U.S. politics isolation tank

[Homburg]

Also, Homburg, you've never found yourself moving to a strange place with a three-year-old toddler and a baby at the breast. "I was made to feel unwelcome" has a deeper meaning than a big strong man without dependents can possibly imagine.

This is pretty wildly presumptive. I have four kids actually. And I went to eleven different schools before I graduated high schools, more than once of which were in countries whose names don't begin with "United", so I do think that I know a bit about moving to a REALLY unfamiliar place.

Oh, and in those non-"United" countries I've been shot at (the incident mentioned a few pages back), actively had to fight to defend myself (or run) from anti-american locals, regularly saw "YANKEE GO HOME" graffiti, received all sorts of threats, had the school in my neighborhood blown the fuck up because American kids went there, and other pretty goddamned blatant "YOU ARE NOT WELCOME" messages.

So maybe I do know a tiny little bit about not feeling welcome in a bit more visceral manner than you are imagining, and one in which my lovely male privilege was about as effective as a gun-free zone is at stopping violence.

So fuck you very much for presuming that I somehow don't know what it is like to not feel welcome simply because I am male and imposing (now). I think that I have a little idea, thanks.

 

[Homburg]

Yes. You see religiosity bias as the problem, I see Christianity bias as the problem. Formal atheist communities are usually more excited to tell non-Christian theists that they're blithering idiots than worry about their status or actually get everyone else into a similar boat.

And yes, it's incredibly daunting unpopular, you have six heads, lets get out the bingo cards to be an atheist in America, openly.

It's changed for me absolutely none in that regard, starting from "Jewish". Well ever since I flew the coop.

Yeah, this. A significant portion of the problem is the assumed binary of christian/atheist. A good friend of mine is a serious pagan and has pretty strong issues with christians as a result, but it's nothing on the issues she has with antitheists.

--

Well as an atheist, I just don't get my happy on about anybody's gods, not even the really pretty ones. And I speak as someone who has had dreams about fucking Krishna.

C'mon, Krisna's sexy. You can't feel too bad about that. He's also on the genderqueer side too. A lot of the art depicts that, especially the stuff between he and Kali. Some serious power dynamic there too.

--

If asked what I think I'll say what I think. If prayed for I will not feel as gracious as Homburg about it,

I cannot recall the last time someone referred to me as gracious.

--

Similarly, there are LGBT who say that don't want gay marriage rights, instead they want to abolish all marriage. But they are not the ones blocking civil rights.

On the subject of smaller religions-- Belgium has filed charges against Scientology as a criminal organisation.

I'm not LGBTQ but I'd like to see marriage abolished as a legal institution. Civil unions for everyone. If you want to be married, cool, find a church, but don't expect the govt to care. If you want a contract joining your houses though, yeah, govt will help. It's how I'd like to see it done.

And it is tough to defend scientology. Real tough. But if it were a contravention of the 1st amendment going on here, I would speak out.

(Saying "if" because the link is not working)

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is pretty wildly presumptive. I have four kids actually. And I went to eleven different schools before I graduated high schools, more than once of which were in countries whose names don't begin with "United", so I do think that I know a bit about moving to a REALLY unfamiliar place.

Oh, and in those non-"United" countries I've been shot at (the incident mentioned a few pages back), actively had to fight to defend myself (or run) from anti-american locals, regularly saw "YANKEE GO HOME" graffiti, received all sorts of threats, had the school in my neighborhood blown the fuck up because American kids went there, and other pretty goddamned blatant "YOU ARE NOT WELCOME" messages.

So maybe I do know a tiny little bit about not feeling welcome in a bit more visceral manner than you are imagining, and one in which my lovely male privilege was about as effective as a gun-free zone is at stopping violence.

So fuck you very much for presuming that I somehow don't know what it is like to not feel welcome simply because I am male and imposing (now). I think that I have a little idea, thanks.

So perhaps we can agree that "being made to feel unwelcome" is in fact, not a trivial issue?

C'mon, Krisna's sexy. You can't feel too bad about that. He's also on the genderqueer side too. A lot of the art depicts that, especially the stuff between he and Kali. Some serious power dynamic there too.

Yes dear, I know.
If you and I hadn't been having this discussion where you have consistently been telling me how to feel and how to behave-- I would think you were being friendly-- but right now? All I can see is you making another assumption about how I feel, and then telling me I shouldn't feel like that.

It's not good, dude.

 

[Homburg]

So perhaps we can agree that "being made to feel unwelcome" is in fact, not a trivial issue?

No, we can't. Because the incidents I mentioned were attempted murder, terrorism, assault, etc. The single piece mentioned that would fall solely under "made to feel unwelcome" was the graffiti. If the graffiti were the sole issue, it would not merit mentioning, but the attempted murder, bombings, etc go beyond that into the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I set that bar where I did because I've been there, and that's where I draw the line. I've moved into a small, highly bigoted town where I was the only mixed-race kid they'd ever seen. That's unwelcome. Whatever, I lived just fine. The shit I'm talking about is a bit more ugly than dirty looks, and that is exactly the point I'm making.

Yes dear, I know.
If you and I hadn't been having this discussion where you have consistently been telling me how to feel and how to behave-- I would think you were being friendly-- but right now? All I can see is you making another assumption about how I feel, and then telling me I shouldn't feel like that.

It's not good, dude.

Then you are projecting. And that is your issue not mine. Frankly, if you'd kept it mellow, I would've too. The post you're referring to was me attempting to introduce a lighter tone. If you want to project your vehemence on it, I can't stop you, but thanks for warning me. I'll refrain from replying in the future lest you decide I'm somehow telling your sensitive self what to think.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No, we can't. Because the incidents I mentioned were attempted murder, terrorism, assault, etc. The single piece mentioned that would fall solely under "made to feel unwelcome" was the graffiti. If the graffiti were the sole issue, it would not merit mentioning, but the attempted murder, bombings, etc go beyond that into the sort of thing I'm talking about.

In that case, you don't know what "being made to feel unwelcome" means to a woman with small children. You're talking about a war zone. I'm talking about a small town.

I set that bar where I did because I've been there, and that's where I draw the line. I've moved into a small, highly bigoted town where I was the only mixed-race kid they'd ever seen. That's unwelcome. Whatever, I lived just fine. The shit I'm talking about is a bit more ugly than dirty looks, and that is exactly the point I'm making.

it is absolutely more ugly than "dirty looks" but you still don't get to decide for other people where material harm is. and I'm willing to bet that the ugly looks didn't do you any good either.

Then you are projecting. And that is your issue not mine. Frankly, if you'd kept it mellow, I would've too.

Okay. So, you're telling me I am responsible for your manners being good or bad. AND, at the SAME TIME, telling me that YOU are NOT responsible for MY manners being good or bad.

The post you're referring to was me attempting to introduce a lighter tone. If you want to project your vehemence on it, I can't stop you, but thanks for warning me. I'll refrain from replying in the future lest you decide I'm somehow telling your sensitive self what to think.

Well, that would be easy, simply refrain from telling me what to think. We will get along quite well.

 

[Homburg]

Warzone? Nope, West Germany.

As to the rest of your post, fill your boots.

 

[midwestyankee]

@Homburg, I think you may have misread part of Stella's post, wherein she asked if you could at least agree that being made to feel unwelcome is NOT a trivial issue. It looks to me as if you were replying to an assertion that it WAS a trivial issue.


Now on to something else. You said, "And, further, as I am apparently either misunderstood, or purposefully being misrepresented, I was speaking of the attempt. Not success. Not law being put into effect. The attempt."

I don't know anyone who would equate an attempt with the real thing. I could TRY to screw some lovely young starlet but unless there was honest-to-goodness physical contact and penetration, no one would ever believe me if I later claimed that "I fucked Miss X." This is where you and I have to separate on the oppression front. In my world, an attempt at something is not the successful completion of the thing. The continuation of that separation is here: I have this pesky belief that oppression is an expression of power and you seem to think that the weak can oppress the powerful.

 

[Netzach]

@Homburg, I think you may have misread part of Stella's post, wherein she asked if you could at least agree that being made to feel unwelcome is NOT a trivial issue. It looks to me as if you were replying to an assertion that it WAS a trivial issue.


Now on to something else. You said, "And, further, as I am apparently either misunderstood, or purposefully being misrepresented, I was speaking of the attempt. Not success. Not law being put into effect. The attempt."

I don't know anyone who would equate an attempt with the real thing. I could TRY to screw some lovely young starlet but unless there was honest-to-goodness physical contact and penetration, no one would ever believe me if I later claimed that "I fucked Miss X." This is where you and I have to separate on the oppression front. In my world, an attempt at something is not the successful completion of the thing. The continuation of that separation is here: I have this pesky belief that oppression is an expression of power and you seem to think that the weak can oppress the powerful.

I've got issues when the freethinking/etc. communities rank "person who has rejected the Christianity they were born into's" oppression with that of a religious minority, especially one who visually is marked in some way.

Or better yet, decides that it's fair game to beat up on that person also. Indoctrination dies hard. It's still *more* ridiculous to have thetans or eight arms or whatever, no matter how much people enjoy claiming all are equivalent.

 

[midwestyankee]

I've got issues when the freethinking/etc. communities rank "person who has rejected the Christianity they were born into's" oppression with that of a religious minority, especially one who visually is marked in some way.

Or better yet, decides that it's fair game to beat up on that person also. Indoctrination dies hard. It's still *more* ridiculous to have thetans or eight arms or whatever, no matter how much people enjoy claiming all are equivalent.

Agreed. Ever since the second wave of immigrants landed, after the folks who hit Virginia and Massachusetts, we've had a problem with creating hierarchies of status in this country. Maybe it's a relic of the English peerage system wherein you're a higher status lord if your daddy fought at Agincourt than if he got his title by being the bastard son of the Queen's third cousin's horseshit picker-upper. Regardless of the origin, we have a real problem with every group shitting down the hierarchy.

In fact, one of the more irritating parts of the whole partisan war is the tendency on each side of the wall to claim superiority - it's either intellectual or moral, take your pick - over those cretins/non-patriots on the other side of the wall.

 

[Homburg]

@Homburg, I think you may have misread part of Stella's post, wherein she asked if you could at least agree that being made to feel unwelcome is NOT a trivial issue. It looks to me as if you were replying to an assertion that it WAS a trivial issue.

I consider it non-actionable. There have been many times in my life that I have felt unwelcome. None required any more action on my part beyond awareness and lack of stupidity. Going beyond that into the realm of threats and the like is actionable, and can result in prosecution, etc.

There is a line, and that line is marked "material".

I don't know anyone who would equate an attempt with the real thing. I could TRY to screw some lovely young starlet but unless there was honest-to-goodness physical contact and penetration, no one would ever believe me if I later claimed that "I fucked Miss X." This is where you and I have to separate on the oppression front. In my world, an attempt at something is not the successful completion of the thing. The continuation of that separation is here: I have this pesky belief that oppression is an expression of power and you seem to think that the weak can oppress the powerful.

If I attempt to punch you in the face, I have committed assault.

If I try to shoot you and miss, I have committed attempted murder.

There is a gross difference between attempting to have coitus with someone, and attempted to harm them. One is actionable. One is not.

And, again, I will say that individuals can oppress, and strength becomes much more conditional in that context, as in Netzach's example of the teacher with the rescue complex.

I'm repeating myself, and it's not getting across. I'm not really sure why. I've gone back and reread what I wrote, and it's pretty clear. It's just saying things that people do not want to accept, or, really, to understand. That's cool. It's life. The problem is that it's not enjoyable, and, frankly, I don't give a shit enough.

It's like the 'mellow' comment that I made. I wasn't that non-mellow, but I felt like I was because I got trolled, and, like an idiot, responded to it. Whatever. I don't have a dog in this fight. When people were respectful, and chill, it's worth discussing. When the trolling starts, it's not worth it.

Rawr, atheism, fuck yeah.

 

[midwestyankee]

I consider it non-actionable. There have been many times in my life that I have felt unwelcome. None required any more action on my part beyond awareness and lack of stupidity. Going beyond that into the realm of threats and the like is actionable, and can result in prosecution, etc.

There is a line, and that line is marked "material".



If I attempt to punch you in the face, I have committed assault.

If I try to shoot you and miss, I have committed attempted murder.

There is a gross difference between attempting to have coitus with someone, and attempted to harm them. One is actionable. One is not.

And, again, I will say that individuals can oppress, and strength becomes much more conditional in that context, as in Netzach's example of the teacher with the rescue complex.

I'm repeating myself, and it's not getting across. I'm not really sure why. I've gone back and reread what I wrote, and it's pretty clear. It's just saying things that people do not want to accept, or, really, to understand. That's cool. It's life. The problem is that it's not enjoyable, and, frankly, I don't give a shit enough.

It's like the 'mellow' comment that I made. I wasn't that non-mellow, but I felt like I was because I got trolled, and, like an idiot, responded to it. Whatever. I don't have a dog in this fight. When people were respectful, and chill, it's worth discussing. When the trolling starts, it's not worth it.

Rawr, atheism, fuck yeah.

Then I guess I'm just too stupid to see your brilliance. It simply does not make sense to me that someone with no power can oppress another. The teacher in Netz's example has power inside her classroom. The attacking person, no matter how small, has at least for a moment, some power. Beyond this, you lose me and I'll just have to surrender to your greater intellect.

 

[Homburg]

Nah, it's not like that, Yank. Not even close. I'm just tired of repeating myself, tired of treading the same ground, and tired of trying to explain it in a different way so that it makes sense when the core precepts and language apparently make no sense to y'all.

I'm not saying you're stupid, and there's no reason for that. I'm just not going to go into it again. If that offends you, I'm honestly sorry. You and I have always been cool, so I'm not really getting this attitude. Either way, it ain't worth the heartache.

 

[midwestyankee]

Nah, it's not like that, Yank. Not even close. I'm just tired of repeating myself, tired of treading the same ground, and tired of trying to explain it in a different way so that it makes sense when the core precepts and language apparently make no sense to y'all.

I'm not saying you're stupid, and there's no reason for that. I'm just not going to go into it again. If that offends you, I'm honestly sorry. You and I have always been cool, so I'm not really getting this attitude. Either way, it ain't worth the heartache.

Here's where I think we differ. In your understanding, oppression includes both the action with intent and the result. In either case, it's oppression to you. I only see oppression in the result. Example: I'm a legislator and I introduce a bill to ban the worship of Islam in my state. As it turns out, my bill gets only one vote, mine, and is defeated. Worshipers of Islam can go their merry way and worship as they please despite my intent. In my world, this is attempted oppression but without a result no oppression actually occurred.

In your earlier counter-example, you used the idea that an attack on someone was still an assault even if the targeted party was not physically injured. The problem with that example is that the attempt of assault is what's immoral and illegal and the result is immaterial. Your other example is also grounded in the attempt: attempted murder. Completed murder is an entirely different crime. These are not parallel to oppression.

 

[intothewoods]

I understand the difference between actual oppression and an attempt to do the same. I just disagree with the use of the word oppression in the contexts discussed earlier.

I'm certain I've written all this before, actually, maybe in the other politics thread.

 

[Homburg]

Here's where I think we differ. In your understanding, oppression includes both the action with intent and the result. In either case, it's oppression to you. I only see oppression in the result. Example: I'm a legislator and I introduce a bill to ban the worship of Islam in my state. As it turns out, my bill gets only one vote, mine, and is defeated. Worshipers of Islam can go their merry way and worship as they please despite my intent. In my world, this is attempted oppression but without a result no oppression actually occurred.

This is significantly closer to what I meant. Damned near spot-on. The only thing missing is the original context. The context being that I want no part of oppression, or the attempt to oppress. This is applicable both in the gun control discussion earlier, and the religion discussion now.

And the only reason I am replying to this is that you are making an effort in good faith to understand and keep it chill. I respect you, based on your portrayal from years past. Not really sure where that last post came from, but you're obviously attempting to grok what I said, and presenting it fairly. I appreciate that.

In your earlier counter-example, you used the idea that an attack on someone was still an assault even if the targeted party was not physically injured. The problem with that example is that the attempt of assault is what's immoral and illegal and the result is immaterial. Your other example is also grounded in the attempt: attempted murder. Completed murder is an entirely different crime. These are not parallel to oppression.

Now, I am a muslim in your state. The local muslim newsletter goes out and I see a big report that you, my area's representative, are trying to ban my religion. Where does that leave me? Am I actually oppressed? No. But is it clear that the attempt was made? That the intent to oppress exists? That someone is actively trying?

When someone takes a swing at me and misses, why is it actionable? Why is assault a crime? Because it is an expression of both intent and willingness to cause harm. The fact that the assaulter failed does not mean no crime has been committed. It just means that their intent and willingness was not backed up with full competence. It's still a crime.

Well, why is that? Because someone that commits assault and fails to connect has proven that they are violent and willing to cause illegal harm. Left unchecked, they will cause the harm that they attempted to cause.

This is why I am against attempted oppression. Just because you failed to pass that piece of anti-muslim legislation you are not going to stop. You are going to try again. If you were motivated enough to try once, you'll get there again. And the next time, you might have more support. Or you might be cagey and slide it in under a different name, or as a rider. The point is that you tried once, thus you are highly likely to try again. This is where the similarity lies.

 

[midwestyankee]

This is significantly closer to what I meant. Damned near spot-on. The only thing missing is the original context. The context being that I want no part of oppression, or the attempt to oppress. This is applicable both in the gun control discussion earlier, and the religion discussion now.

And the only reason I am replying to this is that you are making an effort in good faith to understand and keep it chill. I respect you, based on your portrayal from years past. Not really sure where that last post came from, but you're obviously attempting to grok what I said, and presenting it fairly. I appreciate that.



Now, I am a muslim in your state. The local muslim newsletter goes out and I see a big report that you, my area's representative, are trying to ban my religion. Where does that leave me? Am I actually oppressed? No. But is it clear that the attempt was made? That the intent to oppress exists? That someone is actively trying?

When someone takes a swing at me and misses, why is it actionable? Why is assault a crime? Because it is an expression of both intent and willingness to cause harm. The fact that the assaulter failed does not mean no crime has been committed. It just means that their intent and willingness was not backed up with full competence. It's still a crime.

Well, why is that? Because someone that commits assault and fails to connect has proven that they are violent and willing to cause illegal harm. Left unchecked, they will cause the harm that they attempted to cause.

This is why I am against attempted oppression. Just because you failed to pass that piece of anti-muslim legislation you are not going to stop. You are going to try again. If you were motivated enough to try once, you'll get there again. And the next time, you might have more support. Or you might be cagey and slide it in under a different name, or as a rider. The point is that you tried once, thus you are highly likely to try again. This is where the similarity lies.

See bold. Herein lies my problem with your earlier attempts to state your case: earlier you conflated attempted oppression with successful oppression. The two are clearly not the same. Now, if I'm your Muslim brother in the example, you're damn right I will fee justifiably butthurt. But I won't have been oppressed, merely threatened with it.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

See bold. Herein lies my problem with your earlier attempts to state your case: earlier you conflated attempted oppression with successful oppression. The two are clearly not the same. Now, if I'm your Muslim brother in the example, you're damn right I will feel justifiably butthurt. But I won't have been oppressed, merely threatened with it.

I usually try to stay out of the political discussions that evolve (devolve?) into semantic arguments, but in this case...

I'm a state legislator who thinks people who don't agree with every golden word from my mouth should keep *their* mouths shut, so I propose a law to ban Toastmasters, the Rotary Club, etc., etc., because they think I'm a radical, born-again Christian Tea Party-er who wants to turn this nation into a theocracy. Unfortunately, I live in a state that's not *quite* Tennessee or one of the other few states in which the Tea Party has, or can muster, a majority vote for a bill of this nature, so the bill barely fails to pass, even though the governor is a member of my party and has stated in press conferences that he would sign the bill if it passes.

During the pendency of the sub- and committee hearings, and the discussion on the floor of the state legislature, do you think that besides being butthurt, the members of Toastmasters, Rotary, etc., etc., would feel vastly threatened and yes, oppressed? *I* would. I'd be terrified for my safety, my freedom, and all the rights that my grandfather, father and I served in the US military to preserve. I would call that being oppressed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't approve of attempted oppression either. But what I consider a legitimate attempt is one that has a fair chance of being successful, within the time frame that it was attempted. Everything else is just reaction and defense.

if things change, and the new boss is different from the old boss-- that's when I will start fighting the new boss. Trust me, I will.

 

[intothewoods]

I don't approve of attempted oppression either. But what I consider a legitimate attempt is one that has a fair chance of being successful, within the time frame that it was attempted. Everything else is just reaction and defense.

if things change, and the new boss is different from the old boss-- that's when I will start fighting the new boss. Trust me, I will.

In the U.S., 2013 --

Attempts to ban Muslim garb or Islamic religious practice = oppression, use of "attempted" is fine but not crucial. Muslims are a religious minority in this country, and have been subject to violence and discrimination.

Attempts to ban the Rotary Club are NOT oppression because no one is fucking with them. Such a law would be a joke.

It's not about attempt versus success. It's the context in which we live in this country. A Christian in this country does not have the same experience as a Christian in Egypt.

 

[Dyslexicea]

I'm not LGBTQ but I'd like to see marriage abolished as a legal institution. Civil unions for everyone. If you want to be married, cool, find a church, but don't expect the govt to care. If you want a contract joining your houses though, yeah, govt will help. It's how I'd like to see it done.

In other words we lesbians and gays aren't, in your world view, good enough to be married, so let us(hetero people), bring everyone down to our(lesbians and gays) level and call it a civil union. That is just so much crap. Marriage, as far as the state should be concerned, is nothing but a legal institution between two people. It is not as you seem to believe an institution, somehow blessed by someone's god.

If you want to defend traditional marriage, who's tradition do you want to defend? For us women, for most of history, even today in some cultures, marriage has meant nothing but legal slavery. I'm sure there are many men who'd like to see that form of marriage. A form of marriage that even legalized beating his wife, in some cases even to death.

We don't want marriage laws changed, nor degraded to something else. What we want is to be treated equal. To be allowed to marry, to have that marriage recognized in every State and by the Federal Government.

I am married, I have all the responsibilities, which are many, but only some of those rights. So fuck your civil unions, just make us equal.

 

[Homburg]

In other words we lesbians and gays aren't, in your world view, good enough to be married, so let us(hetero people), bring everyone down to our(lesbians and gays) level and call it a civil union. That is just so much crap. Marriage, as far as the state should be concerned, is nothing but a legal institution between two people. It is not as you seem to believe an institution, somehow blessed by someone's god.

If you want to defend traditional marriage, who's tradition do you want to defend? For us women, for most of history, even today in some cultures, marriage has meant nothing but legal slavery. I'm sure there are many men who'd like to see that form of marriage. A form of marriage that even legalized beating his wife, in some cases even to death.

We don't want marriage laws changed, nor degraded to something else. What we want is to be treated equal. To be allowed to marry, to have that marriage recognized in every State and by the Federal Government.

I am married, I have all the responsibilities, which are many, but only some of those rights. So fuck your civil unions, just make us equal.

Hahahaha. Okay, I've slipped officially into bizarro land. I want everyone to have civil unions gay, straight or whatever and I'm supporting inequality?

Oh my goodness, what a lovely case of manufactured butthurt.

I want traditional matriage divorced from government. My problem is with that plain and simple. Mother Jesus balls, this place has gotten insane in my absence.

Y'all have fun.

 

[Homburg]

Note - "insane" isn't directed at everyone. Many of you lovely people are still quite sane. The overall tone though? Much love to those who warrant it and peace to the rest of you.

(Tried to edit my previous post, but phone says no)

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I'm not LGBTQ but I'd like to see marriage abolished as a legal institution. Civil unions for everyone. If you want to be married, cool, find a church, but don't expect the govt to care. If you want a contract joining your houses though, yeah, govt will help. It's how I'd like to see it done.

In other words we lesbians and gays aren't, in your world view, good enough to be married, so let us(hetero people), bring everyone down to our(lesbians and gays) level and call it a civil union. That is just so much crap. Marriage, as far as the state should be concerned, is nothing but a legal institution between two people. It is not as you seem to believe an institution, somehow blessed by someone's god.

If you want to defend traditional marriage, who's tradition do you want to defend? For us women, for most of history, even today in some cultures, marriage has meant nothing but legal slavery. I'm sure there are many men who'd like to see that form of marriage. A form of marriage that even legalized beating his wife, in some cases even to death.

We don't want marriage laws changed, nor degraded to something else. What we want is to be treated equal. To be allowed to marry, to have that marriage recognized in every State and by the Federal Government.

I am married, I have all the responsibilities, which are many, but only some of those rights. So fuck your civil unions, just make us equal.

That is not AT ALL what Homburg said, nor in any way implied, at least by my reading. Maybe you're more literate than I am.

My reading: Abolish marriage as a legal institution. Make the legal joining of two (or more) persons (of whatever persuasion{s}) a civil union. If a pair (or more) of people who have agreed to join in a civil union wish to have a religious ceremony/blessing on that union, let them find a church in which to do it... but don't make *that* the basis for whether their joining is legal.

The problem with marriage is that it historically has been performed and "blessed" by the church (whatever church that may be), and that church performance recognized as a legal act by the state.

Having everyone who wants to be joined together do so in a civil union (legal, sanctioned by the state) in no way diminishes ANYone. Allowing those who wish to have that union blessed or sanctioned by a church in no way diminishes ANYone... especially if that church sanction is not tied to the legal ramifications of the union, e.g., shared insurance, right to inherit, right to attend at one's deathbed, etc., etc., etc.

Get off your high horse and re-read what Homburg said without your kneejerk reaction that anything *you* haven't proposed offers inequity to your group. He was proposing a more equal legal footing, with no requirement for some religious sanction, for ALL of us - hetero-, homo-, bi-, tri-, a- sexual, or apples and oranges!

Gawd/ess! THIS is why I try to stay out of the damn political threads!

 

[Netzach]

In other words we lesbians and gays aren't, in your world view, good enough to be married, so let us(hetero people), bring everyone down to our(lesbians and gays) level and call it a civil union. That is just so much crap. Marriage, as far as the state should be concerned, is nothing but a legal institution between two people. It is not as you seem to believe an institution, somehow blessed by someone's god.

If you want to defend traditional marriage, who's tradition do you want to defend? For us women, for most of history, even today in some cultures, marriage has meant nothing but legal slavery. I'm sure there are many men who'd like to see that form of marriage. A form of marriage that even legalized beating his wife, in some cases even to death.

We don't want marriage laws changed, nor degraded to something else. What we want is to be treated equal. To be allowed to marry, to have that marriage recognized in every State and by the Federal Government.

I am married, I have all the responsibilities, which are many, but only some of those rights. So fuck your civil unions, just make us equal.

How is the secularization of marriage law "degrading" anything. I agree, the gov't should be in the business of merely supervising the legal paperwork of adults who decide "we want to go halvesies on stuff."

You need more, go to your local religious/community institution who does more and throws your party.

My spouse is TG, we're both highly queer, and we'd be fine calling what we have legally "monkey balls." I know a lot of GLBT people disagree on that one, but they seem to have much more romantic traditional ideas about the institution. (Gimme that old time sexist brainwashing)

Thank fuck someone at some point not that long ago DID "degrade" marriage law and definition to the point where people actually get to pick their own spouses rather than their parents.

 

[midwestyankee]

Re: Marriage vs. Civil Union

The semantics of this issue have become a central issue in themselves, and that's a shame. Those who know much more about the issue than I may be able to refine this, but I think the French model is the most rational and it would be a useful model. In France, every couple gets married by the state. Every couple. Any couple that wants a church wedding for whatever reason, gets one. Only the state can confer legal status on a marriage.

I'm sure if we tried to borrow this model there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in certain Christianist quarters (and maybe in the quarters of a few other religious groups as well, I don't know). Those who are incumbents in a privilege tend to see oppression when others are granted even a minor variant on that privilege, so churches would likely throw fits at a perceived loss of privilege and prestige.

Now, I am not conversant in how France handles non-hetero marriage, so they may or may not be a good model in that regard. But for marriage in general, I like how they roll.