|
Post by Mister Buch on Feb 27, 2014 8:24:57 GMT 1
Sorry to start more arguments, and I'm not sure if we have a discussion about this elsewhere?
But I've got a new poem, and because it's a high-horse riding political kind of one, I thought this board would probably be more suitable.
--
Some People
Some of us gays want to get married and we’re shoving it down your throat. We’re making a stink, yelling at you to think and cringe. We’re on our knees, begging you to vote, nudging you and slipping you the ballot for legalised fudging and lady-things with fingering that you might not want to talk about, and asking you to tick it, shoving it in your Facebook page, picketing your inbox and sticking it in your head.
And we know you’re okay with the gays. You’ve no fear if we’re here and queer, and everyone’s used to it now but now we want you to thumbs-up our petitions. We’re rubbing our issues on your television screen, wiping your politics clean with Vaseline and all because we want some dumb special day, a ticker-tape parade with our balls and chains and lips smacked all over it - ruin our lives, as you say, making you our heterosexual guests, asking you to shake our ring-fingered hands, eat up our cakes and just say live and let live. Say it’s okay
because it’s you that has to. At the end of the day it’s still up to you to give us away, to give it up and let us have our way, leave us free to do whatever it is we really do behind closed doors, without being looked at like whores just for walking the streets with our husbands and wives anymore.
That’s in your hands and we don’t like it. It creeps us right out.
Some people want to get married.
--
You like? You indifferent? You debate?
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 27, 2014 9:20:44 GMT 1
I'm no poetry critic, but I'll offer my old opinion on this: By all means let gays get married. But let there be a caveat so that churches that disagree with the practice are not required to host gay weddings. I don't even need a caveat for the cake-makers, photogs, or DJ's. They stuck their neck out by having a business. If they don't want the business, they can get out of it without insulting potential clients. But Churches are guided by Scripture, and Scripture is clear on the point of homosexuality (and murder, and theft, and lying, and etc., etc. etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Feb 27, 2014 9:48:53 GMT 1
Excellent poem, Buch!
I'm partially agreeing with Clint here in that I still strongly believe in the concept of the separation of Church and State. That goes with the right that each church holds their own definition of marriage without government interference. Even though most churches would deny gays to be married there, the many more "liberal" churches would still be there as a "Plan B". And looking on the bright side, it'll give the churches more inclined for gay marriage/gay acceptance a bigger demographic and membership.
In short: I think everybody would be happy with as little legislative interference with churches as possible. Bigots'll be bigots and everybody else won't be missing out on the joy that is accepting everyone for who they are.
|
|
|
Post by lieden on Feb 27, 2014 9:59:27 GMT 1
That's what got to me most. :/
I'm not going to jump in the debate for the same reason I don't enter debates about religion. The two are closely linked, anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Feb 27, 2014 10:16:28 GMT 1
Thanks very much for compliments, people! Lieden you've always been far too kind on Tumblr. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 27, 2014 11:13:53 GMT 1
I've no eye for poetry. So I cannot judge it on that merit. It took more than one reading for me to understand what you were saying.
My thoughts on homosexuality are no secret here. I feel that fundamentally it's no different than heterosexuality.
I'm a little puzzled by the stance Clint is taking. People are as guided by scripture as churches. Why do churches get more protection from legislation regarding civil rights than businesses? If a business owner has a moral objection to serving a client based on a religious ground, much as a church would, why does the church get more protection? This is just one of many knots that has to be untangled in this matter before this silliness gets put to bed for good. Legally churches have no more right to discriminate against someone than a business. Sure I recognize that allowing this caveat is a step toward equality, but as long as the caveat exists there is legitimately a problem.
Frankly, this debate would be well served worldwide if we just dispensed altogether with the fiction that marriage is administered and approved of by the church, when it it is and always has been a state administered affair. When you get married, you sign a wedding license issued by the state, not the church.
The half and half crap that exists in the US, where it is not acknowledged nationwide, where the "civil union" are not recognized as being at the same level by hospitals and government benefits for spouses has to stop. It's either married or single, the division of married and "civil union" is garbage.
Good for you jklinders, you successfully poured gasoline on afire in your own forum.
|
|
|
Post by salty on Feb 27, 2014 11:28:11 GMT 1
Yep I like that poem
I'm not phased by any of that gay marriage, two people want to be together and show that by getting married,
Often public opinion is misinterpreted by authority, yet the majority of us couldn't give two hoots, there's bigger things to think about and concentrate on
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Feb 27, 2014 11:29:58 GMT 1
Well, I swore I would not reply to this thread, because the last thing I want is to have... anyone... jump on my ass for having and / or stating an opinion. So I will say one thing, and I do NOT want to be part of an argument. Because I am sick of having my opinions trounced on.
However, let me just say one more time (because I know I've said it before and I honestly don't understand why it's so hard to understand) that people are people are people, regardless of who they love.
This whole separation of Gay vs. Straight when it comes to marriage makes no sense. I will never understand why it's considered more legit for "Jane" to marry "John", but not for "John" to marry "Jack"... how is that different? Marriage in it's origins was not a religious thing, it was an alliance between families and kingdoms and the like, and in this day and age, the tired old reproduction argument makes no sense because all the gods know you don't have to be married to have a baby - in fact, there are over-population issues all over the place because plenty of unmarried people are having babies.
So to reiterate, love is love is love - who the hell cares what physical form it takes?
And one last thing - I actually think it's horrific and cruel and actually disgusting to treat people poorly simply based on who they love. And hiding behind "Scripture" as a shield and comparing homosexuality (which is harmless and hurts NO ONE) to shite like murder is useless and makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Feb 27, 2014 13:11:19 GMT 1
If two adults of sound mind want to get married and are harming no one, who am I prevent them from doing so? They have a right to be happy just as I do, though as Clint said, don't expect many religious institutions to be very keen to the idea.
There is one thing I take a bit of exception to, though. The "we're shoving it down your throat" bit. To more than a few people that can conjure up the stereotype of the guy wearing hot pink bikini underwear, a gay pride cape, and nothing else rollerblading up and down the streets at a gay pride parade, which can put them off to the idea. Not saying that was what you meant, but that could be the perception. It's like me having to deal with those in the firearms community who think that because they're legally allowed to carry a firearm in the open that they should do so in a manner that beats Average Joe Sixpack and Soccer Mom Mary over the head with the concept (such as riding a Segue into a store while carrying a bling'd-out .45 pistol in a way that highlighted the weapon). Perception is reality and how you go about making your argument goes a long way toward how successful you are in advocating your cause.
All that said, not too bad a poem, though poetry isn't really my cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Feb 27, 2014 13:37:09 GMT 1
Not too bad - does that mean you didn't like it? I can't tell.
Thanks for reading folks.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Feb 27, 2014 13:49:55 GMT 1
Oh it gets the message across, though as I mentioned some of the wording isn't what I'd find ideal. So I like it, but don't expect me to nominate it for awards.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 27, 2014 14:54:42 GMT 1
Because, ideally, churches are not making a profit. Ideally, they follow scripture and spend their every extra dollar helping those in need. But a business opened their doors and welcomed customers to come inside. If they do not wish to be confronted with the fact that people disagree with them on the issue of sexual orientation, they shouldn't have opened the doors. In addition I disagree with the premise that a business owner should refuse a homosexual. I think it's a far more powerful witness to be a friend to someone, regardless of their personal foibles. Christ didn't say "Go out into all the world and spread the gospel, but avoid gay people." In fact, He went out of His way to be associated with the ostracized people of His day. So the baker who decides that gay money isn't any good to them is making an ass of themselves to make a point, something Jesus never did.
I partially agree with you. But whilst the practice of marriage is a legal arrangement, the premise of marriage is a spiritual one. It's one of the earliest things set out in scripture. So my way of handling it is to say that the legal aspect should have free reign, so long as the spiritual aspect is not infringed on, and those organizations who take their lead from the bible are not forced to condone what they see as wrong.
Fair enough. Why the obfuscation? They should just settle it one way or another.
So far as I can tell, this discussion is about homosexual marriage, not homosexuality in general. So I can further explain my stance on that if asked, but I think PM's or a new thread would be a better place.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Feb 27, 2014 19:54:13 GMT 1
Iron - sad to hear it!
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 27, 2014 19:58:29 GMT 1
Thing is, neither the US Constitution, nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms has any caveats or addendums in them regarding whether an individual is making a monetary profit from their actions when they are discriminating. On a strictly legal basis, there is absolutely no more right for a Church to discriminate than a business.
We can circle each other on the role and origin of religion's place in marriage until the next ice age and not get anywhere. Historically, religion and rulership were closely tied together in the very ancient past. The whole concept of Divine Right dates back to before the time of King David. Divine right was one of many ways a king kept his people from rebelling. Go against your king, you go against God and all that crap. It is very naive to think that did not figure very heavily into how laws were invoked and enforced.
I don't understand you here. Who is obfuscating, 'cause it's not me? I am strongly advocating that they "settle it one way or another" because as I said, this half and half shit is garbage.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 27, 2014 22:01:56 GMT 1
Thing is, neither the US Constitution, nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms has any caveats or addendums in them regarding whether an individual is making a monetary profit from their actions when they are discriminating. On a strictly legal basis, there is absolutely no more right for a Church to discriminate than a business. But don't businesses file paperwork to be obeisant to the laws in their area? Like the thing in NYC over the big drinks recently. People weren't happy about it, but they had to comply. Churches are coming to the issue from a different angle. They have a higher authority than the law and in issues where the law is forcing someone to sin, they have to choose their faith. AKA when the law bans Christianity altogether. It's worth noting that several pillars of the Faith, Jesus, Paul, and Peter, all advocate obeying the laws of society wherever possible. And they did this in a far more difficult time period. Therefore a church is obligated to have a different response than a business. I was talking over this with a friend today, and she brought up that the business owner could tell the prospective clients "I welcome your business and will do the best job I can, but before we continue, you need to know where I stand. If you still want me to do the job, I will, but I want all my cards on the table." Marriage being an easy way of shoring up legal agreements, it is quite often a secular institution, and has been for many thousands of years. That's why I say that the legal side of marriage is hardly obligated to exclude gays. Not sure what you're getting at about the divine right of kings... I know about the idea, but I've always associated it more with Louis XIV and the Hanoverian Kings than David. I certainly never got that in all the times I read his story in 1 & 2 Samuel. Oh sorry, should have been clearer. The politicians are obfuscating.
|
|