[ November 18, 2003, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It should be permanent – there’s no higher court to review it, and I doubt Massachusetts would overturn it.
However, as of now, other states will not have to recognize homosexual marriages from Massachusetts.
We’ll have to see how it plays out.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I feel like an idiot for not knowing this, but what is the relationship between a state constitution and federal law? I know the federal constitution trumps a state constitution, but does a federal law overrule a state constitution?
(It's been a long time since my last pol sci class. )
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.
While a victory for gay rights advocates, the decision fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion.
The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.
In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples.
The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary.
Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that marriage should be preserved as a union between a man and a woman, but has declined to comment on what he would do if gay marriages are legalized. On the campaign trail last fall, Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation. He supports giving domestic benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples.
[ November 18, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A federal law only trumps a state constitution if the constitution (of the US) says the federal government has power in that particular mode.
Otherwise the power get reserved to the states and/or the people, and that's been generally interpretted to mean the states.
Of course, its also been generally interpretted that the feds can enforce whatever law they want until the supreme court overturns the law, or a state is pissed off enough to just ignore the federal law (which does happen), in which case the enforcement of the law in that state is solely dependent upon the ability of the feds to enforce the law themselves (sometimes this is practical, sometimes not).
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Right this moment, nothing has changed in Massachusetts. The Court gave the legislature 180 days to figure it out. In 180 days, it is unlikely they will be able to pass a state constitutional amendment, so for a while at least, some type of civil union should be possible in Massachusetts, but it won't be recognized in any other state. However, sometime shortly after 180 days, it is entirely possible that the state will bring to a vote, a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and woman only, much like Hawaii and Alaska did.
Secondarily, while Bush recently said that the Federal Constitutional Amendment that was being bandied about wasn't necessary at the time, he may have second thoughts about that, depending on what the Massachusetts legislature does.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
The thought of a Constitutional amendment outlawing civil unions literally nauseates me.
On the bright side, I think Dubya is too dumb to realize that bringing up issues like this so close to election time is going to have him back in Texas running businesses into the ground sooner than he'd like.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Completely absurd. The idea of a constitutional ammendment for that purpose is revolting. I sincerly hope that within my lifetime, Christianity ceases entirely to have any political influence. It seems clear to me that any kind of religious social conservativism is hopelessly morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote: Justice Sosman, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that "the issue is not whether the Legislature's rationale behind [the statutory scheme being challenged] is persuasive to [the court]," but whether it is "rational" for the Legislature to "reserve judgment" on whether changing the definition of marriage "can be made at this time wihtout damaging the institution of marriage or adversely affecting the critical role it has played in our society." She concluded that, "[a]bsent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences."
-- From one of the dissenting opinions.
This is despicable to me. The argument here is that short of societal or scientific consensus, we should study a "family structure" that can't exist until we can determine that it can exist. How can societal or scentific consensus even be made one way or the other, honestly, without having the ability to have actual examples of the social structure you want to study?
The other two dissenting opinions at least remained within the construct of state constitutional law. That sort of logic I can respect, and I would be interested on some legal (obviously it would have to be MA, since this is state law) issues brought up in the dissent.
-Bok
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Yay for changing the constitution based on a vague fear of homosexuals!
It is revolting that a state legislature would take such a drastic action to reflect views that are, at their core, petty, ignorant, childish and hateful.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
*is happy at Massachusetts*
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Look, if I'm the only one who will put any effort into starting a flamewar, then maybe I made the wrong choice in coming here. Where is Jettboy when you need him?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
A flame war in a gay thread. Great. Juuuuuust great. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
--I--
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Jettboy left, Chaeron, citing persecution or something.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I know Jettboy left. It was around the time I called him a Nazi and he agreed with me. My question was rhetorical.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Flamewars are really infrequent lately. Maybe try Ornery?
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Nah, people take everything too seriously over there. I miss the old Hatrack. *sniff*
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
<hands him a hanky> I'm sorry!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What I don't understand is how allowing civil unions would effect anything in any way. I mean, what do these people think is going to happen if gay marriages are allowed? After all, marriage is pretty much just a formality anyway. Gays can already live together just as if they were married. So what's the big deal about giving them the official title?
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Make no mistake, this is all a concerted effort by certain religious groups to deny equal rights and consideration to people that they deem less worthy than they. Fundamentally, it is no different than the treatment of women in places like Saudi Arabia. The difference is that in the US, there are people willing to stand up to this bigotry.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Chaeron, I must confess that I do not understand you. It's true--some religious conservatives are the hypocritical bigots you suggest they are. I've encountered one or two myself; some of the worst ones spooked me--and that's a feat.
But I can't believe that I'm alone in bearing homosexuals no particular ill-will while believing their sexual activity is immoral and should be discouraged. I can't imagine ever beating someone up, let alone dragging them behind my truck, and while I have on rare occasions been known to call people nasty names, this is one group of people it's never occurred with. So why are you so eager to deny me and those like me political influence?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Its not just some religious conservatives, its all of the 70 million strong evangelical southern christians. They boycott Disney world & picket it, scaring children outside it with graphic displays and rhetoric concerning homosexuality, the churches regularly encourage block voting in cities and counties to sap all possible public funds away from anything even tolerant of homosexuals, the list goes on. I know a lot of you think Jerry Falwel is a nut but unfortunately millions of people take him seriously. When he asked his "American Congregation" to contact the White House to tell Bush to not critisize Israel over seiging Arafat's compound and later for issuing Arafat's death warrant, 10+ million people phoned, mailed and emailed the White House. Other examples of his control include his push to have Bush create "healthcare for the unborn," an executive order subverting a monumental supreme court decision, Bush's faith based initiative, stopping stem cell research, and other hallmarks of the current theocracy. Make no mistake, Jerry Falwel has immense power and so do the other conservative, dispensationalist evangelicals. You might say this is a rather harsh evaluation, but when you have leaders who literally carve up the world into "good" and "[axis of] evil," you have to wonder who influences these guys.
[ November 19, 2003, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
quote:When he asked his "American Congregation" to contact the White House to tell Bush to not critisize Israel over seiging Arafat's compound and later for issuing Arafat's death warrant, 10+ million people phoned, mailed and emailed the White House.
Joy. That's what we all need: some group (not even a majority of the people) trying to tell ME what I think is wholesome/family oriented.
On the whole, people that would deny homosexuals the right to marriage are no better than (and quite possibly worse than) the racist groups that love to take away the civil rights of people.
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
Doesn't the Jewish and Islamic religions have banns on homosexual marriages? Don't forget to add them into your "psychos who need to go" list.
Also, I can find it right now but I hear that the only openly gay member of the court voted against the decision because she thought that the legislature, rather than the court, should decide how to regulate marriage.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
I'd rather add the closed minded people themselves to my list of psycho's that need to go, rather than any religion.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Maccabeus, if you can't see why theocracy is antithetical to the idea of democracy, liberty and equality, then I don't think we can have any meaningful discourse.
Your country was one founded on secular ideals. The First Ammendment ensures not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. People have the right not to have other's religious beliefs forced on them, especially by the state. America is not a Christian nation; the Constitution makes it clear that it is a secular one, and as such, laws should not entrench religious morality. You are certianly entitled to your beliefs, including the belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong, just as I am entitled to believe that acting on that view is immoral.
What you cannot do is use the powers of the state to enforce your religious morality. If you have no desire to do this, then my animosity is not directed towards you. If, on the other hand, you do, then you must also reject the principles that your nation was founded on. The belief that purely religious values can be legitimately integrated with a state's law is not compatable with the constitution, or with the modern western state. It is, however, completely compatible with Saudi Arabia or medieval Spain.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I don't care if you wanna put blame on christianity for persecution of homosexuals, but lets share the blame with the other major religions as well. I believe they have the same tenets and feelings, they just don't have a Jerry Falwell to watch on TV.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
quote: Your country was one founded on secular ideals. The First Ammendment ensures not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. People have the right not to have other's religious beliefs forced on them, especially by the state.
It isn't especially from the state. It's only from the state. It says the government cannot establish a religion, not that some nut on the street can't try to force his religion on you. Just a small quibble.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Prolixshore, I put the blame on Christianity not because the views of Jewish or Islamic theocrats are any less vile, but because neither are politically influential in your country or mine. If they were equally influential, then they would no doubt share an equal part of the blame.
In regards to your second reply, I suppose, for the purposes of my argument, it would be better to say that people cannot use the state to force religious belief on others. This does not just preclude an official state religion, but the endorsement of any religious element whatsoever. Also, some nut on the street has no right to force his religious beliefs on me. He can prosletyse all he wants, but he can't force his beliefs on me. I think that would necessitate something akin to assault, kidnapping, etc.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From the opinion:
quote:[the ban on same-sex marriages] prevents children of same-sex couples "from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."
The stability of a family is predicated on the individuals within it, not the civil law that binds the members together.
:shrug:
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Just making the distinction Chaeron.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:The court remarked that its decision "does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society." "That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit," the court stated.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Noting that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,"' the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I still do not understand what makes Homosexual Marriages not within your church so bad. Could some one enlighten me.
Before you start typing, I've heard the following arguments.
1) It does not help society by seeing to its growth. A marriage is supposed to support a stable family. Since gay couples cannot produce a family, they shouls not be able to marry.
1-Rebuttal) Under that argument then married heterosexual couples that cannot have children should not be allowed to marry. In fact, fertility tests should be mandated before a marriage contract is allowed.
2) It is a sin according to my religion. As an example, homosexual activity is considered a sin according to my evangelical Christian faith. As such we should not have the state legalizing sins.
2-Rebuttal) Also according to Evangelical Christian faith, it is a sin to marry outside the church, to be of a non-Christian faith, or to have any kind of sex out of wedlock. Yet we have no laws banning inter-faith marriages. We have laws legalizing Palimony and allowing two unmarried people to live together without prosecution. Further, we do not ban Beef or Pork because the eating of it is a sin according to other people's religions.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I was at a Thanksgiving service last night, and a local Baptist minister gave a guest sermon. In the middle of talking about how blessed by God America is, he made a remark about how you wouldn't know it from the news coming out of Massachusetts... Eep. That ruined the sermon for me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The stability of a family is predicated on the individuals within it, not the civil law that binds the members together."
So you're saying that you're okay with gay marriage, Scott, since civil gay marriage would have no effect on the stability of families?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What you cannot do is use the powers of the state to enforce your religious morality.
Actually, this isn't true at all. The government has enforced morality all along and the Constitution grants them that power. For instance, you can't kill people because you believe killing is wrong. Or, if you want to take a slightly more contraversial answer, prostitution is often illegal because people consider it wrong. The things illustrate how morality is enforcable.
What the Constitution doesn't allow is stating it favors one religion over any other. This, at least as defined by the Supreme Court, doesn't mean the government can't favor one moral view over another. It merely means it can't make claims about what god exists, what miracles occured in the past, or other areas that are generally considered exclusively the domain of religion.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Thanks Tres, That's what I wanted to say but couldn't make the point better.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:So you're saying that you're okay with gay marriage, Scott, since civil gay marriage would have no effect on the stability of families?
No. I'm saying individual family stability is dependent on individual family members' actions and lifestyles, not on laws.
Since I don't believe that the example a homosexual lifestyle sets forth is beneficial for children or society, I am clearly not in the pro-gay-marriage camp.
As you know. As probably everyone on the board knows.
EDIT:
You know, the majority opinion, in stating that the crux of civil marriage was to support the spouses, not the children, is very interesting.
It will be interesting as well to see how the state legislature reacts to this very crucial point. It is possible (is it?) that this statement could be used to allow homosexual marriages, but refuse adoptions by homosexual couples.
[ November 19, 2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Could you perhaps qualify this homosexual lifestyle? I know a decent number of homosexual people, and I've never been able to divine any ways their public lifestyle can be qualified, except possibly that they tend to be far more accepting of differences
After you've told us what the homosexual lifestyle consists of, could you tell us which aspects in particular are harmful, dangerous, or otherwise undesirable to society?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Scott, I know you probably went over this in the other threads, but what exactly do you mean by:
"the example a homosexual lifestyle sets forth"
Is this example of sinning according to the bible? Is this example doing something adultorous? Is this example doing something unclean and unhealthy?
Please, I don't mean to limit it you to those three answers. What exactly is it that the homosexual lifestyle projects that is not beneficial for society?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sorry-- lifestyle is kind of innaccurate. I should have used a different word.
Since I don't believe that the example a homosexual relationship sets forth is beneficial for children or society, I am clearly not in the pro-gay-marriage camp.
This is more accurate.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Slight derailment, but what the heck--we already know how everybody here feels about homosexual marriage rights:
quote:They boycott Disney world & picket it, scaring children outside it with graphic displays and rhetoric concerning homosexuality. . . .
Um, I know about the Southern Baptist protests and boycotts, but I have absolutely never seen picketers anywhere around Disney World, and certaily not picketers scaring children with graphic displays of anything.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So, if something is not beneficial for children or society, you desire it to be outlawed?
For instance, do you believe sex outside of wedlock is not a good example for children or society? If so, do you desire it be made illegal? How about smoking? Also, is society worse off than it would be if the bible was required reading -- thus making the absence of such a law not beneficial? If so, would you support making the bible required reading?
If you do think any of these things are not beneficial to society, could you elaborate on what is different about homosexual civil unions? Particularly as it is currently legal, albeit difficult, for a homosexual couple to raise children -- they just don't have many of the legal protections that prevent their children from being taken away if the legal guardian in the couple dies.
I apologize if this sounds like I am attacking you. I do not mean it that way.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Incidentally, did the court say anything about polygamy? 'cause you know, it's basically the same thing.
Don't you think?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
No and no.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Icarus---> <---Caleb
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Sorry, forgot to insert smiley. My bad.
[ November 19, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Megachirops ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
It's all good.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Do you see that?!
He's hitting on me!!!
I knew this would happen!!
[ November 19, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Megachirops ]
Posted by Doug J (Member # 1323) on :
So it looks like gay marriage is in and polygamy is out. Man, how we love to pick and choose our favorite minority groups in the US.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Hopefully just seeing that in the thread won't be enough to harm children or society. I really should be more careful, I guess, just for responsibility's sake.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Why don't we ask the Cards to compile an über-homosexuality thread, in which everybody's positions on the related issues can be archived, and then we can just quote it or link to it and not have to restate all our old arguments?
We could force people to read it before they can okay the Terms of Service or User Agreement or whatever it is we call it here.
I'm sure Kristine wouldn't mind . . .
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
It could also be an entry on each person's profile!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then what would we talk about?
You know what that would mean. More hug threads.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
((((kat))))
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh*
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Sorry, Hug threads are only allowed between consenting members of different sexes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've got no problem with polygamy. It was some of the practices surrounding polygamy that were undesirable, such as pressuring girls into marriage at far too young an age. As far as I'm concerned, polygamy could be legal. It would be interesting figuring out how it would fit into current marriage law re benefits and such.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What kind of hugs are you doing??
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In Scott's defense, there's a difference between making something ILLEGAL -- like outlawing premarital sex -- and granting a legal privilege or endorsement -- like marriage.
Clearly, anti-sodomy laws are outmoded and should be eradicated. However, the argument that we should not extend marriage rights to homosexuals is NOT analogous to saying that we should arrest people who have sex outside of marriage; there's a fairly clear line between the two.
What bothers Scott is that civil marriage says "society approves of this relationship, and we wish you well." Since his society does NOT approve of gay relationships and does not wish them well, he is understandably resistant.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Scott.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Here's the mother of all stupid questions: Why is polygamy illegal? I mean, most of Western society believes in the Bible, and there were a lot of polygamists in the Bible. And not just polygamists, but polygamists who were commanded by God to take multiple wives and concubines. So why is it so taboo in our society?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:For instance, do you believe sex outside of wedlock is not a good example for children or society? If so, do you desire it be made illegal?
Yeah, it's a pretty solid fact that sex outside of wedlock is bad for society. It already is legislated against in many states-- just not enforced.
quote:How about smoking?
Yes, I would not cry a single tear if tobacco found itself on the government's hit list, right above marijuana.
quote:is society worse off than it would be if the bible was required reading -- thus making the absence of such a law not beneficial? If so, would you support making the bible required reading?
Depends on whether you want to be a theology or literature major. If not, the Bible should not be required reading.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*nods*
That is a good point Tom, and I'm expecting Scott to make that point. Thing is, he hadn't yet. The argument he had offered was vulnerable to my counter argument, which is why I chose it.
One of the biggest problems I've had with debating with people against various things in society for moral reasons is, they have a hard time qualifying why very specifically. I'm hoping we can get more down to the meat of why in order to have an actual discussion on that, instead of on peripheral issues. And the way I'm attempting to do that is by stripping away peripheral issues as they come up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Slightly off topic - are the debates on Hatrack like a debate contest, where you look for a winner, like an academic discussion, where the point is to talk and share, or like a policy meeting, where the point is to select the best course of action with the intent of running with it?
THAT'S the line I would love to see in people's profiles - what they expect from the discussions. Is it the thrill of winning, a chance to gab, or a map to action?
[ November 19, 2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Supreme court decisions have invalidated those laws, scott. They're no longer on the books.
And you didn't answer my question about would it be better for society (thus making it worse for society for it not to happen than if it were) if people were to be required to read the bible.
Lets get more specific, then. Since you seem to (though you did not directly say it) believe that sex outside of marriage should be legislated against (well, it would require a constitutional amendment at this point), effectively enforcing a belief on people who do not have it, what other beliefs would you be ok on enforcing on people who do not have it? Presumably only ones that remove harmful practices, since that seems to be your criteria as established so far. Lets start with some simple ones: recreational rock climbing. There are certainly other recreational outlets, and rock climbing is (I'd bet, and if not we can substitute one that is) one of the recreational outlets with the highest mortality rates. Other than its recreational nature (for which there are substitutes) it yields little to no benefit, and effects considerable harm every time someone dies in an accident. Do you support the outlawing of rock climbing?
Also, in what particular way is homosexuality harmful to society? Your particular objection is something of a black box to me. That is, I would like a proposed chain of events: homosexual person does action x, which causes y, . . . . which results in z, which is accepted as harmful to society.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
By no longer on the books I of course mean no longer able to be enforced. They're likely still technically in the books.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wouldn't legislate against extra-marital sex. I wouldn't legislate against homosexuality.
I am for legislating against homosexual marriage, because as Tom pointed out, I believe that doing so puts a stamp of societal approval on that relationship.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ok, lets narrow in then. Do you favor preventing certain heterosexual couples from marrying? For instance, the bible seems to mention in a number of places that cross religion marriages are not ok -- should those couples be banned from marrying? If not, why not?
And still, why is homosexuality harmful to society?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is there a reason for this line of questioning, fugu? I feel like someone is trying to brand the words, 'Ignorant Bigot' to my forehead.
Allow me to pose a scenario and question of my own:
Two guys are in a committed relationship. They truly exhibit care and understanding to the best of society's judges. They want to get married.
One is thirteen, one is twenty-three.
Should society sanction their relationship by allowing them to marry?
[ November 19, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't believe you're a bigot, or should be branded as such. However, if you don't feel comfortable discussing complicated questions about your beliefs (and I'm not saying you don't, we've been having a good discussion) that troubles me. Discussion is the root of resolution and of moral conscience (imo).
As for your question: no, the two should not be allowed to marry because we have good evidence that a person at the age of thirteen is not emotionally ready to make life impacting decisions of such magnitude.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Scott, your new premise introduces a new, unrelated legal construct, the age of consent.
We can certainly have a debate on age of consent laws (in another thread?), since there are societies which have varying ideas codified in law, but that says nothing about 2 people of the same sex who are of the age of the consent (IOW, adults).
An interesting but irrelevant point of discussion, at least in this thread.
-Bok
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Tres,
quote:The government has enforced morality all along and the Constitution grants them that power.
Not according to The United States Supreme Court.
quote:Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.
quote:It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a "civil right." See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 56 (1810) (referring to "civil rights incident to marriages"). See also Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 561 (1993) (identifying marriage as a "civil right[ ]"); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (same). The United States Supreme Court has described the right to marry as "of fundamental importance for all individuals" and as "part of the fundamental 'right of privacy' implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). See Loving v. Virginia, supra ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"). [FN14]
Without the right to marry--or more properly, the right to choose to marry--one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Baker v. State, supra at 229. Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry." Zablocki v. Redhail, supra at 387. See Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714 (1948) ("There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and reasonable means"). [FN15]
I do like that they linked this decision to Loving. I've always thought of it as being equal to that particular case (or that group of cases) in that one was biased against skin color of the person you wanted to marry and the other biased against the sexual orientation. It's nice to know I think like judge. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: BOSTON - Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney says he'll push for a constitutional amendment to block gay couples from getting married in response to a ruling by the state's highest court that could otherwise let gay couples wed. The court has ordered state lawmakers to find a remedy.
An amendment could go before voters as early as 2006 if it won approval by the end of the 2003-2004 legislative session. It also would require approval during the 2005-2006 session. A joint session of the House and Senate, which rejected the amendment last year, is scheduled to meet to debate the measure in February.
A joint legislative session is scheduled to debate the idea Friday.
Tuesday's ruling was denounced by President Bush (news - web sites) and the Roman Catholic Church. However, for the gay couples involved in the suit there was jubilation, champagne and proposals of marriage.
I knew it wouldn't take long, but I'm surprised at how quickly they are having a joint session to debate the legislation debate for the amendment.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Here's a reply on another board (some Jatraqueros will likely have seen this, being arsians as well) that sums up, almost perfectly, my sentiment in all this:
quote:I don't see how the government is in any way telling people what their religious doctrine is. If a secular definition of marriage affects the religious one, or vice versa, then apparently we should not have secular marriage at all, and merely have civil unions which can be applied for much as a couple married in a church still has to apply for and get a marriage license if they wish the government to recognize their marriage.
Religious marriages are not the same as secular marriage, and a severe lack of understanding on that seems to create a lot of issues. The government has no place involving religion in marriage whatsover, beyond granting a duly appointed religious official (also known as priests in some religions) the ability to perform the same functions as a clerk of the court (depending on state, some require a judge) in the express capacity of performing a marriage for the sake of convenience.
It's not impossible in the least for a homosexual couple to be married religiously, if they are of a religion which allows it. For now it has simply been impossible for them to also have a secular marriage license granted.
Personally I can't stand the idea of civil unions while a perfectly acceptable alternative is still in existence: secular marriage. I don't really care what it gets called as long as it is the same thing for everyone.
*sighs* *shakes her head* it's just a very troubling issue, that some people can not only be that bigoted but also that insecure. Insecure in that they seem to think that what the government says has any effect on their religious faith, which is just so beyond rediculous.
I'd take issue with the term "bigoted", as I think that bigotry is a pro-active term (which I don't see anyone here claiming on doing), whereas I would say that "prejudiced" is the more appropriately passive term (though perhaps too loaded in this day and age to use), but I think the usage of "insecure" is well placed.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I disagree with your characterization of opponents as "insecure." I feel it shows a lack of understanding of the motives, and a pre-emptive labeling of another's emotions. In other words, you can not tell me what it is I am feeling.
I'm trying, Scott. Is that better? Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
For my own part I feel that about 90% of the ARGUMENTS used to support the inequality of homosexuals are what demonstrate "insecurity" (fear) or "prejudice" (bigotry) rather than the fact that they are arguing in the first place. It's definitely possible to be against homosexual equality with the purest of intentions; it's just that the logic and the motives don't demonstrably match up in any consistent way.
I've found there's no nice way to make this observation.
As ever, all in my opinion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay.
[ November 19, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
To the response to my point earlier about picketting Disney world: yes, it was primarily the southern baptists, but they and the AME (quite a paradoxical alliance wouldn't you think?) are the body of the conservative evangelicals. If other conservative evangelicals protest as to being judged by the southern baptists' and AME's actions, then maybe they shouldn't group themselves in the same denomination with them.
Also the picketting was quite horrific. Many of the signs the protestors held outside the park included phrases and pictures along the lines of "butt-pluggers," "faggots=maggots" etc. This tactic was used even with all the children present. What gets me is that these groups claim their intent behind opposing abortion is to protect the rights of "unborn" children, yet they have qualms in utterly terrorizing real children at a theme park.
[ November 19, 2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A lot of protesters are like that. *shrug* Just looking for a chance to be like that, I think. Any excuse for a party.
[ November 19, 2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm sorry that I was not clear. I don't mean insecure that in the basic emotional sense, though there is obviously worry, which is a close cousin of insecurity (how can you worry without feeling that some part of who you are is being made contingent by outside forces? In less precise terms, how can you worry about something unless that something is in jeopardy or insecure in standing). Or do none of the opponents worry about the consequences, theoretical in this case, of homosexual civil marriage? That seems to be paradoxical, so obviously isn't the case.
I will add, that obviously the supporters of the recent decion have some amount of insecurity as well, in the consequences of continued denied benefits/responsibilities and the stresses that uniquely creates for their relationships. These stresses being manifest today, mind you, not theoretical [EDIT: like the claims of opponents], as by virtue of the inability of homosexual civil marriages, [EDIT: these claims] cannot be tested.
The "insecure" I mean is that Opponents of Homosexual Civil Marriage (hereafter OHCM) find it necessary for the State to not just protect their religion/moral beliefs from restriction by other religious/moral systems, but also to justify theological/moral terms of their religion as they have previously defined them. OHCM are insecure in having the power to define such terms for society as a whole. Of course, they conveniently ignore that civil marriage has been morphing throughout time. It once had provisions for race, and before that social caste as well. Thus to claim to have hold the one true definition of marriage for "3000 years of history" is disingenuous, you are merely defending the de facto definition of the past 50 years, tops.
--- AN (IRRELEVANT) ASIDE: Coincidentally, this all ties into my pet conspiracy theory that it is merely Baby Boomers trying to enforce (subconciously) their nostalgia on everyone, by virtue of them being large both numerically, politically (they have reached the traditional age of high voter turnout), and influentially (they have kids now [being that they are one of the latest procreating generations ever] that they can give their opinions and beliefs to that will be received largely uncritically). Of course the above opinion is truly untestable, and is unnecessary in explaining anything in this discussion, since motives cannot, in debate, be impugned as a tactic (it's essentially a strawman/ad hom combo platter). But it may be interesting to ruminate on from a sociological POV, which is why I interject it. ----
Anyway, if OHCM are NOT insecure, why do they fight against CIVIL marriage definitions being changed? Are they worried/insecure that if homosexuals barge into their churches to get married, or demand that their previous marriages be recognized, that the state will somehow side with the homosexuals, as a result of this ruling??
The reality of today's situation (despite cries of persecution and "Christianity under fire" by some) is that there are many (governmentally protected!) ways to get one's faith's message out, and to increase your flock, and thereby presumably increase the expression of your faith's proper behaviors, or restrictions thereof, that the government cannot lift a finger to stop. Personally, I have never seen so many evangelical Christian shows and networks on basic cable as I have today, and I live in the Belly of the Beast (that's the Boston metro area)! Yet I hear no clamor (nor do I think there is any reason to raise a klaxon) to make that sort of thing illegal, so color me suspicious of such cries. It seems to me to be unnecessary to appeal to legal constraints to stop people, NOT of your faith, from engaging in tangible benefits and responsiblities of civil statutes, due to ultimately religious or otherwise exclusive ideologies.
Gay marriage may prove to be harmful. But you can't be sure that it will be before it essentially exists. We know that right now some amount of people are being harmed, or at least hindered, with the current rules, and we also have (at least in MA) constitutional laws that contradict normal state laws. We have a legal system that can be amended, but the point in time of amendment ought to be when there is provable harm, and not before.
--- Of course, after all of the above, I noticed that kat merely attempted a semantic argument, and tried to implicate it as an ad hominem, and I bit on it. Bravo, kat. You actually did nothing to actually address the main sentiment/argument in the post. I think I have proven sufficiently that it is not a mischaracterization, though. Just because you say it isn't so, doesn't mean it isn't a fact, as born (sp?) out by visible actions.
[EDIT: I would like to apologize already, I see that kat is not being insulting, and my last paragraph certainly is. I am a worse person for it, and I will try to refrain from it in the future. I leave it in as much to remind me, as to remind others, of my crassness.]
-Bok
[ November 19, 2003, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Of course, after all of the above, I noticed that kat merely attempted a semantic argument, and tried to implicate it as an ad hominem, and I bit on it. Bravo, kat. You actually did nothing to actually address the main sentiment/argument in the post. I think I have proven sufficiently that it is not a mischaracterization, though. Just because you say it isn't so, doesn't mean it isn't a fact, as born (sp?) out by visible actions.
Bok, thanks for posting the perfect argument against showing any vulnerability, ever.
I don't care how much sense it makes to you in your mind, you can not prove what someone else is feeling. Their own interpretation of their emotions trumps yours at the slightest word.
[ November 19, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sorry, kat, see my edit above, I apologize. I blew my credibility out of the water by adding that last paragraph in.
I will admit, however, to be increasingly frustrated by a lack of admission of vulnerability on the other side of the issue though... I'm getting tired of having to keep what is to me (and only me), the civil high ground, while people are in essence called criminals, and legally more imperfect human beings, and [EDIT: therefore advocating utilizing a government that ostensibly] is supposed to protect everyone and their liberties, and their ability to pursue happiness. It gets to me, and I apologize.
-Bok
[ November 19, 2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I am prejudiced-- show me a human being who isn't, and I'll show you a corpse.
It isn't that I'm not willing to discuss this, either-- it's that emotions generally run high in a topic like this, and the emotional investment isn't worth the price.
And yes, Caleb, I am scared that my own lifestyle and way of thinking is being erased. You're scared, too, that you'll never get the priveleges you feel entitled to.
As for what damages homosexuality has done to society. . . this is a thorny topic, because everyone has an expert up their sleeve. And not an unbiased expert to be found in the bunch.
Not that I can't do a google search as easy as the next guy. . . but not now. I'm making dinner.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Scott, you are right the damages of HCMs are debated, but it is currently a debate of abstraction, theoreticals. The harms that homosexuals are subjected to are real. So what trumps what? As a heterogeneous society with a government that tries to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for ALL it's citizens, it is clear to me which way expands those principles, and which way concedes those principles as impractical.
Especially since your church's members will not be affected at all by a legalization of civil marriage to homosexuals. You can marry as prescribed by your faith, and your faith can restrict it's rites of marriage as it always has... Just like you are free to restrict which types of baptisms count as real baptisms today.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bok: All is well. *grin* I actually wanted to post a hug there, for a moment.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Perhaps those protestors would be outliers if the southern baptist and AME conventions hadn't supported and praised the protests, even after they were carried out. Unfortunately those protests were apparently directly in line with the official views of both conventions. It is institutionalized homophobia and hatred.
[ November 19, 2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What damages are being done to homosexuals that granting them civil marriage will cure? (I mean ACTUAL cures, not theorhetical ones. )
As OSC and others have pointed out, most of the privileges of a civil marriage can be obtained through legal counsel.
Or are you talking strictly about the emotional turmoil of being a minority. . .?
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
My question to opponents of gay civil marriage remains to be answered: do you wish for your religious values to be reflected in law? Do not confuse the issue by speaking of moral objections to murder, rape, etc. Secular morality already covers those kind of acts quite adequately. I am speaking of religious values, of the kind that makes their incorporation into law impossible without ammending the constitution. Would you support such an ammendment? If so, how can you condemn Saudia Arabia, Iran or other theocracies? Are they not doing essentially the same thing? Better yet, why not use the example of Nigeria, there, individual provinces have Sharia, and it was introduced democratically. How can you oppose something like this, when you wish for a christian equivalent in the US?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Quite simply, he's wrong, and a couple quick googles could have gotten him the answers as to why:
This last in particular illustrates the difficulties unmarried people have if they are parents. Note: it is not all that uncommon for a gay person to have children from a previous attempt at a heterosexual relationship. Even if they are the sole guardian of the kid (say, the other person is passed away) it is nigh impossible for their significant other to get legal guardianship, such as the ability to make medical decisions for the kid.
[ November 19, 2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Chaeron> I don't know whether you would consider me a theocrat or not. *shrugs*
I don't support unenforceable laws regulating what people do in their homes. Not everything that is immoral can be usefully made illegal.
In the case of marriage, the concept of "homosexual marriage" does not even make sense to me. A marriage involves a man and a woman essentially by definition (as I see it). One might as well talk about a television without a screen, or a refrigerator that doesn't refrigerate. Any relationship between two members of the same sex seems qualitatively different to me from a marriage. So I see no reason to change the very meaning of marriage so that homosexual couples can "get married".
From my perspective, the reason to separate church and state is so that churches can compete freely without state interference. The danger is not that the church will try to regulate the state but that the state will try to regulate the church. So long as the churches do not violate laws that apply to everyone (eg, they cannot go killing or torturing people to persuade them to join), the state should keep its hands off. In this way, the competition is kept on the level of discourse--the level at which people's beliefs are changed anyway.
If a religion really believes it needful to enforce its morality through law, it may as well try. If there are other religions (or non-religious belief systems) that disagree, they can likewise exert their influence to prevent it. If there are no belief systems that disagree, then what's to get worked up about? (No one protests laws against theft, though there have been societies on Earth in which property is held communally and you can take whatever you want, because everyone _here_ believes in property rights.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Maccabeus, I don't know if you are married, but supposing that you are:
Were you asked to say why you married your wife, would you say "because she is of the opposite sex", or "because I wished to spend the rest of my life with her and raise kids with her and never be without her"? That second is what is essential about marriage, whether you define marriage otherwise or not, and homosexual people can have that same feeling. If you don't want to title it marriage, fine, but right now homosexual people are being denied their right to do that -- at least one partner will be without substantial rights in the eyes of the law with regard to important issues such as health, and children, and even being allowed to be together (see: immigration laws).
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Maccabeus: The problem with your view of the separation of church and state is that it is impossible to have the state avoid interference with religion when religion can influence the state. Religious morality is obviously not a monolithic and unified entity. Different religions disagree. If one dominant religion enforces its morality through law, other religions with conflicting morals and beliefs are made less legitimate. You cannot expect the state to stay out of your church but not vice versa. It doesn't work that way.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Scott, some of the harms are an inability to see your partner while in the hospital, since you don't qualify as "close family"; having an uncle, or sibling who usurps your estate when you die, because power of attorney isn't always enough to supercede familial claims.
Things like that. Things that can be provided through civil marriage. These are real harms, no?
The alternative is to change the terminology of "civil marriage" into "civil union" for everyone, so that all the interested religions can keep their definitions of marriage intact, and in a perceived position of above the law... While actually being irrelevant in the law. To mix the two is simply asking for a "separate but equal" situation, where some gays will perceive state-sanctioned inferiority, and the true bigots on the other side will try all sorts of petty actions to denigrate civil unions (I can see all sorts of various municipal and state laws passed that allow people to bar people in civil unions from all sorts of little things... Which will add up.). And they will be in their right, since I'm sure civil union laws will be interpreted in siome places as only accomodating those benefits/responsibilites as originally specified, and not apply to new social realityies in the future.
And then we'll have to deal with this all over again.
-Bok
[ November 19, 2003, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What damages are being done to homosexuals that granting them civil marriage will cure?"
Well, it really boils down to social acceptance, doesn't it? And almost every harmful aspect of the much-feared and much-maligned "homosexual lifestyle" -- the insecurity, the promiscuity, the acting out, the deliberately skewed subculture -- is a product of social rejection.
Being able to participate in a monogamous relationship that is both sanctioned and encouraged by society would go a long way -- IMO -- towards eliminating all potential harms of homosexuality.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
In answer to Kat's question above, I love to win debates but it's tough on this forum (decisive wins anyway.) Even if you can best one debater handily, 3 more pop up Medusa-like with data fresh from Google that you never considered. But sharing viewpoints is cool, that's the best way to learn, as long as it's civil and folks try to keep an open mind. This homosexual marriage debate thread is more civil than the last one. Sometimes you must agree to disagree.
I don't see much similarity to policy debates at this forum, in that consensus is rarely achieved nor a goal agreed upon.
Usually I just lurk on these marriage threads, but I have a nitpick.
quote: Yeah, it's a pretty solid fact that sex outside of wedlock is bad for society. It already is legislated against in many states-- just not enforced.
Scott.
I think that is overly broad, and opinion, not fact. There are plenty of scientists in various social disciplines who would disagree that all premarital sex is bad for society, and some who think that Christian sexual repression is unhealthy.
If you had said "unprotected and/or teenage premarital sex can be detrimental to the participants and society" I might concede that, I guess.
That's the problem with the social "sciences"--so much is opinion and conjecture, with facts and causation thin on the ground. That's why I like math and physics, a fact is a fact and a proof is by God a PROOF!
[ November 20, 2003, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Morbo: what about Gödel's incompleteness theorem?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The Incompleteness theorem concerns mathematical systems as a whole, and their "incompleteness." It doesn't invalidate individual proofs, theorems, or groups of these (to the best of my knowledge.)
I only have a partial understanding of it, but basically incompleteness means that a system can have theorems or conjectures unprovable within the system, yet the conjectures can still be true or false.
Goedel proved that any mathematical system at least as complex as arithmetic must be incomplete. So arithmetic has unprovable conjectures, as well as any system more complicated. But arithmetic and more complex mathematical structures are full of plenty that can be proven.
Whereas the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropolgy, etc even economics to some extent) have very few hard facts and provable causal relationships, at least at this stage. The soft sciences could really take off in the 21st century, which might be a good or bad thing depending on who utilizes them and benefits from them.
[ November 20, 2003, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Morbo: more importantly, incompleteness means that that no axiomatic system can be proved consistent. This means that with math is not pure or a priori. Like science, math is only a tool to describe and model what we experience. Math and science are not fundamentally different from the social sciences, they just deal with subjects more predictable than people. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Sadly, Fugu, I am not married, and don't expect to be any time soon.
Is it a right to get married? I suppose perhaps it is. But is it a right to get married to whoever you want? Obviously not--or I'd be married to one or more of several high-school crushes, Alanis Morrissette, Angelina Jolie, and her magnificent Ralphiness. There are a large number of limits on who a person can get married to, most of which we accept without the slightest difficulty even when they make us unhappy. If the person I love and want to spend the rest of my life with is already married, or a close relative, or can't get a license without being caught and deported, or (insert multiple other reasons), or just plain doesn't love me back...I'm plumb out of luck.
I admit at this point that I don't know what it's like to really love someone and not be able to marry them. As far as I know, I have never been in love with anyone; I don't form attachments easily. So perhaps my perspective is skewed.
Chaeron, I may have given you the wrong impression. I was in something of a hurry last night. The situation I was trying to describe was not so much one in which the state has no control over religion as one in which all religions are equally free to compete for influence, within the government as well as outside of it. Only if one religion were to gain an overwhelming majority of very like-minded supporters would it have much control over public policy--and then who would be left to object anyway?
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
BrianM, I know this is irrelevant, but I'm frankly more curious about this than I am about everyone's positions on homosexuality at this moment. Are you sure you don't mean Disneyland? Because a city street runs right in front of that park [the Magic Kingdom]. Disney World is not one single park, it is a huge area, and there is no public street that really provides frontage to any park (unless you count Downtown Disney as a park). If rude protesters gathered outside the Magic Kingdom, they could easily be ordered away, since that area is private property. Did you witness this yourself on a trip to Florida, or see it on the news?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Icarus, I know there have been protestors at DisneyWorld in the past during Gay Days. I believe they stationed themselves by the side of one of the main entrance roads. I don't remember exactly what denomination they were, though.
I have never understood how someone can take a stance against homosexuality in the name of Christianity by spewing hatred.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sorry, should have said, if two people feel that mutually about each other.
FIrstly, we can dismiss the restriction you have based on deportation. Willful violation of the law is a generally accepted reason for restricting rights, so its not much of an argument to say that when someone willfully violates the law they lose the right to be married, therefore homosexuals can't. Besides, I'm pretty certain people who would normally be deported CAN get married in the US.
Moving on to relevant objections after my restatement, I actually don't care if someone is closely related. As far as I'm concerned, restrictions against close genetic matchings are silly, particularly as the people can already have sex as much as they want, and even have children, within the law. If it squicks religious people we could likewise call it a civil union -- heck, in some places closely related people living together (though its generally glossed as being NOT carnal) already get benefits quite similar to marriage.
People who are already married? That's not a valid counterargument either. The two people already married have a pre-existing contract between each other and with society. That they can't violate that arbitrarily has nothing to do with a person's ability to marry in general, only with their ability to marry after they have entered into a willful obligation.
(note: the other person doesn't want to examples were all dealt with through the redefinition).
Anything else?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
For you folks who have been scrambling for concrete evidence that homosexuality would ruin society, I heard "commentary" on NPR this morning discussing how, in Scandanavia--where gay marriage has been around for about a decade, I think they said--the statistics for children born out of wedlock have gone way up and the statistics for marriage in general, according to the commentator, had gone way down.
I don't know how accurate it was or where the guy got his research (or how he interpreted it--he certainly didn't give any compelling reasons why these number changes are due expressly to the existence of GM), but you may want to start looking in Scandanavia for evidence against gay marriage.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Fugu> The deportation thing wasn't a matter of prohibition but of practicality--you may be able to get married, but not without facing consequences many people might decide they'd be better off without. Never mind.
I can't think of any more reasons one might not be able to get married, though that may be due to my having been up way too long. I don't know that it matters. Given so many reasons why people couldn't (either legally or practically) get married, I don't think it's justified to claim marriage as a right that needs some overwhelming reason to be disallowed. It's a privilege, and not one that's very easy to obtain. But I suppose this is a matter of opinion.
When I've gotten some sleep I will try to present some more arguments on different grounds. Right now, I'm lucky if I haven't misspelled anything.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It's a privilege that's very easy to obtain if two people are heterosexual. It's a trip to Las Vegas (or any of the other one stop marriage shop locations).
That's incredibly easy. And I do think of it as a privilege -- one that should not be denied for arbitrary reasons, but for good reasons, which make sense. If we're allowed to deny things to random people merely because they are privileges and those people are different, I propose you be denied the privilege of marriage because you have the name Maccabeus on the hatrack bulletin boards. If you want, I'll even make it against my religion. Is that a good reason?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Fugu, a religion is not something you make up and devise your own rules for. Since it seems likely that I will never get married anyway, I don't know that I care.
I don't think I will return to this thread. It has nothing to do with any of you; I have enjoyed this argument and would willingly go on. I just don't have the emotional energy available right now. I just flunked a major test and am seeing visions of myself as a janitor when I'm 70. Clearly I'm not being very convincing anyway, so I don't see the point in going on for the time being.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm perfectly happy with religions devisiing their own rules, so long as they don't try to enforce them on others purely for religious reasons.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)