It's All a Blur to Them (Dressing across genders)

[zamb]

I think this is fine, as long as you don't expect any tax benefits, visitation rights in a hospital, custody of children, inheritance rights or anything else that is a legal, not religious, construct. As soon as you expect those rights to be available to you, but not others, you're hiding behind a religious justification to take legal rights from others.

If you truly believed what you say here, you would not have filed the legal paperwork for marriage, as the government can't decree God's will. Are you legally married?

I am legally married, I am spiritually married and I am religiously married.........( and Fuuma, I was Celibate for 11 years before I got married, except for two indiscretions........ but I wont discuss that now) and for the record, I never touched my wife until the night of the wedding!), I am not some kind of pretentious Christian, I am not perfect, but I am 100% committed to following the teachings of Jesus Christ..........not the Church per se, but JESUS CHRIST.
I met my wife at Church.......(albeit on a fashion business trip)
we got engaged in a church, recieved approval from God, our parents and our pastors (even though we are fully grown adults) and married by my Pastor in a Church.
while I must say that I have recieved some benefits from the state since being married (for years I paid heavy taxes and still had to pay more at tax time, last year was the first I got something back), personally, I dont care much for the benefits of the state, nor do I think I need them to legitimize my union with my wife, those are only neccessary in order to function in the society that we live (after all jesus regonizes and encourages us to recognize the authority of the state, so long as it doesnt contadict his teachings- matthew 22:21). What matters to me is that I remain monagamously faithful and treat my wife with the love and respect that is due to her.
while i disagree, If the state decided (by the votes of the people) to recognize same sex marriage, thats fine by me, even though i think its a bad decision.............I think Civil unions (if this isnt a religious matter) should be an acceptable option if it gives the benefits allowed by the state.............

I am a Christian First (a follower of Jesus Christ, not the Church or Christian tradition) and everything else about my views flows from that............................

[zamb]

Performing an Heirloom and reserving here to answer this later
much to do, before the Sabbath begins, i usually am not on SZ during Sabbath hours but will make an exception because I consider this an important enough discussion to make such exception

The argument you used was one that has been widely repeated by well-known religious figures. It is a fundamentally disingenuous argument, whether you yourself were being disingenuous. The argument attempts to draw an equivalence between homosexuality, which you disagree with for religious reasons but is victimless outside of a religious context, with crimes against others which necessarily have victims in the social and legal context (and obviously in the religious context as well). I know you spoke plainly, and meant what you said, but the argument you used was not one you originated, and it is (a fortiori) a disingenuous one. It attempts to make people afraid of homosexuality by associating it with things people fear may happen to them. I know that's not what you meant by it, but it's how that argument works. I'm sorry if I stated that you were being intentionally disingenuous, I meant only that you were using an argument that is necessarily so.



Here you directly associate homosexuality with murder. I can't respect that.



One can absolutely disagree with a person's lifestyle and still love and respect that individual. This comes up when we find our friends in bad relationships, when we find our friends addicted to drugs, when we find our friends working on wall street, in all kinds of contexts. But, here you are declaring homosexuality a "lifestyle choice," removing the elements of neurology, desire, and so on and so forth from it. I'm glad you can love and respect people you whose decisions you find bad, but reducing sexual orientation to a choice is quite the strawman.

W.r.t. gay marriage, I await a response to my question.

Finally



There's nothing stupid about this. Biblical literalism fails completely and is fairly stupid in my opinion, but that's not what you're saying. There's no necessary contradiction in my mind between science and religion. If God is all-powerful, then he can have designed a rich world in which humanity evolves and understanding progresses. In that context, it's entirely reasonable to believe that the bible is a, err, "snapshot" of human understanding of the divine. I tend to think that the idea of an all-powerful God means anything discovered by science can be a part of his creation, and that religion exists completely outside the framework for rational argument as a result of this. But, I'm an atheist, so what do I know.

EDIT:

And, Heirloom:

Might need to be two gowns. Pretty sure anything with cowboys and spaceships on it would do it for dubya.

[Faust]

sexuality in it's existence is instinctual. In it's shape, social construct. I don't disregard anyones personal identity or true nature, but i expect other people to admit there are others who don't fit in with one or the other. That's just how it is. I'm one of them. I know me. I love myself and I wouldn't push myself into a mold if there's no reason to other than to please other peoples wish for order in society. I've heard society say things to me all my life that doesn't rhyme with what I feel inside. Why would I hurt myself when there's no higher purpose to conform other than to make things look neat and uniform? Where is the worth in that?

I understand if you like the order male and female creates, but it really isn't as simple as that. While I completely respect that you are a man who is very happy about your life, your body, your clothes, i just expect the same thing in return, no matter if my heels are 3 or 10 cm tall. It's completely irrelevant.

I see what you mean - that's fair enough.

Laika, I will need to pick your brain on that one when we meet.

Casem, I must admit, I am almost unfamiliar with Foucault. I am going to take a class on him next year (was hoping it'd be this spring). Then we'll talk :-)

Zam, I have to side with theetruscan here on gay marriage and his reaction to your position on it. To not give same rights to gays as other people enjoy is discrimination, plain and simple.

[Fuuma]

I see what you mean - that's fair enough.

Laika, I will need to pick your brain on that one when we meet.

Casem, I must admit, I am almost unfamiliar with Foucault. I am going to take a class on him next year (was hoping it'd be this spring). Then we'll talk :-)

Zam, I have to side with theetruscan here on gay marriage and his reaction to your position on it. To not give same rights to gays as other people enjoy is discrimination, plain and simple.

Foucault is the most widely cited academic according to recent studies, you can't possibly stay away from his thinking for too long. Just buy a few books and start reading them now.

[Faust]

Fuuma, you know me - Literature > Philosophy. It takes a bit of a whip to get me to read philosophy - a masters level course is perfect for that. Otherwise I always gravitate to literature.

[Fuuma]

Fuuma, you know me - Literature > Philosophy. It takes a bit of a whip to get me to read philosophy - a masters level course is perfect for that. Otherwise I always gravitate to literature.

Try sociology/philosophy applied to pop culture.

I'm currently reading "cigarettes are sublime" and recently read "let's talk about love: journey to the end of taste" and both had elements of cultural studies, among other things.

Amusingly enough I haven't picked up "literature" in a while, I really need to. I added master&margarita to my amazon wishlist and have a few books by authors I like waiting.

[Faust]

I know, and it is a draw, but again, the same things framed in a novel are much more vivid, interesting and enjoyable to me.

[theetruscan]

while I must say that I have received some benefits from the state since being married (for years I paid heavy taxes and still had to pay more at tax time, last year was the first I got something back), personally, I don't care much for the benefits of the state...
while i disagree, If the state decided (by the votes of the people) to recognize same sex marriage, thats fine by me, even though i think its a bad decision.............I think Civil unions (if this isnt a religious matter) should be an acceptable option if it gives the benefits allowed by the state.............

Zamb, two things:

First, this is a written forum, everything here will still be here after the Sabbath. Take your time, don't rush on our account, we'll be here.

Second, when you say you don't care much for the benefits of the state, I wonder if you mean it. Would you care if you weren't permitted to visit your wife if she were hospitalized? Would you care if a child you had were considered hers only? Would you care if a distant relative could nullify parts of your will since she "wasn't family?"

Third, I find your argument that "If the state decided (by the votes of the people) to recognize same sex marriage, thats fine by me" a fascinating one. One thing that was frequently cited by Lyndon B. Johnson and others about why the civil rights act(s?) of 1964 had to be passed was that the people wouldn't vote to give these rights to others. I find your statement about rights being shared with others only by popular vote to be especially telling, as it helps to cement the parallels between the anti-miscegenation laws and current "DOMA"-style discrimination laws.

Fourth, we agree on something. I think the government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is between, you, your spouse, and your god if you have one. The legal purpose of marriage is to deliver a set of rights in civil society (err, civil rights I suppose) to the couple entered into partnership. Churches should perform marriages, the government should authorize civil unions. Thus, you would get married in the eyes of your god, and partnered in legal society (legal is in pertaining to laws, not illegal, I'm a poor writer, sorry).

I added master&margarita to my amazon wishlist

Such a lovely book.

[Faust]

Such a lovely book.

There is an understatement!

[Fuuma]

Was it in front of said old ladies?

[Fade to Black]

the complexity of the Bible, a work made of contradicting fragment that resist easy interpretation, in fact a post-modern collage.

this is a heavy discussion, but i just wanna slip in and say i like the perspective and construction of this line.

[laika]

^you're really starting to grow on me

I see what you mean - that's fair enough.

Laika, I will need to pick your brain on that one when we meet.

Casem, I must admit, I am almost unfamiliar with Foucault. I am going to take a class on him next year (was hoping it'd be this spring). Then we'll talk :-)

Maybe try reading Hallucinating Foucault first? It's a novel.
You might also like his little piece called "Other Spaces: utopias and heterotopias," a lot people who don't otherwise read him seem to enjoy it. Foucault is like a language--you just have to read and read until you find yourself suddenly getting it.

[Fade to Black]

yeah my girlfriend sent me that Other Spaces essay....not that I'm even at the hobbyist level, but I found that much more enjoyable and readable than most other heavyweight philosophers I've read. (that's the only Foucault I've ever touched)

[DRRRK]

I've been away for two days and have missed the most interesting discussion in a long time. I can't really add anything to the things that have been already been said. I just want to say that I have been a victim of intolerance for so many times, but I still cannot deal with it. I was beaten up, chased, mocked at,.... and I understand Heirloom's point, although I would say that I am experiencing intolerance but I do not feel discrimination. There is no need to compare this intolerance with the discrimination of ethnic or religious groups because intolerance alone is bad enough.

[Heirloom]

I guess what I mean is that it's triggered by the same mechanisms. People should be aware of that.