Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's what I don't understand about the religious right. Isn't it up to God to dictate what's right and what's wrong? And isn't all of this decided in the afterlife anyways? What difference does it make to you if two strangers with penises are allowed to get married in a church that isn't yours?

Probably has something to do with them thinking God won't bless their country if they have laws that allow gay marriage.

Funny how they don't say anything about divorce and remarriage though.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is the fallacy at the heart of the gay marriage argument. First of all, gay couples are not being married in droves. The number, I believe, has been decreasing subsequently each year since the state recognized gay marriages.

Is that not also true for heterosexual couples as well? That marriage rates are in decline?

Originally Posted by peter12

This enforces a new norm upon a community which has traditionally proudly stood outside of the regular social norms.

Just like how American blacks were suddenly able to sit anywhere they wanted to on a bus or train, able to hold certain positions in the military and other public institutions they never could have before, attend colleges they couldn't before, etc.?

Without reading the book you posted about, I'd say it's a pretty absurd prediction that the ability to get married would "tear apart" the gay community, especially when they have been fighting for it for years. Communities, cultures and societies adapt to the changes that are presented to them. It's nice to have someone to pontificate on what is and is not good for individuals of a community though, all while trying to hold something out of reach that would enable equality.

[Antithesis]

It is my sincere hope that in 20 years we look back at discussions like this and shake our heads in awe that there was even a discussion; or that my children think this debate is as silly as the debate was surrounding whether blacks should be able to use the same drinking fountain as whites do.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

This book convinced me that gay marriage is not a human right and is indeed, probably detrimental to gay communities in jurisdictions where it has been permitted.

http://www.amazon.ca/Trouble-Normal-...7214063&sr=1-2

This isn't about human rights, it's about enforcing a code of bourgeois morality. It's okay to be gay, as long as you are monogamous and live in a house with a white picket fence. People who support it should think about how monolithic and "the same" our communities are becoming through the intervention of the State.

Peter, this isn't actually an argument against gay marriage. It's, at its core, an argument against marriage. To use it as an argument against gay marriage is a massive distortion, and is also self-defeating, as I'll illustrate below.

Marriage is optional, not normative--and to the extent that it promotes what you call "bourgeois morality," it is an effect of that morality, not the cause of it. People choose to enter marriage, or choose not to enter into it at their option, and although certain social and economic benefits are conferred on those who participate, it's also true that many people prefer to be single, and many couples (especially nowadays) prefer not to formalize their union in this way. So marriage is a choice--I think we can agree.

In the end, the issue of gay marriage is a question of the restriction of that choice by the government, and this is actually most easily illustrated through negative choice. If a heterosexual person chooses not to get married, that is their right. However, if you think about it no gay person could "choose not to get married" until gay marriage was recognized by the state. Their choice was made for them by the paternalistic (and yes, bourgeois) morals of the state.

In that context, a gay person remaining single can never be a rejection of bourgeois norms unless gay marriage is also legal and mainstream. You can't take away someone's right to vote and then say "look how he's resisting the status quo by refusing to vote!"

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

It is my sincere hope that in 20 years we look back at discussions like this and shake our heads in awe that there was even a discussion; or that my children think this debate is as silly as the debate was surrounding whether blacks should be able to use the same drinking fountain as whites do.

Yep, you read some of the posts in here and just shake your head that people still think a certain way. It's baffling.

[narbeZ]

I am against Gay Marriage.

Marriage is a religious practice. Religion defined marriage as being between a Man and a Woman.

I don't understand why homosexuals wan't to make something holy that isn't.

EDIT

Why can't they just live together and be gay?

Cue the person to tell me how marriage benefits 2 people, thus why gays wanna get married.


PS. this goes all into my theory that the end of the world is coming, as most people are turning away from religion, and the only people who are not are muslims. They are unified, they have obtained slow but steady growth....eh screw it I have a whole theory.

In 500 years there will be no more white people, everyone will speak english, and everyone will be muslim.

Mark my words.

[Antithesis]

Well geez, thanks a lot man, I told my wife that we're no longer married because neither of us has any religious beliefs and now she's angry with me.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by narbeZ

I am against Gay Marriage.

Marriage is a religious practice. Religion defined marriage as being between a Man and a Woman.

I don't understand why homosexuals wan't to make something holy that isn't.

EDIT

Why can't they just live together and be gay?

Cue the person to tell me how marriage benefits 2 people, thus why gays wanna get married.


PS. this goes all into my theory that the end of the world is coming, as most people are turning away from religion, and the only people who are not are muslims. They are unified, they have obtained slow but steady growth....eh screw it I have a whole theory.

In 500 years there will be no more white people, everyone will speak english, and everyone will be muslim.

Mark my words.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by narbeZ

I am against Gay Marriage.

Marriage is a religious practice. Religion defined marriage as being between a Man and a Woman.

I don't understand why homosexuals wan't to make something holy that isn't.

EDIT

Why can't they just live together and be gay?

Cue the person to tell me how marriage benefits 2 people, thus why gays wanna get married.


PS. this goes all into my theory that the end of the world is coming, as most people are turning away from religion, and the only people who are not are muslims. They are unified, they have obtained slow but steady growth....eh screw it I have a whole theory.

In 500 years there will be no more white people, everyone will speak english, and everyone will be muslim.

Mark my words.

I would be fascinated to hear the entire theory, but first things first -- Is the world going to end soon, or will there be people here in 500 years?

We need one or the other, brother!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Peter, this isn't actually an argument against gay marriage. It's, at its core, an argument against marriage. To use it as an argument against gay marriage is a massive distortion, and is also self-defeating, as I'll illustrate below.

Marriage is optional, not normative--and to the extent that it promotes what you call "bourgeois morality," it is an effect of that morality, not the cause of it. People choose to enter marriage, or choose not to enter into it at their option, and although certain social and economic benefits are conferred on those who participate, it's also true that many people prefer to be single, and many couples (especially nowadays) prefer not to formalize their union in this way. So marriage is a choice--I think we can agree.

In the end, the issue of gay marriage is a question of the restriction of that choice by the government, and this is actually most easily illustrated through negative choice. If a heterosexual person chooses not to get married, that is their right. However, if you think about it no gay person could "choose not to get married" until gay marriage was recognized by the state. Their choice was made for them by the paternalistic (and yes, bourgeois) morals of the state.

In that context, a gay person remaining single can never be a rejection of bourgeois norms unless gay marriage is also legal and mainstream. You can't take away someone's right to vote and then say "look how he's resisting the status quo by refusing to vote!"

No, on the whole it's an argument against modern marriage as defined primarily through John Locke. I just want to start off by saying that I know I'm making an unpopular argument. It's complicated and I don't expect many people on here will follow it or agree with it.

To begin with norms are the effect of our choices, the fact that marriage is optional and people choose to engage in it is what makes it a norm. The norm has changed, however, moving from an Aristophanic view of love and relationships as eros to a Lockean view of relationships (and children) as being instrumental in the conquest of nature.

In regards to stability, this isn't a bad thing. The family unit with children raised by a mother and a father is the best way to raise children who are stable, contributing "members of society." This is why I still think we should keep around the traditional definition of marriage as the only marriage in modern society. It is the best way for encouraging stable family units in a materialist world where notions of God and the eternal order no longer resound in communities and extended families.

On to my view of love and why I think homosexuality is prior and more significant than being subsumed by this bourgeous definition of marriage. Going back to Plato's Symposium we learn of the Greek definition of eros. That is, the notion of soulmates and longing we feel for other souls. In regards to human sexual activity, this is not bourgeous morality. It involves often a pansexual exploration of oneself in a very Dionysian fashion. Promiscuity leads the way to one day stability.

Homosexuality, especially, according to Socrates is notable for this type of behaviour. Historically, homosexuals did not have the final consequence of the marital act to act as a natural break to their sexual activity. Homosexuals were far more likely to explore the notions of brotherhood and community bonding through their sexuality.

Legalizing gay marriage uses the modern language of rights. Ignoring the diversity and plurality of society, it instead seeks to bureaucratize something as personal as love creating a new norm where bourgeois morality is the state-approved norm for all relationships.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Is that not also true for heterosexual couples as well? That marriage rates are in decline?

Just like how American blacks were suddenly able to sit anywhere they wanted to on a bus or train, able to hold certain positions in the military and other public institutions they never could have before, attend colleges they couldn't before, etc.?

Without reading the book you posted about, I'd say it's a pretty absurd prediction that the ability to get married would "tear apart" the gay community, especially when they have been fighting for it for years. Communities, cultures and societies adapt to the changes that are presented to them. It's nice to have someone to pontificate on what is and is not good for individuals of a community though, all while trying to hold something out of reach that would enable equality.

Good to see you're keeping yourself informed.

Note that I don't really have a problem at all with opening up the basic rights of inheritance, right of partnership, tax benefits etc... to homosexuals.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

It is my sincere hope that in 20 years we look back at discussions like this and shake our heads in awe that there was even a discussion; or that my children think this debate is as silly as the debate was surrounding whether blacks should be able to use the same drinking fountain as whites do.

In 20 years at this rate, ..people will be allowed to marry anyone or anything. You want to marry an elephant? Sure, why not? The church will be marrying everyone and everything eventually, once they see all those dollar bills rolling by...

Marriage will become even more of a joke than it already is. I think it is between a man and a woman who want to raise a family, and I stand by that even though some folks here might imply that I am hateful or some garbage...

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Marriage will become even more of a joke than it already is. I think it is between a man and a woman who want to raise a family, and I stand by that even though some folks here might imply that I am hateful or some garbage...

Don't worry, folks thought that long before this post.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, on the whole it's an argument against modern marriage as defined primarily through John Locke. I just want to start off by saying that I know I'm making an unpopular argument. It's complicated and I don't expect many people on here will follow it or agree with it.

To begin with norms are the effect of our choices, the fact that marriage is optional and people choose to engage in it is what makes it a norm. The norm has changed, however, moving from an Aristophanic view of love and relationships as eros to a Lockean view of relationships (and children) as being instrumental in the conquest of nature.

In regards to stability, this isn't a bad thing. The family unit with children raised by a mother and a father is the best way to raise children who are stable, contributing "members of society." This is why I still think we should keep around the traditional definition of marriage as the only marriage in modern society. It is the best way for encouraging stable family units in a materialist world where notions of God and the eternal order no longer resound in communities and extended families.

On to my view of love and why I think homosexuality is prior and more significant than being subsumed by this bourgeous definition of marriage. Going back to Plato's Symposium we learn of the Greek definition of eros. That is, the notion of soulmates and longing we feel for other souls. In regards to human sexual activity, this is not bourgeous morality. It involves often a pansexual exploration of oneself in a very Dionysian fashion. Promiscuity leads the way to one day stability.

Homosexuality, especially, according to Socrates is notable for this type of behaviour. Historically, homosexuals did not have the final consequence of the marital act to act as a natural break to their sexual activity. Homosexuals were far more likely to explore the notions of brotherhood and community bonding through their sexuality.

Legalizing gay marriage uses the modern language of rights. Ignoring the diversity and plurality of society, it instead seeks to bureaucratize something as personal as love creating a new norm where bourgeois morality is the state-approved norm for all relationships.

Geez, really bringing out all the big guns this time, eh?

Locke, Aristophanes, Plato, Socrates, Dionysus... what, no Hercules?

Originally Posted by peter12

In regards to stability, this isn't a bad thing. The family unit with children raised by a mother and a father is the best way to raise children who are stable, contributing "members of society." This is why I still think we should keep around the traditional definition of marriage as the only marriage in modern society. It is the best way for encouraging stable family units in a materialist world where notions of God and the eternal order no longer resound in communities and extended families.

You can't encourage stable families. People are going to build stable families because they want to build a stable family.

Preventing gay people from getting hitched doesn't encourage straight people to go out and have kids and raise them in a stable family.

Gay people getting married doesn't discourage anyone from going about their lives and building stable families if they are so inclined.

What exactly is the thought process you expect people to go through with this "encouraging stable family units" thing?

"I'm going to get married and have kids and love my wife, because the government won't let gays do the same thing, and I'm special"?

or the opposite...

"I want to get married and have kids and love my wife, but I'm not going to, because the gays are allowed to get married too, and it wouldn't be special"?

[peter12]

Geez, really bringing out all the big guns this time, eh?

Locke, Aristophanes, Plato, Socrates, Dionysus... what, no Hercules?

Not fair. That's what I actually read. It's also why I stand alone at parties.

You can't encourage stable families. People are going to build stable families because they want to build a stable family.

Preventing gay people from getting hitched doesn't encourage straight people to go out and have kids and raise them in a stable family.

Gay people getting married doesn't discourage anyone from going about their lives and building stable families if they are so inclined.

What exactly is the thought process you expect people to go through with this "encouraging stable family units" thing?

"I'm going to get married and have kids and love my wife, because the government won't let gays do the same thing, and I'm special"?

or the opposite...

"I want to get married and have kids and love my wife, but I'm not going to, because the gays are allowed to get married too, and it wouldn't be special"?

This is a much more complicated subject. I've got to think about it a bit.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, on the whole it's an argument against modern marriage as defined primarily through John Locke. I just want to start off by saying that I know I'm making an unpopular argument. It's complicated and I don't expect many people on here will follow it or agree with it.

To begin with norms are the effect of our choices, the fact that marriage is optional and people choose to engage in it is what makes it a norm. The norm has changed, however, moving from an Aristophanic view of love and relationships as eros to a Lockean view of relationships (and children) as being instrumental in the conquest of nature.

In regards to stability, this isn't a bad thing. The family unit with children raised by a mother and a father is the best way to raise children who are stable, contributing "members of society." This is why I still think we should keep around the traditional definition of marriage as the only marriage in modern society. It is the best way for encouraging stable family units in a materialist world where notions of God and the eternal order no longer resound in communities and extended families.

On to my view of love and why I think homosexuality is prior and more significant than being subsumed by this bourgeous definition of marriage. Going back to Plato's Symposium we learn of the Greek definition of eros. That is, the notion of soulmates and longing we feel for other souls. In regards to human sexual activity, this is not bourgeous morality. It involves often a pansexual exploration of oneself in a very Dionysian fashion. Promiscuity leads the way to one day stability.

Homosexuality, especially, according to Socrates is notable for this type of behaviour. Historically, homosexuals did not have the final consequence of the marital act to act as a natural break to their sexual activity. Homosexuals were far more likely to explore the notions of brotherhood and community bonding through their sexuality.

Legalizing gay marriage uses the modern language of rights. Ignoring the diversity and plurality of society, it instead seeks to bureaucratize something as personal as love creating a new norm where bourgeois morality is the state-approved norm for all relationships.

In fact, I really like this post--and I think I have a better understanding of what you mean.

But I stand by my original point, which although I will now concede that it does not defeat the totality of your argument, certainly curtails its real-world import: compliance with law can never be the constitutive shape of resistance to norms. If it were, then paying your taxes would be antisocial, not jaywalking would be avant-garde and not stealing chocolate bars would be Marxist.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by narbeZ

EDIT

PS. this goes all into my theory that the end of the world is coming, as most people are turning away from religion, and the only people who are not are muslims. They are unified, they have obtained slow but steady growth....eh screw it I have a whole theory.

In 500 years there will be no more white people, everyone will speak english, and everyone will be muslim.

Mark my words.

Thread that was already bizarre goes off the deep end....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR3wGlRcUKo

I'm okay with the world going beige

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not fair. That's what I actually read. It's also why I stand alone at parties.

Ha ha. Not meant as an insult at all. I didn't want it to come across as a shot at book learnin', hence the crack about Hercules.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

In fact, I really like this post--and I think I have a better understanding of what you mean.

But I stand by my original point, which although I will now concede that it does not defeat the totality of your argument, certainly curtails its real-world import: compliance with law can never be the constitutive shape of resistance to norms. If it were, then paying your taxes would be antisocial, not jaywalking would be avant-garde and not stealing chocolate bars would be Marxist.

I think, in a sense, I agree. Gay marriage isn't really a slippery slope. It's kind of the wierd end of the slope where a rights-based language has sort of levelled everything off into a cultural nihilism where we only identify where we stand in regards to the State.

At this point, I personally can't think of a reason to stop the legalized institution of gay marriage.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

In 20 years at this rate, ..people will be allowed to marry anyone or anything. You want to marry an elephant? Sure, why not? The church will be marrying everyone and everything eventually, once they see all those dollar bills rolling by...

Marriage will become even more of a joke than it already is. I think it is between a man and a woman who want to raise a family, and I stand by that even though some folks here might imply that I am hateful or some garbage...

And there we have all the commonly used silly statements of those against marriage in the thread.

Yes gay marriage leads to marriage to animals, solid objects and magical non visable beings.

Makes total sense.