Thursday, February 26, 2009

Racy Discussion at UWP

I have been invited, by a Parkside student, to a discussion at Parkside today (5 pm, Molinaro Hall, no info on UWP web site) concerning homphobia in black churches. Given that this discussion is coming on the heels of the California vote concerning gay marriage, and the widely discussed fact that blacks voted to preserve traditional marriage, or oppose gay marriage, (choose your own narrative) I can't help but wonder whether the underlying assumption of the discussion will be that opposition to gay marriage is synonymous with homophobia. Anyway, I guess I will have to go to find out. But it is pretty gutsy of Parkside to have two traditionally liberal groups go head to head. If any sparks fly, I will report back later.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hope Kay is there to make sure that the black people are really black and the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender people are really gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender.

Mixter said...

Will you be holding an "equal rights for all" placard? I'm sure you'd be shocked to know that I am a proponent of same-sex marriage...

Mixter

Preachrboy said...

Denis,

Are you going to observe or also to speak? Did I ever tell you about the time I was invited to speak at UWP about homosexuality and it was under somewhat false pretenses?

Denis Navratil said...

Shocked Mixter, just shocked!!!

Preach, I am just an audience member but may wish to chime in if given an opportunity. I'd like to hear your story if you would like to share.

Mixter said...

Anxiously waiting...

Mixter

Denis Navratil said...

So I went to the discussion. It turns out it was run by QPOC (Queer People of Color), a student organization. There was a slide show that offered definitions of homophobia and heterosexism and listed offenses against gays perpetrated by religion through the course of history. Discussion centered on negative experiences with Christianity. The tone among many towards religion was decidedly negative, prompting me to suggest a future discussion on religaphobia in the LGBT community might be appropriate. Of particular interest to me was whether I was a homophobe or heterosexist according to their definition. It seems that there was not a consensus on that issue. Overall the discussion was mildly interesting and all involved were polite and considerate.

Mixter said...

Polite and considerate is good. Equal rights under the law is awesome.

Mixter

Denis Navratil said...

There is equal rights under the law Mixter. Marriage throughout history has been defined as a union between men and women. Presently, any man can marry any woman (well, excepting siblings). This includes gay people.

If gays are being discriminated against because they can't marry someone of the same gender, then so are heterosexuals who also may not marry someone of the same gender. The rights are equal. Gay or straight, everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender. Gay or straight, none can marry someone of the same gender. Where is the discrimination?

Mixter said...

The "traditional" definition of marriage is exclusionary. If people are so offended by same-sex couples using the word "marriage," then let's call it something else. If I want to share my life, my fortune (or lack thereof in my case), and all the other stuff, (obligations, responsibilities, benefits, etc.) that goes along with a marriage with a woman, then I should have the right to do so.

Fortunately for me, I dig guys, so I'm not excluded. But, no one should be excluded.

Mixter

Denis Navratil said...

The definition of anything is exclusionary. It excludes all things that do not meet the definition. Otherwise it would not be a definition.

Example: the definition of a grape is exclusionary. It excludes oranges, automobiles, gerbils... everything. If definitions didn't define, ie exclude, nothing would have any meaning.

Yes, the definition of marriage excludes all things that aren't marriages, such as grapes, oranges, automobiles, gerbils and partnerships between same sex individuals.

By the way, you are free to share your life, your fortune not taken by government, and any other things you and a partner may want to share. You are not free to change the meaning of a perfectly understood word.

colt said...

If we do same sex marrage can we allow Muslims to marry 9 year olds? Mohamed did why not Mayor Becker?
How about 3 wife's like the early LDS?
Who is to say what marriage is?

Mixter said...

Like I said, call it something else, then! If that's really ALL you're concerned about, the definition of the word "marriage." (I'm guessing not, but won't presume to read your minds.) I'm talking about a union between two consenting adults, not bigamy or marriage to minors. The slippery slope argument doesn't work.

I don't think it's fair that my nephew can't legally marry (or whatever you want to call it) the man he loves and has lived with, faithfully, for the past six years.

Mixter

Denis Navratil said...

The slippery slope argument most definitely does work. If the definition of marriage is changed from a man-woman union to a union of adults in love, then there is no longer any valid argument remaining to prevent anything from passing as marriage. As you know, many people identify as bisexual. On what basis could society deny polygamy? How about group marriages? Marriages dissolve and we have a whole body of law that has evolved over thousands of years to handle this. How would we dissolve a marriage between numerous men and women with multiple children with different biological parents within a group marriage. I just don't think the gay activists have thought through all the likely problems down the road. So i don't support gay marriage but I otherwise believe people should be free to love whom they want. Of course, they already are.

And your nephew can love his partner all he wants. He can live with him, have sex with him, do laundry for him, visit him in the hospital, etc... just like married people. He has societal tolerance, but not necessarily acceptance. But who among us is assured acceptance by others? That is not the feeling I get over at Kay's site. Should I start a political movement?

Rich Preston said...

DN,

Call me a RINO if you'd like. I've been called worse, but I'm with Mixter here.

Nothing about same sex unions is inherently wrong nor illegal, except that society says it's wrong.

Malum in se Vs. Malum prohibitum as I remember from Law 101. It's only illegal because we say so.

You have reasons why we should stick with the current definition. But all of those reasons can be overcome and should be overcome.

One of the foremost purposes of the Constitution is to establish justice.

Having the right to marry the one that you love is justice.

Denis Navratil said...

Rich, welcome to FreeRacine. What makes you think I am going to call you names? Anyway, I wish you would take on my argument. If marriage is changed from a man-woman institution to something else, then on what logical basis can we deny polygamy or group marriage? Or to put it another way, your concept of what marriage should be discriminates against those oriented towards multiple partners.

Rich Preston said...

DN,

Yes, no doubt, decisions like that could be harder to discern. Are you afraid of hard work? I'm not. IMHO, avoiding hard work is no reason to avoid justice.

To specifically answer your question (then on what logical basis can we deny polygamy or group marriage?); the basis would be to include in the definition "two people".

Denis Navratil said...

RP, you want to change the definition of marriage to be just towards those who want to marry someone of the same gender. But where is the justice for those who want multiple wives and husbands? The answer for you is to have the redefiniton of marriage such that it includes only two people. But law is based on precedent. You will have established new precedents, that the definition of marriage is malleable, that it is based on orientation or desire, that it is not connected with gender, and that it should provide justice for those who are uninterested in traditional marriage. Thus any attempts to limit marriage to an institution comprised of two people only should be rightly considered discriminatory and unjust. But you handle this justice problem legalisticly by saying that marriage should be defined as "two people". But you haven't resolved the justice problem for the multiple spouses issue. Thus your redefinition leaves us with blatant discrimination and logical inconsistency. By the way, keeping marriage as it is is also a legalistic answer. But it is not plagued with the problem of discrimination or inconsistency, despite your claims and those of gay activists. Presently, the legalistic definition of marriage does not discriminate as I have asserted earlier. Any man can marry any consenting woman, and no man or woman may marry someone of the same gender. Nobody is discriminated against.

Rich Preston said...

DN,

You see the slippery slope as a reason to not budge. I get that.

I see the same slippery slope, but I'm confident that society, legislators, Chief Executives and Judges can handle it just fine.