Repost (I thought this was really intelligent)

[SeattleUte]

Very occasionally on NPR I hear something memorable, which is why I keep tuning in despite all the garbage it purveys.

Tonight I heard a portion of a talk given here in Seattle by the infamous Gene Robinson. He said a couple of memorable things. Robinson is one of those remarkable public speakers; he's very eloquent.

Robinson powerfully linked the gay rights movement and women's liberation. He quoted part of Leviticus 20:13, which condemns homosexuality, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Robinson highlighted "as he lieth with a woman," and reasoned that the stigma associated with homosexuality was that the homosexual partners were considered (consciously or subconsciously, I presume) to be abdicating their God-given status as males.

He said that gay rights movement successes represented the begining of the end of patriarchy, and called opposition to gay rights including gay marriage "misogyny." He didn't say this but I thought to myself how male homosexuality really is considered so much more repugnant to homophobes, especially males, than female lovers. I think he's right.

Robinson's second salient point arises from the fact, as he noted, that as practiced in America marriage is consumated by the state not any religion; it is not any religious ceremony that makes a marriage with all its vaunted status, but the fact of the individual who performed the ceremony, be he (or she) a cleric or civil servant, preparing and signing the marriage certificate and submitting it to the state. He advocated that there be two distinct ceremonies for every marriage just to drive home this point. As a practical matter, what the church does is just a rite, that of itself has no legal significance and does not generate rights. Marriage is rather part and parcel of Locke's social contract.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Very occasionally on NPR I hear something memorable, which is why I keep tuning in despite all the garbage it purveys.

Tonight I heard a portion of a talk given here in Seattle by the infamous Gene Robinson. He said a couple of memorable things. Robinson is one of those remarkable public speakers; he's very eloquent.

Robinson powerfully linked the gay rights movement and women's liberation. He quoted part of Leviticus 20:13, which condemns homosexuality, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Robinson highlighted "as he lieth with a woman," and reasoned that the stigma associated with homosexuality was that the homosexual partners were considered (consciously or subconsciously, I presume) to be abdicating their God-given status as males.

He said that gay rights movement successes represented the begining of the end of patriarchy, and called opposition to gay rights including gay marriage "misogyny." He didn't say this but I thought to myself how male homosexuality really is considered so much more repugnant to homophobes, especially males, than female lovers. I think he's right.

So, that I find homosexuality much more repugnant than sex with a woman, this makes me a misogynist? If that is the new standard, sign me up. All those years in Paris wasted (although the French scoff at the idea of gay marriage, such a ridiculous notion).

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Robinson's second salient point arises from the fact, as he noted, that as practiced in America marriage is consumated by the state not any religion; it is not any religious ceremony that makes a marriage with all its vaunted status, but the fact of the individual who performed the ceremony, be he (or she) a cleric or civil servant, preparing and signing the marriage certificate and submitting it to the state. He advocated that there be two distinct ceremonies for every marriage just to drive home this point. As a practical matter, what the church does is just a rite, that of itself has no legal significance and does not generate rights. Marriage is rather part and parcel of Locke's social contract.

This would be an interesting departure for the U.S., but one adopted in Europe years ago. A possible fix I suppose.

Robinson used to appear a lot on Tony Kornheiser's radio show to discuss American Idol. He seems like he would be a lot of fun to hang out with.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Robinson powerfully linked the gay rights movement and women's liberation.

Yeah, I tried to bring this up before. Different author, but some of the same points:
http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=295993

Gay rights as an extension of the women's liberation movement is an interesting argument, and one that I think has a lot of merit.

As far as gay marriage is concerned:
I've beaten this point into the ground, I think, but the fact is that over the ages ecclesiastical marriages have not always been legal, and legal marriages have not always been recognized by the church. This is true even today. There's no reason why civil unions (or whatever you wish to call them) couldn't simply be another instance of a marriage that is recognized legally, but not ecclesiastically (depending, of course, upon denomination).

[Archaea]

Do believe they're an extension or analogous to the roles of women? I thought the Slate argument, while cogent, did not argue they were an extension but rather analogous and related.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

So, that I find homosexuality much more repugnant than sex with a woman, this makes me a misogynist? If that is the new standard, sign me up. All those years in Paris wasted (although the French scoff at the idea of gay marriage, such a ridiculous notion).

That was my own observation, probably silly. Really we heterosexuals probably have less discomfort about women lovers at least in part because we love women. That's probably the efficient cause. On a side note, I've never been as excited by women making love with one anotehr as some men claim to be. The notion that a woman would rather be with a woman than me has never done much for me.

Originally Posted by myboynoah

This would be an interesting departure for the U.S., but one adopted in Europe years ago. A possible fix I suppose.

Yes, he did say that's how they do it in France.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do believe they're an extension or analogous to the roles of women? I thought the Slate argument, while cogent, did not argue they were an extension but rather analogous and related.

If you read carefully, he argues that the fight for gay marriage is an extension of the women's liberation movement. At least that's my interpretation, anyway.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

If you read carefully, he argues that the fight for gay marriage is an extension of the women's liberation movement. At least that's my interpretation, anyway.

I couldn't tell whether he argues it to be an extension or related, but I don't agree if the means that. I think they are correlated but not in the exact same line. They are about gender roles to some extent.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I couldn't tell whether he argues it to be an extension or related, but I don't agree if the means that. I think they are correlated but not in the exact same line. They are about gender roles to some extent.

To put it more simply, homophobia or opposition to gay rights tends to run in cultures where a patriarchal hierarchy is entrenched and valued, and among men who wish to jealously guard male primacy or are insecure about their own fitness to fulfill the patriarchal calling. See American Beauty.

[RedHeadGal]

In a place like France, where they have the two marriage ceremonies, is one required to have two? What if you don't want the religious marriage?

For me, I consider marriage to be a religious ordinance, but I certainly want entitlement to the legal benefits provided by the state. Were I not religious, I'm not sure the inverse would be true.

And for some legal purposes, we already lump sexual orientation discrimination into sex discrimination. If you want to bring a Title VII suit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, you make the case for sex discrimintion. As I'm thinking about this, it does seem to be for the reasons SU states: the discrimination happens to a man (for example), because someone objects to him being attracted to men because he's a man, and that's what women should do.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

In a place like France, where they have the two marriage ceremonies, is one required to have two? What if you don't want the religious marriage?

For me, I consider marriage to be a religious ordinance, but I certainly want entitlement to the legal benefits provided by the state. Were I not religious, I'm not sure the inverse would be true.

And for some legal purposes, we already lump sexual orientation discrimination into sex discrimination. If you want to bring a Title VII suit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, you make the case for sex discrimintion. As I'm thinking about this, it does seem to be for the reasons SU states: the discrimination happens to a man (for example), because someone objects to him being attracted to men because he's a man, and that's what women should do.

In continental Europe, where the religious rite is not recognized, only those wishing it must undergo the rite.

To me, it makes more sense for us to go to a two step ceremony, the legal right endowment from the state and the religious rite for religious significance. I'd wager that's where we're headed.