Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 08:34 PM)
Ok, on 1: It's not a moral object of mine, but of theirs. My point is that saying homosexuality existed in the shadows since forever doesn't give them reason to change their opinion. It's not an argument for acceptance, and can be used as an argument as to why anti-homosexual sentiment is not a recent thing, either. Iow, anti-homosexual sentiment has been around as long as homosexuality, but that doesn't ratify it. It's not a persuasive argument in either direction.
On 2: First, what is SSM? Then, your objections to polygamy- a) a no vote on balance is a no vote, b) some men can. Point being that those objections can be countered with simple rebuttal responses. My thrust is that marriage is a legislative nightmare because of the ambiguity of the reasons.
That brings in 3. I used children as a cornerstone (interesting mental image there) because of the status of children outside of marriage, and the reasonable historical link between marriage and children. That is, while marriage is not necessarily a precursor to having children, having children is, in the eyes of many, necessarily a precursor to marriage. Your last para shows that you know what I'm saying there.
I guess my overall thrust is that petitioning the Gov for marriage rights is like petitioning the Church (established) for equitable taxation laws. What power does the Gov really have to dictate
Holy
matrimony to the Church?
The Gov has legal concerns regarding taxation, ownership etc when two people become married, or even
as married
. That, I think, demonstrates the Gov's interest. Two people don't have to be married, only as married for there to be a reason for legislation on a societal basis. But when it gets into the intangibles of love, desire, and even sexual pref (intangible from a legislative pov only), there is little or no traction.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 08:53 PM)
- What I was alluding to, and not very well, was since up to a certain point, fairly recently, mainstream society was not personally acquainted with anyone Gay. And now that we know Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter, some of our family, teachers, a few hunky police and fireman on various talk shows are, that would in any other situation at the very very least be cause for reevaulating the moral positions. Especially in light of how hypocritical it is to denounce Gays at every level and meanwhile my state alone has 50,000 unwed births ANNUALY. Seriously, can you imagine what would happen if churches & politicians REALLY started to condemn unwed parenthood in the same degree of hate that they talk about Gays? One is as immoral as the other per the Bible. Well, there are many books that seem reasonable to me that explain how the Bible has been misinterpreted on that subject. I gave a fundy friend "For the Bible Tells me so" DVD. After watching it, she just said " I can't accept any of it." No specific reaaons. However, things are changing thank God.
- SSM is same sex marriage. a) US courts are I think very different than England. A lawyer wrote the theoretical 3/3 so no I would not agree that a no vote on balance carries the day when it is a tie. The other three could endlessly litigate. That's how it is here. I only gave a handful of reasons that I remembered. There were a lot. Of course SOME men can afford many wives, I asked if most could. Bad question on my part, but I did address the dating pool. If rich men take too many women out of the pool, because women would be attracted to financial security, it is very likely many men would end up with no wife. Which could be a plus, then they would be in the market for a husband? (kidding but wishful thinking on my part). Again, I will defer to the lawyers who wrote several books on this subject.
- I think we agree some and disagree some here. I have read and read and read about how much the laws about marriage have changed. So much so, that I stand by my statement that marriage is not "all about children" probably even now. In the 1800s the small number, presumably, of women who did divorce did not get the children. The husband did and it had nothing to do with who was the better caretaker etc. today's concept of "the best interest of the child" (in divorce anyway) didn't enter into the decision at all.
The US government is not dictating holy matrimony to any church. Any church is free to not marry same sex couples. Since religious freedom is so powerful here, I can't imagine that would ever change. However, the government dishes out over 1000 benefits based on marital status, so they couldn't discriminate against Gays forever since our Constitution continues to be understood more and more as time passes, that we give MORE freedoms, more equality not less.
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 10:16 PM)
The churches do condemn unwed pregnancy, and divorce. That's why people don't go to church for divorce these days. Civil union in legislated law is not the same as marriage within a religion. But the latter transitions to the former as a matter of convenience. As a devout believer, how would you see that state of affairs, with all its repercussions re children etc?
I'm Aussie, btw. The little flag at the bottom of my posts does have a Union Jack, but that's up for debate these days. The political left has just defeated a move to commission a plebiscite into gay marriage. We are very much dragging our political feet compared to our cultural peers.
The lawyer's objections to polygamy seemed to be based on polygamy inside of US social and legal structure as it stands, as well as some odd quasi-Darwinist arguments. The simplest response to the objections is to site social structures that are unaffected by the Lawyer's objections. Point being that, while courts are different in British Commonwealth nations, the objections are bound to the US situation. And even there they can be counter-argued, as aspects of the Mormon faith have done.
Even staying within those boundaries, in considering the pull the plug objection mere litigation issues is not really a moral objection. Saying that polygamy is untenable because in an unusual situation it could cause extended litigation is a non sequitur. Inheritance laws could be rejected for that reason, if it were overwhelming. But it is far from it.
The Gov is dictating the terms of the disillusionment of marriage vows. Back to my lead line- the Church doesn't grant divorce per se, not without there being grounds based within that religion's dogma. But the Gov has passed laws that can override any religion- it dictates.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 04:13 AM)
No church locks up unwed mothers (to say nothing of the fathers) and gives them conversion therapy. While I would suppose churches advocating rounding up Gays and putting them on their own island are rare, still NONE advocate this for unwed mothers. And there is worse. This is what I meant when I said "condemn in the same degree."
No Gay group that I know of is or ever has advocated for the government to require any church to perform same sex marriages. I already said religious freedom is very important in the US. So I don't understand what you're driving at when you say marriage within a church is not the same. We wanted to be equal, with the same rights before the government since church attendance is your choice, paying taxes is not. Well, even if you don't pay taxes, the government is supposed to treat citizens equally.
Well, as to the Mormon faith, of course, lawyers can argue anything. They can say anything but in the end, they have always lost. Which one could say Gays did too until recently. The difference, as I mentioned previously, allowing adults to marry ONE other adult of their choice is easily argued within the framework of existing law. Polygamy cannot. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 09:08 PM)
You're putting words in my mouth- I didn't say Christian Churches lock up unwed mothers. I said that they do not condone. However, locking up unwed mothers has been a practice of particularly the Catholic Church for quite some time. The rights of single mothers has a similar timeline as homosexual rights.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273961/Ireland-says-sorry-10-000-women-slaves-Catholic-workhouses-locked-brutalised-nuns.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum
I only point this out because you brought it up. It's not really pertinent to our discussion. But further to that point; my mother was brought up Protestant, became pregnant at 15 and was sent to a Christian organisation in another city to have her daughter, whom she was then pressured to give up. This was all to avoid the shame that the Christian community would heap at her and my family's feet. Given your first para, I think you would be surprised by the parallels between the treatment of homosexuality and unwed parents; even in living memory.
Marriage as a legislated civil right is a very recent idea, in the scope of religion. Churches do object to Govs regulating what is at its source a religious issue. The term marriage and all that goes with it stems directly from the church, and any legal dictates at-the-least usurp Church authority. Consider what it would be like today if the Gov didn't legislate reasonable grounds for divorce, support for single parents, freedom to marry regardless of race or religion etc.
I don''t bring these things up to support the archaic position of formal religion. There are two main reasons- first, that the debate is still very young, and the effects of both religious oppression of single parents etc as well as social oppression of homosexuality is a living memory issue. That is one of the discussions that BM contains. Second, only in understanding the pov of those opposed to civil union will there be any real chance of positive change in a meaningful time frame. Sympathy is a two way street, as is respect- something I know you hold as being crucial to any dialogue.
Back to BM- according to the time-frame of the movie/story, Alma divorced Ennis mere months after 'no blame' divorce legislation changed the marital landscape of the US. To be clear, I support that as well as the right to civil union for homosexual peoples. A couple of years earlier, and she would have had to 'out' Ennis to get her divorce granted
by the Church
. The courts had no such power at that time.
That brings me back to the reason for talking about the Church re marriage. A great number of religious people believe that Gov interference in what were squarely Church matters undermines the societal fabric that relied on the Church. It is these people that are the 'against team'. It is these people that will have to accept that the formally holy sanctity of marriage is no longer the purview of the Church. It is these people who must accept the greatest change to both their heart-felt beliefs and their religious history. It is these people that we need to stop blocking civil union, and to accept that homosexuality is, has been and always will be here to stay.
We have to give what we want to receive- understanding, both emotional and intellectual. We can't change every heart and mind, but we can, in a social democracy, change the majority's views. Another attack on the Church's most sacred law, marriage, is not what we or they want. Asking for marriage rights is an yet another affront to the Church, and that is understandable. Asking for Gov recognition via civil rights legislation for civil union- acceptance of a union in the eyes of the law- is, to me, the better, more respectful, course.
After all, the rights we are asking for are not the marriage rights of the Church, but the right to be recognised as the legal partner of ; the same rights as married couples have in law. They ought be separate issues, and as they have only become diluted in very recent history that is still possible.
I know this post is running long, so I'll say one more thing. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. There are religious laws governing marriage that are said to be the word of God, and not the words of men. That's how fundamental, how crucial it is. The words of men in Gov hold no truck with religious law. I would like religion to change, but that would defeat the purpose of generational stability thru adherence to dogma. It seems to me to be a far better idea to keep separate Church and Gov law. It's respectful in both directions.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 26, 2016 05:34 AM)
Phy -
It surely wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth at all, I was making a comparison. The unwed mother is not locked up and converted from her 'natural'(maybe not the best choice of word?) sexuality in any comparable way to what all these fundy churches do to Gays. She was punished for having sex outside of marriage, not for having heterosexual sex. When released, she was free to marry and have sex. (I'm not dismissing the harshness of the ordeal, but continue on below) also consider the world (social policy specifically) was much harsher generally prior to the 1960's.
I did slip up with a USA only mindset on this issue, yes I'm aware of the Magdalen laundries (and other things through the centuries) and didn't consider them when making my comparison, but it is a huge difference that unwed mothers homes did not exist in my lifetime AND the gay conversion therapy confining mostly boys/men are going strong TODAY. As I mentioned also, the "illness" label was removed from the American Psychiatriac assn.'s list of illnesses in 1973, over 50 years ago and a significant portion of mental health professionals still consider homosexuality a mental illness. Another major difference.
Don't agree that Alma may have had to out Ennis a couple years earlier, she could have cited a number of other reasons for her divorce. I watched divorce court on TV in the late 60s - obviously they were reenactments, but they were real cases. There were tons of reasons. The bone of contention of course, was for the plaintiff to prove his or her allegations. But if Alma claimed mental cruelty, Ennis wouldn't have disputed it, (to avoid bringing up the real reason) so proof wouldn't be necessary.
As to the rest of what you said, it seems like you're either not addressing directly what I brought up or you're changing your position. For example a few posts ago, you said something like marriage out side a church isn't the same thing. So I reply that no gay group was asking the government to force churches to do same sex marriages, we (gays) wanted equality in government benefits relating to marriages. Then you essentially say the same thing above that church and government marriages should be separate. Well, we mostly agree but I would find it helpful if you are replying specifically to me to put my question above your answer, if you're so inclined. Thank you! -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 27, 2016 09:28 PM)
Well, to get to the point, I'm saying that there is a vast difference between the Church and the Gov, a difference characterised by the Gov using democratic and civil rights to usurp the ground that was formerly, traditionally the Church's sacred ground.
That is the scope, the gravitas of the 'battle lines'. In asking the Gov to ratify civil union (not marriage- a religious word), we are asking for the Church to accept that marriage is no longer a sacred word, and the possession of the Church.
It's a huge ask.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 04:23 AM)
No again. The church hasn't had sole custody of marriage for a long time. The state has issued the license, formerly required blood tests, registered the marriage on government books for tax purposes etc. The "mistake" here was tying up all the benefits with marriage. As if hetero marriage was the only valid lifestyle. Unions made a similar mistake in the 40s demanding insurance be paid by the employer instead of pushing for universal coverage. In the US. Europe did it with far fewer resources after WWII and interestingly spends less and has better overall health.
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 06:50 AM)
http://www.cflp.co.uk/a-brief-history-of-divorce/
The "mistake" here was tying up all the benefits with marriage.
That's the point-
tied up
with marriage. But not the same thing.
Granted, it's been a long time since Henry VIII created the C of E to grant himself a divorce, but the laws governing divorce in court have only recently, in living memory, departed from sacred law in any genuine way.
It is a slow, generation-by-generation process of gradual acceptance, as each new generation grows up believing the latest dogma (I'm sure Les has an opinion on that). The world my mother grew up in is vastly different to the world we accept as normal today, as I'm sure you know.
Briefly on the MM laundries (and many other similar concepts)- they were an extreme and acceptable manifestation of the prevailing beliefs, acceptable because they were in keeping with those beliefs. To say that they weren't as bad as doesn't change that they were bad. Their criticism and disillusionment in the wake of (generational) public outcry only supports that they were 'no picnic'.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 07:10 AM)
We certainly agree that societal attitudes change slowly but I'm not really sure that your post disagrees substantially with mine. Catholics would pursue civil divorces just as frequently as others, but how many followed up with annulments through the Vatican? I've no idea. In any case, we have same sex marriage in the USA, long overdue in my estimation. It is finally legal recognition of what was de facto for a long time for many, with the distinction of the the added benefits we (Gay people) worked and paid taxes for all along.
People still get married in church, and will continue to do so, but the fact they aren't "really aware" that benefits derive from government or employers is a societal failing that is finally addressed, hence the upheaval and "controversy" where there should be none. Eg my spouse is just as worthy of health insurance as a hetero spouse would be. In many cases children are involved and when that was finally part of the public discussion, I think it helped speed things along. I never understood the moral objection (and for decades the legal discrimination) to homosexuality but the same government gave welfare to unwed mothers (which was not always the case!) A coworker, not particularly moralistic) called it subsidized fornication!
Lastly, it is valid to say "not as bad as" regarding the laundries, because everyone's life was more difficult compared to now. My great grandfather via marriage was injured at a factory and never worked again. He couldn't get hired and had to live out his days with family. THAT is harsh, and that is how it was. I'm finding it difficult to put into words here - to compare to today's standards isn't reasonable. The Sisters administering the laundry conformed to the standards of that day, it isn't possible to run things according to future ideals. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 11:47 PM)
With the unwed/gay comparison I wanted to draw attention to the Church's positions on both as being crucial to social attitudes in their times. The Gov steps in to voice change while the Church holds out, much of that as consequence of having held the power via bricks and mortar institution. The place where such issues as unwed/gay were both decided on and acted upon has shifted. But the language and the origins of that discussion remain the same.
It can be called a semantics discussion, and mostly likely is on weight. So why not simply remove the term 'marriage' from the dialogue, and ask for what is wanted rather than trying to 'expand' a term's definition that still has strong, even inalienable ties with its institutional origins?
I'm suggesting that marriage ought not be a term for the law makers to use to determine valid civil rights. Without that debate, the size of the against team theoretically becomes considerably smaller.
It seems similar to asking for something but being denied just because we didn't say 'please'. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have it, only that we didn't use the right words when asking.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
PrometheusTree64 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 08:47 AM)
They
still
pretend it, for all intents and purposes.
Every year, the conservatives and even establishment agencies like the CDC come out with percentages that seem to get smaller and smaller each time.
Nowadays, the "authorities" try to push a patently absurd "1 to 2%" theory, when 4 to 5% today publicly identify as gay (even though we know the portion that publicly identifies as gay is always a fraction of the actual gay or bi inclined population). So are they saying that most of the folks who publicly identify as gay are actually terrified straight people afraid to come out of the hetero closet??
Pretty soon, they're going to tell us that homosexuality is a myth and never existed (perhaps gay marriage, though legal now, is just a hologram projected onto the media courtesy of an evil Barbra Streisand).
If you take the gay population, and add to that the bi-curious population (regardless of how they publicly define themselves) you're obviously talking about a really significant portion of the public, regardless of geographic or cultural location.
But that fact is really, really something people don't want to deal with.
There has always been something terribly "threatening" about the concept of two same-sex people (especially two testoterone-infused males) engaging in intimate affection with each other. Which is probably why the emasculated stereotype of the "queen" has always lingered, even though some of the most macho of men engage, openly or not, in gay sex.
Even in modern movies and TV, rife with gay roles since the '90s, you either get the adjusted-to-the-present queen, or guys who are hypersexual to the point of being cartoonish, or virtually monastic like WILL & GRACE, or THE MODERN FAMILY type of gay couple where you just
cannot believe
them as a couple (thus de-sexualizing them in the mind of the audience).
There is actually a theory about wars and aggression being an offshoot of this kind of repression of normal male-male carnality. (Which, by the way, doesn't mean that violent or destructive males aren't actively engaging in sex with other males sometimes they are, but that cultural repression and shame wins out).
Yes, in the '50s, people technically knew homosexuality existed (don't forget the Kinsey Report of 1948, which they're
still
trying to debunk). But the attitude was that homosexuality was freakish and abnormal and that almost noone really "was that way" even in prison.
What people actually believed, even thru the '80s, was
ridiculous!
Unless they traveled in a particularly sophisticated circle, and most people did not.
Even overt stereotypes like the unmarried, lavendar suit wearing queen in your office complex carrying a poodle was viewed by many folks as "an effiminate straight man" as long as everybody liked him. (If they didn't like him, the Q-word might be muttered in the corners).
But today, as openness increases and society has become much more aware, the authorities issue reports that give smaller and smaller numbers.
It's all so stupid. But that denial-narrative is still really important to somebody.
LBJ's mistress on JFK: -
TxMike — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 11:14 AM)
"Nowadays, the "authorities" try to push a patently absurd "1 to 2%" theory, when 4 to 5% today publicly identify as gay (even though we know the portion that publicly identifies as gay is always a fraction of the actual gay or bi inclined population)."
Why does it matter to you what the percentages are? Whether it is 2% or 6% or 12% what you identify with is personal, not influenced by how many others identify the same way.
.... TxMike .... -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 02:35 PM)
TxMike - neither Prom nor I are "upset" at what the actual numbers are. Ask yourself WHY any agency or foundation would deliberately deflate the real number? Answer - they are trying to make it look unimportant, insignificant. I have heard people in debates on TV/Magazines/online say in talking points "Gays are only 1% of the population. That gives permission for us to be dismissed because there will ALWAYS be bigger "issues/problems" to deal with.
-
PrometheusTree64 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 04:39 PM)
Precisely.
And if you add all the gay folks, the bi folks, and the bi-curious folks, you're talking about half the damned planet. And somebody doesn't want us to know that.
TxMike doesn't even want us to discuss it! (And I can just guess why). -
truetexian — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 10:53 AM)
Interesting points about recent and current gay portraits on television. I've lost step, when did the numbers get downsized as to societal proportions? When I was a teenager, it was reported to be more like 10-percent of the pop.