Marriage [Archive]

theindependenteye

10-25-2008, 02:13 PM

Friends —

This morning, I stopped in downtown Sebastopol to talk with two members of a group holding Prop. 8 signs, promoting it as pro-Family, pro-Free Speech, pro-Country, etc.

They were nice people, I'm a nice guy, so it was a nice conversation ranging over my own 47 years of marriage, the current state of the institution, Old Testament doctrines, etc. At the end, the woman said she felt my heart was in the right place, and I said, "Well, I appreciate your standing up for your beliefs, and I hope you lose."

We shook hands and went our ways. I guess that's one way that democracy can work: you lock down your opinions, you debate respectfully, and nothing much changes. But I'm moved to pursue that conversation, less out of desire to defend my gay friends than to support the institution of marriage.

When Elizabeth and I married in 1960, we were kids who didn't know what the hell we were doing. We learned as we went along, and still are. We had the advantage, like my farmer relatives, of being co-workers: you had to stop that idiotic quarrel when it was time to get to work. Both of us being fascinating creatures to live with but fairly impossible as well, I don't quite know how we stuck to it, except by deep belief in commitment and the sanctity of promises, but the guts to embrace change.

However, I do know it had nothing to do with any Scripture-derived "definition" of matrimony. Or telling other people they weren't equally qualified to flounder around and screw up and slowly build a life together.

I have no quarrel with those whose God demands that they refuse to sanctify same-sex marriage, and I trust that they don't intend to extend Scriptural injunctions (Leviticus 20) of the death penalty for adultery or cursing your parents. But Prop. 8 — forever denying 5 to 10% of California's citizens the right to marry — is itself a profound assault on the institution of civil marriage.

We need more marriages, not fewer. We need people marrying who really want to marry, have thought long and hard about it, and then go ahead and make the leap. We really do need those courthouse photos of couples vehemently committed to the challenge, just as we're inspired — or ought to be — by the patriotism of new citizens and appalled by the apathy of the rest of us.

I can sure understand what brings those well-meaning people out on the street corner. Where I grew up, "gay" didn't mean just a comic neighbor on a sit-com; it meant a fairy/fag/queer who might land in jail or the loony bin. "Gay rights" would have been an incomprehensible oxymoron. It's been an extraordinary social evolution.

So indeed, many see gay marriage as a radical redefinition. Yet over the centuries, marriage has undergone many redefinitions: the Mormon church, big funder of Prop. 8, itself made a radical shift in abandoning polygamy. The bizarre idea that marriage should involve something called "love," not just baby-making, was another notion that shook tradition.

Is it in our collective interest to strengthen the practice of marriage? I believe so. And if we truly want to do that by legal means, we'd push for a full-employment economy, provide child care for working families, offer free marriage counseling, make health care affordable, improve sex education, focus in our churches on how to strengthen our own hearts instead of denying someone else's — don't get me started.

As for my own marriage, well, I can never be sure what might happen if I forget again to take out the garbage. But will gay marriage threaten ours? God, I hear that crap and I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

-Conrad Bishop

MsTerry

10-25-2008, 04:06 PM

Conrad,

Have you noticed that in all the discussions here about gay marriages, there is no opposition to giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. Even Sarah Palin said so. We have come this far.
Now have you also noticed that I used the words "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals"?
Why do I have to use TWO words if all I am doing is describing people? Is it because I need to be able distinguish between the two, to make myself clear?
Then why is it that you of all people, a writer, a linguist and a poet suggest that we use an established word when addressing two different unions? Why not start afresh and use a word that stands for a new beginning?

MsTerry

theindependenteye

10-25-2008, 05:39 PM

Dear Ms. Terry--

>>Have you noticed that in all the discussions here about gay marriages, there is no opposition to giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. Even Sarah Palin said so. We have come this far.

There's no opposition until you get down to specifics. Then I think the worm will turn. Do you feel this whole battle is over nothing but a word?

>>Then why is it that you of all people, a writer, a linguist and a poet suggest that we use an established word when addressing two different unions? Why not start afresh and use a word that stands for a new beginning?

Well, it's ten days till the election, and that's probably too short a time to bring a new word into the statewide vocabulary. If I called it "cousrogysr" instead of "marriage," I don't think the pro-8 populace would like it any better -- if anything, I'd be accused of wanting to do away with marriage altogether.

If the proposition passes, I don't think we'll have an immediate rush by its proponents to insure equal rights to gays. I think the opposite will happen.

In the long range, indeed, there's a point to what you say. Words hang around long after the party, like hangovers in fact, and it sometimes takes a very long time to realize you've been using a term that's radically changed its meaning and needs redefinition.

But right now, there's a vast array of laws, rights, privileges and values that are attached to this term. A constitutional amendment that gives me special privileges because I happen to really, really love tits — that doesn't make sense, despite our so-called Judeo-Christian heritage.

Just my HO--
Conrad

MsTerry

10-25-2008, 07:22 PM

Dear Ms. Terry--
There's no opposition until you get down to specifics. Then I think the worm will turn. Do you feel this whole battle is over nothing but a word?

Personally, I do. and what the word means to them. People becoming husband and wife.
If we were to choose a different word, but not get the same rights, I'll join the fight.

Well, it's ten days till the election, and that's probably too short a time to bring a new word into the statewide vocabulary. If I called it "cousrogysr" instead of "marriage," I don't think the pro-8 populace would like it any better -- if anything, I'd be accused of wanting to do away with marriage altogether.That is a bold statement, what makes you say that?

I
n the long range, indeed, there's a point to what you say. Words hang around long after the party, like hangovers in fact, and it sometimes takes a very long time to realize you've been using a term that's radically changed its meaning and needs redefinition.If somebody tells me they are married now, I know what that means. I know they are mostly heterosexual.
I someone tells me they are "partnered" (new word) i would also know what that means.
Less confusion sounds great to me, especially nowadays when you can't tell from the name whether it is a man or a woman

But right now, there's a vast array of laws, rights, privileges and values that are attached to this term. A constitutional amendment that gives me special privileges because I happen to really, really love tits — that doesn't make sense, despite our so-called Judeo-Christian heritage.You don't have to like tits to get those privileges

mykil

10-26-2008, 07:54 PM

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype> I just thought of something outstanding! I can have a whole new income marrying the boyz and becoming a whole new bread of coyote getting them across the border! I wonder if <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Ill</st1:state></st1:place> have to have sex with them?? Boy oh boy oh boy! Where oh where is Edward when we need him?

theindependenteye

10-26-2008, 08:33 PM

>>Do you feel this whole battle is over nothing but a word?

>Personally, I do. and what the word means to them. [snip] If we were to choose a different word, but not get the same rights, I'll join the fight.

I guess this is pretty much the same argument made by Don C. some time ago: Prop. 8 is to defend the definition of a word because if words change meaning, we're toast.

But we're not talking poetics here, we're talking human rights. It's arguable, I guess, whether "different word, same rights" is another way of saying "separate but equal," with all that implies. But in practical terms, "marriage" is a legal term embedded in a vast body of law and judicial precedent. You're suggesting that the best course is to spend years in the courts challenging every conceivable inequality, rather than simply expanding the definition of a word.

I grant you that may be what has to happen. But to make an extreme analogy: Why did we deal with civil rights issues by (in effect) expanding the reference of "citizen" to include blacks rather than ask them to choose another less controversial nomenclature?

Yes, a large number of people are deeply upset about using the term "marriage." I guess we disagree on how supportive half the California population will be to granting fully equal rights if this proposition passes. And if Prop 8 passes, it'll certainly put a serious damper on any effort to extend very important rights into federal law.

And that's not to speak of what I believe many gay couples would express, that they deeply respect and want to participate in "marriage" as we've traditionally understood it: a life bond between two people who are committed on all levels to one another. Granted that we've already changed (radically) the whole "life bond" business, but an awful lot of gay couples actually believe that stuff.

>If somebody tells me they are married now, I know what that means. I know they are mostly heterosexual.

Hey, c'mon, I can usually tell just by looking at them. Bet you can too!

>If someone tells me they are "partnered" (new word) i would also know what that means.

And to me that carries an additional connotation: they're living together, no implication of the commitment or responsibility that some of us still believe is a part of marriage.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

MsTerry

10-26-2008, 10:28 PM

C'mon now, Conrad
Of course that new law would include;
therefore the new term, will be equal in rights, responsibilities, duties and legalities, as the aforementioned term "marriage"
or something in better legalese

>>Do you feel this whole battle is over nothing but a word?

>Personally, I do. and what the word means to them. [snip] If we were to choose a different word, but not get the same rights, I'll join the fight.

I guess this is pretty much the same argument made by Don C. some time ago: Prop. 8 is to defend the definition of a word because if words change meaning, we're toast.

But we're not talking poetics here, we're talking human rights. It's arguable, I guess, whether "different word, same rights" is another way of saying "separate but equal," with all that implies. But in practical terms, "marriage" is a legal term embedded in a vast body of law and judicial precedent. You're suggesting that the best course is to spend years in the courts challenging every conceivable inequality, rather than simply expanding the definition of a word.

I grant you that may be what has to happen. But to make an extreme analogy: Why did we deal with civil rights issues by (in effect) expanding the reference of "citizen" to include blacks rather than ask them to choose another less controversial nomenclature?I have heard that one before,
You can't marry two women and call them man and wife.
With citizens, nothing changed, they are still called people

>If somebody tells me they are married now, I know what that means. I know they are mostly heterosexual.

Hey, c'mon, I can usually tell just by looking at them. Bet you can too!No, I am not that psychic

>If someone tells me they are "partnered" (new word) i would also know what that means.

And to me that carries an additional connotation: they're living together, no implication of the commitment or responsibility that some of us still believe is a part of marriage.I was hoping that a new word would spawn some of that commitment and responsibility................

cdegenhardt

10-27-2008, 06:53 AM

Prop 8 is not about a word. It's about Civil Rights. Equal Civil Rights under the law. "Marriage" is a Civil Contract that bestows specific rights and responsibilities on couples. If you want to drag the Judeo-Xian tradition into it, that's confirmed there. However, there are no less than 58 different definitions of "condoned" marriage in the common Bible (never mind the African Xian Bibles, the Greek Orthodox Books, the books that have been banned as heretical, etc). So you have a hard time banning same sex marriage based on the Bible. The Bible itself can't decide the definition of Marriage. But, even in the Bible, Marriages are all "civil contracts." Additionally, the US is commited to its status as a country that maintains the separation of Church from State (according to our Constitution). So why is the Judeo-Xian definition brought into the argument at all? The US has never before written a massively exclusionary law into its Constition. Neither had individual States until the same sex Marriage issue came up. What, exactly, is so threatening about same sex couples that sends folks scrambling for the cover of their Bible or Constituional bans? Psychologists have "cleared" them for parenting & teaching. Their "divorce" rate is statistically lower than heterosexual couples'. Pedophiles emerge, in a disproportionate statistical number, from the heterosexual male community. So we can't even get on them about that. They are our fellow citizens. They contribute equally to our country and our communities. They deserve equal Civil Rights under the Law. Why are we wasting an incredible ammount of money lobying to keep Civil Rights from a part of our citizenry, when we could be spending that money on our schools, our roads, our foodbanks? It's wasteful beyond words. Inexcusible really. And this from a State that considers itself inclusive, progressive, generous, etc, etc. Truley astonishing. And ugly when we see the underside of our community. A repeat of the 60's Civil Rights movement in many ways - right down to using the Bible to justify bigotry & exclusionary policy.
Worth noting: State wide Black Churches are seeing the issue that way now. Locally, there are several multi-faith services next weekend promoting a "no on 8" vote. Glide, the Center for Spiritual Living, etc, will be holding services.
It will be "interesting" (for lack of a better word) to watch the yays and the nays face off outside the services. I hope they can all keep their respective hands to themselves.
(And all of that from a good Lutherin girl with graduate degrees in Theology and Ethics).

Personally, I do. and what the word means to them. People becoming husband and wife.
If we were to choose a different word, but not get the same rights, I'll join the fight.

That is a bold statement, what makes you say that?

IIf somebody tells me they are married now, I know what that means. I know they are mostly heterosexual.
I someone tells me they are "partnered" (new word) i would also know what that means.
Less confusion sounds great to me, especially nowadays when you can't tell from the name whether it is a man or a woman
You don't have to like tits to get those privileges

MsTerry

10-27-2008, 08:42 AM

I don't why you pulled the bible into this, but I am curious about your "no less than 58 different definitions of "condoned" marriage in the common Bible "
Can you list them for us?

Prop 8 is not about a word. It's about Civil Rights. Equal Civil Rights under the law. "Marriage" is a Civil Contract that bestows specific rights and responsibilities on couples. If you want to drag the Judeo-Xian tradition into it, that's confirmed there. However, there are no less than 58 different definitions of "condoned" marriage in the common Bible (never mind the African Xian Bibles, the Greek Orthodox Books, the books that have been banned as heretical, etc). So you have a hard time banning same sex marriage based on the Bible. The Bible itself can't decide the definition of Marriage. But, even in the Bible, Marriages are all "civil contracts." Additionally, the US is commited to its status as a country that maintains the separation of Church from State (according to our Constitution). So why is the Judeo-Xian definition brought into the argument at all? The US has never before written a massively exclusionary law into its Constition. Neither had individual States until the same sex Marriage issue came up. What, exactly, is so threatening about same sex couples that sends folks scrambling for the cover of their Bible or Constituional bans? Psychologists have "cleared" them for parenting & teaching. Their "divorce" rate is statistically lower than heterosexual couples'. Pedophiles emerge, in a disproportionate statistical number, from the heterosexual male community. So we can't even get on them about that. They are our fellow citizens. They contribute equally to our country and our communities. They deserve equal Civil Rights under the Law. Why are we wasting an incredible ammount of money lobying to keep Civil Rights from a part of our citizenry, when we could be spending that money on our schools, our roads, our foodbanks? It's wasteful beyond words. Inexcusible really. And this from a State that considers itself inclusive, progressive, generous, etc, etc. Truley astonishing. And ugly when we see the underside of our community. A repeat of the 60's Civil Rights movement in many ways - right down to using the Bible to justify bigotry & exclusionary policy.
Worth noting: State wide Black Churches are seeing the issue that way now. Locally, there are several multi-faith services next weekend promoting a "no on 8" vote. Glide, the Center for Spiritual Living, etc, will be holding services.
It will be "interesting" (for lack of a better word) to watch the yays and the nays face off outside the services. I hope they can all keep their respective hands to themselves.
(And all of that from a good Lutherin girl with graduate degrees in Theology and Ethics).

arthousefilms

10-27-2008, 01:37 PM

Marriage should be called marriage and nothing else. Let's be very clear. If there is any other word besides "marriage", that would be the same thing as "separate but equal" in the black civil rights movement of the 60s'.

In other words, the supreme court and eventually the whole country came to see that "separate but equal" drinking fountain for black people was still 100% racist. Same thing with gay marriage. By saying gay marriage's are not real marriage, we are saying that gay marriages are inferior to other marriages.

And yeah, maybe it's not the most comfortable to imagine the idea of seeing gay married couples in storybooks, education, etc, but it probably wasn't so comfortable for a southern white person to sit next to a black person on a bus in the 1960's. But now, with a little perspective, it would seem absolutely ludicrous for us to have such a thought these days. In 10 years, we will all look like idiots for having not given gay rights earlier.

Or how about the woman's right to vote. It seems retarded that we would have ever prevented women (half our society) from voting. Hellllooo?

C'mon now, Conrad
Of course that new law would include;
therefore the new term, will be equal in rights, responsibilities, duties and legalities, as the aforementioned term "marriage"
or something in better legalese

I have heard that one before,
You can't marry two women and call them man and wife.
With citizens, nothing changed, they are still called people
No, I am not that psychic
I was hoping that a new word would spawn some of that commitment and responsibility................

Neshamah

10-27-2008, 02:37 PM

Marriage is good for society, and no one, least of all conservatives, should be standing in the way of committed couples from participating in an institution that benefits the greater good.

~ Neshamah

MsTerry

10-27-2008, 02:46 PM

Let's go back, to Conrad's example of a Citizen.
There are quit a number of people living here that don't have the same rights as citizens, even though they pay taxes, they work here and they contribute to society.
But we call them resident aliens or illegal immigrants.
Has it ever bothered you that resident aliens aren't allowed to vote even though they pay taxes?

Marriage should be called marriage and nothing else. Let's be very clear. If there is any other word besides "marriage", that would be the same thing as "separate but equal" in the black civil rights movement of the 60s'.

In other words, the supreme court and eventually the whole country came to see that "separate but equal" drinking fountain for black people was still 100% racist. Same thing with gay marriage. By saying gay marriage's are not real marriage, we are saying that gay marriages are inferior to other marriages.

And yeah, maybe it's not the most comfortable to imagine the idea of seeing gay married couples in storybooks, education, etc, but it probably wasn't so comfortable for a southern white person to sit next to a black person on a bus in the 1960's. But now, with a little perspective, it would seem absolutely ludicrous for us to have such a thought these days. In 10 years, we will all look like idiots for having not given gay rights earlier.

Or how about the woman's right to vote. It seems retarded that we would have ever prevented women (half our society) from voting. Hellllooo?

arthousefilms

10-27-2008, 04:21 PM

Ms. Terry,

Supporting gay marriage is a no brainer if you consider the following simple questions:

1) How could anyone legislate against another person's joy and happiness when that joy and happiness is not harming anyone else?

2) How can we justify making laws to deliberately discriminate?

3) How does someone's gay marriage take away from a straight couple's marriage?

4) What if the shoe were on the other foot and gay people were the majority and legislated that straight people could not get married?

Frankly, it is just by chance that straight people were born that way. There is a 10 percent chance that the sanctimonious straight people could have been born with the opposite sexual orientation.

___________________________

Let's go back, to Conrad's example of a Citizen.
There are quit a number of people living here that don't have the same rights as citizens, even though they pay taxes, they work here and they contribute to society.
But we call them resident aliens or illegal immigrants.
Has it ever bothered you that resident aliens aren't allowed to vote even though they pay taxes?

theindependenteye

10-27-2008, 04:24 PM

Dear Ms. Terry—

>C'mon now, Conrad
Of course that new law would include; therefore the new term, will be equal in rights, responsibilities, duties and legalities, as the aforementioned term "marriage"or something in better legalese.

That's a valid point. if that were done, it would satisfy the legal issue of equal rights on the state level. But that's not what's on the ballot: the proponents of Prop. 8 haven't invested this amount of money with the idea of affirm any rights for gays; it's basically the same mind-set that's on the ballot in Florida to ban gay marriage *and* any civil unions that offer equal rights. They just don't see that as being able to fly in California at the present time. Do you really believe that the big guns behind Prop. 8 would *support* another amendment offering "partnerships" exact legal equality with "marriages"? I applaud your optimism and wish I could share it.

>You can't marry two women and call them man and wife.

No indeed, I think they'd have to figure out what to call themselves. It's not any of my concern what they ought to be called, but if pressed, I guess I'd call them Joan and Amy, or mates, or something like that.

>>>If somebody tells me they are married now, I know what that means. I know they are mostly heterosexual.
>>Hey, c'mon, I can usually tell just by looking at them. Bet you can too! >No, I am not that psychic.

Oops, my apologies, I was responding as if you were saying you couldn't tell what sex they were. My head's back somewhere in Shakespeare's plays! But I still don't understand: Yes, if someone says they're married, indeed they're probably heterosexual if the two of them are opposite sexes. If we allow gay marriage and you're talking to someone at a party who says he/she's married or partnered or whatever, what do you need to do as a consequence of that knowledge, or what kind of bind does it put you in? I'm really trying to understand how it actually impacts on you personally rather than on "society" or some other abstraction.

>>Re. "Partnered": And to me that carries an additional connotation: they're living together, no implication of the commitment or responsibility that some of us still believe is a part of marriage.
>I was hoping that a new word would spawn some of that commitment and responsibility................

Would it were so. But it feels to me as if we're trying to "preserve marriage" by preserving (or rather reserving) the word. Some comedian, I guess with reference to Palin's daughter, proclaimed his support for supporting the definition of marriage as "the sacred union of two unwilling teens." Personally, I'm much more moved by the sight of a bunch of ecstatic gay couples who genuinely believe in the bond they're entering than with Palin's assurance that the young man "will do the right thing."

I'm totally supportive of the churches' belief in the sanctity of this bond, and I believe they should interpret it however they wish within their congregations. Maybe I'm credulous, but I also believe that the gay couples I know who have married or who want to marry aren't just doing it for the legal rights: they're doing it from a deep belief in some sort of quasi-magical sanctity connected with the concept. If that be delusional, let's make the most of it.

Bottom line, Ms. Terry: If you vote against the damn Prop, you won't cause anyone's marriage to break up or their kids to be corrupted, but you'll make a lot of people happy, and in the long run you'll help to revivify the concept of marriage. In my opinion anyway.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

MsTerry

10-27-2008, 08:31 PM

Ms. Terry,

Supporting gay marriage is a no brainer if you consider the following simple questions:

1) How could anyone legislate against another person's joy and happiness when that joy and happiness is not harming anyone else?

Legislation usually is taking someone's fun away.
eg speeding at midnight on a empty freeway is against the law

2) How can we justify making laws to deliberately discriminate?
I don't know of any law that doesn't discriminate

3) How does someone's gay marriage take away from a straight couple's marriage?How does a new word take away from a gay partnership and commitment?

4) What if the shoe were on the other foot and gay people were the majority and legislated that straight people could not get married?I think they would find a way to get it legalized by other means, why would they want to be part of a club that doesn't want them?

There is a 10 percent chance that the sanctimonious straight people could have been born with the opposite sexual orientation.The 10% rule has been debunked,

arthousefilms

10-27-2008, 09:15 PM

Sorry, but laws against speeding are to prevent innocent people from being run over. But laws forbidding people to marry is not protecting anyone. Look, neither of us is ever going to win a pissing match here.
Some people are more loving than others and some have a bigger heart. It doesn't seem like you are on the loving side. But at least you can be righteous and better than other people.

Legislation usually is taking someone's fun away.
eg speeding at midnight on a empty freeway is against the law

I don't know of any law that doesn't discriminate
How does a new word take away from a gay partnership?

I think they would find a way to get it legalized by other means, why would they want to be part of a club that doesn't want them?

The 10% rule has been debunked,

MsTerry

10-27-2008, 09:19 PM

Dear Ms. Terry—

That's a valid point. if that were done, it would satisfy the legal issue of equal rights on the state level. But that's not what's on the ballot: the proponents of Prop. 8 haven't invested this amount of money with the idea of affirm any rights for gays; it's basically the same mind-set that's on the ballot in Florida to ban gay marriage *and* any civil unions that offer equal rights. They just don't see that as being able to fly in California at the present time. Do you really believe that the big guns behind Prop. 8 would *support* another amendment offering "partnerships" exact legal equality with "marriages"? I applaud your optimism and wish I could share it.

I don't think it is the job of the prop8 people to fight for gay rights.

>You can't marry two women and call them man and wife.

No indeed, I think they'd have to figure out what to call themselves. It's not any of my concern what they ought to be called, but if pressed, I guess I'd call them Joan and Amy, or mates, or something like that.If you were to call them mates, you would in essence give them new names, so why not go all the way, and call it a partnership too.

Oops, my apologies, I was responding as if you were saying you couldn't tell what sex they were. My head's back somewhere in Shakespeare's plays! But I still don't understand: Yes, if someone says they're married, indeed they're probably heterosexual if the two of them are opposite sexes. If we allow gay marriage and you're talking to someone at a party who says he/she's married or partnered or whatever, what do you need to do as a consequence of that knowledge, or what kind of bind does it put you in? I'm really trying to understand how it actually impacts on you personally rather than on "society" or some other abstraction.Besides some social awkwardness from a faux pas by asking a person; 'so which one is your husband?', I can't see a better way for coming out of the closet and being able to say;' I am partnered!'

Would it were so. But it feels to me as if we're trying to "preserve marriage" by preserving (or rather reserving) the word. Some comedian, I guess with reference to Palin's daughter, proclaimed his support for supporting the definition of marriage as "the sacred union of two unwilling teens."LOL

Personally, I'm much more moved by the sight of a bunch of ecstatic gay couples who genuinely believe in the bond they're entering than with Palin's assurance that the young man "will do the right thing."Gosh Darn Conrad,
Now you have fallen into fallacious thinking that gay people are somehow different and therefore happier and ecstatic in their relationships.
I can assure you that there is a lot of violence, hatred and discrimination within the gay community, and I am not even speaking of the abuse transgender people have to endure.

I'm totally supportive of the churches' belief in the sanctity of this bond, and I believe they should interpret it however they wish within their congregations. Maybe I'm credulous, but I also believe that the gay couples I know who have married or who want to marry aren't just doing it for the legal rights: they're doing it from a deep belief in some sort of quasi-magical sanctity connected with the concept. If that be delusional, let's make the most of it.Let's pray that all relationships are for happiness.
The legalities usually become an issue when there is a divorce, which will also happen with our gay friends

Bottom line, Ms. Terry: If you vote against the damn Prop, you won't cause anyone's marriage to break up or their kids to be corrupted, but you'll make a lot of people happy, and in the long run you'll help to revivify the concept of marriage. In my opinion anyway.I think what will happen is that the ugly divorces will be played up in the media for the amusement of the masses.

MsTerry

10-27-2008, 09:29 PM

Sorry, but laws against speeding are to prevent innocent people from being run over.
No, I described circumstances where no one will get hurt, and it is still against the law, It was just an example not a comparison.

Some people are more loving than others and some have a bigger heart. It doesn't seem like you are on the loving side. But at least you can be righteous and better than other people.

Your remarks are off topic and seem intended to insult rather than inquire within.
So sad

arthousefilms

10-27-2008, 10:29 PM

It's actually more sad that you seek to deprive people of getting what they want in life.

No, I described circumstances where no one will get hurt, and it is still against the law, It was just an example not a comparison.

Your remarks are off topic and seem intended to insult rather than inquire within.
So sad

dandss1

10-28-2008, 01:42 AM

It's actually more sad that you seek to deprive people of getting what they want in life.

Uh dude people get deprived of what they want in life all the time. I for one want to win the lottery. Yet I haven't yet won a dime? Do you feel sad for me! What planet do you live on?? Honestly you sound like some whiney teenager... and of course I expect a whiney teenage response from you!

arthousefilms

10-28-2008, 08:00 AM

Yeah, but nobody PREVENTED you from winning the lottery. This is about some people deliberately depriving people of joy, not some random luck like the lottery.

Uh dude people get deprived of what they want in life all the time. I for one want to win the lottery. Yet I haven't yet won a dime? Do you feel sad for me! What planet do you live on?? Honestly you sound like some whiney teenager... and of course I expect a whiney teenage response from you!

MsTerry

10-28-2008, 09:34 AM

I suggest you read what I wrote and than quote me where I "seek to deprive people of getting what they want in life"
You think you can do that?

It's actually more sad that you seek to deprive people of getting what they want in life.

theindependenteye

10-28-2008, 04:36 PM

Dear Ms.--

We're starting to play ping-pong with peas, so let's do this: I'll have my one final say, then you can have the last word if desired, and then we can go on to other things like living life and building puppets.

As I see it, the only argument you've made against gay marriage is that it redefines the term "marriage," and the same goals could be achieved by calling it "partnership" and pushing for equal rights under that terminology. Therefore, the gays are misdirecting their energies and needlessly antagonizing those who are tied to the present definition. Prop 8 proponents warn of impending doom, but I gather that you don't share those feelings; at least you haven't argued those negative consequences here, except that in some general way, gay marriage causes confusion.

To me, those are very flimsy reasons for amending the state constitution to deny citizens an opportunity they want, that I believe would have positive social consequences, and that's no skin off our noses in any way I can see.

>>Now you have falling into fallacious thinking that gay people are somehow different and therefore happier and ecstatic in their relationships. I can assure you that there is a lot of violence, hatred and discrimination within the gay community...

Please give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm 67, and my profession is writing about human behavior. I'm not under any illusions about noble savages, beatific gays, or any of those much-touted traditional "heartland" family values like alcoholism, incest, battering or anything else. I *am* moved by large numbers of people rushing enthusiastically to embrace a concept that's generally in pretty sad shape. And I simply feel that gays should have exactly the same right to form dysfunctional relationships as the rest of us have.

>>Let's pray that all relationships are for happiness.

I join in that prayer, along with a vote against Prop 8.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

MsTerry

10-28-2008, 09:58 PM

Dear Ms.--

As I see it, the only argument you've made against gay marriage is that it redefines the term "marriage," and the same goals could be achieved by calling it "partnership" and pushing for equal rights under that terminology. Therefore, the gays are misdirecting their energies and needlessly antagonizing those who are tied to the present definition. Prop 8 proponents warn of impending doom, but I gather that you don't share those feelings; at least you haven't argued those negative consequences here, except that in some general way, gay marriage causes confusion.

To me, those are very flimsy reasons for amending the state constitution to deny citizens an opportunity they want, that I believe would have positive social consequences, and that's no skin off our noses in any way I can see.

Clarity is something that a language can provide.
As a writer you know the nuances that a word can provoke.
You can use pretty, handsome or beautiful. Are they one and the same? Or is one more appropiate in some situations than others?
We could call Canadians Americans, but we don't even though they are Americans, but we prefer to distinguish by calling them Canadians.
So Yes, I do think that words have a meaning, and it makes a language richer if a word says what it stand for.

Please give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm 67, and my profession is writing about human behavior. I'm not under any illusions about noble savages, beatific gays, or any of those much-touted traditional "heartland" family values like alcoholism, incest, battering or anything else. I *am* moved by large numbers of people rushing enthusiastically to embrace a concept that's generally in pretty sad shape. And I simply feel that gays should have exactly the same right to form dysfunctional relationships as the rest of us have. I guess what I picked up, is that you think a marriage nowadays is just a rote thing for straight people but a riot for gay.
I just don't agree with that point of view.
Having witnessed many young couples getting married over the last few years, I can assure you that there is a strong sense of commitment in the women and men that take this important step.