Bush Fighting Gay Marriage, Do we need a constitutional amendment?

What if I told you that praying for strength in that situation was only appropriate if it were for strength to truly let go of your own erroneous assumptions, not strength to bear the burden of a somehow compromised child?

I don't think you want to do harm to anyone, but that doesn't mean that you don't do harm. When you propagate an erroneous and judgmental vision of someone (in any way -- by internet postings, by teaching your children, at town meetings, any way at all) you harm them and you constrict their possibilities for a good, productive, rewarding life as equal members of the community. And that's whether or not they even hear it directly from you.

About forming family with marriage -- kinship bonds -- there are people who sit on the margins of their birth-and-marriage families for lots of reasons. Some gay people experience this, but they are surely not the only ones. So anyone in this situation may seek to do a very healthy, natural and well-adjusted thing: they try to make their own kinship bonds. Y'all remember that poem by Robert Frost, "The Death of the Hired Man"? The conversation between a farmer and his wife, when the old hired hand comes back to their farm to die?
It's worth a complete read, I guess:
http://www.bartleby.com/118/3.html

But the lines I'm thinking of especially are:

“Warren,” she said, “he has come home to die:
You needn’t be afraid he’ll leave you this time.”

“Home,” he mocked gently.

“Yes, what else but home?
It all depends on what you mean by home.
Of course he’s nothing to us, any more
Than was the hound that came a stranger to us
Out of the woods, worn out upon the trail.”

“Home is the place where, when you have to go there,
They have to take you in.”

“I should have called it
Something you somehow haven’t to deserve.”

Either way -- the man's definition or his wife's -- legal contracts don't get you that. Conventional marriage and birth kinship don't necessarily either, but it's that mutual responsibility whether the real inclination or whole heart is there or not, that's at the heart of family values, not specifics of ethical or moral behavior. That is what a gay or lesbian couple is looking for with a life commitment, like anyone else. I don't know how it could be otherwise, since they've been socialized in a culture saturated with those expectations like everyone else has.

So when you have people who are willingly and mutually responsible and interdependent over the long term, you have the bedrock condition. The presence or absence of sex, or how it is carried out, is not trivial, but it's not at the base. Whether the family is constructed so as to nurture children is far from trivial but also not at the base, or we would be dissolving childless marriages, or they would fall apart by themselves with little or no grief or trouble, like leaves falling off a tree. But the people in childless marriages choose to continue the truly important thing -- to carry on the mutuality of home. I don't even have to mention the heterosexual couples who have a house and biological offspring but don't really have any mutuality or sense of responsibility for the long term -- that's been talked about enough, and it neither proves nor disproves a thing.

There is kinship and marriage potential in anyone who has the capacity for long term, bonded interdependence. That's the family value we're afraid to lose in this country, and very rightly. Assuming that people who choose partners of the same sex don't have the capacity for this society-building and strengthening family model isn't just incorrect, it's terribly wasteful.

Man on man, woman on woman, it is not in the laws of nature!
You are going to bring up how animals will appear to mate with others of their own kind... that is not sexual, but a method of asserting dominance and control, it has nothing to do with the laws of mating.

I have been called a liberal here on these boards, but I do not have liberal feelings about this issue. Sex is for procreation between a man and a woman... it was adam and eve, not adam and steve....

But to answer the initial question.... NO! we do not need to have an admendmnet to our constitution!

CC,

Respectfully, I appreciate you comments. At least you have the decency to address me about the issue, and not my person. I cannot say the same for everyone. Read my posts, and other's replies to me, and you will see that largely I share my opinion of homosexuality, how the homosexual crowd is attempting to force a change in these opinions on a grander scale, and how our government has already set precedent in creating marriage law. This, of course, has brought about a barrage of labels and insults which reveals the truth of the situation. There is no acceptable answer response to homosexuality except support or indifference. To be otherwise instantly awards the dissenter with brands of social backwardness. I found this statement of yours particularly interesting:

I disagree. There are volumes of kids books that glamorize the homosexual lifestyle. One such book you may have heard about, titled "King and King" stirred quite a controversy. This book takes specific aim at grade school age children. It is just one weapon in the arsenal of indoctrination in public schools, and no one can convince me otherwise.

I'll try to answer some of your other questions.

The proposed constitutional amendment, unless I've missed something along the way, is not to deny gay's the right to marry, but rather to define what marriage is. It is not discriminatory, it is the way our legal system works. The internal revenue system expects us to report all income. In order to justify these requirements, they must define the word income (we could do quite a lengthy thread on this topic alone:) ).

And again, many of our laws have a moral foundation. I mention bestiality because the laws against it do not protect any consenting human, but rather animals who, by their very nature, cannot show their consent. The fact that we kill and eat animals, in my mind anyway, nullifies any notion of the intent to protect the animal population from injury. It is, in fact, a law based on a moral standard. And rightfully so. Granted, more people find bestiality immoral than they do homosexuality. However, we're not speaking in terms of numbers or percentages. By the way, I draw the comparison to bestiality and pedophilia because they are both outlawed, applying a moral standard, and based on the nature of the offense which is sexual.

So how is this constitutional? That is moot point, because that is what the amendment process is for.

I'm sure lots of people think this way. I do not, so I can't honestly answer that. What I will say is that I know homosexuality to be wrong, and I do not believe our nation should be giving it the seal of approval.

Hi there--with all due respect, the Mayans had the institution of marriage long before the Christians came up with it. I'm sure there are other examples, but that's one that comes to mind right now.

Again I respect your opinion and feelings, but you need to do more research.

I HAVE AN IDEA!

Can we solve this issue by allowing gay folks to marry and have all the same legal rights that go with getting married, but call it null and void on a religious level? Could they be "legally married" but not "religiously married" since that seems to be the major thing in question...whether the Bible supports this?

It does look like it would take some of the heat out of the debate. The problem with it is that gays have no less of a range of spiritual expression than the rest of the population -- that is, some are fairly secular, some have no affiliation or sense of spiritual need at all, and some are deeply religious, and across many traditions. So if their tradition has a spiritual component in the way marriage is defined, it is going to be in their expectations and wishes.

This is an anthropological view:
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0405if-comm4.htm

that illustrates McKenna's observation that some form of lasting and socially recognized bonding that creates kinship affines (marriage) has been around almost as long as there have been humans recognizable as such. The whole article is worth looking at, but I was struck by this in particular:

Indeed the only feature of marriages that is apparently universal is that they will create affinal (in-law) relationships, or alliances, a fact that Lévi-Strauss and others considered to lie behind the origin of human marriage. But even here, affinal relationships are themselves quite varied in their nature and importance across societies. Thus, in terms of child legitimacy, sex of spouses, sexual activity, residence and so on, what we see around the world in terms of marriage is most notable for its variation.

As far as relying on dictionary definitions -- Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary does have the definition as being between a man and a woman, but the new online American Heritage (!) Dictionary contains the following:

mar·riage

NOUN:

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The state of being married; wedlock.

A common-law marriage.

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

A wedding.

A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).

Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Dictionaries follow common practice and use, they do not precede it or mandate it. Relying on a dictionary either to prove or disprove this point is therefore a backward-looking strategy -- it only demonstrates "by definition," as it were, what has been, not what is or will be. But the AH dictionary entry seems to suggest that marriage between people of the same sex has taken hold enough in the popular sense of things to merit inclusion.

Here is the end of the article I linked above. I think it wraps this particular perspective neatly:

From an anthropological perspective that focuses on the whole of humanity, what same-sex couples seeking legal marriage in the US are trying to do is not to redefine marriage. They are seeking legal recognition in the US for doing what people around the world have always done, that is to construct marriage for themselves.

This commentary reflects the broadest human context from the discipline of world cultural anthropology. Those who prefer to adhere to the context of American law and biblical precept are certainly entitled to do so, but I think they must, in all honesty and fairness, acknowledge that it is a relative and not an absolute stance.

Stoirmeil, the only mistake I see in your argument is that you are introducing facts and reason into what is basically, at least on the part of some of the overzealous religous types, a purely emotional issue.

You want to be careful, my man. I've already been whomped with the ad hominem wet hanky once in this thread.

But really, what you are bringing up is an issue that has more than academic relevance. We tend to use "stereotype" and "prejudice" interchangeably in colloquial terms, but they are psychologically distinct. A stereotype may be positive, negative, or neutral, and is based on lack of information or familiarity. It's not that hard to change a stereotype, with learning. A prejudice, by contrast, is invariably negative, and does not yield to rational argument, information, or evidence that it is erroneous. The most likely explanation that has been advanced is that there is some emotional investment in not relinquishing the position, usually based on perceived threat of loss (including material possessions, rights and privileges, social approval, turf, or dominance).

There you might be wrong. The person is talking about the first couple, Adam and Eve. They would have been before the Mayan's and all other races. But if we are talking about "Christians", after Christ's resurrection, then you might be right. But I think the previsious person was talking about God and the beginning of time.

You must be aware that theology and scientific inquiry don't mesh here, and the fundamentalist viewpoint is not the majority (and not only in this thread). You may be witnessing sincerely to your faith, and there's nothing wrong with that, but the existence of Adam and Eve, particularly with regard to fixing an exact date of such existence for comparison purposes, has little place in a discussion having to do with the legal rights of millions in a modern, legally secular society, especially when we are talking constitutional amendments.

All I have left to say on this issue is that I think it will be interesting to see how this issue evolves over the next few years.

Well, if you believe in Adam and Eve and the "first couple" concept I would venture to conclude you have a fundamentalist/biblical POV on matters in life. With all due respect, I'm sorry but I can't roll with you down that avenue.

Whatever the case may be, we simply cannot prescibe laws by going with one fundamentalist religious viewpoint that is certainly not the majority.

I think it is human nature to want to find some kind of dogma or construct for life. That is why the bible/religion is so popular. Life is basically totally absurd--why are we dealt the hand we are dealt? None of it makes sense.

it is much more frightening (and exhausting) to keep an open mind and maintain a constant state of wonder and education at the mystery of life instead of quoting lines from the Bible to solve everything. (not saying that is necessarily what Jedi is doing but many other do).

Hello all!!!

Been awhile since I checked into this forum.

Now, about Bush's proposed amendment banning gay marriage.

This is an election year. It is obvious that Bush wants to keep control of both houses of Congress so they can continue to rubber stamp his war. He was pandering to the right wing base using his reliable "3G" strategy: Gays, Guns & God.

I am not gay myself. However, I do know some who are. I want them to have the same rights as I do, to get married, raise a family and be able to provide for them.

To pick from a smorgasbord of anthropological examples which correspond to a pre-existing bias, which Prof. Stone seems to have done, ignores the most pertinent issue, that its in the current social context that this issue is being debated and decided. Although she can provide anthropological evidence that suggests a tenuous definition of marriage, that doesn't mean that particular construct is considered ill defined now.

She makes the comment that gay marriage is not seeking to redefine the institution, yet the debate revolves around that very issue regardless of intent. She has picked various examples where the attitudes of indigenous peoples support her contention and ignored those that do not. In her defense, its unlikely the intent was to provide a broadbased expose on all forms of indigenous couplings (no pun intended), yet Rousseau-like utopianism towards native sexuality is not only just a portion of the anthropological history pertaining to sexual expression, its of questionable relevance to the current social context in which the issue is being debated and will do little to assuage modern concerns in my opinion. If its a question of perception, then modern perceptions are most pertinent because they are the ones around which incendiary debates have ignited.

I wonder if everyone who knows my style can read my statements/questions without automatically thinking me to be sarcastic. One can only hope.

I strongly question the ability of same-sex couples to raise children without their sexual orientation having a profound influence on the child's sexual identity during those very vulnerable and formative years of development. I've tried to research this, and have found such a mix of opinion that it's difficult to gauge any consensus view. I did find one article that echoes my uneducated thoughts:

Full Article

Of course this doesn't prove anything. However, regardless of the fact that plenty of heterosexual couples do a lousy job parenting, I can't imagine a child raised by homosexuals not having to face a world of stigmas and identity problems stemming from the daily influence of their same-sex parents. And I do know that this article only reflects my viewpoint, but I leave it to those who feel homosexuality to be as normal as heterosexuality to provide the counter point.

P.S. I have also had difficulty locating any support and recovery program for those coming out of heterosexuality. Hmmmm.