Let me turn the question around on you. You have third hand information on what gay men “really” want. I have personal information on what gay men “really” want. Who do you think I should believe?
But I think an even better question is, why does it matter? If two men want to get married, why is it anyone else’s business how rigidly they keep to their marriage vows?
And again, why are you framing the gay marriage debate solely in terms of men? What about lesbians who want to get married?
Wait, these gay family members are there with you right now? How amazingly convenient for you! Why don’t you have them register and post themselves? It’d be a lot easier to discuss these issues with them directly, then having you act as an intermediary.
No, these family members aren’t here with me “…right now.” They live their own lives. We’re family. We’ve had plenty of opportunities for discussion over the last decades.
These discussions aren’t “third hand” at all…they tell their own first hand****knowledge and experience of the gay community.
As I said, since I don’t live in that community, it is their experience that informs me.
How about you?
Where do YOUR straight friends get their information from? From you? Is that “First Hand,” “Second Hand,” “Third Hand” - when it comes out of your mouth to them?
I guess if it comes from anywhere but their own (non-existent) experience in the gay community it must not count?
I trust them. I believe them.
And this rallying behind “Marriage” is a sham. According to both of them.
Back in the late 80’s/early 90’s I attended Augsburg College, a private Lutheran school here in Minneapolis. We had a huge bruhaha over allowing GLBT organization and publications on campus. The Dean at the time was totally against it, stating being GLBT was completely against Lutheran doctrine. By the time I left, publications were allowed in only the Main building (nothing in dorm common rooms) and organizations could meet, but would not be sanctioned by the school. Fast forward to today and Augsburg is pretty well known as ‘The’ Lutheran college for GLBT students. It took time and the will of the students to move forward.
My mom (old school, very religious Lutheran) and I were talking about the vote last night. She’s still lamenting the fact that under out new pastor we actually gaspCLAP AND MOVE ABOUT during service. The average age of our church is 65 or so, and change is difficult. Yet, she’s glad the vote went the way it did. She figures if some can’t handle it, they’re not good Christians, and can go to the Mega-Churches where they will disappear. She hopes that a few members that left years ago during a political upheaval at our church will return, now that it’s “safe” for them to do so.
The Youth director has a retreat every year about dating and sexuality. TheKid and a few of her friends attended once, but refused to again due to the view on homosexuality as discussed at the retreats. The director knew exactly why TheKid refused to attend again, but said while she doesn’t agree with what she taught, it was what was expected of her. Now, maybe, more youth will become involved again.
I don’t know, my attending Augsburg and (for a while) studying for the ministry ended up souring me on organized religion. I still attend, but now it’s for the communion with people whom I’ve known since the day my parents got me and for my mom and TheKid. I find the move towards inclusion of all a great step forward and pity those who will leave based on this vote.
Well, now I’m confused, because you said that they’d read my posts and told you that I was disingenuous. Did that actually happen, or is that just what you imagine they would say?
Okay, here’s how this works. If you experience something directly, that’s first hand information. If you tell someone else about it, he has second hand information - he doesn’t know directly what happened, he only knows what happened as filter through your perceptions and preconceptions. If he goes and tells someone else about it, that’s third hand information, as it is now being filtered through two sets of witnesses. Your cousin (or whatever) has first hand information about gays. So do I. When your cousin tells you about it, that’s second hand information. When you tell me about it, it’s now third hand information. My question to you is, why should I value your third hand information about my own first hand information?
Not as much as what I’ve seen and experience on my own, no. Not unless you can demonstrate that their observations were undertaken in a controlled environment that eliminates personal bias.
That’s great for you. But why should I believe them, or you? I don’t know them at all. I have no way of judging how reliable they are. For all I know, your relatives could be drooling morons. And even if they are intelligent, perceptive folks, I’m still relying on you to provide an accurate report of their beliefs. And no offense intended, but your behavior in this thread doesn’t instill a high degree of faith in your reliability. I’ve seen in this very thread (and even more so in the recent pit thread about sexism we both participated in) your inability to understand some pretty straightforward ideas. It seems likely to me that your understanding of precisely what your family has said is equally flawed.
You are seeking to advance a very extraordinary claim - that gay men are engaged in an elaborate and deliberate deception on the subject of marriage. An extraordinary claim, as you may have heard, requires extraordinary evidence. “I have a gay cousin,” is not extraordinary evidence. If you cannot provide a higher standard of evidence, there’s not much point in you continuing to post on this subject, as you are extremely unlikely to change anyone’s mind.
I am being unfair bringing up two little lines out of several posts but it brings up another part of this debate; debate itself. There are those who wish the debate on this (and other topics such as “inclusive language” and “the role of women in the Church”) would end. But I have a feeling it never will. I have been a member of three different denominations in my life and I have never seen one as good at discussing things forever as the ELCA is. I would respectively argue that its one of our greatest strengths even if we do annoy each other with it so often.
For us heterosexuals, we had the same kind of thing about ten years earlier with communes, open marriages and a lot of other ideas such as that. I’m old enough to have caught the edges of it and to have had a lot of friends well involved. It was a small minority of us who even had a chance to dabble in all that “free love” - but you couldn’t prove it by what the press and books recorded. I wouldn’t be surprised if the case in the GLBT community isn’t the same.
What Lurking Guest describes as the short-comings of homosexuality today, from his view and experience with it, I see as just as prevalent among us heterosexuals. Possibly more so as most of our anonymous sex now is marketed; either as prostitution or pornography. What similar behavior I see in the GLBT community has been more in the recreational terms we heterosexuals used to justify ourselves 40 years ago. But that is changing as well. Commercialism, like sexuality itself, is very hard to stop.
I think age is also a big factor, here. If all the gays lurking guest knows are in their twenties, then there’s probably a lot less interest in settling down with one partner, and a lot more interest in partying. Flash forward two decades, and those same gays are going to see the idea of the “white picket fence” lifestyle as a lot more attractive.
Per Wikipedia, "The LCMS is officially Young Earth creationist.[10] According to the recent 2004 LCMS synodical resolution 2-08A “To Commend Preaching and Teaching Creation,” all LCMS churches and educational institutions—including preschool through 12th grade, universities, and seminaries—are “to teach creation from the Biblical perspective.”