Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

All the usual arguments pro and con in this thread, I see. As I've done in other threads, I'm going to start by not responding to anyone in particular but instead will shorthand it in a series of posts. (you'll just have to trust me when I tell you this is the short version).

Hollywood

Moviemaking and television programming are first and foremost ventures aimed at making money. You generally maximize profits by appealing to the broadest audience possible. However, such an approach requires that you also offend the least amount of people, and this can be very limiting as to the material one is able to present. So, the smart man specializes, going after a small audience for whose attention there is less competition. Films focused on homosexuality by and large are still produced not by big-name Hollywood studios, but by smaller, independent outfits. Of course, these smaller studios don't necessarily have access to the resources for distribution that a major studio enjoys, so on occasion you'll see an independent film picked up by a larger entity to handle distribution. Mainstream hollywood doesn't actually like to take chances. But it's hard for them to ignore when a particular theme has enjoyed consistent success on the independent scene - they want a piece of the pie and assume (sometimes with hideous results) that they can do it bigger and better. And so, something like homosexuality starts to make its way into mainstream movies.

As to why something like "Brokeback Mountain" gets lots of advertising while "The Chronicles of Narnia" appears not to - that isn't because 'Hollywood' took a big pool of money and aimed a bunch at one movie while depriving the other. It's because the people funding one movie were able to either afford more for advertising or were better at persuading the press to talk it up.

That covers the profit angle. Then you have to consider the fact that movies and TV, being an outgrowth of the human tradition of storytelling that goes way back in history, are the perfect venues for getting across some message to a broad audience that might not otherwise hear it. We watch movies and TV to be entertained, and part of that entertainment is being whisked away to see, hear and experience things you might not otherwise be exposed to in your day-to-day routine. So you have the marriage of a profit-making venture with someting that is as old as humankind's discovery of language.

Different groups have different messages they'd like to have put out to that broader audience. Gay people don't have an agenda, any more than heterosexuals do - it's not like they all get together for regular meetings and decide on some course of action. If there is an agenda being put forth by some political activists on their behalf, it's not the one that some of their opponents presume. It isn't an agenda that seeks to eliminate the family structure or make society over into something completely unrecognizable, where people roam the streets half-naked and have sex on every street corner when they aren't otherwise occupied with recovering from a drug-induced stupor. What is being sought is an end to the expectation that they should lie about their sexual orientation, constantly having to pretend to be heterosexual to keep from upsetting those who don't like the idea. Some would like recognition of their family units so that their desires regarding the handling of their estates and the making of medical decisions are respected. And of course most of them would like to be accepted, not merely tolerated by the rest of society - who wouldn't? What doesn't make sense is why that plea for acceptance is interpreted as a desire to completely overthrow all that we treasure, all that is good about human society.

In the struggle to find greater tolerance and acceptance, movies and TV are a means to an end. Or at least they would be if they could portray gay people as they really exist - not as ridiculous stereotypes or concentrating on the subculture of those who have rebeled against all societal convention and revel in debauchery. Here is where we come full circle and return to the motive of profit. People don't want to see gay couples behaving in ways that would otherwise be considered normal - reality is sometimes pretty boring, after all. While people want to experience something different from their everyday routine, they don't necessarily want to have their assumptions about the way that the world operates so completely challenged that they're made to feel insecure (the horror genre being perhaps an exception). So gay people can't be portrayed as living otherwise normal lives - that would be too shocking.

Gay issues have achieved a certain level of prominence in movies and TV, this is true. But that isn't because they're trying to take over or need to be the center of attention. It is because activists have pushed Hollywood to partner with them in shining the light on things that mainstream society would rather keep swept under the rug or hidden in the darkess of the closet. Homosexuality is the latest issue. In a few years it will probably be something else.

----

One thing I noticed in this thread was one side saying "we don't care what people do, so long as we don't have to see it", along with other's expressing the sentiment of "we get it already, can't you just shut up about it and stop the preaching?". I would assert that as long as the former idea has such broad commerce within society, those having the latter idea will just have to be patient a while longer.

Let me dissect the thinking for y'all: All the negativity surrounding homosexuality is built around a singular idea - that homosexuality is bad. So people who say they don't care about it but want it kept behind closed doors obviously do care - they want it hidden because they view it as a bad thing and a corrupting influence. So long as gay people are treated as 'evil, disgusting, filthy, (add your favorite negative adjective here)', there will continue to be a war of words, ideas and yes - entertainments.

[F'losrix]

Marriage

There is much confusion, some of it purposeful, surrounding the arguments about marriage. Part of this comes from people approaching marriage from two fairly separate arenas: Religion vs. Government.

There is a great deal of talk about marriage being invented by religion, or even more specifically having Judaeo-Christian religious roots. But we don't know when the first legal recognition of marriage took place (unless you accept the idea that Adam & Eve were literally the first people to exist, and were married, and had their marriage legally recognized at some point in history. Would someone like to show me where in the Bible it says they had a wedding or it otherwise discribes them specifically as married? And where it says that marriage was recognized as a matter of law?)

Those taking the 'religion approach' talk about the government's civil recognition of these unions as if that recognition were part and parcel of the religious element of marriage. It is not. The government's recognition is not religious in nature - it recognizes the marriages of atheists and does not require a wedding to be performed by someone of religious authority. As for the government dictating to churches who they can or cannot marry, it can't constitutionally do that (see the First Amendment). The government can only constitutionally regulate the legal recognition of marriage, not the religious elements associated with it by some people.

That legal recognition is a form of 'civil union'; it is the civil recognition of the formally declared union of unrelated (or at least not-too-closely-related) competent adults consenting to enter into a marriage contract. The requirement that those people be of opposing genders comes largely from traditional religious ideas about holy matrimony. It really doesn't have anything to do with the ability of adults to consent to a contractual relationship.

So I'll agree that we should only give legal recognition to civil unions and let religious institutions handle holy matrimony - because that would be an accurate application of the terms. I do not agree that one church should get to dictate to another, nor that the government should dictate to any of them, what the parameters of holy matrimony should be.

As to the 'definition of marriage', it is a popular tactic for opponents of gay marriage to claim that this definition is more or less set in stone and can't be messed with. Of course, they're talking out of their ass. The definition of any word is dependent upon popular usage - not declarations of ownership. So while it is highly unlikely that 'marriage' will come to mean something like 'lemon', it is ridiculous to claim that the definition is so firmly set that popular usage won't or can't expand it to encompass the marital unions of gay couples. Claiming that the definition of 'one man/one woman' is a matter of 'fact' only serves to inform us that the person making the claim doesn't understand much about the evolution of language - nor of societies.

Lastly, there is the popular argument that attempts to link marriage to procreation. This is easily dismissed: A marriage license isn't a license to procreate. We don't fine or jail people for having children without being married. Nor is procreation a requirement of marriage. We don't make people take fertility tests or force them to affirm their intent to reproduce before granting them a marriage license. Marriage is not required for procreation and procreation is not required for marriage. The family unit may be touted as an ideal environment for the raising of children, but even when there are none we still recognize the married couple as having a familial relationship - at least for legal purposes. And this is not dependent on what 'parts' they use for sexual gratification, nor do we require them to engage in sex at all. Nor for that matter do they have to be 'in love' - though if we're to believe the popular sentiment, that doesn't hurt if you want a marriage to be lasting.

Constitutionally speaking, current marriage laws that restrict the gender of the participants can be argued as not affording equal protection (see the 14th Amendment). To understand, you must first remember that people can get married without government sanction. The law only regulates the government's recognition of marriage, not necessarily the ability to marry. And so, the marriages of homosexual couples are treated unequally - their marriages aren't recognized while those of heterosexual couples are. One might even go so far as to argue that this has the potential to become a First Amendment violation, in that the marriages of some churches are recognized while there is effort to not only deny recognition but also some attempts at government interference in the ability of churches who believe in marriage equality and perform same-sex weddings to call those ceremonies and the bond thus formed, 'marriages'. And lastly, there is an inequality as it applies to gender itself. A male wishing to marry a man is denied, but a female wishing to marry that same man is not.

Finally, there is the matter of whether or not marriage is a 'right'. The Constitution does not help us much here; we know that it explicitly recognizes some reasoned rights, but the 9th Amendment tells us that it's not all-inclusive; that other rights may exist, being retained by the people. One must then wonder what rights those might be? Marriage seems a natural for that category of undelineated rights. We know that the court has considered it a right (see Loving v. Virginia). But how do we really determine what is or isn't a right? What are the requirements? They aren't set forth in the Constitution. We must then rely on a combination of legal recognition and societal recognition. Before gay marriage became the controversy of the day, I have little doubt that many of those so vehemently protesting against it would have considered their right to marry the available, competent and consenting opposite-sex partner of their choosing to be just that - their 'right'. Funny how they're so quick to abandon the idea now that someone has expressed a desire to remove that one little requirement to expand the meaning of marriage and provide recognition to more than one type of family.

[Seixon]

Quote: So I'll agree that we should only give legal recognition to civil unions and let religious institutions handle holy matrimony - because that would be an accurate application of the terms. I do not agree that one church should get to dictate to another, nor that the government should dictate to any of them, what the parameters of holy matrimony should be. Exactly.

The only thing that the government has any ability to do is give gay people the right to a civil union under the law.

Government cannot force churces to accept gay marriage. That, my friends, would be a violation of the separation between church and state.

So I don't really get what the big fuss is about. Let gay people have civil unions and be done with the whole damn thing.

[Shady]

Seixon wrote: Quote: So I'll agree that we should only give legal recognition to civil unions and let religious institutions handle holy matrimony - because that would be an accurate application of the terms. I do not agree that one church should get to dictate to another, nor that the government should dictate to any of them, what the parameters of holy matrimony should be. Exactly.

The only thing that the government has any ability to do is give gay people the right to a civil union under the law.

Government cannot force churces to accept gay marriage. That, my friends, would be a violation of the separation between church and state.

So I don't really get what the big fuss is about. Let gay people have civil unions and be done with the whole damn thing.

That's more or less my point of view. As long as civil unions are accorded the same rights as marriages then that should be the end of it.

[Gnostic]

Shady wrote: Seixon wrote: Quote: So I'll agree that we should only give legal recognition to civil unions and let religious institutions handle holy matrimony - because that would be an accurate application of the terms. I do not agree that one church should get to dictate to another, nor that the government should dictate to any of them, what the parameters of holy matrimony should be. Exactly.

The only thing that the government has any ability to do is give gay people the right to a civil union under the law.

Government cannot force churces to accept gay marriage. That, my friends, would be a violation of the separation between church and state.

So I don't really get what the big fuss is about. Let gay people have civil unions and be done with the whole damn thing.

That's more or less my point of view. As long as civil unions are accorded the same rights as marriages then that should be the end of it.

But I don't believe they ARE in many states, and in some states, civil unions are'nt allowed at all. So there's a PROBLEM.

[F'losrix]

Shady wrote: Seixon wrote: Quote: So I'll agree that we should only give legal recognition to civil unions and let religious institutions handle holy matrimony - because that would be an accurate application of the terms. I do not agree that one church should get to dictate to another, nor that the government should dictate to any of them, what the parameters of holy matrimony should be. Exactly.

The only thing that the government has any ability to do is give gay people the right to a civil union under the law.

Government cannot force churces to accept gay marriage. That, my friends, would be a violation of the separation between church and state.

So I don't really get what the big fuss is about. Let gay people have civil unions and be done with the whole damn thing.

That's more or less my point of view. As long as civil unions are accorded the same rights as marriages then that should be the end of it.

My opinion is that it has to go a step further. The government has to stop calling its civil recognition of marital unions by the word 'marriage' to avoid confusion with religious marriage and start using the term 'civil union' for all marital unions. And that recognition needs to be extended to the federal level. No more of this cherry-picking where they recognize all of the states' heterosexual marriages but not the civil unions of Vermont & Connecticut or the homosexual marriages of Massachusetts.

[Gnostic]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Shady wrote: Seixon wrote: Quote: So I'll agree that we should only give legal recognition to civil unions and let religious institutions handle holy matrimony - because that would be an accurate application of the terms. I do not agree that one church should get to dictate to another, nor that the government should dictate to any of them, what the parameters of holy matrimony should be. Exactly.

The only thing that the government has any ability to do is give gay people the right to a civil union under the law.

Government cannot force churces to accept gay marriage. That, my friends, would be a violation of the separation between church and state.

So I don't really get what the big fuss is about. Let gay people have civil unions and be done with the whole damn thing.

That's more or less my point of view. As long as civil unions are accorded the same rights as marriages then that should be the end of it.

My opinion is that it has to go a step further. The government has to stop calling its civil recognition of marital unions by the word 'marriage' to avoid confusion with religious marriage and start using the term 'civil union' for all marital unions. And that recognition needs to be extended to the federal level. No more of this cherry-picking where the recognize all of the states' marriages but not the civil unions of Vermont & Connecticut.

Excellent post and point.

[Æ]

Ozzone wrote: Actions are the sin, not the person.

A homosexual is not committing a sin. A person engaging in homosexual acts is. Learn the difference.
Morality is subjective; your judgement of others is irrelevant. Someone else could reach the same conclusion about you or anyone else using arbitrary means of comparison. Since all morality is subjective, all comparisons are arbitrary.

[Æ]

Little Wimp wrote: Gremlin wrote: Im surprised this thread has made it this far.
I just read the last 2 pages and its beginning to look lke this should be moved to the humor section. :-D


It is kind of humorous to see the knee-jerk reaction given by those who have been ingrained to call anybody who doesn't bow at the altar of political correctness catchwords like: homophobic.

It's kind of sad too.
You don't have to support what anyone else does. All you have to do is to stop meddling in their business.

[Æ]

AnOpenMind wrote: Brokeback Mountain would not have achieved this amount of attention if it was about a heterosexual couple. Period.
What's your point?

[Sage Orator]

Shady wrote: Seixon wrote: Quote: So I'll agree that we should only give legal recognition to civil unions and let religious institutions handle holy matrimony - because that would be an accurate application of the terms. I do not agree that one church should get to dictate to another, nor that the government should dictate to any of them, what the parameters of holy matrimony should be. Exactly.

The only thing that the government has any ability to do is give gay people the right to a civil union under the law.

Government cannot force churces to accept gay marriage. That, my friends, would be a violation of the separation between church and state.

So I don't really get what the big fuss is about. Let gay people have civil unions and be done with the whole damn thing.

That's more or less my point of view. As long as civil unions are accorded the same rights as marriages then that should be the end of it.
That it like Plessy v. Fergusen. The point is the aren't equal and probably never will be because there will be people seriously opposed to it with every right given.

[Gnostic]

Liberty4All wrote: Ozzone wrote: Actions are the sin, not the person.

A homosexual is not committing a sin. A person engaging in homosexual acts is. Learn the difference.
Morality is subjective; your judgement of others is irrelevant. Someone else could reach the same conclusion about you or anyone else using arbitrary means of comparison. Since all morality is subjective, all comparisons are arbitrary.

Good response to such a sanctimonious, proselytizing, holier-than-thou remark.

[F'losrix]

Seixon wrote: Quote: So I'll agree that we should only give legal recognition to civil unions and let religious institutions handle holy matrimony - because that would be an accurate application of the terms. I do not agree that one church should get to dictate to another, nor that the government should dictate to any of them, what the parameters of holy matrimony should be. Exactly.

The only thing that the government has any ability to do is give gay people the right to a civil union under the law.

Government cannot force churces to accept gay marriage. That, my friends, would be a violation of the separation between church and state.

So I don't really get what the big fuss is about. Let gay people have civil unions and be done with the whole damn thing.
At least part of the fuss is because the government blurred the line of separation between church and state by streamlining the process of civil recognition (the license can be signed by a priest; doesn't have to be a government official) and by calling their civil recognition of marital unions by the same word churches use - 'marriage'. Then they compound it by leaving inequalities in the law between the civil recognition of gay unions under the term 'civil union' versus what is provided to heterosexual unions under the term 'marriage'. Heck, the states even use differing terminology, like 'registered domestic partnership'. A lot of that inequality comes from federal recognition of marriage, which one could argue to be unconstitutional, since the power to regulate marriage isn't provided to the federal government in the first place - it's reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. I'd be less irritated if the fed simply recognized all marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships equally. But they don't. They cherry-pick by only recognizing heterosexual marriages.