Gay Marriage Project

[Psycho Lee]

One of my classes required to graduate is one of those "multicultural studies" programs, probably forced upon students to bring love and understanding to people different than them, and stuff. The whole class we have talked about different groups of people and prejudices towards them. I have a presentation to do and I figured for my last one I'd go with a bang. I want to do gay marriage.

So, I'm asking for a little assistance and answers to questions that may help me. If you want to answer these, feel free.

(I may add more later)

1) How do you think "traditional" marriage has changed over hundreds of years?

2) Do you know of any societies or cultures, past or present, that had gay pairings or gay marriage that I can use as an example.

3) Some people say they support civil unions but not full gay marriage. Gays seem to be against this. Why?

4) How do you personally feel about gay marriage? If you could marry (and you're gay), would you?

5) Do you really think the bible is against gays or gay marriage? I can't think of any verses forbidding gay marriage, but as for the verses against gays, do you think they're mistranslated or not valid in today's society?

6) I am thinking of suggesting a plan: Since marriage is legally a legal contract between people, allow gays a federal law allowing civil marriage with full rights granted to straight marriage. As for religious ceremonies, it is up to the church to decide to marry gays or to have a gay marriage ceremony. No church will be penalized if they do not want to marry gays (separation of church and state goes both ways). Why any gays would want to marry in a church that hates them is beyond me, and there are churches that WILL have gay marriage ceremonies. What do you think of this idea?  

[Garek Maxwell]

Lol, awww, a thread just for me! heart
I'll do my best, but usually I just address one of these things rather than all at once.
If anyone else wants to contribute, feel free!

Psycho Lee

1) How do you think "traditional" marriage has changed over hundreds of years?

A huge amount actually, and it depends on the cultures. Actually, I found an article highlighting the changes that is more concise than what I had said, so I'll just link to the article:
http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageDefinit.htm

This one also cites that African American Slaves could also be denied the right to marry before the Civil War.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

Another important part for US history is the supreme court case of Loving V. Virginia, which the judge found that marriage is a civil right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Psycho Lee

2) Do you know of any societies or cultures, past or present, that had gay pairings or gay marriage that I can use as an example.

It's kinda hard with history unfortunately, because it's just so contested and it's hard to tell if it's legitimate contesting or just anti-homosexual sentiment. Here's a few links though that may help...not sure.

There are the Two Spirits of certain Native American societies that held a special (and more shamanistic) place in their society than others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

It's argued a lot, but I do believe early Christianity had same-sex unions and were accepting of homosexuality. However, that did quickly change. ...I don't know if you'd want to argue over it since it is so contested...though usually by the traditional authorities so I don't give them much credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khnumhotep_and_Niankhkhnum
These two are argued to be one of the earliest known same-sex couples.

Actually, I'll just link this whole entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality
It has a list of noted historical figures that are or are argued to be homosexual due to their relationships with others.

Psycho Lee

3) Some people say they support civil unions but not full gay marriage. Gays seem to be against this. Why?

Separate but equal is inherently not equal, and it promotes the idea of one group being inferior to the other. It's also second class citizenship, where one group is segregated based upon sexual orientation. Additionally, it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. You now need potentially twice the funding to handle two entirely separate legal statuses versus the single one status. It's more red tape, and it will also mean more court cases as the limits and rules of this unique status are challenged all the time.

In Brown v. Board of Education make it clear why separate but equal is inherently not equal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

The interesting part of the wiki link?
"It is also frequently thought that Brown was the first legal challenge to racially segregated schools in the United States. In fact, it was the eleventh case to challenge the 1879 Kansas law, and the third case from Topeka."

Another thing is that not all rights and benefits come with civil unions.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

"On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits."
And
"Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for."

Psycho Lee

4) How do you personally feel about gay marriage? If you could marry (and you're gay), would you?

Gay marriage should be legal both for the legal reasons but also on the basis simple human compassion. To deny others equality before the law, you deny their humanity. While the first step towards genocide, it is also a hateful act that promotes more hate on all sides. It's not something the world needs these days. We have enough already.

And yes, if I could marry I would.

Psycho Lee

5) Do you really think the bible is against gays or gay marriage? I can't think of any verses forbidding gay marriage, but as for the verses against gays, do you think they're mistranslated or not valid in today's society?

There's three big arguments I have on this, so I'll try to keep it short.

1. Not all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin.
This is a big debate going on, but to keep it simple it's argued that it's a mistranslation or misinterpretation.

To keep it short, the big issues are:
- The Bible never blatantly condemns homosexuality, and Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for angel rape, haughtiness, etc.
- The Old Testament is null and void with Jesus dying on the cross. If this weren't the case, then slavery is okay and shellfish consumption is a sin. Some argue "oh, no, all those are voided but this rule still applies." ...I call BS and cherry picking.

Currently, I have yet to see a single person have a legitimate argument against the following links and information.

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/
http://www.theturning.org/folder/samesex.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible

http://opinionholes.blogspot.com/2009/01/homosexuality-and-bible-conclusion.html
While this is just a blog entry, it's a large and well combined argument developed from an earlier argument that also had virtually no one able provide real evidence against it.

Generally, the only "argument" I've seen is "what if you're wrong?" The problem with this is that it cannot be determined which side is right. Those that argue this say that they should be on the safe side and condemn homosexuals. However, it doesn't support that 'either' because they can equally be as wrong. Thus, depriving fellow human beings of their dignity and rights is not "being on the safe side". In fact, it would be blasphemy if they were wrong. Their actions would be no different from me rewriting passages from the Bible.


2. Christianity is a very flexible religion where anyone can pick and choose anything and be right.
This is why we have so many flavors of Christianity. On the macro scale, you have Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. On the smaller scale, you have things like Christians believing such and such ritual is acceptable but another nearly identical one is not. You also have different rules and other practices like snake handling. So for a religion to be so optional, no one can claim anything is right or wrong within it really.

I mean, you have the acceptance of murder, killing, rape, theft, etc from all sorts of different groups throughout history. You have groups saying the others are going to hell. Honestly, in the big picture, either everyone is wrong, or they're all right, even the ones no one else agrees with.

3. Humans can be more compassionate and loving than God.
This one's a new and controversial idea I came up with, but it applies.

The argument is that if God doesn't love, or doesn't accept a very basic biological unchangeable part of a human being that is no different than skin color, and there are human beings who do and love both these people and others, then this means that a figure that is supposed to be perfect and all loving and compassionate is not.

It's based upon this pseudo mathematical equation I tried to come up with, but the wording is iffy I admit. Still the whole idea is that if a human being can love both same sex couples and others, then God isn't the perfect being claimed to be.

It also relies partly on the facts that same-sex marriage provides very basic health benefits both psychological but also physical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Effects_of_same-sex_marriage

So why a supreme being would deny a group of people good mental, emotional, and physical health for no reason other than they were born, and turn around and condemn His own creation, makes zero sense and this God less a source of all love and compassion and more the source of pride and perhaps envy as well. Not exactly a good portrait, but it brings up very problematic issues. It even calls into question whether or not God would be deserving of worship if He can't even love something He created.

Psycho Lee

6) I am thinking of suggesting a plan: Since marriage is legally a legal contract between people, allow gays a federal law allowing civil marriage with full rights granted to straight marriage. As for religious ceremonies, it is up to the church to decide to marry gays or to have a gay marriage ceremony. No church will be penalized if they do not want to marry gays (separation of church and state goes both ways). Why any gays would want to marry in a church that hates them is beyond me, and there are churches that WILL have gay marriage ceremonies. What do you think of this idea?

That's all anyone's every wanted (providing you mean that civil marriage is marriage, and not the whole separate and unequal thing). I fully support this if so.

However, I should add that if the other side argues against the separation of church and state, then it opens churches up to to taxes. So if they want a church tax, then they can have their end to the separation. Of course, it doesn't invalidate same-sex marriage anyway, because of all the other legal precedence pointing that it is a civil right, and that other churches say otherwise. So ending the separation gets them nowhere, and only really hurts their cause.  

[shruikan]

- This is just my opinion on things, I dont think i will be able to provide any sources...-

1) How do you think "traditional" marriage has changed over hundreds of years?
I think it has become incredibly lax. considering the only way you used to be able to have a divorce was if your spouse died or was murdered

2) Do you know of any societies or cultures, past or present, that had gay pairings or gay marriage that I can use as an example.
The Greeks and Romans were big on homosexuality. Well, I think they were just more in tune with their bodies and not so prudish. There might be some stuff with ancient Egyptians too.

3) Some people say they support civil unions but not full gay marriage. Gays seem to be against this. Why?
I think they are against it because it's not the real thing. Why should they just settle for something that's similar? Like everyone gets regular Coke but gays can only have diet. Its sort of the same thing but not really. (really bad example >__<)

4) How do you personally feel about gay marriage? If you could marry (and you're gay), would you?
My best friend is gay and the majority of my close friends are gay (I am not) I feel like if you love someone you should be able to marry them. I feel like we've progressed so much as a culture (slavery to equal, womans rights...) that this shouldnt be as big of an issue as it is. The percentage of divorces is staggering. Two straight people who dont even love each other have more of a right to marry than a gay couple that actually do?

5) Do you really think the bible is against gays or gay marriage? I can't think of any verses forbidding gay marriage, but as for the verses against gays, do you think they're mistranslated or not valid in today's society?

Okay, the way I see that is that waaay back in the day when the world was run by men and the church, the men who ran the show were opposed to gay marrage so they enforced their views onto their "flock". I remember seeing a show about the history of coffee and when it first came to Europe the head priest (or whatever) was against it and said it was evil or it came from a land of sin but when he tried the coffee, he loved and allowed it to be grown and used by the people. How screwed up is that? Should we really still listen to old dead men and their twisted ideals or should we as a society think for ourselves?
6) I am thinking of suggesting a plan: Since marriage is legally a legal contract between people, allow gays a federal law allowing civil marriage with full rights granted to straight marriage. As for religious ceremonies, it is up to the church to decide to marry gays or to have a gay marriage ceremony. No church will be penalized if they do not want to marry gays (separation of church and state goes both ways). Why any gays would want to marry in a church that hates them is beyond me, and there are churches that WILL have gay marriage ceremonies. What do you think of this idea?
Im a little confused with this question... they do allow gay marriage in some states of America (unless their marriage comes with restrictions?)  

[xXxZeh_Emo_FluffersxXx]

hmm I don't know much so I really can't give input.

But good luck with this. XD

I kinda did a essay for english on gay marriage last year.

But my memory fails so I can't input anything from that either. XD  

[Psycho Lee]

Quote:

It's argued a lot, but I do believe early Christianity had same-sex unions and were accepting of homosexuality. However, that did quickly change. ...I don't know if you'd want to argue over it since it is so contested...though usually by the traditional authorities so I don't give them much credit.

I am curious about this. One thing I'm trying to show is how traditional marriage, especially from a religious point of view, has changed a lot.

I'd also like to see an actual same sex "marriage" in history, so I can say "well these people married a thousand years ago." Or I have to admit that officially marriage has only been between men and women. (I don't have to actually admit it, but it would be a fact).

I'm also going to show that officially marriage is a legal arrangement so technically, religion can't dictate what a legal document does or does not allow, unless they want to violate the separation of church and state.  

[Garek Maxwell]

Psycho Lee

I am curious about this. One thing I'm trying to show is how traditional marriage, especially from a religious point of view, has changed a lot.

A big one is a shift from arranged business like marriages to marriages based on love. Despite these extreme differences, apparently God "smiled upon" both. So a loveless marriage for monetary gain and status was perfectly acceptable. It didn't even matter if they disliked each other. Considering the rights of a woman in those days, God apparently was perfectly happy with the near slave status of women. Hard to find many supporters today for treating women literally as property....unless you live in India! Dowries still exist around the world and all.

Now what I'm about to say is more my opinion based on what I've learned, but it is not a fact. You could certainly argue this however.
Love was a bonus back then, and thus why it pops up in fairy tales and stories a lot. It was desirable. Still is, but a marriage with love in it was seen as very special likely because it was likely quite rare. At least, that's my take on the matter.

Psycho Lee

I'd also like to see an actual same sex "marriage" in history, so I can say "well these people married a thousand years ago." Or I have to admit that officially marriage has only been between men and women. (I don't have to actually admit it, but it would be a fact).

Well, the arguments are on whether or not the examples are actually same-sex couples. Personally, I lean far more towards believing that they are. However, it is my opinion. I won't intentionally try to say something is one way when it's still debated. However, here's some examples:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uocp-acu082307.php
Same-Sex unions in France 600 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Sergius_and_Bacchus
Early Christian Union perhaps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
Native American "same-sex marriage" so to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_arguments_about_same-sex_marriage
While not a history thing, this does list groups in support of same-sex marriage today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khnumhotep_and_Niankhkhnum
Supposed Ancient Egyptian Same-sex Marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history
This may be useful, but I dunno...

http://books.google.com/books?id=1ha9GgWNmy0C&hl=en
"The origins and role of same-sex relations in human societies" by James Neill

I haven't read all of this yet, but this book is fascinating and really goes into the history of homosexuality and how it was treated in certain cultures. I can't remember right now, but I'm certain marriage was discussed in there. It may just be a good secondary source for homosexuality in general. Dunno.


I'd also like to say that "marriage" back then is not what it is today with set definitions of government involvement. Therefore, it is very plausible that two men or two women could have been together, for all intents and purposes, within a marriage. Whether this is before government involvement or after it does not matter. I would say that it is certain at some point in time there were these cases. Whether or not they fit our modern definitions does not detract from the marriage of their time.

Psycho Lee

I'm also going to show that officially marriage is a legal arrangement so technically, religion can't dictate what a legal document does or does not allow, unless they want to violate the separation of church and state.

Not only that, but when you have religious groups (Christians, Muslims, Hindu's whatever group, there's someone in there) that support same-sex marriage it really invalidates their arguments. At that point, it all boils down to "my religion is right and yours is wrong" arguments which is no different from the protestant/catholic or catholic/orthodox split.

Not only that, but you even have "personal religions". (I dunno what to call them.) If a single individual can believe differently, then they are well within their rights to do so. Not only that, but they can't be proven wrong. If anyone were to try to claim otherwise, then their arguments are instantly null and void. If it were to go before a supreme court (that was sane and intelligent and not politicized), they would instantly call out the arguer that they will not debate the legitimacy of a religion before the court, as it is not the purview of the government.

I'm sure it's all logical fallacies and stuff too.

Sorry I link to wikipedia a lot. It's just really easy to find a big article that links to other cite-able articles though. Plus, I've been so incredibly busy this quarter in school that I don't have as much time or energy as I used to have. sad  

[Psycho Lee]

I was supposed to do the slideshow last week. They ran out of time, so they moved me to Monday.

Thanks to the snowstorm the class was cancelled.

The teacher was nice enough to give me full credit on it, but GOD DAMN, I did work on this and I can't show it off? All that work for nothing?!

I swear this week has just been s**t!  

[Garek Maxwell]

Awww, well, if it's any consolation it is the thought and effort behind it that counts. And you know what? You just might get the chance to use that information anyway! Whether it's for a paper, project, or even just a random conversation you'll probably find yourself using the information again somehow.

Besides, if anything I appreciate the effort you went to and the willingness to research and present the information before a class. It's very brave and all. 3nodding

So while it may not mean much, thank you for just trying to get a positive message out there.