Jump to content
tegan

QUILTBAG Thread of Flagrant Homoeroticism

Recommended Posts

General queer thread!

 

...Sententia made me do it.

 

 

 

SO! This week DOMA and Prop 8 were both finally killed, which has been a pretty big deal. Less talked about, though, was the fact that infamous ex-gay group Exodus International not only closed forever, but issued a formal apology for basically ruining peoples' lives for 37 years.

 

I am sorry for the pain and hurt that many of you have experienced.  I am sorry some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents.
I am sorry I didn’t stand up to people publicly ‘on my side’ who called you names like sodomite—or worse. I am sorry that I, knowing some of you so well, failed to share publicly that the gay and lesbian people I know were every bit as capable of being amazing parents as the straight people that I know. I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him, I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine.

 

So yeah! Big week!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I should contribute now :P 4-5 years ago on newgrounds I stumbled across a handful of short, cute animations about love that made me think, check it out:

 

There she is!! step 1

There she is!! step 2

There she is!! step 3

There she is!! step 4

There she is!! final step

 

Here's a few thoughts on it,

When I watched it I assumed it was an analogy to gay couples, and that the Paradise plane ticket was a suicide metaphor.  Alright so maybe the creator didn't intend such dark implications, but it's what I got out of the work.  I also like the way it's presented in the end, both the hatred directed at him and him being used as a symbol for a cause got in the way of their relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the prop 8 thing, I did also like how the CA courts said it would be about a month before there would be marriages, then 2 days later just said fuck it and started letting people get married. Prop 8 proponents tried to halt it, again, but were denied. I'm not gay, but Prop 8 is what got me out to vote, because I believe in equality. Glad to see that thing finally die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that Prop 8 and DOMA are dead, how is the state of gay marriage in the US? Is it basically unproblematic now?

 

I always thought that the simplest solution would be for the government to introduce a system where you have civil partnership and marriage. The former is the arrangement that has legal ramifications and is open to anyone (within reason - the government would still have to check for the greencard grabs etc that they do with marriage at the moment), and the latter is a religous ceremony that has no legal ramifications whatsoever. Then the church can do whatever the fuck they want with their traditions and who can or can't partake in them but meanwhile everyone else is getting equal treatment and doesn't need to care about whether some particular threads of one particular religion will allow them to pay a shitload of money to partake in their irrelevant ceremony.

 

But there are probably many reasons why that's hopelessly impractical, naive and ignorant of the way American politics work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that Prop 8 and DOMA are dead, how is the state of gay marriage in the US? Is it basically unproblematic now?

 

I'd say it's actually more legally problematic now. The DOMA decision basically allows gay people in states where gay marriage is legal, to enjoy all the benefits that married couples usually receive (federal health insurance being a big one). Where it starts to get confusing is when a gay couple who were married in one state, move to another where gay marriage is not legal or has a constitutional ban. It's not clear yet if they will be able to carry over their rights to a different state, that's something the Obama admin is going to have to legally define in the next few months. So everything just became that much more complicated. Of course, the obvious solution is to just legalize gay marriage federally, and I'm sure that once one gay couple sues because they lost health insurance coverage after moving to a gay marriage state to a non, we as a country will get that much closer to finally legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

 

E: Also, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage, so the issue has become less problematic in that regard, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting about that Exodus news Tegs. I was curious to see how their (ex-?)president handled making the announcement at their annual conf so looked up the recording (starts at 21m40s, goes on for... a while).

 

I do acknowledge that my interpretation may be affected by not having to deal directly with the harshest of E.I. stuff myself but I found he delivered it with more humility, sincerity and consideration that I'd expected.

 

Some parts did stick in the craw a little, but the guy seemed genuinely, deeply regretful that E.I. did not represent the values of love, acceptance, safety and hope that it should have. Though I guess maybe he has come to personify those things a little due to his desire to see the organization fold as a result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, it is now illegal to give children any information whatsoever about homosexuality. On account of morals, ye ken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boo to Russia. It shocks me there's a superpower that can be so unabashedly homophobic in this century.

 

I always thought that the simplest solution would be for the government to introduce a system where you have civil partnership and marriage.

 

Me too. I know plenty of people who follow a religion whereby they have to have their religious ceremony and a civil ceremony for it to be a legal marriage, so why not make it that way for all religions? It'd neatly separate legal/civic benefits from religion while not touching the sanctity of whatever it is whichever religions regard as marriage. Also, (when it's not already) it'd make it really blatant when religious people are simply fighting to preserve privilege and advance politicised homophobia outside the bounds of their faith.

Anyway. Monumentally good week for gay rights in the West. Huzzah, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear of what you guys (Ben X and Nachimir) are proposing: all the legal stuff gets transferred to civil partnerships, and marriage ceases to be officially recognized by the law and the government, right? In which case, anyone can decide whether or not they're married entirely at will (unless you have to also be in a civil partnership to be married). I'm kind of fine with that – it's up to people to decide whether they care what a particular church thinks, for example.

 

The reason I ask is because leaving any part of the system closed to people based on their sexuality would still be excluding people and therefore send out all the same unhelpful messages about gay people's place in society. It doesn't really matter whether there's any material benefit to it or not. If a particular church doesn't want to do same-sex ceremonies, I guess that's their prerogative (after all, you can't exactly legislate some hypothetical almighty), but the prospect should be open to everyone.

 

I'm guessing we're on the same page, but I feel like it's the sort of detail that warrants being painfully clear about.

 

Anyway, Philosophy Bites had an interesting episode concerning same-sex marriage recently. Listen to it!

 

Also, congratulations to everyone this whole thing affects. It's always heartening to see actual visible social progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear of what you guys (Ben X and Nachimir) are proposing: all the legal stuff gets transferred to civil partnerships, and marriage ceases to be officially recognized by the law and the government, right? In which case, anyone can decide whether or not they're married entirely at will (unless you have to also be in a civil partnership to be married). I'm kind of fine with that – it's up to people to decide whether they care what a particular church thinks, for example.

 

The reason I ask is because leaving any part of the system closed to people based on their sexuality would still be excluding people and therefore send out all the same unhelpful messages about gay people's place in society. It doesn't really matter whether there's any material benefit to it or not. If a particular church doesn't want to do same-sex ceremonies, I guess that's their prerogative (after all, you can't exactly legislate some hypothetical almighty), but the prospect should be open to everyone.

 

I would add that religious organizations don't have any particular claim on the term 'marriage'. I know this idea just comes down to picking two different terms for how it is recognized and going with it but I imagine a lot of people would be upset by letting religious groups claim 'marriage' as theirs. At some level I think that would still deal a psychological blow to gay rights since that is more or less the term that has been used for thousands of years. Let them come up with their own word for what they think marriage should be since they are the ones so adamant about having it strictly defined to fit with their specific beliefs.

 

I feel silly arguing who should get which word but in this case I think there is actually a little bit of significance behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea of separating marriage as a religious thing from some other legal thing is fundamentally bogus, because there are gay people who want to get married. That's the term they use, and screw having to tell them "Well, I can offer you this sweet civil partnership, as for marriage, you'll have to take that up with a religious organization." That's not good. Wouldn't you feel like a jerk saying that?

Gay marriage for everyone.

Also, quoting this from user loquacius of the something awful forums:

The minister glares at the couple with venom in his eyes. "I now pronounce you..." He can't say it. An armed DHS goon, wearing full-on riot gear with a jet-black Obama "O" emblazoned on the forehead of his death-mask, prods him with the barrel of the rifle he's had pointed at his back the entire time; the threat need not be spoken. The minister gulps audibly before finishing his sentence: "...husband and husband." The assembled congregation, who had shown up for Easter Sunday services, murmurs in alarm, but dare not speak at full volume for fear of provoking the armed DHS agents stationed at either end of every pew. The organist begins to play "Sympathy for the Devil" (also at gunpoint). The minister casts down his Bible in shame at the mockery his faith has become.

The newly-married couple embrace with joy; this is exactly how every gay person dreams of his or her wedding day! In the background, a stained-glass window of Blonde Jesus visibly begins to weep before shattering outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, separating marriage from religion denies the fact that many gay people themselves are religious, and deserve to marry in whatever venue they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And separating it out like that is just placating bigots (who would themselves probably be offended by it); why would anyone want to do that? That whole conversation rubs me the wrong way.

Basically I agree with Zeusthecat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's no part of why I suggest it. It would do anything but placate bigots, because they want to retain a monopoly. I'm suggesting taking that away from them.

 

Besides, separating marriage from religion denies the fact that many gay people themselves are religious, and deserve to marry in whatever venue they want.

 

I'm not saying they don't. Since we don't live in theocracies or ecclesiocracies though, I think that and civil and religious gay marriage are different fights. While there's intersectionality to it, I think it's a different fight in the case of every religion that doesn't allow gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was responding more to Ben's post which as I read it is ceding that monopoly to religious institutions. Marriage has to be legally protected for everyone. If we call it something else, then we're not talking about equality.

 

edit: I think I had kind of a kneejerk response here, because I'm put off by waffling about alternate realities in which things are less screwed up. I'm more concerned with the furtherance of equality within the actual world as it exists now, and sooner rather than later. Sure, changing how "marriage" is defined and dealt with in a broad sense vis a vis state and church could be great, and I'm with you on the general sentiment, but it's irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage has to be legally protected for everyone.

 

Ah, I see. I didn't read Ben and James' posts closely enough. Wikipedia Brown, I think we're on the same page :)

What I'd like is for marriage to be for everyone, and for religious ceremonies, if they can't incorporate that, to exist within the bounds of those religions rather than creeping into civic life and clouding the issue. As Zeus says, they don't have a particular claim on the term, and for them to argue for it is to also claim they deserve privilege.

The religion I mentioned earlier was Bahá'í. To them, marriage is a very serious thing in which they believe the souls of two believers are bound together throughout and beyond this life. It carries no weight legally though, so they have a small registry office ceremony to make it a marriage in the eyes of the state too (Here in the UK, registry office weddings don't have to have any kind of religious content). They don't seem to get their panties in a twist over which of those is marriage, they just understand that one is a part of their faith and one is a part of the state, which seems sensible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I respond, let me just reiterate that I haven't thought this through a great deal and that I'm not saying This Is The Truth. I already feel on the defensive because words like "jerk", "waffling" and "irrelevant", and "rub me up the wrong way" are being used. Let's try and keep the QUILTBAG thread friendly, please.

 

I think the idea of separating marriage as a religious thing from some other legal thing is fundamentally bogus, because there are gay people who want to get married. That's the term they use, and screw having to tell them "Well, I can offer you this sweet civil partnership, as for marriage, you'll have to take that up with a religious organization." That's not good. Wouldn't you feel like a jerk saying that?

Gay marriage for everyone.

 

I didn't say that gay people wouldn't be able to get married. That would be up to whichever organisation was providing the marriage - I'm sure plenty of Christian churches would provide gay marriages as well as other religions and, as James pointed out while being firmly on the same page as me, "anyone can decide whether or not they're married entirely at will". I wouldn't feel like a jerk for having to tell some people "you now have all the legal rights everyone else has, but certain churches (and also the American Nazi Party etc) don't want you as a member" at all. 

 

I wonder whether separating it out like this would leave these organisations/places of worship more open to getting in legal trouble for discrimination, but I guess there are plenty that openly get away with it already, right?

 

 

I was responding more to Ben's post which as I read it is ceding that monopoly to religious institutions. Marriage has to be legally protected for everyone. If we call it something else, then we're not talking about equality.

 

edit: I think I had kind of a kneejerk response here, because I'm put off by waffling about alternate realities in which things are less screwed up. I'm more concerned with the furtherance of equality within the actual world as it exists now, and sooner rather than later. Sure, changing how "marriage" is defined and dealt with in a broad sense vis a vis state and church could be great, and I'm with you on the general sentiment, but it's irrelevant.

 

I really don't understand what you're saying here. I'm not talking about calling marriage something else or changing how the word is defined, I'm not talking about alternate realities, and I am talking about furthering equality within the actual world as it exists now and as soon as possible. I'm glad you agree that my idea could be great but I don't see how it's irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I probably didn't think my post through very clearly. Sorry if I said something dumb enough to irritate or upset. It was very late at night and I was and am quite stupid. I'll try to think this through a bit more thoroughly:

 

First and foremost, it's paramount that the law treat everyone equally regardless of sexuality. As such, no institution should be denied anyone based on their sexuality.

 

Do churches have the right to refuse to marry heterosexual couples for arbitrary reasons? If they're obliged to marry eligible couples (as the Church of England is in the UK, regardless of the couples' religious observance), that should include homosexual couples. Again, the law should make no distinction.

 

I'm finding it very difficult to resolve the question of whether you can require a church to offer things counter to its holy text – or some interpretation of it – forbids (no matter how shitty). If a religion turned people away on the basis of race, that would seem pretty atrocious, but once the law starts undermining the principles of the religion itself, it kinds of makes the whole thing seem like a weird sham. It's far too big and thorny an issue for me to have any hope at.

 

Of course, religions aren't monoliths, and there's plenty of variance within each. Perhaps the approach should be that any church (or priest or whatever) should be able to marry gay couples and be legally protected from any potential consequences (such as dismissal or excommunication).

 

I don't know, that still seems unsatisfactory. I guess I'm not going to solve the whole issue all on my own right now.

 

I still feel like I'm not achieving much clarity of thought. I hope people with better brains than mine are making all the actual decisions. I also hope I haven't made the thread rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I just don't see a need to separate marriage and civil union in such a way.  As far as I know churches are already a cosmetic gesture in the process, what gets a couple the actual benefits of being married is doing up all the paperwork and sending it in to the government to get approved, not the religious ceremony bit where they announce their marriage to the world.  For example the jewish lesbians that got married recently after living together for like 40 years, they had a ceremony with friends and family at their church and announced their marriage, but since they don't live in a state where gay marriage is legal they're not actually in a Legal Marriage contract and so aren't getting the benefits.

 

Right now I think there's confusion between the concept of a religious marriage and a Legal Marriage.  Any church can host a ceremony and any couple can say what they want, but to get the part that matters practically you need to get a marriage license, then do a ceremony which doesn't require any religious overtones and can be done for 50 bucks generally, right at the courthouse where you got the license.

 

It would be a kind of funny middle finger to religions to have the government drain marriage of benefits and give them to civil unions, but either way really the important thing is that it happens.

 

edit: Personally I think we draw the line where it is right now: religious organizations don't have the ability to grant couples the state-provided benefits of a Legal Marriage, so any bigotry they display is protected under freedom of speech and the fact that they're a private organization.  If you want to argue that's a bad thing and people should be punishable for their words as well as their actions, well first of all I'd agree with you but also that's a much larger topic to address.

 

p.s. rad link to philosophy bites james, love that cast :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at it similar to the way baptism works.

 

Religious organizations all have their own interpretation of how baptism should work and there are many arbitrary (having grown up religious, arbitrary is definitely a good word here) reasons why a church may or may not baptize someone. It can literally completely come down to the whims of the pastor or priest.

 

Under that context I don't think the government has any business forcing a church to perform their version of a 'marriage' ceremony for people that don't meet the church's stupid criteria. That could easily be construed as a violation of religious freedom.

 

The problem here is that baptism doesn't have any non-religious analog like marriage does and if 'marriage' is the all-encompassing term that the law and religion both use, then there could be a good case that religious organizations that refuse to marry people for whatever reason are guilty of discrimination. Sort of like how it is against the law for a restaurant to refuse service to someone because of their race.

 

So, I think churches should have the right to conduct their little ceremonies in whatever way aligns with their set of beliefs. However, if they want to actively discriminate against people and have it fall under the protection of religious freedom, they really should have to come up with their own term (religarriage?) for what they want it to be and it should not in any way be recognized by the law. So basically, I'm on-board with making a distinction between the religious version and the legal version but I think 'marriage' should be recognized and defined by law and then the churches can come up with their own hokey thing if they want to impose their own restrictions that go beyond what the law has in place.

 

On another note, I am more and more bothered by the concept of religious freedom with each passing day. It is too often used as a shield to say and commit despicable acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note, I am more and more bothered by the concept of religious freedom with each passing day. It is too often used as a shield to say and commit despicable acts.

 

It worked a lot better when everyone belong to a religion. Now, often as not, it's just an excuse to exclude people for various arbitrary reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try and keep the QUILTBAG thread friendly, please.

It's me, I'm the jerk in the QUILTBAG. (I'm sorry.)

As Sententia points out, the way it currently works here in the States is that marriage is wholly within the purview of the state government. You get a license, and can be married by a Justice of the Peace. Religious ceremonies are there for flavor, but have no legal import.

It sounded like you were saying that we should let the Churches have marriage, and call the legal thing a civil partnership, which in my eyes would be a significant step backward.

The other side of this is that I don't believe that discrimination is something that should be protected as a religious right. Whether the ceremonial marriage is legally important or not, I don't agree that a Church (or Mosque or Synagogue, etc.) should be allowed to be picky about it. Can a religious organization say that it's against their religion for white and black attendees to use the same water fountains and get away with it? Jesus Christ that was an awful analogy, and I apologize for it, but I'm not editing it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×