I haven't responded to this yet....

[keltic63]

but here is something that was posted in another forum in response to my question: How does same sex marriage detract, lessen, void, impose upon, or otherwise negate, straight marriage?


Let me use an analogy. Of course, it'll seem trite and patronizing, but this topic is so flammable and personal, I apologize in advance. This is just an analogy.

I know to you, music is your other passion in life. And you've probably gathered from my replies in lyrics-threads and what-you're-listening-to-threads, I haven't but the most miniscule understanding or appreciation for much of anything musical. So, for the sake of argument, let's say that "music" to me is the sound of motorcycle exhaust (not that it's not far from the truth). But let's say, to me, motorcycle exhaust ranks right up there with Mozart, Sinatra, Cobain or whoever else is heralded as musical perfection. And I've got somewhere between 5% and 10% of guys out here that agree with me. And we feel like everytime a musical performance is done, there should be motorcycle pipes played too. We protest, picket and complain like gays do about tv shows or movies that don't have gay characters. We insist that motorcycle pipes HAVE to part of every musical performance. What people listen to in their own home is fine. But if there is going to a CD made or an event where music is included, those motorcycle pipes better roar too because we'll be there to insist upon on it. Any kind of art monies that are granted, some of it better go to pay a biker to be there and rev the pipes. I could go on and on, but my point is that you as a music conassieur are probably smirking at the idea of motorcycle pipes being in the background of every recording or concert. And that equates to how gay marriage affects my straight marriage. Just as you would have a motorcycle-exhaust-free music collection for yourself, my own straight marriage is unaffected by the mere existance of gay marriage, but the institution itself is obviously affected as a whole by the "new definition" of marriage, just as concerts would be changed by the presence of motorcycle revving.
I know it's a trite analogy but bear with me in trying to find some other way of illustrating a difficult concept to communicate since the direct approach has only left me 'remote'.

to me, the analogy doesn't quite work, but I'm more intrigued by what it says about the writer. He views us as a nuisance that ruins his concert. gays are the noise that ruin an otherwise beautiful concert. And note that he admits that his own marriage is not affected by same-sex marriage, merely the institution of marriage suffers because of the presence of gay people. I have some ideas about what I'd like to say in response, but I'd also like to hear what you have to say.

[Zerbie]

:eek:

I don't suppose I was supposed to find that funny, was I?

No, the analogy does not work, in fact it's so bizarre and has so many flaws I wouldn't know where to begin. If that had been said to me face to face the guy would see me laughing the entire time. It's so bizarre I can't even find it offensive right now. It's just plain ridiculous.

I'm interested to know how you would respectfully argue with that.
What are these ideas of yours?

[Vanessa White]

Keltic: I am with you on the analogy not being very fitting, and the message of gay persons being a type of annoyance, at least that is what I get from what is written by the writer. And with Zerbie, it almost borders on the ridiculous rather than the offensive. Somehow, I see what a person's preference is in terms of music, or anything for that matter, can hardly be put into the same category of basic human rights that we as gay persons are excluded from. I mean, come on, I am not offended by not being "invited" to the "party", as far as having to have our desires catered to in every aspect of society. I think that really minimizes what many persons think we are about, or what we are seeking. It is about the fairness, rather the unfair nature, exclusionary tactics of it all. Am I rambling????:confused: :confused:

[keltic63]

:eek:

I don't suppose I was supposed to find that funny, was I?

No, the analogy does not work, in fact it's so bizarre and has so many flaws I wouldn't know where to begin. If that had been said to me face to face the guy would see me laughing the entire time. It's so bizarre I can't even find it offensive right now. It's just plain ridiculous.

I'm interested to know how you would respectfully argue with that.
What are these ideas of yours?

Like you, I have no idea where to begin. However, the fact that he puts gays in the "annoying" category tells me much about his true opinion of us. I want to address that for certain.
there is the aspect that musical taste is subjective and different for each person. concerts are not a "right" granted to some and not others.
there is his admission that his straight marriage really does not suffer because of same-sex marriage, he just doesn't like the idea of certain people being allowed in the private club.

[morningrob]

I also agree with the general tone of the thread that the analogy is just strange, but I still think that you can work with where the person is coming from and go from there. I think, maybe.

And then I started to write out a reply

Ok, I started to write how I would reply and as I started to write I realized the analogy just does not work. The analogy makes no sense. Ok sorry no help here.

[keltic63]

ok, here's one: Musical performances are not limited to 1 particular combination of instruments/performers. As in, marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. so casting marriage as the concert and gays as an additional instrument/performer in the analogy does not make sense.

[morningrob]

That's where I was going but I think the poster is saying that we have to have motorcycle pipes in all performances. It almost sounds like the poster is saying that now everybody in marriage has to partake of same-sex relations. At least that is how I read the post.

[Dash]

No one's telling him that he can't have his motorcycles, but they don't want us to have our concerts at all. We should be free to ride motorcycles AND have concerts, and only bad taste would try to put them in the same room.

The simple truth is they just don't like us.

They don't like us...they don't want us to have relationships at all, much less get married. No figurative language is needed to express such a base sentiment.

[keltic63]

No one's telling him that he can't have his motorcycles, but they don't want us to have our concerts at all. We should be free to ride motorcycles AND have concerts, and only bad taste would try to put them in the same room.

The simple truth is they just don't like us.

They don't like us...they don't want us to have relationships at all, much less get married. No figurative language is needed to express such a base sentiment.

yes! I remember feeling this when I first read his post. so for all the talk about tolerance, respect, etc. his analogy really is an indication of his true feelings that he doesn't like us, doesn't want us to have relationships etc. I was thinking I needed to point this out, that while his analogy doesn't work, it does give me an idea of what he truly thinks about me and gays in general.

[Zerbie]

Why not draw attention to the fact that marriage is a civil contract and has to do with legal rights & responsibilities and therefore, whether or not we "like" the persons seeking to get married is a moot point.

Draw attention to the fact that his objection to same-sex couples being married * as he has described it* is based solely on a personal, emotional discomfort, and not on fact.

He sounds only dimly aware of this reasoning himself.

Highlight it. Ask him WHY his personal feeling of dislike for gays therefore warrants denying them civil contracts under the jurisdiction of the state.

The analogy doesn't even hold, so state that and shift the discussion to where it belongs: WHY should his personal dislike of you be enough to deny you civil benefits and responsibilities under the jurisdiction of the state? What if you disliking him were enough to return the favor???

[Vanessa White]

The part of this guise of tolerance that always gets under my skin, is the idea that many persons have and express it this way, that we as gay persons are just demanding our own way, like a bunch of spoiled children who didn't get what they wanted at any given time. It is like we have to earn priviledges by playing by what they say the rules are, rather than having the same basic rights as other human beings have. And then, basically saying that we are okay with you being gay, just don't ask for too many civil rights, don't ask to be treated fairly, don't ask me to try to think about things a different way. Isn't that what learning about other human beings is all about? Looking at them in a different way than we have before? Deciding that maybe the lens through which we have considered others may exclude some details that are important to see????? Sorry, here I go rambling again.........:confused: ;) :confused:

[keltic63]

Why not draw attention to the fact that marriage is a civil contract and has to do with legal rights & responsibilities and therefore, whether or not we "like" the persons seeking to get married is a moot point.

did that: here's one of the responses: Being in the camp that's getting the indignant finger waggled at here, I can tell you this isn't about "tolerance". This is the land of the free and people can "do" what they please, courtesy given..live, love, laugh however you please. But...of course there's a 'but', taking an institution such as marriage that is Biblically based, defined by centuries of men and women and rooted in established religions as a fundamental standard of living, when a movement in a country that's a couple hundred years old and a blip on the radar of time goes against this, it's like adding an eleventh commandment, it's like adding the book of darwin to the Bible, it's paramont to dictating as a government a "religion" that you yourself rile against in separation of church and state, to recognize gay marriage is not about being "uncomfortable", it's about holding fast to a basic Biblical tenant. If gays want to forward the idea of "civil unions" or some other structure to streamline some of these "rights" (i still don't buy a whole lot of that argument), then by all means, roll it forward, but please, don't call it "marriage", because in the Biblical belief of those married in churches, standing before God, it has an unchanging definition.
and within another thread, though not directed at the forum member we're discussing now, I posted this remember that marriage in the US is a civil contract. For most states, for a marriage to be legal, it requires only the signature of the 2 people involved, and a legal representative of the state (justice of the peace, minister, etc.)
The legal benefits that gay people are seeking are not granted by religious institutions, or in the wedding ceremony that is performed in a church, synagogue, temple, or at any other location. The benefits are granted by the civil contract that is recognized by that state, and consequently, the federal govt.
his response to the civil contract statements: If what you say is true, and marriage is essentially just "a contract", then what's to stop a gay couple from creating their own set of "contracts" regarding power of attorney, rights of survivorship, funerals, etc.? I don't get why this isn't/can't be done. As a business major I took my fair share of contract law studies in college, and people can draw up contracts for any/everything. Sure, recognizing gay-marriage would "automatically" make many of these things happen by default, but a gay couple can RIGHT NOW draw up paperwork and create legal documents for all these situations. Contractual law is powerful stuff, I don't get why it is used to establish priority in all these circumstances (children/custody might be a different matter, but of course, biologically a gay couple wouldn't have their own children anyway, so the other parent would always be in the picture and that couldn't be contracted out which makes sense).
and finally, in response to someone asking him why anyone should get married, given that all of those rights can be created in contracts? or why should heterosexuals get married if they can do it by contracts? he responds: I would guess because a "marriage license" short cuts making contracts with another person and so many laws have "spouse" already in place so marriage is a whole lot easier than creating contracts. Which doesn't negate my point that two same sex people can create contracts. They don't have to create a contract to recognize a "spouse", but people in this country can designate beneficiaries, power of attorney, trustees, living will executors and the whole gambit of typical "spousal" roles without having to have a "wedding". Yes, I understand that recognizing gay marriage would make it a whole lot easier, but that still doesn't change the fact that any adult can create a contract and 'grant' someone else a boatload of 'rights' to all kinds of situations, man, woman, whatever.

[Zerbie]

Oh I see, you have been there/done that.

I hate these arguments.

Basically, he's saying he doesn't care how much additional expense it takes to draw up all those separate contracts. Sounds like he doesn't know or doesn't care about the things that aren't covered by all the separate contracts (getting an employer to provide insurance benefits to a partner, for instance, or the cases I've heard of parents losing custody of a child b/c a judge ruled the parent living with a contracted domestic partner was still immoral cohabitation because it is not "marriage"). In other words, you deserve to have to deal with all of this because he doesn't like you and doesn't want to allow you the "easier" path of a civil marriage.

All this he justifies with the "biblical" description of marriage, because all marriages mentioned in the Bible were between one man and one woman. Of course. :rolleyes: Er, I assume you've pointed out that they're not, right?

Ultimately, this person has a profound disrespect for other human beings. me? I would stop talking to someone like that. You've already raised the points that needed to be made and done a great job.

[tdogg]

The main point is that in this country, marriage provides almost certain and definite rights and benefits that a contract may not. Contracts are iffy, defendable and/or rendered useless in court. It's not like someone can sue a couple just because they are married. If one spouse's parents do not like their child's husband/wife, they probably aren't going to get far in suing that person to keep them away from their spouse should they be hospitalized. However, a power of attorney (contract) wouldn't be that difficult to contest. Not to mention federal and state tax issues!

The poster's analogy makes no sense to me, I wonder if it even makes sense to him/her. It would be like me saying, well, I'm not interested in having a relationship with a man, so therefore, I belief that men shouldn't get married. I would actually have to find an analogy for that - um, I think its okay that there is chocolate ice cream in the world, but since I really don't care for chocolate ice cream myself, I'm against any store selling it. :eek: :lol:

I find it very interesting that those who oppose/oppress homosexuals easily toss around opinions, accusations, beliefs, feelings - but rarely do they ever provide anything specific to back it up. :confused:

[suzer1013]

I don't have as much time as I'd like to reply, but I'll give it a shot.

I took Family Law and Contracts (among other things) when I was in law school. Basically, what we learned there was that, without the state's (meaning government) recognition, "marriage" would mean nothing in this country. Sure, religious officials could "marry" people, but there would be no rights, responsibilities and benefits associated with marriage if the state did not spell those out and legally recognize the relationship.

Marriage is a CONTRACT -- it always has been -- in Biblical times and now. Alot of people don't like to hear that. They want to think marriage is all about love and virtue and God's blessing, but it's not. At it's core, it's a contract. Because we have separation of church and state, marriage is more complicated. When governments were one and the same with the church, the rights of marriage were defined by the church. What these folks don't seem to "get" is that we have a government that is NOT their religion, was not intended to be run by any religion, and was not created with any one religion in mind (despite what they may protest to the contrary).

The trouble with expecting GLBT folks to do everything by contract, is that first it would be impossible to make as many completely binding contracts as you would need to cover the hundreds of rights enjoyed by married people in our country. And you wouldn't be able to enjoy some of the benefits associated with marriage -- contract or not -- for example, tax benefits and pension benefits and insurance benefits -- most are linked to being in a legal marriage in order to benefit from them. Second, contracts are challenged every day in court. What a mess it would be if you had to challenge several hundred contracts between a couple if they separated! Divorces are messy enough - - I can only imagine the difficulty of a feuding couple or family trying to hold some contracts binding and some not. Powers of attorney are challenged all the time, wills are challenged every day.

The State is the only one that confers the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage upon a couple. God doesn't do that, at least not in a literal sense. Except for what it means in our head and our hearts, marriage would mean nothing without state recognition.

As for the motorcycle pipe analogy -- it's ridiculous -- it's not an analogy at all. The argument seems to assume that gay people want to involve themselves in every straight marriage or relationship -- like we'll hang around in their bedroom while they're having sex or something. The poster's argument says nothing except, "I don't want you to have equality."

Susan

P.S. The other piece of wisdom I learned in law school is that everything, everything, is about property. It's about land and possessions. Pretty much everything -- every war ever fought, all boils down to property. It's an interesting premise. In the marriage sense, some folks are arguing marriage is basically their "property" and they feel we are taking it from them by wanting to marry, too. (Remember also that until very recently, women were considered "property," as were slaves.) It's almost as if we as humans have never outgrown the terrible two's "it's MINE" syndrome.

[keltic63]

All this he justifies with the "biblical" description of marriage, because all marriages mentioned in the Bible were between one man and one woman. Of course. :rolleyes: Er, I assume you've pointed out that they're not, right?

because in the Biblical belief of those married in churches, standing before God, it has an unchanging definition.

King David had 8 wives and ten concubines.
Solomon had 700 wives.
Jacob married Rachel and Leah.

can you account for this?

Every man sins. I don't believe God directed these men to marry mutiple wives. Perhaps you have a verse that proves me wrong. As evidence for us today, the heroes of the Bible are often the worst offenders of God's laws. Their repentence and journey back to God's favor are the lessons for us to understand. I wouldn't hold any of these men up as examples of marriage, but instead examples of how those decisions to follow social customs/pressures of their day led to the troubles they had and ultimately how far down they fell.


I have walked away from this argument before. This time, I want to point out the absurdity of the analogy, as well as the driving force behind it: prejudice, brought on by miseducation and misinformation, and the willingness to hold on to that prejudice and support it anyway one can.

have I ever talked about seatbelts here in the forum? I hate to repeat myself if I have.....

[Zerbie]

Okay, so you want to highlight his own personal bias. Good for you for taking the time and energy to do it!

Hafta say, though, no help from me. The analogy is ridiculous and not an analogy. His stance on Biblical marriage is preposterous - basically, he gets to claim, unrealistically, that Biblical marriage is always one man/one woman despite knowing that, in the Bible, marriage was not that. It isn't even an argument. It's a collective series of bizarre and personally biased statements which make no sense. Beyond that, there is nothing I can think of to say to refute it. It's just bizarre.

Let us know what you ultimately say in response. And kudos to you for goin' for it.

[Daniel]

Two thoughts come to mind in the matter of marriage being a biblical matter and our system of government being built upon the same. A cursory investigation into the history of marriage show his first premise to be without basis. The church got involved in marriage late in the game.

http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm
Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.

There has been yammering about our country being founded on biblical principals since I first heard Pat Robertson and others introduce the idea, and thus, re-write history in the 70's. It's an idea that is very theorcratic is its expression and would bring about an American Taliban if taken to its ultimate conclusion.

Based on the crudeness of the man's argument, I doubt very much if he will be able to hear the music in your words. But you still must sing your song. Maybe he'll pick up a lyric or two.

[nowvoyager]

I agree with most of what has been said, as well as sharing astonishment at the analogy this Poster has used. Are we just Pollution and Noise? What analogy are we next - the emissions causing Global Warming? The carcinogens in a cigarette? MAN!!

Keltic, given you are looking to argue against his analogy using his "logic" - I guess the only thing I'd add is there is a major problem with its comparitive size - it isn't even in the same ballpark as same-sex marriage. Does he mean that a person being denied hearing motorcycle revs at a concert is at great risk of suicide, drug abuse, mental anguish, or the myriad of other soul-destroying behaviours that same-sex people are impacted by, because of being refused and rejected? Is a love of motorcycle revving something that defines some people at the very core of their being, as homosexuality does?

[Emproph]

That's where I was going but I think the poster is saying that we have to have motorcycle pipes in all performances. It almost sounds like the poster is saying that now everybody in marriage has to partake of same-sex relations. At least that is how I read the post. Exactly, but I don’t even think that’s how he takes it, it’s a strawman. Like Dash said, “They just don’t like us,” but admitting that, even to themselves, ‘wouldn’t be Christian.’ This is where the Phelps clan has more credibility.

The analogy doesn't even hold, so state that and shift the discussion to where it belongs Agreed. It’s not an analogy, it is however an attempt to appear as one. No one would agree to forcing same sex relations on heterosexual marriages, strawman. The attempt to make it about this is a red herring, meant to confuse the issue in order to appear to be right. He shifted the discussion, a necessary tactic when ones argument is not based on merit but is based on the inability to be wrong.

As long as they deny that they choose to believe the Bible to be free of error, then they are free to believe that their application of it is free of error. Biblical inerrancy equals personal inerrancy. To be wrong about one would be to be wrong about the other, and thus wrong about EVERYTHING. Their psychological universe would implode!

Remember, it’s the possibility of error that does not exist, not just error itself. That’s what makes their denial especially insidious.

Being right is their “heaven.” Motivated by pride, superiority is the prize. And when your will to hate matches up with God’s, the command to openly condemn those whom they already-hate-the-most, is just too good to be true. They don’t just hate us, they love to hate us. Redefine that love of hatred as the love of God and you have remade God in your own image. It’s called idolatry, they’ve thrown out the first commandment. Perfectly acceptable when you don’t define God as Jesus and therefore do not define God as Love. The living word is thrown out in order to worship their per-version of the written word.If gays want to forward the idea of "civil unions" or some other structure to streamline some of these "rights" (i still don't buy a whole lot of that argument), then by all means, roll it forward, but please, don't call it "marriage", Like Dash has said before, It’s our love they do not accept. That’s this guy's ‘separate but equal’ clause meant to portray his behavior as ‘tolerant’ and therefore Christian. As long as he doesn’t have to call it marriage in his mind, he doesn’t have to admit that we experience real love, and as long as he doesn’t have to respect our love, he doesn’t have to respect us. Thus preserving his conviction of superiority and never ending supply of ego gratification.

Every facet of the Biblical argument is a red herring. ‘I don’t think of you as an abomination, God does.’ And now you’re having and argument with an unverifiable third party who can’t be wrong.

What they must deny first and foremost is that in order to argue on behalf of someone who can’t be wrong, you also can’t be wrong. That’s the absurdity. In doing so they literally worship the 'devil' and call it God.

(PS No, I don’t recall reading about seatbelts before. Why, is there an easier way to strangle hypocritical bigots with them? :D)

[Lydia]

that we as gay persons are just demanding our own way, like a bunch of spoiled children who didn't get what they wanted at any given time. It is like we have to earn priviledges by playing by what they say the rules are, rather than having the same basic rights as other human beings have. And then, basically saying that we are okay with you being gay, just don't ask for too many civil rights, don't ask to be treated fairly, don't ask me to try to think about things a different way. Isn't that what learning about other human beings is all about?

Yeah, that's the same attitude I'm coming up against in a conversation I'm having with someone on another board. The other poster insists that by working to make same sex marriage legal we're asking for some kind of "special rights" or special treatment.

[Daniel]

Emproph- Thank you for your illuminating words. They are the match which sets our strawman to flame. Burn baby burn!

When all is burned away- there is only Love.

[keltic63]

When I was a child, the first car I rode in had no seatbelts, not even a carseat for babies. Cars were not designed by their makers to have seatbelts. As seatbelts were not standard on the first cars, I believe this is how their creators intended them to be. We must protect the sanctity of cars!

Oh sure, there were a few activists out there, trying to shove their ideas down the throats (or around the waists, as it were) of car owners. A few of those European countries were toying with the idea of seatbelts as early as 1849 (Volvo), but fortunately this is America. This insidious disease of seatbelts snuck past all the safeguards built into the constitution by our Founding Fathers and walked right into the US Patent Office in 1849, when Edward J Claghorn of that Sodom and Gomorrah known as New York City received a patent for his safety belt. The Car Creators were able to exert their power as the good car owners continued to purchase cars without seatbelts.

Eventually, those screeching Seatbelt activists made inroads, quietly, into the automotive design industry. They infiltrated the factories and offices of the largest car manufacturers. Before anyone could notice what was happening, seatbelts became standard equipment on cars in 1963. it was a slippery slope from there on out. By 1965, seatbelts found their way to the back seats as well. Soon, even the good people who knew of the original beltless cars were not only tolerant of seatbelts, they were using them!

These activists would not be stopped! eventually the seatbelts turned into shoulder restraints. Airbags were added on the driver and front passenger seats. But were these extremists on the fringe satisfied? No. They continued to advocate for their "special rights" to safety. They convinced the car makers to add side impact air bags. They lobbied the government to make laws requiring cars to have the additional belts and airbags. And THEN, they went after our children, requiring innocent young babies to use safety seats, and booster seats for young kids. All of this was done so that seat belts would be accepted as "normal."

We must put an end to this! We need a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of cars! Cars were designed without safety belts, and for years were manufactured without safety belts. Cars do not need safety belts now! Traditional cars must be preserved. Join me in boycotting car manufactures who insist on installing, even forcing upon us, the new definition of cars!

I refuse to drive a car with safety belts or airbags, and I refuse to let my children to be brainwashed into thinking that such things are "normal."

[Emproph]

Emproph- Thank you for your illuminating words. They are the match which sets our strawman to flame. Burn baby burn!Thank you for that much needed mental imagery.When all is burned away- there is only Love. Remove all illusions and the truth (of Heaven) becomes apparent.

[Emproph]

We must put an end to this! We need a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of cars! Cars were designed without safety belts, and for years were manufactured without safety belts. Cars do not need safety belts now! Traditional cars must be preserved. Join me in boycotting car manufactures who insist on installing, even forcing upon us, the new definition of cars!

I refuse to drive a car with safety belts or airbags, and I refuse to let my children to be brainwashed into thinking that such things are "normal."Nope, I definitely didn't read that before. :rofl: :laughing: :lol:

[Dash]

Lewis wrote somewhere that, for some people, love can be almost all hate and they'll still think it's love.

I'm sorry, I can't remember from which book this comes, but I keep thinking that the concept is germane to a lot of the discussions we have here. The anti-gay bigotry and politcal oppression that comes from many Christians is almost all hatred except for one little kernel of love stated as, "we just want to save you from hell."

They hang a lot of hate on that one.

[Daniel]

We must put an end to this! We need a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of cars! Cars were designed without safety belts, and for years were manufactured without safety belts. Cars do not need safety belts now! Traditional cars must be preserved. Join me in boycotting car manufactures who insist on installing, even forcing upon us, the new definition of cars!

I refuse to drive a car with safety belts or airbags, and I refuse to let my children to be brainwashed into thinking that such things are "normal."


This is a fast movin' analogy Steve. Watch out! It's gonna run right over some dogma. :D

The anti-gay bigotry and politcal oppression that comes from many Christians is almost all hatred except for one little kernel of love stated as, "we just want to save you from hell."

And Dash- your thought here reminds me of the madness of the father who beats his child with a strap and says: "This is hurting me more than it's hurting you."