101. theDiva - July 9, 1999 - 1:20 PM PT
Cellar, dear, please stop yelling. My head is beginning to ache.
Arthur Finklestein (?) is probably a classic example of the House Negro......you know?
102. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 1:21 PM PT
"Clinton caved because he accepted the fact that gays were disruptive to unit cohesion, a fact delineated to him by his chosen military brass. I'll never understand why every decision of his that has consequences is sloughed off to his being put into a tough political corner. "
I remember reading the press leading up to the fiasco over gays in the military. The press remembered Clinton's comment on MTV, and believed that all he needed to do was sign an executive order, so figured he could do it pretty quick after inaugaration. On MTV, Clinton was answering off the cuff, and had was evidently similarly naive.
The problem was with the Code of Justice. While Clinton could sign an executive order lifting the asking of uncomfortable questions and the pre-screening of gays, homosexuality would still have been punishable under the Code. Changing the code would have required Congress to pass a law, which wasn't going to happen.
103. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 1:23 PM PT
Ace,
Can I still get the "re-inventing government" position?
I have a crowbar I could bring.
104. ACEofSPADES - July 9, 1999 - 1:28 PM PT
Ronksi:
Actually, I was going to suggest that kind of position to you, but I figured you'd find that insulting, considering the moron who did it last time (and did nothing, btw).
How about "Reducing Government," or "Rudo"?
105. MsIvoryTower - July 9, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
"Changing the code would have required Congress to pass a law, which wasn't going to happen."
Actually, this is a valid point, however, had Clinton made the executive order supporting gays in the military, the onus of criticism would then have switched to Congress, and he would have been cleaner.
As it was, he copped out, IMO.
106. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 1:33 PM PT
Rask,
Actually, I think the Code issue may be a red herring. It could have been ignored just as sodomy laws are ignored in most cases.
I do think that Clinton, knowing little about the military, was naive throughout this business, however. And also naive about his ability to influence Congress on it.
What I never understood, however, was Clinton's stiffing of Nunn, who wanted a cabinet position. Nunn could have been a help on the gays in the military issue, despite Nunn's personal homophobia, imo.
I think Clinton never bothered to think very much about gay issues, figuring he had the majority of gay votes in his pocket (about 2/3 to 3/4 of gay voters, enough to influence a close vote in a couple of important states).
107. harper - July 9, 1999 - 1:42 PM PT
cllrdr: Re Message #82
Have I ever asked you whom you screw? Have you ever asked *me* whom I screw? See, not everyone is obsessed with sex ore who's doing it to/with whom?
Some of us know what discretion is.
108. harper - July 9, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
One of my fantasies is to see every homosexual in the military "come out" at the same time. I think we need a "National Military Coming Out" Day like the national smoke-out day. I think people would be astounded at how many gays there already are in the military. That might shut up a few of the idiots.
Raskolnikov stated:
"The problem was with the Code of Justice. While Clinton could sign an executive order lifting the asking of uncomfortable questions and the pre-screening of gays, homosexuality would still have been punishable under the Code. Changing the code would have required Congress to pass a law, which wasn't going to happen."
Niner or any other lawyer out there: Can you get your hands on that statute from the UCMJ so we know what it says? I was under the impression that the only pertinent part of the Code was the anti-sodomy part. Am I mistaken?
Where is Jade now that we need her?
109. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 1:50 PM PT
"Some of us know what discretion is."
You have no future in either politics or journalism, dear.
Sorry about the screaming, Deev, but I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore.
110. Raskolnikov - July 9, 1999 - 1:51 PM PT
I will agree that Clinton botched the whole thing, but I think it is important to note that it wasn't as simple as him just signing a piece of paper. I don't think it was a red herring. While homosexuality certainly could have been ignored, there is no reason to think that it would have been. That would have required the cooperation of the military, which was rather adamant in their opposition to the issue.
Anecdote: My best friend is an army officer, and was a lieutenant when all of this happened back in 93. He is also rather progressive minded, and rather vocal. In barracks conversations about the issue, he spoke up in defense of the idea of gays in the military. At a staff meeting soon after, someone public accused him of being gay, and the room went silent waiting for him to answer. He told me that belief that you are gay will kill your military career and make life hell for you, so as much as he wanted to say that it wasn't important, he denied it and made a point to show people the engagement photos with his fiancee that he had just had taken.
But since then, he has shut his mouth up on the issue. He tells me that the culture is so hostile to the idea that it isn't worth risking his career and getting beat up over.
I don't believe we can count on the military to just stop enforcing homosexuality bans.
111. harper - July 9, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
Raskolnikov: Re: Message #110
Just what we need -- cowardice in the military. Damn, I'm sick of military hypocrisy. There's one code for officers and another for enlisted. There's non-fraternization, but everyone knows it goes on nayway. There's adultery, but one code for men, another for women. And sexual harrassment is OK too. I think we need a little shake-up in the militray. Too much of an old boy network in my opinion.
112. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
"I think we need a little shake-up in the military. Too much of an old boy network in my opinion."
And I think we need a shake up in the whole culture. Too much of an Old Boy -- and in the case of freaks like Ann Coulter, Old Lectoids From Planet 10 -- network IMHO.
113. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
Niner, I've answered your query in "Movies and Television."
Now tell me about Arthur Finkelstein.
114. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 2:15 PM PT
Rask,
No question that the military will do what the military wants to do. But their means of undermining civilian orders they don't like are often subtle, and I think that prosecuting under the Code would have been too crass a tactic. We can agree to disagree. Thanks for your thoughts.
115. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
cllrdr
All I know is he is a GOP pollster. Please don't get angry. I swear. It's all I know.
116. Ronski - July 9, 1999 - 2:20 PM PT
And he lives in New Jersey? That's about it for me. Never met the guy. Or his boyfriend.
117. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 4:14 PM PT
Can *anyone* explain 109109's reasons for opposing the inclusion of same-sex couples in existing marriage laws? Anyone at all?
118. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 4:19 PM PT
109109:
"Twenty, maybe twenty five years on open homosexuality in the military. The military culture is insulated and hard to crack and the culture in general has a way to go on the issue."
I'd say it's more likely to happen in less than a decade, perhaps only a couple of years if the Supreme Court does the right thing. As I said before, Britain and the U.S. are now the only NATO countries to exclude gays from their armed forces and Britain's ban is about to be lifted. The U.S. ban survives only through inertia, tradition, prejudice and fear of change.
119. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 4:28 PM PT
Rask:
"Anecdote: My best friend is an army officer, and was a lieutenant when all of this happened back in 93. He is also rather progressive minded, and rather vocal. In barracks conversations about the issue, he spoke up in defense of the idea of gays in the military. At a staff meeting soon after, someone public accused him of being gay, and the room went silent waiting for him to answer. He told me that belief that you are gay will kill your military career and make life hell for you, so as much as he wanted to say that it wasn't important, he denied it and made a point to show people the engagement photos with his fiancee that he had just had taken."
How sad. And how typical of military culture. An ex-lover of mine was in the U.S. Navy. After several years service, he applied for a post in Alaska that required a higher security clearance and involved an "investigation" of him. Apparently, they dug something up, because they confronted him and told him they had evidence he was gay. They never accused him of any wrongdoing, and would not reveal what "evidence" they had. Instead, they gave him two options: submit and accept an honorable discharge, or fight the charge, which would result in a dishonorable discharge if he lost.
Blackmailed by the same government he'd risked his life for.
120. CalGal - July 9, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
Actually, Niner has not stated his position on gay marriage, has he? He said, "Moreover, with marriage, I believe the institution has become sufficienty Christianized that there is no need to have the battle. Hence, I support creation of a new legal right of same-sex marriage that is codified in law as separate and distinct from the present law, with all the same rights. "
When pressed, he said that most people think of marriage as "Christianized". He hasn't said if he himself thinks that allowing homosexuals to marry would unChristianize the ceremony, only that he doesn't think it's practical to shoot for it. Unless I missed him saying so.
121. uzmakk - July 9, 1999 - 5:27 PM PT
Message #72 Msit:
Didn't Socrates say that there was no army fiercer than an army of male lovers. Not that I give a shit what the propagandist Socrates said.
122. uzmakk - July 9, 1999 - 5:34 PM PT
As long as you don't do it in the street & frighten the horses, who cares? Message #75Harper:
Quite so. But where is the street in America?
123. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 5:49 PM PT
"Actually, Niner has not stated his position on gay marriage, has he? He said, "Moreover, with marriage, I believe the institution has become sufficienty Christianized that there is no need to have the battle. Hence, I support creation of a new legal right of same-sex marriage that is codified in law as separate and distinct from the present law, with all the same rights. ""
Yes, that's typical 109109 gobbledygook. The purpose of the battle is to secure the right of same-sex couples to marry. Assuming that "the institution has become sufficiently Christianized" (whatever that means) is an accurate statement, how does it imply that "there is no need to have the battle?" How can there be "no need to have the battle" as long as the right is still denied? Even more mystifying is the claim that the first sentence implies ("Hence...") support for a "separate and distinct" form of marriage for same-sex couples rather than simply including them in the existing "marriage" legal category that we have today.
124. elliot803 - July 9, 1999 - 7:43 PM PT
Here, for the edification of 109109 in particular, is a summary of the 1993 RAND Corporation study into the issue of sexual orientation and military personnel. This is one of the two studies into the issue commissioned by the military, both of which concluded that there was no credible reason for continuing to exclude gay people from military service.
By the way, the study also notes that no change to military law would be required to lift the ban.
125. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 8:08 PM PT
Velvet Goldmine
It seems as appropriate in this thread as in Movies. Todd Haynes' paen to the glam rock movement of the early 70s, it loosely gives a David Bowie (Jonathan Rhys Someone) type (Brian Slade) to us as that period's Oscar Wilde. He falls in love with an Iggy Pop type (Ewan McGregor as Kurt Wild) and the process allows us at least 7 concert scenes and/or music videos. There is very little plot, the clothing - as in any film that is primarily about drag queens - is fantastic (nominated for an Academy statuette), and the film is supremely silly. Kind of a Citizen Kane meets The New York Dolls, it is lush, over-the-top, dream-like and eventtually crashes under weight of its own visual excess. The plot is secondary. The acting - with the exception of Christian Bale as the reporter who is trying to find out what happened to the glam rock star Slade - is dissipated.
Bale is depicted as a player in the life of glam, a young boy who is coming to grips with his homosexuality, and is emboldened and freed by the openly bisexual Slade. These scenes are the only ones which Haynes offers as exposition and they are given great care. Bale demonstrates the pain of alienation and more importantly, the joy of breaking from the stifling environment of his closeted orientation.
Other than that, the only thing to recommend the film is a great soundtrack. If you must watch it, see it over a seven night time span and shut it off after each musical number. It will play like a really fortuitous streak of MTV numbers and it won't strike you a such a waste of time.
126. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 8:11 PM PT
And you can see the young Obi Wan Kenobi's dick in one of the Kurt Wild numbers.
127. MsIvoryTower - July 9, 1999 - 8:28 PM PT
109
I hated that film.
H A T E D
I T.
128. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 8:39 PM PT
MsIt
You were quite justified in doing so. I watched some of it intrigued by the visuals, and Bale was affecting, but it was, ultimately, masturbatory in a 12 year old with his first Playboy sort of way.
129. CalGal - July 9, 1999 - 8:51 PM PT
And what *is* your position on gay marriage, Niner?
130. 109109 - July 9, 1999 - 8:55 PM PT
In time . . .
In time . . .
Nite.
131. cllrdr - July 9, 1999 - 9:05 PM PT
The Missionary Position, obviously.
"Velvet Goldmine" is a masterpiece (though you still have my vote,MsIt)
"but it was, ultimately, masturbatory in a 12 year old with his first Playboy sort of way."
More like a 12 year old with his first "Physique Pictorial." Taschen has put out a lavish art book of James Bidgood's work. No one who saw these pictures as originally presented has ever forgotten them. Todd certainly hasn't.
It is indeed sad that you think so little of masturbation, Niner. Clearly you weren't given proper instruction as a youth -- a tragedy common among those of your class. All "striving," no pleasure.
132. CIGARLAW - July 9, 1999 - 11:44 PM PT
i do not think the republic will fall if homosexuals are allowed to marry. besides, hink of the potential money to be made when they divorce.
as for our mercenary armed forces, women are probably more disuptive of unit cohesion than homosexuals. if merenaries don't like it, go to africa where there is plenty of work at good wages.
133. EricCartman1 - July 10, 1999 - 12:09 AM PT
Cellar:
I'll take a crack at your Finkelstein question (why he gets special rights, and you don't have everyday ones, right?) -- it's because a) he bought and paid for those rights, fair and square; and b) he sounds like your garden variety "king-maker", the power behind the throne, as it were.
You're voting for the wrong side, by the way; in an Ace/Niner administration, I will be applying my "Ass-Kicking Chomsky-esque" diplomatic principles, but we can't do it without your help, mon ami.
I was also the first candidate to talk about repealing DOMA; in fact it was my #2 plank (after taxing the churches).
My gay-rights bona fides are:
Gay marriage: Yes. While there are some things I agree wholeheartedly with my good friend Niner on (such as, Al Gore is a scumbag pimping his sister's rotted corpse yet again), I do not see the validity in a "separate but equal" marriage status for gays. The fact that a majority of the public supposedly has a problem with it is immaterial. What "damage" could gays possibly do to the institution of marriage, that Liz Taylor and Larry King haven't already done?
Adoption: Yes. Someone earlier mentioned that there are many kids out there who just need a loving home, the sexuality of the adoptive parents has nothing to do with it. I agree. I should also mention that I am an adoptee IRL, and I would have had no problem with my parents being of the same sex -- especially if they were two really hot chicks!
Gays in the Military: Absolutely. Gays have to fight for everything they get in civilian life as it is; I think they'd be particularly well-suited for real combat. The brass is just going to have to grow up and face reality. Besides, the military could use some rethinking of its fashion sense.
Sodomy laws: A shameful vestige of our silly Puritan forebears. I can't believe these things are still on the books.
134. cllrdr - July 10, 1999 - 6:52 AM PT
"it's because a) he bought and paid for those rights, fair and square; and b) he sounds like your garden variety "king-maker", the power behind the throne, as it were."
My I see some "proof of purchase" documentation? There's nothing "fair and square" about Finkelstein's engineering attacks on other gays and lesbians while reaping the rewards of the battles they fought so ong and hard for despite his concerted opposition.
Nice to see such a shift in attitudes re DOMA, adopotion, "gay marriage," and Elizabeth Taylor in our rapidly-altering sexual climate. What a difference and internet-examined blow-job makes, eh?
As regards the Ace/Niner ticket, while my feelings for the latter remain, albeit it somewhat altered form being increasingly into voyeurism these days. I think he would be better served by someone closer to his own height of the entreprenurial classes -- Marcus Hu of Stand Releasing for example, with whom a date can be easily arranged (with coaching from the sidelines by yours truly bien sur. Ass Of Face, on the other hand, is still stuck in High School Sophomore Jock mode.
Should that ticket win, we shall return to this subject again when the Fray Independent Counsel Investigation commences. (There are some rather startling revelations concerning the former Mrs. Niner -- Salma Hayak -- that cry out for cyber-airing.)
135. bloodnfire - July 10, 1999 - 9:26 AM PT
Where do we get the idea that marriage has been 'Christianized'? I can think of a number of examples in the Scripture where marriage between Hebrews was taking place millenia before Christ? (Perhaps not the same ceremony, but certainly the same committment). The marriage in Cana, the site of Christ's first reported miracle, was most likely between Jews.
136. elliot803 - July 10, 1999 - 3:40 PM PT
CalGal: "And what *is* your position on gay marriage, Niner?"
Niner: "In time..."
Incomprehensible. Is that "In time I will explain my position on gay marriage," or is it "In time I will support gay marriage, but I don't support it now," or what?
I'm not asking you whether you think most people support gay marriage. I'm not asking you when you think gay marriage will be legalized. I'm not asking you what you think the best political strategy is for achieving gay marriage. Those are all interesting questions, but they're not the question I'm asking. I'm asking you whether you support gay marriage or oppose it, and if you oppose it, why you oppose it. Try giving a clear and comprehensible answer, and we can go from there. And by "gay marriage," I mean the inclusion of same-sex couples in existing marriage laws, not the creation of some separate type of "same-sex marriage" or "domestic partnership," or whatever you want to call it.
137. colossus - July 10, 1999 - 5:02 PM PT
Hate crime anyone?
Two members of the World Church of the Creator were arrested in Shasta County for killing a gay couple.
Turns out the two whackos are also key suspects in the Sacramento synagogue arsons a few weeks back.
In the book "Christianity, Homosexuality and Social Tolerance" the author makes a convincing case that anti-semitism and gay bashing have gone hand and glove through the centuries.
Case closed.
138. colossus - July 10, 1999 - 5:04 PM PT
Funny, I enjoy the same sport with straight couples in the Castro:
"In Brent Staples' memoir Parallel Time, he recounts a game he used to play while a student at the University of Chicago. Staples, who is black, would pace the streets surrounding the campus after dark. When he spied a white couple strolling toward him arm in arm, he would walk directly at them, at a normal pace. The couple would first tighten their grip on each other."
Same game, same result.
teeheeheehee
139. uzmakk - July 10, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
Colossus:
"Case closed."
chuckle, chuckle. So colossal.
Just a word on pigs, colossus, I thought you might like to know-- Pigs vary between white, reddish and black, feed on corpse-flesh, are prolific but eat their own young, and their tusks are crescent-shaped.
I just thought that this information might help you with future postings.
140. EricCartman1 - July 10, 1999 - 5:35 PM PT
Cellar Message #134:
"There's nothing 'fair and square' about Finkelstein's engineering attacks on other gays and lesbians while reaping the rewards of the battles they fought so ong and hard for despite his concerted opposition."
Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. I was being facetious, pointing out that, once again, privilege trumps principle, even in supposedly-enlightened America. I don't know anything about Finkelstein besides what you've said, but he sounds like this generation's Roy Cohn. I don't know how the guy sleeps at night, garnering privileges for himself that he explicitly denies to all other gays. I think that's horrible, but then again, I think that anyone who helps a creature like Jesse Helms stay in power is a piss-poor excuse for a human being anyway.
"Nice to see such a shift in attitudes re DOMA, adoption, 'gay marriage', and Elizabeth Taylor in our rapidly-altering sexual climate."
I don't know if you mean me specifically there, but I've held these views for a good decade now. Presidential blowjobs have nothing to do with anything, except when one recalls that Clinton was discussing Balkan policy while receiving one of Monica's "gifts". Maybe he didn't let her finish, so decided to shoot his wad over Belgrade.
At any rate, gay rights, to me, just seems like a common sense civil-rights issue. I don't have any gay friends or relatives (as far as I know), it just seems patently ridiculous to deny them the same civil rights everyone is supposed to be entitled to. That most of the arguments against gay rights are religiously-based makes it even more apparent to me that it's a common sense issue, as much of organized religion flies in the face of common sense, imho.
141. EricCartman1 - July 10, 1999 - 5:36 PM PT
"(There are some rather startling revelations concerning the former Mrs. Niner -- Salma Hayek -- that cry out for cyber-airing.)"
Hey now. Salma & I were drunk, it was just one night, it didn't really mean anything. I swear!
142. AuNaturel - July 10, 1999 - 5:46 PM PT
celler:
Niner and MsIt obviously don't like 12 year olds, Playboy or masturbation or some combination of the above. Probably never experienced any of them.
143. cllrdr - July 10, 1999 - 10:08 PM PT
"I don't know how the guy sleeps at night, garnering privileges for himself that he explicitly denies to all other gays."
Beats me. But Finkelstein is only one part of this. The question of who is is and what he's doing there must be posed to his straight homophobic Republican operatives.
Re the Salma Hayak scandal: Her "personal life" is less the issue than her disasterous choice of professional vehicles -- specifically "54" and "The Velocity of Gary." Rumor has it that Ace was behind these calamitous casting decisions.
144. EricCartman1 - July 10, 1999 - 10:27 PM PT
Cellar:
Maybe, but I suspect Ace would have steered her into movies like "Sorority Girl Slumber Party 4" or "Tube Top Car Wash 5".
I know I would have.
I do like the hint of a Fray IC investigation, btw. Rife with comic possibilities.
145. cllrdr - July 11, 1999 - 6:31 AM PT
It's become part of "the process," Eric. And as the Republicans so love to say "We should allow the process to move forward."
146. colossus - July 11, 1999 - 3:25 PM PT
Message #139
Uzzie,
My apologies for stomping on your religious sensibilities. If only I had known that you were a member of the World Church of the Creator....
Let me guess. You are Minister of Foreign Affairs and Animal Husbandry.
147. bloodnfire - July 11, 1999 - 3:38 PM PT
TabouliJones. Your Message #21 and Message #22 Don't worry about being 'snarky' with me, I honestly don't take offense. If we see things through different lenses, which we probably do, they are probably the lenses of our experience. I understand and respect your right to rely on yours, as I do on mine. What makes The Fray so fun and interesting is trying to see the world through other peoples' lenses, don't you think ?
148. uzmakk - July 11, 1999 - 3:44 PM PT
Collosus: You Fascist Neo Imperialist, how ya doin'? Now there's an office for you, yes Minester of Foreign Affairs and Animal Husbandry.I like it. Is there a government on the face of the earth that has such a department. If not we should have one. Sounds like the perfect environmental inroad. Would have to carry weapons what with all the poachers and all, maybe try some of those neural disruptors out. Hey, you think they got any of them over in Kosovo?
149. bloodnfire - July 11, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT
Colossus. Your Message #137 "In the book "Christianity, Homosexuality and Social Tolerance" the author makes a convincing case that anti-semitism and gay bashing have gone hand and glove through the centuries."
That book should have been entitled "Counterfiet Christianity, Homosexuality and Social Tolerance". Read The Scriptures, and you will find countless examples of the way in which the Lord of Christianity treats human beings. With compassion and tender kindness. Try not to judge Him or His Own by those who demonstrate most clearly by their behavior that they are none of His.
150. uzmakk - July 11, 1999 - 4:07 PM PT
Bloodn':
You are just as disingenuous as all these gay bastards are. I mean you and Elliot are on the same wavelength.
151. bloodnfire - July 11, 1999 - 5:10 PM PT
"Disingenuous" 'Not Straightforward', 'CRAFTY.' (Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary.
Uzmaak, It seems to me that disingenuousness is in the eye of the beholder. I make a statement that Jesus Christ would never 'bash' homosexuals, would never in fact condemn ANYONE, and you accuse me of being 'Not Straightforward' and 'crafty'. Ask AzureNW, she'll tell you I'm much too stupid to be crafty :-)
As for being 'on the same wavelength' as Elliot, I sincerely hope so.
How can Fraygrants communicate with each other if they're not on the same wavelength?
152. uzmakk - July 11, 1999 - 6:17 PM PT
Perhaps you are right, Bloodn. Perhaps it is not so much the wavelength as it is the power of the bulb.
153. bloodnfire - July 12, 1999 - 3:13 AM PT
Whatever *that* means! :-) Have a great week.
154. BoomerJeff - July 12, 1999 - 3:21 PM PT
Elliot:
"[regarding gay marriage] I will not accept a phony ‘separate but equal' deal."
Nothing else is possible. Marriage is a religious institution that predates any government that presumes to define/regulate it. The various religions define marriage as a hetero union.
You want government to call a homosexual union, "marriage" and you expect that saying so makes it so. You may get your way. But if you do, what you will have will be "separate but equal." Most of the world will still consider "marriage" to be hetero. You can accomplish only so much with government power, and governments have generally proven ineffective in stamping out religious beliefs.
155. elliot803 - July 12, 1999 - 3:58 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
Legal marriage is a secular institution, defined by the government. Religions are free to recognize or refuse to recognize any marriage they wish. Many churches and religious groups already perform and recognize same-sex marriages.
I don't doubt that you will go to your grave stubbornly insisting that same-sex marriages aren't real marriages, no matter what anyone else says. But you're a dying breed.
156. cllrdr - July 12, 1999 - 4:09 PM PT
The institution of marriage predates the church. It was a mechanism designed to join families and their related properties and continue "blood lines." It was also a means of settling international disputes (see "Queen Margot") The church was allowed to preside. With the invention of the bourgeoisie it *took over.*
157. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 4:41 PM PT
harper
“I think people would be astounded at how many gays there already are in the military.”
But elliot told us that gays weren't allowed in the military.
158. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 4:43 PM PT
Message #17 elliot803
“No, I don't want to be a Jew or an Indian or a person over 40 (shudder)…”
A You will become a person over 40 or
B You will not
As bad as option A may be, trust me, it is better than option B.
159. AdamSelene - July 12, 1999 - 4:44 PM PT
Sigh. Same ol' crowed, same ol' debate. And, of course, I have the same old true answer. Stop government support for/against marriage of any kind and this becomes a non-issue.
Cheers.
160. FreetoChoose - July 12, 1999 - 4:45 PM PT
109109
“I kind of like sodomy laws. I like violating statutes.”
When I first saw this, I thought it said “statues”. For a moment, I was mightily impressed.
161. AdamSelene - July 12, 1999 - 4:48 PM PT
FTC,
LOL! I had this sudden image of Venus sans a few more body parts...
(How you doin', guy?)
162. elliot803 - July 12, 1999 - 4:54 PM PT
FTC:
"As bad as option A may be, trust me, it is better than option B."
That doesn't mean I have to like it.
163. 109109 - July 12, 1999 - 6:06 PM PT
FTC
I've humped a statue. Ill go to my grave blaming her.
cllrdr
No matter how often we disagree, your reliance upon film for historical analysis will always bring me back.
164. cllrdr - July 12, 1999 - 7:05 PM PT
Wasn't Virna Lisi fabulous?
165. colossus - July 12, 1999 - 7:40 PM PT
Message #149
Bloodnfire,
Your message leaves me a little confused. The whole point of "Christianity, Sexuality and Social Tolerance" is that the message of the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church is not so intolerant towards gays as the fundies would have us believe.
Part of his argument is that *intolerance* of gays is something of an abberration and that an increase in such hate over the centuries has generally been accompanied by virulent anti-semitism, much as we see today in the radical right wing political and religious movements around the world.
166. colossus - July 12, 1999 - 7:46 PM PT
"Blood"
From the Barnes & Noble website.
The late John Boswell was a professor at Yale. His book is powerful.
"From The Publisher:
John Boswell's revolutionary study of the history of attitudes toward homosexuality in the Christian West challenges received opinion and our own preconceptions about the Church's past relationship to its gay members,among whom were priests, and even bishops and canonized saints. The historical breadth of Boswell's research (from the Greeks to Aquinas) and the variety of sources consulted (legal, literary, theological, artistic, and scientific) make this one of the most extensive treatments of any single aspect of Western social history. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, the product of ten years of research and analysis of records in a dozen languages, opens up a new area of historical inquiry and helps elucidate the origins and operations of intolerance as a social force.
From The Reader's Catalog:
An erudite examination of Christian attitudes toward homosexuality, arguing that tolerance changed into intolerance as the Middle Ages progressed
167. bloodnfire - July 13, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
Hi Colossus. Thanks for your 165 and 166. I get most of my exercise now pushing 68 and jumping to conclusions :-) I am so used to Christians being accused of bigotry and hatred, that I assumed...Well you know.....
I'm glad if indeed the book emphasizes that authentic Christianity doesn't hate anybody and is tolerant of everybody. Thanks for straightening me out.
168. bloodnfire - July 13, 1999 - 4:32 PM PT
I posed a question to Cllrdr when we were discussing his book, and I don't remember the exact reply, or being completely clear on it. So, forgive me David if you answered this before but....
Imagine human sexuality as 1000 pigeonholes, all numbered.
Pigeonhole #1 represents absolute heterosexual attitudes with never a trace of attraction towards a member of the same sex. Pigeonhole #1000 represents Homosexuality from infancy with never a trace of attraction to members of the opposite sex. Is it not true that very few would fall into these two extreme 'pigeonholes'? I suppose my questions are 1) At which pigeonhole is one classified as 'Gay', and 2) Why (apart from political clout and personal encouragement) is it necessary to 'pigeonhole' anybody ?
169. cllrdr - July 13, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
Well Kinsey saw it that way too, but he didn't refer to pigeonholes. Sexuality,according to the good Doctor, encompassed an entire spectrum of possibilites. Life being short, and human personality being only so pliable, most of us find ourselves primarily involved with one gender or another. Politics enters the picture when the heterosexuals in power deem that those same-sex related must be thrown out of the circle, and no mention must be made of them at all. But then the outcasts fight back and, in the 52 years I've seen of this life, manage to score several points.
170. CIGARLAW - July 13, 1999 - 11:49 PM PT
elliot, if what you want is a secular marriage, why not just sign a contract?
171. cllrdr - July 14, 1999 - 6:20 AM PT
Because the contract he signs demands recognition by the state in order to be truly effective. What are those heterosexual couples who take vows at countless city hall ceremonies nationwide doing? They're having a secular marriage. gays and lesbians should be allowed to do likewise.
172. FreetoChoose - July 14, 1999 - 6:38 AM PT
cllrdr
I agree. Gays should be able to enter into a contract which carries all the legal rights associated with the secular marriage contract.
173. cllrdr - July 14, 1999 - 8:05 AM PT
Good. Glad that's settled!
174. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 9:49 AM PT
Of interest:
Vatican Intervenes Against Gay Ministry
By Hanna Rosin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 14, 1999; Page A1
The Vatican yesterday ordered an American priest and nun to end their 30-year ministry to gays and lesbians after an investigation concluded that they failed to comply with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on the "intrinsic evil of homosexual acts."
In a rare direct intervention, the Vatican placed a gag order on Sister Jeannine Gramick and the Rev. Robert Nugent, who have toured the country from their base in Prince George's County, teaching Catholic parishes ways to reconcile church doctrine with the realities of gay life. The decision effectively ends the careers of two of the most prominent gay rights advocates within the Catholic Church.
By issuing a public "notification" calling the pair's teachings "erroneous and dangerous," the Vatican resorted to a level of punishment it has used against American clergy only twice in the last 60 years, both times in the cases of errant theologians. Most recently, in 1986, the Rev. Charles E. Curran, then a professor at Catholic University, was notified by the Vatican that he could no longer teach Catholic theology.
175. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 9:50 AM PT
According to the notification, Gramick and Nugent are "permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutions." While falling short of excommunication, a still rarer measure, this notification is considered an extreme punishment, in part because of its public nature. The church more frequently chastises errant clergy with a private letter, or through a bishop. This time, though, it chose a kind of public shaming, broadcasting to parishes across the nation that Gramick and Nugent's views are anathema to the church.
The ruling also sends a message to the growing number of gay outreach and AIDS ministries in Catholic churches to be careful: In showing compassion for homosexuals, they must remember to mention the church's disapproval of homosexual acts. In the months before the decision, several parishes holding gay-themed conferences canceled scheduled talks by Gramick and Nugent.
The highly publicized ruling reflects the church's increased impatience with the growing number of Catholics who call for full acceptance of homosexuals by the church. In 1986, the Vatican issued a statement clarifying its position on homosexuality, reminding Catholics that the church did not consider homosexuality a neutral, or a good, as some had been teaching, but a disorder.
176. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 9:51 AM PT
For church reformers, who considered Gramick and Nugent models of moderation, the decision was merely the latest in an escalating series of crackdowns by the Vatican.
"I call it theological cleansing, as in ethnic cleansing," said Sister Maureen Fiedler, head of Catholics Speak Out in Hyattsville, who worked with Gramick in the 1980s. "It's gotten worse and worse over the last few years."
Gramick and Nugent began counseling gay and lesbian Catholics in the '70s, according to friends and colleagues. (Both were traveling back from Rome and could not be reached for comment.) In 1977 they founded New Ways Ministry, an educational and counseling center in Mount Rainier.
Almost immediately their activity drew the suspicion of local church officials, especially Cardinal James Hickey, archbishop of Washington. Hickey met with the pair in 1981 and found their teachings "vague, misleading, and even contrary to Catholic faith," he recalled in a statement yesterday.
177. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 9:52 AM PT
While the Vatican recognizes that some people are permanently homosexual -- a concession many conservative Christians do not make -- the church also teaches that homosexuality is a disorder, and that homosexual activity is sinful.
In their teachings and writings, Gramick and Nugent questioned whether homosexuality was a disorder, and said there were certain contexts where homosexual activity was moral. The pair functioned as a kind of traveling teach-in, lecturing mostly straight audiences in hundreds of diocese and Catholic institutions about gay history and sociology, trying to build a grass-roots movement of compassion for what they felt was a much misunderstood segment of fellow Catholics.
In 1984, Hickey, backed by Vatican authorities, told the two to separate themselves from New Ways Ministry and any outreach activities that did not present "the church's teachings regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts."
178. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 9:53 AM PT
While the two complied with the order to leave New Ways, they continued to travel across America under the auspices of their religious orders, the School Sisters of Notre Dame and the Salvatorians, spreading the same message in workshops and overnight retreats.
Supporters and critics alike describe the pair as gentle, yet they were persistent to the edge of defiance. In 1992, four years after the Vatican appointed a commission to investigate them, Gramick and Nugent published a book called, "Building Bridges: Gay and Lesbian Reality and the Catholic Church," expounding on their beliefs.
In 1995, their case was turned over to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the disciplinary arm of the Vatican, run by the much feared Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany. The congregation twice sent the pair a series of questions designed to clarify their views, but was dissatisfied with the answers.
179. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 9:53 AM PT
"Sister Gramick, while expressing her love for the church, simply refused to express any assent whatsoever to the teachings of the church on homosexuality. Father Nugent was responsive, but not unequivocal," reported Ratzinger.
In the end, Ratzinger, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, decided on permanently prohibiting the two from any work involving questions of homosexuality, including teaching and lecturing.
As church officials see it, the Vatican was patient. "Both were given numerous opportunities over the past 20 years to clarify their positions," wrote Hickey.
Gramick and Nugent must now decide between their church and their vocation. Gramick was cooperative in meetings with all the leaders of her order in Rome, according to Sister Jane Burke from the Baltimore province, who flew over with her. But Gramick has not yet decided whether she wants to comply with the ruling. The order will give her a month to make her choice.
180. cigarlaw - July 14, 1999 - 10:05 AM PT
A CONTRACT IS ENFORCABLE. WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA IT IS NOT? JUST GO TO YOUR LOCAL STATIONARY STORE, SPEND 50 CENTS AND BUY A PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT. OF COURSE IT WILL HAVE TO BE FAIRLY COMPLEX, BUT THAT IS WHAT LAWYERS ARE FOR AND, IF DONE RIGHT WILL MAKE THE DIVORCE A LOT CHEAPER, SINCE EVERYTHING IS IN WRITING. OF COURSE THAT WON'T GIVE ACCESS TO GOVT MONEY... OF COURSE, THAT MAY BE WHAT YOU REALLY WANT.
YOU SEE, THAT IS MY PROBLEM WITH YOUR POSITION. I DON'T CARE IF HOMOSEXUALS MARRY -- AS I SAID, I DON'T THINK THE RERPUBLIC WILL FALL IF SUCH MARRIAGES WERE ALLOWED. I DO THINK, HOWEVER, IT IS DISINGENUOUS TO TALK ABOUT MARRIAGE RATHER THE REAL GOAL OF ACCESS TO GOVT SERVICES AND INSURANCE BENEFITS. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO GET MARRIED CAN DO SO. I HAVE SEEN NO STUDIES, BUT I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED TO FIND A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF HETEROSEXUALS MARRY SOLELY TO FEED AT THE PUBLIC TEET. THOSE WHO DON'T MARRY, HOWEVER, I SUSPECT, DO NOT DO SO BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT LEGAL TIES.
I THOUGHT I READ IN THE CHRONICLE THAT THE CITY OF S.F. PERFORMS CIVIL CEREMONIES FOR HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT, GO FOR IT. IF WHAT YOU WANT IS CEREMONY SOLELY SO YOU CAN SUCK THE PUBLIC TEET, THAT IS NOT MARRIAGE, IT IS PROSTITUTION.
181. CalGal - July 14, 1999 - 10:16 AM PT
Well, it's unequal to give some people bennies from marriage and not others.
So hell, take them all away from everyone and then we'll see how often people actually get married.
182. Ronski - July 14, 1999 - 10:25 AM PT
Cigarlaw and Cal,
Yes, the only argument I see for granting the right to marry to homosexuals is equal treatment under the law, and that is precisely the argument being argued in Vermont under their state constitution: that any government service offered to one segment of society must by the Vermont constitution be offered to every other segment. The Vermont constitution is far stronger, and plainer, than the federal constitution in this regard. And this is precisely why many observers feel the Vermont Supreme Court will allow gay marriage, though that is by no means certain.
183. glendajean - July 14, 1999 - 10:46 AM PT
CIGARLAW -- Well, everbody knows how much homosexuals want public financial assistance. It's just part of our culture. That's a unique argument, one that I've never encountered before.
109109 -- I heard that priest and nun several years ago make a presentation at a small Catholic school. It seemed to me that they were very careful in being upfront about Catholic teaching on homosexuality. They also seemed to be working within the area the RCC was vague -- an area that gave them and others some hope.
It's hard to think that silencing this nun and priest will settle the question once and for all on how the church will deal with gay people.
184. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 10:52 AM PT
glenda
It settles it for the church and it is a healthy thing from all perspectives. The church makes no bones about a doctrine that should challenge its members and, as the Post notes, "Gramick and Nugent must now decide between their church and their vocation."
185. Ronski - July 14, 1999 - 10:56 AM PT
What places the Vatican's teaching on homosexuality in the same garbage pail for me as the Protestant fundamentalists' versions is their insistence on describing homosexual "acts" as "evil." Not much subtlety there. Just viciousness.
186. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 10:59 AM PT
Ronski
On a matter as grave as whether one is sinning, defective or the font of nature, subtelty in doctrine has drawbacks.
187. glendajean - July 14, 1999 - 11:00 AM PT
I would be surprised that the question will be as settled in ten years, but I am open to surprises.
How, btw, do you think that this doctrine, to use your words, challenges the Church's members? (And I ask that question in sincerity).
188. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 11:00 AM PT
Ronski
Would it help any if I told you how much that very same description bothers many, many faithful Catholics, including yours truly?
I struggle with this issue more than any other in Church teaching. I have such a difficult time understanding it.
189. Ronski - July 14, 1999 - 11:01 AM PT
And benefits, too.
190. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 11:03 AM PT
Interesting cp, Glenda!
I have such a hard time accepting that homosexual couple who have been together for 20 years is any more sinful, or less married, than my husband and I happen to be.
191. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 11:04 AM PT
'that A homosexual couple.....
192. Ronski - July 14, 1999 - 11:05 AM PT
Diva,
Thank you for your post. As I've posted before, I come from a family that is about half Catholic, and I am the godfather of a Catholic neice, so I hope you do not construe my opinions as biased against Catholicism. It is a bias against the Vatican's teachings on this subject. I thought for a long time about accepting the godfather responsibilities, but decided, from what I have been told of Catholic theology, that the teaching on homosexuality is not considered a core doctrine of the faith. I also have no problem with telling my niece what the teaching actually is, if she asks one day. I believe knowledge is power, after all.
193. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 11:08 AM PT
Glenda
It puts smack in their face the clash of Biblical interpretation of sin and Jesus' teachings to love one's neighbor. It lets them know that the Church has a strong feeling on the issue, with consequences.
The traditional churches do not have a corner on modern Christianity, and splinter groups - with different philosophies and interpretations of Scripture - pop up all the time, to good effect (in my view). When a monolith such as the Catholic Church shakes up the slumber and reestablishes its position, that is taking any sugar-coating off of doctrine and giving religious consumers the real, hard, cold facts.
By the same token, those who believe that the doctrine should be strict, and that the Catholic Church should speak out, then they deserve the vigilance of their sect.
194. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 11:11 AM PT
It is a modern philosophy that entire sogma must yield to the individual rather than have the horror, the utter madness, of individuals rejecting the dogma or (gasp!) this nightmare: "Gramick and Nugent must now decide between their church and their vocation."
In fact, this is probably false. Their faith has spoken - homosexuality is a sin or an illness, and they don't believe it. So, what they really must decide is: Can I continue to stand by this dogma and half-ass it from town to town, or must I have the courage of my convictions and break from the Church.
195. glendajean - July 14, 1999 - 11:15 AM PT
Lots of Christian gay people struggle with their churches rulings and teachings on homosexuality. I once heard someone say that for many gay kids struggling with their sexuality, the church was a place of comfort and strength in its message of God's love.
196. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 11:15 AM PT
Ronski
Oh, no, absolutely I don't take it that way. Your concern is legitimate, and I agree with it....there are few teachings that I struggle with, and this is one of them (birth control is another.)
What bothers me particularly is that this teaching chases many people away from the Church, and all the good things that can be found there.
And I think it's wonderful that you thought that carefully about becoming your niece's godfather. It's a huge responsibility, as you obviously know, and I think you're more than equal to it.
197. 109109 - July 14, 1999 - 11:16 AM PT
sogma=-dogma
198. theDiva - July 14, 1999 - 11:20 AM PT
"Gramick and Nugent must now decide between their church and their vocation."
This was so utterly moronic, and just demonstrates the level of understanding that the Post brings to Catholicism.
RAISIN BRAN!
199. elliot803 - July 14, 1999 - 11:25 AM PT
cigarlaw:
"elliot, if what you want is a secular marriage, why not just sign a contract?"
Legal marriage is more than simply a contract. That's why it has a separate category in law.
200. CalGal - July 14, 1999 - 11:25 AM PT
Diva,
"What bothers me particularly is that this teaching chases many people away from the Church, and all the good things that can be found there. "
I am a binary soul (ha). If the Church has such dogmatic and rejecting beliefs, how can people take a Chinese menu approach? Shouldn't they be chased away, if they reject the doctrine?