TOPICS:
APR 24, 2009 02:12 PM
Quella
USA
July 2008
APR 25, 2009 02:54 PM
APR 25, 2009 05:35 PM
Nicoletta said:
I say we should just make them all get married to 7 other people, one of whom has to be gay... and one has to be mixed race... and one has to be a llama.
Excellent 
APR 25, 2009 05:40 PM
Quella said:
The marrying the dog argument is one I've heard coming out of even supposedly liberal mouths as well, something to the tune of "I don't care who they marry, they can marry their dog for all I care". It totally is a way of dismissing the importance, if not dehumanizing and isolating "them".
Such a shame. I wonder if people used animal marriage comments when bi-racial marriage was becoming legalized through civil rights laws being passed???
Any contemporary historians know about this?
Well here's an interesting twist on the whole animal marriage question (granted it isn't here in the U.S.):
Man in India marries dog as atonement
P. Selvakumar married the sari-draped former stray named Selvi, chosen by family members and then bathed and clothed for the ceremony Sunday at a Hindu temple in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, the Hindustan Times newspaper said.
He married the dog to atone for having stoned two other dogs and hanging them earlier in his life. Believing that the localized paralysis and deafness he suffers from were the result of a curse from his past transgressions, the man hoped that marrying the stray would help absolve him of his crime and lift the curse.
OK, I know this is sort of off topic, but perhaps some of those guys that go on a "gay rage" and end up in jail for attacking them should atone by one day marrying a gay man? Probably not a good idea, but if they are to be considered for parole, perhaps they should at least be required to take extensive tolerance training to help them overcome their irrational fear of homosexuality as part of their incarceration experience.
[EDIT]I just realized how bad that sounded and it was completely unintentional. 
[/EDIT]
Seriously though, the animal argument is non sequitur, it's simply degrading. Though we sometimes may behave like them, people are not animals, furthermore, it shouldn't matter if it is a matter of lifestyle choice (as some opponents claim) or a matter of psycho-physiology (or biology which is what I tend to believe), according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, all people should have have equal rights!
Of course, this brings up the next equally disgusting comparison that some opponents are willing to present. The comparison of homosexuals to pedophiles or other sex criminals. You hear this less often, but there are still people who think this and it's equally degrading and unacceptable. Lawful behavior between two consenting adults is not the same as unlawful behavior. Similarly, the motivations of sexual attraction among consenting adults are completely different then the criminal motivations behind taking advantage of others and victimizing them against their will (I needed to differentiate from those who enjoy S&M).
Quella
USA
July 2008
APR 25, 2009 06:11 PM
FellOnEarth said:
Quella said:
The marrying the dog argument is one I've heard coming out of even supposedly liberal mouths as well, something to the tune of "I don't care who they marry, they can marry their dog for all I care". It totally is a way of dismissing the importance, if not dehumanizing and isolating "them".
Such a shame. I wonder if people used animal marriage comments when bi-racial marriage was becoming legalized through civil rights laws being passed???
Any contemporary historians know about this?
Well here's an interesting twist on the whole animal marriage question (granted it isn't here in the U.S.):
Man in India marries dog as atonement
P. Selvakumar married the sari-draped former stray named Selvi, chosen by family members and then bathed and clothed for the ceremony Sunday at a Hindu temple in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, the Hindustan Times newspaper said.
He married the dog to atone for having stoned two other dogs and hanging them earlier in his life. Believing that the localized paralysis and deafness he suffers from were the result of a curse from his past transgressions, the man hoped that marrying the stray would help absolve him of his crime and lift the curse.
OK, I know this is sort of off topic, but perhaps some of those guys that go on a "gay rage" and end up in jail for attacking them should atone by one day marrying a gay man? Probably not a good idea, but if they are to be considered for parole, perhaps they should at least be required to take extensive tolerance training to help them overcome their irrational fear of homosexuality as part of their incarceration experience.
[EDIT]I just realized how bad that sounded and it was completely unintentional. [/EDIT]
Seriously though, the animal argument is non sequitur, it's simply degrading. Though we sometimes may behave like them, people are not animals, furthermore, it shouldn't matter if it is a matter of lifestyle choice (as some opponents claim) or a matter of psycho-physiology (or biology which is what I tend to believe), according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, all people should have have equal rights!
Of course, this brings up the next equally disgusting comparison that some opponents are willing to present. The comparison of homosexuals to pedophiles or other sex criminals. You hear this less often, but there are still people who think this and it's equally degrading and unacceptable. Lawful behavior between two consenting adults is not the same as unlawful behavior. Similarly, the motivations of sexual attraction among consenting adults are completely different then the criminal motivations behind taking advantage of others and victimizing them against their will (I needed to differentiate from those who enjoy S&M).
Thanks for this interesting post!
Living in very liberal areas as I do, I actually forgot many people still associate homosexuality with pedophilia.
:I need a new little face to express my horror/contempt:
One, and just one problem with the thoughts on any redemption by any method is that this dude who married the dog did so hoping to cure his physical ailments, aka to remove the punishment. He didn't really want to atone for past misdeeds.
This is what interested parties need to read. Jerry Brown's opinion piece, which I know has been mentioned in CE threads before, but it's worth repeating:
Jerry Brown's diary :: ::
The California Supreme Court finds itself center stage tomorrow when it will hear oral arguments on whether it should uphold Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.
The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?
The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.
As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons – because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.
There is a precedent to overturn this and we can trust it will eventually occur in some manner.
Nicoletta
Hamilton, ON
November 2007
APR 24, 2009 01:56 PM