?

Log in

The Gay Marriage Debate
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 13 most recent journal entries recorded in The Gay Marriage Debate's LiveJournal:

Thursday, May 17th, 2007
9:15 pm
[000sundancer000]

(Give me a piece of your mind!)

Friday, February 16th, 2007
8:24 pm
[000sundancer000]
Half Boy/Half Girl
http://www.yikers.com/video_baby_is_born_half_white_and_half_black.html

This is sooooo sad. How do you suppose? Is it a boy or a girl? Do you think people have the right to determine what sex the child is? Shouldn't the child grow up and choose for him or herself?

I know this has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate, but it has SOMETHING to do with homosexuality. What if the child grows up as a boy and thinks he's a girl? Is he therefore "gay" if he has attraction to males? This is so sad.

(20 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

Saturday, February 3rd, 2007
1:32 am
[000sundancer000]
A slap in the face
I have been a bad moderator. I haven't posted anything counteracting any of the arguments. Perhaps it's because I have no good argument except that "homosexuality is wrong based upon the Bible." But not everyone feels the same as I do or believes that the Bible is absolute Truth; the foundation for all laws.

So it is with a broken heart that I let this community go. Post all you want in it. I'll reply from time to time, but you pretty much know what I'm going to say before I say it.

I just want you all to know my stance on the issue and that not all Christians are crazy fundamentalist homosexual-haters.

Really, I just want to show love the best way I know how.

The first step in showing love is to stop shoving my beliefs on people who don't want to hear it.

(Give me a piece of your mind!)

Friday, February 2nd, 2007
10:00 pm
[papa_will]
Faith and Politics: Why we cannot legislate morality
A funny thing happened to me at work today. After being away for so long, I thought about my friends and respectful sparring-mates here at marriage_debate. Very fondly. And I felt like I wanted to help you out.

See, it's not enough for me if I can get you to stop doing things that restrict my rights as an American as they relate to my sexual orientation. I want you to have a reasoning you can agree with, even if you never like who I am or what I represent.

Since many here would choose to use faith to justify banning marriage equality, and the faith generally cited in Christianity, I wanted to speak in your language. It's one I am familiar with, one I was raised in. And one I respect as complex and enriching.

I began thinking back to my days as a sunday-school teacher, thinking back to my days as a child essayist for a local religious newspaper. And two scriptures in particular stuck out... :

Read moreCollapse )

(2 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

Sunday, November 12th, 2006
10:56 am
[papa_will]
Are you sick of getting jerked around?
This post is dedicated to gullible Americans everywhere.

Are you tired of getting jerked around like a psychotic marionette yet? The Gay Marriage "issue" in politics is very well known to be a Republican ploy to motivate people to go to the polls and vote for them.

Now, some of you would, with good consideration, do this anyway. You vote regularly, you are Republican, and you either like what Candidate X stands for, or you didn't research but you're going to vote for him (or her) because that's the candidate for your party. You didn't need a cattle-prod to go to your voting site. You're doing what you would anyway, and this message is not for you.

But if only went to your voting place to vote for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one (1) man and one (1) woman, and then happened to vote for a bunch of Republican and/or conservative candidates while you were there... you've been had.

Republicans know that homophobia runs deep in this country. They were trying to milk that. Republicans don't want you to think about millions of dollars shooting out the end of a gun in Iraq as we repeat Vietnam. Or how many people we're killing every day, all over the world, in the name of peace. (Or whether this is more or less than how many we're "saving" by banning stem-cell research.) Republicans don't want you to think about their disreputable candidates recently in the news. They don't want you to think about any of the issues around freedom in American life, because they've done a pretty good job of making National Security into the next KGB. They don't want you to think about a lot of the quality-of-life issues that they're making worse. They definitely don't want you to remember that we live in a country that generally disapproves of the president (68-31 popular opinion).

No, so they've got to come up with something to distract from the real issues. Hmmm...


Republicans know that a lot of people would rather "save marriage" by going out of their way to narrow a definition than to stop abusing their spouse, stop drinking, stop spending the family money on stupid things, stop fighting dirty, stop cheating, start treating a spouse like an equal, start really communicating, or start doing what the spouse wants to do for a change. Republicans know that "saving marriage" sounds heroic and glamorous. What ever happened to "Take the beam out of your own eye..." (Matthew 7:5, Luke 6:42) ?

Republicans know that they can pull the heartstrings of a lot of gullible people who believe it is their religious duty to impose a part of their faith on the general populace in a non-theocratic nation.

Republicans know that you'd rather lash out at a group of people you don't know, to feel better about yourself, than to do the real work to improve your life: research your candidates, improve your relationships, build your own self-esteem.

If you weren't going to vote anyway, and you did because of a gay marriage amendment, you've been duped.

(2 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

Friday, November 10th, 2006
8:03 pm
[papa_will]
An old favorite of mine...
REAL reasons Americans are opposed to gay marriage...

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Can you smell the sarcasm? Please post this in your journal if you are for gay marriage.

(3 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

Monday, October 30th, 2006
12:27 pm
[catbrother]
Look, now there are... what, four?
This community is severely lacking in members, and I think it has a lot of potential. So hullo, here I am.

I thought the marriage debate could do with a voice that is not Christian. A different perspective.

The first question I want to raise (although before I do, I just want to commend papa_will on being totally awesome) is this:

Why do Christians think quoting a book at me that I don't believe in will change my mind? Non-Christians do not take the Bible as the word of G-d (I type it this way out of respect for my Jewish spouse), not to mention the myriad of Christians who don't do-- so why is it assumed that I will change myself, or even feel guilt, at the words of a few men thousands of years ago?

Also, those against gay marriage, how do you figure transgendered people into the mix?

(3 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

Tuesday, October 17th, 2006
3:08 pm
[papa_will]
"Then why not three or five or seventeen"
Our moderator asks: if it is fair for
"Two men or two women to marry, then why not three or five or seventeen?"

Again, this is just polygymy bating, and not very well connected.

The missing connection is:
A marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. One of each.

The problem with that connection is that if there were not exactly 2 oppositionally-constructed categories, the dyadic nature that we assume relationships to take on (i.e. 2 people in love, 2 people making a commitment, etc) would not correlate with the categories assumed. Here, think of it like this: let's say tomorrow the headlines blare that there have "really" been 3 sexes all along. Any two together can reproduce. Mechanics were omitted so as not to scar children. There were bunches of 3rdSex living along with men and women in some-odd isolated region. (This is not to make fun of anyone who ID's as Third-Sex, Transgender, or Intersexed). Would that mean that relationships now have to include 3 people, it adequitely balance the things that each sex has unique quantities of? Of course not.

And, since human societies, even Americans, have recognized non-monogamous marriages (Ok, sorry.... Utah) this argument is just trying to scare the masses, for no good reason.

Are you hurt in any way if I have 2 partners? No. Do you lose anything? No. Ok, maybe one less person to date. Ok, maybe if both of them outlive me and try to claim SS benefits. But guess what? It's certainly not something as rare, strange, sick, or deviant as uptight conservatives imagine. Just stigmatized.

And they're seperate, very seperate, issues. Gay marriage says any 2 consenting people can marry. As in, stop checking my genitals. It doesn't say that my whole graduating class can take the plunge together, nor would we ever choose to.

Linking unrelated issues is a sign of a weak argument.

(15 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

Sunday, October 1st, 2006
6:43 pm
[papa_will]
Bible "against" gays-- A religion student's take
Our dear moderator has offered 4 passages of Biblical text as to why homosexuality is wrong.

Ignoring that 4/5 of the world is non-Christian, ignoring that religion should not dictate governmental policy, all 4 instances of comdemnation of homosexuality are weak at best. It is important that anyone who feels pressured to be homophobic on the basis of identifying as Christian should understand this.

The passages offered are: Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9

Genesis 19:1-13 The story of Sodom

2 Angels visit Lot, the townsfolk want to rape them, Lot doesn't let them. (He offers his daughters instead.) The town was already slated for destruction.

*Some scholars argue that the problem with Sodom was it's inhospitality. In the desert, travellers have to rely on the kindness of others. Hospitality is an essential to living. Perhaps the "wickedness" of Sodom was inhospitality.

*Whoa, they wanted to gang-rape these guys. Maybe the "wickedness" was rape.

*This story does not "jive" with modern Christian morals, no matter how much mideval scholars used "sodomy" to mean gay sex (plus masterbation!). Lot offered his daughters to be raped. Ew. Lot's daughters got their dad drunk and screwed him, thinking that they were supposed to repopulate the earth. Yet, Lot is called a righteous man. Something is up.


Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Right. Well, Christians generally state that they are free from the law. As in, we can eat pig, and rabbit, and wear clothes of mixed fabric, often don't tithe. If you're not living Kosher, don't even TRY to pick-and-choose. It is an insult to Jews everywhere when you commit such an act of cultural appropriation. Oh, and the threat in Lev. 18? "Lest the land vomit you out". Um, we're not living in Israel, so...

Remembering that everything we read in the Bible has been through interpretation, here are a handful of ways that this verse has been understood by sincere, religious scholars:

*Nobody have gay sex. At all. In any fashion.
*Men can't have gay sex. At all. In any fashion.
*Men can't have anal intercourse with one another.
*Men can't have sex with men "like a woman" (as in, pretending he's a woman)
*Men can't vaginally penetrate men. (Ok, no problem.)
*Men cannot have sex with a man in a woman's bed (this one I don't know as much about, but a learned Rabbi told me, so I thought I'd include it b/c it's neat.)

That's quite a span of interpretations. Oddly enough, the more literal one becomes, the less gay sex is banned by this particular prohibition.



Romans 1:26-27 "26: For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27: and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

I've got to say that this passage is one that utterly stumps and confounds me. Not because I don't have anything intelligent to say about it, but because it goes against the very understanding of God that I was raised with (as a Born-Again Christian). This, and Exodus 4:21 (And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.") are in DIRECT, ABSOLUTE contradiction with the idea of Free-Will. Both instances are cases where the Bible says that GOD MAKES PEOPLE SIN. It baffles and saddens me.

In any case, it is a good argument for God making people gay. God wants to punish me for not being righteous? For 'thinking myself wise' (by which, it would seem, any free-thought counts) God "gives up" and turns me to my own sex? So, if I have a crush on someone like me as a child, before I think myself wise.....?


1 Corinthians 6:9 "9: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts..."

Resisting the urge of so many Biblical scholars to simply write Paul off as a sexist, homophobic pig, I'm still surprised that this verse is used. Note, of course, that it is a broken sentance. Verse 10 reads: "nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." As in, if you've ever stolen a candy bar, you're in the same category as I am. If you party, if you drink, you are in the same category. The chapter (imagine! looking at context, instead of pick-n-choose verses!) is about how Paul wants believers to eat kosher and stop going to prostitutes. So, go fight prostitution. Stop eating pork. That's what a "literal" interpretation would be.


ALL of these are verses pulled out of context.

And all of these are religious answers being put to a civic problem.

(5 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

2:03 pm
[papa_will]
Traditional Marriage
(Sure, I'm a n00b, but I've read what's been said already. I love to debate, and I love GLBT issues so.... yes. I'm in.)

"Marriage isn't for each generation to define" --no, it really shouldn't have to be. Yet, what marriage constitutes, and what it MEANS changes by culture and over time.

Marriage used to mean who a woman belonged to. An economic contract between Dad and Hubby, involving an exchange of goods that included the girl (usually too young). Marriage was about getting an extra worker (the wife) to join your family, and it was about continuing the family line.

Marriage didn't used to mean "one man and one woman" -- it meant 1 man, and as many wives as he could afford. This one is especially funny considering that the people who use religion to justify opposition to gay marriage often don't know their faith well enough to tell you which Great Biblical Figures had multiple wives. (Hint: Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon). Didn't David get in trouble for this? Y-no. He got in trouble for sending a man to the front lines of a conflict so he would die and David could marry the wife.

Marriage didn't used to mean love. That's actually a fairly recent idea. Marriage might've been about who was the right age (and sex) (oh, and not related) in your area, if your community was small. Marriage might've been for status. Oh, and in many parts of the world, people of marriagable age are not considered wise enough to choose for themselves.

Marriage was sometimes forbidden, via class. Feudal peasants often did not marry, because they did not have any land/titles/possessions-of-value to pass on. Marriage served as a means of determining paternity among those who had something to pass on, rather than a matter of stable households, or celebrating love. During America's slave days, no form of marriage was recognized for Blacks.

...so, you want "traditional values"? Great. Women, go make babies. That's all your good for, and clearly we don't have enough starving children and unemployed people in the world. Oh, and men... if you're rich, buy up the women. If you're poor, you'll be dating your hand until someone sends you off to die as cannon-fodder in the next war. (Before you do, you might have a chance to "bond" with some of your fellow soldiers!)


Marriage HAS changed radically. In light of these new changes (monogamy, love, all classes) it is critical that conceptions keep up.


It is not the government's place to tell me who, among sane consenting adults, I may marry. Both examples of what happens when the government gets too involved are about "race," not sexual orientation, but there is much to learn from them.

*America's fears of "Miscegenation" forbade inter-racial marriage in many parts of the country. They said that if we allowed black and white people to marry each other: the white race would die, we'd have to let people marry animals, we'd have to let adults marry children, we'd have to let groups marry, every manner of moral decay would follow. Well, those laws are gone. There are still plenty of pale people. Dogs still can't enter contracts, such as marriage. Age-of-consent laws are still as variable as ever across the country (and globe). Groups still can't marry (not that my white-water rafting team wanted to anyway...). and we have the same frenzied, alarmist attacks against "immorality" wherever we can find it. And we do look hard.
These same arguments are being used against gay marriage. Gee, folks, can't you get more creative? I'm kinda tired of "the sky is falling".

*Nazi Germany. For the purposes of "racial hygiene" marriages between Jews and non-Jews became a matter of legal policy. The government took it upon itself to dissolve some marriages, to priviledge others by pretending that the wife had never been Jewish, and punishing others by labelling both spouses Jews, and putting them both under the tightening regulations of that day. Oh, and this was 1939, before the really bad stuff started. By regulating marriage, we regulate PEOPLE. The further we give our governments the right to pry into our lives, the more freedoms we have given up. If, as opponents of gay marriage claim, marriage is about babies, then nothing stops the government from barring the old or the sterile from solemnizing their unions.
Do you want the government making sure you're "really" a woman before you can get married? How would you feel if the JP wanted a sperm sample to make sure you can actually give your bride-to-be babies?


And finally, on religion:

Religious marriage has usually varied from civil marriage in all but theocracies. If I'm a Catholic, and I get divorced, the Church says I'm still married. If I try to get married, the Church says I'm still married to #1. But we don't have massive protests of Catholics Against Divorce! Traditional Mormons today grapple with marital bonds not recognized by their governments, maybe even actively hunted as bigamy. And that is a shame. But as long as civil and religious marriages are seperate matters in society, religions should not have to feel intimidated when the government has a different idea of what marriage is than they do. Nobody is MAKING Southern Bapitist ministers marry Adam & Steve.


Do I support Same-Sex Marriage? Gay Marriage? Well... actually, no. I support marriage where the government doesn't need to know the sex of me, or my partner. Because it's none of their darn business. As they said in Hawaii... if you'll let a man marry a woman, but you won't let a woman marry a woman, you're discriminating on the basis of sex. Let's take "bride:" and "groom:" off all the forms. Let's switch it to "Spouse 1:" and "Spouse 2:".

Thanks for reading. I encourage dissent.

(7 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

Sunday, March 28th, 2004
5:19 pm
[changeling0203]
"Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints"
I wrote this last year. I had to write an 8-10 page paper on a controversial subject and argue both sides, and then give my opinion at the end. Of course I chose gay rights. Read more...Collapse )

I know it's long, but I think it's pretty educational, too.

(8 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

Tuesday, February 17th, 2004
9:23 am
[mercurykitty]
I'm confused...
Why name the community "marriage debate" when the moderator has already made a one-sided stance on the topic? Wouldn't it have made more sense to call it "marriage_morals" or something along those lines? .

(9 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

Saturday, February 7th, 2004
1:40 am
[000sundancer000]
First Post-- Questions Answered
Is homosexuality wrong?
The Bible unmistakably and repetitively tells us that homosexual activity is a sin! (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).

What about the people who can’t help it?
God did not create people with homosexual desires. Our old sin natures are the reason for homosexuals in this world. (Rom 1:24-27) It is their own choice. A person may be born with a greater vulnerability to homosexuality, as are people who are born with a tendency to violence, slothfulness, or other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a weakness to anger, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Certainly not. The same is true for homosexuality.

What is so wrong with letting homosexuals marry?
Up until the past couple of years, it was unheard of and absolutely hilarious and ridiculously absurd to tolerate two people of the same sex to even think of getting married. The meaning of marriage isn’t something that each generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God, and any society with brains will protect that.

All people have the right to marry, as long as you follow a few simple rules. 1.) You can’t marry anyone if you are already married. 2.) You can’t marry a close relative. 3.) An adult can not marry a child. 4.) You can’t marry your pet. 5.) You can’t marry someone of the same gender. There you go. The five simple rules of marriage. If we allow homosexuals to be married, the next thing we know, people will be marrying their grandmas, uncles, moms, kids, Fido, or Rover. I don’t even have to tell you that this is sick; I think we all agree.

Shouldn’t homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals to marry?
No U.S. court has ever recognized, nor has any scientific study ever proven that homosexuality is rooted in nature. Therefore, as far as we know, homosexuals are born heterosexuals but are affected by biological, psychological, and social factors.

So how does God feel about gays and lesbians?
God’s forgives homosexuality just as He forgives any other sin—the same as adulterers, idol worshippers, murderers, thieves, etc. God’s loves homosexuals just as He loves anyone else (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Cor 6:11; 2 Cor 5:17).

What is marriage?
Marriage is the uniting of two souls to become one flesh in Holy matrimony before friends, family, each other, and God. God ordained Marriage to be between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6).
To give sanction to homosexual marriage would be to give approval to that lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Homosexual marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an enormous offense to the God who created marriage. God forbids and condemns homosexuality, so He clearly is opposed to homosexual marriage.

You aren’t being very fair. What do you have against homosexuals, anyway?
As Christians, we are commanded by God to be loving and kind to homosexuals, while at the same time not overlooking their sinful lifestyle. We should be acceptable of them as human beings, but not accepting of their behavior. Therefore, I believe that homosexual marriage should not legal.

www.nogaymarriage.com
Sign the petition above to our government!

Think of it this way:
The whole purpose and meaning of marriage would be destroyed. Marriage would merely become an emotional relationship that’s flexible enough to include any grouping of loving adults. If it’s fair for two men or two women to marry, then why not three or five or seventeen? The terms “husband” and “wife” would become words with no meaning.

Parenthood would consist of any number of emotionally attached people who care for kids. The unique roles of mother and father would be eliminated.

Gender would be nothing. Our society hates to think that we are different from each other. Everyone wants to be accepted, and everyone wants to be treated like we all have no differences. Consequently, everyone develops into “Mr. Potato Head”, and there aren’t any real, deep differences between the two sexes except body parts. If real differences didn’t exist, women wouldn’t need men, and men wouldn’t need women.

There are clear differences between men and women. Women have characteristics and things to offer that men do not possess enough of, and men have characteristics and things to offer women that they do not possess enough of. The two come together, and balance one another out and make a perfect “puzzle piece fit” together. Unfortunately, our society has come to believe that women and men are one-in-the-same, have no differentiation.


Feel free to comment, and ask many more questions. I will try my best to answer them.

Current Mood: cheerful

(71 stars | Give me a piece of your mind!)

About LiveJournal.com