How To Explain Gay Rights To Idiots

[Ijustwannateach]

While I'm not a big fan of the institution of marriage itself- and wouldn't wish it on anyone- I agree that gays should have the right to participate if they wish. Here is a hilarious infographic helping those who frequently misrepresent what such rights mean to understand (its political language is US-based, but that is a minor quibble):

http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali

I should hasten to point out that the existence of this thread does not imply at all an invitation to any of the cited types of idiots to defend their views.

[isanbirder]

Nice, IJWT.

Personally, I don't agree with this use of the word 'marriage', because I believe that marriage involves at least the potential ability to procreate children. But I do believe gays should have rights completely equal to those of straights. What the Church does is the Church's business (and I'm a Catholic), and should not affect civil rights.

[Finlaco]

Nice, IJWT.

Personally, I don't agree with this use of the word 'marriage', because I believe that marriage involves at least the potential ability to procreate children. But I do believe gays should have rights completely equal to those of straights. What the Church does is the Church's business (and I'm a Catholic), and should not affect civil rights.

I'm sure you feel you position is well balanced but if we wish to live in an equitable society, and if society really believes marriage must involve the potential ability to procreate children, then it needs to have laws that treat all people equal. If it’s permissible to deny same sex couples the right to refer to their union as a 'marriage', then likewise, an infertile couple, or two people in their sixties recently ‘joined together’, must be precluded from calling their union a 'marriage. At a personal level we can have different rules for different situations, but at government level, state level, in a just and equitable society, laws need to be applied equally, regardless of sex, sexuality, race or religion.

[isanbirder]

Nice, IJWT.

Personally, I don't agree with this use of the word 'marriage', because I believe that marriage involves at least the potential ability to procreate children. But I do believe gays should have rights completely equal to those of straights. What the Church does is the Church's business (and I'm a Catholic), and should not affect civil rights.

I'm sure you feel you position is well balanced but if we wish to live in an equitable society, and if society really believes marriage must involve the potential ability to procreate children, then it needs to have laws that treat all people equal. If it's permissible to deny same sex couples the right to refer to their union as a 'marriage', then likewise, an infertile couple, or two people in their sixties recently 'joined together', must be precluded from calling their union a 'marriage. At a personal level we can have different rules for different situations, but at government level, state level, in a just and equitable society, laws need to be applied equally, regardless of sex, sexuality, race or religion.

Quite right, Finlaco. That's why I used a rather involved way of saying 'a man and a woman'; it obviously didn't work.

[Ijustwannateach]

If there needed to be a special term indicating a union which could lead to children, then the legal code would be in big trouble. I don't see the need for it- and neither, apparently, does the US government- never heard of that applying legally. If it's a religious distinction, then it has no place at all in the legal code (as the infographic points out). Atheists, satanists, and catholics are all allowed to get married. It is a legal status.

Granted, the institution of marriage (as almost all social rituals in almost all cultures) has its roots in religion- but so do certain elements of personal hygiene and personal wear (no polyester blends for you judeochristianislamists!). Where's the harm, I hear you ask? The same types of people who want to blur the distinction between politics and religion in these 'small' ways are (and have already been) the vanguard of the types who ultimately will say (have historically said) that's a good reason to put homosexuals (or Jews or Muslims or Americans or blacks or infidels or intellectuals) in jail or kill them (because god or anyway paul or anyway someone supposedly important says we're bad). Best not to let them even have a small foothold.

I don't understand the sentiment for religious trappings common among many gays.

[tombkk]

I'm not interested in the terminology: It does not matter to me whether it is called Marriage, Civil Partnership, or Doulbedigook. The important thing is that two people of the same sex should have the same rights as two people of the opposite sex: Tax advantages, inheritance rights, you name it.

Remember that straight people who are married do not have a legal obligation to produce children, and many couples decide not to. and many couples are even unable to produce children, even if they want to. So, there is no issue about children in the legal framework of marriage.

Mrs Clinton held a very good speech about this at the UN recently: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/clintons-geneva-accord-gay-rights-are-human-rights/2011/03/04/gIQAPUipcO_blog.html

[Jingthing]

Civil marriage needs no connection to religion.

Civil marriage needs no requirement to have children, no requirement to be biologically capable to reproduce, whether by sex or adoption.

In the US anyway, only fully equal federally recognized same sex MARRIAGE, yes it would NEED to be called marriage, would mean equal civil rights for gays.

This could happen overnight with just ONE supreme court decision.

Making some other word, like civil unions, mean the same thing LEGALLY may take hundreds of years to really mean full equality in the US, with its 50 different state governments. So that is no the path to equality, but rather the path to a crazy patchwork of laws, a la Ron Paul, recently revealed to be a homphobe.

I realize most UK gays are happy with what their government did, but such a thing is simply impossible in the US. Only marriage does it.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

sorry, I confused something.

Edited December 26, 2011 by lannarebirth

[Scott]

I used to find the whole argument of little interest, but as you get older you start to see some of the importance. If I die, only one person knows what I want done with my remains. If I get seriously ill, who has the right to decide on the treatment? Etc. etc. etc...

These things can be covered in other legal manners, but there are loopholes and if you live in a foreign country, it can be a major hardship on the people you are really closest too.

It's not the term or the paper I care about, it's easing the burden on the most significant person in my life.

[Jingthing]

In my case, I don't really care about marriage. I care about EQUAL rights in all matters. Marriage is the key that opens all the doors of equality. The enemies of gays are right about that. They realize the importance.

[isanbirder]

Civil marriage needs no connection to religion.

Civil marriage needs no requirement to have children, no requirement to be biologically capable to reproduce, whether by sex or adoption.

In the US anyway, only fully equal federally recognized same sex MARRIAGE, yes it would NEED to be called marriage, would mean equal civil rights for gays.

This could happen overnight with just ONE supreme court decision.

Making some other word, like civil unions, mean the same thing LEGALLY may take hundreds of years to really mean full equality in the US, with its 50 different state governments. So that is no the path to equality, but rather the path to a crazy patchwork of laws, a la Ron Paul, recently revealed to be a homphobe.

I realize most UK gays are happy with what their government did, but such a thing is simply impossible in the US. Only marriage does it.

I think, in fact, you and I really agree on this; the difference is simply terminology.

American laws and definitions do not apply in other English-speaking countries.

Since I made a mess of an earlier post, I'd better define what I mean!

1. Marriage, to me as a Christian, is a religious union between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage is for the mutual aid and comfort of the partners, and for the procreation of children.

2. Civil unions, commonly called marriages, are any other official partnerships between a man and a woman.

3. Civil partnership (or union) is what I want for gays, and is the full equivalent of (2). I would not use the word marriage for this, as it is not a religious union.

[Jingthing]

Who are you to say that gays shouldn't allowed full equality under the laws of nations? Should secular nations except the Vatican be run by the Pope? If you are talking about your religion, the same one that has oppressed and often murdered gays and Jews for thousands of years, that is your business and your co-believers business. You insist on saying marriage has to be related to religion. IT DOES NOT! That is an option, not a requirement. Different religious sects are dealing with this differently and that is being worked out WITHIN those sects, independent of governments.

Marriage to you ... as a Christian. Why do you think your bigoted religious dogma has a moral right to cram your dictatorial views down everyone else's throats, including people that have nothing to do with the Catholic church? How is that better or different than the Taliban?

Edited December 26, 2011 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

Marriage, as a civil contract, is defined however the state defines it. Most modern states (thank goodness) are not requiring persons (or even inquiring) about their religious status before affording them such a contract. As archaic, superstitious beliefs in the invisible sky people hopefully decay, so will the notion that agreements to form a family should have anything to do with any kind of religious belief.

I seriously doubt there are many states left which REQUIRE men and women to be of a particular religion before getting married (as by IB's definition, atheists couldn't get married!!!)

[isanbirder]

Who are you to say that gays shouldn't allowed full equality under the laws of nations? Should secular nations except the Vatican be run by the Pope? If you are talking about your religion, the same one that has oppressed and often murdered gays and Jews for thousands of years, that is your business and your co-believers business. You insist on saying marriage has to be related to religion. IT DOES NOT! That is an option, not a requirement. Different religious sects are dealing with this differently and that is being worked out WITHIN those sects, independent of governments.

Marriage to you ... as a Christian. Why do you think your bigoted religious dogma has a moral right to cram your dictatorial views down everyone else's throats, including people that have nothing to do with the Catholic church? How is that better or different than the Taliban?

Jingthing, I find that a remarkably silly post.

I have made no attempt to 'cram my dictatorial views down anyone else's throats'. I would not wish to do so any more than you would wish to cram your views down the throats of people who have religious beliefs... or perhaps you would.

I merely stated my beliefs... repeat MY. I have not tried to impose them on anyone, nor have I said that my beliefs should control 'the law of nations'.

Nor should you try to impose your beliefs, or lack of beliefs, on anyone else. You want full rights for gays; so do I. I do not try to tell you what you should or not call these rights.

[isanbirder]

Marriage, as a civil contract, is defined however the state defines it. Most modern states (thank goodness) are not requiring persons (or even inquiring) about their religious status before affording them such a contract. As archaic, superstitious beliefs in the invisible sky people hopefully decay, so will the notion that agreements to form a family should have anything to do with any kind of religious belief.

I seriously doubt there are many states left which REQUIRE men and women to be of a particular religion before getting married (as by IB's definition, atheists couldn't get married!!!)

Of course, IJWT. I am sure you would agree that I have the right to state my religious beliefs, just as I have no right, or wish, to impose them on others. I did not say that atheists could not get married; what I said was that this type of marriage, to a Christian, is in reality a civil union.

I do not think we should be arguing over terminology when we all want the same thing in the end. Perhaps you and Jingthing would prefer that I should not be so honest! I don't really believe that to be true, credulous though I may be in other ways!

[Jingthing]

I'd prefer not hearing religiously inspired anti-gay dogmatic rationalizations on why gay people don't deserve equal CIVIL rights on the GAY forum, correctomundo.

On issues like whether the Catholic church or some odd religious cult decides to officiate gay marriages among their flock or not, I suppose that would be of interest to people who are members of said organs. I'll grant you there are a lot of Catholics and thus a lot of gay Catholics; perhaps a new thread, hint hint?

They are really completely separate issues.

I don't believe for a second that we want the same thing. I see you as a voice for second/third class status. You may have noticed that probably the majority of gay people have been burned by organized religion so I doubt you are very surprised at this kind of negative feedback. For the most part, they are the core reason for our oppression globally, now and historically, and I think even you know that to be true.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

I'd prefer not hearing religiously inspired anti-gay dogmatic rationalizations on why gay people don't deserve equal CIVIL rights on the GAY forum, correctomundo.

On issues like whether the Catholic church or some odd religious cult decides to officiate gay marriages among their flock or not, I suppose that would be of interest to people who are members of said organs. I'll grant you there are a lot of Catholics and thus a lot of gay Catholics; perhaps a new thread, hint hint?

They are really completely separate issues.

I don't believe for a second that we want the same thing. I see you as a voice for second/third class status. You may have noticed that probably the majority of gay people have been burned by organized religion so I doubt you are very surprised at this kind of negative feedback. For the most part, they are the core reason for our oppression globally, now and historically, and I think even you know that to be true.

I think you are greatly overreacting. I too, see a religious connotation to the word "marriage", and that is why I prefer the term "civil partnership". However, you have already outline why in your particular country, you would like to see the term "marriage".

That's OK, but the point here is that everybody so far contributing to this thread agrees that it is about the rights.

[Jingthing]

Not a matter of liking or not liking a term. Its a matter of fully equal civil rights or not. I guess the concept of separation of church and state and the great undesirability of theocracy is culturally alien to some of you.

Are some of you from countries where you NEED a religious entity to get legally married (as opposed to the OPTION of religious involvement)? I reckon that may exist in some countries but are any western countries like that? I would clearly see that as a very bad thing.

Actually now I am not even sure if there are countries where CIVIL marriages aren't possible without religious involvement but there must be I guess. For example, reading the civil code for Iranian marriages is an eye opener!

Article 1056 - One who perpetrates a shameful act on a boy cannot marry his mother,

sister, or daughter.

http://www.alavianda...s/civilcode.pdf

Of course, as everyone knows, there is no such thing as homosexuality in Iran, so by shameful act they probably mean giving an American book or something like that.

Oops, I spoke too soon. Those fundamentalist rascals!

Article 1059 - Marriage of a female Moslem with a non - Moslem is not allowed.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

First, the whole religious bit is a gigantic red herring in this discussion. I mentioned it because I believe it, and because all our Western laws are influenced by the religious concept of marriage. It does not, however, relate to the question of gay civil rights.

Second, believe it or not, Jingthing, we are aiming for the same thing.... fully equal civil rights. Do you find it so difficult to believe that a Catholic actually agrees with you?

I do not think we should call it gay marriage, for the purely practical reason that we are giving our opponents a stick to beat us with. It is easy to rabble-rouse about the sanctity of marriage; civil partnership does not have the same ring. But ten years after we HAVE got fully equal rights, everyone will be calling it marriage anyway.

[Jingthing]

A careful reading of your post 11 shows that you do not want full equality. I can't imagine Rosa Parks saying OK, the middle of the bus will be OK, we don't want to offend Massuh. Your rhetoric sounds just like President Obama, not nearly good enough. In any case, I will concede, being American has influenced me, as we have no choice, the goal must be marriage and the word must be marriage, or nothing really meaningful legally occurs.

BTW, on your specious "be meek and weak" argument of avoiding offending heterosexuals, in the US recent polls are now showing for the first time in history that a small majority of Americans DO support legal same sex marriage. It is not a matter of offending the majority anymore, it is a matter of making the laws reflect the opinion of the majority.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

Not a matter of liking or not liking a term. Its a matter of fully equal civil rights or not. I guess the concept of separation of church and state and the great undesirability of theocracy is culturally alien to some of you.

You are contradicting yourself: If it is about equal rights, the term does indeed not matter but only the contents do. As long as you insist on a term, you are not looking at the rights that may be defined under another term but are exactly the same you aim for.

The term is just a label. I personally don't like that label because it is reminds me too much of Christianity, but you are saying this label is necessary in your country. Be it as it may, we agree on the contents while not on the term. Please do not say that I (or other posters for that matter) don't want equal rights because we prefer another, less burdened, term for the legalised partnership.

[isanbirder]

A careful reading of your post 11 shows that you do not want full equality. I can't imagine Rosa Parks saying OK, the middle of the bus will be OK, we don't want to offend Massuh. Your rhetoric sounds just like President Obama, not nearly good enough. In any case, I will concede, being American has influenced me, as we have no choice, the goal must be marriage and the word must be marriage, or nothing really meaningful legally occurs.

BTW, on your specious "be meek and weak" argument of avoiding offending heterosexuals, in the US recent polls are now showing for the first time in history that a small majority of Americans DO support legal same sex marriage. It is not a matter of offending the majority anymore, it is a matter of making the laws reflect the opinion of the majority.

Will you stop trying to tell me what I think, JT?

The US is one thing; the rest of the world is another. Although you have advanced in many ways, you have also confused the issue by having different laws in different states. Sooner or later, there has to be an amendment to the constitution or a supreme court judgment reconciling all the different laws. Meanwhile the rest of the English-speaking world (the whole world, but with different languages, there may be changes) has to get on and do its own thing, learning by your mistakes.

I'm very glad to hear that there is a majority in the US for legal same-sex partnership... and doubtless you will call it what you like without asking me!

Was it D.H.Lawrence or Noel Coward (sounds like the latter) who said, of the English language,

"And the Americans are worst of all because they speak it wrong!"

[Ijustwannateach]

If it has nothing to do with religion, then marriage is a civil contract that should be a matter of equal rights.

If marriage is supposed to be about religion, then the state (in the US, anyway) should have nothing to do with it, and there should be an option for all citizens (including atheists, or those to whom religion simply isn't important).

If there's a LEGAL (not religious) reason not to call what happens with two gay men a marriage based on ANYTHING, and the partnership/union/marriage/whatever is going to be a legal matter of state, then it equally should not be called a marriage between a man and a woman.

If there's no LEGAL reason to stop calling what happens (as a civil matter of state) between a man and a woman a marriage, then it should be a label that applies across the board.

Granted, in countries where you are still unlucky enough to have a state religion, this manner of thinking may not apply. But in the US, despite a very vocal minority, religious reasoning is not acceptable as a means of differentiating among the rights of citizens. That is part of the point of the infographic, too.

[Jingthing]

Yes, my objection to IB's point of view is his irrational insistence that there needs to be a linkage between marriage and RELIGION under government laws. It is in his definition of marriage in post 11 and it is wrong. I have not contradicted myself. It is about this RELIGIOUS linkage. IB's so called "definition" of marriage, see post 11, could have been written by a far right wing homophobe. It is totally inconceivable that someone touting that kind of definition supports equal marriage rights for gays. I will not tell him what he thinks but I will say what it is clear to me he is SAYING.

Maybe this is too hot of a side issue, but how can someone be an active believing member of an organized religion as a gay man if the grand leader of that religion is telling you it is OK for you to exist but you cannot have sex with even one person you love. How does that work? Talking about contradictions, that's a whopper. So are these believers who are committing to marriage that cannot be called marriage because it might scare the horses supposed to not ever do the nasty?

There are indeed a number of religious sects in the world which are welcoming to sexually active gay people, some even supporting equal marriage rights for gays. The Catholic church isn't one of them, is it? I am not singling out Catholics of course. The same issue applies to many religious sects.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

We could go round and round the mulberry bush on this one, and I do not propose to continue.

I have one last thing to say, though. I started this discussion by putting forward something which I innocently thought would be agreeable to all! No such luck. I was startled, and angry, at Jingthing's response. The point of the whole thing, however, can be summed up as, "Unity is strength." If only we could form a united front, and stop bickering among ourselves, we would be in a much stronger position in all discussions with governments, and confrontations with those who oppose us. Clearly others do not want this except along the lines of, "If you agree with me....."

[Jingthing]

We are supposed to unify with people who insist that the LEGAL definition of marriage must be directly linked to religion, specifically to Christian religion? No, thank you. The struggle I am familiar with is based on secular civil rights under the law, leaving religions to deal with their own issues amongst themselves. I am sorry you're angry. Would you prefer I not tell you my truthful reaction to your rhetoric (see again your RELIGIOUS definition of marriage in post 11)?

Edited December 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

This is interesting.

It seems in Britain with your so called "equality" (segregated system, isn't that special?) you don't really have that yet, either.

That's what happens when you settle for less than.

The equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone (pictured), has disclosed that the government intends to consult over how marriage laws in England and Wales can be further reformed, despite strong opposition from some religious groups.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/british-government-takes-steps-toward-marriage-equality.html#ixzz1hiavkgMM

[endure]

A careful reading of your post 11 shows that you do not want full equality. I can't imagine Rosa Parks saying OK, the middle of the bus will be OK, we don't want to offend Massuh.

As IB, like me, is from the UK Rosa wouldn't have any problem sitting anywhere on the bus she wanted over here.

[Jingthing]

A careful reading of your post 11 shows that you do not want full equality. I can't imagine Rosa Parks saying OK, the middle of the bus will be OK, we don't want to offend Massuh.

As IB, like me, is from the UK Rosa wouldn't have any problem sitting anywhere on the bus she wanted over here.

Maybe you lack a historically recent vivid consciousness of civil rights struggles then. The American gay civil rights movement is unapologetically modeled on the black civil rights movement. Many reactionary blacks are offended by this and a higher percentage than you might expect are indeed openly anti-gay; we don't care, their movement continues to inspire. There also may be a big Anglo/American cultural difference in passionate feelings about social equality, given the different models/national mythology of class consciousness.

Remembering again, the recently late, great Frank Kameny, gay civil rights pioneer:

Kameny is credited with bringing an aggressive new tone to the gay civil rights struggle.^[13] Kameny and the Mattachine Society of Washington pressed for fair and equal treatment of gay employees in the federal government by fighting security clearance denials, employment restrictions and dismissals, and working with other groups to press for equality for gay citizens.^[15] In 1968, Kameny, inspired by Stokely Carmichael's creation of the phrase "Black is Beautiful", created the slogan "Gay is Good" for the gay civil rights movement.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Frank_Kameny

On the other hand, I don't pretend to fully understand how Britain progressed so fast in gay rights considering not so long ago in general the penalties for criminalization of homosexuality there were much worse than in the states. In the US, it was mostly about ruined careers, not so much about prison sentences.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[endure]

This is interesting.

It seems in Britain with your so called "equality" (segregated system, isn't that special?) you don't really have that yet, either.

That's what happens when you settle for less than.

The equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone (pictured), has disclosed that the government intends to consult over how marriage laws in England and Wales can be further reformed, despite strong opposition from some religious groups.

Read more: http://www.towleroad...l#ixzz1hiavkgMM

Old news. When civil partnership legislation (which gives equal rights to those given to heteros getting married) was passed in the UK it was specifically forbidden to conduct ceremonies in places of religious worship to pacify some of the religious moaning minnies. The Quakers, the Unitarians and the Liberal Jews have been petitioning the government for some time to allow them to conduct civil partnership ceremonies and this will be allowed by this change in the law. As usual, it's the Anglicans who are making a big song and dance about it.