Gay Marriage

[Farnhamia]

I heard someone say on here that the bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality?

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

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

Romans 1:24 ...dishonor their bodies...

Romans 1:25 ...exchanged the truth of God for the lie...

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Okay, so? If you're a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, don't be gay. Why should any of that matter to anyone else?

[Lowtovia]

she was stating her opinions about the issue/a slight tangent to the issue (admittedly strongly, but she was taking other peoples arguements against her and responding in a well mannered and intelligent way), whereas you just had a go at how she asserted herself. thats the difference

I think her tone is unnecessarily belligerent. As I told her, I don't disagree with what she said, just the way she says it. That's a legitimate criticism, don't you think?

if its as advice on how best to get her point across to the masses, fair enough.

[Farnhamia]

I think her tone is unnecessarily belligerent. As I told her, I don't disagree with what she said, just the way she says it. That's a legitimate criticism, don't you think?

if its as advice on how best to get her point across to the masses, fair enough.

Thank you. You should apologize to Dya, too.

[Omega Centauri]

I heard someone say on here that the bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality?

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

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

Romans 1:24 ...dishonor their bodies...

Romans 1:25 ...exchanged the truth of God for the lie...

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Okay, so? If you're a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, don't be gay. Why should any of that matter to anyone else?

I am not against gay marriage, if they want to get "married" get a civil partnership or maybe a non-religious ceremony

[OnyxCog]

The Holy Empire of OnyxCog accept all those in life no matter whom they love we say Aye to this and welcome all people into our hearts and society!

[Lowtovia]

if its as advice on how best to get her point across to the masses, fair enough.

Thank you. You should apologize to Dya, too.

as you ask so nicely, i apologize to dya, and would also like to say very cool flag dya

[Dyakovo]

Okay, so? If you're a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, don't be gay. Why should any of that matter to anyone else?

I am not against gay marriage, if they want to get "married" get a civil partnership or maybe even a non-religious ceremony

Well, since all marriages are civil partnerships*, I am glad you agree they should get married.

* At least in civilised countries they are...

[Farnhamia]

Okay, so? If you're a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, don't be gay. Why should any of that matter to anyone else?

I am not against gay marriage, if they want to get "married" get a civil partnership or maybe a non-religious ceremony

But you're okay with it being "marriage" in all senses, correct?

[Orcoa]

Yay without question, it's my american and christian duty to protect the rights of all people no matter what they are

“Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.”
Optimus Prime

[Farnhamia]

The Holy Empire of OnyxCog accept all those in life no matter whom they love we say Aye to this and welcome all people into our hearts and society!

That's nice. We don't post in character here, though.

[Dyakovo]

Thank you. You should apologize to Dya, too.

as you ask so nicely, i apologize to dya, and would also like to say very cool flag dya

Apology appreciated but unnecessary... I don't take things personally most of the time...
And Спасибо.

[Omega Centauri]

The Holy Empire of OnyxCog accept all those in life no matter whom they love we say Aye to this and welcome all people into our hearts and society!

Would you like a n00b cupcake?

Btw, this is for out of character discussion, nothing to do with your nation or roleplay. ;D

[Bluth Corporation]

I heard someone say on here that the bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality?

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

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

Romans 1:24 ...dishonor their bodies...

Romans 1:25 ...exchanged the truth of God for the lie...

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

What you, being a non-Christian, fail to realize is that all of this is irrelevant.

[Dyakovo]

The Holy Empire of OnyxCog accept all those in life no matter whom they love we say Aye to this and welcome all people into our hearts and society!

Would you like a n00b cupcake?

If he doesn't, can I have it? Cupcakes are yummy...
And n00bs are annoying...
Thus n00b cupcakes are annoyingly yummy...
Yay!

[Augustus Este]

I heard someone say on here that the bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality?

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

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

Romans 1:24 ...dishonor their bodies...

Romans 1:25 ...exchanged the truth of God for the lie...

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Irrelevant, unless you live in a Christian theocracy.

[Omega Centauri]

I heard someone say on here that the bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality?

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

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

Romans 1:24 ...dishonor their bodies...

Romans 1:25 ...exchanged the truth of God for the lie...

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

What you, being a non-Christian, fail to realize is that all of this is irrelevant.

What? Most marriages are religious and i thought i'd just put it out there.
It is irrelevant to non christians,
And anyway i have already explained my views on gay marriage

[Omega Centauri]

Would you like a n00b cupcake?

If he doesn't, can I have it? Cupcakes are yummy...
And n00bs are annoying...
Thus n00b cupcakes are annoyingly yummy...
Yay!

Yes Dyakovo, you can have the n00b cupcake as the n00b has not yet claimed it, congratulations! It has vanilla icing, chocolate sprinkles, and rainbow colours.
;D

[Farnhamia]

What you, being a non-Christian, fail to realize is that all of this is irrelevant.

What? Most marriages are religious and i thought i'd just put it out there.
It is irrelevant to non christians,
And anyway i have already explained my views on gay marriage

All marriages in the US are civil. The majority may have religious ceremonies included, but the religious aspect is not required or necessary.

[Ukgard]

Id say yes to gay marriage, but im still confused about if they should or not be able to have children.

[Augustus Este]

Id say yes to gay marriage, but im still confused about if they should or not be able to have children.

Why shouldn't they?

Gay couples are just as capable as straight couples.

[Orcoa]

(Looks at all his fellow christians posts)

Sighs...I feel so alone...It's like I'm the only one who cares and wishes to stop the abuse agasint Gays and gay marriage..

[Soheran]

Spoilered for length. (It's a reply to Femnipotent.)

Absolutely. My approach was much too feminine. Thank you for correcting me. Since you disagree, I must have been unclear and not rigorous enough.

No, I disagree with lots of clear and rigorous arguments (and I agree with a lot of unclear and non-rigorous arguments.) But it's hard for me to respond to arguments that aren't very clear and aren't careful about the inferences they draw.

Yes to 1, no to 2.

You are not even correct if you wish to limit your statement to the purely legal letter-of-the-law approach to marriage. For example, in most legal jurisdictions there are legal consequences to marriage which are inescapably gendered in nature. I will give you an example from Quebec. When a child is born to a woman, there is a presumption in place that if she is married, then her male spouse is the father of the child. There is no such presumption that applies to the paternity of the child if the woman is not married (we have both civil marriage and 'regular' marriage here), even if she has lived in a marriage-like relationship with this man for many years.

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, the presumption of parentage applies regardless of the sex of the spouse (so, married female same-sex couples benefit from it as well as married different-sex couples.) The exception is Iowa, but there's a court challenge there.

That said, it's true that the marital presumption is inherently gendered, in that a married man who fathers a child is not presumed a parent unless the mother is his wife, while a married woman who gives birth to a child is. Note, however, that this presumption is importantly different from the sort of structural gender roles that were once encoded into the law of marriage. Something like coverture influences the balance of power within a marriage: it subordinates a wife to her husband. The marital presumption actually makes a relationship within a marriage more equal by equalizing the status of both spouses as parents. (It is especially helpful to female same-sex couples for this reason: because at most one partner can be a biological parent, and establishing parentage through means like adoption is difficult and expensive, in the absence of clear intent-to-parent laws that apply regardless of marital status, it's hard to guarantee a child legal ties to two female parents otherwise.)

There are all sorts of legal reasons for this difference in approach to paternity which are informed by history and social attitudes. You can find the difference justifiable or not, depending on your own particular beliefs. Beliefs by the way which are not actually based on logic alone, but are instead informed very much by emotional reactions to the two situations. "Logic" does not escape cultural norms. In fact, "logic" is most often predicting outcomes based on those cultural norms.

Philosophically, I reject this thesis. But if your point is that manifestations of justification as they actually are--so, the kinds of reasons people, including legislators and courts, will give you for the marital presumption--are bound up with historical and cultural practice, not just with abstract rationality, I agree completely. (I think, though, that that's a problem, and that progress consists of challenging norms and institutions whose force cannot be justified in the terms of abstract rationality and replacing them with ones that can. I am not, of course, any kind of infallible adjudicator of what are and are not the right conclusions of abstract rationality.)

For what it's worth, I don't actually support an irrebuttable marital presumption, precisely because it's discriminatory, though I support consent-to-parent statutes that can give the same security in a fairer way (and without discriminating on marital status.)

Now, if you want to go further than just 'surface legal differences' then you have a much broader issue of social attitudes and both formal and informal social institutions that have arisen around marriage as a social and legal concept. I am not sure you intended to address that aspect at all, so I will not go into it right now unless you indicate your clear position on whether there exist distinguishment between men and women within those social institutions.

Yes, I agree that there is much about the way society treats marriage that is gendered, and sexist. That doesn't mean that (a) getting married reinforces sexism, that (b) any particular marriage is sexist, or that (c) abolishing marriage as an institution (especially through the coercion of the state, hardly the most woman-friendly institution around) is a reasonable, proportionate, or even effective step against patriarchy.

Chiding me for not providing you with a full manifesto, footnotes and all, is disingenuous. I am having a conversation (with multiple people mind you), not presenting an academic paper on my research. Don't worry, I have the same bad habit when someone tells me I'm wrong without going into further detail, but it's a habit I'd like to break.

I don't need your full manifesto. I certainly don't need footnotes! I'm just looking for a mechanism: I want to know, not necessarily in extensive detail but certainly in a clear and specific way, how it is that the act of marrying and living as married is inherently something that subjugates women, and/or how it is that abolishing marriage would be a substantial step toward attacking the social norms that mistreat women in romantic relationships.

Ah, I'm glad I did not try to address the latter above, as I see it would have been a waste of energy as we seem to agree on that point (at least on the surface, which is acceptable for now).

I will add another point to address the former claim, already addressed somewhat above, in that jurisprudence is a somewhat 'mixed bag' of hazy cultural manifestations and legal structures. Then again, I suppose we could say the written word of legislators are also mixed up thus and difficult to purely distill, and indeed that is a foundation stone of my entire argument. Going back to jurisprudence: The point being that the legal structure of marriage is more than black letter law and includes the interpretation of the relationship as it relates to a variety of other structures (inheritance, children, education, property and so on). Thus to say that we have erased all trappings of legal subordination of women while at the same time acknowledging that such subordination persists in a different milieu is not just counter-intuitive but also (as has been my point all along) impossible.

We recognise this fact consciously all the time when we discuss how social policy shapes law-making, yet very often when it comes to these tricky situations of inequality (class, race, gender based or otherwise) there is an attempt to try to think about the legal situation in its 'pure' form, apart from socio-political forces. It seems to be an approach destined for defeat, and quite confuses things.

There needs to be a few distinctions made here. So, there are (at least) three ways in which we might see harmful gender norms embedded into marriage:

1. They might be embedded facially into its legal structure. This is how "traditional marriage" did it. In the US, and I'd expect (but do not know for sure) in Canada, doing this today would be unconstitutional in almost all cases. The marital presumption is an exception chiefly because it can be rationalized (whether or not it is ultimately justifiable) in terms of the biological fact that female parentage is much more obvious than male parentage.

2. They might be embedded non-facially into its legal structure. So, we might say, without classifying spouses into "husbands" and "wives" with separately assigned legal roles, the legal structure of marriage discounts women's needs as they actually are and privileges men over women, in the same way that a "colorblindness" reading of equal protection privileges white people over racial minorities.

3. They might be embedded into the actual ways individuals practice marriage--for example, in how they divide up household tasks--in ways that don't particularly have much to do with law.

1 is, I think, largely beside the point today. To the extent that its historical legacy remains, they will be manifest in 2 and 3. I agree that 3 is a real problem. I'd like to hear some more specifics about 2. More specifically, I'm curious as to how a legally-recognized marriage is more problematic in terms of sexism than a relationship of unmarried cohabitants, where aspects of the relationship not imposed (or strongly influened) by law are the same.

I hate using this example, but it's clear. If you have a system of legal slavery, it is possible to participate in the overall system while also rejecting slavery. People did it. They did not withdraw from all aspects of the socio-political environment they found themselves in, they merely resisted the aspects that they did not agree with. Their acts of defiance did not obliterate slavery. The legal systems and institutions that perpetrated and perpetuated slavery had to be obliterated. Even then, cultural attitudes had to be addressed and have taken many generations to turn back to the point where you can say, "okay this is no longer true".

Quite so. The problem with this analogy for me is that it draws a comparison between marriage and slavery. The more apt comparison, I think, is between slavery and patriarchy. We do not get rid of the subordination of women simply by eliminating legal sex classifications, any more than we got rid of slavery and its legacy (white supremacy) simply through abolition. But that in and of itself doesn't tell us anything about marriage. Nobody should ever own slaves: to own a slave is inherently to treat a person as a piece of property. The only ethical course for a slave-owner is to emancipate the slave. But to marry someone is not inherently to treat a person as an inferior, or as bound by his or her gender. A person who is owned is never treated rightly, because inherent to ownership of a person is treating that person merely as a means to an end. But marrying another person, where both persons desire the union and exit is possible, is not generally to treat them wrongly. This is even true in marriages where some sexist practices persist: those practices themselves may be wrongful treatment, but they might well be there with or without marriage. Marriage itself is not the morally problematic act.

I recognise that there is a belief that a "critical mass" of people rejecting the subjugation of women and the imposition of gender roles within the institution of marriage will eventually bring out the obliteration of these things and that marriage will be 'reborn'. It is this that I disagree with.

While we wait for homosexual and feminist couples to "save marriage", socially and legally the inequality and subjugation continues in the wider sense. I recognise that there is also a belief that slow change is preferable to quick change, and I agree that attitudes cannot change overnight even if the laws do.

However, I argue that there is no getting around the slow work of changing attitudes, but that we actually draw that process out and actively hinder it when we continue to legitimise legal and social institutions that are based on inequality and subjugation.

There are two sets of claims, each of which I think you're conflating. Let me try to distinguish them.

First, with regard to same-sex and feminist couples "saving" marriage:

1. The inclusion of same-sex couples and feminist couples in marriage is a substantial step towards undermining sexist practices in marriage. I agree that this is false.
2. The inclusion of same-sex couples and feminist couples in marriage, insofar as such couples do not practice those sexist practices, does not reinforce those sexist practices, and if anything may possibly undermine them a little. I think this is true.

Second, with regard to the sexist character of marriage itself:

1. Because sexism is a real social force, both historically and to the present day, and because romantic relationships (which most predominantly are heterosexual) are often especially affected by sexist and rigidly-gendered attitudes, it is clear that sexism will affect how people perceive, understand, and put into practice the dominant social means of "officializing" a long-term romantic relationship, which is marriage. This is certainly true.
2. Marriage itself, as it exists today, is "based on inequality and subjugation." I think this is false. Indeed, I think it's indefensible. The dominant reasons people want to marry and the primary effects marriage has on people, at least when they have some choice in the matter, have very little to do with inequality and subjugation. There are lots and lots of married women who are not subjugated by their relationships. This is false in the case of slavery: the kindest master on the planet still necessarily and invariably subjugates his or her slaves, because to be a slave is to be a piece of property. To be a wife (or to be a husband, or to be simply a spouse) is not, in and of itself, to be subjugated or to be inferior.

I do not think we are in a comparable place when it comes to the 'grander scale shift in thinking' in terms of gender equality, but neither do I think that gay marriage (or any form of marriage) will get us there.

We agree about both of those things. I don't support same-sex marriage because I think it will be socially transformative with respect to gender equality. I support same-sex marriage because I think banning it is discriminatory and because I know a lot of LGB people (myself included) want to get married, now or eventually.

I think that marriage gets in the way of forming legal relationships and obligations to romantic partners in a less gendered way,

How so? This, perhaps, is the crux of the issue. It would be nice to hear some specifics as to how this is the case.

and I do not believe that an inherently heteronormative institution provides a vehicle for homosexual couples to change that fact.

Marriage is not "inherently heteronormative" either. Witness the same-sex couples marrying. Are their marriages incoherent? Robert George thinks so. No supporter of gay rights should. (And, yes, I know, this critique comes from the queer left too, not just from the socially-conservative right. But it rests on the same flawed picture of what it means to be gay, just with the value set inverted. Same-sex relationships, as such, are not any less marital than different-sex relationships, as such.)

I also think it is extremely unfair to lay the burden of change on homosexual and feminist couples.

Quite so. So let's (a) legalize same-sex marriage and (b) not blame same-sex and feminist couples when, inevitably, patriarchy does not vanish.

[Bluth Corporation]

(Looks at all his fellow christians posts)

Sighs...I feel so alone...It's like I'm the only one who cares and wishes to stop the abuse agasint Gays and gay marriage..

I suspect I'm the only...ehh, forget it.

[Belvadaire]

I will never support gay marriage, but I will look at them like human beings, and not a thing, nor will bash them, I leave the judging for God, If I'm a believer in Christ, then turn around and support gay marriage, then I will be considered confused, because me or you can't make God uphold Gay marriage, that's why gays don't read certain scripture in the bible, because it make them feel uncomfortable, yes God dont like gay acts, neither will he support it, the human race knows Gods anger will meet them oneday, so no I will never support it, over my dead body.

[Bluth Corporation]

I will never support gay marriage, but I will look at them like human beings, and not a thing, nor will bash them, I leave the judging for God, If I'm a believer in Christ, then turn around and support gay marriage, then I will be considered confused, because me or you can't make God uphold Gay marriage, that's why gays don't read certain scripture in the bible, because it make them feel uncomfortable, yes God dont like gay acts, neither will he support it, the human race knows Gods anger will meet them oneday, so no I will never support it, over my dead body.

So you're not a Christian, then?