Keep on keepin on. We've missed you for some time. Patrick LA |
I realize im preaching to the choir on this matter. Im just baffled that so many evangelical people in this country think gays can do any more to the institution that straights havent already done. Moreover, where's the seperation of chuch and state is in this matter? Like abortion, this is such a non-issue. I woke up Saturday and found my supreme boss on NPR with Dan Savage of Savage Love talking about the issue. He made a good point. In the 50s and 60s, when gay culture & rights were starting to really brew in modern American society, everyone wanted gays to normalize. Now, when they try and normalize, they are denied. it doesnt make any sense. Go gays. Go San Francisco. Go on with your marrying bad ass selves. Drag this motherfucking red herring all the way to the Supreme Court of the moral minority insists on it. |
i'm excited. all it is going to take is one state to legalize gay marriage and have it test through to the supreme court of the state. that will legalize gay marriage throughout the land. any contract from any state has to be recognized in all other 49. |
amazing act of protest, well orchestrated....god i hope this means change is in the air. |
but i also think the state shouldn't have anything to do with what is essentially a religious institution unless it's made available to everyone. i mean, what the fuck? are we gonna see baptism or confirmation licences? are we gonna have <generic rite of passage> tax breaks or something? look, you wanna get married -- go for it. you wanna pretend it's some big, holy deal -- knock yourself out. you wanna make it into some special, state-validated, social status construct -- make it available to everyone or fuck off. |
i meant the other way around. |
and obviously it's more of an equal rights thing. gays should be able to do what everyone else has the right to do, even if it is something as "dorky" as marriage. |
i think the best thing would be for the gov't to get out of the business of marriage or call it something else. let the churches keep the word. |
the religious interpretations of marriage, what it means et al. that crap that has nothing to do with it. the minute some motherfucker starts quoting scripture about how marriage should be between a man and a woman, the conversation is over. civics, legalities and finanace. thats all it is. dave, you and agatha joined according to the state right? |
|
not every state has common law marriage statutes. I know this because my mom and stepdad, though never married, are not considered an item by the state of NC despite being together for nearly 25 years. i dont know how they have their finances and whatnot sorted out. they are both employed so healthcare is of their own. but eventually it could become an issue as one or the other looks to retire...most likely my mom at first. the fact they arent married no one really knows how to designate my stepdad (i just made the decision sometime ago to desginate him as this even though i call him by his first name, as he's been in my life since i was 5,6 years old.) and it was brought to light recently when the obituary for my grandpa was being drawn up. He was left off the obituary, not because the family wanted him off, but the funeral home was confused as to who he was. small potatoes for sure but my mom was pissed considering he was a pall bearer. her point was, 'do you have to have a title to be a part of this family?' our response was 'no, of course. *WE* all consider him family, but when get in the public realm it gets fucking tricky and not everyone outside this family is privy to the situation, so dont be upset when shit like this happens.' i used to be all anti marriage and shit. thinking it a shitty institution i wanted nothing to do with but then i realized it was more about, me and my wife, than anyone else. my marriage is not institutional. what everother married couple has done or hasnt done, will have little bearing on mine. |
thus it is with marriage. fight for the rights, not the title. let the bigots keep the word. maybe then someday scouts and marriage will become dirty words like racism and bigotry and they'll have no one to blame except themselves. |
|
|
|
1) for the definition of marriage to exclude gays 2)for an alternative, "gay-friendly" civil union thing to take it's place, and 3)for all the multitudes of straight, married people who think the whole thing is ridiculous to get divorced and then re-unite under the new civil union thing. that would leave all the remaining married people exposed as the dirtbags they are. |
|
And I don't care how much they say, Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin. If the sinners want to practice the sin, then the two become sort of inseparable in the mind and actions of people. Any grounds on which hetero is construed as normal, and homosexuality as devient, the institutions which spring from that |
|
|
|
Heterosexuality *is* normal. Most people are heterosexual, therefore it's the norm. Most people on the planet have dark hair, therefore it's the norm and having blonde or red hair is not the norm. Again, hate is not inherent to this understanding. The hate comes when you place a moral judgment on being abnormal, and even then it's not a necessity. Most people don't mutilate themselves, and I think self-mutiliation is unhealthy and wrong, but I don't hate the people who do it. Hate only comes when you want to hate, and you'll find any excuse to do that. Notice the lack of outcry over stupid celebrity 24-hour marriages, or the number of chapels in Las Vegas, or whatever. The people decrying gay marriage so violently don't really care about the sanctity of marriage or else they'd be all over these heterosexual abominations of the sanctity of marriage, too -- they just want an excuse to hate on gay people. |
|
|
|
To put it another way, if we had a better society, gays could get married with no fuss, and two people of the same sex getting married woudl be considered "normal" - even though gay marriages would still be a minority of the whole population of marriages. |
ie. The majority of Americans dont own the Outkast album. But I'd say owning an OutKast album is quite normal. another issue revolving around union/marriage. If a gay person is in the hospital, because gays cant marry, their partner doesnt get the kind of access to that person that a straight person would with their spouse. beh. To me a lot of rightwingers lost their 'sanctity of marriage' argument when Britney got married/divorced. I didnt see any real outcry there, I didnt see O'Reilly boycotting her sponsors, I didn't see near enough from them. I dont think they really believe in the 'sanctity', its like has been said, its institutionalized hate and/or fear. Another argument that bothers me is "people get married to have a family, gays cant procreate therefore no gay marriage" What about all the couples that dont want kids? And besides, I have never, EVER, heard a wedding vow that ever mentioned kids. |
people don't want gays to get married because they can't procreate, and marriage is apparently just for making kids. We have to only bless unions that can create kids! So their logic would have us believe: "Hi! I'm gay! I want to get married!" "Oh crap, i can't get married if i'm gay." "Guess i'll just have to stop being gay then, find an opposite sex mate, get married to them and have 6 kids!" Gay people ain't going to procreate, whether they're married or not. It makes no difference. know what i mean? |
The church has forbidden marriage based on the inability of a heterosexual couple to procreate Now, the church may have the "right" to do that since the state can still marry individuals, but it still really sucks. |
|
Okay then, fuck catholicism Down pope. Down. |
Also, spidey, I'm not trying to slam you but I found your choice of self-mutilation as an example rather odd. |
2- the idea that some people in society can't get married makes me feel like we should be living in caves |
today, the "institution" is a political whipping post. why gay couples, or heterosexuals, or bigamists, or anyone else would spin their identity around "marriage" makes no sense. want to make a real statement? do something different. picket for "Gay Marriage," not "Gay People Getting Married by Heterosexual Standards." develop an identity, a Census profile, then call your congressperson. been there? done that? well then you fucked up, because that's the way to do it. today's headlines are just that. headlines. gone in a month, the stuff of old codgers on internet message boards 2 months from now. --.-.why i remember those gay weddings.......- the mayor of SF said that marriage was a failure. why, then, pursue it, and why in such a theatrical way? why aspire to it? why define yourself or your relationships by church or state definitions? because the SF weddings are political propoganda (like most civil disobedience). the issue happens to inflame people's sexual and existential ambiguities, which they translate into political activism, because that's the easiest way to get attention and make those headlines. |
I LOVE COCKSUCKING PIG! |
Re: Kazu's link. The Church considers impotency due to paralysis to be an impediment to marriage. (Having an impediment does not necessarily mean you are forbidden to marry -- you just need to go to your bishop and request a review and dispensation.) The bishop in the story in Kazu's link must have decided not to grant the dispensation for his own reason (it's at his discretion). As a counter-example, there is a couple in my church in the exact same circumstance -- the man was paralyzed after a fall from a roof and is now in a wheelchair -- and our archbishop must have granted a dispensation because the man and his fiancee still got married in a Catholic ceremony at our church. I don't feel like going into the details of Church law and why there are impediments, but if you really want to know I can provide some links later. And just as an end-note, if you're reading this and sensing a bad taste in your mouth at this particular form of marriage (highly regulated), that's fine. This is just one form of marriage and if it doesn't suit you, you don't have to and shouldn't partake in it. My particular view toward gay marriage is this: I think it should be legal, because the secular authority of the government has no business legislating morality, and there is no other compelling reason why same-sex couples should not be married. (Do any of you watch "Smallville"? I confess I do. Last episode saw Lana snooping through her tenant's apartment and finding a diary recording her actions, and now Lana wants to evict him. Why, because she was meddling in his business and got creeped out? That's not grounds for eviction. For me, same-sex marriage is the same way -- you can't legally forbid it just because it makes you feel squicky.) Private institutions have the right to make their own rules and forbid or allow gay marriage as they choose, but the secular law should allow freedom for all possible choices. |
|
did anyone see the movie Intolerable Cruelty? |
There's many examples of societal-prescribed mutilations as well that don't really fall under the category of self-mutilation, such as circumcision or some of the above-mentioned tribal customs. I myself have mutilated my body through piercing and tatooing. |
Reviews and dispensations? Whatever. The Church can do whatever they want and no law should interfere with that. But that had to be a shitty, shitty experience to feel like the church you'd been devout to your whole life won't recognize your marriage. Especially in his town where (I think) everyone is Catholic and not having their marriage sanctioned by the church would be stigmatizing. "must have decided not to grant the dispensation for his own reason (it's at his discretion)." That is just fucked up. I'm sorry, but I don't think any church should put faith over love. I mean we are talking about a couple who, in all other respects, are devout to the Church. I would like to think that God is not so petty as to deny a devout Catholic the ability to have his or her marriage sanctioned in the Church. Is it because of procreation? So what? They can adopt and "welcome" children into their lives that way. I've been reading my all my brother's pamphlets about being married in the Catholic church (of course this is in Massachusetts and not Brazil) and it seems to me that their rules aren't so rigid they can't be bent a little...I mean, for people who are devout...not just anyone. |
Do you dig? (Yes) |
In most, but by no means all cases saying that something is abnormal is going to have a value based on social and cultural ideals (however, messed up they may or may not be) and I don't believe that you can or should divorce meaning from context and reduce a word like abnormal to some objective, statisical meaning especially if you are talking about something as politically charged as homosexuality or culturally specific as body mutilation. If you want to frame it as a personal opinion that is fine, but just to assume that saying something IS normal or abnormal and expect it to be understood objectively is just silly. |
Like I said, it was up to the bishop's discretion. If he wanted to be a hardass and not let the couple marry, it was his decision to make. It wasn't the Church, it was the *bishop* who made that decision, that one guy, with his own reasoning. Yes, it sucks. More than you'll ever want to know about Catholic marriage More than you'll ever want to know about impediments to Catholic marriage Pertinent passage: "Impotency is the state of one who is incapable of normal sexual relations. It is clear that an impotent person cannot validly contract marriage since he is physically incapable of realizing its object [i.e., sexual union and procreation]. For this particular impediment we must refer to the technical treatises on the subject and limit ourselves to some conclusions. The impotency which is a cause of nullity is the incapacity of having conjugal relations (impotentia coeundi), not incapacity of engendering (impotentia generandi), in other words, sterility. [I.e., sterility/infertility is not an impediment to marriage.] No one is presumed impotent once he has reached the legal or real age of puberty; consequently, no one, except eunuchs, can be prevented by authority from marrying (Sixtus V, 27 June, 1587). " Note the last line. The bishop in Brazil may have taken the paralyzed man as a de facto eunuch and forbidden the marriage. The archbishop of Philadelphia may have decided that my fellow parishioner was not a eunuch to the letter of the law and allowed the marriage. This is boring. |
|
|
|
By the way, when I say that individuals are implicted within institutions, I am not saying that there is no room for individual agency or unique perspectives. The relationship between individuals and institutions is not a direct, one creates the other kind of thing. Women's Studies has shaped my perspective, but not determined it. Institutions, whether religious or educational are not monolithic entities, nor do I think they have to be completely coherent. Contradiction and conflict abounds and that is a good thing, so long as that can be somehow negotiated. |
*now* this thread is gay. i wasnt ready to accept dave's proclamation yesterday, but now im there. to the pig, the cocksucking pig. "why, then, pursue it, and why in such a theatrical way? why aspire to it? why define yourself or your relationships by church or state definitions?" when you consider the American audience, understanding why its necessary to make an otherwise trivial stink over what should be a trivial matter is easy. |
And Patrick, and Dave, is/are right, too. Let's change the subject. |
I call this *The Curse of the Jasmine Pearl* I spent $27.00 on a can of Imperial Republic (from Imperial Tea Court and The Republic of Tea). Jasmine Pearls. Top Grade, Limited Production Green Tea. I wasn't going to spend that much. But I looked at the can, and decided that I MUST have it when I read: ONE OF ONLY 1000 TINS PRODUCED I'm such a sucker. I'm also a dork as I also purchased a box of Choice Organic Free Trade Certified for "everyday" drinking I first encountered Jasmine Pearls at San Francisco coffee house. Seven little handrolled leaf and bud sets infused with the scent of sweet jasmine flowers. I sat and watched them slowly come unrolled, like hatching sea monkeys, but not as terrifying. It was simply lovely. Utterly perfect. I went back recently for another cup only to discover that, due its high cost, they are unable to purchase anymore. The assured me that the jasmine they gave me was just as good, but "not as much fun." (It wasn't quite as good, but it was fine.) |
whenever i say something like that, i think of nomeansno. kazu, the part in "i am wrong" where it goes: "step into my parlor said the spider to the fly. and we could share a love that will never die. die! die! DIE!!!" does that give you goosebumps? i still get goosebumps. cheesy words but the delivery is fuckin intense. i love that whole song with the dirge melody and the off-key harmonizing. it's just so sinister and powerful. to me. |
|
Thus, by conservative standards it can get married. Contradiction, q.e.d. |
I had some nice jasmine couscous a little while ago at this new-ish restaurant in my home town. The menu is strangely eclectic but leans toward the Middle Eastern. Oh my God, I have to share this. I did a Google search on that restaurant's name to see if their menu is online, and this is the only hit I got: ************** WEST CHESTER, PA-September 27, 2003 — West Chester police are looking for several people who shot a crossbow arrow into a man. The arrow struck Benito Vargas in the abdomen early Sunday morning, as he walked home from work on High Street. He survived but has a scar where he was hit. Police say his attackers drove up along side him in a white SUV. Vargas says he doesn't know his attackers and police fear – since being shot by an arrow doesn't make a noise – that there may be no witnesses. Anyone with information is being urged to call West Chester police. The Turk's Head restaurant, where the victim works, is offering a $500 reward for someone who leads police to those responsible. *************** Weird! |
|
|
|
called Monkey King and it's not that expensive. |
|
duh. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just thought I would let you know, that homosexuality is one of the "western culture exports" that fundamentalist islamics decry "Homosexuality in the Qur'an The Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of the Qur'an states: "We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (Qur'an 7:80-81) "Of all creatures in the world, will ye approach males, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" (Qur'an 26:165) Also see Al-Shu'ara' (starting at 165) : Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)! They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!" He said: "I do detest your doings:" "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!" So We delivered him and his family,- all Except an old woman who lingered behind. But the rest We destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful. AL-NAML (starting at 55): Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! But his people gave no other answer but this: They said, "Drive out the followers of Lut from your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" But We saved him and his family, except his wife; her We destined to be of those who lagged behind. And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! " How's THAT for "tollerance"? |
And, you're saying that fundamentalist Islam is similar to the American Christian Right? Really? |
|
Is it supposed to confuse us because he thinks we all love bin Laden or something? "well, massa Osama says gays are bad, so I change my mind about gay marriage!" |
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/20/national1401EST0610.DTL |
Really?" Um, if you think that, then please tell me the last time someone was executed by christians for being gay? I understand it is posh right now to bash christianity, but islam is off limits, but I thought you knew better then that. Obviously I was wrong. The point is right there at the tip of your nose. I know you blame the US's foriegn policy for all that is wrong in the world, but I hate to tell you that you are wrong. |
matthew shepard? who said islam is off limits? the hell it is. keep it up, spunky. don't give up now. the closing of your mind is nearly complete. |
I see. Since some people raise questions like 'what did they ever do to us?' or 'this war is racist'.... some people jump ahead to a 'they just are protecting islam because they're bleeding hearts who'll protect anyone damn ACLU damn them damn them' as if we are actually overlooking the way they treat women, saying 'oh thats islam how dare you attack islam'. We're not. I probably think less of Islam than I do Christianity, and I take shots at Christianity all the time. Theres a difference between going after Islam as a religion and going after Arab peoples. When I see Mr. Show doing their sketch about birkas thats one thing. When I hear some shock jock on the radio say 'sand nigger' during the march to war, thats another. The only time I care to defend Islam at all, is when I see or hear things from pundits or even Bush himself that make the war sound like its Christianity vs. Islam. My defence for Islam is very basic, that it shouldnt be about that and the US should NOT be invoking God when taking about the war on terror. And thats not even a defence of Islam, its me saying "Uh, maybe you shouldnt trash or go on a crusade against Islam if you don't know anything about it" And if theres any religion right now its not OK to pick on, its Judaism. Its everywhere. If you criticize Israeli foreign policy you're an anti-semite. if you go to see 'the passion' you're an anti-semite. when FOX news reports about evidence that Israel had information about attacks before 9/11, the ADL threatens them and the series of reports gets taken off the air... Judaism doesnt really get made fun of except for base level things, like bagels, noses, last names, neurotic stammering, being from New York, and that rabbis look funny. Real "Carolines Comedy Hour" shit. of course not all Jewish people are this reactionary about their religion, but there are a lot of people in the ADL that cant seperate the difference between what a Jewish person does and what a Jewish person is. Oh, and the other reason that we arent attacking Islam's view on gay people in this thread, is because its not relevant. The lawmakers in the US and Canada (even the "liberals") are mostly Christians and it is their ideas that are holding gay people down. When Muslim spreads over the nation and theres a Muslim man in the White House ready to sign a constitutional amendment banning it, then we'll get started on that attack on Islam. Kay? Kay. |
|
it goes something like this: -liberal makes a statement, "damn, it's warm out today." -conservative host repeats the statement and concludes that this is another liberal complaining about global warming, refutes it by rattling off a couple cherry-picked statements by reputable experts, and then launches into a canned tirade against liberalism in general (hate america first, etc. . .) and closes with another declaration against liberals and their global warming. when he opens the lines to the callers, they obligingly thank and praise his brilliant analysis and, forgetting that the original statement lacked any reference to global warming, deride liberals for always bringing up stuff like global warming. in the audience's mind, the fella who remarked about how warm it is now hates god and america. spunky's sub-consciousness understands the formula, but his consciousness hasn't yet grasped it. he doesn't know he's doing it, therefore he does it poorly. |
if cutting and pasting, parroting, and taking issue with statements and positions that have not been advanced are sufficiently satisfying on a consistent basis, it's clear that the point is emotional expression and some attempt at establishing a personal identity through association. bravo. |
|
|
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html |
in fact i now wonder if he ever knew what the correlation was between what some Islamic clerics think about homosexuality and US civil rights regarding marriage and unions for homosexuals. what was your point spunk? and please, pay no mind to rowlf's specualtion as to your point as that only confused you. |
My mind isn't working on all cylinders right now. The problem with these arguments, discussions, rants, raves is that thie liberal mind set does not want any kind of exclusivity - except the ones they define as ok. And, the conservitively minded arguments seem to have forgotten the most basic of facts - exclusivity is a natural trait. My minds gone fuzzy again. I will be back later. I need a nap. But, I won't get one. |
|
|
I really should stay out of these things when I'm overly medicated. Especially when I'm half dead at the same time. |
more Bush talk against gay marriage. The daily show raised a good point last night. if gay marriage hurts 'the sancity of marriage', surely divorce and adultery do as well... would anyone dare pass an amendment banning divorce? or adultery? |
QUOTE GOLD! "This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is, we live in a free society and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don't get to choose, and shouldn't be able to choose, and say, "You get to live free, but you don't." And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you asked of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship or if these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk. I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe, I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into. " Dick Cheney at the VP debate, 2000 Absolute gold. Pure gold. |
|
And of course this is all just an elaborate plan so that Dick Cheney doesn't have to pay for his gay daughters wedding. |
Larry King Live Debate, Feb 15 2000: King: So therefore if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it. Bush: The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue. http://issues2002.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Civil_Rights.htm Feb 25, 2004: "Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America," http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/ |
such bullshit. |
Isn't that the biggest bullshit statement you've heard? well, maybe a Christian judge would have a conflict of interest because they think gays are going to hell. recuse! Meanwhile he is silent on Scalia's habit of going hunting with the people whose cases he is going to sit on in court. |
|
No! Can't be! Republicans never change their mind. |
Deuteronomy 21 :: King James Version (KJV): 10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. Genesis 19: 4 - 8 4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, " Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." 6 But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." |
A History of Marriage in America |