the bible wasn't meant to be read literally, it's been misrepresented for thousands of years and is still widely used against people of the same gender who fall in love and want to "legalize" their union.

I see it as a tool to generate homophobia, control human behavior and justify the power structure of organized religion.

I am not a bible scholar but I have read many parts of the bible several times and I really do have problems with lots of it. Especially the Noahs Ark thing. As you said it would be a monumental undertaking right now for one man to go across all the oceans and get two of each animal species and swim the ocean with elephants and anteaters etc. He had no ship yet. If he did then why did he need to build an Ark. IN addition I think it would be very hard to catch two of each species of shark and jelly fish and whale and bring them inside the Ark. Or did they just stay in the water as they had before. It would take a huge aquarium to hold all the sea creatures. As well as he built the Ark I doubt he was capable of that.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:06 pm

Lulu:-6

You are in part correct that the Bible has been misused by many for their onw ends.

Interpretation at any point in time includes many factors: history, culture, belief systems, fund of knowledge accumulated, thought processes, conceptualization ability, understanding of writing style etc. These all change as society grows older or is it better to say exists longer and longer.

This is what makes it so hard to judge in hindsight. I will include all of those factors in one word, viewpoint. The viewpoint is contsantly changing and thus our interpretation and our attemp to apply ancient wisdom to today will of necessity change as our understanding change.

This is not to say God, if one believes He exists, changes but our perceptions change based on our viewpoint. Now I happen to believe in the experiential reality of God but do not want others to necessarily believe as I do. I present the view of very scholarly folks, as I have come to believe, but any religious faith is a personal matter

I can present a viewpoint that has satisfied me personally. Others can take it or leave it or incorporate it as they choose.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:08 pm

Okie:-6

There is some history in the Bible but precious little. However, truths can be presented in many ways. Generally see the Bible as midrash or parable with kernels of history spread throughout. Wisdom can be taught in many ways.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:13 pm

We can't in good conscience use Biblical guidelines to govern a secular society made up of myriad religions, athiests, agnostics, and apathists. It's against the Bible.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:27 pm

It is?

Then howcome fundamentalists want to use Christian "morality" to deny same-sex marriages?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:29 pm

Accountable:-6

There are some fundamental spiritual beliefs that underly all of the great faiths of the world. These basic fundamentals are used as part of our legal system: Jusice, the admonition to do no murder etc.

I would agree with you that nothing above those basic tenets should be used in any society as the basis for laws.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:38 pm

Ted wrote: Accountable:-6

There are some fundamental spiritual beliefs that underly all of the great faiths of the world. These basic fundamentals are used as part of our legal system: Jusice, the admonition to do no murder etc.

I would agree with you that nothing above those basic tenets should be used in any society as the basis for laws.

Shalom

Ted:-6Yeh, I thought it was pretty funny too.

*sluffs off to find a crowd in a better mood*

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:02 pm

(Wait! I'll go with you! Wanna' get a beer?)

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:03 pm

Chris wrote: Because, these arguments are secular.

Some of us believe in the sacred nature of marriage. (It appears that our numbers are dwindling.)

At last I have found someone in this debate that I can agree with!

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:13 pm

Accountable wrote: We can't in good conscience use Biblical guidelines to govern a secular society made up of myriad religions, athiests, agnostics, and apathists. It's against the Bible.

Most religions apply a fairly standard moral code. If the Bible hadn't given us the ten commandments, we would have invented them anyway.

woppy71 · Post by **woppy71** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:14 pm

If you love someone, does it really matter?

William Ess · Post by **William Ess** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:13 pm

Lulu2 wrote: It is?

Then howcome fundamentalists want to use Christian "morality" to deny same-sex marriages?

It has nothing to do with religion. Many people find the idea of homosexuality disgusting and believe that to equate it with a proper relationship is a nonsense. I would prefer to turn the clock back 100 years in that respect.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:06 pm

William Ess wrote: It has nothing to do with religion. Many people find the idea of homosexuality disgusting and believe that to equate it with a proper relationship is a nonsense. I would prefer to turn the clock back 100 years in that respect.

well then, by all means, don't enter into a homosexual relationship with someone.

disgust at what some do with their lives is immaterial however, if they are not harming others by their actions.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:15 pm

"If the Bible hadn't given us the ten commandments, we would have invented them anyway."

++++++++++++ People DID invent them! People've been writing rules for as long as there's been writing and before that, when the shaman announced with GREAT AUTHORITY what the new rules would be!

Luckily, we no longer think it's a sin to eat lobster or wear clothing of mixed fabrics or work on "the sabbath" or burn offerings of inferior quality or to spill our "seed" on the ground.

Luckily, too, most of us have broken out of the idea that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" and that DECENT PEOPLE aren't gay!

Those of us who haven't may stand back and quietly think their condemning thoughts. Makes no nevermind WHAT you think...

woppy71 · Post by **woppy71** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:23 pm

As far as I am concerned, the word "gay" dosn't mean anything to me.

If two people, of whatever sex, want to be with each other, then so what?

Who are we "normal" people to question what other people get up to?

Are we perfect? It's arrogant presumption at best, and it makes my blood boil!!:-5

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:25 pm

(Thanks, Woppy, Dear!)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:33 pm

woppy71 wrote: As far as I am concerned, the word "gay" dosn't mean anything to me.

If two people, of whatever sex, want to be with each other, then so what?

Who are we "normal" people to question what other people get up to?

Are we perfect? It's arrogant presumption at best, and it makes my blood boil!!:-5Which is why I think the gov't should erase all definition and reference of marriage from its books. It's not a legislative thing.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:12 pm

MAKE A NOTE, PLEASE! NOTE THE DATE! Accountable and lulu agree on something! :-2

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:17 pm

on september 13,2006 lulu and accountable agreed on soemthing!!!

hows that lu?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:23 pm

Lulu2 wrote: MAKE A NOTE, PLEASE! NOTE THE DATE! Accountable and lulu agree on something! :-2*scribble, scribble*

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:24 pm

Thanks, Gupperita.....I expect poor Accountable's picking himself up off the floor.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:34 pm

been drinking gubberitias again accountable?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:50 pm

He's stunned and speechless. (I rather LIKE it this way, don't you?)