 |
|
Reply
| |
 Hey Folks, I've been debating posting this, but after talking to a friend about it last night... he brought up some interesting points... much that I agreed with. So it has made me curious as to your take on things. I am of the opinion that same sex marriages should not be denied simply on the grounds that it is a blatant infringement on the basic human rights of love and liberty. The freedom to pursue love is something to be upheld, not chained with gender qualifers... especially in this day & age when population reproduction no longer carries the onus it once did. Modern medicine and world wide over-population has blunted the inssestant maxium to go forth and multiply. Marriage is not just for survival, status, alliance, or convience...its supposed to be about love. I believe that by removing the barrier of gender from love and happiness (ideally) we as a race have broken yet another link in the chain of our own oppression ... and the suppression of one another. Religion & Politics should not dictate or disallow the freedom of choice, they should instead guard and uphold the sanctity of a loving union. I know that there are many that do not feel as I do and for various reasons feel that same sex marriage is not a wise precedent to set ... I however must applaud this new evolution of society and sincerely hope it is a step into a brighter future. |
|
|
Reply
| | From:  imbas1 | Sent: 2/9/2005 1:44 PM |
Red, you're listening to Christian talk show, and you get aggravated at the discussion? Isn't that a bit like getting aggravated that Dorothy finds the scarecrow before the tinman? Talk shows exist to sell advertising. Controversy draws a crowd. Crowds hear advertising. But it's not all that difficult to see how extremist Moslems got to the 'just kill 'em all' stand is it? I mean at what point does the rest of society just say to the fundamentalists, enough of your fantasies, your bible is as fictional as the rest of your religion, thus your opinion is worth less than what I flushed this morning. Too extreme? Sorry. I'll spell it out for you. M O N E Y. Gay marrage is tied up in the money. No-one cares if you live together, but getting married means tax and insurance costs, that the establishment see's spiraling out of control quickly. (Cost rising for all that Aids and HIVstuff, means less magement bonuses!) Republicans in office, means the big money controls the government, thus, roll out the preachers. No average person, of an IQ over 100 gives two shakes about gay marrage, unless the money issue is factored in. Freedom and equality in Every country is an illusion based largely on the whims of a ever changing societal base. Love your neighbor, but keep the rifle handy. And Nox...that's just silly saying you don't like children! Why, they taste just like chicken! (muttering, check, read over, yes, appears i've attacked everything sufficiently, this should ruffle a nice cross section.....now, a bit of maniacal laughter.......well, Red can blow it away if it's too much.....) |
|
Reply
| |
Red, you're listening to Christian talk show, and you get aggravated at the discussion? Isn't that a bit like getting aggravated that Dorothy finds the scarecrow before the tinman? lol... actually Imbas, I like Micheal Coren and forgave him his religious views long ago. He's a very good speaker and usually hosts excellent debate panels...He admits his bias when confronted with an oppositional view without resorting to belittling or ridiculous commentary. I was even a phone in speaker a couple years ago... can you imagine that?! LOL Granted he isn't always Mr Niceguy... but maybe thats why I usually enjoy his shows. Sorry. I'll spell it out for you. M O N E Y. I agree...isn't it always? muttering, check, read over, yes, appears i've attacked everything sufficiently, this should ruffle a nice cross section.....now, a bit of maniacal laughter.......well, Red can blow it away if it's too much.....) Nah, your good to go, lol Kudos to the victorious sasquatch!... wonder if Micheal would take you guys on :o) |
|
Reply
| |
Merry Meet and Blessings to all, First I would like to take the opportunity to thank Red for being this topic to the group. Now on to my comments: Oppression and fear is the thing that motivates this continued hate. I as a African American Lesbian have heard ALL the arguments and been victim of some pretty vicious comments as well. The thing that I realize it that our society is full of people who cry morality--but as evidenced in history there is nothing moral about oppression. Look at the treatment of Native Americans (My greatgrandmother), and then we can move over to African American Slavery, then to the Jewish Holicaust. There were basically the same arguments...words like unnatural, immoral, savage.......on and on. We have gotton so far away from the loving nature inheirent of our beings to the hateful purist and hypocritical society that we have become. Let me say this: There is no stopping same sex marriage--there are temporary set backs but eventually--like freeing the slaves, it will happen. First I guess one must understand, that if you allow people to love who they chose and demystify this then people will accept us and allow us to be. You can't use christanity to fight this battle because Christanity is not an old enough religion. There have been gays around since the beginning of time, look to our Androgenous Angels, and Goddessess for more validity. For me, I don't ask you to understand why I am gay, I only ask that you allow me and the person whom I chose to love to have the same benefits that other married couples do. Actually when I look at some marriages I wonder if people really believe the stuff they spout. There are so many failed marriages, and dysfuncional children. Wife battering, child abuse...these things dont come from US Immorals, it comes from those supposedly normal folks....kinda makes you wonder. I was raised by a single mom and she did a wonderful job with me. She produced a loving, compassionate and gifted person. I have raised two children (the results of inheriting them in relationships) and they are beautiful whole and healthy people. I have served my Country At War and made a significant mark on my community. Some of the children that come from homes where they had two "normal" parents have soo many issues that they can't enjoy thier lives. I facilitate a group for depressed and bipolar people and have worked with all the other groups like: AA, NA, CA, and OA. The people I see in these groups span the gamaut but the majority of them are Non-Gay...again it makes one wonder. The arguments don't make sense. The don't stand up. The one thing that is for sure, it is about fears. I chose this lifestyle there was no outside influence that made me this way--the children I raised are both straight (go figure). So it not about us pushing our beliefs off on someone else or our children being influenced by the way we love. Lets heal the rift, and allow each and every being to be who they are. Please let me love who I chose and marry who I please. Thank you again for bringing this topic to the forum. |
| |
Reply
| |
I agree with everything you've said, Winged... it IS about suppression, and Wanduring is also right... it is about hypocrisy.. love is love, to deny it from a religious base is just another tool of creating a breach in the heart of humanity. I agree, the morality issue doesn't make sense and its not a stable arguement ... however, the fear is understandable... its what the majority have been conditioned to accept from childhood. Most of society has grown up in an Us or Them mentality... I can say with honesty that I did not, in fact, had I ever made a discriminating distinction towards anyone in my mothers hearing the roof was going to come down. One can only hope that as the years move onward enlightenment will continue to grow and spread its light. Blessings, Red |
|
Reply
| | | From: imbas1 | Sent: 2/11/2005 2:52 PM |
"We have gotton so far away from the loving nature inheirent of our beings to the hateful purist and hypocritical society that we have become." "Most of society has grown up in an Us or Them mentality" Can anyone identify ANY human society from ANY period in time that was inheirently loving, or that wasn't a Us vrs. Them mentality??? I cannot. Perhaps, in very small social groups, any behaivor can be accepted that is not seen to be affecting safety. But in a large society, there has always been people who feel they know what is best and go to any extreme to get it. It will take a business proposition to affect this issue short term. Come up with a way to make gay marrage profitable to the insurance companies and the government and "religous" or "moral" objections will fade away like dry leaves in a wind. I do agree that over time, as the global society becomes more homogenized, there is a chance that gay marrage will be eventually accepted and forgotten as an issue. Depends on the times. In times of war, fearing people, become god fearing people. Then, they look for reasons that their god is angry with them. Like weathermen before a big storm, priests and preachers are only too happy to point them in your direction. Unfortunately for homosexuals, there are a lot of homophobic writers in religous texts. (Of course, homosexuals are older than Christianity! There wouldn't be mentions of it in the bible, (old testament) otherwise.) Having been married once, I'm not sure what those benefits are that you speak of Winged, but that's just me....... But as far as I'm concerned, you or any other person wants to get married, I have no problem with it at all. What your or anyone else's sexuality is, or any other personal business, is no business of mine. I have enough to do without bothering with other people's business! |
|
Reply
| | | From: sæskwač | Sent: 2/11/2005 3:04 PM |
Can anyone identify ANY human society from ANY period in time that was inheirently loving, or that wasn't a Us vrs. Them mentality??? There is good reason for this lack, as well, and it is wrapped up in the word "society". Societies are inherently defined by their differences from other societies, and often moral rules are based on codes of conduct that are more or less agreed upon by the members of society. Therefore "us" refers to members of "our" society, often those who agree with "our" moral codes, and "them" refers to "their" society, those who don't follow "our" moral codes. Societies are a cultural construct that most probably had some use in the biological fitness-based evolution of our species, but in the process of this evolution we have created these parasitical social constructs "society" and "culture" which weaken us as a race, but seem to be more powerful than us, to the point that every victory we score over them (women's rights, racial integration, animal rights, gay rights, what have you) comes only at the cost of the most tremendous hard work and sweat by those who are oppressed by those parasitical social constructs. -- sæskwač |
|
Reply
| |
Alright gentlemen... I concede the court to you both on my rather loose comment ... "Most of society has grown up in an Us or Them mentality" You are of course quite correct in both statements. <bows.... and leaves before any sharp pointy things appear> |
|
Reply
| |
The thing of it to me more than anything comes down to an "I", "Us", and "them" perspective. This is inherent in all societies and is typical of humans and many animals. You could even think of it in terms of individual, pack, and prey. I don't necesarrily consider these moors and taboo to necessarily be parasitical in nature, more times than not they are more symbiotic and necessary for the survival of this or that species/subgroup. First off, the individual has only himself to think of. He can devise any system of survival that suits his style and path. This can all be done without thought for anything or anyone but him<her>self. It is very easy for an individual to reach a state of equilibrium with his<her> enviorment to live out a fairly decent life. You can see examples of this of various individuals that have been stranded in the great wildernesses <perspectively> around the world. But this is only true when not having to deal with other peoples. The more people in the equation, the harder it is to acheive that equilbrium. One reason for this is that it is easy with a group of people for an individual to become "them". With the "us" or pack <herd, gaggle, covey, pride...or any other subgrouping of critters> it is a bit harder to acheive a state of balance because you have various ideas to achieve survival. Generally speaking the group will form a set of core ideals and follow those ideals. These ideals are necesarry for survival for the group. Without a form of harmony within the group, you swiftly have a break up of the group and either becomeing a bunch of individuals doing what they can to survive, or two groups forming and going off on thier own way. Within a limited resource scenario this can be quite badand natural selection tending to say who gets what. what also forms because of this schism is the "them" or prey denotation. If you are not part of the group, then you are against them or seen as a resource to be preyed upon. Once again natural selection being what decides which group will be the victor. You can see this throughout nature and it is a very valid arguement for having various social biases. This being not an arguement about moral right, but rather an arguement about the necessity of having unity within a group to insure survivability. Through unity you have strength. Now this may or may not have biological standing, I don't know for sure. In essence whenever you have a society collapse it is because of the differences between one group and another fighting to survive. Once again this is not about moral right<though many tend to cloud the issue with that>, but rather about survival of a group. When survival of you and yours comes into play moral right can be tossed out the window ina hurry else you die. Think about it a bit, you may not agree it is right but you know that it is what happens. |
|
Reply
| |
Think about it a bit, you may not agree it is right but you know that it is what happens What you say is indeed biological history and in some eras it was vital that survival be assured through traditional lines and ideologies of the culture. For a very long time mankind survived plagues, disasters, famines and other issues ...by its tenacious grip and ability to reproduce in large numbers. However for the last hundred years or more, modern man has not had the same vulnerabilities which has allowed us the opportunity to reach past the basic survival mentality into a bit more of an enlighten realm. Now the most dangerous enemy to mankind outside of nature is ourselves ... break the chains of oppression we have laid upon each other in the name of survival is the hardest task yet. I think that at this point in an overpopulated, resource strapped and poisoned world ... condeming love in the name of survival is outdated and irrelevant. |
|
Reply
| |
That's the same thing I was thinking. While many gays and lesbians may choose to have children in various ways other than adoption,the current rise in homosexuality (not just in those publicly "coming out" but those being born gay) can be viewed as an evolutionary population control. If you want to talk about instinct and survival, we all know this planet is dying at the base animal level and at the highest spiritual awareness and that a great contributor to this death is the sheer mass humanity The whole "procreation" demand of the Christians is outdated and contributing to our downfall. |
|
Reply
| |
<For a very long time mankind survived plagues, disasters, famines and other issues ...by its tenacious grip and ability to reproduce in large numbers.> I ask you this, was it the ability to reproduce in large numbers? Or rather the ability to work together in large numbers to over come the enviorment? There are many animals that reproduce in large numbers yet still very few survive. Man doesn't reproduce in large numbers compared to many species, or most I would say. It is our longer lifespan and ability to adapt, and also our ability to work together and develop tools which allow us to live longer and with more ease than most animals. <However for the last hundred years or more, modern man has not had the same vulnerabilities which has allowed us the opportunity to reach past the basic survival mentality into a bit more of an enlighten realm.> Have we really truly reached past the basic survival mentality? Look at the vast majority of mankind and how we interact with one another. We are still using those same basic survival skills that we have used for ages. What has changed? The stimulus of the enviorment is what has changed. With the technological advancements we have merely adapted those same skills to the enviorment. That is something we as humans are VERY good at. You look at history and compare it to present and you see that man hasn't changed all that much. We have merely replaced magic and divine with science. Alot is still faith-based. Those same questions that humans have wondered for years are still unanswered. <Now the most dangerous enemy to mankind outside of nature is ourselves > I agree, but this has been the case for many thousands of years. From earlies times you find the mass graves of massacres of whole villages and communities. While they may not have have the ability to render the earth uninhabitable as we have now, you can easily see the escalation of violent ability throughout known history. There is no period that you find mankind living in harmony with another, if anything it has gotten worse with the larger population. You have the same groups fighting over the same turf over and over, but on a larger scale with a much more terrifying ability. Without a complete change of human spirit and thought process globally you will not see an end to this violence. It is the nature of man to strive against one another. Those that rise above this nature swiftly are overrun by their more warlike neighbors. You can not be a pacifist in this world without either choosing to die, or allowing others to protect you. In the first you are swiftly forgotten, in the latter you end up ignored and if that pacifism is allowed to grow those that protect you will end up supporting your growth to thier own downfall. Examples are seen throughout history (Rome, Tibet, etc). Is really still just a large scale version of natural selection. <break the chains of oppression we have laid upon each other in the name of survival is the hardest task yet. > Oppression comes in many forms. Should we free the convicted murderers, rapists, thieves, or various other people that we view as anti-social individuals? Is that not also oppression? Where is the line between social and anti-social behavior? You could say it is where your rights end and mine begin. But you go through life oppressing people regardless of intent. Through your very existance you take from others. The strong survive (btw stength comes in many forms. Intelligence, money, physical ability, charisma are all forms of strength...or force would perhaps be a better term> and take the resources from those that are weaker. Who decides what is social or anti-social behavior? The group with the most power, be it king, president, people, religion, etc etc etc. <I think that at this point in an overpopulated, resource strapped and poisoned world ... condeming love in the name of survival is outdated and irrelevant.> Damn straight! Is gross stupidity at best. So how do you solve this? I personally have no answer. Is something I get livid when I see someone attacked for thier way of life without what I perceive as just cause. As Terry Goodkind once wrote," people are stupid they often believe what they want to believe." So how do you remove self-imposed stupidity? I have no answer. |
|
Reply
| | | From: sæskwač | Sent: 2/13/2005 12:58 PM |
I don't necesarrily consider these moors and taboo to necessarily be parasitical in nature, more times than not they are more symbiotic and necessary for the survival of this or that species/subgroup. You are not going to convince me that somehow telling homosexuals they can't marry each other is necessary for anybody's survival. Now, it may be necessry for the survival of "the subgroup", meaning the subculture/society of anti-homosexual conservatives, but this is exactly my point...the survival of these traditional subgroups and subclasses has become more important than either the good of the species, or the good of the individuals in it...I think that to some extent the world would be a better place if we could abolish such arbitrary (and I'm not saying they arose arbitrarily, they may have once served a good purpose, but now are nothing but archaic leftovers) subgroups and subclasses. One reason for this is that it is easy with a group of people for an individual to become "them". This is true, but one of the reasons that it's so easy is that most people are brought up in an environment that separates "us" from "them" without also being taught that the superficial differences that separate "us" from "them" are not nearly as deep or meaningful as the similarities that make us all, essentially, the same. You can see this throughout nature and it is a very valid arguement for having various social biases...Through unity you have strength. It's not a valid argument for keeping things the way they are, it's only an excuse for why things are the way they are at the present time. Just because such social biases may have been necessary for survival as a species in the past doesn't mean that they still are necessary. Through unity you have strength, yes, but these arbitrary social distinctions are the very basis of the disunity of the human race as a whole. Once again this is not about moral right<though many tend to cloud the issue with that>, but rather about survival of a group. When survival of you and yours comes into play moral right can be tossed out the window ina hurry else you die. Think about it a bit, you may not agree it is right but you know that it is what happens. What we are discussing is about moral right, though. Or rather, moral wrong, and the immorality involved in oppressing a people (in this case the populations of homosexuals in general), which has nothing to do with the survival of a group, it has nothing to do with survival, I repeat, nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with survival. Right. Now the most dangerous enemy to mankind outside of nature is ourselves ... Heh heh, I think you give nature too much credit...in my opinion mankind is a more dangerous enemy to itself than even nature is. While many gays and lesbians may choose to have children in various ways other than adoption,the current rise in homosexuality (not just in those publicly "coming out" but those being born gay) can be viewed as an evolutionary population control. Hmm...interesting concept, but I don't know if I buy it. I'm willing to bet that the proportion of people being born gay is about the same as it ever was, and that it just seems like it's happening more because it has become more socially acceptable to express it. I also think that more people are choosing that path (not necessarily being born that way) because it is more of an option now than it was historically. Have we really truly reached past the basic survival mentality? I don't think that Red's point was that we have progressed beyond the basic survival mentality, I think the point is that there is no "survival" reason that we shouldn't. Let me know if I mistake you, Red. Is really still just a large scale version of natural selection. Unfortunately I have to agree with this point. Natural selection still holds nowadays, and it is a fact that the genes that will be passed on are the genes that are passed on (it's a simple tautology!). As long as there is an imbalance between those "enlightened few" who care about the earth, the environment, and humanity in general, and those "breeders" who survive well and have lots of babies, it is those genes that will continue to be passed on. I do see light at the end of the tunnel, though, and that light is in the form of cultural and technological evolution...I believe that cultural and techonological evolution can outstrip biological evolution in such a way that enlightened ideas can be spred despite our genes determination to stop it, and a balance may, some day, come into existence. The strong survive (btw stength comes in many forms. Intelligence, money, physical ability, charisma are all forms of strength...or force would perhaps be a better term> and take the resources from those that are weaker. But what if the strong work to bring about a more equitable distribution of those resources? It may be a pipe dream, and not very probable (hell, a lot of well intentioned communists tried to bring it about, and look at how well that worked in the USSR and China, for example...), but in my opinion, it's still a worthy goal to strive for, and a much better attitude than admitting defeat and sitting on the couch declaring "life is shit, live with it." So how do you solve this? Heh heh, in the words of the great Ben Jahrvi, "You have hit the nail right between the eyes." The problem I see is that the solution begins on an individual level, and people are not willing to work on their individual problems...and really, there's nothing you can do to solve the problems in the world if you aren't willing to first tackle the problems at home. Work dilligently to identify those parts of your life that are unnecessarily harmful to others, and work to remove them from your life as much as is possible, to minimize the harm you are causing others. Share your individual battles with others, show them by example that it is, indeed, possible to overcome the hurdles that life puts in our way. Work your way up and gradually share your experience with more and more people...most people won't care, but the more people who go through this process, the more people who will be touched. But it will never work if we are hypocritical, and not willing to change in our own lives what we are asking others to change in there, and that is, by far, the hardest challenge to meet.  |
|
Reply
| |
I feel I must take part in this discussion.... I am a woman of nearly 57 years of age. I have been married twice and in one marriage I was a battered wife. The second marriage was beautiful...to a kind and gentle soul; we had 4 children together and shared many tender moments in our love. But I am a woman who loves women and when I was growing into my womanhood, those times were not so accepting. I walked paths that were confusing and went in many different directions floundering around in my strangeness. Then in my middle years a woman came into my life and all of a sudden I came alive again...I lit up ....I had been a beacon that had forgotten how to shine. I could not deny myself any longer...I would not deny myself any longer. One of my daughters who was then 15 began to come out of herself at the same time and much to my delight and total amazement was like myself. She was freely bringing her girlfriend home and I found myself living in the amazement of it all. The wings that once were so clipped now were beginning to open and getting ready for flight. From then on I could not go back into my cage...a guilded cage is still a cage and there is not room for flight. My hubby was as tender as always and when I cried before him and told him of my delema...he cried with me and we once again bonded in our special kind of love. This day...the present time....I have just come out of a long term relationship with a woman who was not compatable with myself. She, infact has her own inward struggles. She is a Christian and gay...this for her is a terrible circumstance and she cannot quite connect the two. So in her pain and fear she strikes out in anger and with abuse. But all of this is leading up to the subject of whether I think same sex marriage is ok and should be acceptable. Of course I do....why should love be denied in it's purest form. We are simply physichal beings dwelling on the earth plane. The bigger picture is that we are souls on a journey of love and learning and love knows absolutely no boundaries. The borders that are there are often erected by ourselves and I baffle at how easily we erect them because in the long run they are so hard to tear down. We, as spiritual loving ones connected to the greatest of Loving Souls should, in my thoughts, remember who we are and where we have come from. Sex is not the main issue for the one conscious of their spirituality..it is an enhancement to that walk. What counts is the walk itself and who accompanies us. We are indeed, each of us on a mystical journey of connection and if a human soul brings love into our lives, no matter what skin they are wearing then acceptance of that gift will bring a beautiful reward. I hope that I have not gone on too long but I just felt that I wanted to share with you how I feel as a member of this group and now I have totally come out to you...I feel the freedom of showing you my soul self and ....I thank-you for hearing me. In love and light may your journey be peaceful....fern |
|
Reply
| | | From: imbas1 | Sent: 2/14/2005 3:07 PM |
This discussion is very obviously one that strikes some sort of nerve in this group. 36 posts to date! And, I am glad to see no hostile ramblings, in fact, I believe that the consensus is 100% or very close that gay marriage should be allowed. But, (there's always a but eh?), the point isn't whether people should be allowed to love whomever they want. It's about a legal arrangement called marriage. You may see legal unions, the legal equivalent of marriage offered up as a compromise solution. And by the way, the religious opposition doesn't seem to mind the civil union nearly as much as sharing the term marriage. So is it strictly a moral argument? Obviously not. If the argument was strictly moral, would the alternative 'civil union' be offered? I believe the religious opposition has basically come in opportunistically. The Christian right before Sept.11, was said to be DOA. The press was writing off the religious right and the acceptance of all things was progressing. Since 9/11, the religious right has pressed the point voraciously that America was being punished by 'God' for it's moral transgressions. Thus, we end up with this moron in the highest office in the country and basic hard fought for ideals falling by the wayside. Like Winged Light Carrier said, the time will come, eventually the morons will again be pushed back......but it won't be in the next 3 years, I'll guarantee that. |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First
Return to Discussions