*delurks*

First, the number of people that are against gay marriage on religious grounds is actually fairly small, according to what I've read. Many of them are actually against it because it's a matter that's being brought up as a Civil Rights issue (based in the ethnic/racial end of the argument), and I, for one, agree with them that it becomes fallacious at that point. 

Where are you getting that info from?  That's one that I don't think I've heard before, and I've got to agree, its a total straw man argument. Source, please?

I think the most common objection is based around religious reasons.  Which, for the record, I do not agree with at all.  Everyone should be able to marry, or no one at all, imo.

Also, (not trying to beat you up here, Malachy) but people are Asian, things are Oriental.

Binky wrote:

The way I see it, marriage is kind of a religious concept (as in, the sacrament of marriage) that has blended over time with a legal relationship (common law spouse).  I don't think the state has any business handing out religious sacraments, and if I was dictator of the universe, there wouldn't be any legal marriage, just a form of legal union like a civil union, but for everyone.  The churches could keep the sacrament of marriage for themselves, and make their own rules about who gets let in and who doesn't.

The idea that marriage is a religious concept only is something that a lot of religions might like to promote, but it's false.
The concept of marriage pre-dates all the major religions and exists in just about every human society. (And a fair number of animal species too for that matter)

Making a distinction between "marriage" and "civil union" by putting religions connotations on one is really only arguing semantics and inventing words for the sake of it.
Marriage is the English word we use for contract between two people to spend the rest of their lives together, whether or not it is a legal or religious term is really up to the legal and religious systems involved, but none of those systems have the power to co-opt the word itself, only the people that use the word can do that.

When I get married, there most likely won't be a priest in sight, but somehow I don't think that anyone will doubt my right to call it a "Marriage". (Other than maybe one of the aforementioned priests)

[ September 14, 2007: Message edited by: mabinogi ]

Malachy wrote:

Many of them are actually against it because it's a matter that's being brought up as a Civil Rights issue (based in the ethnic/racial end of the argument), and I, for one, agree with them that it becomes fallacious at that point.  Being gay is not racial.  It's not ethnic. In fact, the total percentage of homosexual people remains rather unsurprisingly constant across the board (around 2.5% for men and 1.6 percent for women, give or take .3% on either one. Go ahead and check my numbers on that if you want). This negates the idea that it could be brought about as a racial/ethnic issue,

I've heard this argument from a number of people, but I think it fails in the face of the basic principle behind this specific issue - equality.  While this issue of 'gay marriage' does not carry the same impact that the race- and gender- based equal rights movements have in this country's past, it IS a equal rights issue nonetheless. 

Amendment 14 says this: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It seems to me that our current gender-specific legal definition of marriage does "abridge the privileges or immunities" of a small portion of the citizenry of the United States.

 

[b]and many of the opponents of this issue are, wait for it, Blacks, Orientals and Mexicans in America, who are peeved that these folks are jumping on "their wagon". And I can't fault them for that, they worked hard for it, and it shows a great deal of disrespect to those movements and the people who died for them.

I've not witnessed this, and I went to college in San Francisco, and worked in The City for 16 years.  I grew up in Oakland, just 8 miles away across the Bay Bridge, which is where I work now (the discussions that led me to start this thread occurred at my current workplace in Oakland with a very racially/ethnically diverse staff).  What I DO know is that the homosexual community in San Francisco is as diverse as the rest of this country, which means it includes African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics.

Also, we Asians do, in fact, prefer to be referred to as 'Asians' ~ though I personally am particularly fond of adjectival celestial*.  ;-)

*True History of the Kelly Gang by Peter Carey

[edited for typos]

[ September 15, 2007: Message edited by: cyan ]

Originally posted by Malachy:  [b]One of the things we're all not taking into account is the sociological viewpoint, which is that marriage, as an institution, legitimizes sex, and does leave room for the expansion of the human race through that legitimization.

Sorry, huh?  I just want to make sure that I'm reading your post in the manner in which it was intended.  Because with this phrasing, my interpretation is that 'marriage' is a necessary element in order to 'legitimizes sex.'  Is that what you mean?

Yes. :)

Whoo! We beat Wales!

*keeps running*

-X

Wow, I haven't gotten this jumped in... gee, about thirty hours... since my last class I think *grins*.

Okay, first I must post a clarification.  I was tired when I wrote my original post, and I thought I'd written a point that I apparently hadn't.

Originally posted by Me: First, the number of people that are against gay marriage on religious grounds is actually fairly small, according to what I've read.

This particular statement is made to look silly based on the sadly omitted factoid of the "Homosexuality = abomination", the ones I tend to term as the "Leviticus crowd", aspect of the religious arguments.  Also, pound for pound, it IS a small group of folks, but they happen to be fairly vocal about it.  Only about 3 million people fall into this category, believe it or not, and in America that's actually slightly under 1 percent... something like .97 percent.  (Local Activist and Black Baptist minister, Rev. J. Thompson, in a personal interview, where he provided his sources, and I cannot for the life of me find the paper in question that listed his sources.  Whether it's a straw man argument or not, I'm just stating other things I've heard) Tiny number of people, when one starts talking statistics... frankly, they're outnumbered by the total number of gay people in the states... they just happen to be REALLY loud, and getting a huge amount of press, because it's good for the media business.  (Let's face it, everybody likes to watch guys like Graham and Fallwell make asses of themselves, because it's incredibly funny.)

Hell, dig around in those studies and you'll be astonished *sarcasm* to discover that most of the ones who are so staunchly against it are either barely high school graduates or not even high school graduates.

Yes, I know that the term Oriental is no longer the preferred one, and I apologize for any offense, but I was in the midst of digging around in a report and just typed that one without thinking about it.  Don't hammer me because of some dumbass way that somebody else labeled anybody.

As far as that 5% managing to adversely affect the other 95% of the population, I'm not saying it does, one, and two, it's precisely because it's only 5% of the population, which makes it a not particularly big deal to the folks vying for seats of power, wouldn't you say?

Cyan, yes, you read that passage correctly, under the sociological study, it is the common societal belief that marriage makes sex legitimate.  Now, before anybody jumps me for this, I ask them to recall that prior to about... oh, the 60's, the concept of unmarried mothers was a thing of shame and disgust.  In the fifties, if a young woman got pregnant, either her daddy held a shotgun on the boyfriend to get them married, or she was sent away to have the child (under the general disguise of "going to visit her aunt/grandmother, blah, blah).  If a person, either male or female, were to have sex, either outside of their marital bed, or in a premarital fashion, it was very much looked down on.  And if you think I'm full of it, how many times have you heard two people talking to some guy who just found out that he got some gal he barely knew pregnant ask him if he's going to "do the right thing"?  I've heard it far more often than you'd think living in our "enlightened" times, hell, that's how many of my friends' parents got married.  It's not as prevalent any more, but it is still out there, and many of the people that are guiding us in that are our grandparents, and many of the people that are fighting that idea are the hippie generation.  Who's right or wrong, I don't care (well, I do, but that's for another topic).

Frankly Cyan, I doubt very seriously that our society will ever truly accept that free flowing equality thing.  Some folks will always be more equal than others in people's eyes.  And if you don't believe me, stop and think about the issues we have facing us in the media.

Abortion: "If you're against a woman's freedom of choice in this matter, you must be  against women."  The person I got this quote from (I have it on TAPE from a debate years ago, which stopped being a debate and became an argument about three minutes before, because I was on the opposite side, and I have that effect on people) cited that it was the common feeling of Pro-Choice activists, and that she firmly believed it.  I was not equal, because I "believed" that the woman who wanted the abortion had already made her choice (I'm not talking rape/incest/mother endangerment cases).

How about "Gun Control" which is really a huge campaign, not against guns, but against the people who like them.  Obviously psychos, so we must degrade them and call them evil.  Not Equal.  (Seriously, we've all been in the presence of these folks)

These are just two examples, but they're two good examples.  I've been called a monster by so many people because I like unpopular things.  I LIKE guns, they are a useful tool, both for scaring the snot out of some jackass who breaks into your house (Yes, I have personal experience in that area, and no, I'm not talking about it at this time), and for firing off at the range to relieve stress.

We, as a society, will ALWAYS look down on others who don't conform to our ideal.  Look at it right now, in this topic, as several people make what may be taken as, and what may genuinely be, derisive remarks about arguments that have been brought up.  Those people may not say things you like, or may not believe what you believe.  I brought up things that I've heard and read, and not only was the fact that other people actually say/felt these things brought into question, (Sorry Mabs, but it made for a great example) but it was immediately dismissed, saying that it was only a cover for the reality behind the situation.

It starts with me, it starts with you, it starts with us.

Huh.

'Argumentative to polite disagreement' does not equal 'dismissal' in my book, but then again, I'm biased anyway. (It does start with me!)

*cough* Allow me to be slightly amused. You know the deal, it's late, I'm tired, etc. I firmly hold my tongue in my cheek :D

Malachy, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and you're obviously not presenting an unreasoned argument, but I find it strange you seem to be emphasizing the fight to be between whetever percentage of gay people and whatever percentage of religiously fanatical and vocal anti-gay people.  I think the true battle is in the hearts and minds of average people.  I would guess (without statistics to back it up, so this is impression only) that over 50% of Americans have significantly anti-gay feelings.  I think many put on a "politically correct" face and act differently in more private settings.  I base this in part on personal experience, partly on the obvious political difficulties in supporting the gay community in almost all states, and partly on the public trend for most people to need to clearly state their own non-gayness before they argue in favor of gay rights.  I think public opinion is slowly shifting toward equality, but its happening much more slowly than I would like.

PS, it's rather trollish to be stirring things up in one contentious topic, and then throw in your two cents on two more contentious but ultimately unrelated topics.  It's the sort of thing a person would do if they're aiming for a ruckus rather than a conversation.

*laughs* yeah, let's spread the love, Em!

lian wrote:

*laughs* yeah, let's spread the love, Em!

All you need is love! *huggles lian*