Don't you know why gay love "hurts" marriage?

[omega minimo]

Traditional marriage, based on one man and one woman, supports the male dominant power structure that permeates culture.

Blurring the gender line in legally sanctioned marriage "undermines" the patriarchal system.

The threat to patriarchy on the family level threatens patriarchy wherever and whenever it occurs (i.e. everywhere) in society.

TIME TO QUIT PRETENDING and quit asking the rhetorical (bat eyelashes) "How does gay marriage harm traditional marriage." PLEASE.

TIME FOR THE WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND GENDER RIGHTS MOVEMENTS TO JOIN FORCES.

TIME FOR GENDER RIGHTS FOLKS TO QUIT THINKING IT'S ABOUT GAY SEX INSTEAD OF MALE DOMINANCE.

Thank you. Happy 6/6/6. Now what are they trying to distract us from with this shit?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1361684&mesg_id=1361684

[ComerPerro]

1. True. If two men or two women are married

how will they know their roles in the marriage? How will they know which one is the man and which one is the woman? How can they therefore fit the roles defined by god, which apparently our laws are based entirely upon?

[Critters2]

16. Two of my parishioners were just chuckling the other day

about how often they get asked "who's the man and who's the woman?" Confusing though it is....They're BOTH women!!

People are morans.

[slackmaster]

2. Male dominant power structure?

Sounds like you've never been married.

:hide:

[lectrobyte]

11. I was talking to one of my Repuke neighbors in the yard the other day,

and he was bragging that their house was in his name only, so that if she thought about a divorce, he could kick her out and keep the house. Nice marriage, thought I.

[benddem]

12. Please send

her a letter or call her and tell her what he said. She needs protection. I'll bet he voted for *

[lectrobyte]

20. I'm sure he voted for *. Has W stickers on his car, etc., that's why

I referred to him as my "repuke" neighbor, which is pretty tacky of me as I usually try to avoid terms like that. I really don't want to get in the middle of his marriage, though, since he seems like the sort of guy who could really go off on someone, and the list of folks who could have written such a letter is probably pretty small.

[slackmaster]

15. Was the house in his name before they were married?

I live in a community property state. Shared assets come only from earned income, and other things over which control is given up voluntarily. If the equity in your neighbors' home, gained during the marriage, comes from earned income and your state has community property, the woman would have a strong claim to a share of the house.

My experience with marriage (just under 12 years) was that it served as a tremendous equalizer between my wife and myself, with her getting a bit more of a benefit out of it than I did. I earned about 35% more than she did, and when we split up my share was based on equity in our home and net asset value of our savings. We divided everything to the closest penny, and drove away in the same cars we had when we met.

I let her keep the good furniture because it wasn't worth arguing over.

[lectrobyte]

18. This is in NC. Not sure what the laws are, just thought it was an

interesting thing to be telling an almost stranger. Guess he didn't notice my bumperstickers as much as I noticed his or something.

[slackmaster]

19. Sounds to me like he MAY have simply been talking general sexist trash

Rather than impugning his own wife. I know how people are in NC.

[lectrobyte]

21. Yes, and it could have been his house b4 he was married and just

never changed it etc., too, but it was an interesting thing to hear from someone.

[Bandit]

13. LOL

You my friend are an educated individual..:rofl:

[bloom]

3. yes

Just think - a woman being able to live in a stable, secure relationship - with another woman instead of ("needing") a man - what an outrage! :eyes:

And all of those gay men who aren't dominating women like they supposed to - can't have that! :crazy:


:grr:

[glitch]

4. Excellent point. Recommended, because more people should get it. nt

[FreakinDJ]

5. What side are feminist on ??

Donna Hughes, chair of the women’s studies department at the University of Rhode Island, is the most vociferous of the abolitionist camp. She writes frequently for the National Review, is said to work very closely with Chris Smith and Horowitz
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archives/c2004sum_sextrafficking.asp

Just wondering because last I heard abstinence wasn't working out so well

[bloom]

9. As if some people don't call themselves feminists

(like "ifeminist") just to confuse people? Are those the "feminists" to which you are referring?


Or do you really not have a clue?

[donsu]

10. think mole, think faux feminist , neo cons stick their fingers everywhere

nt

[Nikki Stone 1]

31. How did someone like THIS end up as the chair of women's studies?

..

[peacetalksforall]

6. Opposing gay marriages is highly Christian. If you can support gay

marriages, you might entertain the 'thought' that Christ married (in light of our recent opportunities to open our conscience). If Christ married, women's role is possibly raised and it might even mean that they women were never meant to be as subjugated as they have been under Christianity for 2000 years. So, it is very important to deny that children could thrive in a gay household, therefore, children must be raised in a m=f household only, disregarding that the parents never have to pass muster for their ability to raise the children. And since the world of Christianity for some revolves around fetuses, not the already born who might be subjected to pedophilia or abuse including sacrificing bodies and body parts to corporate wars, a gay marriage won't produce that fetus. Orphans are also less important to m-f family fetuses.

So, don't you see, you can't open these doors. Too many things come falling out.

Also, there are too many stereotypes that haunt some people and some people must cling to their stereotype rather than using their head.

[knitter4democracy]

33. Not really.

It's a cultural thing, not a faith thing. There have been threads on this for the last couple of days.

There are more verses supporting slavery in the Bible than against homosexual behavior, and yet Christians in the 1800's decided that the two greatest commandments overrode those. Yes, many Christians sided with slave owners and were slave owners, but the progressive Christians eventually won out. I have hope that we'll win on this one, too.

[helderheid]

7. you're right. It IS time.

[slackmaster]

8. And now for my "serious" response now that I've got voting out of the way

How could relationships between two men or two women "blur the gender line" with respect to society at large?

- Gay men are still men.

- Lesbians are still women.

- Men still get systematically paid more than women. I'm not aware of systematic pay discrimination based on sexual orientation. Hiring and housing decisions? Perhaps, but people don't get hired or rented to for many reasons besides apparent sexual orientation.

- Age, race, nationality, strongly held political convictions, etc. seem much more obvious and more prone to trigger prejudice. Homosexuals don't look any different than heterosexuals unless they choose to wear it on their sleeves, which (unlike sexual orientation itself) is a matter of choice. Please enlighten me if you think I've missed something.

- Men do hold more power in corporate and government structures. Many gay men in power are surely still closeted, but they are still men and still in power.

What do relationships between members of couples have to do with any of that? Most homosexuals (hermaphrodites and trans-gender individuals notwithstanding) are still members of their physical gender.

[omega minimo]

30. Thank you for voting

OP: "Traditional marriage, based on one man and one woman, supports the male dominant power structure that permeates culture.
Blurring the gender line in legally sanctioned marriage "undermines" the patriarchal system.
The threat to patriarchy on the family level threatens patriarchy wherever and whenever it occurs (i.e. everywhere) in society."

Your question: "How could relationships between two men or two women "blur the gender line" with respect to society at large?"

How could it NOT!!??!!

I have reread the OP and your posts several times to understand what you are confused by. Perhaps it comes down to a sementic debate on how "gender" is defined. Your comments seem rooted in the undeniable fact of genitalia --with a brief nod to "hermaphrodites and trans-gender individuals notwithstanding."

As you point out, the genitalia may not be mutable, but behavior and gender ROLES certainly are. If the original statement does not convey that sense, and seems to infer that sexual organs may be "blurred," please forgive me.

The relevance of those who ARE mutably gendered may be greater than you think. For example, in a world shaped by "Blurring the gender line in legally sanctioned marriage (that) "undermines" the patriarchal system," children who are born "different" would no longer automatically be surgically altered and forced to "choose" a specific and predetermined gender role for life.

Gender is more than genitalia, isn't it?

"Nobody has yet presented anything to convince me that "traditional" heterosexual marriage is anything less than an equalizer that improves the status of women."

So the Big Picture of a patriarchal structure of society is unrecognizable to you? Perhaps, as you say, ""traditional" heterosexual marriage is (not) anything less than an equalizer that improves the status of women" because women are "traditionally" at a societal disadvantage to begin with?

[slackmaster]

34. Thank you for your reply - I am unable to appreciate your POV

I'm a pretty open-minded person, but the day to day experience of a GLBT person is inscrutable to me.

So the Big Picture of a patriarchal structure of society is unrecognizable to you?

I see it clearly. I also see a predominantly matriarchal structure in some elements of our society.

[omega minimo]

35. The idea was to suggest that gender is not merely genital

which seemed the point that threw you off the message of the OP................


"As you point out, the genitalia may not be mutable, but behavior and gender ROLES certainly are. If the original statement does not convey that sense, and seems to infer that sexual organs may be "blurred," please forgive me."


Going off on another aspect ("other" genders) may have confused it further.

The confusion of your initial response seemed rooted in sementic view of "gender."

Traditional marriage reinforces rigid, societal gender roles. That is why the status quo wants to maintain them. That is why same-sex marriage is a "threat" to traditional marriage.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Sufi marriage ceremony

is one that treats the individuals being married equally.

[slackmaster]

17. How is that different from a California civil marriage?

Specifics, please. California is a community property state. Partners in a marriage are equals in the eyes of the state, in contracts, etc.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. I don't have the ceremony text before me right now

but I recall that each partner accepts the other as the most sacred trust given by God. Nothing in the ceremony about "obey" or any indication that one partner is to be boss over the other, unlike the traditional wedding ceremony used in many Christian churches.

[slackmaster]

23. Christian ceremonies I've heard all apply "obey" both ways IIRC

Along with love and honor, and occasionally cherish.

Maybe that's because of the kinds of people I tend to associate with. They've all been quite egalitarian.

Nobody has yet presented anything to convince me that "traditional" heterosexual marriage is anything less than an equalizer that improves the status of women.

And my own experience tells me the same. A husband certainly must obey his wife.

[StellaBlue]

24. BINGO!!!!!!!!!

The ONLY reason the Establishment does ANYTHING:

to retain its power.

Oh, and, sometimes there's the sub-motivation of profit. Why are we in Iraq? Profit. Why are our schools selling out to cola companies? Profit? Why is Angelina on CSPAN today but Haditha is not? Profit.

[omega minimo]

28. Yeah-- what SHE said!

:yourock:

You raise some other important dots that need connecting. The general public is well aware that government is in bed with corporations and they are being royally ripped off-- and many continue to support the companies and regimes that are doing so :crazy: Sumthin in the water? Cola? Latte?

[ismnotwasm]

25. Exactly

It's bait and switch, is is not?

[Avalux]

26. It is about male dominance.

I cringe every time I hear them say that children do better when they have a mommy and daddy in the home. I know gay couples who are raising beautiful, bright, kind children. As a single mother, I am raising daughters who are great kids and at the top of their classes in school.

I call bullshit on all their phony 'facts'.

[omega minimo]

29. Maybe they mean "do better"

at learning to replicate what "mommies" do and what "daddies" do. God forbid they be confused about who does what!!! :evilgrin:

[iconoclastNYC]

27. Great post.

K&R

[MountainLaurel]

32. Hammer, meet NailHead

You certainly have struck at the core of the matter.