RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism"

RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 7:05:27 PM)
quote: Only when the words in books are raped and violated to meet a narrowminded view. Do you mean "marriage"?

MrBukani -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 7:12:56 PM)
You wish[:D] I mean religious texts in general.

tweakabelle -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 9:28:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Nothing less than full equality is acceptable. Nothing more is demanded. You're just throwing around bogus analogies, refusing to credit any views that differ from your own, and slandering everybody who dares to hold one, all in the righteous name of The Good. Fortunately this is a religion thread, where the resemblance to an inquisitorial priest flailing heretics is, if unwelcome, at least not entirely out of place. And bringing us back to the topic of this thread, it's probably evidence that religion will never die: It will simply change its robes. K. Hidden beneath all the flamboyant and occasionally hilarious rhetoric is nothing - precisely nothing. No attempt to make a case for continuing institutionalised discrimination against queers, no attempt to justify assigning second class status to queers in perpetuity. Just wild analogies instead of answers. Lofty rhetoric trying to steal the high moral ground when the intent is to cover up blatant denial of rights to queers. In the end it all adds up to nothing. The reason you won't address the claim that denial of marriage equality is de facto discrimination against queers is because you have no defence - silence implies the accuracy of the charge laid against your position. How does the denial of marriage equality to queers not add up to de facto discrimination solely on the grounds of sexual preference? How does insisting that queers accept second class treatment not add up to discrimination? On what basis is offering queers lesser rights than straight couples not punishment for daring to have differing sexual preferences? How can this position be conceived without a prior assumption that straight is somehow better than queer, not merely more common? Unless a derogatory anti-queer assumption is made, how can the denial of marriage equality be justified, or even conceived? The de facto discrimination you appear to be advocating is only possible when a prior assumption that straight is somehow superior or more moral or more 'natural' than queer. This false and nasty assumption - the same assumption that underwrites all kinds of anti-queer bigotry - underwrites the empty rhetoric of your post. If institutionalising anti-queer discrimination in the law, and perpetuating inferior status for queers doesn't display de facto anti-queer prejudice, we might well ask what does it take before you will ackmowledge the existence of anti-queer prejudice and the necessity for removing such prejudice in toto from the law and public sphere?

MrBukani -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/18/2014 9:37:07 PM)
Well for one I think homosexuals should have a less prominent role in the TV media. They far outnumber the straight people these days. It's like a constant gayparade watching TV today. It's just..... awkward or queer like you love saying. I have my reasons and evidence to say we are creating masses of false queers these days that aren't even gay to begin with. So if you do that, then let's give 'em equal rights. Agree?

chatterbox24 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 5:43:17 AM)
1) I also do not like using the word queer. If you are gay do you like this word or is it offensive? 2) I have this concern. Children will be from the beginning denied either a mother or father figure? Society in general regardless are throwing away old values.....of course its been around a long time, but it is more common for people to have children out of wedlock, and one parent taking less responsibility or none in regard to the upbringing of children. That's not a gay problem, that's a society problem.

thishereboi -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 6:18:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Civil unions are not an acceptable alternative beause they institutionalise second class status for queers. If straight people are entitled to marry then so too are queers. No qualifications, no extra conditions, - its full equality under the law in all spheres of life. Nothing less than full equality is acceptable. Nothing more is demanded. They are not acceptable to you. That doesn't mean they aren't to anyone else. In fact I know quite a few gays who would be perfectly happy to be allowed a civil union and could care less if it's called marriage. And since they are the ones being targeted it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge their right to feel that way.

thishereboi -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 6:28:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 1) I also do not like using the word queer. If you are gay do you like this word or is it offensive? I have never like the word either and find it offensive. Now that doesn't mean that everyone in this thread is using it in a bad way. I just feel that they don't stop and think about what the word might mean to others.

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:23:31 AM)
quote: I also do not like using the word queer. If you are gay do you like this word or is it offensive? I'm gay, and I like it. [:)] Two reasons: (a) There's been a lot of work by LGBT folks to reclaim this adjective, as in the Queer Nation group a while back and queer studies classes/programs. (b) It's handy to have a single, broad word to supplement our increasingly long abbreviation, which sometimes gets as unwieldy as LGBTQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, asexual). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/fashion/generation-lgbtqia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Zonie63 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 9:36:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani Well for one I think homosexuals should have a less prominent role in the TV media. They far outnumber the straight people these days. It's like a constant gayparade watching TV today. It's just..... awkward or queer like you love saying. I have my reasons and evidence to say we are creating masses of false queers these days that aren't even gay to begin with. So if you do that, then let's give 'em equal rights. Agree? I don't really watch that much TV, although I never really saw it as a "constant gayparade." How many shows are like that? How do we create "masses of false queers"? There are people claiming to be gay when they're not gay? Why would they do that?

DaddySatyr -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 10:33:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani Well for one I think homosexuals should have a less prominent role in the TV media. They far outnumber the straight people these days. It's like a constant gayparade watching TV today. It's just..... awkward or queer like you love saying. I have my reasons and evidence to say we are creating masses of false queers these days that aren't even gay to begin with. So if you do that, then let's give 'em equal rights. Agree? I don't really watch that much TV, although I never really saw it as a "constant gayparade." How many shows are like that? How do we create "masses of false queers"? There are people claiming to be gay when they're not gay? Why would they do that? Zonie, I can only speak to this somewhat circuitously. Back in the 80s, I was in a band that did "okay". Eventually, we got to a point where we were able to support a decent lifestyle with just our music. I cannot count all the meetings with record company execs, A&R people, agents, managers, etc. where it was very clear that if I (or someone else in the band) was willing to suck a little dick, we could get to "the promised land" a lot quicker. As I got to know more people that were a bit "higher up the food chain" than we were, I realized that I wasn't special. The "casting couch" pervaded the music industry. My cousin (my namesake and a Broadway actor) told the same stories and my grandfather (who worked for NBC TV) confirmed (although it was years earlier and I didn't realize what he had told me until I was older). Now, I don't know that I agree with these industries "creating false" gay people but I have known people whose sexual preference was hetero who decided to "do what was right for their career" at the expense of some of their personal morals or convictions (please no "how good were their morals" arguments because we'd probably agree). Is this "creating false homosexuals"? I don't know if I would call it that but, it ain't right. Entertainment seems to be the only place left in America where sexual harassment is not only a mainstay but it would seem it is thriving. I will agree that less than scrupulous people - who would appear to be homosexual - run the entertainment industry. ETA: Zonie, thank you for re-posting this. I wouldn't have seen it, otherwise.

vincentML -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 12:48:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Civil unions are not an acceptable alternative beause they institutionalise second class status for queers. If straight people are entitled to marry then so too are queers. No qualifications, no extra conditions, - its full equality under the law in all spheres of life. Nothing less than full equality is acceptable. Nothing more is demanded. They are not acceptable to you. That doesn't mean they aren't to anyone else. In fact I know quite a few gays who would be perfectly happy to be allowed a civil union and could care less if it's called marriage. And since they are the ones being targeted it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge their right to feel that way. As Malcolm X said: "There are house n . . . s and field n . . . s. The house n . . . s were very happy to live in the Massa's house and didn't care if anyone called it slavery." There can be no compromise with equality. There is equality for all or equality for none. Some cannot be more equal than others.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 2:05:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Civil unions are not an acceptable alternative beause they institutionalise second class status for queers. If straight people are entitled to marry then so too are queers. No qualifications, no extra conditions, - its full equality under the law in all spheres of life. Nothing less than full equality is acceptable. Nothing more is demanded. They are not acceptable to you. That doesn't mean they aren't to anyone else. In fact I know quite a few gays who would be perfectly happy to be allowed a civil union and could care less if it's called marriage. And since they are the ones being targeted it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge their right to feel that way. There can be no compromise with equality. There is equality for all or equality for none. Some cannot be more equal than others. Men and women have equal rights. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man; that's why we call one a "man" and the other a "woman". But the fact that we use different terms for different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. Similarly, a contra-sexual union is not a same-sex union, and using different terms for these different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. The remainder of the argument turns on the assertion that the word "marriage" embeds connotations of superiority. But one might as well argue that "white" embeds connotations of superiority, that calling some people "black" is inherently derogatory, and that social justice and equality before the law demand that both be referred to as "white". It is utterly and completely mind-boggling nonsense. K.

JeffBC -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 2:23:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Men and women have equal rights. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man; that's why we call one a "man" and the other a "woman". But the fact that we use different terms for different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. Similarly, a contra-sexual union is not a same-sex union, and using different terms for these different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. The remainder of the argument turns on the assertion that the word "marriage" embeds connotations of superiority. But one might as well argue that "white" embeds connotations of superiority, that calling some people "black" is inherently derogatory, and that social justice and equality before the law demand that both be referred to as "white". It is utterly and completely mind-boggling nonsense. Yeah, if you start from the idea that "marriage = one man and one woman" then I agree with you completely. That's why I'd be in favor of making "civil union" the only phrase which matters in the eyes of the government and the law. "Marriage" would become more like "baptism"... something you go get if you want it and can find a church to offer it but it is fundamentally a religious thing rather than a legal thing. In a sense it's already that way. I can go to all the priests I want and get them to do all manner of pageantry but until I file the piece of paper down at the courthouse it all means nothing. I'd just like to separate the religious from the secular part cleanly.

thishereboi -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 3:46:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Civil unions are not an acceptable alternative beause they institutionalise second class status for queers. If straight people are entitled to marry then so too are queers. No qualifications, no extra conditions, - its full equality under the law in all spheres of life. Nothing less than full equality is acceptable. Nothing more is demanded. They are not acceptable to you. That doesn't mean they aren't to anyone else. In fact I know quite a few gays who would be perfectly happy to be allowed a civil union and could care less if it's called marriage. And since they are the ones being targeted it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge their right to feel that way. As Malcolm X said: "There are house n . . . s and field n . . . s. The house n . . . s were very happy to live in the Massa's house and didn't care if anyone called it slavery." There can be no compromise with equality. There is equality for all or equality for none. Some cannot be more equal than others. What Kirata said here... quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Men and women have equal rights. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man; that's why we call one a "man" and the other a "woman". But the fact that we use different terms for different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. Similarly, a contra-sexual union is not a same-sex union, and using different terms for these different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. The remainder of the argument turns on the assertion that the word "marriage" embeds connotations of superiority. But one might as well argue that "white" embeds connotations of superiority, that calling some people "black" is inherently derogatory, and that social justice and equality before the law demand that both be referred to as "white". It is utterly and completely mind-boggling nonsense. K. [/font][/size]

thishereboi -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 3:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Men and women have equal rights. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man; that's why we call one a "man" and the other a "woman". But the fact that we use different terms for different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. Similarly, a contra-sexual union is not a same-sex union, and using different terms for these different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. The remainder of the argument turns on the assertion that the word "marriage" embeds connotations of superiority. But one might as well argue that "white" embeds connotations of superiority, that calling some people "black" is inherently derogatory, and that social justice and equality before the law demand that both be referred to as "white". It is utterly and completely mind-boggling nonsense. Yeah, if you start from the idea that "marriage = one man and one woman" then I agree with you completely. That's why I'd be in favor of making "civil union" the only phrase which matters in the eyes of the government and the law. "Marriage" would become more like "baptism"... something you go get if you want it and can find a church to offer it but it is fundamentally a religious thing rather than a legal thing. In a sense it's already that way. I can go to all the priests I want and get them to do all manner of pageantry but until I file the piece of paper down at the courthouse it all means nothing. I'd just like to separate the religious from the secular part cleanly. And this thanks to both of you

vincentML -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 4:38:04 PM)
quote: Men and women have equal rights. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man; that's why we call one a "man" and the other a "woman". But the fact that we use different terms for different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. Similarly, a contra-sexual union is not a same-sex union, and using different terms for these different things has no bearing on the equality of their rights. The remainder of the argument turns on the assertion that the word "marriage" embeds connotations of superiority. But one might as well argue that "white" embeds connotations of superiority, that calling some people "black" is inherently derogatory, and that social justice and equality before the law demand that both be referred to as "white". It is utterly and completely mind-boggling nonsense. The argument from discourse does not match the argument from reality. In practical experience you and I as white men have enjoyed privileges and opportunities that were not available to the same degree to women and black men. The levels of equality achieved by the latter groups have come about through historical struggle. If it were all so simple as you put it there would have been no need for Abolition and Suffrage, nor Civil Rights which were won in the streets before grudgingly acknowledged by Law. The same is true for gay men who 'rioted' in 1969 against repeated police harassment at Stonewall. It is disingenuous to use the argument from 'words' to deny history. Elsewise why is it that some pols favor civil unions but not marriage for gays? Why is it that some states will not recognize the rights of same sex partners in either civil union or marriage conducted in other states. If they are the same then why the distinction in rhetoric and practice? The argument that words do not embed notions of superiority is some sort of magical attempt to smother history. Certainly the tags: 'man' 'white' and 'marriage' carry overt connotations of superiority. Again, it is a matter of history. We cannot be blind to it. The question is: how do we rectify it? As a nation we have been working on it. It has taken one hundred fifty years to achieve social justice for men and women of all races. We have abolished Jim Crow Laws. Black men have less fear of being lynched. Women can vote and own property. And queers can meet openly in taverns without fear of being arrested. There is still some debate whether equal justice exists in practice before the Law. And there is much yet to be done to remove the stains of implied inferiority from our language. The argument from your second paragraph does little to further that cause.

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 5:11:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The argument that words do not embed notions of superiority is some sort of magical attempt to smother history. Did it escape your notice that that wasn't the argument, or are you in the fish business now? K.

dcnovice -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 7:44:03 PM)
FR Some neuron fired tonight, and I finally did something I'd overlooked: check the dictionary. I looked at Merriam-Webster (my trusty sidekick in 27 years as a professional wordsmith), American Heritage (reported to be more conservative), Oxford Dictionaries Online, and dictionary.com. The venerable OED, alas, requires a subscription. Each of the four included same-sex couples in its definition of "marriage." Dictionary.com had the broadest definition: 1. (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage

Kirata -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 8:24:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Each of the four included same-sex couples in its definition of "marriage." Dictionary.com had the broadest definition: 1. (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage The proposition I think you are responding to was that the meaning of the word marriage as used in Western culture for hundreds of years has been the joining of a man and a woman, which is not the same thing. It's also the case that dictionaries update and expand their definitions to include more modern usages, as for example your source's continuation of the definition you cited: 2.a. *Also called opposite-sex marriage. the form of this institution under which a man and a woman* have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. See also traditional marriage ( def 2 ) . 2.b. this institution *expanded* to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage. You also mentioned Oxford Dictionaries online: 1. The formal union of *a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: 1.1* (In some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex. And here's Cambridge: 1. a legally accepted relationship between *a man and a woman* in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this: K.

njlauren -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/19/2014 8:39:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic oh I see so its not that you arent allowed, its that because you sont like 2 words in the actual ceremony ok Yes. Those very specific words. And for that reason, it wasn't allowed. Well, it is England after all, without that kind of silliness, Monty Python wouldn't have been as great as they were.......in all seriousness, I am sorry they make you say specific words, it is why people hate bureaucrats and government functionaries, they forget about intent (a legal declaration you want to get married in some form, and it is done in free will and without intent to fraud), and it becomes the words. In the US, you could be married by a Pagan priest/priestess, they have to allow that, thanks to freedom of religion (they cannot recognize what the guy in the robes does and not the guy/gal in whatever pagan priestesses choose to wear.....joke; Why do witches in NYC wear black? A: Darling, its nyc, everyone wears black...

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625