A question has been raised by Shrubber for all of us:

[RickinNYC]

Shrubber asked:

Are homosexuals the only Americans permitted to change the definition of marriage, or do people with other sex orientations have that right as well?

 

[wallyb]

I think people with that Plushies and Furries Mascot Fetish should be as well.
That'd be good. Yeah, I vote for that!

 

[MrVisible]

If the people involved in the marriage are adult, consenting human beings, then I for one have absolutely no qualms about having them put their case before the United States as gay people have.

The idea that legalizing gay marriage will trigger an avalanche of people with different sexual orientations suddenly being able to marry, though, is absurd. It's taken us decades to get where we are, and we're still far from our goals. I'd suspect that any new movement that came along in the wake of the gay rights movement would have a slightly easier time in getting recognized, but it would be a long, uphill slog.

The gay marriage movement may open a few doors, as doors have been opened up for us by our predecessors. If it weren't, for instance, for Loving vs. Virginia, and the culmination of the fight against miscegenation laws, none of what we're doing would be possible. They changed the definition of marriage, and the country is much the better for it.

Any group that wants to can try and change the definition of marriage. They can even use the lessons we've learned as gay people trying to do so. But the biggest lesson here is that the process is difficult, at best.

 

[Teejay32]

I tried, and failed, to reply to someone on that thread who claimed there was no logical argument against plural marriages of any kind, "so long as they are made between consenting adults." (So I dragged my reply all the way up here...)

Of course there are logical arguments against. "Group marriage" is an oxymoron. No framework exists for more than two people to be jointly responsible for each other and their children. A true group marriage would probably never be practiced; it's usually some guy using a religious justification for sleeping with multiple women. It's also often predatory in nature and unfair in practice. And finally, inventing group marriage necessitates inventing group divorce. There is not one reason I would ever support this; it has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriages.

But eventually it comes up, like clockwork, because the arguments are the same. And here it did. So, I'm just saying, I wish people would dump that argument. Yes we can, and have, and will deny certain people their rights to state-sanctioned happiness, or state-sanctioned sexual liberty, or whatever. It's the fact that gay couples who want to marry are so traditional, that has always had my support. FWIW.

PS: I remember a Mr. Visible from the SDMB. One and the same?

 

[Rence]

Are homosexuals the only Americans permitted to change the definition of marriage, or do people with other sex orientations have that right as well?

Actually heterosexuals have been changing the definition of marriage all along. Marriage was a social arrangement agreed upon by the parents of the individuals getting married. Marriage was not based on love but was based on what was good for the family's position. The woman became the property of the man. The man had all the rights in the marriage, the woman had none. Divorce was unheard of and marriage was for life good or bad.

Over the years divorce began to be allowed initially at the man's discretion. If the wife no longer served his purpose, he could dump her and take another. This expanded over time until either party could get a divorce with cause. As the years went by we finally reached what we have today: No fault, get divorced any old time you feel like it marriages.

Over time, people could decide for themselves who they would marry and marriage morphed from being about social position to being about love. Woman gained rights within the marriage to where they were no longer property but instead an eqaul partner.

So heterosexuals have been rewriting the book on marriage for centuries.

 

[RickinNYC]

And of course, the DIS'er in question hasn't come over to this board to defend his position, nor to explain the rationale for his question. I was genuinely curious to know why he feels so strongly about gay marriage/civil unions, but apparently he's only comfortable talking to straight people, or arguing with gay people in a straight "audience."

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

You know? I would highly recommend that Shrubber not marry a gay person.

 

[wallyb]

You know? I would highly recommend that Shrubber not marry a gay person.

Or a furry one.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Or a plush one~!

 

[Viki]

Well, you know, as a religious professional I take the long view on this one. The truth is human civilizations, down through time, have orgainized "family" units in a few key ways and one of those ways is polygamous. Yup, as far as we know, it was in patriarchal units, one male, many women, but still it is a legitamate form of human expression. In fact, one of the great shames of Christian missionary activity is that when confronted with such arrangements, even though such "family" configuarations are legion throughout Hebrew scripture, it universally condemned them, resulting in many second and third wives, and their children, formerly viewed as legitamate, being thrown on the mercy of nothing that could save them from this new "Christian" perspective on the human condition.

For my part I think that God created us and this world - our playground - so that we might practice all the different ways it means to be human.

 

[bsmcneil]

Well, you know, as a religious professional I take the long view on this one. The truth is human civilizations, down through time, have orgainized "family" units in a few key ways and one of those ways is polygamous. Yup, as far as we know, it was in patriarchal units, one male, many women, but still it is a legitamate form of human expression. In fact, one of the great shames of Christian missionary activity is that when confronted with such arrangements, even though such "family" configuarations are legion throughout Hebrew scripture, it universally condemned them, resulting in many second and third wives, and their children, formerly viewed as legitamate, being thrown on the mercy of nothing that could save them from this new "Christian" perspective on the human condition.

For my part I think that God created us and this world - our playgournd - so that we might practice all the different ways it means to be human.

Can I ask what kind of religious professional you are? I find few people use that term, so it intrigued me. I'm a Unitarian Universalist heading off to seminary to become a religious professional myself!

 

[Viki]

Can I ask what kind of religious professional you are? I find few people use that term, so it intrigued me. I'm a Unitarian Universalist heading off to seminary to become a religious professional myself!

Oh, good for you! I'm actually an ordained Lutheran minister who works as a congregational consultant to many different denominations (and even faiths). One of my most recent students was a UU!

Partly, I picked up the term "religious professional" because of my RC education; lots of female religious (nuns/sisters) refer to themselves as such, and partly because I think it captures the ecumenical nature of the work that I do.

 

[iankh]

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am not for others, what am I?
And if not now, when?


Rabbi Hillel
Jewish scholar & theologian (30 BCE - 9 CE)​

 

[Psychometrika]

For those interested in history, legitimate history, not that rewritten by the neo-con right - pick up a book by a University of Chicago scholar (my alma mater) on the history of marriage. You'll note in there an early distinction between marriage for "love" and marriage for "procreation, etc". The former being often between same sex partners, specifically men apparently.

As another Unitarian (raised as one, a rare commodity) I am supposed to respect and love all. I find my "faith" challenged. The religions of today (and yesterday) are so oppressive and hateful that it makes me sick. Take the commercials for the United Methodist Church...and apologies if I've gotten these out of order..."Our minds, our hearts and our doors are open." OPEN MINDS? HA! Sure, unless you're a LBGT person, then don't try to be a clergyperson. The Anglican church is on the verge of civil war over one gay bishop. As a former Jesuit student, if the catholic church were to remove all the gay priests, half the congregations would be gone.

The bible, which is constantly being thumped, was written by men in a manner to secure power. Not a DaVinci code scheme but a real strategy to consolodate power. Ever notice that 90% of the major religious holidays fall on earlier pagan holidays? Wonder why? Was it inspired by a spirit? Who knows? Check out the pagan "green man" symbols on medaeval churches all over europe.

Those same bible thumpers forget all those bits they can't follow. No adultery? Hmmm, we do that...better ignore it. No unclean shellfish? Hmm...can't stop going to Red Lobster. Wife does something bad, stone her. Hmm...great idea, but the police wouldn't like it.

Count up the deaths stemming from those who preach in the name of organized religion and then tell me these people are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.

I am content as a UU to live and let live...but THEY won't let me live...so I find it harder and harder to uphold by open values. I can't let them win though, so persist I must. We shall overcome, but only if we do it ourselves. Stonewall wasn't peaceful. Montgomery Alabama was a pretty dangerous place in the 50s/60s. Antietam wasn't a great place to be in the 1860s. If Bush intends a right wing theocracy then it's time to ACT UP! We did it in the 80s and can do it again.

But isn't this a Disney board? Sorry for the rant!

Gregory

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

ACT UP! It's been years since I've heard that phrase! And yes, you are absolutely right. It is time. We have a fractured community and it needs to come together if only for protection of basic human rights.

We've done it before, we should be able to do it again. If we care enough to, that is.

 

[Rence]

The legal definition of marriage has changed within my lifetime. As a child, I was aware of places in this country that had that marriage was

Between one man and one woman of the same race.

Many marriages that take place today would have been illegal not that long ago.

 

[SunFloridaDisney]

For my part I think that God created us and this world - our playgournd - so that we might practice all the different ways it means to be human.

Well said Viki. ITA.

 

[Boston5602]

My Governor has stated that marriage has always been and always should be between a man and a woman , He's a Mormon ?!?!

2 1/2 years ago My whole state and the country said it would be the downfall of us all to legalize gay marriage , it would DESTROY marriage if gays were allowed to marry.

for 25 months we have had the legal right to marry , and guess what NOTHING has changed for anyone but the gay people who have since married legally.


I fear we will lose our right to do so in 2008 , I just hope I find , fall in love and marry my mr right before then

 

[wallyb]

for 25 months we have had the legal right to marry , and guess what NOTHING has changed for anyone but the gay people who have since married legally.

Hey Boston- I feel ya!
I got married. I wounder what they'll do with / to us who did get married?
What could they do?

 

[TuckandStuiesMom]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viki
For my part I think that God created us and this world - our playgournd - so that we might practice all the different ways it means to be human.

I was sorta surprised by a post earlier in this thread kinda ragging on plural marriage. Absolutely -- there are a couple of groups whose practices are abusive of women and children. THAT ABUSE IS INEXCUSABLE, INTOLERABLE, AND BOTH THE STATES OF UTAH AND ARIZONA ARE TAKING APPROPRIATE AGGRESSIVE MEASURES TO SEE THAT IT IS STOPPED.

But, on the other side of the coin, there are indeed people, not just in TV land, who practice this in an egalitarian and mutually supportive way. (Yes, I'm talking polygamy -- not polyandry. I cannot, for the life of me, think what any woman would want more than one man in her life. ) I am currently in a longterm monagamous relationship -- but if my SO ever DID feel called to another woman, I would much prefer he would marry rather than make all of us miserable -- sneaking around behind my back.

Whatever goes on between consenting adult human beings -- fine with me -- and getting married seems like an option that should be available to anybody who wants to do it. Well that's my 2 cents...